JPMorgan

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) occupies a highly influential position within the financial architecture of the English Premier League (PL). The bank’s involvement extends beyond traditional corporate lending, including M&A advisory, capital markets placement, and the structuring of highly complex debt facilities designed to manage regulatory burden and mitigate risk. For more than two decades, JPMorgan Private Bank offered financing advice and execution to professional sports teams.
This report focuses on JPM’s engagement with major Premier League clubs, examining three key transactional profiles: the regulatory-optimised operational debt of Chelsea FC; the asset-backed infrastructure financing for Everton FC; and the long-term advisory and legacy debt management for Manchester United.
The analysis incorporates the structural details of JPM’s largest recent commitment to the sector: the underwriting of the failed European Super League (ESL), which provided the most transparent view of the pricing mechanisms JPM applies to long-term, guaranteed football revenues.

Sports as an Institutional Asset Class

The exponential revenue growth within European football, spearheaded by the Premier League’s annual revenues exceeding £6 billion, has elevated top-tier clubs to institutional asset status. This high-growth, albeit structurally capital-intensive, environment requires sophisticated financial actors capable of structuring large, bespoke funding arrangements.
JPMorgan formalised its commitment to this sector by establishing a dedicated sports investment banking coverage group, recognising that sports ownership has become a specialised field attracting significant institutional investment. This group offers advisory and financing solutions tailored for needs such as team acquisition, stadium or arena construction, and working capital requirements.
The establishment of a formal Investment Banking coverage team, transitioning the relationship focus away from the historical private banking model, confirms a key shift in JPM’s strategy. While private banking traditionally addressed the customised liquidity needs of high-net-worth owners, the new investment banking focus targets larger, institutional-grade transactions such as bond issuances, syndicated loans, and significant debt underwriting. This strategic trajectory indicates the bank’s primary objective is to facilitate the substantial flow of institutional capital into football infrastructure and ownership through scalable, recurring fee-generating corporate debt transactions.

The Role of Financing in Acquisition and Restructuring

JPM’s expertise spans the entire lifecycle of sports finance, from facilitating acquisitions to restructuring existing debt. The bank’s willingness to engage in high-profile, politically sensitive projects, such as its recent advisory role in Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s acquisition of a minority stake in Manchester United, demonstrates its continued presence at the forefront of European football M&A activity. The financing solutions JPM provides are intrinsically customised, acknowledging the capital-intensive nature of team ownership and the financial interplay between the club entity and the individual owner.

Financing the Chelsea FC Operational Debt Structure

Following the £4.25 billion takeover of Chelsea FC by the Todd Boehly-led consortium in 2022, JPM acted as a participant and arranger in a major debt facility designed to fund club operations and infrastructure investment. This financing structure is noteworthy for its clear attempt to insulate the club’s regulated accounts from high financing costs.

Financing Structure and JPM Role

JPMorgan, in collaboration with Bank of America, was involved in providing a debt facility totaling approximately UK£800 million.
This financing was structured to address immediate liquidity needs and the new owners’ commitment to capital expenditure, which amounted to a UK£1.75 billion pledge for investment in the club, including the stadium and academy.
The £800 million facility was divided into two tranches

1. Revolving Credit Facility (RCF): Approximately UK£300 million (US$359 million), allocated for working capital purposes.
2. Term Loan: UK£500 million (US$598 million), dedicated to infrastructure and operational investment.

Structural Insulation and Regulatory Mitigation

The debt structure for Chelsea FC is a refined example of financial engineering focused on regulatory mitigation. The structure mandates that the club will not bear any of the interest expense associated with the UK£800 million facility. Furthermore, the owners reportedly did not pledge any assets or revenues associated with the club’s regulated entities to secure the financing.
This arrangement ensures compliance with Financial Fair Play (FFP), or the Premier League’s current Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR). These regulations closely monitor losses, including high interest costs on debt. By placing the debt and its associated interest expense at the level of the owner or the holding company, the club’s regulated balance sheet and profit-and-loss statement are shielded.
This structural arrangement minimises the negative impact of high financing costs on FFP metrics, enabling the owners to inject significant external capital for club investment, such as the stadium and team development, without simultaneously incurring regulatory penalties due to excessive leverage and interest expense on the club entity’s accounts. JPM’s capability in structuring finance solutions provides a crucial competitive advantage by managing complex financial regulations.

Infrastructure Financing for Everton FC (Everton Stadium)

JPM’s engagement with Everton FC centers on the critical capital expenditure required for the club’s new £800+ million stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock. This financing strategy illustrates the bank’s strength in accessing institutional debt markets by leveraging hard, tangible assets as collateral.

Transaction Overview and JPM’s Role

JPMorgan played a multi-faceted role in securing the funding for the stadium development. The firm advised on an initial revolving credit facility. More recently, JPMorgan Securities LLC acted as the placement agent for a landmark private placement of Senior Secured Notes.
This debt issuance, totaling £350 million, was co-issued by two subsidiaries of the club: Everton Stadium Development Company Limited and Everton Stadium Development Holding Company Limited. The funding was arranged by JPM and was utilised to refinance previous borrowings related to the stadium’s development.

Collateral Quality and Cost of Capital Reduction

The structure of the £350 million financing, secured predominantly against the new stadium, was paramount to achieving favorable terms. Under the previous Moshiri ownership, Everton had no alternative but to resort to short-term, high-interest loans, sometimes peaking at rates as high as 18%. By facilitating the Senior Secured Notes, JPM successfully utilised the substantial, tangible value of the new stadium as dedicated collateral, as well as the more creditworthy new ownership..
This access to institutional capital, secured by a realisable physical asset, significantly reduced the club’s cost of borrowing. The new deal was reported to “see interest payments more than halved,” implying a substantial reduction in the interest rate from the previous high-risk profile. This structural approach effectively transforms the debt from highly expensive, nor wholly secured corporate borrowing, reliant on fluctuating operating cash flows—into cheaper, long-term asset-backed financing, a clear demonstration of how clubs can de-risk their debt portfolio through collateralisation.

Strategic Advisory and Legacy Debt: Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur

JPM’s involvement with the Premier League’s most globally recognised clubs spans decades, often commencing with M&A transactions that fundamentally define the club’s subsequent financial leverage.

Manchester United (MANU): Legacy Debt and Advisory Role

JPM’s relationship with Manchester United dates back to the contentious 2005 takeover by the Glazer family, which the bank orchestrated. This acquisition was structured as a leveraged buyout (LBO), which resulted in placing substantial acquisition debt, originally estimated at £700 million, directly onto the club’s balance sheet. This debt architecture required the club to service high interest payments annually, drawing cash flow away from potential infrastructure or squad investment.
Manchester United’s current capital structure still includes long-term debt instruments, such as $425 million (sterling equivalent of approximately £327.9 million) in aggregate principal amount of 3.79% Senior Secured Notes that mature in June 2027. The club’s total effective interest rate on its overall debt portfolio stood at 6.83% as of June 2023.
In more recent years, JPM has shifted its Manchester United role to M&A advisory. The bank played a role in the acquisition of a minority (but football controlling) stake in Manchester United by Sir Jim Ratcliffe. This 25% acquisition agreement included a delegated commitment of $300 million specifically intended to enable future investment into the Old Trafford stadium infrastructure.
This evolution in JPM’s relationship from facilitating a highly leveraged LBO model focused on cash flow extraction (2005) to advising on a transaction dedicated solely to injecting capital for physical infrastructure improvement (2024) highlights a critical shift in market prioritisation. The need for the $300 million capital injection acknowledges the long-term cost of the debt-servicing model facilitated in 2005, which diverted necessary funds from stadium modernisation and squad development. JPM’s current advisory role aligns the firm with the necessity for owners to prioritise long-term asset value and investment over continuous debt service.

Tottenham Hotspur and Liverpool FC

While specific current loan terms involving JPM for Tottenham Hotspur or Liverpool FC are not publicly disclosed, both clubs were integral participants in JPM’s proposed European Super League (ESL) financing.
JPM’s expertise in stadium finance is globally recognised, having financed stadiums in the US and abroad, including the stadium for Real Madrid. Given Spurs’ fairly recent construction of a state-of-the-art stadium and the general availability of JPM’s sports finance services, it is reasonable to infer a continued relationship, consistent with the bank’s strategy of servicing major global sports franchises.

Underwriting the European Super League (ESL)

The most high-profile and controversial involvement of JPMorgan in Premier League financing was its commitment to underwrite the proposed European Super League (ESL) in April 2021. This transaction involved six major PL clubs: Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester City, and Tottenham Hotspur.
JPM committed to underwriting a total financing package of approximately €4.0 billion (equivalent to $4.8 billion). This commitment was initiated to help set up the league, with the initial investment standing at €3.5 billion, plus additional payments and expenses. A key structural element of the funding included a promised “welcome bonus” of between €200 million and €300 million for each of the founding clubs.

Security Structure and Exceptional Cost of Capital

The financing terms secured by JPM were highly favorable to the clubs, reflecting the perceived low risk of the underlying collateral. The €4.0 billion funding was structured over an exceptionally long 23-year time frame. The interest rate was remarkably low, estimated to be between 2% and 3% (from internal sources).
This low cost of capital derived from the primary security arrangement: the debt was secured against the anticipated multibillion-euro broadcasting rights revenue of the proposed competition. The structure of the ESL, which guaranteed permanent membership and therefore guaranteed revenue streams for the founding clubs, created a stable, highly predictable cash flow projection. JPM viewed this binding, long-term certainty of revenue as minimal credit risk, allowing the bank to price the debt at rates comparable to prime corporate or institutional bonds, significantly lower than the existing effective debt rates of some participating clubs (e.g., Manchester United’s 6.83% effective rate).
Despite the flawless financial structure, the ESL collapsed within days due to massive opposition from fans, politicians, and governing bodies. This backlash revealed a profound underestimation of non-financial stakeholder risk by the bank.
In response to the widespread condemnation, JPM formally stated it had “clearly misjudged” the situation and its effect on the wider football community. The involvement had immediate negative consequences for JPM’s standing in the sustainable investment community. Standard Ethics, a sustainability rating agency, downgraded JPM from an “adequate” rating to “non-compliant,” explicitly criticising the funding as contrary to sustainability best practices and failing to account for stakeholder interests defined by UN and OECD guidelines. This incident underscored the unique susceptibility of sports finance to political and social factors, even when the financial fundamentals appear sound.

Structural Analysis of JPM’s Premier League Debt Portfolio

JPMorgan’s financing of Premier League clubs is defined by bespoke debt instruments that carefully manage collateral, regulatory compliance, and pricing risk.

Comparative Analysis of Security and Risk Profiles

The analysis of the specific transactions demonstrates that JPM and its institutional investors require clear, realisable security or exceptionally certain revenue streams to provide financing at scale.
Comparative Analysis of JPM-Facilitated Premier League Debt Structures

Implications for Financial Engineering and Governance

JPM’s consistent engagement with Premier League clubs illustrates sophisticated financial engineering techniques that shape the economic landscape of the sport:

1. Risk Transfer through Collateralisation: The Everton transaction demonstrates the efficacy of collateralising debt with tangible infrastructure. By transforming the club’s borrowing from high-interest, unsecured loans into asset-backed securities, JPM successfully transferred risk to the physical asset, thereby unlocking cheaper, longer-term institutional capital.
2. Regulatory Arbitrage: The structure of the Chelsea debt facility provides a textbook example of utilising the corporate holding structure to bypass Premier League regulatory scrutiny. By ensuring the club entity bears zero interest expense, the owners can inject massive capital for investment without triggering FFP/PSR penalties related to financing costs. This ability to maintain regulatory compliance while leveraging significant capital is a key service JPM offers to mega-rich owners.
3. Pricing Certainty vs. Societal Risk: The analysis of the ESL funding confirms that JPM’s pricing model is heavily reliant on projected revenue certainty. The willingness to commit massive funds at an interest rate of 2%-3% for 23 years underscores the bank’s belief in the guaranteed longevity and revenue of the elite European clubs, provided they are insulated from competitive failure. However, the subsequent failure of the ESL highlighted that even robust financial structures cannot withstand overwhelming social and political opposition, proving that reputational and ethical dimensions are non-quantifiable risks that can derail even the most financially secure transactions.

JPMorgan Chase operates as a key financier for the most valuable segment of English football, providing capital solutions that cater directly to the industry’s unique financial challenges.
JPM’s expertise in accessing institutional capital markets has significantly lowered the borrowing costs for infrastructure projects when hard collateral (like a stadium) is available. Conversely, JPM’s historical involvement in leveraged buyouts (Manchester United) demonstrates the long-term cost of debt structures that prioritise acquisition over investment. Most critically, the underwriting of the European Super League served as a definitive case study, revealing the high premium JPM places on revenue certainty, offering extremely low rates, but also exposing the severe reputational and governance risks inherent in financial strategies that disregard the sport’s foundational stakeholder, the fanbase and its relationship with the regulatory environment. JPM’s continued success in this sector depends on its ability to evolve its financial engineering while correctly assessing the non-financial, political, and social risks intrinsic to global football ownership.

Bank of America Merrill Lynch (BAML)

The financing strategy employed by Tottenham Hotspur Football Club for its new stadium represents a benchmark transaction in the monetisation of sports infrastructure, fundamentally altering the club’s long-term risk profile. This strategy was centered on converting substantial near-term bank construction debt into long-term, fixed-rate institutional capital through the US Private Placement (USPP) market.
In 2019, in an ultra-low interest rate environment, Tottenham chose to refinance the initial loans used for the construction of the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, a figure that peaked at £637 million and was scheduled to mature rapidly by April 2022, creating a potential liquidity challenge.
The successful 2019 refinancing package, also totaling £637 million, was anchored by the USPP notes, achieving exceptionally favourable debt terms. The weighted average coupon for the package was locked in at 2.66%, with the average maturity successfully extended to 23 years. Crucially, the longest tranches extended the debt repayment obligations up to 30 years, pushing final maturities far into the future.
The execution of the primary USPP notes was led by Bank of America Merrill Lynch (BAML) as the Lead Placement Agent and Sole Bookrunner, with HSBC serving as a Co Placement Agent. Interestingly, JPMorgan was not the executing agent for these core stadium debt transactions. JPM’s association with the club, however, existed at a strategic corporate level, most notably through its commitment to finance the controversial €3.25 billion funding package proposed for the failed European Super League.
Although JPM did not act as the debt agent, it is highly probable that its asset management arms participated as passive investors. J.P. Morgan Asset Management (JPMAM) operates massive funds, such as the Managed Private Placement Fund, which are mandated to invest primarily in private placements and unregistered securities. Given the oversubscription and the strong investment-grade credit rating secured by the THFC notes, it is widely presumed within the market that JPMAM entities acquired tranches of the USPP notes as long-term institutional noteholders.
Additional financial optimisation occurred in 2021 when the club secured an additional institutional fundraising of £250 million, securing an average interest rate of approximately 2.8% and introducing a unique 30-year tranche with a bullet repayment in 2051. This successful debt management provides the club with significant financial stability and predictability. The timing of these transactions created an enormous long term cost benefit relative to Tottenham’s competitors.
Tottenham’s decision to pursue the US Private Placement market was rooted in the club’s business model, which transforms the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium from a simple venue into a diversified, perpetual cash flow generator. The stadium is not solely dependent on match receipts but is structured as a multi-use complex, hosting Europe’s only purpose-built National Football League (NFL) venue and other major events. These globally-derived revenue streams, including media rights, commercial sponsorships, and non-football events, establish a consistent and predictable income base.
This predictable revenue base is essential because it acts as reliable collateral, mitigating the higher risk often associated with financing a traditional football operation and allowing the club to secure an investment-grade credit rating from two agencies. The institutional investors in the USPP market, typically pension funds and insurance companies, seek long-duration assets that offer predictable yield, often described as “patient capital”.
The USPP vehicle matches the economic requirement of infrastructure financing. Conventional bank financing often has short tenures, typically 3-5 years, which would necessitate constant, disruptive refinancing cycles. In contrast, the USPP allowed Tottenham to secure longer maturities ranging from 15 to 30 years, aligning the debt repayment schedule with the decades-long operational life of the stadium asset.
Furthermore, issuing notes in the private placement market offers distinct benefits, particularly for entities like the closely-held ENIC Group. Compared to public debt offerings which mandate extensive public filings and disclosures, private placements allow companies to negotiate transactions confidentially, thereby maximising privacy and maintaining control over sensitive financial details. The successful monetisation of highly predictable global revenue streams into fixed, low-cost capital represents a prime example of financial structuring in the sports sector, utilising the lower-risk profile of the infrastructure asset over the higher volatility of the sporting performance.

Execution and Pricing of the 2019 Refinancing Package

The cornerstone of the club’s current financial structure is the multi-tranche facility closed in September 2019, which effectively refinanced the initial construction bridging loans provided by Goldman Sachs, Bank of America Merrill Lynch (BAML), and HSBC.

Transaction Structure and Key Agents

The overall package amounted to £637 million. The largest component, £525 million, was raised via the issuance of long-term bonds to US investors through the Private Placement market. This institutional offering was reported to be significantly oversubscribed, validating the market’s confidence in the club’s credit quality and financial strategy.
The debt package was finalized by a £112 million term loan provided by Bank of America Merrill Lynch, which was one of the initial lenders for the construction, and an additional revolving credit facility granted by HSBC. BAML acted as the Lead Placement Agent and Sole Bookrunner for the USPP notes, confirming their transactional leadership in structuring and placing the institutional debt. HSBC served as a Co Placement Agent. The continuity of engagement with BAML, transitioning from construction lender to lead refinancing agent and term loan provider, was critical in ensuring a seamless execution of the complex liability conversion.

Quantitative Pricing and Duration Analysis

The financial terms secured by Tottenham were highly favorable, providing the club with a substantial long-term financial competitive advantage. The aggregate debt package achieved an overall average maturity of 23 years, utilising staggered maturities that ranged from 15 years up to 30 years. This long, staggered maturity profile effectively removes single-date refinancing risk for decades, providing stability for capital planning.

2019 Tottenham Hotspur Stadium Refinancing Profile

The 2021 Debt Optimisation and Pandemic Resilience

Tottenham’s strong financial footing was tested by the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced stadium closures and caused significant losses in matchday revenue.
This necessitated the temporary utilisation of £175 million from the Bank of England’s Covid Corporate Financing Facility (CCFF) at a rate reported at the time as 0.5%. By 2021, net debt had temporarily risen to £706 million. The club demonstrated proactive financial management by strategically addressing this short-term liability through further institutional funding.

The £250 Million Institutional Fund Raising

In June 2021, Tottenham completed an institutional fund raising of £250 million. This operation was critical, as the funds were primarily used to repay the £175 million CCFF obligation and to partially repay a shorter-term Bank of America loan, which was converted into fixed-rate 15-year debt.
This institutional capital raising was achieved by re-engaging the same institutional investors that had supported the 2019 stadium refinancing. The ability to tap the same investor base during a period of ongoing global uncertainty validated the market’s continued trust in the underlying collateral and the club’s robust financial strategy.
The resulting debt stack secured an average interest rate of approximately 2.8% and boasted an average tenure exceeding 20 years.
A defining feature of this 2021 transaction was the introduction of a new 30-year tranche featuring a bullet repayment in 2051. This unprecedented longevity in the institutional debt markets was specifically identified as “unique financing for any sports entity”. By proactively executing this refinancing in mid-2021, Tottenham successfully capitalised on the window of persistently low interest rates globally, securing a fixed, low interest burden and effectively hedging against the steep macroeconomic rate hikes that subsequently began in 2022. Entities that locked in borrowing rates during this 2020-2021 period have since enjoyed the equivalent of acquired immunity to soaring central bank rates.

Comparative Analysis of Pricing and Maturity in the Premier League

Tottenham Hotspur’s financing structure has provided it with a significant, long-term financial competitive advantage, establishing the gold standard for financing infrastructure in the English Premier League (EPL).
As of June 2023, Tottenham’s total borrowings stood at £851.2 million. Crucially, more than 90% of this borrowing is secured at fixed rates, carrying an average interest rate of 2.79%. This structure results in manageable annual interest payments of approximately £30 million, which the stadium’s diversified matchday and non-matchday revenue streams are designed to cover comprehensively.
This predictability and low cost allow the club to manage operational expenses effectively. Fixed, low-cost debt minimises the negative drag on the club’s Profit and Loss (P&L) statement. Since investments in stadium infrastructure are often treated separately from operational costs under Financial Fair Play or Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR), the low interest costs minimize the P&L impact, providing greater financial headroom for the club compared to peers reliant on high-rate debt
The efficiency of Tottenham’s debt structure becomes apparent when compared to clubs that must rely on high-cost alternative financing. For example, clubs like Everton, while undertaking their own stadium projects, reportedly faced interest rates from institutional and alternative lenders that ranged significantly higher, sometimes reaching 10.25% or even up to 18% for refinancing deals.
The financial implication of this interest rate differential (a spread of 750 to 1200 basis points) is transformative. It translates into hundreds of millions in cumulative cash flow savings over the 23-year average tenure, diverting capital away from debt service and back into core competitive areas such as squad investment and club operations.

Appendix: Glossary of Financial Terms and Definitions

• Private Placement (USPP): A method of raising capital by selling debt or equity securities to a limited number of qualified institutional investors (such as pension funds and insurance companies), avoiding the extensive public filing requirements of the public bond market.
• Weighted Average Coupon (WAC): The effective average interest rate paid across a portfolio of loans or debt tranches, weighted by the principal amount of each tranche.
• Lead Placement Agent / Sole Bookrunner: The primary investment bank responsible for structuring the debt offering and managing the sale of the notes to institutional investors.
• Bullet Repayment: A debt structure where the entire principal of the loan is repaid in one lump sum on the final maturity date, rather than being amortized over the life of the loan.
• CCFF (Covid Corporate Financing Facility): A mechanism introduced by the Bank of England during the COVID-19 pandemic to provide funding to larger non-financial corporations to support them through temporary disruption to cash flows.
• Investment Grade Rating: A credit rating indicating that a debt issuer has a low risk of default, allowing them to access the institutional debt market at favorable, low interest rates.
• Patient Capital: Capital provided by investors (often institutional funds) with a long-term investment horizon, accepting lower immediate returns for sustained stability and duration.
• PSR (Profitability and Sustainability Rules): Financial regulations governing English football clubs (Premier League) that limit the losses a club can incur over a rolling period. Managing interest expenses is key to adhering to these rules.