Apr 27, 2010
Reaction score
Just to start off, this is not another post about "hot to make money" and I have read the tips on how to do so, I'm just wondering if anybody can help clarify how the concept of new sponsorship deals work.

Now most small to medium teams in the game have just one sponsorship at the start of the game, whilst a few of the largest have several (such as Man U).

Now I've been playing on a game in which I have brought Southampton to national and international "glory". I'm currently in 2024, and in the last 5 seasons I have won Premier League 4 times and CL 3 times. However and the end / start of each season when sponsorship summaries for the league are posted I see that Man U, consistenly ranking 2-4 in Premier league, get an astounding 70+ million euros from their sponsors, whilst I only get around 6 million.

I loaded up an editor to take a closer look and I see Man U have a ton of sponsorships, all of which are quite profitable, I however only have one.

I compared the teams reputation, and mine is higher.
I compared merchandise income, and mine is higher.
I finally compared the stats of the respective presidents of the clubs and mine have higher business stats.

Now I'm confused as to why I am unable to attain better sponsorship deals. Is it a simple "error" in the game, not making it possible to get more sponsorship deals than when your game starts? Meaning that Man U consistently increase income on all theirs, while teams that at the start only have one deal, is bound to stay with that?
Don't believe it's the manager's job to get sponsorships maybe the Southampton board's stubborn ways or lack of need for more money is the resulting factor.
Yeah I get how it's not the Manager's job, still I don't understand why all these factors don't result in better sponsorships.

Sometimes nearing the end of the season the wages can bring me into negative so the chairman invests money himself to compensate - so I guess there is an obvious need for higher income.

All in all this just seems rather frustrating, because essentially I am unable to take any club i want and make it great over time - it seems like I need to pick a club that has the potential to sustain high salary players by having a lot of (even if at that time small) sponsorships.

It just doesn't make sense to me?
Seem's very confusing to me if you have better income than Manchester United in every area. SI should probably look into this. Have Manchester United stayed successful the entire time?
They haven't been especially successful, they have been runner ups for the Premier league title a few times, but mainly chelsea and arsenal have been winning the premier league, whilst lyon, barca and real have been the most successful teams in champions league.
I think it is down to how good your chairman is, if you use fmrte for example and bring up your chairman's stats it says has 'chairman attributes' and one of them is business perhaps your chairman's business attribute is low?
Jake, as i wrote earlier, i compared business attributes and my chairman has better business attributes.
Always been frustrated by this, even in earlier versions. Sponsorship usually went up, but only by a few hundred k. Granted, I never compaired chairman attributes, but it would seem logical that consistant trophy wins and increase in stature, both national and international, would bring much more sponsorship money.
One possible explanation could be a "fanbase size" attribute, with smaller clubs always being in trouble regardless of success, since they have a smaller fanbase than the larger ones.
the city/town the club is from has reputation too, maybe thats a factor aswell?