Can You Buy Success in the Premier League? [INFOGRAPHIC]

Much of the banter regarding Premier League teams these days is focused on money. An disagreement among fans will often descend into a rant about how “so and so” club bought the title. But are some of the club “saints” among the “sinners”? Or can they all be painted with the same brush.

To learn more, the folks over at TonyBet have put together this informative infographic. Take a look at the research, and post your opinions in the comments section below.

Can you buy success in the Premier League? A TonyBet infographic

Infographic brought to you by TonyBet, a leading provider of sports betting.

Click here for the full size image (1500 x 5157 px).

10 thoughts on “Can You Buy Success in the Premier League? [INFOGRAPHIC]”

  1. I’d argue it’s all relative. Stoke have spent their money catching up after 23 years out of the top flight, receiving nothing from the Sky teat. Villa have never been out of the top flight but have spent and performed similarly over the same period. Who’s been the more successful of the two from that POV?

    Fulham were rumoured to owe Fayed £200m, Chelsea owe Abromovich the national GDP of Scotland. None of this takes into account wages spent securing signatures over the same period. Put that into the mix and the results would change dramatically.

  2. Everton

    Very impressive in this regard…in that order (and I’m a Spurs fan).

    I think it’s more fun to watch a club that figures out how to make and spend its own money find success. In that regard I suppose I wouldn’t mind seeing even Arsenal finish ahead of the big net-negative guys at the top (I would hate it in a footballing respect though!!!).

  3. Again, the ‘chosen one’s signature buy rears his hairy head. This boy must’ve had compromising photos of moyes. Or, moyes was like new money always is. Just don’t know how or when to spend it.

  4. Who are Tonybet? They are a million miles out on City how can they get City’s spend over the last 5 seasons to £96m? Below are the incomings and outgoings which are factual not rubbish like they’ve got from somewhere

    Boateng £9m, £24m Yaya, Silva £24m, Kolarov £16m, Balotelli £22m, Milner £16m plus Ireland, Dzeko £27m this was their biggest spending season by far totalling £138m.
    Outgoing was Bojinov £4m, Garrido £2.5, Robinho £16m, Clayton and Mak £2m total £24.5 a net of £113m.

    Clichy £7m, Savic £10m, Aguero £35m, Nasri £24m, Pantilimon £1m that’s £77m total
    Outgoing Caicedo £5m, Boateng £13m, Given £6m, Jo £7m, Wright Phillips £6m, Onuoha £4m plus £4m loan Adebayour making £45m so a net of £32m

    Rodwell £12m, Sinclair £6m, Maicon £3m, Nastasic £12m, Garcia £15.8m Total £48.8m

    Outgoing Adebayour £3m, Johnson £12m, De Jong £3.5m, Balotelli £20m and Weiss £2m total £40.5m. giving a net spend of £8.3m

    Fernadinho £30m, Navas £14.8, Negredo £16m,Jovetic £22m, Demichellis £3m and Faour £0.5m. Total £86.3m

    Sold Tevez £15m, Maicon £3m, Razak £1.5m, Suarez £5m, Helan £0.5m total £25m. Nett spend £65.3m

    Fernado £12m, Caballero £4m, Zuculini £1.5m Mangala £32m total £49.5m
    Sold Barry £2m, Rodwell £10m, Garcia £14m total £26m making the nett £23.5m

    So that’s £113m + £32m +£8.3m +£65.3 +£23.5m divided by 5 (years), = £48.46m

    P.S talking of big spending, on Monday night football (SKY Sports) last week Man Utd were shown to be the leagues by far biggest spenders over the last five windows, being just behind PSG in the World, City were way down the list.

    1. I wonder how PSG and City got their money compared to United getting their money through massive sponsor ships and kit deals.
      You can’t compare because if you look at City’s actual revenue compared to their spending they should be way in the red and that’s not including wages.
      It’s not like you knock teams like Barca, Real, United, and Bayern for spending their hard earned cash.
      If you look at United’s revenues compared to the net spend it’s much more reasonable than City’s revenues to net spend.

      1. Well Jake I’d say they got it the same as City only with more borrowing from banks because in 1989 Utd over spent more than any other team in British football history, but obviously that did’nt matter did it?? Only when you see without that massive spending of the then owners and banks money they would still be the crxp team they were in the 80’s and 70’s, City are breaking even now soon to show profit in fact next year bit like utd after their spending, no? that’s what happens with business you invest if you win you gain but it takes time, just like Utd’s huge unselfgenerated spending in the 80’s which put them at the top in the 90’s etc.
        So City spent just like Utd did to get where they are, only difference is top players now cost £30m not £3m and club turnover is £300m not £3m. Of course you’re oblivous to this! Comical. So please stop talking rubbish and look at Utd revenues at the same time of their spending of City’s. Last year Utd made around £60-70m more than City, next they will be without around £40m of champs league and what is brings money, leaving little old City in touching distance of a club thats been at the top for 20 odd years, thing is City have only took 6 year to get there! Now go and look at the cost of Utd’s team in 89 see how they nearly went bankrupt with spending for the third time in their history, then do try and stop talking rubbish eh?

        Utd last year brought in around

        1. Even with Champions league City still won’t make more money than United. Have you forgotten that we signed a Kit Deal worth 75 million pounds a year?
          I was born in 1985 so I won’t say what you’re saying is right or wrong and I’ll definitely look at that but what’s wrong with United borrowing money from thebank?
          If we didn’t win and couldn’t afford to payback our loans we would have ended up as a Portsmouth or Rangers that’s a calculated Risk taken by the Club with high risk and high reward.
          City are getting “Free” money from their owners and don’t take a hit financially regardless of how much they spend.
          For example if United hadn’t won with that borrowed money we’d have been destroyed financially but City are getting money from their owner’s free of charge with no need to payback the money much less interest.
          As far as I’m concerned your talking rubbish. City are only where they are because Sheik Mansour decided to buy them so nothing about that is impressive. Where’s the Champions League title or back to back title defense?
          Sunderland can borrow 1 Billion pounds from the bank the the thing is they have to win to be able to payback that money. What United did was a gamble that worked and could have backfired.
          City don’t have any way of incurring a financial hit because the owners cover everything after the Club revenues.
          Didn’t UEFA find City’s sponsor Etihad air ways to be bogus and they told City that they can’t raise the valuation of the deal if the brand gets bigger as a punishment?
          I just don’t see how these are the same things.
          We have actual sponors and City on top of having the owner cover all expenses have an above market valuation of the brand by the owners own company. That seems like another way for City to bypass FFP.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *