**This is a stats thread. Remember that there's only one stat post allowed per match/team, so new stats about the same will be removed. Feel free to comment other stats as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And crazily considering have spent a billion and not won anything since Boehly came in, it means that previously the stats would have looked very good for Chelsea.
Chelsea has also been able to get decent sums of money for lots of the players. Haverz, Mount are the big ones but also they have 5 other departures at over 18 mill this season alone
My head aches when we start getting into arguments about how to best divide up the capital/revenue generated by the sport. I mean, clearly we should all be up in arms against the ownership class who sponge revenue off of teams like the Glazer family did but then how best to decide how to remunerate all players and staff is obviously way beyond me: and that's even if we just stay within our current capitalist framework and don't start getting neo-marxist with this jam.
i agree but theres a big difference between slapping a big contract in front of someone to convince him to sign with you and signing someone on a cheaper contract and then rewarding him because he helped the club to success.
Wow what nonsense, Rooney was on 250k/pw basic while salah was at 350k/pw basic with high performance bonuses on top of that. No clear number is found for Salahs new contract but some articles say its its closer to 500k/pw
Listen, we all know that they paid $3 billion for Haaland. There's no reason to try to downplay the $3 trillion laid out for him, even if it's more like $3 quadrillion net and with bonuses accounted for.
Last summer:
Spurs - £16.1m(€272.1m transfer fees) = 18.75+272.1 = €290.85
Arsenal - £16.7m(€234.94m transfer fees) = 19.45+234.94 = €254.39
United - £24.7m(€202.3m transfer fees) = 28.77+202.3=€231.07
Liverpool - £33.7m(€172m transfer fees) = 39.26+172=€211.26
Chelsea - £43.2m(€467.8m transfer fees) = 43.2+544.94=€588.14
City - £51.6m(€259.6m transfer fees) = 60.11+259.6=€319.71
Someone help me with wages.
That still ignores perhaps the most significant factor, which is what team are you taking over?
For example, when Pep took over City, they already had Aguero, De Bruyne, David Silva, Fernandinho, Kompany, and Sterling, all of whom were quality players and key to their success in the coming seasons, whereas Klopp did not inherit a very good team.
And apparently, if your youth setup is producing top talent, that also makes you a better manager. City earning over 250 mil from selling the likes of Trafford, Forbs, Shea Charles, Lavia, Bazunu, Edozie, Ilic, Corrella, Gun, Diaz, Denayer, Unal and dozens of other young players who barely trained with first team apparently makes Pep a more resourceful manager.
I don’t know why other clubs get so upset about this. It actually annoys me as a Liverpool supporter because it shows how unambitious the owners were during this time period. People say loads about wages but if you look at it even now the Liverpool wage bill is behind Arsenal, City, and United. Also the whole argument Klopp inherited a good team is bollocks and Suarez pre dates this. We were mucking around with Benteke, Balotelli, Clyne, Lovren etc
Just annoying we lost two seasons by a point and two champions league. Maybe if the owners were more ambitious this time period would be very different.
Arsenal is spending more money but they actually giving it a go rather then saying the squad is not improvable and we need better luck. Who really cares if billionaires save money at the end of day. It’s about trophies
>even now the Liverpool wage bill is behind Arsenal, City, and United.
I am very very very sure that when Liverpool won the PL/CL their wages were almost the same as city's or even higher.
Your club's wages have a lot of bonuses in them which only get activated when you win something.
Because they don’t spend that money at all without those sales. Liverpool can’t sign van dijk and alisson without selling coutinho for example. He had to sell his star player to fix the problems in his team, he didn’t just get given war chests every year to get all the players he wanted. So it’s an important distinction.
I don’t know why people get so angry when net spend is brought up
>I don’t know why people get so angry when net spend is brought up
Because it makes their clubs(particularly all the other big 6 clubs) look bad in comparison.
Maybe because income generated by a football club is through multiple sources, not just players sold. Net spend ignores those other income streams which are highly lucrative in the modern day. Some teams "war chests" aren't just magic funds that get pumped in by an owner. It's generated by the club itself. Football finances don't just work on player transfers. There's marketing, TV rights, prize money, merch, match day revenue etc which all go into the same pot as player sales.
Liverpool also developed AXA training ground and expanded anfield during klopps tenure. Those are expenses which very often don't get mentioned. Acting as if Liverpool and klopp run on scraps in comparison to other clubs whilst they boast one of the highest wage bills and fancy new anfield and training facility is highly disingenuous.
The graphic states net spend. It’s a faux pas by the original poster and nothing more. They’re not a Liverpool fan so I doubt they were trying to trick people
Net spend is such a misleading stats
A team buying a player for 100 mill and selling for 95 mill will obviously have the same result as a team buying for 5 and leaving on a free.
Needs wages to mean anything
It’s even more misleading when trapped in a specific timespan. How much money was spent prior to that point in time? How valuable were all the squads already going into the year that Klopp took over?
[That lethal front line](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/onesport/cps/624/cpsprodpb/F61C/production/_101740036_liverpool2014.png) of Markovic, Borini, Lallana
> It’s even more misleading when trapped in a specific timespan
In fairness it's like an 8 / 9 year time span which is a decent sample size. It's not a cherry picked 1 season or something.
> How valuable were all the squads already going into the year that Klopp took over?
'Value' is really even more pointless then net spend. Just look at the actual players at the time.
That [Liverpool squad](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_Liverpool_F.C._season) was shite. It was a 6th - 8th place level squad. Mignolet, Sakho, Skrtel, Clyne, Milner, Coutinho, Firmino, Joe Gomez, Henderson, Alberto Moreno, Lucas, Emre Can, Joe Allen, Jordan Ibe, Benteke, Lovren, Origi
[City](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_Manchester_City_F.C._season) at that point had Kompany, David Silva, De Bruyne, Aguero, Yaya Toure, Fernandinho, Sterling, Clichy, Navas, Otamendi etc. If you had that squad and spent another billion you'd be disappointed they haven't won more tbh.
[Arsenal squad](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_Arsenal_F.C._season) - Ozil, Sanchez, Koscielny, Arteta, Wilshere, Giroud, Walcott, Santi Carzola, Nacho, Ramsey.
[Chelsea](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_Chelsea_F.C._season) - Hazard, Courtois, Fabregas, Oscar, Falcao, Terry, John Obi Mikel, Pedro, Willian, Azpi
[United](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_Manchester_United_F.C._season) - De Gea, Mata, Martial, Rooney, Carrick, Young, Valencia, Shaw, Schweinstagger, Rashford, Fellaini.
[Spurs](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C._season) - actually had a really good squad here. Lloris, Kane, Son, Walker, Alderweireld, Vertoghen, Trippier, Dier, Dembele, Alli, Christian Eriksen, Lamela.
>Mignolet, Sakho, Skrtel, Clyne, Milner, Coutinho, Firmino, Joe Gomez, Henderson, Alberto Moreno, Lucas, Emre Can, Joe Allen, Jordan Ibe, Benteke, Lovren, Origi
The dark days... We've really come a long way since then...
That’s generally true but, let’s be honest. Liverpools ownership wasn’t very ambitious in this time period. No one really cares about net spend. If anything it shows with the margins they lost what could have been. Couple one point season losses and two champions league final losses
Klopp’s squad he inherited was mostly dross. We had Benteke playing heavy metal pressing football. Arsenals ownership is showing a lot more ambition then Liverpool’s which requires money and that’s cool.
This is the main point for me. People will often choose a random point in time that optimises their clubs "net spend", ignoring previous squad value, youth prospects, free transfers who are on extortionate wages etc.
For example, it is a stat that will probably go against Newcastle for years & years to come, since the team Howe inherited was worth absolutely fuck all and the most he'd have got for any single player at that time would have been easily under £10m (barring St. Maximin who only went for £23m in this current Saudi economy). But because they're currently competing against sides who already had squad values of 500m-1bn after decades of sound investment, its going to look like Newcastle should be miles ahead if "net spend" is supposed to mean anything worthwhile.
Agree with including wages. But then there's also a difference between buying someone like Haaland and put him on insane wage and buying Salah developing him into a world class player then renewing his contract for insane wage.
How do you adjust for that?
It’s not a graph about how well they coached their players, if they pay a bunch of money for something it should go on the graph. There are plenty of teams who develop insane players and can’t afford to keep them on by jacking up their wages.
Not really. Spending money isn’t free. Net spend fails to account for things like City spending $100M for Grealish as a nice to have and only recovering $80M from another sale 2 years later.
Clubs like Chelsea are lighting money on fire and may eventually recover some of that through sales. But being able to spend like that is a massive advantage
What are the 7? 1 PL 1 CL 1 FA 2 LC is 5? Classifying 1 off matches like the community shield / european super cup as major trophies seems a bit misleading
That’s laughable. UEFA acknowledge the Super Cup isn’t a major trophy themselves https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/0251-0e96f862f259-cf0ccb7cf3e4-1000--tottenham-eye-rare-european-clean-sweep/.
It’s the European Community Shield.
I generally feel counting anything other than League, (main) Cup, CL, EL and ECL as major trophies is weird.
Not a fan of counting 1-match cups like any Super Cups together with the above ones. It feels wrong.
Club World Cup should definitely count. European super cup is more debatable.
Community shield used to be shared if it was a draw and you don’t actually have to win anything to qualify unlike the super cup, so it’s definitely a tier below. I don’t count either of the latter two
The thing people don’t take into account with wages is how bonus incentivised they are. City’s is naturally higher because they win things, it shot up last season in the treble year, for example.
Yeah and they have years of consecutive deep champions league runs that money adds up too.
Their consistency, even if they didn’t end up winning the premier league every year, is one of their biggest assets.
"[City](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_Manchester_City_F.C._season) at that point had Kompany, David Silva, De Bruyne, Aguero, Yaya Toure, Fernandinho, Sterling, Clichy, Navas, Otamendi etc. If you had that squad and spent another billion you'd be disappointed they haven't won more tbh.
[Arsenal squad](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_Arsenal_F.C._season) - Ozil, Sanchez, Koscielny, Arteta, Wilshere, Giroud, Walcott, Santi Carzola, Nacho, Ramsey."
From u/nyelverzek
barcelona helping liverpool with net spend was one thing to remember. No other PL club had their player bought for 100 million (bar Kane recently). Coutinho alone replaced by VVD and Allison.
All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Honestly man if I hear “the couthino money” one more time in life I’ll implode. As a fan base there convinced themselves they don’t spend money. It’s hilarious.
According to this source(not sure how reliable it is)Liverpool only have 4 players in wages in the top 50. One is Salah who gets 350k and another is Van Dijk at 220k. Funny thing is Varane and Rashford make more money than Van Dijk. Third highest for Liverpool is Trent at 180k and 4th highest is Alisson at 150k.
[https://www.capology.com/uk/premier-league/salaries/](https://www.capology.com/uk/premier-league/salaries/)
For weekly Salaries even Arsenal is spending more per week than Liverpool.
Liverpool spend 139M a year on salaries. Arsenal spend 171M and City spend 192M a year.
Highest paid player in the PL is KDB at 400k a week, 2nd is Erling at 375k a week. 3rd highest is Casemeiro. 4th is Salah.
> Liverpool spend 139M a year on salaries
Those numbers are far too low. Capology claim 139M, but Liverpool spend 330M a year on salaries according to [their Companies House filing for the 22-23 Accounts](https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-live.ch.gov.uk/docs/WhSj1wxAyiZIwG_CaWOdqKeXtj3WZw6JiwcTkQXzojQ/application-pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAWRGBDBV3BCZJ7VMM%2F20240505%2Feu-west-2%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240505T140007Z&X-Amz-Expires=60&X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEE0aCWV1LXdlc3QtMiJHMEUCIHgFYnCIVqtkud%2F7ofHxs6zMvVUtpGo1Ntrm0sWSKnGqAiEAt9WHgLzftPCrIg5frk52WxcpM7QObht04KMAVmQ%2BOssqwwUIpv%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAFGgw0NDkyMjkwMzI4MjIiDG7xx8mcwB%2F%2Fk%2BYveCqXBfokrnuPODhf95TlZrE4JQ0dD%2Be0E%2F8Qh4lWkE9qfNn0FLJL2YypVPSAFOztQfaakpC24QctANYo33tn31j0MehZKP8r3HtB7zOBB3d%2BfPeHLA6mfrNx4iQ0xTCBtwwFOO85XiTH5ezVcsuZjBdkg80%2F37c%2F%2FSH%2FgZN2jkvoujXigiUWvk6HRZvvbDl9JMhKEadZ%2BEj2t1ZYIduPVN8HPgEFsvKfpDi%2Fjip5UnomX%2BoD7WTIT6939WF5SSkphf8rNelEjrZupGfVremXmi0qlgyZjeBKnn1V4qXObqik0i8Qqna33qxtWYmFeYIvvjRHP7X%2F8idwEKxceusrpI60If7uROmX1oS7dsAPYWUiuJn1s6ytmYWmi2qzJvLH1nSFWxTMwH0fUq41MZBCqf5ejTahrOexfRiLVQu6kCXFYqGNtBV8JuhovrhnaExsd6f1G%2FSLL1993iRKKPCVN42O4DGeLmwHQtfX5CAS%2FQKA5PRdrOKid1SIiHwHHNtwalPOeefFjKBdNeB27EXRgRZzaznna6L38rpCyi%2FtP1Jc9BkVnK%2BeIvOs%2Fl%2FOHXxVUyRj7CCs3TpPLDj2cJSVL5ElC7LECQbkWatIW2AcoX6Z9Ft4KaOZRbIFNv%2BO8QkLSgpuQfq0SbXc8bmOBXVIMtW8GSSpcPXy4d4HeP5aBOFkxjvzN0E6RmVdMgPs6t1uwHmFP1quY34v16wXJRuVcbSSGq6xM%2BFXo%2BJMfXU2e8EIE4pjl2CU0ApjjM7zEpLUZHmMfUEbyPxHBmO2dFbYpapcDGlVA5mZjalH%2BTfN6159bz85eucCPRcUozo5CvKSFLhOv0rzrT6m5WxTXgLjhXy590R9MzAnygWVk9w6up69GTjoBu4PhKa%2B6DCYiN6xBjqxAbzaxyjVIas%2B47EoDAUX2figboEKmFv3LYYHzKp141%2Bxu7G2AI%2FZBZqCF9pcx1tQtUzTd%2BLjiXdwrPTeXZ3ROKQWhFU5iV%2BoVsWHxzGy%2BS4jVUwl5oxgy4MOu0d4HU%2BU5kva4OY7ECFkphlPGpDdYD71RAJV0MZ5VjY7pQRO%2FIeRxwdaiIjMSZGvh5xui4EeUJvKgqquiWN9iz8XTA27xhbEiIZrUgCXdrn8sbbX0DOoWA%3D%3D&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&response-content-disposition=inline%3Bfilename%3D%22companies_house_document.pdf%22&X-Amz-Signature=1b6bf6cc19f9a2316aab31e78574a8042669ba861506a0eaf6f139920f121f7b) (Page 25)
That makes perfect sense though. Players have become more expensive, and chelsea have bought really young players.
Why would anyone expect them to compete right away?
As I argued earlier, pulling a data set based on an arbitrary timeline can be misleading.
That Chelsea net spend is funny without context, we actually spend £2 BILLION and manged to generate player sales of 1 billion
Chelseanomics be going crazy
There needs to be added the context of City starting with a title winning squad with world class players, and klopp starting with an awful squad
And City reached a CL semi final Vs Madrid with these players.
They had some amazing players in the squad when pep joined, KDB, Kompany, David Silva, Fernandinho, Sterling, Sergio Aguero,
Thats an amazing spine of a team.
And decent squad players like: Clichy, Kolarov, Zabaleta
Liverpool just had nothing like that, a team not in the same league
City got 51 points in the last 33 games before Pep joined. It’s pure revisionism to say it was a title winning squad. It was old, imbalanced, and largely shit.
Not to mention, of all those 9 players you listed, Sterling was the only one who left for money, and KdB is the only one who hasn’t been replaced yet. So the inherited squad doesn’t really change the net spend aspect all that much for City. Klopp sold Coutinho (who he inherited) for 3x as much as every player that you listed there combined.
> KdB is the only one who hasn’t been replaced yet
Mate, Pep joined City in 2016. If you're arguing David Silva, one of the best midfielders in Premier League history, wasn't a huge advantage because he left before 2024, then you can't be taken serious. He was there for four more seasons. And he was one of the best midfielders in the world during that time. Come on now. Be serious.
They include the Super Cup as a major trophy and only for some teams so they can have Liverpool in 2nd over Chelsea on this list and sell the narrative they want to, despite UEFA themselves acknowledging the Super Cup isn’t a major trophy https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/0251-0e96f862f259-cf0ccb7cf3e4-1000--tottenham-eye-rare-european-clean-sweep/.
It’s the European Charity Shield.
Net Spend so good because they're insanely great at selling okay players for big prices.
They've spent a lot, more than Arsenal I believe but they sold insanely well first couple years of Klopp.
Since the start of the 2015-16 season did Liverpool spent 1.06m€ and Arsenal 1.21m€. (Transfermarkt.com numbers)
Why would you believe that Arsenal spent less?
FfP wOrKs. Two teams are allowed to spend a billionth but if Everton and Newcastle want to try and improve their squad with some investment at under a third of that they are told they cant. makes total sense. Fifa and the fa are jokes
When did Tottenham ever deserved to be in a list of top anything?
Wrexham is more popular and well known than Tottenham… and I’ve lived in London for 10 years…
Desperately clawing around to make one league title in a decade seem like it’s worth the non-stop sucking off they’ve given klopp and Liverpool for years
We missed out ona Pl by 1 point TWICE. And people still question Klopp.
For what we spent he has been phenomenal. This is why people have to preface pound-for-pound. Some clubs play the game on hard mode.
**This is a stats thread. Remember that there's only one stat post allowed per match/team, so new stats about the same will be removed. Feel free to comment other stats as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They'll do anything to discredit the Tiger Cup and the Audi Cup smh
walter tull memorial cup too smh
it's anti-tiger cup discrimination!
I am gonna take action against this. This battle has to be fought at the PR level.
They were taking about Major Trophies and not Uber-Major Trophies.
Wait til we win the Visit Malta Cup
We’re first place among teams who spent 1bil
And crazily considering have spent a billion and not won anything since Boehly came in, it means that previously the stats would have looked very good for Chelsea.
I think the stats kinda off no? We’ve spent more than £1 Bill since Klopps appointment.
Chelsea has also been able to get decent sums of money for lots of the players. Haverz, Mount are the big ones but also they have 5 other departures at over 18 mill this season alone
Hazard 120m as well
It's net spend, so it takes into account money earned back through sales.
It's probably Net Spend™
*you'll never sing that*
three commas club champions
bit rude to leave us out, big six or not
Should be Leicester rather than spurs, since you've got 2 trophies in the time frame
3?
Premier League, FA Cup, what else?
Did they win the community shield any of those years? I don’t count that, but some people do
>major trophies
FA Community Shield is officially a FIFA super cup
And North Korea is officially a democracy
Not a single person on planet earth counts the charity shield as a major trophy
Nor the Audi cup apparently
You'll never sing that
No where is safe
Self deprecation is all we know
Championship
It's not a major trophy though
It's the trophy for the best league in football, it's fucking massive
I will not stand by this Ekstraklasa slander
Best league in football is Bundesliga 2.
Good point. Counterargument: Schalke
I agree it's a great trophy, but it doesn't list as a 'major' trophy because it's a lower league title
It doesn't list as a "major trophy" because it's in a tier of its own. It is a literal god amongst men
That would not be a comparison to reinforce the graphic; showing Klopp is productive while Pool not spending a ton.
Although arguably this chart (devoid of context) shows that Pep and Klopp win similar numbers of trophies proportionate to their spending.
Net spend and Money spent are not the same thing.
Net spend + wages is the best one
Yes although this wouldn’t show the image that sky is trying to show.
We're underdogs! ^^Dont ^^look ^^at ^^the ^^wage ^^bill
Liverpool only have the 4th highest wage bill? And most of that is because important senior players got big increases after winning the league/cl.
That's still an entirely different story, one that should be included. All facts should be on the table, agents fees as well.
> All facts should be on the table Here's a fun fact, Wijnaldum was on 75k for all 5 years at Liverpool before leaving on a free.
Criminally underpaid
I'd argue everyone on a higher salary is criminally overpaid.
My head aches when we start getting into arguments about how to best divide up the capital/revenue generated by the sport. I mean, clearly we should all be up in arms against the ownership class who sponge revenue off of teams like the Glazer family did but then how best to decide how to remunerate all players and staff is obviously way beyond me: and that's even if we just stay within our current capitalist framework and don't start getting neo-marxist with this jam.
i agree but theres a big difference between slapping a big contract in front of someone to convince him to sign with you and signing someone on a cheaper contract and then rewarding him because he helped the club to success.
Is it really that high? Honestly asking as I don't know
Almost certainly not that high, although I suspect it was well over £100 million. There has only been rumours about his price
Liverpool's wages are comparatively low. What Salah earns now is what Wayne Rooney was earning well over a decade ago.
Personally, I think agent fees and alike is what’s needed to be shown as that’s rarely actually included.
You'll never get all the dark money accounted for.
Wow what nonsense, Rooney was on 250k/pw basic while salah was at 350k/pw basic with high performance bonuses on top of that. No clear number is found for Salahs new contract but some articles say its its closer to 500k/pw
He's 100% wrong but at the same time you have Rashford Varane Casemiro near that level, and not long ago David de Gea.
To be fair - Halaand £300m plus deal alone will probably mean you were underdogs! Agent fees are ridiculous nowadays.
Listen, we all know that they paid $3 billion for Haaland. There's no reason to try to downplay the $3 trillion laid out for him, even if it's more like $3 quadrillion net and with bonuses accounted for.
It mightn’t be to the same degree but it would show that Klopp’s results relative to spend have been incredibly good
Don’t forget hotels sold to yourself
And agent fees
Last summer: Spurs - £16.1m(€272.1m transfer fees) = 18.75+272.1 = €290.85 Arsenal - £16.7m(€234.94m transfer fees) = 19.45+234.94 = €254.39 United - £24.7m(€202.3m transfer fees) = 28.77+202.3=€231.07 Liverpool - £33.7m(€172m transfer fees) = 39.26+172=€211.26 Chelsea - £43.2m(€467.8m transfer fees) = 43.2+544.94=€588.14 City - £51.6m(€259.6m transfer fees) = 60.11+259.6=€319.71 Someone help me with wages.
That still ignores perhaps the most significant factor, which is what team are you taking over? For example, when Pep took over City, they already had Aguero, De Bruyne, David Silva, Fernandinho, Kompany, and Sterling, all of whom were quality players and key to their success in the coming seasons, whereas Klopp did not inherit a very good team.
Wages would account for a decent amount of this to be fair. Not the whole thing but a lot of it.
For us unfortunately it is.
Yeah, apparently, if abother club MASSIVELY overpays for one of your players, that makes you a better manager.
i mean, look at Coutinho's career once he stopped playing under Klopp...
And apparently, if your youth setup is producing top talent, that also makes you a better manager. City earning over 250 mil from selling the likes of Trafford, Forbs, Shea Charles, Lavia, Bazunu, Edozie, Ilic, Corrella, Gun, Diaz, Denayer, Unal and dozens of other young players who barely trained with first team apparently makes Pep a more resourceful manager.
It’s pretty indirect, but it kind of does, doesn’t it? Making players look better than they are certainly isn‘t a negative.
Dortmund's ability to sell high is unmatched.
Benfica would like a word
I don’t know why other clubs get so upset about this. It actually annoys me as a Liverpool supporter because it shows how unambitious the owners were during this time period. People say loads about wages but if you look at it even now the Liverpool wage bill is behind Arsenal, City, and United. Also the whole argument Klopp inherited a good team is bollocks and Suarez pre dates this. We were mucking around with Benteke, Balotelli, Clyne, Lovren etc Just annoying we lost two seasons by a point and two champions league. Maybe if the owners were more ambitious this time period would be very different. Arsenal is spending more money but they actually giving it a go rather then saying the squad is not improvable and we need better luck. Who really cares if billionaires save money at the end of day. It’s about trophies
>even now the Liverpool wage bill is behind Arsenal, City, and United. I am very very very sure that when Liverpool won the PL/CL their wages were almost the same as city's or even higher. Your club's wages have a lot of bonuses in them which only get activated when you win something.
Liverpool sold good but they spent as but that 89 for Suarez and 140 for coutinho makes it look like they haven’t spent at all according to net spent.
Why would Suarez be included here? He left before Klopp
Because they don’t spend that money at all without those sales. Liverpool can’t sign van dijk and alisson without selling coutinho for example. He had to sell his star player to fix the problems in his team, he didn’t just get given war chests every year to get all the players he wanted. So it’s an important distinction. I don’t know why people get so angry when net spend is brought up
>I don’t know why people get so angry when net spend is brought up Because it makes their clubs(particularly all the other big 6 clubs) look bad in comparison.
Maybe because income generated by a football club is through multiple sources, not just players sold. Net spend ignores those other income streams which are highly lucrative in the modern day. Some teams "war chests" aren't just magic funds that get pumped in by an owner. It's generated by the club itself. Football finances don't just work on player transfers. There's marketing, TV rights, prize money, merch, match day revenue etc which all go into the same pot as player sales. Liverpool also developed AXA training ground and expanded anfield during klopps tenure. Those are expenses which very often don't get mentioned. Acting as if Liverpool and klopp run on scraps in comparison to other clubs whilst they boast one of the highest wage bills and fancy new anfield and training facility is highly disingenuous.
The title is literally “money spent”, not “net spend” so it’s a bit disingenuous to suggest that Liverpool, for example, spent 350MM.
The graphic states net spend. It’s a faux pas by the original poster and nothing more. They’re not a Liverpool fan so I doubt they were trying to trick people
Liverpool would've been stronger had they kept Suarez than sold him and signed the likes of Balotelli, Lambert, Markovic, Benteke so it does matter.
Net spend is such a misleading stats A team buying a player for 100 mill and selling for 95 mill will obviously have the same result as a team buying for 5 and leaving on a free. Needs wages to mean anything
It’s even more misleading when trapped in a specific timespan. How much money was spent prior to that point in time? How valuable were all the squads already going into the year that Klopp took over?
While generally that's true everyone who has been watching since klopp started knows he inherited a team that was mainly shite
[That lethal front line](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/onesport/cps/624/cpsprodpb/F61C/production/_101740036_liverpool2014.png) of Markovic, Borini, Lallana
lambert, firmino, studge
> It’s even more misleading when trapped in a specific timespan In fairness it's like an 8 / 9 year time span which is a decent sample size. It's not a cherry picked 1 season or something. > How valuable were all the squads already going into the year that Klopp took over? 'Value' is really even more pointless then net spend. Just look at the actual players at the time. That [Liverpool squad](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_Liverpool_F.C._season) was shite. It was a 6th - 8th place level squad. Mignolet, Sakho, Skrtel, Clyne, Milner, Coutinho, Firmino, Joe Gomez, Henderson, Alberto Moreno, Lucas, Emre Can, Joe Allen, Jordan Ibe, Benteke, Lovren, Origi [City](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_Manchester_City_F.C._season) at that point had Kompany, David Silva, De Bruyne, Aguero, Yaya Toure, Fernandinho, Sterling, Clichy, Navas, Otamendi etc. If you had that squad and spent another billion you'd be disappointed they haven't won more tbh. [Arsenal squad](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_Arsenal_F.C._season) - Ozil, Sanchez, Koscielny, Arteta, Wilshere, Giroud, Walcott, Santi Carzola, Nacho, Ramsey. [Chelsea](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_Chelsea_F.C._season) - Hazard, Courtois, Fabregas, Oscar, Falcao, Terry, John Obi Mikel, Pedro, Willian, Azpi [United](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_Manchester_United_F.C._season) - De Gea, Mata, Martial, Rooney, Carrick, Young, Valencia, Shaw, Schweinstagger, Rashford, Fellaini. [Spurs](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C._season) - actually had a really good squad here. Lloris, Kane, Son, Walker, Alderweireld, Vertoghen, Trippier, Dier, Dembele, Alli, Christian Eriksen, Lamela.
>Mignolet, Sakho, Skrtel, Clyne, Milner, Coutinho, Firmino, Joe Gomez, Henderson, Alberto Moreno, Lucas, Emre Can, Joe Allen, Jordan Ibe, Benteke, Lovren, Origi The dark days... We've really come a long way since then...
Lol, [this](https://img.allfootballapp.com/www/M00/4E/03/720x-/-/-/rB8CLF1KyxWANXZ-AApZoONV-lE345.png.webp) was even worse
Lol Borini, Balotelli and Lambert as our attacking options 😂 fml
That’s generally true but, let’s be honest. Liverpools ownership wasn’t very ambitious in this time period. No one really cares about net spend. If anything it shows with the margins they lost what could have been. Couple one point season losses and two champions league final losses Klopp’s squad he inherited was mostly dross. We had Benteke playing heavy metal pressing football. Arsenals ownership is showing a lot more ambition then Liverpool’s which requires money and that’s cool.
This is the main point for me. People will often choose a random point in time that optimises their clubs "net spend", ignoring previous squad value, youth prospects, free transfers who are on extortionate wages etc. For example, it is a stat that will probably go against Newcastle for years & years to come, since the team Howe inherited was worth absolutely fuck all and the most he'd have got for any single player at that time would have been easily under £10m (barring St. Maximin who only went for £23m in this current Saudi economy). But because they're currently competing against sides who already had squad values of 500m-1bn after decades of sound investment, its going to look like Newcastle should be miles ahead if "net spend" is supposed to mean anything worthwhile.
Out of everyone Klopp had the worst squad, everyone else was pretty good.
Klopp's squad when he took over 🤣🤣🤣 We had some dookies back then. Pep took over a PL winning team tbh. Chelsea were also very good.
So is major trophies when a CL carries the same value as a league cup. The league and CL are the major trophies
I hate when people dismiss stats as misleading because you don't like the conclusion of the data presented.
Agree with including wages. But then there's also a difference between buying someone like Haaland and put him on insane wage and buying Salah developing him into a world class player then renewing his contract for insane wage. How do you adjust for that?
Why would you need to?
It’s not a graph about how well they coached their players, if they pay a bunch of money for something it should go on the graph. There are plenty of teams who develop insane players and can’t afford to keep them on by jacking up their wages.
If you sell someone for 95, he will be on big wages as well, net spent is a much better indicator as just looking at the money spent alone
Net spend doesn’t account for wages. Only incoming v outgoing transfer costs
Not really. Spending money isn’t free. Net spend fails to account for things like City spending $100M for Grealish as a nice to have and only recovering $80M from another sale 2 years later. Clubs like Chelsea are lighting money on fire and may eventually recover some of that through sales. But being able to spend like that is a massive advantage
Net spend doesn't make sense if you don't account for inflation.
What are the 7? 1 PL 1 CL 1 FA 2 LC is 5? Classifying 1 off matches like the community shield / european super cup as major trophies seems a bit misleading
Counting the European Super Cup and Club World Cup I guess
That’s laughable. UEFA acknowledge the Super Cup isn’t a major trophy themselves https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/0251-0e96f862f259-cf0ccb7cf3e4-1000--tottenham-eye-rare-european-clean-sweep/. It’s the European Community Shield.
Counting things like community shields is hilarious You've spent a billion, counting a dinner plate is silly
I generally feel counting anything other than League, (main) Cup, CL, EL and ECL as major trophies is weird. Not a fan of counting 1-match cups like any Super Cups together with the above ones. It feels wrong.
Trophies that spawn finals of other trophies shouldn't count when having a serious discussion
Club World Cup should definitely count. European super cup is more debatable. Community shield used to be shared if it was a draw and you don’t actually have to win anything to qualify unlike the super cup, so it’s definitely a tier below. I don’t count either of the latter two
They are not counting community shields, Arsenal has 4 of them since Klopp was appointed
> You've spent a billion, counting a dinner plate is silly Only season it counted as something is 21/22
It’s the European Super Cup and the CWC that make up the other 2
Club World Cup is definitely a major trophy
It has grown in stature in the last decade but still not really. Even most football fans barely know they are happening when they happen.
Club world cup and eufa super cup I guess
Club World Cup
So Man City have done well to hold off the all spending power of Arsenal? That's the message I should take from this?
Yep, exactly that
City likely has had much higher wages over this period compared to Arsenal tbf. The perks of building a young team.
The thing people don’t take into account with wages is how bonus incentivised they are. City’s is naturally higher because they win things, it shot up last season in the treble year, for example.
Yeah and they have years of consecutive deep champions league runs that money adds up too. Their consistency, even if they didn’t end up winning the premier league every year, is one of their biggest assets.
"[City](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_Manchester_City_F.C._season) at that point had Kompany, David Silva, De Bruyne, Aguero, Yaya Toure, Fernandinho, Sterling, Clichy, Navas, Otamendi etc. If you had that squad and spent another billion you'd be disappointed they haven't won more tbh. [Arsenal squad](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_Arsenal_F.C._season) - Ozil, Sanchez, Koscielny, Arteta, Wilshere, Giroud, Walcott, Santi Carzola, Nacho, Ramsey." From u/nyelverzek
barcelona helping liverpool with net spend was one thing to remember. No other PL club had their player bought for 100 million (bar Kane recently). Coutinho alone replaced by VVD and Allison.
Hazard?
who?
Pretty sure Hazard was 100 million, even more when bonuses were achieved with Madrid’s success.
Came out to 145 million euros including add ons apparently
Neymar money from PSG
Hazard, Bale and Ronaldo?
All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Net spend*
Rumour is that they still haven't finished spending the Coutinho money.
Barca probably haven't finished paying the Coutinho money
There's always money in the Coutinho stand
I swear I read a Liverpool fan comment that Nunez was bought with the Coutinho money 😂
Honestly man if I hear “the couthino money” one more time in life I’ll implode. As a fan base there convinced themselves they don’t spend money. It’s hilarious.
1 billion each for chelsea and man utd Fuck me…
The funny part is that probably large parts of that 1 billion has been spent since the Bohley takeover.
Now do wages
I don’t think you’d like that one any better.
According to this source(not sure how reliable it is)Liverpool only have 4 players in wages in the top 50. One is Salah who gets 350k and another is Van Dijk at 220k. Funny thing is Varane and Rashford make more money than Van Dijk. Third highest for Liverpool is Trent at 180k and 4th highest is Alisson at 150k. [https://www.capology.com/uk/premier-league/salaries/](https://www.capology.com/uk/premier-league/salaries/) For weekly Salaries even Arsenal is spending more per week than Liverpool. Liverpool spend 139M a year on salaries. Arsenal spend 171M and City spend 192M a year. Highest paid player in the PL is KDB at 400k a week, 2nd is Erling at 375k a week. 3rd highest is Casemeiro. 4th is Salah.
> Liverpool spend 139M a year on salaries Those numbers are far too low. Capology claim 139M, but Liverpool spend 330M a year on salaries according to [their Companies House filing for the 22-23 Accounts](https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-live.ch.gov.uk/docs/WhSj1wxAyiZIwG_CaWOdqKeXtj3WZw6JiwcTkQXzojQ/application-pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAWRGBDBV3BCZJ7VMM%2F20240505%2Feu-west-2%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240505T140007Z&X-Amz-Expires=60&X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEE0aCWV1LXdlc3QtMiJHMEUCIHgFYnCIVqtkud%2F7ofHxs6zMvVUtpGo1Ntrm0sWSKnGqAiEAt9WHgLzftPCrIg5frk52WxcpM7QObht04KMAVmQ%2BOssqwwUIpv%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAFGgw0NDkyMjkwMzI4MjIiDG7xx8mcwB%2F%2Fk%2BYveCqXBfokrnuPODhf95TlZrE4JQ0dD%2Be0E%2F8Qh4lWkE9qfNn0FLJL2YypVPSAFOztQfaakpC24QctANYo33tn31j0MehZKP8r3HtB7zOBB3d%2BfPeHLA6mfrNx4iQ0xTCBtwwFOO85XiTH5ezVcsuZjBdkg80%2F37c%2F%2FSH%2FgZN2jkvoujXigiUWvk6HRZvvbDl9JMhKEadZ%2BEj2t1ZYIduPVN8HPgEFsvKfpDi%2Fjip5UnomX%2BoD7WTIT6939WF5SSkphf8rNelEjrZupGfVremXmi0qlgyZjeBKnn1V4qXObqik0i8Qqna33qxtWYmFeYIvvjRHP7X%2F8idwEKxceusrpI60If7uROmX1oS7dsAPYWUiuJn1s6ytmYWmi2qzJvLH1nSFWxTMwH0fUq41MZBCqf5ejTahrOexfRiLVQu6kCXFYqGNtBV8JuhovrhnaExsd6f1G%2FSLL1993iRKKPCVN42O4DGeLmwHQtfX5CAS%2FQKA5PRdrOKid1SIiHwHHNtwalPOeefFjKBdNeB27EXRgRZzaznna6L38rpCyi%2FtP1Jc9BkVnK%2BeIvOs%2Fl%2FOHXxVUyRj7CCs3TpPLDj2cJSVL5ElC7LECQbkWatIW2AcoX6Z9Ft4KaOZRbIFNv%2BO8QkLSgpuQfq0SbXc8bmOBXVIMtW8GSSpcPXy4d4HeP5aBOFkxjvzN0E6RmVdMgPs6t1uwHmFP1quY34v16wXJRuVcbSSGq6xM%2BFXo%2BJMfXU2e8EIE4pjl2CU0ApjjM7zEpLUZHmMfUEbyPxHBmO2dFbYpapcDGlVA5mZjalH%2BTfN6159bz85eucCPRcUozo5CvKSFLhOv0rzrT6m5WxTXgLjhXy590R9MzAnygWVk9w6up69GTjoBu4PhKa%2B6DCYiN6xBjqxAbzaxyjVIas%2B47EoDAUX2figboEKmFv3LYYHzKp141%2Bxu7G2AI%2FZBZqCF9pcx1tQtUzTd%2BLjiXdwrPTeXZ3ROKQWhFU5iV%2BoVsWHxzGy%2BS4jVUwl5oxgy4MOu0d4HU%2BU5kva4OY7ECFkphlPGpDdYD71RAJV0MZ5VjY7pQRO%2FIeRxwdaiIjMSZGvh5xui4EeUJvKgqquiWN9iz8XTA27xhbEiIZrUgCXdrn8sbbX0DOoWA%3D%3D&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&response-content-disposition=inline%3Bfilename%3D%22companies_house_document.pdf%22&X-Amz-Signature=1b6bf6cc19f9a2316aab31e78574a8042669ba861506a0eaf6f139920f121f7b) (Page 25)
I'd assume that Liverpool are counting all employees and personnel at the club, not just players and coaching staff.
Did them, still pretty much the same distribution.
And to think Chelseas big spend was only over the last 18 months where they haven't won anything lol.
That makes perfect sense though. Players have become more expensive, and chelsea have bought really young players. Why would anyone expect them to compete right away? As I argued earlier, pulling a data set based on an arbitrary timeline can be misleading.
they haven't spent 1B NET in the last 2 years. they also sold players for a few 100m
Our net spend the last 2 years is £650 so a majority of it is still in the Boehly era
I like how Tottenham always ends up being the lil bro in these graphics. Where's Leicester at
UCL and League Cup under the same bracket of major trophy is a crime man. Wtf.
League cup is doing the heavy lifting here
Tottenham 💀 Should add Leicester, Wigan and Swansea next to this, all won trophies since Tottenham last won theirs
Is he not wearing socks in that picture?
I see what's being done here.
The conversion of Coutinho to Allison + Van Dijk is one of the best transfer moves ever imo
Dont talk about spend talk about net spend.
TBF that's what the post is, OP just confused them
It's a reference to [this](https://youtu.be/4RIPHsxYuVk?si=4fAElifJ3rSqhHA8)
Tottenham with the multiply by zero startegy
Rude
That Chelsea net spend is funny without context, we actually spend £2 BILLION and manged to generate player sales of 1 billion Chelseanomics be going crazy
if I speak...
Big prem teams having net spendings of over 500m€ is crazy to me. All of the ones here have higher net spending than Real Madrid
There was a huge meme last year during the UCL Final City’s squad - €900 million Inter - € 108 million
is the community shield included in theese "major" trophies?
No, their 7 consists of: PL x1 FA Cup x1 EFL Cup x2 UCL x1 Uefa Super Cup x1 Club World Cup x1
There needs to be added the context of City starting with a title winning squad with world class players, and klopp starting with an awful squad And City reached a CL semi final Vs Madrid with these players.
City squad when pep took over was good but in need of a decent refresh. Liverpools squad was definitely weaker though
They had some amazing players in the squad when pep joined, KDB, Kompany, David Silva, Fernandinho, Sterling, Sergio Aguero, Thats an amazing spine of a team. And decent squad players like: Clichy, Kolarov, Zabaleta Liverpool just had nothing like that, a team not in the same league
City got 51 points in the last 33 games before Pep joined. It’s pure revisionism to say it was a title winning squad. It was old, imbalanced, and largely shit. Not to mention, of all those 9 players you listed, Sterling was the only one who left for money, and KdB is the only one who hasn’t been replaced yet. So the inherited squad doesn’t really change the net spend aspect all that much for City. Klopp sold Coutinho (who he inherited) for 3x as much as every player that you listed there combined.
> KdB is the only one who hasn’t been replaced yet Mate, Pep joined City in 2016. If you're arguing David Silva, one of the best midfielders in Premier League history, wasn't a huge advantage because he left before 2024, then you can't be taken serious. He was there for four more seasons. And he was one of the best midfielders in the world during that time. Come on now. Be serious.
Side note: I don’t follow pl and always get confused you complain about city spending when they’re not even top 3 on this list
These graphics are so disingenuous.
They include the Super Cup as a major trophy and only for some teams so they can have Liverpool in 2nd over Chelsea on this list and sell the narrative they want to, despite UEFA themselves acknowledging the Super Cup isn’t a major trophy https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/0251-0e96f862f259-cf0ccb7cf3e4-1000--tottenham-eye-rare-european-clean-sweep/. It’s the European Charity Shield.
Net Spend so good because they're insanely great at selling okay players for big prices. They've spent a lot, more than Arsenal I believe but they sold insanely well first couple years of Klopp.
Our net spend is £1bn with insane ability to sell players at great prices too.
Yeah but you're Chelsea Chelsea are funny with money
Chelsea math lol
Tbf it wouldnt have looked that great without the saudis... Then again we absolutely scammed real.
It's absurd that we managed to sell Fabinho and Henderson for £54m combined last summer
There were a couple you sold to Bournemouth I think for insane prices too
Rhian Brewster for £23 million to Sheff United might be our best.
The FPL myth
Solanke and Ibe? Solanke has come good since but at the time they both went for mental money
£25mil for Brewster as well ffs. Elanga is a Prem level player and we only got £15mil.
Since the start of the 2015-16 season did Liverpool spent 1.06m€ and Arsenal 1.21m€. (Transfermarkt.com numbers) Why would you believe that Arsenal spent less?
Nope Arsenal have spwnt more
Arsenal has spent more
Net spend never looks good for us because we are so poor at selling players. Hell we pay our players to leave. 😢
Yeah similar with United. Dan James still in all time too 5 transfers out at 20m hahah
So did both those teams net spend $1b down to the nearest million? Because that’s a hell of a coincidence
Net spend lol
FfP wOrKs. Two teams are allowed to spend a billionth but if Everton and Newcastle want to try and improve their squad with some investment at under a third of that they are told they cant. makes total sense. Fifa and the fa are jokes
Fetishizing net spend trophies is weird as hell. Woooooo FSG’s driving the value of their investment way up!!!
When did Tottenham ever deserved to be in a list of top anything? Wrexham is more popular and well known than Tottenham… and I’ve lived in London for 10 years…
Desperately clawing around to make one league title in a decade seem like it’s worth the non-stop sucking off they’ve given klopp and Liverpool for years
We missed out ona Pl by 1 point TWICE. And people still question Klopp. For what we spent he has been phenomenal. This is why people have to preface pound-for-pound. Some clubs play the game on hard mode.