Deloitte Football Money League 2022 - Manchester City #1 for first time ever

[mazhar13]

I wasn't expecting this, but here you go.


I wonder how far high they'll go up. They're currently 30th and behind Lazio in their revenue, but I doubt that they'll even break into the top 20.

 

[padr81]

My view is that with the current situation Man Utd, which is not much success in terms of trophy, and still has an extremely solid base of support and revenue, their income is very stable and sustainable at this level. For liverpool if their cycle finish their income may not be sustainable. That is just my opinion.

If liverpool is really only 10% behind Man Utd they would have satisfied Salah's contract demand already. Man Utd has no problem paying 500k to CR7, but seems like a big issue for Liverpool.

Its a one season list for 20/21. That's why City are top, its not about sustainable its about 1 season.

Liverpool are closer to United because of their on pitch exploits (CL QF vs Group Stage). Matches behind closed doors were an equalizer too, United usually pull a bigger crowd than Liverpool.

City are 1st because of sponsorship, being the least affected by playing behind closed doors/limited crowds (matchday income) and last seasons success (winning the league and making the CL final).
The boost in broadcast revenue and the lack of crowds was very much a perfect storm to put City at no.1 in this.

Normal service will resume next season.

 

[Red&Black]

I wonder how far high they'll go up. They're currently 30th and behind Lazio in their revenue, but I doubt that they'll even break into the top 20.

they were off by 100M.... on the nose. they put 160m instead of 260m (as per the club's official reports)

so we'll be #15. and next year even higher, as our revenue is climbing as is sponsorship.

 

[Becks00]

Its a one season list for 20/21. That's why City are top, its not about sustainable its about 1 season.

Liverpool are closer to United because of their on pitch exploits (CL QF vs Group Stage). Matches behind closed doors were an equalizer too, United usually pull a bigger crowd than Liverpool.

City are 1st because of sponsorship, being the least affected by playing behind closed doors/limited crowds (matchday income) and last seasons success (winning the league and making the CL final).
The boost in broadcast revenue and the lack of crowds was very much a perfect storm to put City at no.1 in this.

Normal service will resume next season.

You are a very good fan, I especially like how you always see the good in your club.

Even with all those factors, City should not be earning higher than Madrid, Barca, Bayern and United especially if sponsorship is a huge part of the make up of those revenues.

 

[Oranges038]

Being on the list doesn't mean "doing great financially", at all.

You see Barca at 4th place, but their financials are as good as scorched Earth.

No, of course it doesn't. It's just income.

Real were top almost every year since it started in the early 2000s despite all the debt, dodgy land deals and state aid shenanigans.

 

[padr81]

You are a very good fan, I especially like how you always see the good in your club.

Even with all those factors, City should not be earning higher than Madrid, Barca, Bayern and United especially if sponsorship is a huge part of the make up of those revenues.

Everybody knows how our sponsorship works.

To put things in perspective in 2019.
Man City Matchday Income: £57m
TV and Broadcasting : 212m
Commercial: 232m
Total: £503m

Man United
Matchday Income: £110m
TV and Broadcasting: 204m
Commercial: 276m
Total: £590m

City were beaten by Spurs in the CL last 8. United by Barca in the same round.
City won the PL United finished 6th.

Now jump forward to the deloitte report of 2022 for the season of 20/21 and bigger broadcasting deal and City end up on
Total City: E644m = £538m
Total United: E558m = £466m.

So United are losing over 50m extra in match/gate income and 50m from elsewhere (going out in the CL group stage maybe while City made the final?).
Its nothing to do with being a good fan, its simple really.

 

[ThierryHenry14]

Everybody knows how our sponsorship works.

To put things in perspective in 2019.
Man City Matchday Income: £57m
TV and Broadcasting : 212m
Commercial: 232m
Total: £503m

Man United
Matchday Income: £110m
TV and Broadcasting: 204m
Commercial: 276m
Total: £590m

City were beaten by Spurs in the CL last 8. United by Barca in the same round.
City won the PL United finished 6th.

Now jump forward to the deloitte report of 2022 for the season of 20/21 and bigger broadcasting deal and City end up on
Total City: E644m = £538m
Total United: E558m = £466m.

So United are losing over 50m extra in match/gate income and 50m from elsewhere (going out in the CL group stage maybe while City made the final?).
Its nothing to do with being a good fan, its simple really.

I believe they are teasing the commercial income of Man City. I personally do not mind foreign investment in EPL, no matter it is chelsea, Man City or Newcastle. It increased the competitiveness of the league and broke the monopoly of Man Utd.

 

[padr81]

I believe they are teasing the commercial income of Man City. I personally do not mind foreign investment in EPL, no matter it is chelsea, Man City or Newcastle. It increased the competitiveness of the league and broke the monopoly of Man Utd.

Understandable, ours was clearly iffy in the early days but I imagine given our current position we could probably match the deals we have in place or at least go close. Hopefully sooner rather than later to be honest. The Assad stuff during the week leaves a bitter taste.

 

[mazhar13]

they were off by 100M.... on the nose. they put 160m instead of 260m (as per the club's official reports)

so we'll be #15. and next year even higher, as our revenue is climbing as is sponsorship.

Wow, if it's that large, then that's a huge screw-up by Deloitte. They shouldn't be screwing it up like this; they are a highly reputed financial institution.

 

[EtH]

Understandable, ours was clearly iffy in the early days but I imagine given our current position we could probably match the deals we have in place or at least go close. Hopefully sooner rather than later to be honest. The Assad stuff during the week leaves a bitter taste.

Can’t even half fill your stadium, FFS.

 

[Dumbstar]

Understandable, ours was clearly iffy in the early days but I imagine given our current position we could probably match the deals we have in place or at least go close. Hopefully sooner rather than later to be honest. The Assad stuff during the week leaves a bitter taste.

Ah come on, Mr Darcy. Thou protesteth too much. It's already been washed.

 

[padr81]

Can’t even half fill your stadium, FFS.

Bit hyperbolic given we have 5th or 4th largest attendance in England but that is why our matchday revenue is low like I said...

 

[Becks00]

Understandable, ours was clearly iffy in the early days but I imagine given our current position we could probably match the deals we have in place or at least go close. Hopefully sooner rather than later to be honest. The Assad stuff during the week leaves a bitter taste.

In truth, you might indeed get a bit closer to those figures now and the gap is probably not as ridiculous as it used to be.

 

[copen1945]

Man City being on top of this money league and their owner meeting Assad of Syria perfectly illustrate what they are.

 

[Tyrion]

It’s a piece of piss when you can sponsor yourself.

"You can only spend the money you make."

"Can we just make up how much money we make?"

"Yes."

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

Bit hyperbolic given we have 5th or 4th largest attendance in England but that is why our matchday revenue is low like I said...

You have an average attendance about a thou or so below max capacity. TV images must be misleading?

 

[Red&Black]

Wow, if it's that large, then that's a huge screw-up by Deloitte. They shouldn't be screwing it up like this; they are a highly reputed financial institution.

it is, but i think it's just a case of accidentally putting a 1 instead of a 2.... deloitte report says 161.1, and the official report from milan shows 261.1

yes, they should do better, but clearly jusst human error... luckily it's a "useless" report

 

[Infra-red]

Wow, if it's that large, then that's a huge screw-up by Deloitte. They shouldn't be screwing it up like this; they are a highly reputed financial institution.

Yes, I'm shocked that the firm that conducted the internal audit of Carillion plc in such a scrupulous and competent manner, has made a mistake of this sort!

 

[padr81]

You have an average attendance about a thou or so below max capacity. TV images must be misleading?

The stadium holds 55k our attendance is usually somewhere between 45 and 55. So about 1/5th of the stadium is empty on a bad night (which there are a few) and about 1/10th on a good night. The stadium average is about 93% if I recall correctly.
This had been one of our better season with most games doing 50k but Leipzig I think it was had 1/3rd of the stadium low even with our poor CL attendances in general being around 40k.

 

[Ekkie Thump]

Was surprised that Leeds came in 22nd. We had a good year I guess.

 

[Zen86]

The stadium holds 55k our attendance is usually somewhere between 45 and 55. So about 1/5th of the stadium is empty on a bad night (which there are a few) and about 1/10th on a good night. The stadium average is about 93% if I recall correctly.
This had been one of our better season with most games doing 50k but Leipzig I think it was had 1/3rd of the stadium low even with our poor CL attendances in general being around 40k.

Do you still offer BOGOF tickets on Radio X? I haven't listened for a while.

 

[DeGea’sFeet]

It’s a piece of piss when you can sponsor yourself.

Just wait until Newcastle announce their new deals with Saudi Airlines, Aramco, Saudi 2030, Saudi STC mobile…

 

[Pintu]

I wasn't expecting this, but here you go.


I wonder how far high they'll go up. They're currently 30th and behind Lazio in their revenue, but I doubt that they'll even break into the top 20.

they were off by 100M.... on the nose. they put 160m instead of 260m (as per the club's official reports)

so we'll be #15. and next year even higher, as our revenue is climbing as is sponsorship.

It should put them either just above or just behind Leicester at 15th or 16th..

Milan made a revenue of €261M last season. If you subtract the 28 M revenue from player sale (I think Deloitte does that), it should amount to 230M.

 

[Yakuza_devils]

the idea that Man City make more revenue than teams like Real, Barca and United is just completely absurd.

Actually, they want much more than this. If they could, they will make the revenue 1 billion and spend more on players. But they know it will look unrealistic and unbelievable. Hence, their "revenues" and "sponsorships" somehow always magically close to Man Utd's.

I will never believe that City is capable of earning more than Man Utd. Just look at the fans worldwide. Man Utd can go into any county in Africa or Asia with millions of fans waiting to welcome them. City can only dream of this kind of support worldwide.

There is a reason why most of their sponsors are related to the sheikh.

 

[ThierryHenry14]

Man Utd can go into any county in Africa or Asia with millions of fans waiting to welcome them.

This is very true. Man Utd is head and shoulder above anyone else on this in EPL. It reflects on their revenue.

 

[Pintu]

 

[padzilla]

Is this the same Man City that makes more than half of its income from sponsors that belong to its owners?

What a joke!

 

[Pintu]

If the books were properly - and honestly balanced - at Man City and PSG, they wouldn’t be anywhere near this list.
For total turnover…yes.
For actually making money…no.

Anyone believing otherwise has truly been sportswashed.

City and PSG are not the same. PSG is the only club of one of the world’s richest cities. Imagine if London only had one club.

Paris is the biggest club of France. A big football nation. They’ve been investing in image and publicity since day one (Beckham, Zlatan, Neymar, Messi) It makes sense they can make a big turnover form commercial revenues. But of course nowhere near the power of the very top clubs. So I doubt they are cooking the books to the same extent of City.

And if social media is something to go by they are closer to the top 5 than City. But who knows with these 2, they might buying those as well.

 

[adexkola]

Actually, they want much more than this. If they could, they will make the revenue 1 billion and spend more on players. But they know it will look unrealistic and unbelievable. Hence, their "revenues" and "sponsorships" somehow always magically close to Man Utd's.

I will never believe that City is capable of earning more than Man Utd. Just look at the fans worldwide. Man Utd can go into any county in Africa or Asia with millions of fans waiting to welcome them. City can only dream of this kind of support worldwide.

There is a reason why most of their sponsors are related to the sheikh.

This doesn't make any sense when it comes to determining what team is on top of the revenue charts.

Man United have more fans worldwide than Man City but that is only a partial factor into what City can make off of sponsorships. The biggest product is the PL/CL, and as one of the best teams in both competitions, City will be able to leverage that into increased revenue compared to teams like United that aren't doing too well.

If the books were properly - and honestly balanced - at Man City and PSG, they wouldn’t be anywhere near this list.
For total turnover…yes.
For actually making money…no.

Anyone believing otherwise has truly been sportswashed.

This is nonsense. Why would 2 teams who are winning trophies, 2 teams with some of the best players in the world on their rosters, not be anywhere near the top of the list of teams making money?

Do you really think sponsors care about what trophies were won in 1980?

This line of thinking was more valid in 2008 when City were near the bottom of the table, and doping was needed to get them to the top tier. Now they have the sporting success that draws in money.

I'm not saying their owners don't pump some money in. But in lieu of that money, I'm sure a Woodward like figure could pimp them out to the same noodle companies who give us money. And unlike us, they'd have the trophies to justify the sponsorship.

 

[Dumbstar]

This line of thinking was more valid in 2008 when City were near the bottom of the table, and doping was needed to get them to the top tier. Now they have the sporting success that draws in money.

I'm not saying their owners don't pump some money in.

Sorry for cutting your post but I didn't want other posters have to bleed through their eyes twice.

So you're saying Man City are self sufficient enough (because they're winning things) to buy a dozen £50m+ full backs and a £100m boot boy with nice hair and calves?

All the while Liverpool are winning, or thereabouts, and are proven to be a much bigger club yet can't hold a candle to City's spending. Nor can Bayern for that matter.

But yes, carry on.

 

[McGrathsipan]

A chunk of that money isn't just from sponsorships. They won trophies with big payouts consistently and got to a CL final. Whether we're willing to accept it or not, they're doing better on and off the pitch than we currently are, and the people at our club need to wake the feck up and fast.

they arent doing better off the pitch than MU PLC, most of MU money is not from prize money

 

[adexkola]

Sorry for cutting your post but I didn't want other posters have to bleed through their eyes twice.

So you're saying Man City are self sufficient enough (because they're winning things) to buy a dozen £50m+ full backs and a £100m boot boy with nice hair and calves?

All the while Liverpool are winning, or thereabouts, and are proven to be a much bigger club yet can't hold a candle to City's spending. Nor can Bayern for that matter.

But yes, carry on.

It's hard to reply to hyperbole, and I'm not really interested in online dick measuring contests centered around what club is "bigger"

But here are some quick answers

1. The Bundesliga doesn't draw in as much money as the PL.
2. City have won more than Liverpool in the last 5 years. Way more, going by trophy count
3. Is City being subsidized by their owners to some extent? Yes. Was that subsidy needed to attain their current situation? Yes. Would they still draw in money if that subsidy was removed? Yes, due to their current sporting success.

 

[Ludens the Red]

@adexkola
Man City’s greatest defender behind Vincent Kompany.

 

[MVBDX]

It's hard to reply to hyperbole, and I'm not really interested in online dick measuring contests centered around what club is "bigger"

But here are some quick answers

1. The Bundesliga doesn't draw in as much money as the PL.
2. City have won more than Liverpool in the last 5 years. Way more, going by trophy count
3. Is City being subsidized by their owners to some extent? Yes. Was that subsidy needed to attain their current situation? Yes. Would they still draw in money if that subsidy was removed? Yes, due to their current sporting success.

That's ridiculous, let's be serious, if you were to cut state-owned sponsors/under the table money from City, they'd be in shambles.

Major sponsors will never offer them the same deals as the likes of United/Madrid/Bayern/Barca, and they'll take a big hit.

They'll have major problems with their wage bill, let alone being able to refresh the squad. They'll have to sell.

Their winnings will suffer on a yearly basis, as a consequence.

Their matchday revenue will plummet (How many actual fans they've got anyway?)

In a few years they'll be just "another" decent club (think EL slots).

 

[adexkola]

@adexkola
Man City’s greatest defender behind Vincent Kompany.

Someone add this to my tagline please. My goal is to get a Chelsea, PSG and Liverpool tag next

That's ridiculous, let's be serious, if you were to cut state-owned sponsors/under the table money from City, they'd be in shambles.

Major sponsors will never offer them the same deals as the likes of United/Madrid/Bayern/Barca, and they'll take a big hit.

They'll have major problems with their wage bill, let alone being able to refresh the squad. They'll have to sell.

Their winnings will suffer on a yearly basis, as a consequence.

Their matchday revenue will plummet (How many actual fans they've got anyway?)

In a few years they'll be just "another" decent club (think EL slots).

Why would they be in shambles? Is the game gone that even winning trophies is not enough to sustain success and earn income? Is the game that rigged that you can only "earn" massive amounts of income if you are a traditional big club, regardless of recent exploits?

No wonder you all hate the upstarts of the football world, how dare they not know their place

 

[united_99]

It's hard to reply to hyperbole, and I'm not really interested in online dick measuring contests centered around what club is "bigger"

But here are some quick answers

1. The Bundesliga doesn't draw in as much money as the PL.
2. City have won more than Liverpool in the last 5 years. Way more, going by trophy count
3. Is City being subsidized by their owners to some extent? Yes. Was that subsidy needed to attain their current situation? Yes. Would they still draw in money if that subsidy was removed? Yes, due to their current sporting success.

Well yeah, they would draw some money, but their sponsorship deals would most likely be nowhere close to their current deals. As if anyone with no connection to their current owners would be paying them those sums.
They would suffer big time financially. This is obvious. With this I don’t mean going bankrupt but rather not being among the top spenders in Europe or England.

 

[DannyCAFC]

Even Spurs is ahead of Arsenal. Arsenal is on the same tier (300m level) with BVB, Atletico and Inter.

I did not know Arsenal is no longer the "biggest" (in terms of revenue) club in North London.

I mean, this isn't surprising - Spurs are absolutely raking it in with the new stadium these days.

 

[Dumbstar]

@adexkola
Man City’s greatest defender behind Vincent Kompany.

It's amazeballs isn't it?

Either he's a secret City supporter, or a very gullible person or has a very bad grasp of reality. Hobson's choice.

 

[adexkola]

Well yeah, they would draw some money, but their sponsorship deals would most likely be nowhere close to their current deals. As if anyone with no connection to their current owners would be paying them those sums.
They would suffer big time financially. This is obvious. With this I don’t mean going bankrupt but rather not being among the top spenders in Europe or England.

This makes no sense.

Why would a champion of the biggest league in the world, a CL finalist, a team with international stars, be not attractive to sponsors worldwide, to the point that they could legitimately earn sponsorship revenues close to that of top earning teams not backed by oil money?

I mean, if sponsorship revenue has no linkage to success on the field, Woodward had the right approach all along right? No need to worry about on-pitch success, that doesn't matter. Just focus on pimping out the fans still tethered by success from decades ago.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying their revenue isn't "inflated" right now. Or that cash injections were not needed to get them to the level they are at today. We are talking about their sustainability and potential given their current status and success in the game.

Someone break down what I'm missing without going the @Dumbstar route. Unless you're a mod, in which case just change my tagline to "Arsenal/City fan"

 

[united_99]

This makes no sense.

Why would a champion of the biggest league in the world, a CL finalist, a team with international stars, be not attractive to sponsors worldwide, to the point that they could legitimately earn sponsorship revenues close to that of top earning teams not backed by oil money?

I mean, if sponsorship revenue has no linkage to success on the field, Woodward had the right approach all along right? No need to worry about on-pitch success, that doesn't matter. Just focus on pimping out the fans still tethered by success from decades ago.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying their revenue isn't "inflated" right now. Or that cash injections were not needed to get them to the level they are at today. We are talking about their sustainability and potential given their current status and success in the game.

Someone break down what I'm missing without going the @Dumbstar route. Unless you're a mod, in which case just change my tagline to "Arsenal/City fan"

Sorry I don’t even know where to begin.
Liverpool are a much bigger club than City (big, global and historic fan base is a huge attraction for sponsors) and have been highly successful in recent years (2 CL finals brings you a lot of money and attention) and are still financially very much behind City. Amazing that they can’t attract the same value of sponsorship as City.
You are either being very stubborn or extremely naive. Either wI have nothing to add here. I am sure even the most deluded City fans know that their sponsorship deals are ridiculously inflated.