Арсенал зуны солилцооны цонхыг амбицтай эхлүүлсэн ч довтолгооны шугамаа бэхжүүлэх зорилгодоо хүрч чадсангүй

In the moments that followed Arsenal’s Champions League final defeat against Paris Saint-Germain, Mikel Arteta laid out his manifesto for the summer.

“We want to reach another level,” the emotional Arsenal manager told Europe’s assembled media. “We’re going to have to show that ambition because we are more than capable of doing it but it’s going to demand us to be very, very ambitious, very fast and very smart.”

Now that the window has closed, did Arsenal answer Arteta’s call for ambition?

Arsenal have undoubtedly strengthened. Whether they have strengthened as emphatically as their manager demanded is another question.

The club have made four first-team signings — five if you count the addition of Piero Hincapie, whose loan deal was made permanent for around €40million (£34m; $46m).

They also added forward Christos Tzolis from Club Brugge for €40m, and raided Newcastle United to sign Bruno Guimaraes (£75m) and Aston Villa to bring in centre-back Ezri Konsa (initial £51m). Illan Meslier, the 26-year-old goalkeeper whose Leeds United contract expired this summer, joined on a free transfer.

But Arsenal entered the summer hoping to do more than simply refine.

Having become champions of England and reached the Champions League final, there was a feeling inside and outside the club that this was an opportunity to make a transformative addition to their attack.

They tried. Arsenal wanted another forward, ideally for the left wing. With Leandro Trossard sold to Besiktas and Gabriel Martinelli also marked for sale, there was a need for another attacker.

Across the summer, there were high-profile pursuits of Morgan Rogers, Vinicius Junior and Julian Alvarez, none of which came to fruition. Those names reflected the level at which Arsenal initially hoped to operate. By the closing days of the window, however, the nature of their search had changed.

In the dying days of the market, Arsenal were offered several attackers, including Malick Fofana of Lyon. Sporting director Andrea Berta is a longstanding admirer of the 21-year-old winger, and Arsenal explored a potential deal.

The lines of communication were already open — Berta had dealt with Fofana’s agency, Roc Nation Sports, over Vinicius Jr and Martinelli.

Fofana spoke with Arteta, and Arsenal engaged with Lyon. The French club hoped to earn around £30million for Fofana to boost their finances, having failed to qualify for the Champions League.

Arsenal, however, were only prepared to offer a loan. Sources close to the negotiations, speaking — like all in this piece — anonymously to protect relationships, say Arsenal could not propose a permanent deal for Fofana as they are in danger of encroaching on UEFA’s spending limits. Arsenal refute this, saying they chose to withdraw from the Fofana pursuit for technical reasons.

For the right player, perhaps Arsenal would have been prepared to risk a breach. Arteta, however, had concerns over Fofana’s ability to handle the physicality of the Premier League. With opinion divided on the deal, Arsenal chose not to proceed.

By Tuesday morning, staff had been informed that no further signings were expected. In truth, it had looked that way for some while longer — after Alvarez’s unenthusiastic response to Arsenal’s interest, many inside the club accepted they were most likely done for incomings.

Fofana is, in some respects, a red herring — a late flirtation to which Arsenal never appeared particularly committed. It’s the club’s failure to land the right forward over the window that is the greater concern.

They began the summer pursuing attackers capable of transforming Arteta’s forward line, but they ended it considering a loan for a promising 21-year-old about whom there was no internal consensus.

Individually, Guimaraes, Konsa and Tzolis appear to be good signings. Arsenal’s defence and midfield look stronger. Even Meslier should be an able backup goalkeeper.

But these are signings Arsenal could plausibly have made 12 months ago, before ending their long wait for a Premier League title. Arsenal had an opportunity to capitalise on their momentum and their enhanced pulling power — perhaps to make a statement signing that had previously been beyond them.

That was the premise of Arteta’s words in the aftermath of defeat to PSG: not merely reinforcement, but acceleration.

Arsenal needed to be ambitious, fast and smart. The inability to convert those ambitions into a marquee attacking addition leaves the window feeling incomplete.

This is not the kind of summer supporters dreamt about. The central question Arsenal set out to answer in attack remains unresolved.

At the outset, Rogers was framed as Arsenal’s key target this summer.

Arsenal’s England contingent launched a charm offensive; Arteta pitched Rogers his plan to use him from the left.

When it came to the price, Arsenal had a clear valuation, initially set at £80million. Arsenal felt in the early stages of talks that an agreement could be reached at that fee or perhaps slightly higher, but when Manchester City agreed to pay £116million for Elliot Anderson, the paradigm shifted. Villa’s expectations were raised, and the deal moved beyond the point where Arsenal were comfortable.

Arsenal examined their options, including the ambitious bid for Vinicius Jr. As time passed, Rogers began to doubt Arsenal’s commitment to signing him. The uncertainty created an opportunity for Chelsea, who moved swiftly to agree a £117million fee. Arsenal were offered the chance to match it, but declined.

Similarly, Arsenal were admirers of France international Bradley Barcola — a more obvious natural fit for the left wing — but were put off by PSG’s lofty asking price.

Arsenal felt Barcola was overvalued (Franck Fife/AFP via Getty Images)

Sporting director Berta is disciplined regarding his valuations.

“(My time in banking) gave me a solid foundation in economics and a deep respect for the value of money,” he told the Sunday Times magazine in August. “There have been times I chose to walk away from a potential deal rather than show a lack of respect for money by paying more than necessary.”

Arsenal withdrew from the race for Rogers and Barcola because the prices exceeded their valuations. It’s a noble principle — but it ultimately contributed to Arsenal ending up without the elite attacker they sought. The market would appear to suggest that, when it comes to the best attacking talent, clubs may simply have to bite the bullet.

Or perhaps Arsenal were not suitably convinced that Rogers or Barcola were worth it. There were, after all, players they were prepared to break the bank for.

At a summit at Arsenal’s Spanish training base, the Arsenal leadership decided to move for Vinicius Jr.

The pursuit of Vinicius Jr was approved at the owner level. In an interview with Men In Blazers, CEO Richard Garlick made clear that Josh Kroenke is privy to Arsenal’s recruitment plans: “Josh plays a key role in being across that and understanding the motivation for why we might want to change players or strengthen certain areas.” Arsenal knew that landing the Brazilian could be a transformative moment for the whole club.

There was considerable optimism around the deal. Talks with Arteta were positive. Arsenal put together a financial package that was substantially better than Real Madrid’s initial offer. Throughout the negotiations, Arsenal believed that Vinicius Jr was serious about the possibility of moving to England.

Sources familiar with the player were a little more dubious. They pointed out that the lifestyle Vinicius Jr enjoys at Madrid would be difficult to replicate in London. They felt Vinicius Jr’s heart was in Spain — and, if Madrid showed willingness to raise their offer, his mind would be made up.

There was optimism around a deal for Vinicius Junior (M Gracia Jimenez/Soccrates/Getty Images)

Others doubted Arsenal’s financial capacity to pull off the deal.

Berta told industry sources that the sheer scale of Vinicius Jr’s salary package meant Arsenal would struggle to pay more than a €50million fee. Arsenal also discussed the possibility of signing Vinicius Jr as a free agent in 2027, if he allowed his Real Madrid contract to run down.

Alvarez has been a long-term target. With Arsenal seeking a No 9 last summer, he was discussed briefly alongside names such as Alexander Isak, Benjamin Sesko and Viktor Gyokeres, who eventually joined from Sporting CP.

At the time, Berta — who was involved in the deal to sign Alvarez from Manchester City — impressed upon his Arsenal colleagues that extracting the Argentina international from Atletico Madrid would, at that stage, be impossible.

This summer, Arsenal felt differently. Arsenal met with Atletico officials on August 20 to indicate their willingness to buy the player. Atletico were receptive — with a move to Barcelona off the table, Arsenal’s interest provided a potential out.

Arsenal were attracted by the prospect of landing a marquee name. Alvarez, however, was unmoved by the prospect of a move to London. Compelling financial offers were floated, but Alvarez was intransigent. He was resistant to the idea of returning to England, citing concerns over family and lifestyle.

He was determined to join Barcelona. Failing that, he too would stay in Madrid.

Arsenal showed the ambition to pursue elite difference-makers in attack — but could not persuade them to join. Arsenal spent the summer shopping at the top end of the market, only to discover that some of its most coveted goods remain reserved for a select few. It’s a reminder of Arsenal’s place in the European hierarchy. For all the Premier League’s wealth and power, the pull of Barcelona and Madrid remains unsurpassed.

Julian Alvarez preferred a move to Barcelona (Angel Martinez/Getty Images)

Arsenal’s failure to land a top attacker has attracted scrutiny of their approach to the market.

Their attempts to augment their attack appeared from the outside to be scattergun, adjusting their sights from Rogers to Vinicius Jr and onto Alvarez — three very different players.

Some sources have suggested that the end of the 2025-26 season brought such an intense focus on the fight for silverware that Arsenal’s planning for the window was not as thorough as it could have been.

Berta’s negotiating style attracted criticism from other clubs. Berta sometimes uses intermediaries to thrash out the broad structure of a deal with the selling club. That’s not an unusual practice in football: few people are more motivated to move a player than the agent, so enlisting them to help negotiate the fee makes sense.

Other clubs were bemused that Arsenal did not take a more direct approach. In cases such as the failed attempt to sign teenager Jeremy Monga from Leicester City (he has since joined Manchester City), or the protracted pursuit of Guimaraes, there was surprise and disappointment that Arsenal didn’t “come in through the front door”.

The success of Arsenal’s approach can be debated: on both Guimaraes and Konsa, Arsenal parted with more than they initially hoped to pay.

For his part, Berta has felt occasionally frustrated by new layers of bureaucracy. Decisions that might once have been made quickly can now require several meetings before progress is made. A sporting director’s authority in negotiations is dependent on the latitude he is granted.

Berta with Arteta at the signing of Konsa (Stuart MacFarlane/Arsenal FC via Getty Images)

In the latter part of the window, Berta and Arsenal were under significant pressure to sell.

Arsenal entered the market with an ambitious sales plan, but with some of the larger fees looking unlikely to materialise, the club explored the market for a wider group of names — with those that stood to generate maximum profit of greatest interest.

Multiple sources have told The Athletic that without substantial player sales, the club would be in danger of breaking UEFA’s squad cost ratio (SCR) rules. Arsenal also must comply with UEFA’s football earnings rule, which limits losses in the way the Premier League’s profit and sustainability rules (PSR) did before being voted out of existence last year.

Arsenal have spent north of £600million on new players in the past three seasons and, even with the impending club-record sale of Martinelli, their net figure is around £400m. Revenues have soared in recent years, but so too have costs, both on the field in terms of transfer fees and wages, and off it, where operating expenses topped £200m in 2024-25.

Arsenal have denied suggestions that they risk breaches of either of UEFA’s main financial rules, and it is difficult for outside observers to accurately determine where clubs are sitting.

For one, reliable information in the form of club accounts arrives well after the fact. Even then, the figures used in calculations — particularly for SCR — are not publicly disclosed. Club accounts disclose total wage bills, but it is the wages of players and managerial staff that count towards SCR limits.

There is also an inherent contradiction in the fact that sources suggest Arsenal were close to breaching, but they equally appeared willing to sanction the signings of either Vinicius Jr or Alvarez at great expense. Arsenal might have been willing to sail closer to the wind for the right player.

What is at least clear is that a period of incredible revenue growth at the Emirates – it would be little surprise if they were England’s highest-earning club last season – has been accompanied by the rising costs that are necessary to compete and are the product of on-field success.

It was against this backdrop that Myles Lewis-Skelly was offered to Manchester United and Chelsea by an intermediary. When the news broke, it sent ripples through the squad — and the reaction from the fanbase was even stronger.

Arsenal insist they did not offer Lewis-Skelly directly — while sources at both Manchester United and Chelsea maintain they were proposed the player. United held a strong interest in the 19-year-old and believed Arsenal could be amenable to selling at the right price.

Lewis-Skelly, however, was focused throughout on establishing himself with his boyhood club. He never wanted to leave, nor did he explore a move away from the Emirates Stadium.

Needing to generate sales, a decision was made to exclude Martinelli from the playing squad for the Community Shield. Some senior players were disappointed with the handling of the matter, and there were later clear-the-air talks between Arteta and Martinelli.

Gabriel Martinelli is set to join Al Hilal (Stuart MacFarlane/Arsenal FC via Getty Images)

It was abundantly clear that Martinelli had no future at Arsenal — but where would he go? Galatasaray made a €45million offer, but the Brazilian informed Arsenal he had no intention of playing in Turkey.

In the end, Saudi Pro League side Al Hilal came forward and presented a deal that satisfied all parties. Martinelli will undergo a medical on Wednesday before completing a €70million move — a club record sale. Given the low fee Arsenal paid to sign Martinelli from Ituano in Brazil seven years ago, almost the entire fee will be booked as profit.

The sales of Martinelli, Gabriel Jesus and Fabio Vieira have alleviated much of the pressure around sales. Arsenal have delivered the revenue they needed — whether to comply with UEFA regulations or, as Arsenal insist, simply to balance the books and the squad.

Arsenal feel satisfied with their window. They regard Guimaraes and Konsa as experienced, Premier League-ready additions that strengthen their midfield and defence substantially. Tzolis has made a positive impression since arriving in July, and the flurry of late sales grants Arsenal considerable flexibility in January and beyond.

In attack, however, the picture is rather different. The trio of Martinelli, Trossard and Jesus made a combined 130 appearances last season. Ethan Nwaneri has also been allowed to join Borussia Dortmund on loan — albeit with a January recall clause. Arsenal have only one attacking addition to offset their loss.

On paper, the front line appears weaker than last season.

In practice, it may be different. Arsenal hope Eberechi Eze and Noni Madueke can make contributions from the left. If Kai Havertz, Bukayo Saka and Martin Odegaard can stay fit, Arsenal may look and feel considerably better off compared to last season. Given the chequered injury histories of those players, however, it’s a big if.

Konsa was an insurance signing for the defence. There has been no insurance signing for the attack.

This summer offered Arsenal the chance to recruit from a position of strength, as champions of England and one of the best teams in Europe. They went looking for the kind of attacker who might change the complexion of the team, but ultimately could not find one they were both willing and able to sign.

Arsenal have emerged from the window stronger in some areas, thinner in others, and with greater financial flexibility for what comes next. They remain firm favourites for the Premier League.

They leave the window with a reinforced squad, but also with the sense that a rare opportunity was not fully grasped.

Additional reporting: Chris Weatherspoon