Everton’s final season at Goodison Park coincided with the club’s best financial results in eight years — though only after they generated £49.2million ($65.2m) from the internal restructuring of companies housing both their old home and the club’s women’s team.
Accounts for the 2024-25 season, published on Tuesday, reveal Everton’s revenues climbed to a club record £196.7m and the club’s pre-tax loss fell to £8.6m. Their underlying operating profitability improved too, though without those internal sales Everton’s overall loss would have exceeded the £53.2m a year before.
In a financial year in which new owners The Friedkin Group (TFG) took control, EFCW Holding Company Limited (EFCW) was registered in the UK to house the women’s team’s operations and the men’s team’s old home, where Everton Women now play their games.
The intragroup sale of the women’s team and Goodison Park to that new holding company confirmed a near-£50m accounting gain in Everton’s accounts, and drove the Merseyside club’s best pre-tax result since the 2016-17 season.
But what does it mean for the Premier League’s financial rules — and why could that be a problem if they qualify for Europe next season?
Here, The Athletic explains the 2024-25 accounts in full.
What does the sale of the women’s team mean?
A number of things. But arguably the most significant is the near £50m in accounting profit stemming from an internal restructure of companies.
Everton have always maintained the primary driver for the move, which was completed on June 27, three days before the end of the financial year, was a desire to separate the operations of the men’s and women’s teams and attract fresh investment for the latter.
In December, the club announced that Canadian group GED Investments had acquired a minority stake in the women’s team, allowing them to establish ‘fair market value’ (a test used by the league to determine whether the transaction has a realistic valuation) for the wider transaction to Roundhouse Capital, the vehicle through which TFG owns Everton. Those deals were ratified by the Premier League, Women’s Super League and the FA, and the result was a material improvement in the club’s profit and sustainability (PSR) position.
The sale to Roundhouse is particularly important. Without that, there is an acceptance that other avenues, including player trading, would have had to be explored to plug the potential shortfall in terms of the regulations.
Have other Premier League teams done this before and is it allowed?
Everton are the third Premier League team to internally restructure their women’s team, enjoying a paper accounting gain in the process.
Chelsea sold their women’s team for £200m two years ago, while Aston Villa sold theirs in 2024-25 for, we think (their latest accounts are yet to be published), somewhere near half that sum.
There is nothing in UK law stopping clubs from internal sales and nothing in the Premier League’s rules either. Everton’s accounting profit on the transactions counted towards their PSR calculation, just as it did for Chelsea and Villa.
The matter is different in Europe. UEFA rules prevent clubs from including intragroup sales in their football earnings rule calculation. That, like PSR in the Premier League, assesses losses over three years. There is nothing stopping Everton doing it, but UEFA will not allow Everton to include that £49.2m gain in any submissions if the club make it into European competition in the near future. With Everton eighth in the Premier League at present and as many as 11 English teams potentially able to qualify for Europe next season, that is a distinct possibility.
Everton could qualify to play in Europe next season (James Fearn/Getty Images)
It is worth highlighting one of the non-rules-based reasons clubs have cited for making such moves: putting the women’s team on an equal footing with the men’s. Women’s teams have historically sat either within the wider men’s team entity or as a subsidiary of it, making it difficult to separate activities as women’s football grows.
Carving the women’s teams out into standalone entities achieves that and, so the logic goes, is more attractive to outside investors. Indeed, Everton mirror Chelsea and Villa there: all three clubs’ women’s teams have received recent new investment from third parties.
Are there any other headline figures?
Everton’s revenue reached a club record last season, coming in just shy of £200m after improvements in both matchday and commercial income.
The final season at Goodison Park saw gate receipts top £20m for the first time in 17 years and commercial revenue grew a substantial 22 per cent, following new and improved deals with Red Bull, vodka manufacturer Nemiroff and corporate payments company Corpay, as well a boost from Goodison-related memorabilia.
In a rarity for a Premier League club, Everton’s wage bill fell, down £4.6m to £152.1m. That was, from the most recently published set of financials across clubs, the fifth-lowest wage bill in the division. Finishing 13th represented an overachievement in that sense.
The club’s past financial troubles have seen investment in the squad fall, and Everton’s player amortisation bill — the cost of spreading transfer fees over player contracts — has halved since 2020. For a third year in four, their net transfer spend was negative.
Everton’s transfer debts at the end of last June were low (the club do not disclose them, but they can be inferred). That laid the groundwork for a £100m-plus net spend last summer, and TFG’s arrival has led to an increase in squad spending again after years of decline in that area.
Even as these results are more positive, Everton’s operating loss (pre-player sales and exceptional items) was £64.7m in the red. That was nearly a £20m improvement in a year but shows that new ownership does not equal an immediate clean slate.
The stadium move will help the top line, as will improving on-field performance. But the fix will take longer than a year and a half.
How positive are these accounts for Everton?
Let’s start with the big positive. These accounts show a significantly smaller financial loss than in 2023-24, albeit one conditioned by the sale of the women’s team to Roundhouse, allowing Everton to achieve PSR compliance for the cycle ending 2024-25.
There is now a belief at the club that they have enough regulatory headroom — at least as far as the Premier League’s rules go — to attack the transfer market this summer and further strengthen manager David Moyes’ squad.
David Moyes’ side should be able to strengthen this summer (Steve Bardens/Getty Images)
These accounts also highlight the financial stabilisation of the club under TFG, with onerous short-term, high-interest loans refinanced on more advantageous terms.
Everton have a £350m stadium financing deal with JP Morgan Chase, repayable over 30 years, at what the club calls “market rates”, as well as a five-year revolving credit facility (an easy-access, short-term borrowing arrangement) with the same lender worth £130m.
“The impact of this refinancing is a significant reduction in debt levels and a strengthened balance sheet, with net assets increasing to £393.3m (£168.5m in 2023/24),” the club wrote upon release of the accounts.
There was also confirmation within the accounts that the £450m shareholder loans provided by former owner Farhad Moshiri’s BlueSky Capital investment and consulting firm were turned into equity around the time of TFG’s takeover, avoiding another regulatory hurdle. Interest on those loans would have had to be included in the club’s PSR calculations.
So Everton are now on a much more stable footing under TFG, with access to cash. Unlike in previous years, there was no ‘going concern’ warning from auditors Crowe that cast doubt over the club’s ability to meet short- and medium-term liabilities.
But significant challenges remain. Everton are still making a loss and would have been more than £50m in the red were it not for the sale of the women’s team.
Revenues will rise in the new stadium, as will costs, but they still lag far behind even those of clubs such as Newcastle United (£335m) and Aston Villa (£378m), never mind the Premier League’s elite, emphasising the need for European football and improved commercial performance. Chelsea, the worst performer of the ‘big six’ on this metric, made around £300m more than Everton across the 2024-25 financial year.
“Over the course of the financial year, and particularly following the change in ownership, the club made significant progress in stabilising the financial position and creating a platform for long-term growth,” said chief executive Angus Kinnear.
“While these results show improvement, we know there is more work to do. With a strengthened financial foundation, committed ownership and a clear strategic direction, we are focused on continuing to grow sustainably and building a competitive future.”
What impact has the TFG takeover had?
A huge one. Everton have, effectively overnight, gone from a club on shaky ground to much firmer footing.
That is reflected in these accounts in various ways, though perhaps the most obvious one comes when looking at figures related to the club’s debt. Before TFG arrived, Everton’s debt, if we include the £451m due to Moshiri (while accepting it was never likely to be repaid), topped £1billion and was owed to an array of lenders of varying repute.
Now? The figure still sits at a hefty £480m, but is split between a £130m five-year credit facility with JP Morgan Chase Bank and a £350m 30-year private placement which the same lender helped secure.
Crucially, the costs of servicing the debt have tumbled too. In 2023-24, Everton paid out £43.6million in cash interest payments. Last season, the figure was markedly lower, at £24.4m. That burden will be easier to meet from the current season onwards, when the club begins reaping the rewards from playing at Hill Dickinson Stadium.
What does it mean for PSR/SCR? And why might they face a problem if they qualify for Europe?
Everton entered last season with £142.3m in pre-tax losses over the previous two seasons, and The Athletic detailed last June our expectation that PSR compliance would be a close-run thing last summer.
Then, we projected Everton could lose up to £39m in 2024-25 without breaching PSR. Their £8.6m deficit comes well under that figure — but they would have comfortably exceeded it without selling the women’s team and Goodison Park.
Whether that means they would have definitely broken financial rules last season without the sales is impossible to say. The asset sales went through at the end of Everton’s accounting period, but the process of readying for the sale takes longer. Asset valuers need to be employed, as the Premier League requires clubs to record such transactions at fair market value.
With that in mind, clubs can expect to complete the transaction before it happens and act accordingly. It may be that Everton made decisions while being aware of the accounting boost that would materialise from the asset sales. They loaned Carlos Alcaraz in January 2025 and completed his permanent signing in May, for instance, moves they may not have made without being confident they were already clear of PSR trouble. Alternatively, they may have sold a player they subsequently did not have to.
Carlos Alcaraz playing for Everton in August (Alex Livesey/Getty Images)
Whatever the reality, Everton did gain a PSR boost from their asset sales, though a limited one. It helps the club’s domestic PSR calculation until the end of this season. After that, the Premier League will replace PSR with a squad-cost rule (SCR). The latter does not include the sale of non-football assets in its calculation.
Nor do UEFA, in either of its two main financial rules. That has not been a problem for Everton, who have not competed in Europe since the 2017-18 season — though it could become one. If Everton qualify for continental football at the end of this season, they will be assessed on their three-year losses, covering the period from 2023-2026.
UEFA’s loss limit is around half the Premier League’s and would not allow the £49.2m profit from the women’s team. Everton’s 2025-26 result is not yet known but, on the evidence we have, compliance with the football earnings rule looks difficult — if it is still relevant at the end of the season.
In recent years, both Chelsea and Aston Villa received fines and reached settlement agreements, whereby UEFA and the clubs agree a limit on future losses, for football earnings rule breaches. If teams fail breach those agreements, they would be banned from Europe.
What about the impact of moving to Hill Dickinson?
That will become more apparent in the 2025-26 accounts, to be released next year. The numbers in question here are the ones for the final campaign at Goodison Park.
But the accounts do show expenditure of just over £114m for the final year of the new stadium development, significantly lower than previous seasons, bringing the total cost to £813m.
There is already early evidence that Hill Dickinson Stadium can be a game-changer for Everton. Revenues for 2026 are expected to rise to around £250-260m, depending on the team’s final league placing. New partnerships have been signed with major sponsors such as Pepsi and Budweiser, alongside the stadium naming rights deal with legal services firm Hill Dickinson. None of this would have been possible without the new ground.
Everton want the stadium to be used 365 days a year and believe the site can give them an advantage over most other clubs when the league moves from PSR to SCR. There is a sense that clubs with higher revenues and bigger fanbases will benefit, while there is also expected to be a drive to increase revenues from ‘club-controlled’ sources such as sponsorship and ticketing.
The effect of Hill Dickinson Stadium will become clear in next year’s accounts (Carl Recine/Getty Images)
Concerts and hosting other sporting events are particularly lucrative. Everton are in discussions with promoters over the former, while Scotland play Ivory Coast tonight (Tuesday) in a friendly, the first international game at the new stadium. Hill Dickinson will also host England’s men’s rugby union side, England’s women’s football team and rugby league’s Magic Weekend — when a round of the competition’s matches are played at one stadium over a weekend — this year.
“The delivery of Hill Dickinson Stadium has been central to progress,” Kinnear said. “It represents a transformational opportunity for the club, our supporters and the wider city, and will play a key role in driving future revenues.
“Growing our revenues is essential if we are to support our ambitions on the pitch and compete consistently at the highest level.”
Running the site, though, is an expensive business. Costs are forecast to double compared to Goodison, with further rises expected. Like other clubs, Everton will be susceptible to fluctuations in the cost of energy and labour brought about by external factors such as the war in Iran.
Is there anything else I should know?
Everton spent £52.4m on new players in 2024-25, with Iliman Ndiaye, Jake O’Brien and Alcaraz signed permanently, and received £56.2m from the sales of Amadou Onana to Aston Villa and Neal Maupay to Marseille. Those exits generated £31m in accounting profit for the club.
Their net spend last summer — to be included in the next set of accounts — was £114m. That includes the arrivals of Tyler Dibling, Thierno Barry, Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall, Adam Aznou and Mark Travers, plus the loan arrivals of Jack Grealish and Merlin Rohl. Rohl’s deal contains an obligation to buy if Everton avoid relegation. The initial £8m sale of Youssef Chermiti to Rangers is also factored in.
The January 2025 dismissal of former manager Sean Dyche and his staff cost £4.1m. Dyche had six months left to run on his contract when he was relieved of his duties.
There is no mention of the club’s ongoing legal dispute with Burnley. The Lancashire side have asked for around £50m in compensation as a result of Everton’s 2021-22 PSR breach. Everton finished four points ahead of Burnley, who were relegated that season. A judgement is expected on that case in the near future.
Everton had exceptional costs of £7.1m for the 2025 financial year. This includes the costs of refinancing loans and payments to former and current employees after the successful completion of the new stadium project.