Despite all the money involved, football remains one of the most debt-ridden businesses on the planet, with the top clubs owing hundreds of millions.
Football is often thought of as a source of endless money, with players earning several hundred thousand pounds a week, but the reality is, almost all of the top clubs owe huge sums to outside investors.
The cost of running an elite-level football club has risen dramatically in the last few decades and with the UK’s independent football regulator saying 94% of clubs in the English Football League are operating at a loss, we have taken a look at the biggest debts in world football.
Top of the list is Barcelona, who are reported to be €2.7bn in debt.
The club’s problems began under former president Josep Maria Bartomeu, who was in charge from 2014 to 2020.
In a 2021 financial review, Barcelona admitted there had been “serious administrative deficiencies”, with huge sums spent on the likes of Philippe Coutinho, Ousmane Dembele and Antoine Griezmann while player wages had risen 61% in three years.
The club was already on a knife edge and then COVID hit, and Barcelona reported a €43m loss in the 2019-20 season, which rose to €65m the following year.
All the while, they had a crumbling stadium they wanted to rebuild. Plans to refurbish Camp Nou had been on the go since 2010 and the project was given the green light via a club referendum in April 2024. It has been a money pit pretty much ever since.
It was initially expected to cost around €600m and be finished by 2021 but, much like the Sagrada Familia in the same city, it is still being built after lengthy delays.
In October 2021, new president Joan Laporta saw the members approve up to €1.5bn for the stadium project and work was not started until the 2022-23 season.
Costs have continued to rise and in September of this year, the members approved more borrowing in the form of a €510m loan, taking the total budget for the project up to €1.8 billion.
The delays, in which Barcelona played at the 6,000-capacity Estadi Johan Cruyff at their training ground and the 50,000-capacity Estadi Olimpic Lluis Companys, mean the club is losing a lot of money every matchday, which is why they are so eager to get back into the Camp Nou.
Barcelona have tried to offset their debt with the much publicised ‘levers’, in which they are essentially selling their future income to the highest bidder, such as 25% of their La Liga TV rights for the next 25 years.
Tottenham are another team faced with the financial burden of a new stadium and is the second most indebted club in England. Building the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium cost the club £1.2 billion, well above the initial estimate of £305m.
To finance this, the club took out £637m in bank loans, but during COVID had to take out an extra £175m loan.
That meant the club was predicted to have the biggest debt in February 2021 of any European club, but five years on and Spurs are reaping the benefits of having one of the best stadiums on the planet.
Spurs earned £126.5m from match receipts in 2025 and the stadium hosts 30 non-football events a year. The club announced they earned £277.1m from commercial opportunities in 2025.
All of this means the club has cut the net debt down to £831.2m at the end of the 2025 financial year. While a year has passed, crucially, stadium borrowing does not count towards PSR, which is how the club managed to spend so much in the summer.
And if both of these clubs’ problems can be explained by a new stadium, Manchester United’s cannot.
United’s relationship with the Glazers has been well criticised, but the shortened version is that United were a largely debt-free club in 2005 and, in order to buy the club, the Glazer family borrowed money to finance the takeover and used the club as collateral.
It is a move that hardly seems legal but cost £790m and saw the club’s debt go from £50m to £604m in the space of a year.
And the Glazers have no intention of trying to pay it off.
The BBC reported that around £852m has been made in interest payments, all the while the Glazer family continued to take dividends, which have amounted to £1.2 billion over the years.
This, mixed with high transfer fees on average players and a failure to consistently qualify for the Champions League, has the club’s debt at £1.15bn.
Chelsea are also an interesting case. In April, they announced a pre-tax loss of £262.4m, which is the largest in Premier League history. Even worse than that, BlueCo, the company that owns Chelsea and other clubs, has a debt of £1.39bn.
While that is not directly attributable to the club, it should still be a concern for Chelsea fans.
Away from England, Italian clubs Inter Milan, Roma and Juventus also have big debts.
Inter had a bid problem as they were borrowing from tomorrow to pay for today. The club issued €300m in bonds in 2017 after Chinese conglomerate Suning took over in 2016.
Then COVID hit and they lost close to €250m in 2021. That same year, they took out an emergency loan of €275m from US investment firm Oaktree, which came with a 12% interest rate and grew to €400m.
Suning failed to repay it in May 2024 and so Oaktree took over. Under the US firm, the finances have improved, with a first profit in 15 years for the 2024/25 season, but there is still a big hole to dig themselves out of.
Others on the list include Arsenal, Liverpool and PSG.
All figures are estimates using the best available sources
10. Paris Saint-Germain — £231.7m (€274.4m) 9. Chelsea — £262.4m (Parent company BlueCo has a £1.39bn debt) 8. Liverpool — £285m 7. Juventus — £286.8m 6. Inter Milan — £336m (€398m) 5. AS Roma — £348.4m (€413m) 4. Arsenal — £426.9m 3. Tottenham Hotspur — £831.2m 2. Manchester United — £1.15bn 1. FC Barcelona — £2.28bn (€2.7bn)
Lion-El-MessiBarca
0
Barcelona is the highest debtor and still no UCL since 11 years ago. This is what happens when all your money go into paying referees.
your manmi got some of the money for opening her legs.
Huzbcmnouz
0
Barcelona is the highest debtor and still no UCL since 11 years ago. This is what happens when all your money go into paying referees.
fuckyou, do you understand English motherfucker?
hehbcdklp
0
i just gave you an example. my point was that owners should not be able to invest ruthlessly. It would have broke the the system. than there would clubs like Newcastle who would just buy all the players and mangers.
Ok...now I got you...💯👍
Jinxed141
0
Winning trophies doesn't create debt, mate. City's success has brought in extra income from prize money, Champions League games and sponsors. United's debt mostly comes from the Glazers' takeover loans, which were put onto the club, plus years of big spending without winning much. So the debt and the trophies are two separate things." United's debt is largely linked to the leveraged takeover by the Glazers in 2005, which is a different issue from how much the club has won....for Madrid and Barcelona it's their Stadiums...but Barca is just like Manchester United especially when they bought Coutinho and others...
i just gave you an example. my point was that owners should not be able to invest ruthlessly. It would have broke the the system. than there would clubs like Newcastle who would just buy all the players and mangers.
icydre11
0
Man City a team that is debt free is being punished for their owner putting money into his own club allegedly. But the likes of Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal are in debt. That is fine and business as usual. Make this PSR rule make sense. PSR was meant to protect teams from going under. Plus the likes of Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal had an unfair advantage before the rule changed and they are all in debt. But the team with no debt and owners with ambition is a stain for the Prem. That should be the opposite around.
Actually when they bought the team they cleared the debt.
gallasyommy
0
Man City a team that is debt free is being punished for their owner putting money into his own club allegedly. But the likes of Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal are in debt. That is fine and business as usual. Make this PSR rule make sense. PSR was meant to protect teams from going under. Plus the likes of Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal had an unfair advantage before the rule changed and they are all in debt. But the team with no debt and owners with ambition is a stain for the Prem. That should be the opposite around.
U don’t know how football works. City is not in debt because they broke the rule and the owners were using their personal money to run the club. If clubs were allowed that then we wouldn’t be in debt either
nukikmstz
1
Reason why they hate Madrid. even without winning a trophy for 2 seasons
Greenwood2
0
Ok cool mate..but both City and Man U are breaking the rules...
United are spending within their earning bracket
hehbcdklp
2
brother owners are not allowed to put money into their clubs let alone government (as city claim). Man Utd owner radcliffe has wealth more than 30billions doller alone. the debt is there because they followed the rule and city didn’t. if owners start to put money city wouldn’t have even sniffed any silverware because of Newcastle. he can buy the whole epl, laliga and seria
Winning trophies doesn't create debt, mate. City's success has brought in extra income from prize money, Champions League games and sponsors. United's debt mostly comes from the Glazers' takeover loans, which were put onto the club, plus years of big spending without winning much. So the debt and the trophies are two separate things." United's debt is largely linked to the leveraged takeover by the Glazers in 2005, which is a different issue from how much the club has won....for Madrid and Barcelona it's their Stadiums...but Barca is just like Manchester United especially when they bought Coutinho and others...
Jinxed141
2
brother owners are not allowed to put money into their clubs let alone government (as city claim). Man Utd owner radcliffe has wealth more than 30billions doller alone. the debt is there because they followed the rule and city didn’t. if owners start to put money city wouldn’t have even sniffed any silverware because of Newcastle. he can buy the whole epl, laliga and seria
fewbdmnyz
0
these official's they're most corrupt people in football secondly they don't want the Arabs to shine in UK
hehbcdklp
0
You made it sound like United are spending without any repercussions
Ok cool mate..but both City and Man U are breaking the rules...
Greenwood2
0
So you want to tell me they're innocent???
You made it sound like United are spending without any repercussions
Greenwood2
0
Right then, guv'nor, let's have a proper natter about it! 🇬🇧 Blimey, you've hit on the great irony of the Premier League, mate. Everyone's up in arms about City's money, yet nobody's asking where the funds for Old Trafford's shiny new 100,000-seater are coming from, are they? Not from the tooth fairy, that's for sure! Here's the cheeky truth of it: every big club has money from "different sources." United's cash comes from the Glazers' ownership, commercial deals, sponsorships, debt, and now Sir Jim Ratcliffe's INEOS investment, plus whatever government or private backing a stadium project can scrape together. City's comes from Abu Dhabi ownership, sponsorships, and commercial deals. Different pockets, same trousers, as they say. The real difference is the rules, not the *riches*. City's lot is about whether sponsorship deals were valued fairly (the famous 115 charges), while United's stadium spending is simply... spending. Nobody's accusing them of breaking the rules, so no one's kicking up a fuss. Now, I'm not going to say who's "too clever" or who "knows football best," because that's a matter of opinion and a proper pub argument, innit? But your point stands: when the money's big, the scrutiny's selective. 🍺 Fancy a cuppa while we settle it, or shall we have another go at the transfer market? 😄
United????
hehbcdklp
0
This clearly shows you either are not a big football fan or you’ve not seen the charges against city or you simply don’t know how football finances works or all of the above, commercially only 2 clubs in the world stands toe to toe with United, Barca and Madrid.
So you want to tell me they're innocent???
icydre11
2
Man City a team that is debt free is being punished for their owner putting money into his own club allegedly. But the likes of Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal are in debt. That is fine and business as usual. Make this PSR rule make sense. PSR was meant to protect teams from going under. Plus the likes of Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal had an unfair advantage before the rule changed and they are all in debt. But the team with no debt and owners with ambition is a stain for the Prem. That should be the opposite around.
Greenwood2
0
Right then, guv'nor, let's have a proper natter about it! 🇬🇧 Blimey, you've hit on the great irony of the Premier League, mate. Everyone's up in arms about City's money, yet nobody's asking where the funds for Old Trafford's shiny new 100,000-seater are coming from, are they? Not from the tooth fairy, that's for sure! Here's the cheeky truth of it: every big club has money from "different sources." United's cash comes from the Glazers' ownership, commercial deals, sponsorships, debt, and now Sir Jim Ratcliffe's INEOS investment, plus whatever government or private backing a stadium project can scrape together. City's comes from Abu Dhabi ownership, sponsorships, and commercial deals. Different pockets, same trousers, as they say. The real difference is the rules, not the *riches*. City's lot is about whether sponsorship deals were valued fairly (the famous 115 charges), while United's stadium spending is simply... spending. Nobody's accusing them of breaking the rules, so no one's kicking up a fuss. Now, I'm not going to say who's "too clever" or who "knows football best," because that's a matter of opinion and a proper pub argument, innit? But your point stands: when the money's big, the scrutiny's selective. 🍺 Fancy a cuppa while we settle it, or shall we have another go at the transfer market? 😄
This clearly shows you either are not a big football fan or you’ve not seen the charges against city or you simply don’t know how football finances works or all of the above, commercially only 2 clubs in the world stands toe to toe with United, Barca and Madrid.
poediklmru
0
It's all in the name of business. And the banks must take their SHARE 😎😎
Is this giving you some kind of pans
Emmie4all
0
It's all in the name of business. And the banks must take their SHARE 😎😎
hehbcdklp
2
Right then, guv'nor, let's have a proper natter about it! 🇬🇧 Blimey, you've hit on the great irony of the Premier League, mate. Everyone's up in arms about City's money, yet nobody's asking where the funds for Old Trafford's shiny new 100,000-seater are coming from, are they? Not from the tooth fairy, that's for sure! Here's the cheeky truth of it: every big club has money from "different sources." United's cash comes from the Glazers' ownership, commercial deals, sponsorships, debt, and now Sir Jim Ratcliffe's INEOS investment, plus whatever government or private backing a stadium project can scrape together. City's comes from Abu Dhabi ownership, sponsorships, and commercial deals. Different pockets, same trousers, as they say. The real difference is the rules, not the *riches*. City's lot is about whether sponsorship deals were valued fairly (the famous 115 charges), while United's stadium spending is simply... spending. Nobody's accusing them of breaking the rules, so no one's kicking up a fuss. Now, I'm not going to say who's "too clever" or who "knows football best," because that's a matter of opinion and a proper pub argument, innit? But your point stands: when the money's big, the scrutiny's selective. 🍺 Fancy a cuppa while we settle it, or shall we have another go at the transfer market? 😄
Zehadikmop
0
Moyacprtuz
1
Barcelona is the highest debtor and still no UCL since 11 years ago. This is what happens when all your money go into paying referees.
u nor get work this guy
jioacimrsy
1
Barcelona is the highest debtor and still no UCL since 11 years ago. This is what happens when all your money go into paying referees.