Tuesday 15 September 2026
Evening EditionRSS

ZOTPAPER

News without the noise

ZOTPAPER
Business

Heavily Indebted Football Clubs Still Signing Star Players: How Do They Afford It?

Complex financial structures and revenue growth allow teams like Liverpool to retain top talent despite mounting debts.

edit
By LineZotpaper
Published
Read Time3 min
Despite carrying billions in debt, top football clubs continue to sign and retain star players like Mohamed Salah, raising questions about the sustainability of their financial models. Experts point to creative amortization of transfer fees, booming broadcast revenues, and lenient financial regulations as key enablers.

In the world of elite football, eye-watering transfer fees and wage packets have become routine, even as club debt soars. Liverpool FC, for example, reportedly owes over £250 million, yet it recently handed Mohamed Salah a contract extension worth around £350,000 per week. How is this possible?

At the heart of the explanation lies the distinction between debt and cash flow. Clubs like Liverpool generate substantial operating revenue from matchday sales, broadcasting rights (the Premier League's global TV deal alone brings in over £100 million per club annually), and commercial partnerships. Debt is often long-term, structured as bonds or loans for infrastructure projects like stadium expansions. As long as the club can service its interest payments and maintain or grow revenue, it can continue to invest in players.

Another key factor is transfer fee amortization. When a club buys a player for, say, £85 million on a five-year contract, it spreads the cost over those five years in its accounts—roughly £17 million per season. This makes expensive signings look far cheaper on annual books. Combined with rising revenue, a club can often absorb star wages even with a large debt pile.

Meanwhile, UEFA's Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules—and their successor, the Financial Sustainability Regulations (FSR)—allow clubs to spend up to 70% of revenue on wages and transfers. Revenue growth, especially from Middle East and US investments, has pushed that ceiling higher for many top clubs.

Critics, however, argue that such practices are a house of cards. If broadcast revenues plateau or a club fails to qualify for the Champions League, the leverage can tip into crisis. Historical examples like Barcelona, which sold off future broadcasting rights to fund signings while carrying massive debt, show the risks. The club is now struggling to register players under stricter La Liga rules.

Moreover, debt can be a strategic choice by owners. Club holding companies often take on debt to fund transfers rather than injecting equity, hoping future revenue will cover the costs. When interest rates rise, as they have globally, the burden intensifies.

Regulators are starting to tighten. UEFA's new squad cost ratio limits spending relative to revenue and gains. Governments in the UK and Europe are also considering independent football regulators to enforce financial sustainability. Whether these measures will curtail the star-signing spree remains to be seen.

§

Analysis

Why This Matters

  • Fan impact: Heavily indebted clubs that overspend risk insolvency, potentially triggering points deductions or relegation, directly affecting matchday experiences and team loyalty.
  • Broader significance: The disparity between debt and player spending highlights systemic financial fragility in football, with implications for the sport's global business model and future regulation.
  • What happens next: As regulatory reforms (UEFA FSR, UK regulator) take effect and interest rates stay elevated, clubs may face hard choices—sell stars to reduce debt or risk sanctions.

Background

The issue of club debt is not new. In the 2010s, clubs like Manchester United and Barcelona became heavily leveraged through leveraged buyouts or mismanagement. Financial Fair Play (FFP) was introduced in 2011 by UEFA to prevent clubs from spending beyond their means, but loopholes—such as owner injections and amortization—allowed persistent deficits. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed vulnerabilities as matchday revenue vanished, forcing clubs to rely on loans and deferred transfer fees. In 2024, UEFA replaced FFP with stricter Financial Sustainability Regulations that cap squad costs at 70% of revenue, but implementation is gradual.

Key Perspectives

Club executives and owners: They argue that debt is a tool for growth—investing in star players generates more revenue through ticket sales, merchandise, and global appeal. As long as revenue outpaces interest payments, the model is sustainable. They point to consistently rising TV deals and commercial income.

Regulators and football governance bodies: UEFA and national leagues maintain that financial discipline is essential for the sport's long-term health. They are closing loopholes and imposing sanctions (e.g., points deductions for breaches) to curb reckless spending, but concede that revenue growth allows some headroom.

Critics and financial analysts: They warn that debt-financed star signings rely on optimistic revenue projections. If broadcast rights bubble bursts or a club fails to perform, the leverage becomes dangerous. They cite examples like Barcelona and Portuguese clubs that traded future earnings for short-term success.

What to Watch

  • UEFA's enforcement of the 70% squad cost ratio during the 2026-27 season.
  • Premier League clubs' summer transfer window spending relative to debt disclosure in annual accounts.
  • The UK football regulator's statutory powers—expected to be finalized by late 2026—to impose financial sustainability tests on clubs.

Sources

newspaper

Zotpaper

Articles published under the Zotpaper byline are synthesized from multiple source publications by our AI editor and reviewed by our editorial process. Each story combines reporting from credible outlets to give readers a balanced, comprehensive view.

Editorial ProcessSubscribe