When bettors talk about “teams that made money” in the 2024/25 Premier League, they are not talking about who lifted the trophy, but about which clubs delivered a positive return if you kept backing them under typical market conditions. That lens produces a very different list from the league table: Liverpool, Nottingham Forest, Fulham and Brentford appear prominently in profitability analyses, while media magnets like Manchester United and Tottenham sit at the opposite end as heavy money‑losers.
Why “most profitable teams” is a different question from “best teams”
Profitability for bettors measures return on stakes at the advertised odds, not prize money or on‑field glory. A club can win the league yet be unprofitable if its prices are consistently too short, while a mid‑table side can generate strong returns if markets underestimate it across the season. In practice, that means bettors should care about the interaction between win rate and average odds, rather than just counting victories.
Analyses of 2024/25 show that some high‑finishing clubs, especially Liverpool as champions, offered more value than usual because their early‑season odds did not fully reflect how dominant they would become. Meanwhile, other big names remained popular at the window despite poor performance, dragging long‑term ROI deep into negative territory. This split illustrates why “popular” and “profitable” rarely point to the same badge.
How profitability across a full season is actually measured
Season‑long profitability studies usually assume a fixed stake—often one unit—placed on every league match for each club, then compare total returns with total outlay. If backing a team in every game yields more than you staked, that club is labelled profitable; if it returns less, it becomes a theoretical money‑loser. This method is simple but powerful, because it reveals how a combination of win rate and average odds plays out over 38 matches.
For example, a team that wins two‑thirds of its matches at very short odds might still fail to cover the bookmaker’s margin, whereas a side that wins only half its games at close to 3.00 can generate a healthy positive return. Historical work on earlier seasons showed clubs like Nottingham Forest and Aston Villa topping profitability tables despite modest league positions, while giants such as Manchester City and Arsenal posted negative ROI for automatic backers. That same logic extends into 2024/25, where several non‑elite sides again outperformed pricing expectations.
Which 2024/25 clubs delivered the strongest returns for backers
Data compiled on the 2024/25 season highlights Liverpool, Nottingham Forest, Fulham and Brentford as standout earners for bettors who backed them consistently. Liverpool combined a high win rate with odds that, particularly early in the campaign, did not fully reflect their title‑winning level, making them unusually profitable for a champion. Forest, meanwhile, turned a surprise surge into outsized returns because markets kept hanging relatively big prices on them even as form improved.
Fulham and Brentford fall into the “steady earners” category: they did not dominate the table, but they repeatedly outperformed markets in specific match and totals markets thanks to well‑defined tactical patterns. Over a full season, that consistency compensated for the occasional slump, generating a small but meaningful edge for bettors who understood where their strengths translated into prices the book had not fully adjusted. This pattern matches earlier seasons where mid‑tier sides with clear identities quietly topped ROI charts while bigger clubs burned bankrolls.
Teams that destroyed bankrolls despite big names
On the other side, Manchester United, Tottenham and Southampton are highlighted as some of the least profitable teams for 2024/25 backers. United and Spurs combined large, emotionally driven fanbases with underwhelming league performance, meaning money flowed toward them at prices that did not match reality. In long‑run ROI terms, studies estimate double‑digit negative returns for season‑long backers of these clubs, highlighting how dangerous it can be to bet in step with fan sentiment.
Southampton exemplify a different failure mode: very high odds coupled with extremely low win rate. Even though each win paid out generously, a 5 percent success rate simply did not occur often enough to offset the losses between rare victories, turning them into a long‑term money sink. Together, these examples show how both overhyped giants and overwhelmed relegation candidates can be structurally unprofitable, albeit for different reasons.
What profitable teams tended to have in common
Across the 2024/25 season, clubs that made money for bettors tended to share a few traits: they were either underrated contenders or mid‑table sides with strong fundamentals and modest public profiles. Liverpool’s case shows that even champions can be mispriced when pre‑season expectations lag behind tactical or squad evolution; Nottingham Forest’s rise illustrates how improving teams can remain priced as relegation candidates for weeks. Fulham and Brentford fit a third template: teams whose underlying numbers and tactical clarity generated consistent edges in narrower markets.
In contrast, the least profitable teams often combined volatile performance with strong branding or emotional attachment. Big‑club status, heavy media coverage and large social‑media followings attracted bets that ignored statistical warning signs, allowing bookmakers to shade odds downward while still taking heavy action. From a bettor’s point of view, that mixture of hype and inconsistency is exactly where “name value” silently erodes bankroll over time.
Typical characteristics of profitable vs unprofitable betting teams (2024/25 pattern)
| Profile type | Common traits for bettors | Likely impact on season‑long ROI |
| Underrated champion/contender | Strong fundamentals, odds slow to reflect real level | Often positive, especially early in season. |
| Improving mid‑table side | Upward trend, limited fan noise, steady tactical identity | Positive in selected markets and time windows. |
| Quiet, consistent performers | Few headlines, regular points haul, fair but not short prices | Slight positive, good for disciplined backers. |
| Overhyped declining giant | Big fanbase, media focus, inconsistent results | Frequently negative, especially for blind backers. |
| Relegation struggler at long odds | Very low win rate, occasional big upset | Typically negative despite high prices per win. |
This table captures why looking beyond the badge is crucial. A profitable “team to bet” is usually one that markets have quietly misjudged, not one that dominates highlight reels. Once that misjudgment corrects—through improved odds or changing performance—the same badge may slide from profitable into neutral or negative territory, so monitoring these traits across the season matters as much as identifying them once.
How long‑term bettors actually exploit “money‑making” teams
Experienced bettors rarely just back a profitable club blindly in every game; instead, they tend to specialise in the spots where that club’s strengths translate directly into mispriced markets. For Liverpool in 2024/25, that meant not only match odds but also over/under and goal‑related markets during periods of attacking dominance. For Nottingham Forest, it often meant home games or sequences where their improvement was real but still priced as if they were a relegation candidate.
Crucially, sharp bettors track when the edge fades—when odds shorten to reflect form, or when injuries and tactical shifts erode the underlying advantage. A club that was a “profit machine” in the first half of the season can become fairly priced or even expensive in the second half if markets overcorrect. Treating profitability as a moving target rather than a permanent label helps prevent the common mistake of clinging to yesterday’s edges into tomorrow’s neutral prices.
Using an online betting site without letting profitable clubs turn into traps
Identifying historically profitable teams is only useful if you translate that insight into controlled decisions on the websites where you actually place bets. When accessing an online betting site such as ufabet, fixture lists, boosted accumulators and highlight banners often push you toward marquee clubs or dramatic narratives, not necessarily toward the mid‑table sides that previous data shows as better long‑term earners. To keep control, many disciplined bettors pre‑select a narrow set of angles for each “profitable” team—home matches, particular totals, or specific handicap ranges—and log whether those bets still reflect an edge at current odds rather than relying on past season profitability as a shortcut.
Why the “profitable team” mindset should not be copied into casino online games
The whole notion of a team that “makes money” for bettors depends on the idea that odds sometimes misstate the true chances of football outcomes. In a casino online setting, by contrast, game rules encode fixed house edges that do not fluctuate with form, tactics or public narratives, leaving no equivalent of an underrated Nottingham Forest or steady Brentford to exploit. Studies on online gambling show that applying sports‑style thinking—searching for “hot” slots or tables that have “been good to you”—usually reflects cognitive bias rather than genuine edges, and tends to end in losses that simply track the built‑in disadvantage of those games.
Summary
From a bettor’s viewpoint, the 2024/25 Premier League teams that “made the most money” were those whose results and odds combined to produce sustained positive returns, not necessarily those at the top of the table. Liverpool, Nottingham Forest, Fulham and Brentford stand out as examples where performance, pricing and public perception briefly parted ways, while clubs like Manchester United, Tottenham and Southampton represent the dangers of emotional or reputation‑driven betting. By focusing on ROI patterns, underlying traits and shifting market responses—and by applying that logic carefully on betting sites while keeping it separate from fixed‑edge casino products—you can treat profitable teams as evolving opportunities rather than permanent gold mines.
