It was a different market and now we can say it. After a couple of weeks in which everything was closed, in which we saw our national teams play and in which it was possible to analyze the data, also thanks to the work of Football Benchmark.
It was a different market because on the one hand the money of the English and the Arabs was missing (they spent less than a year ago), on the other hand practically all the big leagues had a negative balance. And probably the two events are connected. There was the need to make the team anyway, regardless of the income. Betting more on the results, we would say.
Let’s take an all-Italian example to better understand what could have happened: Napoli thought it could sell Osimhen for a certain amount. And it waited to do the transfer market, the second part at least, to sell the player. Then when it understood that Osimhen’s situation might not be resolved or would be late (look at that the target markets were the English and Arab ones, the two with a contraction in spending), it still spent what it would have wanted to do. Hoping for a sale of Osimhen in the very last hours or in another transfer market session (as then happened). But Napoli took on the risk. And it bet on the sporting result: it is (rightly) convinced that with this sacrifice it is less complicated to reach the objective (qualification for the Champions League).
But how has the market changed and why did Napoli (and those who support them) have to make this decision?
Let’s also rely on the work of Football Benchmark. Last summer, six of the eight leagues had concluded the summer transfer window with a positive balance. Today, only two of these eight are in the black: Holland and Portugal.
What made the difference were the big changes especially in the Premier League (as well as in the Saudi championship).
The reversal of the trend is clear: the Premier improved its balance by 550 million euros, going from -1.27 billion to -718 million. The same thing, in proportion, happened in Saudi Arabia, going from -882 to -383.2 million.
Of course, English spending remains an incredible amount: 2.33 billion, but it is still significantly lower than last summer: for the first time, the Premier League’s profit and sustainability rules have taken effect.
This type of contraction (English and Saudi) has not stopped spending in other countries: in Serie A for example, almost a billion has been spent. But the difference is noticeable: think that the gap in spending between Serie A and Saudi Pro League last summer was 1 billion euros, now it has reduced to 86 million…
Obviously, as we were pointing out, less money invested by Premier and Saudi means less revenue (it went from a billion to 700 million) but to this we must add a higher overall expenditure of our Serie A of about 100 million. And so, compared to last season, the difference in expenditure is over 420 million: it went from a +124 to a -297.7.
The dynamics of the transfer balance have completely reversed: if last year in Italy there were 11 clubs that closed in the black, this year there are 11 that closed the market in the negative. On the contrary, in Arabia last year there were only two clubs that closed with a plus sign, today there are 9 (including the 3 with a net expenditure equal to zero).
Just as Serie A has experienced a turnaround, so has the Bundesliga: last year it was the championship (among the big ones) that had earned the most +295.7: this year it is down -72. Only La Liga has maintained a substantial balance (the general balance of transfers marks a -12) and it is among the BIG5 the championship that has spent the least. And in fact in La Liga there are as many as 14 out of 20 teams that have had a positive balance from the market. The one who spent the most was Atletico Madrid, buying Alvarez, Gallagher, Le Normand and Sorloth for a total expenditure of 185 million euros. Consider that it is the fourth time in the last 10 years that Atletico has recorded a worse transfer balance than both Real and Barcelona. Real who has signed, Mbappé, it is true, but practically on a free transfer, which obviously is not zero, if we go to consider all the accessory costs.
In the Premier League, the one who had the largest transfer balance was not any big club but Birghton with -182 (and a whopping 231 in spending). Just think, Chelsea spent 238 but sold for 200. And even two newly promoted teams spared no expense (at least 120 million each for Ipswich and Southampton).
In Italy, Napoli has the worst net spending: with -138 and as mentioned everything revolved around Osimhen.
The other surprise comes from France where PSG, struggling with the replacement of Mbappé, invested 170 million euros (with a negative balance of -98.4 million): and this is not the lowest net expenditure. The most important deficit is Lyon’s: -105. It is the first time since the 19/20 season that PSG is not the most spendthrift in France.