Arsenal drop further down the 2020 Money League Table (even below Tottenham)

This is the biggest indicator of just how far Arsenal have regressed under Stan Kroenke, as the latest figures from Deloitte’s Money Football League show that we have dropped down to 11th in the yearly revenue table.

Amazingly in the 2010 Money League Table, the Gunners were the 5th richest club in the World, with Chelsea in 6th and our big local rivals Tottenham right down in 15th place.

We were also second to Man United in the English table in 2010, but now we are not even in the Top Five! Despite their current woes, Man United are still the 3rd richest in the World behind Barcelona and Real Madrid, and with Man City, Liverpool, Tottenham and Chelsea overtaking us in England we are now the 6th biggest in the UK.

There is also little hope on the horizon of us catching up again until we manage to get back into the Champions League, and with us currently languishing in 10th in the Premier League table we can only get that back next season if somehow Mikel Arteta can inspire us to victory in the Europa League.

If you want me to bring a little positivity to the Money League Table, then it will be to tell you that our revenue has increased from 263m Euros in 2010 to 445m in the latest figures, so you could say we have been well-managed financially in that time.

But obviously not as well-managed as many other English clubs, when you consider that Tottenham’s has gone up from 132m (which was half of our revenue) to 459m in the same time, easily surpassing us and getting ahead of us as well.

These figures are not very promising at all…

Admin Pat


  1. Which just goes to show how important the twenty years of successive CL football actually was.

    Once this sinks in to those who say they preferred winning a trophy and how the “lost decade” showed AW had dragged The Arsenal down, perhaps they might appreciate what the club did achieve under him….even with kronkie in charge.

    As I predicted a few days ago, the “lost decade” has just started (three / four years) and these abysmal figures prove it beyond any doubt.

    Instead of believing AW was bleeding the club dry, it’s time to realise he was giving it a blood transfusion for twenty years in a row.

    1. When Wenger won his last title in 2004 it was a two team league.
      Once Chelsea arrived in 2005 Wenger never won again.
      When City arrived in 2008 Arsenal started calling 4th place the Wenger trophy.
      Then Poch and Klopp arrived and Leicester won a title.
      Arsenal under wenger slipped to 5th and have never been back to the top 4
      although Emery missed by one point last term.
      Now Wolves Everton Sheff U Palace have made it a top 10.
      Arsenal is euphemistically in “transition”
      But where are we going and how are we going to get there?
      Emery missed 4th by one point and despite making the EL final was sacked.
      If Arteta fails to get top 4 or fails to win the EL should he be sacked too?

      1. stevo, why was it a two horse race? Simply because AW and AF were the two best managers, one who had money to burn and the other who discovered talent from abroad.

        Has anyone ever wondered why it wasn’t a two horse race BEFORE Wenger came? Why do our own fans try to demean what the club achieved?

        Of course when abromavitch arrived, he changed everything with his roubles and then when city got the oil money in 2008, it changed again…Plus, kronkie got his majority shareholding and kicked David Dein out.

        You say that being 4th was regarded as the Wenger trophy by The Arsenal, we also finished 3rd and 2nd of course after abromavitch, but isn’t that 4th place what we are striving to regain, in order to get back into the CL and isn’t that the reason we have slipped below the spuds, as this post is pointing our?

        You point out that UE missed CL by one point…so did AW, the year we beat the champions, Chelsea, ar Wembley…otherwise it would have been twenty one years of CL qualification.

    2. @ken1945

      From an accounting point of view, it was very good (although should have been much better if we weren’t consistently devaluing our assets, e.g. approx 200 million and counting lost on Alexis, Ramsey, Ozil, not to mention all the other players we messed about with), but when do managers EVER get judged on their accounting abilities?

      What have the finances got to do with defending, and having a DM? Was the money also responsible for Wenger changing his successful strategic approach for his philosophy? Going from tall, powerful, aggressive, athletic players, and counter-attacking football, to the disastrous possession based football, smaller and weaker players, with a more gentle and nice mentality. Consistently putting players in the wrong positions was a financial issue? It was sound financial planning to keep giving contract extensions and pay raises to rubbish players, and even worse, players that could barely kick a ball because of chronic injuries? If you could explain that to us all, that would be great, because I am truly baffled!

      In all seriousness, of course the Emirates move, and the rise of the billionaire owners made life much harder for Wenger, but as my examples point out, many of Wenger’s biggest mistakes had absolutely NOTHING to do with money!

      1. TMJW, my question to you, once again, is this…taking every single one of your points at face value…can you explain how AW still maintained CL qualification, once he changed style?

        You see, despite your bafflement, that is EXACTLY what he did, along with qualifying for the knockout stages every time in the “lost decade”.

        The most amazing thing you say, is that all of the face value points you raise had “nothing to do with money” and yet disengenuously slip in that ” the billionaires money and the Emirates made life much harder”…how so?
        It was ALL to do with money…why do you think UE and MA are having to play players out of position? The money supplied by our self sufficient model doesn’t have the resources to cover for injuries with top players in every position.

        There is no question that AW made many, many mistakes and one would be a fool to think/claim otherwise – period.
        In transfers, in contracts, in salaries, ably assisted by kronkie and gazidis…before the latter took complete control of these matters, when the new regime was announced nearly four years ago of course.

        So, let me ask you once again…how did AW remain in the top four, CL and fa cup wins (accepting all your points in order to get an answer), under the stewardship of kronkie and gazidis….was he, actually a brilliant coach, were the players better than you think they were, or is there another reason? All of us on here are really baffled as well, certainly I am, especially as you never seem to answer this very simple question?

        Was it because city, with their money, raided our club straight away, taking away four players in two seasons or chelsea coming in at the last second to ofcer mata more money?

      2. Third Man JW, A marvellous and plainly true post. But you waste time arguing with Ken who will never agree. I have stopped writing comments about WeNGER NOW AND SEE NO POINT, as I know that Ken is programmed to leap to the defence of Wenger and will do so with certainty. You will not convince him and of course he will not convince you either. So go ahead , enjoy your debate and you will find it as pointless as I once did. In any case what is done is done, whether for good or ill and we must play the cards we currently hold and not the ones we might have had or wished for.

        1. Except, of course Jon, neither you or TMJW, can ever explain the simple question HOW DID HE DO IT?

          That is the only thing that neither of you seem able to answer – you are more than able to point out his mistakes with such unnerving and piercing criticism, it seems incredible that such a simple request can stump such powerful observers of our club as you two realists say you are.

          As you can read, I am not blind to his faults, just want an explanation of his “lost decade” results.

          I don’t need convincing, just a reasonable explanation – as pointless as that might seem to you both!
          So sorry that it seems beyond your capabilities.

  2. Kronke only cares the revenues increased, he doesn’t care about spuds. In his eyes increased revenues=success.

    He isn’t in it for titles, not for Arsenal, Rams, Denver, etc…

    Anyone take note Rams didn’t make playoffs? He has to make money to suport and fund their new stadium, he’s glad he has Arsenal as his piggy bank.

  3. Turnover means little with out showing costs.
    Man City and Chelsea owe billions to their owners.
    Basically they are on life support from their billionaire owners.
    Man U owes 500 mill to their owners.
    Spurs 1 billion quid stadium is not included in their debit column.
    It is listed as an “asset and an “investment”.
    Liverpool is doing well because of their PL and CL success and huge overseas following.
    Arsenal is doing well considering it is the only club in the league
    with an owner who contributes zero to club finances.
    Even more so considering there has been no CL money for 4 seasons.
    The club can’t be doing too badly if 70m Pepe was purchased.

    1. Arsenal need to participate in CL again and sell the underperforming senior players with big salaries to have more transfer budget next season

      1. Not necessary to be in Europe.
        Leicester made 80m with the sale of of one player-(Mcguire)- more than winning the CL.
        Arsenal have bought Lacazette 50m Aubameyang 60m and Pepe 70m while in the Europa League.
        And that on top of Wengers botched loss of 60m for Sanchez and Ramsey for 50m
        means the club appears to have plenty of money with out CL football.
        Besides if you make CL you almost certainly spend most of the money
        on high priced transfers and paying their huge salaries
        Our last foray into the CL resulted in humiliating exits in the rounds of 16.
        Leicester is prospering with out any European football and won
        their only title when not committed to European football.
        Chelsea’s last title came when they too had no European commitments.
        So top 4 under Wenger actually made it nigh impossible to win the league.
        Arsenal chances of winning the league would be much improved if we are not in Europe.

      1. stevo and GB, what are you talking about?

        spuds earned a reported £100,000,000 by being runners up in the CL!!!

        The new regime, under the auspices of ivan gazidis let Ramsey run down his contract.
        As for Sanchez and the £60,000,000, I wonder if manure still think he was worth that? And don’t forget we got myk, whatever you might think of him, in a swap deal.

        In the 20 years of competing in the CL, not once did we spend what we made when qualifying for the last 16 – in fact, qualifying for the CL paid for AW’s salary every year we did it.

        How do we “appear to have more money” when we are being continuously told we cannot afford players above a pre set budget?

    2. Spurs’ debt stands at £650m – all long term, fixed at a low rate. A fair chunk of it is interest only.

      People need to let go of the notion that all debt is necessarily bad debt. In Spurs’ case, the stadium debt it very much good debt. They have borrowed to grow. In return for their borrowing, they now have a billion pound asset on the balance sheet that will generate far more per annum than their combined interest and repayment costs.

      And, Contrary to your claim, Spurs are no different to Arsenal with respect to being self sufficient.

      1. Jim, Your true and pertinent assertion that “all debt is not necessarily bad debt” is so often ignored by financial novices. Some of the naive comments on here make me sigh with their sheer stupidity OR sometimes laugh out loud at the adsurdity of what some ACTUALLY BELIEVE!

      2. Any debt is bad that’s why it’s called debt. You can borrow money to grow but then it’s always a risk, you have to restrain from spending n tighten up your budget. As long as your plan is working n your growth can sustain the regular payments it’s fine but still it’s a risk. That the reason you see so many companies going into administration. Either they can’t sustain the repayments or they are unable to keep up with their expenditures.

      3. As long as spurs keep finishing in top 4 n are in champions League revenues will keep flowing but then champions League is not guaranteed so if they fall out from that for few seasons I bet they will face major issues n actually will start to sell their assists like players to keep up with repayments. There is always two sides to a story mate, …just a question..are you a banker because only they tell you loan is good.

  4. We have no money because like utd, who are also falling because we have been badly managed by wenger and Emery on the field and Gazidis and co off it. Thats the only reasons, end of.

Comments are closed

Top Blog Sponsors