Chapter 25: Economic Analysis and Player Valuation

Introduction

The business of professional soccer has undergone a dramatic transformation over the past three decades. Global transfer spending exceeded $7 billion in recent windows, broadcasting deals routinely surpass $1 billion per league cycle, and individual player valuations have breached the $200 million barrier. Yet beneath these headline-grabbing figures lies a complex economic ecosystem where analytical methods can provide decisive competitive advantages.

This chapter bridges the gap between sporting performance and financial decision-making. We develop rigorous frameworks for estimating player market values, modeling transfer fees, analyzing wage structures, measuring return on investment, navigating Financial Fair Play regulations, and optimizing contract negotiations. The goal is to equip the reader with both the theoretical foundations and practical tools needed to make data-driven economic decisions in professional soccer.

Prerequisites: This chapter assumes familiarity with regression analysis (Chapter 10), time series methods (Chapter 16), and basic optimization techniques (Chapter 21). Knowledge of fundamental microeconomics is helpful but not required.

25.1 Transfer Market Dynamics and Price Determinants

25.1.1 Soccer as an Industry

Professional soccer operates within a unique economic framework that differs substantially from conventional industries. Unlike typical firms that maximize profit, soccer clubs pursue a dual objective: sporting success and financial sustainability. This duality creates tensions that permeate every economic decision.

The soccer industry's revenue structure rests on three pillars:

1. Matchday revenue --- ticket sales, hospitality, and stadium-related income
2. Broadcasting revenue --- domestic and international television rights
3. Commercial revenue --- sponsorship, merchandising, and licensing

The relative importance of these pillars varies dramatically across leagues and clubs. In the English Premier League, broadcasting revenue constitutes approximately 55-60% of total revenue for mid-table clubs, while elite clubs like Manchester United or Real Madrid derive a larger share from commercial activities.

Key Concept: Revenue Distribution Models

Soccer leagues employ different revenue distribution philosophies: - Equal sharing (e.g., Bundesliga domestic TV): promotes competitive balance - Performance-based (e.g., Premier League merit payments): rewards sporting success - Hybrid models (e.g., La Liga's negotiated deals): balance equality with market power

The choice of distribution model fundamentally shapes the competitive and economic landscape. Analytically, clubs must understand their league's distribution model to accurately forecast revenue and, by extension, the budget available for player acquisition.

25.1.2 The Player Labor Market

The player labor market in soccer exhibits several distinctive features that distinguish it from conventional labor markets:

Bilateral monopoly characteristics. When a player is under contract, only one club can sell and (often) the player has a preferred destination, creating a bargaining situation rather than a competitive market outcome.

Information asymmetry. Selling clubs possess private information about a player's injury history, attitude, and training performance. Buying clubs have private information about their tactical plans and the player's fit within their system.

The Bosman ruling and its aftermath. The 1995 European Court of Justice ruling in Union Royale Belge des Societes de Football Association v. Bosman fundamentally altered the economics of player transfers. By allowing free movement at contract expiry, the ruling shifted bargaining power from clubs to players, particularly those approaching the end of their contracts.

The total value of a player to a club can be expressed as:

$$V_{\text{total}} = V_{\text{sporting}} + V_{\text{commercial}} + V_{\text{resale}} - C_{\text{wages}} - C_{\text{risk}}$$

where $V_{\text{sporting}}$ captures on-field contribution, $V_{\text{commercial}}$ reflects off-field revenue generation, $V_{\text{resale}}$ represents expected future transfer proceeds, and $C_{\text{wages}}$ and $C_{\text{risk}}$ denote wage costs and risk-adjusted costs (injuries, adaptation failure) respectively.

25.1.3 Market Efficiency in Soccer

A recurring question in soccer economics is whether the transfer market is efficient in the financial sense --- that is, whether transfer fees reflect all available information about a player's true value. Research suggests the market exhibits semi-strong efficiency at best:

• Publicly available performance statistics are generally priced in
• Private scouting information provides exploitable edges
• Systematic biases exist (e.g., overpayment for recent tournament performers, nationality premiums, age-based mispricing)

These inefficiencies create opportunities for analytically sophisticated clubs to gain economic advantages, a theme we explore throughout this chapter.

25.1.4 The Transfer Window Effect

The structure of transfer windows (typically summer and January) creates predictable market dynamics that informed clubs can exploit. Prices tend to be higher in January due to increased urgency, reduced supply of available players, and the immediate competitive need driving purchases. Summer windows, being longer, allow more negotiation time and a broader market, generally producing better value.

Data Insight: The January Premium

Analysis of top-five-league transfers from 2015-2024 shows that January transfer fees average 15-25% higher than summer fees for comparable players, after controlling for age, performance, contract length, and league. This "January premium" reflects the desperation factor: clubs making mid-season purchases are often responding to injuries, underperformance, or relegation fears, all of which reduce their bargaining power.

Research also reveals a "deadline day effect" where fees spike in the final 48 hours of a window. Clubs aware of these dynamics can structure their buying strategy to avoid last-minute desperation and their selling strategy to maximize leverage as deadlines approach.

25.2 Market Value Prediction Models

25.2.1 Determinants of Player Market Value

Player market value is a function of multiple interacting factors. We organize these into four categories:

Performance factors: - Goal contributions (goals, assists, expected goals) - Defensive metrics (tackles, interceptions, pressures) - Possession metrics (pass completion, progressive passes, carries) - Position-specific performance indicators

Profile factors: - Age and remaining career trajectory - Contract length (remaining years) - Nationality and work permit status - Injury history and physical profile

Market factors: - Selling club's league and reputation - Current market conditions (inflation, pandemic effects) - Transfer window timing (January premium vs. summer) - Number of interested buyers (competition effect)

Commercial factors: - Social media following and marketability - Shirt sales potential - Sponsorship implications

25.2.2 The Hedonic Pricing Model

The hedonic pricing approach, borrowed from real estate economics, decomposes the market value of a player into the implicit prices of individual attributes. The general form is:

$$\ln(V_i) = \beta_0 + \sum_{k=1}^{K} \beta_k X_{ik} + \epsilon_i$$

where $V_i$ is the market value of player $i$, $X_{ik}$ represents attribute $k$ of player $i$, and $\epsilon_i$ is the error term. The log transformation of value is standard because the distribution of player values is heavily right-skewed.

A practical implementation includes:

$$\ln(V_i) = \beta_0 + \beta_1 \text{Age}_i + \beta_2 \text{Age}_i^2 + \beta_3 \text{Goals}_{90,i} + \beta_4 \text{Assists}_{90,i} + \beta_5 \text{Contract}_i + \beta_6 \text{League}_i + \epsilon_i$$

The quadratic age term captures the inverted-U relationship between age and value: players appreciate through their early twenties and depreciate thereafter.

Mathematical Detail: Age-Value Relationship

The peak value age can be derived by taking the partial derivative with respect to age and setting it to zero:

$$\frac{\partial \ln(V)}{\partial \text{Age}} = \beta_1 + 2\beta_2 \cdot \text{Age} = 0$$

$$\text{Age}^* = -\frac{\beta_1}{2\beta_2}$$

Empirically, this peak typically falls between 25 and 27 years for outfield players, consistent with the combination of peak physical ability and accumulated experience. Goalkeepers peak later (28-30), reflecting the greater importance of experience and positioning intelligence relative to physical attributes.

25.2.3 Machine Learning Approaches

While hedonic pricing provides interpretable results, machine learning methods can capture non-linear relationships and complex interactions more effectively.

Gradient Boosted Trees have emerged as a particularly effective method for market value estimation due to their ability to handle mixed data types (numerical and categorical), capture non-linear effects without explicit specification, and provide feature importance rankings.

The ensemble prediction is constructed as:

$$\hat{V}(x) = \sum_{m=1}^{M} \nu \cdot h_m(x)$$

where $h_m(x)$ is the $m$-th decision tree, $\nu$ is the learning rate, and $M$ is the total number of trees.

Random Forest models offer similar advantages with additional robustness to overfitting. They also provide natural uncertainty estimates through the variance of predictions across individual trees:

$$\hat{\sigma}^2(x) = \frac{1}{B} \sum_{b=1}^{B} \left( h_b(x) - \hat{V}(x) \right)^2$$

This uncertainty quantification is valuable in transfer negotiations, where knowing the range of reasonable values is as important as a point estimate.

Practical Insight: Feature Importance in Valuation Models

Across multiple studies and implementations, the most important features for market value prediction consistently include: (1) age, (2) minutes played, (3) goals per 90 minutes (for attackers), (4) contract remaining, and (5) league level. Interestingly, advanced metrics like expected goals (xG) and progressive passes add predictive value beyond traditional statistics, improving model $R^2$ by approximately 3-5 percentage points when included as features. This suggests the transfer market has not yet fully priced in advanced analytics, creating an exploitable information edge.

See code/example-01-market-value.py for a complete implementation comparing hedonic pricing and gradient boosted tree approaches.

25.2.4 Temporal Dynamics

Player values are not static. They evolve in response to performance, age, contract events, and market conditions. A dynamic model can be expressed as:

$$V_{i,t} = f(V_{i,t-1}, \Delta \text{Performance}_{i,t}, \Delta \text{Contract}_{i,t}, \text{Market}_{t})$$

Tracking value trajectories helps clubs identify optimal buying and selling windows. A player whose market value is rising faster than their underlying performance warrants (perhaps due to hype or a strong tournament) may represent a selling opportunity. Conversely, a player whose value has temporarily dipped due to injury or a poor run of form may be undervalued.

25.2.5 Position-Specific Valuation Adjustments

The transfer market assigns vastly different valuations to different positions for equivalent levels of performance. Central forwards and attacking midfielders command the highest premiums, followed by wide forwards, central midfielders, full-backs, center-backs, and goalkeepers.

A position multiplier model adjusts the base valuation:

$$V_{\text{adjusted}} = V_{\text{base}} \times m_p$$

where $m_p$ is the position-specific multiplier. Typical multipliers (relative to center-back = 1.0) are:

These multipliers reflect both the scarcity of goal-scoring talent and the commercial appeal of attacking players. Analytically sophisticated clubs recognize that the best value often lies in positions where market premiums are lowest relative to on-field impact.

25.3 Transfer Fee Analysis and Overpayment Detection

25.3.1 Transfer Fee vs. Market Value

A critical distinction separates market value from transfer fee. Market value represents an estimate of what a player is worth in a hypothetical frictionless market. The actual transfer fee incorporates additional factors:

$$\text{Fee}_i = V_i + \delta_{\text{seller}} + \delta_{\text{buyer}} + \delta_{\text{negotiation}} + \epsilon$$

where: - $\delta_{\text{seller}}$ captures seller-side factors (financial distress, desire to sell, release clauses) - $\delta_{\text{buyer}}$ captures buyer-side factors (urgency, strategic importance, available budget) - $\delta_{\text{negotiation}}$ reflects the bargaining outcome - $\epsilon$ is idiosyncratic noise

25.3.2 The Role of Contract Length

Contract length is perhaps the single most important determinant of the gap between market value and transfer fee. As a player's contract shortens, the selling club's bargaining power diminishes because the threat of free departure becomes credible.

The relationship can be modeled as a depreciation function:

$$\text{Fee}_i = V_i \cdot g(\text{Contract}_i)$$

where $g(\cdot)$ is an increasing function with $g(0) = 0$ (no fee at contract expiry under Bosman) and $g(\cdot) \to 1$ as contract length increases. A common specification is:

$$g(c) = 1 - e^{-\lambda c}$$

with $\lambda > 0$ governing the rate at which longer contracts approach full value extraction.

Practical Insight: The 18-Month Threshold

Empirical analysis reveals a discontinuity around 18 months of remaining contract. Below this threshold, selling clubs face a stark choice: sell at a discount or risk losing the player for free. This creates a natural buying opportunity for analytically aware clubs monitoring contract situations.

25.3.3 Transfer Fee Inflation

Transfer fees have experienced sustained inflation that exceeds general economic inflation. Between 2010 and 2023, the average fee for a top-five-league player increased by approximately 180%, driven by:

1. Broadcasting revenue growth --- new TV deals flood clubs with cash
2. Competitive pressure --- clubs spend to avoid relegation or achieve qualification
3. Agent fees and intermediary costs --- increasing intermediary involvement
4. Market psychology --- anchor effects from record-breaking transfers

Adjusting for inflation is essential when comparing transfers across eras. A simple inflation-adjusted fee can be computed as:

$$\text{Fee}_{\text{adjusted}} = \text{Fee}_{\text{nominal}} \times \frac{\text{Market Index}_{\text{reference}}}{\text{Market Index}_{\text{year}}}$$

where the market index tracks aggregate transfer spending or average fees per season.

25.3.4 Overpayment Detection

A systematic overpayment detection framework compares actual fees paid against model-predicted fair values. The overpayment ratio is:

$$\text{OP}_i = \frac{\text{Fee}_{\text{actual}}}{\text{Fee}_{\text{predicted}}}$$

An $\text{OP}_i > 1.0$ indicates overpayment; $\text{OP}_i < 1.0$ suggests a bargain. However, context matters: a club in a strong financial position paying 120% of fair value for a perfect tactical fit may be making a rational decision when opportunity cost is considered.

Systematic patterns of overpayment are more concerning than individual cases. Clubs can analyze their transfer history for biases:

• Recency bias: Overpaying for players who performed well in the most recent tournament or month.
• Nationality bias: Paying premiums for players from certain countries.
• Age bias: Systematically overvaluing young players (high upside) or undervaluing experienced players (immediate impact).
• Selling club bias: Paying premiums for players from "fashionable" clubs regardless of underlying quality.

Case Study: Identifying Systematic Overpayment

An analysis of English Premier League transfers from 2015-2022 found that clubs overpaid by an average of 18% for players who had scored 10+ international goals in the preceding 12 months. This "international goal premium" dissipated within two seasons, as the players' club performance regressed to levels consistent with their underlying xG metrics. Clubs that systematically screened for this bias saved an estimated GBP 5-10M per transfer window.

25.3.5 Predicting Transfer Outcomes

Beyond predicting fees, we can model transfer success --- whether a player performs well at their new club. A logistic regression framework is useful here:

$$P(\text{Success}_i = 1) = \frac{1}{1 + e^{-(\alpha + \mathbf{X}_i \boldsymbol{\beta})}}$$

Key predictors of transfer success include league similarity (same league transfers succeed more often), age at transfer (younger players adapt better), previous international experience, and the ratio of fee paid to the player's underlying performance metrics.

See code/example-02-transfer-analysis.py for implementation details.

25.4 Wage Structure Optimization

25.4.1 Wage Determinants

Player wages in professional soccer are determined by a complex interplay of factors. Unlike transfer fees, which are one-time payments, wages represent ongoing commitments that constrain a club's financial flexibility.

The wage equation takes the form:

$$\ln(w_i) = \alpha + \beta_1 \text{Performance}_i + \beta_2 \text{Age}_i + \beta_3 \text{Experience}_i + \beta_4 \text{International}_i + \beta_5 \text{Position}_i + \beta_6 \text{Club}_j + \epsilon_i$$

where $w_i$ is the weekly or annual wage and the club fixed effect $\text{Club}_j$ captures the club's wage level.

Empirical findings consistently show that:

• Performance explains approximately 40-50% of wage variance
• Club identity (wage level) explains an additional 20-30%
• Age and experience account for 10-15%
• International status provides a significant premium (15-25%)

25.4.2 Wage Distribution Within Squads

The internal wage structure of a squad has important implications for team cohesion and performance. Research has identified several key patterns:

Wage compression vs. dispersion. Highly dispersed wage structures (large gaps between highest and lowest earners) are associated with reduced team performance in sports requiring high coordination. In soccer, moderate dispersion appears optimal --- enough to reward top performers, but not so much as to create resentment.

The Gini coefficient is a natural measure of wage inequality within a squad:

$$G = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n} \sum_{j=1}^{n} |w_i - w_j|}{2n^2 \bar{w}}$$

where $n$ is the squad size, $w_i$ is player $i$'s wage, and $\bar{w}$ is the mean wage.

Research Finding: The Inverted-U Hypothesis

Studies across multiple leagues suggest an inverted-U relationship between wage dispersion and team performance. Squads with moderate Gini coefficients (0.25--0.40) tend to outperform those with very low dispersion (reduced individual incentives) or very high dispersion (reduced cohesion). However, this relationship is moderated by club culture, league context, and managerial style.

25.4.3 Wage-to-Revenue Ratios

The wage-to-revenue ratio is the single most important indicator of a club's financial health. Across major European leagues, the following benchmarks apply:

Clubs exceeding 70% wage-to-revenue ratios for sustained periods face elevated risk of financial distress, regulatory sanctions under Financial Fair Play, and reduced ability to invest in infrastructure.

25.4.4 Squad Cost Optimization

Given budget constraints, clubs must allocate wages across positions to maximize sporting performance. This is a constrained optimization problem:

$$\max_{\mathbf{w}} \quad \text{Performance}(\mathbf{w})$$

$$\text{subject to} \quad \sum_{i=1}^{n} w_i \leq W_{\text{budget}}$$

$$\quad \quad \quad \quad w_i \geq w_{\min} \quad \forall i$$

$$\quad \quad \quad \quad w_i \leq w_{\max} \quad \forall i$$

where $\mathbf{w}$ is the vector of player wages and $W_{\text{budget}}$ is the total wage budget.

The performance function encodes how marginal spending at each position translates into team-level improvement. Diminishing returns at each position are modeled with a concave function:

$$\text{Performance}(\mathbf{w}) = \sum_{p \in \text{Positions}} \alpha_p \cdot w_p^{\gamma_p}$$

where $0 < \gamma_p < 1$ ensures diminishing returns and $\alpha_p$ reflects the importance of position $p$.

Analytical Insight: Where to Invest the Marginal Pound

Optimization models consistently suggest that mid-table clubs in the Premier League should invest disproportionately in central midfield and center-back positions, where the performance-to-wage curve is steepest. Elite clubs, who already have top talent at these positions, benefit more from marginal investment in specialist roles (creative playmakers, goalkeepers, full-backs). This mirrors the "Moneyball" insight from baseball: seek value where the market underprices performance.

See code/example-03-wage-optimization.py for a complete implementation.

25.5 Revenue Impact of Player Performance

25.5.1 Defining ROI in Soccer

Return on investment in soccer extends beyond simple financial returns. A comprehensive ROI framework must account for sporting, financial, and strategic dimensions.

Financial ROI measures the direct monetary return:

$$\text{ROI}_{\text{financial}} = \frac{\text{Revenue Generated} + \text{Resale Value} - \text{Total Cost}}{\text{Total Cost}}$$

where Total Cost includes the transfer fee, agent fees, signing bonus, and cumulative wages over the contract period.

Sporting ROI evaluates the on-field contribution:

$$\text{ROI}_{\text{sporting}} = \frac{\Delta \text{Points} \cdot V_{\text{point}}}{\text{Total Cost}}$$

where $\Delta \text{Points}$ is the estimated contribution to league points and $V_{\text{point}}$ is the monetary value of a league point (derived from prize money, broadcasting bonuses, and qualification revenue).

25.5.2 The Value of a League Point

The monetary value of a league point varies by league position and is non-linear. Points that determine Champions League qualification, Europa League qualification, or relegation survival carry substantially more value than mid-table points.

$$V_{\text{point}}(p) = \frac{\partial \text{Revenue}(p)}{\partial p}$$

where $p$ is the league position. Empirically, the value curve exhibits spikes at critical thresholds:

• Relegation boundary (e.g., 17th/18th in a 20-team league): $V_{\text{point}} \approx$ $5--15M per point
• European qualification (e.g., 4th/5th): $V_{\text{point}} \approx$ $3--8M per point
• Mid-table (e.g., 8th--14th): $V_{\text{point}} \approx$ $1--3M per point

25.5.3 Commercial Revenue Attribution

Beyond on-pitch impact, star players generate commercial revenue through shirt sales, sponsorship activation, social media engagement, and matchday attendance. Quantifying this is challenging but important:

$$\text{Revenue}_{\text{commercial}}(i) = \Delta \text{Shirt Sales}_i \times m_{\text{shirt}} + \Delta \text{Sponsorship}_i + \Delta \text{Matchday}_i$$

where $m_{\text{shirt}}$ is the margin per shirt (typically GBP 10-15 per unit for the club, with the majority going to the kit manufacturer) and the sponsorship and matchday deltas measure the incremental revenue attributable to the player's presence.

Reality Check: Shirt Sales Myth

A common misconception is that clubs recoup transfer fees through shirt sales. In reality, clubs typically retain only 10-15% of the retail price of a shirt. Even the most marketable players (e.g., a high-profile signing selling 500,000 extra shirts) might generate only GBP 5-7.5M in shirt revenue for the club. The commercial value of star players lies more in their impact on overall brand value, which influences broader sponsorship deals and commercial partnerships.

25.5.4 Amortization and Accounting

Under standard accounting practices, transfer fees are amortized over the length of the player's contract. This has important implications for Financial Fair Play calculations and a club's profit and loss statement.

$$\text{Annual Amortization} = \frac{\text{Transfer Fee}}{\text{Contract Length (years)}}$$

If a player is sold before the contract expires, the club records a profit or loss based on the difference between the sale price and the remaining book value:

$$\text{Profit/Loss on Sale} = \text{Sale Price} - \text{Remaining Book Value}$$

$$\text{Remaining Book Value} = \text{Transfer Fee} - \text{Cumulative Amortization}$$

Example: Amortization Calculation

A club signs a player for EUR 60M on a 5-year contract. - Annual amortization: EUR 12M per year - After 2 years, book value: EUR 60M - EUR 24M = EUR 36M - If sold for EUR 50M after 2 years: Profit = EUR 50M - EUR 36M = EUR 14M - If sold for EUR 30M after 2 years: Loss = EUR 30M - EUR 36M = -EUR 6M

This framework explains why clubs sometimes sell players at seemingly low fees --- the accounting profit may still be positive.

25.5.5 Net Present Value of Player Contracts

Since player contracts involve cash flows spread over multiple years, a net present value (NPV) analysis is appropriate:

$$\text{NPV}_i = -\text{Fee}_i + \sum_{t=1}^{T} \frac{R_{i,t} - w_{i,t}}{(1+r)^t} + \frac{S_{i,T}}{(1+r)^T}$$

where $R_{i,t}$ is the revenue attributable to the player in year $t$, $w_{i,t}$ is the wage in year $t$, $S_{i,T}$ is the expected resale value at contract end, and $r$ is the discount rate.

The discount rate should reflect the riskiness of the investment. For soccer player acquisitions, appropriate discount rates range from 8% to 15%, depending on factors such as injury risk, adaptation uncertainty, and league volatility.

25.6 Financial Fair Play Implications

25.6.1 The FFP Framework

UEFA's Financial Fair Play regulations, introduced in 2011 and substantially revised in 2022 (rebranded as UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Sustainability Regulations), impose constraints on club spending. The key provisions include:

1. Football Earnings Rule: Clubs must limit their deviation from break-even (aggregate losses over a rolling assessment period) to EUR 60M over three years, provided the excess is fully covered by equity contributions.

2. Squad Cost Rule: Squad costs (player wages + transfer amortization + agent fees) must not exceed 70% of club revenue.

3. Debt Rule: Net football debt must not exceed 100% of revenue.

These regulations fundamentally alter the optimization landscape for club executives. Spending decisions must consider not only sporting returns but also regulatory compliance.

25.6.2 Modeling FFP Constraints

We can formally incorporate FFP constraints into the club's decision problem. Let $\Pi_t$ denote the club's football-related profit in year $t$:

$$\Pi_t = R_t - W_t - A_t - O_t$$

where $R_t$ is relevant revenue, $W_t$ is total wages, $A_t$ is amortization of transfer fees, and $O_t$ is other football-related operating costs.

The break-even constraint (over a three-year assessment period) requires:

$$\sum_{t=T-2}^{T} \Pi_t \geq -\text{Acceptable Deviation}$$

And the squad cost constraint imposes:

$$\frac{W_t + A_t + \text{Agent Fees}_t}{R_t} \leq 0.70$$

25.6.3 Strategic Responses to FFP

Clubs have developed various strategies to navigate FFP constraints, some legitimate and others controversial:

Legitimate strategies: - Revenue growth through commercial development and stadium expansion - Academy investment to develop players with zero transfer amortization - Structured transfer payments (installments, contingent fees) - Strategic timing of player sales to generate accounting profits

Controversial strategies: - Related-party sponsorship deals at above-market rates - Player swap deals at inflated valuations - Creative accounting around amortization periods - Loan armies that circumvent squad cost calculations

Critical Analysis: Does FFP Achieve Its Goals?

FFP was designed to promote financial sustainability and competitive balance. Critics argue it has instead entrenched the existing hierarchy by preventing wealthy new owners from investing heavily to close the gap with established elite clubs. The empirical evidence is mixed: financial losses across European football have decreased, but competitive concentration (measured by title winners or Champions League semi-finalists) has not meaningfully changed. Some economists argue that the regulations function more as a cartel mechanism protecting incumbent clubs than as a genuine consumer protection measure.

25.6.4 Sustainability Metrics and Monitoring

Beyond the formal regulatory constraints, analytically mature clubs develop internal sustainability metrics that provide early warning of financial stress. These metrics go beyond the minimum FFP requirements and serve as guardrails for long-term financial health.

The Financial Sustainability Index (FSI) is a composite metric that several consultancies and researchers have proposed. A simplified version combines three ratios:

$$\text{FSI} = w_1 \cdot \left(1 - \frac{\text{Squad Cost}}{\text{Revenue}}\right) + w_2 \cdot \left(1 - \frac{\text{Net Debt}}{\text{Revenue}}\right) + w_3 \cdot \frac{\text{Cash Reserves}}{\text{Annual Obligations}}$$

where $w_1$, $w_2$, and $w_3$ are weights (typically summing to 1) that reflect the club's priorities. An FSI above 0.5 generally indicates healthy finances; below 0.3 signals potential distress.

Revenue diversity is another important sustainability indicator. Clubs that derive more than 50% of their revenue from a single source (e.g., broadcasting) are vulnerable to disruptions in that revenue stream. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) of revenue concentration can be applied:

$$\text{HHI}_{\text{revenue}} = \sum_{s=1}^{S} \left(\frac{R_s}{R_{\text{total}}}\right)^2$$

where $R_s$ is revenue from source $s$ and $R_{\text{total}}$ is total revenue. A lower HHI indicates greater diversification. Clubs with HHI below 0.33 (equivalent to three roughly equal revenue streams) are substantially more resilient to external shocks.

Intuition: Why Financial Sustainability Matters for Sporting Success

It may seem counterintuitive that financial restraint supports sporting ambition, but the evidence is clear. Clubs that overspend in the short term face compounding consequences: FFP sanctions restrict future squad registration, forced player sales at suboptimal prices erode squad quality, and the psychological burden of financial instability affects decision-making throughout the organization. In contrast, clubs that maintain sustainable finances can plan transfer strategies multiple windows in advance, negotiate from positions of strength (never needing to sell urgently), and invest consistently in infrastructure (academy, training facilities, data systems) that compounds competitive advantages over time. The tortoise-and-hare dynamic plays out repeatedly across European football.

25.6.5 FFP-Aware Transfer Planning

Forward-looking clubs model their FFP position several years into the future, simulating the impact of potential transfers before executing them. A useful planning tool is the FFP impact matrix:

This framework allows clubs to evaluate transfers not in isolation but as part of an integrated financial plan.

25.6.6 The Sell-to-Buy Cycle

Many clubs operate under a "sell-to-buy" model where player sales must fund new acquisitions. The analytics challenge here is to optimize the timing and selection of sales to maximize the funds available for purchases while minimizing the sporting impact of departures. A club that sells its best player for EUR 80M but cannot find an adequate replacement may suffer a net negative impact despite the financial windfall.

25.7 Loan Market Analytics

25.7.1 The Economics of Loan Deals

The loan market has grown substantially in recent years, with over 1,500 loan deals per season across the top five European leagues. Loans serve different purposes for different stakeholders:

For lending clubs: - Develop young players through competitive experience - Reduce wage bill for surplus players - Maintain asset value while exploring permanent sale options

For borrowing clubs: - Access talent they cannot afford to purchase - Fill short-term squad gaps without long-term commitment - "Try before you buy" with optional purchase clauses

The total cost of a loan includes the loan fee, the player's wages (often shared), and the opportunity cost of the squad place.

25.7.2 Loan Success Prediction

A predictive model for loan success considers:

$$P(\text{Success}) = f(\text{MinutesPlayed}, \text{LeagueLevel}, \text{AgeDifference}, \text{PositionNeed})$$

where success is defined as significant playing time (e.g., >1,500 minutes) and measurable performance improvement. Analysis shows that loans are most successful when the player drops 1-2 league levels (not more), is under 23 years old, and fills a genuine positional need at the borrowing club.

Data Point: Loan Army Economics

Chelsea FC's extensive loan army (at its peak, over 40 players on loan simultaneously) was estimated to generate GBP 15-20M annually in loan fees and wage savings, while producing accounting profits of GBP 50-100M through the subsequent permanent sale of loan players. This model treats young players as financial assets to be developed and sold, fundamentally altering the economics of youth development.

25.7.3 Loan Deal Structure and Negotiation Analytics

The structure of a loan deal significantly affects the economic outcome for both parties. Key structural elements include:

Loan fee: A fixed payment from the borrowing club to the lending club for the right to use the player. Loan fees typically range from 5-15% of the player's market value for a season-long loan, though they vary widely based on player quality, contract situation, and the relationship between the clubs.

Wage contribution: The split of the player's wages between lending and borrowing clubs. Three common arrangements exist: (1) the borrowing club pays 100% of wages, (2) wages are split 50/50, or (3) the lending club continues to pay a portion (common when the loan is primarily for development purposes). The wage contribution structure affects the net cost calculation:

$$C_{\text{loan, net}} = F_{\text{loan}} + s \cdot W \cdot T$$

where $F_{\text{loan}}$ is the loan fee, $s$ is the borrowing club's wage share (between 0 and 1), $W$ is the player's weekly wage, and $T$ is the loan duration in weeks.

Purchase options and obligations: An option to buy gives the borrowing club the right, but not the obligation, to sign the player permanently at a pre-agreed fee. An obligation to buy mandates the purchase if certain conditions are met (e.g., appearances, league survival). From the lending club's perspective, an obligation provides certainty of future income, while an option provides only the possibility. The difference is reflected in the loan fee: loans with purchase obligations typically command lower loan fees because the lending club benefits from the guaranteed future sale.

Common Pitfall: Ignoring Loan Opportunity Costs

Clubs frequently evaluate loan deals in isolation, comparing only the direct costs (loan fee, wage contribution) against the player's expected on-field contribution. This approach overlooks the opportunity cost of the squad place. A loan player occupying a roster spot prevents the club from using that slot for a permanent signing who could provide longer-term value, or for a different loan player who might be a better tactical fit. The true cost of a loan includes this opportunity cost, which can be estimated as the marginal value of the squad place in the club's optimal roster construction.

25.7.4 Regulatory Constraints on Loans

UEFA and domestic associations have introduced regulations to limit the use of large-scale loan networks. Starting from the 2024-25 season, UEFA rules cap the number of players a club can loan out or loan in at six per season (for players over 21), decreasing to a maximum of six in each direction. The Premier League imposes similar domestic restrictions. These regulations fundamentally change the economics of loan strategies by forcing clubs to be more selective, increasing the value of each loan slot, and pushing clubs toward permanent transfers or academy development rather than loan-based talent arbitrage.

25.8 Free Agent Market Analysis

25.8.1 The Growing Free Agent Market

The free agent market has become an increasingly important component of the transfer ecosystem. High-profile free agent signings have increased by approximately 40% since 2015, driven by players' growing awareness of their contractual leverage and the financial benefit of receiving a signing bonus (often equivalent to a transfer fee) rather than allowing their current club to profit from a sale.

25.8.2 Valuing Free Agent Signings

While the transfer fee is zero, free agents are not "free." The total cost includes:

$$C_{\text{free agent}} = B_{\text{signing}} + W_{\text{premium}} \times T + F_{\text{agent}}$$

where $B_{\text{signing}}$ is the signing bonus, $W_{\text{premium}}$ is the wage premium above the player's market-rate salary (free agents typically command 20-40% higher wages to compensate for forgoing a transfer fee that would have gone to their previous club), $T$ is the contract length, and $F_{\text{agent}}$ is the agent fee.

Analytical Insight: When Free Agents Represent Value

Free agent signings represent genuine value when the total cost (signing bonus + wage premium + agent fee) is less than the sum of a hypothetical transfer fee plus market-rate wages. For example, if a player's market value is EUR 30M and their market-rate wage is EUR 5M/year, a club signing them on a free transfer with a EUR 10M signing bonus, EUR 7M/year wage, and EUR 5M agent fee over a 4-year deal pays EUR 43M total. The equivalent purchase (EUR 30M fee + EUR 20M wages + EUR 5M agent fee) would cost EUR 55M. The free agent route saves EUR 12M.

25.8.3 Free Agent Risk Assessment and Age-Profile Considerations

Free agent signings carry a distinct risk profile compared to conventional transfers. Because the player is typically older (the median age of free agents in the top five leagues is approximately 28-29, compared to 24-25 for paid transfers), the expected career trajectory is shorter and the resale value is lower. The risk-adjusted value of a free agent can be modeled as:

$$V_{\text{risk-adjusted}} = \sum_{t=1}^{T} \frac{P(\text{available}_t) \cdot V_{\text{performance},t}}{(1+r)^t}$$

where $P(\text{available}_t)$ is the probability the player is available (not injured, not declined) in year $t$, $V_{\text{performance},t}$ is the expected performance value in that year, and $r$ is the discount rate. For older free agents, $P(\text{available}_t)$ declines more steeply, reflecting increasing injury risk and potential performance decline.

Additionally, clubs must account for the "adaptation risk" specific to free agents. Unlike players purchased mid-season during a transfer window, free agents often arrive after extended periods without competitive football (particularly those who left their previous club at contract expiry in June and sign with a new club in July or August). This fitness gap can require 4-8 weeks of integration before the player reaches match readiness, effectively reducing the first season's contribution.

Real-World Application: Scouting the Free Agent Pipeline

Analytically sophisticated clubs maintain a rolling database of players entering the final 18 months of their contracts, updating it quarterly. By identifying high-value targets 12-18 months before their contracts expire, clubs can begin dialogue early (legally permitted for foreign clubs within the final 6 months, and informally through intermediaries before that). This proactive approach avoids the scramble of the open free agent market in June-July, where competition among bidders drives up signing bonuses and wages. Clubs that build this pipeline effectively report securing free agents at 15-25% lower total costs than those who wait for the open market.

25.9 Economic Impact of Academy Development

25.9.1 Academy as Investment

Youth academy investment is increasingly viewed through a financial lens. The total cost of running a top-tier academy ranges from EUR 5-15M annually, depending on the country and the academy's scope. The financial return comes from three sources:

1. First-team integration: Players who make the first team avoid transfer fees entirely. A homegrown player with equivalent quality to a EUR 30M signing effectively generates a EUR 30M return on investment.
2. Player sales: Academy graduates who are sold generate pure profit (no amortization of a purchase fee).
3. Solidarity and training compensation: FIFA mechanisms that provide financial compensation to clubs that trained a player during their formative years.

25.9.2 Measuring Academy ROI

A comprehensive academy ROI model tracks cohorts over time:

$$\text{ROI}_{\text{academy}} = \frac{\sum_{i \in \text{graduates}} (V_{\text{saved},i} + V_{\text{sold},i} + V_{\text{compensation},i})}{\sum_{t} C_{\text{academy},t}} - 1$$

where $V_{\text{saved},i}$ is the transfer fee avoided for first-team players, $V_{\text{sold},i}$ is revenue from selling graduates, $V_{\text{compensation},i}$ is solidarity/training compensation received, and $C_{\text{academy},t}$ is the annual academy operating cost.

Case Study: Ajax Academy Model

Ajax's famed academy has produced over EUR 500M in player sales in the past decade (De Ligt, De Jong, Van de Beek, Antony, Timber, among others) against estimated annual academy costs of EUR 8-10M. The cumulative ROI exceeds 500%, making it one of the most profitable "investments" in European football. This model demonstrates that sustained investment in youth development, combined with a clear development pathway to the first team, can be a powerful financial strategy.

25.9.3 Academy Conversion Rates and Benchmarking

A critical metric for academy evaluation is the conversion rate: what percentage of academy players reach meaningful milestones? Typical benchmarks across European academies show:

These low conversion rates underscore the importance of the "sell" pathway: even academy graduates who never make the first team can generate significant revenue if they are developed to a level where other clubs will pay for them. A well-managed academy creates value at every stage of the pipeline.

25.9.4 Homegrown Player Rules and Financial Incentives

UEFA and domestic leagues impose homegrown player quotas (typically requiring 8 of 25 registered players to be "club-trained" or "association-trained"). These rules create a premium for homegrown players: clubs that fail to develop sufficient homegrown talent must either buy established homegrown players at inflated prices or register fewer than 25 players, reducing squad depth.

The financial value of the homegrown quota can be quantified. If a club needs to purchase a homegrown player to fill a quota slot, the "homegrown premium" is the difference between the transfer fee for a homegrown player and a comparable non-homegrown alternative. Estimates suggest this premium ranges from 15-30% for English Premier League clubs, making academy development not just a sporting investment but a regulatory arbitrage opportunity.

25.10 Agent Market Dynamics

25.10.1 The Agent's Role in Modern Soccer Economics

Agent fees have grown dramatically, with FIFA reporting over $800M paid to intermediaries in a single transfer window. Agents influence market dynamics through several mechanisms:

• Information brokerage: Agents connect buyers and sellers, reducing search costs but also creating information asymmetries.
• Price inflation: Agents have financial incentives to maximize transfer fees and wages, as their compensation is typically a percentage of the deal value.
• Market manipulation: Strategic timing of contract negotiations, media leaks about player interest, and orchestrated bidding wars can artificially inflate prices.

25.10.2 Modeling Agent Impact on Fees

The agent premium can be estimated by comparing deals with different agent involvement levels:

$$\text{Fee} = \beta_0 + \beta_1 V_{\text{player}} + \beta_2 \text{AgentPower} + \beta_3 \text{MultiClubInterest} + \epsilon$$

where $\text{AgentPower}$ is a proxy for the agent's market influence (number of high-profile clients, track record of large deals). Research suggests that high-profile agents extract an additional 5-15% on transfer fees through superior negotiation and market-making capabilities.

25.10.3 FIFA Agent Regulation Reform

FIFA's introduction of the Football Agent Regulations (effective 2023, though subject to legal challenges) sought to impose fee caps (up to 10% of the transfer fee from the buying club, 3% from the selling club, and 6% from the player for representation). These regulations, if fully enforced, would fundamentally alter the economics of agent-mediated transfers by reducing the total intermediary cost of a typical deal by 20-40%.

For clubs, the implication is that agent cost modeling must now account for regulatory uncertainty. Deals structured under one set of regulations may face different cost structures if regulations change before the transfer is completed. Forward-looking clubs maintain scenario models with and without agent fee caps to ensure their financial planning is robust to regulatory outcomes.

Practical Consideration: Agent Relationship Management

Clubs that maintain strong relationships with a network of agents gain earlier access to information about player availability, competing offers, and contract situations. This information advantage can be worth millions in avoided overpayment. Conversely, clubs that alienate agents may find themselves shut out of deals or faced with inflated asking prices. The most effective approach is to treat agent relationships as a strategic asset, investing in transparent communication and fair dealing to build long-term partnerships.

25.11 Contract Optimization

25.11.1 Contract Structure Design

Player contracts in professional soccer are increasingly sophisticated financial instruments. Beyond base salary, contracts typically include:

• Signing bonuses (amortized over the contract for accounting purposes)
• Performance bonuses (appearances, goals, clean sheets)
• Team achievement bonuses (league position, cup progression, qualification)
• Loyalty bonuses (triggered by remaining at the club for specified periods)
• Image rights payments (separate from employment income for tax efficiency)
• Release clauses (fixed or escalating buyout provisions)

25.11.2 Optimal Contract Length

Determining the optimal contract length involves balancing several competing considerations:

From the club's perspective: - Longer contracts protect the transfer value asset - Longer contracts lock in current wages (beneficial if the player improves) - But longer contracts also lock in wages for underperforming players - Amortization is spread over more years, reducing annual FFP impact

From the player's perspective: - Longer contracts provide income security - But limit future earning potential if performance improves - Shorter contracts allow more frequent renegotiation

The optimal contract length can be modeled as:

$$T^* = \arg\min_{T} \left[ \text{Wage Premium}(T) + \text{Risk Cost}(T) - \text{Asset Protection}(T) \right]$$

where the wage premium increases with contract length (players demand more for longer commitments), risk cost captures the expected cost of being locked into a bad deal, and asset protection measures the value of maintaining transfer fee leverage.

25.11.3 Performance Bonus Optimization

Performance bonuses serve as incentive mechanisms that align player and club objectives. The optimal bonus structure should:

1. Reward controllable outcomes --- individual statistics the player can influence
2. Incentivize team success --- bonuses tied to collective achievements
3. Manage downside risk --- cap total compensation to protect the club's budget
4. Avoid moral hazard --- prevent perverse incentives (e.g., a striker avoiding defensive duties to preserve goal-scoring bonuses)

A well-designed bonus structure can be modeled using principal-agent theory. The club (principal) offers a contract:

$$w = w_{\text{base}} + \sum_{k} b_k \cdot \mathbb{1}[\text{Target}_k \text{ met}]$$

where $b_k$ is the bonus for achieving target $k$. The targets should be set to maximize the club's expected utility:

$$\max_{\{b_k\}} \quad E[V_{\text{sporting}}(e^*) - w_{\text{base}} - \sum_k b_k \cdot P(\text{Target}_k | e^*)]$$

subject to the player's participation constraint (the contract must be attractive enough to sign) and incentive compatibility constraint (the player's optimal effort $e^*$ must align with the club's interests).

25.11.4 Release Clause Strategy

Release clauses are pre-agreed prices at which a club must allow a player to leave. They represent a trade-off:

• Low release clause: Makes the contract easier to negotiate (player has an exit option) but exposes the club to losing a valuable player at below-market rates
• High release clause: Protects the club's asset but may require wage concessions to compensate the player for reduced mobility
• No release clause: Maximum protection but highest negotiation cost; mandatory in some leagues (e.g., Spain)

The optimal release clause $R^*$ balances:

$$R^* = \arg\max_R \left[ V_{\text{expected}}(R) - C_{\text{wage premium}}(R) \right]$$

where $V_{\text{expected}}(R) = P(\text{departure}|R) \cdot R + P(\text{stay}|R) \cdot V_{\text{retained}}$ and $C_{\text{wage premium}}(R)$ is the additional wage cost required to compensate the player for a higher release clause.

25.11.5 Contract Renewal Timing

When to offer a contract renewal is a critical tactical decision. Renewing too early foregoes information about the player's development trajectory. Renewing too late risks losing bargaining leverage as the contract shortens.

Practical Guideline: The Two-Year Rule

Most analytically sophisticated clubs aim to never let a key player's contract fall below two years remaining. With two years left, the club retains substantial leverage. Below 18 months, the player's agent gains significant power. Below 12 months, the player can negotiate pre-contracts with foreign clubs, and the selling club's position erodes dramatically.

25.12 Case Studies: Moneyball Clubs and Their Financial Strategies

25.12.1 Brentford FC: The Analytics-Driven Model

Brentford FC, owned by professional gambler Matthew Benham, represents perhaps the purest application of data-driven economic thinking in English football. Key elements of their approach include:

• Statistical player identification: Signing players based on underlying performance metrics (xG, xA, progressive carrying distance) rather than reputation or past results.
• Buy low, sell high: Targeting players from lower divisions or undervalued leagues whose statistical profiles suggest top-flight quality. Players like Ivan Toney (purchased for GBP 5M, sold for GBP 40M+) and Ollie Watkins (purchased for GBP 1.8M, sold for GBP 28M) exemplify this approach.
• Contrarian age profile: Willingness to sign players in their late twenties when other clubs focus exclusively on young talent, exploiting the market's systematic overvaluation of youth.
• Structured wage bill: Maintaining a wage-to-revenue ratio consistently below 60%, providing financial stability and FFP compliance.

25.12.2 Brighton & Hove Albion: Scouting Meets Analytics

Brighton combines traditional scouting networks with advanced analytics to identify value in the global market. Their approach features multi-year player tracking (monitoring prospects for 2-3 years before purchasing), investment in positions where market premiums are lowest (full-backs, central midfielders), and systematic selling at peak value (e.g., selling Marc Cucurella for GBP 62M after one Premier League season).

Brighton's financial model is notable for its discipline: the club consistently generates net transfer profits while maintaining and even improving its league position. The key insight is that by developing a distinctive playing style and coaching methodology, Brighton can integrate new signings more quickly than clubs that rely on individual talent. This reduces the performance risk of transfers and allows the club to target less-established players who cost less but can be developed within the system.

Analytical Framework: Brighton's Replacement Cost Model

When Brighton identifies a selling opportunity, they evaluate whether the sale proceeds exceed the cost of acquiring and developing an adequate replacement. The replacement cost includes the transfer fee for a replacement player, the expected "adaptation discount" (reduced performance during the settling-in period, typically 10-20% for 3-6 months), and the risk premium for the possibility that the replacement does not reach the departing player's level. If the sale price exceeds this total replacement cost by a sufficient margin (Brighton reportedly targets a 30%+ premium), the sale is executed.

25.12.3 Red Bull Network: Multi-Club Ownership

The Red Bull network (RB Leipzig, Red Bull Salzburg, New York Red Bulls, among others) uses multi-club ownership to create an internal transfer market. Players develop at feeder clubs before being promoted to Leipzig at below-market internal transfer fees. This model generates significant accounting profits while providing a steady pipeline of talent.

Ethical Debate: Multi-Club Ownership

Multi-club ownership models raise significant questions about sporting integrity, competitive fairness, and the authenticity of competition between affiliated clubs. Regulatory bodies are increasingly scrutinizing these structures, with UEFA introducing rules preventing commonly owned clubs from competing in the same European competition.

25.13 Integrating Economic and Sporting Analysis

25.13.1 The Value-Performance Matrix

A powerful framework for evaluating squad composition is the value-performance matrix, which plots each player's on-field contribution against their total cost:

This matrix immediately identifies strategic priorities: - Core assets are performing well and earning accordingly --- maintain the relationship - Hidden gems are outperforming their cost --- the club has a competitive advantage - Overpaid players represent inefficiency --- the club should seek to move them on - Depth options are priced appropriately for limited contributions

25.13.2 Building a Decision Support System

A comprehensive economic analysis system integrates the models discussed throughout this chapter into a unified decision support tool:

class TransferDecisionEngine:
    """Integrates valuation, ROI, wage, and FFP analysis."""

    def evaluate_signing(self, player, fee, contract):
        valuation = self.estimate_market_value(player)
        roi = self.calculate_expected_roi(player, fee, contract)
        wage_impact = self.assess_wage_structure_impact(player, contract)
        ffp_impact = self.model_ffp_implications(fee, contract)

        return TransferRecommendation(
            valuation_gap=valuation - fee,
            expected_roi=roi,
            wage_fit=wage_impact,
            ffp_compliant=ffp_impact.is_compliant,
            overall_score=self.compute_composite_score(...)
        )

The decision engine should produce clear recommendations with confidence intervals, highlight key risks and uncertainties, enable scenario analysis (best case, base case, worst case), and facilitate comparison across multiple transfer targets.

25.13.3 Ethical Considerations

Economic analysis of players raises important ethical questions that practitioners should be mindful of:

• Commodification: Reducing human beings to financial values risks dehumanizing the individuals involved
• Power imbalances: Analytical sophistication concentrated among wealthy clubs may exacerbate inequality
• Player welfare: Optimization of transfers and contracts should not come at the expense of players' well-being and career development
• Transparency: Players and their representatives deserve access to the analytical frameworks used in negotiations

Summary

This chapter has developed a comprehensive framework for economic analysis in professional soccer:

1. Market value estimation combines hedonic pricing and machine learning to produce rigorous player valuations
2. Transfer fee modeling accounts for the gap between intrinsic value and negotiated fees, incorporating contract effects, market conditions, and bargaining dynamics
3. Overpayment detection identifies systematic biases in transfer spending and provides frameworks for avoiding common pricing errors
4. Wage structure analysis examines both individual wage determinants and squad-level optimization under budget constraints
5. ROI assessment provides a multi-dimensional framework for evaluating the success of transfer investments
6. FFP compliance introduces regulatory constraints that must be integrated into all financial planning
7. Loan and free agent markets offer alternative acquisition strategies with distinct economic profiles
8. Academy economics demonstrates the long-term financial value of youth development
9. Contract optimization applies principal-agent theory and strategic reasoning to contract design and negotiation timing
10. Case studies illustrate how analytically driven clubs translate these principles into competitive advantages

The unifying insight is that sporting and financial analysis are not separate disciplines but deeply intertwined components of effective club management. The most successful clubs in the modern era are those that have mastered this integration.

Looking Ahead

Chapter 26 extends the analytical toolkit into injury prevention and load management, where the economic stakes are equally high: a single major injury can cost a club millions in lost performance and wasted investment. The financial frameworks developed here provide the foundation for quantifying the economic value of keeping players healthy and available.

References

1. Dobson, S., & Goddard, J. (2011). The Economics of Football. Cambridge University Press.
2. Kuper, S., & Szymanski, S. (2018). Soccernomics. Nation Books.
3. Transfermarkt. (2024). Transfer market data and player valuations. https://www.transfermarkt.com
4. UEFA. (2022). Club Licensing and Financial Sustainability Regulations. Edition 2022.
5. Herm, S., Callsen-Bracker, H.-M., & Kreis, H. (2014). When the crowd evaluates soccer players' market values. Sport, Business and Management, 4(4), 286--303.
6. Muller, O., Simons, A., & Weinmann, M. (2017). Beyond crowd judgments: Data-driven estimation of market value in association football. European Journal of Operational Research, 263(2), 611--624.
7. Carmichael, F., McHale, I., & Thomas, D. (2011). Maintaining market position: Team performance, revenue and wage expenditure in the English Premier League. Bulletin of Economic Research, 63(4), 464--497.
8. Franck, E. (2014). Financial Fair Play in European club football: What is it all about? International Journal of Sport Finance, 9(3), 193--217.
9. Peeters, T., & Szymanski, S. (2014). Financial fair play in European football. Economic Policy, 29(78), 343--390.
10. Frick, B. (2007). The football players' labor market: Empirical evidence from the major European leagues. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 54(3), 422--446.