“Mbappe on a free. Perez is a genius.”

The “free transfer” of Kylian Mbappe to Real Madrid highlights exactly why net spend tables are pointless. Yes, PSG are getting nothing for him, but the cost of a player is not just the transfer fee.

Mbappe is reportedly set to be paid a €100million signing on fee and earn himself €500k a week. These are huge numbers that those that simplify the mathematics of a transfer to just the fee never speak about.

If we assume that Mbappe is signing on a 5-year deal, that means Real Madrid are committed so spending €230m on the French forward. Or €46m a year

Now let’s say to make room for Mbappe, Madrid cash in on Brahim Diaz. The former City winger is valued at €35m by Transfrmarkt. Those unable to comprehend anything beyond net spend will be presenting a €35m “net profit” by signing Mbappe for nothing and selling Diaz. Perez will be promoted as the genius he is not.

Diaz reportedly earns €140k a week, having joined Madrid 5-years ago. That equates to around €7.25m. If we round it up to €9m to take into his unamortised transfer fee, and then add the €35m fee, Madrid would be saving €9m a year and getting a lump sum of €35m. Across 5-years that is a net saving of €45m and a €35m lump sum. €80m in total.

€80m is nearly 2 thirds less than the €230m Mbappe is going to cost them. So whilst the net spend goons will claim a €35m net profit on the deal, Madrid’s net expenditure will actually increase by €150m across the two deals, or €30m a year.

Now it is undeniable that Mbappe is an upgrade on Diaz, and probably justifies an increased €30m a year outlay. But the two deals just illustrate why net profit is a pointless comparison as other aspects of a transfer can hugely influence the total cost.

Thinking back to Arsenal, say Thomas Partey departs on a free this summer. Not released on a free but we agree a £9m transfer fee to get his wages off the books. Partey is reportedly on £200k a week.

To replace Partey, we sign Martin Zubimendi, triggering his £52m release clause. We double the Spainards wages, paying him £100k a week. That will be a “£43m loss” based on net spend merchants.

But over the next year, Zubimendi would cost us £15.6m (£5.2m wages + £10.4m amortised transfer fee). Meanwhile we would have saved £19.4m by selling Partey (£10.4m wages + £9m amortised transfer fee).

So despite our “net spend” being negative, we are actually making a saving of £3.8m across the two deals.

If neither club made any more deals this summer, Arsenal would have a net spend of MINUS £43m, whilst Real Madrid would have a positive net spend of €35m. It will be shown as “Edu clueless, Perez genius” by many. This despite Arsenal actually reducing their expenditure by £3.8m and Madrid increasing theirs by €30m.

And maybe this is where the conversation needs to go.

Instead of talking about “net spend”, we need to talk more about “net expenditure” which then takes into account transfer fees, signing on fees, other bonuses and wages.

Spending €230m on Mbappe is not a genius move. Just like Manchester City committing over £200m to Erling Haland (salary, fees, wages) was not genius. It is only promoted as genius moves by those who are unable to comprehend that there are additional costs when it comes to transfers beyond that initial fee.

For years to come, Mbappe will show as £0m on the net spend tables. The truth is the deal is one of the most expensive of all time.

Enjoy your Wednesday.

_{Note: Please do not comment about fees or wages being incorrect. All fees and wages are always estimates. But that does not take away from the point}.

Keenos

Arsenal fans – Get a set of 4 of our Arsenal Legends ceramic beer mats (12 designs to choose from) & grab yourself a free Arsenal bottle opener

Just add a set of 4 to your basket & any bottle opener, use the code FathersDay2024 and checkout! #AFChttps://t.co/lBkFuWS5xa pic.twitter.com/wtoXovlsbw

— Kick Off Merchants (@KOMerchants) June 4, 2024