The Swiss Ramble looks at club funding in the Premier League. Almost two-thirds came from the Big Six, led by Manchester United £5.6 bln, Manchester City £5.4 bln and Liverpool £4.7 bln.
The Premier League made a hefty £7.1 bln operating loss in
the last decade with four clubs losing more than half a billion: Chelsea were
far worse than anyone else with a massive £1.4 bln deficit, followed by Everton
£895m, Aston Villa £871m and Fulham £507m.
Four clubs had more than £2 bln cash to spend in the last
ten years, namely Chelsea £2.7 bln, Tottenham £2.6 bln, Manchester City £2.3
bln and Manchester United £2.2 bln. There were another four clubs above the £1
bln mark: Arsenal £1.8 bln, Everton £1.8 bln, Liverpool £1.6 bln and Aston
Villa £1.0 bln.
However, the sources of these funds were quite different. At
its simplest, the larger clubs could use money they had generated themselves,
either through operating activities or player sales, while the aspirational challengers
had to rely on the generosity of their owners or had to take on more debt.
Clubs made £6.8 bln from player sales, as two clubs in
particular have made this a key element in their business model, namely Chelsea
£1.2 bln and Manchester City £899m. By far
the largest use of funds in the Premier League is the purchase of players,
which accounted for a chunky £15.8 bln out of the total £22.5 bln expenditure –
or almost three-quarters of the available cash.
The Swiss Ramble presents a se mi-serious categorisation of clubs.
“Businessmen” have been defined as those clubs where more than 50% of the
funding comes from operating activities.
Based on this definition, five clubs could be considered as
“businessmen”: Manchester United 72%, Manchester City 53%, Burnley 53%, Arsenal
52% and Liverpool 50%. In other words, four of the Big Six plus Burnley.
The “Traders” are those clubs where a substantial element is
drive by player trading, which we have defined as at least 40%. As a result,
this category includes four clubs: Brentford 52%, Brighton 51%, Chelsea 44% and
Wolves 41%.
“Loan Rangers” are considered to be those clubs where at
least 25% of the cash comes from external debt,
As per this definition, there are three Premier League clubs within this
category. Two of them have taken out significant debts to fund major stadium
developments, namely Everton 30% and Tottenham 30%, while Nottingham Forest’s
loans are primarily for investment in the squad in order to be competitive
after their promotion to the top flight.
"Sugar Babies” are clubs where the owner (or “sugar daddy”)
has provided most of the cash. This might sound a little offensive, but it’s a
perfectly acceptable business model, especially for aspirational clubs that
seek to break through the glass ceiling, so long as it is within football’s
regulations Three Premier League clubs
have received more than 50% of their funding from their owners in the last ten
years, namely Fulham 84%, Aston Villa 71% and Bournemouth 59%, so fall within
this group.
The remaining five clubs have no dominant source of funding,
so we have defined this group as a “Mixed Bag”, including Crystal Palace, Luton
Town, Newcastle United, Sheffield United and West Ham.
This analysis once again highlights the competitive
imbalance within England’s top flight, as the elite clubs generate most of
their cash in-house, either via operating activities or from player sales,
while the aspirational clubs are far more reliant on their owners’ willingness
to write a cheque.
Comments
Post a Comment