• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Football Finance


View: https://x.com/TheAthleticFC/status/1870409124590301231

It was quite a week for Botafogo. On November 30, they won the Copa Libertadores for the first time in their history, beating Brazilian rivals Atletico Mineiro 3-1 in the final. Then a week later, they won the Brazilian domestic title for the first time since 1995, pipping defending champions Palmeiras.

But there was something else significant, relatively minor in the immediate afterglow of glory but something we’ll probably see much more in the coming years: Botafogo were the first Brazilian club to win a major honour under a foreign owner, made possible by relatively new laws that could make the country among the most attractive destinations for football investors in the world.

John Textor, the American businessman who made his money in various technology enterprises and who is better known to a European audience as the owner of Lyon and a minority stakeholder in Crystal Palace, has been in charge of Botafogo since 2022.


This was notable because it wouldn’t have been possible a year earlier. “It was an opportunity to be a part of the transformation of Brazilian football and the professionalisation of it,” Textor tells The Athletic. “It was a legendary club — really the greatest club in the history of Brazil — that had fallen on hard times and not won anything in many, many years. It was a great growth opportunity.”

Until 2021, most Brazilian football clubs were essentially run as sporting associations rather than businesses. They weren’t quite supporter-owned in the sense an English fan might understand it, but they were mostly governed by presidents who were elected by their fans/members. The clubs were exempt from tax, were not run for profit and outside investors were not allowed. A few were allowed to exist as private companies, but for the most part, clubs were these sporting associations.

The trouble was that the ‘not for profit’ bit had been taken to the other extreme, meaning there was a financial crisis in Brazilian football to the point that some clubs were in danger of disappearing. In 2020, a report by the financial auditors Ernst and Young analysed the finances of 23 Brazilian clubs and estimated they carried a total debt of 10.3 billion Reals — just under $2billion, or nearly £1.5billion. And a lot of this debt was to the Brazilian tax man, and with revenue having fallen thanks to the Covid-19 pandemic, something had to change.

So the law was changed, allowing football clubs to convert themselves into businesses in the same way many European clubs are businesses, and crucially allowed them to accept ‘outside’ investment.

These new structures are known as Sociedade Anônima do Futebol or ‘SAFs’ — which literally translates as ‘football anonymous society’. The law change allowed Brazilian clubs to sell up to 90 per cent of their shares to basically whoever they want, which plenty have done and plenty more could follow.


All in, of the 20 clubs that competed in Serie A in the season that has just finished, seven have made the switch to an SAF structure, although not all have been taken over.

In addition to Textor, City Football Group added Bahia to its vast international network of clubs (which stands at 12 in 12 countries on five continents) in 2022, in the same year Vasco da Gama were gobbled up by 777 Partners (though they are in limbo after the collapse of Josh Wander’s group this year), while Cruzeiro were taken over by former Brazil striker Ronaldo in 2021 and then re-sold to businessman Pedro Lourenco last year.

Atletico Mineiro are 75 per cent owned by Galo Holding, a group of Brazilian investors. Cuiaba were only formed in 2001 and owned by the Dresch family even before their conversion. And while Fortaleza transformed into a SAF in 2023 they haven’t sold any of their shares as yet, and plan to follow a German model where no outside party will be able to own a majority.

Then there’s Red Bull’s Brazilian outpost, Bragantino. That’s a slightly different situation because that club converted into a private company in 2019 and the ownership was transferred from the Chedid family, who previously controlled it, to Red Bull shortly afterwards.


Another clutch of clubs won’t, in the immediate future at least, convert. Flamengo, Sao Paulo, Corinthians and Palmeiras are the biggest sides in the country, and have relatively stable finances and/or manageable debts, so they have no immediate need to change.

The rest are theoretically up for grabs. The point was emphasised recently when Evangelos Marinakis, owner of Nottingham Forest and Olympiacos, confirmed in an interview with Sky Sports that he is investigating a takeover of Vasco, to add to his portfolio of clubs.

Edu left his job as Arsenal sporting director in November, eventually to join Marinakis’ multi-club empire and help expand it around the world. An official announcement about Edu’s role is not expected in the immediate future, but The Athletic understands he has already started preliminary work on Vasco, gathering information before a potential takeover.

Plenty more will come in the next few years. BlueCo, the owner of Chelsea, has already started its multi-club expansion with the purchase of Strasbourg in France, and is looking further afield, as are other multi-club groups. Santos, the club of Pele and Neymar who have fallen on hard times but who have won promotion back to the top tier for next season, are thought of as a prime candidate to be taken over.

Clubs in the lower leagues are targets for investors too. Guarani, a Serie B club this season, are a candidate for investment. Even Portuguesa, a club who only play in the regional Sao Paulo leagues, have recently converted into an SAF.

Another lower-league team who have been taken over as a SAF is Coritiba, Brazilian champions in the 1980s but who now play in Serie B.
They are perhaps the perfect example of what could happen much more, for better or worse, because they were taken over by Treecorp, a private equity fund that had no previous involvement in football: its existing businesses included a series of veterinary companies, a portal for paying parking fees and a burger chain.

“When we saw the first transactions happening, we were quite sceptical,” Bruno D’Ancona, Treecorp’s managing partner, tells The Athletic. “We don’t have a tradition of companies investing in football, but now it’s a big, investable industry. When we lost our preconceived ideas of the industry, we said let’s dive into it.

“The industry is globally booming. Fan attendance has been growing, media rights have been increasing. It’s different to other investments, because despite the current business environment it’s less influenced by the current scenario (of the individual company), and more in line with global trends.”

But apart from the fact that they are now available, what makes Brazilian clubs attractive to outside investors?

They are relatively cheap, for a start. Come back to us when you’ve got at least a billion if you want to buy any of the top teams in the Premier League, but Textor paid around $330million for Botafogo. Ronaldo sold his 90 per cent stake in Cruzeiro for around $117m.

It can also be, from a business perspective at least, a blank slate for a potential investor.

“Everything about Botafogo from the beginning was like a start-up,” says Textor. “We had barely any employees. We had to build an all-new company, an all-new professional staff, coaches, players, and so there’s this level of excitement and trust and loyalty that you get in a start-up. You don’t have to win anybody over. You don’t have to convince people to drop their old ways of doing things. I’m a very unconventional thinker, and so my approaches were embraced, and not rejected. So it’s very different to start a club as opposed to buying a club and trying to turn it around.”

Footballers are also one of Brazil’s key exports. A report by football think tank CIES Football Observatory in May found that Brazil is by far the nation with the most expatriate players, with 1,338 plying their trade abroad.
“It’s an industry that Brazil is intrinsically good at,” says D’Ancona.

If you own a Brazilian club that produces a young talent that can be sold to Europe, those dollar signs will start spinning around your eyes like a cartoon. But perhaps more relevant in the modern world of ownership is that this talent production line is even more appealing to multi-club groups. It’s a relatively bleak prospect in terms of shipping young footballers around the world like commodities, but if Bahia produce a brilliant young player, Manchester City can essentially control his future, perhaps move him to one of the other City Football Group clubs to acclimatise to European football before bringing them to the mothership.

Or, those players can be a source of revenue. “Instead of selling a player to Porto or Benfica, they will place them within the group, and then sell them to a big club in the Premier League, for example,” says Marcos Motta, a lawyer who has also advised clubs who have changed structure. “There is no ‘middle club’ now — the multi-club organisation is the middle club.”

Minimal red tape is also attractive. “There are very lenient ownership rules,” says Motta. “There is no financial fair play: if an investor wants to put $1billion into a club, that’s OK. If he wants to have one of his parent companies sponsor their club for $1billion, they can do it.”

Other revenue streams are opening up too, notably gambling sponsorships. Of the 20 clubs in the top flight in 2024, 15 of them had a betting company as their main shirt sponsor, and the other five — Gremio, Cuiaba, Internacional, Palmeiras and Red Bull Bragantino — either have secondary sponsorship agreements with gambling platforms or have done in the past couple of years.

Committed and passionate fans don’t hurt, either. “In Brazil there’s a connection between club and community, which is stronger than most parts of the world,” says Textor. “People can get offended when they hear me say that, but it’s just true.”

Textor has provided an example for other investors that it can work. After the astonishing season Botafogo have enjoyed, he is viewed by many in Brazil as a symbol of everything that can go right when an outside investor comes in. A few weeks ago he was having lunch in Rio, and he was asked for a selfie: not an especially unusual thing, but the selfie-seeker supported Botafogo’s crosstown rivals, Vasco, and said he wanted an owner like Textor for his club.


“It’s been very, very difficult at times,” Textor says, “but at the same time you get thank-yous and hugs in the street. Most of the negative stuff is a very small percentage on social media and gets covered by the press. But pretty much there’s been a groundswell of support from the very beginning.”

“It’s a movement,” says D’Ancona. “His strategy is different from ours, but it’s an encouraging result. There’s a group of investors that will be excited about what Textor has been able to do.”

Which is all slightly surprising when you consider how different Textor’s reputation is in Brazil to Europe, where he owns 45 per cent of Crystal Palace, where he failed in a bid to take over Everton and where his Belgian club Molenbeek were relegated to the second tier last season. Most seriously Lyon — where Textor’s Eagle Football Group bought a 77 per cent stake in 2022 — have been provisionally relegated to Ligue 2 by financial conduct authorities unless they significantly improve their balance sheets by the end of this season. Textor told journalists there was “no chance” of them being relegated, but no wonder he was waving around Botafogo’s Libertadores prize money cheque of £23million like he had just won the lottery.

This isn’t necessarily a new world with gold in the footballing streets, and there are notes of caution and potential drawbacks. Just because one group succeeds doesn’t mean everyone will.

There’s also the uncertainty that a potential breakaway league could bring. For a few years, there have been moves for a group of clubs to move away from the traditional power structures and do something similar to England’s biggest and brightest in 1992. In theory, it could be lucrative, but despite a lot of talk it hasn’t happened yet and it would be unwise to buy a Brazilian club on the basis of these inevitable riches.


Instinctively, one might wonder about fan backlash. Football fans tend to be inherently opposed to change, but in this case there seems to have been widespread acknowledgment that the way things were going could not continue, so there wasn’t significant protest. That said, one of the wedge issues in the recent election for Flamengo president was the prospect of converting into a SAF: both parties were keen to paint their opponent as in favour of a SAF while positioning themselves against it.

Could SAFs make the Brazilian league more competitive? Much like many places around the world, before Botafogo won this season a few big, wealthy clubs dominated, with Palmeiras, Corinthians and Flamengo sharing eight of the nine previous Serie A titles. But in theory, if clubs like Botafogo receive outside investment, they could close the gap.

You could think of this as a relatively depressing state of affairs, the start of a widespread flogging of some of the world’s most storied football clubs. But it’s a situation born from an economic reality that means Botafogo’s success under Textor might be the first of many.

“I would say jump in — the water’s good,” Textor says, when asked if he has any advice for potential investors. “Come join us. It will change your life and it’ll change your business. Just come to Brazil, and you’ll see.”


View: https://x.com/David_Ornstein/status/1929230658343223476
 
After this summer window I expect our wage bill will be higher than Madrid's. I think match day tickets for non-season holders to rise
 
Aren't Chelsea in the shit with UEFA as they didn't accept some of their dodgy deals?

City spending like nothings happening, it's them with their head in the sand. What with their infallible body of evidence.
Chelsea's dodgy deals only work for PSR rules. The new UEFA measure would totally ignore them, so yeah, they should be in a spot of bother, but I reckon UEFA will bottle it.
 
Just on the Chelsea thing and PSR, the word is that the Premier League proposed introducing rules that would stop those kinds of transactions from counting towards PSR and the clubs were having none of it as they wanted the safety net - it didn't even get to a vote. However, the PL can still challenge any valuations that are excessive under the associated party transactions rules. I'm guessing that the random sale of 10% of Chelsea Women to someone who us absolutely not a patsy for Boehly is their way of trying to head off that challenge at the pass (and perhaps suggests they feared it would be coming). I don't think the PL will go after them unless they win 115/130 (or at least unless they get a good result as it's highly unlikely they'd win on all counts since some of those charges are probably spurious and have been made to protect their position in the absence of information).
And to re-iterate, under the football costs ratio that UEFA adopts, these kinds of intra-group sales are totally ignored (plus there's a precedent with Man City many years ago of UEFA calling them out as bullshit). So it won't bail them out of any trouble with UEFA.
 
Wages to go past £400m in next set of accounts but turnover above £700m. @Beamrider probably can speculate what the EBIDTA will be
OK, full disclosure, I have my own little forecast model for the Club.
I reckon revenue will exceed £700m, but not by much unless there is a big jump in commercial revenue.
Media should come in about £273m (£91m Europe, £182m domestic). Matchday at c. £104m (slightly up on last year) and I'm guessing commercial growth around 10% to £330m (could be higher due to sponsor bonus payments etc). That puts us at £707m.
I reckon wages at around £424m (but that's a pure guess) and EBITDA (before player sales) at £108m.
Player sales will only be Sepp and Carvalho - Kelleher was done post year end. So probs £39m total, plus any other odds and sods (loan fees, contingencies etc). EDIT - possibly the fee for Trent too.
I'll probably be miles out though!
 
OK, full disclosure, I have my own little forecast model for the Club.
I reckon revenue will exceed £700m, but not by much unless there is a big jump in commercial revenue.
Media should come in about £273m (£91m Europe, £182m domestic). Matchday at c. £104m (slightly up on last year) and I'm guessing commercial growth around 10% to £330m (could be higher due to sponsor bonus payments etc). That puts us at £707m.
I reckon wages at around £424m (but that's a pure guess) and EBITDA (before player sales) at £108m.
Player sales will only be Sepp and Carvalho - Kelleher was done post year end. So probs £39m total, plus any other odds and sods (loan fees, contingencies etc). EDIT - possibly the fee for Trent too.
I'll probably be miles out though!

Wouldn't the matchday revenue grow more given the full year impact of the refurbished Anfield road stand?
 
Wouldn't the matchday revenue grow more given the full year impact of the refurbished Anfield road stand?
Yes, I thought that, but it already jumped a lot in 2023-24 versus prior year (£80m to £102m) so I assumed I'd got my dates mixed up. I didn't see it adding that much revenue as most of the seats in there are general admission so not massive value, bearing in mind that prices in the rest of the ground haven't moved much, outside of hospitality. So yeah, there may be a bit more growth in there, plus we probably got higher prices for Champions League v Europa in the prior period.
 
Can no longer post in the thread below, thus pasting the rumour here instead




View: https://x.com/marca/status/1934949569881596220

According to Marca, FSG have now targeted buying LaLiga club Getafe.

The report claims FSG believe Getafe are the ideal club after conducting feasibility studies of several clubs, including Levante, Elche, Espanyol, Valladolid, Malaga and Bordeaux.


Getafe’s status as an established top flight club, the potential to develop players and the club’s location in Madrid are reportedly among the factors in favour of the potential purchase.

The club are also in the middle of a stadium redevelopment, which will modernise and take their Estadio Coliseum ground to a 19,000 capacity.

Getafe’s owner Angel Torres, however, has claimed he will leave the club when the stadium redevelopment is complete in December 2027.

Getafe have been a LaLiga club for the past eight seasons and finished 13th in the 2024-25 campaign.
 
Yes, I thought that, but it already jumped a lot in 2023-24 versus prior year (£80m to £102m) so I assumed I'd got my dates mixed up. I didn't see it adding that much revenue as most of the seats in there are general admission so not massive value, bearing in mind that prices in the rest of the ground haven't moved much, outside of hospitality. So yeah, there may be a bit more growth in there, plus we probably got higher prices for Champions League v Europa in the prior period.
I see your point. My thinking was basis the opening date for ARE which was Feb'24 so hopefully the jump would be bigger than what you have estimated.
 
I see your point. My thinking was basis the opening date for ARE which was Feb'24 so hopefully the jump would be bigger than what you have estimated.
I gave this a little more thought last night, and I think it's still right to err on the side of caution.
In a construction contract, there will typically be penalties for failure to meet deadlines, typically referred to as "liquidated, ascertainable damages" (LADs). We had a clause like this in the Main Stand contract and I'm sure they'll have done the same for the Annie Road. So what essentially happens is that if the contractor fails to complete the job on time (and not because of any fault on the behalf of the customer) then they will have to compensate the customer (i.e. LFC) for that failure. So the contract will have had clauses built in basically requiring the contractor to compensate the club for lost ticketing and ancillary income.
The complication with Buckingham, of course, was that they had gone bust, so it was open to the club to make a claim, but not guaranteed that it would be paid by the administrator (although it may have been backed by insurance). If they had made a claim, and it was successful, then I think they would have put the income to matchday revenue, which would explain why it was higher than I originally expected. If that were the case, then the income for 2023-24 would be similar to a full-year's revenue, even though the stand wasn't open throughout.
That would explain why it was quite a bit higher than I expected, because I hadn't considered the LADs.
Or it could be that they've found a way of making a shit-ton more money than I expected on a matchday and that the 2024-25 figures will be a fair bit higher than I've suggested. I'll be happy to be wrong about that.
 
@Beamrider do you know if Chelsea had to pay Capital Gains Tax for selling the women's team? Thanks mate
No they didn't. Firstly, as it was an intra-group sale it would have been deemed for tax purposes to be at no gain / no loss, and even if there had been a gain it would almost ceetainly have been exempt under the subtantial shareholdings exemption (I think this will have applied to the sale of a smaller stake to the Reddit guy). Finally, they'd have shit loads of tax losses they could have used to offset the gain had there been one.
 
No they didn't. Firstly, as it was an intra-group sale it would have been deemed for tax purposes to be at no gain / no loss, and even if there had been a gain it would almost ceetainly have been exempt under the subtantial shareholdings exemption (I think this will have applied to the sale of a smaller stake to the Reddit guy). Finally, they'd have shit loads of tax losses they could have used to offset the gain had there been one.
PSR rules are window dressing it seems. How are Chelsea funding transfers of now nearly £2bn since Bohely took over? I can't see how the club is viable financially in the long run
 
should everyone be selling their women’s teams to themselves for psr credit or is it pointless if you don’t foresee issues over the coming psr period?

what’s stopping newcastle selling their under 9’s up to the oldest youth side + the women to themselves for 800m?
 
PSR rules are window dressing it seems. How are Chelsea funding transfers of now nearly £2bn since Bohely took over? I can't see how the club is viable financially in the long run
The money is coming in from the shareholder group. It's not self-generated. Boehly and co pumped in over £400m during 2023-24.
 
should everyone be selling their women’s teams to themselves for psr credit or is it pointless if you don’t foresee issues over the coming psr period?

what’s stopping newcastle selling their under 9’s up to the oldest youth side + the women to themselves for 800m?
Firstly, it does have to be at a fair value (APT rules) and my understanding is that Chelsea haven't been cleared on that by the PL as yet (which is why they persuaded Reddit guy to buy 10% at a value that would support their intra-group sale value - everyone I've spoken to believes that's a put-up job).
Secondly, you only get to sell it once, so you'd only do it when you needed to.
 
Back
Top Bottom