THREE FOOTBALL BUSINESS STORIES THAT YOU MAY HAVE MISSED THIS WEEK
With the World Cup finished, football’s commercial focus has now immediately returned to the European club game. The transfer window is well underway, and transfer fees are higher than ever, with questions surrounding whether the market can sustain this level of inflation. The American model we have seen throughout the World Cup may have clouded our judgement, as the amount of money in the US compared to European sports still has a massive gap, seen in the recent speculation around Liverpool’s valuation. However, with the British record transfer being broken yet again, it’s clear to see how important business is in football. And finally, football’s domestic calendar is claimed to be threatened by FIFA and Infantino’s wish of a 64-team World Cup tournament, yet again demonstrating how growth in the financial department is being prioritised over the safety and welfare of players.
LIVERPOOL’S $6-7 BILLION VALUATION
One of England and the footballing world’s biggest clubs, Liverpool, has recently been rumoured with a possible minority stake sale being invested into the club. Fenway Sports Group has received an approach from a consortium led by British-Indian investor Amit Bhatia regarding the purchase of a minority stake in the club. Reuters reported that a transaction could value the club at between $6 billion and $7 billion, although no deal has been completed at this time.
This valuation mark follows a similar pattern to most big European clubs. With Liverpool generating approximately $900 million in revenue during the financial year to May 2025, the midpoint valuation of $6.5 billion gives the club a valuation of around 7.2 times annual revenue. This figure is fairly normal for a major European football investment, shown by Reuters Breakingviews calculations, as since 2019, seven significant European club transactions have averaged just over six times the revenue. This was also seen in the recent investment made by Sir Jim Ratcliffe, with the value of Manchester United approximately 7.7 times the revenue.
If we compare these statistics to American sports franchises, it makes Liverpool’s valuation look very cheap. The Boston Celtics were valued at around 14 times the revenue, while the Los Angeles Lakers were valued at around 19 times the revenue. By comparison, Manchester United’s listed shares trade at approximately 4.6 times forward revenue, while Juventus trades at around 2.4 times. This significant difference between U.S. and European investments raises the question as to why investors pay substantially lower revenue multiples for elite football clubs than for American franchises.
Even though football is the biggest and most watched sport globally, it doesn’t automatically mean it adopts a US-style valuation. This is largely down to football clubs carrying many more risks than American franchises, and the fact that U.S. sport prioritises income and safety over the jeopardy and excitement that football brings. For example, many American sports avoid things such as relegation or qualification-dependent European revenue, which has affected major clubs, such as Manchester United and Spurs, in recent years. An NBA or NFL owner can endure a poor season without losing their place in the competition, and continental competition doesn’t exist, so there is also no worry about loss of income there. But in football, a European club could lose tens of millions if they are relegated or fail to qualify for Europe, and it could have serious consequences in a club’s short- and long-term endeavours.
Other reasons why football clubs are much riskier investments than American ones include the volatile broadcasting income, unrestricted competition for players, salary caps and the need to spend continuously to remain competitive. All these factors are avoided in U.S. sports, but in football, they are essential considerations investors have to factor in before choosing to invest in a club. And this is why investors pay considerably less and value clubs at much lower prices than U.S. franchises, even if football is the global sport.
CHELSEA’S £117 MILLION GAMBLE ON MORGAN ROGERS
Chelsea have signed England international Morgan Rogers from Aston Villa for a British record transfer fee of £117 million in the past week, with his contract running until 2033. The package has surpassed the fee of the previous most expensive British player, Elliot Anderson, after his move to Manchester City earlier in July, with his move reportedly worth £116 million.
The 23-year-old is also Chelsea’s most expensive signing, with the Blues’ record transfer fee for a player always being broken. Moises Caicedo’s crown was stolen as Rogers’ transfer fee beat the £115 million that was paid for the Ecuadorian. It was a surprise when Chelsea managed to sign the ex-Middlesbrough man, with the forward heavily linked to Arsenal, before Xabi Alonso swooped him and secured his man. Rogers scored 31 goals in 125 appearances for Aston Villa, and recorded 10 Premier League goals last season, being especially brilliant in the first half of the season.
Despite Chelsea finishing 10th in the Premier League last season, they have managed to sign one of the most promising attackers in English football, and have already spent the most out of any club in world football, after the signings of Maxence Lacroix and Marco Pellestra. For Aston Villa, as well, it is an excellent deal and allows them to reinvest in the squad with the extraordinary amount of money gained from their record sale. Middlesbrough have also gained £25 million from this sale, due to their sell-on clause after selling Morgan Rogers to Aston Villa back in 2024, which is a record for them too.
The fact that the British transfer record was broken twice in the same month suggests how much weight elite young domestic players carry in the transfer market. Elliot Anderson and Morgan Rogers are examples of players' value being at an increasingly large premium due to their age, England international status and Premier League experience. Chelsea have also got a player who is versatile, is homegrown (which is helpful for squad registration) and is still young enough to have resale value. But transfer inflation is being demonstrated in this market, with players with just a few years of Premier League seasons under their belt now going for over £100 million, a fee considered only for the best players in the world just 5 or so years ago.
His deal running until 2033 also protects Chelsea from losing the player cheaply and spreads the accounting cost of the transfer over several years, helping them keep in line with financial fair play. However, due to such a long contract, if Rogers underperforms, Chelsea are committed to both his contract and a very large transfer cost for most of the next decade. The London club have adopted this strategy for a while, offering abnormally long contracts to younger players to preserve their resale value. But, with many previous transfers not performing, and Chelsea having to keep unwanted players on their books due to these contracts, they will be hoping Rogers shows the class he has shown throughout his time in the Premier League at Stamford Bridge.
LA LIGA VS FIFA: WHO CONTROLS FOOTBALL’S CALENDAR?
La Liga president Javier Tebas has accused FIFA of “destroying the football industry” by expanding international competitions at the expense of clubs and domestic leagues. He also said FIFA president Gianni Infantino should resign and criticised the possibility of expanding the men’s World Cup to 64 teams.
The 2026 World Cup contained a record 48 teams, 104 matches and more than five weeks of competition, leaving just over a month of rest for players before the domestic league season starts. The FIFA president wants to expand the tournament further, into a 64-team edition, which would follow a similar structure, but there would be 128 matches (24 more than in 2026), approximately one additional week of competition and twice as many matches as the former 32-team format. This would significantly impact the domestic league season, with Tebas arguing that domestic competitions sustain the football industry throughout the year, whereas the World Cup lasts around 40 days and involves only a minority of professional players.
The La Liga president has hit out at Infantino for considering this, and has called for him to resign, especially after the controversial decision to suspend Florian Balogun’s red card, supposedly being influenced by U.S. President Donald Trump. Tebas argues that the domestic leagues will carry many of the costs from an expanded tournament, and it’s a purely commercial-focused decision, not a footballing one. Domestic football is the backbone of the sport, with Tebas stating that the World Cup, while being the biggest tournament in the world, should not be prioritised over club football, especially if it is for financial gain.
And it’s hard to disagree with the Spaniard, with FIFA benefiting hugely from expansion through additional matches, more broadcasting, ticketing and hospitality opportunities, more sponsorship exposure and greater control over football’s largest global event. But this means domestic leagues have disrupted calendars, and much greater risks of player availability, injuries and fatigue, especially for elite players who often play 60 or 70-plus games a season with little to no rest after international tournaments. There is also less space for domestic fixtures if the World Cup takes up to six weeks, meaning less rest in between domestic and European games, impacting performances and increasing risks of injuries. International qualifiers will also be severely reduced in importance, with a 64-team tournament meaning there is much less jeopardy involved for bigger nations.
Reuters also noted that easier World Cup qualification could reduce the commercial importance of these regional qualifying competitions. This could make continental confederations more dependent on money distributed by FIFA, shifting financial and political influence towards the global governing body, emphasising their commercial power, which is what they are after. There is also a direct financial burden on national associations, with France’s federation expecting its 2026 campaign to cost €24.5 million. The team reportedly believed it might need to reach at least the semi-finals to avoid losing money, showing how this tournament expansion is transferring power and revenue away from clubs, leagues and national federations just for their commercial gain.
