Daily Junction.mobi portalSports · July 18, 2026 · Tom Bennett · 9 min
Premier League clubs earn £3.1 billion from TV rights alone — here's how the money is shared, why wages are out of control, and why Leicester can't compete with Man City.
The Premier League is the richest football league in the world, with clubs earning £3.1 billion from TV rights in 2023–24 alone. But the money is not distributed equally — Manchester City (1st place) earned £176 million, while Sheffield United (20th place) earned £103 million. Player wages consume 60–70% of revenue at most clubs, with the total Premier League wage bill reaching £4.1 billion (2023–24), averaging £3.5 million per player per year. Transfer fees have exploded — the average Premier League signing costs £25 million (2024) vs £5 million (2010), with Chelsea spending £1 billion in 2 years (2022–2023). Financial Fair Play (now called Profit and Sustainability Rules) was supposed to level the playing field, but loopholes (amortisation, related-party deals, youth sales) allow rich clubs to spend freely. Here is everything you need to know about Premier League finances — how the money is shared, why wages are out of control, and why smaller clubs cannot compete.
Premier League clubs earned £6.5 billion in total revenue (2023–24):
The Premier League sells TV rights to broadcasters (Sky Sports, TNT Sports, BBC, Amazon Prime) for £3.1 billion per year (domestic and international).
How TV money is shared:
TV money by club (2023–24):
| Club | Position | TV money |
|---|---|---|
| Manchester City | 1st | £176m |
| Arsenal | 2nd | £172m |
| Liverpool | 3rd | £168m |
| Aston Villa | 4th | £164m |
| Tottenham | 5th | £160m |
| Chelsea | 6th | £156m |
| ... | ... | ... |
| Luton Town | 18th | £107m |
| Burnley | 19th | £105m |
| Sheffield United | 20th | £103m |
The gap between 1st and 20th is £73 million — significant, but not as large as the gap in total revenue (see below).
| Club | Total revenue |
|---|---|
| Manchester City | £713m |
| Manchester United | £648m |
| Liverpool | £594m |
| Chelsea | £513m |
| Tottenham | £523m |
| Arsenal | £464m |
| Newcastle | £250m |
| West Ham | £230m |
| Leicester | £220m |
| Everton | £210m |
| Aston Villa | £200m |
| Brighton | £180m |
| Brentford | £160m |
The Big Six (Man City, Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea, Tottenham, Arsenal) earn £3.5 billion (54% of total Premier League revenue), while the other 14 clubs share £3 billion (46%).
This creates structural inequality — the Big Six can afford the best players, managers, and facilities, while smaller clubs struggle to compete.
Premier League clubs spent £4.1 billion on player wages (2023–24), averaging:
But wages vary hugely by club:
| Club | Wage bill | Wages as % of revenue |
|---|---|---|
| Manchester City | £423m | 59% |
| Manchester United | £331m | 51% |
| Chelsea | £325m | 63% |
| Liverpool | £314m | 53% |
| Arsenal | £235m | 51% |
| Tottenham | £208m | 40% |
| Newcastle | £150m | 60% |
| Brentford | £90m | 56% |
Wages have risen 500% since 2000:
Top players earn £300,000–£400,000 per week (£15–20 million per year):
Football finance experts say clubs should spend no more than 60% of revenue on wages to be sustainable. But most Premier League clubs spend 60–70%, and some spend over 70% (Chelsea 63%, Newcastle 60%).
This leaves little money for transfers, infrastructure, or profit.
Premier League clubs spent £2.5 billion on transfers in 2023–24, with an average signing costing £25 million (up from £5 million in 2010).
Biggest spenders (2022–2023):
Amortisation is an accounting trick that allows clubs to spread transfer fees over the contract length.
Example:
Chelsea have exploited this loophole by signing players on 7–10 year contracts, allowing them to spend £1 billion without breaching Financial Fair Play rules.
Financial Fair Play (FFP) was introduced in 2011 to prevent clubs from overspending and going bankrupt. It was renamed Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) in 2024.
Clubs can lose no more than £105 million over 3 years (£35 million per year).
Losses over £105 million result in:
Rich clubs exploit loopholes to spend freely:
Clubs spread transfer fees over the contract length, making big fees look smaller in the accounts (see above).
Clubs with wealthy owners (Man City, Newcastle, PSG) sign inflated sponsorship deals with companies owned by the same owners. This artificially inflates revenue, allowing them to spend more.
Example: Man City's sponsorship deal with Etihad (owned by Abu Dhabi, same as Man City's owner) is worth £67 million per year — far more than comparable clubs.
Clubs can sell youth players for 100% profit (because they cost nothing to develop). Chelsea have sold £200 million of youth players in 2 years (2022–2024) to fund their £1 billion spending spree.
Spending on stadiums and training grounds is exempt from PSR, so clubs can spend freely on infrastructure.
No. PSR was supposed to level the playing field, but it has protected the status quo:
PSR limits spending to revenue, which favours rich clubs (Man City £713m revenue) over smaller clubs (Brentford £160m revenue).
The Big Six earn £3.5 billion (54% of total Premier League revenue), while the other 14 clubs share £3 billion (46%).
Manchester City (£713m revenue) earns 4.5 times more than Brentford (£160m revenue). This allows Man City to afford the best players, managers, and facilities.
The Big Six spend £2 billion on wages, while the other 14 clubs spend £2.1 billion.
![[View image]](/img/premier-league-finances-explained.jpg){kind=link}