Finance
The BookKeeper – Exploring Arsenal’s finances, transfer funds, owner debts and soaring revenues
The Athletic has appointed Chris Weatherspoon as its first dedicated football finance writer. Chris is a chartered accountant who will be using his professional acumen as The BookKeeper to explore the money behind the game. He is starting with a series this week analysing the financial health of some of the Premier League’s biggest clubs.
You can read more about Chris and pitch him your ideas, and his first two articles exploring the books at Manchester United and Manchester City.
Arsenal’s return to the top table of English football has been a long time coming. Two decades have passed since they last won the Premier League title — few who watched their famed ‘Invincibles’ team of 2003-04 would have predicted that would be the last of Arsene Wenger’s league successes.
Yet football, and perhaps English football more than anywhere else, has changed dramatically since those days of Thierry Henry, Dennis Bergkamp and Robert Pires.
Financially, Arsenal have had to deal with the seemingly bottomless wealth of first Chelsea and then Manchester City, two rivals whose various periods of domestic dominance were at least in some part built on the back of Arsenal’s hard work, given they raided Wenger for many of his best players.
The influx of outside money at those two clubs starkly contrasted with Arsenal’s continued efforts at sustainability. The results on the pitch were inevitable.
Another off-field factor held back Arsenal, albeit inadvertently. Moving from Highbury into a state-of-the-art stadium in the early 2000s was always going to see them bear costs that would have an impact on their ability to compete for trophies, but the arrival of oligarchical and state wealth at the same time made it a greater burden.
The Emirates Stadium remains one of the best grounds in the country but for many years, the building costs weighed heavy, leaving space for other clubs to steam in. Between 2005 and 2022, Arsenal managed just one second-place finish in the league. Wenger, once a deity among fans, left at the end of the 2017-18 season under a cloud of hostility.
Nearly two decades on from the doors of the Emirates officially opening, Arsenal are a club transformed.
Under the guidance of manager Mikel Arteta, they have risen from six seasons spent bouncing between fifth and eighth-place finishes to resuming their role as genuine title contenders. They have been pipped at the post in each of the past two completed campaigns by one of the greatest club teams in world football.
As night follows day, so improvements on the field have been shadowed off it; Arsenal boasted football’s seventh-highest revenue figure last season, a four-place jump on three years ago and their highest ranking since 2017. With new sponsorships inked and Champions League money flowing into the club again, their income will grow again this season.
Arsenal are now regular loss-makers – so what’s their PSR position?
Despite that positive headline, Arsenal’s latest financials saw the club book another loss, with their pre-tax deficit last season totalling £17.7million ($23m).
The financial results of most Premier League clubs tumbled following the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. Arsenal were no exception but their loss-making actually began before then. After 16 consecutive years of profitability, they have now booked six annual pre-tax losses in succession. Across those six years, the club have lost £328.7million — almost wiping out the £385.0m surplus of the previous 16.
Again, the pandemic made its mark, especially on 2021’s club-record £127.2million loss, but the past six years have followed one particular moment: Kroenke Sports & Entertainment (KSE) assuming full control of the club. Arsenal delisted from public ownership and re-registered as a private company in October 2018. Since then, under KSE’s sole stewardship, Arsenal have invested heavily in their squad and, in the case of last season, enjoyed significant revenue growth.
Is the shift to repeated deficits cause for concern? Are the Kroenkes financially illiterate? Probably not. Instead, after years of constraint, KSE has sanctioned efforts to bring the club into line with Europe’s footballing elite.
Of course, utter the phrase ‘pre-tax losses’ in the game today and you’ll soon be thumped over the head with an acronym.
Where financial losses stray, soon mentions of profit and sustainability rules (PSR) must follow. Naturally, given Arsenal have been loss-making for six years, PSR is a concern for their owners and fans alike, but there’s nothing too much to worry about —even though they cannot claim losses as high as they might do.
Owners can provide ‘secure funding’ (usually by way of share issues) to increase their club’s PSR loss limit, up to a maximum loss of £105million over a three-year cycle. Instead, most of KSE’s funding has been via loans, which doesn’t constitute secure funding, with the exception of a £5.4m capital contribution (which does) in 2023. Consequently, Arsenal are limited to PSR losses over the past three seasons of £20.4m — the £15m lower limit available to all clubs, plus that capital contribution. Even so, for the PSR period spanning 2021-24, we estimate that, after deductions for capital expenditure, academy, community and women’s teams costs, Arsenal booked a PSR profit of around £28m — £48m clear of a breach.
As for the current season, The Athletic estimates Arsenal could lose up to £97million and remain compliant with the Premier League’s PSR rules. That seems a fairly remote possibility, though it’s worth highlighting that they are subject to UEFA’s financial regulations too. European football’s governing body puts limits on squad expenditure — we project, based on player wages comprising 70 per cent of the total wage bill, that Arsenal were at around 60 per cent last season against a limit of 90 per cent — and losses, which are generally lower than the Premier League’s ones.
After deductions, we again expect Arsenal to be fine, although the club are carefully managing their current and future positions.
Soaring revenues reflect their on-pitch rise
Arsenal’s revenue increase last season was, in a word, huge. The world’s biggest clubs breaking their revenue records is hardly a rarity, but the extent of the improvement in their case was remarkable: turnover hit £616.6million in 2023-24, an annual increase of £150m, nearly a third. Even with the prize money and commercial benefits of Champions League football, that is still a massive uplift for a club who already boasted the 10th-highest income in world football.
Income increased across all three main revenue streams: matchday, broadcast and commercial. Mirroring that broader club record, Arsenal hit new highs in each stream. TV money was the highest at £262.3million but there was roughly 30 per cent growth across the board.
At the Emirates, gate receipts soared. Arsenal’s home has generated a nine-figure sum for the club on several occasions but last season’s £131.7million matchday income was a big increase on 2022-23 (£102.6m).
That was the byproduct of a couple of things.
For starters, Arsenal played one more home game last season (25) than in 2022-23. Four Europa League matches at the Emirates were replaced with five in the Champions League, enabling the club to charge higher prices for viewing a more prestigious competition. On top of that, Arsenal made ticketing changes in 2023-24, reducing the number of matches covered by a season ticket from 26 to 22 and implementing an increase in general admission season ticket prices of, on average, five per cent.
The result was Arsenal’s highest single-season gate receipts (by far) and the club leapt to second for matchday income domestically, having trailed Tottenham Hotspur in each of the last two seasons. Their matchday revenue was just £5.5million behind Manchester United’s last year, marking a significant narrowing between the two clubs: the gap had been over £30m in each of the previous two seasons. Though the Emirates may have held the club back for several years, the benefits of moving there are increasingly apparent. Since the stadium opened in 2006, Arsenal have booked combined gate receipts of £1.652bn, over four times its initial £390m build cost.
More predictable but no less important was the rise in TV money. The difference between the Europa League and the Champions League is stark. Arsenal earned £80.4million in broadcast revenue from last season’s run to the Champions League quarter-finals, over three times their takings for reaching the prior round of the Europa League in 2022-23.
Arguably most important was a surge in Arsenal’s commercial income.
Elite clubs have increasingly turned to sponsorship and marketing deals as a plentiful source of potential revenue, and Arsenal’s £218.3million commercial income marks both a big jump for the club and them catching up to domestic rivals. That likely still places Arsenal at the bottom of England’s ‘Big Six’ commercially, but they’ve closed the gap significantly. Chelsea’s commercial income was over £40m more than Arsenal’s in 2023; the distance between them now is around £7m.
Arsenal’s commercial revenues were driven by a kit supplier deal with Adidas (worth £75million per year), Emirates’ front-of-shirt sponsorship (£40m), Sobha Realty’s training-centre naming rights deal (£15m) and Visit Rwanda’s sleeve sponsorship (£10m).
Growth now and beyond looks certain too.
That Emirates deal was renewed at £60million per year, starting this season, while the club are expected to improve on sleeve sponsorship takings once the Visit Rwanda contract ends this summer.
A rising wage bill — yet still at the lower end of the elite
Believe it or not, the general improvement in on-pitch performances has also helped lighten the mood inside the Emirates. Financially, it is a club’s wage bill that tends to dictate where they’ll finish in a given season, yet Arsenal have been bucking that trend — and in a good way, too.
Arsenal’s wages had hovered around the £230million mark for years, increasing just £11.5m between 2018 and 2023. That was, in part, due to their lack of Champions League football and the attendant contractual bonuses qualifying for it brings. Matters changed in 2023-24, as the return to Europe’s elite competition coincided with a £93m (40 per cent) increase in the wage bill. Squad investment and renewed terms for star players including Bukayo Saka and William Saliba pushed staff costs to a record high.
Even so, that still only served to bring Arsenal closer to their rivals. The wage bills at Manchester City and Chelsea have topped £400million in recent years, while Liverpool (£387m last season) are closing in on that mark, too. Arsenal are spending more than they ever have on salaries, yet still trail several clubs they have surpassed on the field recently.
In the past two seasons, Arsenal under Arteta have significantly over-performed their wage bill. In 2022-23, they finished as runners-up with only the Premier League’s sixth-highest staff costs. Last year, they were second again with the fifth-highest.
That’s only a partial telling of the achievement too.
Consider that in each of those seasons, Arteta’s men provided the sole meaningful challenge to Manchester City’s domestic dominance and did so, particularly in that first year, with a wage bill that was hardly in the same ballpark as the champions’. In that treble-winning season for City, their wage bill was £188million ahead of Arsenal’s. That gap narrowed significantly last season, both as City’s staff costs fell slightly while Arsenal’s jumped, but was still £85m.
In each of those years, Arsenal had more administrative staff than City — underlining the stark difference in how much the clubs were paying their players.
From transfer misers to one of the biggest spenders
Arsenal’s spending in the transfer market has ramped up in recent years, another sign they are stepping out of the long shadow of their stadium build.
While net spend isn’t actually all that useful a metric on its own, it is telling that in six of Arsenal’s first seven years playing at the Emirates, their net transfer spend sat in the bottom half of the Premier League. In those circumstances, continually qualifying for the Champions League year-on-year was no mean feat.
Since the 2018-19 season, with KSE assuming sole ownership, Arsenal have undertaken a clear shift in strategy, parting with a net £857.2million transfer spend. That’s the second-highest in English football, only trailing Chelsea, and not far shy of trebling the club’s net spend in the previous six years (£310.5m). On a gross basis, Arsenal have now spent £991.7m in the past five years, a sum which puts them ahead of both City (£970.3m) and neighbours United (£918.3m). Chelsea’s £1.458bn spend from 2019 to 2023 is still way off in the distance, but, at the Emirates, a club who were once relative misers in terms of transfers have considerably loosened the purse strings.
Up to the end of May last year, Arsenal’s existing squad had been assembled for £882.4million. That’s a big figure, though a look around the division helps explain why the club have felt the need to invest so heavily.
Even with the second-highest transfer outlay of recent years, Arsenal’s squad is only ranked fourth when it comes to the cost of assembling it, with each of the two Manchester clubs’ historic spending ensuring theirs were still costlier than the one at Arteta’s disposal. City and Chelsea had each spent over £1billion on their existing squads at the date of their most recent accounts, while the cost of United’s ticked over that mark in the first quarter of the current season.
Arsenal’s transfer spending has been lofty, but they’ve also been playing catch-up.
Shareholder loans are low-interest and now top £300m – but is that the whole story?
Recent months have seen a growing focus on shareholder loans, with Premier League clubs voting in November to bring them into line with how other associated party transactions (APTs) are treated.
Clubs will be required to account for shareholder loans at fair market value (FMV), meaning those that don’t currently do so stand to take a hit in the form of increased interest costs. That will impact not only a club’s bottom lines but, by extension, their PSR calculations too.
Arsenal now owe £324.1million to KSE, with the owner having provided another £61.9m in cash loans last season.
The club would therefore seem ripe for punishment under the amended APT rules. Yet Arsenal voted in favour of the changes. Manchester City, with no shareholder loans on their books, voted against them. If that seems strange, consider the nuances of these new rules. The APT amendments — which adapted prior regulations recently struck down as ‘void and unenforceable’ — dictated that only loans drawn down from owners after November 22, 2024, are required to be recorded at FMV. Any monies drawn down before then, while potentially subject to an FMV assessment, would not require adjustments to club figures.
Or at least they don’t right now. City’s seemingly never-ending courtroom tussles with the Premier League took on a new dimension recently, with the club seeking to have those November amendments declared null and void too.
Any further changes from that challenge remain to be seen but, at the moment, Arsenal’s existing £324.1m owing to their owners won’t incur increased costs. Any amounts drawn down since November 22 last year will have to be accounted for at FMV, but only those additional drawdowns. What could have amounted to a sizeable sum — at one point, there were suggestions that interest costs adjustments might be backdated across the entire span of the loans, something City (and any others in support of their view) are expected to push for if the November amendments are declared unlawful — getting whacked onto the club’s PSR calculation will instead be much smaller, if present at all.
If that seems unfair, then it’s worth considering what that money borrowed from KSE was actually for. Or the bulk of it at least.
The loans came on board in the 2020-21 season, but weren’t new debt. Before that season, Arsenal were already carrying £218million in debt, £187m of that being bonds related to the Emirates Stadium build. Those bonds were linked to gate revenues, which nosedived due to the pandemic. KSE stepped in and refinanced the loans, incurring a £32m break cost (the amount the club were charged for ending the loans earlier than planned) in the process, meaning just about all of Arsenal’s debt is now owed to their owners.
Before that refinancing, KSE was already owed £15million, and the total amount due to the owners has risen from £201.6m in 2021 to £324.1m at the end of last season. That extra £122.5m has primarily gone toward squad strengthening, so there’s an argument Arsenal have gained a sporting advantage. Yet that would ignore the price of KSE restructuring those debts in 2021; the £32m in break costs is currently far more than the club would have incurred in interest if the additional amount loaned since had been recorded at FMV, though that argument will wane the longer the shareholder loans remain in place.
What’s more, the loans from KSE aren’t interest-free.
In each of the past four financial years, Arsenal have incurred interest costs on ‘Other’ items (which includes the KSE loans), with these hitting £7.8m last season. As a percentage of the average loan balance across last season, that’s an effective interest rate of 2.7 per cent. Not market rate, granted, but not a free ride either.
What next?
Despite another annual loss, Arsenal’s most recent accounts reflect a club on the up.
With revenue soaring and those losses coming down, all as the team become much more competitive on the pitch, it’s clear the Arsenal of today are some way removed from the situation when KSE first assumed full control six and a half years ago.
Whether the relative largesse of the period since then continues remains to be seen. It is no secret that KSE, like other Premier League owners with sporting interests on both sides of the Atlantic, are keen to reach a point of sustainability. There’s little likelihood of their £324million loan being repaid any time soon, but Arsenal’s transfer activity this season points to slowing activity. They spent a net £21m in the summer, then nothing in the winter window.
Even so, it seems unlikely they won’t invest in the squad again for next season. Football is increasingly an arms race, so it would make little sense for KSE and Arsenal to spend as much as they have in the past half-decade only to then turn the taps off completely. For all the club’s growth, they’ve still not won top honours at home or abroad, outside the 2019-20 FA Cup; reining in spending would make that task rather more difficult, and you can be sure their competitors wouldn’t follow suit.
Promisingly, Arsenal’s day-to-day operating cash flow has ballooned recently, increasing the likelihood the first team can remain competitive even if KSE chooses to slow its own input. The club’s £176.1million cash generated from operations in 2023-24 might well be a Premier League high for that season, and takes them past the most recent figures at historically strong cash-generators Tottenham (£131.2m) and Manchester United (£121.2m).
Much of that increased cash came via their Champions League return. Arsenal’s upcoming two-leg quarter-final against Real Madrid might not be viewed with much envy, but getting to the last eight is estimated to have made the club at least another €100million (£84m/$109m) in prize money. Get past the reigning champions and they’ll bank a further €15m for reaching the semis, with €18.5m on offer for a spot in May’s final and a further €6.5m if they were to win it all.
Even if they go out against Madrid next month, this season looks to be the most lucrative European campaign in Arsenal’s history. Their estimated prize money from UEFA competition over the past two seasons, £164.4million, is almost as much as the previous six combined (£165.8m).
Arsenal fans might ask why the club didn’t invest in much-needed striking options in the winter transfer window.
It’s a valid question but they have spent sizeably in recent years. Perhaps no deal made financial sense in the winter. Those supporters can expect more spending from their club this summer.
(Top photos: Getty Images; design: Eamonn Dalton)
Finance
Psychological shift unfolds in soft Aussie housing market: ‘Vendors feel pressure’
Property markets move in cycles, and with interest rates rising and other pressures like high fuel costs, some markets are clearly slowing down. Many first-home buyers who have only ever seen markets going up are conditioned to think that when purchasing, competition is always intense and decisions need to be made quickly.
In those times, buyers often feel they need to act fast, stretch their budget and secure a property at almost any cost. But things have definitely changed.
In a softer market, the dynamic shifts. Properties take longer to sell, competition thins, and it’s the vendors who begin to feel pressure.
RELATED
For buyers who understand how to navigate that change, the balance of power quickly moves in their favour. The opportunity is not simply to buy at a lower price. It is to negotiate from a position of strength.
If that’s you right now, these are the key skills first-home buyers need to take advantage of in softer market conditions.
The most important shift in a soft market is psychological. In a rising market, buyers often feel like they are competing for limited opportunities. In a softer market, the opposite is true. There are more properties available, fewer active buyers and less urgency overall. This gives buyers options.
When buyers understand that they are not competing with multiple parties on every property, their decision-making improves. They are more willing to walk away, compare opportunities and avoid overpaying. Negotiation strength comes from not needing to transact immediately. When that pressure is removed, buyers are able to engage more strategically.
One of the most common mistakes first-home buyers make is continuing to apply strategies that only work in rising markets. Auction urgency is a clear example. In strong markets, auctions often attract multiple bidders and create competitive tension. In softer conditions, properties are more likely to pass in, shifting the process away from a public bidding environment into a private negotiation.
This is where leverage increases.
Private negotiations allow buyers to introduce conditions that protect their position. These may include finance clauses, longer settlement periods or price adjustments based on due diligence. Opportunities that are rarely available in competitive markets become standard in softer ones.
Finance
Finance Committee approves an average increase of University tuition by 3.6 percent
The Board of Visitors Finance Committee met Thursday and approved a 3.6 percent average increase in tuition, a 4.8 percent average increase in meal plan costs and a 5 percent increase in the cost of double-room housing for the 2026-27 school year. The approval was unanimous amongst Board members, though some expressed resistance to the increases before voting in favor of them.
The Committee heard from Jennifer Wagner Davis, executive vice president and chief operating officer, and Donna Price Henry, chancellor of the College at Wise, about reasons for the raise in tuition and rates. According to Davis and Henry, salary increases for professors and legislation passed by the General Assembly contribute to tuition and rates increases.
The Finance Committee, chaired by Vice Rector Victoria Harker, is responsible for the University’s financial affairs and business operations, and the Committee manages the budget, tuition and student fees.
Changes in tuition vary between schools, with the School of Law seeing at most a 5.1 percent increase, the School of Engineering & Applied Science seeing at most a 3.2 percent increase and the College of Arts and Sciences seeing at most a 3.1 percent increase in tuition for the 2026-27 school year.
For the 2026-27 school year at the College at Wise, the Committee also unanimously approved a 2.5 percent average increase in tuition, a 3.8 percent increase in meal plans and a 2 percent increase in the cost of housing.
Last year, the Committee approved a 3 percent average increase in tuition, a 5.5 percent increase in meal plans and a 5.5 percent increase in the cost of housing for the University.
Davis cited increased costs as the primary reason for the approved increase in tuition. She said that the budget that could be passed by the General Assembly for June 30, 2027 through June 30, 2028 could increase professor salaries — University professors receive raises via this process. Davis said that the Senate and House of Delegates have separate proposals dealing with the pay increases that are currently unresolved, with House Bill 30 raising salaries by 2 percent and Senate Bill 30 raising salaries by 3 percent.
Davis said every percent increase in faculty salaries costs the University $15 million annually, and the Commonwealth will increase funding to the University by $1-2 million to help pay for that increase. According to Davis, the most common way to stabilize the budgetary imbalance caused by raised salaries is through tuition raises.
Beyond the increase in salary, Davis cited the minimum wage increase, inflation and Virginia Military Survivors & Dependents Education Program as increased costs to the University. VMSDEP is a program that gives education benefits to spouses and children of disabled veterans or military service members killed, missing in action or taken prisoner. Davis said that the program is “partially unfunded” and could cost the University somewhere between $3.6 to $6 million, depending on how many students qualify for the program.
Davis spoke on other contributing factors to the increase in tuition, specifically collective bargaining — which allows workers to bargain for better wages and working conditions.
“If we look at other institutions or other states that have collective bargaining, [collective bargaining] does put an upward pressure on tuition,” Davis said.
Prior to Thursday’s meeting, the Committee heard the proposal for tuition increases from Davis and Henry April 6 in a Finance Committee tuition workshop with public comment. During the tuition workshop, tuition increases ranged from 3 to 4.5 percent for the University and 2 to 3 percent for the College at Wise. Both increases approved Thursday are within the ranges originally proposed.
Meal plan costs, on average, will be increasing by 4.8 percent in the upcoming academic year. Davis said that the University has been expanding dining options with the opening of the Gaston House and new locations for the Ivy Corridor student housing that is still in progress. She also said that the University has been taking steps to increase the availability of allergen-friendly food options.
Davis shared that the 5 percent cost increase in housing is due to the expansion of student housing in the Ivy Corridor. Davis also said that there will be 3,000 new units added to the Charlottesville housing market by 2027, of which 780 beds will be for University housing. Davis said that she hopes the Ivy Corridor housing would “free up” the city housing supply by having more students live on Grounds.
Board member Amanda Pillion said she was “concerned” about how tuition increases would harm rural families — she said the constant increases in cost could make a University education out of reach for middle-income Virginians.
“This is the second governor I’ve served under. Both times I’ve heard affordability, affordability, affordability,” Pillion said. “We need to really be conscious of the fact that … there is a large group of people that [are middle-income] that these increases [in tuition and fees] are really tough for.”
The Committee also approved a renovation for The Park — an 18-acre recreational hub in North Grounds — which will cost $10 million. As part of the renovation, The Park will include a maintenance facility, storm water systems and a maintenance access route. Davis said the renovation will address safety and security issues for the 200 people that use The Park daily. According to Davis, the University will use $2 million of institutional funds and issue $8 million of debt to fund the renovation.
The Finance Committee will reconvene during the regularly scheduled June Board meetings.
Finance
A Protracted US–Iran War Could Strain Climate Finance From Wealthy Countries to Developing Nations – Inside Climate News
WASHINGTON, D.C.—The ongoing war in Iran is casting a long shadow over the climate finance commitments countries agreed to in 2024, experts warned, as surging oil prices and rising defense budgets put further pressure on the limited pot of money developing nations are counting on to stave off worsening impacts from a warming planet.
The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund’s annual spring meetings are underway in the capital this week, with a focus on a coordinated global response to a world economy under pressure from slower growth and rising debt, exacerbating global inequities.
The U.S. war in Iran adds new supply-chain challenges. In a press briefing Tuesday, the IMF slashed its growth forecast to 3.1 percent for the year, down from 3.3 percent in January, with global inflation rising to 4.4 percent.
“Our severe scenario assumes that energy supply disruptions extend into next year, with greater macro instability. Global growth falls to 2 percent this year and next, while inflation exceeds 6 percent,” said Pierre‑Olivier Gourinchas, the IMF’s director of research.
The blunt assessment has caused a scramble to determine what financial support the institution can offer to member states. And it has raised fresh questions about climate-finance obligations, already under strain from donor-country budget cuts and the United States jettisoning global climate commitments under the second Trump administration. One of President Donald Trump’s first actions back in office last year was ordering the U.S. to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.
Since the COVID-19 pandemic, wealthier countries that promised climate finance have experienced widening fiscal deficits and rising debt, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development found in its latest assessment. As a result, aid from donor countries has already declined sharply—dropping almost 25 percent in 2025 compared to 2024. Even before the Iran conflict began, that was projected to drop further this year.
COP29, the global climate conference held in late 2024 in Baku, Azerbaijan, set a commitment of $300 billion per year by 2035, with a broader goal of reaching $1.3 trillion annually from public and private sources. Called the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), the arrangement replaced the previous $100 billion-a-year commitment that wealthy nations had met belatedly in 2022, two years after the deadline.
Developing nations widely criticized the $300 billion figure as grossly inadequate, given the scale of the climate crisis. These countries are among the least responsible for the pollution driving that crisis and among the hardest hit by its effects.
The Iran war has triggered a new set of worries as top economists and experts weigh potential impact and likely mitigation strategies.
“Even before the Iran conflict, reaching the NCQG target would have been difficult, particularly with the U.S. withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. The war worsens the outlook,” said Gautam Jain, senior research scholar at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University.

He said sustained disruption of the Strait of Hormuz would exacerbate the problem and the effects would weigh on the global economy. As a result, aid budgets would decline and the political pushback to external spending would increase.
The conflict is “pushing energy security to the forefront of government agendas,” Jain said. That will likely strengthen incentives to deploy more renewables and other forms of domestic clean energy, but the war’s economic convulsions could cut both ways for the energy transition.
“In low-income countries, the transition could be significantly delayed, given limited fiscal capacity to absorb sustained energy price shocks,” Jain said.
One of the main priorities for the World Bank during the meetings in Washington is to develop a new Climate Change Action Plan to replace the one expiring in June. “In the current geopolitical context, progress on this front looks quite unlikely,” Jain said.
Jon Sward, environment project manager at the Bretton Woods Project, which monitors World Bank and IMF policies, said countries that used to fund climate finance are now choosing to spend that money on other priorities.
This story is funded by readers like you.
Our nonprofit newsroom provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Please donate now to support our work.
Donate Now
The Gulf crisis exposed the fragility of a global economic system tethered to fossil fuel extraction and use, Sward noted. For countries dependent on fossil fuel imports, “this is yet another price shock, and quickly diversifying to renewables is certainly an option that many countries are looking at,” he said in an email.
He said that although multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF have begun to assess the conflict’s fallout, it is not yet clear what their response will be or how the World Bank’s climate finance would be affected.
“All of this points to the need for more serious discussions on pausing debt repayments for affected countries and the mobilisation of non-debt creating forms of finance, in order to address the multiple, overlapping shocks facing countries in the Global South, in particular,” he said in his email.
Experts said that rising security and defense expenditures were also cutting into an already limited pot of money badly needed by developing countries struggling to cope with climate challenges.
“The system was already too fragile given that the U.S. leads all the major multilateral development banks … and has disavowed these targets,” said Kevin Gallagher, director of the Global Development Policy Center at Boston University. On top of that, he said, U.S. threats to abandon NATO’s European countries incentivizes them to prioritize defense budgets over climate finance.
He said developing countries are already under pressure to cough up climate funding on their own. The current conflict could make that nearly impossible.
“This year was supposed to be putting together a roadmap to take the $300 billion annual target to the agreed upon $1.3 trillion. This is likely to be abandoned unless new donors such as [the] UAE, China and others step in to fill the gap left from the West,” Gallagher said in an email.
The crisis in the Persian Gulf makes the loudest case for renewables, he said. “The energy security argument from this conflict is to diversify from fossil fuels. The Dutch took that cue after the Middle East oil shock of the 1970s to build the world’s best wind turbines, and China did after Middle East conflicts in this century. Fossil fuels are now a bad bet on security, economic and climate grounds. The writing is on the wall.”
Gallagher said the World Bank should accelerate solar and wind technology programs across the world. “If the Fund and the Bank don’t rise to this occasion,” he said, “not only is the global economy and climate at stake, but so is the legitimacy of these institutions.”
Gaia Larsen, a climate finance expert at the World Resources Institute, said it’s too early to know whether stronger interest in energy independence through renewables is translating into shifts in investment. But “if we’re trying to think about long-term peace and long-term access to energy, then renewables are really increasing in prominence,” she said.
About This Story
Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.
That’s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can’t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We’ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.
Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.
Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?
Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.
Thank you,
-
News26 minutes agoReal estate investors are buying up long-term care facilities. Residents can suffer
-
Detroit, MI2 hours agoFormer Piston shows Detroit what they’re missing as he dominates next to LeBron
-
San Francisco, CA3 hours agoEastbound I-80 closure in San Francisco snarls traffic, slows business
-
Videos3 hours agoCan Keir Starmer survive the latest Mandelson revelations? | BBC News
-
Dallas, TX3 hours agoPetar Musa’s Brace Not Enough as FC Dallas Draws LA Galaxy 2-2
-
Miami, FL3 hours agoMLS: Messi double helps Inter Miami slay Rapids in front of huge crowd
-
Boston, MA3 hours agoFrom across Boston they flock to play for Latin Academy boys’ tennis, a co-op of 29 schools – The Boston Globe
-
Denver, CO3 hours agoDale Kistler Obituary | The Denver Post
