Other games (2025/26)

[Curva Sud Milano]

1 hour ago, Jaqen said:

 

 

Champions league apparently has more game time than any of the top 5 leagues. Poor numbers across the board mind. 

 

It's a bit off topic, but an interesting article has been published analyzing some data on the five most important leagues over the last five years. Two data points struck me: the average age of players and national players in their respective leagues.

The youngest league (based on minutes played) is the French one, the oldest is the Spanish one...  Bundesliga, Serie A and PL are in the middle and have very similar statistics.

The second data point is more surprising: La Liga has a 57% use of Spanish players (almost double that of all other leagues), followed by the Bundesliga (38.7%), Ligue 1 (34.2%), Serie A (30.5%), and PL (24.6%).

[bobbydazzla]

52 minutes ago, Curva Sud Milano said:

 

It's a bit off topic, but an interesting article has been published analyzing some data on the five most important leagues over the last five years. Two data points struck me: the average age of players and national players in their respective leagues.

The youngest league (based on minutes played) is the French one, the oldest is the Spanish one...  Bundesliga, Serie A and PL are in the middle and have very similar statistics.

The second data point is more surprising: La Liga has a 57% use of Spanish players (almost double that of all other leagues), followed by the Bundesliga (38.7%), Ligue 1 (34.2%), Serie A (30.5%), and PL (24.6%).

 

As with any salary info, it's likely a lot of guesswork. But if this is even fairly accurate then 50% of the top 20 club payrolls are Premier League. 

 

As a rule of thumb, players of all nations will be lured by the money on offer. And the PL offers the most money.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 6 by bobbydazzla

[duo]

Man City - ridiculous they can justify have the commercial income they do.  

[The College Dropout]

3 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

 

As with any salary info, it's likely a lot of guesswork. But if this is even fairly accurate then 50% of the top 20 club payrolls are Premier League. 

 

As a rule of thumb, players of all nations will be lured by the money on offer. And the PL offers the most money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can find total salaries in football clubs company accounts. Slightly distorted by non football staff for some clubs but it’s real data.  

 

 

[Paully]

Outrageous - lucky bastards!

 

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Aye, watched that this morning and on the highlights they basically accepted instantly that it was a foul on Gabriel.

 

Also another slightly dodgy incident where the Madrid striker got kind of bundled over with a slide tackle that missed the ball. 

[bobbydazzla]

46 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

You can find total salaries in football clubs company accounts. Slightly distorted by non football staff for some clubs but it’s real data.  

 

 

 

 

As you say, extrapolating players wages from all of the other non-playing staff wages will be the issue in terms of accuracy.

 

For example Spurs have a highest paid Director earning £3.7m, whereas Man City don't have any Directors wages attributed to the club accounts but they have a heavily stacked team of Execs on megabucks.

 

 

 

[leffe186]

1 minute ago, bobbydazzla said:

 

 

As you say, extrapolating players wages from all of the other non-playing staff wages will be the issue in terms of accuracy.

 

For example Spurs have a highest paid Director earning £3.7m, whereas Man City don't have any Directors wages attributed to the club accounts but they have a heavily stacked team of Execs on megabucks.

 

 

 

I also wonder about the wages we pay for staff to just run the stadium, which you would imagine is a huge amount. I suspect we don’t have to worry about that highest-paid director any more

 

What’s the significance of the “squad cost” figure? Is that just a sum of transfer fees, or does it factor in wages/amortization?

[bobbydazzla]

15 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

I also wonder about the wages we pay for staff to just run the stadium, which you would imagine is a huge amount. I suspect we don’t have to worry about that highest-paid director any more

 

What’s the significance of the “squad cost” figure? Is that just a sum of transfer fees, or does it factor in wages/amortization?

 

Yeah, the amount of extra staff needed for a 60,000 all purpose stadium versus a 15,000 stadium that only ever hosts football matches must be significant. 

And how much of the lower wage staffing is outsourced to 3rd parties like Sodexo and event security firms will also be different from club to club. 

 

At the end of the day, figuring out what a playing squad gets paid per month / year is largely educated guesswork.

 

I don't know the answer to the squad cost figure, I've never looked into it. 

 

 

 

Edited May 6 by bobbydazzla

[The College Dropout]

23 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

 

 

As you say, extrapolating players wages from all of the other non-playing staff wages will be the issue in terms of accuracy.

 

For example Spurs have a highest paid Director earning £3.7m, whereas Man City don't have any Directors wages attributed to the club accounts but they have a heavily stacked team of Execs on megabucks.

 

 

 

But that’s a relatively small amount in total.  How much do non football staff cost?  Less than Donnarumma’s annual salary.  
 

As those are real numbers it’s best to take those  with a small caveat some clubs have non football wages excluded (Chelsea, City). 
 

The bigger issue is the time lag.  
 

But Man U wage bill being £180m on capology but over 300m+ on annual accounts - shows you how wrong capology is.  
 

Use the reliable numbers.  

[bobbydazzla]

@leffe186 this is what AI says about "squad cost" in the NUFC accounts:

 

Short answer: they show what has been spent (net of amortisation), not what the squad is “worth” on the market.

Here’s how to read these accounts in practical terms, using the specific Newcastle United figures.

What the accounts do show

 

1. Historic cost of buying players (spread over contracts)

Under UK accounting rules (FRS 102), players are treated as intangible assets and recorded at cost, not market value.

Transfer fees (plus directly attributable costs) are capitalised

That cost is then amortised evenly over the length of the player’s contract

So the accounts capture what the club paid, allocated over time — not what the players could be sold for today. 

 

2. Current “book value” of the squad

The key figure is here:

“The intangible asset that is material to the financial statements is the first team squad.
The carrying value of the squad is £281.1m.” 

That £281.1m represents:

Original transfer costs

minus cumulative amortisation

minus any impairment

Think of this as the unwritten-down portion of past spending, not a valuation.

 

3. How much has recently been spent

From the notes on intangible assets:

Additions in 2024/25: £40.3m

Amortisation & impairment: £99.8m

Net book value fell from £350.0m → £281.1m

 

This tells you that:

Recent recruitment spending was relatively modest

Existing contracts are being run down year by year through amortisation

[The College Dropout]

13 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

 

Yeah, the amount of extra staff needed for a 60,000 all purpose stadium versus a 15,000 stadium that only ever hosts football matches must be significant. 

And how much of the lower wage staffing is outsourced to 3rd parties like Sodexo and event security firms will also be different from club to club. 

 

At the end of the day, figuring out what a playing squad gets paid per month / year is largely educated guesswork.

 

I don't know the answer to the squad cost figure, I've never looked into it. 

 

 

 

 

How many would be employees of Spurs football club?

 

Stewards, securityand cleaners almost certainly wouldn’t be. 
 

200 staff on an average salary of 60k is £12m.  Throw in the execs it’s what - £15-20m. Any way you cut it it’s sub 10% of total wage bills for most bigger clubs.

[bobbydazzla]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

But that’s a relatively small amount in total.  How much do non football staff cost?  Less than Donnarumma’s annual salary.  
 

As those are real numbers it’s best to take those  with a small caveat some clubs have non football wages excluded (Chelsea, City). 
 

The bigger issue is the time lag.  
 

But Man U wage bill being £180m on capology but over 300m+ on annual accounts - shows you how wrong capology is.  
 

Use the reliable numbers.  

 

That's the issue with accuracy, we don't know what the cost is. There's estimates that Man City are excluding at least £15m-ish of salaries by not paying their directors through the football club books.

 

And I said Capology numbers were to be taken as being guesswork. It was the first thing I wrote in my post. 

 

All I wanted was a quickfire way of demonstrating how powerful the spend is at the PL vs the other 4 x leagues in Europe. 

 

I'm not analysing the accounts of every club in every Top 5 league in Europe to make a simple point about player wages on this forum ya dafty.

 

 

[bobbydazzla]

Just now, The College Dropout said:

How many would be employees of Spurs football club?

 

Stewards, securityand cleaners almost certainly wouldn’t be. 
 

200 staff on an average salary of 60k is £12m.  Throw in the execs it’s what - £15-20m. Any way you cut it it’s sub 10% of total wage bills for most bigger clubs.

 

You don't know.

 

I don't know.

 

It's all guesswork.

 

Which is exactly what I said in my first post.

 

[Froggy]

1 hour ago, The College Dropout said:

You can find total salaries in football clubs company accounts. Slightly distorted by non football staff for some clubs but it’s real data.  

 

 

 

Newcastle closing in rightly on the "cartel."

 

@Yorkie Pretty much paying the same wages as Spurs last year and that's before adding Elanga, Ramsey, Woltemade, Wissa and Ramsey who are all reported to be on £100,000+ each. Thiaw also reported to be on £75k. 

 

£70m a year behind us and that's before we got rid of Sancho, Rashford, Onana, Antony, Hojlund, Lindelof, Eriksen, Evans etc. off the wage bill which is significantly more than £70m. 

 

Thoughts?

[Froggy]

10 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

But Man U wage bill being £180m on capology but over 300m+ on annual accounts - shows you how wrong capology is.

 

Our wage bill was £198m on Capology for 24/25, and that was the adjusted figure after removing Sancho, Rashford, Onana, Antony and Hojlund etc. after they left on loan (circa £50-60m of wages)

 

Add in the staff wages (like you say, around 10%, roughly £30m) and if anything it's showing Capology is fairly close to the real amounts.

[The College Dropout]

3 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

 

You don't know.

 

I don't know.

 

It's all guesswork.

 

Which is exactly what I said in my first post.

 

But we do know things, we have hard facts.

 

@Froggy  because Mbeumo, Cunha, Sesko, Lammens all play for free

[The College Dropout]

7 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

Our wage bill was £198m on Capology for 24/25, and that was the adjusted figure after removing Sancho, Rashford, Onana, Antony and Hojlund etc. after they left on loan (circa £50-60m of wages)

 

Add in the staff wages (like you say, around 10%, roughly £30m) and if anything it's showing Capology is fairly close to the real amounts.

So it was £100m+ off? I'm not great at maths but I make that 50%+ off.

 

Then.. what exactly are Capology basing their wages on? Can't be actual numbers, that hasn't been published yet.

[Froggy]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

But we do know things, we have hard facts.

 

@Froggy  because Mbeumo, Cunha, Sesko, Lammens all play for free

 

They're in 25/26 accounts, not 24/25. Their wages are significantly less than all the previous players I've mentioned though. 

 

I don't know who we will sign this summer, but with Casemiro, Zirkzee, Malacia, Ugarte and Bayinidr all set to leave, we will almost certainly reduce our wage bill again in 26/27. 

[Froggy]

Just now, The College Dropout said:

So it was £100m+ off? I'm not great at maths but I make that 50%+ off.

 

Then.. what exactly are Capology basing their wages on? Can't be actual numbers, that hasn't been published yet.

 

No, did you just stop reading there?  

 

They base their wages on reports. I'm not saying it's 100% accurate, but it's obviously not very far away at all. 

[bobbydazzla]

17 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

But we do know things, we have hard facts.

 

@Froggy  because Mbeumo, Cunha, Sesko, Lammens all play for free

 

Hit me up with the facts then.

 

Not educated guesswork

or estimates based on what the media says individual players get paid

or estimates on how many non-football staff are employed and what their wages are

or estimates on how many non-football staff are outsourced

or estimates about how much Directors might be getting paid who aren't the ones listed as the highest earning Director

or estimates about many of the Director salaries are excluded from the club accounts

and so on and so on.

 

If you have cold, hard, officially published factual evidence on what the annual player wages are at each Premier League club, then share them.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 6 by bobbydazzla

[The College Dropout]

Just now, Froggy said:

 

They're in 25/26 accounts, not 24/25. Their wages are significantly less than all the previous players I've mentioned though. 

 

I don't know who we will sign this summer, but with Casemiro, Zirkzee, Malacia, Ugarte and Bayinidr all set to leave, we will almost certainly reduce our wage bill again in 26/27. 

No doubt your wages will go down. No Europe. Big earners going. But you will obviously spend money again.

[The College Dropout]

2 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

No, did you just stop reading there?  

 

They base their wages on reports. I'm not saying it's 100% accurate, but it's obviously not very far away at all. 

reports don't include bonuses, which can be significant.

 

If we can't place Capology figures against the real figures ever - then it's a useless starting point. What did capology say the 24/25 wages were?

[Menace]

They're talking about salaries again 

[Froggy]

Just now, The College Dropout said:

reports don't include bonuses, which can be significant.

 

If we can't place Capology figures against the real figures ever - then it's a useless starting point. What did capology say the 24/25 wages were?

 

It's 24/25 we're talking about.

 

Like you said, the official figures will include staff wages etc. so we will never know the exact breakdown without asking players for their payslips.

 

I personally think Maguire's graph makes good reading for us though, aside from player fees owed and Glazer debt. It's all trending in the right direction.