A price, then a model
Fair market value
Fair market value is the price a willing buyer and a willing seller would agree at arm’s length. Where a revenue rule counts sponsorship as income, that price decides how much of a connected deal counts.
A connected deal is one with an owner, a sister company, or another party linked to the club. In the 2015/16 Premier League Handbook, Rule E.54, the Board decides whether related-party income in the profitability test is at fair market value, and restates it if it is not. The club is heard before the restatement. The 2025/26 Handbook requires an associated-party transaction to be submitted for that kind of assessment. The restatement changes the income the spending test uses. The cash in the contract stays the cash in the contract.
Three approaches
A sponsorship test in this rule is a market test. The question is what an unconnected sponsor would pay for the rights on offer.
| Approach | What it uses | Where it sits |
|---|---|---|
| Market | Prices paid for similar rights. | The ordinary test. The comparables have to be the same kind of right. |
| Income | The cash those rights are expected to bring, discounted for time and risk. | A cross-check, when the benefit to the sponsor can be stated. |
| Cost | What it would cost to build an equivalent. | A weak guide to a club’s name. History and an audience are not a rebuild cost. |
A shirt, a sleeve, and the name on the ground are three rights. A global deal and a domestic deal are two rights. Length, exclusivity, and what the sponsor is given still differ. Until those differences are adjusted, the gap includes them.
Six clubs
The set is Manchester City, Arsenal, Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur, plus the two clubs Brand Finance ranked first and second by club brand value on 20 August 2026: Real Madrid and Barcelona. A brand-value rank is not a sponsorship price.
Opta Analyst’s title count, through Arsenal’s win in 2025/26, gives Manchester City 8, Arsenal 4 and Liverpool 2. Tottenham Hotspur has none of the 34. Real Madrid and Barcelona are not in that count.
A firm hired to price a shirt or a ground name would define the right, then look for comparable deals, then adjust for audience, results, and what the sponsor is given. Income and cost are cross-checks. This page does not hold the contracts, the league’s comparable file, or an expert’s schedule. It cannot reconstruct thirty years of deals.
| Club | Front of shirt | Name of the ground |
|---|---|---|
| Real Madrid | 63.1 | 18.4 |
| Liverpool | 61.1 | 10.2 |
| Manchester City | 60.1 | 11.0 |
| Arsenal | 59.2 | 12.6 |
| Barcelona | 55.2 | 16.1 |
| Tottenham Hotspur | 29.8 | 11.2 |
The Sponsor’s article of 2 June 2026 dates the Premier League shirt index at 1 June 2026 and describes a market regression. Where that article prints a figure for these clubs, it matches this table: Arsenal £59.2m, Tottenham Hotspur’s shirt £29.8m and ground name £11.2m, Liverpool at £61m, and Real Madrid’s shirt at £63.1m.
The model
The calculator is a model. It runs one market check for these six clubs, and for two rights: the front of the shirt, and the name of the ground. The figure it prints is an estimate from the data points below. It is not a price read from a contract.
| Data point | Where it comes from |
|---|---|
| Premier League titles | Sourced for the four English clubs. Opta Analyst, through Arsenal’s win in 2025/26. |
| Brand-value rank | Sourced. Brand Finance, 20 August 2026. Real Madrid first, Barcelona second. A rank is not a fee. |
| Name of the ground | Sourced. The public name. Anfield, Tottenham Hotspur Stadium and the Santiago Bernabéu have no sponsor in the name. The Etihad Stadium, the Emirates Stadium and Spotify Camp Nou do. A name is not a fee. |
| Published index | Sourced as one publisher’s estimate. FMV Index, 2026. It is not loaded into the boxes. |
| The rule | Sourced. Handbook 2015/16, Rule E.54, and the 2025/26 associated-party submission. Held in the research archive. |
| The City finding | Sourced. The commission found at first instance that the recorded sponsorship fees were substantially above fair market value. |
| Three annual prices | Simulated, until you replace them. A shirt starts at 40, 50 and 60. A ground name starts at 8, 12 and 16. The unit is £ million a year. |
| Season index | Set by you. It starts at 100, which leaves the average unchanged. This archive does not hold a thirty-year file of comparable contracts. |
| Stated price | Empty until you type one. An empty box is not zero. |
We have no access to the transactions in the clubs’ accounts. A published turnover figure, including the checked turnover and staff costs on The money was allowed, is not a sponsorship price. The commission’s valuation schedules are not in this archive. The model can only estimate from what is publicly known about the business, and from the numbers in the boxes.
Add the three annual prices and divide by three. Apply the percentage you type for a difference you can name. Multiply by the season index and divide by 100. An index of 50 halves the average.
Rule E.54 is aimed at a gap of this kind. Income above fair market value can be restated before the spending test. The club disputes the finding. The appeal is open. The money was allowed sets out that decision.
Run the model
Choosing a club loads the public note and that publisher’s index. It does not load a fee into the boxes. The prices start as the simulated example for the right you pick. Replace them with a figure from a public report if you have one.
Model estimate
Average of the three prices, then × (1 + adjustment ÷ 100), then × (index ÷ 100).
| Club | Last model estimate |
|---|
What this does not establish
- It does not estimate how far any deal sat over a spending limit.
- A title count is not a market price. A brand-value rank is not a market price.
- A gap in the calculator is the arithmetic of the boxes. It is not a finding of a breach.
- The income approach and the cost approach are named so the market check has a place. They are not run.
- The model can misstate a public fact. A simulated price is not a fact. An inaccuracy or a misstatement on this page is not a statement of a club’s position.
- It is not legal, financial, accounting, or regulatory advice. Do not rely on it for a filing, a charge, a contract, or a decision to spend.
- The page is provided as it is. It is not warranted to be complete, current, or fit for any purpose. The Notice excludes liability for loss from relying on these pages, so far as the law allows. Nothing here excludes liability that cannot be excluded.
Sources
- Opta Analyst, Which Teams Have the Most Premier League Titles? Counted through Arsenal’s 2025/26 win. Manchester City 8, Arsenal 4, Liverpool 2. Tottenham Hotspur is not in that list of title-winners.
- FMV Index, latest sponsorship figures labelled 2026, read on 12 October 2026. Front of shirt and stadium naming rights, £ million a year: Real Madrid 63.1 and 18.4; Liverpool 61.1 and 10.2; Manchester City 60.1 and 11.0; Arsenal 59.2 and 12.6; Barcelona 55.2 and 16.1; Tottenham Hotspur 29.8 and 11.2.
- The Sponsor, Premier League Fair Market Sponsorship Values 2026, 2 June 2026. Valuation date 1 June 2026. Market regression, under IVS 105. The article prints Arsenal at £59.2m, Tottenham Hotspur’s shirt at £29.8m and stadium naming rights at £11.2m, Liverpool at £61m, and Real Madrid’s shirt at £63.1m.
- Brand Finance, Football 50, 20 August 2026. Real Madrid remains the most valuable club brand. Barcelona remains second. That is a brand-value rank, not a sponsorship price.
- Premier League Handbook 2015/16, Rule E.54, and Handbook 2025/26, associated party transactions. Held in the research archive. Rule E.54: the Board determines whether related-party consideration in earnings before tax is at fair market value, and restates it if it is not. The following rule requires the club to be heard first.
- The money was allowed. The commission’s first-instance finding that the recorded sponsorship fees were substantially above fair market value, and the appeal.