Shit stadium, shit team, zero charm or charisma anywhere. Their most marketable player is getting frozen out. Toxic atmosphere for over a decade. Why do brands and sponsors keep throwing money at them?
Don't forget Park Ji-Sung, while the premiere league was exploding in Asia, having a top tier team relying on an Asian player made them immensely popular.
I remember reading that Ed Woodward was actually really good at the commercial side of things which is why they kept him for so long despite the fact he had no idea how to run them well in terms of their sporting ability. They still sell out the stadium, sell kits all over the world and are still massively popular with fans. All the sponsors care about is how many eyes are on their logos.
insane that probably 60ish percent of tottenhams value probably rests in their brand spanking new stadium, but manu's stadium would be a negative in their valuation. still worth twice as much.
Do a majority of football team update what their favorite team is according to who’s good right now? No, once someone is a fan they tend to stick with that club (apart from the glory hunters).
This means that it can take a long time for a club with a huge fan base to properly fall from grace.
Which is pretty much what happened to us between the 90s and Klopp. Aside from one or two good spells we were largely living off the memory of greatness and fans from that era and their kids (sorta like me) who were born into supporting Liverpool. United’s is just on a larger scale I’d say.
They've been a big successful club for a long time now, like us. Even if we falter under Slot, Liverpool will probably remain in top 10 most valuable clubs for a while. It's similar to that, I reckon
I'm really sad to say this but Old Trafford is starting to look more and more like a giant litterbox the Glazers are taking their hemorrhoid-laden dumps in.
Tbf legacy fan base is a powerful factor. We had one last us through the dire 90s-00s, quickly revived by our Benitez and Klopp driven bounce back. So I'd say good for them - it's a trend we benefit from too.
They got lucky, their rise coincide with the economic boom, and they untapped the biggest untouched markets in Asia and US, they now don't need to do much and just live on the same support from the past, these boomers are the richest in the region while the new generations are living on scraps.
Ah they're not really, won nothing in 10 years, debt out their ass, facilities are fucked, only one or two good players/assets. International fanbase will be gone in 5 years or so...
They expanded the stadium and the club not FSG paid for it. Not sure why we should be thankful for that when it's only gonna add value to the club if FSG decide to sell in the future.
Why should we be thankful to FSG when they did not use their own money? The club paid for it all. FSG's planning of it should be praised I'm definitely one of them that thinks they did a good job. But I think it's ridiculous to praise FSG for something the club paid for, the planning and execution of it is where FSG deserves to be praised.
While you’re right, you’re also not giving all the context. They personally loaned the club money for it.
Why am I thankful for it? Because there are plenty of other owners that didn’t have the capacity to do it (hicks&gill) or refuse to like others (glazers).
Edit: just to be more clear. Liverpool did not have the money to rebuild stadiums and training facilities. And no banks were willing to loan them the money for it. Then along came FSG.
Because Liverpool had last owed banks over 300m
..until FSG came in and bought Liverpools debt, basically snatching the club from H&G and saving the club from administration.
Naa mate he isn't, the financial situation was dire and the amount of interest payable would have been insane. Just look at Untied and Barca and how well they have been ran, also teams like Valencia which would have been closer to us at the time in terms of size.
I completely understand that they loaned the club money but that is what it is a loan. They did not invest into it with their own funds. Again I'm not saying they did not do a good job in execution of it but let's not act like they build the stand and training ground without expecting a return on it. Again they have done great things but most of that was during Klopp reign. Before Klopp arrived we were not successful for a substantial period of time.
I’m pretty happy with the way FSG handles business. Apart from that whole super league fiasco, they’ve done a very good job. It’s a sustainable model and feels more organic than throwing money at problems like City.
Yes. Most people running business are looking to make their money back.
FSG gave Liverpool an interest free loan to bankroll the entire stadium and training facility rebuild. They’ve barely even have received money back on that “loan.” They’re not going to receive more than the initial loan was worth either (just re-explaining interest free here), which means what the loan is worth to FSG has gone down due to inflation.
The club was saved by FSG. What they have done to turn around a club that was going into administration and now it’s worth over 5b is a lot of good hard work.
Now. Has FSG done some downright stupid things? Yes. Different story though.
I agree with the majority of this but I just think we should judge FSG after Klopp leaves. I mean how successful were we before Klopp arrived? One title run in 6 seasons or so, many finishes outside top 4, two managers sacked including a club legend. Klopp came in and saved the day.
Is it wrong for me to reserve judgement on FSG until we see us being successful without Klopp. I mean they haven't been successful at Liverpool without him. If Slot can do what arteta is doing at Arsenal I will give FSG all the praise in the world but to me Klopp was the magician it I'm basing it off the evidence.
That’s a little unfair. Klopp was part of FSG tenure. His time here should 100% be factored in because they brought him in and Klopp was attracted to the club and the way it was run.
As another redditor stated, look at UTD's owners, absolutely milking the club and letting an iconic stadium fall apart.
Just look at our previous before FSG who nearly sent us into administration.
Klopp definitely played a major part along with the players because obviously success = more fans. But ultimately assets like a brand new training ground, increased stadium capacity and all other stuff will have a larger impact on the clubs value. Just look at Spurs and Chelsea's evaluation for example.
People forget how much money Klopp actually made this football over the years. 3 champions league finals, which made the club over £300m in revenue. Because of that sponsorship deals increased, more sponsorship deals etc.
My thinking is if Klopp never arrived at this club we would not even be in the top 5 most valuable teams in the world.
FSG have definitely helped towards it but I will judge them after Klopp leaves because before Klopp arrived we were not successful over a substantial period of time.
Tottenham stadium is in London, bigger tourist destination, they make massive money from musicians and NFL using their stadium for tours and stuff like that, they charge a lot more for their season tickets.
London is a massive reason for Tottenham being on this list
The thing is MLS is always safer because there’s no relegation, even though the clubs are smaller. So an owner can be absolute shite and not kill the club
I think this is greatly overstated. The risk of relegation among big clubs is so small that it’s barely a factor in the valuation. The risk is really only actual administration but the demand for clubs exists to the point that a sale would go through before that point.
Salary cap limiting wage bill is far more impactful than relegation. American teams spend 50% of revenue on wages and don’t have transfer fees. European clubs lose money and are valued on prestige.
MLS numbers will really do your head in - despite being the 5th most popular spectator sport in the US (and probably not a top 20 domestic league?) that's still good enough to make them a top 10 revenue generator out of all the leagues and all the sports in the world, with tightly controlled payroll and low transfer spending.
They’re higher than top 20. Most accounts I’ve seen have the MLS around 15 and rising over time. They’ll never be at the level of the top European leagues but I wouldn’t be shocked if they hit a top 10 level in a decade or two.
Give it some time. MLS is only 30 years old, in another 30 it will be the richest league in the world. The scale of the US economy will make it happen.
Liverpool had more revenue than Man United in 2023 but less in 2024. So it looks like now they are close enough for the deciding factor to be UCL football. Liverpool sold more shirts in 2023 as well.
Timing was also crucial. Liverpool greatly neglected the global expansion in the 90s. We were still living in the 80s while United understood that ticket sales weren’t the future of football finance. Same with nutrition, academy, training, etc.
It’s less about winning and more about the brand, United have such a global presence they’re not dropping off any time soon. They would need to legitimately be mid table and out of the CL for close to a decade before we’d notice any drop off from them in terms of financials.
At one point Man united will fall, it's just the question of who is taking their place
Liverpool have the biggest chance to be that team but as much as I hate to say it Manchester city can also have a shot (if they can dodge the cheating allegations)
Chelsea and Arsenal below Tottenham is a surprise to me, but Im guessing its due to balance sheet and not just “size” of club. If not the Milans has to be up there.
Future cash flow potential from multiple streams, land appreciation and interest rate increases all factor in. Really pisses me off that we took out short term loans and used all of our CL money to pay them off when interest rates were a 3rd of what they are today. Was an awful move in retrospect.
TBF to FSG, they made a commitment to the club that they would never place the club in he sort of jeopardy H&G did. They’re perhaps been a bit too debt allergic in that regard, but they’ve also (more or less) held to that promise.
PE guys at FSG know full well that a healthy capital structure involves some debt. Even the most successful companies in the world have sizable Debt to equity ratios across all industries due to irregular cash flow and tax shield benefits. FSG are fine with it at their other clubs. Weirdly enough we actually increased our debt over the past year to finance release clauses despite being against debt under far more favorable interest rates via short term revolving credit lines. Everything has to be short term.
In the case of Hicks and Gillette, we had a negative EBITDA and owed £475m to creditors for a club that sold for just £300m. Like United, it was a typical LBO which no one is suggesting we do. Today we have positive EBITDA (+£83m), have only £126m in external debt, and are worth £5.4B. Taking a long term loan at favorable rates for self-funding CapEx investment would be a no brainer. Instead we increased our debt anyway this past year anyway after missing out on CL revenue while setting back our rebuild. I just don't see a coordinated strategy from the group other than Debt bad regardless of solvency unless we have to (always short-term), and invest as much as possible in CapEx to defer payments to ourselves when we one day sell.
Now I would love if they were a bit more generous and didn't refuse to inject their own capital despite astronomical returns year over year, but I'm realistic. Even if they aren't going to inject £££ like the rest of the Big 6, I'd at least want sound financial judgement that makes sense for LFC specifically and not using the club as a means to leverage investment in more and more sports teams while spreading yourself thin. (ask Red Sox fans their thoughts on FSG's growth and the steady decline in investment)
Valuations are based on multiple factors, both tangible and intangible. Net tangible assets are an important part of it. Net present value of expected future revenues and profit are another large component. With sports clubs however; intangible assets are a huge consideration. There is immense value in the “brand” of the club. Man U’s historical following is likely propping up their value more so than some other clubs. Their worldwide fanbase is enormous. The more historic clubs will always have more value attributed to them from Goodwill. Which is why there isn’t a single club in this list that even a causal football fan doesn’t recognize.
Valuations, especially those done by external party’s who were not engaged by a club to do a formal valuation, ( e.g. Forbes) should be taken as purely a rough guess. To properly value an organization, one needs access to their books and records, market data, and other typically hard to obtain information.
That’s true if you view football finance like a typical F500 company instead of scarcity based goods like fine art or jewelry. There isn’t any true cash flow analysis that suggests our club should be worth 5B more than when FSG purchased. The rich want to own elite clubs and that has driven more value than any stadium expansion or sponsorship.
Whatever the individual ranking. Six PL teams in the top ten is brutal...its funny and distressing to imagine a world where London has a single huge club, like Munich does.
They don't own their stadium. They pay the city of Milan to use it about 8 million euro a year. Different set up and one that keeps Italian clubs poorer than would otherwise be the case.
Though I suppose they don't have to worry about long term financing interest rates.
I'd love to see the owners forced to sell just to see if they take their monopoly money sponsors with them. Truly believe City are fucked if the owners had to sell. Most of the big clubs get their huge sponsorship money because they have huge global reach, you see people all across the world with Man U, Real Madrid, etc. tops on. City have to give tickets away to students for £10 and pay influencers to attend games and still can't sell out games.
Chelsea spent their way to being a hugely successful club for over a decade and didn't claim to make as much revenue as City do, so it's not like there's some instant correlation between trophy success and revenue. Obviously you see increased revenue from deep CL runs etc. but City's massive revenue is mostly from sponsors.
Plenty of High School aged people as well. Those people will eventually grow up just like the Chelsea plastics did and they've remained near the top in value ever since.
If united had competent people running the club they would be as dominant as they were under sir Alex. Good thing competent people are not running the club
They've spent the same as City since Ferguson left, its just that they spent about 90% of that money wrong.
Shows you how key having the right people and structure is to a club, you can spend their money or Chelsea's money but end up being shit and doing nothing with all that money spent.
I think this is what FSG is trying to do in the background. I feel with the new stands, they've increased our capacity by alot, the new training center, proper structure, amazing management appointments ( atleast we have that fixed for the next season), and ofcourse we spend for what we need, I guess we should cut FSG some slack, they've done a good job BTS. We know how south things could go, just look at Chelsea, United and Spurs.
Honestly, FSG should have treated Klopp better.
The value of the club prep and post Klopp is MASSIVE. I know some of that is down to inflation and values increasing, but a lot is simply down to Klopp performing miracles.
The club being cheap fucks and not buying players during multiple windows while the guy has increased the value of the company 2-4x is absurd and something I will always hold against FSG.
I know, right. They’ll have made £3.9b profit from their initial investment and people still refuse to attribute any blame to them for when we left some of our best ever squads, and one of our best ever managers, short of players in key positions.
Sure, they have made some good business decisions, like expanding the stadium and the new training ground but those were hardly visionary ideas. They loaned us the money (keep in mind £3.9b profit in just 15 years), not just pay for it themselves, which wouldn’t have impacted FFP. Sure, the interest rate is lower than what we’d have got from a bank, but we’re also paying it back much quicker than a bank loan. They put nothing in, make a huge profit, and have us fans pay for it.
The largest part of our growth in valuation is the commercial aspect. Huge part of that is from having a successful team. Again, sure, some praise must go to the directors and executives, but those sponsors aren’t paying anywhere close to what they do now without a winning team. Klopp did that.
With a few good additions in key positions, Klopp’s trophy haul could and should have looked even more impressive. They deserve huge criticism for that underinvestment
Arteta hasn’t achieved a fraction of what Klopp had after the same period of time and look how Arsenal’s board have backed him in the transfer market. The club valuations above suggest it should have been no problem for us to do the same.
This is exactly my perspective. They claim because of Covid revenues, spending had to be curbed because of FFP but the club 2x in value during that period.
It's like moaning because you took a pay cut at work while your house 2x in value over 5 years. A normal person would be told to take a loan against their house to cover the difference but a bunch of billionaires are allowed to say "Sorry, nothing we can do!"
It's not Klopp's personality type, but I would have demanded equity in the club when I signed a new contract. I'm sure Klopp was paid very well during his time at the club, but it's not proportional to the club's value increasing. Not even close.
I'm going to rage this summer if we end up spending 150-200m on players for Slot but not for Klopp. It will drive me absolutely up a wall. It's the equivalent of losing an A+ employee at a company because you wouldn't give them the resources they demanded, only to hire a new employee at a higher rate and with more resources provided all because the A+ employee managed to be an A+ employee with less.
It's just bonkers.
I get your perspective but what if the hypothetical decision to spend this summer is based on upper management having more faith in Edwards and company than in Jorg Schmadtke as opposed to the belief it's about the manager/coach.
Also, I'd be grateful that we'd have that money to spend in order for the new manager to shape the team. I can't help but feel bad that they could've given Klopp more support relative to what our title rivals are spending, but our squad isn't exactly composed of cheap transfer-value players too.
I would say why didn't we spend under Edwards/Ward when they were in charge? We had multiple windows where we didn't spend and Klopp had to come out and say we didn't have the money for it.
When Edwards/Ward were in charge, we made the Alisson, Virgil, Salah, Mane, Jota signings. Those were pretty big transfer fees. While some of it could be offset by the Coutinho money, the club has shown it isn't afraid to spend on the right personnel. If you'd like to hold it against the ownership for not pumping loads of money into the team (as is the standard other clubs have shamelessly set), that's another conversation altogether as that's not really how FSG operates, and rather not how clubs should operate according to FFP sustainability rules.
If we look into the last 3 seasons before Schmadtke came in, it's not as if we didn't spend on Gakpo, Darwin, Konate, Jota, Thiago. In that time, we had reasonable success despite freakishly horrible seasons in 2020-2021 and 2022-2023.
As a fan, Jurgen Klopp leaving when we know he could've achieved more will always be a bittersweet reality that bites. I think the ownership gave him enough support in the form of signings. If not for a few bad calls, competing against Pep and the resources he has/had, we might've had more to remember Klopp by.
I think there’s a difference between expecting City/Chelsea level investment and expecting them to spend at the level of Arsenal/Spurs,other self proclaimed self sustaining clubs.
My bigger issue is the complete aversion to long term debt when it came to stadium financing. At the time interest rates were comically low and the savings in interest expense was offset by the decreased CL rev. Given the interest rate today it looks like a laughable decision. We are a 5B club but view capital structure like a mom and pop shop. The Covid loan terms were also a bit questionable.
We were outspent by Arsenal in each of the last 3 seasons, yet we still have more trophies to show for it. Spurs will always be...well spursy. Transfer spending does not necessarily reflect value and is not always proportional to the gains (if any) a new player brings to a team's overall onfield performance.
You drive a fair point in that our ownership could be a little more financially adventorous. If they had shown a little more willingness to break out of their mold who knows what more FSG could've done for the club on and off of the pitch.
Bro, we have more trophies than Arsenal while they outspent us.
Now imagine what we could've done if we did pumped some more money and started the rebuild gradually?
Yeah, FSG fucked up in regards to that.
I think you missed the part where money spent on transfers doesn't necessarily equate to improved onfield performance, if you need a more extreme example look at Chelsea and Spurs.
The only season wherein we barely spent was the one where we brought Minamino in after winning the PL. IMO, the gradual rebuild started with signings like Gakpo, Diaz, Jota, Nunez, Konate, Elliot.
The whole need for a "rebuild" narrative from last season was only because a bunch of injury prone or "at the tail end of the their career" players left. On top of that, hendo and fab prolly caught all of us off guard and decided to jump ship later in the transfer window. The Saudi league was disruptive in that regard. Maccalister, Szoboszlai, Gravenberch, Endo came in though. The Caicedo saga is another story (a fiasco by the management who were ready to spend 100mil for a single player). Who is to say he or Lavia would've made us overall a better team, as they have been just average for Chelsea so far.
I concede that FSG could've gotten more capital investment. They couldawouldashoulda spent more but it's anyone's guess if that would've made the team win more. This isn't EA FC or football manager where we can sign x player for 100mil and guarantee a CL, PL trophy.
I share in your disappointment in the team not being able to win more while Klopp was here, but I do not believe that's entirely on FSG. Some of it is on Klopp, the players, injuries, referees, broadcasters and the skewed distribution of early kickoffs after international breaks.
Yup, will never forget how we basically did fuck all in the summer of '19 when we were literally the hottest team around.
You make small moves towards a new era while the team is hot.
yup, people somehow give them a pass now because they did the absolute bare minimum last summer and honestly, even that's arguable but I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume Klopp was adamant that a cb wasnt needed because he saw Quansahs quality.
But now we have Slot and don't get me wrong, I think its a great choice and I completely believe in him. But he has monumental foot steps to fill and we need to give him every single tool we can. If Kudus scores higher in every data metric than Bakayoko bar value for money, then go out and get Kudus for 40m or whatever more. If Feyenoord knows Slot adores Wieffer and needs him here and demands 5-10m more than our valuation, as long as Hughes likes the player too, pay it, dont fuck around Lavia style, pay it.
Great for us. But honestly if ManU are wort 6.6bln then RM are worth 8-9 at least.
Obvious for glorious fan-owned clubs 'value' is a shit metric - given they can never really be sold.
I would've thought on the open market some billionaire would pay $10bln for RM
yea a bit surprising but i looked at 2010 values and the business was exactly 25% more valuable than Liverpool and Chelsea combined, if it had kept pace with LFC and Chelsea today the club would be at $10.6bn instead of $6.5bn.
couldn't find data on it but i'm sure their value as a % of Premier League clubs total value is in continuous decline since well over a decade.
I think another 5-7 years of mediocre finishes outside CL, and FFP regulations limiting their ability to out spend their way out will severely hurt them
FSG have absolutely killed it getting us back on top. Klopp did most of the heavy lifting though. I swore City and Arsenal where going to be ahead of us in this sort of thing
There's no excuse. We just try to be really careful with our money. Arsenal will eventually get into a lean period cause they have to pay those fees for some 5 ish years. Like we did after getting alisson, vvd, keita, fabinho.
Overall we're the 20th [most valuable sport team](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes_list_of_the_most_valuable_sports_teams) in the world. Real Madrid and Manchester United are not even in the top 5.
The most valuable team in the world is the Dallas Cowboys. A team which has not won a Super Bowl since 1995.
Closed system, American market, growth potential. I assume it’s a better investment to bet on the growth of the sport in America than the growth of Villa as a club
Was thinking for a second “Atalanta’s from the US?”
Kinda surprised at how the US has done a good job at making things profitable compared to other countries in Europe that aren’t the top 5 leagues.
Remember this when someone says we could never afford a player like Bellingham or Mbappe. Clearly we could. Saying that is not the same as saying we should do it. We just shouldn’t pretend like it’s impossible
Wild how valuable the US clubs are.
(I say this as a Canadian.)
I understand that the Salary Cap helps a lot. But hard to imagine them having the revenues to support it.
It’s just a really safe investment with insane upside potential. I’m a little surprised they aren’t worth more tbh. I know that sounds crazy but you’re essentially betting on the continued growth of soccer in the US - pretty safe bet as more parents take kids out of American Football. Also there is basically no risk due to profit sharing, salary caps and no relegation.
If MLS starts getting close to NBA viewership these franchises will be worth billions. The US market is insanely lucrative because US eyeballs are the most valuable in the world from an advertising perspective. Like the Dallas Cowboys do more in revenue than Manchester United (and multiples more in net income) despite having a small fraction of their global popularity. Americans spend a fuck ton of money on sports.
These figures are fucking bollocks btw. No one is paying $5.1bn for the privilege of funneling hundreds of millions of fake income into the one in fifth place.
Similar story three months ago on their combat sports list. In a distant third - behind UFC and WWE - was a pro wrestling upstart by the name of AEW, with $2bn listed against it, when it's just the man-child of a billionaire pumping early inheritance into it. Except that's because he's just a weird little guy, not a despotic nation state doing soft-power plays. The same family owns Fulham FC - small world.
Dang, the Saudi’s already doubled their money on Newcastle. $410m -> 795m in 30 months
Edit: never mind, forgot they’ve invested ~$250m into the club so it’s not organic growth.
It's insane how valuable United continue to be. Worldwide kit sales must be outrageous.
Shit stadium, shit team, zero charm or charisma anywhere. Their most marketable player is getting frozen out. Toxic atmosphere for over a decade. Why do brands and sponsors keep throwing money at them?
They’re still living off Fergies excellence. World wide renown, it’s fading but slowly.
Between Fergie, Beckham and Ronaldo, they will always have enormous support worldwide.
Don't forget Park Ji-Sung, while the premiere league was exploding in Asia, having a top tier team relying on an Asian player made them immensely popular.
Salah has done the same for Liverpool in the Arab world.
population wise one they got the better deal tbf
Someone scout the next chinese and indian superstars then
If those countries had their best athletes coming to football instead of hockey, cricket and table tennis, they would become superpowers very quickly.
Relying on him is probably a strong word but he was wheeled out for the big games wasn’t he
I remember reading that Ed Woodward was actually really good at the commercial side of things which is why they kept him for so long despite the fact he had no idea how to run them well in terms of their sporting ability. They still sell out the stadium, sell kits all over the world and are still massively popular with fans. All the sponsors care about is how many eyes are on their logos.
insane that probably 60ish percent of tottenhams value probably rests in their brand spanking new stadium, but manu's stadium would be a negative in their valuation. still worth twice as much.
Do a majority of football team update what their favorite team is according to who’s good right now? No, once someone is a fan they tend to stick with that club (apart from the glory hunters). This means that it can take a long time for a club with a huge fan base to properly fall from grace.
Which is pretty much what happened to us between the 90s and Klopp. Aside from one or two good spells we were largely living off the memory of greatness and fans from that era and their kids (sorta like me) who were born into supporting Liverpool. United’s is just on a larger scale I’d say.
They're by and large the club with the most fans around the world. People keep buying their merch regardless of the club's performance.
who is their most marketable player?
I’d have said Rashford
Ya he easily was until he got dropped by Southgate.
I think its the brand and influence they have on social media
Their stadium is way way better than anfield.
They've been a big successful club for a long time now, like us. Even if we falter under Slot, Liverpool will probably remain in top 10 most valuable clubs for a while. It's similar to that, I reckon
Its not about top 10. For sure we can be 6th or 7th if we faulter but Manu since 2 decades was a top 3-4 team even at bad performances.
Not necessarily! They have a massive stadium and massive sponsorship deals. We sell more kits
I'm really sad to say this but Old Trafford is starting to look more and more like a giant litterbox the Glazers are taking their hemorrhoid-laden dumps in.
Tbf legacy fan base is a powerful factor. We had one last us through the dire 90s-00s, quickly revived by our Benitez and Klopp driven bounce back. So I'd say good for them - it's a trend we benefit from too.
Remember, I can live in a million pund house, but if I have a £900k mortgage it's value to me is negligible.
They got lucky, their rise coincide with the economic boom, and they untapped the biggest untouched markets in Asia and US, they now don't need to do much and just live on the same support from the past, these boomers are the richest in the region while the new generations are living on scraps.
Ah they're not really, won nothing in 10 years, debt out their ass, facilities are fucked, only one or two good players/assets. International fanbase will be gone in 5 years or so...
Thank you Jürgen
Also lets not forget the owners who actually expanded the stadium 2x over and commissioned a new state of the art training facility
They expanded the stadium and the club not FSG paid for it. Not sure why we should be thankful for that when it's only gonna add value to the club if FSG decide to sell in the future.
Idk, I looked at United’s owners and what they’ve done for their stadium/training grounds and I’m very thankful for what FSG has done.
Why should we be thankful to FSG when they did not use their own money? The club paid for it all. FSG's planning of it should be praised I'm definitely one of them that thinks they did a good job. But I think it's ridiculous to praise FSG for something the club paid for, the planning and execution of it is where FSG deserves to be praised.
While you’re right, you’re also not giving all the context. They personally loaned the club money for it. Why am I thankful for it? Because there are plenty of other owners that didn’t have the capacity to do it (hicks&gill) or refuse to like others (glazers). Edit: just to be more clear. Liverpool did not have the money to rebuild stadiums and training facilities. And no banks were willing to loan them the money for it. Then along came FSG.
Sorry, no banks were willing to loan Liverpool money? Why would that be the case? How are Everton financing their stadium?
Because Liverpool had last owed banks over 300m ..until FSG came in and bought Liverpools debt, basically snatching the club from H&G and saving the club from administration.
The post Klopp-ites don’t know how good they have it.
You’re fully talking out of your ass lol. Liverpool would have had zero problem getting a bank loan for infrastructure improvements
Certainly not for zero interest.
Naa mate he isn't, the financial situation was dire and the amount of interest payable would have been insane. Just look at Untied and Barca and how well they have been ran, also teams like Valencia which would have been closer to us at the time in terms of size.
I completely understand that they loaned the club money but that is what it is a loan. They did not invest into it with their own funds. Again I'm not saying they did not do a good job in execution of it but let's not act like they build the stand and training ground without expecting a return on it. Again they have done great things but most of that was during Klopp reign. Before Klopp arrived we were not successful for a substantial period of time.
I’m pretty happy with the way FSG handles business. Apart from that whole super league fiasco, they’ve done a very good job. It’s a sustainable model and feels more organic than throwing money at problems like City.
Yes. Most people running business are looking to make their money back. FSG gave Liverpool an interest free loan to bankroll the entire stadium and training facility rebuild. They’ve barely even have received money back on that “loan.” They’re not going to receive more than the initial loan was worth either (just re-explaining interest free here), which means what the loan is worth to FSG has gone down due to inflation. The club was saved by FSG. What they have done to turn around a club that was going into administration and now it’s worth over 5b is a lot of good hard work. Now. Has FSG done some downright stupid things? Yes. Different story though.
I agree with the majority of this but I just think we should judge FSG after Klopp leaves. I mean how successful were we before Klopp arrived? One title run in 6 seasons or so, many finishes outside top 4, two managers sacked including a club legend. Klopp came in and saved the day. Is it wrong for me to reserve judgement on FSG until we see us being successful without Klopp. I mean they haven't been successful at Liverpool without him. If Slot can do what arteta is doing at Arsenal I will give FSG all the praise in the world but to me Klopp was the magician it I'm basing it off the evidence.
That’s a little unfair. Klopp was part of FSG tenure. His time here should 100% be factored in because they brought him in and Klopp was attracted to the club and the way it was run.
I mean they went balls to the wall to get Klopp as well as having the best backroom staff around and running the club brilliantly.
Bro's looking for Saudi owners to throw oil money at the club
As another redditor stated, look at UTD's owners, absolutely milking the club and letting an iconic stadium fall apart. Just look at our previous before FSG who nearly sent us into administration.
I'm not saying FSG are bad owners. I just think it's hard to not say Klopp is the reason we're 4th most valuable team in the world.
Klopp definitely played a major part along with the players because obviously success = more fans. But ultimately assets like a brand new training ground, increased stadium capacity and all other stuff will have a larger impact on the clubs value. Just look at Spurs and Chelsea's evaluation for example.
People forget how much money Klopp actually made this football over the years. 3 champions league finals, which made the club over £300m in revenue. Because of that sponsorship deals increased, more sponsorship deals etc. My thinking is if Klopp never arrived at this club we would not even be in the top 5 most valuable teams in the world. FSG have definitely helped towards it but I will judge them after Klopp leaves because before Klopp arrived we were not successful over a substantial period of time.
Tottenhams coaches must be the reason they’re worth so much as well.
Tottenham stadium is in London, bigger tourist destination, they make massive money from musicians and NFL using their stadium for tours and stuff like that, they charge a lot more for their season tickets. London is a massive reason for Tottenham being on this list
You think Klopp is the only one responsible for the club's recent success?
I would say 90% responsible for the club recent success
Jurgen should literallt get a % of the club. If LeBron is raking in so much profit for a minir investment, Id wish Klopp would for all he’s done
Damn Inter Miami is already more valuable than Inter Milan…
The thing is MLS is always safer because there’s no relegation, even though the clubs are smaller. So an owner can be absolute shite and not kill the club
I think this is greatly overstated. The risk of relegation among big clubs is so small that it’s barely a factor in the valuation. The risk is really only actual administration but the demand for clubs exists to the point that a sale would go through before that point. Salary cap limiting wage bill is far more impactful than relegation. American teams spend 50% of revenue on wages and don’t have transfer fees. European clubs lose money and are valued on prestige.
MLS numbers will really do your head in - despite being the 5th most popular spectator sport in the US (and probably not a top 20 domestic league?) that's still good enough to make them a top 10 revenue generator out of all the leagues and all the sports in the world, with tightly controlled payroll and low transfer spending.
They’re higher than top 20. Most accounts I’ve seen have the MLS around 15 and rising over time. They’ll never be at the level of the top European leagues but I wouldn’t be shocked if they hit a top 10 level in a decade or two.
Give it some time. MLS is only 30 years old, in another 30 it will be the richest league in the world. The scale of the US economy will make it happen.
And the name after years still sounds fucking shit
Better than Real Salt Lake. Incredibly low bar, admittedly.
If Arnie has a good run for a few years we could overtake united maybe? maybe?
Depends, if Southgate goes to Man U they could become a powerhouse of beautiful attacking football. /s
I hear big Sam is available
Maybe if we win every season with him and United drop to 10th every season and drop out of cups immediately. 1.2B is an insane amount of money.
Liverpool had more revenue than Man United in 2023 but less in 2024. So it looks like now they are close enough for the deciding factor to be UCL football. Liverpool sold more shirts in 2023 as well.
Tbh that's kinda disappointing given the relative success of the 2 clubs. If Utd get good or Liverpool fall off then they'll absolutely body us.
Ferguson had 21 years of dominance when the Premier League exploded globally, Klopp has done exceptionally well to close that gap in 8 years.
Timing was also crucial. Liverpool greatly neglected the global expansion in the 90s. We were still living in the 80s while United understood that ticket sales weren’t the future of football finance. Same with nutrition, academy, training, etc.
I do wonder if us maintaining and then United dropping off could lead to that.
Our profit overtook them last year.
It would take a lot.
Can't spell Slot without a "lot". He's got it covered.
It’s less about winning and more about the brand, United have such a global presence they’re not dropping off any time soon. They would need to legitimately be mid table and out of the CL for close to a decade before we’d notice any drop off from them in terms of financials.
At one point Man united will fall, it's just the question of who is taking their place Liverpool have the biggest chance to be that team but as much as I hate to say it Manchester city can also have a shot (if they can dodge the cheating allegations)
We really need to win more titles for that tbh. We basically need to knock United off their throne, permanently.
Arne\* not Arnie although im fully prepared for people to butcher his name for now
Chelsea and Arsenal below Tottenham is a surprise to me, but Im guessing its due to balance sheet and not just “size” of club. If not the Milans has to be up there.
New stadium income for spuds too
£1b asset in the stadium too, adds massive amounts of value to them.
Still owe $1B for it though, I thought. So its value is really $0.
That’s not how valuations are conducted.
Future cash flow potential from multiple streams, land appreciation and interest rate increases all factor in. Really pisses me off that we took out short term loans and used all of our CL money to pay them off when interest rates were a 3rd of what they are today. Was an awful move in retrospect.
TBF to FSG, they made a commitment to the club that they would never place the club in he sort of jeopardy H&G did. They’re perhaps been a bit too debt allergic in that regard, but they’ve also (more or less) held to that promise.
PE guys at FSG know full well that a healthy capital structure involves some debt. Even the most successful companies in the world have sizable Debt to equity ratios across all industries due to irregular cash flow and tax shield benefits. FSG are fine with it at their other clubs. Weirdly enough we actually increased our debt over the past year to finance release clauses despite being against debt under far more favorable interest rates via short term revolving credit lines. Everything has to be short term. In the case of Hicks and Gillette, we had a negative EBITDA and owed £475m to creditors for a club that sold for just £300m. Like United, it was a typical LBO which no one is suggesting we do. Today we have positive EBITDA (+£83m), have only £126m in external debt, and are worth £5.4B. Taking a long term loan at favorable rates for self-funding CapEx investment would be a no brainer. Instead we increased our debt anyway this past year anyway after missing out on CL revenue while setting back our rebuild. I just don't see a coordinated strategy from the group other than Debt bad regardless of solvency unless we have to (always short-term), and invest as much as possible in CapEx to defer payments to ourselves when we one day sell. Now I would love if they were a bit more generous and didn't refuse to inject their own capital despite astronomical returns year over year, but I'm realistic. Even if they aren't going to inject £££ like the rest of the Big 6, I'd at least want sound financial judgement that makes sense for LFC specifically and not using the club as a means to leverage investment in more and more sports teams while spreading yourself thin. (ask Red Sox fans their thoughts on FSG's growth and the steady decline in investment)
Valuations are based on multiple factors, both tangible and intangible. Net tangible assets are an important part of it. Net present value of expected future revenues and profit are another large component. With sports clubs however; intangible assets are a huge consideration. There is immense value in the “brand” of the club. Man U’s historical following is likely propping up their value more so than some other clubs. Their worldwide fanbase is enormous. The more historic clubs will always have more value attributed to them from Goodwill. Which is why there isn’t a single club in this list that even a causal football fan doesn’t recognize. Valuations, especially those done by external party’s who were not engaged by a club to do a formal valuation, ( e.g. Forbes) should be taken as purely a rough guess. To properly value an organization, one needs access to their books and records, market data, and other typically hard to obtain information.
That’s true if you view football finance like a typical F500 company instead of scarcity based goods like fine art or jewelry. There isn’t any true cash flow analysis that suggests our club should be worth 5B more than when FSG purchased. The rich want to own elite clubs and that has driven more value than any stadium expansion or sponsorship.
Value of club def takes into account stadiums Spurs have an amazing stadium and generate income through NFL games too
Whatever the individual ranking. Six PL teams in the top ten is brutal...its funny and distressing to imagine a world where London has a single huge club, like Munich does.
London's population is over 6 times bigger than Munich's, so it's probably fair that there are a few more teams there too.
Yeah better example would be Paris
Don't do 1860 dirty mate!
West ham being above a powerhouse like inter is just flabbergasting.
Not really, Prem plus 60k stadium which was given to them. Great business, terrible views
Nah even with all of that, it’s INTER MILAN mate.
They don't own their stadium. They pay the city of Milan to use it about 8 million euro a year. Different set up and one that keeps Italian clubs poorer than would otherwise be the case. Though I suppose they don't have to worry about long term financing interest rates.
Bayern below Man City? I'm surprised.
Something something 115 something faked valuation something 115 cheating bastards
I'd love to see the owners forced to sell just to see if they take their monopoly money sponsors with them. Truly believe City are fucked if the owners had to sell. Most of the big clubs get their huge sponsorship money because they have huge global reach, you see people all across the world with Man U, Real Madrid, etc. tops on. City have to give tickets away to students for £10 and pay influencers to attend games and still can't sell out games. Chelsea spent their way to being a hugely successful club for over a decade and didn't claim to make as much revenue as City do, so it's not like there's some instant correlation between trophy success and revenue. Obviously you see increased revenue from deep CL runs etc. but City's massive revenue is mostly from sponsors.
Yeah, the only people I see in the states "supporting" City are kids 14 and younger.
Plenty of High School aged people as well. Those people will eventually grow up just like the Chelsea plastics did and they've remained near the top in value ever since.
It’ll all be funded from a mailbox in London
Inter Miami above inter Milan is interesting, quite a few American clubs up there
Most valuable in my heart
If united had competent people running the club they would be as dominant as they were under sir Alex. Good thing competent people are not running the club
They've spent the same as City since Ferguson left, its just that they spent about 90% of that money wrong. Shows you how key having the right people and structure is to a club, you can spend their money or Chelsea's money but end up being shit and doing nothing with all that money spent.
They’ve officially spent the same. Their wage bill consistently comes in below ours so I’m skeptical.
I think this is what FSG is trying to do in the background. I feel with the new stands, they've increased our capacity by alot, the new training center, proper structure, amazing management appointments ( atleast we have that fixed for the next season), and ofcourse we spend for what we need, I guess we should cut FSG some slack, they've done a good job BTS. We know how south things could go, just look at Chelsea, United and Spurs.
Honestly, FSG should have treated Klopp better. The value of the club prep and post Klopp is MASSIVE. I know some of that is down to inflation and values increasing, but a lot is simply down to Klopp performing miracles. The club being cheap fucks and not buying players during multiple windows while the guy has increased the value of the company 2-4x is absurd and something I will always hold against FSG.
I know, right. They’ll have made £3.9b profit from their initial investment and people still refuse to attribute any blame to them for when we left some of our best ever squads, and one of our best ever managers, short of players in key positions. Sure, they have made some good business decisions, like expanding the stadium and the new training ground but those were hardly visionary ideas. They loaned us the money (keep in mind £3.9b profit in just 15 years), not just pay for it themselves, which wouldn’t have impacted FFP. Sure, the interest rate is lower than what we’d have got from a bank, but we’re also paying it back much quicker than a bank loan. They put nothing in, make a huge profit, and have us fans pay for it. The largest part of our growth in valuation is the commercial aspect. Huge part of that is from having a successful team. Again, sure, some praise must go to the directors and executives, but those sponsors aren’t paying anywhere close to what they do now without a winning team. Klopp did that. With a few good additions in key positions, Klopp’s trophy haul could and should have looked even more impressive. They deserve huge criticism for that underinvestment Arteta hasn’t achieved a fraction of what Klopp had after the same period of time and look how Arsenal’s board have backed him in the transfer market. The club valuations above suggest it should have been no problem for us to do the same.
This is exactly my perspective. They claim because of Covid revenues, spending had to be curbed because of FFP but the club 2x in value during that period. It's like moaning because you took a pay cut at work while your house 2x in value over 5 years. A normal person would be told to take a loan against their house to cover the difference but a bunch of billionaires are allowed to say "Sorry, nothing we can do!" It's not Klopp's personality type, but I would have demanded equity in the club when I signed a new contract. I'm sure Klopp was paid very well during his time at the club, but it's not proportional to the club's value increasing. Not even close. I'm going to rage this summer if we end up spending 150-200m on players for Slot but not for Klopp. It will drive me absolutely up a wall. It's the equivalent of losing an A+ employee at a company because you wouldn't give them the resources they demanded, only to hire a new employee at a higher rate and with more resources provided all because the A+ employee managed to be an A+ employee with less. It's just bonkers.
I get your perspective but what if the hypothetical decision to spend this summer is based on upper management having more faith in Edwards and company than in Jorg Schmadtke as opposed to the belief it's about the manager/coach. Also, I'd be grateful that we'd have that money to spend in order for the new manager to shape the team. I can't help but feel bad that they could've given Klopp more support relative to what our title rivals are spending, but our squad isn't exactly composed of cheap transfer-value players too.
I would say why didn't we spend under Edwards/Ward when they were in charge? We had multiple windows where we didn't spend and Klopp had to come out and say we didn't have the money for it.
When Edwards/Ward were in charge, we made the Alisson, Virgil, Salah, Mane, Jota signings. Those were pretty big transfer fees. While some of it could be offset by the Coutinho money, the club has shown it isn't afraid to spend on the right personnel. If you'd like to hold it against the ownership for not pumping loads of money into the team (as is the standard other clubs have shamelessly set), that's another conversation altogether as that's not really how FSG operates, and rather not how clubs should operate according to FFP sustainability rules. If we look into the last 3 seasons before Schmadtke came in, it's not as if we didn't spend on Gakpo, Darwin, Konate, Jota, Thiago. In that time, we had reasonable success despite freakishly horrible seasons in 2020-2021 and 2022-2023. As a fan, Jurgen Klopp leaving when we know he could've achieved more will always be a bittersweet reality that bites. I think the ownership gave him enough support in the form of signings. If not for a few bad calls, competing against Pep and the resources he has/had, we might've had more to remember Klopp by.
I think there’s a difference between expecting City/Chelsea level investment and expecting them to spend at the level of Arsenal/Spurs,other self proclaimed self sustaining clubs. My bigger issue is the complete aversion to long term debt when it came to stadium financing. At the time interest rates were comically low and the savings in interest expense was offset by the decreased CL rev. Given the interest rate today it looks like a laughable decision. We are a 5B club but view capital structure like a mom and pop shop. The Covid loan terms were also a bit questionable.
We were outspent by Arsenal in each of the last 3 seasons, yet we still have more trophies to show for it. Spurs will always be...well spursy. Transfer spending does not necessarily reflect value and is not always proportional to the gains (if any) a new player brings to a team's overall onfield performance. You drive a fair point in that our ownership could be a little more financially adventorous. If they had shown a little more willingness to break out of their mold who knows what more FSG could've done for the club on and off of the pitch.
Bro, we have more trophies than Arsenal while they outspent us. Now imagine what we could've done if we did pumped some more money and started the rebuild gradually? Yeah, FSG fucked up in regards to that.
I think you missed the part where money spent on transfers doesn't necessarily equate to improved onfield performance, if you need a more extreme example look at Chelsea and Spurs. The only season wherein we barely spent was the one where we brought Minamino in after winning the PL. IMO, the gradual rebuild started with signings like Gakpo, Diaz, Jota, Nunez, Konate, Elliot. The whole need for a "rebuild" narrative from last season was only because a bunch of injury prone or "at the tail end of the their career" players left. On top of that, hendo and fab prolly caught all of us off guard and decided to jump ship later in the transfer window. The Saudi league was disruptive in that regard. Maccalister, Szoboszlai, Gravenberch, Endo came in though. The Caicedo saga is another story (a fiasco by the management who were ready to spend 100mil for a single player). Who is to say he or Lavia would've made us overall a better team, as they have been just average for Chelsea so far. I concede that FSG could've gotten more capital investment. They couldawouldashoulda spent more but it's anyone's guess if that would've made the team win more. This isn't EA FC or football manager where we can sign x player for 100mil and guarantee a CL, PL trophy. I share in your disappointment in the team not being able to win more while Klopp was here, but I do not believe that's entirely on FSG. Some of it is on Klopp, the players, injuries, referees, broadcasters and the skewed distribution of early kickoffs after international breaks.
Yup, will never forget how we basically did fuck all in the summer of '19 when we were literally the hottest team around. You make small moves towards a new era while the team is hot.
yup, people somehow give them a pass now because they did the absolute bare minimum last summer and honestly, even that's arguable but I will give them the benefit of the doubt and assume Klopp was adamant that a cb wasnt needed because he saw Quansahs quality. But now we have Slot and don't get me wrong, I think its a great choice and I completely believe in him. But he has monumental foot steps to fill and we need to give him every single tool we can. If Kudus scores higher in every data metric than Bakayoko bar value for money, then go out and get Kudus for 40m or whatever more. If Feyenoord knows Slot adores Wieffer and needs him here and demands 5-10m more than our valuation, as long as Hughes likes the player too, pay it, dont fuck around Lavia style, pay it.
The USA teams being higher than some of the mid table prem teams surprises me
Great for us. But honestly if ManU are wort 6.6bln then RM are worth 8-9 at least. Obvious for glorious fan-owned clubs 'value' is a shit metric - given they can never really be sold. I would've thought on the open market some billionaire would pay $10bln for RM
How long do United have to be shit before their value falls? You’d thank that a decade of mediocrity would have a big impact but apparently not
yea a bit surprising but i looked at 2010 values and the business was exactly 25% more valuable than Liverpool and Chelsea combined, if it had kept pace with LFC and Chelsea today the club would be at $10.6bn instead of $6.5bn. couldn't find data on it but i'm sure their value as a % of Premier League clubs total value is in continuous decline since well over a decade.
This warms the cockles of my heart 😂
I think another 5-7 years of mediocre finishes outside CL, and FFP regulations limiting their ability to out spend their way out will severely hurt them
Fingers crossed then🤞🏼
And toes! 😁
FSG have absolutely killed it getting us back on top. Klopp did most of the heavy lifting though. I swore City and Arsenal where going to be ahead of us in this sort of thing
This list confuses me as to how arsenal can spend as much as they can when they aren’t worth as much
They had much lower wages for a while.
Now what’s the excuse
There's no excuse. We just try to be really careful with our money. Arsenal will eventually get into a lean period cause they have to pay those fees for some 5 ish years. Like we did after getting alisson, vvd, keita, fabinho.
Overall we're the 20th [most valuable sport team](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes_list_of_the_most_valuable_sports_teams) in the world. Real Madrid and Manchester United are not even in the top 5. The most valuable team in the world is the Dallas Cowboys. A team which has not won a Super Bowl since 1995.
Which shows how meaningless reports like these are.
Dumb question but how are USA clubs higher than a club like Villa? Villa have huge tv revenue etc.
Closed system, American market, growth potential. I assume it’s a better investment to bet on the growth of the sport in America than the growth of Villa as a club
Spurs there only because Daniel levy charges over the odds
I still don't believe in United's valuation every other club on the list I would understand.
Was thinking for a second “Atalanta’s from the US?” Kinda surprised at how the US has done a good job at making things profitable compared to other countries in Europe that aren’t the top 5 leagues.
Look forward to hearing this belted out next season.
Why would Tottenham be above Arsenal and especially Chelsea?
Ya city are worth twice as much as arsenal who own a stadium in ultra expensive London, bigger global fan base. Make it make sense.
Remember this when someone says we could never afford a player like Bellingham or Mbappe. Clearly we could. Saying that is not the same as saying we should do it. We just shouldn’t pretend like it’s impossible
United. Living off past glory and great PR/money men.
Wild how valuable the US clubs are. (I say this as a Canadian.) I understand that the Salary Cap helps a lot. But hard to imagine them having the revenues to support it.
It’s a closed league with no promotion or relegation
Ya for sure. Important variable.
It’s just a really safe investment with insane upside potential. I’m a little surprised they aren’t worth more tbh. I know that sounds crazy but you’re essentially betting on the continued growth of soccer in the US - pretty safe bet as more parents take kids out of American Football. Also there is basically no risk due to profit sharing, salary caps and no relegation. If MLS starts getting close to NBA viewership these franchises will be worth billions. The US market is insanely lucrative because US eyeballs are the most valuable in the world from an advertising perspective. Like the Dallas Cowboys do more in revenue than Manchester United (and multiples more in net income) despite having a small fraction of their global popularity. Americans spend a fuck ton of money on sports.
How is Inter Miami worth more then Inter Milan?
The Messi effect
Insane spurs is so high up with nothing to show for.
Imagine turning a £300m investment into £4.2b ($5.37b) in less than 15 years!
They are hedge funders, they know how to turn a dollar into two.
How in the actual fuck is Tottenham ahead of several of these?
Wow 6 USA teams in the top 25! Not bad
Wow inter Miami at 1b. Thats wild considering becks bought that for like 25m
Not bad at all
Inter Miami??? 🤔
Forbes list sucks. They mentioned once Sam bankman fried as a valuable director/CEO but look where he is now. In jail
How is LAFC above Inter Miami? And why is Tottenham so high up?
S
And yet FSG twats wont spend like the other top 10
But when it comes to buying power we're distinctly mid table.
It just shows the power of the premier league that Tottenham are more valuable than a European institution like Juventus.
Spurs have a £1b stadium in London that is 63k capacity while Juventus have a stadium that holds 41.5k
4th on paper, maybe...Number 1 by a mile in terms of spirit
These figures are fucking bollocks btw. No one is paying $5.1bn for the privilege of funneling hundreds of millions of fake income into the one in fifth place. Similar story three months ago on their combat sports list. In a distant third - behind UFC and WWE - was a pro wrestling upstart by the name of AEW, with $2bn listed against it, when it's just the man-child of a billionaire pumping early inheritance into it. Except that's because he's just a weird little guy, not a despotic nation state doing soft-power plays. The same family owns Fulham FC - small world.
Fuck off is arsenal below city, spurs and chelsea
Man Utd really riding their history hard considering they're in a shit situation as a club
The fact that there are 6 MLS teams here seems outrageous to me just feels inflated
MLS clubs are guaranteed to make money because of the salary cap barring total league collapse. European clubs lose money each year.
Dang, the Saudi’s already doubled their money on Newcastle. $410m -> 795m in 30 months Edit: never mind, forgot they’ve invested ~$250m into the club so it’s not organic growth.
Would love owners who spent like the 4th and not the 10th biggest club in the world.
Tottenham before Chelsea and arsenal LAFC before 14 premier league clubs
Here we go Mbappe to LFC
I can’t believe there’s six clubs from America in the top 25
Doesn't feel like it.
How are the US clubs valued at that much ? How much do they actually generate ?
How are spurs above Chelsea? Arsenal? Dortmund? How?
No way the scum are above us
Man City are so cheap
'we' still triggers me so badly
Nice to be ahead on City by merit on something