Is The Premier League Tougher Than It Used To Be?

[Dj_sds -]

You 'league is getting harder' for Arsenal posters have never had any evidence of this.

How can you be the evangelist of squad cost and completely disregard the dramatic increase in relative spending power of mid table premier league clubs compared to their european counterparts?



The average squad cost of premier league clubs is now 2x higher compared to other leagues. You genuinely believe that this has had no impact on the overall strength of the league? The correlation with spending power and success is more nuanced than what you proclaim, but how can you of all people disregard this trend?

 

[Macho]

How can you be the evangelist of squad cost and completely disregard the dramatic increase in relative spending power of mid table premier league clubs compared to their european counterparts?

View attachment 5303

The average squad cost of premier league clubs is now 2x higher compared to other leagues. You genuinely believe that this has had no impact on the overall strength of the league? The correlation with spending power and success is more nuanced than what you proclaim, but how can you of all people disregard this trend?

All that graph proves is inflation is real.

The guys at the top end of the league have still spent the most compared to the rest. Furthermore you are starting to see the effects of having a thin squad catching up to several teams barely able to put out a starting 11 on match day.

Ironically 5th highest squad cost (need to check this?) Arsenal have capitalised. Funny that, it's almost as is squad cost is kind of a thing.

 

[Makingtrax]

How can you be the evangelist of squad cost and completely disregard the dramatic increase in relative spending power of mid table premier league clubs compared to their european counterparts?

View attachment 5303

The average squad cost of premier league clubs is now 2x higher compared to other leagues. You genuinely believe that this has had no impact on the overall strength of the league? The correlation with spending power and success is more nuanced than what you proclaim, but how can you of all people disregard this trend?

Yep, that’s fine bro. Our league is getting an advantage compared to Europe, agreed. How does that make it harder for Arsenal within the EPL when the gap between the top 6 clubs and the rest is financially increasing? Merry Xmas.

 

[Mraven]

How can you be the evangelist of squad cost and completely disregard the dramatic increase in relative spending power of mid table premier league clubs compared to their european counterparts?

View attachment 5303

The average squad cost of premier league clubs is now 2x higher compared to other leagues. You genuinely believe that this has had no impact on the overall strength of the league? The correlation with spending power and success is more nuanced than what you proclaim, but how can you of all people disregard this trend?

Another factor is the decentralisation of information and computing. Everyone has access to the newest sport science and state of the art analytics. You see this trend in all sports over the last 10 years. The level of the average teams and athletes are increasing rapidly

 

[Mraven]

Yep, that’s fine bro. Our league is getting an advantage compared to Europe, agreed. How does that make it harder for Arsenal within the EPL when the gap between the top 6 clubs and the rest is financially increasing? Merry Xmas.

Because the effect of increasing funds is not linear. If you give an extra 100mill to City and an extra 100mill to Norwich the gap between the teams is going to decrease

 

[samspade]

All that graph proves is inflation is real.

The guys at the top end of the league have still spent the most compared to the rest. Furthermore you are starting to see the effects of having a thin squad catching up to several teams barely able to put out a starting 11 on match day.

Ironically 5th highest squad cost (need to check this?) Arsenal have capitalised. Funny that, it's almost as is squad cost is kind of a thing.

We need the distribution of squad cost in the premier league now compared with years past. If the squad cost of smaller clubs are a higher proportion of the squad cost of the bigger clubs now then I think you could legitimately say it’s harder to achieve and maintain a high position in the league.

I have no idea what the reality is.

 

[samspade]

@Mraven
Excellent points.

 

[Macho]

Because the effect of increasing funds is not linear. If you give an extra 100mill to City and an extra 100mill to Sunderland the gap between the teams is going to decrease

You say that but I don't even think 50 mil gets you a 28 year old Aubameyang firing for an European giant like Dortmund anymore. The increase in funds across the board is not validation of increased quality at all, I'd even argue it's kind of irrelevant.

Also why everyone should diversify their assets and have 1-2% of their portfolio be crypto holdings, need a hedge the way the governments are printing this money. Would cost 140 mil cash to buy a Pepe in a couple years.

 

[Dj_sds -]

Yep, that’s fine bro. Our league is getting an advantage compared to Europe, agreed. How does that make it harder for Arsenal within the EPL when the gap between the top 6 clubs and the rest is financially increasing? Merry Xmas.

Isn't it obvious? Premier league clubs lower down the table can now attract and retain higher profile players by offering transfer fees and wages 90% percent of european clubs can't compete with. It is also the reason we have seen an influx of top managers around Europe joining the premier league. You really believe a manager with Conte's pedigree would have joined Sp**s 10 years ago?

 

[Dj_sds -]

You say that but I don't even think 50 mil gets you a 28 year old Aubameyang firing for an European giant like Dortmund anymore. The increase in funds across the board is not validation of increased quality at all, I'd even argue it's kind of irrelevant.

But isn't this then confirmation that succes in football is more nuanced than the simplistic view of squad cost?

 

[samspade]

You say that but I don't even think 50 mil gets you a 28 year old Aubameyang firing for an European giant like Dortmund anymore. The increase in funds across the board is not validation of increased quality at all, I'd even argue it's kind of irrelevant.

Also why everyone should diversify their assets and have 1-2% of their portfolio be crypto holdings, need a hedge the way the governments are printing this money. Would cost 140 mil cash to buy a Pepe in a couple years.

Apologies if i've misinterpreted your response here but I think you've missed @Mraven's point. I believe his point is that there is a 2x relationship between a £10 fund and a £20 fund but if we increase both funds by a flat £10 giving us £20 and £30 respectively then there is a 1.5x relationship.

So flat increases to pl squad cost bring them proportionately closer together.

 

[Macho]

But isn't this then confirmation that succes in football is more nuanced than the simplistic view of squad cost?

Squad cost is never supposed to be a nuanced reflection of success though, only a rough gauge of the overall trend. Like most models and theories no?

When you zoom out, bar some outliers whoever spends the most wins the most. I think the past couple seasons and this current season unfolding are excellent case studies for squad cost.

West Ham's starting 11 is sick for example, but we will see where they end up. Ditto your Leicester's from previous seasons etc.

 

[Makingtrax]

Isn't it obvious? Premier league clubs lower down the table can now attract and retain higher profile players by offering transfer fees and wages 90% percent of european clubs can't compete with. It is also the reason we have seen an influx of top managers around Europe joining the premier league. You really believe a manager with Conte's pedigree would have joined Sp**s 10 years ago?

@Mraven

If you go back to 15/16 City was spending just under £450m on their squad, much lower club like Watford was spending £37m. Today City has spent around £1085m, Watford £82m.

Now you’re thinking they’re keeping pace, both more than doubled, right? But look at the difference. City have an extra £500m+ whilst Watford only has an extra £40m+, what can you buy with that today?

The EPL is easier for those top clubs like Arteta’s managing, as the gap grows in spending and revenue.

 

[Makingtrax]

Because the effect of increasing funds is not linear. If you give an extra 100mill to City and an extra 100mill to Norwich the gap between the teams is going to decrease

That’s not what’s happening, see my post above.

 

[Makingtrax]

Apologies if i've misinterpreted your response here but I think you've missed @Mraven's point. I believe his point is that there is a 2x relationship between a £10 fund and a £20 fund but if we increase both funds by a flat £10 giving us £20 and £30 respectively then there is a 1.5x relationship.

So flat increases to pl squad cost bring them proportionately closer together.

Perhaps look at some real examples bro before bringing in the hypothetical maths.

 

[Macho]

Perhaps look at some real examples bro before bringing in the hypothetical maths.

I get what @samspade and @Mraven are saying (I think), they are essentially saying teams lower down the table are able to acquire better quality players too but correct me if I am wrong.

However, I would just point to Joelinton, or whoever Villa signed with that Grealish money and I would still probably disagree.

Even the standouts like Saint-Maximin and Raphina, they were initially signed for nothing really. Side like Leicester, Brighton, etc have to gamble and find Ben White before he's Ben White.

Clubs like Arsenal can scout more specifically and splash on a Ben White if he meets all of their required specifications it's chalk and cheese really. I'm probably on a tangent but yeah.

 

[Blood on the Tracks]

We're missing the blindingly obvious here I think.

There's a limit to how good any team can be. We know this, there are only so many WC players around. Giving an already very strong team like Man City an extra couple of hundred million is going to improve them, but not massively. They've already got exceptional players in most areas and have great squad depth. The gains to them are marginal.

Give a side like Watford an extra £50m or so and the improvement to their squad in real terms (as long as they spend fairly well) is going improve them more than Man City because they're working from a much lower talent base and have a much wider room for growth.

The better the team / squad you have the harder it becomes to improve upon. Even with huge sums of money spent you're making marginal gains. It's the opposite with weaker sides.

 

[El Duderino]

I get what @samspade and @Mraven are saying (I think), they are essentially saying teams lower down the table are able to acquire better quality players too.

However, I would just point to Joelinton, or whoever Villa signed with that Grealish money and I would still probably disagree.

Even the standouts like Saint-Maximin and Raphina, they were initially signed for nothing really - those lower sides have to gamble. Clubs like Arsenal can scout more specifically and splash on a Ben White if he meets all of their required specifications it's chalk and cheese really.

I agree with you overall, specially since those two players are exception that confirms the rule, but I think the big difference in money in the league for smaller temas is more down to wages and not much to transfer fees, personally.

Raphina and Maximin wouldn't be earning as much anywhere, really.

 

[El Duderino]

We're missing the blindingly obvious here I think.

There's a limit to how good any team can be. We know this, there are only so many WC players around. Giving an already very strong team like Man City an extra couple of hundred million is going to improve them, but not massively. They've already got exceptional players in most areas and have great squad depth. The gains to them are marginal.

Give a side like Watford an extra £50m or so and the improvement to their squad in real terms (as long as they spend fairly well) is going improve them more than Man City because they're working from a much lower talent base and have a much wider room for growth.

The better the team / squad you have the harder it becomes to improve upon. Even with huge sums of money spent you're making marginal gains. It's the opposite with weaker sides.

But that better player and spending wise is a big if tho.

Watford had Richarlisson and that Portuguese kid as good shouts, Potter and Brighton are good at that, but then you look at Newcastle and most other teams and a lot of money is being paid for a lot of dross.

There's a reason the Saudis want to sign Brighton director guy iirc to work with Howe.

 

[Dj_sds -]

@Mraven

If you go back to 15/16 City was spending just under £450m on their squad, much lower club like Watford was spending £37m. Today City has spent around £1085m, Watford £82m.

Now you’re thinking they’re keeping pace, both more than doubled, right? But look at the difference. City have an extra £500m+ whilst Watford only has an extra £40m+, what can you buy with that today?

The EPL is easier for those top clubs like Arteta’s managing, as the gap grows in spending and revenue.

Why did you use watford as an example and not everton, leicester, Sp**s, west ham, villa? Also, why did you ignore the fact that Sp**s can now attract someone with conte's pedigree or everton hiring ancelotti, something that would have never happened previously.

Compared to city the 40m increase looks insignificant, but once you look at the spending power of similar placed clubs in other European leagues it is more impactful.