Arsenal play Manchester City in Sunday’s Community Shield, the annual curtain-raiser ahead of the new Premier League season.

The tournament has existed for over a century, but in 2002 it changed its title from the Charity Shield to its current name.

It had been known since its inception in 1908 as the Charity Shield, a continuation of the original Sheriff of London Charity Shield: an annual one-off match between the best amateur and best professional club in England, which had begun in 1898. The proceeds of the matches would go to charity.

A schism between professional and amateur clubs led to the Football Association (FA) barring clubs from the breakaway Amateur Football Association from participating in the games. A successor competition pitted the Football League winner against the winners of the Southern Football League.

As English football developed on a national league scale, the game was played between invited clubs at various stadia around England.

In 1974, then-FA secretary Ted Croker formalised the format, which lasts to this day, of the champions of England playing the FA Cup winners (or the league runners-up if a team wins the double) of the previous season, generally at Wembley Stadium in London. There have been eight games played away from Wembley since the format changed 52 years ago.

This year’s edition will be played at the Principality Stadium in Cardiff, due to an existing concert booking at Wembley.

Why did the match name change?

In 2002, the FA was forced to change the name of the competition by the Charity Commission — the independent, non-ministerial government department that registers and regulates charities in England and Wales.

It came following an inquiry into the 2000 match between Chelsea and Manchester United, which considered claims that charities were not benefiting as they should from the money raised from the game.

Chelsea’s players celebrate with the Charity Shield trophy after beating 2-0 Manchester United at Wembley Stadium in August 2000 (Ben Radford/ALLSPORT)

The Commission judged that the event broke fundraising regulations and requirements set by national charity law.

It also ruled that the FA had failed to specify the amount of money that went to charities, that there were delays in disbursing funds and a lack of transparency over gate revenue allocation.

The findings concluded that ticketholders were not informed exactly how the charities would benefit, although it added that the charities had previously received all the money they should have: 35 per cent of the gate receipts.

Some fans who bought tickets did not receive a “solicitation statement” at the point of sale which would inform them how the money available for charities would be calculated and distributed. The FA had enclosed fliers with tickets purchased through their own system, but it was found that fans who had bought directly from their clubs had not received such information.

The inquiry also found participating clubs had unacceptable delays in making donations to the nominated charities.

Both counts were deemed to breach charity regulations and, as a result, the name had to be changed to no longer include the word ‘charity’.

“We want to ensure that good causes continue to receive financial support from football through the FA Community Shield,” an FA spokesperson said in 2002, when the decision was made.

Where does the money go?

Revenue from ticket and programme sales from the Community Shield is collected by the FA and distributed among the 124 clubs that took part in the FA Cup from the first round onwards.

Each club then donate a portion of the money to up to three local charities or community-based projects of their choice, with any remaining money going to the FA to use towards their own charity partners.

Alzheimer’s Society has been the FA’s official charity partner since 2021 and has an agreement that runs through to the end of the 2027-28 season. Previous charity partners include the British Heart Foundation, Teenage Cancer Trust partnership and Breast Cancer Care.

Proceeds also go to the Wembley Community Club, which serves the community in Brent, the London borough where England’s national stadium is located, by supporting not-for-profit charities, schools and community groups.

The Felix Project, a London-based food distribution charity, also benefits from the Community Shield. During the 2024-25 season, the FA’s funding helped to provide 124,000 meals.

At every event held at Wembley Stadium, including the Community Shield, one per cent of event-day revenue is given to the Wembley Stadium Foundation (independent of Wembley Stadium), which invests in community projects that use sport, movement and culture to remove barriers to access and create opportunities.

The reaction to a potential new Liverpool signing tends to follow a familiar script.

First comes the excitement. Then the frantic scramble to find out more, share the story, pass judgement, analyse, and, for the really creative few, produce that nugget of information that offers genuine insight — or failing that, generates a healthy supply of clicks and likes.

What’s certain is that it’s never as simple as one player coming in to replace another (or cover for those who are injured). No matter the age or profile of the player, there’s always something to discuss.

As Ronald Araujo discovered recently when the Uruguay international defender’s move from Barcelona managed to tick pretty much every box in the modern transfer-reaction handbook.

There was the initial reveal, a bit of a scramble and then deeper analysis. Fans will be split between two camps: those who think he’s what Liverpool need or not what they need, based on who and where they receive their information from.

Yet perhaps the strangest and most significant factor in this transfer is the scepticism surrounding it because of the nature of the deal. This might have been far less pronounced had Liverpool simply bought Araujo for the €55million (£47m; $63.7m) fee inserted as an option in what, to start with, is a season-long loan.

Araujo captained Barcelona last season en route to winning La Liga (Lluis Gene/AFP via Getty Images)

Instead, that loan element feels rather awkward for supporters, simply because Liverpool rarely do these types of deals — and more importantly, they rarely do them well.

Look at the names over previous years — Aly Cissokho, Javier Manquillo and Arthur Melo, to name a few — who failed to make an impact (there are many more) when borrowed from other clubs, and it’s clear where the concern stems from.

The sensible outlook, of course, would be to consider the move on merit and judge it for what it is. Unless something has gone badly wrong, Barcelona do not let 27-year-olds who captained them in the previous season and have 213 first-team appearances for the club leave lightly — or for such a future amount — so we’ll leave you to make your own conclusion on that.

But if this season goes well, Liverpool will have the chance to buy a player with one year of useful Premier League experience added to his Wikipedia page for a decent fee next summer.

And if it doesn’t work out, they can send Araujo back to Catalonia and move on with their own young defensive prospects Jeremy Jacquet, Giovanni Leoni, Ifeanyi Ndukwe and perhaps Mor Talla Ndiaye in 2027-28, and then consider a different option should they wish to recruit again.

Admittedly, that would be far too rational, though.

Supporters mostly only care about the here and now, and if Araujo turns out to be disappointing, then he’ll go straight onto the list of other Liverpool loan signings who failed to make an impact, with the “See? Told you so” comments to follow.

The most recent of those was Melo, a midfielder who played only 13 first-team minutes after joining from Juventus in September 2022, when Liverpool were suffering from a midfield crisis. Before the Brazilian came defender Ozan Kabak (Schalke) and before that, another centre-back in Steven Caulker (Queens Park Rangers).

Now you can see why there was some concern about a loan for Araujo, even though there’s no correlation between the new and the old, other than the simple structure of the deal.

That Liverpool have made only three loan signings across the past 10 years also highlights the rarity of such moves. Manchester City follow a similar strategy. They haven’t borrowed a player since goalkeeper Scott Carson joined from Derby County in summer 2019 to be their third-choice at the position.

The next four teams with the most points in the Premier League over that same decade have taken a very different stance, though.

Arsenal signed Piero Hincapie on loan last season, and Raheem Sterling and Neto in the previous one. David Raya, Martin Odegaard, Dani Ceballos, Mathew Ryan, Cedric Soares, Pablo Mari and Denis Suarez also joined them on that basis in the years between 2016 and 2023.

Manchester United haven’t been as prolific with their approach to this area of the market, but, excluding goalkeepers, have still arranged the loan arrivals of Sofyan Amrabat, Sergio Reguilon, Marcel Sabitzer, Wout Weghorst and Odion Ighalo during the same 10-year period. Most of those have struggled to make an impact.

Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur, meanwhile, are on a completely different level.

In the past four years, Chelsea have had more loanees in through the door than Liverpool have had in a decade. Tottenham borrowed as many players last season as have moved to Anfield via that route in our decade-sized sample.

So why do Liverpool so rarely turn to loan signings?

Well, those who run the club will say it’s because they are organised operators who have their house in order through long-term squad building. Only in exceptional circumstances do they turn to these temporary fixes, but that’s where they find themselves heading into the season.

Joe Gomez is out injured for the next few weeks. The two recent young, big-money central-defensive signings, Jacquet and Leoni, are both returning from injuries. Ndukwe, 18, will have to head out on loan because he doesn’t qualify for a UK work permit.

The need for reinforcement at the position was huge.

Having a 35-year-old Virgil van Dijk as the only fit senior centre-back was not sustainable, especially as, like Gomez, he’s on course to be out of contract 10 months from now.

Whether Araujo was a good choice will take some time to determine. But it’s a push to think of many better alternatives with a matching profile who were available under similar conditions.

That said, while taking a wage cut to join Liverpool sounds like a bonus, Araujo is still going to cost a considerable amount of money. The club really need this to work out, especially with Jacquet and Leoni still developing.

If supporters are looking for an uplifting loan success story, then perhaps Nicolas Anelka fits the bill. When Liverpool borrowed him from Paris Saint-Germain in December 2001 following the departure of fan-favourite striker Robbie Fowler, there were questions about his character and attitude after previous spells at Arsenal and Real Madrid.

Anelka was a successful loan signing for Liverpool (Stu Forster/Getty Images)

Although it was a different type of gamble, Anelka proved to be a savvy signing and helped Liverpool finish second that season. The only mistake that followed was not signing him permanently at the end of it, when he went to City instead.

The hope at Liverpool is that Araujo proves more of an Anelka than an Arthur Melo, and is never compared to Kabak, Caulker, Cissokho or Manquillo.

A Durham side featuring Ben Stokes thrashed Lancashire by 162 runs to reach the One Day Cup semi-finals with Rocky Flintoff unable to repeat his hundred heroics from earlier in the week.

​​​​​Flintoff, the 18-year-old son of England great Andrew Flintoff, cracked a 65-ball century for Lancashire against Somerset in the final round of group games on Tuesday as he registered his first senior professional ton.

However, the teenager was out for 22 from 39 balls versus Durham at Emirates Old Trafford – one of four wickets taken by Afghan leg-spinner Shafiqullah Ghafari – as Lancashire were bundled out for 187 chasing 350 for victory.

Quiet day for Stokes but Durham hammer Lancashire

Former England captain Stokes took one wicket, that of opening batter Harry Singh for 11, as he returned figures of 1-32 from four overs after earlier hitting one six in a knock of 11 from nine balls in Durham’s 349-8 in Manchester.

Durham – who will now face Middlesex in a semi-final at Radlett on Sunday – saw David Bedingham strike 104 from 89 balls and Ollie Robinson make 76 from 57 deliveries.

The pair shared a fourth-wicket stand of 149 before Robinson’s dismissal brought Stokes to the crease.

In reply, only 17-year-old Joe Moores (51 off 42), who stitched a 59-run stand with Flintoff, made a score of note.

Lancashire lost four wickets for 17 runs from 142-4 once Flintoff was dismissed, with Moores eighth out as the hosts were rolled in 36.1 overs.

Notts advance after horror start to run chase

In the other quarter-final, Notts Outlaws recovered from 1-3 inside three overs to complete a chase of 274 against Yorkshire by three wickets with eight balls to spare in York.

Notts’ reward is a semi-final away to fellow Midlanders Leicestershire Foxes on Sunday.

The Outlaws were reeling as Ben Coad (5-52) and George Hill (1-60) removed Ben Martindale (1), Freddie McCann (0) and captain Haseeb Hameed (0) early on, before Kyle Verreynne (105 off 123) and Jack Haynes (116no off 99) hit hundreds.

Verreynne put on 54 with George Munsey (25 off 28) for the fourth wicket and then 154 with Haynes, although Verreynne’s dismissal in the 41st over with 65 runs needed triggered a wobble of three wickets for four runs as Farhan Ahmed (2) and Olly Stone (0) fell to Coad, leaving Notts tottering on 213-7.

Haynes, though, found excellent support in No 9 Dillon Pennington (22no off 18), who cuffed the winning four having earlier taken 4-49 with his seam bowling, including Yorkshire top-scorer Will Bennison (91), in the hosts’ 273-9.