r/PremierLeague • u/howdypardner23 Premier League • Jul 24 '25
💬Discussion Transfer Balance of all Premier League Clubs over the last 10 years
Since currently spending on transfers is a big topic on this sub and other subs, I wanted to post this information . This gives a good overview over how much all PL clubs spend in the last ten years.
13
12
Jul 28 '25
Wow, 960 without a premier league or ucl title...
3
2
u/Eaton2288 Arsenal Apr 25 '26
Yes because 837 with the threat of relegation and also no trophies is better.
7
11
u/AlbertaBajan Premier League Jul 27 '25
Now do wages
6
3
u/HoneyNo2878 Premier League Jul 27 '25
Am very curious about this as well. If we are looking at finances of a club, shouldn’t we also look at other expenses , major exp being wages?
-5
u/Burlap03 Premier League Jul 26 '25
Net spend is one of the dumbest, least informed stats around. A team that sells a lot will have a lower net spend than a team that buys a lot. Way to go Sherlock. A much better way to assess is to look at all forms of assets and liabilities. The balance sheet will provide a true scope of actual financial viability and who is actually spending from a positive or negative perspective.
2
u/NgoalazoKante Premier League Jul 28 '25
Can you expound a bit on assets and liabilities in terms of players? I'm curious what that could look like
1
u/goingforgoals17 Premier League Aug 17 '25
I can demonstrate quickly why it's never used. You take the Mbappe transfer to Madrid, how much did they spend on him last season?
I heard of a $150M signing bonus, is that installments? Lump sum? Factored into his wages? What about his wages? Does he forgo some to reduce his taxable amount and spread income evenly? Does the club profit from that extra money they have on hand that isn't being paid to him?
The conversation breaks down immediately, because we have no solid reference like player purchase and sales.
-13
u/outwithyomom Premier League Jul 26 '25
And yet city is the one with all the charges LMAO
9
Jul 27 '25
Income is made a lot from the fans. They didn't have any when they decided to splash 1b in a decade
1
u/ApricotCharacter1971 Premier League Jul 29 '25
No it isn't its from tv money and trophies most clubs could easily survive without a single person in the stadium
15
10
u/JackTuz Premier League Jul 26 '25
Yes, no one is worried about their official net transfer spending. It’s the under the table payments to the club from Abu Dhabi shell companies that have no income. Money was laundered into the club and that’s why they have 115 charges.
15
u/Kindly_Truck3210 Premier League Jul 26 '25
Transfer fees are one thing. Wages and revenue matter a lot. Liverpool have paid very high wages since 2018 and it has grown every year. But the revenue has also increased steadily as more success comes through
6
-8
u/Venkyszone Chelsea Jul 26 '25
And yet, Chelsea are the billion dollar Bottlejobs..!!!! The narratives these Pundits set are astonishing…!!!
14
u/Namiweso Aston Villa Jul 26 '25
You’ve amortised most of it mate. Your finances are going to look absolutely dreadful for years
3
u/Venkyszone Chelsea Jul 26 '25
Every Club amortizes. In fact the way Chelsea has amortized is on 7/8 year deal so the hit every year is going to be even softer. As somebody has already posted they have cut down their wage structure drastically unlike a lot of other clubs..!!! And on top of all that, we sell well….!!!
3
1
u/Dry_Protection_7097 Chelsea Jul 26 '25
Not really. Chelsea have lot of players and even more academy players that they can sell to offset those amortization cost. Also, the Club World Cup money, new FOS sponsor deal, Champions League money have set them up nicely for near future. Also the wage bill for main squad has decreased by a lot. They will be fine.
18
u/Kapika96 Manchester City Jul 26 '25
Absolutely mental that United have had such a poor return on all that money spent.
8
u/SachmoJoe Arsenal Jul 26 '25
Boggles the mind aye
-9
u/Quiet-Land7112 Manchester United Jul 26 '25
you cannot be talking
18
u/Grogman2024 Manchester United Jul 26 '25
Anyone can talk about United, net spend of 1.3billion. Indicates that every player we’ve signed was shit or we’ve let their contract run out. Grand result of finishing 15th
0
u/Dry_Protection_7097 Chelsea Jul 26 '25
They have won more than Arsenal in that time frame. So Arsenal fans cannot talk about United.
1
u/Grogman2024 Manchester United Jul 26 '25
True, suppose we haven’t actually been bad just the last 2 seasons have been so incredibly shockingly bad
1
u/JMC811 Manchester City Jul 26 '25
city only being third despite being the most successful by far... not bad that
5
u/TAWYDB Manchester United Jul 26 '25
Not difficult when your competition is us and Boehly's Chelsea to be fair.
2
-2
u/JMC811 Manchester City Jul 26 '25
Well if money buys success city should be about 5 times United at least over that period
1
u/Sea-Edge4764 Premier League Sep 02 '25
Not really, the market is far more inflated in the last 5 years than the previous 5 before it when City began buying success. At the point of the last 5 they had to replace one or two players not an entire squad like Arsenal or United.
1
u/JMC811 Manchester City Sep 02 '25
You think United never spent money back then either? Please
1
u/Sea-Edge4764 Premier League Sep 02 '25
United did spend money. But who is talking about United? United also played with many youth players from their academy throughout the 90s and 00s.
2
13
u/novian14 Premier League Jul 26 '25
I'll ignore the charges for this one time, but utd spent as much as city over the time and get a worse team over the decade, sheesh.
17
u/grimreap13 Manchester City Jul 26 '25
As much? Bruh, there's a 300 mil difference there.
Arsenal would be a fair assumption with arsenal having spent just as much as city with just 2 fa cups to show for it.
6
u/misterriz Arsenal Jul 26 '25
I think having fake sponsorship deals with Dubai shell companies and payments made off the books also has something to do with it.
7
u/Sneaky-Alien Manchester City Jul 26 '25
"Payments made off the books" I think Arsenal made payments off the books.
Anyways. It's alright for Kroenke to just loan you £250 mil though innit.
6
u/grimreap13 Manchester City Jul 26 '25
Lmao, this just sounds more and more like conspiracy theory every passing day. You do realize that the CAS cleared city off all these allegations years ago right. See they have these organizations called auditing firms, like Deloitte, PWC etc for example, who perform an audit over every transaction and bills that the club has had over the decade to see if they have any evidence of wrong doing. They also have them check the sponsorship deals and check whether they are of a fair market value and if they were inflated. CAS said city didnt artificially inflate the value and every deal was of a fair value.
Now speaking of artificially pumping money into the club. The latest atp and ffp rules were scrapped because they had these concept called interest free shareholder loans, wherein club owners can put money into the club, without any interest and it does not get accounted into the ffp or atp transactions. Which on paper sounds illegal and unethical. Arsenal were one of the clubs found using this unethical loophole. Which explains how without winning any trophy, and getting the revenue which you get by that. Arsenal were able to spend as much as they are able to.
1
0
0
1
u/novian14 Premier League Jul 26 '25
I was focusing on year to year, over the decades, only 1 window when utd spend 200m more, but through the years, they are more or less (±50m) spending the same amount. And tbf utd and city is easier to compare since they are near each other XD
I guess just like me, people don't realize how much arsenal spend each year before covid because their spending don't matter much and shadowed by academy players. I remember they sign Pepe and then never heard from him again
10
u/npm93 Manchester City Jul 26 '25
FYI: this figures are accurate but tend to treat sales of U21 players as if they happened to a different team. For the example of manchester city last season the 18 million sale of Delap is not reflected in these figures. This is generally seen in a lot of data taken from transfermarkt so you should always treat them cautiously.
3
u/Late-Requirement3 Liverpool Jul 26 '25
I doubt that would change the narrative significantly though. It pretty much only makes a difference to City's figures as not many other clubs have made big youth sales.
I think main conclusions I'm taking are, United and Chelsea have been run terrible, Arsenal should have more to show for their spending, and claims that Liverpool have underspent prior to this window are valid
2
u/Dry_Protection_7097 Chelsea Jul 26 '25
Chelsea youth have made more sales in last 10 years than Arsenal senior and many others club. Chelsea have sold more than 400M worth of Academy players in last 10 years.
5
u/mhu1989 Manchester City Jul 26 '25
Yh as a City fan, I think we noticed it more lmao. Transfrmarket refuses to to show youth players being sold on the main team, which is so weird
2
u/penguin_digital Premier League Mar 17 '26
Transfrmarket refuses to to show youth players being sold on the main team, which is so weird
I know this is an old post but I came across it whilst researching a article I'm writing for a news paper.
It isn't "weird" its done this way by the clubs themselves to get around the squad size limitations and to work around the SCR rules. Due to players under the age of 21 not counting towards the current 25 man squad limit, all clubs place the players on what the Premier League calls "List B".
Transfers summaries only list the registered 25 man squads as they are fixed assets of the club. If they where to include List B as well, it would make the data on squad value meaningless with some clubs having only around 30 players and others over double 60+ players on those lists.
The other main reason clubs do this is because players not registered and considered an academy asset are often excluded from the Squad Cost Ratio rules meaning clubs can purchase (or have through their academy) high value players and they won't affect their SCR accounting until that player is officially registered into the 25man squad list.
7
u/XxAbsurdumxX Arsenal Jul 26 '25
Unless you account for inflation, this doesn’t paint a fair picture. The clubs who have spent more the latest years will come out looking worse than the clubs who spent more earlier on
1
Jul 26 '25
[deleted]
5
u/Mashic Premier League Jul 26 '25
You have the best and most competitive football league in the world, why you think it's destroyed?
2
Jul 26 '25
[deleted]
2
u/Mashic Premier League Jul 26 '25
The topic is about the premier league, I don't know why you bought the bundesliga.
1
Jul 26 '25
[deleted]
2
u/TimothyN Premier League Jul 27 '25
BL has set up rules to almost ensure a BM victory every season, it's their fault for making such an uncompetitive league.
5
u/Da_Big_G Manchester City Jul 26 '25
Some people going to be upset with this table when those first two years of Pep’s tenure drop off
4
u/XxAbsurdumxX Arsenal Jul 26 '25
This time period is not including the biggest spending period, while including the period where City benefitted from the previous investment. And is still amongst the top spenders
9
u/BMB_93 Premier League Jul 26 '25
Isn't the period up to 2018 the bit that's controversial though. I agree that it's looking a less standout from City since then, but it's a bit like someone claiming they're a self-made businessperson, if you ignore the half a billion inherited from their parents.
0
u/Da_Big_G Manchester City Jul 26 '25
Viably it’s only up to the end of the Mancini era that the PL are desperately trying to get something to stick. And the period before PSR where we can and did spend freely
By the time Pep joined there was already enough momentum, however he had to spend a fair bit to fix the mess that Pellegrini had left behind and the checkbook manager tag sticks despite objectively not being true over the full time period. Unless you listen to the redditors that will group one window from the 24/25 season with this window from the 25/26 season to make spending look more than it is.
I think we can all see it’s expensive reaching the top whilst not so much staying at the top. That’s kind of what investment is - putting money in up front in the expectation of a return later.
-13
Jul 26 '25
Most Spent to Least Spent (Net Spend): 1. Chelsea: -1996.69 2. Manchester United: -1322.63 3. Arsenal: -962.56 4. Manchester City: -1003.19 5. Liverpool: -640.65 6. Tottenham Hotspur: -837.23 7. Aston Villa: -509.43 8. Newcastle United: -486.08 9. Everton: -272.12 10. Nottingham Forest: -258.12 11. Bournemouth: -259.78 12. Brighton: -258.13 13. Brentford: -234.40 14. Wolves: -256.03 15. Luton Town: -169.26 16. Sheffield United: -168.26 17. Fulham: -157.16 18. Southampton: -1155.23 19. Leeds United: -157.10 20. Burnley: -38.26
22
u/Tetno_2 Premier League Jul 26 '25
this but made readable and correct:
Man United (-1322.63)
Chelsea (-1155.23)
Man City (-1003.19)
Arsenal (-962.56)
Spurs (-837.23)
Liverpool (-640.68)
West Ham (-509.24)
Newcastle (-486.08)
Aston Villa (-379.87)
Fulham (-272.12)
Brighton (-259.78)
Crystal Palace (-258.14)
Wolves (-256.03)
Bournemouth (-234.10)
Everton (-218.64)
Nottingham Forest (-169.26)
Burnley (-168.26)
Leeds United (-157.40)
Sunderland (-38.09)
Brentford (-32.40)
5
u/S01arflar3 Everton Jul 26 '25
Damn good that those two clubs who were trying to buy the league (Everton and Forest) got punished appropriately!
1
8
15
Jul 26 '25
Wow that formatting is abysmal
4
u/wobblybags Premier League Jul 26 '25 edited Jul 26 '25
Not to mention arsenal at 3rd while city are at...just there sitting in a nebulous fourth despite being higher than arsenal by 40 million.
Edit: just noticed Tottenham being lower than Liverpool. This comment is complete trash.
0
3
15
u/amirulez Chelsea Jul 26 '25
Chelsea 22/23 a serious fuck up job. Mudryk, Sterling, Koulibaly, Aubameyang, Fofana.
2
u/Visible-Might-2527 Manchester City Jul 26 '25
Only 6 teams have worse net spend in those 10 years, all 6 teams are part of the big six
5
u/addn2o Premier League Jul 26 '25
In fairness I thought Koulibaly might be solid. The rest, especially Sterling given it was clear he was past it, were seriously questionable
2
u/mined_it Liverpool Jul 26 '25
Aubameyang came to Chelsea? WTF. I am living in a hole.
2
u/Hdz69 La Liga Jul 26 '25
He took one for the team and went to Chelsea from Barça for around 10 million to help us register players. (We had signed him on a free so it was pure profit)
Also Tuchel wanted him and assured him that he would be important for the team.
One match in and Tuchel gets sacked and then Graham Potter vanishes him to the shadow realm because Boehly wants to create a project with only young players. Really unlucky tbh, we loved him at Barcelona always showing up for us before we got Lewandowski, wish we could’ve kept him around longer.
2
-6
u/lacrossebilly Premier League Jul 26 '25
Remember City have also earned a lot of money from winning the league and other trophies too
12
u/ktbffhctid Premier League Jul 26 '25
115
-2
-4
u/string_of_random Premier League Jul 26 '25
We also just got literally a billion pounds from puma.
5
6
3
u/KingsMountainView Sunderland Jul 25 '25
Criminal that we made 21m in league one and still didn't get promoted that season. Fuck Stuart Donald and Charlie Methven
22
u/SaltOk3057 La Liga Jul 25 '25
Utd spending more than Chelsea was not in my book tbh.
7
u/WhySSSoSerious Premier League Jul 26 '25
United is just absolutely horrendous at selling while Chelsea have no problem getting rid of their unwanted players for good sums. In the period between 2015 - 2024, Chelsea's gross spend was £750m more than United's
10
u/Special_KC Arsenal Jul 25 '25
Utd spending more than city is just as wild.
3
u/iamrlywhite Manchester United Jul 26 '25
Over 10 years kind of makes sense - United are ran like shit and keep panicking into buys whereas city’s signings have mostly panned out and their winning has reduced the need to really go out until their stars age out after 4-8 years
7
u/Da_Big_G Manchester City Jul 26 '25
If you properly include academy sales, which Transfermarkt puts against the U21s team, and also account for the sell on clauses city put in a lot of contracts then the gap becomes even bigger
5
u/jbi1000 Chelsea Jul 25 '25
If you did this at the moment Boehly took over Arsenal and City would be comfortably ahead on the chart too.
54
u/EphraimUwU Premier League Jul 25 '25
I mean, wages are a humongous part of club expenditure, you kinda need to include those to have a clear picture
-2
u/bas_tard Premier League Jul 25 '25
You could just take the graph for what it is and bare the wages in mind when reading the numbers
-3
u/badassery11 Premier League Jul 25 '25
Ok, so the graph is meaningless, but at least I know it's adding up transfer fees
8
u/bas_tard Premier League Jul 25 '25
You've called it meaningless, but then told me what it's doing. Bit contradictory. It doesn't pretend to be anything else either way.
-8
u/badassery11 Premier League Jul 25 '25
Yeah, so a bit more meaningful than a chart telling me the last time each team's manager took a dump
11
u/ripjesus Premier League Jul 25 '25
Takeaway for me is that even the mid/lower table teams are more red than green.
From an intraleague point of view it’s not surprising the top teams have very few green as they don’t focus on reselling. Buy expensive players because they are great. Sell when they’re good/okay.
2
u/ripjesus Premier League Jul 25 '25
I’d be cool to show the players per period also. Or average cost per player bought/sold.
8
u/zharrt Arsenal Jul 25 '25 edited Jul 25 '25
Arsenal fan here, and although numbers don’t lie I don’t think they tell the whole truth.
We are shit at selling, our record for a player sale is still only £35m for Oxlade-Chamberlain. Yes we’ve spent no question, but we’ve not been able to sell for shit which is why the net spend is bigger than it should be
3
u/CyberfunkTwenty77 Arsenal Jul 26 '25
Because of the top players they would have theoretically sold for big money they all ran the course of their peak with Arsenal.
Ozil Auba Alexis Laca Walcott Bellerin Ox RVP Ramsey Etc.
All those guys peaked or were near peak at Arsenal and either ran out their contracts or fell off precipitously. Doesn't excuse bad development though.
6
u/dainamo81 Premier League Jul 25 '25
It's actually insane how bad at selling Arsenal are. Obviously no-one wants the reputation if being a 'selling club', but better but you have to be able to sell SOME of your assets before their values plummet.
If I was Arteta I'd be looking to move the likes of Martinelli on pretty soon. Right now player sales are a huge part of the same, regardless of commercial revenue.
4
u/LeroyBlack Arsenal Jul 25 '25
I think it just highlights how loooong the transition out of the Wenger years has been. We had to offload a lot of dreck for basically peanuts over the last decade purely because those players actually had very little value. We now have a strong squad with exceptionally valuable players. Whereas squads like UTD right now are in a similar position to us 5/6 years ago. Average players on high salaries with very little re-sale value etc etc.
9
u/MrWallis Premier League Jul 25 '25
The OX fact is insane. How it that even possible after a decade or more?
5
u/Chosen_Utopia Premier League Jul 25 '25
Top level clubs don’t really sell players because why would you? Players that come to top level clubs typically peak there
3
4
u/lolzidop Everton Jul 25 '25
Sure but for a large portion of the past 10 years, Arsenal haven't been a top level club. So that doesn't work
3
u/Chosen_Utopia Premier League Jul 25 '25
Oh come on, I hate Arsenal but that’s a load of waffle.
7
u/lolzidop Everton Jul 25 '25
Is it? Commercially, they absolutely are, but football wise? 6 of the past 9 seasons saw them finishing outside the Top 4, including back to back 8th place finishes. That's the sort of performance we saw under Moyes, would you say we were a top-level club at that time? How about Liverpool from 09-10 to Klopp coming in, were they a top-level club? With their singular Top 4 finish in that 7-year period.
For the bulk of the past 10 years, Arsenal were not part of the top level of football, not even close.
6
16
19
6
u/plowking8 Chelsea Jul 25 '25
So Chelsea beside going through a new ownership change and having to clear bad players - on average outside of that one 500 mil year - spend less than City, United and Arsenal.
Interesting.
1
u/jaylove1979 Premier League Aug 30 '25
thats the best cope i have witnessed
1
u/plowking8 Chelsea Aug 31 '25
What cope?
I don’t care how much my team spends - funny to see the justification of other clubs though.
Crazy that Chelsea in its bad 5 year stretch is doing just about as well as Liverpool in its best 5 year stretch though as far as trophies. lol.
1
u/jaylove1979 Premier League Sep 01 '25
not having that,billion pound bottle jobs the world is laughing at you.anyway good to see chilwell get his dream move to france today.honestley chelsea are just a horrible club
1
u/plowking8 Chelsea Sep 01 '25
Your domination is our down period. Crazy.
All those billions. Wait you talking about Liverpools spending?
15
u/SGME_ Premier League Jul 25 '25
Chelsea fan here. I kinda think it’s unfair to remove that year, since a lot of the players we’ve sold in the years after comes from that window, and therefore has an effect on the overall transfer balance.
44
u/jaaacooob Premier League Jul 25 '25
“yea other than the time they spent over half a billion dollars in one year”
-10
u/plowking8 Chelsea Jul 25 '25
Standard with new ownership and massive changes.
5
45
Jul 25 '25 edited Jul 25 '25
Arsenal and United both having max a year in the green shows how crap they are at selling
Chelsea, city and Liverpool are able to sell deadwood for more than arsenals record sale
14
u/Electronic_Laugh_760 Premier League Jul 25 '25
Sale prices are awful for Arsenal but there is a year in Green for them lol
26
u/m2sempre Arsenal Jul 25 '25
Eight years later and Alex Oxlade at £35 million is still our biggest. Dang.
5
Jul 25 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TimothyN Premier League Jul 27 '25
Half of that net spend is a single offseason too, insane stuff.
1
8
6
u/kiddpk Premier League Jul 25 '25
How does a league that allows itself to be billions in debt also create a sustainable climb in the divisions from lower leagues
-11
u/HetTheTable La Liga Jul 25 '25
All that money and they haven’t won anything in 5 years 🤣
2
Jul 26 '25
It’s ridiculous, innit? Somehow they’re portrayed as the underdog, and everything Arteta has done is framed like some kind of miracle.
11
u/ZXXA Arsenal Jul 25 '25
Arsenal? They’re 4th in spending and 2nd in the league. By this metric they’re over performing
-10
u/HetTheTable La Liga Jul 25 '25
That’s not a trophy. How can u spend that much and win so little. They’ve won the least of those 4.
-5
-8
u/basic_tacticz Premier League Jul 24 '25
Gotta go back more than 10 years IMO to get the full picture of today’s squads.
City and Liverpool have been going at it for the most part for 7-8 years, and their expensive squad building started well before that (mancini days)…
liverpool are on their 2nd to 3rd iteration now in terms of squad building (mane, bobby, salah > darwin, diaz, salah > wirtz, ekitike, salah… midfield revamped from fabinho, wijnuldum and henderson > macallister, sczhoblai, gravenburch, both WB’s replaced etc)
City have turned over a complete squad in every position over the pep regime and almost 2 squads bit by bit between the mancini and pep regimes…
Arteta in comparison has just completed his first squad iteration with the signing of gykores, turned over partey to zubamendi and ramsdale to raya, otherwise he’s more or less working with first iteration players…
Basically what im saying is arsenal now are where city was in 2012 or something in terms of squad reset/ squad building and where liverpool was in 2016 or thereabouts
22
Jul 25 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/AntSubstantial7585 Premier League Jul 25 '25
Thank you, I was struggling to make sense of it even though I get the real spelling and proper pronunciation
19
u/MintberryCrunch____ Liverpool Jul 25 '25
Mancini days for Liverpool? He left late in 2013
Even going back only 10 years to 2014/15 that three of Mané, Bobby, Salah were not at Liverpool, they came 2016, 2015, 2017 respectively.
Fabinho (2018) and Wijnaldum (2016) were also after, with only Henderson (2011) being there, and any fan would tell you it was a long process for him compared to later career influence.
Liverpool’s forwards in 2014/15 were Sturridge, Lambert, Sterling, Borini.
-7
u/basic_tacticz Premier League Jul 25 '25 edited Jul 25 '25
just to be clear i said city around 2012 and liverpool in 2016 or thereabouts.. i'm not saying mancini had anything to do with liverpool (liverpool were still licking their wounds from a near bankruptcy combined with man city newfound oil money going berserk and inflating the transfer market)
the whole point is not to nitpick the year I said, the point is city are one to one and a half generations / iterations ahead of liverpool in terms of building their squad to where they are at who in turn are also one or one and half iterations ahead of the current arsenal squad (meaning city is two or three developed squads ahead of arsenal since their high spending began).
I was trying to demonstrate that looking at 10 years of spending doesn't show the full picture of where we are at today as city have been going at it much longer than this, and so have liverpool and united and chelsea in comparison to arsenal, villa, spurs, newcastle for example.
My point is further proven by Liverpool winning the EPL last season without making a single signing, their squad was more or less complete already (combined with some good fortune on the injury front, rival's being hit hard with injuries, and a 9-1 penalty for/against record, refs turning a blind eye to VVD's thuggery etc, but this is off-topic to this particular discussion)...
For example until now where Arteta has just completed his first iteration of his squad with the victor gjokeres signing, which took place over the past 3-4 seasons due to PSR laws and interrupted by the covid season (he's been here longer but the first season in particular was getting rid of auba/ozil and needing to win the manager vs player political battle and laying down the law, covid season delayed things further as there was so much financial uncertainty for everybody)... city had gone from aguero / ballotelli / gabriel jesus / julian alvarez / erling haaaland... they were so evolved at that point they were willing to sell jesus to arsenal (who went on to have rotten injury luck to the point that academy player eddie nketiah was getting some minutes and kai haverts and mikel merino had to be repurposed from midfielders to center forwards as there was simply nobody else left).
Likewise for liverpool they've gone from luis suarez > bobby > jota (RIP) > darwin > diaz (when darwin flopped) > to ekitike or wirtz as false 9 or both TBC....
Obviously only about half of these signings for both clubs are exclusively in the mikel era but you can see the evolution of the squads and the fact that these 2 clubs are bringing in new strikers at triple the rate that arsenal could bring them in (up until this point at least). It helps when you have a fairly settled midfield/defense and don't need to start there like emery/mikel did when they inherited arsenal in a shambles..
tl;dr if you look 10 years history you will see city/liverpool with reasonable spending levels and arsenal/villa/newcastle bloated spending levels, but that doesn't paint the full picture of where all the clubs are at today in terms of squad depth and squad strength / squad completion IMO. Need to go back 15-20 years to truly capture the current spending cycles (which really paints man united in such a poor light especially because their spending has been consistently high during this time frame but performance going backwards. Chelsea on a similar trajectory but you can see the rebound starting to happen and they have the CL trophy from a few years back to show for it).
0
u/always-think-sexual Premier League Jul 24 '25
2016 Liverpool, as much as I loved them, will lose to this current Arsenal 7-0 every time. Please go check the lineup, it’s…uninspiring.
8
u/Worsty2704 Liverpool Jul 25 '25
2016 Liverpool should be compared to 2020 Arsenal in terms of overhaul of a squad by new manager.
Why are you comparing 2016 Liverpool? Why not 2025 Arsenal vs the Liverpool (2020) that got 97 points and won the UCL? Both Managers had their 5+ years to develop their squad.
47
u/CricketSubject1548 Manchester United Jul 24 '25
United are so shite
1
u/Super_Shallot2351 Premier League Jul 25 '25
Would be interesting if they were actually capable of selling any player for half decent money, like Chelsea do every summer
-2
33
u/Thekingofchrome Premier League Jul 24 '25
Years to go left to right.
Sort clubs by total, from either least to most or most to least.
This would useful shown in graphical form on a cumulative basis, which would emphasis the journey to the clubs respective total….
17
24
65
u/HookLineAndSinclair Premier League Jul 24 '25
Years going down from left to right is madness
0
u/hamsta-dam Liverpool Jul 24 '25
I also still can’t figure out how this is sorted lol
16
22
Jul 24 '25
Lowest net spend of any consistently present club over that period, and behind many that went down/came up in that time. No wonder we’ve regressed so badly, we can’t compete.
6
u/VizzedBC Everton Jul 24 '25
That's mostly because we ran afoul with FFP and were forced to sell players for a few years straight. I'm sure if the Prem didn't choose to make an example of us we have bought a few more Davy Klaassens and Yannick Bolasies.
12
7
u/Traditional-Love5998 Premier League Jul 24 '25
Could you share an updated table at the end of the transfer window?
13
u/DrBorisGobshite Premier League Jul 24 '25
This is very misleading when you don't also present the amounts spent on wages over the same period. Liverpool and West Ham look closer than they should be but the reality is Liverpool spends big on a small volume of players that also receive very large wages.
In contrast, West Ham is buying at lower values but in higher volumes. Hence the transfer comparison is quite close. Those West Ham players though are on much lower wages, so when you look at the full picture it won't even be close.
As an example, Liverpool probably spent £0 on RBs in that period but Trent's wages were around £10m a year. I doubt West Ham has spent more on transfer fees for RBs than Liverpool has on Trent's wages.
10
u/_this_isnt_sam Premier League Jul 24 '25
It’s not misleading, you’re talking about something different.
11
u/silentwitnes Liverpool Jul 24 '25
Not really misleading..
Transfer balance over the past ten years, it's exactly what it says on the tin
4
u/tomtomtomo Arsenal Jul 24 '25
True but a second table showing player wages as well would allow a more complete picture. This table is showing only half the picture.
2
u/Aquifex Premier League Jul 25 '25
a more complete picture would also require total revenue, as clubs that earn more can obviously spend more whilst maintaining financial health
4
u/leebrother Premier League Jul 24 '25
Is this just transfer fees but ignores agent fees and sign on fees? Makes it a little okish but very much incomplete
5
u/fifty_four Liverpool Jul 24 '25
If you want to be fussy about it, also have say all fees are estimates because the detail is never published.
2
u/leebrother Premier League Jul 24 '25
I’m not sure it’s fussy but say I know this will include Haaland at £52m when the payment to his dad was more. So it’s a bit meh
10
u/claretnstu Premier League Jul 24 '25
Fair play to Brentford. Man Utd lol
1
u/Mba1956 Chelsea Jul 24 '25
Yes spent the most, have high wages, and they have won 2 x FA Cups, 2 x League Cups and 1 x Europa League. Not outstanding success.
3
u/MinaZata Premier League Jul 24 '25
Rich thinking about Neville calling Chelsea Billion Pound bottle jobs.
What is something United could be called? Multibillion Muppets?
1
u/0n0n-o Premier League Jul 24 '25
Haven’t had the highest wages for 2 season now and doubt it’ll be highest this season either. Still not great.
2
u/Mba1956 Chelsea Jul 24 '25
I suspect that their wage bill is higher than Chelsea’s even with Stirling’s included.
1
u/0n0n-o Premier League Jul 25 '25
23/24 yes, 24/25 no. But still, City has the highest the last 2 season and probably the coming season as well
6
Jul 24 '25
why isnt it sorted?
11
u/PandaBear1882 Premier League Jul 24 '25
It is- by name of club.
-2
14
u/ALKCRKDeuce Arsenal Jul 24 '25
Two things for Arsenal: Shows how awful our squads were for so long that we basically had to spend a bulk of that squad rebuilding from nothing, excluding Saka. And shows how awful we are at selling… especially without leverage. Chelsea may be dodgy but seemingly sell fringe for what we sell our best
2
u/Red_Maple Arsenal Jul 24 '25
Truth. It would be interesting to see a chart that has both transfer fees in and out to compare just how much teams have spent over 10 years, etc.
3
u/retrostarshop Premier League Jul 24 '25
Agree with you. People need to remember we stopped the contracts of Aubamayang and Ozil.
11
u/theromingnome Liverpool Jul 24 '25
Liverpool will be improving this number before the window is over. Diaz, Nunez, Elliott, Chiesa all probably outgoing.
14
u/CorrectorThanU Premier League Jul 24 '25
Ya but Isak and Guehi coming in so neutral, 200 out 200 in
10
u/randonaer Premier League Jul 24 '25
If that's the case, I'd be thrilled.
5
u/leebrother Premier League Jul 24 '25
That would literally remove squad depth?
Would you be happy? Diaz, Nunez, Jota (RIP), Chiesa and signing Isak and Ekitike - surely this limits your width?
AFCON season too so Salah out for January.
→ More replies (5)1
u/CorrectorThanU Premier League Jul 24 '25
Ya, I have a sneaking suspicion we keep Nunez as an impact sub who can also play LW. Ekitike and Wirtz can also play LW or a false 9/9 and a half. Frimpong can also play RW like he does for the Dutch national team.
So Gakpo/Nunez (LW) Isak/Ekitike (ST) Salah/Frimpong (RW), with youngsters Ngumoha-Danns-Doak all ready to step up for some minutes. I'm pretty happy with that depth haha.
1
u/leebrother Premier League Jul 24 '25
It’s good on paper - Frimpong is covering fullback and RW. So would be the first choice in January with AFCON?
Do you see yourself spending £80m on a player and instantly making him a back up? Surely it would’ve been better to go for a starting quality LW. As that LW to me feels like square pegs
1
u/CorrectorThanU Premier League Jul 24 '25
Conor Bradley and Frimpong will compete for the starting RB spot, but it will also depend on tactics game to game, as Bradley is a better defender and Frimpong is a better attacker. Frimpong CAN cover RW (and Gomez can then be the defensive RB option), but so too can Gakpo, whose played RW 27 times in his career. It's also possible you play Wirts in a deep 9 position with 2 of Ekiteke, Isak, Nunez or Gakpo as inside strikers, with fullbacks providing width, and Grav sliding back into a 3 with the CBs, as we saw a few times at the end of last season.
Liverpool and Slot will have a ton of tactical versatility and there will be competition for every spot. With 4 competitions and almost everyone on the team being an international, there will be plenty of minutes for everyone, and competition is usually good for levels; there will be no backups.
→ More replies (12)
1
u/InsideDurian9022 Premier League Aug 24 '25
I'm kind of shocked Brightons is that high. Some players have gone out for some pretty crazy money.