Finance
State of Arsenal's finances: What we know about wages, ticket prices, FFP and debt
For the fifth consecutive year, Arsenal’s accounts have recorded a loss. Their books for the year ended May 31, 2023, show an overall deficit of £52.1million ($65.8m) — a £6.6million increase on their losses for 2021-22.
But, a little like the first team’s wobble in form over Christmas, the underlying numbers provide a little more room for encouragement.
Overall revenue was up to £467million — a 25 per cent increase on the previous year.
The financial result was however impacted by “impairment write-downs on certain player registrations amounting to £18.1million, which by virtue of their quantum are classified as exceptional”. Without those exceptional items, the loss before tax amounted to £34million — not great, but an improvement on the previous year.
Here, The Athletic explains what these results tell us about Arsenal’s financial position.
What exactly do these results cover?
These results cover Arsenal’s trading for the year up until May 31, 2023. That means it encompasses the signings of Gabriel Jesus, Oleksandr Zinchenko, Fabio Vieira, Leandro Trossard, Jakub Kiwior, Jorginho and Matt Turner. This summer’s spending — including the club-record £105million deal for Declan Rice — will appear in next year’s results.
How have Arsenal raised their revenue?
Arsenal’s improvement on the field has helped them generate more revenue. Their title challenge in the 2022-23 Premier League saw them earn more from broadcast revenue.
Crucially, this was also the season in which Arsenal returned to European football, in the form of the Europa League. As a consequence of playing in Europe and improving their Premier League position from fifth to second, broadcast income rose £45million to £191.2million. However, their relatively early exits from cup competitions put a cap on their earnings.
“During 2022-23 and subsequently during the summer 2023 transfer window, the club has again invested strongly in the development of its men’s first-team playing resources,” reads the report. “This investment recognises that qualification for UEFA competition represents a pre-requisite to re-establishing a self-sufficient financial base.”
Arsenal’s return to the Champions League has boosted their income (Clive Rose/Getty Images)
Arsenal confirm they are “reliant on the continued financial support of its ultimate parent company, Kroenke Sports & Entertainment (KSE)”. The Arsenal board, however, have aspirations of returning to a financially self-sustaining model. For that to be the case, continued European qualification is essential.
A shift in strategy and emphasis on retail delivered club-record commercial income of £169.3million. The department is growing — commercial and administrative staff rose from 364 to 426. With the new Emirates deal set to start in 2024-25, commercial revenue should only increase.
Despite a club record in income, Arsenal’s overall revenue remained behind the declared figures for Manchester City, Manchester United, Liverpool, Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur. This can be explained in large part by the fact four of those teams were playing Champions League football. Spurs’ new stadium has also seen their matchday revenue exceed Arsenal’s.
What are those ‘impairment write-downs’?
Impairment losses occur when a business asset suffers a depreciation in fair market value, which is more than the book value of the asset on the company’s financial statements. In football terms, it usually occurs when a player has sustained a serious injury or a player’s market value crashes far below what was originally paid for him.
The financial report is too discreet to name any specific players but presumably, the disastrous £72million signing of Nicolas Pepe is a factor here.
Arsenal’s inability to sell players continues to cost them. They made just a £10.7million profit from the sales of Matteo Guendouzi, Lucas Torreira, Bernd Leno and Konstantinos Mavropanos. The report explains: “The club’s ability to realise profits during 2022-23 was again adversely impacted by market conditions with reduced overall liquidity as clubs’ acquisition budgets continued to be impacted by financial pressures post-pandemic.”
How is the wage bill looking?
The last set of results saw the wage bill getting smaller, as a consequence of allowing highly paid stars, including Mesut Ozil and Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang, to leave.
The addition of several new players to the men’s and women’s teams has seen that grow to £234.8million. That is expected to rise again in the next set of accounts, with arrivals such as Rice and lucrative new contracts for Martin Odegaard and William Saliba.
Saliba has signed a new deal (Stuart MacFarlane/Arsenal FC via Getty Images)
Impressively, Arsenal outperformed their total salary cost with on-field achievements by some way. The wage bills at Manchester United (£331.4million) and Chelsea (£404.9million) dwarf Arsenal’s, yet it was Mikel Arteta’s team that ran Manchester City closest.
Wages now account for just 50 per cent of revenue — a very healthy position.
What is Arsenal’s FFP and PSR position?
As of the end of May 2023, Arsenal were confident the club “continues to be compliant with applicable financial sustainability regulations put in place by UEFA and the Premier League”.
In the Premier League profit and sustainability regulations (PSR), clubs are permitted to make overall losses no greater than £105million over a three-season period. Although Arsenal’s combined losses exceed this figure, the leeway clubs were granted as a consequence of the pandemic means they are still in a relatively comfortable position.
There has been significant expenditure since then and Arsenal have indicated that financial regulations were a factor in their decision not to enter the January transfer market. This may have been to ensure they could spend significantly in the summer of 2024.
What about the season ticket prices?
Arsenal recently announced a season ticket price hike of up to six per cent in certain parts of the ground. Part of the explanation was a rise in operating costs. There’s some justification here: Arsenal’s results illustrate a rise of £40million in their non-salary costs, partly due to UK inflation.
The increase in matchday revenue achieved by the price increase, however, will remain relatively small. Arsenal fans will still feel the additional funds could be generated by other means — especially as the new Champions League format means the club will most likely benefit from more home games next season.
What is the debt situation?
Aside from money owed on transfer fees, the majority of Arsenal’s debt is to Stan Kroenke. Arsenal borrowed a further £41million from their owners in 2022-23, taking their total debt to KSE to £259million.
It’s a lot of money, but Arsenal have spent much of the past decade in a similar degree of debt. The positive is that the debt is to parent company KSE rather than external creditors, with favourable interest rates.
Any other business?
Arsenal have confirmed that Ashburton Trading, a subsidiary of the football club with a focus on property development, have finally been granted permission to develop a new block of student accommodation in the shadow of the Emirates Stadium.
An artist’s impression of the proposed student accommodation (CZWG)
Arsenal’s original plan for a 25-storey building at 45 Hornsey Road was rejected by Islington Council in 2011. After more than a decade, a compromise has been reached on a 12-storey building that could house 284 students.
Arsenal have also included what is becoming their customary statement on the ongoing row over the dissolution of the European Super League. “The Group is monitoring certain ongoing matters relating to the closure of the European Super League project,” they write. “If any additional costs arise as a consequence, these additional costs would be fully recharged to the parent entity, KSE.”
If Arsenal are financially liable for reneging on the Super League agreement, it seems their owners will foot the bill.
(Top photo: Stuart MacFarlane/Arsenal FC via Getty Images)
Finance
Crypto’s 24/7 Derivatives Era Is Forcing Traditional Finance To Adapt
Photographer: Christopher Dilts/Bloomberg
© 2025 Bloomberg Finance LP
Crypto has always traded on a different clock. Bitcoin does not close for weekends, liquidity does not pause for holidays, and leverage does not wait for clearing desks to reopen on Monday morning. For years, that difference helped separate crypto-native venues from regulated financial infrastructure.
That separation is narrowing. CME Group said its regulated cryptocurrency futures and options will be available for 24-hour, seven-day trading beginning May 29, pending regulatory review, with trading continuing on CME Globex except for a weekly maintenance window. The move is more than an operational extension. It is a sign that traditional finance is being pulled toward the market structure crypto normalized first.
The harder question is not whether institutions can trade crypto around the clock. They already can, through offshore venues, prime brokers, market makers, and liquidity providers. The harder question is whether regulated finance’s clearing, custody, surveillance, privacy, and risk systems can operate in markets where leverage, information, and volatility never really switch off.
Crypto’s 24/7 derivatives era is not simply making digital assets look more institutional. It is forcing traditional finance to become more continuous.
Derivatives are becoming crypto’s institutional layer
The center of gravity in crypto markets has been moving away from simple spot trading for years. Spot markets still matter, especially for retail flows, exchange liquidity, and ETF-related demand. But derivatives are where much of the institutional market now expresses risk, hedges exposure, prices volatility, and manages leverage.
That shift is visible in the data. CCData’s January 2026 Exchange Review reported combined centralized exchange volumes of $5.26 trillion, while spot trading accounted for $1.27 trillion. The implication is clear: derivatives represented the majority of centralized exchange activity that month.
This matters because derivatives do not just reflect price discovery. In crypto, they increasingly shape it. Futures, perpetual swaps, and options influence liquidity, funding rates, volatility expectations, and institutional positioning. When derivatives become the dominant venue for market expression, trading hours become less a convenience issue and more a structural one.
That is why CME’s move is significant. Regulated access is no longer just about listing a bitcoin or ether contract. It is about matching the operating rhythm of the asset itself.
CME also said client demand for digital asset risk management helped drive a record $3 trillion in notional cryptocurrency futures and options volume in 2025. That is not a fringe market asking for extended access. It is a regulated derivatives marketplace responding to institutional demand for more continuous risk management.
Continuous trading still runs into legacy settlement
The tension is that continuous execution does not automatically mean continuous settlement. CME’s model extends trading access, but it still preserves familiar institutional mechanics. Weekend and holiday trades are assigned the next business day’s trade date, and clearing, settlement and regulatory reporting continue to flow through the next business day framework.
That is the bridge traditional finance is trying to build: crypto-speed execution on top of regulated market infrastructure. It is a practical compromise, but also a revealing one. Crypto markets solved for continuous trading first and institutional controls second. Traditional finance is trying to do the reverse.
There are good reasons for that. Regulated derivatives markets cannot simply discard reporting obligations, margin discipline, risk controls, and clearing protocols. Their value proposition is precisely that institutions can trade within a transparent, supervised framework.
But always-on markets compress the time available to react. A move that happens on a Sunday morning can affect collateral needs, counterparty exposures, hedge ratios, and liquidity conditions before traditional workflows fully resume. In that environment, operational readiness becomes part of market structure.
The next competitive edge may not be who lists the product first. It may be who can monitor risk, margin exposure, custody flows, and compliance exceptions in real time without weakening the controls institutions rely on.
Transparency becomes a risk surface
Crypto’s always-on design also introduces a second challenge: information moves continuously too. Public blockchains make settlement visible, auditable, and difficult to falsify. That can reduce certain intermediary risks. But the same transparency can expose flows that businesses would normally treat as confidential.
“It does both simultaneously,” said Natalie Newson, Senior Blockchain Investigator at CertiK, when asked whether public blockchain transparency reduces systemic risk or creates new attack surfaces. “Settlement finality is also publicly auditable,” she said, but “front-running and MEV are persistent issues in blockchain.”
That duality is central to the institutional adoption question. Public auditability is useful when markets need trust in settlement. It is less straightforward when market participants reveal treasury movements, collateral positioning, payroll flows, or supplier payments in real time.
Newson framed the business risk directly. “If your treasury wallet is known, and on-chain, it eventually becomes known, counterparties, suppliers, and competitors can watch your liquidity position in real time,” she said.
For trading firms, that visibility can affect execution. For corporations, it can expose working capital strategy. For institutions, it can turn settlement infrastructure into a source of market intelligence for competitors. In a 24/7 derivatives environment, information leakage does not wait for office hours either.
This is where the conversation moves beyond cybersecurity. The issue is not just hacks, exploits, or smart contract vulnerabilities. It is whether an always-on financial system can protect commercially sensitive behavior while preserving the auditability that makes blockchain infrastructure useful in the first place.
Privacy is becoming part of market infrastructure
The early crypto argument treated transparency as a feature. That was true for open monetary networks and early DeFi systems, where public verification helped establish trust. But what works for a speculative or experimental market does not automatically work for enterprise finance.
“Transparency becomes a structural constraint the moment a business tries to use blockchain for real operations,” said Varun Kabra, Chief Growth Officer of Concordium. “Payroll, supplier contracts, treasury flows, pricing structures, these are not marketing data points.”
That is the institutional bottleneck hiding inside the 24/7 trading conversation. It is not enough for markets to stay open. The systems around those markets need ways to prove identity, authorization, eligibility, and compliance without exposing more information than necessary.
Kabra’s broader point is that the next phase of adoption depends on combining privacy with accountability. “The next phase of adoption won’t come from arguing with regulators,” he said. “It will come from building systems where privacy and accountability coexist by design.”
That logic is already moving beyond financial markets. Concordium’s partnership with the Danish Ice Hockey Union includes a Verified Fan Programme using zero-knowledge proofs and an Agentic Commerce initiative around verified AI agents, showing how users or automated agents could prove access rights or authorization without disclosing unnecessary personal data.
The sports example is not the point. The infrastructure pattern is. As markets become more automated and more continuous, identity and selective disclosure become part of the same control stack as margining, custody, and surveillance.
Traditional finance is learning to operate on crypto’s clock
The obvious reading of CME’s 24/7 move is that crypto is becoming more institutional. That is true, but incomplete. The more interesting reading is that traditional finance is beginning to adopt pieces of crypto-native market structure because client demand, volatility, and liquidity have already moved in that direction.
This does not mean regulated finance will become decentralized. It will not. Institutions still need clearinghouses, custodians, reporting systems, market surveillance, and legal accountability. What changes is the cadence. Risk systems that were designed around market closes and business-day workflows will need to function in a market where exposure changes continuously.
That transition will not happen all at once. Execution hours can expand faster than settlement systems. Trading access can move faster than compliance architecture. Liquidity can move faster than privacy standards. The result is a hybrid market structure: crypto assets trading on a crypto clock, through increasingly regulated venues, with traditional finance rebuilding its control layer around a more continuous environment.
For investors, this means crypto derivatives are becoming more than a trading product. They are becoming the test case for how legacy market infrastructure adapts to always-on finance.
The next phase of institutional crypto adoption will not be defined only by which assets get listed or which venues gain market share. It will be defined by whether the financial system can manage risk, identity, privacy, and settlement at the speed crypto markets already demand.
Finance
New financial grades raise concerns about colleges’ long-term stability
RALEIGH, N.C. (WTVD) — Families are navigating the already stressful college planning process, and a new set of financial grades is prompting many to look more closely at the stability of the schools they are considering.
Forbes’ annual financial report card for private, nonprofit colleges and universities is putting a spotlight on how well schools can manage their finances. The rankings are based on each institution’s ability to cover immediate expenses with cash on hand — a measure that is increasingly resonating with parents.
In the Triangle, the grades vary widely. Duke University received an A+, while Meredith College earned a B-. Shaw University was rated C-, and Saint Augustine’s University received a D.
For families, those grades are becoming an important part of the decision-making process, alongside academic and campus life.
“This college experience is much more than the books and the tuition,” Wake Forest parent Meranda Van Ningen said.
Van Ningen said a school’s financial condition is now a key factor as she — and many other parents — evaluate long-term value and security.
“We had to really lean in and ask the questions, make sure that we were getting the answers we appreciated,” she said. “They want us. They want our money to come in and to pay for that next year.”
She said the financial grades offer insight into how well schools can navigate economic challenges.
“Show that they can handle this tough, tough economy, to be honest, and that they know how to roll with it because campuses have good years and bad years as well,” Van Ningen said.
Financial planners say that shift in focus is well-founded, especially as some colleges across the country face financial strain or closure.
“A lot of smaller colleges are closing throughout the country,” said Gray Pendleton, president of Pendleton Financial. “I think it’s important to look at the financial health of the school.”
Experts say the added scrutiny reflects the high stakes of higher education, often one of the largest investments a family will make. Along with reviewing financial grades, they encourage families to thoroughly research institutions before committing.
They also stress the importance of early financial preparation to manage rising costs.
“Even like, $10 to $100 a month,” Pendleton said. “The NC 529 savings plan is great. And that’s an aggressive, age based plan. That’s a good opportunity.”
As financial grades draw more attention, families are increasingly weighing not just where students will thrive academically, but also which schools are best positioned to remain financially secure over the long term.
Copyright © 2026 WTVD-TV. All Rights Reserved.
Finance
Hong Kong property recovery tested as bigger student housing deals gain traction
Investors and analysts said the market was moving beyond the smaller hotel conversions that dominated the past two years, with more sizeable transactions expected as financing conditions improve, distressed sales accelerate, and buyers hunt for assets capable of generating stable income.
“This year and next year, there will be more sizeable transactions,” said Kavis Ip, CEO of Centaline Investment.
Unlike earlier student housing projects typically backed by smaller private investors, the Regal deal was structured with an equity partner and sized for eventual exit to institutional buyers such as insurers, sovereign wealth funds and private equity firms.
“We always wanted to do deals of this size,” Ip said. “Large institutional-grade assets create a completely different buyer pool when you eventually exit.”
-
New Mexico3 minutes agoValencia County first responders busy with UTV crashes
-
North Carolina8 minutes agoSuspect seen on North Carolina camera after shooting Virginia deputies
-
North Dakota15 minutes agoMotorcyclist seriously injured in crash south of Devils Lake
-
Ohio18 minutes agoLarge police presence breaks up fight at Boardman Park
-
Oklahoma23 minutes ago
PHOTOS: NCAA Regionals vs. Oklahoma (5/31)
-
Oregon30 minutes agoSuspect in custody, shelter-in-place lifted after shooting investigation in Sandy, police say
-
Pennsylvania32 minutes agoLuzerne County Sports Hall of Fame induction June 7 at Mohegan Pennsylvania
-
Rhode Island38 minutes agoLiz McGraw Cries Revealing Unaired Details From Her and Jo-Ellen’s RHORI Clash (EXCLUSIVE) | Bravo