Normally when Chelsea lose some revenue and drop in the footballing money tables, the story would be all about Chelsea falling rather than other clubs rising. That's exactly how the media is painting, say, Manchester United dropping from third to fourth (they've been jumped by Bayern Munich), and with the Blues falling from 5th to 7th in world football in terms of revenue -- mostly caused by foolishly failing to repeat 2012's Champions League win -- we might expect similar treatment.
But we won't. Deloitte note in their report that we're still having trouble generating matchday revenue, but we're still bringing in over €300 million a season, which would normally be good enough for a place in the top five. Only this year, it's not. Both Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain have leapfrogged the club, and that's only thanks to impressive (and incredibly dubious) sponsorship deals.
These two clubs are there almost entirely via commercial revenue from companies closely affiliated with the owners, and their new-found money is going to be put to the test by UEFA when they do their Financial Fair Play review. It's quite obviously nonsense -- an owner putting what is essentially his own money into a club shouldn't really be considered 'revenue', and that Deloitte are taking this at face value is more than a little bit amusing.
If I'm ever a billionaire team owner (PayPal donations are definitely accepted), apparently I can ensure the financial health of my club by paying them several billion per year to wear 'GRAHAM RULES HAHAHAHAHA' on their shirts. Isn't football economics fun?