Английн хөлбөмбөгийн клубууд зуны солилцоо наймааны цонхоор түүхэн дэх хамгийн өндөр зарлагыг гаргаж, санхүүгийн чадавхаа дахин баталлаа.
2026 оны зуны солилцоо наймааны цонх 3.528 тэрбум фунт стерлингийн нийт зардалтайгаар өндөрлөж, өмнөх оны дээд амжилтыг 13 хувиар ахиуллаа. Эллиот Андерсон Манчестер Ситид 116 сая фунтээр, Энцо Фернандес Челсигээс Манчестер Ситид 125 сая фунтээр тус тус шилжсэн нь энэ цонхны хамгийн дуулиантай наймаанууд байв. Премьер лигийн 20 клубын 14 нь тус бүр 100 сая фунтээс дээш хөрөнгө оруулалт хийсэн бөгөөд нийт 41 тоглогчийг 30 сая фунтээс дээш үнээр худалдан авчээ.
Лигийн дотоод наймаа энэ зун 1.627 тэрбум фунт стерлингт хүрсэн нь клубууд гаднын лигүүдээс илүүтэйгээр өөр хоорондоо наймаа хийх хандлагатай болсныг харуулж байна. Челси 383 сая фунтийн тоглогч худалдаалсан орлогоор дээд амжилт тогтоосон бол, Астон Вилла Европын лигт түрүүлсэн бүрэлдэхүүнээ өөрчилж 308 сая фунтийн орлого олжээ. Харин шинээр дэвшсэн Ипсвич Таун, Ковентри Сити, Халл Сити багууд нийт 467 сая фунтийг шинэ бүрэлдэхүүндээ зарцуулсан нь өмнөх жилүүдийн үзүүлэлтээс эрс давсан байна.
Спортын санхүүгийн шинжээч Роб Уилсоны үзэж буйгаар, Премьер лигийн клубууд санхүүгийн хатуу дүрэм журам болон аваргуудын лигт оролцох, эсвэл лигээс унах эрсдэлээс сэргийлэхийн тулд баталгаатай тоглогчдод илүү их хөрөнгө зарцуулах болжээ. Европын бусад томоохон лигүүдийн нийт зардал Премьер лигийн нэгэн цонхны зардлаас бага байгаа нь Английн клубуудын эдийн засгийн ноёрхлыг илтгэж байна. Цаашид санхүүгийн зохицуулалтууд зарлагын өсөлтийг хязгаарлаж болзошгүй ч, лигийн өрсөлдөх чадвар болон орлогын бүтэц нь ирээдүйд ч энэхүү өсөлтийг хадгалах боломжтой гэж шинжээчид дүгнэж байна.
Дэлгэрэнгүйг эх сурвалжаас харах
↓Эх сурвалжийг нээх ↓
The tone was set in the very first days of the 2026 summer transfer window
Elliot Anderson’s £116million ($157m) transfer to Manchester City, a deal announced on July 2, midway through the World Cup, was just the opening salvo in a lavish Premier League window which surpassed all its predecessors in spending.
Comfortably so, in the end. The £3.11bn spent last summer felt like a new frontier in the willingness of Premier League clubs to write cheques, a figure up 55 per cent on the previous year. Then along came 2026 and raised the bar again.
A final gross figure of £3.528bn again underlined the enormous accessible wealth within the Premier League, a 13 per cent rise from 12 months previously. The net spend, meanwhile, was also a record at £1.35bn. Those are underestimates, too; the true cost of deals, once agent fees and the Premier League’s four per cent transfer levy are included, is routinely far higher than initially reported deals.
Fourteen of the 20 Premier League clubs had a gross spend of more than £100m, with 41 players eventually bought for a fee in excess of £30m. Four went north of £100m, with Anderson and then Morgan Rogers, who left Aston Villa for Chelsea, both setting new records for the transfer of a British player. There was even time, on deadline day, for the British record fee to be equalled as Enzo Fernandez moved from Chelsea to Manchester City (£125m).
The captures of Fernandez and Anderson meant no team spent more than City after a transfer outlay of £450m this summer but it also illustrated a new pattern in this era of snowballing excess.
Premier League clubs have never been more willing to buy and trade with one another on such a scale, with intra-Premier League deals accounting for £1.627bn of the final sum.
Even without including Omar Marmoush’s transfer from City to Tottenham, a loan with obligations to become a £60m permanent transfer next summer, it is a figure more than twice what it was in the summer of 2024 and half of the division’s total business. Seven of the summer’s top 10 deals across all of Europe ended up being one English club buying from another.
Recruitment often did not look beyond the Premier League’s gilded walls, where finances now operate on another level to the rest of Europe. A domestic rival, as Chelsea found with Fernandez and City, is increasingly the only suitor capable of delivering the necessary figures, both in a transfer fee and wages. Deadline day alone saw Premier League clubs spend £280m on players from their domestic rivals.
“The financial strength of the Premier League means clubs further down the table are under much less pressure to sell than they once were,” says Professor Rob Wilson, expert in sports finance and academic leader at University Campus of Football Business (UCFB). “If a bigger club wants one of their players, they can demand a significant premium because they generally don’t need the cash unless they are worried about SCR (squad cost ratio).
“There’s also a growing premium on certainty. Clubs spend huge amounts on recruitment and analytics, but a player who has already demonstrated he can perform in the Premier League carries less adaptation risk.
“When the financial consequences of Champions League qualification or relegation are so significant, clubs are increasingly prepared to pay a ‘Premier League premium’ for that certainty.”
Anderson’s move, so early in the summer, set a yardstick for many deals that followed in a window where Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur, Chelsea and Manchester United all stumped up considerable sums to strengthen their own midfields.
It also made this the window of the £100m-plus signing. World football had only ever seen 14 fees run into nine figures before this summer but then along came another five, with four in the Premier League.
After Anderson to City came Rogers to Chelsea, Bradley Barcola to Liverpool and Fernandez, also to City. Yan Diomande’s £115m move from RB Leipzig to Real Madrid was the first £100m-plus fee spent by a non-English club since Antoine Griezmann left Atletico Madrid to join Barcelona in 2019.
Sandro Tonali’s move from Newcastle United to Tottenham Hotspur might yet become another if add-ons are triggered over time. The Italian’s transfer is another to highlight where financial powers still lie. Tottenham, a team that has finished 17th in its last two seasons, had a net spend (signings versus sales) of over £150m in a window where Aston Villa turned a £51m profit after qualification for the Champions League. Liverpool’s net spend in the last two summers has been £398m after another expensive window, with Arsenal’s narrowly behind on £379m.
Nevertheless it was still a summer that demanded sales to offset the spending elsewhere. Chelsea set a new record for fees recouped inside a single window, with the sale of Fernandez taking their sales figure up to £383m (a figure that does not include the potential fees coming through loans struck this summer, including Alejandro Garnacho and Mykhailo Mudryk).
That saw Chelsea exceed the £308m recouped by Aston Villa, who broke up their Europa League-winning team of last year when selling Rogers, Ezri Konsa (Arsenal), Ollie Watkins (Al Hilal) and Youri Tielemans (Manchester United).
That need to trade was even embraced by two of Europe’s most successful clubs of recent times. Manchester City’s latest splurge came against the backdrop of players leaving for £297m, while Paris Saint-Germain, the Champions League winners of the past two seasons, raised funds totalling £286m after allowing Barcola to join Liverpool. That left PSG with a surplus of £156m for the summer, the largest of any club in Europe.
Around half of that pair’s £583m in sales was derived from players aged 23 or below, a byproduct of huge past owner investment into the clubs’ respective youth setups and, in the case of Barcola, who was bought from Lyon aged 20, PSG’s domestic dominance.
Such proficient sellingwas not seen atthe three teams promoted to the Premier League this season.
Ipswich Town, Coventry City and Hull City have together spent £467m reshaping squads that climbed out of the Championship last season, with only nominal sales to counter the outlay. That trio had a net spend of £428m, far exceeding the £296m from Sunderland, Burnley and Leeds United 12 months earlier, which itself was then a record amount.
Most remarkable of the latest trio on deadline day was Hull. They signed six players inside the final 24 hours, with Ilyas Ansah (Union Berlin), Tim Iroegbunam (Everton), Brooke Norton-Cuffy (Genoa), Robinio Vaz (Roma), Sorba Thomas (Stoke City) and Christos Mouzakitis (Olympiacos) making it 18 new arrivals since victory in May’s Championship play-off final transformed the financial landscape around the MKM Stadium.
Perhaps there is encouragement from the activities of those relegated at the end of last season. West Ham United, Burnley and Wolverhampton Wanderers have found financial insulation by clawing back £329m in sales over the last three months, securing a parachute payment of a different kind.
West Ham’s sales, including Mateus Fernandes, Crysencio Summerville and El Hadji Malick Diouf, totalled £186m, which amounted to 38 per cent of all the money raised in the Championship. Include the outgoings of Burnley and Wolverhampton Wanderers and it means the three relegated clubs shared out 68 per cent of all the money coming into the Championship’s ecosystem. Add in Southampton, another club with parachute payments this year, and that proportion hits 78 per cent.
That reality is a byproduct of the Premier League’s wealth, where spending again eclipsed the other four major leagues of Europe combined. That used to be a quirk to depict the differences in a growth fuelled by TV revenues but is now the norm. The 76 clubs of La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga and Ligue 1 spent a combined £2.83bn when breaking even as a collective. The big five league’s net spend came almost entirely from the English clubs.
The question, after another summer driven by the Premier League’s wealth, is where it all ends?
“I don’t think spending will rise in a straight line forever,” says Wilson. “Financial regulation can clearly create quieter windows and is probably the biggest potential brake on spending. Spurs have effectively gone ‘all in’ this summer and won’t be able to repeat that for a while.
“But absent a major change in revenues or the rules, it’s difficult to see a structural slowdown. The Premier League has both the money and the competitive pressure to keep spending it. We may see quieter individual windows, but the underlying direction still looks upwards.
“The interesting question is whether £50m-£100m domestic transfers increasingly become normal rather than exceptional because that would be another indication of just how far the Premier League has separated financially from the rest of European football.”
