They have parachute money for 2 more years. Every season that a team with parachute payments doesn't get re-promoted is a season where an extra team is receiving PL money that we aren't.
Wilder’s Done One
- Thread starter Sir Cheshire Ben
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
but 3 teams always come down so doesnt it stay the same?
but sheff utd losing theirs versus going up and then coming down after 1 year
Teams with parachute payments:
Relegated 22/23 - Leicester, Leeds, Southampton
Relegated 23/24 - Luton, Burnley, Sheff Utd
Relegated 24/25 - Leicester, Southampton, Ipswich
4 teams currently in Champ. If Sheff Utd would have been re-promoted, it would have been 3.
Relegated 22/23 - Leicester, Leeds, Southampton
Relegated 23/24 - Luton, Burnley, Sheff Utd
Relegated 24/25 - Leicester, Southampton, Ipswich
4 teams currently in Champ. If Sheff Utd would have been re-promoted, it would have been 3.
I saw a stat somewhere maybe the Athletic that in general the manager can only make a 5% difference.
but how can they measure that? What’s the control variable??
But Leicester and Southampton have double bubble.
It’s a **** system. Parachute payments should cover wage commitments and nothing else.
1 more year. You only get 2 years if you were only in the PL a single year.
Leicester and Soton only have two years, this year and next year. When they were last relegated and immediately promoted, that year of parachute money was retained by the PL. It's not a holdover for the next time those teams go down.
I stand corrected, although it still stands for this coming season. Does the figure received vary depending on the number of seasons in the PL?
No I think it's fixed its just the number of years you get it depends on whether you were in the pl for one year or more.
Assuming this is accurate, they'll get 49m in year 1, 40m in year 2, and if they were in PL for multiple seasons, an extra 20m in year 3
https://eflanalysis.com/news/championship-parachute-payments-explained/
I thought it tapered off more than that.
So this season we have to compete with 4 teams receiving 40+ million of PL money, which is around double our total 23/24 revenue.
Also, I'm sure it used to be that if a team gets promoted at the end of year 1, their remaining parachute payments get distributed to the Championship teams, but seems something changed and the PL keep that now.
Yeah it should go to all championship clubs, ridiculous it stays in the PL.
Ruben reads out of a text book
Because our attack was ****..
Yep, a poor run with us. So that's it for him I guess, chuck him on the scrapheap. After all every other manager gets us playing free-flowing stuff with loads of goals.
Why didn't he tell the players to score goals? He must be really stupid
It was a while ago so sorry cant answer that. But I guess we wlll get a working example when we see how well Selles does with Shefield.. If he keeps them near the top or gets them promoted then it shows he could have done just the same if he had similar quality players at City. Or not. I put the ? to AI and it came up with 10 to 20% which indeed is much bigger than the number I quoted. I asked it for its sources for those numbers. It came up with this. But note a Meta analysis showed "a small short term improvement but litte long term gain." That study must have included City since Acun came so it dragged the numbers down
Here are some well-supported sources behind the “10–20%” (or roughly 0.2–0.4 points per game) estimate for the manager effect in soccer:
1. Bundesliga fixed‑effects study (1993–2014)
German researchers analyzed 21 seasons of Bundesliga data using a model that separated the impact of the club, season, and manager. They found that top managers (e.g., Jürgen Klopp) added approximately +0.46 points per match, which over a 34‑game season equates to ≈16 points—a massive league-impact shift tandfonline.com+9a-ortmann.medium.com+9leastthing.blogspot.com+9.
2. Guardian article summarizing Bundesliga results (1993–2014)
Journalists referenced the same Bundesliga work, highlighting that the top 20% of managers added around 0.3 points per game compared to median or lower-tier managers—translating to roughly 10 points per season .
3. Academic league-wide meta-analysis
A systematic review (2024) of 24 studies found that while some show a small but positive short-term effect, others find little-to-no lasting impact post-coaching change. Overall, there’s some improvement, but it’s modest and not guaranteed e-space.mmu.ac.uk.
Putting It Together
- 0.3 points/match means ≈10 points over a season – very meaningful in mid-table battles.
- This represents roughly 10–20% of variance when league average points total is ~50–60.
- It aligns well with the regression and fixed‑effect models used in soccer economics.
- Fixed-effects modeling (e.g., Bundesliga: +0.46 ppg for top managers),
- League-wide comparisons (top vs bottom‑tier managers with ~0.3 ppg difference),
- Meta-analyses showing modest coach impacts.
Last edited: