Chelsea FC’s 2019 Finances – Sarri-Ball, Sorry Losses

Chelsea FC's 2019 Finances

Chelsea had a mixed 2019, with many fans unsure what to make of what in the end, was a successful season. After missing out on the top four in 2018, Conte was sacked (a very expensive sacking) and Chelsea were condemned to the Europa League. 

Maurizio Sarri took over from Conte at Stamford Bridge as fans gained renewed optimism following a strong start to the season that saw them neck and neck with title rivals Manchester City and Liverpool.

However, things soured, with Sarri-ball deemed ‘boring’ and Chelsea began to drop points, leaving Chelsea in a top four battle and calls for Sarri out. Sarri miraculously managed to turn things around following an eventful League Cup final loss where Kepa refused to be subbed off, with Chelsea going on to lift the Europa League and finish 3rd in the Premier League, a good season by anyone’s standards.

Despite this, Sarri sought pastures new and landed the Juventus job, leading to club legend Frank Lampard taking the reins ahead of the 2019/20 season, under the constraints of a transfer ban.

The failure to qualify for the Champions League in 2018 has had significant consequences for Chelsea’s finances, with Chelsea recording a huge loss of £110m, down to revenue not increasing significantly and costs sky-rocketing, which included a £27m payout to former boss Conte. 

Let’s delve into the numbers.

Chelsea 2019 Profit

Revenue Analysis

Chelsea 2019 Revenue

Chelsea were without Champions League football in 2019, having to settle for a Europa League trophy, not a bad alternative. Despite winning this trophy, Chelsea were unable to secure meaningful revenue growth due to the vast financial differences between Champions League qualification and the Europa League.

Chelsea saw their revenue increase slightly from £448m to £452m (1%), a new club record and their fourth successive year of revenue growth.

Matchday revenue

Matchday revenue dropped sharply from £74m to £67m (9%) as Chelsea competed in the less lucrative Europa League, meaning ticket were priced lower for these games than their Champions League equivalent.

Average league attendance fell from 41,282 to 40,437 (2%) despite domestic performance improving under Sarri, showing perhaps the disenchantment fans felt watching Sarri’s team.

With Lampard rejuvenating the team so far, attendances are likely to rise, while their return to the Champions League in 2019/20 means that matchday revenue should rise to around 2018 levels.

Broadcast revenue

Premier League Payments

Chelsea saw their broadcast revenue fall slightly from £204m to £200m (2%) after the club dropped from Europe’s top competition to the Europa League. Despite winning the Europa League, Chelsea would have been far better off financially by exiting the Champions League at the Round of 16 trophy-less. Roma received the least out of all Round of 16 participants and still received €57m, while Chelsea only received €46m for winning the Europa League.

Inter Milan (€48m), Napoli (€50m), Benfica (€50m), Shakhtar Donetsk (€47m) and Roma (€48m) all received more despite not qualifying from their Champions League groups.

Chelsea saw their Premier League distributions increase from £142m to £146m (3%) after they moved up two places in the league table.

Broadcast revenue should rise significantly next year as Chelsea benefit from their Champions League qualification, and having reached the knockout phases of the Champions League, Chelsea are likely to see their UEFA prize money increase significantly on the €46m received in 2019, even if they fail to progress any further.

Commercial revenue

Commercial revenue increased from £170m to £185m (9%) as Chelsea saw good commercial growth after focussing on partnering with premium brands in the year.

With their main shirt sponsorship deal due to expire at the end of the 2020/21 season, Chelsea will be hopeful of a further spike in commercial revenue. With no deal currently believed to be in place (possibly due to restrictions in their current contract with regards to negotiating a new deal), there may be worries that the club will struggle to find a more lucrative new deal than their current one.

What does the future hold?

Chelsea are likely to see significant revenue growth on their return to Champions League football, with a push past the £500m barrier possible if commercial revenue growth as its current rate or Chelsea progress to the latter rounds of the Champions League.

Chelsea will be hopeful of progressing further in the Champions League, which could lead to huge revenue growth in the coming year, however retaining their top four place in the Premier League is the most important objective.

Expenses Analysis

Chelsea 2019 Costs

Chelsea saw their costs sky rocket in 2019 as the costs of competing in the Premier League and Europe continue to rise. The sacking of Conte did not help matters, costing the club are large amount in severance pay.

Amortisation 

Chelsea’s amortisation costs increased from £127m to £170m (34%) after substantial player investment in 2018/19 in a season that saw Chelsea spend nearly £200m on transfers (see transfer analysis) ahead of their transfer ban.

With Chelsea banned from signing players in the 2019 summer transfer window, amortisation is unlikely to increase in the coming season, unless there is significant spending in January 2020.

Conte’s severance package

Chelsea sacked Conte at the end of the 2017/18 season after failure to qualify for the Champions League. Conte had signed an improved two year contract until the end of the 2018/19 season in 2017, a move that has proved costly for the Blues. 

Chelsea had to pay off the last year of Conte’s contact and those of some of his key staff which has cost them £27m, making it the latest in a long list of large severance packages paid by Roman Abramovich under his Chelsea ownership.

Wages

Chelsea 2019 Wages

Chelsea saw their staff costs rise from £246m to £288m (17%) on the back of significant incoming signings, including new contracts for Giroud, Pedro and Christensen.

These extra wages work out a huge £810k a week, an eye-watering sum that shows the increasing costs of doing business at the top end of European football.

What does the future hold?

Chelsea are likely to see costs remain at similar levels as this year, perhaps even decreasing. Sarri’s contact may also include a severance payout, however it is likely to be significantly smaller than Conte’s and hence Chelsea will naturally see a reduction in costs in this area. A less busy summer is likely to see wages stagnate, especially with the departure of their highest earner in Hazard.

Transfers Analysis

Chelsea 2019 Transfers

Chelsea had a busy 2018/19 transfer season, spending close to £200m on players.

In came Kepa (£72m – a world record for a goalkeeper), Pulisic (£58m), Jorginho (£51m) and Higuain (Loan – £7m) for a combined £188m.

Departing Stamford Bridge were Courtois (£32m), Fabregas (£8m), Zouma (Loan – £7m), Morata (Loan – £6m), Bakayoko (Loan – £5m), Batshuayi (Loan – £3m), Pasalic (Loan – £2m), Omeruo (Loan – £0.7m), Aina (Loan – £0.5m) and Miazga (Loan – £0.3m) for a combined £65m.

This led Chelsea to a net transfer spend of £123m, up from £54m in 2018, a 128% rise. This showed huge backing for Sarri, spending substantially to replace Courtois, whilst also backing their former manager in signing one of his Napoli favourites in Jorginho.

It is worth noting that Pulisic was signed in anticipation of the Hazard sale at the end of the season and their impending transfer ban so skews their spending significantly.

Kepa has proven a good signing despite a few troubles while the quality of Jorginho cannot be denied, fans are still adapting to his playing style and main qualities. Neither Fabregas nor Courtois were particularly missed.

With sales in the year much lower than in 2018, Chelsea recorded a profit on player sales of £60m, significantly down on the £113m recorded in 2018, explaining a large part of their huge loss in 2019.

With the record sale of Hazard to be accounted for in their 2020 accounts, Chelsea are likely to see a huge rise in their profit on player sales, and hence a large improvement on their profitability this year.

Transfer debts

In debt terms, Chelsea are owed a huge £156m in transfer fees, of which £124m is due in 2020. Whilst that sounds fantastic, Chelsea also owe £154m in transfer fees (of which £116m is due in 2020) and therefore are essentially break even. This means that future transfer plans shouldn’t be affected significantly by past transfer windows.

Chelsea may also have to pay another £10m in contingent transfer fees should certain clauses be met, something that will not worry their executives much.

Cash

In cash terms, Chelsea spent a huge £282m in cash on player transfers in 2019, only recouping £120m, a substantial £162m outlay.

Such a large outlay required further funding from their Russian owner (see debt analysis).

Net Debt Analysis

Chelsea 2019 Debt

Chelsea Usually maintain a cash reserve of around £30m and this was consistent with their 2019 balance which increased from £32m to £37m (16%). The huge cash outlay on transfers and the large loss recorded were funded by a net cash inject from Roman Abramovich of £266m, showing that he still has an interest in the club despite his visa issues and newspaper reports.

This £266m injection took the amount owed by Chelsea to Roman Abramovich to nearly £1.4bn (£19m of the cash was input as a capital contribution and hence is excluded from debt), showing the huge sums the Russian has invested into the club over the years.

The cash injection of £266m was the largest by Roman Abramovich in many years, showing a renewed ambition of the owner and the difficult financial year Chelsea endured without Champions League football.

Net debt hence increased from £1,155m to £1,383m (20%) as their reliance on Roman Abramovich once again ramped up after debt levels had remained at around £1.1bn for the last few years.

Chelsea remain unconcerned by UEFA Financial Fair Play issues knowing that the losses incurred are highly likely to be reversed next year after the sale of Hazard and their return to the Champions League, making any sanctions unlikely at this stage.

Should Chelsea fail to retain their Champions League status in 2020, Chelsea may find themselves in a spot of both with UEFA in the future.

Thanks for reading – Share with a Chelsea fan!

Please follow and like us:

Chelsea 2019 Finances Predicted – Champions League Losses

Chelsea 2019 Financial Predictions

Chelsea had a turbulent 2019. After missing out on the top 4 in 2018, Conte lost his job and Chelsea were condemned to the Europa League. Sarri-ball entered Stamford Bridge and renewed optimism following a strong start to the season that saw them neck and neck with title rivals Manchester City and Liverpool.

However, things soured, with Sarri-ball deemed ‘boring’ and points began to be dropped, leaving Chelsea in a top 4 battle and calls for Sarri out. Sarri turned it around following an eventful League Cup final loss where Kepa refused to be subbed off, with Chelsea going on to lift the Europa League and finish 3rdin the Premier League, a good season by anyone’s standards.

Despite this, Sarri sought pastures new and landed nicely on the Juventus job, leading to club legend Frank Lampard taking the reins for the new season, under the constraints of a transfer ban.

This article analyses the financial effects of Chelsea’s lack of Champions League football and whether a Europa League win was enough to aid their finances.

Revenue Prediction

Chelsea 2019 Revenue Prediction

Chelsea saw their revenue balloon to record levels in 2018, rising from £368m to £448m after a return to the Champions League. Things were not so rosy in 2019 after dropping out of the competition once again…

Matchday Revenue

Chelsea’s matchday revenue was £74m in 2018, up from £65m in 2017 due to the lack of Champions League games. Chelsea dropped into the Europa League in 2019 and did in fact have 1 more home game. However, the lower pricing of Europa League games compared to the Champions League should see a drop in matchday revenue of around £2m to £72m. This drop could be more significant depending on the ticket price drop of the Europa League, however their appearance in the final should negate this.

Broadcasting Revenue

Premier League Payments

Chelsea’s broadcasting revenue broke the £200m barrier for the first time in 2018 at £204m thanks to their Champions League return.

An improved Premier League performance (moving from 5thto 3rd) boosts Premier League distributions by £4m for Chelsea to £146m, this is despite featuring on TV once less in the season.

The 2018 FA Cup winners fared far worse in last season’s competition, exiting in the 5thround to Manchester United (who they beat in the 2018 final). This saw their total prize money fall from around £3.5m to £0.3m, despite total prize money in 2019 doubling from 2018 levels.

Chelsea reached the League Cup final in 2019, going one step further than in 2018. The prize money on offer is immaterial to Premier League clubs and isn’t considered in our analysis.

Now to Europe. Chelsea reached the Last 16 in the 2018 Champions League, being eliminated by Barcelona. They fared much better in the lesser Europa League, beating London rivals Arsenal in the final to claim their second Europa League trophy.

You may think the prize money on offer for winning the Europa League would rival that of only reaching the Last 16 of the Champions League. WRONG.

UEFA confirmed that Chelsea received a humungous £58m from their 2018 Champions League campaign.

As for the 2019 Europa League campaign based on the guidance provided by UEFA on distributions, Chelsea stand to make the around £30m from the trophy winning exploits. This is a £28m drop in prize money despite winning a trophy, showing why the top six fight tooth and nail for those top four places.

In total, broadcasting is revenue is likely to fall by around £27m to £177m, a drop of 13%.

Commercial Revenue

Chelsea saw a big boost in commercial revenue in 2018, rising from £140m to £170m on the back of their lucrative Nike kit deal.

No such big deal was secured in 2019 meaning the rise will be a lot less. Chelsea did secure a lucrative new sleeve sponsor in Hyundai worth £5m a year while Chelsea would have also secured new partnerships with commercial companies.

Therefore, we suspect a rise of around £12m to £182m to a prudent estimate for the Blues.

Total Revenue

Overall despite a trophy winning season, there was always likely to be a drop in revenue following their inability to qualify for the Champions League.

Combining the above predictions, Chelsea are likely to see a £18m drop in revenue from £448m to £430m, almost entirely due to their drop from the Champions League to the Europa League, despite winning the competition.

A larger rise in commercial revenue than predicted here would close the gap (while a smaller one would widen it). Chelsea did fortunately qualify for the Champions League for the 19/20 season so their revenue should bounce straight back up (provided they reach the knockout stages).

Costs Prediction

Chelsea 2019 Costs Prediction

With record revenue came record costs for Chelsea in 2018, with costs breaking the £500m barrier for the first time at £524m, well in excess of their revenue last year, showing their lack of profitability.

Fortunately, costs are likely to experience a smaller increase than in 2018.

Amortisation

Chelsea had amortisation of £127m in 2018, up from £90m in 2017 due to reinvestment in the playing squad.

In 2019, Chelsea broke the world record transfer fee for a goalkeeper in Kepa (£72m) to replace the outgoing Courtois (£32m). The other big transfers were Jorginho and Pulisic (who joined in January and was loaned back to Dortmund for the remainder of the season).

Based on the transfer fees and contract lengths of the new signings and those sold, we expect amortisation to rise by around £18m to £145m for Chelsea. This is on the basis that both Courtois and Fabregas had already been amortised to close to zero when they were sold.

Wages

Chelsea 2019 Wages Prediction

Chelsea have one of the world’s highest wage bills at £246m, only Manchester United, Manchester City and Liverpool had greater wage bills in the Premier League than Chelsea.

Wages are the most difficult area of finances to predict due to the opaque nature and privacy of these amounts. 

Chelsea signed Kepa, Jorginho, Pulisic (loaned straight back out), Higuain (on loan), Kovacic (on loan) and Green in 2018. They sold Courtois and Fabregas while they also loaned out a whole host of fringe players.

Based on the data available, wages are likely to fall by around £10m to £236m based on the loaning out of a large number of players. The wages may however be higher if they are paying the wages of any of the players loaned out.

Other Costs

Chelsea have seen a steady rise in other expenses, rising from £129m in 2017 to £151m in 2018. We expect this to continue with a £10m rise in 2019 to £161m.

Chelsea are likely to have other costs relating to the sacking of Conte that will likely see costs rise. A rumoured pay-out of £9m is expected based on information from various sources, taking pay-offs by Abramovich to an outstanding £92m during his time at the club.

Total Costs

Based on these additional costs, we expect total costs to increase by around £27m from £524m to £551m, largely due to amortisation rising and the compensation due to Conte.

This means that before taking into account transfers, Chelsea continue to be losing money, approximately £80m, a huge amount that could quickly cause financial issues for Abramovich who will have to continue footing the bill.

Transfers Analysis

Chelsea 2019 Transfers

Chelsea had a busy summer of outgoings with various loan deals while key players had to be replaced. Courtois (£32m) was replaced with Kepa (£72m) and Fabregas (£8m) was replaced with Jorginho (£51m). Pulisic was also brought in for the 19/20 in anticipation of the sale of Hazard, which was duly completed and their now active transfer ban.

This took Chelsea to a net spend of £141m, up significantly on the £54m spend in 2018 as Chelsea looked to back Sarri in the transfer market, while they also had one eye on their transfer ban.

Kepa has proven a good signing despite a few troubles while the quality of Jorginho cannot be denied, fans are still adapting to his playing style and main qualities. Neither Fabregas nor Courtois were particularly missed.

With sales much lower than in 2018, there will be a steep drop off in profit on players sales which was £113m in 2018. Courtois and Fabregas were sold for a combined £40m and this should be all profit based on both players being at the club for a long time. Therefore, Chelsea’s profit on player sales is likely to fall by a huge £73m, meaning profitability will take a huge hit.

This may be reduced slightly by the number of loan fees the club received in 20189which is likely to be between £15-20m.

Chelsea are in an okay position regarding transfer fees owed. Chelsea owe clubs a huge £136m in fees in 2018/19 and a further £33m after this, however they are also owed £92m in 2018/19 and £58m after this. 

Therefore, Chelsea are in a net creditor position of £44m this year however after that date they are owed £25m so the differences aren’t huge and shouldn’t affect transfer plans.

Profit/Loss Prediction

Chelsea 2019 Profit Prediction

Chelsea made a profit before tax of £30m in 2018, largely due to profit on player sales of £113m.

With revenue due to fall by £18m, costs to rise by £27m (including Conte compensation), profit on player sales to fall by £72m and loan fees to up around £17m, we expect profits to fall by an eye-watering £100m, meaning a loss of around £70m in 2019.

This isn’t great new for Chelsea and their owner, although it would largely have been expected due to the lack of Champions League football, lack of player sales and the sacking of Conte.

With the return to Champions League football and the sale of Hazard, this is merely a timing issue with Chelsea likely to return to a profit in a huge way next year so fans should not worry too much.

The only issue is without player sales, the underlying profitability is poor and unsustainable, however this is an issue common for the majority of Premier League clubs.

I hope you enjoyed this article! Share with a Chelsea fan and look out for when the actual finances are released to see how we fared!

Please follow and like us:

Liverpool – The Kop’s Commercial Weakness

Liverpool Commercial Revenue Compared

Liverpool FC released their financial results recently to great fanfare, record profits, growing revenue and a competitive wage structure were all reasons for Liverpool fans to get excited. Among all this excitement the composition of their revenue went under the radar.

Liverpool Revenue 2018

Roughly half of their revenue was from TV money and prize money, which although shows success in a season, isn’t something that can be relied upon each year. Unless your Real Madrid or Barcelona, Champions League finals/trophies are a rare occurrence due to the strength of the competing rivals.

Roughly a fifth of Liverpool’s revenue came from matchday earnings which has remained fairly stable but is increasing as the capacity of Anfield increases.

This leaves around a third of Liverpool’s revenue being from commercial revenue. Commercial revenue is made up of sponsorship deals and merchandise sales. This is the area where Liverpool are below Europe’s top table and an area that has significant room for improvement.

The Problem

Commercial Revenue 2018

The graph above shows the potential Liverpool have to grow this area of revenue and boost income significantly to boost their financial muscle. Liverpool’s commercial revenue is the 8th highest in Europe according to Deloitte and is less than half the amount Real Madrid command. Although no one is saying Liverpool are as big a club as Real Madrid, the difference is much bigger than it should be.

Liverpool lag their northern rivals in Manchester significantly too, by more than £100m in Manchester United’s case. This gap needs to shrink if Liverpool are serious about mixing with Europe’s finest.

Mr. Popular

Social Media Following Football 2018

The reason Liverpool have so much potential and are currently under achieving when it comes to commercial revenue is the growth the club has experienced in popularity and appeal worldwide under Klopp.

Liverpool have struggled over the past couple of decades to ‘get with the times’ and match their rivals in digital popularity as football moved into the modern era. Manchester United perfectly exploited and channelled the new commercial era and as a result saw their finances explode with Liverpool playing catch up ever since.

However, Liverpool are catching up and are ahead of many in terms of social media followers. The club have the 6th highest number of twitter followers of the twenty teams to make up the Deloitte Money League. They also have 9th highest number of followers on Instagram which could be improved upon with more engagement and is an area for growth.

The club only has the 10th highest number of Facebook ‘likes’ and should look at these platforms as areas that could grow significantly. In all these areas they aren’t far of moving further up the social media chain as the club engage to a greater extent with the fans and their success on the pitch attracts more digital fans.

The importance of this nowadays cannot be underestimated, a club’s social media pull gives companies a great way to advertise directly to their target market being football fans or geographical location. A greater number of followers makes it much easier to negotiate lucrative sponsorship deals, especially the smaller club partners who can make up a considerable amount of a club’s commercial revenue.

Kitted Out

Shirt Sponsorship Deals Football 2018

Liverpool currently earn roughly £28m from their kit manufacturer New Balance annually. This is almost a third of the amount Manchester United attract in their £75m deal with Adidas and 5 times less than Barcelona’s high of £140m from Nike.

Liverpool are (and should be) entertaining offers from the likes of Adidas and Nike as they look to match, if not exceed the amount earned by Manchester United when their deal with New Balance runs out at the end of next season.

Liverpool should be able to increase their kit deal significantly as Manchester United negotiated their deal a few years ago so by now, this should be well within the grasp of Liverpool considering the growth in popularity the club has sustained of late.

Their current deal is also below the likes of Chelsea and Manchester City, clubs of a similar stature social media wise however Liverpool also have a larger fan base outside of this and would therefore hope to command at least in excess of the £50m Manchester City recently negotiated with Puma.

Getting More Shirty

Kit Sponsorship Deals Football 2018

Liverpool have stayed loyal to their shirt sponsors historically, seemingly married to Carlsberg until they parted ways a few years ago and Standard Chartered took their place. Liverpool chose wisely and have recently renegotiated their deal on £40m a year for four years, up from £30m. This was a shrewd move and Liverpool are doing well in terms of their shirt sponsor and there is not much room to improve in this area.

The club should focus on maintaining a good working relationship with Standard Chartered and negotiate at the appropriate time to improve the terms, maybe by incentivising additional performance related bonuses that will reward the club on the back of successes on the pitch.

Opportunity Knocks

Liverpool have many additional areas that could enhance commercial revenue with some controversial and others just sensible.

Sleeves

Liverpool currently have a 5-year deal with Western Union as their sleeve sponsor, mainly in line with their rivals. Arsenal are currently leading the way with an £8m-a-year deal, something Liverpool should consider exceeding considerably when their current deal expires in 3 years, something for the future.

Training kits

Liverpool’s training kit is sponsored by BetVictor and their current deal expires at the end of the season, making it an opportunity to bring in a more lucrative deal. For comparison, Barcelona have reportedly the highest training kit deal (with Beko) at around £16m a year, which offers a sizeable boost in revenue should Liverpool get anyway near that figure, either by improved terms of a new sponsor.

Naming Rights

Stadium naming rights are a controversial topic in England among fans with many opposed to the idea of ruining club traditions all for the sake of a few quid. However, recent studies have shown it is no longer a few quid with valuations in excess of £10m being placed on Anfield and other famous stadiums. A boost of even £10m in commercial revenue would by over 5%.

Club Partners

Liverpool could attempt to go a different way and go for volume with sponsors. Club partners can add small multi-million-pound deals here and there however if this was scaled up, could run to the tens of millions. The main drawback here is the time it may take and the devaluing of their main sponsor who may not be best pleased to see all these deals that take the shine of their large deals.

Go Strange

What if Liverpool find the newest trend like the sleeve sponsor? This is an option for the creative. How about shorts sponsors? Press conference sponsors? These are all options and many more. The club could also develop a new medium to share their content that substantially boost their social media following and attracts more lucrative deals.

Thanks for reading – share with a Liverpool fan!

Please follow and like us:

Chelsea FC’s 2018 Finances – Russian Roulette

Chelsea Financial Review 2017:18

Chelsea followed their Premier League title winning campaign with a poor defence of that title after Conte clashed with the board and players, eventually leading to his departure.

Despite a 5thplaced finish and hence no Champions League football this season, Chelsea won the FA Cup to end Conte’s reign on a high and also reached the League Cup Semi-Finals. 

Despite these highlights a poor Premier League season and Champions League campaign (out in round of 16), was not good enough and their ruthless Russian showed as much.

Despite these shortcomings, Chelsea recorded a profit of £24.9m, a huge swing from the loss of £14.2m incurred in 2017. This was predominately due to a huge increase in income from player sales.

Let’s delve into the numbers.N

Chelsea FC Profit:Loss 2018

Revenue Analysis

Chelsea FC 2018 Revenue

Chelsea reached record levels of revenue despite a disappointing league and European campaign.

Revenue rose from £367.7m to a record breaking £448.0m (22%), primarily due to a return to the Champions League.

Matchday revenue rose from £65.5m to £73.9m (13%) with Chelsea having more home games due to a return to European football following a 1-year hiatus.

This was boosted by fans also spending more money at games and the higher pricing of Champions League games.

Chelsea’s inability to reach the latter rounds meant the rise was less pronounced then it would have been hoped for.

Broadcasting revenue rose significantly from £162.4m to £204.2m (26%) as a return to the Champions League after a season of no European football boosted revenue substantially.

This increase was reduced by a drop in Premier League prize money as they moved from Champions to 5th. This negative effect however was slightly offset by their fantastic FA Cup triumph.

Commercial revenue rose from £139.8m to £169.9m (22%) after new deals with Nike and Sony came into effect, having a large, positive effect on revenue.

This was supplemented by many smaller deals as the commercial team had another good season of growth while fans also continued to increase spending on merchandise.

Looking ahead, we expect revenue to most likely flatline as positive and negatives from this season offset each other.

A demotion to Europa League football will probably see broadcasting revenue fall unless they win it (similar situation to Manchester United a couple seasons ago).

This demotion will also affect matchday income as ticket prices will be lower however, Chelsea are still in the Europa League and have a good chance of winning the competition which may boost next year’s revenue.

Therefore, the key to any increase in revenue will most likely be whether commercial revenue increases.

Costs Analysis

Chelsea FC Costs 2018

Chelsea saw record breaking costs in the same season as record breaking revenue. Costs rose from £439.5m to £523.6m (19%). This rate of growth being less than the growth in revenue enhanced profitability, building the foundation of their profit this year and also show an improved cost control while still delivering financial growth.

Amortisation rose significantly from £90.0m to £127.3m (41%) due to substantial player investment last season.

The significant investments made didn’t pay off last season with fans not having much hope it will long term either unfortunately.

Chelsea also had exceptional costs of £6m due to the club buying back some licensing rights for future exploitation which may enhance commercial revenue going forward.

Chelsea FC Wages 2018

Wages rose by a much smaller amount, increasing form £220.9m to £244.1m (11%) as their new signings replaced players on comparatively high wages. The extra wages worked out as an extra £446k a week for Chelsea which is relatively small for a club the size of Chelsea.

The West Londoners also had net interest expense of £1.5m, a sizeable increase from last year’s £0.1m.

Chelsea also paid tax of £5.4m, giving them an effective tax rate of 18%, in line with the statutory rate of 19%.

Looking ahead, Chelsea are likely to see a rise in costs after their two marquee signings in the summer and only Courtois departing permanently. This may see profitability decline as we expect cost growth to outstrip revenue growth this year.

Transfers Analysis

Chelsea FC Net Transfer Spend 2018

Chelsea had a busy season in the transfer market as 9 players arrived and 11 departed Stamford Bridge.

In came Morata (£59.4m), Bakayoko (£36.0m), Drinkwater (£34.1m), Rudiger (£31.5m), Zappacosta (£22.5m), Emerson (£18.0m), Giroud (£15.3m), Barkley (£15.2m) and Ampadu (£2.5m) for a combined eye-watering £234.5m.

Out went Costa (£59.4m), Matic (£40.2m), Ake (£20.5m), Cuadrado (£18.0m), Begovic (£10.4m), Traore (£9.0m), Zouma (Loan – £7.0m), Atsu (£6.8m), Chalobah (£5.7m), Musonda (Loan – £2.3m), Batshuayi (Loan – £1.4m) for a nearly as eye-watering £180.5m.

This meant Chelsea more than doubled their net spend from £21.9m to £54.0m (147%), which is still relatively small compared to some of their rivals.

The signings have not yet lived up to their billings (and seem unlikely to), especially Morata and Drinkwater/Bakayoko who seem like downgrades to both Costa and Matic.

Rudiger has proven to be a good signing while Ampadu and Barkley still have an abundance of potential, with the latter coming into his own this season. Giroud has proven to be a good back-up option since his arrival too. 

Despite this, Chelsea successfully let go of some deadwood at good prices. This led to Chelsea making a huge £113m (2017: £69.2m) profit on player sales, leading to their hugely profitable year. Without the significant departures at Chelsea, they would have surely made a loss.

With no such major overhaul this season, profits are likely to be much smaller, if not a loss.

From a cash perspective, Chelsea spent £191.7m in actual cash while only receiving £91.8m themselves, a net cash outlay of £99.9m which depleted Chelsea’s cash reserves.

Chelsea also owe £150m in transfer fees, of which £92.4m is due this year.

However, Chelsea are owed a larger amount of £169.4m, of which £136.2m is due this year meaning Chelsea will have no issues paying off these transfer fees without extra cash injections.

In addition to this, Chelsea may also owe an additional £4.7m in contingent transfer fees.

Debt Analysis

Chelsea FC Net Debt 2018

Roman Abromovich bank rolls the Chelsea machine and has invested huge sums to turn them into the European powerhouse they are today. The Russian billionaire provided an additional £69.1m of debt to Chelsea in 2018. 

This takes Chelsea’s debt owed to Roman to £1,155.4m from £1,086.3m (6%), an astronomical figure. Chelsea fans need not worry however about this debt, despite being repayable on demand, it will only be paid back to Roman when and if he sells the club, at which point the total takeover fee will be used to repay him.

Chelsea are valued at well over £2bn and as such Roman will be confident he will make a good return on his investment of nearing on £1.2bn (plus the initial acquisition cost) all those years ago.

Cash wise, Chelsea saw cash levels remain fairly stable, falling from £33.0m to £31.7m (4%) due mainly due to a large transfer outlay which used the additional revenue made this year.

As such, net debt rose from £1,053.3m to £1,123.7m (7%) which as mentioned should not be too much of a concern to Chelsea fans.

Roman has had his difficulties with the UK as of late after being refused a visa etc., however this should not be enough to see him sell the club.

The only concern is the time it is taking to make Chelsea self-sufficient. Roman will be hoping that additional revenues will soon mean that his cash injections will be less frequent which is not yet the case.

This is unlikely to be the case for a while with their squad in desperate need of significant investment to bring it up to the standards set by Liverpool and especially Manchester City.

Thanks for reading, share with a Chelsea Fan!

Please follow and like us:

Premier League 2018 Review – Wages

Premier League 2018 Wages Review

As Premier League clubs grow richer, so do the players as we saw in our revenue analysis, revenue has increased dramatically and so have wages, rising 18.5% to surpass the £2.5bn barrier.

In this new Premier League world, we have wages of £150k a week as commonplace throughout the league, not just the top 6. Wages rose by over £7.5m per week and this includes the growing wage of directors and key management as their competence off the field grows in importance.

This article analyses the wages of players and directors among Premier League clubs competing in the 2016/17 season.

Who’s Up, Who’s Down?

Premier League 2017 Wage Growth

Wages increased on average by 28.6% as the majority of clubs saw sharp increases due to increased player investment.

The promoted clubs were key contributors here with Burnley (59.4%), Middlesbrough (100.3%) and Hull (104.3%) experiencing the highest growth rates as they looked to align their wages with their newly earned Premier League riches. Interestingly, only Burnley survived despite being considerably more cautious with their wages than the other two.

Chelsea (-1.2%) and Liverpool (-0.6%) were surprisingly the only clubs to experience a fall in wages, albeit very small drops. Chelsea’s sales of high earners Oscar, Cuardrado (Loan), Ivanovic and Mikel were the main reasons for this in a season of few high-profile purchases. Liverpool similarly saw the exit of Benteke, Skrtel, Balotelli and Sakho who were all on high wages as Jurgen Klopp began his rebuild.

Tottenham saw wages grow by 26.9% as they looked to reward their players performances with new, improved contracts such as Kane, Alli and Eriksen. The purchases of Sissoko, Janssen and Wanyama supported this growth with the only high-earner to depart being Chadli.

Manchester City financial growth saw no signs of slowing down as wages grew by 33.5% as the Guardiola era began with a summer transfer spree featuring minimal departures as surplus players entered the final year or two of their high paid contracts, we expect wage growth to fall as these players depart at the end of their contracts.

Rivals Manchester United experienced a smaller rise of only 13.5% despite the high-profile purchases of Pogba and Ibrahimović due to a number of departures and the relative size of their wage bill already.

Leicester rewarded their Premier League winning squad with substantial pay rises leading to wage growth of 40% as the likes of Vardy, Mahrez and Schmeichel signed new deals which was added to by new higher profile players.

On the low side alongside Chelsea and Liverpool were Sunderland (0.6%) and Stoke (3.2%), possibly signalling they were worried about their soon to be relegations and were preparing for as much.

Premier League 2017 Wage Growth per week

In absolute terms, the average wage rise was £375k per week, or £19.5m a year. Leading the way however was Manchester City’s astronomical rise of £1.3m a week in wages after their transfer spree to introduce Guardiola to the Premier League.

Crystal Palace saw wages rise £600k a week after the introduction of Sam Allardyce who used the winter transfer window to significantly strengthen the squad with a sizeable investment, a tactic that ultimately worked as they secured survival.

Middlesbrough also experienced a £600k a week increase but were unfortunately much less successful in doing so after suffering relegation and the unenviable wage reduction strategy required. Wages are likely to fall automatically as relegation wage clauses come into effect.

Tottenham significant contract renewals contributed to wages rising by £517k a week as Harry Kane and Co became richer after another top 4 finish for the club.

Manchester United saw wages rise by £600k a week despite a relatively small % increase due to the enormous size of their wage bill to begin with.

As mentioned, on the other end of the scale is Chelsea and Liverpool who saw minimal wage drops per week of £50k and £15k, remaining relatively stable in terms of wages after offloading deadwood.

Arsenal also remained relatively stable with wages growing by £77k a week, a minimal 2% increase for the club.

Wage to Revenue Ratio

Premier League 2017 Wage Turnover ratio

A key performance indicator for all clubs, the wage: revenue ratio is key to a club in measuring financially stability and prudence. A high ratio suggests overspending, making profitability almost impossible whilst a ratio too low suggest over cautiousness and a failure maximise the use of resources. The average is 57% and most clubs will be aiming for a ratio of 50-55%.

The ratio shows a clear trade-off between risk and reward with clubs having to balance the need to grow and meet their targets and their financial future. Clubs near the bottom of the Premier League are likely to have higher ratios due to their lower revenues, however these clubs still spend an awful lot on wages due to the riches of staying in the Premier League.

Those higher up the table pay higher wages but see relatively higher revenue – which is what those spending large near the bottom are aspiring to.

Crystal Palace have the highest rate at 78.5% after their huge spending in the winter transfer window to preserve their Premier League status, a gamble that paid off but also potentially jeopardised their future, however such a gamble has enriched those at the club including senior management (more on this later).

Swansea’s was nearly as high at 77.3% due to low revenue and relatively high wages, a situation we hope they have remedied in 2018 after relegation which will cause this key ratio to increase.

Tottenham much discussed wage policy sees them achieve the lowest ratio at 41.4% as Daniel Levy continues to run a tight ship, something he is proud of considering their recent domestic performances, an increase in revenue will however help them increase their wages more in line with their rivals.

North London rivals Arsenal are 3rdon the list at 47.6%, another club who are notoriously known under Wenger to watch the purse strings, it must be something in the water up in North London!

Manchester United despite have one of the largest wage bills in world football have a wage to revenue ratio of only 45.3% due to the huge revenue they generate, showcasing that potentially player investment and huge wages leads to larger revenue, a model that Manchester City seem to have adopted in their earlier years.

Chelsea at 60.8% have the highest ratio due to providing players with historically high wages whilst also stockpiling young talent meaning they have more player wages on their books.

Liverpool (57%) and Manchester City (55.8%) complete the top 6 who all have lower than 61% ratios which is around the ball park most clubs should be.

Other than Chelsea, Crystal Palace and Swansea, the only other clubs with ratios above 60% are Everton (61.1%), Southampton (61.2%), Stoke (62.5%), Sunderland (66.8%) and Watford (60.3%), all clubs with aspirations of growing despite Sunderland and Stoke’s recent troubles.

Of the rest, Burnley’s low ratio (50.5%) should be commended due to their performances in 2017 and 2018. Outside of those already mentioned Bournemouth (52.4%), Hull (52.4%), Middlesbrough (53.5%) and West Ham (51.8%) all have ratios below 55%.

Rich Directors

Premier League 2017 Director Wages

Directors and key management staff are becoming increasingly vital to the success of football clubs with their business acumen key in driving revenue from off the field sources. The work of many executives has been praised in both the transfer market and in raising the profile of their club. A good executive can propel a financially ruined club into a viable business and footballing success.

This is apparent in the fact that directors’ salaries rose 19% to £41.5m despite not playing a minute of football, with the average salary being just under £4m, working out an average of £72k a week which is a respectable Premier League footballer wage.

However, note that director salary disclosures in the accounts may not show the full picture with some directors paid in other opaque companies and through other means which are hidden and difficult to locate so the numbers here are likely to be understated to some degree.

The highest director compensation paid was by Manchester United unsurprisingly considering their global profile and stock listing. Manchester United directors were paid £12.5m last year with this including stock options that may be more valuable than recorded currently.

Tottenham are the next closet some way behind with payments of £9m with Daniel Levy paying himself £6m as a golden pat on the back for the recent successes of the club that few would argue with despite his insistence of being more prudent than that on his players.

Arsenal also pay highly with directors being paid £3.4m despite performing poorly as of late.

Liverpool’s directors were paid relatively poorly compared to their above rivals, receiving a meagre £1.6m.

Chelsea and Manchester City had minimal values in their accounts. This may have to do with Chelsea having no CEO for the majority of the year and until the appointment of Guy Laurence. The payments for other key management were likely to not have been disclosed and as such no analysis can be performed. There is a similar story for Burnley as well.

The lowest outside of this appears to be Hull with payments of only £185k made to directors.

Also, below £1m were Leicester (£325k), Stoke (£806k), Swansea (£634k) and Watford (£571k). The most surprising club here is Leicester due to the absence of any significant rise in director payments despite the incredible season they recently had.

Crystal Palace have a notably high compensation package for directors with wages paid to directors of £2.4m, with Steve Parrish paying himself all of that as the club’s only director after the club steered clear of relegation last year, a controversial decision by the Mr. Parrish.

Wages Summary

Premier League 2017 Wages

There was £2.5bn in wages last year, an eye-watering £48.1m a week with Premier League clubs incurring an average wage bill of £125m. The Premier League Top 6 account for a huge 51% of total wages, showing their unparalleled financial power.

There was a change at the top of the wage bill chart as Manchester City’s continuing financial growth saw them shell out £264.1m in Guardiola’s first season, overtaking Manchester United who paid out £263.5m in wages.

Chelsea (£219.7m), Liverpool (£207.5m) and Arsenal (£199.4m) follow at around the £200m mark as they continue to pay players top dollar to maintain their power and clutch of world class players.

The ever-rising Tottenham lag their rivals yet again in this department, paying out ‘only’ £126.9m on wages due to Levy’s tight wage policy, a strategy that may see them struggle to keep competing with their rivals.

Burnley must be commended for their comfortable survival despite operating the lowest wage bill in the Premier League of £61.2m.

Bournemouth (£64.9m) and Hull (£61.3m) were the only other clubs with wages under £70m.

On the other end of the scale, Leicester (£112.6m), Everton (£104.7m), Crystal Palace (£111.8m) and Southampton (£112.4m) were the only clubs outside the top 6 with wages exceeding £100m.

With this all said, wages are likely to continue increasing as the amount of revenue continues to rise in the Premier League and player wage demands continue to rise and the price of relegation becomes costlier. Wages are likely to increase to around £3bn in the coming year.

Thanks for reading, share with a friend!

 

 

 

 

 

Please follow and like us:

The True Costs of Transfers

Premier League True Summer Transfer Cost

The True Costs of the Premier League 2018 Summer Transfer Window

The Premier League transfer window has officially shut with over £1.2bn spent by Premier League clubs ahead of the new season.

Clubs have to be wary of Financial Fair Play when purchasing players to avoid penalties and bans (for more on this click here) and also need to ensure they are running sustainably for their owners etc.

This brings us to this article, which will explain the true costs of transfers from the 2018 summer transfer window explained briefly below:

When clubs sign a player, from an accounting perspective this is not all charged in the year of the transfer as the payments are matched to how the player will be used. So, a player signing for £50m on a 5-year contract is deemed to cost the club £10m a year, known as the amortisation cost. This is the true costs of the transfer per season for the club.

Another key element is player sales. In this regard the profit the club gain is not simply the transfer fee received minus the transfer fee paid, it is the transfer fee received less the remaining value of the player sold. So, for a £50m player on a 5-year contract, he will be ‘worth’ £50m minus the amortisation charges to date, so after two years of charges, the player will be ‘worth’ £30m. Hence, should a player be sold 2 years later for £50m, a ‘profit’ of £20m will be recorded, rather than nothing like many people believe.

This article will analyse each Premier League club’s business and compare to their counterparts.

Due to the availability of data, this excludes the costs of loans and player wages. All transfer fees and contract lengths are via Transfmartk.co.uk. In order to simplify the amortisation costs, we have ignored contract renewals which make the calculation more complex without much added insight.

Let’s Not Talk About Spend, Let’s Talk About Net Spend

Premier League Transfer Net Spend

Premier League clubs had an active transfer window despite its shortening, spending over £1.2bn, receiving only £353m in return, leaving the club with an astronomical net spend of £909m.

This was due to higher spending by certain clubs, with Liverpool leading the way by a distant after investing heavily following their Champions League heartache with Naby Keita, Fabinho, Alisson and Shaqiri joining while only Danny Ward left, leaving the merseysiders with a net spend of £151m.

Fulham became the first promoted club to ever break the £100m barrier after a barnstorming transfer window with 7 players arriving for transfer fees and only 1 leaving. This led to the club having a net transfer spend of £101m with Seri the pick of the players signed.

Fellow West Londoners Chelsea had the third biggest net spend at £92m after breaking the world transfer record for a goalkeeper in the £72m paid for Kepa after losing Courtois to Real Madrid and they also signed Jorginho.

Manchester United and Manchester City had quiet windows with both making one big purchase a piece with Fred joining United (along with Dalot and Grant) and Mahrez joining City.

At the other end of the scale were Watford with a net transfer spend of minus £23m after not reinvesting all of their Richarlison windfall. Newcastle also were in the black after recording a net transfer spend of minus £13m as Mike Ashley used transfer cash received to purchase House of Fraser rather than reinvest in the Toon.

Additional Amortisation Costs

Premier League Amortisation Costs

Premier League clubs face additional transfer costs of £275m this year alone after a huge transfer spend of over £1.2bn, with this cost spread of the players signed contracts which average at just over 4-year contracts.

Amortisation costs are, as explained above, based on transfer spend and contract lengths and as such the costs are higher for larger spends and also higher when contract lengths are shorter. A key example is Kepa, a £72m keeper who signed a 7-year contract, costing Chelsea just over £10m a year. While Mahrez, a £61m purchase on a 5-year contract cost Manchester City more at just over £12m a year despite the smaller transfer fee.

Liverpool unsurprisingly lead the way after their impressive transfer window where they spent £164m with Alisson signing a 6-year contract while Keita, Fabinho and Shaqiri signed 5-year deals. Liverpool will have additional costs of £31m after these deals.

Fulham had the second highest net spend after their £105m 7 player splurge with contracts lengths 4 years on average, bringing amortisation costs of £24m over that period.

Leicester despite their relatively small net spend have a large transfer costs due to their £103m spend with the Mahrez deal diluting their net spend after the club reinvested the Mahrez cash and then some, leading to an amortisation cost of £22m.

Chelsea and West Ham also had large amortisation costs above £20m after their productive transfer windows.

Tottenham were at the other end of scale after an inactive transfer window, becoming the first club since the transfer window came into effect in 2003 not to purchase or sell a player.

Crystal Palace were the only other club to have an additional amortisation cost below £5m.

Amortisation Costs Savings

Premier League Amortisation Savings

Premier League clubs saved £41m on amortisation cost after after player sales of £353m with many players sold either brought cheaply or have been long serving players that no longer attract amortisation costs after staying longer than their original contract.

Amortisation costs savings are driven again by the transfer fee paid when the player was brought and their original contract length. So, for instance Daley Blind signed for Manchester United 4 years ago for £15.8m on a 4-year contract, costing Manchester United just under £4m a year for those 4 years. Now that the 4 years are up, Blind costs United nothing from an accounting perspective, so no amortisation costs are saved and hence no savings included in our calculations.

As such many Premier League clubs didn’t recorded any savings as the players sold had already seen their entire transfer fee amortised. This includes players signed as youths such as Danny Ward at Liverpool or long serving players such as Courtois at Chelsea.

In a couple of situations, players were signed and immediately sold. This was the case for Benik Afobe at Wolves and Mikel Merino for Newcastle. In both these cases the amortisation costs were excluded when calculating additional costs and savings.

Bournemouth were the biggest savers, saving just under £8m after the sales of the after mentioned Benik Afobe to Wolves (before Wolves later sold him to Stoke), Lewis Grabban and Max Gradel.

Everton (£7m), Newcastle (£6m) and Watford (£5.5m) were the only other clubs to save in excess of £5m on player sales after the sales of the likes of Klassen, Mitrovic and Richarlison.

Burnley, Cardiff, Crystal Palace and Tottenham sold no players hence the reason for their lack of amortisation costs savings.

Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester United, Southampton and West Ham also had no amortisation costs savings despite player sales due to the players sold having been at the club for at least their original contract lengths such as Courtois, Danny Ward, Blind, Tadic and Kouyate.

Profit, Profit, Profit (Or Loss)

Premier League Transfer Profit

Premier League clubs due to this made profits on their sales of £247m after selling players for £353m, a 70% return on investment.

When players are sold, as seen above, this may not lead to amortisation costs savings if the players amortisation costs were low due to the price paid or they have been at the club a long time.

This doesn’t mean they receive nothing, as the amount earned is recorded as a profit on player sales. This is recorded as the transfer fee received minus their remaining value as explained in the introduction. However, to avoid you having to scroll up, here is an example from this season using Courtois.

Courtois cost Chelsea £8m 7 years ago on a 5-year contract, costing the club £1.6m a year initially. Each year he is worth less of his transfer fee, so after 1 year he is worth £6.4m and after 2 years £4.8m etc. After 5 years he is worth essentially zero, at this point when he is sold the transfer fee received is all profit, so Chelsea record a profit of £31.5m.

Clearly the biggest benefiters here were Leicester after their sale of Mahrez was essentially all profit and hence the club recorded a profit of £67.1m.

Chelsea also benefited as described above, whilst Watford were the only other club to record a profit of more than £30m after their sale of Richarlison.

Everton were one of only two clubs to make a loss after the costly purchases of Klassen and Funes Mori who they both made a loss on after buying them recently and then selling on the cheap. Leading to a loss of £3.8m.

Arsenal also made a loss on the flop transfer of Lucas Perez, diluted slightly by the sale of academy graduate Akpom.

Burnley, Cardiff, Crystal Palace and Tottenham made no transfer sales and hence recorded no profit or loss this year.

The Summary – The True Cost

Premier League True Transfer Cost

To work out the true cost of this transfer window we use the following formula:

Additional amortisation costs – Amortisation costs saved -/+ Profit/Loss on player sales.

This gives an interesting picture for Premier League clubs with a net transfer costs of minus £13.9m! Meaning Premier League clubs as a whole have saved on transfers this year from a Financial Fair Play perspective.

This is heavily skewed due to the net savings made by Leicester, Watford and Newcastle in particular.

Leicester, due to the Mahrez deal have made a saving of approximately £50m after their new signings, while Watford and Newcastle have also saved in excess of £20m.

Both Manchester clubs are in the black after making one big purchase each and selling a couple fringe players.

Chelsea are also in the black after selling Courtois.

Fulham have the highest cost of £20m after their sensation transfer window in which they spent hugely for a Premier League newcomer, making a statement on their ambitions.

Liverpool were unsurprisingly up there with a net cost of £18m. Everton and Arsenal were the only other clubs with a net cost exceeding £15m.

To put this all into perspective there is a mismatch. The profits received are all given in the period of sale, while new transfers are spread over their contract. This means that Chelsea, despite making a profit on Courtois, and hence their net costs are negative, will indeed see amortisation costs rise in the long run as next year they will not have that Courtois profit.

The same is the case for amortisation costs saved, for some of the players sold, they may only have had one more year of amortisation costs and as such this saving will not be there next year and hence they will see amortisation costs rise the following year.

Amortisation costs have risen over the years and will continue to as long as clubs net spends are still as large as they are.

I hope you found this article insightful, share with a friend!

Please follow and like us:

Premier League Financial Review – Summary

Premier League Financial Review 2018

Here is your summary of Premier League financial performance for all Premier League clubs in 2018. As financial accounts are released one year in arrears, finances are based on 2017 season performance. In depth summaries of these finances are available by clicking the club’s name or the infographic.

Arsenal – Wenger’s Wonga

Arsenal Financial Review 2018

Bournemouth – Finances With a Cherry on Top

Bournemouth Financial Review 2018

Burnley – Marking Their Turf 

Burnley Financial Review 2018

Chelsea – Riches of Champions

Chelsea Financial Review 2018

Crystal Palace – The Price Of Survival

Crystal Palace Financial Review 2018

Everton – Stuck Toffees 

Everton Financial Review 2018

Hull – Tigers Timid Roar

Hull City Financial Review 2018

Leicester – Foxes’ Fortunes

Leicester Financial Review 2018

Liverpool – Top 4, Top Finances

Liverpool FC Financial Review 2017

Manchester City – Sky’s The Limit

Manchester City Financial Review 2018

Manchester United – No Top 4, No Problem

Manchester United Financial Review 2018

Middlesbrough – Down The River

Middlesbrough Financial Review 2018

Southampton – Saints Keep Marching On

Southampton Financial Review 2018

Stoke – Cold, Wet and Windy But Safe

Stoke Financial Review 2018

Sunderland – Out of Lives

Swansea – Survival Swans

Swansea Financial Review 2018

Tottenham – White Cash Lane

Watford – Honest Hornets

Watford Financial Review 2018

West Brom –  Unusual Addicks

West Brom Financial Review 2018

West Ham – Ambitious Hammers

West Ham Financial Review 2018

Please follow and like us:

You’ve Been Sponsored

You've been sponsored

Sponsorship revenue is a major source of income for premier league clubs and has been increasing year on year. Commercially vital to clubs, major sponsorships provide revenue of a long period due to the contracts usually being over a few years. This year club sponsorships brought in £282 million in revenue for premier league clubs before taking into the various partnerships they also delve into. This article will will go into detail about the types of industries that are attracted to invest and sponsor football clubs. We will also look at kit manufacturers and the role they play in football finance.

Football sponsorship has changed immensely over the years. Looking at the last 11 years (2007 – 2017), Beer has diminished as a large purchaser of sponsorships with no current club having a beer manufacturer as a sponsor. Betting companies have dominated as of late with a high of 9 companies donning sponsorship deals in 2016/17 season, nearly half of all clubs. This makes perfect sense being that football fans represent a key audience for betting companies. Interestingly, this space is not dominated by the largest, most well-known betting companies (other than Bet365 and BetWay), rather overseas and casino gambling companies being the most keen sponsors. It would be interesting to see if the likes of Paddy Power and Ladbrokes decide to enter this space in the future.

Premier League Sponsorship Companies

Financial services companies are aiming to fill the gap left since Barclays no longer sponsor the Premier League. Banks, Insurance and pay-day loans companies are all present here and the financial sector has been ever present in the sponsoring premier league clubs, with at least 3 on average in each of age last 11 years.

Airlines are another major part of the football clubs with two of the largest clubs, Arsenal and Manchester City representing the industry. Both have long standing partnerships with their respective airline.

Other industries to have sponsored Premier League clubs over the years include Sports fashion, Charities, Automobiles and confusingly a Zoo!

Premier League Shirt Sponsorship

As mentioned, sponsorships are a huge source of cash for the clubs with over £282m coming from shirt sponsors alone. Above we have the league table of shirt sponsors. It has a very familiar look to it, with domination from the top 6 who take home over 75% of sponsorship revenue. Man United show their dominance as the most reputable club in English football if not the world, with their Chevrolet deal bring them a handsome £47m a year. While newly promoted Huddersfield and Brighton at the foot of the table with deals of £1.5m each, more than 30 times less than Manchester United.

West Ham can be pleased at being 7th with their BetWay sponsorship bring in £10m a year, this is due to run until the end of this season and they will be hoping a strong showing in the league this season can lead to a similar, if not larger deal especially with the attraction of such of large stadium and tourist attraction for prospective sponsors.

Leicester have a long term agreement with shirt and stadium sponsor King Power and have yet to really cash in their title heroics through this commercial medium.

Interestingly, all London clubs are in the top half of the table, suggesting their is a preference among sponsors to pay a premium to sponsor London clubs, with Crystal Palace above the likes of Newcastle, Leicester, West Brom and Southampton.

Please Stay!

In terms of turnover of club sponsorships, only Tottenham of the Premier League ever-presents has had more than 2 sponsorships, with 6 in the 11 years analysed. Only Arsenal however have not changed sponsors during this  period, however most of these changes were after a long period with that sponsor and we suspect their current deals to continue for the foreseeable future. West Brom have a record high of 7 sponsors in 9 years (including 1 year with none), this is interesting as to whether this indicates poor commercial success or just a policy of renewal. This doesn’t seem to be working with their current deal the 4th worst in the league ahead of only newly-promoted Brighton and Huddersfield, and Burnley.

Kitted Out

Premier League Kit Deals

Kit manufacturer income is another major source of sponsorship income, many large sport brands pay millions to create kits for clubs, profiting from the sales of these. The largest two manufactures are the most well known sports brand in the world, Adidas and Nike. Adidas have seen a huge decline however since their high of 9 kits in 2013 to only 3 in 2017, even losing Chelsea who cut their sponsorship short to sign for Nike last season, paying £67m in the process. The spread of sport companies has diversified in recent years with none dominating as was the case with Adidas, Nike and Umbro in previous years. Umbro were previously a huge producer of kits, making 6 kits in 2007, the largest at that time to none in 2013 before renewing their presence recently with 3 currently rocking the diamond on their kits.

It will be interesting to see how Adidas react to their recent fall, they may decide to attract a large club such as Arsenal to their ranks after missing out on Manchester City who have agreed a deal with Puma for next season.

Speaking of Puma, they lead the way this year for clubs wearing their brand, which has been on a steady increasing trend since 2007.

Premier League Kit Deal Income

There is the usual pattern for Kit makers as there is in performance in domestic leagues, the top 6 dominate due to their domestic success and the large fan bases that come with that. The top 6 take home a remarkable 89% of income generated from kit manufacturers.

Surprisingly, Manchester City lag their domestic rivals significantly in the value of their deal with Nike, coming in at only £12m a year compared to the £75m Adidas deal of their Manchester rival or £60m a year deal of Chelsea who also have their kits made by Nike, something that will be rectified once Puma take over in the summer in a £50m a year deal.

Data was unavailable for Huddersfield and Brighton, however we suspect their deals to be around the £1m mark, maybe lower than Bournemouth who are bottom with an £800k annual deal.

Sleeves of Gold

A new phenomenon among premier league clubs is the introduction of sleeve sponsorships, with 17 out of the 20 premier league teams (Arsenal, Manchester United and Tottenham are yet to have one). This has brought in on average £3m a year extra revenue to premier league clubs, for example Liverpool Western Union deal has brought in £5m a year to the clubs coffers. Chelsea have the largest sleeve sponsor deal to date, with an extra £8m year brought in, while at the other end of the scale Huddersfield only bring in £300k in extra revenue from their sleeves.

Premier League Sleeve Sponsors

I hope you enjoyed this article, please share and like us on Facebook and Twitter.

Please follow and like us:

Financial Football News Round-Up Edition 10

Financial Football News Weekly Round-Up 10

Here is your weekly financial football news round-up to keep you up to date with all things financial football! This is your round-up for the week commencing 15th January 2018, featuring Newcastle, Manchester United, Huddersfield, UEFA, Chelsea and Brighton.

Brighton Financial Results Released – Analysed by FFN

Brighton 2017 Financial Results

Brighton released their financial accounts for the promotion winning 16/17 season. The accounts saw losses grow by 50% despite record revenue as the club ambitiously sought Premier League football and set to reap the rewards in next years accounts – full analysis here.

Financial Fair Play 2.0?

UEFA Financial Fair Play 2.0

French newspaper Le Parisien are reporting that reforms on Financial Fair Play are looming due to Historically large clubs such as Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern dissatisfied with the current rules.

There are various changes being considered with a major one being to limit spending that isn’t matched by increased revenue to EUR 100m. This would be of particularly difficulty to the ‘new rich’ who won’t be a able to spend large sums without a rise in revenues first.

Sanctions to control debt are also under consideration that would specifically target debt heavy Manchester United.

A limit may also be imposed on limiting players at a club to stop the likes of Manchester City and Chelsea stockpiling youth players the loaning them in the hope of profiting in the future.

There is also took of redefining the meaning of ‘related parties’ in order to reduce the ways owners can pump money into the club without raising Financial Fair Play Issues. Manchester City and PSG both have large deals with Etihad and Abu Dhabi respectively, who are both related to their owners.

UEFA are due to vote on a reform on 24th May with a draft report rumoured to have already been created.

Newcastle Sale Stalemate

The long running saga involving the sale of Newcastle by Mike Ashley to Amanda Staveley continues to rumble, with talks currently hitting a roadblock and no sale in sight any time soon after a £250m offer was rejected. The current plight of the troubled Geordie side cannot of given prospective owners much confidence in taking over, with Mike Ashley not wanting to reflect this in his pricing.

This is also a difficult time for the manager Rafa Benitez, who is experiencing uncertainty in terms of transfer money available to spend in a bid to move the club clear of the relegation zone, something their owner will want to do but not a huge costs that will dent any sale proceeds he may gain.

Huddersfield Hydrated By Coco Fuzion 100

Huddersfield Coco Fuzion 100

Huddersfield have announced another commercial partnership with drinks company Coco Fuzion becoming their official hydration partner. The company produces carbonated coconut water drinks that naturally hydrate consumers with the electrolytes it contains.

The brand fits well with the Huddersfield playing style who will need a great deal of hydrating due to the all action pressing style the club implements.

This is the latest in a number of commercial deal Huddersfield have signed, taking advantage of their new found Premier League status.

Oops I Did It Again! – Chelsea Back In Trouble Over Youth Players

Fifa are reported to be investigating Chelsea for the third time in eight years for possible breaches of signing under-age players. The club deny any wrongdoing.

Previously the club have been banned for two transfer windows when in 2009, they were sanctioned for the purchase of Gael Kakuta, the ban was successfully overturned on appeal however.

Fifa have been a lot tougher on such punishments recently with Real Madrid, Barcelona and Atletico all receiving bans in recent years and Chelsea will hope they have not fallen foul of the rules to avoid a similar fate.

Man United Striker SIS Partnership

Manchester United SIS

Manchester United have signed a three-year partnership with Science In Sport (SIS), a sport nutrition company based in Lancashire. This represents another major coup for the company, with Manchester United become the 10th Premier League club to sign with the sport nutritionist.

As part of the deal SIS will provide Man Utd with a dedicated performance nutritionist, as well as installing a Fuel Station within the club’s training ground, giving players and staff direct exposure to SIS products at all times.

UEFA Release Huge Report On Football Landscape

UEFA last week released their annual report analysing the financial performance of all clubs in the 55 UEFA member associations in the 2016 financial year. The report details areas such as fan support, sponsorship, transfers and wages plus more. Stay tuned for analysis of this interesting report over the next week.

Please follow and like us:

Chelsea – Financial Review 2018

Chelsea Financial Review 2018

Chelsea had an excellent season, becoming Premier League champions with relative ease, while also returning to profit thanks to some remarkable transfer dealings. Revenues rose over £30m to £361m despite the lack of European football at Stamford Bridge in 2016/17 season. This article will analyse the different aspects of their financial performance.

Let’s delve into the numbers.

Chelsea Profit:Loss

Revenue Analysis

Chelsea’s revenue reached record levels of £361m, up a solid 10% from the previous year despite the lack of European football. The rise was due to considerable commercial and broadcasting successes.

Chelsea Revenue

The club gained the majority of their £17m commercial revenue rise from their lucrative sponsorship deal with energy drink company Carabao – who also sponsor the League cup as they look to tap into the UK football market. They also will start seeing the benefits of their record sponsorship deal with Nike next season.

Becoming Premier League Champion pays, with revenues up £20m. More prize money and live games will have been awarded to Chelsea over the course of the season, boosting their broadcasting revenues – especially with the new TV deal kicking in. A successful FA Cup run will have also boosted this figure in the absence of Europe.

Matchday revenues were down £4m due to the lack of European football enjoyed in previous seasons, which would have been worse without their strong FA Cup run to the FA Cup final.

Expense Analysis

Chelsea Operating expenses

Operating expenses fell to £414.7m (7.9%), this was due to the exceptional costs incurred last year of £67m to cancel their Adidas contract in order to sign with Nike, while the severance package paid to Jose Mourinho cost the club another £8m. Excluding that costs, operating expenses actually rose 10.5%, with Administrative expenses up £22m and other costs up £18m.

Wages were actually down by £3m to £220m after a successful summer clear out, letting go of some high earners which reduced wages slightly.

Chelsea Wages

This is even more surprising as total staff numbers rose by 27 to 812 (3.4%), with playing staff and coaches up by 15 to 152 (10.9%).

Player amortisation costs rose to £88.5m from £70.9m (24.8%) due to high transfer fees.

Transfer Analysis

Chelsea had a great transfer window, bringing in 4 players at a cost of £119.5m, with the highlight being N’Golo Kante for £32.2m. Also following Kante to the club were Michy Batshuayi (£35.1m), David Luiz (£31.5m) and Marcus Alonso (£20.7m).

Chelsea Net Transfer Spend

Chelsea took full advantage of the Chinese Football League prior to the Chinese FA tax being imposed, selling Oscar to Shanghai SIPG for £54m helping the club make a huge profit on disposal of £69.2m.

Oscar was one of six players to leave permanently with Papy Djilobodji (£8.6m), Patrick Bamford (£6.2m), Stipe Perica (£4.1m), Marko Marin (£2.7m) and regrettably for Chelsea, Mohammed Salah left for a measly £13.5m. Branislav Ivanovic and John Mikel Obi also departed on free transfers, helping to reduce their wage bill.

Chelsea also made a significant amount on loan fees, receiving £8.6m loaning various players that were surplus to requirements, hoping a  good season can help them retrieve higher fees from them in the following season.

This took Chelsea to the title despite having only the 12th highest net spend of £21.9m, meaning their impressive title winning campaign came at a very economic price, much to the delight of management.

Assets & Liability Analysis

Chelsea are debt free… technically. The football club, Chelsea FC plc, is owned by a company called Fordstam Limited, who in turn are ultimately owned by Russian Billionaire Roman Abromovich. In Fordstam Limited, there are debts of over £1bn, with that amount increasing by £40m last year. The debt used to channel through Chelsea FC plc, however all this debt was converted to equity through Fordstam Limited.

Chelsea Net Debt

Fordstam Limited accounts are yet to be released and are expected around April, which will shed light on any increases in the debt levels of the club in 2017.

Essentially Roman owes Roman money, which he can only regain through shares of the profit each year, something which Chelsea are not principally run to do.

Before, Roman Abramovich could just pump money into Fordstam Limited which was funnelled down to Chelsea FC, however with Financial Fair Play limitations now in play, this is no longer an option, forcing Chelsea to be a much more sustainable unit.

This is part of the reason for their new business model, buying a number of bright young players and sending them on loan, in the hope they turn into superstars that can join the first team, or be good enough to be sold at a nice profit.

There is no issue with the debt as far as Roman Abramovich is concerned, with the Billionaire having no plans to sell for the foreseeable future, and if he did the new prospective owners would have to buy the club as well as all the debt within Fordstam Limited.

As for Cash levels, they have steadily improved after a dip in 2015, Cash rose by 22% to £33m, showcasing the more sustainable nature of the club.

Thanks for reading – Please share with a Chelsea fans!

Please follow and like us: