Biggest club in the world?

Chelsea have started talking about becoming a bigger club than Manchester United.  Sir Alex glows red and laughs.   But is there a shift happening in English – indeed world – football.  And if so where does that put Arsenal? Who is bigger – Arsenal, Chelsea or Manchester United

Come to that What is “bigger” in this context? 

You could talk of championship wins, or size of stadium.  But really the only thing that matters in the end is finance, because if you don’t make your club financially stable, then everything will blow up in your face.  Just ask Parma.

 Man U despite the size of its audience and brand charges very modest prices to watch the team – a fraction of what Arsenal and Chelsea charge.  The best season ticket at Man U costs half that at Arsenal – and that is at Highbury.  With the advent of Club Level the prices have just reached insane levels – or they would if people were not so keen to pay to see the team at any price.

Indeed it only needs the back of an envelope to realize that when Arsenal open the Emirates Stadium their turnover will shoot up to above that of even Real Madrid (another club like Man U with high audiences and world-wide recognition, but low entry costs.)

What this means is that Chelsea and Arsenal are already gearing up run rings round Man U in terms of gate receipts.   All they have to do to run financial rings around Man U overall is improve their marketing – which is what both are putting all their energy into – aided greatly by the fact that both have one huge asset that Man U don’t have – they are in London.

The other factor – and this is one that could probably prove decisive – is the model each team has for getting top players to the club.

Man U uses the traditional model – spend in the transfer window – something they keep doing, and something which worries the plc like mad

Chelsea invented a new method – Russian oil.

Arsenal have also found a different method – they set up the most intricate network of youth and young player scouts the world of football has ever seen and sign up the golden kids for very modest sums.

Both the Chelsea and Arsenal models are sustainable over time because even if the clubs have a poor season (or indeed a run of three 2nd places in a row and a continual failure in Europe) the expenditure is still ok.  The Man U model however is not sustainable in the face of poorer showings on the pitch because the only way to get the money in for the transfers each season is through marketing, and the marketing income is incredibly closely related to pitch success.   

While it would take a decline of earth shattering proportions to reduce the number of people who attend Man U home games, it will only take a few years of coming third and being overshadowed by two London teams for the marketing income (from shirts to overseas TV) to drop and for the long distance fans to switch from a city they will never visit, to one of the most famous cities in the world.