5 ms·
I'm not sure what metrics you're using for "spent around the same amount," but from preliminary looks at AC Milan vs. Brighton that doesn't seem true at all. B
by bwing 4y ago
I'm not sure what metrics you're using for "spent around the same amount," but from preliminary looks at AC Milan vs. Brighton that doesn't seem true at all.
Breaking things down into transfer vs wages: over the past two seasons, Brighton have a net transfer profit of ~80m euros per Transfermarkt, while AC Milan have spent ~110m net, so 190m difference. (Stretching back further, you get to some seasons of 60m net spend by Brighton while they were trying to get promoted, but this is during a time when AC Milan's ownership spent 100m+ net a few seasons.)
And on wages, Milan pay substantively higher: Swiss Ramble, probably the top public football financial analyst, has Brighton's wage bill at 109m pounds (https://twitter.com/swissramble/status/1512310039956049920 https://twitter.com/swissramble/status/1512310039956049920) for the 2021-22 season and AC Milan's wage bill at 169m euros (https://swissramble.substack.com/p/milan-202122-finances https://swissramble.substack.com/p/milan-202122-finances).
Now -- Brighton are shrewdly run, but I doubt it's sustainable for any club to consistently show the kind of short-term player trading profit that Cucurella + whatever they get for Caicedo and Mac Allister represent. Given the owner's background, I would expect Brighton to continue to be solidly above-average, but other clubs have data analysts and scouts and such too (and are capable of just copying Brighton's strategy inasmuch as it's reverse-engineerable from outcomes).
- smcl 4y agoI'm using Transfermarkt's summary of their 2022/23 transfer fees (https://www.transfermarkt.com/serie-a/transfers/wettbewerb/IT1 https://www.transfermarkt.com/serie-a/transfers/wettbewerb/I... for Serie A, https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/transfers/wettbewerb/GB1 https://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/transfers/wettb... for the Premier League). It's not perfect but nothing is. Brighton & Hove Albion - €55.73m Milan - €48.67m Inter - €38.90m Stretching things out over multiple seasons and netting the expenses off makes things look a bit better, but only obscures the fact that they did spend big, they're just operating in a big-spending league. It's no small feat to compete in that league, but to say they have "conquered" the transfer market after half a season having splashed out what they did is declaring victory a bit prematurely. It's a little bit harder to compare by looking at Brighton's wage bill in GBP but Milan's in EUR. After conversion to EUR we get: Milan - €169m Brighton - €123m So a team currently who have never finished higher than ninth in the Premier League have a wage bill that is 72% that of the reigning Serie A champions (not to mention seven-time European Cup winner who have won their domestic league nineteen times). They may not (yet? these figures are from 2021) have a higher wage bill than a current giant of the European game, but they're certainly within the same ballpark.
- bwing 4y agoOh, transfermarkt is perfectly fine, and your general point about EPL money is definitely right -- just don't think it makes any sense to count pure transfer outlay without taking into account player sales. You aren't "spending big" if you're spending 55m out of player trading revenue of 130m; you are (maybe) if you're spending 50m out of player trading revenue of 15m.
- smcl 4y agoYeah I just wanted to show how despite being a smaller club punching above their weight locally, they still had a chunk of resources to spend that would put them among the elite even in the big five European leagues. I don't know if net player spend is a particularly good way to look at that either, but the wage bills you posted were pretty interesting. I didn't think that kind of info would be easily accessible. It's nice to encounter people who want to talk football on HN though :)