Financial results may be anything but sexy, yet understanding annual accounts has become essential for Newcastle United fans.
The Premier League’s profit and sustainability rules (PSR) dictate the club’s spending power and Newcastle’s latest figures — which cover July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024 — set the parameters they have been operating in.
The Athletic picks out the key figures and analyses what they means for transfers, the stadium decision, commercial deals and more…
Record revenue — and spiralling costs
For the third post-takeover year in succession, Newcastle registered a new record for revenue, reaching £320.3million ($411m). That represents a 28 per cent (£70m) year-on-year increase, which Darren Eales, the CEO, described as “unprecedented growth in football”.
Encouragingly, all three major income streams boasted double-digit growth, meaning Newcastle were not overly reliant on merely one source of revenue.
Commercial income increased by a staggering 90 per cent, from £43.9m to £83.5m, and matchday revenue grew 32 per cent, from £37.9m to £50.1m.
Despite playing in the 2023-24 Champions League, broadcast revenue only increased by 11 per cent (£18.3m) to £184m. That is primarily due to Newcastle finishing seventh (down from fourth) in the Premier League and being televised less frequently, meaning domestic distribution was down £9.6m.
Regardless, given that Manchester City announced a Premier League record revenue of £715m across 2023-24 — more than double Newcastle’s income — there is still a huge gap for the club to bridge.
Newcastle made an after-tax loss of £11.1m, which explains why they struggled to comply with PSR, even if that deficit is down on the £70m-plus losses of the previous two campaigns. They did make an operating profit for the first time post-takeover, however — and, even though it was only £1.2m, it was the first time Newcastle were in the black since 2018-19 (£39m, the final full pre-Covid-19 season under previous owner Mike Ashley).
Interestingly, without player sales — these will be covered later — Newcastle’s increased income would still have failed to prevent substantial operating losses. That is because ballooning wages, non-staff costs and amortisation costs — transfer fees split equally over the length of a player contract for accounting purposes (for example, a £50m signing on a five-year deal would go down as a £10m cost for five successive years) — consumed that uptick in revenue.
The wage bill grew by 18 per cent, from £185.1m to £218.4m, the third-highest year-on-year growth among the 12 Premier League clubs who have disclosed their financial results. It is also merely the eighth-highest in the top flight, behind the so-called “Big Six” and Aston Villa, so Newcastle marginally overperformed their salary costs by finishing seventh.
Newcastle’s increased revenues helped to secure a healthier wages-to-turnover ratio, too. From 95 per cent in 2021-22 and 74 per cent in 2022-23, it dropped to 68 per cent in 2023-24.
Theoretically, Newcastle’s wage bill may fall for 2024-25, given they are not participating in Europe and many players have provisions in their contracts for bonuses if they are in UEFA competition. Bruno Guimaraes, Joelinton and Anthony Gordon’s subsequent substantial pay increases may cover any drop-off, though.
The £68.6m operating loss without transfer income would have followed similar £66m and £72m losses in 2022-23 and 2021-22. It would also have represented the eighth-highest figure in the Premier League.
In short, Newcastle’s rapid revenue growth continues but their costs are also increasing substantially. The club needs to continue generating more money for Newcastle to extinguish any PSR concerns.
GO DEEPER
Isak’s future, Newcastle’s transfer plans and more – an audience with Darren Eales, analysed
PSR — a near miss and what the spending position is now
Finally, the reason for Newcastle’s late-June desperation has been outlined in black-and-white financial figures.
Without the June 30 sales of Yankuba Minteh to Brighton & Hove Albion and Elliot Anderson to Nottingham Forest, which brought in a combined £65m — and the compensation Manchester United paid for sporting director Dan Ashworth — Newcastle were facing a £69m pre-tax loss and PSR breach well above £50m.
Newcastle did not want to sell Elliot Anderson but his departure ended up being a necessity (Richard Heathcote/Getty Images)
Once the £20m sale of Allan Saint-Maximin to Al Ahli in July 2023 is added in, Newcastle’s gross player sales totalled £90.6m — not only a club record, but also more than the past six years of player-sale profits combined (£64.8m).
Over the past five years, Newcastle have generated just the 12th-highest income (£106.4m) from player-sale profit in the Premier League. Clearly, Newcastle have not been savvy enough at “trading” — as Eddie Howe, the head coach, and Paul Mitchell, the sporting director, describe it — and they recognise that must change. Newcastle feared a 10-point deduction last year, which is why they conducted what felt like a fire sale.
Even then, as Eales himself admitted, they were only “just about compliant”. “You have to pay the piper (eventually),” as Eales put it.
Rolling three-year PSR calculations are opaque — deductible costs for academy, community, women’s football and infrastructure are difficult to quantify precisely — but it seems Newcastle dipped in at just under the permitted £105m loss limit for the past three campaigns.
Since the takeover, Newcastle’s amortisation costs have increased by 200 per cent to £96.7m, which is the seventh-highest in the Premier League. While that partly reflects the low base of transfer dealings under Ashley, it also shows why PSR continues to constrict the club. This is partly explained by the fact that the “frontloading” of business post-takeover, as Eales termed it, means that initial expenditure requires offsetting.
Newcastle’s gross transfer spend (ie, discounting sales) was £206.1m last season, the first time they exceeded £200m in a single campaign.
Meanwhile, their net transfer spend across 2023-24 was £155.5m, down from £149.7m in 2022-23, but still a third consecutive season of £100m-plus investment. Over the past five years, Newcastle’s net spend is £492.2m, which is the fifth-highest in England based on most recent financial results (although the five-year period covered differs for some clubs).
Since the change of owner, Newcastle’s squad cost (the value they place on their player pool) has more than doubled from £233.3m in June 2021 to £605.1m in June 2024. That is the sixth-highest in the Premier League — though Tottenham Hotspur and Villa have yet to release their accounts — and they are significantly clear of West Ham United in seventh (£410.6m), showing the pace of their growth.
That is also why Newcastle have been so cautious — their net spend across 2024-25 has been just £20m — and have opted against strengthening the first XI for three successive windows. Instead, the combined £30m made through the sales of Miguel Almiron and Lloyd Kelly in January bolstered Newcastle’s position heading into what is viewed as a vital summer.
Eales described the upcoming window as “exciting” and, with Almiron’s sale ensuring compliance for 2024-25, Newcastle could invest up to £100m, maybe more, particularly if further funds are raised through exits.
The exact budget available will depend upon European qualification (and which specific UEFA competition they end up competing in), which players leave and whether high earners can be moved on, but Newcastle are in a far healthier position to offer Howe backing in the transfer market.
What commercial growth means for the stadium decision
To compete with the elite clubs, Newcastle have to continue to increase all of their revenue streams — with commercial gains viewed as the most achievable in the short-to-medium term.
The latest 90 per cent (£39.7m) annual uptick ensures that, in three years post-takeover, Newcastle’s commercial income has quadrupled from £21m to £84m. Having flatlined under Ashley, it has been pump-primed under Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF).
Much of that growth (56 per cent, or £22.6m) has come from PIF-related companies, with Sela, Saudia and Noon among Newcastle’s sponsors.
These figures do not include the subsequent Adidas kit deal — which is believed to be worth between £25m-£40m annually, up from around £6m under Castore — or the benefits Newcastle will feel from bringing their retail operation back in-house this season. The profits from the STACK fanzone, which is located behind the Gallowgate End of St James’ Park and only opened in August, will also be added in the accounts for 2024-25, when further significant commercial growth is expected (even if the absence of Champions League football means that some bonuses from sponsors will likely be deducted).
Again, however, Manchester City’s commercial revenue (£344.7m) still dwarfs Newcastle’s, so Eales and the team around him are exhausting every possible means to grow sponsorship deals.
GO DEEPER
Inside Newcastle Q&A: Can Gordon win red-card appeal? Is all Wembley hope lost? Any optimism, please?
The accounts reveal that £4m was invested in hospitality lounges at St James’, including into Wings and The Rooftops, which “helped enhance hospitality revenue”. This is informative for the upcoming decision over the future of Newcastle’s stadium, whether the club renovate and expand St James’ or move into a new ground nearby.
On Tuesday, Eales did not confirm or deny that some senior figures inside the club were edging towards a new stadium. He even stressed that building a stadium would not only allow Newcastle to get “more fans in”, but also “help us make tickets affordable to more of the people”. His rationale was that, because Newcastle could provide a higher-end corporate offering, which would raise greater revenue, they could have cheaper ticket prices elsewhere.
Alongside the potential commercial revenue growth a new stadium would bring, matchday income could also be substantially increased. Manchester United made £137.1m from matchday revenue across 2023-24 — almost triple the £50m Newcastle generated.
While Newcastle insist a final decision has yet to be reached, the figures highlight why a new-build stadium is under serious consideration.
The importance of Champions League qualification
Newcastle beat PSG 4-1 on a famous night at St James’ Park in October 2023 (Michael Regan/Getty Images)
As the accounts outline: “Qualification for UEFA competitions has a significant impact on the club’s income and costs in seasons where participation is achieved.”
Beyond the prestige of competing in Europe’s premier competition, and how it increases the likelihood of keeping hold of Alexander Isak and Newcastle’s other star players, the Champions League is also particularly lucrative for a club determined to break into the elite — and critically, to stay there.
Newcastle received £29.8m for exiting the Champions League at the group stage last season, which accounted for almost 10 per cent of their revenue. Manchester United, meanwhile, earned £53.8m — despite also finishing bottom of their group and actually picking up one point fewer than Howe’s side — but UEFA distributions reward historic participation, and Newcastle had no previous coefficient ranking.
However, the revamped format generates even greater funds for participants, so Newcastle can expect to receive significantly more in 2025-26, should they finish in the Premier League’s top five this season.
The accounts for 2024-25 will reflect the lack of UEFA revenue. Costs also rise when the club is in the Champions League, but the benefits far outweigh those.
When it comes to UEFA’s costs-to-turnover measures — which are calculated annually, from January to December, rather than across the footballing season, as the Premier League’s are — Newcastle were comfortably inside the 90 per cent limit for 2023-24. Even though that is reducing to 70 per cent for 2025-26, the club does not view those regulations as being as problematic as the Premier League’s PSR rules, which have been extended for another year.
APT — and Newcastle’s ‘watching’ brief
The Premier League rushed to introduce associated-party transaction (APT) rules in December 2021 following Newcastle’s takeover. Manchester City have already registered a victory over the Premier League at a tribunal and, with a secondary case ongoing, the ramifications could be huge for Newcastle.
In 2022-23, Newcastle received £6.71m from PIF-related companies. That more than quadrupled in a year to £29m, with APT deals now accounting for 35 per cent of Newcastle’s commercial income — with the potential for that to expand further in the next set of financial figures.
While Newcastle’s growth has been partly dependent upon PIF companies, the club have been keen to abide by the present regulations. Yet finally there has been public acknowledgement that, should Manchester City prove successful at tribunal, Newcastle will explore how they can benefit from the relaxation of APT rules.
“It’s very fluid at the moment,” Eales said. “From that perspective, we’re going to have to see over the next couple of months how things play out. But obviously it’s something we’re watching carefully.”
PIF’s continued backing
“We’ve got an ownership that’s fully committed to the long term,” Eales said.
Newcastle executives continue to insist that PIF remains committed to the club, that it will finance a new stadium and a state-of-the-art training facility, but it is the majority stakeholders’ repeated cash injections that should most reassure supporters of its undiminished ambitions.
Across 2023-24, the owners injected £97m into the club through equity, with a further £48.5m this season.
Since the takeover, £440.8m of equity funding has been placed into the club, £333.9m of which has been cash for expenditure (with the remaining £106.9m clearing loans to Ashley). Up to the end of last season, new owner cash injections (minus the loan repayments to Ashley) totalled £285.4m, which represents the fourth-highest in the Premier League (although Villa’s may be higher), with only Everton, Fulham and Chelsea receiving more.
Amanda Staveley’s exit in July led to PIF’s stake increasing to 85 per cent and the Reuben family’s to 15 per cent.
The former owner had received loans from the club, including £881,000 across 2023-24, but she had repaid the full balance owed (£1.481m) by December 2024. Separately, her company, Cantervale Ltd, received two loans totalling £625,000 from the club, which Newcastle expect to be repaid, but had not been by January 16, when the accounts were signed.
(Top photo: Michael Regan/Getty Images)
