I used the last financial year of publically available information and then looked at the last 5 year average.
It's a no brainer to use the most recent financial data available.It really isnt. If you spend any time looking at data, and I do it for a living and to a very high level, then you consider an average as your default. Why? Because the most recent is but one single data point and so influenced unduly by short term trends. In this case, Arseal being at a 30 year low point and Liverpool at a 30 year high point. As we saw last season, reversion to a mean is typical.
Last 5 years is partly being lazy (Deloitte Money League shows the data for the last 5 years) and partly because it provides a recent average.
Now I know it's been like 19 or 20 years since Arsenal won the league and were relevant but stop living in the past. The entire football landscape has changed in that period so other than extending to suit your agenda, why would you use a 20 year time span? See above. I would use Liverpool's season after Roy Hodgson, would you? Nor should you use Arsenal's recently for basically the same reason. This is not complicated and I would say intuitive to a 4 year old. Otherwise I would blindly apply Turkey sales in January as my expected sales annually or scarves in July.
Unfortunately we won't have the data for the 2023-2024 data until like 2025/26 but I expect that Man Utd (also being in the CL) will still make significantly more money than Arsenal and also even though Liverpool are in the Europa League, they will still probably make more money or at least similar money to Arsenal (the CL is usually worth 50+mil to a club).
But instead of making sweeping statements in an artistic manner, why don't you use some actual figures and facts to analyse?
For the 2021/22 season, Arsenal reported revenues of €433mil and Liverpool reported €702mil.
You can subtract €100mil for the European difference (even though Arsenal have not played CL football for 5 seasons) to discount Liverpool's 3 CL final runs but even then Liverpool's revenues were 40% higher.Arsenal at c.533 with CL at a minimum. Dont forget the sponsor additional revenue and sheer ability to attract big names when youre in it. The remaining gap is cyclical and captures the fact Liverpool at the very top of the cycle(literally greatest period in 40 years) and that Arsenal at the bottom.
But they're still exactly the same obviously What drives a club's revenue? 1) Fanbase 2) Success 3) Management
2) & 3) are cycical. I wouldnt forget that Arsenal were run in a ludicrous, pathethic way on and off the pitch. Do you think a club doing Pepe for 70m would also be making great off the field deals? Do you think a club doing Salah at 30m would be doing better or worse deals? These things are cyclical as said. 1) drives the mean to which every single club, without exception, drifts towards. Liverpool couldnt put a dent in Utd's position, as they have more fans, even though you were much better ran and successful. But you could dwarf Arsenal, even though simialr fanbase and therefore (and you dont need an MBA to grasp this) revenue streams. Swap the recent history and the two flip. You know it, and I know that you know it.