Skip to main content

West Ham outpace final opponents financially

How do the teams in the Uefa competition finals compare financially?

Manchester City are much stronger than Inter financially, as their £619m revenue is over twice as much as Inter’s £261m. This is also the case with squad cost, as City’s £1.1 bln is significantly higher than Inter’s £505m.  The difference in wages is smaller, but City’s £354m is still nearly 70% (£144m) more than Inter’s £210m.

The finalists in the Europa League are much closer from a financial perspective. Roma’s £166m revenue is slightly higher than Sevilla’s £158m, while the Italians’ £155m wage bill is around 15% more than the Spaniards’ £133m.  There is only a meaningful difference with the squad cost, where Roma’s £302m is 40% (£86m) higher than Sevilla’s £216m.

As might be expected, given that one club is from the minted Premier League, there is a much wider financial disparity between the two finalists in the Europa Conference League.West Ham’s £255m revenue is a hefty £155m more than Fiorentina’s £100m, while the Londoners’ £136m wages are almost twice as much as the Italians’ £69m. Their £268m squad cost is around 40% (£83m) higher than their opponents’ £185m.


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

Lau on the ropes

Financial challenges are building up for Guichan Lau whose company WBA Holdings owns 66 per cent of West Bromwich Albion.   His company's accounts show that it is in default on a £2 million from a West Midlands heating company called Warmfront Holdings. Warmfront has agreed to take no action to reclaim the loan and interest until February next year.  Given a punitive rate of interest of 5 per cent a month, the amount outstanding will then be around £4 million. Lai has missed three deadlines to repay a loan from the Baggies to his Hong Kong company Wisdom Smart Corporation.  [sic]  Meanwhile the club have a £20m loan from MSD UK holdings at an annual interest rate of 13.8 per cent.