Deloitte Money League | Arsenal 6th

[Sanchez11]

Anyone know why our revenue is so low compared to the other big 6 in the EPL?

I understand that recent years we've missed out on CL football. But CL only earns you around €15-25 million pounds generally.
How are we closer to 100-400 million behind the other top 6?
Anyone have an understanding of what exactly the difference coming from?

EPL Big 6 2022 revenue:
1) City: €731m
2) Liverpool: €701m
3) United: €688m
4) Chelsea: €568m
5) Tottensperm: €523m
6) Arsenal: €433m
Sources:

• Deloitte Football Money League 2023
• Arsenal remain 11th place in Deloitte’s Football Money League | Arseblog News - the Arsenal news site

Cl is more than your estimate plus commercial deal bonuses etc. Plus some on Citys revenue is fake.

 

[db10_therza]

Our sponsorship deals must be attrocious.

Yeah they’re pretty bad but as we’re seen as a winning team with players like Saka (and Rice, Ødegaard, Martinelli) who are very marketable you’d expect these to go up a lot. Our emirates shirt deal was first to be renegotiated and it went up over 25% iirc (extra 10m per year).

The big one is of course our Adidas deal. We accepted an extension offer from them in Oct2022 that takes us through all the way to 2030 (we had 2 years left at the time). I’m not sure how wise that was, given we’re on a sharply upwards trajectory and the $ increase wasn’t that much (again around 15m per year iirc). But we don’t know details around whether we get a larger share from shirts sold etc so will just have to wait till end of year financials to see.

Frankly I’d cancel the adidas deal just coz of that away kit…

 

[bingobob]

Fairly obvious why our revenue is lower. We have not been as successful as City, Liverpool or Chelsea and United operate in a completely separate commercial sphere.

We need to consistently compete for the top trophies to improve sponsorship and get the prize money associated with it. And the individual match tickets that come with it. We need to match these teams with player trading - the sums of which can dwarf sponsorship and prize money.

 

[avenellroad]

Yeah they’re pretty bad but as we’re seen as a winning team with players like Saka (and Rice, Ødegaard, Martinelli) who are very marketable you’d expect these to go up a lot. Our emirates shirt deal was first to be renegotiated and it went up over 25% iirc (extra 10m per year).

The big one is of course our Adidas deal. We accepted an extension offer from them in Oct2022 that takes us through all the way to 2030 (we had 2 years left at the time). I’m not sure how wise that was, given we’re on a sharply upwards trajectory and the $ increase wasn’t that much (again around 15m per year iirc). But we don’t know details around whether we get a larger share from shirts sold etc so will just have to wait till end of year financials to see.

Frankly I’d cancel the adidas deal just coz of that away kit…

Our emirates deal is still pretty crap even with the renegotiation. I think the stadium name renegotiation which will come up at the time of the next renewal should give us more leverage to get a better deal.

Adidas are paying us around £75 mill a year from memory which is just behind Utd in the league. Also we get to renegotiate it in around 4-5 seasons time.

 

[Badger_Revenge]

Isn't selling inflated sponsorship deals to conflicted parties part of the FFP charges against city? Or am I remembering that wrong? Basically, they let their owners finance the club indirectly under the guise of sponsorship deals with businesses over which the owners have control. That could explain City's income in part.

 

[Jasinho]

Isn't selling inflated sponsorship deals to conflicted parties part of the FFP charges against city? Or am I remembering that wrong? Basically, they let their owners finance the club indirectly under the guise of sponsorship deals with businesses over which the owners have control. That could explain City's income in part.

Yeah we know for a fact that's what City have done over the years. I think in one of their 115 charges it's mentioned that one of their sponsors' headquarters was a mailbox in London with no staff or anything. Who knows how much of this nonsense they've done over the years.

It's frankly ridiculous that they've 'out earned' the likes of Real Madrid and Man United without a ton of dodgy dealings.

 

[hydrofluoric acid]

How is City on top of there. They cant even fill their stadium. There is no way they have more fans around the world than us. We are much more marketable.

 

[Maybe]

Isn't selling inflated sponsorship deals to conflicted parties part of the FFP charges against city? Or am I remembering that wrong? Basically, they let their owners finance the club indirectly under the guise of sponsorship deals with businesses over which the owners have control. That could explain City's income in part.

Yes, it is if you can prove it, but looks like even when people prove it it's not that easy to get a final decision against them. City is doing well by blocking investigations, and it is a relatively corrupt system that they definitely abuse.

As for our revenue, we'll get somewhere around £550 this year which is where Sp**s and Chelsea were last year. With our young squad full of talent, I imagine we'll have great consistent results over the next 5 years which will take us to the next level where Liverpool and United currently are

 

[Tnegs]

Liverpool have done really well for a self funded club 10 years ago their revenue was lower than ours but we are firmly left in the dust now. Who could have guessed that hoarding cash reserves at minimal interest instead of investing it into the squad was a horrible idea?