In the Premier League, the main sponsor market is getting into full swing

With the winter transfer window having just closed, a new and crucial market has opened up, one that may not move players from one league to another, but is perhaps even more important in the budgets of European clubs. It is the wild and opaque market of commercial sponsorship, which decides how much it costs to put one logo in the middle of the shirts instead of another, and which is one of the most important chapters of the annual club budget. Especially under the regime of Financial Fair Play, sponsorship income has become indispensable not only for financial support but also to avoid sanctions from Uefa.

As the recent allegations against Manchester City, over 100 breaches from the 2009/10 season to the 2017/18 season, have shown, the issue of sponsorship has not only an economic or aesthetic impact, but also affects the rules and programming of each individual club. According to a lengthy article by The Athletic, negotiations have already begun in the Premier League about the many new major sponsors we will see on the shirts of football's most famous league from next season. Indeed, there will be many changes, some forced, some to increase revenue, some to avoid criticism from fans, which will affect half the teams in England's top division.

Among them is Chelsea, which after the turbulent change of ownership from Roman Abramovich to Todd Boehly also had to deal with the thorny case of its main sponsor 3, which unsuccessfully asked to be removed from the Blues' jerseys after the start of the Russian war of invasion in Ukraine. Now the telecoms company will finally sever its brand from that of the London team, which in turn will have to replace the £40 million it was contractually entitled to. Then there is the £20 million agreed with crypto company WhaleFin for the sleeve sponsor, who has decided to end a five-year contract after just one season. Chelsea will have to plug this budget hole soon, especially after spending over 400 million in January alone, and given the FFP restrictions, they do not have much time to do so.

Manchester United are also in a similar situation to Chelsea last season. The American owners are looking for a buyer and the main sponsor TeamViewer wants to get out of his contract as soon as possible. Although the Glazers would prefer to deal with one situation at a time and leave the search for a new shirt sponsor to the new owner, there is a willingness on the part of the German software company to end its contract now, which runs until 2026, and remain with the Manchester club as a secondary sponsor. And while the Big Six can demand around 50 million euros for each year that the company logo is prominently emblazoned in the middle of the jersey, the situation is different for the less emblazoned clubs.

Newcastle United, for example, recently taken over by a Saudi owner and fighting for a place in the Champions League, are eagerly looking for a replacement for the Chinese betting company Fun88, which is estimated to pay the Magpies only seven million pounds per season. Having betting companies as shirt sponsors is a practise that is still widespread among clubs at the bottom of the Premier League, although it has long been argued that it should be curtailed, not least because for such teams the revenue from the company that places its name in the middle of the shirt accounts for more than half of total revenue.

This dependence means that clubs often move from one deal to the next, trying to maximise value each time, which increases fluctuation and volatility more than actual economic value. At the same time, stricter regulation by eliminating betting companies and cryptocurrencies would consolidate the market but also make it less dynamic and competitive, reducing clubs' potential revenues and their resulting spending opportunities.