Only two of the Saudi Arabian teams had a higher net spend than Arsenal




by Tony Attwood

It has been difficult to get hold of reliable figures as to just how much the Saudi Arabian teams have spent on players this summer, and the figures of net expenditure are warped because the sales of players (“net” being amount paid out minus amount received, of course) being nil in many Saudi cases.

But the Atheltic has done its due diligence and come up with some figures, from which we have constructed a top 12 worldwide net spends this summer.

And yes there are some Saudi Arabian clubs in the list for the first time ever, largely because they didn’t have anyone to sell.

But what surprised us, and might raise an eyebrow in your household, is that in this global list of net spenders only two of the top five clubs were actually Saudi Arabian.  In other words, although the clubs were new and were constantly reported to be offering insane figures for anyone they had ever heard of, the Premier League’s finest were up there battling it out with them.

Below is a table of net spenders summer 2023 in world football.  All Saudi figures are quoted in Euros, along with European clubs so we’ve used that throughout this table.  A Euro is worth 86p.  A Pound is worth 1.16 Euros.

  1. Al Hilal:  €353.0m
  2. PSG:  €200.5m
  3. Al Ahli: €200.2m
  4. Chelsea: €197.1m
  5. Arsenal: €167.0m
  6. Al Nassr: €165.1m
  7. Manchester United: €151.4m
  8. Manchester City: €126.6m
  9. Tottenham Hotspur: €126.4m
  10. AFC Bournemouth: €126.2m
  11. Real Madrid: €122.5m
  12. Al Ittihad: €121.6 m

So half of the top dozen spenders this summer were in the Premier League.  One third were in Saudi Arabia’s new superleague, one was in France and one was in Spain.  Bournemouth outspent Real Madrid (which tells you a lot about what is going on in Spain at the moment).

So how did Arsenal get right up there and what did they get for their money?

Arsenal spent money in terms of transfer fees on three players: Declan Rice for £105m, Kai Havertz for £65m and Jurien Timber for £38m.  Two of those transfers were from other Premier League clubs, keeping the money rolling around the country.   Total price £208m or €241m.   Only Al Hilal in Saudi spent more at €353m.

Arsenal sold six players this summer.


Player Sold to Price
Folarin Balogun Monaco £40.00m
Granit Xhaka Bayer Leverkusen £21.50m
Matt Turner Nottingham Forest £7.00m
Pablo Mari Monza £3.70m
Auston Trusty Sheffield United £4.90m
Rob Holding Crystal Palace £1.00m


So £208m spent on players against £78.1m income making it £129.9m net spend.  Only two of the newly created Saudi clubs had a higher net spend than Arsenal.

Sqwaka has provided an analysis of net spent by Premier League clubs from the start of 2021/22.


Club Spend Received Net Spent
Chelsea €1,193.59m €483.74 €709.85m
Manchester Utd €591.98m €110.09m €481.89m
Arsenal €594.24m €123.1m €471.14m
Newcastle United €469.05m €58.66m €410.39m
Tottenham Hotspur €522.4m €195.57m €326.83m


It is an interesting comparison because some of the newly created Saudi clubs were in fact building a team from nothing.   And what this table shows is that only Al Hilal would creep into the top five net spend table of the Premier League, and then only just.  The Saudi league, despite its ability to tap into the entire wealth of the nation, is not actually challenging the Premier League in any meaningful way.

And interesting to see that Chelsea are in fact now behaving like a newly created Saudi club with its level of spending over the last couple of years.  And indeed in a review that Talk Sport did near the start of this year (ie before this summer’s window), they had the value of the Chelsea and Manchester City squads as almost equal, with Liverpool third, Arsenal fourth and Manchester United fifth.

And although of course, it is very early days in terms of this season, the league table is not quite reflecting that. Manchester City are still top while Chelsea are still 12th (both where they finished last season).  Liverpool are third (they finished 5th last season), West Ham are up to fourth (from 14th last season), and Arsenal fifth, down from second.

But of course there is plenty of time to go.

Please join our association: its free!

If you support Untold’s work, please do show your appreciation by becoming an associate member of AISA – Arsenal Independent Supporters’ Association.  It’s completely free, but being a member does make a statement that you value our work not just in recording Arsenal’s history but also in engaging with the club over issues relevant to supporters today.   You can join for free at

3 Replies to “Only two of the Saudi Arabian teams had a higher net spend than Arsenal”

  1. Tony,

    Why do you insist on using inaccurate transfer data when the Untold Arsenal site has evidence of more accurate figures lurking within its own pages? Has Untold abandoned trying to present its readers with accurate information?

    If you refer to the article written by Billy The Dog, dated 19 August 2023, “Why Football’s Economic Model is Doomed to Failure” ( ) and then look at the first reply to that article, you will see ample evidence to prove the quoted transfer figures for at least one club are wildly inaccurate.

  2. My point at the time was that I am not sure how you can assert that the evidence you provided then was more accurate than that of Transfermarkt, which we have often used. As I recall it was primarily from one newspaper… and I could not see the reason why that data should be treated as more reliable than that of Transfermarkt.

  3. Tony,

    Whatever your point at the time, why are you continuing to use inaccurate data? Don’t your readers deserve better?

    The transfers that MCFC made were widely reported in the media, so whether I used two different sources or more, it would not have altered the facts.

    The passage of time has proved beyond doubt that the evidence I supplied was accurate. James Trafford, for example, is now playing in goal for Burnley. Yet, irrespective of that evidence, Transfermarkt still does not list the transfer as having happened.

    I know you’ve banged on about the poor quality of reporting in the media, so why join them on this issues? As Chris Sutton might say, “You’re better than that, Tony”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *