Tottenham’s enterprise value is less than half the reported valuation of chairman and co-owner Daniel Levy, according to the latest research.
Spurs have been for sale – either in terms of a minority investment deal or a full takeover – for several years now. Daniel Levy confirmed as much in the club’s accounts for the 2022-23 financial year, though it had in fact been an open secret in the football finance industry for much longer.
Several different suitors have been reported. Paris Saint-Germain’s Qatari owners, the private equity firm MSP Sports Capital, and Amanda Staveley’s PCP Capital partners, to name just a handful.
But Tottenham remain resolutely under the control of Levy and ENIC, who have owned the club since 2000 and seen its value explode, as well as, to a lesser extent, the club’s 30,000 or so external shareholders.
Spurs’ Houdini tribute act in 2024-25 saw them qualify for the Champions League via the Europa League backdoor despite a historically bad Premier League season, which means the club can count on perhaps £100m of extra revenue next season, when total turnover is expected to eclipse £700m for the first time. Ahead of their season-opener against Burnley tomorrow, they have one of the lowest wages-to-turnover ratios in modern English football’s history, perhaps the world’s best stadium, and the luxury of being based in London, where investors flock in their droves. So why has a deal not materialised?
A range of factors have been cited. Among them is the apparent confusion of investors about the club’s capital structure. Ultimately, the club is owned by Tavistock, the Bahamas-based investment firm, but because of the Caribbean’s relaxed financial reporting requirements, the ownership structure of Tavistock itself – which was formerly overseen by Joe Lewis until his conviction for insider trading – is not clear.
However, seemingly a more pronounced factor is Levy’s £3.75bn valuation of Spurs which, according to various analyses, is likely to be a barrier either to a full takeover or, more likely, a minority equity deal.
And now, according to the latest report from Brand Finance, the total enterprise value of the North London club could actually be lower than the figures suggested elsewhere.
Tottenham’s brand value falls
A leading brand valuation consultancy, Brand Finance annually evaluates both the brand strength and enterprise values of hundreds of European football clubs.
In the newly-released 2025 edition, Spurs’ enterprise value does not make the global top-10, which is rounded off by Juventus at approximately £1.4bn, less than half of the £3.75bn Levy is looking for.
Meanwhile, the Tottenham brand – which Brand Finance essentially defines as the value they could command it they licensed their brand to a third party – is worth around £590m. In that category, they do make the top 10, but are eight per cent down compared to their brand value in 2024.
In terms of their brand strength, for which Brand Finance award a score based on the resilience of the club’s brand, Spurs also don’t make the top 10.
TBR Football spoke exclusively to Hugo Hensley, Brand Finance’s Head of Sports Services, to understand the ranking, discuss Levy’s role at Spurs, and assess where they are commercially.
Tottenham’s stadium naming rights strategy assessed
The obvious entry point into a discussion around Spurs’ commercial picture is the naming rights for the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, which have remained unfilled since the club moved into the stadium in 2019.
Levy has long been looking for a deal worth £25m per year and, as reported by TBR Football, has come close on a number of occasions before pulling the plug at the eleventh hour.
Spurs’ lack of urgency to forge a partnership is – according to the club’s commercial department, at least – due to the brand benefits of having Tottenham’s name above the door when superstar music acts or the NFL are hosted at the 62,850-seater stadium.
Hensley’s analysis on that? “Let’s say Tottenham earns £700m in annual revenue,” he said.
“What can we – speaking from the perspective of a naming rights partner – add to that based on that additional exposure to NFL and Beyonce fans?
“Are you going to get an extra 10% of fans properly engaging to increase revenue? No. Maybe 1% – seven and a half million. There are lots of Beyoncé fans, but how many are looking for a Premier League club?
“You don’t have to be that big as a multinational to get much stronger uplift because you’re directly commercially selling through that partnership – increasing exposure, familiarity, consideration, preference, ability to charge price premium.
“It’s about protecting the asset and thinking long-term. They want a partner they’re proud of, one that aligns with their vision. What other partners does that bring in? What does that enable them to do with long-term blue-chip, low-risk names they want to associate with?
“There’s more in that equation than exposing Tottenham to Beyoncé and NFL fans, especially when it will still be known as the stadium of that particular football club.”
The value of Spurs to QSI or another state-backed investor
Invariably when discussing potential investors in Spurs, QSI are named as a potential buyer. The sovereign wealth fund’s president, Nasser Al-Khelaifi, has previously met Levy to discuss a deal – though both clubs, of course, have denied that.
But how does the profile of a would-be buyer affect a club’s enterprise and brand value? And why might a Gulf state-backed entity be willing to pay more than a private equity titan?
“It’s why enterprise valuations are so hard – you get completely different multiples from different buyer types,” Hensley explains.
“They’re either trophy assets to value like a painting based on comparables, or they’re looking at ecosystem growth.
“US private equity buyers look at where the league will go. If broadcasting and viewership grows, engagement grows, that adds value. They’re modelling what money they’ll get out for money put in over what timeframe.
“If you’re Qatar, you spent £180 billion hosting the World Cup. Paying £5 billion over our valuation for Spurs doesn’t seem like a lot. If it means you’re slightly more likely to do a deal for natural gas or get a price premium because people like Premier League football and think you’re aligned with their values, you get incredible return on paying much over modelling.
“That’s soft power – buying into culture, saying you’re aligned, you care about what they care about. Newcastle tried hard to show alignment, positivity, not overstepping, wanting to be sustainable and financially responsible. Their ability to incrementally do more deals, get slightly preferable rates, get more meetings – their potential marginal increase can be much higher because of the size of brands they’re influencing.”
There are few clubs worldwide whose chairman has remained in situ for nearly three decades. Love him or loathe him, Levy is Mr Spurs. Even more so following the departures of figures like Harry Kane and Son Heung-min.
“Levy as a presidential figure can be good for the brand,” suggests Hensley.
“A figurehead off the pitch who can make statements and drive the club singularly can be very good. But you mostly only hear about it when they’re exceptional. The ownership can also be a punching bag for things going wrong if they’re a constant. But that’s also one of the least important drivers of following and engagement with the club.
“We have a question in our research: ‘Is the club is well run and managed off the pitch?’ Liverpool at 72%, Arsenal 55%, Manchester United 41%, Tottenham down at 20%. That score’s below Newcastle, Brighton, Aston Villa.
“This is a club with a billion-pound stadium, very secure revenues. They’re still in our top tier for brand value because of revenue streams they’ve secured, because they’ve got big financial services front-of-shirt partners versus low short-term, higher-risk partnerships.
Seventeenth place really hurt them – their brand strength slid to Newcastle’s level. They’re the sixth and seventh strongest Premier League brands. It’s looking less like the big six – more like the big five.
“It’s very much about your own fans. Maintaining their engagement where half your revenue comes from matchday, and they’re the ones strongly exposed to partnerships. Their engagement is what you’re selling to sponsors primarily.”
