Skip to main content

Big Six took a Covid hit

The authoritative Swiss Ramble takes a look at how Covid affected football club finances.

For the purpose of illustrating the effect of the pandemic, I have looked at the Big Six Premier League clubs, comparing the numbers for the last two sets of published accounts (2019/20 and 2020/21) with those reported for the preceding two seasons (2017/18 and 2018/19).

All the Big Six lost money in the last two years with four clubs posting losses over £100m: Arsenal £181m, Tottenham Hotspur £148m, Chelsea £120m and Manchester City £120m. This was very different from the preceding 2 years when 5 clubs were profitable. The deterioration was quite significant, e.g. Liverpool £218m.

The main reason that a football club fails is a problem with cash flow. It does not matter how large your revenue is (or your profits are), if you do not have the cash to pay your players, suppliers or indeed the taxman, then you will find yourself in trouble.

The Big Six generated 5.3 bn revenue in last two years, but still made £1.0 bn operating loss, due to £3.4 bn wages (wages to turnover 65%), £1.7 bn player amortisation/depreciation and  £1.1 bn other costs. Pre-tax loss was £665m after £477m player sales profit less £160m interest.

In contrast, in the preceding two years the Big Six posted £471m pre-tax profit, thanks to higher revenue (£5.8 bn vs £5.3 bn) and more profit from player sales (£681m vs £477m). Despite these falling in the last two years, wages still increased from £3.1 bn to £3.4 bn.

The reduction in revenue was largely driven by match day, down £587m, as almost all games were played behind closed doors in 2020/21, though broadcasting also fell £108m, mainly due to rebates. This was partially offset by £212m commercial growth.  Despite less potential for retail sales and pre-season tours, four of the Big Six grew commercial income in the last 2 years, mainly thanks to new sponsorships,

There were also large decreases in revenue in the last 2 years for most of the Big Six, especially Man United £214m, Arsenal £112m and Spurs £89m. However, Liverpool managed to lose only £11m revenue, while Man City actually increased revenue by £13m.

Even though revenue and player sales reduced in the last two years, four of the Big Six still significantly increased their wages, led by Man City £131m, then Chelsea£87m, Liverpool £66m and Spurs £60m. The growth at Arsenal was only £8m, while Man United actually dropped £22m.

Despite less available cash, the Big Six still spent slightly more on net player purchases in the last two years: £964m vs. £927m. Manchester United were easily the highest with £284m, followed by Arsenal £159m, whose net spend was somewhat surprisingly more than Manchester City £147m and Liverpool £145m.

As the old saying goes, “Revenue is vanity, profit is sanity, but cash is king.” This has never been more true than the past two years, when football was severely impacted by the COVID pandemic. Those clubs that saved cash for a rainy day benefited from their prudence.



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/