When Chelsea owner 22 Holdco sold a minority stake in Chelsea FC Women to 776 Chaos Fund last year, the headline number was eye-catching. A 4.86% stake for £11.5m implied a total valuation for the women’s operation of around £237m apparently validating the £200m intragroup valuation Chelsea had placed on the women’s club days earlier. Football’s women’s game, we were invited to conclude, had arrived as a serious asset class.
Then 776 came back for more. On 30 July 2025, after the financial year had closed, they acquired a further 3.8% for £7m, bringing their total stake to 7.6%. The investor is Alexis Ohanian, the Reddit co-founder and one of the most prominent voices arguing that women’s football is a seriously undervalued asset.
But these are not the most interesting numbers in these accounts.
Buried in Chelsea FC Holdings Limited’s (CFCH) related party note for the year ended 30 June 2025 is an interesting line. Chelsea Football Club Women Limited (CFCW) paid the CFCH group £22.6m during the year. For reference, we know that CFCW’s entire revenue for 24/25 was £21.3m. In other words, CFCW paid CFCH more than 100% of its revenue in the year.
It is obvious but worth spelling out that unlike the transactions with RSC Strasbourg, a not insignificant £15.8m, the CFCW transactions can’t include players.
In fairness, CFCH paid CFCW £11.3m back which may also explain the £9.8m increase in CFCW revenue in the first year of its “independence”. According to Deloitte’s Money League 2026, the vast majority of this (£8.9m) was from increased commercial revenue because, as yet, the women’s game is not materially growing its broadcast or matchday revenue lines.
So net, the women’s operation sent approximately £11.3m to the men’s club. Gross, the flows in both directions are substantial and entirely new given that in prior years, CFCW was a subsidiary of CFCH.
So what is the £22.6m? Since the original article, we do now have CFCW accounts. They show the following breakdown:
We also know that the sale of Kingsmeadow or rather the Kingsmeadow football stadium previously held in the Chelsea Football Club Limited (CFCL) - the mens entity - represents £12.1m of the £17.7m expenditure with CFCL.
The notes to the various accounts appear to show that CFCL literally sold the football stadium - not the land (it only had a lease). The accounts suggest the disposal was from the freehold and fixtures columns but we know freehold is held by the Council. That points to a sale of the physical bricks and mortar.
Either way, it accounts for around half. For the rest, Chelsea appear to have confirmed some form of cross charging arrangement although again we do not know what precisely.
CFCW operates under the Chelsea brand, benefits from Chelsea’s commercial partnerships, uses Chelsea’s infrastructure, plays at Stamford Bridge for some games and receives central services from across the group. A commercial rights licence and management services agreement between the men’s operation and the women’s club is the most credible explanation. In short, it appears Chelsea Women pays the men’s club a very substantial licence fee to use Chelsea’s intellectual and other property.
This matters when you look at what happened to Chelsea’s commercial revenue in FY25. Across the whole Blueco group, commercial revenue fell from £251.6m to £224.6m, a drop of £27m, attributed in the strategic report to reduced sponsorship income. But that group figure eliminates the intragroup recharge. At CFCH level, the non-Kingsmeadow related revenue from CFCW is sitting predominantly inside the commercial revenue number, papering over what is in reality an even steeper decline in genuine third-party commercial income. From the French league’s financial review, we know RSC Strasbourg also suffered a significant decline in Commercial revenue but even allowing for this, Chelsea men’s underlying commercial performance appears to be £8-10m lower than reported due to the revenue received from CFCW.
For the Premier League’s PSR purposes the position is intriguing. Chelsea will need to (or have) demonstrated that £22.6m represents fair market value for whatever assets, rights and services are provided to CFCW. As ever, that will be, or will have been, an interesting conversation.
What it means for the approved women’s valuation is equally uncomfortable. If CFCW is permanently paying millions a year to the men’s club in royalties, the women’s business is structurally more loss-making than its headline figures suggest. CFCW’s £17.1m pre-tax loss reported at group level would be materially different once you understand the full cost base. But this also goes to the valuation that was approved to fix Chelsea’s 23/24 PSR problem (and, therefore, its 24/25 one).
Yes, the valuation was validated by third party investment but that came after the intra group £200m sale. When the original associated party deal was tabled in front of the Premier League, was the Premier League told that not only was this an extraordinary valuation but that it also included a licence back to Chelsea? We will never know but it surely should have impacted valuation significantly.
Including the Kingsmeadow stadium sale, Chelsea mens received more than £20m from the women’s team it sold to itself just a year ago for £200m. Chelsea may be struggling on the pitch but it is undeniable that they have taken PSR apart with creativity and clinical efficiency.
No posts