• 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

Forums Unread posts
Yep, the cash here will surely hurt. From their perspective though, the silver lining is that they've got no distractions trying to get Champions League football for next season and fifth is likely going to be good enough.
 
Beamrider said:
Last season, bearing in mind they went to the final of the Europa League, they played 30 home games (of which 4 were cup games), this year they'll play 20 games (1 cup).
Click to expand...
As we all know, I'm a bit thick when it comes to football. However I do have a Maths degree and my arithmetic ain't too bad either.

How did they play 26 non cup games at Old Trafford last season, but will only play 19 this season? Were they simultaneously competing in the Premier League & Isthmian fourth division?
 
To clarify:

19 League
4 domestic cup
7 Europa League

30 in total.

I wasn't classing Europe as "cup" games. but you can obviously think of it that way (you play in the Europa LEAGUE to win the UEFA CUP).
 
SHOW ME THE MONEY


Oh we wasted it

Liverpool top English club in Deloitte Money League​

Liverpool celebrate winning the 2024-25 Premier League title
Image source,Getty Images
Image caption,
Liverpool claimed their 20th top-flight title by winning the 2024-25 Premier League crown
ByMandeep Sanghera
BBC Sport journalist
Liverpool have become the top-earning Premier League club for the first time, according to analysis from financial firm Deloitte.

The Reds won the English top-flight title last season and generated 836m euros (£702m) - more revenue than any other English side.

Manchester United fell to their lowest ever position in what is the 29th edition of the Deloitte Football Money League.

Real Madrid again top the list with a 1.2bn euro (£1.01bn) revenue, despite not winning the Champions League or La Liga last season, as both Manchester clubs dropped down the list.

Barcelona were second, moving back into the top three for the first time since 2019-20 after generating 975m euros (£819m), despite playing away from their Nou Camp stadium last season as it was renovated.

Bayern Munich are third on 861m euros (£723m), Champions League winners Paris St-Germain fourth on 837m euros (£703m) and Liverpool fifth.

Manchester City dropped from second to sixth with a revenue of 829m euros (£697m).

Manchester United, who finished 15th in the Premier League and were beaten by Tottenham in the Europa League final, went from fourth to eighth with 793m euros (£666m).

United have topped the money league on 10 occasions, most recently in 2017.

Their matchday revenue will also suffer this season as they are not involved in European competition and have been knocked out of the FA Cup and League Cup at the first hurdle.

"If you went back 10 or 15 years, and you looked at Manchester United's matchday revenue it was the industry leader," said Deloitte Sports Business Group lead partner Tim Bridge.

"If you looked at their ability to generate commercial revenue, it was the benchmark by which everybody then went to market and set their strategy. I don't think that remains the case."

There are six English clubs in the top 10, with Arsenal (822m euros, £690m) in seventh, Tottenham (673m euros, £565m) in ninth and Chelsea 10th with 584m euros (£491m).

Three other English sides made the top 20, with Aston Villa (450m euros, £378m) 14th, Newcastle United (400m euros, £335m) 17th and West Ham United (276m euros, £232m) in 20th.

What's behind the increase?​

Overall, the revenue of the top 20 clubs went up by 11% to a record 12.4bn euros (£10.4bn).

Commercial revenues went up to 5.3bn euros (£4.5bn) from 4.9bn euros (£4.1bn) in an increase "driven by a shift in clubs' business models focusing on the increased use of stadia and surrounding areas on non-matchdays, an increase in sponsorship revenue, and improved retail performance".

Real Madrid's commercial income was 594m euros (£499m), which alone would have put them in 10th spot.

Matchday income was again the revenue stream that grew at the fastest rate, increasing 16% to 2.4bn euros (£2bn).

The expanded Fifa Club World Cup, which took place in the United States last summer, helped broadcast revenue go up by 10%.

Manchester City and Chelsea were England's representatives and taking part resulted in a 17% rise in broadcast revenues for those that were in it.

Balance needed between making money and protecting product​

Deloitte's Bridge believes the Money League figures show "clubs continuing to take greater ownership of their revenue-generating capabilities".

However, with player's union Fifpro taking legal action against Fifa over the increase in games in the football calendar, Bridge added that a balance needs to be struck between increased revenue and player welfare.

"On-pitch performance remains a primary driver for clubs to progress to the upper echelons of the ranking, with many clubs benefiting from new and expanded European and international club tournaments," said Bridge.

"In the 2024-25 season, Money League clubs on average played more games than the season before, reflecting the growth of competitions and sporting performance of many in the ranking.

"While this presents substantial financial opportunity, a balance must be struck between revenue optimisation and protecting both the value of the on-field product and player welfare amidst ever-increasing fixture schedules."

In working out its figures, Deloitte said that the amounts have been translated using the 12-month average exchange rate at the time of the clubs' reported year end, with 1 euro equalling £0.84.

1769071897001.png
 
Hansern said:
I’m guessing our wage bill is highly influenced by winning the league @Beamrider? Given that we have a lot of performance based bonuses in our wage/contract set up.


View: https://x.com/cweatherspoon_/status/2014127738089607383?s=46
Click to expand...

Yes, bonuses will be a big / the main driver of the extra cost - I don't recall any significant renewals/signings that would contribute a huge uplift, although some contracts may have had pay increases built in (probably not significant).
There are two levels of bonus. Firstly there is a squad-wide bonus which pays out a central pot based on achievements, and it's apportioned based on games played. This seems to be something of a relic, going back before players had bonuses in their individual contracts. It doesn't pay out a huge amount (by their standards).
They will then have individual bonuses for achievements, goals / assists / clean sheets. These can be either game to game or in some cases based on cumulative achievements (e.g. £1m for 20 goals / assists) - the latter being all or nothing if the target isn't met. And then individual bonuses for winning stuff / European qualification / league finish position.
So a player who performs well individually, even though team performance is poor, can still earn a chunk of change (and vice versa).
There may then be further eligibility criteria for the league / CL bonuses - i.e. player needs to play / be on the bench for X% of the games in that competition. This was something learnt by experience after we had to pay a player £1m for CL qualification, even though he'd been out on loan all season and hadn't contributed to it.
Finally, when comparing to other clubs, it's also worth bearing in mind that payroll isn't necessarily like for like. For example, some clubs outsource their merchandising / stewarding / catering & hospitality so their staff costs don't include those people (ours do), and City siphoned c. £16-17m of costs into side companies to make their FFP figures look better as I've posted on previously.
 
We are the richest English for the first time ever. In 5th behind Real, Barca, Bayern, PSG. City drop to the 6 from 2 and Utd to 8 from 4.
 
Beamrider said:
Yes, bonuses will be a big / the main driver of the extra cost - I don't recall any significant renewals/signings that would contribute a huge uplift, although some contracts may have had pay increases built in (probably not significant).
There are two levels of bonus. Firstly there is a squad-wide bonus which pays out a central pot based on achievements, and it's apportioned based on games played. This seems to be something of a relic, going back before players had bonuses in their individual contracts. It doesn't pay out a huge amount (by their standards).
They will then have individual bonuses for achievements, goals / assists / clean sheets. These can be either game to game or in some cases based on cumulative achievements (e.g. £1m for 20 goals / assists) - the latter being all or nothing if the target isn't met. And then individual bonuses for winning stuff / European qualification / league finish position.
So a player who performs well individually, even though team performance is poor, can still earn a chunk of change (and vice versa).
There may then be further eligibility criteria for the league / CL bonuses - i.e. player needs to play / be on the bench for X% of the games in that competition. This was something learnt by experience after we had to pay a player £1m for CL qualification, even though he'd been out on loan all season and hadn't contributed to it.
Finally, when comparing to other clubs, it's also worth bearing in mind that payroll isn't necessarily like for like. For example, some clubs outsource their merchandising / stewarding / catering & hospitality so their staff costs don't include those people (ours do), and City siphoned c. £16-17m of costs into side companies to make their FFP figures look better as I've posted on previously.
Click to expand...

Great point regarding staff. I saw that in our wage bill staff are included so we probably aren't top if you compare it like for like.
 
Hansern said:
Great point regarding staff. I saw that in our wage bill staff are included so we probably aren't top if you compare it like for like.
Click to expand...
To be clear, and you probably appreciate this, all the wage bills will include staff, but some clubs have more staff than others because they do things in-house that others out-source (the corollary being that they generate higher revenues and net profit as a result).
And some try to fudge their FFP reporting by punting some of their staff (and other related costs) into fellow group companies and then not levying adequate charges for the services provided... *cough* CITY *cough*.
 
Beamrider said:
To be clear, and you probably appreciate this, all the wage bills will include staff, but some clubs have more staff than others because they do things in-house that others out-source (the corollary being that they generate higher revenues and net profit as a result).
And some try to fudge their FFP reporting by punting some of their staff (and other related costs) into fellow group companies and then not levying adequate charges for the services provided... *cough* CITY *cough*.
Click to expand...

Thanks mate, do you know if we report all the staff into our wage bill?
 
Hansern said:
Thanks mate, do you know if we report all the staff into our wage bill?
Click to expand...
Yes. There will be some consultancy costs as well which won't go into staff costs, but those will be genuinely self-employed people.
Anyone the club employs, including casual staff who only do match days, is paid via payroll and reported in staff costs.
Those costs also include a pretty large chunk in relation to agent fees paid on behalf of the players - they're treated as benefits in connection with their employment so reported as wages / salaries.
Some clubs do disclose football and non-football staff separately, but that's pretty rare. The only place I've seen an estimate on the split is in some FIFA report where they reckoned, from memory, about 15% of a club's total payroll would be non football staff, but there will be clubs quite a bit higher or lower than that, depending on how they structure their operations. When I first started at the club the ratio in the budget was something like £150m players / coaching, £30m everyone else (17%). It's probably a bit lower now as growth in player wage rates will have outstripped staff, but we'll have grown the workforce a fair bit as well.
 
Beamrider said:
Yes. There will be some consultancy costs as well which won't go into staff costs, but those will be genuinely self-employed people.
Anyone the club employs, including casual staff who only do match days, is paid via payroll and reported in staff costs.
Those costs also include a pretty large chunk in relation to agent fees paid on behalf of the players - they're treated as benefits in connection with their employment so reported as wages / salaries.
Some clubs do disclose football and non-football staff separately, but that's pretty rare. The only place I've seen an estimate on the split is in some FIFA report where they reckoned, from memory, about 15% of a club's total payroll would be non football staff, but there will be clubs quite a bit higher or lower than that, depending on how they structure their operations. When I first started at the club the ratio in the budget was something like £150m players / coaching, £30m everyone else (17%). It's probably a bit lower now as growth in player wage rates will have outstripped staff, but we'll have grown the workforce a fair bit as well.
Click to expand...

Cheers mate. I've read that City Group are responsible for bonuses and staff while Man City pay player wages. If true its not a very like for like comparison being made.
 
I’m assuming that the difference of £63m for City in relation to UEFA’s calculations, will be that City must include City Groups cost base for salaries too. If that is the case, then so should the EPL too…if they are not already as that a truer reflection of the operational costs and would affect PSR calcs.
 
This all comes down to how the "reporting perimeter" is defined. That's not something that's always publicly available. When wages etc. are in subsidiary companies, the perimeter will usually include them by default, but where costs are included in parent company accounts then they would need to be added in - that's what City do. If you look at their accounts, they disclose nothing paid to their directors because they are paid at another level, so those costs would need to be added in. Some other functions are stashed away in sister companies (marketing, football analysis etc).
The adjustments mentioned in the tweet above would only be relevant for profit-based checks (ie the key PSR measure for EPL and the subsidiary measure for UEFA). Under UEFA's new "football costs ratio" checks (their principal rule which carries mandatory fines), all of the relevant costs should already be in the Club's books (it excludes wages for back-office staff so it doesn't really matter where those costs are charged). If the player's wage costs don't sit within the licensed football club itself then they'd be in breach of third party ownership rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom