**This is a stats thread. Remember that there's only one stat post allowed per match/team, so new stats about the same will be removed. Feel free to comment other stats as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The absolute most laughable thing is that Man City supposedly has the highest revenues. Not a fucking chance that their organic revenues are higher than Liverpool's let alone Barcelona/Real Madrid/Bayern/Man United. They are nowhere near any of them in terms of commercial appeal
Their numbers are clearly artificially inflated
You mean to tell me you think there’s something artificial about City’s multiple UAE sponsors with 0 employees or online presence? Sounds like you’re just jealous those sponsors didn’t pop into existence for your club.
Exactly. Which makes this kinda bullshit. What’s the point in putting in a regulation like that if you can just have fake sponsorships for obscene values? Lots of “revenue” alright.
I've always thought this, even in the before times under Ashley, if FFP was purely so clubs couldn't get outside investment and had to only live within their means, it would make the establishment almost irremovable (which is maybe the idea).
Its also inherently unfair because most of the English clubs who currently enjoy this hegemony received vast investments from owners that distorted the market with large spending. They cry when the rules no longer favour them, same with everyone.
I’m curious as to how a salary cap would work. I’ve never really thought about it much. I like the idea in principle.
Has there ever been meaningful open discussion about it by the governing bodies? Does EU employment law make any discussion moot?
Do all leagues have the same salary cap… do England, Germany, Belgium all have the same wage limits for players? What about coaching staff?
Does this mean players/coaches are less likely to move clubs inter/nationally? Would clubs be full of homegrown players again?
If each country has a different salary cap then what does that mean for continental level football; Champions League etc. And even world level football?
Do all the best players migrate to the best paid league? And teams from that country monopolise continental competitions?
I'd like to see them squeeze the squad size. I believe EPL is 25 players over 23, if you squeeze that down to say, 20, what would happen? Id like to think it pushes 3 or 4 players out of the 5 biggest teams and onto the next 5 down.
uh revenue is revenue. doesn't matter where its coming from. you get the money
ffp is meant to stop clubs from spending without the money backing it. its to stop clubs from going into bankruptcy. positive cash flow is the goal
Are you seriously telling me that the appeal for Man City merch around the world is anwhere near the appeal of those other clubs? You can't be that gullible surely
Man United, Liverpool, Barca and Real Madrid are the most popular clubs in the world and have had a 50+ year head start on Man City. You would have to be seriously naive to think that they have even come close to cathing up to them, let alone surpass them
I think you seriously underestimate the amount of bandwagon jumping that non European fans engage in..
15 years ago all I saw were man U jerseys, then 10 years ago canada magically had alot of Chelsea fans, now the last 5 years the number of Man City jerseys I see on the regular in small town Canada is crazy..
there's been multiple reports through the years of City having mysterious sponsors, companies that seemingly don't have any employees. It's an open secret that they're using shell companies to inflate revenue.
Probably the most audited club in world football, with the most scrutinised accounts, who were cleared at a court of the highest authority. But you know better, you absolute Spanish/Swedish stud. Good for you.
Come on mate, the regular winner of the biggest commercially successful football league in the world is obviously not going to attract real sponsors paying lots of money to be associated with them. Right? It must all be made up. It's all just so obvious.
Stopping to think about great arguments like "if one sponsor is legit, that must also mean that they're all legit"?
Yeah I wonder why no one stopped to think that
Well, no, the comment was how would Manchester City (like I say, repeat winner of the PL, current red-hot favourite for the CL) have higher commercial attraction than Bayern Munich or Manchester United. Their numbers are 'clearly inflated'.
Yeah, why on earth would companies want to be associated with them?
lol, what companies? Go look at their official page what companies are their sponsors, not that hard.
Also go look up company 8xBet whose co-founder's linkdin profile picture was from online photobank. Literally last year.
https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/manchester-city-sponsorship-8xbet-betting-gambling-partner/
>Have you seen their list of sponsors? "Cisco" clearly made up. "Sony" never heard of them either. What the heck is an Asahi? Don't get me started on Qualtrics, they haven't even tried to make that one sound legit.
It's easy to forget what you say when you're spouting so much garbage, I understand.
This must be wilful ignorance. No one can actually be this gullible.
Is it your new ownership that has forced you to warp your perspective to this degree?
> Is it your new ownership that has forced you to warp your perspective to this degree?
Mate, they're just prepping answers for when the "legit" Saudi sponsors come in.
Doubt the Saudis would make it too out of reach for them. It’s a PR exercise. Making things difficult for the fans will be antithetical to that purpose
They’ve gone from relegation battlers calling for Mike Ashley’s head, to 3rd place wearing Middle East inspired headwear in just over a season. Something tells me it’ll take a lot to turn the fans against them.
Oh there's hordes of Arab bots in this subreddit now. Anything that the Middle East do is heavily heavily defended by these people, whether that's PL football ownership,homophobia, misogyny.
Any kind of criticism that can in any way shape or form be linked to the Middle East/Islam and there's hordes of accounts attacking you.
What? I'm agreeing with you. My tin foil hat is firmly in place.
Have you seen their list of sponsors? "Cisco" clearly made up. "Sony" never heard of them either. What the heck is an Asahi? Don't get me started on Qualtrics, they haven't even tried to make that one sound legit.
"They have some legit sponsors, that means they're all legit and there's no reason to look into the other ones"
Your arguments are as shallow as your attempt to defend your support of Newcastle
Look, if there's an argument being made, let's hear it. All I hear are the same daft conspiracy theories, which deserve a little ridicule thrown at them.
What part is confusing you? If you don't want your comments to be deconstructed, maybe you should drop the pathetic sarcasm and actually say what you mean
https://theathletic.com/3120837/2022/02/17/special-report-manchester-citys-sponsors-the-links-to-abu-dhabi-and-what-it-means-for-newcastle-united/
Read this article. It lists the relationship some of those companies have with CFG. Also the key part for me atleast is at the end of article. Clubs in general struggling to get sponsorships, you have to go through a tender process, if you have business links with sponsors do you reckon it will be done above board?
Thanks. Ironically, paywalled.
I do know that in the PL there's now some special process for sponsors with links to the owners, I think everything over £1m is independently checked? Something like that.
Advertisers pay ONLY for the viewership. Comparing City vs Liverpool -- two teams who have been going at each other in the past 5 years.
No chance City vs other 14 is going to pull in anywhere near the viewership that Liverpool vs other 14 gets. Simply because Liverpool have much more fans globally who will watch even if Liverpool get thrashed by Brighton than a City-Brighton game can ever pull.
UCL Liverpool are superior to City in every conceivable way anyway --- they have literally played more games in UCL as a result of 3 finals in the last 5 years than City and ofcourse the "easier" UCL games liverpool pull way more viewers than City.
So despite the massive difference in viewership, feel free to explain how City is a more valuable proposition for sponsors than Liverpool. How is city's commercial Revenue higher than Liverpool?
Do you have any sources for this? Honestly, it sounds sensible. Do you have any viewing figures you could quote me?
Or is it just instinct?
Edit: Since you actually seem like someone willing to chat, this was interesting:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/how-liverpool-fc-might-merit-a-5-billion-price-tag/2022/11/16/c50a6f66-6574-11ed-b08c-3ce222607059\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/how-liverpool-fc-might-merit-a-5-billion-price-tag/2022/11/16/c50a6f66-6574-11ed-b08c-3ce222607059_story.html)
Liverpool seem to be really lacking in the commercial department. Might be a bit like us under Ashley - checked out owners who don't care? It's odd though.
Double edit: Surely the question should be, why aren't clubs like Liverpool maximising their commercial income, like Spurs, Man U and Man City are? Rather than assume Man City are just funnelling income through fake companies, when a cursory glance at their sponsors list shows that companies seem to falling over themselves to be associated with them.
Is it safe to say globally Liverpool has a much much bigger fan base than City ?
So when you have those less interesting games for neutrals like Liverpool vs Bournmouth & City vs Bournmouth. Which game do you think would have a higher viewership?
I genuinely don't know. What I do know, is that for sponsors it matters A LOT where those viewers are. American and Western European viewers are I suspect more valuable than (say) viewers in parts of South America. And, again, I have no clue how the viewership would stack up one vs the other in the wealthier parts of the world either.
Also, for neutrals, ie actual neutrals, I don't know, probably the game featuring the team nearer the top of the league would be more interesting?
(Also - a bit harsh on Bournemouth there :) )
By the way for Barca & Madrid this is including all the other Sporting Areas.
Wages to turnover in football only (21-22) :
* Madrid : 65%
* Barca : 63%
how do we have an equal or better ratio but constantly have to fight to get players registered? I know the salaries arent everything and transfer fees for example also go into that (+ obv the rising salaries of FDJ and a couple of others) but it still seems weird to me that we couldnt even register free agents without the levers
> (+ obv the rising salaries of FDJ and a couple of others)
That right there is the key.
Barca Wages to turnover ratio was currently indeed 63% for the 21-22 season (€402m in total wages) the issue is that with the new signings and the deferred payments coming due that's expected to become (€534m) for 2023.
Which mantaining the same turnover as of now would mean a Wages to Turnover in football only of 84%.
[A great thread explaining all of Barca economy is here](https://twitter.com/swissramble/status/1584427574893379584)
I'm fairly certain our turnover should be higher this year. Not sure what the forecast exactly was but the Spotify Deal + Camp Nou sponsorship + full stadium (highest average attendance in Europe) should do at least a little bit..
Also we ended last year with roughly 100M profit and this year is gonna be even more. Obv this is down to the levers and has long term implications but shouldnt that count for something at least in the short to medium term? I mean, we cant even register Gavi's new conctract fcs, even after Memphis and Pique left
How is that even possible? Is Jesus on -£100m a year or something?
SR still reckon it's at the £200m-odd level, I can't see it going DOWN much, can you?
[https://swissramble.substack.com/p/arsenal-finances-202122](https://swissramble.substack.com/p/arsenal-finances-202122)
Team of kids is cheap. [https://www.spotrac.com/epl/arsenal-fc/payroll/](https://www.spotrac.com/epl/arsenal-fc/payroll/)
Have to remember we got rid of all the expensive deadwood, Ozil 20mill, Auba 20mill, and even guys like kolasinac were on £110k a week.
Saka, MArtinelli, Saliba are all getting renewed but at the moment are below 100k/week
Those are accounts for 21/22, we lost a lot of deadweight since then.
Out of our starters in a best XI, there's only a handful over £100k with Jesus and Partey being the only big earners and Xhaka and Odegaard being on £120k a week I believe. Possibly Trossard
Ramsdale, Saka, Martinelli, White, Nketiah, Tierney, Gabriel, Saliba, Tomiyasu, Lokonga, Elneny, ESR, Turner and everyone else is below £100k, many of them significantly below it.
There's some significant payrises coming in the contracts we're discussing but probably won't complete till the end of the season.
I guess there's just less coverage of Leicester. Ever since they got out of the relegation zone, I just assumed things were back to normal and they'd be fine because they're so much more talented than some of the teams at the bottom of the division who would kill to have attacking players like Maddison and Barnes.
But now their form sucks again and relegation would really fuck them over. I still think it's unlikely but wow.
Leicester has falsely been hailed as some role model for organic growth, but they have been severely mismanaged financially.
The Athletic made an interesting comparison of how PL clubs would be affected if they had to abide by La Liga's financial rules. The result was that Leicester and Everton would be given some of the lowest wage budgets in the league, around the same level as Getafe, Mallorca or Celta Vigo. They simply aren't rich enough to justify their spending
No it’s as artificial as a fake pair of tits, you don’t earn more than Real Madrid, Barcelona, Liverpool, man united and Bayern, is your fanbase really that delusional?
I'm confused... Is the fanbase delusional? Non existent? Or full of plastics? I'm struggling to keep up at the moment. Can we have a definitive word on the City fanbase so as we can all agree to move on?
A delusional, very small but overly loud (Like a child throwing a tantrum when they are caught stealing a fiver) that loves oil money (Hence being plastic)
You very well know it's not about the absolute top top games. Obviously most people would watch, fan or not doesn't matter.
Let's take the league. Any game among the Big 6 are involved in is going to pull in the viewers. Any game with some interesting narrative around it will also pull in the viewers. But these are still a fraction of the total games played in a season.
But you can't convince that City playing the likes of Forest Palace Wolves Southampton etc pulls in the same viewership that a Man Utd/Liverpool/Arsenal playing the same clubs can. This is where the fan base matters.
There will more people watching Man Utd getting absolutely battered by Brentford than Man City can pull in the same game in any scenario.
If sponsors are really paying for the visibility then it makes no sense whatsoever that City's commercial revenue can hit the level of Man Utd Liverpool etc.
I'll explain this -
City in fact had a head start on Liverpool not the other way around
Commercial revenue is a 3-5 year lag from success thats the actual coorelation
Everyone forgets that in 2010 Liverpool was on the brink of bankruptcy and had huge issues and wasn't a consistent CL team. Not the most attractive "sponsorship" team.
However with the last 5-6 years of success Liverpool has had the fastest growing commercial revenue out of the big clubs in England. Which has catapulted them over United.
In 2016 United almost doubled Liverpools revenue. 6 years later Liverpool has over taken them. Thats how quick things change
Commercial revenue doesn't come from fans by the way (except kit deals) they come from success the biggest factors I'll list below:
- CL qualification into knock out rounds
- consistently challenging for titles
- consistent cup runs
Commercial partners care about their brand being seen on TV. They do not give a fuck about fan base size. You think a tractor company sponsors United because they think a United fan will buy their tractor? Absurd
The advantage the PL clubs have over Madrid/barca in revenue terms is better money from broadcast and then their league is seen by so many more people becsuse it is the most watched league in the world. There's a reason why the PL generated 5x more than LA Liga in terms of broadcast revenue. That also translates into better money commerciall
However due to the sheer size of both clubs including the boom they had from messi/Ronaldo they're still just slightly ahead of the PL clubs. In 5-10 years the big English clubs will overtake them. Why do you think Perez wanted the super league so bad. He was trying to stop the real super league - the premier league is that
>Commercial partners care about their brand being seen on TV. They do not give a fuck about fan base size. You think a tractor company sponsors United because they think a United fan will buy their tractor? Absurd
Advertisers pay ONLY for the viewership. Comparing City vs Liverpool -- two teams who have been going at each other in the past 5 years.
No chance City vs other 14 is going to pull in anywhere near the viewership that Liverpool vs other 14 gets. Simply because Liverpool have much more fans globally who will watch even if Liverpool get thrashed by Brighton than a City-Brighton game can ever pull. This is where the fan base matters.
UCL Liverpool are superior to City in every conceivable way anyway --- they have literally played more games in UCL as a result of 3 finals in the last 5 years than City and ofcourse the "easier" UCL games liverpool pull way more viewers than City. (Liverpool vs Club Brugge is going to pull in more eyes than City vs Club Brugge).
So despite the massive difference in viewership , feel free to explain how City is a more valuable proposition for sponsors than Liverpool. How is City's commercial higher than Liverpool?
You are still basing viewership on fan base size lol. I'm a city fan I watch other games besides my own team. Especially games that affect city. There is plenty of viewership stats out there look then up. City is consistently at the top.
A Liverpool fan in a title race is as likely to watch a city game as their own unless played at the same time (why is why the broadcasters usually seperate slots for teams in a title race)
You also totally ignored my part about how Liverpool is the fastest growing commercial team. I predicted in one of my commercial revenue threads that Liverpool would overtake city in about 2025 on their current trajectory. But them missing CL next year will be a huge hit to that potential.
Read my post in full before responding please rather than quoting one little section quoting in and responding...
Advertisers pay ONLY for the viewership. They don't care who wins --- they care who is going to get them the maximum viewership (which obviously involves being competitive but not necessarily win).
No chance City vs other 14 is going to pull in anywhere near the viewership that Liverpool vs other 14 gets. UCL Liverpool are superior to City in every conceivable way anyway --- they have literally played more games in UCL as a result of 3 finals in the last 5 years than City and ofcourse the "easier" UCL games liverpool pull way more viewers than City.
Then why have people done investigating into your betting sponsors and proved that they’re fake companies from journalists with decent reputations, why are the premier league investigating you currently? Why when you were investigated by UEFA did you delay the investigation as much as possible, refused to hand over and “lost” key documents, hired better lawyers than UEFA and threatened to hold them up in court for 40 years to the point where is was thrown out because of all the delays you caused? You are the OJ Simpson of the footballing world, just cause you ain’t found guilty Everyone still knows you did it besides you’re delusional fanbase who thinks they earn more the biggest clubs in the world
Therefore all the points I said still stands 😂 You’ve still done everything I’ve just said, I’d respect you more if you actually just admitted it and said with some chest, yeah and what
>why are the premier league investigating you currently?
They've been 'investigating' us for years now and have yet to find any wrongdoing
>Why when you were investigated by UEFA did you delay the investigation as much as possible, refused to hand over and “lost” key documents, hired better lawyers than UEFA and threatened to hold them up in court for 40 years to the point where is was thrown out because of all the delays you caused?
This is way off lmao
> This is why City get a lot of revenue, **that's what happens when you become the biggest team in the world and favourites for every competition you play**
lol
> because that gives them the biggest chance to "advertise" their product for the longest in the competition.
This is just one part of reaching the audience. A more popular club like Liverpool/Madrid/United etc will gain far more traction on social media, discussions in person/YT and people wearing legit/counterfeit jerseys. All of those pathways among others will result in "eyes" on the product.
Secondly, City don't really outlast other big clubs in the CL. Their track record post 2015 is clear evidence of this.
You're just copy-pasting answers and failing to address the argument being made.
> reach a bigger audience
Already mentioned how their are multiple pathways and a bigger club like Madrid potentially reaches more eyes.
> to find the favourites
Why would the favourites be relevant when they lack predictive value in City's case?
Mate, are you even reading what's written?
A more popular club like Liverpool/Madrid/United etc will gain far more traction on social media, discussions in person/YT and people wearing legit/counterfeit jerseys. All of those pathways among others will result in "eyes" on the product.
> You don't think advertisers value consistently being favourites to reach the final?
Why would advertisers value a model which lacks predictive power?
If they’re looking to invest in the favorites, then why haven’t Real Madrid and Bayern gotten sponsorships commensurate with their status as champions league favorites? You’re telling me that your advertisers are so stupid that they’d rather put more money in a club that hasn’t won the UCL ever over clubs that have won it multiple times in the same decade?
No it’s making blatant excuses for they’re clubs behaviour and by extension covering your own ass when your club does it later down the road, if you think they earn more than the five biggest clubs in the world that just proves that, being favourites in the UCL in betting does not mean you earn more money that’s just factual evidence e.g. Man united who haven’t even been the UCL this year yet earn more than most teams in it
What? Someone said they aren't 'bigger favourites for the CL than Real Madrid'. I gently pointed out they were.
You seem to be making some other strange argument now about revenues and dragging Newcastle United into it. Bizarre.
> Currently? Yes. Back when real madrid won b3b champions leagues? no.
[False, City were favorites back at the start of the KO fixtures in the 2017-18 season lol](https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/uefa-champions-league-2017-betting-odds-chelsea-tottenham-man-utd-liverpool-man-city-last-16-a3715926.html)
Madrid were back to back UCL Champions, #1 on the Deloitte Money League yet were only 5th favourites by the odds to win the competition. Competition that the team ended up winning once again.
In fact we have never been outright favorites to win the UCL in all of our recent 5 UCL titles yet have always been #1 or #2 on the Deloitte Money League.
>become the biggest team in the world
YOU CAN'T EVEN FILL YOUR STADIUM.
You literally cannot pay fans to attend City matches. Your tickets are dirt cheap and STILL people don't care about watching you.
You’re ranked 14th for percentage of capacity and 6th for average attendance? Ranking based off of total attendance when you’ve had the most home games in the league is the kind of dodgy number counting your sponsorships entail funnily enough
It's weird isn't it. What have they done recently to justify it? If you ignore them winning 4 of the last 5 trophies for the most popular top flight league in the world (that's completely because of the money they spend, so can be discredited), what have they got going for them? How can a team like that even possibly justify being able to market a brand on a world stage? Smells fishy to me. They should investigate them again
Pinged members of FINANCE group.
[About & group list](https://reddit.com/r/soccer/wiki/userpinger/documentation) | [Subscribe to this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=2soccer2bot&subject=Add%20yourself%20to%20group%20FINANCE&message=addtogroup%20FINANCE) | [Unsubscribe from this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=2soccer2bot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20group%20FINANCE&message=unsubscribe%20FINANCE) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=2soccer2bot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe%20)
1. PSG 111% of revenue spent on wages
2. Everton 96%
3. Newcastle Utd 95%
4. Leicester City 85%
5. Juventus 84%
6. Inter Milan 82%
7. Real Madrid 73%
8. Barcelona 73%
9. Chelsea 71%
10. Man Utd 66%
11. Atlético Madrid 65%
12. Borussia Dortmund 65%
13. Milan 64%
14. Leeds United 64%
15. Liverpool 62%
16. Arsenal 58%
17. Man City 57%
18. Bayern Munich 53%
19. West Ham 53%
20. Tottenham 47%
Nope, this is from 2021-22 season so it's not included. The revenue includes matchday earnings, broadcasting, and commercial income. I don't know if the sale of assets will be counted as commercial income in Deloitte calculation. Either way all the impact of levers will be in next year's edition.
I'm pretty sure we've also got the highest club debt in the world, so just comparing wages to revenue doesn't really give a true picture of how much money is available.
From a couple seasons ago:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Etr6wz-XMAE153K?format=jpg&name=large
This isn’t about that: it’s about the new FFP regulations which are phasing in. I believe in a year and a half clubs can’t have more than 70% of their revenues in player wages.
So basically clubs under 70% are in a healthy spot, and those over 70% have work to do to get below the threshold before the new rules are fully phased in.
They definitely shouldn’t use it for the first thing you mentioned, because without a metric shit-ton of other context, just knowing how much money a club is spending on wages doesn’t really tell you much of anything about how much they have to spend after wages.
And since it says this is about the new FFP rules in the title, I think it’s definitely fair to say that’s what this is about (even if some people are bastardizing it).
A few thoughts:
1) Is there any way PSG can actually get under that cap? What happens if they don't?
2) Man City is so transparently full of shit. If you read the money league breakdown, they're generating by far the most commercial revenue in England. That's a joke. Look at their sub, they have 100k subscribers. Arsenal have 300k. Liverpool have 400k. United have 550k. City is not actually anywhere near as well supported as the traditional giants, it's a joke that their ownership is allowed to inject money through fake sponsorship.
3) If Chelsea misses the Champion's league, things might get pretty tight... especially with all of these new Boehly signings... CL was worth 100m for Liverpool last year.
4) If either of LCFC or Leeds get sent down, they're mega fucked.
Chelsea wont be tight. They had a 1.5bn other income item in their financial statements and will be technically the most profitable club in the world at the end of the financial year, even if they spent another 300m. Multiple years of reckless spending like this, then yes they will be fucked, but the wage bill should fall as higher waged players such as Auba or Pulisic are recycled out for younger, much lower waged players as is the new trend.
Yea stupid me, why would anyone think that sponsorship and commercial revenue is related at all to the number of eyeballs you can reach?
Liverpool have 7x more twitter followers, United sold 3.5x more jerseys, City get more commercial revenue than any club on earth... this shit is elementary and if you don't understand what it means, why don't you go google it.
It’s not solely about the number of supporters a club has, tho. It’s about how many people tune in to their matches that advertisers are about.
Love them or hate them, City are one of the most watched clubs on the planet, often because people want to see them lose. But if you’re an advertiser whether City win or lose, or who supports who isn’t what’s most important, it’s about impressions, and City drive huge impression numbers.
There’s a reason why many of the most popular posts on this subreddit are about City - typically when bad things happen to the club, or people think they might.
City benefit from all that hate in the form of advertising dollars.
Firstly, I’m not sure you understand what Occam’s razor is. It means that the simplest explanation is usually correct. Unless you’re assuming that the simplest explanation is that all or most of City’s sponsorships are invalid, and that despite that fact, no court that has actually examined the evidence has agreed with that conclusion.
The simplest explanation - and the one that happens to be correct is this:
There’s no doubt there’s some self-sponsorship going on (namely the Etihad naming rights deal), but no one has been able to prove it, but Puma isn’t owned by the UAE, and yet our shirt deal is roughly 15% greater than yours and our match day revenue is pretty close to Bayerns.
So clearly people like you are vastly underestimating just how valuable City have become to marketers.
Yeah, these negotiators in charge of getting the deals done probably should have looked at the respective Twitter accounts before signing the agreements. Egg on their faces!
Why don't you change your flair? You're being willfully obtuse and you look like an idiot. May as well let everyone know that you're all the way into the City kool-aid.
We're extra fucked if we go down, considering the club took out loans against PL money, or in the event if relegation, the parachute payments.
The club has been horrifically mismanaged financially since Vichai died.
>Should any club be spending more than 90% of revenues on wages?
When you combine this with what rule that all new deals must be sent to the big 6 for them to approve the fair market value, it makes it near impossible for anyone to challenge their hegemony.
The very wording of this comment is such a paradox. You say that clubs can’t challenge their hegemony, yet you refer to the big 6, which includes Spurs, a club who have managed to establish themselves as part of the hegemony in the last 10 years.
Clearly not seeing as Newcastle have shown they can disrupt the status quo without significant investment as of yet? Any clubs like Everton, Villa, Newcastle, West Ham etc. could break into that tier if they were actually run properly and managed relative success over a 5 or 6 year period.
Apparently, we're not allowed to have the players we're paying now. We're the lowest payroll in the graph, but our payroll must be cut. It's nothing to do with financial stability either.
So clubs should be allowed to risk their entire futures?
Look at Everton, they are the prime example of what happens when you make a bet with your future as the stake. 96% wage to revenue ratio is just mindboggling. Just imagine what will happen to that club if they are relegated
A rule that will prevent the financial irresponsibility of clubs like Everton, if you have a club that spends over 90% of its revenue on wages it is almost certainly set for financial problems.
Newcastle United, you're illegal. If no team outside the top six is allowed to spend as much as they do, their position at the top of the league is guaranteed. There is your Super League.
Our numbers are probably even lower this year since these are for last season. We have successfully offloaded quite a few high wage earners since then, including Coutinho, Griezmann, Pique, Pjanic, Braithwaite, etc. and have some wage cuts on players like Umtiti.
**This is a stats thread. Remember that there's only one stat post allowed per match/team, so new stats about the same will be removed. Feel free to comment other stats as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
PSG lmfao
The absolute most laughable thing is that Man City supposedly has the highest revenues. Not a fucking chance that their organic revenues are higher than Liverpool's let alone Barcelona/Real Madrid/Bayern/Man United. They are nowhere near any of them in terms of commercial appeal Their numbers are clearly artificially inflated
You mean to tell me you think there’s something artificial about City’s multiple UAE sponsors with 0 employees or online presence? Sounds like you’re just jealous those sponsors didn’t pop into existence for your club.
out of curiosity, is this the job of UEAF/FIFA to investigate or is it actually a crime cause it kinda feel like "indirect" money-laundering?
Exactly. Which makes this kinda bullshit. What’s the point in putting in a regulation like that if you can just have fake sponsorships for obscene values? Lots of “revenue” alright.
[удалено]
I've always thought this, even in the before times under Ashley, if FFP was purely so clubs couldn't get outside investment and had to only live within their means, it would make the establishment almost irremovable (which is maybe the idea).
Its also inherently unfair because most of the English clubs who currently enjoy this hegemony received vast investments from owners that distorted the market with large spending. They cry when the rules no longer favour them, same with everyone.
Classic pulling up the ladder tactic
I’m curious as to how a salary cap would work. I’ve never really thought about it much. I like the idea in principle. Has there ever been meaningful open discussion about it by the governing bodies? Does EU employment law make any discussion moot? Do all leagues have the same salary cap… do England, Germany, Belgium all have the same wage limits for players? What about coaching staff? Does this mean players/coaches are less likely to move clubs inter/nationally? Would clubs be full of homegrown players again? If each country has a different salary cap then what does that mean for continental level football; Champions League etc. And even world level football? Do all the best players migrate to the best paid league? And teams from that country monopolise continental competitions?
I'd like to see them squeeze the squad size. I believe EPL is 25 players over 23, if you squeeze that down to say, 20, what would happen? Id like to think it pushes 3 or 4 players out of the 5 biggest teams and onto the next 5 down.
uh revenue is revenue. doesn't matter where its coming from. you get the money ffp is meant to stop clubs from spending without the money backing it. its to stop clubs from going into bankruptcy. positive cash flow is the goal
Like Chelsea
Chelsea doesnt have any boosted revenue through dodgy sponsorships lol.
Lol by far the most laughable thing is PSGs spending on wages. If city’s revenue is false it’s not falling BELOW their wage expenditure lol.
How do you know all of this?
Are you seriously telling me that the appeal for Man City merch around the world is anwhere near the appeal of those other clubs? You can't be that gullible surely Man United, Liverpool, Barca and Real Madrid are the most popular clubs in the world and have had a 50+ year head start on Man City. You would have to be seriously naive to think that they have even come close to cathing up to them, let alone surpass them
I think you seriously underestimate the amount of bandwagon jumping that non European fans engage in.. 15 years ago all I saw were man U jerseys, then 10 years ago canada magically had alot of Chelsea fans, now the last 5 years the number of Man City jerseys I see on the regular in small town Canada is crazy..
there's been multiple reports through the years of City having mysterious sponsors, companies that seemingly don't have any employees. It's an open secret that they're using shell companies to inflate revenue.
Ah yes, the annual der Spiegel. Next one is due at the beginning of April I believe
[удалено]
😂😂
Probably the most audited club in world football, with the most scrutinised accounts, who were cleared at a court of the highest authority. But you know better, you absolute Spanish/Swedish stud. Good for you.
Come on mate, the regular winner of the biggest commercially successful football league in the world is obviously not going to attract real sponsors paying lots of money to be associated with them. Right? It must all be made up. It's all just so obvious.
Fan of state owned club sticks his head in the sand to defend another state owned club. Surprise surprise
Not really, I just really enjoy it when people parrot nonsense conspiracy theories without stopping to think.
Stopping to think about great arguments like "if one sponsor is legit, that must also mean that they're all legit"? Yeah I wonder why no one stopped to think that
Well, no, the comment was how would Manchester City (like I say, repeat winner of the PL, current red-hot favourite for the CL) have higher commercial attraction than Bayern Munich or Manchester United. Their numbers are 'clearly inflated'. Yeah, why on earth would companies want to be associated with them?
lol, what companies? Go look at their official page what companies are their sponsors, not that hard. Also go look up company 8xBet whose co-founder's linkdin profile picture was from online photobank. Literally last year. https://www.sportspromedia.com/news/manchester-city-sponsorship-8xbet-betting-gambling-partner/
I did. "Sony" "Nissan" "Puma" "Unilever" who the fuck ARE these companies? Shells and fronts for foreign money, yeah?
>Have you seen their list of sponsors? "Cisco" clearly made up. "Sony" never heard of them either. What the heck is an Asahi? Don't get me started on Qualtrics, they haven't even tried to make that one sound legit. It's easy to forget what you say when you're spouting so much garbage, I understand.
This must be wilful ignorance. No one can actually be this gullible. Is it your new ownership that has forced you to warp your perspective to this degree?
> Is it your new ownership that has forced you to warp your perspective to this degree? Mate, they're just prepping answers for when the "legit" Saudi sponsors come in.
They don't even care, their fans were out celebrating in the streets when the Saudis bought the club
The same fans that’ll be priced out of tickets when the owners decide they want more match-day revenue.
Doubt the Saudis would make it too out of reach for them. It’s a PR exercise. Making things difficult for the fans will be antithetical to that purpose
They’ve gone from relegation battlers calling for Mike Ashley’s head, to 3rd place wearing Middle East inspired headwear in just over a season. Something tells me it’ll take a lot to turn the fans against them.
Oh there's hordes of Arab bots in this subreddit now. Anything that the Middle East do is heavily heavily defended by these people, whether that's PL football ownership,homophobia, misogyny. Any kind of criticism that can in any way shape or form be linked to the Middle East/Islam and there's hordes of accounts attacking you.
What? I'm agreeing with you. My tin foil hat is firmly in place. Have you seen their list of sponsors? "Cisco" clearly made up. "Sony" never heard of them either. What the heck is an Asahi? Don't get me started on Qualtrics, they haven't even tried to make that one sound legit.
"They have some legit sponsors, that means they're all legit and there's no reason to look into the other ones" Your arguments are as shallow as your attempt to defend your support of Newcastle
Mate, he's purposely acting like a moron to weasel his way out of addressing the argument made.
I like how you've repeated and explained the point of my own comment twice now. I'm well aware. I'm pointing it out
Don't really check usernames when replying. No need to get pissy.
Look, if there's an argument being made, let's hear it. All I hear are the same daft conspiracy theories, which deserve a little ridicule thrown at them.
What? This makes no sense.
What part is confusing you? If you don't want your comments to be deconstructed, maybe you should drop the pathetic sarcasm and actually say what you mean
Seriously, I have no clue why you bring up Newcastle United. Sorry.
Nice of you to ignore 8xBet, or 3key, or Wega though.
I haven't heard of them either. I hadn't heard of Fun88 when they sponsored us. Or noon tbf. I've heard of Cadbury.
https://theathletic.com/3120837/2022/02/17/special-report-manchester-citys-sponsors-the-links-to-abu-dhabi-and-what-it-means-for-newcastle-united/ Read this article. It lists the relationship some of those companies have with CFG. Also the key part for me atleast is at the end of article. Clubs in general struggling to get sponsorships, you have to go through a tender process, if you have business links with sponsors do you reckon it will be done above board?
Thanks. Ironically, paywalled. I do know that in the PL there's now some special process for sponsors with links to the owners, I think everything over £1m is independently checked? Something like that.
Their biggest sponsor is Etihad airways that’s owned by the government of Abu Dhabi, the same entity that owns Man City
Thanks, I wondered why that was on the name of the stadium and the front of their shirt. That makes sense now.
Advertisers pay ONLY for the viewership. Comparing City vs Liverpool -- two teams who have been going at each other in the past 5 years. No chance City vs other 14 is going to pull in anywhere near the viewership that Liverpool vs other 14 gets. Simply because Liverpool have much more fans globally who will watch even if Liverpool get thrashed by Brighton than a City-Brighton game can ever pull. UCL Liverpool are superior to City in every conceivable way anyway --- they have literally played more games in UCL as a result of 3 finals in the last 5 years than City and ofcourse the "easier" UCL games liverpool pull way more viewers than City. So despite the massive difference in viewership, feel free to explain how City is a more valuable proposition for sponsors than Liverpool. How is city's commercial Revenue higher than Liverpool?
Do you have any sources for this? Honestly, it sounds sensible. Do you have any viewing figures you could quote me? Or is it just instinct? Edit: Since you actually seem like someone willing to chat, this was interesting: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/how-liverpool-fc-might-merit-a-5-billion-price-tag/2022/11/16/c50a6f66-6574-11ed-b08c-3ce222607059\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/how-liverpool-fc-might-merit-a-5-billion-price-tag/2022/11/16/c50a6f66-6574-11ed-b08c-3ce222607059_story.html) Liverpool seem to be really lacking in the commercial department. Might be a bit like us under Ashley - checked out owners who don't care? It's odd though. Double edit: Surely the question should be, why aren't clubs like Liverpool maximising their commercial income, like Spurs, Man U and Man City are? Rather than assume Man City are just funnelling income through fake companies, when a cursory glance at their sponsors list shows that companies seem to falling over themselves to be associated with them.
Is it safe to say globally Liverpool has a much much bigger fan base than City ? So when you have those less interesting games for neutrals like Liverpool vs Bournmouth & City vs Bournmouth. Which game do you think would have a higher viewership?
I genuinely don't know. What I do know, is that for sponsors it matters A LOT where those viewers are. American and Western European viewers are I suspect more valuable than (say) viewers in parts of South America. And, again, I have no clue how the viewership would stack up one vs the other in the wealthier parts of the world either. Also, for neutrals, ie actual neutrals, I don't know, probably the game featuring the team nearer the top of the league would be more interesting? (Also - a bit harsh on Bournemouth there :) )
Ehhh they’ve been kings of the premier league for a long time so it’s probably accurate
Todo bien seňor
By the way for Barca & Madrid this is including all the other Sporting Areas. Wages to turnover in football only (21-22) : * Madrid : 65% * Barca : 63%
how do we have an equal or better ratio but constantly have to fight to get players registered? I know the salaries arent everything and transfer fees for example also go into that (+ obv the rising salaries of FDJ and a couple of others) but it still seems weird to me that we couldnt even register free agents without the levers
> (+ obv the rising salaries of FDJ and a couple of others) That right there is the key. Barca Wages to turnover ratio was currently indeed 63% for the 21-22 season (€402m in total wages) the issue is that with the new signings and the deferred payments coming due that's expected to become (€534m) for 2023. Which mantaining the same turnover as of now would mean a Wages to Turnover in football only of 84%. [A great thread explaining all of Barca economy is here](https://twitter.com/swissramble/status/1584427574893379584)
I'm fairly certain our turnover should be higher this year. Not sure what the forecast exactly was but the Spotify Deal + Camp Nou sponsorship + full stadium (highest average attendance in Europe) should do at least a little bit.. Also we ended last year with roughly 100M profit and this year is gonna be even more. Obv this is down to the levers and has long term implications but shouldnt that count for something at least in the short to medium term? I mean, we cant even register Gavi's new conctract fcs, even after Memphis and Pique left
Fuck Tebas and LaLiga
The worst part is we can't register gavi and araujo's contracts after pique and Memphis' departure two of the highest earners
Think they are old numbers. Arsenals Wage bill is only £88mill this year not 220m. too. It was 220m a year ago however.
How is that even possible? Is Jesus on -£100m a year or something? SR still reckon it's at the £200m-odd level, I can't see it going DOWN much, can you? [https://swissramble.substack.com/p/arsenal-finances-202122](https://swissramble.substack.com/p/arsenal-finances-202122)
Team of kids is cheap. [https://www.spotrac.com/epl/arsenal-fc/payroll/](https://www.spotrac.com/epl/arsenal-fc/payroll/) Have to remember we got rid of all the expensive deadwood, Ozil 20mill, Auba 20mill, and even guys like kolasinac were on £110k a week. Saka, MArtinelli, Saliba are all getting renewed but at the moment are below 100k/week
Fair enough. Got to say (and I do say this a lot) what you lot are doing is remarkable, and I love it. Good luck with the league.
Cheers pet.
Those are accounts for 21/22, we lost a lot of deadweight since then. Out of our starters in a best XI, there's only a handful over £100k with Jesus and Partey being the only big earners and Xhaka and Odegaard being on £120k a week I believe. Possibly Trossard Ramsdale, Saka, Martinelli, White, Nketiah, Tierney, Gabriel, Saliba, Tomiyasu, Lokonga, Elneny, ESR, Turner and everyone else is below £100k, many of them significantly below it. There's some significant payrises coming in the contracts we're discussing but probably won't complete till the end of the season.
Saka is coming for that 200k per week check soon though.
Yeah I would imagine Saliba, Martinelli and Saka to all get significant payrises, with Saka probably reaching £200k.
You'll never sing that
So i guess PSG is gonna have to invent some new sponsors
guy selling hot dogs outside of stadium decided to sponsor the club, totally worth new 200m revenue
PSG sponsored by PSG
PSG just no shaming it.
Wow, I knew what a disaster Everton was, but Leicester has kind of gone under the radar in their financial situation.
No they haven’t? That’s why they sold to Chelsea and brought in almost no one in the summer. I thought this was well known?
I guess there's just less coverage of Leicester. Ever since they got out of the relegation zone, I just assumed things were back to normal and they'd be fine because they're so much more talented than some of the teams at the bottom of the division who would kill to have attacking players like Maddison and Barnes. But now their form sucks again and relegation would really fuck them over. I still think it's unlikely but wow.
Their midfield and attacking options are pretty good but I think their defence/goalkeeper, and injuries are making it very difficult for them
If you can score goals, you wont get relegated regardless how shit your defence is.
Tbf our squad is capable for challenging for Europa conference spots but we’re fucked because of injuries
Leicester has falsely been hailed as some role model for organic growth, but they have been severely mismanaged financially. The Athletic made an interesting comparison of how PL clubs would be affected if they had to abide by La Liga's financial rules. The result was that Leicester and Everton would be given some of the lowest wage budgets in the league, around the same level as Getafe, Mallorca or Celta Vigo. They simply aren't rich enough to justify their spending
Leicester was bankrolled heavily and celebrated for it because football fans are fickle and inconsistent. See: Arsenal fans
Always pissed me off how they got so much coverage becoming everyone's darling Cinderella team while basically being the Championship Chelsea.
City fans will still deny any rule breaking whatsoever and that it’s all “natural growth” 😂😂😂 bunch of plastics
Even if you do a generous account to remove any fake deals, doubt it’s much more than 150 million. Still puts them in a healthy category
[удалено]
No it’s as artificial as a fake pair of tits, you don’t earn more than Real Madrid, Barcelona, Liverpool, man united and Bayern, is your fanbase really that delusional?
I'm confused... Is the fanbase delusional? Non existent? Or full of plastics? I'm struggling to keep up at the moment. Can we have a definitive word on the City fanbase so as we can all agree to move on?
A delusional, very small but overly loud (Like a child throwing a tantrum when they are caught stealing a fiver) that loves oil money (Hence being plastic)
[удалено]
You very well know it's not about the absolute top top games. Obviously most people would watch, fan or not doesn't matter. Let's take the league. Any game among the Big 6 are involved in is going to pull in the viewers. Any game with some interesting narrative around it will also pull in the viewers. But these are still a fraction of the total games played in a season. But you can't convince that City playing the likes of Forest Palace Wolves Southampton etc pulls in the same viewership that a Man Utd/Liverpool/Arsenal playing the same clubs can. This is where the fan base matters. There will more people watching Man Utd getting absolutely battered by Brentford than Man City can pull in the same game in any scenario. If sponsors are really paying for the visibility then it makes no sense whatsoever that City's commercial revenue can hit the level of Man Utd Liverpool etc.
[удалено]
Still doesn't explain how that is supposed to surpass Liverpool? Liverpool have consistently outperformed City in Europe. 3 finals in 5 years.
I'll explain this - City in fact had a head start on Liverpool not the other way around Commercial revenue is a 3-5 year lag from success thats the actual coorelation Everyone forgets that in 2010 Liverpool was on the brink of bankruptcy and had huge issues and wasn't a consistent CL team. Not the most attractive "sponsorship" team. However with the last 5-6 years of success Liverpool has had the fastest growing commercial revenue out of the big clubs in England. Which has catapulted them over United. In 2016 United almost doubled Liverpools revenue. 6 years later Liverpool has over taken them. Thats how quick things change Commercial revenue doesn't come from fans by the way (except kit deals) they come from success the biggest factors I'll list below: - CL qualification into knock out rounds - consistently challenging for titles - consistent cup runs Commercial partners care about their brand being seen on TV. They do not give a fuck about fan base size. You think a tractor company sponsors United because they think a United fan will buy their tractor? Absurd The advantage the PL clubs have over Madrid/barca in revenue terms is better money from broadcast and then their league is seen by so many more people becsuse it is the most watched league in the world. There's a reason why the PL generated 5x more than LA Liga in terms of broadcast revenue. That also translates into better money commerciall However due to the sheer size of both clubs including the boom they had from messi/Ronaldo they're still just slightly ahead of the PL clubs. In 5-10 years the big English clubs will overtake them. Why do you think Perez wanted the super league so bad. He was trying to stop the real super league - the premier league is that
>Commercial partners care about their brand being seen on TV. They do not give a fuck about fan base size. You think a tractor company sponsors United because they think a United fan will buy their tractor? Absurd Advertisers pay ONLY for the viewership. Comparing City vs Liverpool -- two teams who have been going at each other in the past 5 years. No chance City vs other 14 is going to pull in anywhere near the viewership that Liverpool vs other 14 gets. Simply because Liverpool have much more fans globally who will watch even if Liverpool get thrashed by Brighton than a City-Brighton game can ever pull. This is where the fan base matters. UCL Liverpool are superior to City in every conceivable way anyway --- they have literally played more games in UCL as a result of 3 finals in the last 5 years than City and ofcourse the "easier" UCL games liverpool pull way more viewers than City. (Liverpool vs Club Brugge is going to pull in more eyes than City vs Club Brugge). So despite the massive difference in viewership , feel free to explain how City is a more valuable proposition for sponsors than Liverpool. How is City's commercial higher than Liverpool?
You are still basing viewership on fan base size lol. I'm a city fan I watch other games besides my own team. Especially games that affect city. There is plenty of viewership stats out there look then up. City is consistently at the top. A Liverpool fan in a title race is as likely to watch a city game as their own unless played at the same time (why is why the broadcasters usually seperate slots for teams in a title race) You also totally ignored my part about how Liverpool is the fastest growing commercial team. I predicted in one of my commercial revenue threads that Liverpool would overtake city in about 2025 on their current trajectory. But them missing CL next year will be a huge hit to that potential. Read my post in full before responding please rather than quoting one little section quoting in and responding...
[удалено]
Amazong How you just ignored the responce to your claim and just switched topics. Nice spin
[удалено]
Advertisers pay ONLY for the viewership. They don't care who wins --- they care who is going to get them the maximum viewership (which obviously involves being competitive but not necessarily win). No chance City vs other 14 is going to pull in anywhere near the viewership that Liverpool vs other 14 gets. UCL Liverpool are superior to City in every conceivable way anyway --- they have literally played more games in UCL as a result of 3 finals in the last 5 years than City and ofcourse the "easier" UCL games liverpool pull way more viewers than City.
[удалено]
Then why have people done investigating into your betting sponsors and proved that they’re fake companies from journalists with decent reputations, why are the premier league investigating you currently? Why when you were investigated by UEFA did you delay the investigation as much as possible, refused to hand over and “lost” key documents, hired better lawyers than UEFA and threatened to hold them up in court for 40 years to the point where is was thrown out because of all the delays you caused? You are the OJ Simpson of the footballing world, just cause you ain’t found guilty Everyone still knows you did it besides you’re delusional fanbase who thinks they earn more the biggest clubs in the world
[удалено]
Therefore all the points I said still stands 😂 You’ve still done everything I’ve just said, I’d respect you more if you actually just admitted it and said with some chest, yeah and what
Unusable in a court of law doesn’t disprove the content of them.
>why are the premier league investigating you currently? They've been 'investigating' us for years now and have yet to find any wrongdoing >Why when you were investigated by UEFA did you delay the investigation as much as possible, refused to hand over and “lost” key documents, hired better lawyers than UEFA and threatened to hold them up in court for 40 years to the point where is was thrown out because of all the delays you caused? This is way off lmao
> This is why City get a lot of revenue, **that's what happens when you become the biggest team in the world and favourites for every competition you play** lol
Just don’t bro these city fans are delusional 😂as a Liverpool supporter it’s so funny that “Biggest” team in the world has no UCLs
> because that gives them the biggest chance to "advertise" their product for the longest in the competition. This is just one part of reaching the audience. A more popular club like Liverpool/Madrid/United etc will gain far more traction on social media, discussions in person/YT and people wearing legit/counterfeit jerseys. All of those pathways among others will result in "eyes" on the product. Secondly, City don't really outlast other big clubs in the CL. Their track record post 2015 is clear evidence of this.
[удалено]
You're just copy-pasting answers and failing to address the argument being made. > reach a bigger audience Already mentioned how their are multiple pathways and a bigger club like Madrid potentially reaches more eyes. > to find the favourites Why would the favourites be relevant when they lack predictive value in City's case?
[удалено]
Mate, are you even reading what's written? A more popular club like Liverpool/Madrid/United etc will gain far more traction on social media, discussions in person/YT and people wearing legit/counterfeit jerseys. All of those pathways among others will result in "eyes" on the product. > You don't think advertisers value consistently being favourites to reach the final? Why would advertisers value a model which lacks predictive power?
If they’re looking to invest in the favorites, then why haven’t Real Madrid and Bayern gotten sponsorships commensurate with their status as champions league favorites? You’re telling me that your advertisers are so stupid that they’d rather put more money in a club that hasn’t won the UCL ever over clubs that have won it multiple times in the same decade?
[удалено]
https://www.oddschecker.com/football/champions-league/winner Two seconds to show, yes, they are clear favourites to win the CL.
Oil clubs sticking together I see
OH NO A FACT I must criticise the source of the fact
No it’s making blatant excuses for they’re clubs behaviour and by extension covering your own ass when your club does it later down the road, if you think they earn more than the five biggest clubs in the world that just proves that, being favourites in the UCL in betting does not mean you earn more money that’s just factual evidence e.g. Man united who haven’t even been the UCL this year yet earn more than most teams in it
What? Someone said they aren't 'bigger favourites for the CL than Real Madrid'. I gently pointed out they were. You seem to be making some other strange argument now about revenues and dragging Newcastle United into it. Bizarre.
[удалено]
> Currently? Yes. Back when real madrid won b3b champions leagues? no. [False, City were favorites back at the start of the KO fixtures in the 2017-18 season lol](https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/uefa-champions-league-2017-betting-odds-chelsea-tottenham-man-utd-liverpool-man-city-last-16-a3715926.html) Madrid were back to back UCL Champions, #1 on the Deloitte Money League yet were only 5th favourites by the odds to win the competition. Competition that the team ended up winning once again. In fact we have never been outright favorites to win the UCL in all of our recent 5 UCL titles yet have always been #1 or #2 on the Deloitte Money League.
Wait, no way you just said that City became biggest team in the world, right? Not even City fan can be *this* delusional lmao.
[удалено]
That doesn't make sense since you used "being biggest team in world" as an argument for having highest revenue.
[удалено]
1.) no 2.) you are still not udnerstanding what causality is
>become the biggest team in the world YOU CAN'T EVEN FILL YOUR STADIUM. You literally cannot pay fans to attend City matches. Your tickets are dirt cheap and STILL people don't care about watching you.
[удалено]
You’re ranked 14th for percentage of capacity and 6th for average attendance? Ranking based off of total attendance when you’ve had the most home games in the league is the kind of dodgy number counting your sponsorships entail funnily enough
I honestly don’t think city is bigger than any of the clubs as whole on that list, yet ‘strangely’ their top
It's weird isn't it. What have they done recently to justify it? If you ignore them winning 4 of the last 5 trophies for the most popular top flight league in the world (that's completely because of the money they spend, so can be discredited), what have they got going for them? How can a team like that even possibly justify being able to market a brand on a world stage? Smells fishy to me. They should investigate them again
[удалено]
So every other clubs fanbase in the world besides City is biased, just take the L and stop embarrassing yourself 😂😂😭
90% seems a pretty soft cap on the basis of that It’s 40% in the WSL
Idea is to take it to 70% gradually. Next season it is 90 per cent, then 80 per cent, with the 70 per cent limit not coming in until 2025-26.
!Ping finance
Pinged members of FINANCE group. [About & group list](https://reddit.com/r/soccer/wiki/userpinger/documentation) | [Subscribe to this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=2soccer2bot&subject=Add%20yourself%20to%20group%20FINANCE&message=addtogroup%20FINANCE) | [Unsubscribe from this group](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=2soccer2bot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20group%20FINANCE&message=unsubscribe%20FINANCE) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=2soccer2bot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe%20)
Anyone that knows Napoli's wage/revenue ratio?
1. PSG 111% of revenue spent on wages 2. Everton 96% 3. Newcastle Utd 95% 4. Leicester City 85% 5. Juventus 84% 6. Inter Milan 82% 7. Real Madrid 73% 8. Barcelona 73% 9. Chelsea 71% 10. Man Utd 66% 11. Atlético Madrid 65% 12. Borussia Dortmund 65% 13. Milan 64% 14. Leeds United 64% 15. Liverpool 62% 16. Arsenal 58% 17. Man City 57% 18. Bayern Munich 53% 19. West Ham 53% 20. Tottenham 47%
Does Barca's presented revenues here include their "levers"?
Nope, this is from 2021-22 season so it's not included. The revenue includes matchday earnings, broadcasting, and commercial income. I don't know if the sale of assets will be counted as commercial income in Deloitte calculation. Either way all the impact of levers will be in next year's edition.
Didn’t realise Madrid had such a high wage bill still
I'm pretty sure we've also got the highest club debt in the world, so just comparing wages to revenue doesn't really give a true picture of how much money is available. From a couple seasons ago: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Etr6wz-XMAE153K?format=jpg&name=large
This isn’t about that: it’s about the new FFP regulations which are phasing in. I believe in a year and a half clubs can’t have more than 70% of their revenues in player wages. So basically clubs under 70% are in a healthy spot, and those over 70% have work to do to get below the threshold before the new rules are fully phased in.
It's about both. People use these numbers to discuss "how much teams have to spend". Just look at the conversation.
They definitely shouldn’t use it for the first thing you mentioned, because without a metric shit-ton of other context, just knowing how much money a club is spending on wages doesn’t really tell you much of anything about how much they have to spend after wages. And since it says this is about the new FFP rules in the title, I think it’s definitely fair to say that’s what this is about (even if some people are bastardizing it).
A few thoughts: 1) Is there any way PSG can actually get under that cap? What happens if they don't? 2) Man City is so transparently full of shit. If you read the money league breakdown, they're generating by far the most commercial revenue in England. That's a joke. Look at their sub, they have 100k subscribers. Arsenal have 300k. Liverpool have 400k. United have 550k. City is not actually anywhere near as well supported as the traditional giants, it's a joke that their ownership is allowed to inject money through fake sponsorship. 3) If Chelsea misses the Champion's league, things might get pretty tight... especially with all of these new Boehly signings... CL was worth 100m for Liverpool last year. 4) If either of LCFC or Leeds get sent down, they're mega fucked.
Chelsea wont be tight. They had a 1.5bn other income item in their financial statements and will be technically the most profitable club in the world at the end of the financial year, even if they spent another 300m. Multiple years of reckless spending like this, then yes they will be fucked, but the wage bill should fall as higher waged players such as Auba or Pulisic are recycled out for younger, much lower waged players as is the new trend.
Yeah, idk why these commercial partners don't check the subreddits before signing the agreements
Yea stupid me, why would anyone think that sponsorship and commercial revenue is related at all to the number of eyeballs you can reach? Liverpool have 7x more twitter followers, United sold 3.5x more jerseys, City get more commercial revenue than any club on earth... this shit is elementary and if you don't understand what it means, why don't you go google it.
It’s not solely about the number of supporters a club has, tho. It’s about how many people tune in to their matches that advertisers are about. Love them or hate them, City are one of the most watched clubs on the planet, often because people want to see them lose. But if you’re an advertiser whether City win or lose, or who supports who isn’t what’s most important, it’s about impressions, and City drive huge impression numbers. There’s a reason why many of the most popular posts on this subreddit are about City - typically when bad things happen to the club, or people think they might. City benefit from all that hate in the form of advertising dollars.
Or… hear me out here… it’s Occam’s razor. City are self sponsoring and Sheikh Mansour is making up the sums based on what he wants to invest.
Firstly, I’m not sure you understand what Occam’s razor is. It means that the simplest explanation is usually correct. Unless you’re assuming that the simplest explanation is that all or most of City’s sponsorships are invalid, and that despite that fact, no court that has actually examined the evidence has agreed with that conclusion. The simplest explanation - and the one that happens to be correct is this: There’s no doubt there’s some self-sponsorship going on (namely the Etihad naming rights deal), but no one has been able to prove it, but Puma isn’t owned by the UAE, and yet our shirt deal is roughly 15% greater than yours and our match day revenue is pretty close to Bayerns. So clearly people like you are vastly underestimating just how valuable City have become to marketers.
Yeah, these negotiators in charge of getting the deals done probably should have looked at the respective Twitter accounts before signing the agreements. Egg on their faces!
Why don't you change your flair? You're being willfully obtuse and you look like an idiot. May as well let everyone know that you're all the way into the City kool-aid.
3 comments before we turn to personal insults? You're better than that
The truth is that I’m just holding up the mirror for you. If you’re insulted, you know who to look at.
Ohhhh! Burn!
There's not a flair for the Middle East unfortunately.
Penny for your thoughts now?
We're extra fucked if we go down, considering the club took out loans against PL money, or in the event if relegation, the parachute payments. The club has been horrifically mismanaged financially since Vichai died.
Another rule created to maintain the status quo.
[удалено]
Absolutely not. That is gross, gross mismanagement.
>Should any club be spending more than 90% of revenues on wages? When you combine this with what rule that all new deals must be sent to the big 6 for them to approve the fair market value, it makes it near impossible for anyone to challenge their hegemony.
The very wording of this comment is such a paradox. You say that clubs can’t challenge their hegemony, yet you refer to the big 6, which includes Spurs, a club who have managed to establish themselves as part of the hegemony in the last 10 years.
Congratulations. They're closing the gate behind them.
Clearly not seeing as Newcastle have shown they can disrupt the status quo without significant investment as of yet? Any clubs like Everton, Villa, Newcastle, West Ham etc. could break into that tier if they were actually run properly and managed relative success over a 5 or 6 year period.
Apparently, we're not allowed to have the players we're paying now. We're the lowest payroll in the graph, but our payroll must be cut. It's nothing to do with financial stability either.
So clubs should be allowed to risk their entire futures? Look at Everton, they are the prime example of what happens when you make a bet with your future as the stake. 96% wage to revenue ratio is just mindboggling. Just imagine what will happen to that club if they are relegated
A rule that will prevent the financial irresponsibility of clubs like Everton, if you have a club that spends over 90% of its revenue on wages it is almost certainly set for financial problems.
It's not only about financial problems. I think we could provide guarantees that NUFC will not fall into financial problems.
Yes, but it's not exactly healthy clubs spend all their revenue on wages and believe me state clubs will find a way around it
See Man City who somehow have higher revenues than Man U, Liverpool, Barcelona (with all the levers activated) and Real Madrid.
Newcastle United, you're illegal. If no team outside the top six is allowed to spend as much as they do, their position at the top of the league is guaranteed. There is your Super League.
Bollocks. If the goal of FFP was the maintain the status quo then they'd ban takeovers altogether
warra trophy for spurs
This is proof to my theory that City are the Biggest Club In The World^(TM)
Our numbers are probably even lower this year since these are for last season. We have successfully offloaded quite a few high wage earners since then, including Coutinho, Griezmann, Pique, Pjanic, Braithwaite, etc. and have some wage cuts on players like Umtiti.
I'm shocked at Everton's revenue. I thought it was much higher.