Why Liverpool cannot afford to give big three ‘whatever’ they want
Consecutive Liverpool Premier League home games have witnessed the unfurling of two emotive banners.
“He fires the bow, now give him the dough,” adorned the Kop before victory over Aston Villa, the first open demand on the famous stand for Liverpool’s owners to meet Mohamed Salah’s contractual expectations.
There is broad approval for the sentiment from those perplexed by the impasse in negotiations, although many will acknowledge the caveat that it would be instructive to know exactly what is needed to keep Salah beyond this season, the fair assumption being it will not be a reduction on the two-year deal worth an estimated £40 million he signed in 2022.
Liverpool have adopted a determined stance not to privately divulge what Salah, Trent Alexander-Arnoldand Virgil van Dijk are asking for, while the trio know that the longer the situation drags amid stellar performances, the greater the external calls to “just give them whatever they want”.
‘Stop exploiting loyalty’
Another Kop message was dispatched to Liverpool’s hierarchy before October’s win over Brighton and Hove Albion.
“Stop exploiting loyalty,” it read, spectators rightly backing the essential Football Supporters’ Association campaign protesting against rising ticket prices.
There has been an eye-watering and depressing 873 per cent ticket price increase at Anfield since 1992. Citing Liverpool as an example, the FSA uses the Bank of England’s inflation calculator to show that a ticket costing £4 in 1990 ought to be £9.59 in 2024. The cheapest ticket on the Kop today is £39, although that is still less than many Premier League rivals.
The link between inflation-busting ticket price increases and mega-inflation-busting players’ salaries does not attract a flurry of intrepid investigators, and it is understandable that the greatest performers are considered blameless for seeking maximum reward for their contribution.
It can be justifiably argued that Liverpool’s recent 2 per cent ticket rise barely makes a dent in the salary bill.
Liverpool made £80 million from match-day revenues in their last accounts, so their latest increase will earn them another £1.6 million year upon year. That is a month’s pay for Salah when he is collecting his bonuses on top of flat wage. Is the hassle and the risk of alienating fans worth it? Definitely not. The profits of the next sponsorship deal could cover the costs, so, commercially, it shows a lack of ingenuity
But when assessing why any club, even one of Liverpool’s status, are hesitant before increasing “administrative costs” of £562 million a year, it is myopic to disassociate one aspect of a club’s budget from another.
A 2021 study undertaken by the European research group Frontier Economics showed that Premier League wages had increased by 2,811 per cent since the formation of the league. It will be more in 2024. No sooner are broadcast revenues for the top flight rising to £6.7 billion, salaries of £350,000 a week for top earners are considered the “going rate”, while agents’ fees across the Premier League are swelling to £400 million a year. Club executives yearn for salary controls and some want a wage cap. While the status quo remains, the only guarantee for every supporter is that “administrative costs” will trickle down eventually, whether via ticket prices or Sky, TNT and Amazon subscriptions.
The unpalatable truth
If Liverpool are to increase the salary ceiling of their oldest players beyond £20 million a year while needing to renew the terms of players in their early and mid-twenties to market value, where is the money coming from? Or perhaps more pertinently, what will be the knock-on impact? How much will be left for future squad rebuilding if those heading towards their mid-thirties suddenly drop off and can no longer deliver over 60 matches a season?
The unpalatable truth is that while Liverpool obviously want to keep Salah, Van Dijk and Alexander-Arnold, they operate in a world in which they cannot afford to give all three of their soon-to-be-out-of-contract stars “whatever they want” without veering from a successful financial plan. Cautious voices will warn of a risk in overstretching resources and limiting the funds required to bid for those in the 20-26 age bracket, which has always been the preferred profile.
Right now, aged 33 and 32 respectively, Van Dijk and Salah are as good as ever. Liverpool’s analytics department must risk-assess whether the same will be true when they are nearer to 35 and 34. Those over 32 who previously renewed – most notably James Milner – did so on reduced terms in the knowledge that they were not guaranteed starters. With respect to Milner, there was more room to manoeuvre because he was not producing the weekly level of Salah and Van Dijk and was prepared to sign a one-year extension, insuring the club against any dramatic performance dip.
In essence, Salah and Van Dijk’s enduring greatness has made the deliberations much tougher. In the fickle football world, today’s financial no-brainers are next season’s expensive mistakes.
Liverpool have recently excelled at taking the emotion out of such consequential decisions, even if every opinion poll will give the club a 100 per cent approval rating should they announce three new deals in the near future. But Fenway Sports Group’s (FSG) current dilemma is as complex as any during its Anfield reign and the economic reasons for the stalemate are no mystery.
Liverpool’s last set of accounts showed a pre-tax loss of £9 million, despite overall revenues of £594 million. Even when considering the next broadcast deal, which kicks in at the start of the 2025-26 campaign, the club will not be self-sustaining if the starting XI tilts towards players expecting the biggest wages paid by Real Madrid, Manchester United and Manchester City. Hence why the club are always striving to maintain a healthy balance between the high-salaried established superstars and those on incrementally rising deals.
This has triggered an enduring fan debate – usually on social media – because there are those who equate ambition with spending. They believe that their club should be pushing the profit and sustainability rules to the same limits as others, some still seemingly under the mistaken belief that salaries and transfer fees are subsidised by the principal owner’s private fortune and all can be fixed with the whimsical signing of a cheque. FSG said on the day it bought the club in 2011 that it would never willingly overspend and declared the days of players being handed costly, long-term contracts when their best years were behind them were over. Joe Cole’s four-year deal worth £4.8 million a season in 2010 was cited as the biggest example of wastage after FSG completed its due diligence.
Inconceivable all three will leave
The argument as to whether Liverpool need a different strategy in the era of nation states bankrolling rivals always seems one bad season from being reignited, but for all the criticism the club have continued to compete for top honours following the “moneyball” way. When Liverpool have won big, that has been a badge of honour. When they have fallen narrowly short, it has provoked laments for what might have been with more investment.
Even at this late stage, it seems inconceivable that Liverpool will be arranging a guard of honour for all three at the end of their final Anfield game this season. Given the enduring contribution of the legendary trio in helping Liverpool to the top of the Premier League and Champions League, it would feel like the ultimate act of self-sabotage for Arne Slot heading into the 2025-26 campaign.
Liverpool waited 20 years for a centre-back of Van Dijk’s class, for example. It will require another John W Henry open letter to explain the logic behind letting the captain go while he is still playing as well as any defender in Europe, and his positive influence on younger defenders Ibrahima Konate and Jarell Quansah is immeasurable.
For an imminent solution, there must be compromise. A prolonged brinkmanship phase of negotiations has been ongoing since last summer. Salah, Van Dijk and Alexander-Arnold, 26, have intermittently dispatched messages that make it sound obvious they want to stay and may feel – as has been the case previously – the club will eventually recognise the cost of losing them is too much, especially if the gaping holes left by their exit costs Champions League qualification 18 months from now.
Liverpool will feel Van Dijk, Salah and Alexander-Arnold are well rewarded for their elevated status on and off the pitch and even if others can offer better terms, they may not experience such worship, comfort, influence and success. The players need only ask Philippe Coutinho, Sadio Mane or Jordan Hendersonabout that, although they may get a different answer about the joys of a post-Anfield career if they speak to Xabi Alonso, Javier Mascherano or Luis Suarez.
There are conundrums on all sides of a delicately poised issue as Liverpool and the trio edge closer to ending an era for three of their greatest-ever players, or ensuring they persevere in inspiring a new one under Slot.
Why Liverpool cannot afford to give big three ‘whatever’ they want
Consecutive Liverpool Premier League home games have witnessed the unfurling of two emotive banners.
“He fires the bow, now give him the dough,” adorned the Kop before victory over Aston Villa, the first open demand on the famous stand for Liverpool’s owners to meet Mohamed Salah’s contractual expectations.
There is broad approval for the sentiment from those perplexed by the impasse in negotiations, although many will acknowledge the caveat that it would be instructive to know exactly what is needed to keep Salah beyond this season, the fair assumption being it will not be a reduction on the two-year deal worth an estimated £40 million he signed in 2022.
Liverpool have adopted a determined stance not to privately divulge what Salah, Trent Alexander-Arnoldand Virgil van Dijk are asking for, while the trio know that the longer the situation drags amid stellar performances, the greater the external calls to “just give them whatever they want”.
‘Stop exploiting loyalty’
Another Kop message was dispatched to Liverpool’s hierarchy before October’s win over Brighton and Hove Albion.
“Stop exploiting loyalty,” it read, spectators rightly backing the essential Football Supporters’ Association campaign protesting against rising ticket prices.
There has been an eye-watering and depressing 873 per cent ticket price increase at Anfield since 1992. Citing Liverpool as an example, the FSA uses the Bank of England’s inflation calculator to show that a ticket costing £4 in 1990 ought to be £9.59 in 2024. The cheapest ticket on the Kop today is £39, although that is still less than many Premier League rivals.
The link between inflation-busting ticket price increases and mega-inflation-busting players’ salaries does not attract a flurry of intrepid investigators, and it is understandable that the greatest performers are considered blameless for seeking maximum reward for their contribution.
It can be justifiably argued that Liverpool’s recent 2 per cent ticket rise barely makes a dent in the salary bill.
Liverpool made £80 million from match-day revenues in their last accounts, so their latest increase will earn them another £1.6 million year upon year. That is a month’s pay for Salah when he is collecting his bonuses on top of flat wage. Is the hassle and the risk of alienating fans worth it? Definitely not. The profits of the next sponsorship deal could cover the costs, so, commercially, it shows a lack of ingenuity
But when assessing why any club, even one of Liverpool’s status, are hesitant before increasing “administrative costs” of £562 million a year, it is myopic to disassociate one aspect of a club’s budget from another.
A 2021 study undertaken by the European research group Frontier Economics showed that Premier League wages had increased by 2,811 per cent since the formation of the league. It will be more in 2024. No sooner are broadcast revenues for the top flight rising to £6.7 billion, salaries of £350,000 a week for top earners are considered the “going rate”, while agents’ fees across the Premier League are swelling to £400 million a year. Club executives yearn for salary controls and some want a wage cap. While the status quo remains, the only guarantee for every supporter is that “administrative costs” will trickle down eventually, whether via ticket prices or Sky, TNT and Amazon subscriptions.
The unpalatable truth
If Liverpool are to increase the salary ceiling of their oldest players beyond £20 million a year while needing to renew the terms of players in their early and mid-twenties to market value, where is the money coming from? Or perhaps more pertinently, what will be the knock-on impact? How much will be left for future squad rebuilding if those heading towards their mid-thirties suddenly drop off and can no longer deliver over 60 matches a season?
The unpalatable truth is that while Liverpool obviously want to keep Salah, Van Dijk and Alexander-Arnold, they operate in a world in which they cannot afford to give all three of their soon-to-be-out-of-contract stars “whatever they want” without veering from a successful financial plan. Cautious voices will warn of a risk in overstretching resources and limiting the funds required to bid for those in the 20-26 age bracket, which has always been the preferred profile.
Right now, aged 33 and 32 respectively, Van Dijk and Salah are as good as ever. Liverpool’s analytics department must risk-assess whether the same will be true when they are nearer to 35 and 34. Those over 32 who previously renewed – most notably James Milner – did so on reduced terms in the knowledge that they were not guaranteed starters. With respect to Milner, there was more room to manoeuvre because he was not producing the weekly level of Salah and Van Dijk and was prepared to sign a one-year extension, insuring the club against any dramatic performance dip.
In essence, Salah and Van Dijk’s enduring greatness has made the deliberations much tougher. In the fickle football world, today’s financial no-brainers are next season’s expensive mistakes.
Liverpool have recently excelled at taking the emotion out of such consequential decisions, even if every opinion poll will give the club a 100 per cent approval rating should they announce three new deals in the near future. But Fenway Sports Group’s (FSG) current dilemma is as complex as any during its Anfield reign and the economic reasons for the stalemate are no mystery.
Liverpool’s last set of accounts showed a pre-tax loss of £9 million, despite overall revenues of £594 million. Even when considering the next broadcast deal, which kicks in at the start of the 2025-26 campaign, the club will not be self-sustaining if the starting XI tilts towards players expecting the biggest wages paid by Real Madrid, Manchester United and Manchester City. Hence why the club are always striving to maintain a healthy balance between the high-salaried established superstars and those on incrementally rising deals.
This has triggered an enduring fan debate – usually on social media – because there are those who equate ambition with spending. They believe that their club should be pushing the profit and sustainability rules to the same limits as others, some still seemingly under the mistaken belief that salaries and transfer fees are subsidised by the principal owner’s private fortune and all can be fixed with the whimsical signing of a cheque. FSG said on the day it bought the club in 2011 that it would never willingly overspend and declared the days of players being handed costly, long-term contracts when their best years were behind them were over. Joe Cole’s four-year deal worth £4.8 million a season in 2010 was cited as the biggest example of wastage after FSG completed its due diligence.
Inconceivable all three will leave
The argument as to whether Liverpool need a different strategy in the era of nation states bankrolling rivals always seems one bad season from being reignited, but for all the criticism the club have continued to compete for top honours following the “moneyball” way. When Liverpool have won big, that has been a badge of honour. When they have fallen narrowly short, it has provoked laments for what might have been with more investment.
Even at this late stage, it seems inconceivable that Liverpool will be arranging a guard of honour for all three at the end of their final Anfield game this season. Given the enduring contribution of the legendary trio in helping Liverpool to the top of the Premier League and Champions League, it would feel like the ultimate act of self-sabotage for Arne Slot heading into the 2025-26 campaign.
Liverpool waited 20 years for a centre-back of Van Dijk’s class, for example. It will require another John W Henry open letter to explain the logic behind letting the captain go while he is still playing as well as any defender in Europe, and his positive influence on younger defenders Ibrahima Konate and Jarell Quansah is immeasurable.
For an imminent solution, there must be compromise. A prolonged brinkmanship phase of negotiations has been ongoing since last summer. Salah, Van Dijk and Alexander-Arnold, 26, have intermittently dispatched messages that make it sound obvious they want to stay and may feel – as has been the case previously – the club will eventually recognise the cost of losing them is too much, especially if the gaping holes left by their exit costs Champions League qualification 18 months from now.
Liverpool will feel Van Dijk, Salah and Alexander-Arnold are well rewarded for their elevated status on and off the pitch and even if others can offer better terms, they may not experience such worship, comfort, influence and success. The players need only ask Philippe Coutinho, Sadio Mane or Jordan Hendersonabout that, although they may get a different answer about the joys of a post-Anfield career if they speak to Xabi Alonso, Javier Mascherano or Luis Suarez.
There are conundrums on all sides of a delicately poised issue as Liverpool and the trio edge closer to ending an era for three of their greatest-ever players, or ensuring they persevere in inspiring a new one under Slot.
