Arsene Wenger has been criticised countless times for his transfer policy. The cynics can’t wait for him to “return to form” and head back to the French league for a couple of bargains after splashing out £42million on Mesut Ozil.
There’s a view held by an alarming number in the football community that you have to spend big in order to win. The words £30 million-plus signing won’t always be uttered, but we know exactly what people mean when they say “world-class centre-back,” for example.
But why is Wenger not praised for his reluctance, up until this summer, to spend big? Ok, he has a familiar market in France, but what’s the problem? The assumption, obviously, is that all players from France are either going to be terrible or not quite good enough, but still generally bad. People like to use players like Gervinho as the template, ignoring the fact that Eden Hazard, Didier Drogba, Miralem Pjanic, Eric Abidal, Michael Essien, Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang, and many others have risen up through French football and moved on elsewhere only to enhance their statuses as very good players.
We in England look to clubs like Chelsea, Manchester United and Manchester City and are led to believe that big spending is the only way, that world-class footballers can’t possibly cost less than £20 million.
On the continent, Lyon, Porto, Sevilla, Dortmund, and Juventus have all seen incredible success off the back of a smart and shrewd transfer policy. Udinese, too, have unearthed some outstanding talents over the years at very little expense.
For Arsenal, Olivier Giroud at £10 million may not be good enough to lead Wenger’s side to the Premier League title – I’m not saying he isn’t, but that seems to be the general consensus – yet what makes him any worse than Fernando Torres? Is it that the Spaniard cost five times as much, somehow dictating that he’s a better forward or even more useful?
[cat_link cat=”arsenal” type=”list”]
Arsenal fans needed the signing of Ozil to lift the club. It was a vital arrival in a time of uncertainty. But he doesn’t have to be the benchmark for all future signings. So what if Wenger opts to return to France in the next transfer window? There have been a good number of misses, but there have also been a great deal of hits. Like Sylvain Wiltord and Robert Pires over a decade ago, or Laurent Koscielny more recently. Lyon are in dire straits at the moment, but they do have a handful of players who would be of great use at Arsenal. Maxime Gonalons and Alexandre Lacazette come to mind.
The football landscape is one that UEFA hope will be painted by the rules of Financial Fair Play. We’re yet to see how that will play out, though many are under the impression that the top clubs, or those who make UEFA’s money, will go unpunished.
And yet even then, with Wenger determined to keep Arsenal in line with what they earn, the Frenchman still feels the critical backhand of those who almost feel as though their game is being made a mockery of through low-key signings.
Mikel Arteta, whatever his age, is a vital component of this Arsenal team. He may not be a defensive midfielder in the traditional, English sense, but he does a damn fine job at helping to protect the back four and aid in the team’s possession game. He cost £10 million from Everton, and yet largely for that reason he’s overlooked as a player capable of helping a team to the summit of its domestic league.
Aaron Ramsey, who has been outstanding this entire calendar year, not just this season, cost a little over £5 million from Cardiff. Per Mertesacker, hugely underrated, was £10 million from Werder Bremen. And Bacary Sagna, long hailed as one of the best right-backs in the Premier League since his arrival, cost £7 million from Auxerre – another fantastic buy from the much-maligned Ligue 1.
Splashing the cash isn’t always necessary. Wenger has often rolled out the line that money isn’t an issue and if they find the right players they’ll look to do business. Many fans would have seen that as nothing but good PR, and for good reason, but that is the mentality that well-run clubs should use. Key words being “right players,” not “universally-accepted transfer fees.”
Why should football clubs be forced to overspend just for the appeasement of others? Overspending is what brought Lyon to its knees, with the assumption that stretching the boundaries in the way of spending, rather than identifying genuine quality, would help transfer domestic success to the European arena.
Every now and then you need an Ozil – if you’re financially capable, that is. Dortmund signed Henrikh Mkhitaryan as Mario Goetze’s replacement because they could, and because the Armenian fit the bill for the standard of quality they needed. In comparison, Aubameyang, at £13 million less than Mkhitaryan’s £24 million transfer fee, will likely be the direct replacement for Robert Lewandowksi. Problem? Well not really. He’s good enough. He’s capable of scoring goals outside of France, and his ceiling for potential won’t be dictated by the price of his transfer.
It acts as further justification that helps to uphold the Wenger approach to transfers. Arsenal’s scouting may come into question from time to time, and even Wenger’s reluctance to pull the trigger on a deal. But paying low fees for high quality should be applauded, not viewed as a weakness.
Should Wenger’s transfer approach be criticised or applauded?
Join the debate below
