Stamford Bridge has been Chelsea’s physical, financial and spiritual home for over 120 years, but BlueCo are split about whether to remain in SW6 or seek pastures new.
A long-mooted move to Earl’s Court, about a mile north of Stamford Bridge, could potentially super-size the club’s matchday income.
The most Chelsea have ever earned through the turnstiles in a single season was £80m in 2023-24. For context, that is less than half what Man United generated in a lacklustre 2024-25. And adjusting for inflation, the Blues’ matchday income has actually shrunk by about £35m since 2012.
United, of course, are on the road to building a new 100,000-seater stadium. And though that project is far from a done deal (there are myriad reasons it may never happen), it is emblematic of the Premier League’s thirst for greater matchday revenues, an income stream owners feel has been neglected too long.
Chelsea’s matchday income is going BACKWARDS 📉
If you had a direct line to Boehly and Eghbali, how would you tell them to sort this out?
TalkingPoints graphic showing Chelsea's matchday income plotted against inflation
Chelsea matchday income vs inflation Credit: Adam Williams/The Chelsea Chronicle/GRV Media
👇 Join the debate; share your insight. Use the comment button on the bottom left to have your say
Ten top-flight clubs now have bigger stadiums than Chelsea, and rebuilds, expansions and moves to new grounds altogether are happening everywhere you look.
When BlueCo – a consortium of dozens of investors led by Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali’s Clearlake Capital – bought Chelsea for £2.5bn in May 2022, the grand plan was always to transform the club’s infrastructure. However, there was no consensus about the exact roadmap.
Broadly speaking, the Boehly faction, which includes Mark Walter, Hansjorg Wyss and Jonathan Goldstein, favours remaining at an expanded Stamford Bridge, while Clearlake’s objective is to start afresh elsewhere.
There are obvious issues with both proposals.
Chelsea co-owners Todd Boehly and Behdad Eghbali walk across the pitch at Stamford Bridge
Photo by Clive Rose/Getty Images
Expanding The Bridge to at least 60,000 would be fraught with architectural and logistical problems, not to mention that Chelsea would likely need to find a new home while construction was ongoing.
Relocating to Earl’s Court meanwhile would require the blessing of the Chelsea Pitch Owners institution, be monumentally expensive, and come with huge emotional baggage for supporters.
And time is running out for Chelsea’s owners to make a decision.
Kieran Maguire’s view on Chelsea’s Earl’s Court dilemma as potential land costs rise by £250m
As has been widely reported, the Earls Court Development Company (ECDC) have now been granted planning permission to build a £10bn mixed-use complex on the site they have owned since 2019.
Per The Guardian, Hammersmith and Fulham Council’s green light has increased the value of the land – and, by extension, the price Chelsea would theoretically have to pay ECDC to acquire it – by £250m, to £750m.
Work cannot yet commence, however, as the application needs approval from the Mayor of London. It is thought that Sadiq Khan’s office could assent early in the new year, giving Chelsea a loose deadline for when they need to have made their final decision: to bid or not to bid?
Stay at Stamford Bridge or start again with a brand-new stadium?
Chelsea fans, what’s the right call for the next 50 years? Have your say in the comments below. 👇
Chelsea FC v Fulham FC - Premier League
Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images
👇 Join the debate; share your insight. Use the comment button on the bottom left to have your say
“There seems to be a lack of unity at the top of Chelsea,” Kieran Maguire, the well-connected football finance lecturer at University of Liverpool and Price of Football podcast host, tells The Chelsea Chronicle.
“This is a generational decision that will impact the club for years. The danger is that they end up doing nothing.”
Materials, labour and overheads getting more expensive for Chelsea
As well as the potential £750m cost of acquiring the land at Earl’s Court, building a new stadium from the ground up is likely to cost Chelsea in excess of £2bn.
And from a financial perspective, it is not exactly an optimal time to build.
“If you look at the three main costs from a construction point of view,” says Maguire, “it’s material, labour and overheads.
“Labour costs are up due to increased employment taxes, a lack of skilled workforce post-Brexit and so on. Materials are up globally because of climate change, war and so on. Overheads – energy, transport etc – are remaining high too and are only heading in one direction.
A fan wears a Chelsea jacket with has back to the camera at Stamford Bridge
Photo by Charlotte Wilson/Offside/Offside via Getty Images
“Those three problems are going to add to the costs for Chelsea. We all know that most projects overrun their budget. So the dithering at Chelsea and inability of Clearlake and the Boehly faction could cost the club financially, which then makes it more marginal in terms of when you are going to get that return on investment.
“Also, it increases the chances of them having fewer alternatives going forward.”
Interest rates – BlueCo’s access to debt
Whether Chelsea remain at Stamford Bridge and expand or move to a new site, the redevelopment will almost certainly be funded almost entirely by debt – and expensive debt at that.
The Bank of England cut interest rates by 0.25 per cent last week but the cost of borrowing remains much, much higher than when Tottenham, for example, built their new stadium.
However, the diversification in the Chelsea ownership group should work in their favour here, says Maguire.
“They won’t be getting Spurs rates in terms of the interest, but they will be able to get a long-term bond with a relatively low risk premium, so they will effectively get the base rate.”
How much could Chelsea earn at a new stadium?
However Chelsea eventually decide to proceed, it seems likely that they will one day play in front of at least 60,000 fans.
A crude pro rata calculation based on their yield per fan at Stamford Bridge would suggest that a stadium of that size would deliver matchday income of around £120m.
An aerial view of Chelsea stadium Stamford Bridge
Photo by Ryan Pierse/Getty Images
However, that is a reductive way of looking at it.
A new stadium would be commercially designed from the ground up. As such, it would extract far more cash per fan, per matchday than Stamford Bridge in its current form.
An increased focus on hospitality, premium seating and ‘experiences’, echoing the approach taken by, among others, Walter and Boehly’s LA Lakers and Dodgers, would increase the size of the pie. A potential naming rights deal at a new stadium meanwhile could be worth £20m-plus annually.
There are a million ways that commercially savvy sports teams are leveraging their property assets to create revenue streams 365 days per year. And most experts that The Chelsea Chronicle speaks to suggest that Chelsea will be looking at £175m in stadium income as a baseline at a new home ground.
Join Our Newsletter
Receive a digest of our best Chelsea content each week direct to your mailbox