Arsenal's new £300million, five year kit deal with adidas has bumped them up into the elite tier of shirt contracts - but they are not quite top of the pile.
The Gunners announced a new deal worth £60m-a-year from 2019 on Monday, ending and doubling their current £30m contract with Puma. It is their first deal with adidas since 1994.
The contract brings Arsenal into line with some of the biggest earners in the Premier League - the matches the yearly income for Chelsea in their deal with Nike.
Chelsea signed a bumper 15-year contract with Nike in the summer of 2017, just after becoming Premier League champions under Antonio Conte.
Yet this deal - while it should swell Unai Emery's transfer coffers - pales compared to Manchester United's shirt merchandising deal with adidas.
United's contract with the German manufacturer is the largest in the top flight, worth £75m a year.
Arsenal meanwhile are not the only team set for a major income bump from their kit deal next year - as Sportsmail reported in the summer, Manchester City are set to secure a £50m long term deal with Puma, following their break from Arsenal.
City, despite having won the Premier League by a record margin last summer, have the smallest yearly income from their kit deal of any of the established top six, at £20m a year with Nike.
That contract expires in the summer, and with Pep Guardiola's men now established as the force to beat in English football, a major deal is surely incoming.
Like City and Arsenal, Liverpool's kit contract - with American company New Balance - ends in summer 2019.
There is no information yet as to who will take over the contract if NB pull out, but with Jurgen Klopp's Reds riding high and unbeaten in the league so far, there is likely to be a scrum of interest in major kit manufacturers for what would be a lucrative deal.
All this could leave Tottenham - who signed a 'multi-year deal' of unspecified length with Nike in 2017 worth £30m a year - lagging behind their top four rivals unless a major boost to their coffers is in the offing.
That said, for all the millions of pounds made by clubs by having manufacturers submit competing bids to design and create their kits, it is even more profitable for the companies themselves.
These deals are merchandising contracts rather than sponsorships, and the manufacturers make more money off sales than the clubs.
As sports lawyer Jake Cohen, who has worked on many high profile merchandising deals, told the Independent, the idea of a big signing making a club their money back on shirt sales alone is a myth.
He said: 'Kit deals are not traditional sponsorship deals – they are licensing deals, which enable the kit manufacturers to use the club's brand to sell branded apparel. Clubs will traditionally receive an annual fee and then 10 to 15 per cent of the revenue the kit manufacturer generates from shirt sales.
'The kit deal is often a football club's most lucrative sponsorship, and for good reason. The manufacturers aren't paying the clubs to have a tiny logo emblazoned on the front of the club's shirt – rather, they're making an investment that will yield an excellent return.
'As an example, Adidas CEO Herbert Hainer projected that Adidas would earn £1.5 billion from its ten-year, £750 million deal with Manchester United.'