Chelsea v Arsenal – Chelsea’s unusual strategy pushes the rulebook to the edge

As for Chelsea, it was on 13 April last year that we first started to appreciate fully just how Chelsea’s expenditure programme was working, as the headline read “Chelsea spent £747m on transfers in 2022-23 season.”

And it didn’t stop there as Chelsea have carried on, often buying teenagers whose full worth has not yet been proven for fees of over £150m, including youngsters such as 17 year old Kendry Paez for £17m now on loan at Strasbourg (also owned by the Chelsea owners), 18 year old Estevao Willian (£51m), 19 year old Kike Penders, again on loan at Strasbourg (£17m) and Madadour Sarr (£12m) again on loan at Strasbourg.

Strasbourg and Chelsea are owned by Blueco which is owned by Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital.   Chelsea Women, you might recall, was sold to another company in the same group.     And the aim quite simply is to follow the Manchester City lead of having multiple clubs owned by the same organisation, thus making it possible to move players around both to ensure that financial regulations are met, and (it could be argued, although I make no allegation to this effect) that no one outside the group has a clue as to what is going on.

Indeed, it should be added that many deny that Strasbourg is a feeder club of Chelsea, so it might be best just to see that as my opinion.   

But the group’s strategy seems to me to involve a multi-club ownership model, which includes using smaller clubs like Strasbourg for player development before they potentially move to Chelsea.   In this model, players are moved around as needed, and if they don’t come up to the mark, they are sold on quickly.

Thus Transfermarkt website reports that in 2025/26, Chelsea spent around £300m, but the transfer market value of the arrivals was over £500m.  One explanation might be that some of the transfers involved two clubs owned by the same people – but of course, I don’t have access to the paperwork.

The players bought are generally young, so they can be sold on later, and indeed  Chelsea seem to have the youngest squad in the PL – and could well be getting younger! .

Another part of the approach is to bring in young players on a contract of seven or more years and be ready to sell some of them without them ever playing for the club.  The profit comes from the few who either make it with Chelsea.  Indeed, Chelsea are becoming the brokers of young player transfers.  While other clubs have players on shorter contracts in case they get injured or fail to reach the standard required, Chelsea go for longer contracts on the basis that a few of these players will turn out to be stars and can be sold for profits larger than the losses made on those who don’t make it either at Chelsea or Strasbourg. 

But the strategy is risky – players on very long contracts can get long-term injuries, or be banned for taking illegal substances, or simply lose form or indeed find a way to the first team blocked by others, and so want a move – and all these eventualities lose the two clubs money.  

And as the sale of the women’s team to a linked company, plus the sale of a range of hotels to raise some urgently needed cash, plus some slightly unexpected swap deals suggest, this can be a bit of a dodgy path to follow.  But Chelsea have been PSR compliant thus far, so maybe it will all be fine, although there is always the chance that the League might not always agree that each new wheeze is legal.  Plus, the League does have the habit of closing up loopholes when spotted, so each clever deal can probably only be used once.   And of course, Chelsea have to pass not only Premier League rules but also Uefa rules, which are often quite different and somewhat more demanding.

And there is another problem.   Chelsea have managerial problems.  Since 2010  Lampard, Tuchel, Potter, Saltor, Lampard again, Pochettino and Maresca have been in the hot seat.  And maybe as Tottenham have found, constantly changing managers is not always good – indeed, Arsenal’s experience suggests the opposite.  For that rate of change does not always impress players when they are being invited to sign for a new club.   This manager may like this player, but what if there is a new guy on the throne in six months?

Of course, I don’t know if it will work, but for me Arsenal’s slower, more patient approach feels better.