logo
logo

Investigating whether there is a link between transfer spend & PL position

There is a clear correlation between spend on wages and league position, but the likes of Liverpool, Tottenham and Leicester City have proven you don’t necessarily need to splash out on transfer fees to achieve success.

Generally speaking, the more a club spends on wages, the higher up the table they finish, which is unsurprising given the best players tend to get paid the most money.

But what about spending on transfer fees? Chelsea and Manchester City are famous examples in England of clubs who have enjoyed greater success on the back of heavy investment in the transfer market, but how much of a correlation is there between transfer spend and finishing position?

We looked back at the last four seasons of the Premier League to compare each club’s transfer spend against their final position.


2017-18 clubs ranked by transfer spend (actual finishing position)

1. Man City – £288.3m (1st) No change
2. Chelsea – £259.6m (5th) -3
3. Everton – £199.9m (8th) -5
4. Man Utd – £169.5m (2nd) +2
5. Liverpool – £158.1m (4th) +1
6. Arsenal – £110.6m (6th) No change
7. Tottenham – £107.1m (3rd) +4
8. Leicester City – £81.8m (9th) -1
9. Watford – £61.2m (14th) -5
10. Swansea City – £56.5m (18th) -8
11. Southampton – £54.6m (17th) -6
12. Huddersfield – £49.8m (16th) -4
13. West Brom – £46.8m (20th) -7
14. Crystal Palace – £44.9m (11th) +3
15. Brighton – £44m (15th) No change
16. Stoke City – £43.9m (19th) -3
17. West Ham – £42.7m (13th) +4
18. Newcastle – £36.2m (10th) +8
19. Burnley – £36m (7th) +12
20. Bournemouth – £30m (12th) +8


2016-17 clubs ranked by transfer spend (actual finishing position)

1. Man City – £181.05m (3rd) -2
2. Man Utd – £157.25m (6th) -4
3. Chelsea – £112.88m (1st) +2
4. Arsenal – £96.05m (5th) -1
5. Crystal Palace – £87.21m (14th) -9
6. Leicester City – £77.44m (12th) -6
7. Everton – £73.02m (7th) No change
8. West Ham – £70.98m (11th) -3
9. Tottenham – £70.31m (2nd) +7
10. Liverpool – £67.92m (4th) +6
11.  Southampton – £58.57m (8th) +3
12. Watford – £58.46m (17th) -5
13. Swansea City – £49.47m (15th) -2
14. Middlesbrough – £44.75m (19th) -5
15. Burnley – £38.76m (16th) -1
16. Bournemouth – £34.59m (9th) +7
17. Hull City – £34m (18th) -1
18. Sunderland £33.92m (20th) -2
19. Stoke City – £32.76m (13th) +6
20. West Brom – £32.22m (10th) +10


2015-16 clubs ranked by transfer spend (actual finishing position)

1. Man City – £154.4m (4th) -3
2. Man Utd – £115.3m (5th) -3
3. Liverpool – £93.1m (8th) -5
4. Chelsea  – £76.8m (10th) -6
5. Newcastle United – £76.3m (18th) -13
6. Watford – £61.8m (13th) -7
7. Aston Villa – £54.4m (20th) -13
8. Tottenham – £53.4m (3rd) +5
9. Southampton – £45.7m (6th) +3
10. Bournemouth – £41.2m (16th) -6
11. Sunderland – £40.3m (17th) -6
12. Stoke City – £39.6m (9th) +3
13. West Ham – £38.3m (7th) +6
14. Leicester City – £36.6m (1st) +13
15. Norwich City – £36.1 (19th) -4
16. Everton – £32.1m (11th) +5
17. West Brom – £31.5m (14th) +2
18. Crystal Palace – £25.3m (15th) +2
19. Swansea City – £18.1m (12th) +6
20. Arsenal – £18m (2nd) +18


2014-15 clubs ranked by transfer spend (actual finishing position)

1. Man Utd – £153.1m (4th) -3
2. Liverpool – £116.8m (6th) -4
3. Chelsea – £114.7m (1st) +2
4. Arsenal – £91.8m (3rd) +1
5. Man City – £82.5m (2nd) +3
6. Southampton – £67.9m (7th) -1
7. Hull City – £42.2m (18th) -11
8. Tottenham – £39.2m (5th) +3
9. Newcastle United – £37.8m (15th) -6
11= QPR – £36.5m (20th) -9
11= West Ham – £36.5m (12th) -1
12. Swansea City – £34.85m (8th) +4
13. Everton – £32.8m (11th) +2
14. West Brom – £20.35m (13th) +1
15. Leicester City – £20m (14th) +1
16. Crystal Palace – £17.59m (10th) +6
17. Sunderland – £12m (16th) +1
18. Burnley – £11m (19th) -1
19. Aston Villa – £10.1m (17th) +2
20. Stoke City – £3m (9th) +11


One thing that becomes immediately apparent is the rapid increase in riches among the teams.

In the last two seasons, every club in the division spent over £30million on transfers. Three seasons prior to last, seven clubs spent well below that mark, with Stoke spending only a tenth of that figure.

With the largely random patches of red and green, it would be incredibly difficult to argue there is a clear correlation between transfer spend and league position. Before last term, the biggest spenders in the previous three seasons finished third, fourth and fourth, while the lowest spenders finished 12th, 10th, second and ninth.

Though teams are often written off on the back of spending very little, it’s quite clear a summer of relative frugality does not condemn a club to a season of struggle. Newcastle and Burnley in particular proved that in 2017-18, while Bournemouth have finished significantly higher than their place in the spending table in both their Premier League years.

And, of course, there is unlikely to ever be a better example of a team exceeding expectations than Leicester City.

• • • •

 

READ: A celebration of the five bargain buys that helped win Leicester City the title

• • • •

It is interesting to note that of the clubs to have both overachieved and underachieved at different points over the last four terms, they have tended to do better when they have spent less on signing new players.

Crystal Palace, for instance, outperformed what their spend would suggest in 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18, while massively underwhelming in 2016-17, having spent the fifth most in the division.

Liverpool are also a good example, finishing a disappointing sixth and eighth, despite being among the top three spenders in England, only to perform above expectation in Jurgen Klopp’s first full season in charge when they were only the 10th biggest spenders.

Rather than suggest a direct link between transfer spend and league position, it may instead point to the issue of whether a club can sign too many players in a single window or season.

As ever, the fascination and excitement which comes with signing new players and your club spending big transfer fees is unlikely to subside any time soon, but it’s important to remember that it does not necessarily guarantee success.

As Johan Cruyff once said: “Why couldn’t you beat a richer club? I’ve never seen a bag of money score a goal.”


More from Planet Football

Can you name the record signing from every Premier League season?

Nine title-defining signings: Van Persie, Aguero, Kante, Campbell & more

Seven big Spurs signings who were meant to be the business… but weren’t

The times Liverpool spent more than any other PL club – and how they fared