Premier League Table by Squad Cost

[SER19]

1. Manchester City - £810,870,000
2. Manchester United - £628,130,000
3. Chelsea - £577,100,000
4. Arsenal - £454,800,000
5. Liverpool - £454,250,000
6. Everton - £388,050,000
7. Tottenham Hotspur - £385,300,000
8. Leicester City - £317,450,000
9. Wolverhamton Wanderers - £241,980,000
10. Aston Villa - £229,350,000
11. West Ham United - £218,500,000
12. Newcastle United - £198,100,000
13. Southampton - £170,550,000
14. Brighton & Hove Albion - £159,100,000
15. Crystal Palace - £149,860,000
16. Sheffield United - £120,700,000
17. Leeds United - £120,300,000
18. West Bromwich Albion - £97,700,000
19. Fulham - £94,350,000
20. Burnley - £82,600,000

It's quite interesting to see its fairly similar to the actual table.

West ham and Leicester 'over performing' and arsenal clearly underpeforming.

Obviously much more factors involved but an interesting discussion to be had about the weight of importance of each factor when deciding success. Certainly money reflects the table reasonably closely, which is quite a sad way of seeing it.

 

[Crustanoid]

Confirms that in a lot of cases money is the most important factor.

Chelsea and City are only where they are because of financial doping

 

[SER19]

Confirms that in a lot of cases money is the most important factor.

Chelsea and City are only where they are because of financial doping

Most teams are within 2 spots of their financial value. Its closer than I thought. Makes you admire Leicester title even more, it wasn't a 'cheap' team but their key players were incredible value

 

[Champ]

Is the figure based on a perceived value or what they were purchased for??
If a perceived value, then from whom or where?
If what they are brought for then it's misleading, as context is a valuable thing.

 

[Crustanoid]

Most teams are within 2 spots of their financial value. Its closer than I thought. Makes you admire Leicester title even more, it wasn't a 'cheap' team but their key players were incredible value

I think Leicester‘a set up, squad building and scouting impresses me more than any other teams in recent years. They have been amazing, especially when they lose big players then dig out another bargain who slots straight in

 

[AgentSmith]

Would be good to see the actual table side-by-side with it just to reinforce the comparison.

West Ham definitely the best performing team relative to investment this season. Arsenal by far the worst.

Also shows the brilliant job Bielsa is doing while playing attractive football. Who knows what they could achieve with a proper budget?

 

[SER19]

Is the figure based on a perceived value or what they were purchased for??
If a perceived value, then from whom or where?
If what they are brought for then it's misleading, as context is a valuable thing.

Purchased for

 

[UnofficialDevil]

Looks like Moyes is doing a good job.

 

[P-Nut]

Purchased for

Then ours is miles out with the amount of first teamers we have that have come through the academy.

Rashford, Greenwood, McTominay and Henderson would add like 200m if not more.

 

[SER19]

Then ours is miles out with the amount of first teamers we have that have come through the academy.

Rashford, Greenwood, McTominay and Henderson would add like 200m if not more.

But....they came through the academy?

 

[1950]

But....they came through the academy?

Squad value is the wrong term then. Should be "Premier League table by total transfer fees spent on current players in squad".

 

[giggs-beckham]

Then we're more under performing than others who don't have as many academy players no.

 

[Eire Red United]

Then ours is miles out with the amount of first teamers we have that have come through the academy.

Rashford, Greenwood, McTominay and Henderson would add like 200m if not more.

Thats the point of the table- we didnt have to buy them. Also Phil Jones value is included.... Plus 120m for Maguire and Mata which is a ridiculous chunk.

 

[Gavinb33]

This is probably an accurate representation of how far we are behind city player wise.

We need 3 first team starters to catch up with them as they stand now which is probably around £150/200 million of players.

 

[SwedishFish]

Arsenal above Liverpool?

 

[redrobed]

They tend to report our transfer fees higher than they actually are I believe and the likes of City and, in particular, lower than they actually are because of their biases. In reality we’re somewhere between Arsenal and Everton. You can add another 200m to the figure for City. Liverpool just behind them

 

[Champ]

Purchased for

In which case it's null and void.

Is Maguire worth £85m? No, he never was, but that's his going rate because he's English and a decent player and United wanted to buy him. If Newcastle wanted to buy him, would the price be £85m?
You could probably pick up someone like Leicester do for £20m, but you'd be chancing it.

 

[Jimmy Skitz]

In which case it's null and void.

Is Maguire worth £85m? No, he never was, but that's his going rate because he's English and a decent player and United wanted to buy him. If Newcastle wanted to buy him, would the price be £85m?
You could probably pick up someone like Leicester do for £20m, but you'd be chancing it.

BIB: yes it would have, that was the price as we didn't want to sell, though to be fair if they had made an offer we probably would have laughed

 

[Champ]

BIB: yes it would have, that was the price as we didn't want to sell, though to be fair if they had made an offer we probably would have laughed

I was using Newcastle as an example, perhaps poor example, but it still rings true.
But say if Barca or maybe Madrid had been calling, Maguire would have quite happily put the pressure on for a quick and cheaper release...
It's striking that not many of City's buys are from the premier League now, whereas United's are. There's more value elsewhere due to the 'premier league tax',
United automatically have a disadvantage due to the money they have when buying players.

 

[Tom Van Persie]

I know his football is boring but what a job Sean Dyche has done at Burney. Spent next to nothing really.

 

[Jimmy Skitz]

I was using Newcastle as an example, perhaps poor example, but it still rings true.
But say if Barca or maybe Madrid had been calling, Maguire would have quite happily put the pressure on for a quick and cheaper release...
It's striking that not many of City's buys are from the premier League now, whereas United's are. There's more value elsewhere due to the 'premier league tax',
United automatically have a disadvantage due to the money they have when buying players.

maybe we would have held out still but we'll never know, there is also the fact we would be selling to a team that we are competing with which could make a lower price more acceptable.

IIRC Man City's record buy is Mahrez and that took them 2 windows to get done

 

[SER19]

In which case it's null and void.

Is Maguire worth £85m? No, he never was, but that's his going rate because he's English and a decent player and United wanted to buy him. If Newcastle wanted to buy him, would the price be £85m?
You could probably pick up someone like Leicester do for £20m, but you'd be chancing it.

How can something factual be null and void? Those are the costs spent to accumulate squads, and it reasonably well reflects the actual table. It's an interesting similarity, that's all I'm saying

 

[Falcow]

Arsenal above Liverpool?

It does seem to be inaccurate as liverpool spent the following:

VVD - £75
Kieta- £64
Alison - £56m
Fabino- £51m
Ox -£38
Front 4 - £130m

That's £414m.

The rest of the squad only cost 40m then? There is no way this is accurate.

 

[Dante]

This is what I think the costs were. Bear in mind that I'm using today's exchange rate to find the £ equivalents, so it will be a bit off:

Player	€	£
Paul Pogba	105​	91.035​
Harry Maguire	87​	75.429​
Anthony Martial	60​	52.02​
Fred	59​	51.153​
Bruno Fernandes	55​	47.685​
Aaron Wan-Bissaka	55​	47.685​
Juan Mata	44.7​	38.7549​
Nemanja Matic	44.7​	38.7549​
Donny van de Beek	39​	33.813​
Eric Bailly	38​	32.946​
Luke Shaw	37.5​	32.5125​
Victor Lindelof	35​	30.345​
David De Gea (GK)	25​	21.675​
Diallo	21​	18.207​
Jones	19.3​	16.7331​
Daniel James	17.8​	15.4326​
Alex Telles	15​	13.005​
Lee Grant (GK)	1.7​	1.4739​
Edinson Cavani	0​	0​
Tim Fosu-Mensah	0​	0​
Dean Henderson (GK)	0​	0​
Scott McTominay	0​	0​
Marcus Rashford	0​	0​
Axel Tuanzebe	0​	0​
	€760	£659

Pogba is the biggest cost here. He'll be gone in the summer. Probably also Mata and maybe DDG also. Martial could potentially be on the chopping block, too, if he doesn't buck his ideas.

The figures in the OP are from October so Jones, Romero and Dillao aren't included as they are in mine.

 

[cjj]

It'll just be a nonsense hack article to "subconsciously" poke a stick at Pep and his "loadsa money" joke.

The word "value" should have been "cost".

 

[Dante]

It does seem to be inaccurate as liverpool spent the following:

VVD - £75
Kieta- £64
Alison - £56m
Fabino- £51m
Ox -£38
Front 4 - £130m

That's £414m.

The rest of the squad only cost 40m then? There is no way this is accurate.

It isn't.

The table comes from this list: https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/premier-league-transfers-full-cost-22884283

Liverpool's 25 man squad in October didn't include VVD because he was injured.

 

[duffer]

The clubs at the top spent more? Who would have imagined!

 

[Falcow]

It isn't.

The table comes from this list: https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/premier-league-transfers-full-cost-22884283

Liverpool's 25 man squad in October didn't include VVD because he was injured.

Thanks. It's a bit pointless then really given lack of context in opening post.

 

[Carl]

Didn't realise Villa had spent as much as they have. Smith is doing a great job, but he's got a very expensive squad and that won't include their best player.

 

[ROFLUTION]

It's quite interesting how clubs are holding out for gigantic fees from United as we're known for spending and have a huge fanbase, but with City that is rarely the case even though they spend 20-25% more than us overall.

 

[Zlatan 7]

It isn't.

The table comes from this list: https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/premier-league-transfers-full-cost-22884283

Liverpool's 25 man squad in October didn't include VVD because he was injured.

So Liverpool’s most important player over the last two seasons and still part of the club isn’t included in the list. Seems good timing making that

 

[Lentwood]

It shouldn’t really come as a surprise to anybody. It also doesn’t obviously tell the whole story.

I would argue historically that I bet there is an incredibly strong correlation between money spent in across two Summers and winning a title shortly after. Being able to spend money over a prolonged period is obviously an advantage but the biggest advantage comes from being able to spend a tonne of cash very quickly.

This was why Chelsea were so powerful under Jose and City have been so good under Pep. Even big spenders like United have to accumulate steadily in a “business-like” manner i.e. balancing the books, living within your means - even if those “means” are substantial!

City and early-Roman Chelsea didn’t have to do that. They can just throw cash around to fix any issues they might have and not have to worry about a balance sheet. To highlight my point, imagine if City had spend exactly the same under Pep but they had had to do it based on splitting the total cost across several seasons and trying to recoup as much of their outgoings as possible. I guarantee that at the very least they would be one trophy worse-off (although that would probably give Liverpool one more so that’s no comfort!)

Put simply, total money spent and net money spent are important but i’d say concentrated spending across 2/3 windows is the biggest advantage a team can have

 

[Lentwood]

It's quite interesting how clubs are holding out for gigantic fees from United as we're known for spending and have a huge fanbase, but with City that is rarely the case even though they spend 20-25% more than us overall.

I have heard many rumours about City’s financial doping extending to under-the-table payments and misreporting figures. I have no idea whether there is any truth in it but you are right that it’s odd that City never really get held to ransom like you imagine they might. Perhaps a more sensible theory might be that because they are so rich and have so much disposable income, they can progress talks with several players at the same time and walk away from deals quickly if the cards are stacked against them?

With United, we always seem to make it obvious what we need and who we are talking too. Therefore, those clubs know that we’re likely to pay a premium

 

[tomaldinho1]

David Moyes - manager of the year

 

[Zlatan 7]

David Moyes - manager of the year

He is to be fair. Doubt many seen this coming from West Ham. Can’t think of a manager who has done better tbh

 

[Pagh Wraith]

But clearly Leeds need to change their style because they are too open at the back or something.

 

[tomaldinho1]

He is to be fair. Doubt many seen this coming from West Ham. Can’t think of a manager who has done better tbh

Yh I wasn’t joking. Just look at that game yesterday - they created just as much as City but with such average players.

 

[duffer]

He is to be fair. Doubt many seen this coming from West Ham. Can’t think of a manager who has done better tbh

If Pep carries on winning every single game, he'll get that award.

 

[Zlatan 7]

If Pep carries on winning every single game, he'll get that award.

Probably so but I’d say what moyes has done is less expected so more impressive.

City winning every game is great for them obviously but they’re making five changes a game and can’t even see a drop off in player quality.

 

[Champ]

How can something factual be null and void? Those are the costs spent to accumulate squads, and it reasonably well reflects the actual table. It's an interesting similarity, that's all I'm saying

Generally speaking, the clubs who spend more money are higher in the table than those who don't.
Usually a few outliers but this is hardly breaking news!!
Using transfer costs is ineffective however, as it doesn't factor in wages, free agents, etc, and transfer values are interchangeable depending on the clubs involved and do not give a true reflection of value.