A lot has been written over recent years about Arsenal having a larger net spend than its rivals. This always comes from a negative standpoint in an attempt to highlight that Arsenal are the “biggest spenders” and therefore should not have additional praise for beating Manchester City, Chelsea, et al to the Premier League title.
Now I concede that over the years, Arsenal have not been the best sellers.
Our club record sale still remains Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain at around £35m. That is clearly not great. And this is further compounded by us getting nothing for the likes of Pierre Emerick-Aubameyang, Mesut Ozil, Sead Kolasinac, Alexandre Lacazette, Hector Bellerin, Nicolas Pepe, Kieran Tierney and Ainsley Maitland-Niles in recent years.
One area where we certainly need to improve is in the selling of academy graduates.
Had we sold them earlier, the likes of Maitland-Niles, Reiss Nelson could have pocketed us in excess of £30m. Instead we held on, offered big new contracts and, if Nelson leaves for nothing this summer, got £0 for them. This is why I would not be upset to see Ethan Nwaneri depart this summer if Mikel Artera does think think he quite has it.
But there is another side to this “net spend” coin that is rarely talked about – having a high net spend would show that you have actually bought well.
Now I do not know the accuracy of this image. The Manchester City figure does feel a very low. But on the face of it, the tweet shows that Arsenal have been poor in the transfer market, having a net spend nearly £700m more than Man City. Chelsea fans have also posted similar infographics in recent years.
The story these sort of graphics do not tell, however, is that many teams who have a high total sales do so because they have bought poorly, and those sales are them dumping players that did not work out.
Meanwhile, Arsenal have bought brilliantly since 2021, had very little turnover of players and therefore very little need to sell. The result is a settled squad which led to the first title in 22 years and has us as favourites this summer. And this is reflected through our high net spend.
Manchester City have already dumped Tijjani Reijnders and James Trafford – both signed last season. Whilst also set to be out of the door this summer are Nico Gonzales, Omar Marmoush and Savinho; all of whom have only been at the club for 18 months. That is over £200m worth of talent signed in the last 18-months deemed not good enough and sold.
If all 3 depart, that will be 6 of the 15 players Man City signed since January 2025 that they have sold. That is very poor. Meanwhile, Arsenal have sold just one player signed since 2023 – Christian Norgaard. And in that period we have finished above City 2 out of 3 times, with both clubs having a league title each.
So this is how it works.
Arsenal sign £500m worth of talent. That £500m worth of talent performs so the club does not need to sell. They then have a £500m net spend over the period.
Man City sign £500m worth of talent. £200m of that talent does not perform and is sold. Man City recoup much of the sale price. They have a net spend of £300m over the period.
Why would it be deemed a negative that one team buys well and wins the league, whilst another team buys poorly and dumps players within 18-months? It is only really seen bad to those who put weight on net spend tables.
Let me lay out another scenario.
Arsenal sign Declan Rice for £100m. He performs well and does not spend to be sold. He then shows as a £100m cost, with £0 sale value, on a net spend table.
Than you have Nico Gonzalez. He is signed for £50m. He performs poorly and is later sold for £50m. 6-months after Gonzalez joins, Man City sign Tijjani Reijnders for £55m. He performs poorly and is later sold for £55m. Then Man City spend £65m on Ayyoub Bouaddi
There net spend during that period across the 3 players is £65m. That is £35m less than what Arsenal spent on Declan Rice. Brilliant business by Man City on the net spend tables. But the reality is they are set to be on their 3rd attempt to buy a central midfielder since failing to sign Rice, whilst Declan Rice has been a huge success at Arsenal.
And when it comes to amortisation and book value, net spend means nothing. A player leaving for nothing after 7 or 8 successful years is not accounted for in net spend tables and is seen as a negative transfer move by those only considered with net spend. Meanwhile a player leaving after 12-18 months having been a poor signing is seen as a positive transfer move by the net spend obsessed.
Spending £2bn and receiving £1bn in transfer fees (Chelsea), is not the sign of a well run club. It is the sign of a team that churns through players.
Then you have Arsenal who spend £1bn, have received £200m and have a similar net spend to Chelsea during that period. All that means is we signed players who have been a success, and have not felt the need to continually buy and sell in an attempt to find a formula that works. Arteta has already found that formula. And we are Champions.
Ultimately, our high net spend over the last 5-years is a credit to our buying strategy. And winning the title shows it has been a success.
Keenos
PS: the real net spend table from 2021 is below:
She Wore A Yellow Ribbon 