Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Wolves' Premier League Gamble


There are many aspects of this season’s Premier League that have made it one of the least predictable for a long time, not least the battle to avoid relegation, which is shaping up for a thrilling finale. Despite memorable home victories against reigning champions Chelsea and league leaders Manchester United, Wolverhampton Wanderers find themselves firmly ensconced in this struggle.

Last season Wolves finished in a very creditable 15th place, which was a superb achievement for the team’s first season back in the top flight after winning the Championship the previous year. In fact, this represented the club’s highest league position in 30 years and was the first time that Wolves had survived a season at the highest level since 1981.

Nevertheless, the club is now experiencing the classic second season syndrome, which has been exacerbated this year by the promotion of more experienced, wealthier clubs like Newcastle United and local rivals West Bromwich Albion. Sixteen defeats in 29 games have left Wolves languishing second from bottom of the Premier League, albeit only two points adrift from safety.

"Kevin Doyle - good bet to score"

Better news for the club came a couple of weeks ago, when chief executive Jez Moxey announced that Wolves had recorded an impressive £9 million profit on their return to the Premier League in 2009/10. On the face of it, the contrast between results on and off the pitch could not have been much starker, but the club’s financial success was not greeted with overwhelming enthusiasm by the fans, as this provided little consolation for being in the relegation zone. Questions were asked about whether some of that surplus should have been invested in a couple more players in the January transfer window in order to give the team a better chance of remaining in the top tier.

In fairness, this is Wolves’ most successful period for quite a while. Since 1984 the club has only spent three seasons in the top flight, one solitary year back in 2003/04 and two including the current season after the 2009 promotion, which marked the West Midlanders’ return to the Premier League after a six-year absence.

Paradoxically, this still feels like a big club, as it has a commendable roll of honour, including three league titles, though all of those came at least 50 years ago, and four FA Cup wins. Wolves were among the founder members of the Football League and were even more influential in the 1950s, when Stan Cullis’s exciting team staged a series of floodlit matches against top European opposition, which arguably paved the way for the introduction of the European Cup.

These days, even though they have played some attractive football this season, Wolves’ dazzling displays have been largely confined to their financial statements. Although it has almost become a truism that football clubs will be burdened by large levels of debt, Wolverhampton Wanderers are a glittering exception to this rule, and they are now in the happy position of being debt-free. In fact, after paying off bank loans of £3 million, the club is the envy of many others, as it is sitting on considerable surplus funds of £26 million, even generating interest for the last three years.

Indeed, Wolves have been in a very healthy financial state ever since Steve Morgan took over in 2007, when he bought the club for a nominal £10 fee from Sir Jack Hayward, though he also had to pledge a guaranteed £30 million investment. This was duly provided by the club’s parent company, W.W. (1990) Ltd, increasing its issued share capital by £30 million, which was fully paid up by Morgan (25%) and his investment company Carden Leisure Ltd (75%), a subsidiary of Bridgemere Investments Ltd, based in Guernsey.

Clearly, the fans owe Hayward a great deal for his generosity, as he wrote off well over £70 million when he effectively gifted the ownership of his beloved club to Morgan. A lifelong Wolves supporter, Hayward stayed close to his roots, even though he became a multi-millionaire running a business empire from his home in the Bahamas. He financed the redevelopment of the Molineux stadium in order to meet new government regulations in the early 1990s and provided a succession of managers with substantial funds to spend on the squad during his 17 year tenure, though he once famously complained that he was being milked like a “golden tit”.

"Sir Jack Hayward - old gold"

In his place, Wolves now have Steve Morgan, the chairman and founder of house builders Redrow, who has been listed as Britain’s 146th wealthiest individual in the Sunday Times Rich List. Despite an estimated fortune of £350 million, Morgan set out his stall early doors after he made the investment into the club, “It is intended that the new capital, over a period of time, will be used to help re-establish Wolves as a Premiership club. Although this is a significant amount of money, there will not be an ‘open cheque book’ approach to signing players. Instead the club will build on the current strategy of steadily and progressively developing a team of young, hungry and talented players.”

So, steady as she goes has been the mantra, which was once again echoed this year by Moxey, “Our financial results reflect the successful balance the Club struck between sound financial management and continuing investment in players and off the pitch infrastructure.” Indeed, the “3Ms” (Morgan, Moxey and manager Mick McCarthy) have placed stability at the centre of their strategy with the entire management team singing from the same song sheet.

Moxey explained their ethos, “We don't press the panic button at difficult times. We stick together as a club. We will show the stability we have had in recent years and look to move the club forward once more.” McCarthy for one is grateful for this support, believing that the backing he has received from the board has played a crucial role in the team’s recent mini resurgence.

"Matt Jarvis - close to an England call-up"

Nevertheless, every strategy needs to set an over-riding objective and Wolves’ is clearly outlined in the accounts, which state that the club’s “primary aim is to retain its Premier League status.” This is eminently understandable, but the lack of investment in new players in January suggests that they are taking a bit of a gamble that the current, relatively cheap squad will be good enough to beat the drop. They certainly have enough money to have purchased, say, a commanding central defender in January, which might just have made all the difference in the crucial last few games.

Funnily enough, you could argue that Wolves gambled financially in the other direction the year before, when they spent almost all of their turnover on wages and recorded a £5 million loss, in an attempt to secure promotion from the Championship. Obviously, that bet paid off handsomely, as Wolves reached the riches of the Premier League, but it could just as easily have failed in that ultra-competitive division.

That said, Wolves’ last few seasons in the Championship were remarkably consistent, at least in terms of financial performance, with the net result remaining in a narrow range of a £3 million profit and £5 million loss, suggesting that this is one club that strives to balance its books.

Therefore, it should probably come as no great surprise that the club made a profit in the Premier League with its far more lucrative TV deal, but the £9 million profit is still worthy of praise, given that only three other clubs have to date announced profits for 2009/10, namely Arsenal, Birmingham City and Burnley, with the rest all revealing hefty losses (though not all clubs have published their results yet for last season).

In fact, Wolves’ cash profit is even higher than the accounting profit with EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxation, Depreciation and Amortisation) of £21 million, not including profits on player sales of £4 million. Player disposals have not had a major impact on Wolves’ finances over the last few years with the peak year of 2007 only standing at £6 million, largely due to the transfer of Joleon Lescott to Everton. Interestingly, the 2009/10 results were boosted by the sell-on fee received following Lescott’s subsequent move to Manchester City.

Furthermore, the reported profit of £9 million has been held back by an accelerated depreciation charge of £6 million, which was booked as a result of the decision to redevelop Molineux, because this has shortened the economic life of the North and East stands. If this exceptional item were to be excluded, the profit before tax would have been a remarkable £15 million.

So how did Wolves convert a £5 million loss in the Championship to a £9 million profit in the Premier League?

The waterfall chart above explains this very clearly with green columns indicating an improvement in profit, while red columns show a deterioration. Basically, revenue has significantly increased by £42 million, very largely due to the central broadcasting deal, but this has been partially off-set by £28 million higher costs, mainly due to investment in the playing squad (wages and amortisation).

The financial benefits of being in the Premier League are evident with the huge uplift in revenue from £18 million to £61 million. As we have seen, the vast majority (£37 million) of the growth comes from television, but the other revenue streams have also increased. Gate receipts were up 43% from £7 million to £10 million, thanks to average attendances rising from 24,153 to 28,366, while commercial revenue also gained £2 million, mainly due to the enhanced value of the main sponsorship agreement with Sportingbet.

In the Championship, revenue fell from £24 million in 2005 and 2006 to £16 million in 2007, as that was the year that parachute payments following relegation from the Premier League ceased. On the other hand, revenue rose to £18 million in 2008, primarily due to the receipt of a £1.4 million solidarity payment from the Premier League, which was introduced to assist clubs that do not benefit from parachute payments. Revenue was maintained at the same level in 2009, even though the solidarity payment fell to £0.7 million, based on the club’s lower finishing position.

Despite Wolves’ notable revenue growth last season, their annual turnover of £61 million still leaves them in the bottom half of the Premier League in terms of revenue. To place this into context, when Wolves beat Manchester United 2-1 last month, they overcame a team whose revenue of £286 million is nearly five times as much as theirs. That’s a huge difference, especially when it’s repeated every season. That said, Wolves’ revenue does compare favourably with a number of clubs who have successfully competed in the top tier, such as Sunderland £65 million, Birmingham City £56 million and Bolton Wanderers £54 million, so they’re not completely disadvantaged.

Like virtually all clubs in the Premier League, the majority (64%) of Wolves’ income comes from TV, though this is far from the highest dependency with Wigan leading the way at 81%. Again, Wolves’ £39 million is nowhere near as much as the top clubs earn, mainly due to the money those teams earn from the Champions League, e.g. Manchester United receive an incredible £105 million. Almost all of Wolves’ television money comes from the Premier League’s sale of TV rights with the likes of Rupert Murdoch and other media moguls contributing nearly £36 million last season.

The distribution of the Premier League TV revenue is therefore of particular interest to a club like Wolves. Most of this is shared out equally, namely 50% of the domestic rights and 100% of the overseas rights, but not all of the money is allocated in this manner. Merit payments account for 25% of the domestic rights with each place in the final league table being worth around £800,000, which can make a big difference to some clubs. In addition, the remaining 25% of the domestic TV rights comes from the facility fee, which is based on how many times Sky broadcast a club’s matches live. Last season Wolves were shown the guaranteed minimum of 10 times, which was worth £6 million, while Manchester United were broadcast the maximum 24 times, which gave them £13 million.

Given the importance of the broadcasting revenue, the timing of new Premier League deals is particularly meaningful. The latest three-year contract commenced this season and will be worth an additional £7-10 million per annum to each club, largely thanks to the steep increase in overseas rights, once again emphasising the need for Wolves to preserve their place at the top table.

In a way, gate receipts are similar to TV revenue in that they have significantly grown after promotion, but are still not particularly high for a Premier League club at just £10 million. To place that into context, both Manchester United and Arsenal earn over £100 million a year from match day income. It should be noted that gate receipts are not exactly the same as match day income, but any re-classification from Wolves’ commercial revenue would not make a dramatic difference.

Attendances at Molineux have held up pretty well, considering the high unemployment rates in the West Midlands, which has traditionally relied on the ailing manufacturing industry to create jobs. In fact, last season’s attendances climbed 17% to stand at 28,366, which was the 12th highest in the Premier League, only surpassed by Aston Villa among neighbouring clubs, and meant that 97% of the ground’s capacity was filled.

This is particularly impressive, given that Wolves’ ticket prices are among the highest in the country. According to data from Sporting Intelligence, Wolves have the sixth most expensive entry level season tickets, ahead of Manchester United, though it should be acknowledged that most fans take advantage of “early bird” prices, so pay considerably less than the published price. The club also run a number of other pricing schemes to encourage fans, such as the occasional family special (“Wolves 4 Family Football”), which gives a family of four (2 adults, 2 children) entry to Molineux for just £40.

Nevertheless, a survey of football fans last year by Virgin Money suggested that over 50% of Wolves’ supporters were considering not renewing their season tickets, which was only behind the level of discontent exhibited at Manchester United, which is something of a special case due to the Green and Gold campaign against the Glazers, so the pricing strategy is probably not perfect.

"Steven Fletcher - he's a record breaker"

The current season is a bit of a mixed bag in terms of crowd figures. Having increased the capacity to 29,195 by reinstating a temporary stand in the south-west corner of the stadium, Wolves recorded their highest attendance ever at the new Molineux of 29,086 for last month’s 4-0 demolition of Blackpool. On the other hand, the average attendance has fallen 3.6% to 27,346, though Wolves are far from alone in experiencing such a trend, as more than half of the top 12 clubs have suffered the same fate.

In such an environment, it would be a courageous man that announces plans to redevelop the stadium to increase the capacity, but that is exactly what Morgan has just done. The chairman himself described this step as a “brave and decisive leap forward”, but explained the rationale behind the decision, “The aim is to drive the club forwards at all levels and to ensure that we put our team in the best possible position to compete at the highest level. To do that we need the best possible facilities at Molineux.”

Supported by the local council, the plan could ultimately increase the stadium capacity from 29,000 to 50,000, though as you might expect given Wolves’ financial prudence, the project has been broken down into a number of phases to enable the club to “pause and reflect” if required.

"Project Molineux - grounds for optimism"

Phase One is scheduled to begin at the end of the current season with the redevelopment of the Stan Cullis (North) Stand. A new two-tier stand with 7,700 seats, including new corporate facilities, a megastore and a museum will be built in its place and should be open for the start of the 2012/13 season, increasing Molineux’s capacity to 31,700. This will cost £16 million, but will be funded from existing cash flow, so no additional debt will be taken on, but might provide an explanation of why the club’s profits are apparently being hoarded, especially as there will be revenue shortfalls with capacity dropping to 23,995 during the construction.

Phase Two will see the Steve Bull (East) Stand being rebuilt over a two season period (2012/13 and 2013/14), scheduled to be ready for the start of the 2014/15 season, increasing the capacity to 36,000 and taking the total project cost to £40 million.

"George Elokobi - a big old unit"

Subject to league position and supporter demand, Phase Three would add a top tier to the Jack Harris (South) Stand, growing capacity to 38,000, but this stage has not yet been costed. Plans have also been drafted for a potential Phase Four, when the Billy Wright (West) Main Stand would be completely redeveloped, increasing capacity to a magical 50,000.

The main objective is clearly to generate more revenue, not just through more bums on seats, but an expansion in the number of corporate boxes, a new banqueting hall and seminar rooms. The hope would be to replicate the Emirates effect, which has increased Arsenal’s match day income from £44 million in their last season at Highbury to around £100 million today. However, there are other advantages too, as an increase in capacity will give the club a better chance to attract the fans of the future by offering reduced price tickets to children and more family days than they can at present. This is smart thinking, as once a club has got a fan (customer) hooked, it’s unlikely he will switch his allegiance at a later date.

"Stephen Hunt - hair we go"

Of course, it’s not as easy as that, otherwise all clubs would be redeveloping their grounds, and there is normally a price to pay for investing in the infrastructure. Although Morgan has stated that the project will not be at the expense of sensible investment in new players, there has to be some concern that this will be a difficult balance to get right. It’s no coincidence that Arsène Wenger’s parsimonious policy started after the move to the Emirates and the consequent substantial increase in Arsenal’s debt.

There also have to be some misgivings over whether the full grandiose plan would come to fruition if the unthinkable were to happen and Wolves were relegated. Chief executive Jez Moxey has claimed that retaining Premier League status was never a “must” for the project to go ahead, but I somehow doubt that it would progress much beyond Phase One if the club were to find itself in the Championship.

Wolves have also done reasonably well in commercial revenue, managing to grow both their deals for shirt sponsorship and kit suppliers. Although their revenue of £11 million is a long way behind the “Sky Six” (Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City and Tottenham), it’s more or less at the same level as the next tier of clubs.

Like many other clubs, Wolves are sponsored by an online gambling firm in the shape of Sportingbet, whose four-year deal runs until the end of the 2012/13 season and is worth £1.1 million a year, up from £0.9 million the previous season. It is impossible to imagine Wolves securing a deal of the magnitude of Liverpool and Manchester United (£20 million a season), but increasing the money received to £2-3 million is plausible, provided that the club becomes a fixture in the Premier League. Similarly, Wolves announced the biggest kit deal in their history last April, reportedly worth £3 million, after replacing Le Coq Sportif with Swiss clothing brand BURRDA for three years.

However, the accounts point out that trading costs have also increased in line with commercial sales. In fact, total expenditure (including player amortisation and depreciation) has almost doubled in the Premier League from £29 million to £56 million.

Nowhere is the impact on Wolves’ costs of promotion more evident than wages, which have shot up from £17 million to £30 million, an increase of almost 80%, though the important wages to turnover ratio has actually significantly fallen from a worrying 92% to a very respectable 49%, which is one of the best statistics in the Premier League, only bettered by Manchester United. It is obvious that Wolves pay a lot of attention to this key expense, as wages growth was minimal in the Championship, though an injection of money in the last season there did not harm the club’s promotion prospects.

Even with the large increase in salaries, Wolves have one of the lowest wage bills in the top tier with only two clubs below them and one of those (Stoke City) has yet to announce its 2009/10 results, so the chances are that in reality only Burnley spent less on wages last season. Of course, these accounts are nearly a year out of date, closing on 31 May 2010, so Wolves’ current wages are almost certainly a fair bit higher, after bringing in new players and extending the contracts of others like Wayne Hennessy, Kevin Foley and Sylvan Ebanks-Blake on better terms.

The wages league table suggests that there is a high degree of correlation between wages and success on the pitch with the top four places being occupied by Chelsea, Manchester City, Manchester United and Arsenal, but it is no guarantee of success – just look at Portsmouth. That said, there is surely a happy balance to be found between Pompey’s spendthrift approach and Wolves’ extreme caution.

This is the crux of the matter for Wolves’ fans. After all, it’s remarkably easy for a newly promoted club to make a solid profit in the Premier League, as the jump in revenue is so stratospheric. As we have seen, even if the costs are doubled, there is still a healthy surplus available. Of course, it’s equally easy to spend like a demented lottery winner and make a thumping great loss. The challenge is to find that elusive balance of spending sensibly, while not compromising the team’s performance on the pitch.

In fairness, Wolves managed to achieve that last season, but one of the directors, presumably the chief executive Jez Moxey, was richly rewarded for his efforts, as the accounts reveal that the highest paid director received £1.1 million last year, a hefty £515,000 increase on the previous year’s £600,000. That’s not quite as much as Messrs. Gill and Gazidis at Manchester United and Arsenal, but, then again, they are running significantly larger businesses.

"Jez Moxey - keeping the wolves from the door"

Similar to wages, player amortisation has grown a lot, at least in percentage terms, but the £9 million expense is still far behind most of Wolves’ Premier League rivals, who are “paying” for the transfer excesses of previous years. For the uninitiated, amortisation is an “accounting” expense, which occurs as the result of transfer purchases. When a player is bought, the cost is capitalised as an intangible fixed asset and amortised (written-off) over the length of his contract. This means that the costs of buying a player are not fully reflected in the books in the year of purchase, but over time amortisation can have a real impact on the profit and loss account, e.g. Manchester City’s annual amortisation is an astonishing £71 million, and this expense is almost certain to increase again this year at Wolves.

So, rising amortisation would suggest that Wolves have spent some money on buying new players, which is indeed the case. After many years of frugality, the club has splashed out a fair amount of cash recently. OK, we’re not talking massive sums, but the relative change is striking. In the seven years up to 2008/09, Wolves’ net spend in the transfer market (purchases less sales) was just £2 million, but this has shot up to £29 million in the last two years.

That said, they have hardly gone crazy. Chairman Steve Morgan explained the club’s methodology, “What we’re about is getting really good quality players for value for money under the radar. We’ve had some incredibly astute buys in the past.” Indeed, most of the signings could be described as solid, rather than spectacular. Last summer, the newcomers featured Steven Fletcher, whose scoring record in the Premier League is not exactly scintillating, two recruits from relegated Hull City (Stephen Hunt and Steven Mouyokolo) and a couple of Belgians that were not called Steven (or any variant thereof).

Wolves have also made good use of the loan system, most recently securing the services of the dynamic Jamie O’Hara from Spurs, with Chelsea’s Michael Mancienne now on his third loan spell at Molineux.

Given this risk-averse approach, it might surprise some fans that Wolves have actually been among the biggest spenders in the last couple of years. Although there have been a few big money transfers, the majority of clubs have hung on to their cash, so Wolves’ net spend of £29 million during this period is actually the fourth highest in the Premier League, only behind Manchester City, Chelsea and Birmingham.

No wonder Morgan was dismissive of his detractors, “Anyone jumping down my throat, saying ‘we’re not buying players” is talking rubbish. We spent £18 million to make us the third highest spenders in the Premier League last summer, so we spent more than 17 other teams.” Furthermore, in that time, Wolves have twice broken their transfer record with the arrivals of Kevin Doyle for £6.5 million and Steven Fletcher for £7 million.

The club has also invested relatively high sums in its academy, including the £5 million state-of-the-art Sir Jack Hayward Training Ground, which includes a fully accredited sports laboratory, based on AC Milan’s famed Milanello facility. Morgan outlined this vision, “Developing home grown talent remains a key part of our strategy and the number of internationals within our academy ranks is an indication of the quality of players coming through.” Indeed, he believes that the current crop of youngsters is the best in years, maybe even on a par with famous youth players of the past, such as Robbie Keane and Joleon Lescott.

Such player development is important both on an off the pitch. Supporters love nothing more than home-grown talent doing the business for their team, but it’s also good business sense. As the club explained in the results announcement, such players do not appear on the balance sheet as assets, even though they have a significant value in the transfer market.

"Mick McCarthy - always looking on the bright side of life"

In fact, the value of all players is under-stated in the books, because of the accounting treatment. The reputable Transfermarkt web site has estimated the market value of Wolves’ squad to be £57 million, which is much higher than the £17 million included in the accounts. In spite of this artificially low valuation, Wolves’ balance sheet is still very strong with net assets of £70 million and net current assets of £20 million.

So what does the future hold for Wolves?

Well, it’s almost impossible to predict what will happen on then field, but financial projections are thankfully a little easier. In the case of Wolves, I think that we can confidently predict more of the same. Moxey told fans, “We will make a profit again this year, although not as much. We need to make a profit, because we also want to continue to invest in new players.” In other words, revenue will again rise, mainly due to the new TV deal, but costs will also grow, mainly for player investment.

"Karl Henry - likes a tackle"

Moxey re-iterated Wolverhampton Wanderers’ strategy, “We will not be irresponsible and fall into the dangerous trap of over-stretching the club.” This neatly summarised the heartfelt views of the owner, which he explained last year, “It’s important that this club is run for the long term. We want to be around and successful not just this year and next year, but in the future. And the only way you can do that is by managing things properly with a medium and long-term view. Two and two make four no matter what business you are in. You can’t keep hocking your future. It’s like pawning your family silver. Unfortunately, too many football clubs are spending too high a proportion of their income on meeting interest payments and paying wages that they can’t afford, and transfer fees which are unsustainable.”

Running a football club as a sustainable business should be lauded, but the nagging question remains: what would happen if the club were to be relegated?

The financial impact of relegation is identified as the club’s principal risk in the accounts, but the directors state that they would be able to “implement the necessary measures to ensure that the club can continue to operate successfully.” Moxey spelled this out, when he admitted that Wolves would have to sell players if they returned to the Championship, and you would also expect a club as financially shrewd as Wolves to have included clauses in their players’ contracts reducing salaries in the event of relegation.

"Jamie O'Hara - loan star"

Furthermore, the parachute payments paid to clubs dropping out of the Premier league have been increased to £48 million (£16 million in each of the first two years, £8 million in each of years three and four), but it should be noted that this would still represent a drastic reduction for Wolves. They can expect around £42 million distribution from the Premier League this year, so they would have to manage a £26 million decrease in their revenue, which would be a test to say the least.

Relegation is clearly a distinct possibility this season, with the points needed to survive probably higher than ever before, but the plan is to avoid being involved in such battles in future. Indeed, Steve Morgan said that is why they are redeveloping the ground, as he expects his club to become a permanent fixture in the top flight, “It’s more than a dream. I think it is a realistic target.”

If that hope becomes a reality, Wolves might even start challenging for a place in European competitions. They would certainly be well placed to handle the forthcoming UEFA Financial Fair Play regulations, which will force clubs to live within their means, if they are to be allowed to compete in Europe.

"Steve Morgan - building confidence"

Morgan has clearly cast a glance in their direction, as he revealed when commenting on the Torres and Carroll transfers: “To be honest, I think it's nuts and I don't know how certain clubs are going to get through the fair play rules which kick in next season. It just can't be done with transfers like that. To clubs like Wolves, it's completely surreal. It clearly isn't a level playing field, when some clubs can literally throw telephone numbers around and others have to live within our budget.”

There’s no doubt that Steve Morgan is a smart cookie, but some have questioned his commitment, given that he is a Liverpool fan, who tried to buy the Reds in 2004, before arriving in the West Midlands. Morgan himself has stated that Wolves have always been his second team, because he grew up watching them win league titles and the FA Cup. Of course, that criterion could apply to many other teams, but affection for his adopted club does shine through his comments: “I remember the days when Wolves were the greatest club in the land and, although times have changed, we are going to do our best to take Wolves back to where they were.”

"Dances with Wolves"

First things first, the club absolutely has to avoid relegation in order for the strategy to remain on track. On paper, they have a great chance, as their run-in looks easier than their rivals, but the team still has to secure the points required.

Wolves’ performances on the pitch are currently lagging behind the financial results, and their prudent approach may yet come back to haunt them. While it might seem strange to describe a sensible financial strategy as a gamble, that’s exactly what it is in the unforgiving world of modern football, where money talks loudest. The league position at the end of the season will reveal whether it has paid off or not.

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Is Football's Gravy Train Slowing Down?


Last month Deloitte published the latest edition of the Football Money League, their annual ranking of European clubs by revenue. Once again, the Premier League featured prominently with seven English clubs listed in the top 20, though the two highest earning clubs were still the Spanish giants, Real Madrid and Barcelona. On the face of it, this was yet another demonstration of the Premier League’s ability to generate revenue, while defying the effects of the economic recession.

Once again, Manchester United were the highest ranked English club in third position, while Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool all retained their positions in the top ten, though Manchester City were the biggest movers, rising nine places to 11th, one position better than Tottenham. Aston Villa were a new entry to the Money League in 20th position.

Moreover, the combined revenue of the clubs in the Premier League of around £2 billion is still miles higher than all other football leagues (Bundesliga £1.4 billion, La Liga and Serie A both £1.3 billion), though it should be pointed out that the German league is actually more profitable. On top of that, Deloitte forecast that revenue for the 2010/11 season will rise once again to £2.2 billion, thanks to the new television contract and some higher sponsorship deals.

In short, everything would appear to be rosy in the Premier League’s garden, at least from a revenue perspective. However, there have been a few indications recently that all might not be well with the Premier League’s business model with revenue growth slowing down at most clubs. Even Arsenal, who have been portrayed by UEFA as a shining example of a well-run football club, reported a 3% decline in their revenue for the first six months of 2010/11.

The signs were already there in the cycle of 2009/10 results. Revenue was flat at clubs like Everton and Sunderland, while the leading clubs have by and large also been suffering. In fact, we can reasonably take the financials of what can now be referred to as the “Sky Six” (Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City and Tottenham) as a decent proxy for the Premier League, as they account for almost 60% of the league’s total revenue.

In 2009/10, the revenue for these six clubs grew by 5%, which looks fairly impressive, but there are a few aspects that should be stressed. First, more than two-thirds of the £56 million increase came from just one club, Manchester City, who were boosted by a series of “friendly” commercial deals from the Middle East, while there was virtually no growth from the traditional “Big Four” clubs. Second, although revenue has risen by 77% (about £500 million) since 2004, very little of that growth has come in the last three years. This highlights the importance of the three-year TV deal with Sky, which once again climbed in 2008. Since that date, the annual percentage increase in revenue has fallen away from around 20% to 5%.

For the Premier League, there’s no doubt that television has been the gift that keeps on giving, significantly boosting all clubs’ revenue since the self-proclaimed best league in the world first held hands with Rupert Murdoch’s minions. This has almost certainly given most clubs an inflated sense of their commercial acumen, as they have conveniently forgotten the old economics proverb about a rising tide lifting all boats. Looking at how the revenue of the top six clubs has changed over the past few years, it is striking how similar their growth has been since 2004 with only a couple of exceptional events, like Arsenal moving to the Emirates Stadium or Manchester City’s new-found ability to secure marketing deals, altering the landscape.

In fact, television is now the biggest element of revenue at Premier League clubs, contributing almost half of their turnover, though the proportion is a bit lower for the top six clubs at 40%. This is much needed when you consider that match day revenue growth has effectively come to a standstill, in fact decreasing 5% in 2009/10, while commercial income barely grew at all (3%), if you exclude Manchester City. There are legitimate question marks over whether the Premier League’s growth engine will continue to motor ahead or whether it has stalled.

In order to understand what is going on, we need to explore each of the three main revenue streams at football clubs in detail: (1) Match day revenue - largely derived from gate receipts (including season tickets and memberships); (2) Broadcast revenue – largely from the Premier League and Champions League, but also including Cup competitions; (3) Commercial revenue – mainly sponsorships and merchandising.

1. Match day

Match day revenue is traditionally the most important source of revenue for football clubs, and that remains the case for our six clubs, even though it has been surpassed by broadcasting revenue. In fact, relatively high ticket prices, allied with a lot of corporate hospitality, mean that five of the top nine places in the Money League for match day revenue belong to English clubs with both Manchester United and Arsenal generating around £100 million a season.

That said, match day revenue actually declined at four of our six clubs last year (10% at Chelsea, 8% at Manchester United, 7% at Tottenham and 6% at Arsenal), while it was flat at Liverpool. This is nothing new under the sun with match day revenue hardly growing at all since 2007.

There are really only five ways to grow match day revenue: (a) raise ticket prices; (b) stage more matches; (c) increase the number of fans; (d) have a better mix of spectators (in terms of revenue generation, if not passion); (e) build a new, larger stadium. Let’s take a look at each of these factors in turn.

(a) Ticket prices. It’s difficult to see how English clubs can greatly increase ticket prices, as they are already among the highest in Europe. Even Manchester United announced a freeze in their season ticket prices this year, after the Glazers had increased prices by an average of 10% a season since their unwelcome arrival. Chelsea did raised their ticket prices at the beginning of this season, but this followed four consecutive seasons of freezing prices and was the first increase since July 2005.

"If you build it, they will come"

In a blaze of publicity, the rise in VAT also lead to the first £100 “ordinary” ticket in English football at Arsenal, and though cheaper options are available, prices are considerably higher here than, say, the £10 a head paid by most Borussia Dortmund fans.

The conclusion has to be that there is some scope for raising ticket prices, but not much. As former culture secretary Andy Burnham said, “We have seen fans priced out of going to football”, and resistance is growing towards higher prices. Last week, the Arsenal Supporters Trust warned the club that it should not attempt to cover the cost of wage increases via season ticket price increases.

(b) Number of matches. Match day revenue obviously depends on the number of games played at home, so extended runs in the cup competitions can provide a significant boost to revenue, even if the TV and prize money is inconsequential. The other side of the coin is that fewer home games can lead to a reduction in revenue, which is exactly what happened to four of our clubs. Manchester United, Arsenal and Tottenham all played fewer home ties in the domestic cups, while Chelsea were hurt by an earlier Champions League exit. Arsenal were particularly impacted as they had an incredible five fewer home matches in 2009/10 (27 compared to 32 the previous season).

(c) Number of spectators. The other aspect of volume in the economists’ price-volume equation is the number of bums on seats (“no standing, please”). Average attendances fell slightly at five of our six clubs last season, the one exception being Manchester City, whose crowds rose by over 6%. In fact, crowd levels have been remarkably resilient in this difficult recessionary climate with all of our clubs filling at least 95% of their stadium capacity. That’s a notable demonstration of support, underlined by the fact that average crowds so far in the 2010/11 season have actually marginally increased at five clubs with only Liverpool falling (the Hodgson factor?). The average attendance at Manchester United has held up, even though season ticket renewals fell 5%. Of course, the corollary of this positive news is that there is hardly any room for growth.

(d) Spectator mix. Although the “prawn sandwich brigade” is roundly derided by the majority of fans, there’s little doubt that they allow football clubs to get more bang for their buck. Perhaps the best example here is Arsenal, whose move to the Emirates brought them far more premium priced seats and notably expanded corporate hospitality facilities. In fact, Arsenal make 35% of their match day revenue from just 9,000 premium seats at the Emirates. Clearly, you don’t want too many bankers and other corporate types killing the atmosphere at the ground, but an effective balance can be struck.

(e) New stadium. Arsenal’s move to the Emirates more than doubled their match day revenue in 2006/07 from £44 million to £91 million, moving them four places up the main Money League from ninth to fifth. Sometimes, it is possible to expand the capacity of the current stadium, as Manchester United did in 2006/07, when they completed the upper quadrants at Old Trafford. However, the big money growth, especially for those clubs with smaller grounds, comes with a move to a larger, more modern stadium, which is why so many have been looking at such a possibility. However, as we have seen, there are many hurdles to overcome before successfully completing such a project.

Tottenham’s hopes of moving to the Olympic Stadium appear to have been thwarted, while Hicks and Gillett’s famous spade never quite reached the ground at Stanley Park in Liverpool. Similarly, Chelsea have struggled to find a suitable location in West London, though the Earls Court Exhibition Centre may once again be on the agenda. Manchester City’s match day income has been restricted by the deal they signed with the local council, though a new agreement means that they would get more benefit if they were to expand the capacity at the City of Manchester Stadium.

All of these factors produce vastly different match day revenues per match with Manchester United and Arsenal really coining it at around £3.5 million, while Tottenham and Manchester City earn considerably less at £1.5 million and £1 million respectively. Interestingly, Chelsea generate far more revenue (£2.4 million) than Liverpool (£1.6 million), even though their ground capacity is nearly 4,000 lower. If you ever wanted to understand why clubs are exploring other options, there’s the reason right there.

2. Television

However, in the modern world, it’s television that drives revenue growth. Its impact can be clearly seen by looking at the 45% uplift in 2008, which coincided with the introduction of the new three-year TV deal. Last season, it was the same old story with broadcasting income rising an average of just under 10% at our six clubs, increasing its share of total revenue to 40%. In fact, it’s even more important lower down the Premier League, where TV can account for a staggering 70% or more of revenue at clubs like Blackburn, Bolton and Wigan.

The Premier League can be criticised for many things, but their ability to market the “product” is beyond censure. The growth in payments secured for the TV rights has been nothing short of astonishing from the initial £253 million 5-year deal in 1992 to the £3.4 billion payment that commenced this season. To make that spectacular progress even clearer: the original deal was worth £50 million a season, while the latest brings in more than £1.1 billion.

This makes sense if you consider that audiences for live football have continued to hold up, while viewing figures have declined across the remainder of the schedule. This is premium content for pay-TV stations, whose business model relies on selling lots of subscriptions to sports channels.

Great news for football clubs, but closer examination of the new rights deals reveals an interesting (and potentially worrying) trend. Revenue for the sale of domestic TV rights (live matches and highlights) hardly grew at all in the new contract, implying that the home market may have reached saturation point. Instead, it is overseas fans that have been behind the explosive growth with the revenue doubling each time the rights are re-negotiated: 2001-04 £178 million, 2004-07 £325 million, 2007-10 £625 million and 2010-13 £1.4 billion.

Some of the increases seem barely credible: the Abu Dhabi Sports Channel paid over £200 million for the Middle East and North Africa (almost three times the £80 million paid by previous incumbent Showtime Arabia); in Singapore, an island with a population of less than 5 million people, SingTel paid £200 million to secure the rights from its rival StarHub; similarly, in Hong Kong i-Cable paid nearly £150 million, much more than the £115 million Now TV paid last time around.

As Steve McMahon, the former Liverpool player turned executive at the Singapore-based Profitable Group, said, “It is a global game. The television figures when Liverpool or Manchester United play are 600 or 700 million.” To support his assertion, the Premier League is now beamed into 575 million homes in more than 200 countries around the world.

"The future? No, very much the past"

In fact, the extraordinary globalisation of the Premier League could make English football the first world sport to earn more money from supporters abroad than at home. Foreign rights already account for 44% of the total and it would be no surprise if they overtook domestic rights in the future. Chief executive Richard Scudamore boasted, “By focusing on the quality of the game, their players and their grounds, the clubs have produced a competition that people want to watch – both at matches and at home.”

However, he who pays the piper calls the tune and there are a couple of downsides to this overseas expansion. First, it makes it more likely that kick-off times will be changed to suit fans abroad, so we can expect more lunchtime matches that can be screened during the evening peak viewing time in Asia. Second, it becomes imperative to continually promote the Premier League brand abroad, hence the unpopular proposal to play a 39th game abroad (in the same way that the NFL and NBA have marketed their product by staging matches in London) on top of the customary exhausting pre-season tours.

The other concern has to be that in the same way that revenue from the sale of domestic rights appears to have reached a plateau, this might now also be the case for foreign rights. Certainly, it would be surprising if the next deal were to double in value once again.

"Coming on tour near you soon"

Having said that, it should be acknowledged that the Premier League TV deal is still the best around, compared to other European leagues. At £1.1 billion a season, it is higher than Serie A £760 million, Ligue Un £560 million, La Liga £500 million and the Bundesliga £340 million. The difference is largely due to those foreign rights, e.g. the Premier League earns £480 million a season, while La Liga only receives £130 million and the Bundesliga a paltry £35 million.

This does not necessarily provide such a big competitive advantage to the leading English clubs, as the distribution is more equitable in the Premier League, meaning that the major Spanish and Italian clubs earned more broadcasting revenue last year. From this season, this may well change in Italy, as they have now moved to a collective agreement, leaving Spain as the only important European league where rights are sold on an individual basis.

The Premier League make great play of the fact that their distribution formula is the most equitable of all Europe’s major football leagues, citing the ratio between bottom and top clubs of just 1 to 1.7, which is considerably lower than La Liga’s 1 to 12. In 2009/10, Manchester United received the most money from the Premier League with £53 million, while bottom club Portsmouth received a very respectable £32 million. However, in La Liga, both Barcelona and Real Madrid received £117 million, while the bottom club only got £10 million. Actually, in Spain the drop starts almost immediately with third placed Valencia only receiving £35 million.

That said, there are ways in which the Premier League distribution model does favour the leading clubs. It’s true that half of the domestic money and all of the overseas rights are split evenly among the 20 clubs, but 50% of the domestic rights is not. For these funds, 25% is for merit payments, determined by the club’s final league position, and 25% is paid in facility fees, based on how often a club is shown live on television.

Each place in the league is worth an additional £800,000, which can make quite a difference, so Chelsea took the maximum £16 million last year, while Portsmouth only received £800,000. Similarly, each club is guaranteed a minimum of ten TV appearances with a maximum of 24. It’s no surprise to see that the leading clubs feature much more often than those lower down the league, so Manchester United’s £13 million facility fee was more than twice that of Hull City (£6.3 million).

Fair enough, you might think, given that more people are likely to tune in to, say, Arsenal against Spurs than Birmingham City against Blackburn Rovers. However, that does rather beg the question of whether clubs with a global fan base like Manchester United and Liverpool might start agitating for a higher share of the growing overseas rights on the same principle.

There’s certainly little difference between the leading clubs in terms of Premier League distributions at the moment with the range between first and fifth place being only £3 million (£53 million to £50 million). This only emphasises the importance of reaching the Champions League to these clubs with the four qualifiers last season benefiting by an average of £29 million each, excluding gate receipts and additional payments from sponsors.

The distributions are a mixture of participation fees (€7.1 million) and performance bonuses (in the group stage, €800,000 for each victory plus €400,000 for each draw). There are additional payments made to teams that progress further in the competition with €3 million the reward for advancing to the round of 16, €3.3 million for reaching the quarter-finals and €4.2 million for a semi-final place. The winners of the final collect a further €9 million, with €5.6 million going to the runners-up. Distributions are based in Euros, so the weakening of Sterling over the last few years has further increased the value to English clubs.

In addition, clubs receive a share of the television money from the so-called market pool. This is a variable amount, which is allocated depending on a number of factors: (a) the size/value of a country’s TV market, so the amount allocated to teams in England is more than that given to, say, Spain, as English television generates more revenue; (b) the number of representatives from a country, so an English team (with four representatives) might receive less than a German team (with only three representatives); (c) the position of a club in its domestic championship in the previous season, so if two teams from England both reach the quarter-final, the one that finished ahead of the other in the Premier League would get more money; (d) the number of matches played in the current season’s Champions League.

The size of the Champions League revenue pool has been steadily increasing, but once again the growth rate has been slowing down. Nevertheless, there is still an enormous difference between the Champions League and Europa League in terms of payments. Last season, Fulham’s valiant run to the final of the Europa League only earned them £8 million, which is £16 million lower than the smallest payment received by an English representative in the Champions League. Therefore, Liverpool’s failure to qualify for Europe’s premier competition will have a big negative impact on their finances, while Tottenham’s will receive a hefty shot in the arm.

As with any other business, however, there are threats to the Premier League’s dominance of the football television market, starting with the courts of law.

A recent non-binding opinion from an advocate at the European Court of Justice in a case brought by a Portsmouth pub landlady stated that broadcasters cannot prevent customers using cheaper foreign satellite television services to watch Premier League football. This brings into question the current model whereby the Premier League licenses its content on a country-by-country basis, which has allowed the league to fully maximise the value of its rights.

If this opinion is confirmed by a court ruling, the implication is that in the future the Premier League would have to sell the rights in one bundle to the European Union, theoretically reducing the revenue received, at least according to Omar Sheikh of Credit Suisse, “Ultimately the value of the rights will probably go down, because there are only two likely bidders on a pan-European basis.” On the other hand, a relatively low proportion of overseas income currently comes from Europe and the Premier League has to date proved very adroit at finding ways to get the most out of its TV rights.

There are other regulatory challenges to the current model. Media watchdog Ofcom has already ordered Sky to give rival broadcasters cheaper access to its exclusive rights, maybe by up to a third, which may in turn lead to Sky paying lower prices for those rights, though the Premier League (apparently linked by an umbilical cord to Sky) has decided to take legal action in an attempt to overturn the decision, as “the consequences for UK sport and UK sports fans are too serious and fundamental for us to ignore.” Yeah, right. Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.

The reality is that TV channels are not immune from the recession, as we saw when ITV Digital and Setanta went bankrupt. Although the latter’s collapse has in itself not proved problematic, as ESPN snapped up the TV rights relinquished by Setanta, if Sky were to hit financial difficulties this would be extremely serious for the Premier League and by extension the clubs. This may not seem likely, but it is not out of the realms of possibility. For example, Mediapro, the company that owns the TV rights in Spain for La Liga, applied for bankruptcy protection last year.

Although the Premier League is the current undisputed “heavyweight champion of the world” in terms of global popularity, that could change if more of football’s top stars decide to move to another league like La Liga, e.g. Cristiano Ronaldo to Real Madrid, as the “product” would then be devalued. It’s also true that to a certain extent the Premier League have had it easy so far selling its content overseas and it’s only a matter of time before the other leagues pull their fingers out and provide some meaningful competition.

"Goodbye Premier League, hello La Liga"

Perhaps the most intriguing question is how the Premier League reacts to new technology, which could be both an opportunity and a threat for the leading clubs. To date, it has responded in the traditional old economy manner by employing a company to protect its rights online and issuing lawsuits against those that provide illegal streams on the internet.

However, the emergence of fast, broadband networks might just be the catalyst for clubs to interact directly with fans. Although ventures like MUTV and Arsenal TV Online have hardly set the world alight, it is clear that foreign owners can see huge potential in online services, hence Stan Kroenke’s purchase of a 50% share in Arsenal Broadband (more than his 29.9% stake in the club). To give an idea of the size of the prize, the value of the New York Yankees’ official cable network is three times as high as the club itself.

Just because television is the medium of choice now does not mean that this will always be the case (“Video killed the radio star”) and there may well be a paradigm shift in the future in how fans watch football and how clubs generate broadcasting revenue. In the long-term, you can envisage a scenario where clubs heavily discount tickets to encourage fans to attend, as they provide much of the atmosphere and excitement that makes the Premier League such an appealing spectacle. One day they might even “invert the pyramid” and pay fans to attend…

3. Commercial

Back in today’s hard-hearted world, commercial revenue had been declining in the Premier League, but it rose an impressive 13% for our six clubs last season, though the performance was very much a mixed bag. Most of the growth came from Manchester City, whose commercial income grew a staggering 159% from £18 million to £47 million, thanks to a raft of amicable agreements with companies based in the Middle East. Manchester United have also been no slouches in the commercial arena, as their new territory specific approach delivered many new secondary partners like Turkish Airlines, Betfair, DHL, Thomas Cook, Singha and Epson. On the other hand, commercial revenue fell at both Arsenal and Liverpool.

Even with these improvements, there is still a lot of scope for growth if you compare how much revenue German clubs generate. Although this is facilitated by advertisers loving the German combination of high crowds and easily accessible televised games, it still seems strange that Schalke 04 can earn more commercial revenue (£66 million) than all but one English club. Even the £81 million generated by a fabulous franchise like Manchester United pales into insignificance relative to the £144 million produced by Bayern Munich.

That said, the leading English clubs have all managed to increase their shirt sponsorship in 2010/11, some of them significantly: Liverpool’s deal with Standard Chartered is £12.5m more than the £7.5m paid by Carlsberg; Manchester United’s deal with Aon is £6m better than the £14m from AIG; Chelsea have negotiated a £4 million increase in their Samsung deal to £14 million; while Tottenham have adopted an innovative arrangement of different shirt sponsors for league (Autonomy) and cup competitions (Investec), worth a combined £12.5 million compared to the previous £8.5 million with Mansion. In fact, the total shirt sponsorship revenue in the Premier League has now overtaken the Bundesliga.

In the same way, clubs are still managing to increase revenue from their deals with kit suppliers. There was another contractual step-up in Manchester United’s amazing Nike deal to £25 million, while Chelsea signed an eight-year extension of their deal with Adidas, which greatly increased the annual payment by £8 million from £12 million to £20 million.

Although “the boom in European football merchandising is ongoing”, according to Dr. Peter Rohlmann of PR Marketing, only two Premier League clubs make the list of top ten clubs in terms of revenue with Liverpool third and Manchester United sixth in a report compiled by Sport + Markt. However, their figures have been questioned by United, who claim that the analysis is based only on sales made at the stadium. Such figures are always debatable, as they are not always prepared on a comparable basis, e.g. if retail operations are outsourced, a club will only include a royalty payment in revenue. Nevertheless, what can be said with some confidence is that it is only really the less established leagues that can look forward to significant growth here.

The holy grail for commercial revenue seems to be selling stadium naming rights, but this has proved easier said than done for most clubs. While Chelsea have often spoken about hoping to secure £10 million per annum, the only team in our six clubs that has actually sealed a deal is Arsenal – and they needed to move to a new stadium to achieve this.

Furthermore, in order to gain funding for the stadium construction, the deal with Emirates is not particularly good (£90 million for 15 years up to 2020/21, including the shirt sponsorship until 2013/14), which has held back the club’s commercial income. Arsenal have invested in an expensive new commercial team, so we shall see whether they can deliver any growth in the short-term. As chief commercial officer Tom Fox said, “Ultimately a club is worth what it monetizes.”

That said, commercial revenue is impacted by a number of external factors: the economic climate, number of home games (merchandising and catering) and progress in cup competitions, due to performance-related clauses in sponsorship agreements.

Nevertheless, the flood of new foreign owners in the Premier League clearly believes that there is gold in them there hills. As an example, John W. Henry, whose New England Sports Ventures bought Liverpool a few months ago, spoke of the club’s global revenue potential, when outlining his team’s plans to transform the Reds’ finances, as he did with the Boston Red Sox. NESV clearly hope to use their baseball experience to generate more commercial revenue from global sources.

One other “revenue” stream for football clubs is the profit made on player sales, which you might think would be negligible for the leading clubs, but has brought in a lot of cash for Manchester United and Arsenal, who averaged £39 million and £29 million respectively over the last three years. Indeed, the main reason for the drop in Arsenal’s interim profits was the lack of player sales. Some top clubs on the continents actively use player sales as part of their business model, two obvious examples being Lyon and Porto.

"My profit on sale was how much?"

So why is revenue growth important? We can look at that from two very different perspectives.

First, English clubs need strong revenues to compete with their European rivals when trying to attract world-class players, both in terms of transfer fees and wages. This is the virtuous circle often referenced by Richard Scudamore, “The continued investment in playing talent and facilities made by the clubs is largely down to the revenue generated through the sale of our broadcast rights.” OK, he’s talking specifically about television revenue here, but the general point remains valid.

Whether this is desirable is another question, as the wages to turnover ratio is nearing a critical 70% in the Premier League. Each time that the clubs’ revenue substantially increases, usually through a more lucrative broadcasting deal, the clubs simply pass the additional funds straight into the players’ bank accounts. According to a report recently published by UEFA, although top-flight clubs across 53 countries increased their revenue by 4.8% to €11.7 billion, costs rose by nearly twice that at 9.3%, resulting in total losses of €1.2bn – more than twice the previous record.

The advent of UEFA’s Financial Fair Play regulations, which will force clubs to balance their books without relying on a benefactor’s generosity, mean that the ability of clubs to generate more revenue from football operations will become critically important. As John Henry said on his arrival at Liverpool, “With the financial fair play rules, it is really going to be revenue that drives how good you club can be in the future.”

"Richard Scudamore - nothing wrong with the Premier League"

Given their stellar showing in the Deloitte Money League, this would appear to place England’s leading clubs at a considerable advantage. Certainly, the Premier League’s “see no evil, hear no evil” chief executive, Richard Scudamore, remains confident, “People said we were a bubble going to burst. They said it eight years ago, six years ago, four years ago. From all the indicators we've got, we don't think interest is lessening.”

That is clearly the case right now, though as an industry football is very fortunate that it has such loyal “customers”. The reality is that people love football and will spend considerable sums to follow their team, be that through attending matches, watching them on television or buying the club’s merchandise – even when they disapprove of the club’s owners, as we have seen at Manchester United.

However, a few signs are emerging that the clubs will have to work harder to earn their revenue growth, become more commercial, if you will, rather than simply rely on the three-year cycle of television rights delivering ever-increasing sums of money. The time is fast approaching when they will need to seek alternatives. At that point, we shall see whether football clubs do indeed have the skills to pay the bills.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...