Premier League Club Accounts

[elltrev]

The figures are clearly wrong; for one thing the TV and broadcasting figures are the same as the commercial figures!

I think the total revenue figures are probably right. And once again, they show just how warped the league is thanks to Champions League. Man United earning 240m more than Villa, the biggest non-CL team? Insanity.

 

[Spursalot]

The figures are clearly wrong; for one thing the TV and broadcasting figures are the same as the commercial figures!

I think the total revenue figures are probably right. And once again, they show just how warped the league is thanks to Champions League. Man United earning 240m more than Villa, the biggest non-CL team? Insanity.

I would say less then half of that is due to the CL though, the majority is through sponsorships, match day turnover (which is crazy high at united somehow) and merchandising around the whole world.

 

[Notmegov]

Isn't that based on where you finish the season in the league? The higher up the table you are, the more Sky money you get?

Its also to do with the amount of times your games are shown live, thus we earned a higher amount than Ars*** .

 

[elltrev]

I would say less then half of that is due to the CL though, the majority is through sponsorships, match day turnover (which is crazy high at united somehow) and merchandising around the whole world.

But all of those things are in part because of United's sustained success and permanent place in the CL, which is in part because of their high revenue, etc etc. A vicious circle of success and money.

Still, United are an extreme example, and I accept what you're saying. That's why I personally think there should be a limit on Sponsorship deal values and a 'tax' on gate receipts over a certain amount that goes to local community projects.

 

[Spursalot]

But all of those things are in part because of United's sustained success and permanent place in the CL, which is in part because of their high revenue, etc etc. A vicious circle of success and money.

Still, United are an extreme example, and I accept what you're saying. That's why I personally think there should be a limit on Sponsorship deal values and a 'tax' on gate receipts over a certain amount that goes to local community projects.

So you want to punish them for being successful?

 

[billyiddo]

So you want to punish them for being successful?

how much success would United have had if it wasn't for the FA & EPL ? i think a tax on successful clubs would be a fantastic idea, provided it went back in to the game at a roots level

it's no different to a higher tax rate for people earning over a certain amount in their wages ?

 

[Spursalot]

how much success would United have had if it wasn't for the FA & EPL ? i think a tax on successful clubs would be a fantastic idea, provided it went back in to the game at a roots level

it's no different to a higher tax rate for people earning over a certain amount in their wages ?

A football club is a company, they already pay taxes.

 

[Totting Them Up]

A football club is a company, they already pay taxes.

Not if you're Glasgow Rangers you don't.

 

[elltrev]

So you want to punish them for being successful?

Argghh, I hate it when people say things like this. It wouldn't be punishing them. It would be reducing their reward, to a level that wouldn't be so astronomically out of kilter with most of the other Premier League teams (as it is now).

 

[Spursalot]

Argghh, I hate it when people say things like this. It wouldn't be punishing them. It would be reducing their reward, to a level that wouldn't be so astronomically out of kilter with most of the other Premier League teams (as it is now).

Reducing the reward that they legitimately earned is a punishment, no matter what way you try to look at it.


They have earned the right as a club to be out of kilter with most other Premier League clubs.

 

[elltrev]

Reducing the reward that they legitimately earned is a punishment, no matter what way you try to look at it.

There's probably no point continuing the discussion because we're not going to agree! For me, football is a sport first and foremost, and a key foundation of sport should be a degree of equal competition. United have benefitted from beginning a period of success at a time when football was becoming increasingly televised and globalised. The subsequent increase in revenue has played a big part in them being able to sustain that success, which has helped them to increase their revenue even further, etc etc.

Do you honestly have no problem with them earning ?ú331m and Aston Villa, the richest team out of the 'top 6', earning ?ú92m? ?ú239m more every season?

We're not going to agree, because I'd imagine you're relatively right-wing in general, and place more importance on freedom (to be more specific, the idea of being able to keep whatever you've earned in the free market as long as it's legal) than you do on egalatarianism. In politics and economics that's fair enough, but in a sport I don't know how people can be fine with such huge disparities. I'm not talking about making every single team's revenue the same, I'm just talking about trying to bring the top 6 clubs more in line with the pattern of the rest of the league.

The Champions League creates a cycle whereby a bit of initial success gives teams a substantial increase in revenue which helps them to have a virtual oligopoly on success.

 

[P.D.]

I would say less then half of that is due to the CL though, the majority is through sponsorships, match day turnover (which is crazy high at united somehow) and merchandising around the whole world.

Erm they do pull in 76,000 every game, not really surprising and I bet their corporate areas are over subscribed for every game

 

[Spursalot]

Erm they do pull in 76,000 every game, not really surprising and I bet their corporate areas are over subscribed for every game

Yeah but United made 109m from match day revenues..


City have a capacity of 47,000 and only made 20m from their games. granted their stadium may not always be full, but it is at least half the attendance of United.. Yet only 1/5 of the revenue?


Those are some pretty insane corporate areas...

 

[jimmyb]

Yeah but United made 109m from match day revenues..


City have a capacity of 47,000 and only made 20m from their games. granted their stadium may not always be full, but it is at least half the attendance of United.. Yet only 1/5 of the revenue?


Those are some pretty insane corporate areas...

Have to remember that, since the Glazers bought Utd, they have put up ticket prices massively so that they can help to pay off the Glazers' debts to the tune of ?ú60 million per annum.

City's owners, on the other hand, have gone the other way - keeping tickets cheap or even reducing them - because they can afford to, obviously, while still spending hundreds of millions on new signings and player wages.

 

[Spursalot]

There's probably no point continuing the discussion because we're not going to agree! For me, football is a sport first and foremost, and a key foundation of sport should be a degree of equal competition. United have benefitted from beginning a period of success at a time when football was becoming increasingly televised and globalised. The subsequent increase in revenue has played a big part in them being able to sustain that success, which has helped them to increase their revenue even further, etc etc.

Do you honestly have no problem with them earning ?ú331m and Aston Villa, the richest team out of the 'top 6', earning ?ú92m? ?ú239m more every season?

We're not going to agree, because I'd imagine you're relatively right-wing in general, and place more importance on freedom (to be more specific, the idea of being able to keep whatever you've earned in the free market as long as it's legal) than you do on egalatarianism. In politics and economics that's fair enough, but in a sport I don't know how people can be fine with such huge disparities. I'm not talking about making every single team's revenue the same, I'm just talking about trying to bring the top 6 clubs more in line with the pattern of the rest of the league.

The Champions League creates a cycle whereby a bit of initial success gives teams a substantial increase in revenue which helps them to have a virtual oligopoly on success.

Football is a business first and foremost.


I honestly don't have an issue with the amount they earn in comparison to other teams. They have been successful and have made the money legitimately.

Honestly, i have no idea whether or not i am 'right wing' or 'egalawhatever' because i don't tend to follow politics. I make up my own mind on each issue after reviewing everything i can find on it.


Sport is not fair. Money drives every single sport. Why do people try to win at tennis, or golf, or any other sport? The winners in whatever sport you go and find will make the most money, they will then be able to buy the best coaches/equipment to help them progress in said sport. I see absolutely no difference in what is happening in football, to what is happening in the majority of the sports around the world. The only professional sports i see a difference in is those that have applied a salary cap, which is fair enough because it is workable if you introduced it early enough in the sport.


You want to take away a percentage of Uniteds finances, what if they are using those resources to pay off loans, or to pay their players, or to do all sorts of other things? You would be penalising them for making money, something that i have not seen in any other sport around the world. So there is no precedence.

 

[Spursalot]

Have to remember that, since the Glazers bought Utd, they have put up ticket prices massively so that they can help to pay off the Glazers' debts to the tune of ?ú60 million per annum.

City's owners, on the other hand, have gone the other way - keeping tickets cheap or even reducing them - because they can afford to, obviously, while still spending hundreds of millions on new signings and player wages.

Ah, that is true, but i think the disparity between ticket prices would have to be pretty massive to account for a 1/5 revenue stream.. I disagree with the way the Glazers have gone about things, but United fans obviously aren't too bothered. Do they still go to games? Have you seen word of any protests? Things are worth what people will pay for them...



Cities owners have gone the other way, yes. But that is because money is no object to them. It is merely an insignificance. But i think that's a different discussion...

 

[elltrev]

Football is a business first and foremost.


I honestly don't have an issue with the amount they earn in comparison to other teams. They have been successful and have made the money legitimately.

Honestly, i have no idea whether or not i am 'right wing' or 'egalawhatever' because i don't tend to follow politics. I make up my own mind on each issue after reviewing everything i can find on it.


Sport is not fair. Money drives every single sport. Why do people try to win at tennis, or golf, or any other sport? The winners in whatever sport you go and find will make the most money, they will then be able to buy the best coaches/equipment to help them progress in said sport. I see absolutely no difference in what is happening in football, to what is happening in the majority of the sports around the world. The only professional sports i see a difference in is those that have applied a salary cap, which is fair enough because it is workable if you introduced it early enough in the sport.


You want to take away a percentage of Uniteds finances, what if they are using those resources to pay off loans, or to pay their players, or to do all sorts of other things? You would be penalising them for making money, something that i have not seen in any other sport around the world. So there is no precedence.

Perhaps I should have said "For me, football should be a sport first and foremost". Do you think football should be a business first and foremost?

The difference with tennis and golf, to use your examples, is that earning money doesn't make anywhere near as much of a difference to your chances of winning as it does in football. Federer and Woods have been very successful in their respective sports not because their prize money has allowed them to get better equipment and coaching, but just because they are naturally amazing. United, on the other hand, have been very successful in football in large part because their prize money allows them to buy better players than everyone else. (Of course Fergie has played a big part in their success, especially initially.)

As I said before, you evidently think of fairness mostly in terms of being allowed to keep whatever has been earned legitimately. Personally, I place more importance on equality , ESPECIALLY in sport. This fundamental difference is why left-wingers and right-wingers tend to argue forever when it comes to certain things IMO; they just prioritse a different set of values over another. Which is fair enough. But when it comes to football, I find it really difficult to understand how anyone can feel okay with the level of equality that currently exists.

You say United's earnings are legitimate, but they're only legitimate because whoever made up the current rules decided they are. In the past, clubs weren't paid money by companies who wanted to sponsor them. They weren't paid money based on how often they appeared on television. They shared their gate receipts with each other. They didn't get disproportionate prize money for finishing in the top 4. If the FA made a new rule which said that teams who finished in the top 4 would be rewarded by being allowed to field 12 players next year instead of 11, would you be okay with it? I know it's a silly example, but I'm just trying to show that playing by the rules isn't necessarily fair if the rules themselves aren't.

 

[Spursalot]

Perhaps I should have said "For me, football should be a sport first and foremost". Do you think football should be a business first and foremost?

The difference with tennis and golf, to use your examples, is that earning money doesn't make anywhere near as much of a difference to your chances of winning as it does in football. Federer and Woods have been very successful in their respective sports not because their prize money has allowed them to get better equipment and coaching, but just because they are naturally amazing. United, on the other hand, have been very successful in football in large part because their prize money allows them to buy better players than everyone else. (Of course Fergie has played a big part in their success, especially initially.)

As I said before, you evidently think of fairness mostly in terms of being allowed to keep whatever has been earned legitimately. Personally, I place more importance on equality , ESPECIALLY in sport. This fundamental difference is why left-wingers and right-wingers tend to argue forever when it comes to certain things IMO; they just prioritse a different set of values over another. Which is fair enough. But when it comes to football, I find it really difficult to understand how anyone can feel okay with the level of equality that currently exists.

You say United's earnings are legitimate, but they're only legitimate because whoever made up the current rules decided they are. In the past, clubs weren't paid money by companies who wanted to sponsor them. They weren't paid money based on how often they appeared on television. They shared their gate receipts with each other. They didn't get disproportionate prize money for finishing in the top 4. If the FA made a new rule which said that teams who finished in the top 4 would be rewarded by being allowed to field 12 players next year instead of 11, would you be okay with it? I know it's a silly example, but I'm just trying to show that playing by the rules isn't necessarily fair if the rules themselves aren't.

I'm not sure it's relevant what i think football 'should be', when anything involves money it means it is a business. Football is a sport, I'm not sure why it can't be a sport and a business, as i have previously mentioned i think all sports have an element of business. One part could not exist without the other.

You say a large part of their success is based upon financial earnings? I would dispute that, i believe a much greater part of their success has been their ability to train young footballers and integrate them into their squad. Which is exactly the 'grass roots' football policy you seem to be encouraging.

No, a different rule for the top 4 would not be fair, but this is not a different rule, it is a reward. You say that playing by the rules isn't fair? A rule that specifically targets Manchester United would be innately unfair, as it is targeting a single club. The only way this rule would be fair would be if it was a percentage of earnings from commercial revenues of every single club were taken to put into football at 'grass roots'. Which would completely defeat the point as you would be taking the money from everyone.

 

[elltrev]

I'm not sure it's relevant what i think football 'should be', when anything involves money it means it is a business. Football is a sport, I'm not sure why it can't be a sport and a business, as i have previously mentioned i think all sports have an element of business. One part could not exist without the other.

You say a large part of their success is based upon financial earnings? I would dispute that, i believe a much greater part of their success has been their ability to train young footballers and integrate them into their squad. Which is exactly the 'grass roots' football policy you seem to be encouraging.

No, a different rule for the top 4 would not be fair, but this is not a different rule, it is a reward. You say that playing by the rules isn't fair? A rule that specifically targets Manchester United would be innately unfair, as it is targeting a single club. The only way this rule would be fair would be if it was a percentage of earnings from commercial revenues of every single club were taken to put into football at 'grass roots'. Which would completely defeat the point as you would be taking the money from everyone.

Football can be and is both a sport and business; I just think the pendulum has swung too far towards the business side of things, and that the people in charge should try and reverse this.

(Although 'business' isn't really the right word; this graph - http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NXzBcaYo0...vdu9gUbVg/s400/5+Tottenham+Profit+League.jpg- shows that the large majority of the clubs make no profit. If fooball is a business, it's a pretty bricky one.)

No doubt that part of United's success has been down to a good youth policy and a great mananger , and it's very difficult to argue which factors are the most important. But United's average first XI this year cost ?ú130m, Spurs' cost ?ú52m. United's wages last season [latest figures available] were ?ú153m, Spurs' were ?ú91m. It can't be denied that this has a significant effect on the clubs' chances of success. (And don't you think the difference in money is disproportionate to the difference between the club's position in the league?)

What is the difference between a different rule and a reward, in practical terms? The rules I'm suggesting wouldn't specifically target Manchester United; they would attempt to reduce the reward of the most successful teams, in the same way that other rules introduced over recent years have increased the reward of the most successful teams.

 

[Rorschach]

City are set to miss the FFP target by some 65mil (assuming the best case scenario) for the first FFP period (2011-2013). Someone has done an analysis here which does assume a lot of things but looks reasonably credible to a layman like me. I'm not sure how accurate it is but it is interesting. Note that if they breach the rules it is the 2014/2015 season that will be affected.

Actually the 6 min vid on this site explains the FFP rules in short. It's quite good.