Selasa, 16 November 2010

Why Ajax Are No Longer Dutch Masters


For football fans of a certain age, the name Ajax resonates with history, bringing back memories of the early 70s when the famous club from Amsterdam won the European Cup three years in a row, displaying a brand of “total football” that also inspired the Dutch national team in its dazzling run to two World Cup finals.

Guided by the prodigious talents of the legendary Johan Cruyff and ably supported by the likes of Ruud Krol, Johan Neeskens and Arie Haan, Ajax established themselves as one of the foremost clubs in European football with the distinctive white shirts with the vertical red band down the front becoming the epitome of “cool”. It wasn’t just the fact that they won so much, but the striking manner of their victories, as they exhibited a unique blend of individual creativity and progressive tactics.

Although Ajax have never quite regained those dizzy heights, Louis van Gaal’s young side, featuring the precocious skills of Clarence Seedorf, Edgar Davids, Patrick Kluivert, Marc Overmars and the de Boer twins, did reach the European Cup final two years in succession in the mid-90s, winning the trophy in 1995 by beating Milan 1-0 with a late goal from Kluivert.

In fact, Ajax are the most successful Dutch football club of all time, not just in the various domestic competitions, but also in Europe. They have won the Eredivisie (the national league) a record 29 times and the Dutch cup 18 times, while they are one of only three clubs (Barcelona and Juventus are the others) to have won all three European trophies: the European Cup (now the Champions League) on four occasions, and the UEFA Cup and Cup Winners’ Cup once each. In short, this is a team with impeccable pedigree.

"The one and only"

However, that was then, this is now and Ajax’s star has been on the wane for many years. The cold, hard facts are that they have only won the Eredivisie twice in the last 12 years, the most recent occasion being way back in the 2003/04 season, while PSV Eindhoven have won the league seven times in the same period. Before this year, the last time that Ajax qualified for the Champions League group stage was 2005/06, when they reached the last 16. Their best performance in Europe in the last decade came when they reached the quarter finals in 2002/03.

This decline has not just hurt the club’s professional pride, but has also damaged them financially, as they have been running a Champions League budget without actually managing to qualify for the competition. Like all Dutch clubs, Ajax suffer from very low television money and a high wage bill, so their operating strategy is based on two uncertain factors: (a) playing in the lucrative Champions League; and (b) making money from player sales.

That is why it was so important that the club qualified for this year’s Champions League, which they managed to achieve with hard-fought victories over PAOK Salonika and Dynamo Kiev, an impressive feat, given that their preparations were disrupted by the late return of key players who participated in the latter stage of the World Cup in South Africa.

That said, Ajax’s financial performance is even more dependent on the extent to which they are able to make profitable transfers, which traditionally has been a significant revenue stream. In the six years up to 2008, the club generated a net surplus of €76 million in the transfer market, but there has been a dramatic change recently, so that the last two years’ activities have resulted in a net spend of €6 million. They have actually reduced their spending, but the striking difference is that Ajax have stopped selling their best players, retaining them in the hope that this will give the team a better chance of honours.

From a financial perspective, this is a gamble, as there is no guarantee of success, but it may partly be in response to strong criticism in the Amsterdam press after prolific striker Klaas-Jan Huntelaar was sold to Real Madrid in the January 2009 transfer window, when the club was lambasted as being little more than a “trading company”.

In a way, the change in policy is understandable, if you consider the team that Ajax could field from players that they have sold in the last few years, including Wesley Sneijder, Rafael van der Vaart, Zlatan Ibrahimovic, Ryan Babel, Nigel de Jong, Thomas Vermaelen, Steven Pienaar, Christian Chivu and Maxwell. That’s an amazing list of talent, but necessity is the mother of invention and, as we shall see later, these sales were essential for the club’s financial well-being.

On the other hand, Ajax’s forays into the transfer market for new players have not always worked out so well. In truth, they have bought some spectacular flops, such as Dennis Rommedahl, Kenneth Perez, Albert Luque and Kennedy, so much so that an internal management report published in 2008 said that the club had not bought a single player in the previous five years that had improved the team.

"The running man"

While the club may not be particularly good at buying players, it does have a worldwide reputation for developing them. As an example, 19 of the players who participated in the 2010 World Cup spent time at the club’s training complex De Toekomst, while the “special one” himself, Jose Mourinho, ascribed Wesley Sneijder’s qualities to the fact that he was coached in Amsterdam, “Ajax players have excellent technical skills, thanks to the club’s youth programme.”

Ajax’s golden years were based on a highly successful youth policy, which has been a crucial part of the club’s wider strategy, namely developing young players, progressing them through the club structure into the first team, and then transferring them for large fees that help sustain the club’s finances. This production line has produced countless internationals over the years, but the key point is that as one great player was sold, another one would step up to replace him, so when the sublime Marco van Basten was sold to Milan in 1987, Dennis Bergkamp was ready to fill his boots – and importantly the team kept winning.

"We've got Dennis Bergkamp"

However, it’s fair to say that Ajax’s youth system is not shining quite as brightly as it did before, partly due to the influence of the 1995 Bosman ruling, which allowed professional players in the European Union to move freely to another club at the end of their contract and removed the restrictions on the numbers of foreigners that a team could field. This judgment hit Ajax especially hard with the majority of the team that was victorious in the 1995 European Cup leaving for small fees or no money at all, e.g. Kluivert, Davids, Reiziger and Bogarde went to Milan for the grand total of €2 million.

The main problem with Bosman for a club like Ajax is that it makes them doubt the wisdom of investing in youth, as young players can simply leave the club for nothing at the end of their contract. The alternative is to offer the player a longer contract on higher wages, so that if another team comes in for him, it has to pay a reasonable transfer fee, but the quid pro quo of this approach is that it increases the club’s cost base. Even this does not always work, as some players will refuse to extend their contract, accepting a lower salary for a couple of years in order to go to a bigger club for free at the end of their current deal.

In response to the damage caused by Bosman, Ajax decided to go public in 1998 (they are still the only Dutch club listed on a stock exchange), which raised €113 million. However, in a strange way, this only made matters worse, as this sudden influx of funds tempted the club to try to buy instant success via ready-made players from elsewhere, instead of following their tried-and-trusted in-house development strategy, and most of the funds have now been frittered away.

"Houston, we have a problem"

Possibly the worst example of this came during Marco van Basten’s unhappy managerial reign in 2008, when “San Marco” spent an enormous amount of money for no discernible success. Although idolised by Ajax fans for his performances as a player, his brief stay as manager was an altogether different story. Even though he had never before been in charge of recruitment, the board foolishly decided to give him carte blanche in the transfer market and he proceeded to make a series of disastrous buys that served only to eat into the club’s limited financial reserves.

He almost doubled the previous Dutch transfer record when he splashed out €16 million on Serbian striker Miralem Sulejmani, who is the very definition of the term “one season wonder”. Indeed, Ajax tried to loan him to West Ham this summer, but the move collapsed when he failed to secure a work permit. Other big money purchases that failed to set the pulse racing included Argentinian forward Dario Cvitanic, who cost €7 million, but was loaned to Mexican side Pachuca just over a year later; and midfielder Ismail Aissati, who was bought for €4 million, but has also been loaned out (to Vitesse).

In fact, few of van Basten’s hapless acquisitions ended up playing many times for Ajax. All they did was help to wreck the club’s balance sheet. Let’s take another look at the Sulejmani transfer, which cost about 25% of the club’s annual turnover. To put that into context, it would be like Manchester United spending £70 million on a new player. As Sir Alex would no doubt say, that doesn’t exactly represent good value.

The importance of player trading to Ajax is immediately apparent when you look at the club’s profit and loss account over the years. In essence, the club has only been profitable when it has sold its most important assets, namely its best players. The last time the club made a profit (€8 million) was in 2008, when the figures were boosted by €48 million profit on player sales (mainly Sneijder, Babel and Heitinga). Similarly, a small profit of €3 million in 2005 was reported on the back of €16 million profit from player sales (mainly Ibrahimovic and van der Vaart).

What is of concern is that large profits on player trading no longer appear to be enough to cover the operating shortfall, so €29m from player sales in 2009 could not prevent a €3 million loss that year. This is because in the last five years revenue growth has virtually stalled, while costs have grown by nearly a third, most of which occurred in 2008 with a €20 million (26%) jump.

This means that there is a significant deficit at the operating level of €33 million. Even if we exclude the non-cash player amortisation, as some analysts do, the club still made an operating loss of €13 million. In fact, the last time that the club reported a cash operating profit was in 2006.

Equally worrying is that the 2010 post-tax loss of €23 million represents a steep increase over the previous year’s loss of €3 million, and would have been even worse without a €4 million tax credit. This once again highlights the value of player sales, as there were hardly any made last year. In relative terms, a €23 million loss on revenue of €69 million is hideous. To demonstrate how scary that is, if we were to apply the same proportion to Real Madrid, that would imply a loss of €114 million for Los Merengues.

Ajax’s biggest challenge comes from their low revenue. In the 15 years since Deloittes started their annual Money League, based on football clubs’ revenue, Ajax have only featured once and that was many years ago. In fairness, the Money League is only likely to see any representatives from outside the Big Five European leagues (England, Spain, Germany, Italy and France) in exceptional circumstances, as there is such a notable difference in revenue, e.g. Real Madrid, Barcelona and Manchester United generate over five times as much revenue as Ajax. That may be a spurious comparison, but what really emphasises Ajax’s problem is the comparison with the Premier League, when you have to go down to teams like Stoke City to find a comparable level of income.

Nevertheless, Ajax’s revenue of €69 million is still the highest in the Netherlands - €17 million more than PSV Eindhoven’s €52 million. The problem, of course, is that revenue growth is restricted by the relatively small Dutch market (population 16 million), which is a drop in the ocean compared to their larger neighbours, e.g. Germany (population 82 million).

Despite these limitations, Ajax targeted revenue growth of “5 to 6% per annum” in their 2006 annual report. Clearly, this has not been achieved. In fact, the 2010 revenue is actually €5 million lower than 2006, mainly due to the lack of Champions League revenue. This can be seen in the above graph, which also visibly demonstrates yet again how the results are influenced by profit on player sales, especially in 2008.

Looking at Ajax’s revenue mix, what really hits you in the face is the extremely low television revenue of €7 million, which is feeble compared to the major leagues. If we compare that with the clubs that earn most from broadcasting income in those leagues, we can see that it’s less than 5% of Real Madrid’s TV revenue, but it’s also miles behind the others. Although many top clubs are over-reliant on TV revenue, I’m sure that this is a problem that Ajax would like to have, as only 10% of their revenue is sourced from broadcasting. While other countries’ TV revenue has powered ahead, the Dutch league has been left behind. You might almost say that “video killed the Eredivisie star.”

Of course, part of this shortfall is due to Europe, as Ajax only received €1.7 million from the Europa League, while the others all earned at least €20 million from the Champions League. People don’t often appreciate the huge disparity between the two European competitions from a financial viewpoint, but it’s very clear here. As Ajax have only qualified for the Champions League twice in the last six years (back in 2004/05 and 2005/06), they have received a relative pittance from their European adventures: just €22 million in all that time. That compares to the €16 million and €26 million that the last two Dutch Champions League representatives (AZ Alkmaar and PSV Eindhoven) received in a single season.

One reason why Champions League revenue is so important is the pitiful amount of money received from the domestic TV deal, which works out at around €5 million for Ajax. Although the Eredivisie has the seventh highest TV rights deal in Europe at €300 million for the three years 2008/09 to 2010/11, this is a long way behind the largest leagues, as media values are low in such a small country. At €100 million a season, it compares very unfavourably to others: England €1.2 billion, Italy €900 million, France €700 million, Germany €400 million, Spain €500 million and Turkey €250 million. Again to put this into context, Portsmouth finished rock bottom of last season’s Premier League, but still received around €35 million, which is seven times higher than Ajax, the runners-up in the Dutch league - and the Premier League TV money will increase this season.

At least Ajax can still count on great support with average attendances of over 48,000, including 42,000 season tickets, which means that Ajax have the 13th highest crowds in Europe, according to a recent survey by the German newspaper Bild. That produced gate receipts last season of €30 million, comprising season tickets €10 million, corporate boxes and seats €9 million, domestic gate receipts €6 million and Europa League gate receipts €4 million. This is not at the same levels as clubs like Manchester United and Arsenal (both well over €100 million), but it is higher than nine clubs in the Money League top 20, which is very impressive. In fact, it represents 44% of the club’s total revenue, which is only behind one club, Arsenal.

"The spectacular Amsterdam ArenA"

Of course, this reliance on gate receipts is a double-edged sword, as there is a risk that a continued lack of success would lead to lower crowds. Having said that, attendances have actually increased by 2,000 in the last five years, so the Ajax fans have demonstrated strong loyalty, though it would be foolish to take this for granted, as crowds have declined at both Milan and Celtic, two teams whose magnificent history is also not reflected in current day performance.

Ajax are lucky enough to play in a modern stadium, the Amsterdam ArenA, whose 52,000 capacity is much higher than the homely old De Meer ground that could only accommodate 29,500 spectators, though some would argue that this move to the outskirts of the town in 1996 has led to a loss of the club’s identity. In addition, the new pitch has been awful and not conducive to attractive football, due to the retractable roof not letting in enough sunlight. It had to be changed every few weeks (much like Wembley), though the problems have been much less since an artificial lighting system was installed in 2009.

Ajax only rent the ArenA, paying just under €10 million a year for the privilege, though they do own 13% of the company (worth €5 million, having impaired the valuation by €4 million in 2006). On the other hand, they only had to provide €20 million of the funds to build the stadium, which they raised by selling the De Meer land to the city for housing development, leaving the vast majority of the money to come from the state, the local council, sponsors and individual shareholders.

Commercial revenue is at a record high at €32 million, made up of €25 million sponsorship and €7 million merchandising, which represents 46% of the club’s total revenue, a proportion only surpassed by German clubs, which are masters of the marketing game.

In 2008, Ajax signed a seven-year shirt sponsorship deal with AEGON, an insurance company, that is worth up to €12 million a season (guaranteed €10 million plus €2 million based on performance), which represents a significant increase on the €7 million previously paid by ABN AMRO. This stands up very well compared to the top sponsorship deals in the big leagues: only €8 million less than Real Madrid, the same as Milan and more than Lyon (and Champions League winners Inter, whose deal with Pirelli is worth only €9 million).

Merchandising revenue has also never been higher, though a survey by leading German sports market research company, PR Marketing, suggested that Ajax (“a big club in a small league”) could only sell 100,000 shirts a season. That might not seem too bad, until you consider that the likes of Manchester United and Real Madrid have annual sales of 1.2-1.5 million.

Clearly, commercial income is an area where Ajax would hope to grow revenue, but this will largely depend on future sporting success. Even though the club’s brand is still strong globally, it mainly owes its reputation to its past. As marketing expert Frank van den Wall Bake explained, “international credit for the Ajax brand has just about run out, so it is important for the club to do well at international level in the next couple of years.”

Despite the lack of revenue growth, Ajax have adopted a “balls out” approach to their costs, especially wages which have grown by over 50% in the last five years to €49 million. This includes €33 million for players, €8 million for coaching and medical staff and €4 million for bonus payments. Wages increased by an amazing €6 million in the last 12 months alone, due to investment in the squad, contract increases and changes in the coaching staff. Headcount has also risen for the last 2 years from 197 to 237, largely through more youth players and support staff on the commercial and admin side.

This has brought the wages to turnover ratio to 70%, up from only 49% just four years ago, which is much higher than the 60% guideline issued by the KNVB (Dutch football association). Although in absolute terms, the wage bill is not that high, it’s evidently not sustainable without Champions League football. Individual salaries are not excessive by the standards of other leagues (Maarten Stekelenburg is the top earner at Ajax with €1.75 million a year), but the total wage bill is still too much for the club’s revenue to comfortably bear. This is a common problem in Dutch football, as admitted by Frank Rutten, chief executive of the Eredivisie, “Clubs are pushing each other to madness over salaries. It’s idiocy.”

Little wonder that Ajax have promised in their latest annual report to take a critical look at their costs, including “reducing the number of players under contract”. There is little doubt that there is some dead wood to clear from the payroll, but it has proved difficult to do this, as other clubs would not meet their high wages, though a few have left this summer (including Rommedahl, Kennedy, Pantelic and Gabri), so next year’s salaries should be lower.

"Vertonghen - going the same way as Vermaelen?"

The trend in player amortisation, namely the annual cost of writing down the cost of buying new players, also reflects the modified approach to the transfer market. In the three years between 2005 and 2007, it fell from €16 million to €13 million. However, in 2008 it leapt to €23 million and has now settled at around €20 million. This is still considerably lower than those sides that have spent really big in the transfer market, such as Manchester City €83 million, Barcelona €71 million, Real Madrid €64 million and Chelsea €57 million, but again it’s too high for a club with Ajax’s limited resources.

Normally, when a club reports losses year after year and does not have a wealthy benefactor to bale it out, debt levels increase and earlier this year few were surprised when there were widespread reports that the club was facing major liquidity problems. However, this was denied by Ajax finance director Jeroen Slop, who backed up his confidence by stating that the club did not need to sell players and “could afford to reject a €15 million offer for Luis Suarez.”

The accounts would seem to bear him out, as the club did not in fact have to extend borrowing facilities with the bank. Moreover, total liabilities have reduced from €64 million to €57 million, though cash balances have also fallen from €19 million to €8 million. Indeed, the liabilities figure is a little misleading, as most of this is just incurred in the normal course of doing business: accruals & deferred income €26 million, other creditors €8 million, provisions €8 million, trade creditors €7 million and tax & social security €3 million. The only bank debt that I can identify comes to under €5 million.

"El Hamdaoui flying to the Champions League"

However, that does not mean that the balance sheet is particularly robust, as the losses have instead been charged to reserves, which are now down to €39 million from the highs of €110 million in 1999. Clearly, this cannot go on for ever, so if the club does not start making profits, it will have to raise funds somewhere: going back to the market for new capital, taking on debt or bringing a new investor onboard.

Of course, it’s not only Ajax that is struggling financially in Holland. Everywhere you look, clubs are in trouble. Founder member of the Dutch league, HFC Haarlem went bankrupt last season and BV Veendam narrowly avoided the same fate. The winners of the 2009 Eredivisie, AZ Alkmaar, have been run by administrators ever since the owner’s bank was declared bankrupt, while PSV Eindhoven’s 2010 loss is almost as high as that reported by Ajax after a couple of seasons out of the Champions League. Feyenoord are also in a terrible state, not just because they were recently thrashed 10-0 by PSV, but more significantly they are one of the 13 professional clubs that have been classified as being “in serious financial difficulty” by the KNVB.

It is clear that Dutch football as a whole is enduring a structural crisis with the Eredivisie reporting a combined loss for its clubs of €31 million in 2008/09 and warning that the deficit will be even higher in 2009/10. As Henk Kesler, the KNVB president, commented with commendable understatement, “The association is aware that the situation is not exactly rosy.”

"The Night of the Hunter"

The KNVB has belatedly tried to put its house in order and in April a working party published a report with 20 recommendations, the most important of which is a pledge by clubs that they have enough cash to reach the end of the season. For the first time, the KNVB has also implemented a licencing system that punishes financial irregularities with a points deduction. Furthermore, clubs under supervision like Feyenoord have three years to get their finances in order or face losing their licence.

In order to improve matters, UEFA President Michel Platini suggested a merger between the Dutch and Belgian leagues, but most fans have given this idea a frosty reception. In any case, although such a move would increase the market size and presumably lead to more money from the sale of TV rights, it is unlikely that this would boost revenue enough to challenge the larger leagues, so this may well be a non-starter.

Ajax had already undergone their own internal soul searching in 2008, when they published the Coronel Report (named after chairman Uri Coronel), which reviewed the many years of mismanagement since the club’s flotation. Grandly entitled, “Ajax – the road to victory”, the report was extremely critical, concluding that the club’s management structure was seriously flawed, leading to lack of clarity and perennial power struggles between the coach and technical director.

The report also suggested that the appointment as coach of former Ajax players with little experience was doomed to failure, citing the examples of Jan Wouters and Danny Blind, though that did not prevent the club from repeating the mistake when they recruited van Basten.

"Stekelenburg - a safe pair of hands"

Another example of lack of managerial focus came with the decision to invest substantial funds into a series of foreign affiliates in countries like South Africa, Belgium and the USA. These have not exactly been a great success (Ajax America filed for bankruptcy), so these activities have now been scaled back, leaving only a 51% investment in Ajax Cape Town.

So what does the future hold for Ajax?

We have seen how vital qualification to the Champions League is to the club’s finances. Indeed, last year’s annual report forecast that participation in the 2010/11 tournament would improve profit by “at least €10 million”, but it could be even higher if they somehow manage to progress past the group stage. As coach Martin Jol enthused, “This is so important for Ajax and for Dutch football” – though, to be fair, he may not have been thinking about the balance sheet.

The problem is that they need to achieve this year after year, but they are no longer the dominant force in Dutch football, as the Eredivisie has become very competitive with the rise of “provincial” teams, as shown by three different winners in the last three seasons (Twente Enschede, AZ Alkmaar and PSV). In other words, qualification cannot be taken as read, even though the Netherlands do have two places available (one of which has to go through two qualifying rounds).

"Martin Jol - time to get serious"

If Ajax do not consistently reach the Champions League, then the only other option is to sell players. The club has hinted at this in the annual report, “transfers may lead to a positive net result in 2010/11,” but this will become a virtual certainty if Ajax are eliminated at the group stage. This handily concludes just before the January transfer window, when players like Uruguayan striker Luis Suarez, goalkeeper Marten Stekelenburg and defenders Jan Vertonghen and Gregory van der Wiel will inevitably once again be the subject of intense speculation.

The problem is that it is unlikely that players will command significant transfer fees in the future, owing to the double whammy of the economic recession and the impact of the UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. The first means that clubs do not have much money to spend, while the second requires clubs to balance their books, meaning that costly purchases (with the associated player amortisation) are to be avoided. Only this week we saw an example of this with Barcelona agreeing a deal for PSV’s Ibrahim Afellay for a low fee of around €3 million, when his price had been quoted as high as €10 million.

No, the only real solution for Ajax is to get back to their roots and once again focus on youth development. This has always been a cornerstone of the Ajax ethos, but they have dropped the ball in recent years. As the latest annual report stated, “The academy is good, but could be better.” This strategy requires investment and the club has set aside a budget of €5 million with the objective of having half of the first team squad developed at Ajax.

"Christian Eriksen - the future boy"

If this policy works, it will obviously reduce the number of players that have to be bought from outside the club, so it can make sense both from a technical and financial perspective. However, other Dutch clubs have also embraced this approach, so Ajax will have to raise their game in order to attract the best youngsters.

There is a new air of realism around Ajax’s ambitions these days. Five years ago, the club’s annual report proclaimed, “the ultimate ambition of Ajax is to win the Champions League”, but this now seems hopelessly optimistic considering their low budget and the financial gap to the major football leagues, which they have described as “unbridgeable”. That is why last summer Martin Jol considered moving away from a club that has won the European Cup four times to Fulham, a mid-table English club with a far less illustrious history.

The sad truth is that money talks, so Ajax will need to manage their limited resources better than the leading clubs in Europe to have any chance of success. They might have all the Dutch courage in the world, but will this be enough?

Selasa, 09 November 2010

Milan's Age Of Austerity



Although Milan more than played their part in last week’s thrilling 2-2 draw at the San Siro against old rivals Real Madrid, especially the effervescent Pippo Inzaghi, it is fair to say that the rossoneri have started the season in somewhat inconsistent fashion, having already suffered painful defeats against Cesena and Juventus in Serie A and only winning one of their four Champions League games to date (at home against Auxerre). It remains to be seen whether Milan can mount a challenge for honours this season, but the early signs are not overly convincing.

In spite of the arrival of strikers Zlatan Ibrahimovic and Robinho late this summer, it is far from certain that the team will improve on its recent indifferent record. Even though Milan have finished third in each of the last two seasons, this is nothing to write home about for a club with such a glorious history.

We are after all talking about an enormously successful club that has won the Italian Championship 17 times, the Champions League on an incredible seven occasions (only bettered by Real Madrid) and the European Cup Winners’ Cup twice. Throw in four world club titles plus five UEFA Super Cups and it is understandable why this is one of the most famous and popular football clubs on the planet.


"Ibra points the way forward"

However, older Milan fans will be only too aware that the current team is not a patch on those that they watched sweep all before them many years ago. In the late 80s, Arrigo Sacchi’s side produced a magnificent brand of attacking football, driven forward by the Dutch stars, Ruud Gullit, Frank Rijkaard and the incomparable Marco Van Basten, winning the European Cup twice in a row. The momentum was maintained in the first half of the 90s under Fabio Capello, when the team won three consecutive scudetti, including the amazing achievement of not losing a single match in the 1991/92 season, and demolished Barcelona 4-0 in the 1994 European Cup Final.

Happy days, but the last few seasons have been barren in comparison, even though Milan did revisit former glories when they beat Liverpool 2-1 to win the 2007 Champions League through two goals from that man Inzaghi. This relative lack of success has been made even worse for the Milanisti, as their city rivals Inter have become the dominant force in Italian football, winning the last five league titles and adding insult to injury by triumphing in the Champions League last May.

It has been obvious for some time that the ageing Milan squad is in desperate need of a radical overhaul via an injection of youth. Although the famed Milan Lab has worked minor miracles in extending the ability of the older players to continue in the top flight, the law of diminishing returns must inevitably apply. Even if the spirit is willing (and I’m not entirely sure that it is any more), the flesh is weak. The problem is that so many of the team have become old at the same time that wholesale changes are now required. In order to achieve this and still remain competitive, the club will need to find money and lots of it, but this seems unlikely, given recent spending patterns and the noises emanating from Milan’s executive management.


"Galliani doesn't seem too worried"


Long gone are the days when the notorious owner Silvio Berlusconi, whose day job just happens to be the Prime Minister of Italy, injected bundles of cash into the club. Indeed, his company Fininvest has given Milan’s vice-president Adriano Galliani a very clear instruction to balance the books, as it has no intention of covering huge losses year after year. As well as this internal pressure, Milan must also face up to the new world of UEFA Financial Fair Play where clubs will have to operate within their means without the assistance of a wealthy benefactor. This was acknowledged by Galliani with an acerbic reference to Massimo Moratti’s generosity at neighbours Inter, “We can’t go spending €809 million in five years.”

This is all eminently reasonable from a business perspective, but Milan supporters don’t understand why the formerly benevolent Berlusconi has turned off the money tap, so much so that there have even been fan protests asking him to once again put his hand in his pocket or leave the club to somebody who will splash the cash. There is the obligatory group on Facebook (“Berlusconi – leave Milan”), but this has already attracted over 30,000 members, so these are hardly isolated voices.


The change in Milan’s financial fortunes has been dramatic, as can be seen when looking at their net transfer spend over the last twelve year period: in the first four years (1999-2003), Milan’s net spend was a substantial €260 million, when they bought superstars of the calibre of Rui Costa, Inzaghi, Nesta, Shevchenko, Seedorf and Pirlo. However, in the following eight years, the net spend was effectively zero. Even when they paid big money for someone like Ronaldinho in 2008, this was recouped (and more) with the sale of Kaka the following season.

Last year, Galliani advised supporters that the club had to pay attention to its budget, while he was even more explicit this summer, “We have to sell before we can buy.” Nowhere was this more apparent than when Milan sacrificed their Brazilian star Kaka on the altar of the balance sheet just a few months after Berlusconi celebrated the news that the team’s bandiera had rejected a big money move to Manchester City. This was tantamount to selling the family silver, especially as Kaka did not want to leave, “I wanted to stay on at Milan, but the club is in a big crisis (financially).”

Former captain Paolo Maldini encapsulated the fans’ mood, “Kaka is the first player of this level to be sold (by Milan). In the past an idea like that would never have been considered. Looking at the accounts is logical, but it is also logical to set obtainable targets – and thinking of winning the Champions League without Kaka is a Utopian dream.”

All in all, the transfer window in the summer of 2009 was not the most successful for Milan, as they also missed out on a number of potentially significant signings, including Edin Dzeko, Luis Fabiano and Aly Cissokho. The suspicion was that they simply did not offer enough money to secure their services.


"Thanks for everything"


Nevertheless, Galliani has shown himself to be an astute, cunning “wheeler dealer” on occasions, most notably when he picked up Ibrahimovic and Robinho on the cheap in a crazy few days in late August. Ibra had been sold to Barcelona by Inter just a year before for around €70 million (€50 million cash plus €20 million valuation for Samuel Eto’o), but Galliani engineered a deal whereby Milan would take the enigmatic Swede on loan for the 2010/11 season with an option to buy him for only €24 million in 12 months time. That was impressive enough, but was quickly followed by the purchase of Robinho for €18 million, only two years after Manchester City had paid Real Madrid €43 million for the Brazilian.

Of course, critics might point out that both of these players could be considered risky investments, given their track record of inconsistent performances and their somewhat disruptive nature. Indeed, we have a precedent here, as Ronaldinho was bought for what seemed like a bargain price of €25 million, but he has hardly set the world alight in Italy.

Nevertheless, from a financial perspective, it is abundantly clear that Milan are very focused on not building up a deficit in the transfer market, but, in fairness, they are not alone in this. Even the infamously spendthrift Inter have become parsimonious these days, actually receiving net cash from transfers of over €50 million in the last two years.

But why do Milan need to follow such an austere approach?


The answer is blindingly obvious when you look at their profit and loss account. The harsh reality is that Milan make losses every year – unless they sell a big name player, like Shevchenko in 2006 (profit €42 million). Even this is not always enough, as the huge profit on sales in 2009 of €74 million (Kaka €63 million, Gourcuff €11 million) merely limited the damage, reducing the previous year’s gigantic loss of €77 million to “only” €19 million. Actually, even in 2006 player trading would not have resulted in a profit without the inclusion of a €27 million once-off payment by Mediaset for an option on future TV rights.

In the last twelve years, Milan have only reported a profit twice, so there’s definitely more rosso than nero in these accounts. Operating losses in the last two years have been enormous: €84 million in 2009 and €112 million in 2008, which averages out at nearly €100 million a year. That’s the very definition of an unsustainable business, largely due to an outrageously high wage bill of €172 million, and it does not look like next year’s accounts will be any better. As Galliani warned, “2010 will be more difficult than 2009 which was saved by Kaka.”

Of course, Milan could repeat that trick by selling another world class player, though Galliani denied this last April, “We will not sell any stars. Certainly we won’t sell Pato, Thiago Silva, Ronaldinho, Huntelaar or Borriello.” However, the more observant among you will have noticed that this declaration did not prevent Milan from selling Huntelaar to Schalke 04 or from loaning Borriello to Roma with an option to buy at the end of the season. It would therefore be no great surprise if one of the others were in fact sold next summer to cover the inevitable operating losses, as the only alternative in the short-term is for the owners to once again shoulder the monetary burden.


At this stage, I should clarify that this analysis is based on the accounts for A.C. Milan S.p.A., as opposed to the consolidated Milan Group, because that enables a better like-for-like comparison with other football clubs. In this way, we have excluded the financials for Milan Entertainment S.r.I. and Milan Real Estate S.p.A. This does not make a significant difference to the figures, e.g. Milan Group reported a loss last year of €10 million compared to the football club’s €19 million, though we should acknowledge that the Group’s performance is a little better, mainly due to commercial income in the Entertainment company.

While we are sorting out technicalities, it may not have escaped people’s attention that the revenue figures in our analysis are different from those quoted by the club. Again, in the interests of consistency, I have excluded the following: (a) gate receipts given to visiting clubs €3.2 million; (b) TV income given to visiting clubs €16.7 million; (c) profit from player sales €74.1 million; (d) increase in asset values €6.1 million. Adding the total adjustments of €100.1 million to our revenue of €207.5 million gives the €307.6 million revenue reported by Milan S.p.A. If we then add the €20.0 million from Milan Entertainment and Milan Real Estate, we arrive at the €327.6 million widely reported in the press for Milan Group.


Normally, that €207.5 million revenue would be the figure used by Deloittes for their Money League comparison, but Milan’s accounts have another curve ball to throw at us, as their accounts uniquely cover a calendar year (up to 31 December) in order to be consistent with the timings of their holding company Fininvest. All other clubs manage their accounts to coincide with the football season, so they close them in May, June or July. Because of this timing anomaly, the good folk at Deloittes have confirmed to me that their revenue figure of €197 million was provided directly by the club, but this is within 5% of the revenue reported in the accounts, so the themes are very much the same, whichever figure you take.

OK, that’s enough technical talk, let’s look at how Milan’s business model works.

At first glance, Milan’s revenue of around €200 million might not seem too bad. It puts them firmly in the cluster of leading Italian clubs (Inter and Juventus are about the same) and places them tenth in the Deloittes Money League. However, It’s a long way short of their competitors from other countries. Both of the Spanish giants, Real Madrid and Barcelona, generate significantly more revenue than their Italian counterparts with Madrid earning over twice as much as Milan. It’s the same story in England with Manchester United’s receipts being €130 million higher, while Arsenal’s income is a third higher.


Even more worrying is that Milan’s revenue has been declining over the last five years, while their rivals have been powering ahead. In 2005 Milan were as high as third in the Money League, only behind Real Madrid and Manchester United, but since then their position has worsened every year. In particular, they have been overtaken by Bayern Munich and Arsenal, whose investment in new stadiums has really paid dividends. As Galliani admitted, “Ten years ago we invoiced more than Real Madrid and Barcelona, now only half. Unfortunately today there’s a direct correlation between revenue and sporting results.”

The reason for Milan’s comparative revenue weakness is clear to see, as their match day revenue is one of the lowest around at just €33 million. This is typical of Italian clubs, which is reinforced by the fact that the only two clubs in the Money League top ten earning less from this revenue stream are Inter and Juventus. Even though Milan’s gate receipts are the highest in Italy, it’s a bit like being the tallest person in Lilliput.

On the other hand, Milan’s television revenue is one of the highest at €99 million, representing just over half of the club’s total revenue, which again is a common theme among the top Italian clubs. Almost all of this came from the domestic broadcasting deal with Mediaset, which was extended until the 2009/10 season, as the club only received €0.4 million from the UEFA Cup in 2008/09, compared to €24 million from last season’s participation in the Champions League.


Given that the TV income is still so high, even without any money from the Champions League, only emphasises the importance of the domestic TV deal to the club’s finances. Up until now, Milan have been able to market their TV rights on an individual basis, which has been the source of significant competitive advantage, but Italy has now moved to the collective selling of these rights, which in theory will cause their television revenue to reduce due to the more equal distribution of revenue amongst all clubs.

However, early projections indicate that Milan will only suffer a small decrease for a couple of reasons. First, the total money guaranteed by exclusive media rights partner Infront Sports will be approximately 20% higher than before at over €1 billion a year. Second, the complicated distribution formula still favours the big clubs like Milan: 40% will be divided equally among the 20 Serie A clubs; 30% is based on number of fans (25%) and the population of the club’s city (5%); and 30% is based on past results (5% last season, 15% last 5 years, 10% from 1946 to the sixth season before last).

As you might expect for a club with media magnate Silvio Berlusconi at the helm, television income has always been of great consequence to Milan. In fact, they generated the highest broadcasting revenue of any Money League club in 2007, partly due to the €40 million payment they received for winning the Champions League, a particularly impressive feat as they had to go through the qualifying rounds as part of the punishment for their role in the Calciopoli scandal.



There is no doubt that Champions League qualification is imperative for Milan with the accounts identifying this as the key risk facing the club’s economic prospects. Galliani has warned that losses would rise if the club did not qualify, especially if they tried to maintain a squad of “Champions League quality”. In the past, it’s been very lucrative, especially in the purple patch between 2005 and 2007, during which Milan won the trophy, were runners-up and reached the semi-finals, when they averaged €34 million a season, not including additional gate receipts or increases in sponsorship payments.

They have not touched those heights since, but even in the years when they were eliminated in the round of the last 16, they still earned a very handy sum. Taking 2009/10 as an example, Milan received €24 million , derived from €7.1 million participation fees, €2.8 million for performances in the group (3 wins at €800k plus 1 draw at €400k), €3 million for reaching the last 16 and €10.9 million from the TV (“market”) pool. To place that into context, Inter’s payment for winning the competition was worth €49 million.

Despite Milan’s patchy record in the last few seasons, the club still retains an enduring appeal, which is demonstrated by the commercial revenue holding up reasonably well. Even though last year’s figures were boosted by the once-off sale of Milan’s image archive for €20 million, the club has stated that in the future commercial contracts will be worth a minimum of €64 million a season until 2017.

The new shirt sponsorship with Fly Emirates will run until 2015 and is worth a guaranteed €12 million a season plus performance related bonuses. These can be worth a fair amount, as seen by the previous contract with Bwin, which generated €10.5 million most seasons, but was as high as €14.2 million in the year that Milan won the Champions League. In any case, the club’s sponsorship deals have been on the increase: up to 2006 Opel €9 million, 2006-2010 Bwin €10 million, 2010-2015 Fly Emirates €12 million.


"Boys from Brazil"

Milan have enjoyed a long-term relationship with kit supplier Adidas. The current deal runs until 2017 and produces around €13 million a season. According to the supplier’s sales data, Milan sell between 400,000 and 600,000 shirts a season, which would put them in the top ten clubs worldwide and around the same level as Inter and Juventus, though the likes of Real Madrid and Manchester United sell nearly three times as many. It remains to be seen whether Kaka’s transfer has an impact on these figures, as he was the fans’ favourite, so the vast majority of shirt sales used to have his name on the back.

On the one hand, Milan should be congratulated for their efforts in the commercial field, as they earn more here than any other Italian club. For example, their €12 million shirt sponsorship deal is higher than Inter’s €9 million deal with Pirelli (and remember that the nerazzurri are the Champions League winners) and Juventus’ €8 million contract with Betclic (though this is only for the home shirt).

On the other hand, Milan’s €64 million is much lower than clubs abroad. Real Madrid and Barcelona earn well over €100 million, but the benchmark is set by Bayern Munich, who earn an astonishing €159 million commercial income, despite a fairly ordinary Champions League record (at least in recent times). Of more concern is the ability of English clubs to secure better deals with the most egregious example being Liverpool, whose deal with Standard Chartered is worth €24 million a year, even though they have not even qualified for the Champions League. Similarly, the club’s previous sponsor Bwin pay Real Madrid €20 million a season – twice what they were paying the Milanese team.


Even though there is room for improvement in marketing, Milan’s real issue is match day revenue, which is very low at €33 million. In fairness, this is the highest in Italy, ahead of Inter €28 million, Roma €19 million and Juventus €17 million, but it still looks pretty feeble compared to major clubs in other countries. At the other end of the spectrum, Manchester United and Arsenal generate €128 million and €118 million respectively, which is almost four times as much. That’s a huge advantage, especially when it happens every single season.

Despite attracting average attendances of just under 60,000 in 2008/09, the match day revenue was obviously held back by the lack of Champions League action, though this was offset by raking in €6 million from numerous international friendlies, including games in Qatar and the USA. Of more concern is the dramatic decrease in attendances last season, when the average fell to 43,000. From having the highest crowds in Serie A, Milan have now fallen behind Inter and Napoli.

Nevertheless, the development and commercialisation of the stadium is the key revenue issue for Milan to address. As Galliani explained, “A new stadium is essential for a club that wants to compete in the future. Look at Bayern Munich: since they built a new stadium, their revenue has increased by €60 million.” This is why both Milan and Inter are exploring possible alternatives to the current ground sharing arrangement at San Siro, though some believe that this is merely a ploy to force the local council to sell the stadium for a nominal fee, which would free up funds for the extensive renovations required to modernise the famous old ground.


"Grounds for separation?"

It’s not just that Milan currently pay the council over €4 million rental a year under a 30-year lease ending in 2030, but the lack of ownership means that they miss out on profitable opportunities like premium seating, corporate boxes, restaurants, retail outlets, naming rights and non-sporting events. It had been hoped that the stadium would be developed as part of Italy’s bid for Euro 2016, but this was lost to France. Instead, investment might be made in order for the stadium to meet the standards required to host the 2015 Champions League final.

Whatever the solution, something must surely be done, as this massive revenue shortfall means that Milan are not competing on a level playing field. As Galliani lamented, “The rankings for revenue and sporting success tend to coincide. The gap comes from different points of departure: in the case of Milan the gate receipts do not reach €30 million a year.” There is no doubt that it would require substantial funds to build a new stadium, but we have seen how beneficial that can be to other teams. Also, much of the funding could be sourced from innovative deals, e.g. over 60% of the money for building Juventus’ new stadium is derived from a long-term naming rights deal with a marketing partner.

Even with all these challenges, the revenue of €208 million would not be too bad, if it were not for the inconvenient fact that costs are almost 50% higher at €292 million, leaving a vast deficit of €84 million.


The main culprit is the hefty wage bill of €172 million, which is the second highest in Italy behind Inter’s €205 million. When noted sports journalist Fabio Ravezzani was asked to explain how Milan could make such large losses, even though they had one of the highest revenues of Italian clubs, he replied, “The answer is simple: Milan’s wage bill is exaggerated. Much higher than Juventus.”

In fact, Milan’s wage bill looks very high compared to almost all other Italian clubs. According to a survey by La Gazzetta dello Sport, the salaries for the 25 players in their first team squad amount to €130 million, far higher than the likes of Roma €83 million, Fiorentina €42 million, Lazio €41 million, Sampdoria €35 million and Napoli €28 million.

The total payroll of €172 million, including all staff and bonuses, also looks excessive in comparison with foreign clubs. It’s only just behind big spending Real Madrid’s wage bill of €187 million, but higher than Manchester United €155 million, Bayern Munich €139 million, Arsenal €130 million and Lyon €112 million, all of whom have progressed further than Milan in the Champions League in the past few seasons.

The steady increase in Milan’s salaries has resulted in a wages to turnover ratio of 83%, which is far higher than UEFA’s recommended maximum limit of 70%. However, this actually represents an improvement on the previous year’s 100%, thanks to some revenue growth. Let’s consider what that statistic means for a moment: every Euro invoiced by the club is spent on wages, leaving nothing for any other expenses or indeed a transfer budget.

In fairness, this is a common problem for Italian football. Deloittes’ analysis of the top five European leagues for the 2008/09 season revealed that the average wages to turnover ratio for Serie A was the worst at 73%, even higher than the Premier League 67% and much more than the prudent Bundesliga 50%.


"Plenty of fight left in Gattuso"

That said, Milan are planning to slash their payroll by 30%. This has proved difficult up to now, as the club has been unable to offload older players, because of their high wages. Either this “dead wood” was unwilling to leave for less money or other clubs were reluctant to match their salaries. Frankly, this looks very much like an example of poor management, but fortunately Milan will be able to finally address this issue at the end of the season when ten players’ contracts expire, including the likes of Ronaldinho, Seedorf, Nesta, Ambrosini, Inzaghi and Jankulovski.

That could reduce the wage bill by around €50 million, bringing it down to more sustainable levels. Clearly, these players will need to be replaced, but the cost should be much less, e.g. according to La Gazzetta, Ronaldinho’s salary is €7.5 million, but Milan should be able to find an equivalent striker for €4.5 million (Diego Milito’s salary).

The player amortisation should also reduce either from the sale of the older players or simply from the fact that the original purchase costs have been fully amortised, though this could be more than off-set by the new amortisation from bringing in replacements. Remember that amortisation is the annual cost of writing-down a player’s purchase price. For example, Robinho was signed for €18 million on a four-year contract, but his transfer is only reflected in the profit and loss account via amortisation, which is booked evenly over the life of his contract, i.e. €4.5 million a year (€18 million divided by four years).
To be fair, Milan’s player amortisation is already relatively low at €41 million, compared to those clubs that have traditionally spent big in the transfer market: Manchester City €83 million, Barcelona €71 million, Real Madrid €64 million, Chelsea €57 million and Inter €50 million.


Milan’s deficit is one of the reasons why their debt is so high. In fact, net debt at the group level has doubled in the past four years from €151 million to €301 million. Actually, net debt is almost identical to gross debt, as the club has no cash to speak of, and mainly comprises €171 million of bank loans plus €118 million owed to factoring companies based on future income. This is considerably more than Inter’s bank loans of €48 million, though it’s worth pointing out that Milan are owed €81 million from other football clubs, including €47 million from Real Madrid for Kaka and €7 million from Real Zaragoza for Ricardo Oliveira. In contrast, Milan only owed other clubs €16 million, mainly €10 million to Real Madrid for Klaas-Jan Huntelaar and €4 million to Fluminense for Thiago Silva.

This has necessitated the support of the owners, with Fininvest explicitly stating in the accounts its commitment to support the club “for a period that will not be less than 12 months from the date of the approval of the financial statements.” Even though Berlusconi is reported by Forbes to be the third richest man in Italy, he has not provided financial support at the same lofty levels that Massimo Moratti has offered to Inter. Nevertheless, he has still contributed over €100 million in the last five years, though his children are apparently pressurising him to stop opening his wallet. This has been denied by Galliani, who claimed, “Berlusconi is still very much in love with Milan and will continue to put money in (though without going crazy).”

This debate has raised the prospect of Berlusconi selling Milan, as he might no longer consider the football club a strategic asset for his multimedia empire. Such talk has been exacerbated by the financial difficulties faced by Fininvest, particularly the court ruling that ordered the company to pay €750 million damages to CIR, the media group formed by Carlo de Benedetti. There have certainly been offers, including €700 million from Albanian oil tycoon Rezart Taci, while the press has speculated about interest from Russian gas giants Gazprom and Libyan sovereign funds.


"Nesta - still a pretty good player"

The club’s owners have denied any intention to sell, “Fininvest is compelled once again to state, in the most peremptory and absolute manner, that there is no possibility of a sale (even partial) of Milan’s shares.” This was reinforced in the Financial Times by a banker who knows Berlusconi, “Selling AC Milan would be seen as the beginning of the end of his empire.”

The other consideration would be whether a sale would damage him politically. Berlusconi’s initial rise to the political summit just happened to coincide with Milan’s irresistible progress on the pitch. As Paddy Agnew, a Rome-based football journalist, commented, “Berlusconi will frequently use the club to recreate a winning image of himself.” This might explain the spectacular arrival of big names Ibrahimovic and Robinho, which could be an attempt to boost his flagging popularity in the opinion polls. On the other hand, political reasons may also explain why Berlusconi cannot spend too much money on his football club, as this would not look good when the rest of the country is suffering one of the worst economic recessions for years.

Even if Berlusconi did want to return to the good old days with a few extravagant purchases, he needs to be mindful of the new UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations, which will ultimately exclude from European competitions those clubs that fail to operate within their means, i.e. make a profit. These will be implemented in the 2013/14 season, though the monitoring period will cover the preceding two reporting periods, 2011/12 and 2012/13, so clubs like Milan are under pressure to rapidly eliminate their losses.


"The peerless Pirlo"

Wealthy owners will be allowed to absorb aggregate losses of €45 million over three years for the first two monitoring periods, so long as they are willing to cover the club’s losses by making equity contributions. The maximum permitted loss then falls to €30 million from 2015/16 and will be further reduced from 2018/19 (to an unspecified amount). Although Milan’s last results were within this “acceptable deviation”, this was only achieved with the highly profitable sale of Kaka, which cannot be repeated every year, hence the push to cut the wage bill.

Of course, it would be preferable to reach break-even by growing revenue, but that is future music, very reliant on commercial expansion plus a new (or redeveloped) stadium. On the face of it, you might expect Milan to be against such constraints, but Michel Platini, UEFA’s president, has been quick to emphasise: “It's mainly the owners that asked us to do something – Roman Abramovich, Silvio Berlusconi and Massimo Moratti. They do not want to fork out from their pockets any more.”

So what is the way ahead for Milan? Actually, it could be “Back to the Future” with the club again focusing on developing young players from the primavera. In the glory years, Milan’s first team included many in-house products like Franco Baresi, Paolo Maldini, Billy Costacurta and Demetrio Albertini, so this has worked well in the past. It’s also been a successful strategy at other clubs, notably Barcelona and Bayern Munich, so it’s equally relevant in modern times.


"Many headaches for Berlusconi"


It is debatable whether Berlusconi would have the patience to adopt such an approach. After all, he’s not getting any younger and he gives every appearance of being a man looking for instant gratification (in whatever he does), so he might instead opt to play the transfer market. Actually, in the short-term this might not be such a bad idea, as Milan is sitting on a lot of unrealised profit with the players valued at €98 million in the balance sheet, but worth around €245 million in the real world (according to Transfermarkt).

This leaves the club on the horns of a dilemma, as they need to cut back on their expenditure, but at the same time they must spend to ensure that they have a competitive squad or risk missing out on qualification for the Champions League, which they can ill afford. Appropriately enough for a club nicknamed the “devil”, it’s a case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t – a high-wire balancing act that will require all the skill and experience of the Berlusconi-Galliani axis. The question is will they be up to the task?