Daniel Levy is a polarising figure in N17 and his football expertise has frequently been called into question. His merits a businessman, however, have never been in doubt.
It won’t mean much for supporters desperate for a first trophy since the League Cup triumph in 2008, but Spurs have reached dizzy new heights in the last decade or so as a commercial enterprise.
As well as a portfolio of smart sponsorship deals, the North London club have moved towards becoming an entertainment brand as much as they are a football team.
The statistic that best encapsulates this? Tottenham will host more concerts and other sports events this season than they will home matches for Ange Postecoglou’s side.
With Spurs recently granted a license to host 30 non-football events per year, up from 16, the trend at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium is set to accelerate in future months and years.
Spurs earned £118m in matchday income in the last financial year meanwhile, which was second only to Man United in the Premier League. Only Chelsea earn more money per spectator.
But with almost all of the league’s top sides either planning, carrying out or just having finished stadium redevelopment projects, the club feel they can’t afford to stand still.
That, the club claim, is the reason they have felt it necessary to take controversial steps such as effectively phasing out concessions ticket prices. Understandably, that sparked protests from bedrock fans.
Looking at it clinically and cynically, that decision is part of Daniel Levy and ENIC’s masterplan to diversify their income – and it is working.
Spurs’ matchday and commercial income as a proportion of their total turnover are increasing and, combined, are almost three times as lucrative as media revenue.
That is significant not because it makes them attractive to potential minority investors, with Amanda Staveley interesting in buying into Spurs, but because most clubs are totally reliant on broadcast cash.
But Levy and his peers in the boardroom are always looking for ways to grow the pie, and the chance for Spurs to get an even bigger slice may have just presented itself.
Daniel Levy gets his wish as 3pm blackout to be scrapped
The Saturday 3pm blackout has been in place since the 1950s.
The embargo on domestic games being broadcast in that timeframe was brought in to protect attendances in the lower leagues.
Previously, other countries in Europe had similar measures in place in accordance with UEFA’s Article 48, which gives them the right to implement a blackout.
However, those nations have dropped off one by one and the UK is now the only remaining country to enforce the moratorium.
As quoted by the Daily Mail back in 2020 when the subject of scrapping the blackout was broached, Spurs chairman and co-owner offered his take.
“Personally, I’m not so wedded to something that is so historic,” said Levy.
“Just because it has always been there doesn’t mean it needs to be there forever. I think it is something that could be looked at in the future.”
The 62-year-old will therefore be pleased by the mood music emerging from Premier League and EFL HQ.
As reported by The Times, English football’s two most powerful bodies are likely to end the broadcast embargo when the next media rights cycle begins in 2026-27.
Currently, the domestic Premier League TV deal is worth a mind-melting £6.7bn over its lifespan, with that pot split between the 20 top flight clubs.
With Levy ready to vote in favour of removing the blackout, Spurs and their peers will be optimistic that they can extract more cash from the next round of negotiations with Sky, TNT, Amazon and others.
Pressure groups meanwhile will continue to argue that such a measure would potentially be a death knell for lower-league sides for whom matchday income is their lifeblood.
Ahead of the January transfer window, can Spurs afford to spend more?
When it comes to football club owners funding new signings, there are three questions to consider.
Can they afford to spend more?
Do they want to spend more?
Are they allowed to spend more?
In Daniel Levy and ENIC’s case, their liquidity (in layman’s terms, how much cash or easily convertible assets they have) is not entirely clear.
However, even if they had hundreds of millions of pounds lying around, the fact that they are seeking fresh capital to fund new infrastructure projects suggests they are not willing to spend it.
That is questions one and two answered.
In terms of whether they are allowed to spend, PSR (Profit and Sustainability Rules), few teams have more headroom than Spurs.
ENIC and Levy claim that their focus on increasing revenue will allow Postecoglou and Johan Lange to spend more on recruitment and retention.
But while wage and amortisation expenditure is rising, the gap between their squad cost and total turnover is growing faster.
So if it is only a modest transfer budget available to improve the squad and their league position in the January window, that is not because the Premier League’s spending rules dictate it.
While PSR is clearly a genuine concern for some clubs, just as many are using it as an excuse not to spend when in reality they have ample breathing space.