How are Chelsea balancing the books despite having the most expensive squad in history

By winning the 2024/25 Conference League, Chelsea has won its first prize after the £4.25 billion takeover by a consortium led by Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital in May 2022. More important though, was their fourth-place league finish which has brought back Champions League football to Stamford Bridge. A financial windfall – including €18.62 million in starting fee alone – that is needed after the major squad investments made in recent seasons.

The new owners have spent so much that at the end of the 2024 financial year, Chelsea’s squad had a combined transfer cost of €1.656 billion – the most expensive ever assembled.

So, how does Chelsea balance the books with such spending? How do they adhere to financial regulations? And will this strategy cause problems in the future?

Squad overhaul

One of the first strategies implemented by the new owners was to overhaul the squad and create a roster of younger players on lower wages. Which they have successfully done. During the 2021/22 season, the last under former owner Roman Abramovich, the average age of Chelsea’s squad was 25.6 years.¹ In 2024/25, this was just over 23 years. With the average age of Chelsea’s 2024/25 Premier League starting XI being 24 years and 36 days – the youngest ever in a single season.

Furthermore, of the players who played for the club in 2021/22, only four – Reece James, Ben Chilwell, Kepa Arrizabalaga, and Trevoh Chalobah – are still on the club’s books. For now, because the latter three all spent (part of) 2024/25 on loan at other clubs.

Lowering wages

Older players on higher wages have been offloaded, while younger ones are contracted on ‘lower’ wages – even if their transfer sums are high. In January 2023, for example, the club bought 22-year-old Enzo Fernández from Benfica for €121 million.¹ Yet, the Argentinian is on a weekly base salary of £180,000. A half year later, 21-year-old Moisés Caicedo was bought for €116 million from Brighton. With the Ecuadorian earning £150.000 per week.

In 2021/22, 19 players were on weekly wages of over £100,000, including four players earning over £200,000. The following season this increased to 21 and seven players respectively. However, since, the club has tried to offload high wages and in 2024/25, 15 players earned over £100,000 weekly (including three over £200,000).

Wage costs have been increasing in recent years. In 2020/21, Chelsea spent £332.9 million on playing and nonplaying staff. In 2022/23, this was around £404 million – with the club attracting new players on ‘lower’ wages. By offloading players, wages decreased to £338 million in 2023/24.

Long-term contracts

During the 2024/25 season (until March 2025), 91.8 percent of Chelsea’s Premier League minutes were played by players under contract beyond the year 2026. The highest amongst teams from 37 leagues worldwide. Manchester United (86.4 percent) and Arsenal (85.8 percent) recorded the second and third highest percentage amongst Premier League clubs.

It reflects Chelsea’s long-term strategy of creating a squad of young talented players on long-term contracts, that has the potential to develop in the coming years. Since the takeover, it has not been uncommon for players to sign contracts of eight or nine years. With Fernández signing an eight and a half year deal and Caicedo an eight year deal.

These long deals are mainly a financial strategy by Chelsea to create more spending room in the short term without violating financial regulations. Where transfer sums received are booked directly into the financial accounts, those spent are amortised (i.e. written down) over a player’s contract length. Meaning that when an £80 million player signs an eight-year contract, the club only needs to ‘pay’ (i.e. write off) £10 million each year. With a four-year contract this would have been £20 million annually.

Chelsea’s practices were the catalyst for UEFA to change the amortisation period from the contract length to a maximum of five years in the summer of 2023. Meaning that in the hypothetical £80 million transfer, regardless of the contract being eight years, the club must amortise over five years – £16 million annually. A few months later, Premier League clubs voted for a five-year limit on transfer fee amortisation for the league in line with UEFA. With Chelsea also in favour, despite having taken advantage of the ‘loophole’.

Amortisation for a player costing £80 million

Amortisation rules	Contract length	Amortisation per year
Previously: over contract length	4 years 8 years	£20 million £10 million
Now: maximum 5 years	4 years 8 years	£20 million £16 million

Risky strategy

While the strategy provides extra budget in the short run, Chelsea will have to ‘pay’ longer for these transfers. Basically, pushing the issue to the long run and thus possibly limiting their future spending or even risking their financial sustainability.

In addition, Chelsea risks ending up with players on long running contracts that they may no longer want or need and cannot offload. In the summer of 2024, the Blues were already faced with having more players than the manager needed. With some players allowed to leave and excluded from the squad, but for whom no club became concrete. Like Ben Chilwell, who still has a contract until 2027, and was eventually reintegrated into the squad before being loaned to Crystal Palace in February 2025.

Chelsea’s financial situation

The strategy has helped Chelsea overhaul their squad while still adhering to financial regulations. Yet, it is not the club’s only strategy, with others raising just as many questions amongst the public.

In 2022/23, Chelsea generated revenue of £512.5 million.² A 6.5 percent increase compared to the previous year. With the club especially earning more (19 percent) from commercial sources (2022/23: £210.1 million). Yet, in 2023/24 the club generated nine percent less revenue with £468.5 million. Which was mostly due to a 28 percent drop in broadcasting revenue as the club finished sixth in the league and played no European football.

Despite significantly reducing costs, especially wage costs, in 2023/24, Chelsea still recorded an operating loss of over £210 million. Just like they did in in 2021/22 and 2022/23.

Premier League clubs are allowed to incur a maximum loss of £105 million over a three-year period – with anything beyond £15 million having to be guaranteed by secure funding (i.e. owner investments) – as part of the league’s Profit and Sustainability Regulations (PSR). With violation possibly resulting in point deduction.

So, to adhere to the league’s PSR, Chelsea had to limit their losses with profits on disposal of player registrations (i.e. player sales) and/or assets.

Selling to subsidiaries

For two consecutive seasons, Chelsea chose to sell some of their assets to the Group’s subsidiaries in a bid to reorganise their asset portfolio and simultaneously create a better PSR situation.

In 2022/23, Chelsea sold hotel buildings and car park property for £76.3 million to Blueco 22 Properties Limited, a fellow subsidiary of the intermediate parent company, Blueco 22 Limited. With the estimated value based on the market values obtained from two industry leading property valuers.² The sale limited the loss before taxation to £90.1 million. And while it seems dubious, it was included into Chelsea’s PSR calculations. Albeit with the value reduced by £6 million.²

In 2023/24, Chelsea used a similar strategy with the sale of the women’s team (July 2024) to Blueco 22 Midco Limited, a fellow subsidiary. Giving the team a fair market value of £200 million, Chelsea realised a profit on disposal of fixed asset investments of £198.7 million. It turned an otherwise loss before taxation of over £70 million into a profit of £128.4 million.

Chelsea’s sales to subsidiaries

Like with the property, the consideration of the transaction is subject to the league’s assessment. The question is whether the women’s team’s fair market value is indeed £200 million. If it is, it would be based on future potential.

With Chelsea having a reported value of £2.4 billion in May 2025, the women’s team would account for around eight percent. In 2023/24, however, the women’s team generated €13.4 million in revenue. Accounting for around 2.5 percent of the club’s total revenue.

Yet, an eight to ten percent investment by Reddit-founder Alexis Ohanian – believed to be worth around £20 million – in May 2025, gives the women’s team a valuation of around £200 to £250 million.

Possible issues

It remains to be seen whether the Premier League – who would like to see this loophole closed – agrees with the valuation and whether Chelsea will be PSR-compliant.

In Europe, Chelsea will likely face some consequences. Because even though UEFA’s Financial Sustainability Regulations are like the Premier League’s PSR, the governing body does not consider the sale of intra-group sales, like the hotels and women’s team, as income. In April 2025, the club confirmed they are in talks with UEFA over potential financial regulation breaches.

So far, Chelsea’s new owners have found loopholes within the financial regulations framework that work to their advantage. Whether it is smart for the future remains to be seen. For now, they have won their first silverware, possess a young talented squad, and have qualified for the Champions League again.

Sources:

1. Transfermarkt
2. Chelsea’s annual reports