The proof: spending money on transfers takes a club DOWN the league

 

 

• Manchester City fined again, and yet it seems to mean nothing
• The courts are starting to get involved in issues of abuse of youngsters in sport

By Tony Attwood

An article in the New York Times website read “Here, we look back on windows-past and Arsenal transfers, good and bad and how they performed.”

And once again I was struck by the lack of comparison between club.  What I want to know is how did last season’s spending work out for each club.   In short, Arsenal spent over £100m last summer, and the result was the club stayed exactly where it was before – in second place.

What I wanted to know is, is this a grand failure by Arsenal – going nowehre after spending all that money?  Or is this whole transfer thing a myth.  In short, does spending a lot of money on transfers actually help a club.

In this table we look at the nine top spending club in the Premier League in the summer of 2024, and then see how this spending improved (or indeed reduced) their effectiveness.  Figures from Sky Sports

Club	Pos 2023/4	Spent summer 2024	Pos 2025	Cost per place rise
Chelsa	6	£219.6m	4	£109.7m
Manchester U	8	£205.9m	15	-£25.74m
Brighton	11	£192m	8	£64m
Tottenham	5	£133.5m	17	-£11.125
West Ham	9	£132.5m	14	-£26.5m
Aston Villa	3	£129.5m	6	-£43.16m
Ipswich	Promoted	£124m	19	Relegated
Southampton	Promoted	£108.3m	20	Relegated
Arsenal	2	£101.5m	2	—
Brentford	16	£92.5m	10	£15.42m

 

Only three of these clubs moved to a higher position having spent their money.  Chelsea, Brighton and Brentford.    So can we pause at this point.   All these 10 clubs spent £92,000,000 or more on transfers last summer, but only three of them ended up in higher positions.

Six clubs failred to get anything out of their spending: Manchester United, Tottenham. West Ham United, and Aston Villa all ended up in lower positions despite spending all this money, while Ipswich and Southampton were both relegated back to the second tier.   Arsenal stayed in the same positioin.

Now any sensible reivew of these figures could only come to one conclusion.   That is, that spending money on transfers in the summer, doesn’t generate a higher position. – at least not in the first season after the transfer.

Which in turn raises the question, why do all the journalists and bloggers keep writing about all the transfers that each club is going to make and/or should make this summer?   

Let’s take Arsenal, as an example.   Day after day we are bgeing told that Arsenal are going to buy player after player.   Indeed in our latest analysis on 14 June of the players tipped to be coming to Arsenal we found no fewer than 40 players Arsenal were looking to buy.

This of course doesn’t mean Arlsenal are going to buy them – but when they don’t the media will then be full of reproaches saying how slow Arsenal have been and how if only the club had actually bought a particular player everything would be better.

And yet last summer’s figures show quite clearly that much of thetime spending money on players is more likely to take a club down the league than lift it up.   And for that minority of clubs which are uplifted by spending money on players the cost per place is dramatic

It cost Chelsea £109m per place to rise up the league table.   Of course that is much better than Manchester United who went down seven places having spent £205m.

The best deals were clearly struck by Brentford who went up six places at a cost of £15.42m, or £2.57m per place, but it is possible to argue thta it costs less to rise up from a lower position, rather than gain a couple of extra places near the top.

Now to be quite clear on these numbers they only include purchases – no account is taken of money brought in by sales of players, for the simple example that selling a player is unlikely to influence a team’s performance.  How the club does in the league is influenced by the players it puts on the pitch, by and large, not by the players it no longer has.

And this all raises one question.  If, as is clearly showm buying players doesn’t actually take clubs up the league, why do the media go on and on and on and on about who Arsenal should buy.

One argulment could be that journalists and editors know damn well that buying players normally doesn’t help much – at least in the first season (remember Thierrry Hentry’s first season?) – so purchases can result in an immediate decline.   But try putting this to those Arsenal supporters who want the club to spend £100m on a centre forward.  If that player is bought and doesn’t immediately produce the goals, then the media will jump on Arteta, and those flakey supporters who are influenced by the media, will follow.

So, a word of warning.  Buying players is more likely to take a club down the table in the following season, than to take it up.   Just check the figures for Manchester United, Tottenham Hots, Aston Villa and West Ham.  Not to mention the millions spent by the promoted clubs.