The Premier League’s 2026 transfer window opened to the backdrop of the World Cup on the 15th of June. By the time it closes on the 1st of September, hundreds of millions of pounds will have been traded for some of the best footballing talent in the world.
We’ve already seen clubs part with considerable cash, with Chelsea paying £117 million for Morgan Rogers and Manchester City parting with £116 million for Elliott Anderson.
But does splashing out in the transfer window mean better results?
We have compared the net spending of all the clubs who will feature in the 2026/27 Premier League season with their average position at the end of the season. Our comparisons show that spending big doesn’t necessarily guarantee success.
Club Net Spending Over the Last Four Years
*Net spend is calculated by taking away the outgoing expenditure of a club on transfers from the money generated by player sales.
The League’s Highest Spenders
The three highest net spenders across the last four seasons are:
- Chelsea (-£750.29 million net spend): The biggest spender in the Premier League across the last four seasons by just over £90 million is Chelsea. They’ve averaged -£187.57 per transfer window, but have an average finishing position of eighth. Brighton also finished with an average position of eighth with a total net spend of -£332.41, less than half of Chelsea’s. Sunderland finished with an average position of seventh, one place above Chelsea, despite spending around a fifth of their net spend with an outlay of just £157.79.
- Manchester United (-£660.08 million net spend): The second biggest spenders across the last four seasons are Manchester United with a total net spend of -£660.08 million. Their average finishing position is one above Chelsea’s at seventh, but still lower than others with a smaller outlay. Aston Villa, for example, have a net spend of -£107.02 and an average position of fifth.
- Arsenal (-£632.84 million net spend): The third highest spenders are Arsenal, the current champions of the Premier League, who have an outlay of £632.84 million across the past four seasons. They finish notably higher than the other big spenders with an average league position of second.
The League's Lowest Spenders
At the opposite end of the spectrum, the three lowest spenders who will be in the 2026/27 Premier League are:
- Hull City (+£15.47 million net spend): Hull is the only club to have a positive net spend across the past four seasons of +£15.47 million. They’ve had an average net spend of just £3.87 million per transfer window, which many teams would overtake with a single signing. The newly promoted club will be competing in the Premier League for the first time in ten years in the 2026/27 season, so it remains to be seen whether they can compete with those with a net expenditure hundreds of millions of pounds above theirs.
- Everton (-£20.81 million net spend): The second lowest spenders are Everton with a net outlay of just -£20.81 million. They have the smallest spending of any established team in the Premier League with just -£5.2 million net per season. Although they’ve been thrifty, their results have suffered with an average position of 15th across the last four seasons, just above the relegation zone.
- Coventry City (-£21.11 million net spend): It’s little surprise that the newly relegated teams dominate the lowest spenders over the last four seasons given the lower budget of teams in the Championship. Coventry City are the third lowest spenders in the Premier League with a net outlay of just -£21.11 million. The winners of the 2025/26 Championship will be hoping they can hold their own against the big spenders of the Premier League.
Money Can Buy Consistency
While we’ve proved that money doesn’t always mean top results, it does often result in consistency. The three top-performing teams in the Premier League across the last four seasons, Manchester City, Arsenal and Liverpool, are some of the biggest spenders.
- Arsenal have a net spend of -£632.84 and an average position of second.
- Liverpool have a net spend of -£430.73 and an average position of fourth.
- Manchester City have a net spend of -£409.65 and an average position of second.
Two of these top-performing sides don’t appear in the top three spenders, but all three have a considerable net spend. While money doesn’t necessarily mean walking away with the trophy, the depth these high-spending transfers give squads allows them to stay consistent across the seasons.
Spurs Overspend
Although in some cases, like that of Arsenal and Manchester City, high spending has translated to impressive results in the Premier League, that’s not always true. Manchester United and Chelsea’s high spending hasn’t resulted in top finishes, but the biggest discrepancy between spend and results is Tottenham Hotspur.
Spurs are the biggest outliers with a total net spend of -£609.3 million across the past four transfer windows, an average of -£152.33 million. Despite splashing the cash, Spurs have finished in an average position of 12th across those seasons.
In the last few seasons, they’ve gone after major signings like Xavi Simons for £55.8 million and Dominic Solanke for £55.2 million. However, that hasn’t translated into results for Spurs, who have been plagued by injuries. Solanke was injured for much of the 25/26 season with an ankle problem that needed surgery, and Simons is currently sidelined with an ACL tear.
High Spenders Relegated
Another example that splashing out in the transfer window doesn’t always bring results is West Ham. They had a net spend of -£306.34 million across the four most recent transfer windows for an average of -£76.59 million. That’s almost three times less than Aston Villa, who spent -£107.02 million for an average position of fifth, and almost half that of Sunderland, who had a net of -£157.79 million for an average position of seventh.
Despite being one of the Premier League’s big spenders, West Ham finished in 18th in the 2025/26 season and have been relegated to the Championship.
Do Teams Need to Spend Big to Win?
While spending big can help teams stay consistent and competitive across seasons, it doesn’t always result in top results. For West Ham, Spurs and Chelsea, high net spend hasn’t translated into the league positions they’d expect.
In other cases, like that of Aston Villa or Sunderland, they’ve outperformed what would have been expected from their transfer budget. For promoted sides like Coventry and Hull, they’ll be hoping that they don’t have to break the bank to compete in football’s most competitive league, but we’ll only have our answer to that when the league gets underway on the 21st of August.
