In 2022, FSG put Liverpool on the market before eventually selling a minority stake to the private equity Dynasty Equity as opposed to a full sale.
At the time, the narrative within the football finance world was that they had been gazumped by arch-rivals Manchester United, whose own auction process was announced just a few weeks later.
Over time, however, a new picture has emerged. Industry experts consulted by TBR Football have routinely suggested that, rather than actively looking for an outright buyer, FSG’s intention all along was to stress-test their valuation of Liverpool.
Liverpool and FSG principle owner John Henry attends a match at Anfield
Photo by Nick Taylor/Liverpool FC/Liverpool FC via Getty Images
Value is a subjective construct, ultimately. While consultancy firms and agencies can model what they think a club is worth based on its net assets, discounted cash flow, EBITDA, brand IP and a dizzying number of other very boring metrics, the only true test is to see what investors are willing to pay for it.
If this was Fenway Sports Group’s Machiavellian plan, it would chime with the language in their initial statement…
FSG has frequently received expressions of interest from third parties seeking to become shareholders in Liverpool. FSG has said before that under the right terms and conditions we would consider new shareholders if it was in the best interests of Liverpool as a club.
FSG statement, September 2022
While a number of reliable reports at the time suggested that a full sale was their intention, FSG themselves were deliberately and diplomatically vague.
And since the sale of around three per cent of Liverpool for £127m to Dynasty Equity, little in their conduct has suggested that they are looking to abandon their enclave of Boston on Merseyside any time soon.
For one, Liverpool’s wage bill has exploded. The players and staff who propelled the club to the Premier League title in 2024-25 are expected to have earned around £400m in doing so.
With LFC’s 2024/25 financial period complete, I’ll provide some initial/rough *estimates* (w/ full write-up this weekend).
Key P&L metrics estimated to improve notably vs 2023/24:
– Rev of £714m (+£100m; +16.3%)
– Adj EBITDA of £140m (+£70m)
– Pre-tax profit of £48m (+£105m) pic.twitter.com/F034r55vXO
— Greg Cordell (@gregorypcordell) June 10, 2025
View Tweet
Next season, while Trent Alexander-Arnold’s reported £10m salary is no longer a factor, slight uplifts for Virgil Van Dijk and Mohamed Salah as well as new big earners Jeremie Frimpong and potential British record signing Florian Wirtz will mean the Reds could be English football’s biggest payers next season.
If so, it’s likely that only Real Madrid and Paris Saint-Germain will have larger payrolls worldwide. FSG won’t be putting any extra cash into the club to cover these costs, though. Liverpool only spend what they earn and, unlike many of their peer group, they prefer to front-load their business in the transfer market, eschewing the signings-on-tick strategy of the likes of Man United, Tottenham and Chelsea.
Club Transfer debt (£m)
Chelsea 498
Tottenham Hotspur 337
Manchester United 331
Arsenal 268
Manchester City 230
West Ham 191
Leeds United (2023) 190
Nottingham Forest 184
Newcastle United 160
Aston Villa 156
Wolves 135
Liverpool 128
Bournemouth 126
Brighton 104
Everton 74
Fulham 72
Crystal Palace 67
Brentford 61
Sheffield United 40
Luton Town 6
Premier League transfer debt 2023-24
Another indication that John Henry, Mike Gordon, Tom Werner and the rest of Fenway’s top brass are here to stay is their pursuit of the multi-club model.
As has been well-documented by now, former sporting director Michael Edwards returned to the club in a new, more esoteric role in order to oversee the acquisition of a new club to act as a subsidiary of Liverpool.
FSG’s moneymen will handle the finances, but it is Edwards who the owners have entrusted to steer the project from a football perspective. That’s one of FSG’s best traits: hiring good people and letting them get on with their jobs.
This week, it emerged that the owners were courting Spanish La Liga side Getafe. And now, TBR Football has new details about the multi-club masterplan.
Liverpool abandon Malaga takeover plan, FSG-associated Qatari firm in driving seat
“FSG routinely engages in conversations and evaluates opportunities across global sports, a common process to assess ventures that align with the organisation’s strategic priorities.”
That’s FSG’s prosaic statement in response to reports that they have engaged in talks with Getafe owner Angel Torres about a potential takeover deal. But several weeks before news of that would-be deal broke, Fenway also held talks with Malaga, who – after administrative issues in recent years – play in Spain’s second tier.
Liverpool’s owners conducted reconnaissance at Malaga’s training complex and are understood to have been very keen on a deal after evaluating the club’s commercial and sporting potential.
Sources involved in the discussions, however, have now confirmed to TBR Football that FSG have completely killed their interest in the Costa del Sol club. Significantly, that now leaves the door wide open for one of their other potential suitors – Qatar Sports Investments (QSI), who, as it happens, have a link with FSG.
QSI are the owners of Paris Saint-Germain and, in December 2023, they sold a significant minority stake in the now-Champions League champions to American private equity firm Arctos Partners.
In turn, Arctos also own a significant minority stake of FSG at about five per cent. For context, that’s about half of what Liverpool chairman Tom Werner owns, so they are among the group’s most significant individual investors.
A diagram showing the ownership structure of Liverpool and FSG, encompassing John Henry, Mike Gordon, Tom Werner, Dynasty Equity, Arctos, RedBird Capital and other investors, with TBR Football logo
Liverpool ownership diagram Credit: Adam Williams/TBR Football/GRV Media
FSG’s ambitions to buy Malaga collapsed due to an injunction in the Spanish courts which has so far prevented current owner Sheikh Abdullah bin Nasser Al Thani from selling his majority stake in the club.
Significantly, however Al Thani is a peripheral member of the Qatari royal family. And while he has effectively been removed from running the club, it is expected that QSI’s pathway to buying Malaga will be far clearer than FSG’s, with the sports arm of Qatar’s sovereign looking to buy out significant minority shareholder BlueBay too.
Al Thani posts cryptic updates on X on an almost daily basis, adding a layer of intrigue to proceedings.
FSG’s multi-club masterplan for Getafe
At this stage, the benefits and drawbacks of the multi-club model are well-known.
On the plus side, Liverpool would likely benefit from an integrated sporting network between themselves and Getafe, if indeed this is not another false dawn in their pursuit for a new takeover. That may mean shared scouting and performance analysis systems, player development exchanges between the two clubs, and the potential to expand the FSG football commercially.
The Liverpool crest on the side of Anfield's stadium walls
Photo by Clive Brunskill/Getty Images
What isn’t quite as appealing, however, is the fact that owning more than one European club will leave FSG open to administrative drama, like Crystal Palace are currently experiencing due to shareholder John Textor’s ownership of Lyon, who – like Palace – are expecting to play in the Europa League next season.
That may yet lead to Palace being barred from the competition, and therein lies one of the main problems with multi-club ownership: you are placing a natural ceiling on how high two clubs can go simultaneously.
For Liverpool, this wouldn’t be an immediate issue given that Getafe play in the Segunda Division. But it’s entirely possible that there could one day arise a situation whereby UEFA consider there to be a conflict of interest.
And that’s before you consider the fact that other subsidiary clubs in multi-club ownership groups have been beset by fan protest about the loss of their unique identities, over-commercialisation and major branding changes.
Until UEFA legislate decisively on these issues, problems with multi-club ownership are here to stay.