City’s New Kits

Wonder what the cost to manufacture one of those shirts actually is?

Must be one of the most marked up items in existence.
I'd be very surprised if the total manufacturing cost (labour, materials, power, shipping from wherever they're made to Blighty) came to £15 per shirt. Probably less; what's that expression, "economy of scale", is it?
 
I hope nobody is moaning at people buying fakes? Fakes all day everyday, every fan should follow suit until they actually price them reasonably. Wankers
I am not, I am just pointing out that this online assumption that clubs get nothing from individual shirt sales is clearly simply wrong.
 
I am not, I am just pointing out that this online assumption that clubs get nothing from individual shirt sales is clearly simply wrong.
Yeah no worries, just reading the posts it looked like people was complaining about City not getting the money if we buy snides. The club do get money for them obviously if we buy from there.
 
That's a fallacy people choose to believe.

Yes, the club get most of the money upfront as part of the deal. However, if Puma and the sponsor then miss out on millions of shirt sales, that will come into play during the next contract negotiations. City will absolutely lose money during those negotiations.

To bring the sort of lost revenue to the likes of Puma to light, studies show that there are about 60% more fake shirts sold than real ones across the Premier League (10m real 16m fake).

City sell about 1.3m shirts per season, so that could mean 2 million fakes are also sold. If even a fraction of that amount was replaced by real shirts, that would put city in a much stronger bargaining position come contract renewals.

I know if I was the boss at Puma I would pay more if I knew I could sell say 2m shirts compared to 1.3m.

At the end of the day though, those who buy fake shirts will justify it to themselves regardless of what the facts say.

I’m not in the business but the Price of Football podcast said that shirts at a club like City or Man U are loss leaders. A brand like Nike or Adidas won’t sell enough merchandise (shirts and leisure wear) even at £85 (of which say Nike only make about £20-30 profit after costs) to cover the huge up front contracts they pay the clubs.

The branding and marketing exposure of having City/Man U in a particular brand is enough. Essentially it’s a marketing exercise for the sportswear brand.

The fake kits probably just add to that exposure, if not Nike or Puma’s bottom line directly, then it will do indirectly.
 
I am not, I am just pointing out that this online assumption that clubs get nothing from individual shirt sales is clearly simply wrong.
The club gets about £10 a shirt.

If City retails the shirt - through the website or club shop it probably makes another £20-30 - less costs, rent, staff, etc

But don’t City lease their retail to Kitbag. So again we probably get an upfront lump sum from Kitbag but not much more for each individual sale.
 
I’m not in the business but the Price of Football podcast said that shirts at a club like City or Man U are loss leaders. A brand like Nike or Adidas won’t sell enough merchandise (shirts and leisure wear) even at £85 (of which say Nike only make about £20-30 profit after costs) to cover the huge up front contracts they pay the clubs.

The branding and marketing exposure of having City/Man U in a particular brand is enough. Essentially it’s a marketing exercise for the sportswear brand.

The fake kits probably just add to that exposure, if not Nike or Puma’s bottom line directly, then it will do indirectly.
We're getting £65m a year from Puma, yeah? With 4 more years of the contract to go.
 
We're getting £65m a year from Puma, yeah? With 4 more years of the contract to go.
I don’t know how long is left on this deal. Although we had a 10 year contact with Umbro/Nike which was bought out/broken early. I don’t know how to say this without it sounding rude but what’s the question or point you’re trying to make?
 
I don’t know how long is left on this deal. Although we had a 10 year contact with Umbro/Nike which was bought out/broken early. I don’t know how to say this without it sounding rude but what’s the question or point you’re trying to make?
It does sound slightly rude, but I'm fairly thick skinned (and thick headed). I'm not particularly trying to make any point in particular; just chucking it in there as others have remarked on the big upfront money Puma are shelling out. Re the deal,


A 10 year deal, signed 6 years ago.
 
It does sound slightly rude, but I'm fairly thick skinned (and thick headed). I'm not particularly trying to make any point in particular; just chucking it in there as others have remarked on the big upfront money Puma are shelling out. Re the deal,


A 10 year deal, signed 6 years ago.
Sorry didn’t mean to be rude. Yes we’re getting good money from Puma.

That deal was signed pre Haaland. I wonder if it will be renegotiated before the end of the contract.

Here’s how we compare with other clubs

1 - Manchester United, adidas £90m.
2 - Arsenal, adidas £75m. ...
3 - Manchester City, Puma £65m. ...
4 - Liverpool, adidas £60m. ...
5 - Chelsea, Nike £60m. ...
6 - Newcastle, adidas £30m. ...
7 - Tottenham Hotspur, Nike £30m. ...
 
Some interesting podcast info about kit sales - some of my % above are a little bit out.

“Our first question comes from David Gethings.

I think David might be American the way he uses the word jersey rather than shirt, but the way things are going these days, I noticed the BBC over there are now giving up saying a new series. They say new season. Oh, that's just...

Slippery slope.

Isn't it just? David Gethings has his question. You've mentioned previously that clubs make between 10 and 20% on jersey sales, depending on the agreement with the manufacturer and the retailer.

Seeing a report recently that the Spurs club shop at the stadium sells around a thousand son jerseys at every home game, made me wonder what percentage do Spurs make from a direct jersey sale at the club shop, where the retailer and some additional costs would be removed, or do Spurs and other Premier League clubs outsource the management of the club shop? Now, we had a similar situation, Kieran, when we were asked about... You spoke about Celtic and Rangers taking different degrees of profit for Celtic, managed their kit sales completely and Rangers outsourced it.

So this is an interesting one as to whether it's the club running, the club shop or[…]”

From The Price of Football: Club profits on shirt sales, potential conflicts of interest around transfer fee incentives, 13 May 2025
 
Sorry didn’t mean to be rude. Yes we’re getting good money from Puma.

That deal was signed pre Haaland. I wonder if it will be renegotiated before the end of the contract.

Here’s how we compare with other clubs

1 - Manchester United, adidas £90m.
2 - Arsenal, adidas £75m. ...
3 - Manchester City, Puma £65m. ...
4 - Liverpool, adidas £60m. ...
5 - Chelsea, Nike £60m. ...
6 - Newcastle, adidas £30m. ...
7 - Tottenham Hotspur, Nike £30m. ...
No sweat.
 
Sorry didn’t mean to be rude. Yes we’re getting good money from Puma.

That deal was signed pre Haaland. I wonder if it will be renegotiated before the end of the contract.

Here’s how we compare with other clubs

1 - Manchester United, adidas £90m.
2 - Arsenal, adidas £75m. ...
3 - Manchester City, Puma £65m. ...
4 - Liverpool, adidas £60m. ...
5 - Chelsea, Nike £60m. ...
6 - Newcastle, adidas £30m. ...
7 - Tottenham Hotspur, Nike £30m. ...
seems reasonable - rags always think they're f**king special - and it ain't enough anyway (see scruffy jim's desperate attempts to sack cleaners, cooks and security bods) - and tarquins have to charge more because of their inability to win anything...
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top