NFL Players Quietly Dropped Push for Media Locker Room Ban
In this summer’s European soccer transfer window, which closed Tuesday, it was again clubs in the English Premier League that flashed the cash. The league’s 20 teams spent a combined $4.7 billion in transfer fees on 315 new players. That was more than the total spent by clubs in Italy ($1.39 billion), Germany ($939 million), Spain ($877 million), and France ($670 million) combined.
This is becoming a familiar story, but the numbers remain striking. Across the five leagues, there were 13 clubs with a net spend (transfer fees paid minus fees received) of more than 100 million euros. Nine of those teams were in the Premier League. The average team in the other four leagues, which include giants such as Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, and Paris Saint-Germain, spent around $46 million on new players. The average Premier League team spent $238 million.
Put differently, 38 players moved clubs over the summer for a transfer fee of 50 million euros or more, and 32 of those deals had a Premier League team either buying or selling.
The big theme of the transfer window was an intensification of trading between Premier League clubs. The three biggest deals of the European summer—Enzo Fernández moving from Chelsea to Manchester City ($168 million), Morgan Rogers from Aston Villa to Chelsea ($160 million), and Elliot Anderson from Nottingham Forest to Manchester City ($156 million)—were all between Premier League clubs. Even a decade ago, these sorts of deals used to be a rarity. The biggest Premier League teams would buy the best players from the competition’s smaller sides, and teams across the league would look abroad for talent. But big-name players moving between established teams in their prime was rare. Clubs and fans were territorial. Even inquiring about another team’s stars was considered an aggressive move.
But in the mid-2020s, players moving between the biggest clubs has become much more common. The main reason for this is economic. The Premier League has become a financial juggernaut, pulling in broadcast rights revenues far in excess of other leagues.
And because the Premier League divides this revenue relatively equally among its clubs, the spending power of smaller teams has risen so that they have become competitive with the biggest teams in leagues elsewhere.
This has created a cycle within England: The larger clubs have to pay more to sign elite Premier League players, but they are also then able to command more money for their castoffs. For example, Chelsea had to pay a huge fee to sign Rogers from Aston Villa. A player of the same age, status, and playing style signed from Italy and Spain would not have cost $160 million. Going the other direction, Chelsea wanted to sell its Senegalese forward, Nicolas Jackson. It surely advertised his availability abroad, but none of the European giants outside of England could have matched or exceeded the $63 million offered by Aston Villa. Newcastle United would probably have preferred to sell its Italian midfielder Sandro Tonali to a team outside of the Premier League, rather than to a direct rival in Tottenham. But Tottenham offered an enormous fee of $125 million, which it made sense for Newcastle to accept.
As the Premier League continues to float off into a financial realm of its own, more of these intra-league deals are likely.
The SCR Era Begins
Another factor influencing Premier League transfer spending is a shift in the league’s financial rules. Under the previous system, known as the profit and sustainability rules, clubs were forbidden from running a loss of more than 120 million euros over three consecutive seasons. The problem with PSR was that a loss of that magnitude was much more sustainable for Liverpool (annual revenue around $800 million) than Brentford ($230 million).
This season the league has adopted a new formula, the squad cost ratio. This limits clubs to spending 85% of their revenue on transfer fees and wages, and accounts for the vastly different sizes of teams in the league. It does, however, appear to have an unintended consequence. Tottenham, for example, has long been one of the league’s most fiscally conservative teams. Under its former chairman, Daniel Levy, it routinely opted against signing players who wanted big wages, as Levy knew that bringing in a single big earner would lead to the rest of the squad demanding higher pay when contracts were renewed.
But this summer, following Levy’s departure, the club has spent nearly half a billion dollars on four players. This would have been extremely challenging to do in the PSR era, given the cap on the absolute value of the loss. Instead, the SCR ratio offers the club more headroom. After consecutive 17th-place finishes, the Tottenham hierarchy appears to have decided that it may as well spend its way out of trouble and take advantage of the fact that in its specific circumstances, the new rules are more permissive.
Dominance or Inertia?
It isn’t just the value of the deals that is rising steeply—players who moved for fees of 30 million to 40 million euros five years ago are now going for twice that—but this summer has also seen a rise in volume. As yet, it is impossible to tell whether this is the start of a structural shift in the market or merely the start of a new cycle.
Less than four months ago, Aston Villa won its first trophy in 30 years, when it beat Freiburg in the Europa League final. However, six of its eleven starters that night have since moved on. There have also been very high levels of turnover at Newcastle United and Tottenham. Manchester City bought five new midfielders for more than $500 million and made more than half that back by selling five players. An unusually high number of teams have brought in new head coaches in the past six months (including Newcastle and Manchester City), and this tends to result in an increased level of player trading.
Equally, it is possible that a level of inertia has set in. Absent any genuinely new ideas of how to gain an edge on the pitch, signing new players is one of the easiest levers for the Premier League’s executive class to pull. Fans routinely talk of “winning” the transfer window, as if player trading was its own parallel competition. If suitably enforced, the new financial rules will prevent outright financial disaster, but they are too lax to force clubs to search for the players that offer the best value. Instead, the Premier League’s vastly larger resources mean that it is increasingly a world unto itself. With only a handful of clubs elsewhere on a similar footing, Premier League clubs just need one another to keep the transfer market turning over.
