Sports clubs are lucrative proposition sand the biggest sports in the world generate huge money. Whether it’s in the AFL, NFL or the IPL, there is always big money thrown around on a whim. But no sport does this quite like soccer does.
Unlike many other sports, soccer is a sport that has a truly worldwide grasp with clubs worth millions able to be located on all four corners of the planet.
However, those at the top of the food chain are worth billions of dollars and are often under the control of a vast billionaire’s empire. What does this mean?
It means that some of the biggest clubs have the potential to generate more money in a year than an entire nation… well more than just one.
Whether it be through pay per staff member or outright revenue, these are figures that could establish these cultural icons as a more powerful entity as an entire country. But how could such a situation arise? Is it true that some soccer clubs are more financially powerful than a physical nation? Let’s find out – shall we…
Charting the contenders.
To best work out just what the situation looks like, it’s best to look at directly how much money is at play in terms of the richest clubs in the world and the poorest nations in the world.
It’s these figures that will best determine the differences and similarities between the two entities. So let’s look at the contenders…
World's Richest Clubs:
Every year, the best indicator of the richest clubs in the world comes from the Deloitte Football Money League. This annual chart ranks the top 20 richest clubs in the world in terms of overall revenue.
Most years, it is generally European clubs that make up the list especially from traditional powers such as England, Spain, Italy and Germany who are home to many of the top clubs.
IMF Lowest GDP Nominal Rankings
Ranking / Nation / Continent / GDP in millions ($).
Source: IMF
- Tuvalu / Oceania / 57
- 2. Nauru / Oceania / 133
- Palau / Oceania / 229
- Kiribati / Oceania / 231
- Marshall Islands / Oceania / 234
- Micronesia / Oceania / 401
- Sao Tome & Principe / Africa / 485
- Tonga / Oceania / 508
- Dominica / North America / 523
- Samoa / Oceania / 752
In what might not be too much of a shock, a lot of the world’s poorest nations are many of the small island nations scattered throughout the Pacific Ocean.
With low natural resources and only the most of basic infrastructures in place, it is not too surprising to see the sensations bring up the table.
It’s a stark contrast between the two sets of data with the two relevant parties involved very much nestled indifferent parts of the world. What some of these nations may lack in overall money, it may not be all doom and gloom.
With lower populations to account for, it means that their GDP per capita – the GDP nominal figure spread across the entire population – may account for a slightly higher amount than nations with higher populations.
Indeed, in that particular list, you will notice there are much more prevalent nations replacing those in the nominal GDP list.
IMF Lowest GDP Per Capita Rankings
Ranking / Nation / Continent / GDP in millions ($).
Source: IMF
- Burundi / Africa / 265
- South Sudan / Africa / 315
- Somalia / Africa / 347
- Mozambique / Africa / 425
- Malawi / Africa / 432
- Madagascar / Africa / 521
- Sierra Leone / Africa / 542
- Central African Republic / Africa / 552
- DR Congo / Africa / 588
- Afghanistan / Asia / 592
This chart paints a much different story to the previous one where African nations fill out almost the entirety of the top 10 when a GDP is spread evenly between its entire population.
Most of these African nations have much higher populations than small island nations stretching well into the millions instead of just tens of thousands.
This, alongside a toxic mix of civil wars, corrupt governments and failing economies makes for just as much struggle as a small island may face.
Generating the income
In this great money battle, much of the pivotal information comes down to one deciding factor – what generates their overall income.
For major football clubs, they will have access to dozens of different income streams with major contributions coming from:
· Sponsorship deals
· TV rights
· Transfer fees
· Funds from owners and consortiums
These aspects alone can easily outshine what a country might receive with many nations only generation from several aspects such as:
· Imports & Exports
· Taxes
· Overseas investments
These figures can sometimes be on a grand scale but are maintained into much more specific purposes which, overtime, could prove to be an expensive overlay.
Attracting commercial attention
One of the biggest generator of wealth in recent times has been the growing commercialization of football and how far some parties will go for certain rights.
EPL TV Rights
Let’s take a look at the TV rights for the English Premier League – perhaps the most lucrative sports league in any competition.
With the league having large fan bases all over the world, broadcasters across the planet look to spend billions acquiring the rights for just this one competition.
In the UK alone, the last set of TV rights was sold for a staggering $US6.5 billion ($AU9.1bn) over three years from 2022-25. This deal, split between Sky, BT and Amazon, would see each club receive a minimum of $US10.8m a year from TV rights – expanding to $32.5 over those 3 years.
Moving further ashore, the US broadcaster spent a staggering $2bn to secure the American rights for the EPL from 2022-2028. This would give clubs themselves an additional $16,000 per year just from this deal alone.
If you were to throw in other regional deals, such as the six-year $AU600m that Optus Sport signed in 2021 to renew their rights, then it can quite easily see each Premier League club earn a minimum of $20m a TV rights alone.
Fishing in Tuvalu
Put this into contrast with the commercial interests generated by small nations. For example, with a nominal GDP of just $57m, the small island nation of Tuvalu nowhere near reaches that.
Its biggest source of income comes from fishing with the government receiving $19m from licensing fees to access its waters – making up 45% of its overall national income.
Ironically though, these fees are paid from overseas companies looking to get into the island’s rich wildlife stock with very little being sold in Tuvaluan stores.
When you think that is almost the same amount just one Premier League club can receive from TV rights alone, it isn’t hard to see how many English clubs could be wealthier than a small island nation like Tuvalu.
A billionaire’s playground
Alongside rich commercial interests, having a billionaire to back you up doesn’t always hurt in the money race and that is what aids many major sports clubs
In recent years, sporting headlines have been fuelled by overseas billionaires purchasing football clubs at ease as well as Middle Eastern royal families adding clubs as part of their wealthy showcase.
It shines over many nations which lack such a coherent and reliable stream of money to help fund basic infrastructure and improve the lives of their citizens.
Manchester City vs Mozambique
To see how these two factors play differently against each other, let’s have a look at how billions of investments have been used by a major club in comparison to an impoverished nation.
Let’s take a look at the English side Manchester City – a club that shot to global prominence after a takeover from several prominent sheikhs in Abu Dhabi.
The consortium, led by Abu Dhabi’s Deputy Prime Minister Sheikh Mansour, has pumped billions into the club but with sponsorship deals involving Etihad Airways, Chinese firm CITIC as well as the wealth generated by league commercial rights and player transfers has made the club a cash machine.
Indeed, the core investment of the club, its various partner clubs across the globe (no less than 12) ensures that Man City have total assets estimated to be worth $3bn and generates annual revenue of $617m making it the sixth wealthiest club on the planet.
It’s a stark contrast how the wealth generated by a third world country such as Mozambique is used to support its population.
Mozambique, on Africa’s east coast, is a country laden with resources with high natural reserves in aluminum, coal and several large petrol reserves.
This equates to a healthy nominal GDP of $13bn outranking much more established nations such as The Bahamas, Armenia and Mauritius yet it has an appalling GDP per capita of just $425m per person.
The problem lies with how the government itself has sold off the land that the resources sit on and gain money back from whatever is taken from here.
After all, Mozambique has a huge mining industry yet take very little from it. Take the Mozal aluminium plant – which is the second largest on the African continent.
Even though the plant generates yearly revenue of $2bn, the government sees just 4% of whatever wealth is generated from it. The rest is split between mining giant BHP Billiton (47%), Mitsubishi (25%) and the Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa (24%).
With deals like this ensuring the vast money generated in the country sent overseas to multinational corporations, it leaves very little left for the government to back into the country.
It’s why Mozambique, and its population of approx. 30 million people have such a low standard of living and a failing economy.
All of this proves to be a stark contrast to the large footballing giants that see their leading investors pump their money back into their clubs and generate an entity that constantly generates hundreds of millions every year.
Crossing the pay line
Whilst looking at the vast sums of income and assets clubs and countries own, it doesn’t tell a story that the employees of a club or what a country’s population faces daily.
Indeed, a true indicator of wealth can sometimes simply come down to how people are paid – the very amounts needed to fund someone’s daily lifestyle.
Of course, the world’s biggest footballers will earn more than $1m a week so that wouldn’t make for a fair comparison.
Instead, let’s look at those who are just starting in the footballing realm and see just how much they might earn compared to what an average looks like in a third world country.
Academy earnings
It’s staggering to think about just how much young footballers can earn in a year. Any young player signed onto the books of a major European club’s academy may think they are earning meagre money but the reality is anything but.
Most 16-18-year-olds starting in their first job would likely find themselves on minimum wage meaning they could be lucky to break triple figures for a week’s wages.
Some academy footballers – well – they are already earning decent money that comfortably outweighs most people in their age groups.
Let’s look at the pay for those in Italy's Serie A where academy players are generally guaranteed the same amount no matter which club they belong to.
On average, youth players for Serie A sides are paid $291 a week in wages which raises to an annual salary of $15,153 regardless of whether you play for Juventus, Inter or Napoli.
It’s a comfortable amount to be earning for young players who would not normally have finished school for at least another two years.
These amounts are just a basic salary too so they discount any bonuses or clauses in their contracts should they break into the first team or perform above average.
Even though only a handful of youth team members will break into the first team at their age at that level, those who leave and play for teams in Serie B or Serie C will mostly find themselves still earning more than they would than any of their contemporaries.
DR Congo’s Poverty Problem
If you were to transfer even just one academy player’s wages over to someone living in an African country, it would transform their lives.
Take a look at the Democratic Republic of Congo – one of Africa’s most mineral-rich countries yet also one of the poorest in the entire continent.
With a population of 105 million, DR Congo is a country strife with poverty with an average GDP per capita of just$503 – a huge shock considering the vast resources the country has in several minerals.
Yet, corruption, wars and disease have left the country little in the way of resources to pay anyone who works for a living.
The figures are alarming with World Atlas noting the annual wage of the country sitting at just $725 and the daily income sitting at just $1.25.
To think that someone could earn these pitiful amounts working 12 hours a day in a cobalt mine all year round paints a stark contrast to what academy footballers earn in Europe in just their teenage years.
Add to the fact that former DR Congo government officials are being investigated for embezzling $132m for their own gains and it paints a very disturbing scene in the heart of Africa.
Yet, it is a scene that can be found across the continent where the citizens earn next to nothing despite their homelands containing vast resources waiting to be dug up for overseas companies to drain at will.
So where does this club vs country debate lie?
On the surface, it is hard to think that a local football club in Europe could contain more wealth and structure than entire countries.
However, it is very much the case as many of Europe’s biggest sporting icons comfortably outmatch countries with poor infrastructure or lack of resources.
With billionaires pumping in vast riches and clubs receiving large payment sums from monumental commercial deals, it quickly isn’t hard to see how a Premier League club could financially outmuscle a small island nation like Tuvalu.
But the real problems lie away from small nations. Instead, they lie in African countries where corruption, wars and exploitation run rife.
With vast profits taken overseas and workers paid virtually nothing for their efforts, it leaves countries like Mozambique and DR Congo ripe for the taking and its inhabitants stuck in No Man's Land.
It is the complete opposite to the large football clubs who put their earnings back into the club to help become cashed up and pay large wages to their players and staff – no matter their experience level.
It’s these aspects that ensure that the world’s biggest football clubs will always remain more financially stable than some third world countries no matter how much we try to level the playing field.