WSL United Women's wage bill

Demon Barber

Demon Cup sponsor
Joined
Nov 14, 2022
Messages
2,028
Last edited:
It's hard doing financial comparisons between the clubs, but it's certainly the case that Chelsea's budget has been two or three times as much as United's for years. Arsenal's has been heading in that direction for the past couple of years and they've been much better payers than us for a while - especially when they've chosen to pay a premium for Lionesses and other top names.

The reason they're hard to compare is that it's mostly up to the clubs what they do/don't include in spending and income. Some charge a percentage for the training ground, the medical facilities etc and some don't. Equally, the club can decide that the women's team get 1% of commercial income or can get all the income from certain sponsorships etc.

The wage bill is usually easier to compare but is always a couple of years out of date by the time it's published by some clubs. Even then the question of whether to include medical, marketing and legal staff is up to the club. £5m on players is easy to understand - but when the £5m covers players + other full-time staff it's harder. Especially in the women's game where most player wages are comparable to the wages paid to other skilled staff.

The interesting one for Arsenal in particular is around matchday revenue. They've massively grown their WSL attendances by using the Emirates and doing some well targeted marketing. But opening the Emirates costs money and how that's priced in isn't obvious.

At any rate - yes, the big two spenders Chelsea and Arsenal are very much the big two.
 
I appreciate the detail, but for someone who doesn't want his head to be frazzled with financials, I thought the article was interesting. Key takeaways:

- Arsenal spend twice as much as us on wages (£11.5m v £5.8m)
- Chelsea and City have not published their financial reports
- United's matchday revenue has declined, whilst Arsenal's has risen (I'm relying on you for that last bit but I am sure you are correct)
- In wages we are closer to fifth placed Brighton (£5m) than we are to the top three
- We made £500, 000 profit in the last financial year
 
Demon Barber said:
I appreciate the detail, but for someone who doesn't want his head to be frazzled with financials, I thought the article was interesting. Key takeaways:

- Arsenal spend twice as much as us on wages (£11.5m v £5.8m)
- Chelsea and City have not published their financial reports
- United's matchday revenue has declined, whilst Arsenal's has risen (I'm relying on you for that last bit but I am sure you are correct)
- In wages we are closer to fifth placed Brighton (£5m) than we are to the top three
- We made £500, 000 profit in the last financial year
Click to expand...
Don't Arsenal use The Emirates for their games, so it would generate a much higher matchday revenue and they get lot bigger crowds as well.
 
DomesticTadpole said:
Don't Arsenal use The Emirates for their games, so it would generate a much higher matchday revenue and they get lot bigger crowds as wewell.
Click to expand...
Very true - but higher costs as well.

We got 7500 at OT v Bayern and 24,000 v City. Arsenal had 56,000 v Chelsea and 46, 000 v Spurs. Something has to change if we are going to be competitive.

Interestingly, the attendance for the Arsenal v United game was only 2,500 - presumably not at the Emirates.
 
Last edited:
Demon Barber said:
- Arsenal spend twice as much as us on wages (£11.5m v £5.8m)
- Chelsea and City have not published their financial reports
- United's matchday revenue has declined, whilst Arsenal's has risen (I'm relying on you for that last bit but I am sure you are correct)
- In wages we are closer to fifth placed Brighton (£5m) than we are to the top three
- We made £500, 000 profit in the last financial year
Click to expand...

Just an observation on the comparisons and why they're tricky to do. City and United aren't far apart on declared wages. But I say declared wages because I remain suspicious of player sponsorship deals and the like. Chelsea and Arsenal are miles ahead both on declared wages and individual player sponsorship opportunities.

Our matchday revenue has declined and that's one of the tough things to take. After COVID we struggled to get the crowds back. When England won the Euros, Arsenal saw an opportunity to build and United didn't respond.

Put simply the kids loved Alessia, Mary and Ella. They loved the players and the story and that turned into a love of other key players in our team like Lucia. A fragile and fickle fanbase maybe, but these weren't kids trained from birth to want to go and watch United play, they were new recruits and their parents/families were new recruits to women's football.

Since then, we've had Ratcliffe effectively deliver negative PR towards the women's team. Certainly it acted as a slap down towards fans who were hoping for more ambition.

Combine that with a style of play that wasn't going to win many converts and it's hard to build or even maintain a fan base. I'm still an optimist about us, because of our players and our team spirit but I can see why confidence and enthusiasm has been dented. So yes, attendances at LSV have fallen and we're no closer to working out how to make OT feel like home.
 
Does their wage bill include the £2-3m it will likely cost to staff the Emirates on a match day over the course of the season or is that swallowed up in other accounts?
 
Demon Barber said:
Very true - but higher costs as well.

We got 7500 at OT v Bayern and 24,000 v City. Arsenal had 56,000 v Chelsea and 46, 000 v Spurs. Something has to change if we are going to be competitive.

Interestingly, the attendance for the Arsenal v United game was only 2,500 - presumably not at the Emirates.
Click to expand...
Our WSL match against them was a weekend match at the Emirates and got 37k.

The low attendance was our midweek WSL Cup match at their mini-stadium. Not a great place to get to, especially by public transport and tougher for evening matches. I reckon that would knock out most of the family groups and a lot of other fans.
 
cj_sparky said:
Does their wage bill include the £2-3m it will likely cost to staff the Emirates on a match day over the course of the season or is that swallowed up in other accounts?
Click to expand...
I doubt it but it may appear somewhere else on their accounts. I don't know how much it costs them to open the Emirates for a WSL matchday. I reckon it'll eat a big chunk of the ticket money though.
 
Demon Barber said:
Very true - but higher costs as well.

We got 7500 at OT v Bayern and 24,000 v City. Arsenal had 56,000 v Chelsea and 46, 000 v Spurs. Something has to change if we are going to be competitive.

Interestingly, the attendance for the Arsenal v United game was only 2,500 - presumably not at the Emirates.
Click to expand...
Arsenal v United has been at the Emirates two years running. I was at both. That 2,500 is incorrect.
 
Scanny said:
Arsenal v United has been at the Emirates two years running. I was at both. That 2,500 is incorrect.
Click to expand...

10th Jan 37,000 in the WSL at the Emirates, 21st Jan 2,418 in the League Cup at Kingsmeadow.

Note to self, Kingsmeadow is Chelsea and Meadow Park is Borehamwood's ground that Arsenal use!
 
Last edited:
@Scanny Yes - my mistake. Hurried and inadequate "research" on my part. 37,627 for the Emirates game. Even so it shows what a draw playing at a big stadium gives them. Even Arsenal do not get the crowds at their smaller ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.