By Tony Attwood
I was hinting in my last article that Arsenal have found a very nifty, but equally utterly legal, way of getting more money into the club – by massively increasing their support in the United States (the top of the two articles ablve highlights the solution I think – although I would still stress, as I do there that this review is bsaed on my own look at Arsenal’s figures, and I am not an accountant (as my company accountant often told anyone who asks).
So, having come up with that, I thought I would do a bit of comparison between the top clubs in the Premier League, and as luck would have it, Football Observatory, whose figures I normally find unquestionable. And here they have provided some data, which helps us unravel the case.
Now their figures are always quoted in Euros, and to avoid any suggestion that I am fiddling the numbers, I have left them in Euros, but for your convenience, I’ve added that amount in pounds (today the euro is worth £0.87). You can find the original data in the article [Costliest squads.](https://football-observatory.com/WeeklyPost513) The Pound (£) figure is rounded up or down to the nearest million.
**Chelsea:**
* Transfer fees: 1,314m Euros (£1143m)
* Top fee: 134 €M (£117m)
* 69% players signed with a fee
* 54.7 €M (£48m) average fee paid for permanent transfers
**Manchester City:**
* Transfers fees: 1,128m Euros (£981m)
* Top fee: 90 €M (£78m)
* 78% of players signed with a fee
* 53.7 €M (£47m) average fee paid for permanent transfers
**Manchester United**
* Transfer fees: 1071 million euros (£932m)
* Top fee paid: 87€m (£68m)
* 85% of players signed with a fee
* 48.7 €M average fee (£42m) for permanent transfers
**Arsenal :**
* Transfer fees: 1001m euros (£871m)
* Top transfer fee 122 €M (£106.14m)
* 88% of players signed with a fee
* 45.5 €M average fee paid (£396m) for permanent transfers
**Liverpool:**
* Transfer fees: 928m euros (£931m)
* Top fee paid: 150 €m (131m)
* 73% of players signed with a fee
* 48.4 €M average fee paid (£42m) for permanent transfers
**Tottenham Hotspur**
* Transfer Fees: 974m euros spent on squad (£847m)
* Top transfer fee 76 €M (£66.12)
* 84% of players signed with a fee
* 38.5 €M average fee paid (£33m) for permanent transfers.
The above table is in order of the amount of money spent by each club on transfer fees, but there is a significant difference between the clubs when it comes to their most expensive players. Chelsea and Arsenal in particular have spent a huge amount on their most expensive players – and indeed one can see the logic behind that when one considers that previously Arsenal’s spend on Rice seemed astronomic but when one looks now at not only how he can play, but his influence on the pitch (not to mention his free kicks and the effect he can have on Paul Merson on Sky) is something else.
The table above is in the order of the amount spent this summer (descending), showing Arsenal in fourth place. When it comes to the amount spent on the costliest player for each club, we can see Arsenal in third place.
We can also see that Chelsea, despite bringing in multiple young players for their youth team, are seeking to break into the top of the league by outspending everyone else in terms of first-team players.
In fact the figures from Football Observatory also tell us the total transfer fees paid for the squad in each case, and here we get an interesting table
* Chelsea
* Manchester City
* Manchester United
* Liverpool
* Arsenal
* Tottenham
And to be clear, this is not me just looking at the clubs I have highlighted previously in this piece; it is the list of the [top spending clubs in the world this summer.](https://football-observatory.com/WeeklyPost513) The next clubs in the list are PSG, Real Madrid and Newcastle United.
Now this once again not only emphasises the money available to English PL teams compared with the rest of the world, but it also raises the point of where all their money is coming from. This, of course, is the essence of the 115 cases still outstanding against Manchester City, and I suspect that the League is awaiting the final outcome of that before taking on other clubs in the Premier League over the same issue.
Sponsors have thought previously that they can throw any money they like at a club (the infamous “Official Tractor Sponsor of Manchester City” always comes to mind), and I think Arsenal have found a way around this by building up an incredibly large and hence profitable following in the USA. I would stress I don’t have all the figures to back this up, but it seems one viable explanation of what is going on. That is Arsenal’s perfectly legit solution to the restrictions on expenditure. I just wonder what other clubs are up to.