Earlier today, Arsenal announced details of an extension to the shirt sponsorship deal with Emirates that would see airline remain linked with the club until 2024.
It adds five years to the existing deal, and although it was described as the ‘largest sponsorship deal ever signed by the club’, there were no financial details to accompany the announcement.
Arseblog News inquired as to whether such details would be released, and were told there were no plans to do so. However, some figures have leaked out and the deal is believed to be worth in excess of £200m.
It works out at over £40m per season, which makes it currently the second highest in the Premier League, behind Manchester United.
Arsenal's new Emirates deal is worth around £40m a year until 2024. Similar to Chelsea's as second highest in PL after Man Utd on £47m. Spurs and City are around £35m and L'pool deal, which is up next year, is about £30m.
— Jeremy Wilson (@JWTelegraph) February 19, 2018
It’s clearly a good deal in the current market, but given the way things change in football, we’ll have to see how this one stacks up in a few years time when the going rate could be very different indeed.
However, it does appear as if there’s room for a separate sleeve sponsor, which could add a few extra million each year, but the deal includes the training kit so there’s nothing extra there.
What, no eleventh hour bid from JVC? Disappointing.
Given that we have clearly regressed in the last three to four years, this is as good as we could hope for. It also – yet again – underlines the fact that the Club can scarcely cry ‘pauperism’ when bidding for someone like Evans at West Brom’ – as they did. Naymar – fair enough. We never have been in that league and probably never will be. But with proper Management (sic) we should be more than capable of mounting a sustained title challenge through until April, instead of being dead in the water, the previous November. That means one… Read more »
an inaugural shirt sleeve sponsor?
since seeing an angry bird on Wazza’s toned bicep I have to admit feelings of jealousy I haven’t had since Liverpool signed Beardsley and Barnes and we signed Kevin Richardson instead. a new logo on the sleeve will surely see us pull off the league next year and return to our traditional and rightful place (going out in the round of 16 in the champions’ league)
“That means one BIG change this May. And we all know what that must be.”
Rob67 to start talking nonsense only occasionally?
I take it your more than happy for Wenger to sign a new 5 year deal are you? Perhaps in the hope that he finally realises that paying attention to our defensive needs is paramount and that playing players out of position or on the wrong flank for their dominant foot is NOT a good idea and that making substitutions for tactical reasons or because a particular player is having a mare is better than sticking to prearranged substitutions unless forced to sub early due to injuries? In fact actually indulging in “in game management ” such as realising that… Read more »
Go on then ! In the interest of open debate. Select the most nonsensical aspect of what I have said and explain to us all why it’s wrong. Go on ! I’d be fascinated to read it…..
No nay never,
No nay never
Naymar.
Brilliant ???????
BIG change. Hopefully, that means you getting off the Internet permanently.
So that means we sport Flamini’s company’s logo on the sleeve?
One Manager Challenge per game and if you get it wrong then you lose a sub. It works without really taking away from the stadium experience or TV in the NHL.
Of course a five year deal is better value for the sponsor in year five than year one. I don’t know why that is even worth a mention. ??♂️
Why wouldn’t it be worth mentioning?
“It’s clearly a good deal in the current market, but given the way things change in football, we’ll have to see how this one stacks up in a few years time when the going rate could be very different indeed.”
Do you compare a phone that came out five years ago with the latest model and then say the former phone was always crap?
No, but it is different in the world of financials; and it is pretty much calculable.
£200m, nice little bonus for stan, shame the manager wont see any of it
Yeah, because the club never buys players. Your false narrative is funny to see though.
And yet you can’t find a single proof that Stan draws money out of the club (except for that 2m).
I asked this question under the story earlier and i’ll ask it again here in the hope that it gets an answer!
Why 5 years? Given the rate at which the market value keeps rising, wouldn’t it have served Arsenal better to opt for a shorter deal? It worries me that, much like the last deal, we end up playing catch up because we take long-term security over our ability to achieve maximum value.
How do you know the market will keep increasing at high rates forever? Would you bet the farm on it?
Amazon, Netflix, Facebook and Google could outbid the TV broadcasters quite easily in their continuing search to provide “content” that will attract and keep users on their platforms. So even if the traditional TV companies are showing signs of fatigue I’d suggest it would be brave or stupid to call time on the rights bubble quite yet.
They’ve all said that ‘Soccer’ doesn’t interest them, and as the present UK viewing figures are reducing, I’m not sure anyone can say whether the money will be increasing or decreasing with any certainty.
The other issue with these platforms is that they cross borders which at the moment the PL are charging separately for, which obviously could be done but would cause friction.
I guess we’ll find out…
Also we’ve got to look at the free streaming that’s costing these company’s, and it’s not going to stop no matter how many law suits they bring through, live streaming is on the up, and sky /bt prices also getting more and more out of control, so I believe it won’t get any better because companies losing millions and millions because of free streaming sites, who wants to pay silly amounts to watch football when can watch for free. This will be sky/bt downfall, and other companies won’t want a sniff of it.
Rumour has it that Amazon have the rights to at least one of the two remaining packages out for tender. I hope they don’t get it for the sake of us fans but they seem very interested.
Amazon, Netflix and the like will NEVER bid for full rights, but rather than digital rights and highlights.
Digital consumption is different, particularly via them. People like to “consume” such media at their own time and in bitesize, which is why Netlfix and Amazon won’t fight for live broadcasting rights.
Facebook COULD, but I highly doubt it. They’re not just gonna fight for broadcast rights whilst having no other content.
I know for a fact that amazon have bid for at least one of the rights packages. Whether they get it is another thing. Also, they’ve already bought full broadcasting rights for the ATP tour in men’s tennis, so they have already bid for rights and obtained other content.
I don’t & didn’t say I did. But it’s increased with every single deal we’ve ever had & the same goes with the other top clubs. So the chances are heavily stacked in favour of a big increase in 2-3 years, why delay in getting a piece of that pie?
@Gus Caesar Because 5 years makes sense for both the parties. Emirates get the maximum out of it over time and we will get a steady inflow. The best way to avoid playing catch-up with other clubs is by INVESTING BIG next season and add to the existing core which is in for the long haul here. I personally don’t think 200 million will become 300 million next season. Neymar and Mbappe is the yardstick now. However, what i think is happening is the exponential increase in the transfer value of CB’s. 75 million for Virgil Van Djik is crazy.… Read more »
I think it made sense when we’d just moved into the Grove, but less so now. It probably is about the club wanting longer term comfort but it just strikes me as a little unnecessary.
@Gus
You have a point but until we win big trophies IMO this ‘long-term comfort’ approach will continue. Once we win a major trophy like the Prem or CL we can and (should) go into short term sponsorship deals simply because we’ll have the upper hand in any negotiations.
Not saying you’re wrong and clearly more success would help our hand, but our level of exposure is still pretty high, we’re a massive brand even without CL football. Isn’t there an element of being brave and thinking like a big club to this? You don’t need to be winning the PL or CL to get a big slice of the pie and we may always be playing catch-up if we think and act like underachievers. I just worry that a lot can change in 5 years and, like what happened with the stadium naming rights, we could end up… Read more »
Also when you are in a 3 year sponsorship deal you are already looking for a new sponsor at the end of year 2 which means you won’t be doing justice to the current sponsor.
IMO 4 year should be the standard. Anything less than that is similar to a ‘one-night stand’. ONS is a rare event where both the parties believe they will get what they want in a short time. If you are not careful ONS can also damage your brand. Hence, most deals are long-term.
Exceptions are made for clubs(studs) who win major trophies.
The only ‘justice’ we won’t be doing to Emirates is having their name on our shirt for at least 3 more years rather than 5. They have similar-length deals elsewhere and i’m sure they’ll live. I think we should do whatever maximizes our income, we don’t have anyone pumping money into the club, we don’t have an entire nation building an entire stadium and training complex for us and we’re in a dog eat dog world. Every penny matters. If 4 years is for the very best deal then so be it but, given the huge change that we’ve seen… Read more »
I’m fully with you on this. I’m just hoping we make up for our lack of bravery on the commercial side by being brave in the transfer market. It looks like the new guys know what they are doing. What has changed considerably well is the speed at which we do deals but unfortunately that is the only change we have witnessed so far. More speed+ More investment should translate to success on the pitch. @Gus I’m hoping we win a major trophy before the Puma deal ends so that we can enter into a lucrative short-term deal that you… Read more »
@Gus “I tend to think we’d maximise our value better by protecting our flexibility”. That’s a GREAT point btw. Also, i think a significant future event that will affect our bottom line is Wenger’s eventual departure. It’s all about how we replace him. I firmly believe Man Utd would have gotten more out of their existing sponsors had Ferguson been in charge because brands feel safer with a manager like him. That is why when Wenger leaves the image we project should be a very positive one. Whether we succeed or fail if we part ways with Wenger in bitter… Read more »
It won’t increase forever, although it has increased longer and faster than probably Wenger expected. The new tv deal is less money than the last one correct? That would suggest things may have peaked or at least growth will slow down pretty significantly. Doesn’t mean clubs with endless petrol pockets will slow their spending though as their spending isn’t particularly limited by the tv money or similar income.
Sponsorship revenues have never yet dropped though. They might flatten but i’d be very surprised if they were lower in 3 years than they are now.
Because no sponsors are willing to be contracted for one year??
But that can’t be the case because the Premier League alone is full of clubs who change their sponsors every season. And why would it be the case anyway, it gives the sponsors flexibility to decide on their changing market too. I’m not saying that I want us to have 1 year deals, it’s just that 5 years strikes me as very long in such an upwardly volatile market.
I would genuinely like to know just how influential short sponsorship is to branding, marketing and sales. My first knowledge of the potential lack of effectiveness of shirt deals was when my beloved Arsenal were sponsored by my equally beloved Sega Dreamcast, a horrendous decision by Sega Europe. They blew their budget on the deal, and couldn’t even afford a tv advert spot for the legendary Shenmue FFS. As a young man, I’ve wuestioned their effectiveness ever since. I’m sure there’s some marketing folks out there with some knowledge on the power of it. I know of the power of… Read more »
Advertising is largely subconscious and/or based on association. i.e. they gamble that you would be more likely to trust Emirates as a brand because of their Arsenal connection. Added to the fact that you wear their logo and you say their name every weekend it’s a win win.
Sport also has a unique place in the Ad industry as it can deliver legacy marketing value. Especially in this day and age of endless gifs and youtube highlights, the advertising can just keep on giving indefinitely.. Hence why the recent TV deals are in the billions of pounds.
Has anyone actually ever flown Emirates b/c it was on the Arsenal shirt? I am glad to see the club make $$$ but not sure the actual advertising is effective
i’ll never buy a chevrolet!
Plus, so many other European clubs have the same sponsorship so it’s hard to know which, if any, of it, is paying off. My sense is that there’s some kind of corporate tax write-off for this kind of deal that makes it worthwhile for the sponsors.
I refused to drink Holsten (admittedly partly because it tasted like shit)!
I flew from Perth, Australia, to London, on Emirates back 2012.
My first flight….. I chose Emirates cos they seemed familiar to me……
So ‘yes’ to your question!
Btw was great flight ?
Interesting. It could just be b/c I live in America and Emirates has virtually no presence here. I have heard good things about their planes and service though
I haven’t, but if it’s a choice between Emirates and Etihad or British Airways or whoever for the same price then I’d probably pick Emirates (also I hear their service is very good…).
Never. Always picked Qatar Air. However I used to work at AIA then they started putting pics of Kane everywhere. I am with JLT now.
I’d be surprised if it was a completely fixed amount deal for the period.
I’m sure there are some forms of bonus involved even if the amounts aren’t amazing.
Blogs, any idea if the figures quoted include the stadium naming rights or is it just for the shirt sponsorship?
The stadium naming rights were already locked up til 27/28 I believe. They did that four years ago.
What isn’t being mentioned is that ManU’s shirt sponsorship is for match day. They separate their training jerseys which increases revenue. This was mentioned four years ago when Emirates was extended. Hoped Commercial Team would split them up so as to maximize revenues. They didn’t and we wont. Could have had matchday, practice jersey and sleeve sponsorship. Our Commercial Team is like our playing squad, good not great
So why didn’t you call them up and offer a deal for the training shirt? Taco Bell need to up your hours?
I actually prefer having them the same, rather than being decked out like a cheap advertising hoarding. I think manu would get an arse sponsor if they could, there’s plenty of room on some of their bums.
I’m pretty sure that Emirates paid us a premium for exclusivity that Man Utd’s sponsors back then didn’t – so we might have made more money but we might not have, depending on how much Emirates valued that exclusivity back then. We certainly weren’t great back then though. This new deal does not include sleeve sponsorship, so we’ve still got that income to obtain.
We need to get our shit together. I worry constantly about hotshite gettting the better of us both on the pitch and off it ala marketing deals such as this. At 35 mil, they aint far behind.
Anybody have any idea when we will know what company will be providing the kit next season – or did I miss that?
Next season it’ll be announced. Bidding is still on-going.
Is this the last Puma season or is it the next?
Next season. Unless it’s Puma again I would expect the deal to be announced some way into next season, so as not to undermine sales of the new kit etc – possibly post-Xmas if they could keep it quiet for that long – the first Puma deal was announced formally in January.