Why don’t you test the statement against the whole phrase I used rather than just half of it?T
I guess that depends on your definition, but the top top teams are all multi-billion pound companies, and the competitors being in the hundred-of-millions.
So in pure cold numbers they are indeed quite “big” companies. And as I mentioned above across every department they have the staffing levels to align with those numbers.
Presumably your characterisation of the top clubs as multibillion pound companies refers to the price someone will pay to become the owner, not a good test in a specialised market with few buyers and sellers.
In terms of turnover or profit, the true tests, football clubs are not big companies financially in world terms.
The football club with the highest turnover in the world, a certain Manchester City, recorded less than £700m last year, with a record profit of £42m.
On market cap, City might sneak in at position 102 in the uk, but on turnover and profit City would be miles away from the top 100 just in the uk. So, in world terms City is a financial minnow.
Social dimensions are quite another matter and it is in that regard that football clubs should be judged.
Last edited: