The transfer window in Europe’s Big Five leagues closed on Monday, and the numbers are in. While they’re a little fuzzy (see below) what’s not in doubt is that, overall, this was a huge window in terms of both the volume and scale of transfers.
The Premier League dominated the spending, which isn’t surprising given its annual revenue of €7.14 billion is nearly as much as the next two highest grossing leagues — LaLiga, with €3.651bn and Germany‘s Bundesliga, with €3.619bn — combined. According to Transfermarkt data, the English top flight’s net spend — defined as “transfer fees spent on acquiring players minus transfer fees received on moving players out” — stood at €1.512bn ($1.76bn), which is a record amount even when you adjust for inflation.
That figure absolutely dwarfs the other leagues. Italy‘s Serie A recorded a net spend of €73m ($85.2m) while Spain‘s Liga stood at €44m ($51.3m). Clubs in Germany’s Bundesliga and France‘s Ligue 1 actually took in more money than they spent, by a combined €525m ($612.6m).
A word of caution on all these numbers. First, very few transfer fees are actually public: we relied on the Transfermarkt website, which is respected but not infallible. And two, increasingly popular factors in the way transfers are structured — with things like “conditional fees” and “loan-with-obligation” — further muddy the waters. (More on this later).
Also, bear in mind that in some territories (like Saudi Arabia and Turkey), the window is still open, so some net spend numbers might come down. That said, in terms of broad trends, the data is consistent and there is no arguing that the Premier League just went on a massive spending spree. Indeed, this year’s net spend was nearly twice as high as a year ago (when it was a measly €773m, or $827.7m).
Back then, I suggested that maybe this was a correction — maybe clubs had come to realize that spending more than you take in year after year was not a great business model and therefore had become a little less profligate.
First off, there are various macro reasons why the net spend nearly doubled.
A new TV deal came into effect this season that — while far from being the “record” it was billed as — nevertheless does ensure clubs get a bit more money and a bit more certainty (since it’s a four-year deal instead of three). In the 2024-25 season, Saudi Pro League clubs spent more than €225m on Premier League players, which juiced the numbers down; this summer, it was just over €80m. Many big continental clubs, who would otherwise have done some shopping in the Premier League, elected not to do so this summer, from reasons ranging to financial restrictions to recruitment decisions.
0:58
Marcotti salutes Liverpool for ‘brilliant’ Elliott to Aston Villa deal
Gab Marcotti explains why Harvey Elliott’s move to Aston Villa was some smart transfer business from Liverpool.
Liverpool, who were virtually dormant a year ago bringing in just one first-team player, Federico Chiesa, opted to spend the money they saved last summer in this year’s window, ending up with a monster net spend of €263.4m ($307.3m). I say “monster net spend,” but actually it wasn’t even the highest in the Premier League, surpassed by Arsenal’s €283.2m ($330.4m). Indeed, Arsenal’s net spend, summer-to-summer, went up twelve-fold, from €25.1m ($29.3m). Two other traditional big clubs who suffered freakishly bad seasons last year also pushed the boat out, with Manchester United and Tottenham both nearly doubling their net spend, year on year.
These are all clubs that, for one reason or another — Liverpool’s thriftiness in Arne Slot’s first summer, Arsenal wishing to go all-in after multiple runner-up finishes, the other throwing money around for coaches who weren’t there a year ago in an attempt to rebuild — were especially aggressive on the market, which is not something you expect every year.
However, there are other clues that suggest clubs might be choosing to be a little more careful with their money. Data here lags behind, but anecdotally, the talk among agents and club officials this summer was about limiting wage growth. Part of this was organic — clubs increasingly invest in younger players who tend to make less money — but part of it seemed to be by design. Erling Haaland, who signed his new deal last season, is the only Premier League player north of the $25m mark in base pay. Many clubs — including Manchester United — put a clause in player contracts that automatically reduces wages if certain team goals, like qualifying for the Champions League, aren’t met.
We don’t have super recent data on player wages, but between 2022-23 and 2023-24 they actually fell slightly (0.02 percent) while the Premier League’s overall revenue increased by 5%.
Why be stingy with salaries if you’re just going to blow the money on transfer fees? Ah, that’s where accounting and amortisation come in.
Clubs think in terms of “player cost,” which is essentially wages plus amortisation (the cost of the transfer fee spread out over the duration of the contract). So if you spend $75m on a 21-year-old striker and pay him $5m a season for five years, his player cost is $20m a season. If he does well: great, give him another five-year contract after two years, as that’s where the magic happens. Even if you double his salary to $10m, the five-year deal means his annual amortisation goes down to $9m and his player cost is actually reduced. If he performs poorly? Well, amortisation means you need to find a taker for $45m this season, or $30m next season, which is doable, for a guy who will be 23 or 24.
Indeed, what football accountants call “player trading” is what keeps many clubs’ annual accounts from drowning in a sea of red ink. In the simplest terms, if you spend $100 on incoming players on five-year deals and get back just $20 on a single home-grown player, you’ve broken even on player trading, though your net spend will be $80.
1:20
What does the future hold for Marc Guéhi?
Mark Ogden assesses Marc Guéhi’s transfer options after his deadline day move to Liverpool collapsed.
It’s also probably not a coincidence that most of the Premier League’s big clubs generally avoided signing guys from other big clubs. There are exceptions, of course — “Ciao, Gianluigi Donnarumma!” as he swapped Paris Saint-Germain for Manchester City — but in most cases, even the big signings came from smaller clubs where they earned relatively modest wages.
Arsenal’s three most expensive signings came from Real Sociedad, Crystal Palace and Sporting. Liverpool picked up guys from Bayer Leverkusen, Eintracht Frankfurt and Bournemouth. (They did get Alexander Isak too, of course, but it’s worth remembering he was on his original contract with Newcastle before he had his breakout seasons.) Manchester City recruited from Wolves, Lyon and Burnley; Manchester United from Leipzig, Brentford and Wolves. For most of these guys, even tripling their wages and giving them a five-year deal (with the opportunity to try and negotiate a new one) is like hitting the lottery.
There is much more willingness to invest in youth with an upside than the proverbial “proven commodity” because the “proven commodity” can turn into an expensive problem if he doesn’t work out. If the youngster flops, he can still be moved on since he’ll be on more modest wages.
Clubs are mitigating risks in other ways, too — call it football’s version of financial engineering.
Increasingly, many transfers have fees that are conditional. These can be as simple as extra amounts based on the performance of the player (“if he reaches double figures in goals, we’ll pay you an extra million”), the team (“We’ll pay you a bonus if we qualify for the Champions League”) or, because players are treated like commodities as never before, bonuses based on how much money a club can get for their new player when he moves on (crudely known as “sell-on fees”).
1:50
O’Hanlon: USMNT’s Cardoso’s move to Atlético Madrid is ‘bizarre’
Ryan O’Hanlon assesses USMNT midfielder Johnny Cardoso’s move to Atlético Madrid from fellow LaLiga side Real Betis.
Another trend is the proliferation (imported from Serie A) of what are known as “loans with an obligation to make the transfer permanent.” You take a player on loan for a season, sometimes paying a loan fee for the privilege, and then you have to acquire the player for a pre-set transfer fee in a year’s time.
Why would you choose to do this? Purely for accounting reasons. You’re shifting the bulk of the fee — and, crucially, the amortisation — down the road for 12 months. Sometimes, that suits all parties involved.
And sometimes, conditional fees and the loan-with-obligation combine to create “Frankenstein deals” like the one that took Nico Jackson from Chelsea to Bayern. Reportedly, Bayern will pay a whopping €16.5m ($19.2m) loan fee for the season and then, if Jackson makes an undisclosed number of appearances, they will have to fork out an additional €65m ($76m) to make it permanent.
All of this is to say two things.
First, take those transfer spend numbers with a grain of salt, as there’s way more than you realise that goes into a transfer fee. Acountants and financial engineers are sometimes as important as chief scouts and directors of football and in the current state of the game, clubs are de facto incentivised to wheel and deal in players.
Second, just because Premier League clubs set a net spending record this summer doesn’t mean they’re in rude financial health. Better than most of the rest of Europe’s Big Five leagues, for sure, but by no means minting it. And though it may not appear that way, the correction that began last summer continued through this window, and will likely continue through the next.
At least, I hope it will. Because at some point this sport has to become sustainable.
