The World’s Most Valuable Soccer Teams: Inside The Numbers

Vanjagl · Apr 25, 2011

Our annual valuations of the world’s richest soccer clubs are out and the results are impressive.

The enterprise value of the average top 20 club is now $640 million, 1.3% more than a year ago (while that may not seem like a great gain, keep in mind that our figures are in U.S. dollars and the value of the dollar appreciated significantly against both the Euro and British pound from the end of 2008-09 season to the end of the 2009-10 season). Meanwhile, operating income increased to an average of $40 million, 25% higher than last year. Only three clubs (Manchester City, Olympique Lyonnais, Atletico de Madrid) lost money.

Full List: The World’s Most Valuable Soccer Teams

England’s Manchester United, owned by the Glazer family and the greatest global brand in team sports with over 330 million supporters worldwide, remains the most valuable soccer club, worth $1.9 billion. The Red Devils commercial revenue of $122 million for the 2009-10 season increased 16% in local currency, more than any other club. With operating income of $148 million they also hold the distinction of the most profitable professional sports team in the world.

The highest grossing club remains Spain’s Real Madrid, whose $537 million in revenue is second across all sports to only Major League Baseball’s New York Yankees. Los Blancos’ matchday revenue broadcasting revenue of $158 million in the most in soccer and their broadcasting revenue of $194 million lags only rival Barcelona ($218 million). Valued at $1.5 billion, Real Madrid placed second.

Although our valuations are based on applying multiples to a club’s revenues for the 2009-10 season, we adjust our multiples to reflect material events. A case in point is French club Olympique Lyonnais. We adjusted their value upward 7.5%, to $358 million, in part to reflect a privately financed new stadium expected to be completed by the end of 2013.

Chelsea, owned by billionaire Roman Abramovich, had the biggest jump in operating profits, landing $37 million in the black after losing $73 million the previous year. The Blues are the most leveraged team on our list, with $889 million of debt and have depended on Abramovich’s deep pockets for financing . Chelsea is worth $658 million, good enough to be ranked seventh.

Despite losing $82 million during the 2009-10 season, Manchester City rose 13% in value, to 291 million. The club’s owner, Sheikh mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan has poured an estimated $480 million of his personal wealth into the club since buying it in 2008, much of it to improve the club’s roster. Manchester City posted a fifth place finish in the Barclays Premier League during 2009-10, is currently fourth this season, and are poised to qualify for the lucrative Champions League next season.

One newcomer to this year’s list: Atletico de Madrid, worth $275 million. Atletico made it on to our list by dint of higher revenue from its performance in the UEFA Champions League, where they made it to the group stage, and capturing both the UEFA Europa League and the UEFA European Super Cup titles.

List of top 20 richest football clubs in the world and full Forbes analyse, year 2010

List for 2011

#20 Borussia Dortmund
Country: Germany
League: German Bundesliga
Owner/Majority Shareholder: Morgan Stanley International Ltd.
Stadium: Signal Iduna Park (Seating Capacity:80,500)
Current Value: $260 mil
1-yr Value Change (U.S.): -1%
Revenues: $124 mil

#19 Atletico de Madrid
Country: Spain
League: Liga BBVA
Owner/Majority Shareholder: Gil family
Stadium: Vicente Calderon (Seating Capacity:55,000)
Current Value: $275 mil
1-yr Value Change (U.S.): 4%
Revenues: $153 mil

#18 Olympique Marseille
Country: France
League: Ligue 1 Orange
Owner/Majority Shareholder: Margarita Louis-Dreyfus
Stadium: Stade Velodrome (Seating Capacity:60,000)
Current Value: $277 mil
1-yr Value Change (U.S.): 6%
Revenues: $173 mil

#17 Werder Bremen
Country: Germany
League: German Bundesliga
Owner/Majority Shareholder: club members
Stadium: Weserstadion (Seating Capacity:32,100)
Current Value: $279 mil
1-yr Value Change (U.S.): 2%
Revenues: $147 mil

#16 VIB Stuttgart
Country: Germany
League: German Bundesliga
Owner/Majority Shareholder: club members
Stadium: Mercedes-Benz Arena (Seating Capacity:52,000)
Current Value: $281 mil
1-yr Value Change (U.S.): 0%
Revenues: $141 mil

#15 Manchester City
Country: England
League: Barclays Premier League
Owner/Majority Shareholder: Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan
Stadium: City of Manchester Stadium (Seating Capacity:47,700)
Current Value: $291 mil
1-yr Value Change (U.S.): 13%
Revenues: $153 mil

#14 Hamburg SV
Country: Germany
League: German Bundesliga
Owner/Majority Shareholder: club members
Stadium: Imtech Arena (Seating Capacity:51,700)
Current Value: $340 mil
1-yr Value Change (U.S.): 3%
Revenues: $179 mil

#13 Olympique Lyonnais
Country: France
League: Ligue 1 Orange
Owner/Majority Shareholder: Jean-Michel Aulas
Stadium: Stade Gerland (Seating Capacity:41,800)
Current Value: $358 mil
1-yr Value Change (U.S.): 8%
Revenues: $179 mil

#12 Schalke 04
Country: Germany
League: German Bundesliga
Owner/Majority Shareholder: club members
Stadium: VELTINS-Arena (Seating Capacity:54,000)
Current Value: $377 mil
1-yr Value Change (U.S.): -2%
Revenues: $171 mil

#11 Tottenham Hotspur
Country: England
League: Barclays Premier League
Owner/Majority Shareholder: Joseph Lewis
Stadium: White Hart Lane (Seating Capacity:36,200)
Current Value: $412 mil
1-yr Value Change (U.S.): 11%
Revenues: $179 mil

#10 Inter Milan
Country: Italy
League: Serie A TIM
Owner/Majority Shareholder: Massimo Moratti
Stadium: San Siro (Seating Capacity:80,100)
Current Value: $441 mil
1-yr Value Change (U.S.): 7%
Revenues: $275 mil

#9 Liverpool
Country: England
League: Barclays Premier League
Owner/Majority Shareholder: John Henry, Tom Werner
Stadium: Anfield (Seating Capacity:45,300)
Current Value: $552 mil
1-yr Value Change (U.S.): -33%
Revenues: $276 mil

#8 Juventus
Country: Italy
League: Serie A TIM
Owner/Majority Shareholder: Agnelli family
Stadium: Stadio Olimpico di Torino (Seating Capacity:27,500)
Current Value: $628 mil
1-yr Value Change (U.S.): -4%
Revenues: $251 mil

#7 Chelsea
Country: England
League: Barclays Premier League
Owner/Majority Shareholder: Roman Abramovich
Stadium: Stamford Bridge (Seating Capacity:42,500)
Current Value: $658 mil
1-yr Value Change (U.S.): 2%
Revenues: $313 mil

#6 AC Milan
Country: Italy
League: Serie A TIM
Owner/Majority Shareholder: Silvio Berlusconi
Stadium: San Siro (Seating Capacity:80,100)
Current Value: $838 mil
1-yr Value Change (U.S.): 5%
Revenues: $289 mil

#5 Barcelona
Country: Spain
League: Liga BBVA
Owner/Majority Shareholder: club members
Stadium: Camp Nou (Seating Capacity:98,800)
Current Value: $975 mil
1-yr Value Change (U.S.): -2%
Revenues: $488 mil

#4 Bayern Munich
Country: Germany
League: German Bundesliga
Owner/Majority Shareholder: club members
Stadium: Allianz Arena (Seating Capacity:69,000)
Current Value: $1,048 mil
1-yr Value Change (U.S.): 6%
Revenues: $396 mil

#3 Arsenal
Country: England
League: Barclays Premier League
Owner/Majority Shareholder: E. Stanley Kroenke
Stadium: Emirates Stadium (Seating Capacity:60,400)
Current Value: $1,192 mil
1-yr Value Change (U.S.): 1%
Revenues: $336 mil

#2 Real Madrid
Country: Spain
League: Liga BBVA
Owner/Majority Shareholder: club members
Stadium: Estadio Santiago Bernabeu (Seating Capacity:80,400)
Current Value: $1,451 mil
1-yr Value Change (U.S.): 10%
Revenues: $537 mil

#1 Manchester United
Country: England
League: Barclays Premier League
Owner/Majority Shareholder: Glazer family
Stadium: Old Trafford (Seating Capacity: 76,000)
Current Value: $1,864 mil
1-yr Value Change (U.S.): 2%
Revenues: $428 mil

Source : The World’s Most Valuable Soccer Teams: Inside The Numbers - Mike Ozanian - SportsMoney - Forbes

CJACKO11 · Apr 25, 2011

Im not great with figures but it seems things are looking very bright for Chelsea.

Vanjagl · Apr 25, 2011

Yep, things for Roman looks good... he made some money from Chelsea last season. Did you buy any player last year... I really can't remember?

CJACKO11 · Apr 25, 2011

Vanjagl said:
Yep, things for Roman looks good... he made some money from Chelsea last season. Did you buy any player last year... I really can't remember?

The start of last season only Zhirkov who cost us 18 million and Sturridge who cost us about 4ish upfront and Matic for 1.5million. But in 2010 as a whole Ramires for 17million, Benayoun for 5million, Kalas for 5million and Delac for 2.7 million.

Steve* · Apr 25, 2011

CJACKO11 said:
Im not great with figures but it seems things are looking very bright for Chelsea.

$37M is about £20M and that is for 2010. This doesnt include the £70M spent in january so thats a net loss of £50M. I dont really think too much about these top 10s as some of this will be ignored for Financial Fair Play which is going to be at the front of everybodys thoughts from this summer onwards. It doesnt mask the fact that some clubs will be in clear fincancial trouble in the coming years.

It isnt mentioned that most of the top clubs have crippling debts. Barca,Madrid,United,Chelsea,City,Inter and Atlethico Madrid are all burdened with debt. The only major clubs not burrowed in debt is Arsenal due to financial prudence and Liverpool due to the recent take over.

CJACKO11 · Apr 25, 2011

Steve* said:
$37M is about £20M and that is for 2010. This doesnt include the £70M spent in january so thats a net loss of £50M. I dont really think too much about these top 10s as some of this will be ignored for Financial Fair Play which is going to be at the front of everybodys thoughts from this summer onwards. It doesnt mask the fact that some clubs will be in clear fincancial trouble in the coming years.

It isnt mentioned that most of the top clubs have crippling debts. Barca,Madrid,United,Chelsea,City,Inter and Atlethico Madrid are all burdened with debt. The only major clubs not burrowed in debt is Arsenal due to financial prudence and Liverpool due to the recent take over.

But also these reports dont include clubs sponsoship deals so Chelsea's loss wouldnt have been as big as it looks.

Vanjagl · Apr 25, 2011

CJACKO11 said:
The start of last season only Zhirkov who cost us 18 million and Sturridge who cost us about 4ish upfront and Matic for 1.5million. But in 2010 as a whole Ramires for 17million, Benayoun for 5million, Kalas for 5million and Delac for 2.7 million.

That's what I thought, you didn't spend a lot, just like us. I belive that's the real reason for this profit.

Steve* said:
$37M is about £20M and that is for 2010. This doesnt include the £70M spent in january so thats a net loss of £50M. I dont really think too much about these top 10s as some of this will be ignored for Financial Fair Play which is going to be at the front of everybodys thoughts from this summer onwards. It doesnt mask the fact that some clubs will be in clear fincancial trouble in the coming years.

It isnt mentioned that most of the top clubs have crippling debts. Barca,Madrid,United,Chelsea,City,Inter and Atlethico Madrid are all burdened with debt. The only major clubs not burrowed in debt is Arsenal due to financial prudence and Liverpool due to the recent take over.

All those clubs are repaying their debts with ease. Dunno about other clubs, but United payed around 30% of their debt last year ( from 700 to 500 million pounds). And I heard United's going to pay another 125 million pounds at the end of this season.

Steve* · Apr 25, 2011

CJACKO11 said:
But also these reports dont include clubs sponsoship deals so Chelsea's loss wouldnt have been as big as it looks.

Exactly my point. Even though this is conducted by forbes, it isnt that accurate for financial data as it does miss some crucial data. Club accounts cover most of the main income and expenditure but there are certain details that arent disclosed.
Before anybody mis quotes me i would like to stress that im not criticising any of the clubs. I believe chelsea have done well in improving their operating profit but the problem remains in football with leveraged debt on clubs. Some of these guaranteed bank loans could put major sporting institutions of european football in risk of going bust.
Regulation is a big issue and no clubs should be running an operating loss. I show no bias as i realise how close our club came to going bust until the takeover. I show nothing but admiration for Arsenals strategy,despite not winning any trophies of late they have a healthy profit year on year and all other clubs should strive to follow this example.

*Jones* · Apr 25, 2011

Chelsea have $889 million of debt!? :O **** me.

If Abramovich get's bored you's reallu are screwed...

Steve* · Apr 25, 2011

Vanjagl said:
All those clubs are repaying their debts with ease. Dunno about other clubs, but United payed around 30% of their debt last year ( from 700 to 500 million pounds). And I heard United's going to pay another 125 million pounds at the end of this season.

Not exactly true,most of the clubs issue bonds to raise capital to pay these debts. This is basically getting a loan to prop another loan up. This falsifies the markets into believeing that clubs are viable. The main problem is that if an owner or bank decides to withdraw their capital a lot of the forces of europe can go to the wall

---------- Post added at 02:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 AM ----------

*Jones* said:
Chelsea have $889 million of debt!? :O **** me.

If Abramovich get's bored you's reallu are screwed...

Exactly my point. I envisage that if he decides he has had enough and wants to walk away he could look for his £500 odd million back. Where would this leave the fans beloved club???

CJACKO11 · Apr 25, 2011

*Jones* said:
Chelsea have $889 million of debt!? :O **** me.

If Abramovich get's bored you's reallu are screwed...

Its a big if though isent it. I think he is an excellent owner and shows so much passion for the team. Every time people start to question his love for the club he comes back and shuts them up. He has been here for 7 years already and you can see he and his son want this to be a long term thing.

Steve* · Apr 25, 2011

CJACKO11 said:
Its a big if though isent it. I think he is an excellent owner and shows so much passion for the team. Every time people start to question his love for the club he comes back and shuts them up. He has been here for 7 years already and you can see he and his son want this to be a long term thing.

I dont doubt hes a good owner. I had widely expected him to have gotten bored by now but fair play to him he hasnt. Its a long shot i know but the fact remains that if he does want his money back the team are screwed. I dont mean to focus on Chelsea but its just an example. As long as these kind of debts remain in football its always a possibility and it results in fans hard earned money not even going to the club anymore...most of the capital raised ends up going straight to a bank.
Over the last ten years of closely following football i have seen some decent clubs becoming extinct and many others coming close to it due to bad financial practice. I wish football clubs could be forced to just spend what money is available to them and not incur further debts.

Vanjagl · Apr 25, 2011

Bonds are great to gather money, but, you need to to pay dividends ( sorry if i misspelled it) from profit. Lets say some club made 30 million pounds profit, and he issue bonds worth 200 millions pounds. Dunno about of nominal %, but it shouldn't be more than 6%. So, If you issue 200 millions pounds that expire after 5 years, and lets say one bound is worth 1000 pounds, so, 200 000 000/1000 = 200 000 of issued bonds. 1000 * 6% =1060, so you basiclly make 60 pounds by year ( those who bought bond). 60 * 5 years = 300, so, club needs to pay 1300 pounds for one issued bound. 1300 * 200 000 = 260 000 000. So, your yearly lost is 60 000 000/5 = 12 000 000 million punds, or million by month. It's not so cheap, but it's better than stay in debt and get relagated, or even worse, declare declare bankruptcy ( sorry for bad eng )
So, club will still make profit of 18 million pounds. But this is tricky, this is impossible for all clubs, only clubs with good financial structure can issue bounds.

Joel` · Apr 25, 2011

I believe you're thinking of bonds, Vanjagl. They generally work well as a short term solution, but you just end up creating more debt on top of the original debt you had, and then if you start struggling with re-payments; the people buying the bonds charge more interest since it's more of a gamble, and that circle continues. They are what have helped contribute to Greece, Ireland and Portugal's economic downfall.

Vanjagl · Apr 25, 2011

Yes... ****... bounds, bonds... sorry....

Steve* · Apr 25, 2011

Ok lets apply that to Utd here.
£500M bond issue over 7 years (2010-2017) at 6% yield interest gpa.
500M x 0.06 = 30M dividends each year
30M x 7 (years) = 210M purely dividends over 7 years.
Then £500M must be repaid in 2017 along with the 210M that had been paid over the previous 7 years.
Along with this the club has a service debt currently around £450M which costs the club around a further £44M intrest yearly.

That results in at least £70M being paid in intrrest every year with the overall debt of the club not reducing. The likelyhood is that it actually increases due to banks having a service charge and refinancing of debts. It simply cant go on forever.

This may also interest United fans:
Until November 2010, there was also £249m of “payment in kind” (PIK) loans owed by Red Football Joint Venture Limited, the parent company of Red Football. They were secured on the shares of Red Football. They were repaid in November 2010, but no explanation of where this £249m came from has been forthcoming. It is likely, although cannot be proved, that new debt was issued (probably in the US) to repay the PIKs.

As i mentioned before its not uncommon practice for companies to try fool the stock markets into thinking that they are healthy. Its a large scale game of roulette and eventually somebody will lose and the consequences are massive.

I agree with Joel. Its also worth noting that Irelands problems began with irregularities in Anglo Irish Bank. They loaned money from another bank to prop up thier balance sheet at time of accounts to inflate its value. It has almost bankrupted a country so what makes people think it wont bring down a football club.

Vanjagl · Apr 25, 2011

Joel` said:
I believe you're thinking of bonds, Vanjagl. They generally work well as a short term solution, but you just end up creating more debt on top of the original debt you had, and then if you start struggling with re-payments; the people buying the bonds charge more interest since it's more of a gamble, and that circle continues. They are what have helped contribute to Greece, Ireland and Portugal's economic downfall.

United emitted worth 175 million pounds. And United can afford it, cuz United can make profit every year. I dont wanna talk about Greece, Portugal and Ireland, mainly cuz i can't speak or write English that good, and this isn't thread to discuss about it

, but, main problem of those countries is they couldn't pay their debts back. They took too many credits from IMF, and now they are in big troubles. Anyway, back on United subject. United can afford to pay every year up to 20 million in dividends, I'm sure. Why I'm so sure, well, biggest fan base( glory hunters or not, they will still watch games and buy some stuff), commercial and gate money allow to issue a bond.

Joel` · Apr 25, 2011

Vanjagl said:
United emitted worth 175 million pounds. And United can afford it, cuz United can make profit every year. I dont wanna talk about Greece, Portugal and Ireland, mainly cuz i can't speak or write English that good, and this isn't thread to discuss about it , but, main problem of those countries is they couldn't pay their debts back. They took too many credits from IMF, and now they are in big troubles. Anyway, back on United subject. United can afford to pay every year up to 20 million in dividends, I'm sure. Why I'm so sure, well, biggest fan base( glory hunters or not, they will still watch games and buy some stuff), commercial and gate money...

Yeah I'm just saying football clubs should actually look to tidy up their debt rather than just pass it around and hide from it. As Steve said, it's just like a roulette game. Was using Greece, Ireland and Portugal as examples of when it goes wrong.

Steve* · Apr 25, 2011

Vanjagl said:
United emitted worth 175 million pounds. And United can afford it, cuz United can make profit every year. I dont wanna talk about Greece, Portugal and Ireland, mainly cuz i can't speak or write English that good, and this isn't thread to discuss about it , but, main problem of those countries is they couldn't pay their debts back. They took too many credits from IMF, and now they are in big troubles. Anyway, back on United subject. United can afford to pay every year up to 20 million in dividends, I'm sure. Why I'm so sure, well, biggest fan base( glory hunters or not, they will still watch games and buy some stuff), commercial and gate money allow to issue a bond.

Read my above post in detail. Also dont blame the governments for what has happened the countries.Not so sure about Greece and portugal but ireland wouldnt have service debt only for nama and the state guarantee on all savings. The main culprit is Anglo Irish Bank and corrupt bank officials. But that isnt the topic on hand.

Sid · Apr 25, 2011

I feel like such a fool, I don't understand what you guys are talking about

The World’s Most Valuable Soccer Teams: Inside The Numbers

Premium

Member

Premium

Member

Y.N.W.A.

Member

Premium

Y.N.W.A.

Pikachuuuuuuuu

Y.N.W.A.

Member

Y.N.W.A.

Premium

Member

Premium

Y.N.W.A.

Premium

Member

Y.N.W.A.

Member

FMBase

Beta

Resources