New stadiums can be grounds for concern
With gate receipts no longer clubs’ big earner, the wrench of moving home may be costly
The question of who actually benefits when a club move to a sparkly new stadium would have invited some convincing conclusions 15 or more years ago. After another weekend that only reinforced the suspicion that leaving White Hart Lane just might indirectly cost Tottenham Hotspur a first Premier League title, it is clear that the calculations should be increasingly nuanced.
The old answer was simple. When gate receipts were king, the likely correlation between big grounds and on-field quality was clear. Those clubs raking it in on a match day were considerably advantaged in the transfer market, often reflected in results.
It was what convinced Arsenal that building a stadium that now brings in almost identical income to Manchester United, Real Madrid, Barcelona and Bayern Munich would inevitably elevate them into that big league on the pitch. That it has not happened is not explained by any single factor, but one big change Arsenal did not anticipate was the explosion of other income sources. Broadcast and commercial revenues are now so dominant that, at the last count in 2015-16, matchday represented just 17 per cent of total Premier League income. The figure is moving in only one direction and is part of the explanation of how clubs such as Aston Villa, Newcastle United and Sunderland have become increasingly vulnerable despite stadium capacities in excess of 40,000.
Put simply, the financial value of adding seats and hospitality has been significantly diluted, although still not irrelevant. Tottenham should add around £50million a year once they move to their new stadium, but it will also have cost £800million and, unless you get a deal like West Ham, that must be financed.
The evidence of potential on-field decline must also be considered. Clubs still playing in what we might consider a traditional older stadium had four of the best five home records in the Premier League last season, led by Tottenham, who collected 53 of a possible 57 points at what was a fervent White Hart Lane.
At the other end, last season was the first since returning to the Premier League that West Ham United, in their new London Stadium, did not accumulate more than 25 home points. These margins should decline over time, but it is not impossible that they could also become the difference between staying up, qualifying for the Champions League or even winning the whole thing.
None of this is to question how the progress of a club like Brighton and Hove Albion was tied to the stadium vision of a clever owner and board, but simply to say that wider considerations might increasingly override. It is similar with exotic summer tours which may create a relatively moderate financial gain that is then indirectly squandered by some laboured early-season performances.
In the case of a new stadium, clubs must be sure that the wider rationale is sound and not just about a chairman or director being seen to deliver on a major project. Yes, a new stadium can be transformative but it can also set clubs back. And the fans, players and manager often seem like the people who least crave this particular change.