Football

Rain (AM and PM) 4° London Hi 10°C / Lo 3°C

Manchester United income soars in football rich list

By Nick Harris

<b>1 (1) Real Madrid £289.6m</b><br/> Real Madrid's 4 per cent revenue growth is more modest than recent years, but the club have doubled their revenues since 2002

GETTY IMAGES

1 (1) Real Madrid £289.6m
Real Madrid's 4 per cent revenue growth is more modest than recent years, but the club have doubled their revenues since 2002

Manchester United’s dominance of English football, on and off the pitch, is underlined today with the release of a financial survey that shows a £45m leap in United’s year-on-year income. Thanks in large part to last season’s Premier League and Champions League double, United’s turnover grew by 21 per cent in the 2007-08 season to £257.1m.

This makes United by far the highest-earning club in Britain, ahead of Chelsea (in second place, with income of £212.9m in the same period), Arsenal (£209.3m) and Liverpool (£167m).

Click the images to the right to see the 20 richest clubs in the world.

The figures are revealed in the latest Football Money League report by Deloitte, in a survey that shows Real Madrid remain the world’s richest club in terms of revenue, ahead of United in second, then Barcelona, Bayern Munich and Chelsea.

Only a drastic slump in the value of sterling has prevented United from reclaiming the title of “world’s richest club” from Real. Real Madrid’s income for 2007-08 rose a relatively modest four per cent to 365.8m euros, or £289.6m when converted at the June 2008 exchange rate of £1 = 1.2632 euros. United’s income at the same rate equated to 324.8m euros.

But sterling has crashed significantly, and if Deloitte had used the same exchange rate as in their previous report (£1 = 1.4856 euros, from June 2007), United’s latest income would have been 381.9m euros against Real’s 365.8m euros.

One of the most intriguing aspects of today’s report is that Deloitte, rather than the clubs themselves, has become the vehicle of choice for headline income figures to be released. United will provide more details of their results in due course, including data on large profits, but Chelsea are expected to remain conspicuously quiet this week about their own results.

A press conference and briefing, scheduled for Friday, has been indefinitely shelved, and it is understood that this is partly because of the sacking of Luiz Felipe Scolari. His pay-off, of around £7.5m, would not have been in the 2007-08 accounts but would have prompted embarrassing questions about Chelsea’s huge and ongoing losses.

An annual loss of £74.8m in 2006-07 on turnover of £190.5m meant the club had posted cumulative losses of £384m in four years. Haemorrhaging of money at such levels has always heaped ridicule on the long-standing claims of Chelsea’s chief executive, Peter Kenyon, that the club can break even by 2010. Yet further losses in the tens of millions are expected in the 2007-08 figures. And combined with the latest change in manager and wobble in form (and the financial ramifications of both) any suggestions of financial self-sufficiency soon are hollow jokes, as, increasingly, are Kenyon and Roman Abramovich themselves.

As the Deloitte report points out, Chelsea’s annual income growth of 12 per cent (£22.4m) in 2007-08 was driven mainly by increased TV cash, “but the club needs new successes with its match day and commercial revenues to deliver future growth and keep pace with its biggest European rivals.”

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Show some respect
[info]aussieblue wrote:
Thursday, 12 February 2009 at 12:40 am (UTC)
Apparently any responses to this article which contain offensive or abusive comments will be removed. How about removing this from the article... "any suggestions of financial self-sufficiency soon are hollow jokes, as, increasingly, are Kenyon and Roman Abramovich themselves".
Journalism like this we can do without.
Re: Journalism like this we can do without..........
[info]gibsonsway wrote:
Thursday, 12 February 2009 at 02:49 am (UTC)
........but its exactly what most people are thinking. They are a joke, along with a lot that is going on in the Premiership.
Re: Journalism like this we can do without..........
[info]aussieblue wrote:
Thursday, 12 February 2009 at 04:57 am (UTC)
My problem with Mr Harris is that he feels its acceptable to throw in a snide comment in the middle of an article which on the whole is relevant and interesting. I can't stand on a terrace (or should I say sit in my seat) and make offensive calls without threat of expulsion, quite rightly I'll add. Just a little hypocritical of the media to have a go at players and fans for lack of respect when they show the same lack thereof.
Re: Journalism like this we can do without..........
[info]pjh625 wrote:
Thursday, 12 February 2009 at 05:35 am (UTC)
Who is Nick Harris? Which club does he own?
Poor little aussieblue
[info]mickey_modster wrote:
Thursday, 12 February 2009 at 11:14 am (UTC)
Has someone wirtten naughty things about your ickle cheskiwelski? Bad boys !!
Re: Poor little aussieblue
[info]aussieblue wrote:
Thursday, 12 February 2009 at 12:09 pm (UTC)
I'm actually a Birmingham fan for whats it worth, Mickey.
Chelsea a disgrace to big four
[info]akogun wrote:
Thursday, 12 February 2009 at 11:29 am (UTC)
I think Chelsea should realise that frequent changes of coached will have an effect on their perfomances on and off the pitch.

James Ilesanmi
Abuja Nigeria
for whats it worth..
[info]mickey_modster wrote:
Thursday, 12 February 2009 at 12:19 pm (UTC)
from where I'm sat; absolutely nothing...
Re: for whats it worth..
[info]aussieblue wrote:
Thursday, 12 February 2009 at 01:02 pm (UTC)
makes your facetious remark about my "ickle chelskiwelski" a bit of a let down though, don't you think :)
Re: for whats it worth..
[info]mickey_modster wrote:
Thursday, 12 February 2009 at 01:35 pm (UTC)
If you say so....
Shurley soem mystake
[info]petehevans wrote:
Thursday, 12 February 2009 at 01:10 pm (UTC)
Richest teams on the Plant? Is this about Fruitball?
Re: Shurley soem mystake
[info]ridger25 wrote:
Thursday, 12 February 2009 at 02:20 pm (UTC)
that was a terrible pun, didn't really add to the fruit-ful discussion.
[sorry]
Decent article, shame about the debate(!?)
[info]guadalmar wrote:
Thursday, 12 February 2009 at 10:07 pm (UTC)
I'm going back to the Guardian.
Doubts
[info]soratenia wrote:
Sunday, 15 February 2009 at 11:13 am (UTC)
As far as I know, should Bayern Munich top the list, because they not only own their stadium but also have no debts, wheras Real , Barcelona and the English teams are very much in the red. What kind of balancing is just register the income and not the debt?

Free gym pass

Get fit for summer with Fitness First gyms in London

Download a free gym pass from Fitness First today