crazy
https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... SApp_Other

There are headline figures and then there is the real detail - which has not been forthcoming - it will be a big number in reality, just not necessarily that big

from The Athletic

Manchester City sign new Puma deal: Analysing the £100m per season kit partnership
https://archive.ph/yJ0y6

Aye, 10 year deal. 10 years of advertising on a global scale.

Sickening, obscene.

add in the shirt sponsor and just from the shirt they have a greater annual revenue than we probably will for the season from commercial, matchday, catering, retail and tv. The rest of their commercial deals will likely be more than twice our total revenues - so that is at least 3 times as much before you add their other revenue streams

Dodgy

What's interesting in these deals now is that most are structured so that there is a big upfront payment and then you need to sell an absolutely huge amount of shirts before any extra revenue comes through for shirt sales (obviously you will get additional money if you sell them in your own club shop but not if they are sold in JJB or whatever).

Non-matchwear often generates instant additional royalties though so that's why you'll see that being pushed by clubs (I had an interesting discussion with one PL club as to whether kid's shirts with a different sponsor on them are classed as replica shirts or not).

There's also big incentives for titles, trophies, Europe, etc as that all increases the exposure.