Skip to main content

The virus hit on football finances

The authoritative Swiss Ramble looks at the financial impact of the coronavirus crisis on football, although he warns that it is an unprecedented event and many of the figures we have available are not definitive.

Even before coronavirus, football did not look like a particularly healthy business, as few clubs actually made any money. Premier League clubs earn a lot of revenue (£5.2 bn), but make a net loss of £160m, averaging £8m a club. Half of the 20 clubs have reported losses.

It’s even worse in the Championship where clubs reported total losses of £358m (excluding £138m of accounting profits for inter-group stadium sales) and only four of the 24 clubs were profitable (three of them with less than £3m). Owner support/funding is vital in this division.

Similarly, League One is largely loss-making with only nine of the clubs posting profits – and six of these are less than half a million. In fact, the two largest reported profits would also have been losses without exceptional gains: Wimbledon – stadium sale; Southend – loan write-off.

The revenue mix is very different in the Premier League compared to other divisions with only 13% coming from match day. The lion’s share (60%) comes from broadcasting (as much as 88% at some clubs) and 27% from commercial. In the Championship, match day is up to 19% of total revenue, though this figure is distorted by Premier League parachutes. For clubs that do not benefit from these payments, match day is 29% of total revenue, i.e. hugely important.

Detailed revenue analysis is not available in for many clubs in League One, but we have enough data to see that match day is around 35% of total revenue. In other words, gate receipts become more significant in the lower leagues.

Based on average revenue per match multiplied by number of league games remaining, we can estimate the financial impact, e.g. £117m in the Premier League, ranging from £1m at Burnley and Bournemouth to £17m at Manchester United. That’s quite a big hit even if it’s the smallest revenue stream. The estimated £28m match day decrease in the Championship is obviously smaller, but it has more impact, as this stream represents a larger share of total revenue, e.g. 42% at Sheffield Wednesday where the loss would be around £2m.

The match day impact in League One is estimated at £10.5m, averaging £435k per club. Clearly, the effect on individual clubs would be different, but meaningful at many, e.g. Sunderland and Portsmouth would lose £0.9m and £0.8m respectively.

Premier League clubs have reportedly been told that if they fail to finish the season, it will cost them £750m for 'breach of contract'. If that is correct, that would mean an average reduction of £38m per club, though might be more for some if pro-rated, e.g. Liverpool and Manchester City £49m. Rightly or wrongly, this provides an incentive for clubs to play games even if behind closed doors, though the TV companies may be flexible, given that at some stage they will be bidding for new rights. Note that any reduction would be partly offset by increase in 2019-22 deal.

The Swiss Ramble calculates English clubs up to the last 16 have already earned good money from the Champions League: Manchester City €86m, Liverpool €84m, Chelsea €82m and Tottenham Hotspur €67m, though Liverpool and Spurs are well down on last season when they both reached the final. However, City and Chelesa could still progress beyond the last 16 (Chelsea less likely after their home defeat against Bayern). If either won the trophy, that would be worth an additional €45m: €42m prize money plus €3m bigger share of TV pool. Unclear what would happen to this.

It is difficult to assess the commercial impact without knowing details of the contracts, but there will clearly be a reduction in hospitality, merchandising and events, while there may be performance bonuses missed. Also money-spinning pre-season tours are in danger. Profits from player sales is a key element of some clubs’ business models with half a billion generated in the Premier League, though around 70% of that came from just 6 clubs. This may be an issue if the transfer window is delayed and player prices reduce (which seems probable).

Without revenue coming in, it will be difficult for many clubs to pay their wages, even though these should reduce in the (assumed) absence of appearance fees, win bonuses, etc. Some clubs have already struggled here, e.g. late payments at Macclesfield, Southend and Oldham. The Premier League’s annual wage bill is around £3 bn, which means £59m a week. Again, there is a large disparity with Manchester United, Manchester City and Liverpool all paying more than £6m a week, while a club like Burnley 'only' pays £1.6m.

The Championship’s annual wage bill is around £800m, which means £15m a week. This gives an average of £650k per club, though there are wide differences, e.g. Stoke pay over a million, while the likes of Millwall and Brentford around £300k. Wages are more difficult to assess in League One, given that many clubs do not disclose them in the accounts, but we can estimate around £100k a week for most, though Charlton and Burton were twice as much.

Debt/interest payments may be an issue when cash flow is tight, though it’s difficult to say, as there are many variables, especially whether it is owner or external debt (though owners may now be more focused on their own business). Repayment terms vary and may be rescheduled.

In such an environment, cash is king. The Premier League clubs have just over a billion, but worth noting that £700m of this is at just four clubs: Manchester United £308m (now down to £101m at half-year), Arsenal £167m, Manchester City £130m and Spurs £101m. Other clubs have much less, e.g. Brighton £1m.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Wolves get raw deal from FFP

  I used to see a lifelong Wolves fan for lunch once a month.   He was approaching ninety, but still went to games.   Sadly he passed away the other week. As football finance guru Kieran Maguire has noted, Wolves continue to be constrained by financial fair play rules.  Radio 4 this morning described them as this year's 'crisis club' and the pessimists have certainly been piling in. Martin Samuel wrote sympathetically in the Sunday Times yesterday, saying that the Premier League drives talent away with regulatory red tape: 'Why could Al-Hilal sign Neves? Because Wolves needed the money. And why did Wolves need the money? Because the club had to comply with an artificial construct known as financial fair play. So Wolves are going skint, yes? No. There is no suggestion that Wolves are in financial trouble, only that they are failing to meet the rigours of FFP. Wolves’ owners appear to have the money to run the club, and invest in the club, and in fact came up with a pow

Gold standard ground boosts Tottenham's income

The gold standard in European football grounds is the Tottenham Hotspur stadium in north London, a £1bn construction project completed in 2019. Its impact on the club’s finances has become increasingly clear as the effects of the pandemic have faded. Previously, the average fan would spend less than £2 inside the ground on a typical match day, but now that figure is about £16, thanks to new facilities including the longest bar in Europe and an on-site microbrewery. Capacity has gone up from 36,000 at the club’s previous home of White Hart Lane to 62,000.  The new stadium — built on land adjacent to White Hart Lane — has opened the door to a broad range of other events that have helped to push commercial income up from €117mn in 2018 to €215mn in 2022. Last year, Tottenham hosted US singer Beyoncé for five nights on her global Renaissance tour, two NFL matches, as well as rugby games and heavyweight boxing bouts.  Money brought in from football has gone up too. Match day income is

Charlton takeover approved

The long awaited takeover of Charlton Athletic by SE7 Partners from Thomas Sandgaard has been approved:  https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/se7-partners-obtain-efl-approval-for-charlton-athletic-takeover/ Charlton have had unhappy experiences with owners for over a decade, so how this works out will remain to be seen.  There is certainly potential there, but will it be realised? This interview with Charlie Methven gives detail not available elsewhere:  https://thecharltondossier.com/charlie-methven-on-the-record/