By Tony Attwood
So yes, this is another dip, just as we have had in previous seasons. So far not as bad as December/January a year ago which saw a draw with Liverpool, followed by defeats to West Ham, Fulham and to Liverpool (this one in the FA Cup), scoring two and conceding seven in four games.
But certainly this is comparable to the January / February 2023 run of an FA Cup defeat to Manchester City followed by a league defeat to Everton, a draw with Brentford and then another defeat to Manchester City.
However it is still an improvement on 2021/2 which saw no less than five dips during the course of the campaign including the notorious one right at the start with three consecutive defeats to Brentford, Chelsea and Manchester C, leaving the media crowing with delight and some rather foolish so-called supporters calling for Arteta to go, without any thought of either who was available to replace him, or what might happen thereafter.
So now, here we are after 27 games and we can look to see how this compares with previous seasons at this time.
| Year | P | W | D | L | F | A | GD | Pts |
| 2025 | 27 | 15 | 9 | 3 | 51 | 23 | 28 | 54 |
| 2024 | 27 | 19 | 4 | 4 | 68 | 23 | 45 | 61 |
| 2023 | 27 | 21 | 3 | 3 | 62 | 25 | 37 | 66 |
| 2221 | 27 | 16 | 3 | 8 | 43 | 31 | 12 | 51 |
So yes we have slipped back a long way although not quite back to the level of 2021. And the question is, could buying another player or two have helped? Possibly yes, but what players would want to join knowing that they might not be in the first team when the likes of Saka, Martinelli, Jesus and Havertz return? That is more difficult to say. And certainly if a player came in who replaced one of those four, then that player would leave, so in terms of numbers or protection against injury we’d be no better off
But it is also fair to contemplate at this moment what can happen to clubs that really do think they are going on the right track in terms of their spending, but actually are not. For while Arsenal are indeed still in second place in the table we might care to note that Tottenham Hots and Manchester Un both have the same number of points as each other. They are 13th and 14th in the league 21 points behind Arsenal and 16 points above relegation. Tottenham have a goal difference of half that of Arsenal’s while Manchester U have a negative goal difference.
We might also note that Chelsea are eight points behind Arsenal having spent massively more than Arsenal in the last few years. And so moving on to that thought as to how much is being spent…
These figures from Transfermarkt show that Arsenal have, in recent years, had an expenditure of half that of Chelsea, and also lower than Manchester City, Manchester United, and the mightly Tottenham Hots. Yet only one of those teams has done better than Arsenal recently and NONE of those teams is above Arsenal at the moment.
So basically spending the sort of money on transfers that the media argue each and every day that Arsenal should be doing, is not only not a way to success, it is in fact in many cases a way of slipping down the league.
And yet that is what the media want Arsenal to do, and what some supporters, seemingly convinced by the media’s argument, believe the club should do. In fact what is proposed and what is wanted by some is a route that could quite possibly lead to the position of Chelsea, Manchester C, Manchester U and Tottenham Ho, all of whom have spent more but ended up worse off.
What is the point of that?
The figures below cover the period of 2021/2 to today and come from Transfermarkt, and thus all figures are in Euros.
| Club | Expenditure | Income | Loss | |
| 1 | Chelsea FC | €1.74bn | €788.20m | €-947.36m |
| 2 | Manchester City | €969.90m | €599.77m | €-370.13m |
| 3 | Manchester United | €918.83m | €235.59m | €-683.24m |
| 4 | Tottenham Hotspur | €833.75m | €262.67m | €-571.08m |
| 5 | Arsenal FC | €783.80m | €227.34m | €-556.46m |
| 6 | Aston Villa | €669.85m | €473.49m | €-196.36m |
| 7 | West Ham United | €614.76m | €287.81m | €-326.95m |
| 8 | Newcastle United | €570.55m | €148.99m | €-421.56m |
| 9 | Brighton & Hove Albion | €567.60m | €476.79m | €-90.81m |
| 10 | Liverpool FC | €537.60m | €237.25m | €-300.35m |
In terms of expenditure Arsenal are the fifth highest, in terms of loss in relation to transfer dealings Arsenal are the fourth highest.
So in essence, Arsenal are near the top of the tree in spending money on transfers, and according to some people the reason Arsenal are not top of the league is that they should have spent even more. Like Chelsea, Manchester City, Manchester United and Tottenham, who have indeed spent more but are actually…. lower than Arsenal in the league.
There is something logical lacking in that argument.
