By most standards Arsenal had a decent transfer window, as they managed to strengthen their midfield and defence, but many of their fans were still left disappointed by the absence of a marquee signing in attack.
Arsenal had aimed high, setting their sights on the likes of Vinicius Junior and Julian Alvarez, but the club failed to get either of those deals across the line. They also lost out on Morgan Rogers and Bradley Barcola, after they were blown out of the water by Chelsea and Liverpool respectively.
Given that they lost three attacking players in the shape of Leandro Trossard, Gabriel Martinelli and Gabriel Jesus, while only bringing in Christos Tzolis, there are understandable concerns that the Gunners might be left short upfront (though the return of Kai Havertz from injury is “like a new signing”).
Ambition
Despite these setbacks, Arsenal still have a very strong squad, one that was good enough to win the Premier League and reach the Champions League final, but they would have wanted to build on that solid platform.
Indeed, manager Mikel Arteta was very keen to add more quality, “We want to reach another level. We’re going to have to show that ambition, because we are more than capable of doing it (winning the Champions League), but it’s going to demand us to be very, very ambitious, very fast and very smart.”
However, as it stands, the Gunners appear to have fewer options in attacking positions than they did last season.
Negotiating Style
Some have attributed this failure to match Arteta’s ambition to sporting director Andrea Berta’s “spinning plates” approach, whereby the Italian apparently keeps many options warm before making his choice.
The lack of decisive action has reportedly frustrated dealmakers at other clubs, exacerbated by much use of intermediaries, leading to numerous targets moving elsewhere.
Value For Money
The club has also been unwilling to pay transfer fees that exceed their valuations of players, which was one reason why they withdrew from the race for Rogers and Barcola.
Berta explained his philosophy, “My time in banking gave me a solid foundation in economics and a deep respect for the value of money. There have been times I chose to walk away from a potential deal rather than show a lack of respect for money by paying more than necessary.”
Transfer Window 2026
Despite missing out on some targets, Arsenal did end up splashing out £196m this summer, the major signings being Bruno Guimaraes from Newcastle United for £75m, Ezri Konsa from Aston Villa for £51m and Tzolis from Club Brugge for £40m.
In addition, Piero Hincapie’s loan deal from Bayer Leverkusen was made permanent for £40m, while Illan Meslier arrived from Leeds United on a free transfer.
Indeed, including agent fees (assumed to be 10%), the 4% Premier League levy and a 5% solidarity payment for international deals, the total cost added up to a chunky £223m.
However, the transfer spending has been offset by £103m from player sales, most notably the deal taking Gabriel Martinelli to Al-Hilal for £60m, which was almost entirely profit, as his remaining book value was negligible.
They also made money from the sales of Leandro Trossard to Besiktas, Gabriel Jesus to Barcelona, Fabio Vieira to Hamburg and Christian Norgaard to Everton, while Ethan Nwaneri joined Borussia Dortmund on loan.
Reiss Nelson left on a free transfer, but Arsenal did pick up a sell-on fee after Brooke Norton-Cuffy was sold to Hull City by Genoa.
In addition, a couple of loans were converted to permanent deals, namely Jakub Kiwior to Porto and Karl Hein to Werder Bremen, though these are likely to be included in the 2025/26 accounts, as these moves were announced before Arsenal’s 31 May accounting close.
Excluding the various add-ons, Arsenal’s £196m gross spend was a lot lower than many of their rivals, so it was less than half of Manchester City’s £458m, while four other clubs splashed out more than a quarter of a billion, namely Chelsea £362m, Tottenham £319m, Newcastle United £274m and Aston Villa £261m.
Of course, many of these clubs also sold well, especially Chelsea £419m, Aston Villa £318m, Manchester City £301m and Newcastle United £243m, all of whom generated significantly more than Arsenal’s £103m.
Even so, Arsenal’s £92m net spend was only ninth highest in the Premier League, less than half of Liverpool’s table-topping £207m. In fact, they were outspent by all three promoted clubs (Ipswich Town £175m, Coventry City £135m and Hull City £134m), as well as Brentford £97m.
To a certain extent, Arsenal’s relatively restrained transfer window is the logical result of their big spending in recent seasons, especially 2024/25, when they established a new club record of £292m.
In this way, they have spent a hefty £1.1 bln in the last five years, compared to “only” £750m in the preceding 5-year period. The ramp-up was even more evident when looking at net spend, which almost doubled from £465m to £820m.
Restricted by Financial Regulations?
There have been a few whispers that Arsenal’s transfer activity this summer was restricted by the need to comply with financial regulations, with some suggesting that the club is sailing quite close to the wind.
These people argue that this is why they had to raise a decent sum from player sales, as well as keeping a close eye on the financial impact of any incomings.
In response, the club has denied that it is at risk of a breach, but there will always be some that say “there is no smoke without fire”.
Vini Jr Contradiction
On the other hand, if Arsenal were in danger of failing to comply, their lengthy pursuit of Vinicius Jr would make little sense, as they would have had to pay Real Madrid a substantial transfer fee, as well as ripping up their wage structure, if they were to have any chance of signing the Brazilian superstar.
Financial Regulations
The rest of this article will look at whether Arsenal do in fact have any problems with the various financial regulations, as operated by both the Premier League and UEFA:
Premier League
Profitability and Sustainability Regulations (PSR)
Squad Cost Ratio (SCR)
UEFA
Football Earnings rule
Squad Cost rule