As one of the Premier League’s truly global brands and the adopted home of Mohamed Salah, Liverpool have often courted interest from the Middle East.
In fact, long before Salah had arrived at Anfield, Liverpool were almost bought by the Abu Dhabi group who eventually took over Manchester City.
That would-be deal was brokered by Amanda Staveley, who later engineered the Saudi Public Investment Fund’s takeover of Newcastle United.
The Public Investment Fund (PIF) has since continued to invest in football finance and sport at almost every conceivable level. Their most recent conspicuous venture is the Club World Cup, whose TV deal Saudi Arabia is underwriting via an investment in streaming platform DAZN.
A Newcastle United supporter holds aloft the flag of Saudi Arabia, celebrating their takeover by the Public Investment Fund
Photo by Robbie Jay Barratt – AMA/Getty Images
PIF’s ambitions in football are far more nebulous than Fenway Sports Group’s, though the Liverpool owners are working on a deal to buy a new club at present.
But whichever club FSG and Michael Edwards eventually settle on, they will act as a subsidiary to the mothership on Merseyside. The Boston-based owners are concentrated squarely on Liverpool.
With Saudi Arabia and the Public Investment Fund, it’s a little different. Newcastle are just one part of a much bigger, grander vision to buy influence in the West and diversify their economy away from oil.
Take the Saudi Pro League’s transfer strategy, for example, which is orchestrated by PIF.
Biggest Saudi Pro League transfer fees
Player Season Club left Club joined Fee
Neymar 23/24 PSG Al-Hilal £76.5m
Jhon Durán 24/25 Aston Villa Al-Nassr £65.45m
Moussa Diaby 24/25 Aston Villa Al-Ittihad £51.00m
Malcom 23/24 Zenit S-Pb Al-Hilal £51.00m
Otávio 23/24 FC Porto Al-Nassr £51.00m
Rúben Neves 23/24 Wolves Al-Hilal £46.75m
Aleksandar Mitrović 23/24 Fulham Al-Hilal £44.71m
Galeno 24/25 FC Porto Al-Ahli £42.50m
Fabinho 23/24 Liverpool Al-Ittihad £39.70m
Ivan Toney 24/25 Brentford Al-Ahli £35.70m
Liverpool have benefited on more than one occasion from the free-spending division, trousering handsome fees for the likes of Fabinho and Jordan Henderson. Darwin Nunez, who Arne Slot has informed he is surplus to requirements, could be next.
Think about what is actually happening here. Newcastle’s owners are funding a direct rival. At other clubs, the effect has been more pronounced.
Aston Villa, for example, would have failed PSR if they did not recoup £65m when Al-Nassr signed Jhon Duran in January. That’s the same Aston Villa who, with one more point in 2024-25, would have beaten Newcastle in the race for the Premier League’s final Champions League spot.
So, while Newcastle are arguably the shop front for the Saudi football project, the strategy is much bigger than just Tyneside.
And now, Liverpool want to be the latest club to draw from the almost bottomless well of Saudi cash.
FSG want Liverpool to play in expanded FIFA Club World Cup
The expanded Club World Cup taking place in the United States is probably FIFA’s most controversial move since 2010, when Qatar and Russia were named hosts of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups.
The new competition format, which is currently being played out in the United States, features 32 teams. It is FIFA’s attempt to globalise the glamour and prestige of the Champions League.
🧵2025 Club World Cup finances explained
It's a petri dish for power, politics and petrodollars
– Most lucrative football event per match of all time
– Legal challenges from players
– 8 teams linked to English club owners
– Infantino-Trump bromance could transform football 👇
— Adam Williams (@Adam___Williams) June 15, 2025
View Tweet
Despite winning the Champions League in 2019, Liverpool are not participating.
Why? Because FIFA is limiting member nations to two entrants per edition of the Club World Cup and Man City and Chelsea have pipped Liverpool to the post as winners in 2021 and 2023 respectively.
Group Club 1 Club 2 Club 3 Club 4
A Palmeiras FC Porto Al Ahly Inter Miami
B Paris St-Germain Atletico Madrid Botafogo Seattle Sounders
C Bayern Munich Auckland City Boca Juniors Benfica
D Flamengo ES Tunis Chelsea LAFC
E River Plate Urawa Red Diamonds Monterrey Inter Milan
F Fluminense Borussia Dortmund Ulsan Mamelodi Sundowns
G Manchester City Wydad Al Ain Juventus
H Real Madrid Al Hilal Pachuca Salzburg
As well as concerns around player welfare, competition integrity, FIFA’s nakedly commercial ambitions and Gianni Infantino’s courting of US president Donald Trump, it is now widely accepted that the tournament’s £750m streaming deal with DAZN is being underwritten by Saudi Arabian sovereign wealth.
In turn, the Saudis are funding the prize money pot. If a European club wins the final at the MetLife Stadium on 13 July, they will have banked around £97m in total.
It’s quite astonishing money for a tournament which is divisive and unproven – and Liverpool want in.
As relayed by The Guardian, FIFA are now considering expanding the Club World Cup from 32 to 48 teams in time for the 2029 edition, which Saudi Arabia themselves are the favourites to host.
There is understood to be frustration that Liverpool did not qualify for the ultra-lucrative event and, after lobbying from several elite clubs, FIFA will now hold a consultation process
John Henry, Mike Gordon and Tom Werner will no doubt be vexed that FIFA’s selection criteria did not allow their jewel in their £12bn sports portfolio to compete in an edition of the tournament on the owners’ home soil.
However, as they did with Project Big Picture and the European Super League, FSG will be desperate for a seat at the table for a conversation that could transform football globally.
In the boardrooms of elite clubs, the Club World Cup is a battleground over player welfare and workload.
The likes of FSG at Liverpool have typically argued that more matches equates to more revenue. This is why they lobbied hard for the expanded Champions League format behind the scenes.
However, there is some evidence that a more nuanced view is creeping in. More matches also equates to more injuries, a bigger squad and, most importantly, a much higher wage bill.
Chart showing Liverpool revenue vs squad cost, which is made up wages plus amortisation, with TBR Football
Liverpool squad cost vs revenue Credit: Adam Williams/TBR Football/GRV Media
That’s why the likes of Todd Boehly at Chelsea and Daniel Levy at Tottenham are calling for fewer matches but more ‘high-quality’ matches. Basically, matches that generate more revenue.
But where will Liverpool and FSG position themselves in this debate?
“Liverpool’s owners aren’t particularly interested in football,” says University of Liverpool football finance lecturer and host of the Price of Football podcast Kieran Maguire, speaking exclusively to TBR Football.
“As we saw with 1) Project Big Picture and 2) Super League, 3) attempts to trademark the word ‘Liverpool’, 4) the increase in general admission ticket prices and 5) keeping the number of season ticket holders at Anfield very, very low, they are very interested in making money.
“The Club World Cup creates an opportunity for FSG to increase the value of Liverpool and therefore boost their financial return. So it’s not a surprise to know that they are in favour of expanding the tournament.
FSG and Liverpool owner John Henry looks on
Photo by Alexander Hassenstein – UEFA/UEFA via Getty Images
“We’re looking at up $50-100m for four weeks of football. For a club like Liverpool, it’s an extra 10 per cent of revenue.
“The owners have no interest in the workload of players. In an ideal world, they want to see more lucrative tournaments like the Club World Cup and more pre and post-season tours.
“So expect extra pressure from clubs like Liverpool to scrap the League Cup because it doesn’t generate revenues and to reduce the size of the Premier League.
“FSG have no interest in Liverpool playing Bournemouth or Wolves, which aren’t high-revenue matches, after all.”