The European Club Licensing

Benchmarking Report
Financial Year 2011
Foreword

This page: The image is a word cloud summarising the report content of this year’s highlights section

2
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Foreword
Welcome to the fifth edition of the Club Licensing This report provides an in-depth analysis of the
Benchmarking Report, which analyses and comments current situation, allowing national associations,
on the governance and financial development of leagues and clubs to benchmark their performance
European club football. and all readers to better understand the context in
which clubs across the 53 UEFA member associations
This year’s edition is published amid another operate. We are already starting to see the impact of
turbulent financial season and with UEFA the first phase of financial fair play with the level of
committed to financial fair play. overdue debts on transfers and employee payments
reducing with each financial fair play assessment as
Numerous football clubs, including some prestigious clubs realise tough action is and will be taken. This is
ones, have experienced severe financial difficulties, just the start of a long but necessary journey.
leading to top division clubs’ aggregate losses
increasing again. We would like to thank all member associations,
leagues and clubs which provided their financial
In this context, the unanimous consensus among information and the whole club licensing network
the whole football family on the financial fair for their invaluable assistance.
play concept becomes key in order to face
the anticipated financial distress that other We hope you will enjoy this edition.
clubs are expected to suffer in the future.
Keeping costs under control and within sustainable
limits is and will continue to be the clubs’
biggest challenge.

Sustainability of the entire football sector is hence

at the centre of the financial fair play philosophy,
aimed at balancing revenues with expenses and at
boosting investments for the long-term health of Michel Platini
the game. President of UEFA

3
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Index

INDEX
Introduction 08
Highlights 10

Section 1: UEFA club football competitions and the competing clubs 16

Competition profile of UEFA club competitions

01. Which countries are represented in UEFA club competitions? 20
02. Is it the ‘same old clubs’ always competing in UEFA club competitions? 21
03. How do UEFA club competition match results compare with domestic competition results? 24
04. How many fans attended UEFA competition matches across Europe? 25
05. How many and which clubs have had to give up their competition places? 26

Structural profile of clubs competing in UEFA club competitions

06. How many full-time players and other people are employed by these clubs? 30
07. What stadiums and other fixed assets do these clubs own? 31
08. In what legal form are these clubs organised? 32
09. Which are the most prolific cities for these clubs? 32
10. When are the financial reporting dates of these clubs? 34

Financial profile of clubs competing in UEFA club competitions

11. What revenues, wages and losses did clubs report in FY2011? 38
12. How is UEFA competition money distributed and classified by clubs? 40
13. What proportion of club income does UEFA participation represent? 41
14. How do financial statement results compare with financial fair play break-even results? 44
15. What impact are the first stages of financial fair play having on clubs? 46
16. How many and which clubs will have to meet break-even requirements? 48
17. Where are participating clubs in relation to financial fair play break-even? 50
18. How many clubs would currently be required to prepare updated figures? 52

4
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Section 2: European domestic club football 54

Competition profile of domestic club football

19. What is the most common size of top divisions and what are the recent trends? 58
20. What type of competition formats are used in domestic top-division club football? 59
21. Where and how are play-offs and play-outs used? 60
22. How many fans attended domestic championship matches across Europe? 61
23. What are the attendance trends in domestic championship matches? 62
24. How do European attendances compare with those around the world? 64

People profile: coaches and players

25. Job security – what are the contract profiles of club head coaches? 68
26. Job security – what are the service profiles of club head coaches? 69
27. What are the profiles of European clubs’ top players? 70

5
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Index

Section 3: Europe-wide financial profile of club football 72

How has club football weathered the economic storm (the five-year financial trends)?
28. What has happened to club revenues over the last five years? 76
29. How has transfer activity fluctuated across Europe in the last five years? 78
30. What has happened to wages and transfer costs over the last five years? 80
31. Is it just the “wealthy” clubs making ever larger losses? 82

Financial profile of European club football: revenues

32. How much and what types of revenue did European clubs report last year? 86
33. What has been the revenue trend from year to year? 87
34. How do revenues and revenue streams vary across Europe? 88
35. How are the largest clubs spread across Europe? 91

Financial profile of European club football: costs and profitability

36. What did clubs spend their money on and how much did this increase? 94
37. How much did clubs spend on wages and player salaries? 96
38. How do spending levels vary between clubs in each league? 98
39. What operating profits are clubs generating? 100
40. What was the impact of transfer activity on FY2011 results? 102
41. What proportion of clubs are loss-making? 104

Financial profile of European club football: assets, debts and net equity
42. What do we mean by net debt and how do we assess it? 108
43. What value of assets and liabilities have clubs reported? 110
44. What level of transfer debts were owed by clubs? 112
45. How many clubs reported negative equity? 114
46. The bottom line - did club balance sheets strengthen or weaken during FY2011? 116

Appendices 118

6
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

7
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Introduction

Introduction
As in previous versions of the club licensing benchmarking report, this edition statements and their notes, followed up by more than 400 email queries and
– covering the 2011 financial year (FY2011) – does not profile individual clubs responses. In total, reaching back over eight years, the club database includes
but represents an analysis of European club football as a whole and of clubs over 2 million items, thus forming an unrivalled basis for financial analysis of
playing in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions (UEFA Champions League and club football.
UEFA Europa League), providing national associations, leagues and clubs with
This year’s report covers figures from the financial statements of 679 different
information for comparison.
top-division clubs from all 53 UEFA member associations, and covers an
The report is structured in three distinct sections comprising nine chapters. estimated 99% of all top-division revenues and costs. The production of this
It includes familiar chapters such as the competition profile of domestic club report was only possible thanks to the strong input and support of the national
football – with information on the size and structure of domestic championships, licensing managers, to whom we extend our thanks. There is no doubt that
average attendances, attendance trends across Europe, and a comparison of club licensing has had a huge impact in improving overall transparency in club
football attendances across the globe – and the financial profile of European football over the last ten years.
club football – analysing revenues and revenue streams, costs and, in particular,
The current difficult economic context has increased pressure for clubs to
wages and transfer fees, operating and bottom-line net profitability trends,
control costs in response to revenue fluctuations. Despite this challenging
assets, liabilities (including debts), and level and trends in capitalisation.
environment, revenues have continued to increase (+3% compared with 2010),
In addition to these traditional chapters, this year’s edition includes, for the first growth that has, however, been accompanied by a larger increase in costs and,
time, a full section focusing only on UEFA club football competitions and the in particular, player wages (+5% compared with 2010).
competing clubs.
Not surprisingly, 63% of top-division clubs reported an operating loss and 55%
The report starts with the competition profile of the UEFA Champions League a net loss. In aggregate, European top-division clubs reported a record net loss
and UEFA Europa League, which illustrates participation and turnover of clubs, amounting to €1.7bn, half of which pertains to only ten clubs.
on-pitch results compared with domestic championship results, attendances
The control of player wages thus remains club football’s greatest challenge.
and licence refusals to clubs that qualified for the UEFA club competitions on
In the last five years, wages increased by 38%, absorbing alone the whole
sporting merit. We then focus on the structural profile of clubs competing in the
revenue increase amounting to 24% for the same period.
UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League, presenting, among other
things, information on the number of full-time players and staff employed by Implementing robust business strategies becomes key for clubs to be able to
clubs, stadium ownership and club legal forms. The first section of the report operate in line with the new financial fair play regulations and, in particular,
concludes with the financial profile of clubs competing in the UEFA club the break-even rule that will be assessed for the first time starting in July 2013.
competitions, describing the impact of UEFA prize money on clubs’ income, and
The 2011 financial figures analysed in this report are, consequently, the last
illustrating the financial results of clubs participating in the UEFA Champions
“outside of the break-even scope”. From FY2012, financial results will be
League and UEFA Europa League, as well as how the clubs’ financial results
assessed against the break-even rule. It is therefore time for the clubs to act
compare with the financial fair play break-even rule.
quickly to strive for better wage management and to ensure sustainable
The financial information included in this report derives directly from long-term growth through investment that enables them to develop their
third-party audited financial statements from 2011, most of which were finalised revenue streams.
in 2012, and is sourced directly from clubs that submitted financial information
In this context, domestic licensing bodies also have to play an important role.
to their national associations as part of the club licensing requirements.
Their vision, overall strategy and guidelines help to promote the implementation
Unlike all other reports that benchmark European club football data using of good management practices by clubs. In the absence of a coordinated
aggregated figures provided by leagues, the underlying basis for this report approach, clubs will see their opportunities reduced and struggle to remain
consists of up to 170 separate line items per year per club from club financial competitive in a market that has become more and more global.

8
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

The current context of economic austerity certainly

does not facilitate this task but has raised general
awareness of the fact that action can no longer be
delayed. The economic crisis has made access to
liquidity more difficult in many European countries,
and an increasing number of clubs are currently
facing limited funding availabilities. Without a
change in behaviour, the risk of clubs going out of
business will increase, as will the risk of continuing
low strategic investment levels reducing the
overall quality and standards of facilities for future
generations. Financial fair play encourages a shift
in the use of funding from short-term spending
to medium and long-term investments in all
member associations, to avoid football becoming
a competition among a small circle of clubs.
The whole football family has unanimously approved
the financial fair play concept that provides such a
long-term vision. It has now to prove that it is acting
together to achieve the set objectives.

Andrea Traverso
Head of Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play

9
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Highlights

UEFA club football competitions and the competing clubs

Competition profiles

53 The number and percentage of member associations with clubs

participating in the UEFA Champions League/Europa League. 100%
The number of different clubs that have participated in the UEFA Champions League,
375 UEFA Europa League and UEFA Cup in the last three-year cycle (left) and
in the last ten years (right).
578
The average home goals advantage in UEFA Champions League group stage matches (left).
0.3 The average home goals advantage of the same clubs when they play in their domestic
league competitions.
1.6
The number of people attending the 2011/12 UEFA Champions League/Europa League
13.4 million matches (left) and the average stadium capacity utilisation for the UEFA Champions League
group and knockout matches (right). 90%

Structural profile of clubs competing

in UEFA club competitions

30,000+ The number of full time equivalent staff employed by clubs

competing in the 2012/13 UEFA Champions League/Europa League.

76% The proportion of clubs competing in the UEFA Champions League/Europa

League which do not directly own their stadium.

The total balance sheet value of all stadiums, training facilities and other
€4.8 billion fixed assets (left) owned by clubs compared with the transfer fees spent
on current playing squads (right).
€6.9 billion
68%
The proportion of clubs competing in UEFA club competitions
which are not based in a capital city.

10
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Financial profile of clubs competing

in UEFA club competitions
The improvement in overdue transfer and employee payables
reflected by this decrease between the first financial fair
play assessment (June 2011) and the most recent assessment
(September 2012).
68%
The strength in depth of UEFA’s two main club competitions,

22 illustrated by the number of clubs with revenue of more

than €50million in the 2012/13 UEFA Champions
League (left) and UEFA Europa League (right) group stages.
21
The estimated 2011 break-even deficit reported by clubs
competing in the 2012/13 UEFA club competition season. €480 million
UEFA competition revenue (prize money and ticketing revenue)
as a percentage of the total revenue for the clubs participating
in UEFA Champions League/Europa League.
17%
The percentage of clubs participating in the 2012/13
UEFA Champions League/Europa League that would have been
exempt from the full break-even requirements on the basis of size.
41%
On the basis of a historical three-year simulation, the number of
46 individual clubs (left) from different member associations (right)
that would have reported a break-even deficit above €5million 22
and hence been required under the break-even rule to at
least recapitalise their balance sheet.

11
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Highlights

European domestic club football

Competition profile of domestic club football

726 The number of clubs currently competing in domestic top-division club football in the
52 UEFA member associations, with clubs from Liechtenstein competing in Swiss leagues.

The number of domestic top divisions that are based on the classical round-robin format,
42 with all clubs playing each other two, three or four times in a season. The other leagues
split into groups of clubs part way through the domestic season.

20 The number of countries where teams from the top two divisions meet in play-offs
for promotion/relegation.

103 million The Europe-wide domestic top-division league attendances in the last completed
season (left) and the growth from the previous season (right). 2.5%

People profile: coaches and players

48% Job security as indicated by the proportion of top-division head

coaches with contracts into at least the 2014 calendar year.

Job security as indicated by the average length of service of

1.5 years head coaches (left) across European clubs and the percentage of
head coaches appointed within the last 12 months (right). 55%
Player job security as indicated by the average contract length
4.3 years concluded for the 50 biggest summer 2012 transfers (left) and the
proportion with contracts into at least the 2017 calendar year (right). 52%

12
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Five-year financial trends

The average annual growth in club income over
5.6% the last five years (left) and the average growth
of the EU economy during this period (right).
0.5%
The average annual growth in TV income over
8.2% the last five years (left) compared with the much
lower average growth in gate receipts (right).
0.7%
€2.4 billion
The increase in wages between 2007 and 2011
expressed in euros (left) and as a percentage
increase (right).
38%
The peak amount committed to transfers during
€3.1 billion the summer 2007 and winter 2008 windows (left)
and the estimated amount spent in the last two €2.6 billion
transfer windows, winter 2011 and summer
2012 (right).

€1.7 billion
The aggregate losses reported by European
€0.6 billion top-division clubs in 2007 (left) and the
aggregate losses reported in financial year
ended 2011 (right).

13
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Highlights

Europe-wide financial profile of club football

Income figures

€13.2 billion The aggregate revenues reported by European top-division clubs in 2011 (left)
and the estimated revenue of European club football as a whole (right). €16.0 billion
77 The record number of European clubs reporting revenues of more than
€50 million, up from 73 clubs the year before.

Profitability and losses

€6.9 billion Player wages and associated costs incurred in 2011 (left) and
the pay rise compared with the previous year (right). €330 million
The percentage of all European top-division club
65% revenues paid in employee costs (left) and the percentage
once net transfer costs are included (right). 71%
€388 million €1,675 million
The operating losses of European football clubs (left)
and the final losses (right) once transfer activity, financing,
divesting and tax are included.

14
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Europe-wide financial position

The reported assets of the 733 European
top-division clubs in FY2011. €21.8 billion
€18.5 billion The reported liabilities of the 733 European
top-division clubs in FY2011.

The proportion of clubs whose auditors expressed

“going concern” doubts (whether the club could
still trade normally in 12 months’ time), an
1 in 7
increase from one in eight clubs the year before.

Percentage of clubs reporting negative net

equity (debts larger than reported assets) -
up slightly from 36% the previous year.
38%
The value injected into the balance sheets
of clubs during the 2011 financial year,
sufficient to cover 76% of net losses. +€1,279 million
15
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Section 1: UEFA club football competitions and the competing clubs

16
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Section 1

UEFA club football competitions

and the competing clubs
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 1: Competition profile of UEFA club competitions

18
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

1
Competition profile of UEFA club competitions
Which countries are represented in UEFA club competitions?

Is it the ‘same old clubs’ always competing in UEFA club competitions?

How do UEFA club competition match results compare with domestic competition results?

How many fans attended UEFA competition matches across Europe?

How many and which clubs have had to give up their competition places?

19
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 1: Competition profile of UEFA club competitions

Q: 01. Which countries are represented in UEFA club competitions?

All* UEFA member associations are represented in the UEFA Champions League
and UEFA Europa League**, thereby ensuring widespread participation across
the two club competitions.
Each of the two competitions has unique qualities. The UEFA Champions
League, being the flagship club competition, gathers the best of the best from
across Europe, i.e. the exclusive participation of fewer clubs, as illustrated in
the histogram below. This restriction ensures that only the top teams from
each country are involved. On the other hand, the UEFA Europa League has
a wider field of participants, with 50 associations represented by at least
three teams. Therefore, this competition involves a special degree of drama
and unpredictability, with top-of-the-table finishers and domestic cup winners
vying for the title over the season.
Number of places in UEFA
Champions League 2012/13

50
45
40 37
35
30
25
20
15
9
10
3 3
5 1
0
4 3 2 1 0

Number of places in UEFA Number of qualification places

Europa League 2012/13 in UEFA Club Competitions
(2012/13):
50 47
45 7 3x
40
6 6x
Answer 01
35
30 6x
25
5 Two-thirds (35) of the 53 UEFA member associations have four clubs competing in
20 4 35x
the 2012/13 UEFA Champions League/Europa League and 50 of the 53 UEFA member
15 associations have four or more. Thus nearly every member association has a substantial
10 3 2x representation in European club competitions.
3 2
5 1 0 *Only Liechtenstein does not have a guaranteed place in the UEFA Champions League as it does not operate a domestic championship, but only
0 <3 1x a domestic cup competition.
**At the end of each season, UEFA compiles a performance table covering the five most recent UEFA Champions League and UEFA Cup/Europa
4 3 2 1 0 League seasons in order to determine the number of places allocated to an association in each UEFA club competition.

20
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Q: 02. Is it the ‘same old clubs’ always competing in UEFA club competitions?

Number of different member assocations The charts on the left illustrate the healthy UEFA Champions League group stage
represented in UEFA club competition group stages* turnover of clubs participating in the UEFA club club make-up 2009/10 to 2011/12
competitions from year to year. Since 2000, both
35 33 competitions have increased both association and
6
club representation. Higher turnover means more (6%)
30 unpredictability, a wider European representation
27* 15
25
24 and more chances for different clubs to win UEFA’s (16%)
25
21
top club competitions.
20
19 53
20 The number of different clubs competing in
(55%)
the group stages of both competitions has also 22
15 increased significantly. Note, however, that the mix (23%)
of clubs is not additive as the clubs eliminated in the
10
UEFA Champions League during the third qualifying
round and play-offs, plus the third-placed group
5
stage clubs, move into the UEFA Europa League.
0
Therefore, some clubs will be in both the UEFA
2000/01 to 2002/03 2003/04 to 2005/06 2006/07 to 2008/09 2009/10 to 2011/12
Champions League and Europa League during any
one season. Champions
UCL group stage UEL group stage Runner-up
3rd position
Number of different clubs competing in the group stage* 4th position
of the UEFA Champions League or Europa League

120
Answer 02
104
100 95 In the three-year cycle between 2009/10 and 2011/12, there were 24
of 53 (45%) different member associations represented in the group
80 stages of the UEFA Champions League and 33 (62%) represented in
70*
65 the group stages of the UEFA Europa League. During this same period,
60 55 53 53 there were 129 different clubs competing in the group stages of both
competitions. In the UEFA Champions League group stage alone, 44
40 clubs made just one appearance between 2009/10 and 2011/12, and
only 10 clubs appeared in all three seasons. Top-division champions
20 represented 55% of the group stage, and runners-up accounted for 23%
during this cycle which means that over 75% of the UEFA Champions
0
League group stage consisted of top-two domestic finishers.
2000/01 to 2002/03 2003/04 to 2005/06 2006/07 to 2008/09 2009/10 to 2011/12
*For the purposes of comparison, the UEFA Cup is not analysed between the 1999/2000 and 2003/04 seasons as it did
UCL group stage UEL group stage not involve a group stage. Thus, in the 2003/04 to 2005/06 cycle, only two seasons are analysed for the UEFA Cup.
Also, between 2004/05 and 2008/09, 40 clubs competed in the UEFA Cup group stage. Since 2009/10, the UEFA Europa
League group stage has consisted of 48 teams.

21
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 1: Competition profile of UEFA club competitions

Contrary to popular belief, both the UEFA

Champions League and UEFA Europa League have
a healthy turnover of different clubs competing in
the group stages. As illustrated below, between Number of different clubs in UEFA Champions League Proportion of different clubs in UEFA Europa League
2009 and 2012 there were 65 different clubs (68%) group stage broken down by number of appearances group stage broken down by number of
competing in the UCL group stage out of a total of appearances between 2009/10 and 2011/12
96* club appearances. Of these, 44 (68%) made a 80
single appearance in the UEFA Champions League
70 65
group stage, which means only 21 (32%) clubs made 7%
repeat appearances. This is a significant increase 60 55 53 53 10
over previous seasons and also dispels the notion
that competing one year in the UEFA Champions 50 25%
11
League group stage leads to future participation. 15
16 17
40
Unlike the UEFA Champions League, the 11
UEFA Cup did not have a group stage until 30 11 9 68%
2004/05 and has altered in size over time. 20 44
Initially, for the five seasons between 2004/05 and
2008/09, the UEFA Cup group stage consisted of 10 29 26 27
40 teams. The number of group stage participants in
0
the UEFA Europa League increased to 48 in 2009/10.
2000/01 to 2002/03 2003/04 to 2005/06 2006/07 to 2008/09 2009/10 to 2011/12
Thus, we present only the club make-up of the UEFA
Europa League group stage for the last three-year Single appearances Two appearances Three appearances Single appearances
cycle. In UEFA Europa league group stage, there Two appearances
were 104 different clubs (72%) out of a possible Three appearances
144. Out of these 104 clubs, 71 (68%) appeared
only once.

*As there are 32 clubs competing in the UEFA Champions League group
stage, over three seasons this means a potential mix of 96 clubs.
Between 2009/10 and 2011/12 there were 44 single appearances plus 11 clubs
with two appearances (22) and 10 clubs with three (30) which adds up to 96.

22
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Number of different clubs participating in UEFA

club competitions from 2002/03 to 2011/12

25

21
20 19
18
16
15
15 14
13
12
11
10
10 9
8
7
6
5

1
0

ENG
ESP
FRA
GER
ITA
MKD
NOR
BEL
SWE
TUR
NED
POL
POR
RUS
SCO
SRB
SUI
BLR
GRE
HUN
SVK
CRO
IRL
ISR
UKR
ALB
AZE
BIH
CZE
FIN
ISL
LUX
ROU
WAL
ARM
AUT
FRO
GEO
KAZ
LTU
SVN
CYP
DEN
MDA
NIR
SMR
BUL
EST
LVA
AND
MLT
MNE
LIE
Number of different clubs participating in UEFA
club competitions from 2009/10 to 2011/12

12

1
10 2
Over the past ten seasons, 578 different clubs have 3 3
participated in UEFA club competitions**, which 2
1 1
is equivalent to 11 clubs per country on average. 8
Examining the last three years (between 2009/10- 5 3 3 3 1
2 4 6 2 2 2 2
2011/12), there were 375 separate clubs playing in 3 1 1 1 1
6 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
either the UEFA Champions League or UEFA Europa 5 3 1 1
League. Some clubs played in only one of the two, 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 5 1 3 3 1 1
while others played in both. For example, in Italy 4 8 8 4 2 2 2 2
three different clubs played in the UEFA Champions 7 3 1
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 2 2
League only, three only in the UEFA Europa League, 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
and five participated in both. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 2 2 2 2
1
0
ITA
FRA
ENG
GER
RUS
HUN
ROU
CZE
NED
SWE
BLR
ESP
POR
SUI
NOR
SCO
UKR
CRO
MKD
ALB
AZE
TUR
BEL
GRE
DEN
FIN
IRL
ISL
POL
SVK
SVN
LTU
SRB
WAL
LUX
BIH
LVA
BUL
CYP
FRO
KAZ
MDA
MNE
NIR
MLT
ARM
GEO
AUT
EST
ISR
SMR
AND
LIE
**This does not include the UEFA Intertoto Cup. UEL only UCL & UEL UCL only

23
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 1: Competition profile of UEFA club competitions

Q: 03. How do UEFA club competition Average goals in domestic and UEFA Champions League matches
match results compare with domestic involving the 32 UEFA Champions League group stage clubs

competition results? 3.5

3.0
Competitiveness and unpredictability are key components of a successful
competition, and the UEFA Champions League strives to epitomise these 2.5
qualities. A comparison of goals* scored by the same clubs in the UEFA
Champions League and their matches in the corresponding domestic leagues 2.0
demonstrates the difference in competitiveness. The average total number of
1.5
goals scored in matches in both the UEFA Champions League (group stage and
beyond) and in the domestic leagues is similar, which means just as many goals
1.0
are being scored at both levels of competition. However, by examining the
average goal difference per match in each competition reveals some disparity 0.5
in competitiveness. Comparing these goal differences in games involving the
same 32 teams playing in the UEFA Champions League and in their domestic 0.0
championships reveals a smaller competitive “gap” between teams in the UEFA 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
Champions League and those in the domestic leagues. Average of total goals scored in UCL group stage matches and beyond
This result can be attributed to more than one factor. In the UEFA Champions Average of total goals scored by same clubs in their domestic league
League group stages, there are fewer matches, which makes each individual
game all the more important – thus no team can afford costly mistakes.
In the domestic top divisions, the competition consists of more matches, so one Difference between home and away teams in the UEFA Champions League group stage
slip-up can be rectified more easily. Secondly, the UEFA Champions League also and domestic championships - home matches involving the 32 group stage clubs
operates the “away goals” rule, which encourages the away team to play more
1.6
attacking football, thus increasing the competitiveness. Lastly, by design, the
1.4
UEFA Champions League pits top teams against one another, thus the quality 1.4 1.4
of opposing teams will generally be higher in the UEFA Champions League than 1.2
1.2
1.2 1.2
in the domestic top divisions, where there is a larger variation in club quality,
which also has its own merits. 1.0

0.8
Answer 03 0.6

0.4 0.4
A comparison of on-pitch match results, shows a similar level of total 0.3
0.2
match goals in domestic and UEFA Champions League group stage 0.2 0.1 0.1
matches and beyond. However, the difference of goals scored between
the home and away teams is much closer in the UEFA Champions 0.0
League matches. 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
Difference in home goals scored by UCL group stage clubs and opponents in the UCL
*Goals scored by clubs competing in the UEFA Champions League group stages and beyond. Domestic goals scored
were then calculated for the same clubs participating in the group stages for that season. The mix of clubs changes Difference in home goals scored by UCL group stage clubs and opponents in domestic championship
season by season.

24
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Q: 04. How many fans attended UEFA competition matches across Europe?
Average attendances of UEFA club competitions relative
to top ten domestic championship attendances in 2011/12

GER
Percent of capacity utilisation for UEFA club competitions*
UCL group stage matches

ENG 100

UCL all matches 90

ESP 80

Percent capacity utilisation

ITA
70
NED
60
FRA
50
UEL group stage matches

UEL all matches 40

SCO 30
RUS 40
SUI
30
UKR
0
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
Average attendance UCL UEL UCL group and above UEL group* and above

Much like the top domestic divisions, attendances for UEFA club competitions have remained buoyant, even in the face of economic Answer 04
downturns. During 2011/12, attendances for top divisions in Europe totalled over 103 million spectators (See Question 23), an increase
of 2.3% over 2010/11. Total attendance for UEFA club competitions in 2011/12 was approximately 13.4 million. Although the mix of
clubs will have some effect year on year, the average attendance for the UEFA Champions League is on par with average attendances Compared with average attendances in the
in larger top divisions, even given the reduced capacity of some stadiums due to stricter stadium and security requirements for UEFA top divisions in Europe, the UEFA Champions
club competition matches. League group stage attracts a large turnout of
spectators. Across the whole competition, the
Due to competition structural changes, capacity restrictions and the wide mix of clubs over the years, a straightforward attendance
UEFA Champions League average attendance
trend for UEFA club competitions is not as accurate a measure of attendance fluctuation or growth. An examination of capacity
utilisation (or percent of stadium filled) is a better indicator of the number of spectators drawn to UEFA club competition matches.
is above that in Spain and Italy. Similarly, the
Here the trend indicates a sustained level of attendance for the UEFA Champions League. Clearly, the level is higher for the group UEFA Europa League draws more on average
stages and beyond. Since the sample of clubs in the UEFA Europa League is larger, it will typically have a wider variation in club size, than the domestic championship in Scotland
which should affect average attendances. However, the UEFA Europa League has experienced an increase in attendance during the or Russia. Capacity utilisation is high in both
past two seasons due to its increased appeal to a large population of fans and spectators. competitions, especially in the group stages
and beyond.
*For the purposes of comparison, the UEFA Cup is not analysed between the 1999/00 and 2003/04 seasons, as it did not have a group stage. Also, from 2004/05 to 2008/09, the UEFA Cup group stage
involved 40 teams, whereas since 2009/10, the UEFA Europa League group stage has had a field of 48 participating teams.

25
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 1: Competition profile of UEFA club competitions

Q: 05. How many and which clubs have had to give up their competition places?

A commonly voiced criticism of the UEFA club licensing system is that the Clubs not admitted to UEFA competitions on licensing or financial fair play grounds
national bodies are unlikely to refuse licences when it really counts, in other
words, it is fine refusing a licence to a club which in the end does not qualify
for the UEFA Champions League or UEFA Europa League, but political pressure 7
would make it difficult to refuse a licence to a club which has qualified.
This perception can be refuted simply by looking at the evidence, the long list
6
of clubs that qualified for the UEFA Champions or Europa Leagues (formerly
UEFA Cup) on sporting merit but were refused access to the competition on FC Derry City
Lokomotiv FC (IRL)
licensing grounds. 5 (KAZ)
FC Olimpija FC Daugava FC Besiktas

Number of clubs
Once again, in 2012 six clubs that had qualified for the 2012/2013 UEFA club (SVN) (LVA) Lokomotiv A.Ş. (TUR)
4 (KAZ)
competitions on sporting merit, including one club (Rangers) that had qualified
FC Koper FK FC Ararat FC Mallorca FC Győri ETO
for the UEFA Champions League, were not granted access to the competition (SVN) Zeljeznicar (ARM) (ESP) Lokomotiv FC (HUN)
(BIH)
on club licensing and financial fair play grounds. 3 (KAZ)
FC
FC Tobol Sarajevo PAOK Coleraine FC FC Kaisar Portsmouth FK Zalgiris AEK FC
As indicated in the chart, the clubs were not granted competition access on a (KAZ) (BIH) (GRE) (NIR) (KAZ) (ENG) (LTU) (GRE)
number of different grounds, including two clubs that were refused licences 2
FC FK Sloboda FK Vetra Sporting Neath FC
by the domestic licensing bodies for failing to meet financial criteria, and a Ekibastuzets FC Taraz FC Astana FK Zemun
(KAZ) (KAZ) (KAZ) (SRB) (BIH) (LTU) Fingal FC (WAL)
third club that was not admitted because of the three-year rule, as a result of 1 (IRL)
previous financial difficulties. FC Irtysh FC Irtysh FC Vozdovoc Shelbourne CSKA Sofia Beitar Cork City FC FC Rangers FC
(KAZ) (KAZ) (SRB) FC (BUL) Jerusalem (IRL) Timisoara (SCO)
(IRL) (ISR) (ROU)
The introduction of the financial fair play criteria and the creation and 0
operation of the Club Financial Control Body (formerly Club Financial Control 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13
Panel) have introduced an additional layer of compliance. For the first time a UEL/UCUP non-admittance by licensor Non-admittance by UEFA or CFCP/B Non-admittance due to 3 year rule
club (Gyori of Hungary) was refused access to a UEFA competition on the basis
of a UEFA compliance visit.
In addition, also for the first time, a further two clubs (AEK and Besiktas) were
refused access to the UEFA Europa League for breaching financial fair play
overdue transfer payables criteria, as a result of investigations by the Club
Financial Control Panel/Body*.

26
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Answer 05
Every year, clubs which have qualified on sporting merit have not been
able to participate because they have not had a licence. In total, 34
different clubs on 37 different occasions that have qualified directly**
for either the UEFA Champions League or UEFA Europa League on
sporting merit have been prevented from taking part on licensing
grounds, in addition to a further 28 clubs which qualified directly for
the UEFA Intertoto Cup between 2005 and 2009. The last four seasons
(2009/10–2012/13 ) have alone seen 21 separate cases from 15 different
countries, including England and Spain, where clubs that qualified
on sporting merit have not matched their on-field performance with
off-field professionalism and been refused access to competitions for
not meeting the minimum licensing or financial fair play requirements.
In addition, there were two firsts in 2012/13: the refusal of a club
following a UEFA compliance audit, and the first time that clubs have
been excluded for failing to meet the financial fair play requirements.

*Under the new system, the Club Financial Control Body has two chambers, the investigatory and adjudicatory
chambers, which are fully responsible for implementing the UEFA regulations. Under the previous system, the Club
Financial Control Panel would investigate and propose sanctions to the general UEFA disciplinary bodies, which
would assess the case and decide whether and what sanctions to apply. All three cases in the chart and text were
assessed under the old system.
**“Directly qualifying” clubs means clubs that qualify on account of their league ranking or cup performance.
This excludes “indirectly qualifying” clubs that could have competed had they had a licence since a place became
available to them due to a directly qualifying club not receiving a licence. In the case of FK Zemun of Serbia, this
second division club applied to UEFA directly through the extraordinary admission procedures set out in the UEFA
Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations but did not meet the licensing requirements set by the UEFA
administration. Reference to the UEFA Europa League also includes its predecessor, the UEFA Cup (UCUP).

27
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 2: Structural profile of clubs competing in UEFA club competitions

28
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

2
Structural profile of clubs competing in UEFA club competitions
How many full-time players and other people are employed by these clubs?

What stadiums and other fixed assets do these clubs own?

In what legal form are these clubs organised?

Which are the most prolific cities for these clubs?

When are the financial reporting dates of these clubs?

29
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 2: Structural profile of clubs competing in UEFA club competitions

Q: 06. How many full-time players and other

people are employed by these clubs?
The pie chart (right) indicates the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) Reported full-time employees Reported full-time players
employees reported by football clubs* participating in the 2012/13 UEFA club
competition season in their 2011 financial statements. With eight out of ten
clubs reporting their number of employees, we estimate that the 237 clubs 8% 7% 10%
19%
competing in the 2012/13 competitions employed over 30,000 full-time staff
in addition to the large number of part-time staff that football clubs normally 14%
22%
employ (e.g. stewards and matchday staff).
33%
The average number of FTEs was 141 but this increases to more than 200 if only
clubs with stadium ownership are analysed and increases further again to 270 if 21%
14%
just clubs in the UEFA club competition group stages are considered.
The second pie chart (right) indicates the number of full-time players reported
30% 22%
by football clubs* either in their financial statements or in other submissions to
the national associations. The largest number of full-time players were reported
by English and German clubs where their academy players are full-time,
contributing to a total player number of more than 100. In light of financial
fair play and the need to keep player wages and squad sizes in control, it should 200+ 80+
be noted that most clubs have first team squads of less than 30 players. 100 - 200 60 - 80
50 - 100 50 - 60
20 - 50 30 - 40
<20 20 - 30
<20
Answer 06
Football clubs not surprisingly reported a wide variation in the number
of full-time employees and number of players. 10% of clubs reported
having more than 80 full-time players, including ten clubs reporting
over 100 full-time players with large academy and development squads.
If all staff are included, there were more than 30,000 full-time
employees, at a club average of 141, and this includes 13 clubs with
more than 450 full-time equivalent staff.

* The football club in this context is the reporting entity or group determined for club licensing purposes for the clubs
competing in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions (UEFA Champions League & UEFA Europa League). The sample for
reported full-time equivalent employees covers 173 of the 237 competing clubs, and is deemed representative of all
the competing clubs allowing the aggregate figure of just over 30,000 to be extrapolated.
The sample for the number of full-time equivalent players is smaller but still covers 133 clubs, reflecting the fact that
this disclosure is less often a requirement.

30
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Q: 07. What stadiums and other fixed assets do these clubs own?

Stadium ownership UEFA clubs Training facility ownership UEFA clubs The first pie chart (left) indicates the stadium ownership status of 232 of the
clubs competing in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions. The majority of clubs
(124 clubs or 53%) reported that stadiums are owned by either the municipalities
or the state, with just 55 clubs owning their stadium. The 53 clubs designated
40; 17%
53; 23% 55; 24% as “other party” include nine clubs where the stadium is owned by the parent
76; 33% company or club owner but not held within the football club*; six clubs where
the club has part ownership through a stadium operating company, as well as
many clubs where the stadium is owned by the national association and used
for national team matches.
It appears that stadium ownership has more to do with geography than
116; 50% resources, as only 27 of the 80 clubs that qualified and participated in the
124; 53% group stages own their stadium, and less than half of the 45 clubs with
revenue in excess of €50m competing in the UEFA club competitions reported
stadium ownership.
The second pie chart (left) indicates the status of ownership of principal training
Owned Owned facilities and shows that, once again, around half (50%) are either owned by
Municipal/state-owned Municipal/state-owned local municipalities or regional or state authorities. Direct club ownership of
Other party Other party training facilities (33%) is slightly more prevalent than stadium ownership and
was recorded by 76 competing clubs from 30 different countries. Once again,
the proportion of ownership increases noticeably (53%) if only the 80 group
qualifiers are considered.

Answer 07
The clubs competing in this year’s UEFA club competitions reported
total fixed assets of €4,810 million in the most recent financial year
(2011). To add perspective, this compares with 2011 annual wages of
€4,986 million and transfer fees for players registered at the year end of
€6,930 million. More than half of stadiums and training facilities used
in this year’s UEFA club competitions are municipal or state-owned.

* The football club in this context is the reporting entity or group determined for club licensing purposes for the
clubs competing in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions (UCL and UEL). The sample for stadium and training facility
ownership covers 232 of the 237 competing clubs.

31
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 2: Structural profile of clubs competing in UEFA club competitions

Q: 08. In what legal form are these Q: 09. Which are the most prolific
clubs organised? cities for these clubs?
The pie chart (below) indicates the legal form of 235 of the clubs competing in Club football has a long history that started in the industrial north and midlands of England and spread
this year’s 2012/13 UEFA club competitions*. across Europe and the rest of the world in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Since the early days, certain economic, demographic and social changes have taken place, with increasing
economic concentration in the cities of Europe, and capital cities in particular. Professional football clubs’
UEFA reporting entity by legal form success is based partly on their historic success and ability to develop players and based largely on their
financial strength to pay wages and transfer fees.
2%
An analysis of 237 of the clubs participating in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions illustrates that the club
8% 8%
football world is still relatively decentralised with more than two out of three clubs (68%) not coming
from a capital city. The analysis of the clubs which reached the group stage yields virtually the same
picture, with 69% of clubs from outside the capital city. Further analysis reveals that the 237 clubs come
28% Stock exchange listed from 201 different cities, with only 27 cities contributing more than one club to the 2012/13 UEFA club
32% Other company-based entity competitions (see map).
Sporting incorporated entity
Association
Not-for-profit company
22% State-funded entity
UEFA club city base

76

Answer 08
Clubs competing in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions include 17 161
stock exchange listed football clubs from ten countries and six state
or regional-funded clubs from Serbia, Israel and Russia. The 22% of
clubs identified as having a “sporting incorporated form” come from
16 countries where football clubs (and sometimes other sports clubs)
are defined in a unique corporate form subject to specific laws. In total,
40% of clubs competing in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions are Capital city
structured as not-for-profit organisations or associations. Other

* The football club in this context is the reporting entity or group determined for club licensing purposes for the
clubs competing in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions (UCL and UEL). Two qualified clubs are excluded due to
lack of data (both were second division clubs that qualified through their domestic cup competition). The city
analysis in Q:09 includes all 237 clubs participating in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions. ** With the exception of
Liechtenstein which had only one participant club in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions.

32
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

City distribution of clubs

in 2012/13 UEFA club competitions

9
18

174

City with one team

City with two teams
City with three teams

City base of clubs in 2012/13

UEFA club competitions:
Three clubs 9x

Two clubs 18x

Answer 09
The 237 clubs competing in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions come
from 201 different towns or cities across Europe. Club football power is
still spread widely, with less than one in three clubs based in a capital
city and with all member associations** represented by clubs from
more than one city. Indeed, only nine cities have three participants
and only one city, London, has three clubs reaching the 2012/13 UEFA
competition group stages.

33
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 2: Structural profile of clubs competing in UEFA club competitions

Q: 10. When are the financial reporting dates of these clubs?

The pie chart and map show the financial year-ends of 235 of the 237 clubs
competing in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions. The pie chart shows that
almost two-thirds of clubs (66%) had a 12 month financial reporting period
that exactly matches the calendar year (ends 31 December), while 30% of clubs
had a financial reporting year ending in either May* or June that approximately
matches the sporting calendar. The map simplifies the financial year-ends into
those with calendar or sporting financial year ends and shows that 12 countries
(in dark blue) had clubs competing in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions with
a mixture of summer and winter financial year ends.

Answer 10
Two-thirds of the clubs competing in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions
report their financial position and results as at 31 December. Just seven
countries had all their UEFA competing clubs reporting with a summer
financial year-end, while 12 countries had clubs with a mixture of
summer and winter reporting dates.

* The pie chart includes clubs from Ireland, Wales and Finland that have their financial year-ends at 30 November
and some clubs from Scotland and England that have their financial year-ends at 31 May. In order to highlight the
countries whose clubs have a mixture of financial year-ends that either match the calendar year or sporting calendar,
the map presents club financial year-ends in simplified form, with 30 November indicated as 31 December and 31 May
indicated as 30 June. One club, Liverpool from England, will change its financial year-end from 31 July to 30 May in
2012 to bring it more into line with the sporting calendar.

34
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Profile UEFA clubs’ financial year-ends

11; 5%

59; 25%

9; 4% 156; 66%

31 December
30 November
30 June
31 May

Financial year-end UEFA

participating clubs:
31 December* 34x

30 June* 7x

30 June/31 Dec 12x

35
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 3: Financial profile of clubs competing in UEFA club competitions

36
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

3
Financial profile of clubs competing in UEFA club competitions
What revenues, wages and losses did clubs report in FY2011?

How is UEFA competition money distributed and classified by clubs?

What proportion of club income does UEFA participation represent?

How do financial statement results compare with financial fair play break-even results?

What impact are the first stages of financial fair play having on clubs?

How many and which clubs will have to meet break-even requirements?

Where are participating clubs in relation to financial fair play break-even?

How many clubs would currently be required to prepare updated figures?

37
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 3: Financial profile of clubs competing in UEFA club competitions

Q: 11. What revenues, wages and losses did clubs report in FY2011?
Last year’s benchmarking report included, within the main across Europe. This is followed by a more specific analysis of how The 235 clubs competing in the 2012/13 UEFA club
Europe-wide financial review sections, various financial analyses UEFA competition distributions impact on club finances and competitions reported €7.8bn in revenues in FY2011.
relating to the 235 competing clubs and 80 group stage clubs. illustrating how traditional net profit reconciles to break-even While this is equivalent to an average of €33.3m per
This year, as part of the first section of the report (the UEFA club results. Finally, we present the principal observations from the club, the column chart showing average revenue
football competitions and the competing clubs analysis), we first two years of financial fair play on overdue payables and the per competing club per country illustrates the
specifically highlight the finances of the clubs participating in the results of a three-year historic break-even simulation performed significant financial differences between clubs from
2012/13 UEFA club competitions (UEFA Champions League and on the financial results of clubs for FY2009, FY2010 and FY2011, different countries. Club revenues of participating
UEFA Europa League). The first pages take a look at the usual key the financial periods that predate the implementation of teams ranged from €480m to less than €100,000.
revenue, wage and profit analyses, highlighting the differences break-even analysis from 2013 onwards.
The average revenue of the 32 clubs competing in
Average FY2011 revenue of clubs the group stages of the 2012/13 UEFA Champions
competing in 2012/13 UEFA club competitions League is €137m, while the average revenue of
the 48 clubs competing in the group stages of the
250 UEFA Europa League is €54m, reflecting, in part, the
233 wider club base of the Europa League, as already
highlighted in previous sections. In 2012/13, there
are 22 clubs in the Champions League group stage
Estimated* club average revenue FY2011 (€m)

200
and 21 clubs in the Europa League group stage with
reported revenues of more than €50m, reflecting
180
the strength in depth and competitiveness of
both competitions.
149
150 144

€1.9bn
€2.6bn
99
100

50
59
45 43
39 39
€7.8bn €1.7bn

24 24 23 22 €1.7bn
18
13 13 10 10 9 9
8 8 7 6 6 5 5
3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
ENG
ESP
ITA
GER
FRA
RUS
TUR
NED
POR
UKR
GRE
SUI
AUT
BEL
SCO
NOR
DEN
SEW
POL
CYP
CZE
BLR
ROU
CRO
KAZ
AZE
SVK
ISR
HUN
SRB
SVN
FIN
IRL
BUL
LVA
NIR
BIH
LUX
LTU
ISL
WAL
MDA
GEO
LIE
MKD
FRO
MLT
MNE
ARM
EST
ALB
AND
SMR
Broadcasting
Rank 1 - 53 Gate receipts
UEFA Q clubs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Sponsorship
All clubs 1 3 4 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 16 13 12 14 11 17 15 18 19 23 24 25 20 27 21 28 26 22 29 32 30 31 33 34 39 36 42 40 44 38 46 35 41 37 43 45 47 50 48 49 51 52 53 Commercial & other

* The number of clubs competing in the UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League has increased from 235 clubs to between 237 and 239 clubs in the new cycle (depending on whether title-holder qualifies). The finances of 235 of the 237 clubs in the 2012/13 competitions
have been analysed, with just the data from two second division clubs (Cefn Druids from Wales and MTK Budapest from Hungary) not available.

38
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Clubs competing in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions reported aggregate employee
costs of just under €5bn, equivalent to €21.2m per club and 64% of reported revenues.
This is a similar ratio to the 65% presented in the Europe-wide analysis later in the report.
The column chart on this page illustrates the key employee cost to revenue ratio of clubs
competing from each country.
Clubs competing in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions reported aggregate losses of
just under €1.2bn in the financial year ending 2011, equivalent to an aggregate net loss
margin of 15%, or €11.50 spent for every €10 of income.
Aggregate
revenues €7,821m
64% 9% 42%

Aggregate Net transfer Other costs Aggregate

wages €4,986m cost €683m €3,328m costs €8,997m

Personnel cost ratio FY2011:

clubs competing in 2012/13 UEFA club competitions The 235 UCL & UEL clubs Net loss €1,176m 15%
95%

100%+ 100%+
100%
89%

83%

78%

77%

75%
74%
73%

73%

80%
72%

70%
70%
69%

68%

68%
67%

66%
65%

64%

64%
63%

63%
63%

60%

60%
60%

60%

58%
57%

57%
57%
57%

57%

55%
55%

Answer 11
53%

53%

60%
51%

46%

45%
43%

42%

41%
38%

38%

35%
34%

40% The 235 clubs competing in the 2012/13 UEFA Champions League
28%

and UEFA Europa League reported revenue of €7.8bn, employee

costs of €5bn and net losses of just under €1.2bn. The group stages
15%

20%
of the competitions featured 22 clubs with revenue above €50m in
the Champions League and 21 clubs with revenue above €50m in the
0%

0%
Europa League.
ENG
ESP
ITA
GER
FRA
RUS
TUR
NED
POR
UKR
GRE
SUI
AUT
BEL
SCO
NOR
DEN
SWE
POL
CYP
CZE
BLR
ROU
CRO
KAZ
AZE
SVK
ISR
HUN
SRB
SVN
FIN
IRL
BUL
LVA
NIR
BIH
LUX
LTU
ISL
WAL
MDA
GEO
LIE
MKD
FRO
MLT
MNE
ARM
EST
ALB
AND
SMR
UCL & UEL

39
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 3: Financial profile of clubs competing in UEFA club competitions

Q: 12. How is UEFA competition money distributed and classified by clubs?

The success of the UEFA Champions League and Europa League have led to increasing prize money distributions to Of clubs did not seperately disclose any gate receipts
clubs. The 2012/13 competition season represents the first year in a new three-year cycle and gross annual commercial 45% from UEFA competitions but instead reported
revenues of €1.55bn are estimated*, of which €1.27bn will be distributed to clubs (participating and non-participating) an aggregate figure for all ticketing income.
representing an increase of approximately 20%. Despite the allocation of some ticketing income
Given the relative size of the UEFA competition revenues for participating clubs (see next Q&A) and the differing (e.g. season tickets, debentures, or membership
accounting approaches in recognising these revenues, it is important to improve transparency on how clubs recognise fees) between domestic and UEFA requiring some
their UEFA revenues. For FY2012 and beyond, the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations** require assumptions, a split of ticketing income is useful
all clubs applying for a licence to seperately disclose the revenues recognised from UEFA competitions. This continues in identifying the impact of UEFA competition
the approach of improving the financial disclosures of European football clubs by specifying new minimum mandatory participation on club finances.
reporting requirements in each edition of the regulations, sometimes above and beyond what the national financial
reporting requires. For example disclosures on amounts paid to agents, transfer balances and activity and specified
player registration accounting policies have previously been introduced as mandatory.
Of UEFA competition money is included by clubs
In advance of the introduction of this new requirement, the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play unit has
performed a first detailed analysis of how and when more than 240 clubs classify their revenues. The recognition
79% within broadcasting revenue, while 21% is included
within commercial revenues.
of a club’s group stage prize money depends on whether the auditors allow the recognition of prize money when
it is earned (e.g. group stage completed in December) or when it is paid. The auditors assess whether the risks and
rewards have transferred. For the UEFA Champions League, this is relatively straightforward for the group stage fee
and performance bonuses as these are paid in December*** together with 50% of the market pool. However, the
Of UEFA club competition payments (participating
most common approach is to recognise the remainder of the market pool, the balance of the group stage fee and any
payments for knockout stages when they are paid and/or earned in the following calendar year. For the UEFA Europa 61% and non-participating teams) paid out between
July and December compared with 39% paid out
League the treatment is similar, with the exception of the group stage performance bonus and market pool paid in
between January and June.
January, and different recognition approaches for this prize money have been noted.
UEFA recognised this several years ago during the development of financial fair play and this is why
break-even is always assessed over more than one financial period. What is clear and important for UEFA
is that the accounting policy of each club should be consistent from year to year. For clubs with summer Of UEFA 2011/12 club competition prize money
financial year-ends that mirror the competition season, all these cut-off issues are not relevant, and these
account for 42 of the 80 clubs**** in the 2012/13 group stages. A detailed club by club analysis indicates that
79% expected to be included in FY2012 (first break-even
period) with all 2012/13 prize money reflected in
79% of UEFA 2010/11 club competition prize money was reported in FY2011, with 21% reported in FY2010, future break-even results.
and this is unlikely to change more than +/-5% from year to year, given the consistent mix and performance of clubs.

*The exact amount is not known until broadcaster rights fees have been collected in full. ** The UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations
(2012 edition) Annex VI section C. *** UEFA prize money and payments are potentially subject to being withheld or retained for breaches of the financial fair
play regulations. For example, the Club Financial Control Body retained certain prize monies of 23 clubs in summer 2012 as a conservatory measure until these
clubs had been further assesed in late autumn 2012. **** While 42 of the 80 clubs that reached the group stages of the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions is
equivalent to 53% of participants, their share of the total income of the 80 clubs was higher, at 66%.

40
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Q: 13. What proportion of club income does UEFA participation represent?

The question posed requires considerable analysis and provides some interesting results. As already mentioned in the previous €1,800m
pages, thorough analysis is not possible without analysing each individual club, since in many cases the financial period cuts across
€1,600m
two sporting seasons, the revenue recognition policies differ and clubs do not separate or allocate gate receipts between domestic
and UEFA club competition matches. €1,400m

The column chart provides a basic aggregate analysis of the club income generated by participation in UEFA club competitions in €1,200m
the 2010/11 and 2012/13 competition seasons. These two seasons are presented because 2010/11 most closely maps onto FY2011
that we are analysing in this report and 2012/13 is the first of three seasons in the new competition cycle*. €1,000m

To establish the proportion of club income that UEFA participation brings, prize money from group stage participation and €800m
solidarity payments for qualifying round participation have been added to reported gate receipts from UEFA matches** for over €600m
200 clubs. In addition to centrally paid prize and solidarity money and gate receipt revenue collected directly by the participating
clubs, there is also an amount targeted at youth investment of roughly €70m paid centrally by UEFA from competition revenues €400m
and distributed by the national associations and/or leagues to their clubs. This amount is included in the column chart (grey) but by €200m
and large excluded from the club by club analysis shown in the pie charts and maps, since the majority of this revenue is distributed
to non-participating clubs and usually reported as solidarity payments or subsidies from national bodies rather than UEFA income. €0m
In addition, other indirect revenues such as sponsor bonuses and non-centralised commercial and TV rights have not been included 2010/11 2012/13 (est.*)
as they are not separately identifiable, hard to estimate, and unlikely to be of significant size compared with the €1.35bn in Gate receipts from UEFA matches
competition gate and prize money revenues reported in FY2011 by participating clubs. UEFA payments to clubs for youth investment
UEL participating teams prize money
The amount of UEFA competition prize money reported by clubs participating in UEFA club competitions in FY2011 was just over
UCL participating teams prize money
€1bn. In addition, we estimate that participating clubs generated an additional €340m in gate receipts from UEFA competition
matches. In aggregate, direct income from UEFA competitions (prize money and gate receipts) represented 17% of total revenue
for competing clubs. However as the pie charts and the map on the next pages illustrate, the relevance or relative size of UEFA
competition income varies considerably.

* The 2012/13 competition prize money is an estimate as the exact full amount of competition revenue is not known until all broadcaster rights fees have been collected. This tends to lead to additional payments of less than 4%. The forecast gate receipt growth is based on the
known 2.5% attendance growth between the 2010/11 and 2011/12 UEFA competition seasons. ** The UEFA analysis includes 211 clubs that reported UEFA prize money income of €1,007m during FY2011 and includes 85 clubs that reported financial figures that reflected all or part
of a UEFA competition group stage and/or UCL play-off participation. In some cases the prize and solidarity revenue splits were not provided in the financial statements but identified by UEFA during subsequent analysis. For clubs with a summer financial year-end the income is
from the 2010/11 UEFA competition season. For most of the clubs with 31 December year-ends this will be UEFA income from the qualifying and group stages of the 2011/12 UEFA competition season, but for some clubs with a calendar financial year that reached the knock-out
stages of the 2010/11 competitions the income will include part of the 2010/11 competition distributions and potentially part of both competition seasons. The combined UEFA competition revenue including gate receipts from UEFA matches is an estimate only for the 45% of
clubs which did not separate out gate receipts from UEFA and domestic matches. The simulation has the following basis: The number of home matches played in UEFA competitions during each club’s specific financial reporting period was calculated and divided by the number of
competitive home matches played in total during the financial period. This ratio was then applied on a straight line basis to the total gate receipts reported in the financial statements to obtain a value of gate receipts from UEFA matches. Clearly this provides a rough estimation
since some individual clubs have a higher or lower stadium occupancy for UEFA versus domestic matches and higher or lower average ticket price for UEFA versus domestic matches, some clubs may report gate receipt income from pre season tours within gate receipts and not
commercial revenue, and some clubs may sell UEFA matches packaged together with domestic matches. However from observing ticket prices and attendances for both UEFA and domestic matches this approach is by and large considered to provide a good simulation basis for
benchmarking purposes.The map threshold analysis amounts to 52 not 53 national associations as data for San Marino was not readily available.

41
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 3: Financial profile of clubs competing in UEFA club competitions

Revenues from UEFA matches as % of Revenues from UEFA matches as % of

total revenue - all participating clubs total revenue - qualifying stage clubs

The first pie chart includes all clubs in the UEFA Champions League and Europa
League and includes both those clubs that progressed to the group and 27 20
knockout stages and those clubs that did not get beyond the qualifying stages. 57 42
What is immediately clear is that the financial impact of UEFA participation 29
compared with non-participation varies considerably between the 200+ clubs 13
reporting, with UEFA competition revenue contributing less than 10% of
overall revenue for at least 57 clubs and more than 50% of revenues for at
18 11
least*** 27 clubs.
35
6
Considerable attention is generally paid to the large sums of prize money that 21
22
Europe’s most successful clubs receive when competing in the group stages of 24 12
UEFA club competitions.
The next pie chart shows however another part of the story, with the financial
importance of solidarity payments to clubs participating and knocked out in
the qualifying rounds highlighted. These payments are considered as solidarity, <10% <10%
as the commercial rights which generate competition revenues are based on 10 - 15% 10 - 15%
the later group stages of the UEFA Europa League and Champions League and Revenues
15 - 20% from UEFA matches as % Revenues
15 - 20% from UEFA matches as %
the Champions League play-offs. of
20 total
- 25% revenue - group stage clubs of
20 total
- 25% revenue - group stage clubs
with
25 -total
30% revenue of more than €50m with total revenue of less than €50m
25 - 30%
These solidarity payments, combined with gate receipts for the UEFA 30 - 50% 30 - 50%
0
competition matches contributed over a quarter of the total income for at least
50%+ 50%+
44 clubs in FY2011. 5 7 5
10
At the other end of the spectrum, it is also noticeable that if just the 41 larger 2
clubs (revenue >€50m) competing in the UEFA Champions League or Europa 6
League group stage are considered, then UEFA competition match revenue
was in all cases below half the overall revenues and contributed in just seven
cases above a quarter of overall revenues. Indeed for ten of the 41 larger 10 11
group stage clubs, the UEFA competition income represented less than 10% of 7
5
overall revenues.
5 5
This picture is considerably different for smaller clubs competing in the 7
same group stages with UEFA competition match revenue contributing
above a quarter of all revenues in more than half the cases (23 clubs from 44
clubs analysed).
<10% <10%
10 - 15% 10 - 15%
15 - 20% UEFA club competition revenue as a % of15total
- 20%revenues
20 - 25% 20 - 25%
25 - 30% <10% 10 - 15% 15 - 20% 25 20 - 25%
- 30%
*** We state “at least” to reflect fact that the sample of 211 clubs is not the full number of clubs that include UEFA
competition participation in their financial results, in practice this will be approximately 240 clubs (236/239 clubs 30 - 50% 25 - 30% 30 - 50% 50%+
30 - 50%
depending on old or new competition cycle plus a small number of additional clubs which received group stage
payments one year and did not qualify the following year). 50%+ 50%+

42
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

The map presents the same ratio, the proportion of UEFA club competition income**** as % of total revenues of participating teams only
club’s revenue from UEFA competition participation,
but aggregates these figures by country for
the clubs participating in UEFA competitions.
The highest proportion of income (purple shades)
from UEFA matches was reported by clubs in the
lower income and central and eastern European
countries. This map highlights the relative
importance for the select clubs that qualify and
participate in the competitions with income from
UEFA matches contributing on average between
10% and 20% for the participating clubs in these
larger countries.

Percentage of total revenue from

UEFA club competitions FY2011
> 50% 7x

30% to 50% 11x

25% to 30% 6x

20% to 25% 9x

15% to 20% 6x

10% to 15% 7x

< 10% 6x

Answer 13
The map provides a country by country perspective and highlights that
income from UEFA competitions generates between 10% and 25%
of participating club income in most of the higher revenue leagues
but significantly more in many eastern European countries and lower **** It should be reiterated that the analysis presented here is purely financial and purely income-related and does
revenue leagues. In particular large percentages occur where a club from not take into consideration the additional costs of hosting matches and bonuses paid to players and coaches.
a smaller or mid-revenue league has qualified for the UEFA Champions Nor does it take account of the important indirect benefits relating to the increased attractiveness of participating
clubs to current and potential future playing staff. ***** In this case clubs from Belarus, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech
League group stage.***** (BLR, CRO, CYP, CZE, ROU, SUI, SVK). Republic, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland.

43
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 3: Financial profile of clubs competing in UEFA club competitions

Q: 14. How do financial statement results compare with

financial fair play break-even results?
The underlying basis for the financial fair play break-even rules is that
clubs should balance their costs with their revenues over a period of time.
Previous UEFA benchmarking reports have laid bare the fact that during an
unprecedented decade of booming football club revenues, football club
owners have directed the vast majority of revenue to short-term spending,
particularly on player salaries. During this decade, an relatively small Break-even relevant income (RI) streams by country FY2011:
proportion of revenues has been invested for the medium and long-term clubs competing in 2012/13 UEFA club competitions
good of football clubs, such as investment in stadium and training facilities,
100%
youth development investment or investments that reflect the link between
club and community. To encourage a shifting of revenue use and owner 90%
largesse from short-term spending to medium and long-term investment, UEFA 80%
and the other stakeholder contributors have defined the financial fair play
rules to exclude certain costs and incomes from the break-even calculation. 70%
This page provides a picture for how the definition of relevant income compares 60%
with financial statement revenues and how the break-even deficit compares
50%
with financial statement net losses:
40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

ENG
ESP
ITA
GER
FRA
RUS
TUR
NED
POR
UKR
GRE
SUI
AUT
BEL
SCO
NOR
DEN
SWE
POL
CYP
CZE
BLR
ROU
CRO
KAZ
AZE
SVK
ISR
HUN
SRB
SVN
FIN
IRL
BUL
LVA
NIR
BIH
LUX
LTU
ISL
WAL
MDA
GEO
LIE
MKD
FRO
MLT
MNE
ARM
EST
ALB
AND
SMR
All UCL & UEL clubs
Answer 14 Gate receipts Broadcasting Commercial & other (non RI)
Sponsorship Relevant transfer income Relevant financing income
Other relevant income
Break-even relevant income tends to be larger than revenue as reported
in most financial statements, with transfer profits and incomes on sale,
included separately in relevant incomes. For the 235 clubs competing
in 2012/13 UEFA Champions League and Europa League, the FY2011
reported revenues of €7.8bn compared with estimated relevant
incomes of €8.7bn. Break-even deficits, calculated from relevant
income less relevant expenses, tend (but not always) to be less than
financial statement net losses reflecting, principally the exclusion of
certain youth and asset investment costs. We estimate the aggregate
€1,176m net losses in FY2011 were equivalent to €480 million of
break-even deficits.

44
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Bridge from revenue to estimated relevant income FY2011: Bridge from net loss to estimated break-even deficit FY2011:
clubs competing in 2012/13 UCL & UEL clubs competing in 2012/13 UCL & UEL

€10,000m €0m

€9,000m 102 30 €8,733m

-€200m -480
€7,821m
€8,000m 848
68 -€400m
€7,000m 1,899 +28 0

€6,000m -1,176
-€600m
€5,000m 1,657 +342
-€800m
€4,000m
1,689
€3,000m -€1,000m
+394
€2,000m
2,576 -€1,200m -68
€1,000m

€0m -€1,400m
Broadcasting

Gate receipts

Sponsorship

Commercial
& other

FY2011
revenues

Owner
donations

Transfer
incomes

Finance
incomes

Other
relevant
incomes

FY2011
Relevant
income

FY2011 net loss

Related party
adjustment

Youth &
community
investment

Asset
investment

Tax result

Non monetary
items

FY2011
break-even deficit
45
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 3: Financial profile of clubs competing in UEFA club competitions

Q: 15. What impact are the first stages of financial fair play having on clubs?

While clubs, supporters and other stakeholders eagerly await the introduction
of the financial fair play break-even assessments from the summer 2013 June June September
onwards, some important parts of the overall financial fair play concept have 2011 2012 2012
already been implemented, with clubs assessed for overdue payable balances
since the summer of 2011. The so-called enhanced overdue payables criteria,
covered by Articles 65 and 66 of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair €57.1m 47%
Play Regulations (edition 2012), are relevant for all clubs that qualify for UEFA
club competitions and refer to overdue payables to football clubs as a result
of transfer activities up to 30 June and 30 September each year and overdue 68%
payables towards employees and/or social/tax authorities at the same dates.
These financial fair play criteria are called “enhanced” as they represent €30.0m 39%
additional dates for the same tests performed for club licensing purposes on all
applicant clubs at 31 December each year.
The importance of these criteria on both the proper conduct and fairness of
competitions should not be underestimated. From a proper conduct perspective, €18.3m
the risks are clear if clubs play in club competitions without having paid
their employees, in particular their coaching or playing staff. From a fairness
perspective, it is also evident that clubs should not be allowed the advantage
of performing in competitions using players whom they have not been able or Overdue payable (OP) assessment Overdue assessment
willing to pay or to pay for. The knock-on effect to other clubs from transfer 30 September 2012 30 September 2012
overdues can also be dramatic and we have observed cases where one overdue
payment has led to many knock-on cases. While it is patently unfair that a
club plays without any punishment for not having paid what it agreed to, €3.3m
on the other side, is also unfair that a club owed transfer money has to play
€5.7m
in competitions without having the opportunity to reinvest funds from the €6.1m
agreed deal.
€8.9m
In the summer 2012, the Club Financial Control Body investigatory chamber
took the conservatory measure of withholding competition funds from 23 clubs
competing in the UEFA Champions League and/or UEFA Europa League on the €6.1m
basis of the 30 June assessment, preceding the application of full disciplinary
measures by the Club Financial Control Body adjudicatory chamber following €6.5m
assessment of the 30 September overdues.
More information on cases is disclosed in UEFA’s annual bulletin on the Club
Financial Control Body activities so here we restrict ourselves to an overall
analysis of the trends and profile of overdue amounts since financial fair play OP transfer Less than one month
was implemented. OP employees One to three months
OP social taxes More than three months

46
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Answer 15
The introduction of financial fair play has had a significant effect on
the level of overdue payables of European clubs. The latest assessment
at the end of September 2012 revealed an overdue balance of €18.3m,
which is a 68% decrease compared to the first assessment at the end of
June 2011. Clubs which have been punished with exclusion from UEFA
competitions and/or fines and/or the withholding of UEFA competition
prize money are discovering a new reality of financial fair play.

47
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 3: Financial profile of clubs competing in UEFA club competitions

Q: 16. How many and which clubs will have to meet break-even requirements?

On 27 May 2010, the UEFA Executive Committee approved the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Answer 16
Regulations (2010 edition) which included the financial fair play measures developed over the previous
18 months by UEFA together with all the stakeholders represented on the Professional Football Strategy
Council (national associations, clubs, leagues, players’ unions) and taking into account the views of other All clubs participating in UEFA club competitions (237-239 under current
stakeholders such as supporters. Part III of the regulations, UEFA Club Monitoring, and the annexes provide competition formats) will require a licence granted by their licensor
more detailed requirements of the various financial fair play criteria. (in most cases the national association) as they do today.
Last year we presented a simulation based on historic club by club financial data which gave an idea of In addition, all participating clubs, once granted a licence and access
the scope of application of the club monitoring requirements* and provided an indication of where clubs to the competitions, are now subject to financial monitoring by the
stood in relation to the break-even rule and in relation to the indicators which dictate whether clubs have Club Financial Control Body. This means that all participating clubs
to provide updated financial information. competing in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions were monitored in
This was the first time such a large Europe-wide assessment had been published and as we draw closer to summer 2012 to ensure that they had met their transfer payments and
the implementation of the break-even rules, we have repeated the exercise this year. In this report we have salary obligations to their staff. In addition, some clubs that triggered
provided just some highlight aggregate figures. During 2012, a voluntary “soft implementation” exercise risk indicators were subject to additional monitoring in the autumn.
took place, with 38 clubs directly submitting detailed break-even data – however, for both confidentiality In the future, clubs above a certain size will also fall within the scope
and full club-by-club consistency purposes, we have not used this information within the simulation in of the break-even rule, providing historic break-even information.
this section. The tables and charts indicate that 41% of the clubs in the 2012/13
Once again, the results must be considered indicative for three main reasons: UEFA competitions would have been exempt from the break-
even requirements, but only two of the clubs that reached the
First, the footnote (see next page), which explains the approach taken for the simulation, indicates the
knockout stage.
number of judgements required to perform the simulation. This does not necessarily mean the break-even
calculation itself is overly complex; in fact, during its development it was decided to keep it as simple and as Those low-risk clubs that report a positive break-even result each
practical as possible. The footnote is so extensive because our reporting templates only cover the primary year and pass other risk indicators will not have to provide any
profit and loss, balance sheet and cash flow statements (approximately 150 line items) and not the detailed more information.
notes that add explanations and colour to these numbers and would usually determine the appropriate
approach in these areas. Therefore, we have made some assumptions that may not hold true for all clubs Those that breach a risk indicator will have to provide current information
within the simulation. and also future financial information, including a future plan for
compliance with the break-even calculation. The chart indicates that on
Second, the scope differs from the figures that will be assessed for financial fair play. The financial results this historic basis, even in the non-financial fair play environment, 79%
in the simulation cover (in the majority of cases) three years, and while a three-year assessment will of clubs competing in UEFA club competitions would either be exempt
become the standard from the second year onwards, the very first financial fair play assessment will cover
or definitely satisfy the break-even criteria.
just two periods.
Third, there is a considerable difference in the timeframe of the simulated results and the first financial
fair play results. A club’s FY2009, FY2010 and FY2011 figures may be considerably different to the FY2012
and FY2013 figures that will be assessed for financial fair play. Indeed, this simulated data covers financial
reporting periods that overlap with the very start of the approval of the financial fair play regulations and,
hence, does not reflect the impact that the regulations will have on clubs’ approaches to their discretionary
spending (player wages and transfer fees) before and once the financial fair play assessment begins.

48
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Scope of simulation
2012/13 UCL & UEL clubs

Year data 7% 6%

Club selection Sample Two year Three year

size

ALL top division clubs 654 145 509

UCL/UEL qualifying clubs 220 14 206 87%

UCL/UEL group stage clubs 77 4 73

Two-year data
Three-year data
Less than two years of
data available (excluded)

* Basis for simulation: The simulation is based on historic financial figures drawn from reported financial statements which include data pre-dating the exact definitions of the break-even calculation set out in the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations. We have
excluded clubs where only one year’s data is available (usually newly promoted clubs) since one year of data is not considered sufficiently representative or robust for the purposes of performing the simulation. The three reporting periods considered for the simulation, FY2009,
FY2010 and FY2011, are in fact two or more years before the two reporting periods (FY2012 and FY2013) that will be the first when the break-even rule will be assessed as part of financial fair play. The simulation should be considered indicative only and in no way provides
concrete conclusions, even of a historical nature, as sufficient detail is not available from the historic submitted data to calculate exactly the relevant income, relevant expenses and, hence, the break-even result. We set out a non-exhaustive list of items (and the approach taken for
the simulation) where judgment has been required in the absence of detailed financial reporting notes and explanations, preventing definitive conclusions.

Relevant income – income transactions with related parties above fair value (no adjustments made for above fair-value contracts such as sponsorships except where an income item is defined as a donation, in which case it is excluded); excess proceeds on disposal of tangible fixed
assets (replacement nature not known so profits and losses on disposal have all been considered in simulation); finance income (profit) (separation of interest revenue from foreign exchange gains/losses on non-monetary items not available, so all finance income/profits/losses
considered in relevant income/expenses accordingly); non-monetary credits (existence not available, albeit upwards non-currency-related revaluations not normally expected, so no adjustments made); income from non-football operations (adjustments only made for incomes/
expenses completely unrelated to the club, facilities or brand, information not available historically – therefore, other net non-operating income/expenses have been included in simulation as break-even revenues/expenses).

Relevant expenses (in addition to items and approach set out in relevant income paragraph) – finance costs and dividends (non-monetary nature of finance costs/losses not known so all finance costs/losses have been included in calculation, as have dividends which would be
included within non-operating result); expense transactions with related parties below fair value (no information known and hence no upwards adjustments made in simulation); directly attributable youth development expenditure (detailed calculation necessary and financial
disclosures of youth sector spending generally limited or non-existent so assumption included within simulation equivalent to 8% of total other relevant costs for clubs, with <€5m revenues and 4% of relevant expenses for clubs with revenues > €5m; this calculation based on
knowledge of youth sector spending gathered from information supplied for UEFA solidarity distributions and disclosure of youth expenditure within UEFA benchmarking templates of more than 200 clubs; where youth sector costs disclosed, then removed and replaced by
standardised simulation assumption); expenditure on community development activities (rarely historically disclosed despite being central to the concept of social and community importance of football clubs – no adjustment made as considered within the 8/4% youth expenses
adjustment); finance costs attributable to construction of tangible fixed assets (this type of finance rare due to low club financed stadium construction - nature of finance charges/losses not known from reported data so no adjustment made in simulation); depreciation/impairment
of tangible fixed assets (adjustment made in full and excluded from relevant expenses); amortisation of non-player intangible fixed assets (adjustment made in full and excluded from relevant expenses); tax expense (assumed that all reported tax expenses relate to taxable
income/profit and hence excluded from relevant expenses for purposes of simulation – nature of tax income not known and to apply consistency on recognition/ non-recognition in carrying forward of taxable losses, all reported tax incomes are assumed to be non-monetary and
have not been included in simulation).

Other factors – impact of exchange rates (exchange rates used in simulation are the most common year-end rates for each country applied to all clubs in that country rather than the average monthly rate differentiating for each club); players under contract prior to 1 June 2010
(for first break-even assessment period (FY2012) only, certain legacy costs arising on players will be considered – as this is not envisaged as an ongoing item and also as there are currently no figures for this, no adjustment has been made in the simulation); no other adjustments
have been made in respect of “other factors’”. Break-even assessment – positive results from fourth and fifth years have not been considered due to insufficient detail.

49
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 3: Financial profile of clubs competing in UEFA club competitions

Q: 17. Where are participating clubs in relation to financial fair play break-even?

The figures in this year’s report cover three financial years, since The map provides an indication of the scope and reach of the
Financial Fair Play Terminology
all monitoring periods (apart from the first one in 2013/14) will break-even rule by taking all the clubs competing in 2012/13
Complete Terminology Abbreviation eventually cover three financial years. While the second row, UEFA club competitions and highlighting in orange the countries
detailing the results of 220 of the 237 clubs which qualified for which had one or more clubs with simulated break-even deficits
Financial Fair Play FFP the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions, is perhaps the most relevant of more than €5m across FY2009, FY2010 and FY2011. If these
Break-Even BE indication of the scope and number of clubs that will be assessed, pre-financial fair play results were replicated in the future and
the composition of UEFA participating clubs today and in 2013/14 these clubs qualified for UEFA club competitions, then these 46
Club Financial Control Body CFCB is likely to vary, hence the reason for looking at the full sample clubs from 22 countries would at least require contributions from
of top-division clubs as well. The third row further narrows the equity participants and/or related parties covering their deficit,
Relevant Income RI
selection down to the clubs which qualified for the group stages and some would breach the break-even requirements. During the
Relevant Expenses RE of the 2012/13 UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League 2009-11 period, just over half of these clubs did receive sufficient
(77 of the 80 clubs). All charts relate to the clubs that qualified for equity contributions.
Acceptable Deviation AD the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions. The UCL/UEL club analysis
In this year’s simulation covering FY2009, FY2010 and FY2011,
covers 220 clubs and excludes the remaining 17 clubs because
14 of the clubs participating in the 2012/13 UEFA Champions
there was only one out of three years data available.
League or UEFA Europa League reported cumulative break-even
Break-even result FY2009, FY2010 & FY2011 deficits in excess of €45m.
2012/13 UCL & UEL clubs

6%
Break-even historic (2 or 3 year) assessment
15% RI & RE RI and/or RE
<€5m >€5m
BE surplus BE deficit €0m to BE deficit €5m to €45m BE deficit >€45m
41% Sample Exempt Within the €5m (within AD) (requires contributions) (break-even not
7% scope fulfilled)

335 319 170 64 65 20

All top division clubs
51% 49% 26% 10% 10% 3%

31%

90 130 68 16 32 14
UCL/UEL qualifying clubs
41% 59% 31% 7% 15% 6%

Exempt UCL/UEL group 2 75 42 5 15 13

BE surplus stage clubs 3% 97% 55% 6% 19% 17%

BE deficit €0m to €5m (within AD)

BE deficit up to €45m (requires contributions)
BE deficit >€45m (break-even not fulfilled)

50
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

This number is higher than last year’s simulation partly due to the mix
of clubs that qualified for the two seasons’ competitions and partly due
to the fact that FY2011 losses were generally higher than FY2008 (which
was included last year but now drops out of the three-year simulation)*.
In this year’s simulation, a further 32 qualifying clubs reported
cumulative break-even losses of between €5m and €45m, necessitating
equity investments/recapitalisation before the year-end of up to €40m**.
The total of 32 clubs, represents a slight increase on the 29 competing
clubs that would have required capitalisation in the simulation performed
last year (based on FY2008-2010).
When equity contributions are taken into account in this year’s simulation,
sufficient equity contributions were recorded in 16 of the 32 clubs
during the period and, hence, the break-even requirements would have
been satisfied**.
While the simulation period data will not be assessed for break-even
purposes, the average player contract and commercial cycle mean clubs
need to continue assessing the future impact of their contract agreements
as these will certainly impact on the FY2012 and FY2013 financial results.

Answer 17
In this year’s simulation, covering FY2009, FY2010 and FY2011, 14
of the clubs participating in the 2012/13 UEFA Champions League
or UEFA Europa League reported cumulative break-even deficits
in excess of €45m and a further 32 clubs reported cumulative 3-year break-even result
deficits of between €5m and €45m.
All clubs within the break-even
13x
If replicated in future monitoring periods, 18 countries would acceptable deviation
have all their participating clubs exempt from the break-even One or more clubs BE deficit
assessment and a further 13 countries would have all their >€5m (requires contributions)
22x
assessed clubs within the acceptable deviation.
All clubs exempt 18x

* If the simulation had been performed using a two-year rather than three-year financial period, as will be the case for the very first monitoring period, the number of clubs competing in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions with a break-even deficit of over €45m reduces from 14
to 11 clubs, while the number of other clubs in excess of the acceptable deviation and hence requiring recapitalisation decreases from 32 clubs to 28 clubs.
** A detailed equity roll forward was not available for all the years for each club. References to “receive sufficient equity contributions” refer to positive movements in equity over the three-year period and could be non-injections such as post balance sheet adjustments; currency
changes; reporting perimeter changes as well as actual capital injections.

51
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 3: Financial profile of clubs competing in UEFA club competitions

Q: 18. How many clubs would currently be required to prepare updated figures?

The new requirements introduced in the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations go beyond the break-even rule and
enhanced payables rules to also take a forward-looking approach. The requirements set out in Article 64 extend beyond the minimum
future financial information historically required under club licensing to include a post-season financial forecast update, and require
a plan for future compliance with the break-even requirements and the requisite information for this calculation.
Once again, the method is a risk-based approach using a series of indicators and some additional discretionary ratios to help the
Simulation - number of indicators Club Financial Control Body assess risks and put recent financial fair play performance into context. Those clubs self-sustained by
breached by 2012/13 UCL & UEL clubs their operations and not triggering indicators will neither have to provide budgeted information nor have to provide current-year
financial information.
3%
6%

Requirement for current break-even data and updated/new forecasts (indicator = requires; ratio = may require)
18%
37%
Indicator 1 Indicator 2 Indicator 3 Indicator 4 Ratio 1 Ratio 2

Worse BE deficit One of

Sample Number Going Overdue Wages >70% Net debt >100%
negative in one or indicators
of clubs concern equity both years payables revenues revenues
breached

36% 654 90 135 190 n/a 407 223 92

All top division clubs
100% 14% 21% 29% n/a% 62% 34% 14%

220 33 49 83 67 139 77 51
UCL/UEL qualifying clubs
100% 15% 22% 38% 30% 63% 35% 23%
No indicators breached
One indicator breached
Two indicators breached 77 13 13 46 16 55 24 18
UCL/UEL group stage clubs
Three indicators breached 100% 17% 17% 60% 21% 71% 31% 23%

All four indcators breached

* For the indicator simulation, a sample size of 654 clubs was used, comprising only clubs that provided at least two years of financial figures from the last three years. The going-concern indicator is based purely on the year-end financial statements and does not include any review
of audit opinion for interim financial statements. The break-even deficit indicator is based on the same calculations and assumptions as those applied in the previous break-even Q&A and excludes clubs that fall outside the scope of needing to provide full break-even data on the
basis of size (Article 57(2) of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations). The overdue payables is based on the assessment made on 30 June 2012 and corresponds to those clubs with payables necessitating further information (e.g. indicator 4 breach) including
some which after submitting further information were adjudged to have not breached the requirements.

52
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Answer 18
In total, 62% of European clubs (407 out of 654*) breached at least
one indicator and hence would have been required to provide
additional information to the Club Financial Control Body, if sportingly
qualified to UEFA club competitions, with regards to transfer and/or
employee balances.
Looking just at the clubs that qualified for the 2012/13 UEFA club
competitions, that figure was at a similar level, at 63% (139 out of 220),
which would mean (if the results were repeated in future) that the 77
clubs competing in this year’s UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa
League which did not breach any indicator would be exempt from
providing any current break-even data and from providing updated
future financial information, underlining the risk-based approach of
financial fair play. The majority of clubs breaching indicators breached
just one indicator, but there were 20 clubs that breached three or four
indicators in the simulation.

53
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Section 2: European domestic club football

54
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Section 2

European domestic club football

HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 4: Competition profile of domestic club football

56
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

4
Competition profile of domestic club football
What is the most common size of top divisions and what are the recent trends?

What type of competition formats are used in domestic top-division club football?

Where and how are play-offs and play-outs used?

How many fans attended domestic championship matches across Europe?

What are the attendance trends in domestic championship matches?

How do European attendances compare with those around the world?

57
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 4: Competition profile of domestic club football

Q: 19. What is the most common size of top

divisions and what are the recent trends?
The map illustrates the number of teams in the top
division of each UEFA member association, with 12
teams the most common, followed by a league of
16 teams. The table below illustrates the high level
of fluctuation with more than a quarter of leagues
changing their number of clubs in just the last three
seasons. Indeed if we go back eight seasons, there
are only 23 top divisions that have remained stable.

Number teams in top division

(2012s - 2012/13w) & frequency:
20 4x

18 4x

15/16 14x

14 5x

11/12 16x

10 7x

<10 2x

Answer 19
Recent (last three seasons) and planned changes to size of top division:
There is considerable fluctuation in the
structure of European top divisions with ALB: Increased from 12 (2010/11) to 14 (2011/12) BLR: Decreased from 12 (2011) to 11 (2012) In addition to the top divisions above, the following
the majority of countries having changed GEO: Increased from 10 (2010/11) to 12 (2011/12) CRO: Decreased from 16 (2011/12) to 12 (2012/13) also increased between 2004 and 2012: EST, ISL, LUX,
MDA, NOR, POL, ROU, SRB, SVK and SWE, while AZE,
the number of teams competing in their top IRL: Increased from 10 (2011) to 12 (2012) FIN: Decreased from 14 (2010) to 12 (2011) BEL, KAZ, NIR, POR, SRB, SVN and WAL decreased in
division in recent years. There is no clear trend KAZ: Increased from 12 (2011) to 14 (2012) ISR: Decreased from 16 (2011/12) to 14 (2012/13) size. In addition, some fluctuated +/-1 due mainly to
licensing issues.
with leagues increasing and decreasing in size LTU: Increased from 10 (2010) to 12 (2011) LTU: Decreased from 12 (2011) to 10 (2012)
in equal quantities. The most common number LVA: Increased from 9 (2011) to 10 (2012) LVA: Decreased from 10 (2010) to 9 (2011)
format is either 12 or 16 clubs. MLT: Increased from 10 (2010/11) to 12 (2011/12) MDA: Decreased from 14 (2010/11) to 12 (2011/12)

58
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Q: 20. What type of competition formats are used in domestic top-division club football?

The accompanying chart illustrates the competition structures found across European domestic leagues for
the 2012 summer season and 2012/13 winter season.
Domestic championships have experimented with various structures over the decades but the most common
TWO Rounds (24) THREE Rounds (10) and convenient structure is the standard round-robin (playing each team once home and once away) used
ALB ITA SRB BLR IRL by 24 top divisions in the present season. A similar three-round structure is used in ten top divisions.
AZE KAZ SWE (8) CRO MDA
BIH LUX TUR DEN MKD We can see from the map showing the number of clubs per league, that there are nine countries with
BUL NED UKR AND ISR FIN MNE ten or less clubs in the top division. In this case, a four-round double round-robin structure is often
AZE KAZ
CZE NOR
BEL MLT
FRO SVK implemented, which is currently the case in seven top divisions. In the last two seasons, Albania, Azerbaijan,
ENG POL Belarus, Croatia, Finland, Georgia, Greece, Ireland, Kazakhstan and Lithuania (ten top divisions) changed
ESP POR CYP WAL
FRA ROU their structure. Apart from Liechtenstein, which has no domestic championship, 11 top divisions play in
GER RUS alternative structures which are not founded on the classical round-robin structure.
HUN (1)
ISL In San Marino, the teams are split into two groups at the start of the season and then compete in play-offs.
SMR
NIR
In Scotland and Northern Ireland, there are three full rounds before teams in the top and bottom halves
(2) play a final round within their half. In Andorra, Belgium, Cyprus, Georgia, Greece, Israel, Malta and Wales,
SCO
there are two full rounds before teams split into various formats.
LVA
(1) SUI
AUT
LIE EST SVN
LTU ARM*

FOUR Rounds (7)

Answer 20
The standard home and away round-robin format is the most common league format used.
With the international match calendar and player health considerations dictating the available
match dates, the number of clubs to some extent determines the league format, with three
rounds of matches typically used in leagues of 12 clubs (33 matches) and four rounds of matches
in leagues of ten clubs or less. Eleven European top-divisions use alternative formats, splitting
up the clubs midway through the season.

* This season, Armenia changed from a calendar year to an autumn-spring season, therefore playing a one-off six-round championship.

59
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 4: Competition profile of domestic club football

Q: 21. Where and how are play-offs and play-outs used?

Domestic play-offs for UEFA competition places the UEFA competition participants. In the Netherlands, Play-outs are used for different numbers of teams and in
Having analysed how domestic championships are similar post-season play-offs take place with the fifth to different types of format and include matches between
fundamentally structured, with 41 based on a round- eighth teams playing over two legs to determine the UEFA clubs in the top division and the next division down in
robin structure and 11 breaking into groups during the competition participants. In San Marino, the 15 teams are 20 countries. The most common play-out is when the
season, we now examine how play-offs are used for UEFA separated into two groups and play each member of their last team in the top division gets relegated directly
club competition places and final domestic rankings. group in a standard home and away round-robin, but also and the team that is second from bottom plays the
During the 2012 summer season and 2012/13 winter season, play the teams in the other group once. After this group runner-up in the next division down, while the champion of
four domestic championships used play-offs, each with stage, the first three teams in each group qualify for the the second from top division is promoted directly. This type of
a different format. Probably the most complex play-off championship play-offs for the two to three available UEFA play-out is conducted in Andorra, Azerbaijan, Estonia,
structure exists in Belgium, where teams initially play the competiton places. Ireland, Latvia, Northern Ireland, and Slovenia.
standard home and away round-robin. After that, they divide Something similar takes place in Belgium but first the
into three groups (first six, next eight, last two), the first group bottom two teams in the top division play each other home
plays for the title, for three guaranteed positions in the UEFA Domestic play-outs* and away to determine who is relegated directly, while the
club competitions and for an opportunity to compete for the The chart shows how relegation and play-outs are used in winner plays against the runner-up in the next division down.
fourth place through the Belgium Europa League play-off. different domestic championships. These championships Another common play-out system is when the bottom two
The second group is divided into two groups of four and have experimented with various relegation structures over top-division teams are relegated directly, and the third team
the winners of each group play the Belgium Europa League the years but the most common is that the last team(s) from bottom plays against the third placed team in the next
play-off, with the winner progressing to play the fourth placed get relegated, a structure in use by 32 top-divisions in division down, while the top two teams in the second from
team from the first group for the final UEFA competition the present season. The number of teams relegated per top division are promoted directly. This format is used in
place. Meanwhile, in Greece, teams play the standard championship varies from one country to another, the most Greece, Luxembourg, Norway, Serbia and Sweden. A similar
home and away round-robin before a post-season where common number of relegated teams being two, as applied format is used in Montenegro and the Netherlands but
the second to fifth teams play over two legs to determine in 24 domestic championships. with just the bottom team in the top division automaticaly
relegated, while the second and third from bottom teams
4 play-out against the teams that finish second and third in
the next division. There are yet further play-out fomats used
in Belarus, Cyprus, Georgia, Macedonia and Russia.
3

2 Answer 21

1 The number of teams relegated and promoted

between the top two divisions each year varies
according to the results of the play-outs and changes
0 in the league structure from year to year. On the basis
ALB
BUL
ROU
MKD
RUS
GEO
CRO
ENG
ESP
FRA
ITA
TUR
CYP
GER
LUX
NOR
SRB
SWE
MNE
NED
BIH
CZE
DEN
FRO
GRE
HUN
ISL
ISR
KAZ
LTU
MDA
MLT
POL
POR
UKR
WAL
AND
AZE
BEL
EST
IRL
LVA
NIR
SVN
ARM
AUT
FIN
SCO
SUI
SVK
BLR
SMR
of the current season, the number of clubs relegated,
subject to clubs meeting the necessary licensing
Maximum number of relegated clubs after play-outs
Guaranteed number of relegated clubs
requirements in each country, will vary between 94
and 121, which represents between 13% and 17% of
* The play-outs analysed are those taking place between top-division teams and those between teams in the top two divisions. Play-offs solely between second division teams for
the total top-division clubs. This is a key element of the
qualification for the top division have not been analysed but are included in the guaranteed number of relegated/promoted clubs shown in the chart. European professional sports model pyramid.

60
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Q: 22. How many fans attended domestic championship matches across Europe?
According to the latest figures, the 2011/12 winter
and 2011 summer seasons appear to indicate a
resurgeance in top-division football attendance
figures. Total attendance grew a healthy 2.5% from
101 million to 103 million spectators in 2011/12.
Average attendance profile of
Germany is again top of the attendance table in
European clubs 2011s or 2011/12w
both average matchday attendance and cumulative
league attendance. A strong 5.7% increase enabled
this achievement. The Netherlands had the fifth 20
highest average attendance, at just under 20,000,
displacing France, although the stadium investment 18
in the build-up to UEFA EURO 2016 is likely to
reverse this trend. Growth was not just limited to 16
larger top divisons. The top divisions in Armenia,
Estonia, and Montenegro all experienced average
14
attendance growth over 20%.
Nearly half of all top division clubs (48%) attract an 12
Number of clubs

average of less than 3,000 spectators, which is the

same as in 2009/10, and over one third (39%) draw
10
more than 5,000 fans.
The ratio of the highest club average attendance 8
against the league average illustrates the
concentration (or distribution) of spectators among
6
clubs in a division. Russia, Finland, Iceland and
Kazakhstan have more even distributions, whereas
4
one or two clubs dominate the competition in
Serbia, Greece and Croatia.
2

Answer 22
0
GER
ENG
ESP
ITA
FRA
NED
UKR
POR
RUS
TUR
SUI
BEL
SCO
POL
GRE
SWE
NOR
DEN
AUT
ROU
SRB
CZE
ISR
AZE
HUN
KAZ
ALB
BUL
CYP
FIN
BLR
CRO
BIH
SVK
IRL
MKD
SVN
GEO
ISL
MNE
MDA
NIR
LTU
LUX
ARM
SMR
WAL
FRO
EST
LVA
MLT
AND
LIE
Ratio of
highest club
For the 2011/12w and 2011s season, over

NA
NA
NA
1.8
2.2
2.6
2.2
2.3
2.6
3.3
3.9
1.6
3.0
2.4
2.4
3.7
2.4
4.4
1.9
1.8
2.2
2.2
3.2
5.2
2.2
2.2
3.4
2.0
1.7
1.9
2.0
2.6
1.7
2.0
4.6
3.6
2.3
2.4
3.3
2.8
2.3
1.9
3.7
2.2
2.1
2.4
2.6
3.2
1.2
2.2
2.0
2.5
1.7
attendance
to average
103 million fans attended domestic club
championship matches in Europe. This is an >20,000 10,000-19,999 5,000-9,999 3,000-4,999 1,000-2,999 <1,000
(12%) (12%) (12%) (15%) (25%) (24%)
increase over 2010/11, driven primarily by
growth in Germany, Hungary, Serbia and
Ukraine. It was a resurgent season, with
attendances climbing back towards the
volumes experienced in 2008/09. Source: http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm, www.soccerway.com and national licensing managers. Figures cover the last completed season.

61
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 4: Competition profile of domestic club football

Q: 23. What are the attendance trends in

domestic championship matches?

Answer 23
Increased attendance figures were recorded in 2011/12 (winter)/
2011 (summer) in 31 of the 51 top-divisions (61%) with comparable
data, while 20 (39%) decreased. In a reverse from recent seasons, the
attendance trend became positive again. Among the “big five” divisions,
only Germany and Spain had increased attendances (5.7% and 2.0%
respectively), while Italy, France and England declined (-7.6%, -4.4%
and -2.0% respectively). Ukraine especially reported a large increase
(+23%) off the back of new or modernised stadiums planned for
UEFA EURO 2012, however there were also strong increases in Serbia
(55%), Hungary (49%) and Albania (30%) thanks mainly to newly
promoted clubs.

62
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Average match attendance trend

from 2010s/2010/11w season
to 2011s/2011/12w season
>+20% 7x

+10% to +20% 5x

+3% to +10% 13x

+3% to 0% 0% to -3% 6x 6x

-3% to -10% 8x

<-10% 6x

Unknown 2x

Source: http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm, www.soccerway.com and national licensing managers. Figures cover the last completed season (2011/12
winter season and 2011 summer season). No reliable figures were available for AND and LIE.

63
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 4: Competition profile of domestic club football

Q: 24. How do European attendances

compare with those around the world?
While football is known as the “world’s game”, how do match attendances
in other continents and nations compare with those in Europe? The map
illustrates the average attendances in certain selected leagues where
data is readily available along with the largest average club attendance.
For comparative purposes, we have also indicated the highest average
attendance in Europe. Clearly, the success of Major League Soccer in the United
States has now generated enough interest to gain a foothold among other top
US professional sports and attendances in Mexico rival those of top divisions in
Europe. Top divisions in Asia demonstrate respectable levels but will also surely
grow as those leagues develop and continue to attract star players. There is also
room for growth in South America, and the investment in stadiums for the FIFA
World Cup in Brazil in 2014 will certainly act as a catalyst there.
The concentration of attendances is not too dissimilar from that in European
divisions. The top clubs across the world are generally attracting spectators
between 2x and 2.5x of the division average.

Answer 24
Average and total club attendances in Europe are still the highest in
world club football. Nonetheless, healthy attendances are reported in
various spots across the world, with the Mexican average of over 26,000
only exceeded by Germany, England and Spain. Indeed CF America’s
average attendance ranked it in the top ten in world terms, while
Guangzhou ranked 20th and Boca Juniors and Seattle ranked in the
top 40 average club attendances in the most recent completed season.

64
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Number of clubs
in top division Club with highest
avg attendance

Top-division Club average

average attendance attendance

65
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 5: People profile: coaches and players

66
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

5
People profile: coaches and players
Job security – what are the contract profiles of club head coaches?

Job security – what are the service profiles of club head coaches?

What are the profiles of European clubs’ top players?

67
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 5: People profile: coaches and players

Q: 25. Job security – what are the contract profiles of club head coaches?
The arrow chart illustrates the year when the contracts of head coaches expire*. When do current head coaches
The chart below shows the proportion of club head coaches with contracts until contracts end
2014 or beyond**.
13% 2012

39% 2013
Answer 25
33% 2014

Employment contracts do not expire until at least 2014 for just under 12% 2015
half (48%) of head coaches. This varies between countries, with many
countries over 60%, including England, France and Italy. 3% 2016+

Proportion of club head coaches with contracts until 2014 or beyond

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
CZE UKR ENG FRA AUT GER BEL ITA BIH DEN RUS SCO ROU TUR BUL ESP NED POL HUN GRE POR FIN SUI NOR SWE IRL CYP BLR

*This contract expiry date analysis covers the widest available sample covering 341 top-division head coaches but excludes head coaches from the following countries: Andorra, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Estonia, Faroe Islands, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Latvia, Moldova,
Montenegro, Northern Ireland, San Marino and Wales due to lack of information. All contract expiry date values are based on data extracted from www.transfermarkt.de.
**The proportion of club head coach contracts analysis covers only those countries where the contract dates are known for at least five head coaches, covering 314 top-division head coaches from 28 countries.

68
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Q: 26. Job security – what are the service profiles of club head coaches?
The column chart on the right September 2012 head Average length of service of head coaches (years)
illustrates the average length of coach length of service
service of club head coaches as 5
4.7
measured in September 2012*.
The European average was 18 months 12% 4.0
4
but the average length of service 3.5
3.3
differs considerably across Europe. 11% 3 2.8
The seven most stable countries 2.5 2.5 2.4
for head coaches, as measured by 55% 2 1.91.9 1.8
1.81.7 1.71.7 1.7
average length of service, are all 1.6 1.5
1.4 1.41.3 1.3
1.3 1.21.2 1.2 1.1 1.1
from the British Isles and Nordic 22% 1.01.0 1.0 0.90.9 0.90.90.90.9
1 0.9 0.90.8
countries, where the average 0.7 0.70.7 0.7 0.6
0.6 0.5
ranges from between 4.2 years 0.2
in Northern Ireland to 2.5 years 0

NIR
WAL
FIN
ENG
ISL
NOR
SWE
GER
FRA
AUT
FRO
RUS
LVA
UKR
BLR
EST
SCO
Europe
LTU
IRL
TUR
LUX
AZE
KAZ
ESP
BUL
POR
CYP
SVN
DEN
GEO
MLT
SVK
HUN
CRO
BEL
ROU
NED
POL
ITA
ISR
SRB
MKD
GRE
BIH
CZE
SUI
ALB
in Sweden.
At the other end of the scale, there
were 17 leagues where the average Less than 1 year The column chart on the left illustrates the age profile of club head coaches as
length of service was less than 1 - 2 years measured in September 2012. The European average was 47 with head coach
one year. 2 - 3 years ages ranging from 25 to 80 years.
More than 3 years
The highest average was recorded in Ukraine, where the average coach age
was 55 years, while the youngest average age of 40 years old was recorded
in Latvia.
Average, youngest and oldest head coaches (years)
The good news for either young or old head coaches is that the range differs
80 80 considerably in every country, as shown by the diamonds and triangles for each
80
73 72 country, with all countries apart from Austria having at least one head coach
70
70 66 67 66 66 67 67 over 50 and all countries apart from three (Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Hungary)
65 64 64 63
61
63 63
61 60 61 61 62 having at least one head coach aged 40 or younger.
59 60 59 60 60 60 59
60 58 58 58
56 57 58 56
58
55 53
51 50 50 49
54 55
51
55
53 54 54
52 53 Answer 26
50 49 49 49 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 47 48
47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 46 46 45
45 45 45 45 44 44 44 44 44
43 43 43 43 42
40 43 44
40 While contract profiles suggest that head coaches have better than
42
40
38 38 39 39 39 40
38 39
40 39 expected job security, analysis of the actual length of service of current
36 36 36 37 37
35
37 37 36 36 36 36 37 36 37 35 36 35 36 35 35 head coaches underlines that many leave or are sacked mid-contract,
30 34 34 33 33 33
32 31 31 30 30
28 with the average length of service 18 months and 55% of coaches in
25 25 place for less than 12 months.
20
UKR
KAZ
FRA
ENG
HUN
ITA
ISR
GRE
RUS
SUI
BUL
FIN
TUR
LTU
GER
ESP
BEL
CZE
ALB
SCO
SVK
SWE
AZE
NED
DEN
GEO
Europe
ISL
CRO
NIR
SRB
MLT
LUX
CYP
ROU
BIH
BLR
IRL
WAL
MKD
EST
AUT
POL
SVN
POR
FRO
NOR
LVA

*The average length and age of head coaches presents the picture at one moment in time (September 2012), as well
as changes over time, and includes interim coaches. Analysis based on data from www.transfermarkt.de covering
633 head coaches from top-division clubs in 47 countries (excludes Andorra, Armenia, Liechtenstein, Moldova,
Average Youngest Oldest
Montenegro and San Marino as data not readily available).

69
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 5: People profile: coaches and players

Q: 27. What are the profiles of European clubs’ top players?

We have analysed the top 50 summer 2012 transfer deals by value, which covers Selling and buying countries of top 50 transfers
transfer deals of €10m and above. In the column chart*, we analyse country
by country, the profile of the selling and buying clubs involved in these 50 25
transfers. The selling clubs were widespread with 45 separate clubs from 12
different countries involved. The buying clubs were more concentrated with 20
28 clubs from just eight countries involved. Further analysis reveals some
interesting facts, with English clubs involved in almost half of all the top 50
15
transfers, responsible as the buying club in 21 of the top 50 transfers and
involved as the selling club on an additional** three transfer deals. The rise of
Russian clubs is hinted at, with four of the top 50 transfers heading to Russia, 10
and this is without including transfer activity from the January 2012 window,
when Russian clubs were involved in the two highest-value deals. For the first 5
time in recent years, Spanish and Italian clubs sold more top 50 transfers than
they bought, with Italian club buying down from 12 in the previous year to
0
seven in the summer of 2012 and Spanish club buying down from seven in the ENG ITA GER FRA RUS ESP POR QAT NED ARG BRA CHI SUI
previous year to just three in the summer 2012.
Selling Buying
In the arrow chart we can observe that over half (52%) of the top 50 transfer
contracts were for five seasons and the average contract length of the players
involved in the top 50 summer 2012 transfers was 4.32 years. Clearly, clubs
continue to want to protect their players residual transfer market value and
with 44 of the 50 players, 27 years old or younger, we would not expect in
this top 50 the type of short-term deals which are common for older and
less-valued players. Age of top 50 players transferred
The pie chart illustrates the premium placed on attacking players, with strikers 12
and attacking midfielders responsible for the majority of high-value transfers.
10

* All transfer values in chart are based on data extracted from the partner information provider www.transfermarkt.de 2
which, in most cases, is based on publicly reported transfer values supplemented by best estimates. UEFA has not checked
every value and is not in the position to do so, but has performed a sanity check on a sample of reported transfer values.
We believe the accuracy is good enough for indicative benchmarking analysis but should not be relied upon for any 0
other purposes. ** English clubs were both the buying and selling club in eight transfer deals. In addition they sold to
clubs outside England in three other transfer deals, in total, as per the chart, English clubs were the selling club in 11 of Under 20 20-21 22-23 24-25 26-27 28-29 30 or older
the 50 transfers.

70
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

1
7

Player contract period of

summer 2012 top 50 transfers 22

12% Ending 2015

36% Ending 2016 20

52% Ending 2017

Striker
Midfield
Defence
Goalkeeper

Answer 27
In the last transfer window 46 of the top 50 worldwide transfers by
value involved a European selling club and 49 involved a European
buying club. The average contract length was 4.32 years with just over
half of deals involving a five-season contract.

71
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Section 3: Europe-wide financial profile of club football

72
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Section 3

Europe-wide financial
profile of club football
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 6: How has club football weathered the economic storm (the five-year financial trends)?

74
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

6
How has club football weathered the economic storm
(the five-year financial trends)?
What has happened to club revenues over the last five years?

How has transfer activity fluctuated across Europe in the last five years?

What has happened to wages and transfer costs over the last five years?

Is it just the ‘wealthy’ clubs making ever larger losses?

75
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 6: How has club football weathered the economic storm (the five-year financial trends)?

Q: 28. What has happened to club revenues over the last five years?

In this year’s report we have continued analysing trends on a rolling five-year

period which coincides with five years (2007-11) of economic stagnation in
European economies, with average* growth of European economies** of just
Evolution of Europe-wide top-division 0.5%. Despite a slowdown in club football growth rates in Europe in the last
revenues FY2007-FY2011 (€m) year, during the same 2007-11 period aggregate club revenues have increased
by an average* revenue growth of 5.6% per year.
14,000 CAGR 5.6%
€12,780m
€13,169m The principal driver of revenue growth has been broadcast and commercial
revenues, which have increased at a compound average growth rate (CAGR) of
€11,725m 8.2% and 7.2% respectively. The noticeable exception is gate receipt revenues,
12,000 €2,492m CAGR 7.2%
€11,358m
€2,478m which have increased by an average rate of just 0.7% and, after a small decrease
€10,578m this year, are actually now at a slightly lower level than in 2008.
€2,060m
€1,982m
10,000 The map gives an overview of how aggregate club revenues (in like-for-like
€1,884m
€2,537m CAGR 0.7% domestic currency terms) have changed between the financial year 2007 and
€2,606m 2011. Some care should be taken in drawing conclusions as the trend is affected
€2,513m
8,000 €2,543m by a number of factors. The following is a non exhaustive list of factors that
€2,465m can influence the five-year trend: change in number of clubs within the league
(i.e. a reduction from 18 to 12 will often increase the average revenue and
CAGR 5.2%
€3,179m
€3,312m decrease the aggregate figure); for countries where UEFA competition
6,000
€2,832m
€2,995m participation money makes up a significant proportion of overall revenues,
€2,704m the trend can be significantly affected by the comparative UEFA competition
progress in the two years.
4,000

€4,516m
€4,827m CAGR 8.2%
2,000 €4,000m €4,157m
€3,526m

0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Answer 28
Commercial & other Gate Sponsor Broadcast
Football club revenue has prospered during the turbulent economic
period of the last five years, with club revenue growing in 40 of the
53 top divisions at an aggregate rate of 5.6% a year and 24% over
* Average in this context refers to the compound average growth rate between FY2007 and FY2011. the whole period. All 52 of the European top-divisions have avoided
Figures presented are at historical exchange rates (this has changed from last year’s report and the use of historical a “meltdown”*** in income although aggregate club revenues in a
rates reflects the fact that under financial fair play break-even, historical rates will be applicable). ** This rate refers
to GDP growth across 27 EU economies taken from the Eurostat database. *** ‘Meltdown’ for the purposes of this number of the Balkan and Baltic countries in particular have shrunk
Q&A would be a 50% decrease in income during the five year period (see map). during the five-year period.

76
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

While the map provides the revenue trend in domestic currency

terms, the depreciation or appreciation of local currency against
the Euro between 2007 and 2011* can have a significant
effect (see exchange rate table) on cross-border comparisons.
For example, while Icelandic clubs have increased revenue in
domestic currency, the trend would be negative if translated
into euros.

FY2010* FY2007* FY2011

Currency
to FY2011 to FY2011 to FY2012*
BLR -45% -55% -33%
ISL -5% -43% 1%
UKR -6% -32% 8%
TUR -12% -27% 1%
NIR -7% -22% 7%
WAL -1% -22% 7%
SRB 3% -22% -10%
ENG -6% -21% 1%
SCO -6% -21% 1%
ROU 1% -15% -5%
ARM -7% -14% 1%
ALB -3% -12% 1%
POL -4% -12% -2%
RUS -1% -12% 3%
SVK 0% = -11% 0% =
HUN 0% = -11% -4%
KAZ -4% -7% 7%
MDA -3% 2% 6%
NOR 0% = 3% 4%
SWE 0% = 3% 3%
ISR -6% 10% 1% Change in club revenues
AZE -4% 13% 9% between 2007 and 2011
CZE 3% 17% -2%
SUI 7% 34% 2% >+100% 9x
LIE 2% 36% 1%
+50% to +100% 12x

+20% to +50% 8x *All revenue figures are reported in local currency. The rates in the table correspond to the most common financial 12
month period of clubs in that country (i.e. English clubs £:€ rate is the year-end or average rate covering the period
+0% to +20% 11x 1 July to 30 June as this is the most common 12 month financial period. In 2012 two clubs had July 31 and nine clubs
had 31 May year end but for ease of benchmarking calculation the 30 June year-end foreign exchange rate was used
for all English clubs). For Financial Fair Play the exchange rates will be tailored for each club’s financial year. Up until
0% to -50% 13x 2010, including the 2007 figures in this chart, the year-end exchange rate was used, but from financial year 2011
the average exchange rate is used. Where local currency has been pegged or converted to the € currency during the
<-50% 0x period the conversion rate has been used. Average, rather than aggregate, club revenue development used for FIN,
NIR & WAL.

77
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 6: How has club football weathered the economic storm (the five-year financial trends)?

Q: 29. How has transfer activity fluctuated

across Europe in the last five years?

In the last five years, transfer spending* of European clubs has been on a
downwards trend. The chart below includes data for estimated transfer spend
over recent years split between the summer and winter transfer windows and
covering the 24 most active top-divisions in Europe. A thorough five-year review
of transfer activity requires us to look back over an extended period because
financial results for the five-year period are heavily impacted by transfer
spending that preceded this period, due to the fact that transfer costs are spread
over the period of the transfer contract. For the sake of completeness, activity
in transfer periods that extend beyond that covered in the financial reports of
2011 have also been included up to the summer 2012 transfer window.
For the avoidance of doubt the summer and winter analysis has been presented
on the basis of seasons rather than calendar years, hence 2011/12 refers to the
summer 2011 and January 2012 transfer windows.
Over the eight seasons analysed, covering eight summer and winter transfer
windows, the winter transfer spend was equivalent to 18% of total transfer
activity whilst the summer transfer spend accounted for 82% of spend.

78
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Top-division estimated transfer spend Answer 29

3,500
Transfer spending peaked in the summers of 2007 and 2008 at just
3,000 over €2.5bn, with overall transfer spending (summer and winter)
approximately €500m lower in the last three and a half seasons.
2,500 The FY2008 and FY2009 financial results benefitted significantly from
these transfer activity trends, with low transfer costs (legacy of relatively
2,000 low transfer spend 2004-2006) and high transfer profits (triggered by
€m

relatively high transfers in 2007 and 2008). The same timing difference
1,500
effect has negatively affected club financial results in FY2010 and
1,000
FY2011, with lower profits (slowdown in transfer level 2009-2011) and
19% 24%
21% 16% 15% higher costs (legacy of relatively high spend 2007-2008). It remains to be
20% 21% 11%
500 seen how the transfer activity as represented by the last grey (January
2012) and yellow dots (summer 2012) will be reflected in FY2012 and/
€m 0 315 336 412 591 472 296 613 393 or FY2013, which will be the first periods subject to financial fair play
2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 break-even assessment.
Summer & winter transfer spend

Summer transfer spend

Winter transfer spend

* Transfer spend and sales are estimated as the data is not based on data from financial statements as elsewhere
in this report. Transfer values in this analysis are as provided per UEFA partner www.transfermarkt.de and include
estimates where transfer values are not disclosed by clubs. Transfer values include assessment of most likely
contingent payments and transfer sales may include some amounts payable to third parties. Transfer spend is lower
than as reported in financial statements as the financial statements normally also include agent and other costs
associated with the transfer cost. The transfer season data analysed corresponds with the most common sporting
season (i.e. 2010/11 is summer 2010 and January 2011) – this will therefore not correspond exactly with the financial
season for clubs with January to December financial periods. Selected transfers in major leagues sanity checked by
UEFA against known values and aggregated figures deemed accurate to +/-5%, enabling an answer to the Q&A to
be reached.

79
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 6: How has club football weathered the economic storm (the five-year financial trends)?

Q: 30. What has happened to wages and transfer costs over the last five years?

The last five years have seen a rapid and well documented increase in wages, Evolution of Europe-wide top-division combined
with overall employee costs increasing by 38% between FY2007 and FY2011. employee costs FY2007-FY2011 (€m)
As a result, the key cost ratio of wages to revenue has increased from 59%
71% CAGR 9.1%
to 65%, and the key ratio impacting on bottom-line results, the combined 10,000
71%
employee and net transfer costs to revenue ratio, has increased from 62% to
71% during this period. What this means is that the previously documented 9,000 €817m
€2.6bn revenue increases between FY2007 and FY2011 have not been enough 68% €933m
to cover the €2.8bn increase in combined employee and transfer costs, with a 8,000 65%
€200m shortfall, and this is before adding the €1bn increase in other operating €457m
and financing costs during the period. 62%
7,000 €337m

€436m
6,000
€8,570m
€8,160m Combined net costs
as % of revenue
5,000 €7,483m
€7,061m Net transfer costs
€6,193m Employee costs
4,000
Answer 30
Employee costs
as % of revenue
3,000 65%
64%
64%
While European clubs have successfully increased their revenues by 62%
2,000 59%
24%, the cost base of football clubs has increased at a faster rate, with
employee and net transfer costs, in particular growing fast. Wages have
increased by 38% from €6.2bn to almost €8.6bn, and if we combine 1,000
the net costs of wages and transfers, then the increase in these costs
was 43%. 0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

80
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Estimated transfer spend as % of wages: Estimated transfer sales as % of wages:

5 years 2006/07 to 2010/11 5 years 2006/07 to 2010/11

60% 150%
54% 131%
51%
45% 47% 120%
106%
40% 41% 41% 40%
40%
36%
90%
31% 32%
72%
27% 27% 67%
24% 24%
22% 60%
20%20% 48%
20% 18%
16% 17%17% 41%
27% 30% 31%31% 34%34% 29% 28%
10% 11% 30% 23% 24%24% 26%27%27%
6% 7% 17% 18% 19%
12% 14% 16%

0% 0%
SWE
NOR
AUT
SUI
ISR
POL
DEN
CZE
BEL
SCO
CRO
SRB
GRE
GER
NED
FRA
TUR
POR
RUS
ITA
ENG
ESP
UKR
ROU
Average*
Big 5 Avg*

AUT
TUR
GRE
ISR
NOR
GER
POL
SCO
RUS
SUI
ENG
SWE
DEN
ESP
ITA
BEL
FRA
UKR
NED
ROU
CZE
POR
CRO
SRB
Average*
Big 5 Avg*
Transfer activity was analysed in detail in last year’s benchmarking report (chapter 7, pages fees are paid to/for home-grown players) and the player profile of club signings (experienced
90-107), in particular the methods and timing of how clubs account for transfers, and we are players nearing the end of their career often warrant high wages and lower transfer fees).
not repeating this level of detail in this year’s report. The charts above are simple comparisons The chart includes estimated figures, so should be considered a benchmark only, but clearly
of estimated transfer spending and transfer sales* by clubs in the 24 top-divisions leagues, demonstrates that Swedish, Norwegian, Austrian and Swiss clubs spend on average, much
which are most active in terms of transfer activity. Both charts plot transfer activity relative less of their player** budget on transfer fees (transfer spend 6-11% of wages) compared
to “wages” (employee costs) reported in 1,800+ financial statements for the five-year period with the average (36%). Among the most active, clubs from Germany bought players with
from FY2007 to FY2011. transfer fees equivalent to 27% of wages over the five-year period, compared with clubs
from Spain, England, Italy and Russia (41-47%).
This illustrates, firstly, the relative size of transfer spending against the largest single cost
category of club football (player and non-player wages and associated costs), and secondly, The estimated transfer sales to wages chart also highlights some key differences between
the relative importance of transfer activity for clubs across different leagues. While transfer clubs across Europe. The fact that transfer fees on the sale of player registrations
sales could also be plotted against revenue, we have used wages in both cases, to allow (“transfer sales”) exceeded the total amount of wages paid during the five-year period by
transfer spend to be compared with transfer sales. Serbian and Croatian clubs clearly underlines the financial importance of transfer activity
for these clubs. Simple analysis of wage to turnover ratios, which by common definition,
The estimated transfer spend chart highlights that, with the exception of Romania and
omits transfer incomes, could therefore be misleading when analysing many of these clubs.
Ukraine, transfer spending during the period has been less than half the spending on wages.
Five-year data for Portuguese clubs shows a slightly lower transfer sales to wages level of
The weighted average transfer spend across the 24 leagues was 36% of wages, which means
72%, but is nonetheless much higher than the average of 29% and, hence, demonstrates
wages were almost three times the transfer spend. This is no doubt a significant level, but
the importance of transfer activity within their financial strategy. The Czech and Dutch
provides some perspective, given that, these days, 24-hour rolling news is common during
clubs, are on aggregate also clearly net sellers, with transfer sales significantly higher than
transfer window periods.
transfer spend.
A number of factors influence the relative transfer activity to wage spend between countries,
including the proportion of home-grown players used within leagues (wages but not transfer
* The term “Spend” is used to differentiate transfer data on all transfers between summer 2006 and January 2011 sourced from the website, from transfer “costs”, which are disclosed within financial statements and spread over time. Most new players, later have their player
registrations resold and so transfer signings are often considered investments rather than costs. ** The term “Player budget” is used to aid understanding, although it is technically not accurate as the charts include “wages” and associated costs for all employees. UEFA’s analysis of
disclosed employee costs from 190 representative clubs indicates that, on average 83% of “employee costs” are players and 17% for management and other staff (see FY2010 benchmarking report, page 69).

81
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 Chapter 6: How has club football weathered the economic storm (the five-year financial trends)?

Q: 31. Is it just the ‘wealthy’ clubs making ever larger losses?

The first column chart indicates the cumulative story of the five-year period, with net
European top-division club losses increasing every year due to escalating costs and particularly
discretionary spending on wages and transfers. Indeed, if we look at the financial years
2008–2010, almost €1bn was added to the top-division net losses. Over this period, the net
loss margin increased from 5.8% to 12.7% of revenues, which, in simple terms, means that
European clubs on aggregate spent roughly €9 for every €8 of revenue in 2010 and 2011.

Top-division net losses FY2007-FY2011

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

€0 0.0%

-€200
-2.0%
-€400

Net loss margin as % revenue

-€600 -4.0%
Cumulative losses €m

-€800
-6.0%
-€1,000
€0.6bn €0.6bn
-8.0%
-€1,200
5.8% 5.6%
-€1,400 -10.0%

-€1,600 €1.2bn
-12.0%
-€1,800 9.9%

-€2,000 €1.6bn €1.7bn -14.0%

12.8% 12.7%

* The total net losses figure in the chart with club groupings differs slightly from the aggregate Europe-wide net loss figures indicated elsewhere in report as these aggregate figures include UEFA-simulated data for missing clubs.

82
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

2008 2009 2010 2011

€600m
Most people with an interest in football will be aware of some of the significant losses reported by €225m
certain high-profile clubs in recent years. From the last four years of benchmarking reports, it is also €300m €223m €165m €235m
apparent that approximately a quarter of European top-division clubs have reported “significant” €344m
€217m €230m €199m
losses from spending €6 for every €5 of revenue. However, this anecdotal and statistical evidence does €m
not fully explain the trend in club losses. -€289m
-€300m -€548m -€633m
By tracking the reported financial results of more than 600 clubs each year for the last four years -€711m
-€303m
and segmenting clubs according to their financial results from the largest losses to the largest profits -€600m -€619m
(clubs reporting ten highest losses; the next 20 loss-making clubs; other loss-making clubs; the ten -€376m
most profitable clubs, and; other clubs reporting profits) we are able to see clearly that the increased -€900m -€596m
-€511m -€621m
losses over recent years are coming from all categories of clubs. While the cumulative result of the ten -€1,123m -€638m
largest loss-making clubs has increased by €260m, supporting the anecdotal evidence documented -€1,200m
in media coverage, the losses of the next 20 clubs have more than doubled, increasing by more than
-€1,500m -€790m
€300m, with the remaining loss-making clubs following suit. -€1,617m
-€1,676m -€856m
In other words, the cost pressure, in particular the wage pressure, has taken its toll on all categories -€1,800m
of club, from the “top-end spenders” all the way down. Even the cumulative profits (often transfer-
generated) of profit-making clubs have decreased from €569m in FY2008 to €434m in FY2011*. -€2,100m
Ten largest profits Other profit-making clubs Other loss-making clubs
11th-30th largest losses Ten largest losses Total net losses

Answer 31
Whilst commercial and broadcast income growth have bolstered clubs
during the last five years, an inability to control costs in a competitive
environment has led to severe inflation of club losses during the period.
Aggregate losses have increased by over €1bn and analysis shows that
these increased losses are not just at the “top-end” of Champions
League clubs with the top international stars, but reported by all
club segments.

83
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 7: Financial profile of European club football: revenues

84
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

7
Financial profile of European club football: revenues
How much and what types of revenue did European clubs report last year?

What has been the revenue trend from year to year?

How do revenues and revenue streams vary across Europe?

How are the largest clubs spread across Europe?

85
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 7: Financial profile of European club football: revenues

Q: 32. How much and what types of revenue did European clubs report last year?

As in previous reports, we principally refer to “revenue”, to do so previously under standard financial reporting
€4.8bn €3.3bn €2.5bn €2.5bn which is sometimes also known as “income from operating requirements, as the commercial contract level and the
activities” or “turnover”*. Profits/income from transfers is distinction between sponsorship and commercial revenue in
usually a large and fluctuating figure and is not included particular is not always clear**, we nonetheless believe the
but analysed separately as net transfer activity within revenue stream requirement is an important step towards
the profitability analysis. Financial income, divestment increased transparency in football clubs.
and tax income are also excluded and included within the
€13.2bn In FY2011, broadcast revenue accounted for 37% of the
profitability analysis. “Income/revenue” should also not be
estimated €13,169m total Europe-wide top-division revenue,
confused with the term “budget”, commonly used in eastern
with advertising and sponsorship accounting for 25%, gate
Europe to mean the financial resources available to a club,
receipts 19% and commercial and other revenue 19%.
including any non-committed owner contributions.
The aggregate Europe-wide broadcast revenue figure
The revision of the UEFA Club Licensing Regulations three
37% 25% 19% 19% somewhat masks, however, the picture at national level, with
years ago, allowed UEFA to introduce certain minimum
the five largest revenue leagues (top five) each reporting
disclosure standards in financial reporting to be met by
€500m+ of broadcast revenue and only one other league
all clubs applying for a licence. This has increased the
Broadcasting Gate receipts (Turkey) reporting more than €100m+ of revenues from this
potential to make better and more reliable comparisons
Advertising & sponsorship Commercial & other income source. Indeed, excluding these six leagues, the proportion
between clubs within a country and also between countries.
of broadcast revenue was only 13% in FY2011.
In particular, clubs are required to split revenue into different
revenue streams, providing an indication of the importance The importance of different revenue streams differs
of different revenue types. Most clubs were not required significantly between countries, as shown later in this report.

Answer 32
Between them, the 734 top division clubs in Europe are estimated*** to have generated just under €13.2bn in
revenue in FY2011, excluding transfers. Clubs in the next two divisions below (which generally do not undergo
UEFA licensing and are not considered in this report) are estimated – using a sample of club financial statements
and attendance data – to have generated a further €2.8–3.0bn.

*Revenue is equivalent to all income less the following investing/divesting, financing and tax gains: net profits or income on transfer exceptional revenue and unclassified revenue. The split between commercial and sponsorship is not always clearly defined by some
dealings, net gains or income on the sale of other assets, net gains or income on the sale of financial investments, gross or net financial English, Spanish and Italian clubs, so the revenue streams should be considered as indicative only. Although disclosure is generally
interest and other financial income, net gains or income from non operating activities, tax income or credits. These items are sometimes consistent from year to year, there may have been some improvements in reporting that have influenced the results.
presented grouped together with costs and losses, but also sometimes presented separately; hence, for comparability reasons, revenue is *** “Estimated” because extrapolations used for the 7% of top division clubs not surveyed (always lower-ranked clubs which did not
preferable to the wider definition of income used by some clubs and reports. apply for a UEFA licence). Estimate accurate to +/-0.5% as contains 99% actual and 1% extrapolated data. Extrapolations based on
** Commercial revenue includes conferencing and merchandising, while other revenue includes donations, grants, solidarity payments, average club revenue outside largest four revenue clubs and manual adjustments where deemed necessary.

86
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Q: 33. What has been the revenue trend from year to year?
“Like-for-like” growth rate and “€ growth rate”: Total revenue increased by 3.0%, going
Arrows represent growth rate using historic € rates while numbers represent
the growth rate using € rates restated to 2011 rates Advertising and sponsorship revenues increased in 28 and
up in 32 top divisions (30 in the previous decreased in 24 top divisions. Strong growth of more than 10%
“€ growth rate” uses the original exchange rates for each period, Number of countries
year) and down in 21. In local currency was reported in 20 countries, including England, where sponsorship
which can fluctuate, considerably in many cases between FY2007 terms, the increase was slightly higher, 32 21 28 18 28 24 24 27 22 30 rights remain particularly buoyant. Overall, the Europe-wide
and FY2011. This provides a better comparison of how relative at 5.1%. Among the 20 wealthiest growth trend was consistent with previous years.
spending has compared between countries, as their cross-border leagues, only Germany* and the two
Europe-wide aggregate
UEFA EURO 2012 host nations, Ukraine
spending power is influenced by the exchange rate at the time. As documented in the five-year review, European gate receipts
and Poland, reported revenue increases
This is the growth rate we use in the report this year unless stated of more than 10%. See next Q&A for
continue to be under pressure, with a reduction of 2.7% in €
otherwise since club financial results will not be readjusted in the terms (0.9% reduction in local currency terms). For a second year
country by country trend.
in a row, gate receipts fell in more countries than they rose.
break-even assessment to reflect currency rate changes. Increases of more than 10% year-on-year were recorded in
As broadcast income in the top five Russia, Ukraine, Poland and Romania (the last three helped by
“Like-for-like” means restating FY2010 comparison figures leagues is either centralised or new stadiums built for hosting UEFA competitions).
with the FY2011 € local currency rate. This provides a better concentrated in a few clubs, it tends to 3.0% 6.9% 4.2% 0.6%
understanding of each country’s trend in its local currency. move in large steps every 2–4 years -2.7%
Commercial and other revenues** increased 0.6% in € terms. As
rather than fluctuate like the other
noted in previous reports, these revenues tend to fluctuate the most
Answer 33 revenue streams. Despite little increase
in the UEFA broadcast revenues due to
5.1% 9.3% 6.1% -0.9% 2.7% within and between divisions, since much of the other revenue is in
short-term discretionary donations. The year-on-year comparison
FY2010 and FY2011 being mid-cycle,
Total revenue Gate receipts was heavily effected by the winding down of Arsenal property
there was still an increase of 6.9%,
Total Europe-wide top-division club revenue continued to Broadcasting Commercial income from the development of their old stadium.
boosted by double digit increases from
grow, but at a slower rate than in recent years, increasing clubs in England, Italy, Turkey and Advertising & sponsorship & other income Indeed, excluding this factor would lead to a 6.9% increase in this
revenue stream. Increases in German* commercial and other
the Netherlands.
by an estimated 3.0% from €12.8bn* in FY2010 to €13.2bn operating revenues were the single biggest driver of commercial
in FY2011, once again outpacing economic growth In some cases the number of increasing and decreasing trends totals to less than 53 countries. and other income growth.
This is because there are either zero revenues or no revenues disclosed.
(eurozone 1.8%). Once again, the economic conditions
were most clearly present in club gate receipt revenues,
which decreased in € terms by 2.7% between FY2010
and FY2011.

* The German revenue increase was partly due to the expansion of the financial reporting perimeter of some German clubs between **Commercial revenues include conferencing and merchandising as well as €215m of UEFA competition prize money, while other
FY2010 and FY2011, which in particular, brought the club share of some stadium operating companies within the reporting perimeter revenue includes donations, grants, solidarity payments, exceptional revenue and unclassified revenue. The split between commercial and
and increased revenues and costs accordingly (bottom-line profits were not affected as the share of net profits/losses was already sponsorship is not always clearly defined in some English, Spanish and Italian clubs. English clubs typically allocate all revenue to match
reflected in results in FY2010. day (gate receipts), broadcasting or sponsorship.

87
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 7: Financial profile of European club football: revenues

Q: 34. How do revenues and revenue steams vary across Europe?

A number of factors dictate a club’s ability to 135 134 2.8 2.7

generate revenue. For clubs from the top five and
2.5 2.5
“large” divisions, the split of central revenues 120 2.4
(broadcast, sponsorship), participation in UEFA

Estimated* club average revenue FY2011 (€m)

competitions, stadium ownership, and ability to 2.0 2.0
connect with the fan base are key factors. For “small” 105 101
and “micro” divisions, other factors are often more
1.6 1.5
relevant, including whether the main sponsor 90 1.4
85
supports the club financially through sponsorship 81
contracts or by injecting capital into the club. 1.2
75 1.0 1.0
The end result is the same (e.g. wages are covered), 0.9
0.8 0.8
but sponsorship contracts are included as revenue 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6
while capital injections are not. In addition, for 60 57 0.6 0.5
0.5 0.4 0.4
consistency purposes, income or profits from 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3
Like-for-like country trend 0.3 0.3
0.2 0.1
transfers are not included in revenue but analysed 45
FY2010-FY2011 in average club 0.1 0.1
40 revenues
separately net of transfer costs. We will see later 0.0
that these amounts can be relatively large, especially

SVK
CRO
AZE
HUN
SVN
FIN
SRB
IRL
BUL
MDA
NIR
LIE
ISL
LVA
LUX
GEO
BIH
MKD
LTU
FRO
WAL
MLT
ARM
EST
MNE
ALB
AND
SMR
30
for medium-sized clubs. Differing spending power 25 24
(national economy) also influences commercial and 11 19 18
16 15 15 14
15 18 12 11 11
gate revenues. 8 6
5 5 4 4 4 4
3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
ENG
GER
ESP
ITA
FRA
RUS
TUR
NED
POR
UKR
SCO
AUT
SUI
BEL
DEN
GRE
NOR
SWE
POL
ROU
KAZ
ISR
CYP
CZE
BLR
SVK
CRO
AZE
HUN
SVN
FIN
SRB
IRL
BUL
MDA
NIR
LIE
ISL
LVA
LUX
GEO
BIH
MKD
LTU
FRO
WAL
MLT
ARM
EST
MNE
ALB
AND
SMR
Like-for-like country trend
FY2010-FY2011 in average club revenues 10
FY2010 % comparison trend
- 10 3 3 5 3 14 3 9 15 9 5 3 6 13 14 5 15 20 8 19 6 32 2 59 19 25132 24 22 1 22 13 25 24 6 41 7 0 15 83 6 38 2 7 15 32 24 3 60 23 16 6

14
11
18

Revenue increase 10%+

Revenue increase 0 - 10%
10
Revenue decrease 0 - 10%
Revenue decrease 10%+

14

* “Estimated” because extrapolations used for some countries for clubs not surveyed (always lower-ranked clubs which did not apply for a UEFA licence). Extrapolations based on average club income
outside the top four income clubs and manual adjustments where deemed necessary. Figures estimated for Albania and Montenegro accurate to +/-20% due to small sample size of less than half of
top division clubs and accurate to +/-10% for Serbia (9 of 16), Portugal (5 of 16) and Turkey (14 of 18).
Revenue increase 10%+
Revenue increase 0 - 10%
88 Revenue decrease 0 - 10%
Revenue decrease 10%+ HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

The revenue stream chart sets out the proportion of aggregate club revenues generated
in each country by revenue type. For the first time in a benchmarking report, we have been
able to separate out the UEFA competition prize and solidarity money from the broadcasting
or commercial revenue streams so that the remaining broadcasting % refers entirely to
Revenue streams by country FY2011 domestic competitions.
with UEFA prize money identified separately
Domestic broadcasting (mainly TV) contracts generated just under 50% of revenue for Italian
100%
clubs and more than 40% for French, English and Turkish clubs in FY2011. Elsewhere, the
proportion of aggregate club revenues from domestic broadcasting was less than a third but still
90% considerable (more than 20%) for Spanish, Polish, Romanian, German clubs, but less than 10%
80% for clubs in 35 top divisions.
70% Even at first glance, the chart clearly demonstrates the wide variety of revenue models between
clubs in different countries. On the one hand, there are a number of countries where clubs
60%
generate about two-thirds of their revenues from broadcasting and matchday receipts from
50% domestic and UEFA competitions (mauve, purple and light blue) and one third from sponsor,
40% commercial and other revenue types, namely English, Spanish, Italian, Greek, Scottish, Turkish,
French and Cypriot clubs.
30%
At the other end of the scale there are many countries (approximately half) where sponsorship,
20%
commercial and other revenues, including donations and subsidies (grey and dark blue), make up
10% two-thirds or more of total club revenues and these include most of the east European countries
0%
and many of the countries with lower club revenues.
ITA
FRA
ENG
TUR
ESP
POL
ROU
GER
GRE
BEL
DEN
HUN
SWE
POR
SCO
NOR
CYP
BUL
ISR
NED
AUT
ISL
CZE
RUS
SUI
SVK
CRO
IRL
FIN
SRB
UKR
LIE
SVN
MLT
LTU
NIR
EST
WAL
KAZ
ALB
AND
ARM
AZE
BIH
BLR
FRO
GEO
LUX
LVA
MDA
MKD
MNE
SMR
In the middle, there is a third group of countries, where revenues are balanced between these
two general revenue groups. These include some countries which received a larger relative
Broadcasting % UEFA prize % Gate receipt % Sponsorship % Commercial & other % proportion of revenue from UEFA prize money, including Czech, Slovakian, Croatian, Maltese,
Andorran and Albanian clubs) and other countries (typically wealthy), including German, Belgian,
Swiss and Dutch clubs, where revenues are balanced by type.

Answer 34
Average club revenue varied from €134m in England to €100,000 in San Marino,
illustrating the differences across European top-division football, with the combined
revenues of the 38 English and German clubs exceeding the combined revenues of all
636 clubs from outside the traditional largest five leagues.
Revenue streams also differ considerably across Europe with TV markets and
gate receipts in particular varying considerably in size and relative importance
between countries.

89
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 7: Financial profile of European club football: revenues

UEFA club competition revenue* as % of total top-division revenues in each country

The map on this page expands on the revenue Percentage of total revenue from UEFA
stream analysis by combining the UEFA competition club competitions 2010/11 as a
prize and solidarity money (centrally paid by UEFA proportion of total division revenues
and identified in the column chart) with gate
> 50% 1x
receipts from UEFA competition matches (collected
directly by clubs), and compares this revenue to 30% to 50% 5x
the aggregate total revenues reported by all clubs
in each top division during the FY2011. This is the 25% to 30% 3x
same basis as used during chapter three of this
report but this time we analyse UEFA competition 20% to 25% 5x
revenue against total league revenues (including
15% to 20% 7x
clubs not participating in UEFA club competitions
during FY2011). 10% to 15% 11x
Relative to overall club revenues the map highlights
< 10% 20x
that UEFA match revenue contributed less that
10% of total revenue in 20 leagues and between
10% and 20% in a further 18 leagues. The highest
proportion of revenue (purple shades) from UEFA
matches was reported in the lower revenue leagues
with UEFA match revenue contributing over half
the total revenues in Andorra. High percentages are
also reported in some eastern European countries.
We would anticipate that these percentage
contributions from UEFA matches will fluctuate
from year to year depending on the sporting success
of participating clubs.

* The UEFA analysis includes 211 clubs that reported UEFA prize money revenue of €1,007m during the FY2011 and includes 85 clubs that club’s specific financial reporting period, was calculated, and divided by the number of competitive home matches played in total during
reported financial figures that reflected all or part of a UEFA competition group stage and/or UCL play-off participation. In some cases, the financial period. This ratio was then applied on a straight line basis, to the total gate receipts reported in the financial statements, to
the prize and solidarity revenue splits were not provided in the financial statements but identified by UEFA during subsequent analysis. obtain a value of gate receipts from UEFA matches. Clearly this provides a rough estimation since some individual clubs have a higher or
For clubs with a summer financial year end, the revenue is from the UEFA competition season 2010/11. For most of the clubs with 31 lower stadium occupancy for UEFA versus domestic matches and higher or lower average ticket price for UEFA versus domestic matches,
December year ends this will be UEFA revenue from the qualifying and group stages of the UEFA competition season 2011/12, but for some clubs may report gate receipt revenue from pre-season tours within gate receipts and not commercial revenues, and some clubs
some clubs with a calendar financial year that reached the knock-out stages of the 2010/11 competitions the revenue will include part may sell UEFA matches packaged together with domestic matches. However from observing ticket prices and attendances for both UEFA
of the 2010/11 competition distributions and potentially part of both competition seasons. The combined UEFA competition revenue and domestic matches this approach is, by and large, considered to provide a good simulation basis for benchmarking purposes.The map
including gate receipts from UEFA matches is an estimate only for the 45% of clubs which did not separate out gate receipts from UEFA threshold analysis sums to 52, not 53 national associations, as data for San Marino was not readily available.
and domestic matches. The simulation has the following basis: The number of home matches played in UEFA competition during each

90
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Q: 35. How are the largest clubs spread across Europe?

20

Spread clubs FY2011

16

77; 11%
153; 21%

12
Number of clubs

208; 28%

146; 20%

150; 20%

€50m+
€5m - €50m
€1.35m - €5m
0 €350k - €1,350k
ENG
GER
ITA
FRA
ESP
RUS
NED
POR
SCO
TUR
UKR
AUT
GRE
NOR
BEL
DEN
SWE
POL
ROU
SUI
CYP
KAZ
CZE
ISR
AZE
SRB
SVK
BLR
CRO
HUN
MDA
FIN
SVN
BUL
IRL
LVA
NIR
BIH
GEO
LIE
LTU
LUX
MKD
ISL
FRO
WAL
EST
MLT
ALB
ARM
MNE
SMR
AND
<€350k

€50m+ €5m-€50m €1.35m-€5m €350k-€1,350k <€350k

The number of clubs reporting revenues of more than €50m increased from 73 in FY2010 to 77 in FY2011. Although the largest clubs in Europe remain concentrated in the top
five divisions, with 60 of the 77 clubs classified as “top” coming from England (20), Germany (14), Italy (11), Spain (8) and France (7), the number of clubs from outside these top
five divisions reporting revenues of more than €50m has continued to increase from 16 to 17 from 8 different countries. Looking at the club by club figures for three years
(FY2009–FY2011), there is some clear consistency as to the make-up of this top group, with 57 clubs reporting revenues of more than €50m in all three years.

There were an estimated* 153 clubs from 26 countries across Europe reporting revenues of less than €350,000 in FY2011. This peer group represents 21% of all European
top-division clubs. Clubs in this peer group are usually semi-professional, although some from less developed economies are fully professional. There are 15 countries where the
majority of top division clubs were “micro”.

There were 208 clubs (207 in FY2010) from 30 countries (31 in FY2010) across Europe reporting revenues of between €5m and €50m in FY2011. This group represents 28% of all
European top-division clubs. Due to the new TV deal and the relatively wide distribution of this money between clubs, all English top division clubs were again in the top peer * Most of the 55 non-reporting clubs are those that finished lower down in
group and, therefore, none in the “large” group. the domestic rankings and were relegated. The charts above are a UEFA best
estimate indicating a full sample of 734 clubs split between peer groups.

91
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 8: Financial profile of European club football: costs and profitability

92
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

8
Financial profile of European club football: costs and profitability
What did clubs spend their money on and how much did this increase?

How much did clubs spend on wages and player salaries?

How do spending levels vary between clubs in each league?

What operating profits are clubs generating?

What was the impact of transfer activity on FY2011 results?

What proportion of clubs are loss-making?

93
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 8: Financial profile of European club football: costs and profitability

Q: 36. What did clubs spend their money on and how much did this increase?

Despite improvements generated by club licensing The analysis in this report therefore concentrates Answer 36
disclosure requirements, the presentation of on the more comparable high-level split that can
operating expenses varies enormously between be made by all clubs between employee costs, other
different countries and legal forms, making operating expenses, specific non-operating costs Together, the 734 top-division clubs in Europe are estimated* to have
comparisons difficult. It is often up to the clubs to and net transfer activity. incurred €14.8bn in expenses in FY2011, amounting to 113% of the
choose how to split operating expenses (sales and €13.2bn income and representing a 2.9% increase over FY2010 spending
marketing, youth football, fixed stadium costs, levels. This year on year increase in costs was driven by a 5% increase
variable matchday costs, training costs, etc.) and in employee costs, although slowly rising operating costs (0.6%) and a
whether to split personnel costs by type (e.g. fixed €120m reduction in net transfer costs contributed to the most modest
salary, bonus, benefits in kind) and by category cost increase in recent years.
of employee (e.g. player, coach, administrative
staff, director). The particular significance of employee costs for European club football
is again highlighted, absorbing 65% of all club revenues plus another
6% in net transfer costs.
Employee costs of €8,570m include all types of payments (salaries, bonuses, Operating expenses of €4,986m are not split down further in a consistent way
benefits, social taxes, pensions, etc.) and cover all employees (players, technical €8.6bn €0.8bn €5.0bn €0.5bn between countries or, in most cases, between clubs in those countries.
staff, administrative staff, etc.). These expenses include cost of materials, matchday expenses, sales and
In most countries, the financial reporting requirements do not require marketing, administration, write-down of goodwill, depreciation and rent of
employee costs to be further broken down. Given their significance (65% facilities, and youth football.
revenue) this would surely be useful. From the 433 clubs that provided a split, A Europe-wide detailed breakdown cannot be given with much certainty since
the weighted ratio was 81% player to 19% other staff costs. From those that a split of almost half of operating costs is not disclosed. A best estimate where
paid and disclosed variable payments, the split was 22% variable to 78% fixed €14.8bn costs have been split is that direct allocations to youth football represented 4%
player wages. of revenue (8% for smaller clubs) and fixed assets, property expenses and rent
was equivalent to 5% of revenue.
Net transfer costs of €817m (€933m in FY2010) include €2,138m amortisation
of past transfers (€2,195m in FY2010) and €101m write-down of transfer values Non-operating expenses of €462m were principally net finance costs
(€57m in FY2010), less net profits on sale of player registrations during the year of (equivalent to 3.2% of revenue). Other items including net gains on sale
€1,422m (€1,319m in FY2010). 65% 6% 38% 4%
of non-player assets, non-operating gains or losses and tax gains or losses
were less than €50m combined.

113% Revenue
Employee costs Operating expenses
Net transfer costs Non-operating expenses

94
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

* “Estimated” because extrapolations used for the 7% of top division clubs not surveyed (always lower-ranked clubs
which did not apply for a UEFA licence). Estimate accurate to +/-0.5% as contains 99% actual and 1% extrapolated
data. Extrapolations based on average club income outside largest four income clubs and manual adjustments where
deemed necessary.

95
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 8: Financial profile of European club football: costs and profitability

Q: 37. How much did clubs spend on wages and player salaries?
100%+
100%+

99%
97%
93%

100%
The charts show the percentage of reported
82%
81%
80%

revenues paid out as employee costs, in total for

77%
76%
75%
73%
72%
72%

80% each division (top column chart), clubs by division

71%
70%
69%
68%
68%
67%
67%
67%
66%

65%
65%
64%
64%
(bottom column chart), club by club across Europe

63%

63%
63%
63%
62%
61%
60%
60%
59%
58%
(pie chart) and the year-on-year trend across

57%
55%
55%
55%
54%
54%
52%
52%
60%

51%
clubs. Given the significance of employee costs for

49%
48%
45%
football clubs, in particular player salaries, the ratio

40%
40%
37%
is regularly used as a key performance indicator by
40%

31%
clubs. The amount paid to players in salaries is usually

29%
28%
not available (see opposite page) and, hence, tables
presented in the media from time to time showing
20%
“the highest earners” are speculative estimates and
to be taken with a pinch of salt. Generally, all direct

0%
0%
employee (player, technical and administrative
staff) costs incurred by the employer are disclosed
SRB
BUL
GEO
MNE
GRE
WAL
POL
CRO
CYP
ALB
RUS
SUI
ROU
TUR
ITA
FRA
AND
ENG
ISR
ISL
KAZ
LUX
BEL
FIN
NED
BIH
LIE
SVN
SCO
ESP
DEN
CZE
AUT
POR
HUN
UKR
IRL
SWE
MDA*
SVK
LVA
GER
NOR
BLR
MKD
FRO
MLT
NIR
LTU
EST
ARM
AZE*
SMR
Average*
Median*
Aggregate
together and this is the value used below.

20

16

12
* The MDA ratio has been adjusted to exclude a telecoms business. The AZE
ratio is shaded grey as the figures are heavily affected by a loan conversion
8 and grossed up revenues which cannot be accurately adjusted for.
As the ratio is purely an indicator and not an exact science, there is no
standard definition of what a high employee costs ratio is. For the club
4 by club comparison, we have taken 70%+ as a high ratio. The club by club
figures represent the full sample of 679 clubs from all 53 countries, while
the year on year trend represents a sample of 549 clubs where both years
0 personnel cost data is available.
SRB
BUL
GEO
MNE
GRE
WAL
POL
CRO
CYP
ALB
RUS
SUI
ROU
TUR
ITA
FRA
AND
ENG
ISR
ISL
KAZ
LUX
BEL
FIN
NED
BIH
LIE
SVN
SCO
ESP
DEN
CZE
AUT
POR
HUN
UKR
IRL
SWE
MDA*
SVK
LVA
GER
NOR
BLR
MKD
FRO
MLT
NIR
LTU
EST
ARM
AZE*
SMR
>100% 80% - 100% 70% - 80% 60% - 70% 50% - 60% 30% - 50% <30%

96
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

The scatter charts illustrate the split between player costs (wages, salaries,
Employee cost ratio Player costs as % overall employee costs social charges including pensions) and the total employee costs including
FY2011 all clubs (clubs with revenue between €50m & €150m) other personnel (players, coaches and technical staff, directors, support and

Player costs as % of total personnel costs

100% administrative staff) for a representative sample** of 44 “top” clubs and 159
“large” clubs. The relative cost of playing versus non-playing staff depends
70 88
90% not just on the player salary policy but on many other things too, including
whether the club operates its own stadium, whether the club is a multi-sports
126 81 80% club, whether the club operates other non-core activities, and whether its
commercial activities are in-house or outsourced. While this leads naturally to
70% some variation in player cost % for clubs of all sizes, the average for “top”
clubs of 80% is higher than the 75% for “large” and “medium” clubs and 73%
88 60% for “small” or “micro” clubs. This tendency is also reflected in the upwards
122 Average**: 80% sloping regression lines within each peer group. Intuitively, all other factors
50% being equal, the higher proportion of player costs for larger clubs would be due
104
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 to the closer link between player salaries and club revenues than non-player
Club revenues (€m) salaries and club revenues. The weighted average share of player costs to total
personnel costs was 81%.

>100% 80% - 100% 70% - 80% Answer 37

60% - 70% 50% - 60% 30% - 50% Player costs as % overall employee costs
<30% (clubs with revenue between €5m & €50m)
Player costs as % of total personnel costs

The overall share of revenue spent on wages and social costs remained
100%
consistent at 65%. On a league by league basis, the trends were mixed,
with the number of divisions with a ratio of more than 70% decreasing
90%
€ Personnel cost: trend by club FY2010 to FY2011
from 18 in FY2010 to 15 in FY2011, while the number of divisions with
80%
a ratio above 80% increased from 7 in FY2010 to 8 in FY2011. In total,
> +10% 1 to 10% ±1% -1 to -10% < -10% at least 257 individual clubs (254 in FY2010) reported a personnel cost
70%
to income ratio above 70%.
While there was some slowdown in employee cost inflation, the
60% aggregate amount paid still increased by 5%, with over one third of
44%
215 15%
108 3%
16 15%
66 23%
144 Average**: 75%
all top-division clubs (215 clubs) reporting at least a 10% increase in
50%
0 10 20 30 40 50
employee costs and another 108 clubs reporting increases of between
Club revenues (€m) 1% and 10% compared with FY2010.
The majority of countries had a club reporting an employee cost ratio
above 100%, with 88 clubs in total (78 in FY2010) reporting this clearly
**The sample covers clubs from 19 of the 20 “top” or “large” top divisions,
with only English clubs not represented (figures not disclosed in the financial unsustainable level.
statements). In the “top” scatter chart, the largest six clubs, with revenue
>€150m, have been excluded to protect anonymity, but their split ranged The share of total employee costs attributable to players was 81%,
from 71% to 91% and supports the illustrated regression line in the “top”
chart. Average is a simple average of the sample percentages rather than a
indicating that their costs were €6.9bn in FY2011, an increase of €330m
weighted average, which is slightly higher. compared with FY2010.

97
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 8: Financial profile of European club football: costs and profitability

Q: 38. How do spending levels vary between clubs in each league?

The next chart presents wealth differences within

the European top divisions by measuring the spread
of spending within each league, comparing the
average combined** personnel and net transfer
costs of the four biggest spending clubs with the
average combined costs of other clubs in each
20.0x
+20x division***. The colour of the column on the
column chart, indicates the division peer group****.
18.1
Comparing the top four with other clubs’ combined
personnel costs is just one of many measures that can
16.0x
15.1 be used to analyse financial balance, and in the past
we have made similar comparisons using income
or wages. However, we consider the combined
11.6
personnel cost to be the most useful measure of
12.0x
10.6 relative wealth since it is principally in the player
9.7 9.4 and coaching markets (wages and transfer fees)
9.1 9.0 8.7
that clubs compete against each other, hence we
8.0x 7.5
7.1 7.0 6.8
repeated the methodology of the FY2010 report.
6.7
6.1
5.6
4.9 4.9 4.6
4.5 4.3
3.8 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 4.1 * Estonia and Serbia have been restated to zero in the chart as the average
4.0x 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.8
combined employee costs for the non-top four clubs was actually negative in
2.9 2.8 2.6
2.5 2.3 2.3 FY2011 due to successful transfer profits outweighing employee costs.
2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 ** Combined employee costs include all personnel costs (wages, salaries and
social charges) added to the net transfer result reported in the year. This net
transfer result includes amortisation costs on players purchased in recent
0x years, with profit/loss on players sold just in FY2011.
***The classification of top four v non-top four clubs in this case is calculated
LVA
CRO
MKD
UKR
MDA
LTU
GRE
ARM
BUL
SVN
LIE
GEO
BIH
WAL
SCO
ESP
CYP
ITA
SVK
ISR
AUT
ALB
AND
FRA
SUI
NED
CZE
DEN
ROU
HUN
RUS
TUR
BLR
LUX
BEL
ENG
IRL
NIR
GER
SWE
POL
KAZ
NOR
FIN
ISL
MLT
FRO
SRB*
EST*
Average
Median
from the same measure (personnel costs including net transfer costs).
The top four versus other club analysis covers 49 countries – excluded from
this analysis are Montenegro and Portugal (not enough non-top four clubs in
sample) and Azerbaijan and San Marino (comparability issues).
****The ‘division peer group’ refers to the average club revenue within each
top division with peer groups created as follows: >€50m average revenue are
in darkest blue; between €5m and €50m in mid blue; between €1.25m and
€5m in light blue; between €0.35m and €1.25m in the lightest blue shade,
and; average club revenue of <€0.35m in mauve shade.

98
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Answer 38
The spread of each colour across the chart suggests that the overall
financial size of the league is not a significant factor. In FY2011, the top
four spending clubs spent, in about half the European top-divisions,
between double and four times as much as the other clubs’ average
spend. Among the wealthiest leagues, the ratio of relative spend was
again much higher in Spain and Italy (6.7 and 5.6x) compared with
England and Germany (3.1x and 2.8x).

99
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 8: Financial profile of European club football: costs and profitability

Q: 39. What operating profits are clubs generating?

30%

20%

As explained in previous versions of the report, the

10% most relevant profit measures for analysing football
club performance are “operating profit before
0% player trading*” (“football operating profit”) and
“net profit” or “profit before tax”.
-10% In the next Q&A we analyse net profits and net
profit margins, but first we look at “operating
profits”, which exclude transfer activity (depreciation
-20%
and profit/loss on sale), divesting gains and losses,
financing incomes and costs, non-operating items
-30% and tax gains and losses. They indicate the profits
made by the clubs’ core football activities for
ENG
GER
ESP
ITA
FRA
RUS
TUR
NED
POR
UKR
SCO
AUT
SUI
BEL
DEN
GRE
NOR
SWE
POL
ROU
KAZ
ISR
CYP
CZE
BLR
SVK
CRO
AZE
HUN
SVN
FIN
SRB
IRL
BUL
MDA
NIR
LIE
ISL
LVA
LUX
GEO
BIH
MKD
LTU
FRO
WAL
MLT
ARM
EST
MNE
ALB
AND
SMR
Median
Agg**
transfer activity and financing.
The column charts show country by country football
operating profits and losses.
20
For the fourth successive year, England, Spain and
16
Germany reported aggregate operating profits.
A look at the result by number of clubs in the
12 bottom column chart shows that most countries
have a similar profile of clubs, with three or four
8
making significant operating losses (dark red) and a
number reporting operating profits (green).
4

0
ENG
GER
ESP
ITA
FRA
RUS
TUR
NED
POR
UKR
SCO
AUT
SUI
BEL
DEN
GRE
NOR
SWE
POL
ROU
KAZ
ISR
CYP
CZE
BLR
SVK
CRO
AZE
HUN
SVN
FIN
SRB
IRL
BUL
MDA
NIR
LIE
ISL
LVA
LUX
GEO
BIH
MKD
LTU
FRO
WAL
MLT
ARM
EST
MNE
ALB
AND
SMR
* References to statutory operating profit or losses are, nonetheless, often
made and can be extremely misleading since this measure effectively
presents only half the picture, including the cost of transfers (depreciation
>+20% 10% to 20% 0% to 10% 0% to -10% -10% to -20% <-20% and impairment) but not the profits from the sale of players. As an
indication of how statutory operating profit can paint a doomsday scenario,
the combined net statutory losses in FY2011 were just over €2.6bn, including
€2.2bn of net costs arising from transfers but excluding €1.4bn of net profits
from transfers. Therefore, in all charts and analyses, references to operating
profit refer to football operating profits and profit margins. **The sample
in the pie chart and column chart includes 679 clubs from 53 top-divisions,
while the year-on-year club trend (arrow chart) covers 570 clubs and excludes
promoted clubs for whom previous years’ data was not available.

100
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Clubs’ operating profit

result as % of FY2011 revenue

The pie chart indicates that 224 clubs (220 in FY2010) in the sample reported operating losses equivalent
39
to more than 20% of total revenue, and a further 76 (61 in FY2010) clubs reported large operating losses 53
of between 10% and 20% of revenue. In absolute terms, football operating results ranged from +€135m 224
to -€95m. Again, in absolute terms, the 20 largest operating profits were reported by clubs from the
following: England and Germany (4); Russia, Italy and Spain (3 each); Turkey, Scotland and France (1 each);
while the 20 largest operating losses were reported by clubs from Italy (6); England (4); Spain, Russia, 160
France and Ukraine (2 each); Greece and Portugal (1 each). Comparing FY2011 with the previous year
shows that operating profit margins increased for just over half (51%) of European top-division clubs.
To some extent, the level of a club’s operating profits dictates how much transfer activity and financing 76
costs can be absorbed. We say “to some extent”, because the operating profit is for a 12-month period 127
only, while club strategy covers a longer period, and also because a club can sometimes source additional
money if club owners or other finance providers commit money. As we have said before, an individual club’s
financial performance should not just be measured on their personnel cost ratio or operating profitability,
although these are good indicators for underlying performance. The fact that 46 clubs turned an operating
>+20%
loss of 10% or more into a bottom-line profit is further evidence of this and of the unique nature and
10% to 20%
financial significance of the football transfer system.
0% to 10%
0% to -10%
-10% to -20%
<-20%

Answer 39
European top-division clubs reported** net football operating losses of €388m in FY2011, an
increase of just under €50m on the previous year.
Operating profit/loss margin
63% of European top-divisions clubs reported operating losses in FY2011, slightly up on the FY2010 to FY2011
61% in 2010 and 2009 and considerably higher than the 54% of clubs in 2008 and 51% in 2007.
While a slightly lower proportion, 41%, of “top” clubs (revenue >€50m) reported operating 51% 49%
losses, the fact that 20 of the “top” clubs reported operating losses totalling €574m (up from
€520m in FY2010) indicates that many of the largest European clubs’ underlying core business
did not generate operating profits in 2011 for transfer or financing items.

101
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 8: Financial profile of European club football: costs and profitability

Q: 40. What was the impact of transfer activity on FY2011 results?

Within the five-year trend section we already
indicated that transfer activity can fluctuate over
time and have a significant knock-on effect on the
financial results of clubs. On the first page in this
section, we stated that the net cost from transfer Net transfer result as % revenue
activity for clubs reporting in FY2011 was €817m,
which adds significantly to the aggregate European > +10% 13x
club losses. The transfer system gives football clubs a
Clubs’+3%
unique ability to control their financial destiny, both NETtotransfer
+10% result
8x

in rebalancing shortfalls and utilising surpluses. as % of FY2011 revenue

+0% to +3% 5x
The state of the transfer market, at any given time,
the relative buoyancy of market prices and the 0% to -3% 17x
89
number of active buyers and sellers can therefore126
have a considerable impact on clubs’ financial results -3% to -10% 5x
and strategies. The map provides an indication of
< -10% 5x
the impact of net transfer costs/incomes on FY2011 133
financial results in each country.
109
Clubs’ NET transfer result
as % of FY2011 revenue

218
89
126

133 <-10%
-1% to -10%
109
+/- 1%
+1% to +10%
>+20%

Answer 40
218

The map and pie chart clearly illustrate that the transfer Transfers improved the bottom-line profit margin by over
The<-10%
pie chart above, which covers 679 clubs, further system acts as a strong and important financial solidarity 10% for at least 126 individual clubs and 13 leagues across
-1% to -10%
illustrates the relative importance of transfer activity mechanism for clubs in the small and medium income Europe in FY2011. Overall net transfer costs remained high
+/- 1%
on the financial results of individual clubs, with the divisions, with Spanish and English clubs – and increasingly at €817m due to high legacy costs from players signed in
net +1% to +10%
transfer result equivalent to more than 10% of Ukrainian and Russian clubs – acting as net importers previous years and lower profits on sold players due to
total>+20%
revenue for almost a third of clubs, net income of talent and this feeding through into net costs from lower transfer activity. They were nonetheless below the
for 126 clubs and net costs for 89 clubs. transfers equivalent to more than 10% of revenue. FY2010 peak of €933m net costs.

102
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

The various column charts have been included to provide an idea about the scale and relative the same clubs nor the same order. The top two charts show the 20 clubs at either extreme
size of different aspects of transfer activity, with the top 20 results listed from left to right in of the 679 clubs analysed*, with 170 smaller clubs reporting neither costs nor income in
millions of euros (€m). The top 20 is recalculated for each analysis and hence is not necessarily the year.

Total net transfer costs FY2011 Total net transfer gains/income FY2011
€m €25m
258 clubs reporting €497m net transfers gains

-€50m
€20m 170 clubs reporting no
€15m
costs or income from
-€100m
€10m
€5m
transfer activity
251 clubs reporting €1,332m net transfer costs*
-€150m €m

The largest net transfer cost was €126m, with 20 clubs reporting net transfer costs of more the depreciated value in books) exceeds any losses on sale and the depreciation and any
than €20m in FY2011. At the other end of the scale, there were only two clubs reporting net impairment on player assets. 53 of the 77 clubs with revenue over €50m reported a net cost
transfer incomes/gains of more than €20m. All 20 clubs in the net income chart capitalise from transfers in FY2011.
their players and a net income/gain arises when the profit on transfers out (sale price less

Total sale price on transfers out FY2011 Losses reported on transfers out FY2011 Profits reported on transfers out FY2011
€100m €m €60m
€2,388m transfers out 275 clubs reporting €1,489m profits on transfers out
€80m -€5m
€40m
€60m -€10m
€40m -€15m
€20m
€20m -€20m
36 clubs reporting €80m losses on transfers out
€m -€25m €m

The total sale price can be identified from the detailed notes to clubs’ financial statements than €50m. Due to the conservative nature of player accounting** and the fact that all
and is a disclosure required by club licensing. It is calculated by adding the profit/loss on transfer fees received on home-grown players are profits, the vast majority of clubs report
disposal to the net book value of players sold during the period, or, for clubs that account net profits on transfers out; indeed only 36 clubs reported losses and only two clubs above
for all transfer activity immediately, it is simply the transfer income line. The highest transfer €10m. In total, 19 clubs reported profits on players sold of more than €20m, and 59% of the
sales by a club during FY2011 came to €87m and, in total, seven clubs sold players for more €2,388m of transfers out was translated into profits in the financial results.

Total purchase price of transfers in FY2011 Depreciation charges FY2011 Impairment charges FY2011
€m €m €m

-€50m -€20m -€10m

-€40m
-€100m -€20m
-€60m
-€150m 339 clubs reporting €2,138m depreciation -€30m
-€80m 47 clubs reporting €101m impairment
on players previously transferred in
€3,079m transfers in charge on players previously transferred in
-€200m -€100m -€40m

The total price of players signed (transferred in) by the 679 clubs during FY2011 was typical for players transferred for large fees. Indeed transfer fees from the previous four years
€3,079m***, with 16 clubs spending €50m+ in FY2011. These costs will be spread over the are reflected in the total depreciation charge in FY2011 of €2,138m and total impairment
player contract length, with earlier analysis in the report suggesting four years would be charges of €101m. In FY2011 five clubs reported player depreciation charges of €50m+.
* In addition to the 509 clubs reporting net transfer costs or gains, there were 170 clubs reporting a zero result. These are typically smaller clubs with no transfer activity involving fees. In addition, there are 65 clubs without data which we estimate, based on their profiles, would
have reported a small net gain from transfer activity of €18m, hence the net total cost from transfers for FY2011 of €817m (€1,332m-€497m-€18m). ** See FY2010 benchmarking report, pages 96 and 97. *** The difference between the value of transfers in (€3,079m) and out
(€2,388m) is principally due to four factors: agent and other associated costs that are often capitalised and included in the price of players signed; transfer activity with clubs outside the sample (in second and lower divisions); transfer activity with South American clubs (also outside
sample), and; transfer amounts paid to parties other than clubs.

103
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 8: Financial profile of European club football: costs and profitability

Q: 41. What proportion of clubs are loss-making?

The “bottom-line” net loss figures
The charts on this page show the aggregate “bottom-line” profits give an indication of the underlying contribution from The overall financial performance is revealed when
FY2011 losses and profits of the 53 top divisions across Europe and core football activities, the net profit/loss gives the underlying we look at the country by country aggregate result
reported results for 679 top division clubs split into thresholds by performance of the club after including transfer activity, and see the proliferation of red and dark red
league. To our knowledge, this is the largest sample of football financing and divesting results, non-operating items and tax. columns, representing countries whose clubs on
club accounts ever reviewed to date. While football operating In other words, what is often referred to as the “bottom line”. aggregate have spent either €11-12 or €12+ for
every €10 of revenue. In FY2011, five of the largest
30 divisions (by revenue) reported aggregate profits
in line with the previous two years.
10%
The lower chart columns represent individual clubs,
and the proliferation of red and dark red underlines
0% that many clubs contributed to the record €1,675m
of net losses reported by top division clubs
-10%
in FY2011.
Once again, the fact that greens can be seen in the
-20% bottom chart indicates that although the bottom-
line performance of European clubs as a whole
again deteriorated, there were at least two clubs in
-30% all but one of the 53 leagues that reported a net
ENG
GER
ESP
ITA
FRA
RUS
TUR
NED
POR
UKR
SCO
AUT
SUI
BEL
DEN
GRE
NOR
SWE
POL
ROU
KAZ
ISR
CYP
CZE
BLR
SVK
CRO
AZE
HUN
SVN
FIN
SRB
IRL
BUL
MDA
NIR
LIE
ISL
LVA
LUX
GEO
BIH
MKD
LTU
FRO
WAL
MLT
ARM
EST
MNE
ALB
AND
SMR
Median
Agg**
profit in FY2011. These 303 clubs reported €434m of
net profits in the year.

20

16
“All clubs” in this case means all 679 clubs in the data sample. For the year
on year analysis, the sample is reduced to 570 clubs for which we have both
12 years’ data (i.e. approximately 100 top-division clubs a year are relegated/
promoted and fall outside scope of data survey.
** In a limited number of cases (19 clubs in FY2011), the reported net result
8
was exactly break-even, suggesting either that the club was not break-even
but that the owner effectively contributed to cover losses or that the club
4 was actually profitable but is a not-for-profit organisation and, hence,
cannot report profits. *** Half of clubs disclose their financing result as a net
figure having added financial gains/incomes and expenses/losses – in these
0 cases, the net figure has been added to either income or expenses totals.
ENG
GER
ESP
ITA
FRA
RUS
TUR
NED
POR
UKR
SCO
AUT
SUI
BEL
DEN
GRE
NOR
SWE
POL
ROU
KAZ
ISR
CYP
CZE
BLR
SVK
CRO
AZE
HUN
SVN
FIN
SRB
IRL
BUL
MDA
NIR
LIE
ISL
LVA
LUX
GEO
BIH
MKD
LTU
FRO
WAL
MLT
ARM
EST
MNE
ALB
AND
SMR
>+20% 10% to 20% 0% to 10% 0% to -10% -10% to -20% <-20%

104
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 as % of FY2011 revenue

39
The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011 42
198

Clubs’ NET profit result

54
as % of FY2011 revenue
124
The pie chart covering all clubs* indicates that 198 clubs (29%) in the sample reported net losses equivalent 39
to more than 20% of total revenue, a further 54 clubs (8%) reported large net losses of between 10% and 42
20% of revenue, and a further 124 clubs (19%) reported net losses of between 0 and 10%**. In absolute 198
terms, net results ranged from +€32m to -€230m. The arrows indicating the evolution between FY2010 and
FY2011 in reported club net profit/loss demonstrate that clubs were split evenly between an improving and >+20%
a deteriorating profit or loss result. 10% to 20%
0% to 10%
222
0% to -10%
Bridge from net operating loss to net loss FY2011 54
-10% to -20%
<-20%
€1,500m 124

€1,000m

€500m
>+20%
+1,422
Net profit/loss margin
10% to 20%
€0m FY2010 to FY2011
-2,138 0% to 10%
-388
-€500m 0% to -10%
-10% to -20%50% 50%
-1,675 <-20%
-€1,000m
+208
-101 -625
-€1,500m
Answer 41
-53
-€2,000m
Operating Transfer Transfer Transfer Financial Financial Other FY2011 result
losses profits/incomes amortisation impairment incomes/gains expenses/losses gains/losses Europe-wide, the proportion of top division clubs reporting net
(divestment, losses reduced slightly to 55%, with clubs split evenly between better
tax & non
operating) and worse on the year–to-year trend and with total losses after tax
increasing from €1,635m to €1,675m. Unlike the previous year (75%)
The waterfall chart shows the bridge from the operating loss for FY2011 of €388m and the net loss
of €1,675m. In addition to transfer activity already analysed, the main items impacting clubs were
the proportion of the largest clubs (57%) reporting losses in FY2011
financing gains or losses. In FY2011 clubs reported aggregate financial incomes or gains of €208m*** was similar to the whole population.
and financial expenses or losses of €625m. Indeed, net financing incomes/costs were equivalent to more Once again the net loss figure was accentuated by transfer activity as
than 10% of revenue for 63 different clubs and more than 5% of revenue for 113 clubs. Hence, we can clubs were able to realise less transfer incomes/profits on sale in a slow
say that financing operations are frequently highly relevant. Elsewhere, tax credits on losses of €132m transfer year but still incurred the same level of transfer costs from the
and charges on profits of €173m largely cancelled each other out but were nonetheless highly relevant busier previous years (2008-2009).
(more than 10% of revenue) for 17 clubs, while net gains/losses on the divestment of other non-player
fixed assets and intangible assets totalled less than €20m and were only highly relevant for nine clubs. Still of greatest concern are the 29% of clubs that reported spending
Finally, non-operating gains and losses totalled less than €50m, were highly relevant for 16 clubs but largely €6 for every €5 revenue in FY2011, with the majority of these
cancelled each other out in European terms. repeat offenders.

105
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 9: Financial profile of European club football: assets, debts and net equity

106
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

9
Financial profile of European club football: assets, debts and net equity
What do we mean by net debt and how do we assess it?

What value of assets and liabilities have clubs reported?

What level of transfer debts were owed by clubs?

How many clubs reported negative equity?

The bottom line - did club balance sheets strengthen or weaken during FY2011?

107
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 9: Financial profile of European club football: assets, debts and net equity

Q: 42. What do we mean by net debt and how do we assess it?

The discussion of debt in football clubs has never been as prominent as it has been in the last To assess the significance of a club’s liabilities, it is essential to consider not only the amount of
three years. For people with a non-financial background, it can be very difficult to decipher liabilities but also many other aspects (see the non-exhaustive list of examples below), some
what the wider situation actually is and what the main debt-related issues are for football general and some football-specific, which is why the explanatory notes and commentary to
and individual football clubs. Below we try to differentiate between the different terms a good set of financial statements include a lot of detail:
used and the different meanings of debt, then highlight some of the key considerations
Type of liability/debt: Clearly, season ticket money received in advance is not in itself a bad
when analysing debt, before setting out a more concrete picture of European football clubs’
thing and yet is it recorded as a liability as the accountants consider the cash received as not
finances by analysing their balance sheets.
yet being fully earned until the matches take place. This is a liability but not a debt that will
In practice, the term “football club debts” has been used in many different ways with a great have to be paid back.
deal of flexibility, references ranging from the very broad, totalling all liabilities that a club
The (secured) assets of a club: A financial loan on its own can often be linked to an asset or set
has, to the narrow definition of debt financing either including or excluding interest-free
of assets, so considering debt without considering the assets is not particularly meaningful.
owner loans. For our purposes, we use the following definitions:
Generally, for the lender a debt secured against assets is less risky, leading to better interest
Financial debt*: Amounts owed to people and organisations for funds borrowed. Within this rate terms for the club. The clubs with the most assets are more likely to be able to attract
definition we include interest-free owner or related party loans, sometimes called soft loans. finance from debt providers.
Top-division club debt is estimated to total €7.7bn (€8.4bn for FY2010).
Maturity of debt: As a general rule, long-term debts should be matched to long-term assets,
Financial fair play (FFP) net debt*: Takes the “financial debt” figure and removes any cash and vice versa, with short-term items. The full picture of the timing of debt repayment and
balances or liquid assets to provide the “net financial debt”. In addition, net debt as defined payments due on other liabilities, together with the financial resources available for the
in the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations and used as the basis for clubs, is needed to assess the risk of debt default or overdue liabilities. This is why club
the risk indicator (net debt > 100% revenue) includes the net transfer payables amount. licensing requires the submission of budgets.
Top-division financial fair play net debt is estimated to total €6.5bn (€7.7bn for FY2010).
Liabilities: All financial obligations, debts, claims, and potential losses. ** Company balance
sheets include assets on one side and liabilities on the other side, with the difference equalling
net equity (positive net equity if recorded assets exceed recorded liabilities and negative net Answer 42
equity if assets are less than liabilities). Liabilities include: payables, i.e. amounts outstanding
on bills for products and services received (e.g. invoices for rent); accrued expenses, the same
as payables but where no bill has yet been received (e.g. wages earned by staff to be paid
To understand the debt profile of a club requires both context (in many cases there
at end of month); provisions, i.e. estimate of probable losses arising from previous actions is a matching asset) and a deep understanding of the figures. This is why a typical
(e.g. ongoing legal case against the club); deferred income, i.e. payments received for work set of financial statements includes many times more detailed notes explaining
not yet done (e.g. season ticket revenue for future matches). Top-division total liabilities are the financial position (balance sheet) as it does explanations about the financial
estimated at €18.5bn (€19.1bn for FY2010). Liabilities are referred to as short or long-term, performance (profit and loss account).
with short-term being within 12 months from the financial year-end. While most football clubs’ activities are relatively simple and similar to each other,
Going concern: The ability and intention of a company to continue trading for at least 12 the financing model they use can differ significantly, as can their liabilities, the
months. Of 663 reviewed year-end club audit reports, 106 (16%) had an adverse, emphasis negative part of the balance sheet which covers all debts, claims, payments received
of matter or “qualified” audit opinion regarding going concern in FY2011, a noticeable but not yet earned and potential losses, as well as financial obligations that are
increase on the previous year (12% in FY2010). perhaps more obviously considered as debts.
* “Financial debt” and “financial fair play net debt” would usually include all interest-bearing borrowings, including hire purchase or finance lease balances. However, in this report it is possible that some finance lease debts will have been excluded since in some cases the full
notes to financial statements are needed to extract this data. Likewise, some non-financing payables balances may have been included. ** IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards) definition is: a liability is a present obligation of the entity arising from past events,
the settlement of which is expected to result in an outflow from the entity of resources embodying economic benefits.

108
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Differing accounting treatments: Under club licensing, clubs’

financial statements have to be prepared on the basis of the
same accounting principles. Nonetheless, specific treatments or
accounting interpretations can differ. For example, some clubs
record significant deferred tax assets in their balance sheet to
reflect the theoretical future benefit from previous losses (can
be set off against future profits to be tax free), while other
accounting jurisdictions only allow these assets if it can be proved
that future profits are likely. Treatments of agent fees, transfer
fees, signing-on bonuses, long-term commercial agreements and
more complicated financial arrangements such as securitisations
can also lead to differences, although most of the “top” clubs
report under similar accounting frameworks.
Unrecognised assets and liabilities: The net equity/net assets
should not be confused with the value of a club. Part of the reason
for this is that, as a general rule, accountants do not allow assets
to be included unless their value can be accurately estimated.
Some of the principal assets of a club, such as a loyal supporter
base, reputation/brand, membership/access rights to lucrative
competitions, and home-grown players, are not included within
balance sheet assets since they are extremely difficult to value,
despite them unquestionably having a value. These unvalued
assets tend to be greater for larger clubs. As examples***, when
Liverpool FC was purchased in 2007 and then again in 2010, the
balance sheet net equity of +€53m and -€7m respectively were
estimated to have fair values of +€197m and +€191m respectively.
In addition, to reflect some of the unrecognised assets and
liabilities listed above, the new owners on both occasions were
prepared to pay an extra €73m and €71m respectively (goodwill).

*** Source: Kop Football (Holdings) Limited financial statements 2007 and UKSV holdings
financial statements 2011. Figures translated at the exchange rate on date of transactions.

109
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 9: Financial profile of European club football: assets, debts and net equity

Q: 43. What value of assets and liabilities have clubs reported?

The pie charts on this page broadly group the reported* assets and liabilities
of European top-division football clubs. This grouping is possible because UEFA
club licensing requires certain minimum disclosures, particularly concerning
players, on both transfer amounts payable and receivable and capitalised
player values. Within the licensing framework, these items are verified against
detailed player by player tables for every club.

Answer 43
Top-division clubs reported just over €21.8bn* of balance sheet assets in
FY2011 (an increase of €800m) and €18.5bn of liabilities (a decrease of
€600m), netting to positive net equity/net assets of €3.3bn (an increase
of €1.4bn).
The type of assets and liabilities reported by clubs differ considerably
between countries. 70% of assets and 39% of liabilities were reported
as long term (>12 months).

*Balance sheet profile taken from 679 reporting clubs from all countries. Reported assets of €21,670m compare to
simulated Europe-wide top-division assets of €21,827m, and reported liabilities of €18,330m compare to simulated
Europe-wide top division liabilities of €18,525m. As anticipated in last year’s report, the Europe-wide position
has been effected as a result of changes to the consolidation perimeter of some German clubs. The effect is most
noticeable in the increase in fixed assets.

110
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

The largest asset category was fixed assets, with over €6.6bn, most
of which corresponds to owned stadium and training facilities.
Assets by type FY2011 Liabilities by type FY2011 This probably understates the total level of infrastructure as many
older stadium facilities have been depreciated to zero or near-zero
value in the balance sheet.
16% 23% Since only 18% of clubs directly own their stadium outright, it is not
31% 28% surprising that fixed assets are highly concentrated, with 20 clubs
8% reporting €4bn of fixed assets. These clubs also reported almost half
of all top-division gross bank debt (€2.5bn), illustrating the clear link
4% between long-term assets and debt levels further highlighted later.
8%
The increase in fixed assets compared with the previous year is almost
12%
14% exclusively due to the inclusion of €0.6bn of German stadium assets*
14% rather than new construction or investment.
23% 8%
11%

Net bank and third-party commercial debt totalled just over €3.3bn
(bank loans €5.1bn less cash balances €1.8bn), a further reduction
compared with previous years and the leveraged buy-out peak of
FY2011 FY2010 FY2011 FY2010 2008-09. 20 clubs alone reported net bank and third-party commercial
Fixed assets €6.6bn €5.9bn Bank and commercial loans €5.1bn €5.5bn debt of €1.9bn. Likewise, group and related-party debt is highly
Player assets €5.0bn €5.2bn Group and related parties €2.6bn €2.9bn concentrated, with €1.9bn held by 20 clubs.
Other long-term assets* €3.0bn €3.2bn Other long-term liabilities €2.1bn €2.3bn
Cash €1.8bn €1.5bn Taxes and social charges* €1.4bn €1.2bn Tax and social charge liabilities totalled €1.4bn. These are analysed in
Transfer receivables €1.7bn €1.5bn Transfer payables €2.3bn €2.3bn more detail on the next pages.
Other short-term assets €3.6bn €3.3bn Employee payables €0.7bn €0.6bn
Estimate clubs not in sample €0.1bn €0.4bn Other short-term liabilities €4.1bn €3.9bn
Outstanding amounts payable on transfers totalled just under
Total reported assets €21.8bn €21.0bn Liabilities: estimate clubs not in sample €0.2bn €0.4bn
€2.3bn**. These are analysed in more detail on the next pages.
Total reported liabilities €18.5bn €19.1bn

For the first time, we requested disclosure of amounts due to

employees, which totalled just under €700m***.

** The reported transfer payables and receivable figures have been adjusted and reallocated
from non-split “other long and short-term” items to reflect those clubs that do not disclose
balances (see transfer section for more detailed explanation).
*** As suggested in last year’s report, the amounts payable to employees were probably
understated last year due to incomplete disclosure by some clubs, and hence the year on
year increase is not necessarily due to an actual increase in the underlying amounts owed
to employees.

111
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 9: Financial profile of European club football: assets, debts and net equity

Q: 44. What level of transfer debts were owed by clubs?

Club licensing requires separate disclosure of transfer amounts in the chart below, transfer debts were, on average, equivalent At the other end of the scale, clubs in Montenegro,
receivable and payable although this data is not always included to 16% of annual income and net transfer debts equivalent to Croatia and the Czech Republic had net receivables
in the financial data survey submitted to UEFA, leading to a 6% (similar to the 19% and 6% in FY2010). Not surprisingly, from transfers equivalent to more than 10% of
smaller sample size than most other financial analyses in the given their status as net importers of players, Italian, English, revenues, making them particularly sensitive to
report*. It is worth noting that the size of transfer payables Spanish, Turkish and, more surprisingly, Portuguese and Serbian deferred, late or non-payments from other clubs.
reported in financial statements can be influenced by the timing clubs reported, on average, the largest net payables balance,
Although the ability to assess the risk of future
of the financial year-ends relative to the timing of transfers and equivalent to between 7% and 16% of annual revenue, although
non-payment is only possible with a full forward-
that transfer payables are, in most cases, not overdue but in line in the case of Portugal and Serbia, this was mainly a single
looking review performed at national level, there
with the payment schedule agreed between the respective clubs. club’s balance.
were at least 38 clubs with gross transfer payables
From the sample of 316 clubs* analysed in detail and presented
of more than three months’ income (compared
with 44 in FY2010 and 48 in FY2009). If we net the
Transfer payables as % of FY2011 revenues transfer receivables with these transfer payables,
the number of clubs halves.

MNE
HUN

This decreasing trend in large, difficult-to-service

NOR

ROU
GEO

SWE
ENG

UKR

DEN

AUT

NED

CRO
POR

MLT

KAZ
TUR

SCO

GRE

GER

SVN
RUS

SVK

FRA

POL

BUL
SRB

BLR

CZE

ALL
BEL
ESP

EST
ITA

SUI

ISR
ISL
total transfer balances matches the reduction
40%
in overdue transfer balances noted in the UEFA
financial fair play overdue payable asessments
in the last two years. It appears that the message
30% from financial fair play that transfer balances can
no longer be used as cheap financing is starting to
have a positive effect.
16%

20%
15%

While the scope of financial fair play in a particular

14%

year encompasses the 237 clubs participating in the

11%

UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League,

9%

7%

10%
7%

6%
the Club Financial Control Body will, nonetheless,
6%

5%

4%

4%

take into consideration in the future the history

3%

2%

1%

0%

0%

0%

of any non-qualified clubs regularly observed

0% to be delaying or not paying overdue payables.
-1%

-1%

-1%

-2%

UEFA will also continue to encourage the adoption

-2%

-3%

-3%

-3%
-3%

-3%

-3%
of financial fair play regulations at domestic

-6%

-7%

-8%
level, in particular, stricter overdue payables and

-8%
-10%

-11%
Net transfer payables as % of FY2011 revenues
transfer rules.

-20% Gross transfer payables as % of FY2011 revenues

-19%

-42%
* The samples exclude clubs with zero balances, even though these might well be bona fide zero balances, as it is not possible for UEFA to confirm for sure whether the zero transfer payable/
receivable balances are indeed correct or due to incomplete disclosure in the reporting template. All clubs under licensing have an option to provide UEFA-stipulated disclosures in separate audited
documents for licensing criteria purposes rather than within the publicly disclosed financial statements. For the country by country disclosure on the chart, we also excluded countries where only one
or two clubs had disclosed data, although we included this in the “ALL” sample of 325 clubs. The samples include clubs reporting 76–78% of total liabilities, player assets and transfer additions in
FY2011, and these proportions have been used to estimate the Europe-wide top-division transfer payables included in the pie chart analysis in this section.

112
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Every club undergoing club licensing is tested each year for overdue transfer payables and overdue payables
on employee and social charges. Since the summer of 2011, with the introduction of financial fair play, all
clubs competing in UEFA club competitions have been additionally assessed as at 30 June and some clubs
Transfer payables FY2011
further monitored at 30 September. The settlement of these specific “football debts” are considered of
particular importance since non- or delayed payment beyond the terms agreed can have a knock-on effect
on more than the clubs directly involved, since a club not receiving budgeted cash may, in turn, have to
delay payments.
32%
The club monitoring undertaken in 2011 and 2012 underlined a precarious situation regarding the
settlement of these “football debts” which has been further aggravated by the current economic crisis.
As well as some cases which have led to disciplinary proceedings, there were a relatively large value and
number of disputed and deferred payables on these “football debts”. Although neither bona fide legal
proceedings, nor non-coerced agreements between the involved parties to defer payments to a later date, 68%
lead to disciplinary proceedings under club licensing, they still provide considerable cause for concern.
Clearly, from an integrity of competition perspective, it is far from ideal to have players or coaching staff
receiving their wages late. Any large scale deferral or non-payment of transfer payables constitutes a
systemic risk with a potential series of chain reactions, as club A does not receive payment from club B,
which, in turn, cannot pay installments on time to clubs C and D, and so on.
While the 235–237 clubs competing in UEFA competitions each year now fall under close inspection through FY2011 FY2010
the club monitoring process and so have a strong incentive to meet their obligations in a timely fashion,
ST (payable within 12 months) €933m €785m
clubs that are not competing in UEFA club competitions in most cases do not undergo the same scrutiny.
LT (payable beyond 12 months) €433m €386m
This is why strong domestic licensing, including the monitoring of payments on international transfers, is
Non-split reported transfer payables €355m €575m
crucial if the whole system is to not be undermined. Hence, UEFA will assess domestic licensing systems over
Estimated payables non-reporting clubs €539m €602m
the course of the next year.
Estimated total transfer payables €2,260m €2,348m
Clearly, solutions need to be found to improve the current situation and different measures need to
be investigated, such as limits on long-term transfer payables, transparency over payment records,
the non-acceptance of “release papers”** for player and coaching salary and bonus payments, as well as
improved monitoring at domestic level.
Answer 44
The pie chart indicates that 32% of the reported outstanding transfer
liabilities are long-term, scheduled to be settled beyond 12 months
(33% in FY2010). At least 38 clubs reported transfer debts equivalent
to more than three months’ income, a smaller number than last year.
In total, we estimate that there were just under €2.3bn of outstanding
** The repeated use of signed “release papers” to circumvent the rules suggests some players/coaching staff are being pressured into accepting
transfer debts and over €700m of transfer fees scheduled to be paid in
a deferral of payments. over a year.

113
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 Net equity as % of

Chapter 9: Financial profile of European club football: assets, debts and net equity
155

Q: 45. How many clubs reported negative equity? 57

Net equity per league FY2011 (% assets) Net equity as % of FY2011 assets 43

150

Median
Agg**
MDA

MKD

ARM

MNE
WAL
HUN

AND
NOR

ROU
SWE

GEO

SMR
ENG

NED

UKR

AUT

DEN

CRO
POR

KAZ

MLT
GER

TUR

SCO

GRE

SVN

LUX

FRO
FRA
RUS

POL

CYP

SVK

AZE

BUL

ALB
LVA
CZE
BLR

SRB

LTU
BEL
ESP

NIR

BIH

EST
ITA

SUI

FIN
ISR

IRL

LIE
ISL
155 137
50%

40% >50%
30%
Nettoequity
20% 50% as % o
57 0% to 20%
20% 136
0% to -20%
10% 43 -20% to -50%
155
<-50%
0% 150

-10%

-20%
57
-30% >50%
-40% Net
20% equity
to 50% as % of FY2011 revenues 43
0% to 20%
-50% 150
0% to -20%
-20% to -50%
118 131
<-50%
20

>50%
16 55
20% to 50%
109 0% to 20%
12
83 0% to -20%
8 -20% to -50%
<-50%
4 183

0
ENG
GER
ESP
ITA
FRA
RUS
TUR
NED
POR
UKR
SCO
AUT
SUI
BEL
DEN
GRE
NOR
SWE
POL
ROU
KAZ
ISR
CYP
CZE
BLR
SVK
CRO
AZE
HUN
SVN
FIN
SRB
IRL
BUL
MDA
NIR
LIE
ISL
LVA
LUX
GEO
BIH
MKD
LTU
FRO
WAL
MLT
ARM
EST
MNE
ALB
AND
SMR
>50%
>+50% 20% to 50% 0% to 20% 0% to -20% -20% to -50% <-50%
20% to 50%
0% to 20%
0% to -20%
-20% to -50%
<-50%

114
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Answer 45
The simple answer is that 255 or 38% of clubs reported negative
equity (more liabilities than assets) in their balance sheets in FY2011*
(compared with 36% in FY2010). This includes top-division clubs from
49 different countries and also includes 22 of the 77 “top” clubs.
As illustrated last year, the underlying value of some of these clubs may
be higher than the net equity reported due to the conservative and
prudent nature of accounting valuations. Nevertheless, weak balance
sheets when combined with ongoing losses and/or negative cash flows
can be extremely dangerous. Of the 255 clubs reporting negative equity,
185 also reported losses in the year.
As in previous years, the aggregate level of equity compared with asset
base differs considerably between countries, although the rainbow
threshold chart highlights a number of countries where the majority
of clubs have liabilities in excess of assets, including Turkey, the
* Net equity was analysed for 679 clubs from all 53 countries. Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Bulgaria.

115
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Chapter 9: Financial profile of European club football: assets, debts and net equity

Q: 46. The bottom line - did club balance sheets strengthen or weaken during FY2011?

FY2009
FY2010 Net equity bridge FY2010 to FY2011
FY2011*
€4,000m
3%
€3,500m
1%
1% €3,000m
-1,675
+1,779
€2,500m +1,279
49% 50% 52%
47% 53% +27
44% €2,000m
+3,685
-10 +3,289
€1,500m

€1,000m +1,889

€500m

€0m
Net equity weakened FY2010 Post balance Club mix Reporting FY2011 Net loss Net equity FY2011 closing
closing net sheet perimeter** opening net FY2011 injection net equity
Net equity strengthened equity adjustments equity
Net equity unchanged

The net equity bridge includes an opening 2011 net equity position that was higher than the FY2010 closing
position due to some minor post-year-end adjustments and some changes in the reporting perimeter**
of various clubs, notably: Manchester United (+€1.01bn); Chelsea (+€0.82bn); Fenerbahce (+€0.05bn);
four German clubs’ cumulative difference (-€0.14bn). As the principal activities remain within the new
perimeters, the impact on the balance sheet was much more significant than any impact on the revenues,
costs or bottom-line profits.

*Net equity movement was analysed for 771 clubs from all countries, with 206 clubs attributed as club mix (only one year’s data [FY2010 or FY2011] due to
promotion/relegation or incomplete data).
** The major changes in reporting perimeters were made on the following basis: for licensing purposes the perimeter reverted from Fordstam Limited to
Chelsea FC plc as liabilities in Fordstam were not secured on Chelsea plc assets; Red Football Shareholder Ltd reverted to Red Football Ltd but will change
again in the future following the listing of Manchester United shares; the perimeters of the four German clubs now reflect a full consolidation and the
audited financial year results rather than the results for the sporting season (included in the Bundesliga report). The perimeters for benchmarking and
financial fair play purposes are subject to different interpretation.

116
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Answer 46
Football clubs, especially clubs in less developed economies, often rely
on their owner(s) to keep the club finances balanced. In some cases,
this may be through contracted sponsorship, but in many cases this will
be in the form of ad hoc capital injections to cover losses and liquidity
shortfalls. The movement in net equity of a club (total assets less
liabilities) reflects the financial profit/loss of the year plus any capital
distributions or injections.
A key requirement of financial fair play will be that clubs recapitalise
any significant losses*** and hence prevent debts from building up year
by year and balance sheets weakening. In total, 67 clubs (10%) reported
net losses in FY2011 but improved net equity due to either capital
injections or write-off of owner loans or revaluations. In total, clubs
reported a net non-profit-related equity increase of €1,279m, which
was not enough to cover the losses of €1,675m and was equivalent to
76% of the net losses in FY2011. The fact that the combined closing
FY2011 net equity position improved on FY2010 was largely due to
reporting perimeter changes for some clubs.
Our analysis indicates that despite this positive news at the aggregate
level, 50% of clubs still had their balance sheet position deteriorate
during FY2011 by an aggregate of €1,485m, emphasising the need
for the new UEFA regulations that encourage recapitalisation of club
balance sheets and similar domestic regulations.

*** Significant losses mean cumulative break-even deficits between €5m and €45m, as referenced in the UEFA Club
Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations (2012 edition) Article 61(1–3).

117
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Appendices

118
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Appendices

119
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Appendices

APPENDIX: List of clubs participating in the UEFA Champions League

and UEFA Europa League/UEFA Cup in the last decade
ENG 21 Arsenal FC Aston Villa FC Birmingham City FC Blackburn Rovers FC Bolton Wanderers FC Chelsea FC Everton FC Fulham FC Ipswich Town FC Leeds United AFC Liverpool FC Manchester City FC Manchester United FC Middlesbrough FC Millwall FC Newcastle United FC Portsmouth FC Southampton FC Stoke City FC Tottenham Hotspur FC West Ham United FC
ESP 19 Athletic Club CA Osasuna Club Atlético de Madrid Deportivo Alavés FC Barcelona Getafe CF Málaga CF RC Celta de Vigo RC Deportivo La Coruña RCD Espanyol RCD Mallorca Real Betis Balompié Real Madrid CF Real Racing Club Real Sociedad de Fútbol Real Zaragoza Sevilla FC Valencia CF Villarreal CF
FRA 18 AJ Auxerre AS Monaco FC AS Nancy-Lorraine AS Saint-Étienne EA Guingamp FC Girondins de Bordeaux FC Lorient FC Sochaux-Montbéliard LB Châteauroux LOSC Lille Montpellier Hérault SC Olympique de Marseille Olympique Lyonnais Paris Saint-Germain RC Lens RC Strasbourg Stade Rennais FC Toulouse FC
GER 16 1. FC Kaiserslautern 1. FC Nürnberg 1. FSV Mainz 05 Bayer 04 Leverkusen Borussia Dortmund Eintracht Frankfurt FC Bayern München FC Schalke 04 Hamburger SV Hannover 96 Hertha BSC Berlin SV Werder Bremen TSV Alemannia Aachen VfB Stuttgart VfL Bochum 1848 VfL Wolfsburg
ITA 16 AC Chievo Verona AC Milan AC Perugia ACF Fiorentina AS Livorno Calcio AS Roma Empoli FC F.C. Internazionale Milano Genoa CFC Juventus Parma FC S.S. Lazio SSC Napoli UC Sampdoria Udinese Calcio US Città di Palermo
MKD 15 FK Baskimi FK Belasica GC FK Cementarnica 55 FK Makedonija Skopje FK Metalurg Skopje FK Milano FK Pelister FK Pobeda FK Rabotnicki FK Renova FK Sileks FK Skendija 79 FK Sloga Jugomagnat FK Teteks FK Vardar
NOR 15 Aalesunds FK FK Bodø/Glimt FK Lyn Fredrikstad FK IK Start Lillestrøm SK Molde FK Odd Grenland Rosenborg BK SK Brann Stabæk Fotball Strømsgodset TF Tromsø IL Vålerenga Fotball Viking FK
BEL 14 Cercle Brugge KSV Club Brugge KV KAA Gent KFC Germinal Beerschot Antwerpen KRC Genk KSC Lokeren OV KSK Beveren KSV Roeselare KVC Westerlo R. Excelsior Mouscron R. Standard de Liège RAA Louviéroise RSC Anderlecht SV Zulte Waregem
SWE 14 AIK Åtvidabergs FF BK Häcken Djurgårdens IF Gefle IF Halmstads BK Hammarby Helsingborgs IF IF Elfsborg IFK Göteborg Kalmar FF Malmö FF Örebro SK Östers IF
TUR 14 Beşiktaş JK Bursaspor Denizlispor Fenerbahçe SK Galatasaray A.č. Gaziantepspor Gençlerbirliči SK Kayseri Erciyesspor Kayserispor Kocaelispor Malatyaspor MKE Ankaragücü Sivasspor Trabzonspor Ač
NED 13 ADO Den Haag AFC Ajax AZ FC Groningen FC Twente FC Utrecht Feyenoord NAC Breda NEC Nijmegen PSV Eindhoven sc Heerenveen Vitesse Willem II
POL 13 Amica Wronki GKS Bełchatów GKS Katowice Groclin Grodzisk Wielkopolski Jagiellonia Białystok KKS Lech Poznač KSP Polonia Warszawa Legia Warszawa Ruch Chorzów Wisła Kraków Wisla Plock WKS člčsk Wrocław Zagłčbie Lubin
POR 13 Boavista FC CD Nacional CF Os Belenenses CS Marítimo FC Paços de Ferreira FC Porto Leixões SC SC Braga SL Benfica Sporting Clube de Portugal UD Leiria Vitória FC Vitória SC
RUS 13 FC Alania FC Amkar Perm FC Dinamo Moskva FC Lokomotiv Moskva FC Moskva FC Rubin Kazan FC Sibir Novosibirsk FC Spartak Moskva FC Terek Grozny FC Torpedo Moskva FC Zenit St. Petersburg PFC CSKA Moskva PFC Krylya Sovetov Samara
SCO 13 Aberdeen FC Celtic FC Dundee FC Dundee United FC Dunfermline Athletic FC Falkirk FC Gretna FC Heart of Midlothian FC Hibernian FC Livingston FC Motherwell FC Queen of the South FC Rangers FC
SRB 13 FK Banat Zrenjanin FK Bežanija FK Borac Čačak FK Crvena Zvezda FK Hajduk Kula FK Partizan FK Rad FK Sloboda Sevojno FK Smederevo FK Spartak Zlatibor voda FK Vojvodina FK Voždovac OFK Beograd
SUI 13 AC Bellinzona BSC Young Boys FC Basel 1893 FC Lausanne-Sport FC Lugano FC Luzern FC Sion FC Thun FC Wil 1900 FC Zürich Grasshopper-Club Neuchâtel Xamax FC Servette FC
BLR 12 FC BATE Borisov FC Belshina Bobruisk FC Dinamo Brest FC Dinamo Minsk FC Dnepr Mogilev FC Gomel FC Minsk FC Naftan Novopolotsk FC Neman Grodno FC Partizan Minsk FC Shakhtyor Soligorsk FC Torpedo Zhodino
GRE 12 AEK Athens FC Aris Thessaloniki FC Atromitos FC Egaleo FC Iraklis FC Larissa FC Olympiacos FC Olympiacos Volou FC Panathinaikos FC Panionios GSS PAOK FC Xanthi FC
HUN 12 Budapest Honvéd FC Debreceni VSC FC Sopron Ferencvárosi TC Gyčri ETO FC Kecskeméti TE MTK Budapest Paksi SE Szombathelyi Haladás Újpest FC Videoton FC Zalaegerszegi TE
SVK 12 Dukla Banská Bystrica FC Nitra FC Senec FC Spartak Trnava FC ViOn Zlaté Moravce FK Matador Púchov FK Senica MFK Košice MFK Petržalka MFK Ružomberok MŠK Žilina ŠK Slovan Bratislava
CRO 11 GNK Dinamo HNK Cibalia HNK Hajduk Split HNK Rijeka HNK Šibenik NK Inter Zaprešic NK Kamen Ingrad NK Slaven Koprivnica NK Varaždin NK Zagreb RNK Split
IRL 11 Bohemian FC Cork City FC Derry City FC Drogheda United FC Dundalk FC Longford Town FC Saint Patrick’s Athletic FC Shamrock Rovers FC Shelbourne FC Sligo Rovers FC Sporting Fingal FC
ISR 11 Beitar Jerusalem FC Bnei Sakhnin FC Bnei Yehuda Tel-Aviv FC FC Ashdod Hapoel Kiryat Shmona FC Hapoel Ramat Gan FC Hapoel Tel-Aviv FC Maccabi Haifa FC Maccabi Netanya FC Maccabi Petach-Tikva FC Maccabi Tel-Aviv FC
UKR 11 FC Chornomorets Odesa FC Dnipro Dnipropetrovsk FC Dynamo Kyiv FC Illychivets Mariupil FC Karpaty Lviv FC Metalist Kharkiv FC Metalurh Donetsk FC Metalurh Zaporizhya FC Shakhtar Donetsk FC Vorskla Poltava SC Tavriya Simferopol
ALB 10 FK Partizani KF Laçi KF Tirana KS Besa KS Dinamo Tirana KS Elbasani KS Flamurtari KS Skënderbeu KS Teuta KS Vllaznia
AZE 10 FC Bakı FC İnter Bakı FC Khazar Lankaran FK Karvan Evlakh FK Shamkir MKT Araz Neftçi PFK Olimpik-čüvälan PFK Qarabač FK Simurq Zaqatala PFK
BIH 10 FK Borac Banja Luka FK Leotar FK Modriča FK Sarajevo FK Slavija Sarajevo FK Željezničar HŠK Zrinjski Mostar NK Orašje NK Široki Brijeg NK Žepče
CZE 10 AC Sparta Praha FC Baník Ostrava FC Slovan Liberec FC Viktoria Plzeč FK Jablonec FK Mladá Boleslav FK Teplice FK Viktoria Žižkov SK Sigma Olomouc SK Slavia Praha
FIN 10 AC Allianssi FC Honka Espoo FC Inter Turku FC Lahti HJK Helsinki KuPS Kuopio Myllykosken Pallo-47 Tampere United TPS Turku Valkeakosken Haka
ISL 10 Breidablik FH Fram Reykjavík Fylkir Grindavík ÍA Akranes ÍBV Keflavík KR Valur Reykjavík
LUX 10 AS Jeunesse Esch CS Fola Esch CS Grevenmacher CS Pétange F91 Dudelange FC Avenir Beggen FC Differdange 03 FC Etzella Ettelbruck Racing FC Union Lëtzebuerg UN Käerjéng 97
ROU 10 CFR 1907 Cluj CS Gaz Metan Mediaş FC Dinamo Bucureşti FC National 2000 Bucuresti FC Očelul Galači FC Rapid Bucurečti FC Steaua Bucurečti FC Timičoara FC Unirea Urziceni Sporting Club Vaslui
WAL 10 Bangor City FC Barry Town AFC Carmarthen Town AFC Cwmbran Town FC Haverfordwest County AFC Llanelli AFC Neath FC Port Talbot Town FC Rhyl FC The New Saints FC
ARM 9 FC Araks Ararat FC Ararat Yerevan FC Banants FC Gandzasar Kapan FC Mika FC Pyunik FC Shirak FC Zvartnots AAL Ulisses FC
AUT 9 FC Kärnten FC Salzburg FK Austria Wien Grazer AK SK Austria Kärnten SK Rapid Wien SK Sturm Graz SV Mattersburg SV Ried
FRO 9 B36 Tórshavn B68 Toftir EB/Streymur HB Tórshavn ÍF Fuglafjørdur KÍ Klaksvík NSÍ Runavík Skála Ítróttarfelag Víkingur
GEO 9 FC Ameri Tbilisi FC Dinamo Tbilisi FC Gagra FC Lokomotiv Tbilisi FC Metalurgi Rustavi FC Sioni Bolnisi FC Torpedo Kutaisi FC WIT Georgia FC Zestafoni
KAZ 9 FC Aktobe FC Alma-Ata FC Astana 64 FC Atyrau FC Irtysh Pavlodar FC Kairat Almaty FC Okzhetpes Kokshetau FC Shakhter Karagandy FC Tobol Kostanay
LTU 9 FBK Kaunas FC Šiauliai FK Atlantas FK Banga FK Ekranas FK Sčduva FK Tauras FK Včtra FK Žalgiris Vilnius
SVN 9 FC Koper ND Gorica NK Celje NK Domžale NK IB Ljubljana NK Maribor NK Olimpija Ljubljana NK Primorje NK Rudar Velenje
CYP 8 AC Omonia AEK Larnaca FC AEL Limassol FC Anorthosis Famagusta FC APOEL FC Apollon Limassol FC APOP/Kinyras Peyias FC Ethnikos Achnas FC
DEN 8 Aalborg BK Brøndby IF Esbjerg fB FC København FC Midtjylland FC Nordsjælland Odense BK Randers FC
MDA 8 FC Dacia Chişinău FC Iskra-Stal FC Milsami Orhei FC Nistru Otaci FC Olimpia Bčlči FC Sheriff FC Tiraspol FC Zimbru Chičinču
NIR 8 Cliftonville FC Coleraine FC Crusaders FC Dungannon Swifts FC Glentoran FC Linfield FC Lisburn Distillery FC Portadown FC
SMR 8 A.C. Libertas AC Juvenes-Dogana Domagnano FC S.S. Murata S.S. Pennarossa SC Faetano SP Tre Fiori SP Tre Penne
BUL 7 PFC Beroe Stara Zagora PFC Cherno More Varna PFC CSKA Sofia PFC Levski Sofia PFC Litex Lovech PFC Lokomotiv Plovdiv 1936 PFC Lokomotiv Sofia
EST 7 FC Flora Tallinn FC Levadia Maardu FC Levadia Tallinn FC TVMK Tallinn JK Nõmme Kalju JK Sillamäe Kalev JK Trans Narva
LVA 7 FC Daugava Daugavpils FC Dinaburg FK Jelgava FK Ventspils JFK Olimps/RFS SK Liepčjas Metalurgs Skonto FC
AND 6 FC Encamp FC Lusitans FC Rànger’s FC Santa Coloma UE Sant Julià UE Santa Coloma
MLT 6 Birkirkara FC Floriana FC Hibernians FC Marsaxlokk FC Sliema Wanderers FC Valletta FC
MNE 6 FK Budućnost Podgorica FK Mogren FK Rudar Pljevlja FK Sutjeska FK Zeta OFK Petrovac
LIE 1 FC Vaduz

120
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

APPENDIX: Attendance data APPENDIX: FY2011 exchange rates used

2011s - 2011/12w attendance 2011s - 2011/12w attendance Most Common or Most Common or
NA common different Currency FY2011 NA common different Currency FY2011
League Estimated League Largest club Highest vs League Estimated League Largest club Highest vs year-end year-end year-end year-end
NA average total average average Average NA average total average average Average
attendance last season attendance attendance last season attendance ALB Dec Common LEK 0.0071 KAZ Dec Common TENGE 0.0049
GER 45,116 13,805,462 42,665 80,521 1.8 AZE 2,381 457,152 2,299 8,013 3.4 AND Dec Common € 1.0000 LIE Dec Various CHF 0.8219
ENG 34,600 13,148,133 35,294 75,387 2.2 BLR 2,372 469,651 2,302 4,841 2.0 ARM Dec Common DRAM 0.0019 LTU Dec Common LITAS 0.2896
ESP 28,796 10,942,404 28,221 75,844 2.6 SVK 2,183 432,294 2,251 5,051 2.3 AUT June Common € 1.0000 LUX Dec Common € 1.0000
ITA 22,466 8,537,004 24,306 49,020 2.2 FIN 2,159 427,484 2,225 3,610 1.7 AZE Dec Common MANAT 0.9093 LVA Dec Common LATS 1.4160
NED 19,466 5,956,562 19,296 50,147 2.6 BUL 2,117 508,005 1,883 4,227 2.0 BEL June Various € 1.0000 MDA Dec Common LEU 0.0612
FRA 18,870 7,170,505 19,742 42,892 2.3 CRO 2,071 478,514 1,991 9,567 4.6 BIH Dec Common MARK 0.5113 MKD Dec Common DENAR 0.0163
SCO 13,865 3,161,219 13,670 50,904 3.7 IRL 1,614 290,466 1,612 3,864 2.4 BLR Dec Common BYR 0.0001 MLT May Various € 1.0000
RUS 12,903 4,541,790 12,250 20,786 1.6 BIH 1,405 335,717 1,563 5,067 3.6 BUL Dec Common LEV 0.5113 MNE Dec Common € 1.0000
SUI 12,253 1,985,065 11,365 29,775 2.4 MKD 1,387 274,688 1,334 4,512 3.3 CRO Dec Common KUNA 0.1345 NED June Common € 1.0000
UKR 11,309 2,714,190 9,225 36,983 3.3 SVN 1,368 246,276 1,200 3,800 2.8 CYP Dec Various € 1.0000 NIR Dec Various GBP 1.1522
TUR 11,058 3,387,046 11,013 32,833 3.0 ISL 1,123 148,192 1,205 2,148 1.9 CZE Dec Various KRONER 0.0407 NOR Dec Common KRONER 0.1282
POR 10,957 2,629,665 10,080 42,464 3.9 GEO 1,066 230,310 1,110 2,400 2.3 DEN Dec Various KRONE 0.1342 POL Dec Common ZLOTY 0.2429
POL 8,849 2,123,715 8,496 20,928 2.4 NIR 847 187,171 893 1,802 2.1 ENG June Various GBP 1.1669 POR June Common € 1.0000
BEL 8,659 2,615,001 8,720 20,508 2.4 MNE 781 153,920 610 2,882 3.7 ESP June Common € 1.0000 ROU Dec Common LEU 0.2359
NOR 7,994 1,918,530 8,117 14,510 1.8 LTU 781 153,779 701 1,911 2.4 EST Dec Common € 1.0000 RUS Dec Common ROUBLE 0.0245
SWE 7,319 1,744,347 6,547 13,865 1.9 ARM 692 77,490 575 2,207 3.2 FIN Nov Various € 1.0000 SCO June Various GBP 1.1669
DEN 7,103 1,406,451 7,049 15,540 2.2 MDA 660 130,725 759 1,453 2.2 FRA June Various € 1.0000 SMR € 1.0000
AUT 7,075 1,273.464 7,953 15,832 2.2 MLT 624 119,901 679 n/a n/a FRO Dec Common KRONE 0.1342 SRB Dec Common DINAR 0.0098
GRE 4,931 1,173,249 6,424 21,529 4.4 LVA 504 72,640 465 841 1.7 GEO Dec Common LARI 0.4260 SUI Dec Various CHF 0.8105
ROU 4,855 1,485,715 5,019 15,751 3.2 FRO 503 68,350 487 991 2.0 GER June Various € 1.0000 SVK Dec Various € 1.0000
CZE 4,715 1,131,540 4,492 10,322 2.2 LUX 442 80,418 387 1,145 2.6 GRE June Common € 1.0000 SVN Dec Common € 1.0000
ISR 3,898 1,153,683 4,602 8,767 2.2 WAL 329 63,120 339 728 2.2 HUN Dec Common FORINT 0.0036 SWE Dec Common SEK 0.1107
KAZ 3,854 739,936 4,137 6,666 1.7 SMR 242 37,380 227 300 1.2 IRL Nov Common € 1.0000 TUR Dec Various LIRA 0.4284
HUN 3,828 918,690 2,568 7,800 2.0 EST 203 36,504 160 515 2.5 ISL Dec Common KRONA 0.0062 UKR Dec Common HRYVNIA 0.0899
SRB 3,807 913,740 2,453 19,783 5.2 LIE n/a ISR Dec Common SHEKEL 0.2009 WAL Dec Various GBP 1.1522
ALB 3,064 494,000 2,349 5,800 1.9 AND n/a ITA June Various € 1.0000 1.0000
CYP 2,896 631,318 3,344 7,576 2.6 TOTAL 6,909 103,182,571 6,797 17,292 2.6

121
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Appendices

APPENDIX: Data sources and abbreviations

Data sources Explanation of sources
Underlying Unless otherwise stated in the report, footnotes or in this appendix, the financial figures used in the review Club Licensing Q&As – data extracted from the list of licensing decisions submitted by the 53 national associations
source of have been taken directly from figures submitted by clubs within the club licensing cycle covering the 2012/13 Licensing and to UEFA.
financial UEFA club competition season. These figures refer to the financial year ending in 2011, in most cases Financial Fair
analysis at 31 December 2011. The figures have been extracted from financial statements prepared either using Play
national accounting practices or International Financial Reporting Standards and audited according to
International Auditing Standards. The licensor in each country has extracted figures from the submitted Competition League structures and trends – taken from UEFA.com, cross-referenced against Wikipedia.
financial statements and completed a standardised template issued by the UEFA club licensing unit. profile of Attendances and trends – www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn.htm, and www.soccerway.com
With the exception of checking the fundamental soundness of the information and getting descriptions of domestic club verified or supplemented in some cases by licensors and UEFA databases.
major items, UEFA has not sought to verify the figures provided by the licensors against the source financial football
statements or to obtain more detailed explanations as to survey responses.
People Data extracted from www.transfermarkt.de database and sorted, sanitised and analysed by UEFA.
Standardised Financial statement disclosures and accounting policies and interpretations of these policies differ profile:
2011 UEFA tremendously within and between countries. This makes the comparison of financial data extremely coaches,
template: challenging; hence the use of a standardised template to improve comparisons. The definition of players and
rationale items in this template takes into account the following: (a) a minimum level of financial disclosure is agents
specifically included in the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations and hence should
be available to all clubs, forming the basis for the template; (b) to this basis some additional financial
Financial The data submitted, covering 679 clubs, was used to make extrapolations for the remaining 54 European
disclosures are added, beyond the UEFA-defined minimum and hence available in some but not all
profile of Eu- top-division clubs. The general approach was to use the average data of smaller clubs from each division
cases, which are considered relevant and able to increase transparency (e.g. split of personnel costs
ropean club (excluding the four largest-income clubs) to calculate the estimated Europe-wide total and the peer groups.
between playing staff and other staff and also between social charges and base remuneration, split of
football; five- This best but not perfect approach reflects the fact that the missing clubs not included in data submission
income source between UEFA and national competitions, split of investing cash flows between player
year review; are always the lower-ranked clubs, which usually also have lower finances, an assumption validated by many
transfer payments/receipts and longer-term fixed asset investments or sales); (c) from year to year,
income; countries which submitted financial figures in conjunction with finishing league position. Although in some
template changes are kept to a minimum as licensors get used to the template and this also facilitates
cases the actual average income may differ, the Europe-wide total is unlikely to differ by more than +/-1% as
year on year comparisons; (d) a limit is placed on the level of detail included in the template to stop costs and the estimations are for smaller clubs. In addition the composition of the peer groups should also be accurate.
the exercise becoming too time-consuming for licensors. Between April-July 2013 benchmarking data profitability;
verified by club and licensor will be provided through the secure financial fair play IT tool.
assets and
Exceptions Financial data covers the audited financial statements for the 2011 financial year, with the exception of debts
two non-licensed Spanish clubs (Santander and Mallorca) where 2010 data has been included and two
other Spanish clubs (Zaragoza and Deportivo) for which headline 2011 financial data was sourced from
the Professor Gay report.
Financial periods cover 12 months, with the exception of the following clubs which changed their year-
end during 2011: Fenerbahce – TUR (7 months); Anderlecht – BEL (9 months); Lierse – BEL (18 months);
Plzen – SVK (18 months); Neath – WAL (18 months); Marsaxlokk – MLT (7 months); and Israeli clubs,
whose data is annualised on seven-month interim data.

Reporting Article 46bis of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations (2012 edition) is an expansion
perimeter of Article 46 in the 2010 edition. In particular, the regulations specify a wide range of activities that
should be included within the reporting perimeter, including employee compensation, club operations
and financing, and require a written justification for the exclusion of any such activities.
The data in this report corresponds to the reporting perimeters as provided by the national licensors for
the purposes of benchmarking and may differ from the reporting perimeters assessed for the purposes
of the financial fair play break-even assessment.
We note that the reporting perimeters reflected in the benchmarking data have changed for the
following clubs: in the German figures (as pre-noted in last year’s report) the reporting perimeter was
expanded for Bayern Munich, FC Schalke 04, Borussia Monchengladbach and Borussia Dortmund; in
the Turkish figures, Fenerbahce; in the English figures, the perimeters were adapted for Manchester
United and Chelsea FC. We specify these clubs as the changes in perimeter had a significant effect on
the balance-sheet analysis. Generally, there is minimal effect on revenues, costs and profitability.

122
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
 The European Club Licensing Benchmarking Report Financial Year 2011

Definition of terms used in report Definition of terms used in report

Average clubs References to “average” club (e.g. average club revenue) is the aggregate figure of the division divided Income/ Term used to break down revenue (income) into smaller components. Unless separately disclosed within
by the number of clubs. Where analysis is in percentage terms, this is therefore the weighted average revenue commercial revenues, TV-related prize money such as UEFA competition distributions should be included
(average of totals rather than average of each club %). streams within broadcast revenues. Beverage and food sales would normally be included as commercial revenues
but may be included within gate receipts for some hospitality customers. Likewise, sponsorship revenues
Benchmarking Benchmarking refers to collaborative benchmarking using information (i) directly prepared or supplied
may include an element of gate receipts if matchday stadium access is included within overall commercial
by clubs for the purposes of obtaining a club licence; (ii) obtained by utilising the knowledge held within
and partner agreements. Revenue stream splits should therefore be considered as indicative only.
the extensive network of licensing managers and their staff at each of the 53 national associations;
(iii) held by the UEFA club licensing unit or elsewhere within the UEFA administration. National The national associations are the 53 UEFA member associations through which the club licensing system is
Benchmarking in the narrow context of this report does not refer to the ranking of countries or Associations structured. In the report, these include the three member associations which have delegated all or part of the
target setting but rather to increasing basic transparency and knowledge of club football in financial management of licensing on a national level to the league (Austria, Germany and Switzerland).
and other licensing areas. The objectives are set out in the report introduction. In the general club
Typical figure This is the non-technical term for median figure. It represents the middle figure from a group (e.g. in a peer
licensing context, the UEFA benchmarking project also has the wider objectives of the sharing of best
group of nine leagues, the median will be the figure from the fifth highest).
practice between national associations on licensing matters and enabling better informed decision-
making by national and international football stakeholders. It complements the benchmarking of Financial fair Financial fair play is a new licensing requirement adopted by UEFA in accordance with its member associations,
national associations themselves and their operations (UEFA Top Executive Programme [TEP] and KISS play the clubs, leagues and players’ unions to monitor the financial situation of clubs. Full details are provided in
[Knowledge and Information Sharing Scenario programme]). the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations (2012 edition), which can be downloaded from
www.UEFA.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/80/54/10/1805410_DOWNLOAD.pdf
Club licensing This refers to the system, based on the observance of minimum criteria set out in the UEFA Club Licensing
system and Financial Fair Play Regulations, that leads to the granting or refusal of licences to clubs. The holding of
a licence is a prerequisite for access to UEFA competitions (competition regulations).
Countries/ Refers to clubs from a UEFA member association. All member associations operate their own leagues,
divisions/ with the exception of Liechtenstein, whose clubs compete in the Swiss leagues. The member associations
leagues of UEFA are not all countries as defined by the United Nations. Some, such as England, Northern Ireland,
Scotland and Wales, are constituent countries of the United Kingdom. Another, the Faroe Islands, is an
autonomous region of the kingdom of Denmark. Nevertheless, in the report we refer at times to countries.
The three-letter codes used are the UEFA codes, which differ in some cases from the IOC or ISO codes
(Latvia, Romania and Slovenia).
Currency The template supplied to and received from licensors included a column for translation to the euro currency.
Where this foreign exchange translation was not prepared by the licensor, UEFA applied exchange rates from
the OANDA website (most common financial year-end mid-rate exchange rate used for balance sheet and
also for profit & loss account). Where clubs have varying financial year-end dates, the most common date
was used. See full details in appendix table.
Income/ Income (either average or total) and revenue are used interchangeably to aid the syntax of the report text.
Revenue Either term when used throughout the report excludes income or profits from player transfers, excludes gains
or losses from divestment of assets, excludes gains and losses from financial items (income or net gains
from investments or interest income) and excludes gains or losses from non-operating items (all of which are
analysed separately). The definition of “exceptional incomes” differs considerably between countries but is
rare under the IFRS and, therefore, “exceptional incomes” are included within revenue/income.

Disclaimer
This review is based on figures supplied to UEFA by licensors (national associations or leagues). This data has not been verified or checked
against the source financial statements by UEFA for its accuracy. The review has been written in general terms, to provide context only, and
should not therefore be relied on to cover specific situations. The review sets out some of the difficulties in comparing data and information
extracted from financial statements but this list is not exhaustive. The review is addressed to national associations (or leagues where the league
is the licensor) and is not intended to be utilised or relied upon by any other parties. No rights or claims against UEFA can be derived from this
document and its contents.

123
HIGHLIGHTS INDEX
Production
UEFA

Authors
Sefton Perry and Stephanie Leach

Contributor
Mario Maggi

Acknowledgements and special thanks

The club licensing network, in particular finance officers and licensing managers
who submitted data and the UEFA Language Services.

Enquiries
Enquiries and comments to be addressed to Sefton Perry at [email protected]