Have Chelsea and Manchester United killed the transfer market?
What happens when lunacy becomes the new norm
Arsenal’s decision to bow out of the Mykhailo Mudryk sweepstakes by not matching Chelsea’s commitment of nearly £8.8m for every senior goal the player has scored seemed, at the time, like a win for sanity. That’s simply too much to pay for a player coming from such a small league, with so few games played, regardless of how easy he is on the eyes.
Within days, links emerged about a potential next man up for the Gunners: Moussa Diaby. But his current club, Bayer Leverkusen, quickly delivered a dagger via leaks to the media: If you want him, give us the Mudryk money.
I’m an appreciator of Moussa Diaby, who’s basically the only good thing Bayer Leverkusen have going for them this season. But €100m would be lunacy for the player, who hasn’t even done to the Bundesliga what (so far) flop Jadon Sancho did during his time there. €65m or so over the summer felt steep; €100m is extortionate.
The experience of losing Mudryk and then being rebuked so harshly on our next real (or not) link has led some Arsenal supporters to ponder whether Chelsea’s decision to cave to Shakhtar Donetsk’s €100m price (and Manchester United’s €100m cave to Ajax before that) has simply ruined the market. Won’t every club with a young, high-potential winger of interest to the Premier League ask for the same package?
My answer: I think some will. And it will become even more important for the club to choose its business partners carefully.
The footballing world has always been separated into the haves and have-nots. Historically, bigger clubs with money have been able to offer what feels to them a pittance to take the best player from a top club in Ukraine, or the Netherlands, or even in a larger league like France. The appeal of joining a Manchester United, Arsenal, Barcelona or PSG would cause the player to react with disappointment should his current club turn down that deal. And more often than not, the money coming into the club would be more than enough to move forward effectively.
But over the past couple of summers, these high-profile (lack of) negotiations by Chelsea and United have allowed Ajax and Shakhtar to flip the script, in each case setting a new club transfer record (by only about €10m for Ajax, but just shy of double for the Ukraine outfit).
This outcome is certain to lead some clubs in strong positions to ask for the same. After all, Shakhtar’s public declarations seemed crazy in October or November, and just two months later Rinat Akhmetov is laughing on his way to the bank.
Moving forward, we could see more clubs act this way toward their best players, particularly those who are European mainstays (like Leverkusen) and/or who have the player under control for a considerable period (Diaby’s contract has two seasons beyond this one).
The trend of clubs taking this position is only compounded by the natural difficulty of operating in the January transfer market. Deals have always been expensive mid-season, because clubs in many cases are quite literally giving up their best player in the midst of a title run, or European campaign or both.
Those clubs who are pushing to win their leagues, or who are still active heading into European knockouts — particularly the Champions League or the Europa League — have always been tough to deal with mid-season, and may be even more so now.
So what’s a club like Arsenal — who seemingly will not break discipline and pay outrageous sums for unproven players — to do in this environment?
Shop carefully.
Being so close to a first title in 19 years is a much different position than Arsenal were in a year ago at this time: Making the Champions League is huge for revenues and club prestige, but winning a title is winning a title. It’s literally one of the capstones of the entire project in the first place. So while Arsenal was incredibly discerning last January and opted not to add a striker, a lack of movement would be tougher for the club to justify this time around. Second- or third-tier options who are still appreciated by club leadership may have to be elevated, and maybe even overpaid for a bit.
Shakhtar Donetsk had its share of justifications for the Mudryk price — they felt he’s a genuine future Ballon d’or candidate (TBD), and have lost numerous valuable players for nothing due to war. But not every club will demand €100 million, and those are the clubs Arsenal should seek out.
Part of that will be some trial and error on the club’s part. Whether it’s because the player is a 2024 expiring (Nicolò Zaniolo, Nico Williams, Hamed Junior Traorè, Ismaïla Sarr, Samuel Chukwueze to name a few) or because the player simply wants out (Mohammed Kudus), some clubs will enter initial discussions much more ready to play ball.
Of course, the other option is to find and deal with clubs who utilize release clauses. They’re mandatory in Spain, and not every club prices out bidders by making those clauses worth €1B. Yeremy Pino, for example, carries an €80m clause, which isn’t exactly market value, but offers a release valve. Nico Williams has a €50m clause. In Portugal, Marcus Edwards has a release clause of €55m, while Porto’s Pepê has a clause reportedly worth €60m. These clauses are intentionally meant to be above market value to protect the sellers, so Arsenal would be wise to start lower in negotiations, saving the RC as a last-ditch option.
As an aside, one unintended consequence of sellers hardening against sales to big clubs could be a rise in players requiring reasonable releases in their contract extensions. We’ve seen players such as Erling Haaland and Christopher Nkunku already agree to stay on with their clubs for another year in exchange for a release clause that was below market value, and that future buyers could meet. Future players could essentially give their clubs the option: risk losing me for a little less than you’d like, or lose me for nothing.
But until anything of the sort really takes hold, it’s going to be difficult to acquire valuable players, particularly mid-season. But from where I stand, there are several options who could help this club, and summer plans or no, it’s time to move on at least one of them.
Great article. I think your point on Lower RC’s being more prevalent in contracts going forward is an important one, and a way for the power to shift back to the buyers/players. Bennacer is a good example of that. Just re-signed with AC, but told them to keep his RC at €50m for next year to give him an exit option.
I wonder if there’s some sort of tracker for # of high profile Free Agents over time? Feels like that list will also continue to grow in the future, though once a few clubs realize the danger of that strategy (Hi, Schalke!) it might revert back.