£1.43bn Manchester United world's most valuable team

But what does this really mean?

Manchester City will go into this year’s Premier League season as champions but it is their bitter rivals across town that is the undisputed most valuable sports team in the world in spite of spiralling debt.

Forbes top 50 most valuable sports teams places United top of the pile with an estimated value of £1.43bn, up from £1.2bn. This is £250m more than second-placed Real Madrid.

That United is the most bankable brand in sport is no surprise. The club has an unrivalled global fan base of 659 million, enjoy unrivalled success of 20 titles in the most popular football league, Premier League, and has been aggressively building its base in football hungry Asia.

Although United has worrying debts of £424m, the club has huge pulling power when it comes to sponsorship. American Insurance firm Aon pays £19.8m to stick its logo on United’s shirt, DHL Express recently signed a four-year deal worth £40m to sponsor the club’s training kit and Nike contributes £25m a year towards team merchandise sales.

But what does being in Forbes’ most valuable list actually mean?

Very little, if you consider who else figures.

Football clubs, which undoubtedly enjoy the greatest world-wide appeal of any team sport, have seven top 50 entrants, including four in the top 10 – Manchester United, Real Madrid, Barcelona (£838m – 8th) and Arsenal (£825m – 10th).

Remarkably, NFL clubs dominate the top 50 with 32 teams!

According to Forbes, global household names St Louis Rams, Minnesota Vikings and Cincinnati Bengals (all NFL) are all more valuable than Champions League winners Chelsea.

How Forbes works out the rich list is beyond me but I can imagine a lot of it is based on gate receipts, sponsorship and other commercial revenues pouring into a club.

In the mega-rich NFL, which dwarfs football in terms of the stupid amounts of money invested in the game, you could understand such a good showing from grid iron teams.

But in my books, a club’s value has as much to do with its global appeal and fan base as it does with revenue generation, and a complete list would factor this into account.

NFL teams that few people outside of the United States have heard may be valuable at home, but I doubt cashed up investors from the Middle East, Europe or elsewhere would place such a high value on their brand.

The other sports to feature include Major League Baseball (seven entrants), Formula One (Ferrari and McLaren) and Basketball (Los Angeles Lakers and New York Knicks).

The numbers: the world's top 10 most valuable teams:

1 Manchester United - £1.43bn

2 Real Madrid - £1.20bn

3= NY Yankees - £1.18bn

3= Dallas Cowboys - £1.18bn

5 Washington Redskins - £1bn

6= LA Dodgers - £895m

6= NE Patriots - £895m

8 Barcelona - £838m

9 New York Giants - £831m

10 Arsenal - £825m

Manchester United's Wayne Rooney. Photograph: Getty Images

Arvind Hickman is the editor of the International Accounting Bulletin.

Show Hide image

Q&A: What are tax credits and how do they work?

All you need to know about the government's plan to cut tax credits.

What are tax credits?

Tax credits are payments made regularly by the state into bank accounts to support families with children, or those who are in low-paid jobs. There are two types of tax credit: the working tax credit and the child tax credit.

What are they for?

To redistribute income to those less able to get by, or to provide for their children, on what they earn.

Are they similar to tax relief?

No. They don’t have much to do with tax. They’re more of a welfare thing. You don’t need to be a taxpayer to receive tax credits. It’s just that, unlike other benefits, they are based on the tax year and paid via the tax office.

Who is eligible?

Anyone aged over 16 (for child tax credits) and over 25 (for working tax credits) who normally lives in the UK can apply for them, depending on their income, the hours they work, whether they have a disability, and whether they pay for childcare.

What are their circumstances?

The more you earn, the less you are likely to receive. Single claimants must work at least 16 hours a week. Let’s take a full-time worker: if you work at least 30 hours a week, you are generally eligible for working tax credits if you earn less than £13,253 a year (if you’re single and don’t have children), or less than £18,023 (jointly as part of a couple without children but working at least 30 hours a week).

And for families?

A family with children and an income below about £32,200 can claim child tax credit. It used to be that the more children you have, the more you are eligible to receive – but George Osborne in his most recent Budget has limited child tax credit to two children.

How much money do you receive?

Again, this depends on your circumstances. The basic payment for a single claimant, or a joint claim by a couple, of working tax credits is £1,940 for the tax year. You can then receive extra, depending on your circumstances. For example, single parents can receive up to an additional £2,010, on top of the basic £1,940 payment; people who work more than 30 hours a week can receive up to an extra £810; and disabled workers up to £2,970. The average award of tax credit is £6,340 per year. Child tax credit claimants get £545 per year as a flat payment, plus £2,780 per child.

How many people claim tax credits?

About 4.5m people – the vast majority of these people (around 4m) have children.

How much does it cost the taxpayer?

The estimation is that they will cost the government £30bn in April 2015/16. That’s around 14 per cent of the £220bn welfare budget, which the Tories have pledged to cut by £12bn.

Who introduced this system?

New Labour. Gordon Brown, when he was Chancellor, developed tax credits in his first term. The system as we know it was established in April 2003.

Why did they do this?

To lift working people out of poverty, and to remove the disincentives to work believed to have been inculcated by welfare. The tax credit system made it more attractive for people depending on benefits to work, and gave those in low-paid jobs a helping hand.

Did it work?

Yes. Tax credits’ biggest achievement was lifting a record number of children out of poverty since the war. The proportion of children living below the poverty line fell from 35 per cent in 1998/9 to 19 per cent in 2012/13.

So what’s the problem?

Well, it’s a bit of a weird system in that it lets companies pay wages that are too low to live on without the state supplementing them. Many also criticise tax credits for allowing the minimum wage – also brought in by New Labour – to stagnate (ie. not keep up with the rate of inflation). David Cameron has called the system of taxing low earners and then handing them some money back via tax credits a “ridiculous merry-go-round”.

Then it’s a good thing to scrap them?

It would be fine if all those low earners and families struggling to get by would be given support in place of tax credits – a living wage, for example.

And that’s why the Tories are introducing a living wage...

That’s what they call it. But it’s not. The Chancellor announced in his most recent Budget a new minimum wage of £7.20 an hour for over-25s, rising to £9 by 2020. He called this the “national living wage” – it’s not, because the current living wage (which is calculated by the Living Wage Foundation, and currently non-compulsory) is already £9.15 in London and £7.85 in the rest of the country.

Will people be better off?

No. Quite the reverse. The IFS has said this slightly higher national minimum wage will not compensate working families who will be subjected to tax credit cuts; it is arithmetically impossible. The IFS director, Paul Johnson, commented: “Unequivocally, tax credit recipients in work will be made worse off by the measures in the Budget on average.” It has been calculated that 3.2m low-paid workers will have their pay packets cut by an average of £1,350 a year.

Could the government change its policy to avoid this?

The Prime Minister and his frontbenchers have been pretty stubborn about pushing on with the plan. In spite of criticism from all angles – the IFS, campaigners, Labour, The Sun – Cameron has ruled out a review of the policy in the Autumn Statement, which is on 25 November. But there is an alternative. The chair of parliament’s Work & Pensions Select Committee and Labour MP Frank Field has proposed what he calls a “cost neutral” tweak to the tax credit cuts.

How would this alternative work?

Currently, if your income is less than £6,420, you will receive the maximum amount of tax credits. That threshold is called the gross income threshold. Field wants to introduce a second gross income threshold of £13,100 (what you earn if you work 35 hours a week on minimum wage). Those earning a salary between those two thresholds would have their tax credits reduced at a slower rate on whatever they earn above £6,420 up to £13,100. The percentage of what you earn above the basic threshold that is deducted from your tax credits is called the taper rate, and it is currently at 41 per cent. In contrast to this plan, the Tories want to halve the income threshold to £3,850 a year and increase the taper rate to 48 per cent once you hit that threshold, which basically means you lose more tax credits, faster, the more you earn.

When will the tax credit cuts come in?

They will be imposed from April next year, barring a u-turn.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.