Back when the coronavirus cauldron was raging, when panic, fear, confusion and anxiety boiled and bubbled together, at its hottest, most of football’s highest-paid stars braved a hostile backlash from the general public and declined to take pandemic pay cuts, despite talks with their clubs.
Out of the Big Six, only Arsenal’s players ended up agreeing to cut salaries – by 12.5 per cent for 12 months – and even then when Mesut Ozil refused the attacking midfielder was made into a scapegoat for ‘greedy’ players everywhere.
The Premier League wanted players to take 30 per cent cuts in April. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, insisted that “given the sacrifices many people are making, the first thing Premier League footballers can do is make a contribution.”
Gordon Taylor, the Professional Footballers’ Association chief executive, went in to bat for his players suited up in steel plate armour and, in hindsight, hit a double century. Look where we are now.
Chelsea have spent well over £100million on transfers and, should they secure Kai Havertz from Bayer Leverkusen for £90m, that will top £200m. Manchester City, meanwhile, have been exploring one of the biggest transfers in history – in terms of potential fee and wages – since Lionel Messi indicated to Barcelona his intention to leave. Both clubs held discussions with their players about reducing wages only five months ago.
You would presume after the pay cuts and making 55 staff redundant that Arsenal would focus on the current playing squad, perhaps offer extensions where necessary and look to promote from within.
Apparently not. Willian joined from Chelsea on a three-year deal and reported wages upwards of £200,000. And the latest is that Mikel Arteta is “pretty positive” that Lille defender Gabriel Magalhaes will join, for a fee of £27m.
Arsenal are said to have delayed going public about signing Willian due to the poor optics of announcing the deal so soon after letting so many staff go. So they waited 11 days. I’m sure the 55 unemployed former staff members were completely over it by then. Equally, the players are undoubtedly delighted about funding Willian’s wages.
Chelsea’s transfer splurge in such economically troubling times is perhaps the most striking, although there are some mitigating circumstances to their spending.
One argument put to me a while ago regarding Chelsea’s spending – they had already signed Timo Werner from RB Leipzig for £45m and Hakim Ziyech from Ajax for £34m by then – is that the club felt they were entitled to some catching up, having been under a Fifa transfer ban.
It caused minimal outrage when they started spending and perhaps others have taken note. Football – as with any big business or those in power – responds to money and PR, and it seems the wider public are over getting angry about Premier League finances. Maybe the strong feelings and emotions at the start of the pandemic have turned to apathy.
Chelsea, certainly, added Ben Chilwell from Leicester City for £50m and Havertz, one of the most exciting young players on the planet, looks set to follow. Thiago Silva from PSG will be on mega wages.
The excellent @SwissRamble tweeted a detailed thread on Monday morning explaining how Chelsea are able to spend so freely and are still likely to comply with Financial Fair Play restrictions, which goes some way to explaining their position. He explains they have offset losses on player wages and transfers by selling players for almost £200m in the last two years, mainly from the sales of Eden Hazard (£100m) and Alvaro Morata (£50m) and shedding some big salaries from their wage bill, notably Gary Cahill, Willian and Pedro.
It’s worth checking out the posts for more detail, if you’re interested, but it essentially explains that Chelsea have some bloody good accountants and have managed the buying and selling of players superbly.
“Over the last six years, they have reported a hefty £494m operating loss, but have largely offset this with an impressive £398m profit from player sales, resulting in pre-tax losses of ‘only’ £108m,” Mr Ramble writes. “Chelsea’s business model is far more reliant on player sales than any other major English club. In the last six years, their £398m from this activity is nearly £100m more than the next highest (Liverpool £305m and Tottenham £276m) with the others much lower (Arsenal £177m, Manchester City £147m and Manchester United £76m).”
It should also be noted that Manchester City have not actually signed Messi, but still, they have shelled out more than £60m on Nathan Ake, from Bournemouth, and Valencia’s Ferran Torres.
For all the talk of a ‘new normal’, the Premier League not putting themselves in a position where a suspension to play could put clubs at risk again and a possible financial reset, the elite clubs appear not to have changed one bit.
BEFORE YOU GO…
Last week, I wrote about the non-league clubs crowdfunding for their futures, telling the story of Hitchin Town, my hometown club, who were trying to raise £25,000 for vital works on their Top Field ground.
They received hundreds of pounds in donations directly through the link in the column online – so thank you, readers – added thousands of pounds that day and a week later have more than £23,000.
With monies raised, they have already booked in getting work done on their main stand roof and the tea bar that is falling apart.
Sam Cunningham’s i football column is published in print and online on Tuesday mornings. You can follow him on Twitter @samcunningham
More from Sam Cunningham
- Arsenal’s players should ask for their money back after Kroenke’s £325m windfall
- Milner exclusive: On Liverpool, being ‘boring’ and Klopp’s hot-tub selfies
- Terry Butcher urges people to talk as he opens up about loss of his son
- The rise of Hashtag United: from YouTube kickabouts to EFL talent factory
- How English football could learn from the NBA
from Football – inews.co.uk https://ift.tt/31Lio6I
Post a Comment