Deloitte Football Money League 2022 - Manchester City #1 for first time ever
- Thread starter Dolf
- Start date
For EPL, the younger generation will probably follow City, Chelsea, and liverpool way more than Arsenal and Man Utd because of their success for the past 10 years. That is pretty normal. That's how clubs build their fan base outside of England.
I doubt it, younger fans first ask what clubs were winning stuff in the 80s and 90s before deciding who to follow. Sponsors pay out by these rules too.
The bolded made me laugh...Someone add this to my tagline please. My goal is to get a Chelsea, PSG and Liverpool tag next
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
They are the ones doing the rigging.
I refuse to believe young people follow Chicago Bulls nowadays and the Sponsorship deals are still based on MJ's success back in 80s and 90s.
I suspect he was being sarcastic.
City’s success hasn’t yet translated to them being one of the most supported clubs in the world though I mean they can barely fill their stadium in the 2nd biggest city i England, you’re being wilfully obtuse here.
Most of us are still yet to meet a City fan outside of Manchester, kids normally support the clubs their parents older brothers etc support.
My kids are Liverpool fans. My old footballing friend Sadiq Khan (yes that one) has two daughters, both Liverpool fans. A whole heap of other similar age friends have children that are Liverpool fans.
Do you know how this supporting and parenthood stuff works? You're leaving a lot of cafe's posters torn between having to agree with @Dumbstar* or take your side. That's how hard you're making it.
*Sarcastic use of highlight
My kids are Liverpool fans. My old footballing friend Sadiq Khan (yes that one) has two daughters, both Liverpool fans. A whole heap of other similar age friends have children that are Liverpool fans.
Do you know how this supporting and parenthood stuff works? You're leaving a lot of cafe's posters torn between having to agree with @Dumbstar* or take your side. That's how hard you're making it.
*Sarcastic use of highlight
Sadiq Khan is your mate
That’s pretty cool.
Sadiq Khan is your mate
That’s pretty cool.
Yeah but I don't like all the traffic calming/restrictions he's put around Tooting. The twat.
Or he's just not blindly echoing the same sentiments as most people just for the sake of wanting to say "no i don't believe it because i refuse to believe it even though i can't prove my sentiment".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.
His points are seem to be argued properly from my point of view.
How many trophies have they actually won?
Sorry but this is no longer the case, while I'll gladly admit it used to be.
I don't know your age and how often you interact with people below 30, but they have a lot of fans below the age of 30.
That’s not how it works though. Success based on winning relies on having a large fanbase that antagonises the losing side. Since City don’t have that then Liverpool don’t need to win trophies since they are rinsing Utd so that’s success in itself. You don’t become a City supporter because they beat Liverpool, you become a Liverpool supporter because you can laugh at the many Utd fans at school etc.
City wins are heatless.
According to who ? In what book is it written ?
Not everyone follows and supports a club for the sake of rivalry.
I feel a lot of people here reason like we're still in the 90s. A lot of arguments that would have been valid in the 90s aren't really so today.
According to the lack of City and PSG fans worldwide? Why dont the English public have large amounts of Madrid fans if winning was so important? That closeness, that rivalry is why countries that have major leagues have fanbases made from that league but countries with lesser leagues have more fans who follow foreign sides or support two clubs as in their own and a major, foreign club.
Liverpool have won one league under Klopp and he isn under any pressure to win another. Their fanbase just seems to enjoy the ride. It’s not 1989 anymore, winning isn’t everything. There’s a lot more focus on style of play and being entertaining and then going for success rather than win a trophy at all cost.
I’ve never seen success forgotten about, or argued against, than I have in this era. People are so quick to say I told you so.
I have a job that relies on it, and they don’t, certainly not outside Manchester.
I can only say i have a lot of friends support Liverpool lately, but it is more they like Klopp's playing style AND also they are winning trophies. Not so much for Arsenal and Man United. I live in canada so i never understand the rivalry, even the Arsenal and Spurs Rivalry.
for the part "Why dont the English public have large amounts of Madrid fans if winning was so important", I have a local hockey team in town and I only support my local team, no matter which team win the NHL. I think it would be the same for football fans in england, but that won't be the case for fans in china, Japan, and USA. Some of the fans actually support players like CR7 and messi instead of the football clubs.
for the part "Why dont the English public have large amounts of Madrid fans if winning was so important", I have a local hockey team in town and I only support my local team, no matter which team win the NHL. I think it would be the same for football fans in england, but that won't be the case for fans in china, Japan, and USA. Some of the fans actually support players like CR7 and messi instead of the football clubs.
Well, certainly a huge chunk of foreign fans from PL teams like United, Liverpool, and Chelsea come from Asia, a continent where Football was amateurish before the 90s.
So yeah, not a having a traditional league might influence people to follow only a foreign league, because they don't find the romanticism in their own league due to lack of history, this can be applied to Asia.
In the case of Sweden, Croatia, Serbia,Austria,Poland,etc they might support a foreign team, but they sure support a local one as they have historic teams.
Argentinian and Brazilian football is dire right now, that hasn't stopped argentinians and brazilians from supporting their national club.
Last edited:
This.
I was in Newcastle 2018 seeing an old friend who moved up there in 2001. Our families went for a meal and City were playing Leicester on the box. There were 2-3 teenagers/youths with City shirts on. My mate said 10 years ago you would only see Newcastle shirts in the town. The point is winning teams attract the kids, and not every kid follows their parents. My son is a Wanderers fan for example.
England (or the UK) do not represent the whole world, so you can't come up with that assumption and try to pass it off as facts.
The second bolded part is actually you making my point about why a club like City can gain a lot of fans (they play attractive football).
But it also puts a dent on the other poster's initial point that Liverpool should be above City because they won a lot recently, only for you to now turn around and say that winning trophies isn't everything after it was pointed out that they haven't actually won that much trophies in recent years.
It might be true to some extent (definitely not to the extent you're trying to make it) in England or the UK, but it isn't if we're talking worldwide.
Exactly.
Considering it’s been ten years of city success I’m actually staggered at how little their fanbase has grown in London for example. Being in London as much as I am, I still see kids are not drawn to city as much as you’d expect considering their success. I still see way more United shirts on under 10’s than I do city.
United are just far too established at this point for city to even take the next generation of fans. Might be different in Asia and Manchester or if the success levels carry on for the next years but at the moment city arent taking the 2010 generation off United regardless of current success.
City only became dominat in the last 5 or so years under Pep. They won some trophies before Pep, but they simply weren't dominant to be seen as " the best" PL of their era.
Macini's wins mostly sastified the old time fans rather than attracting new fans. You have to wait another 5 years before the numbers start rapidly increasing.
This whole thing about city's sponsorships got me curious
https://www.totalsportal.com/money/biggest-kit-suppliers-deals/amp/
https://www.totalsportal.com/money/premier-league-kit-deals/amp/
https://www.totalsportal.com/money/biggest-kit-suppliers-deals/amp/
https://www.totalsportal.com/money/premier-league-kit-deals/amp/
This is how it has always been & always will be. It's difficult to put a true figure on it, but i'd say 95% of kids support who their father supports. You will always get those weird glory hunting kids who go against the grain but they're in a huge minority.
If this wasn't the case then a large majority of clubs in the league wouldn't have any fans. Many of these clubs haven't won a trophy for generations & this will likely continue. If kids are not following their parents leads in supporting these clubs how are the likes of Southampton, Villa, West Ham et al selling out their stadiums. By your logic a large percentage of their fanbases would actually be supporting Utd, City & Chelsea as these are the teams who have been winning consistently for the last 2 decades.
Because most people support clubs in their city, for those who like to go and watch games, it's obviously easier to go to games in your city. Southampton stadium isn't filled with people from out of town.
But even a lot of people who support clubs like Southampton and West ham also often support clubs like United, City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool as their 2nd clubs.
What this doesn't tell you is that 80% of City's income from here gets slipped to Puma by Qatar. Or something.
What it says to me is City make significantly more money than they otherwise would through their ownership's connected sponsorships. They'd likely be below chelsea otherwise
1. Possibly (improbable but still possible), but "below Chelsea" isn't "pinching pennies" status.
2. Significantly is conjecture. I can believe that City are being paid above "market value" by sponsorships connected to their ownership. I also believe that as one of the best teams in Europe over the last 10 years, a significant amount (I'll use your word, significant) of the sponsorship connected to ownership is merit based, based on their status, and could be replicated in the market. Not all of it. A good amount though. Way more than what it was in 2009.
The kit and shirt deals are usually the two biggest individual deals from commercial income. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that the rest of the commercial income would fall in line with that, except in unique cases like bayern who have almost a monopoly on the german market. So it stands to reason imo that if city are pulling less than chelsea from those deals, they'd likely pull in less commercial income overall...
And i don't think stadium and tv money have enough of a gap to justify the difference
This all makes sense, but City are pulling in more per year than Chelsea from the links you provided
And these deals are multi-year which do not account for recent changes in fortune. New Balance underpaid Liverpool considering the upturn in fortunes under Klopp.
Still, assuming kit + shirt deals are directly correlated to legitimate sponsorship potential, and not considering any other factors, then yes City's real unsubsidized number would fall in between Liverpool and Chelsea. Now, if you then account for success in recent years, I think there is a bump that City could realize there.
If there is no correlation between success and sponsorship income then United fans have nothing to worry about, we'll be taking in money indefinitely regardless of how we perform on the pitch. You only have to go into the Woodward/Glazers thread to see how that line of thinking is invalid.
So total earning potential of City (when you remove "unearned" sponsorship income related to ownership that could not be replicated by the open market) is absolutely not 644M. Subtract 100M from that and I think you're in the ballpark (below United, in the Liverpool/Chelsea tier).
Oh. My badThis all makes sense, but City are pulling in more per year than Chelsea from the links you provided
As you said, you have to take into account that these are multi-year deals
I explained the "why", if only you could read.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
Not being able to handle their current wage bill > downgrades > not winning > repeat.
@adexkola You boast so much about City's European success but they haven't done anything, almost irrelevant in CL, no wins, and only one final appearance, and that was in THE covid season
They've been beaten by so many random teams that even Pep has probably lost count of.
Even calling them the Arsenal of CL would be an overstatement.
They've been beaten by so many random teams that even Pep has probably lost count of.
Even calling them the Arsenal of CL would be an overstatement.
Looking at the shirt sales from last years, City's worldwide fanbase still has some catching up to do. There's no doubt City has been cooking books. I understand City's recent success has gained them new fans but I doubt they can eclipse traditionally successful clubs like United, Liverpool, Madrid, Bayern etc. in such a short period. Maybe if they continue dominating the PL and Europe for next few years, they'll have as large fanbase as United, Liverpool, Chelsea in next10-20 years.
Source : Best selling soccer (football) shirts by team worldwide 2021 | Statista
| Club | Shirt sales worldwide in 2021 |
| Bayern Munich | 3,250,000 |
| Real Madrid | 3,050,000 |
| Liverpool | 2,450,000 |
| Manchester United | 1,950,000 |
| Juventus | 1,420,000 |
| Barcelona | 1,340,000 |
| Chelsea | 1,310,000 |
| Borussia Dortmund | 1,222,000 |
| PSG | 1,180,000 |
| Manchester City | 1,087,000 |
Source : Best selling soccer (football) shirts by team worldwide 2021 | Statista