Date: 4th July 2019 at 10:10am
Written by:

When you think about it, you sometimes wonder why this isn’t talked about more. How on earth is a team of ’s acclaimed stature suddenly unable to compete financially after a couple of seasons in the Europa League?

That’s what Talksport presenters Darren Gough and Max Rushden were discussing, highlighting the contrast between the finances of Arsenal and following ’s £54m move that eclipses The reported budget with room to spare:

Gough makes a very valid argument in despite moving to a larger stadium, Arsenal are operating on a budget that suggests the effects of boosting their matchday revenue by leaving Highbury are not producing the desired results.

Though considering the club’s directors recently suggested that all the money Arsenal make would be available to invest in achieving the club’s long-term aims, there seems to be one difference that would leave little mystery to why some of their domestic rivals are capable of obtaining larger transfer kitties – the owner.

With Stan Kroenke’s presence at Arsenal seemingly irrelevant as the club operate under a self-sustaining model, the lack of cash coming from his pockets means there is no wonder why other owners who do chip in allow their sides to spend more in the than – as this graph from football finance blogger Swiss Ramble shows:

Suddenly, the question marks over Arsenal’s recent times of austerity are answered emphatically by their non-influential owner.

Clearly, their model worked fine with Champions League football allowing for some big-money transfers in recent years, but their absence from the competition means these desperate times are no real surprise.