Chelsea’s numbers ‘don’t add up’ as £359m fact disproves what BlueCo are saying privately

While the FA Cup could yet be a positive crescendo, it has been a turbulent season for Chelsea, one which began as Club World Cup champions but was punctuated by endless stories about BlueCo’s financial excess and hubris, not to mention the departures of Enzo Maresca and his successor, Liam Rosenior.

From 2026-27, Chelsea will be subject to much tighter restrictions under the terms of their £26.5m settlement with UEFA, which they agreed after breaching financial rules in the 2023-24 assessment period.

Would you have Oliver Glasner or Niko Kovac as Chelsea’s next manager?

Kovac has won 41 of his 70 games as Dortmund manager…

That’s assuming they are in Europe at all. Indeed, some have speculated that BlueCo could simply choose to break the terms of the settlement, accept the further £52m financial penalty and drop out of whatever European competition they qualify for next, whether that is the Champions League, Europa or Conference.

Sources at Stamford Bridge appear to have distanced themselves from that idea, but the fact it has been broached at all is emblematic of just how deep the problems currently run at Chelsea.

Next season, Chelsea will be required to post maximum losses of around £4.25m. In theory, UEFA have given them the flex for losses of up to around £50m, but they would need to make up that deficit in 2027-28 and 2028-29, meaning they would have to post big profits.

Unlike under the terms of the Premier League’s woefully drafted PSR system, selling the women’s team, hotels, car parks or any other property assets won’t get them out of trouble either, nor will selling players to Strasbourg.

There is, it appears, no way to bend the rules for Todd Boehly, Behdad Eghbali and co. They will simply have to find a legitimate way to offset the £200-250m operating losses that they have been racking up since the takeover from Roman Abramovich in 2022.

So, now that Chelsea are set to miss out on Champions League football and the gateway to hundreds of millions of pounds in revenue that it provides, where do Chelsea stand with the UEFA settlement?

“The most intriguing thing about Chelsea’s most recent financial results was the wage levels,” says Maguire, analysing the accounts released earlier this month.

“They were only in the Conference League and they have been briefing journalists left right and centre that the wage bill was structured in such a way that it would only be high if they achieved success. Well, they weren’t successful. Winning the Conference League was not a success when you have a budget that much higher than the rest of the competition when it comes to player investment. But they still had the Premier League’s third-highest wage bill.”

Should Chelsea be allowed to spend WHATEVER they want on transfers?

UEFA and the Premier League’s rules don’t think so…

Per Chelsea’s financial statements, the club’s wage bill was £359m in 2024-25, up from £338m the previous campaign. That doesn’t include bonuses for winning the Club World Cup either; those payments will register in this season’s accounts.

“Moises Caicedo and Cole Palmer have just signed new contracts, which will presumably be costing them more in terms of their basic wages. So, it’s a matter of how you get that cost down. The numbers really don’t add up when you look at where the savings could arise. They have a top three or four wage bill but not a top three or four stadium in terms of revenue generation.”