European football dazzles with world-record transfers and eye-catching fees, but beneath the spectacle lies a quiet structural fault line that threatens both sporting performance and financial stability.
That imbalance – how clubs spend across positions – is at the heart of Dr. Taner Karaman’s latest research, a study he says reveals the sport’s most overlooked weakness.
Karaman, Futbol Plus' Content Manager and author of Financial Governance and Transfer Policies in Football: A Positional Analysis of Expenditures in Europe’s Top Leagues (IJOSS), told Daily Sabah (DS) that the game’s obsession with attackers has created a skewed investment model with long-term consequences.
His decade-long look into football economics paints a picture of an industry wildly enthusiastic about forwards and midfielders, yet stubbornly reluctant to value defenders and goalkeepers on par.
“It’s not just the total money spent,” Karaman said. “It’s the distribution. Attackers and midfielders attract massive investment because they generate visibility and commercial appeal. Defenders and goalkeepers – the backbone of any winning team – are consistently undervalued. That imbalance affects performance and exposes clubs to financial risk.”
Karaman analyzed 2014-2024, a transformative period covering the tightening of UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rules, expanding data transparency, and the financial disruptions of the pandemic years. Working alone, he sifted through nearly 50 billion euros ($58.36 billion) in transfer activity.
“Every number needed to be checked and re-checked – loan returns, positional changes, dual registrations, all of it,” he said. “Being the only researcher ensured consistency across leagues and seasons. My 11 years in data journalism helped me handle that volume.”
Transfermarkt served as the study’s backbone thanks to its broad historical database and positional clarity.
Even with some estimates, it remains the industry standard for large-scale transfer analysis.
Karaman built a multi-layered verification system: cross-checks by season, league, position and annual flows. He recalls being struck that even the 49 billion euros circulating across 19 transfer windows is still overshadowed by financial crises elsewhere, including losses tied to Türkiye’s illegal betting scandals.
“It shows how fragile football finances can be,” he said.
The project’s most decisive finding: clubs overwhelmingly spend on attack.
Across all six major European leagues, attackers and midfielders receive the lion’s share of investment, while defenders and goalkeepers trail far behind.
The bias, Karaman said, grows out of tactical expectations and economic behavior.
“Goals sell. Fans want attacking football. Broadcasters want highlights, and sponsors want star forwards. That’s where commercial pressure is strongest,” he said. “Defense is harder to market. It’s invisible labor. Clubs invest where the returns look flashy, not always where the team needs balance.”
The imbalance exists even within midfield roles. Central midfielders – usually valued for control, structure and consistency – collectively posted 3.53 billion euros in losses during the decade. “The assumption that they’d deliver higher return simply didn’t materialize,” he said.
The Premier League outspent everyone by a wide margin, pouring in 19.15 billion euros and reinforcing its global dominance.
Ligue 1 showed a more sustainable, production-heavy model, while the Bundesliga maintained disciplined efficiency.
Türkiye’s Süper Lig, limited by revenue constraints, stayed relatively balanced but cautious.
But even in these differences, the core trend holds: spending inflates faster than football’s financial sustainability.
Karaman warned that positional spending imbalances have real-world consequences.
Clubs chasing short-term fixes often jeopardize their long-term stability.
“Malaga and Parma are prime examples – clubs with unbalanced squads and budgets that collapsed under their own weight,” he said. “Transfers became solutions to immediate pressure rather than strategic planning.”
UEFA’s FFP rules, he acknowledges, improved general discipline, but not competitive equity.
“Big clubs adapt. Small clubs pivot to selling. The gap remains,” he said. England and Italy, he added, still show worrying patterns: revenue growth is slower than spending, pushing clubs toward cycles of financial vulnerability.
Overspending on attackers does not guarantee trophies.
Karaman’s analysis shows that clubs with inflated offensive budgets often struggle with balance.
Weak defensive structures cost points in both domestic leagues and European competitions.
“Success depends on strategic investment,” he said. “Not just spending, but spending intelligently. On-field performance increasingly correlates with sustainable financial behavior.”
Karaman believes artificial intelligence will reshape transfer policies, allowing clubs to model injury risk, development curves and performance projections with unprecedented accuracy.
“Brentford and Midtjylland are early examples,” he said. “Low salaries, smart signings, and data-led squad building.”
He expects transfer inflation to continue in the short term but sees stabilizing trends ahead. Youth development, stricter oversight and data-driven scouting will gradually rationalize spending.
His proposed reforms include positional spending caps, five-year financial sustainability plans, incentives for academy integration, and full transparency in budgeting and transfers. The goal, he says, is simple: “Sustainability is about spending smart, not spending more.”
Karaman hopes future research will link transfer spending to injury risk, development efficiency and AI-driven value indexes.
But his core message remains the same: football’s future belongs to clubs that balance excitement with science.
“Modern football rewards strategy,” he said. “The clubs that combine financial intelligence, balanced squads and long-term planning are the ones built to last.”
