By Andrea Caropreso
Index
Follow us on social media to stay updated on the latest transfer market news: Instagram, Facebook, and X.
The long summer transfer window inevitably leads us to reflect on how transfer campaigns have evolved for clubs over the years. Not so much in terms of duration, but in terms of spending power. When in 2013 Paris Saint-Germain secured the services of Edinson Cavani, one of the best strikers of the time, by paying his €63 million release clause, we were all stunned by such figures. Today, that same amount is often spent on an “ordinary” defensive midfielder. The shift in prices raises an important question: do these deals reveal financial madness, or rather a deliberate alignment between costs, revenues, and the strategic value of players?
Transfers vs. Club Revenues
Looking at the last decade of transfer windows, the 2017/18 season can be seen as the point of no return. That was the year Neymar moved from Barcelona to PSG for €222 million—an operation worth 46% of the club’s annual operating revenues.
That transfer didn’t just set a new record: it redefined the market itself, forcing clubs and agents to recalibrate expectations overnight. It also ushered in a period of inflated, often speculative, spending at the top of European football.
In recent years, however, buyer behavior has shown a change of course. Fees remain high in absolute terms but are increasingly proportional to clubs’ financial capacity. Over the last five seasons, as highlighted by Football Benchmark, the most expensive transfer of the year has consistently represented between 17% and 22% of the buying club’s revenues. Notable examples include Enzo Fernández to Chelsea (21%), Jack Grealish to Manchester City (18%), Declan Rice to Arsenal (22%), and Julián Álvarez to Atlético Madrid (17%).
Even this summer’s headline deal—Florian Wirtz to Liverpool for €125 million—fits the same pattern: considering 2023/24 revenues of €715 million, the fee accounts for around 17% of turnover. In other words, clubs still spend heavily to secure elite talent, but now in line with their actual financial means. Mega-deals worth over a third of revenues are becoming rare exceptions.
The Gap Between Estimated and Real Value
In today’s transfer market, players are almost never sold for their “estimated” value. Transfer fees depend on age, technical ability, and potential, but clubs often demand significantly more than the player’s assessed market worth. When a buyer agrees to pay that premium, a vicious cycle begins, sometimes even creating financial bubbles.
Yet in recent years there has been a growing trend toward better alignment between transfer fees and estimated values. This shift reflects more data-driven, structured decision-making at the top of the game.
Declan Rice’s move to Arsenal for €117 million in 2023/24 came with a 21% premium over his Football Benchmark estimated value of €97 million. Julián Álvarez’s move to Atlético Madrid for €75 million in 2024/25, on the other hand, came at a 25% discount. Florian Wirtz’s €125 million move to Liverpool was 13% below his estimated €144 million value—further evidence of this growing alignment.
The Spending Power of Top Clubs
The biggest transfers cannot be understood without looking at revenues. Today, clubs like Real Madrid, Manchester City, and Bayern Munich comfortably exceed €750 million in annual revenues (with Real Madrid even surpassing €1 billion). A major factor is broadcasting rights: the Premier League distributes more than £3 billion per season, giving every club unparalleled spending power. Added to this are increasingly lucrative sponsorship deals.
At the same time, when one of these clubs buys a global star (for instance, Gianluigi Donnarumma leaving PSG), it is not just acquiring a top player but also investing in a financial asset. Every deal carries three dimensions:
-
Sporting performance
-
Commercial value
-
Financial value
Signing elite talent is no longer purely a sporting decision but part of a 360-degree marketing and investment strategy. However, top players remain concentrated in a handful of clubs, fueling bidding wars among just 7–8 elite teams. This maintains a gap between market price and underlying value.
Although this evolution—tying spending to revenues—is making the transfer system more sustainable (aided by UEFA’s financial controls), it could also create problems. If competitiveness is driven solely by the financial muscle of Europe’s football oligarchy, the rich will keep getting richer while the poor fall further behind. Instead of closing the gap, the system risks widening it.
By Andrea Caropreso
