Diagnosing the ills at Spurs: the financial angle

If Tottenham Hotspur are relegated, they will be the wealthiest club to suffer this fate in the Premier League.

As a supporter of a Championship club, the chance to visit the iconic Tottenham Hotspur stadium is mouth-watering.   I may be victim of a ‘too big to go down’ fallacy, but I still can’t believe that it will happen.  There is surely enough quality in the squad.

Discussing the situation with Spurs fans who are friends, they have agreed with me that it has been as much a problem of structure as agency.

What do I mean by that?  First, I think that Spurs have fallen foul of the modern belief that everything is down to the manager and keep changing him is the answer to any problems.   I would add that there is an agency dimension as I do not think that Spurs have chosen well.

Second, the stadium is outstanding (a relative who was one of the contractors is full of praise).  It will deliver enhanced revenue streams well into the future.  However, has it distracted attention from the fact that Spurs are supposed to be primarily a football club?

Third, it seems to me as an outsider that the decision-making structures at the club require overhaul.  It’s a business, so why not hire management consultants to give a fresh perspective?

The Swiss Ramble has taken his usual forensic examination of the club’s latest accounts and I reproduce some highlights here.   His Substack page is full of far more data and analysis.

Growing losses

Tottenham’s pre-tax loss significantly widened from £26m to £121m, the club’s worst ever result, despite revenue rising £37m (7%) from £528m to £565m.

Tottenham have now suffered losses six years in a row, adding up to a deficit of £451m (£429m excluding exceptional items), though two of these seasons were severely affected by the pandemic.  Before that, Spurs had reported profits for seven consecutive seasons, which had generated an impressive £412m surplus, including their record £139m profit in 2018/19.

Revenue growth was more than offset by a steep increase in operating expenses, which shot up £79m (13%) from £589m to £668m, while net interest payable increased by £23m (48%) from £47m to £70m. In addition, profit from player sales dropped £29m from £82m to £53m.

The loss after tax was also up, rising from £26m to £95m, though the year-on-year deterioration was smaller, thanks to a £26m tax credit.

Match receipts rose £20m (19%) from £106m to £126m, while commercial increased £22m (9%) from £255m to £277m.   Commercial is now Tottenham’s most important revenue stream, accounting for 49% of total revenue, ahead of broadcasting 29% and match day 22%.

The return to Europe increased revenue by £34m, but this was more than offset by a £39m (23%) reduction in domestic TV money from £166m to £127m, due to the much lower position in the league.

Tottenham were not helped by a reduction in the profit on player sales from £82m to £53m, as the previous season greatly benefited from Harry Kane’s big money move to Bayern Munich.

European money is important

The importance of European money to Tottenham’s revenue is evident, especially in the years when they qualify for the Champions League. Income is much higher in those seasons, compared to when they play in lesser competitions – or don’t qualify at all, as was the case in 2023/24.

It is striking how much less Tottenham have earned from Europe in the last five years, compared to their main rivals, e.g. their €136m was by far the lowest in the Big Six, only around half of fifth-placed Arsenal €266m. Even more tellingly, it was less than a third of Manchester City €549m and Liverpool €417m.

Stadium and attendances

The new stadium has a significantly larger 62,850 capacity, allied with the ability to stage third party events. Although there were lengthy delays before completion, with the total cost rising to £1.2 bln, the stadium has already driven notable revenue growth with more to come, e.g. planning permission has been granted for a 180-room hotel at the southern end of the stadium campus.

Tottenham’s average attendance of 61,127 in 2024/25 was the third highest in the Premier League, only below Manchester United 73,815 and West Ham 62,432, but ahead of Liverpool 60,486 and North London rivals Arsenal 60,252.

Perhaps surprisingly, Spurs have still not secured a naming rights deal for the new stadium, so there must be concerns that any deal struck now would not be as valuable as when they were riding high in the Premier League.

Wages and directors’ fees

Tottenham increased their wage bill by £34m (15%) from £222m to £256m, which is a new high for the club, overtaking the previous record of £251m in 2022/23.   [Given that expenditure on wages is a good predictor of on pitch performance, this is particularly disappointing].

But then Tottenham’s £256m wage bill is now the seventh highest in the Premier League, having fallen below Aston Villa £268m, while they are not too far ahead of Newcastle United £243m.

Daniel Levy’s remuneration last season shot up from £3.7m to £5.8m. The former executive chairman has trousered nearly £56m in the last 16 years.  In addition, there was £6.6m compensation for a director’s loss of office, which was presumably to Donna-Maria Cullen, who left the club in June 2025.  Presumably, this season’s accounts will reflect a similar “golden goodbye” for Levy after his departure in September.

Levy’s £5.8m director’s remuneration was yet again the highest in the Premier League, more than twice as much as Paul Barber at Brighton £2.7m and Steve Parish at Crystal Palace £2.5m.   [What is the case for this relatively generous treatment?]

There was a notable increase in Tottenham’s other expenses, which shot up £43m (27%) from £159m to £202m, due to hosting more home games and stadium events, as well as “continued technological advancements”.  Most fans will overlook this cost category, but it has become an increasingly important factor for football clubs. Indeed, other expenses have more than tripled from £60m since the club moved from the old White Hart Lane Stadium.    [Energy costs and national insurance are factors for all clubs.  Current events may increase energy costs even further with costs in the UK being high by international standards].

After a lengthy period when Tottenham did not trouble their owners, ENIC have provided £232m capital in the last five years, including £35m last season and £100m since these accounts.  However, this is still a lot less than the sums provided by many other owners, e.g. in their last four seasons (up to 2023/24 for some clubs), there was significant funding at Chelsea £953m, Fulham £453m, Everton £399m, Aston Villa £369m and Newcastle United £353m.

If Tottenham do end up being relegated, their revenue would suffer a big hit in the Championship. Looking at the clubs that went down in the last couple of seasons, their revenue decreased on average by around 40%.   Sponsorship contracts will have relegation/termination clauses, exacerbated by less corporate hospitality, though Tottenham would be protected to an extent by the many non-football events held at the stadium.

Tottenham would offset some of the reduction by cutting the wage bill, via a combination of 50% relegation clauses and the sale of some of their players, which would also generate player trading profits.  They would find it more difficult to meaningfully reduce other expenses, as the cost of staging games would be much the same in the Championship, though there would be a favourable impact from not playing in Europe.

While Tottenham had a deserved reputation for a frugal approach under Levy, the irony is that they have loosened the purse strings in the transfer market in the last few years, but their sporting results have actually got worse.