Poised upon the cusp of a fresh
football season, this week is a time of great optimism among supporters
and players. Nobody has lost yet, there are new faces, fresh brooms and
outlandish statements of managerial confidence.
Confidence is one thing the bookies are not short of: Manchester United
are odds on to lift the title again; perhaps the biggest indictment of the
so-called chasing group is the fact that Fulham are seventh favourites (albeit
at 80-1) to win the Premiership.
Unlike other newly promoted clubs, Fulham have spent heavily during the
summer, but is this any guarantee of success - or of even staying in the
top flight?
The short answer is 'no'. This rather abrupt conclusion is arrived at by
analysing the transfer spending of Premiership sides over the past five
years. Firstly, there is the proven correlation between expenditure on players'
wages and on-field success.
The highest wage bills in the Premiership are consistently found at the
most successful locations: Old Trafford, Highbury, Anfield and Stamford
Bridge. Of additional significance is the fact that not only do these four
leading clubs, (plus Leeds United) pay their players more than other clubs,
they also have the deepest pockets when it comes to expenditure on transfers.
This historical spending trend has been adhered to during the period which
is still laughably referred to as 'the close season'. Last season's top-five
Premiership finishers - Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Leeds and
Ipswich - have, once again, been active during the summer.
These non-footballing months have seen those top five sides write cheques
to the value of £73m for 10 new players, an average of £7.3m
a man. This figure does not include Ruud Van Nistelrooy's £19m transfer
to Manchester United which took place at the end of last season.
Last summer, the previous season's topfive finishers spent £68.3m
at an average player cost of £5.25m.
However, if the comparative distortion of the cost to Manchester United
of Juan Sebastian Veron (£28.1m) is deducted, the average incoming
cost of a new player to a top-five club this summer falls to £5m.
This average figure is £250,000 less than last year when the most
expensive summer signing was Chelsea's Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink for a relatively
modest, and less distorting, £15m.
Does this apparent reduction in average player cost offer a glimmer of hope
to teams outside of the gentrified top five? Once again, the answer is probably
'no', a reply based at least partially upon statistical evidence and partially
on the financial facts of life.
Since season 1995/96, several clubs have tried to break the monopoly of
the leading sides. Tottenham, Newcastle, Everton and Aston Villa have each
spent colossal sums in the elusive search for success. Only Newcastle, runners-up
in 95-96 and 96-97 have come close; the efforts of the rest have ultimately
petered out, governed by the refusal of shareholders to sanction more spending
on new players of questionable ability.
Three other factors carry significant weight: first, when a top-five club
spends big, it generally spends well - Veron, Jaap Stam, Thierry Henry,
Markus Babbel, Rio Ferdinand, Hasselbaink etc.
Big-money transfers perhaps, but compare this list with the type of expensive
player that Alan Sugar once described as 'Carlos Kickaball', i.e. overpaid,
underachievers who have arrived in the Premiership as no more than modern-day
pirates.
Second, players of the calibre of Veron and Henry have a natural ambition
to play for a top club, not a mid-table or struggling side.
Third, there is the Bosman effect that allows players to transfer their
own registrations between clubs when they are out of contract. Quite naturally,
they gravitate towards the clubs that pay the highest wages.
Of course, some managers (Martin O'Neill when he was at Leicester City,
Peter Reid at Sunderland and Jean Tigana at Fulham) attract players by selling
their vision for the club rather than the immediate prospect of championships
or European competition, another fact recognised by the bookies.
To break the top-five monopoly then, or even to gain an opportunity to compete
on equal terms, there is first an absolute need to spend enormous sums on
attracting the best players either via transfer fees or Bosman-style arrangements
and to subsequently pay wages that are comparable with those of the monopolists.
IS this what Mohamed Fayed has in mind at Fulham? However, not even his
summer largesse has managed to close the gap between the previous season's
top five and 'bottom' five (including the three promoted sides).
Last year, the 'bottom' five Premiership clubs, comprising the three newly
promoted sides and the previous season's bottom (ie non-relegated) two spent
£33.95m during the summer, £34m less than the top five.
Three of this group were subsequently relegated.
This summer, the gap has widened to £45m, and even if Fulham manage
to narrow that slightly in the coming weeks, the gulf is still huge.
Each summer's transfer activity is invariably a statement of intent, a jockeying
for a seat at the top table.
Any sustained challenge from the outsiders would probably attract considerable
support, even were it to come in the unlikely combination of a Frenchman
and an Egyptian based in west London. |