Tottenham Hotspur holds the highest gross debt in the Premier League, with obligations exceeding £1 billion, mainly due to financing its state-of-the-art stadium. While Manchester United also faces substantial financial liabilities, the nature and structure of each club's debt reveal very different financial realities.
The stadium burden: Tottenham’s long-term gamble
Tottenham Hotspur’s debt stands at approximately £1.1 billion, the highest in the league by gross borrowings. The vast majority of this sum was used to build the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, a world-class venue that has significantly increased matchday revenue and commercial opportunities.
The club secured long-term loans with fixed interest rates between 2.5% and 3%, some not due until 2051. This structure spreads repayment over decades, reducing immediate pressure. Daniel Levy’s strategy prioritized financial stability through predictable payments, turning the stadium into an asset rather than just a liability.
Manchester United: Debt without the assets
Manchester United’s gross debt is around £714 million, but when combined with £414 million in unpaid transfer fees, total obligations exceed £1.13 billion. Unlike Spurs, United’s debt originates from the 2005 Glazer takeover, not infrastructure investment.
Old Trafford, the club’s home ground, is aging and in need of major upgrades. The training facilities also require modernization. This means United carries heavy financial burdens without the benefit of new, revenue-generating assets to offset them. Interest payments continue to strain the club’s finances despite strong global revenue streams.
Chelsea and the owner-funded model
Chelsea operates under a unique financial structure. While not highly leveraged through traditional bank loans, the club has recorded massive losses—£355 million in 2024/25—funded by owner capital.
Under Todd Boehly’s ownership, Chelsea has used asset sales and internal financing to stay within Premier League profit and sustainability rules. The club’s £1.5 billion spending on players creates a different kind of liability: one dependent on consistent Champions League qualification for revenue.
Debt types matter: Not all borrowing is equal
Understanding the difference between gross debt, net debt, and transfer payables is crucial. Gross debt includes all outstanding loans, while net debt subtracts available cash. Transfer payables, money owed for player signings paid in installments, can inflate liability figures without involving banks.
Everton, for example, reduced its reported debt by converting shareholder loans into equity under new ownership. This improved the balance sheet on paper but didn’t bring in new cash. Such accounting moves highlight how debt figures can be shaped by structure, not just size.
Revenue and interest rates: The real test of sustainability
High revenue can make large debt manageable. Liverpool, despite taking on loans, remains financially stable due to record income of over £800 million, allowing it to service debt without strain. The key metric is not debt alone, but debt relative to earnings.
Interest rate changes pose a hidden risk. Clubs like Spurs that locked in low fixed rates are insulated from market swings. Others relying on variable-rate credit lines could face doubled interest costs if rates rise. This makes timing and loan structure as important as the amount borrowed.