Are Arsenal really as bad at selling players as the media suggests?

 

 

By Tony Attwood

For details of our recently published series and reports

please see our revamped home page.

The notion that Arsenal are no good at selling players is indeed one that is suggested in many publications and accepted by many supporters.  Indeed the Athletic has an article at the moment, Why have Arsenal struggled to sell? 

And this is an interesting headline because in the first paragraph the article says “last summer… they recouped more than £80million, notably selling the likes of Emile Smith Rowe, Aaron Ramsdale and Eddie Nketiah… They also all moved within England, enabling Arsenal to extract bigger fees.”

Which rather contradicts the headline.  But we are assured (without evidence) that in spite of this, Arsenal still aren’t very good at selling.  On the contrary, it is admitted that there is a “lack of plausible buyers outside of the Premier League.”  And “This is not a uniquely Arsenal problem — the size of Premier League salaries makes it difficult for European clubs to take them on.”  

But of course players do move.  Tierney went to Celtic, Jorginho to Flamingo, Tavares to Lazio, Marquinhos to Cruzeiro, Partey went to Villareal, Tomiyasu has left at the end of his contract.  Karl Hein is on loan to Werder Bremen.  Arsenal are talking to Porto about selling Kiwior.

Then there is the opposite suggestion (made at the same time as the “not good at selling” argument that Arsenal discard players too quickly!  Again, there is no evidence – although both arguments can’t be true at the same time.  But still, it is argued that Arteta tends to make rapid (and thus possibly ill-judged) decisions.   However, I’ve never seen any evidence that Arsenal are any worse at selling players than any other club at selling.

And this is the problem.   Football journalists and bloggers make statements, others pick them up, and so this becomes the definition of Arsenal.  They never get the right money for the players they sell, but always pay too much for average players.  There’s no real evidence, and it is extremely unlikely to be true.

So we see articles that suggest that “Arsenal sold Ramsdale in 2024 for £25million” but could have got more if only they had sold him exactly when David Raya arrived, when  “Ramsdale had just been named in the PFA Team of the Year.”

And here we see the problem.  No one could be quite sure that Raya would a) quickly settle in London, b) quickly settle in the Arsenal team, c) suffer no injuries all season.   Had any of those conditions not been met, Ramsdale would have been back in the team.  This is the sort of decision-making all clubs face.

Perhaps more bizarrely, the article then praises Chelsea and Liverpool in terms of their ability at selling academy players – a policy which certainly, in Chelsea’s case, involves taking on large numbers of youngsters and then ruthlessly kicking loads of them out. 

Besides, Arsenal have sold Joe Willock, Reiss Nelson, Eddie Nketiah and Emile Smith Rowe of late, with more possibly to go, while also bringing through Max Dowman,  Myles Lewis-Skelly and Ethan Nwaneri.  Just because Liverpool sold Jarell Quansah, Caoimhin Kelleher, Ben Doak, Tyler Morton and Nat Phillips to try and balance the books, should Arsenal be doing the same?

Eventually, of course, we come back to the old favourite:  Arsenal players get injured more than others.  Certainly, last season that was the case, but when the discussion being held was one relating to Arsenal “only” coming second three years running, the issue of the high level of injuries was not mentioned.  Now the discussion is about Arsenal failing to sell their academy players for high fees it comes up, and again injuries are left out of the debate.

The reality is that Arsenal do get higher levels of injury than other clubs, as well as a higher number of yellow cards for the mysteriously unexplained “other” reasons, which we have asked about numerous times but never had explained.   Last season it was 28 cards for “other” reasons, compared to, for example, Liverpool’s 11.   What made Arsenal receive two and a half times as many cards for “other” reasons (ie not fouls, unprofessional conduct or dives) more than Liverpool?  No one is able to tell us, but whatever it is all about, it quite possibly reduces their effectiveness on the pitch.

Of course, there is the fact that some clubs are in financial difficulties, which Arsenal do not suffer from, and some clubs need to sell to avoid the Premier League’s profit and sustainability rules.  Arsenal’s turnover has risen year on year – it was well over half a billion pounds by 2023/24 and is rising still.

So the fact is Arsenal don’t need to sell – and given that last season and yet despite having only the ninth largest squad in the league (smaller than Chelsea, Manchester United, Manchester City, and the same size as Liverpool and Tottenham), it is interesting that Transfermkt show that Arsenal’s player vlaue was the highest in the league at €1.37bn.    Following behind were Manchester City on  €1.25bn, Chelsea  €1.12bn, Liverpool €1.05bn.

Even the new rule from Uefa that “squad costs” can only be 70% of football-related revenue isn’t really going to cause a problem.  This is very different from the situation with Chelsea, who were fined €31million for breaking these rules and now, along with Aston Villa, have deals with Uefa that restrict the money they can spend on transfers.  

Arsenal’s problem, if there is one, is the cost of transfers over the last three years and the resultant rise in salaries, including the money being paid to the emerging under-21 year olds to persuade them to stay at Arsenal and not go elsewhere.   Such players don’t cost anything to buy, but cost a lot to keep. 

Overall, Arsenal’s income is rising all the time, but the costs are rising fast too.  Spending much more on players without moving others on, is going to be a problem.