Skip to main content

Southampton lacked financial clout

In 2022/23 Southampton’s pre-tax loss shot up from £15m to £87m, as revenue fell £5m (3%) from £151m to £146m and profit from player sales dropped £24m from £31m to £7m. Operating expenses rose £36m (19%) to £224m, while net interest payable was up 76% from £9m to £17m. The loss after tax was even higher at £94m, due to a £7m tax charge.

Southampton have now reported losses five years in a row, adding up to nearly quarter of a billion pounds, which has completely wiped out the preceding five years of profits.  The decline in Southampton’s profitability is partly due to making less money from player trading, which had been a key part of the club’s strategy.

Southampton’s £77m operating loss was one of the worst in 2022/23, only better than three clubs, though they were much higher: Aston Villa £139m, Everton £120m and Wolves £101m.

Importance of broadcasting revenue

The main reason for the reduction in Southampton’s revenue was broadcasting, which fell £7m (6%) from £115m to £108m, due to worse performance on the pitch. In contrast, match day rose £1.8m (10%) from £17.4m to £19.2m, while commercial was slightly higher at £18.4m. 

Southampton’s £108m broadcasting revenue was one of the smallest in the Premier League, probably the lowest of all once every club has published 2022/23 accounts.  Only two clubs were shown live on fewer occasions than Saints, which also cost them. For example, the Big Six had at least twice as many live games.

TV money is incredibly important to Southampton, contributing 74% of their total revenue last season. In 2021/22 only three Premier League clubs were more reliant on broadcasting income.

Southampton’s £18m commercial income was one of the lowest in the Premier League, only above Bournemouth in 2022/23. The gap to the Big Six clubs is absolutely huge, e.g. Manchester City lead the way with £341m, while sixth placed Arsenal’s £169m is nearly nine times as much.  Relegation will inevitably mean a fall in this revenue stream, as the value proposition to sponsors is much stronger in the top flight.

Of course, relegation will have a massive impact on Southampton’s revenue. Looking at the clubs that went down in the previous three seasons, they could anticipate a revenue reduction of around £60m.  Their Premier League TV distribution, worth £104m last season, will be replaced this season by a parachute payment of around £44m. If they don’t get promoted, this will reduce to £36m in the second year, then £16m in year three.

One of the main reasons for the deterioration in Southampton’s bottom line was a substantial drop in profit on player sales from £31m to £7m, which was mainly from Oriol Romeu’s move to Girona.

However, this season will be very different, as Southampton have made a great deal of money from player sales, including Roméo Lavia to Chelsea, Tino Livramento to Newcastle United, James Ward-Prowse to West Ham, Nathan Tella to Bayer Leverkusen and Mohammed Salisu to Monaco.

Even including the exceptional payments for change in management, Southampton’s £122m wage bill was still towards the lower end of the Premier League.  To place this into context, their wages were less than a third of Manchester City’s £423m and Liverpool’s £373m.   This helps explain why Southampton’s performance on the pitch has deteriorated, as their wage bill has basically remained unchanged, while other clubs have caught up and overtaken them.

Southampton still spent well over a quarter of a billion pounds in the transfer market over five years, but the harsh reality is that this is really not enough in the Premier League these days.   Southampton’s £239m squad cost was one of the smallest in the Premier League, which again helps explain why things became more challenging for the Saints.

Owner funding

Between 2016 and 2022 Southampton did not receive any owner funding. In fact, they actually repaid £13m of owner loans, as Katharina Liebherr sold up and Gao Jisheng was unwilling (or unable) to provide funding following Chinese law changes.  However, that changed last season, when Solak put £85m into the club in five separate tranches, which has diluted the shareholding of Katharina Liebherr to below 20%.

Other Premier League owners have put in a lot of funding, which has made Southampton’s position even more difficult. For example, in the five years up to 2022 owners at five clubs provided more than £200m, namely Everton £574m, Chelsea £416m, Aston Villa £351m, Brighton £216m and Arsenal £211m.

After a few years of no investment from the previous ownership, Solak spent a fair bit in an attempt to catch-up, but it is clear that he was up against it, as Southampton had been overtaken by their rivals.  The influx of young talent made sense from a financial perspective, but it is debatable whether it was the right approach in the circumstances and may well have been a contributory factor to the club’s relegation.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Threat of financial calamity removed from Baggies

West Bromwich Albion had effectively been in decline ever since the club was sold to a Chinese consortium in August 2016, paying a figure north of £200m to buy former owner Jeremy Peace’s stake. Controlling shareholder Guochuan Lai’s ownership was fairly disastrous for the club, but his unloved tenure finally came to an end after Bilkul Football WBA, a company ultimately owned by Florida-based entrepreneur Shilen Patel and his father Dr Kiran Patel, acquired an 87.8% shareholding in West Bromwich Albion Group Limited, the parent company of West Bromwich Albion Football Club. This change in ownership was urgently required, due to the numerous financial problems facing West Brom, including growing high-interest debt and serious cash flow concerns, following years of no investment from the former owner. Indeed, West Brom’s auditors had already rung the alarm bell in the 2021/22 accounts when they cast doubt on the club’s ability to continue as a going concern without making player s

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

Spurs to sell minority stake

Tottenham Hotspur is in talks to sell a minority stake in a deal that could value it at up to £3.75 billion and pave the way for Joe Lewis and his family to sever ties with the Premier League football club. Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy is seeking an investment that values the club at between £3.5 billion and £3.75 billion, including debt. While the terms of any deal have not been finalised, City sources expect Spurs to sell about 10 per cent. The club is being advised by bankers from Rothschild on the sale. Tottenham wants to raise fresh capital for new player signings and to help fund the development of an academy for its women’s team, as well as a 30-storey hotel next to its north London stadium. The financier Amanda Staveley, who brokered the deal for Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund to take over Newcastle United, is understood to be among the parties to have expressed an interest in Tottenham. Staveley’s fund, PCP Capital Partners, has raised about £500 million to depl