Premier League Transfer Analysis: Net Spend, Value for Money & Strategic Spending Explained | OneFootball

Premier League clubs are typically at the forefront of the conversation whenever the transfer window opens in professional football.

The English top flight is generally the biggest spender among all the main leagues worldwide, with its clubs shelling out money at a remarkable rate.

Expenditure on players is a metric which many fans use to determine whether a club is serious about winning, but it doesn’t even tell half of the story.

With that in mind, we have analysed Premier League transfer dealings from 2020/21 to 2024/25 inclusive to determine what the figures actually reveal.

Signing players does not guarantee success

If silverware were awarded purely on the basis of how much a club spent in the transfer market, Chelsea would need to extend their trophy cabinet at Stamford Bridge.

The club has spent €1.74 billion on 142 new players in the past five years. These are mind-boggling numbers, however you choose to decipher them.

Chelsea have won the Champions League, Super Cup, Club World Cup and Europa Conference League during that timeframe, but it is difficult to argue that they have had value for money.

The club’s fans may argue that the €803.30 million generated from 138 departures paints a different picture financially.

The ‘net spend’ concept has become increasingly prevalent in recent years when debating Premier League finances and is an element we will assess later.

Based purely on expenditure, fans of Manchester United, Tottenham Hotspur and Arsenal have plenty of reasons to question their respective clubs.

United have shelled out €926.23m on 91 players, many of whom have flopped badly since signing for the club. Tottenham also have little to show for their €843.75m outlay.

Some pundits argue that Arsenal’s €783.30m expenditure in the last five years has improved their fortunes, and three consecutive second-place finishes in the league support this to a degree.

However, when you factor in that Liverpool have won four trophies during the same period having spent €245.20m less, questions can be asked about the Gunners’ transfer business.

The summer of 2023 was a particularly expensive transfer window at the Emirates Stadium, with the club splashing the cash to sign Declan Rice and Kai Havertz.

While both players have produced numerous positive performances, their efforts have not been enough to help Arsenal end their lengthy trophy drought.

By contrast, Manchester City’s €969.90m outlay on players has delivered the desired results, with the club collecting numerous titles over the past five years.

Notably, City have recouped €599.4m in player sales, resulting in a net spend that is lower than that of five other Premier League clubs.

While the figure appears to be a useful metric for gauging a club’s efficiency in the transfer market, it can be argued that relying on it exclusively is misleading.

Net spend is just one piece of the puzzle

While net spend has some merit in terms of determining how a club operates, it is ultimately only one piece of the puzzle in professional football. Here are some of the other key elements to consider:

Revenue generation

Clubs with greater matchday income, commercial revenue and broadcasting deals can afford a higher net spend without impacting their financial stability.

Comparing the net spend for clubs in different leagues or those in a different market without considering revenue potential can be hugely misleading.

Depreciation & amortisation

Net spend does not account for depreciation and amortisation. The latter – spreading the cost of a transfer fee over the duration of the player’s contract – impacts financial reports.

Accounting in many industries is not a straightforward matter. Depreciation and amortisation can make a club’s spending look different from reality.

Transaction timing

Our snapshot of Premier League transfer dealings covers a five-year period. However, this does not necessarily paint an accurate picture of a club’s transfer strategy.

For example, many of Man City’s signings who contributed to their success in recent seasons were made before the timeframe assessed.

Salary & contract structure

Salaries, signing bonuses and agent fees also heavily impact a club’s finances, but are elements which are not factored into net spend calculations.

The length of a player’s contract influences how transfer fees are amortised and can affect financial statements much differently than net spend figures imply.

Player development

Clubs which invest significant resources into youth development may have a lower net spend as they are developing their own players rather than acquiring them in the transfer market.

Selling academy graduates can generate significant income, which lowers the next spend but does not reflect the investment made in developing them.

Strategic factors

Transfer strategies vary across the football world. Some clubs may prioritise short-term success by splashing the cash, while others may focus on the long-term picture.

Net spend merely provides a basic snapshot of transfer business over a predefined period rather than an accurate assessment of the strategic factors driving those moves.

Net spend – magic or myth?

Solely using net spend calculations to determine whether a club is operating successfully is undoubtedly fraught with danger.

Liverpool’s move for Florian Wirtz in 2025 is an excellent vehicle for delving deeper into the mechanics of a big-money transfer in modern football.

The Merseyside outfit agreed to pay a club record £100m for the 22-year-old, with a further £16m potentially due in future add-ons.

While net spend would place the £100m base fee in Liverpool’s 2025/26 transfer business, the outlay will actually be spread until the end of the 2029/30 accounting period.

Including agent fees and a transfer levy, the signing will add £21.4m to Liverpool’s amortisation costs in 2025/26, then £22.7m annually for the subsequent four years.

The potential £16m in add-ons could impact these figures and are generally payable in full upon achievement of each element.

Wirtz’s salary must also be considered when assessing Liverpool’s total investment in acquiring him, but net spend fails to take this into account.

The German international will reportedly earn £10.2m per year in wages, but this figure could rose to £12.7m ‘if individual and team-performance targets are met’.

Assuming those achievable elements are in the equation, Liverpool will pay Wirtz £63.5m over the course of his five-year contract with the club.

When factoring in all the different pieces of the financial pie, the club’s total outlay on Wirtz will be nearer to £200m, albeit spread over the next five years.

The structure of this eye-watering deal differs significantly from moves for players who complete transfers for much lower fees.

For example, let’s say that one of the big Premier League clubs signs a player on a five-year deal for £40m plus £5m in add-ons. He agrees to the same salary level as Wirtz.

Given that the fee is lower, the club will often pay the entire transfer fee up front or in staggered instalments over a 12-month period.

This helps to reduce the overall cost of the transfer as selling clubs generally prefer to receive the money quickly rather than spread the payments over several years.

However, the buying club will still be able to record the base fee cost as £8m per annum over five years due to player amortisation.

This once again skews the net spend metric as the calculation will place the entire £40m fee into the 2025/26 season.

Free transfers are another element which net spend fails to take into account. For instance, Manchester United signed Zlatan Ibrahimovic for free in July 2016.

It was subsequently revealed that the Swedish international was paid an annual salary of more than £19m. He left the club in March 2018, so United’s total outlay on him was around £35m.

Clubs that leverage free transfers to their advantage can make their net spend look more favourable compared to those who don’t head down that route.

Net spend – The final word

Debates about the merits of net spend as financial yardstick have raged for several years and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

Man City’s fourth consecutive title success in 2024/25 triggered plenty of noise about net spend, particularly from their main rivals.

However, based on the five-year period detailed above, the club’s net spend was not vastly different from Liverpool’s during that timeframe.

Reds fans argue that first five years of Guardiola’s tenure as manager are a more accurate reflection of the disparity between how the two clubs operate.

City had a net spend of £656m during that period, £338m more than Liverpool. However, as demonstrated through this analysis, those figures do no tell the whole story.

The sale of Philippe Coutinho to Barcelona distorted the net spend figures and suggestions that Liverpool have not been operating on a level playing field are nonsense.

The club purchased the world’s most expensive goalkeeper and defender in 2018, proving they are not averse to splashing the cash when needed.

The club record outlay on Wirtz may be used as stick to beat them with when the 2025/26 figures come into the equation, but that argument would be equally flawed.

While net spend is a headline-grabbing metric, it oversimplifies the complex nature of finances in professional football at the top level.

Using transfer fees alone to determine how clubs are operating is a hugely flawed concept which could be taken with a pinch of salt.