Arsenal, Manu and city all spent 1 billion + in last 10 years

So many points here that are absolutely hilarious:

1) City gets so much hate for supposedly buying their way to titles and yet United spent more than them and performed far worse
2) PSG is not even in top 3 despite having a similar reputation to City as super spenders far beyond the rest of Europe
3) Newcastle is 7th despite only just being bought by Saudi
4) The rest of Europe should be embarrassed that Real has dominated the CL so completely while spending so little. Incredibly well managed club

1) City gets so much hate for supposedly buying their way to titles and yet United spent more than them and performed far worse

city cooked their books, probably spent triple that

it's why they're gonna get relegated and stripped

City is selling their U21 players for 20 mil where as Chelsea just made 250 mil from player sales after their worst ever season. I dont know what kind of genjutsu they use, but the bottom line is that they are pretty good in doing their job. So you are comparing that kind of cutthroat efficiency with United who have been one of the worst run clubs in the last 10 or so years. Its not even a level playing field. I mean you got to have good qualified people at the right positions for it to be that. Instead we had Woodward and his lackeys.
Imagine signing Sancho in a champions league year and giving him 350k salary like its nothing. Or giving Dean Henderson 120k after a handful of good loans or Martial 250k. We will always end up looking disgustingly bad in net spend charts because we simply find it impossible to shift our players.
Anyway I think since that clown Woodward is gone it seems there have been positive changes. Lets see what translates in the next 5 years or so.

That table demonstrates the reality of today’s soccer.

1. There are only a handful of clubs that can compete for top players. It’s the oil state clubs, plus a few more in EPL with their long standing top club status and their TV contract and then Bayern and Real Madrid, long confirmed top club status.

2. Then there are Barcelona, Milan and a couple other Italian clubs that once were competitive, but are in deep financial dodo. Perhaps at some future date, they may return.

3. It also demonstrates well run clubs i. e. real Madrid and Bayer.

4. Also clear is poorly run clubs i. e. Barcelona, ManU, milan.

5. I wouldn’t say the oil state clubs have cooked their books, but definitely they have found ways around FFP, thus making a mockery of the weak rules. Only City has had any success with their influx of Capital.

Meaningful player recruitment, pulling power and ability to re-gain some of the money spent through player sales is a big factor in all of this, and Man United have been failing on all accounts for a really long time now. If you include player sales, they'd look much worse in all of this.

Spain is so finished

Burnley, recently promoted to the Premier League, have spent more in this transfer window (€65.7m) than Barça, Atlético Madrid, Athletic Club, Real Sociedad, Villarreal, Sevilla and Real Betis combined (€55.6m). pic.twitter.com/d7RsFrgAzK

— Barça Universal (@BarcaUniversal) July 29, 2023

This is an amazing chart. United spending 30% more than City. Arsenal spending the same. Lots of narratives falling apart.

I wonder what a wage bill chart would look like. I think a little less surprising

BarrileteCosmico wrote:This is an amazing chart. United spending 30% more than City. Arsenal spending the same. Lots of narratives falling apart.

I wonder what a wage bill chart would look like. I think a little less surprising

Do you really believe City's numbers? I don't

halamadrid2 wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:This is an amazing chart. United spending 30% more than City. Arsenal spending the same. Lots of narratives falling apart.

I wonder what a wage bill chart would look like. I think a little less surprising

Do you really believe City's numbers? I don't

I mean, transfers are public knowledge, right? Both clubs have to come out and say how much they spent. I don't see how they can cook this.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:This is an amazing chart. United spending 30% more than City. Arsenal spending the same. Lots of narratives falling apart.

I wonder what a wage bill chart would look like. I think a little less surprising

They haven't though. City dwarfs them in terms of transfer expenditure. Unlike Arsenal in particular, City can always count on offloading some of the expensive toys they acquired in previous windows to lower their overall balance.

Sure, but I feel like net transfers is a better measure of how much money the owners are really putting into the clubs than total. And of how well the club is run.

Pre Boehly, we would have probably fallen out of that top 10.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:Sure, but I feel like net transfers is a better measure of how much money the owners are really putting into the clubs than total. And of how well the club is run.

It's not that hard to figure out which team received the largest capital injection from its owners...it's the team that amassed over 100 financial infractions and is potentially facing relegation as a consequence

Incompetent outliers like Manchester United aside, net spending is more of an indicator of where the teams are in their investment cycle. Teams like Arsenal, Ac Milan, and Inter Milan are high on these lists because they've only started investing in their squads in recent years and during a highly inflated market to boot.They don't have the benefit of financing these investments with the sales of assets they've acquired in previous windows.

Most teams that spend big for several seasons have a high chance of becoming self-sustainable at some point. The fact that PSG can finance the purchase of two new superstars with the potential sales of Neymar and/or Mbappé and still have a positive transfer balance doesn't mean they're not one of the biggest spending teams in the history of the sport.

The way City and PSG fans misinterpret net spend data reminds me of what Chelsea fans were doing in the mid 2010s. According to them, the label of petrodollar-financed team no longer applied to them the moment they started making a profit on player sales and abiding by the newly established FFP rules. They somehow forgot that it only took them a decade of record yearly losses and the highest expenditure to revenue in the history of the sport to reach that status

Interesting statstics in the op post. Thanks for sharing!

Here are my thoughts of the football money spending situation:

The amount of money that's being thrown around by big clubs is utterly ridiculous. It's a shame so much of club success is decided by big amounts of money nowadays. I know football has always been about money, but it's crazy how teams can spend over 200 million a season and still not win a trophy.