Do London clubs have an advantage?

There is no doubting the sizeable and growing divide between London and much of the rest of England.  A recent report found London wages were 33 per cent higher than the national average and as high as 68 per cent more than in Burnley.

But what about football? Do London clubs hold an advantage when it comes to signing prospective players?  Well, there has certainly been a geographical shift in where the Premier League’s clubs are based.

Last season, there was a record-low number of northern clubs — just five — since the league’s rebranding in 1992. Conversely, there were seven London clubs and a further three from the south (Southampton, Bournemouth, and Brighton), meaning half the division came from London or further south.

This season, the balance has been restored slightly, with three northern clubs promoted from the Championship, but the growing trend has certainly driven south in the past three decades. There were 10 northern clubs in the inaugural Premier League in 1992-93, with seven from London or the south.

All 12 clubs from the first Football League in 1888 were exclusively from the Midlands and further north. West Bromwich Albion and Aston Villa were the two most southerly teams in a landscape that reflected where many of the country’s industrial powerhouses still were.

That remained the case for the next 16 years until Woolwich Arsenal became the top flight’s first London away day in 1904. The only other southerly club in the top two divisions (comprising 36 teams) at that time were Bristol City, in the Second Division, but Chelsea (1907) and Tottenham Hotspur (1909) soon followed Arsenal into the top flight.

The power shift has gradually evened out, but why are there more London clubs in the Premier League now compared with 30 years ago, with West Ham, Fulham and Crystal Palace now firmly established as top-flight regulars, plus Brentford and south-coast club Brighton having joined the party in recent years?

Sources familiar with transfer dealings in the league cite that foreign players are more likely to want to move to the capital, and the majority of signings that come into the league now are from overseas.  One former sporting director who worked at a non-London-based Premier League club told The Athletic the word ‘London’ comes up a lot when talking to agents of prospective signings.

“Particularly when dealing with players overseas,” he says. “You’ll hear ‘his preference is a London club’ pretty often.  Imagine if you’re trying to sign a 20-year-old from South America, or Asia, to some of them, London basically is England. I think it’s particularly relevant to younger lads who aren’t married with kids, which I guess is probably true of most walks of life, in that they’re attracted by the bright lights”.

“The ones with families moving with them are perhaps more inclined towards somewhere a bit quieter in a calmer neighbourhood, with more green spaces, maybe.

“But the younger ones attracted by the nightlife and the massive choice of things to do, then yeah, you have to maybe get a bit more creative in what you can entice them to your club with and finances come into that.

Roughly 74 per cent of this summer’s permanent Premier League signings wereNe foreign players, compared with 11 per cent in the 1992-93 season.

Arsenal’s average league position in the Premier League era is fourth (specifically, 3.88 over 33 seasons). Their average league position in the 33 seasons preceding the Premier League was 7.3.

Chelsea’s average finishing position in the Premier League is 4.85, compared with 15.8 in the three-and-a-bit decades before, while Spurs have jumped slightly to 7.7 in the Premier League compared with 8.2 before the league launched in 1992.

West Ham average out as 13th in the Premier League era and 15.5 from the 1959-60 season to 1991-92. Brentford, Fulham and Crystal Palace have also enjoyed vastly improved fortunes in the Premier League era, as have Brighton, a club based just an hour from London Bridge on the train.

Going the other way have been Queens Park Rangers, who finished fifth in the first Premier League and are now stuck in the Championship doldrums.

The four most expensive season tickets are all on sale at London clubs (Fulham, Spurs, Arsenal and West Ham) and, before the introduction of a cap on away match tickets, London clubs invariably charged the most expensive prices.

Those prices clearly boost revenue and London has four clubs in the top 17 in Europe for the highest revenues: Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs and West Ham.

Those clubs are using the word London in their branding more than ever before; Chelsea introduced their CFC LDN branding last season, Arsenal pride themselves on being ‘North London Forever’ at every home game, while West Ham updated their club crest in 2016 to include the word London when they moved to the London Stadium.

This isn’t a one-way street. The champions of England hail from Liverpool and most title-winners still don’t come from London; Arsenal’s most recent success was in 2004 and Chelsea are the only London-based winners since then (with five titles). Liverpool and the Manchester clubs will never fail to attract the best players in the world, with their finances, histories and fan bases, not to mention their great locations for footballers to live.

On the flip side, the Premier League’s northernmost club is Newcastle, 280 miles from London. The club has undoubtedly suffered in the transfer market compared with clubs from the capital, not least this summer, when Joao Pedro chose Chelsea instead of the north east.

Advantage London? The evidence suggests so — and it’s difficult to envisage this not lasting.