Arsenal down to 8th in Deloitte’s football rich list

Arsenal down to 8th in Deloitte’s football rich list

by -
65

Arsenal have slipped from 6th to 8th in Deloitte’s annual football rich list. Last season the Gunners came in 6th with revenues of €290.3m, while this season that figure has dropped to €284.3m.

For the first time, Manchester United have slipped out of the top 3, overtaken by Bayern Munich, but it was Arsenal’s match-day revenue that remained key to a place in the top 10.

deloitte1

Deloitte said: “Match-day revenue remained strong in the 2012/13 season, and was the fourth highest of any Money League club aided by the impressive facilities at the Emirates Stadium. This was in spite of the total decreasing by £2.4m (3%) to £92.8m (€108.3m) as a result of three fewer home games being played.

“Home league average attendance remained at over 60,000, and Arsenal remains the only club in the Money League top 20 for whom matchday is its largest revenue source. We are unlikely to see this repeated at Arsenal, or any other Money League club in the future.”

Deloitte acknowledge the new kit sponsorship/naming rights deal done with Emirates, but also that Arsenal have been lagging behind other clubs in terms of commercial revenue, saying, “Whilst this represents impressive growth, eight of the other top ten clubs in the Money League still boast higher commercial figures, demonstrating the potential for further revenue generation in this area.

“Renewal of the club’s kit deal, due to expire at the end of the 2013/14 season, at improved values will undoubtedly help in this regard.”

The imminent announcement of the Puma tie-up will certainly provide the commercial revenue with a boost ahead of next year’s figures, while success on the field for the rest of this season would also have an impact in terms of prize money earned through domestic and European competition.

The top 10

  • 1. Real Madrid: 518.9m euros
  • 2. Barcelona: 482.6m euros
  • 3. Bayern Munich: 431.2m euros
  • 4. Man Utd: 423.8m euros
  • 5. Paris Saint Germain; 398.8m euros
  • 6. Manchester City: 316.2m euros
  • 7. Chelsea: 303.4m euros
  • 8. Arsenal: 284.3m euros
  • 9. Juventus: 272.4m euros
  • 10. AC Milan: 263.5m euros

65 COMMENTS

  1. Take out clubs with sugar daddy’s and we’re top 5! Rather be a fan of a relatively organic club than the play thing of oil and gas barons.

    Thumb up 114 Thumb down 2

    • We would be 4th or maybe 1st. Real Madrid have the big sugar daddy in Spain! Barcelona are supported by the city, Bayern too, ManU actually might be playing at a disadvantage but are still a club run by debt. The rest are obvious.

      Thumb up 48 Thumb down 1

      • To be fair, there is nothing wrong with running a club through debt. It’s the same with many companies in various industries – they can create value for shareholders through debt.

        Thumb up 9 Thumb down 8

        • We’re in debt too. A healthy and well-managed debt can help organizations navigate resources. Healthy debt, in grossly simple terms, can come from investing money for future returns. It remains healthy when the returns can be reasonably expected, at a rate which covers the debt that must be paid every year. Basically, healthy debt = greater growth.

          Healthy debt is also what Gazidis has for breakfast, making him mention it every press conference on financials.

          Thumb up 13 Thumb down 3

    • Ask yourself though, if Arsenal were taken over by sugar daddy mega-zillionaire, would you stop supporting them? Sure it’s nice and unique to be profitable, but that kind of thing is secondary, in my feelings for the club.

      Thumb up 7 Thumb down 14

      • Arsene’s beautiful football was the convincing factor for me, as well as the homegrown policy, long-term growth, etc. etc.

        Still, for the international fans, where geography has less to do with our reasons for following Arsenal, there’s a usually larger diversity among the immediate company on football club preferences. Some of my friends are Man U fans, Chelsea fans, City fans, etc., and thankfully I am blessed to have a few Gooners among my friends as well. Now while I give the other fans as much of an earful as I can this season, I suffered for many years, where my only consolation was my high as fuck pedestal on healthy financial growth of Arsenal as opposed to the ‘cheating dirty oil bastards’ they support.

        In short, it was, sadly, important.

        Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1

        • I think it is a little short sighted to give supporters of others clubs an earful for being cornfed by an oil rich baron. Lets not forget that Kroenke is a billionaire property developer with the might of the Walton family behind him and Usmanov is in fact the richest man in Britain and one of the richest in the world – the possibility however remote of Arsenal becoming a bankrolled club is there…

          Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5

        • Right. But it hasn’t! and that makes us automatically better than some Chelski supporter right?!

          I jest, and giving my friends an earful for not being Gooners are also (for the most part) in jest. The financial point was one well worn over time though…

          Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

    • …but Arsenal are fleecing the paying supporters. Arsenal propel the myth that our most expensive season ticket is £1995; it’s not true. A seat at the halfway line (Club Level) is over £5,000. My season ticket costs £2,900 and it is due to increase in March. Imagine a burger costing £12! Arsenal has gone all corporate and supporters are now seen wholly as sources of income. Bayern one of the richest clubs has perhaps the cheapest season tickets

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  2. I would love to see how Chelsea have earned so much revenue? Whatever it is, Arsenal need a slice of the action. We have a much greater fan base worldwide and TV revenue would be almost equal.

    Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0

    • As much as it irks me as an Arsenal fan, i’m not sure that is still the case. The Chelsea fan base has soared enormously in Countries like Russia,because of Abramrovic and many parts of Africa courtesy of Drogbha, Essein and Obi Mikel in the same way Henry, Vieira and Kanu grew our fan base in that continent
      Because of football’s increasing accessibility worldwide, the window for clubs to attract new fans is getting much smaller. So naturally, many kids will levitate towards the teams that are winning trophies.

      Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1

    • Chelsea have earned their revenue by success on the pitch, especially in the CL, which they’ve won in recent years, in addition to regularly reaching the later stages. It’s the model that’s been followed by Bayern for as long as anyone can remember. Invest all your available resources in players, win everything going, become the club the world’s best want to play for and manage, weaken your rivals, expand your fan base and – bingo! – the money pours in, allowing for ever-greater investment in players, and so it goes on. Success in football breeds money which breeds further success. Hardly a mysterious process.

      Of course it helps massively – in the case of City and PSG it was essential – to have an owner who can kick-start the process, but once you’ve acquired one and have competent managers who use the money effectively, you’re on course to become self-sufficient in time. Makes things tough for the profiteering owners or – if you prefer – the virtuous ones. The Glazers may be claiming not to be worried by United’s catastrophic fall in value – it wouldn’t be prudent to claim anything else – but I don’t suppose they’re sleeping that well at night.

      Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6

      • “Chelsea have earned their revenue by success on the pitch”

        And that success came from, what? Shrewdly investing in young talent? Finding under-valued players on the continent? Or having a fucking billionaire who could unload £30M on fucking Shevchenko? But of course, Chelsea have also had nothing but manager stability to help the process along.

        Saying that Bayern and Chelsea built their success on same business model is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever read on the Internet—if for no other reason than Chelsea hasn’t been run as a business—and I’ve read youtube comments.

        Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2

        • But I didn’t say Chelsea and Bayern have the same BUSINESS model. I said that Chelsea, like Bayern, acquire revenue from success on the pitch – broadcasting revenue, for starters, lots of it; and their Premiership and CL success enhances their brand (a concept dear to the heart of our own chief-exec), which with their fast-growing global fan base makes for good sponsorship deals. Not all their money comes from Abramovich handouts. You can check out their revenue on Swiss Ramble.

          As for the investing in young players, Chelsea have been doing that with a vengeance for some time. Abramovich is a football romantic; he wants his trainset to be revered and adored, a new Barca, which means he’s in love with the grow-your-own concept. He’s poured a fortune into Chelsea’s academy – ask any well-informed Chelsea fan. You just haven’t noticed it because the products don’t get a look-in in the first team, at least not as yet, there being too many Torreses, Oscars and Harzards in their way. (That’s the other side of Abramovich the football romantic: he loves young strikers and attackers, can never buy enough of them, meaning the two sides of his dream are forever at war.)

          How well Chelsea’s academy is doing as an academy you can judge by its results. They beat us in last season’s NextGen and they’ve been impressive so far in this season’s kids CL. Take a look at them when the knock-out rounds start. An acquaintance with the reality might modify your reliance on spluttering cliches.

          Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3

    • Following the announcement by Deloitte, the club in 1000th place decided to cease all business as a football club and capitalize on the +1 ranked team’s fanatic/deluded appreciation of tacky logos.

      Yes, they have moved into the chicken and basketball market.

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  3. So was it PSG, City and the Chavs that LOST money in this period, despite these revenue numbers?

    Remind me again how and when the fuck this FFP bollocks is meant to have an impact?

    Thumb up 71 Thumb down 3

  4. So, we are suppose to be proud that they rip us off on match day and there are only signs of it forever worsening as opposed to relenting? Yippee!

    Thumb up 7 Thumb down 24

    • It’s coming from sponsorship – shirt deals (800m at PSG) and stadium naming rights – I forget what City get for the Ethiad, 200m per year? something phenomonal anyway. These deals may be morally/politically unpalatable, at least for those with strong objections to taking money from the oil-rich, but they don’t fall foul of FFP. Just as well for those sickened by oil money that we gave our stadium naming rights on a free. Would be awful to be getting money from Emirates.

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5

      • We’ve plastered their name pretty much on every crack we can see, what’s wrong with getting a little money for it? PSG gest paid by Emirates Airlines pretty well..

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

        • Er, that was my (ironic) point. You can’t follow football at all if you have moral/political qualms about Arab states and oil money. Even the refs are sponsored by Emirates. That’s why I struggle a bit at morally superior jeering comments from Arsenal fans about PSG’s and City’s owners.

          Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3

        • Gotcha, my apologies on missing the irony.

          At the same time, its the UEFA and FA’s responsibility to enforce FFP, etc. if they let the clubs get around it through loopholes like bullshit ‘sponsorship’ it’s still kind of disgusting.

          In my opinion there’s still absolutely nothing wrong with traditional sponsorship, where the sponsor and the beneficiary are actually distinct and individual parties to a transaction.

          Which brings us to your point that referees are sponsored by the Emirates… but I’m still convinced that the larger problem is the FA in that respect.

          Interesting to talk about at the very least…

          Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

        • Trouble is, Uefa aren’t in a position to enforce it. Who can say whether PSG’s shirt deal represents its true commercial value to the sponsors? The arguments would keep the lawyers busy for decades, and PSG and City can afford very good lawyers.

          But the main point I was making was that Arsenal fans’ sneering at clubs with sugar-daddy owners seems to me bogus and daft. We are not morally superior to City because they get fortune for their stadium naming rights and we get nothing at all. We didn’t reject an oil country’s sponsorship out of principle, believing its money to be it to be morally tainted or because our owner and chief-exec feel that to spend big in the transfer market would be unfair on West Brom and Swansea. We get as much sponsorship as we can – in fact we pay a lot of people a fortune to exploit every avenue available – just sadly for us our options aren’t as good as they would be if we belonged to the Mansours.

          We’re better off than most clubs anyway, but fortunately for us Everton fans (say) aren’t forever sanctimoniously and enviously taunting us with our wealth and claiming their club is better than ours because it can’t afford a player as expensive as Oezil. There are plenty of things for Arsenal to be proud of, but having less money than City or Chelsea isn’t one of them. It’s just a misfortune.

          Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  5. I´m also very curious regarding the FFP rules, I´m at work so I don´t have time to google it. Could someone please give us a link that explains everything, please?

    Oh, by the way: Manure <—- lol

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

  6. I am with Mooro, WTF are city doing up there? They don’t even fill the stadium that is only half the size of ours. They must have the best commercial deals in football. Because match day revenue and TV income can’t be any more than ours. The can be said of PSG. How much money can they make? FFP is going to fail. The worse thing it is, not only will the league be dominated by two oil clubs but the media will love them for it.

    Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1

    • Re: city and match day revenue, their latest figures has them DOUBLING their match day revenue in a year despite showing no credible way that this has been achieved. Very fishy indeed!

      As for the ‘commercial deals’, and I use that term very loosely as they could more accurately be called ‘aid’ or ‘charity’. citeh’s figures are being bloated by the £400m 10 year deal signed with etihad airways, the firm run by the uncle of the chairman by the way. But this is truly blown out of the water by the eye wateringly ridiculous deal signed by PSG with the qatar tourist authority which sees them rake in £160m PER SEASON. Oh, and PSG just so happen to be owned by the same people paying them such an obscene amount in sponsorship.

      Blatant attempt at circumnavigating FFP. You would hope that UEFA would have the balls to disregard the deals as being ‘not of market value’, which it has the right to do so…, but we all know that Platini is a eunuch.

      It does piss me off a little though after all the hard work we have done to see our work being overshadowed by the financial cheating of these sugar daddy entities. I will enjoy with glee the day that their empires come crashing down.

      Thumb up 35 Thumb down 0

      • I understand why you call it cheating, but two questions:

        1. If the situation at board level were different, with Kroenke willing to work cooperatively with Usmanov, and if Usmanov could improve our sponsorship by (say) using his influence to get us naming rights and shirt sponsorship as good as City’s or PSG’s, would you think it right to turn it down?

        2. Why do you think Kroenke won’t work with Usmanov when doing so would massively increase his own revenues? Moral principle? He’d think it unfair that we cheated to gain an advantage over clubs like Everton who don’t have the benefit of an immensely wealth and commercially powerful co-owner?

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7

        • Your first question assumes Usmanov’s involvement as a major shareholder at the most naive level. If Usmanov was willing to improve our sponsorship negotiations, without any benefit to the growth of his own influence at the club, it would have happened already. This is man who attempted to subvert Arsenal’s poor standing in the league mid-season last year in order to gain popular support and increase his influence at the club. Everything he does, for all of his ‘strategic’ publicity stunts, screams of personal interest, rather than that of the club. Working with a person as such invariably making concessions that can ultimately ruin the balance of financial security and long-term growth, and therefore the stability of the team on the pitch, in the long run. Kroenke leads with his business model, well-established in numerous teams in the U.S., in the reasoning that it is the sustainable and long-term future he is preparing for.

          Your second question assumes well, for one, that we do not have an advantage over a club like Everton already, which is just.. well. It also assumes that working with Usmanov would greatly benefit us. What we have right now is obviously working, and the period for growth and negotiation of new commercial revenue is imminent. Why should we change what we have now?

          Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2

        • Absolutely I think it would be right to turn that down.

          Why, because the trade off would be too much. The vast wealth of these sugar daddies that has been ploughed into the likes of the chavs and citeh has been done so in exchange for their souls.
          The chavs, they became an Oligarch’s sordid play thing to help him through a mid life crisis. Citeh, they are now a walking sandwich board for a posse of dictators. With each pound ploughed into them, a little more of the dignity that they once possessed drains away, leaving behind what is so aptly summed up in one of their captains, John Terry.
          And all of this, this vastly tacky and obscenely assembled wonderland that they play in has been built with sand. Its easy to make a castle out of sand, but as soon as the tide comes in it collapses into the sea. The same thing will happen to citeh, to the chavs, to psg, to monaco et all. Its not built to last and will not. They are on a monetary life support machine, once its shut off they die!

          So if you give me the choice of walking the route we are now, building our club to be self sustainable at the highest level, improving our fan base around the world organically, expanding our commercial operation to capitalise and ensuring this wonderful club is still here for when im an old fart and I can take my grandchildren to fall in love with Arsenal as I did. Or trading away the future of our club to one man’s whim in exchange for fools gold then I will take where we are over the boom and bust of the sugar daddy clubs any day of the week.

          That we are still able to operate with the class we have always had, that we are able to do things the right way, ‘the Arsenal way’ whilst our rivals throw filth and wallow in their cess pits is something that fills me with pride and makes me love this club that little more. Jumping into bed with a sugar daddy would mean that we lose the things that make this club special, I’m not willing to trade that away. No our future on reckless and unsustainable speculating.
          This club will be here in 50 years time, strong as ever. The sugar daddy clubs will be a footnote in the annuls of history by that point.

          Arsenal forever.

          Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1

  7. The problem with this list is that it measures turnover, which is entirely different to ‘wealth’.

    Man U are poorer than indicated because the Glazers take out a chunk of the turnover each year. OTOH Chelsea and especially Man C are richer than indicated because the owners are putting money in.

    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  8. So proud to be in the mix with clubs who have been pumped with capital, whether from banks or investors, leaving them hopelessly in debt and their principles jeprodised. Despite us being occasionally frustrated with our frugal nature in transfer windows, our financial model is something to be admired and will hopefully lead to a stable future for our club. You only have to look at the Leeds and Portsmouth’s of this world to realise how quickly things can go tits up.

    Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1

  9. This is a rubbish stat , where did you get all this info from , try giving info from club accounts , say expenses and then earnings , none from sugar daddy`s and then the total club debt , bet you Arsenal wont be 8th then , man u , the bubble is going to bust soon for them when they don’t have CL football

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 21

    • From Deloitte, one of the biggest financial auditing companies in the world. It’s right there in the text! How can you miss it?

      Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0

  10. FFP means clubs like city and PSG get their money from inflated deals for sponsorship. Like sponsoring a traffic cone outside the ground d for a few million. The deals are with companies affiliated with the owners of the clubs so it’s just a jammy way to pump money in.

    Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  11. I just don’t understand how city are above us in this table.
    The never seem to fill their stadium. Their tickets are cheap in comparison to ours. They can’t have the fan base that we have worldwide despite their recent success.
    They either have a fantastic commercial dept and we must have a really poor one. Or these things are worked out in some strange way.

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

    • Season-ticket sales, and more especially corporate entertainment, are massive for us – they’re what we’ve staked everything on in building the stadium – but they’re a tiny drop in the ocean compared to broadcasting revenue and to what you can get from sponsorship deals. I’m not talking about the bits and bobs of sponsorship of the sort we rely on from Indesit and such like; City and PSG are clocking in hundreds of millions a year from deals with family and friends of their owners. That’s the advantage of their type of owner: you have a vast empire of wealth and commercial areas of influence to draw on. We have Kroenke, whose input into our sponsorship has not, I think, been extensive. I don’t see Walmart or indeed anything US flashing around our stadium, not on Wenger’s malfunctioning zip or the laces of his shoes.

      Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  12. If we win the league this year, it must surely rank as one of Arsene’s greatest achievements when you consider what we are up against in terms of competing against the likes of City and Chelsea. COYG!

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0

  13. Couldn’t care that much about this list. I will rather we winning trophies. but then again, I am grateful I have been able to watch Arsenal Player without having to pay separately like other clubs.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  14. including the soon to be announced puma deal would see us leapfrog city who have had their revenues propped up by ridiculously inflated commercial ‘deals’. with growth in commercial deals to increase for arsenal – didn’t we just sign up with huwaiaiaia (spelling?) recently? signing players like ozil will reap us rewards in this area down the line as we become a more attractive package.

    success on the pitch will trump all of those strategies and provide the biggest boost long term. it’s no coincidence that all those above us have had multiple domestic and/or european successes.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply