Is £3bn Premier League spending cause for concern?

It was the transfer window when spending by Premier League clubs went into uncharted territory.

The top flight made more than ever this summer, buoyed by the start of a record £6.7 billion four-year domestic TV deal and the extra revenue generated by newly expanded European club competitions.

However, does the unprecedented £3 billion investment and the drama of a hectic deadline day raise concerns as well?

Fifa praised “the growing scale of the global transfer system and the continued expansion of international player mobility,” adding that England “consolidated its position as the world’s leading investor in talent.”

But for some, serious questions are raised by the fact Premier League clubs spent more than those from the Bundesliga, La Liga, Ligue 1 and Serie A combined – with concern over competitive balance.

The German champions’ honorary president Uli Hoeness criticized their English rivals for choosing Liverpool and Newcastle United, respectively, after Florian Wirtz and Nick Woltemade did so this summer, saying that it “can’t end well.”

Bayern’s head coach Vincent Kompany lamented the difficulty of competing with even the smaller Premier League clubs after a number of other top players left the Bundesliga for England this summer.

And Wrexham’s £30 million summer investment enabled higher net spend than those of Barcelona, AC Milan, and Borussia Dortmund, even in the Championship.

Could the disparity these leagues currently face give others an even greater incentive to play in the same way when Spain’s La Liga and Italy’s Serie A are already planning regular season matches and are aware of how lucrative they could be?

For former Liverpool managing director and Aston Villa chief executive Christian Purslow, the Premier League’s spending is simply “a reflection of the huge success of a competition that has a level of media income that dwarfs those of its main rivals overseas”.

The “urinary leap required” to bridge the gap between divisions “seems to be getting wider,” according to Purslow, who is struck more by the conflict with the EFL.

He seems most concerned about the league’s elite talking advantage, a growing gap in the top flight, and the need for more clubs to sell more players in order to comply with profit and sustainability regulations (PSR), which limit financial losses, and the league’s growing disparity in terms of speaking advantage.

“While it’s always been true that the biggest clubs come for players of ‘ middle-ranking ‘ teams, that trend has become much more mainstream and is causing more of a polarisation between the winners and losers”, Purslow told BBC Sport.

In a window where Purslow’s former club Aston Villa sold Jacob Ramsey to Newcastle United, who had also sold Sean Longstaff to Leeds, Purslow was considering what happened.

The so-called “big six” clubs, who are benefiting from more Champions League revenue than ever, are frequently the most likely buyers, Purslow said, not only are we seeing the unintended PSR consequence of a perverse incentive to sell homegrown talent, [because clubs’ own academy products are counted as “pure profit” in their accounts when sold], but also the “perverse incentive to sell homegrown talent”

“It’s a dangerous ‘ double whammy ‘ that’s being exacerbated. Most fans, in my opinion, don’t really like it. They enjoy seeing their team’s inner workings connected to the local community, and seeing such players leave has an additional resonance.

” Fans know that owners are selling not because they don’t have the financial resources, but to comply with the rules. Because more fans believe there is something wrong with teams like Newcastle and Aston Villa, I believe there will be more and more pressure to liberalize those rules.

The biggest clubs appear to have used this season to reaffirm their previous dominance by focusing on the talent of their domestic rivals, having seen Manchester United and Spurs finish only slightly above the relegation zone last year, while Brighton, Bournemouth, and Brentford also achieved top 10 status and Crystal Palace won the FA Cup.

Indeed, a record £1bn was spent between Premier League clubs, £200m more than last year.

That, in Purslow, has strengthened the case for a change to PSR to encourage clubs to retain the local talent they have acquired and to allow owners to invest more and cover losses more effectively.

You must have some control, he said, but the current situation is skewing the competitive landscape.

” Why have rules that encourage us to sell homegrown talent? Let’s just require academy players’ FFP salaries to be non-deductible. It would cause behavior to change overnight, keeping those players in clubs.

Football finance expert Kieran Maguire agrees that the summer has reinforced a” major concern that the owners of the aspirational and ambitious clubs, such as Nottingham Forest, Aston Villa, Newcastle, and so on, are constrained in terms of their ability to spend in a way that didn’t exist when Roman Abramovich acquired Chelsea]in 2003] and Sheikh Mansour acquired Manchester City]in 2008] “.

According to Maguire, “They’re on the wrong side of history because the PSR rules, regardless of their intentions, have resulted in a glass ceiling and prevented owners from receiving the desired level of funding for the clubs.”

The Premier League has defended PSR, insisting it is necessary to avoid overspending, despite receiving criticism from some clubs.

In February its clubs chose not to replace it with a new Uefa-style ‘ squad cost ratio ‘ (SCR) system of financial control which allows them to spend a proportion of their total revenues on team-related costs, which is currently only being trialled.

The nine Premier League clubs that have qualified for European competition must adhere to Uefa’s SCR regulations, which are stricter than PSR and limit spending on player wages and fees to no more than 70% of revenues for 2025.

As long as everyone adheres to the rules, “I think investment in squads is generally a good thing,” Premier League CEO Richard Masters said last month to BBC Sport.

While the Premier League’s overall net spend in the window was £1.36bn thanks to almost £2bn of player sales, Maguire also highlights the amount of deals taking place on credit.

Deferred transfer instalments that had already been paid for exceeded £3 billion even before this window. It will now include much more.

” This is a relatively new phenomenon as transfer fees have increased, “Maguire said.

Deals can now now be spread over three to five annual installments. In the end, clubs have received a lot of transfer debt.

Maguire points to Manchester United, whose transfer payables have rocketed from £34m in 2013, to more than £400m this year.

He added, “This has given football clubs who are owed money for transfers the opportunity to sell the debt to financial institutions and receive cash early.

In the event of a club failing to pay its debt, the Premier League reserves the right to deduct money from central distributions and redirect those funds to football creditors, and all clubs are required to provide financial statements in order to lessen the risk of default.

A flurry of loan agreements with options or purchase obligations has been a not-so-seen trend this summer.

While this can be in the interests of a player, it can also” help clubs from a PSR point of view as it can delay the cost of player purchases for 12 months”, explains Maguire.

The transient nature of such arrangements also runs the risk of diluting the identity of teams because so many players are being loaned out to other clubs.

Some people are already struggling as a result of the amount of money being spent on transfers, player wages, and agent fees, as well as the emergence of so-called “bomb-squads” of unwanted players in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis.

But on top of that this summer was the perceived lack of loyalty surrounding two of the biggest transfers, those of Alexander Isak and Yoane Wissa, both of whom refused to train with Newcastle and Brentford respectively and issued statements demanding moves.

When asked about Isak’s escalating rant against his record-breaking move to Liverpool after an agonizing split was finally resolved on deadline day, Purslow replied, “I didn’t think it was a good look.”

Isak claimed that he had previously been given the option to leave, but Newcastle had rejected it.

” Anyone who’s worked in the game knows that if a club makes a promise, a player would get that in writing, “said Purslow.

We would have witnessed his transaction much sooner if there had been no discussion in this instance, which would have enacted an escape clause. Therefore, there was no good precedent for a player essentially forcing a move.

“We should acknowledge that clubs often want and need to sell players, so it does cut both ways, but those conversations would happen in private”.

In stark contrast, England defender Marc Guehi, who had continued to play and train with Crystal Palace, saw his long-awaited move to Liverpool squandered after receiving a lot of praise for his professionalism.

Some will conclude that the window should close before the season’s start, and that some will look at the potentially destabilizing effects of numerous deals and those that failed.

Others will be concerned that by getting his wish, Isak could lead to more players actively trying to force a move in future.

Another worry for many will be the risk that clubs seek to recoup some of their record spending by increasing ticket prices.

Football Supporters’ Association Chair Tom Greatrex told BBC Sport that while 13 out of 20 clubs raised season ticket prices last year, “there is no case for further increases,” but top-flight transfer spending has reached record levels.

The majority of a club’s income comes from media sales, he said, so squeezeing in devoted fans adds to the amount of money that is left over. “Matchday income generates a small portion of that,” he said.