The Growth of Player Transfer Creditors and Debtors in Premier League Football: 2010 to Present

Summary

This report examines the significant growth in trade creditors (transfer payables) and the complex management of trade debtors (transfer receivables) related to player transfers across Premier League football clubs from 2010 to the present day.

The analysis reveals a dramatic expansion in transfer market activity, largely facilitated by the widespread adoption of instalment payment structures. As of February 2025, Premier League clubs collectively owe over £3 billion in future transfer instalments, a figure that has seen substantial year-on-year growth.  

The Premier League’s financial landscape is characterised by its global dominance in transfer spending, committing €23.02 billion in transfer fees over the last decade, representing 28.1% of the total global market.

This aggressive acquisition strategy has resulted in the league having the lowest net spending (-€11.54 billion) over the same period, indicating a massive net outflow of funds for player acquisitions and a corresponding accumulation of transfer payables.  

The report highlights how financial regulations, specifically UEFA’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) and the Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR), have profoundly influenced these dynamics. While these regulations aim for financial prudence, they have also shaped clubs’ strategies, leading to an increased reliance on deferred payment structures and strategic player trading to manage liquidity and maintain compliance. The closure of certain accounting “loopholes,” such as the ability to amortise transfer fees over very long contract durations, is set to further reshape future transfer strategies and the reported financial positions of clubs.

1. Introduction: The Evolving Landscape of Player Transfer Finance in the Premier League

1.1. Defining Trade Creditors and Debtors in Football Transfers

In the intricate financial ecosystem of professional football, player transfers represent a significant component of a club’s balance sheet. “Trade creditors” in this context refer to the amounts owed by a club for the acquisition of new players. These obligations, often termed “transfer payables,” typically involve agreements to disburse transfer fees in a series of instalments over several years rather than as a single upfront payment.

Conversely, “trade debtors” represent amounts owed to a club from the sale of players. These “transfer receivables” are also frequently structured as deferred payments, with the selling club receiving the agreed fee in scheduled instalments over time. Both transfer payables and receivables are crucial balance sheet items, reflecting the deferred payment obligations and deferred income streams that are fundamental to modern football finance.

1.2. Evolution of Player Transfer Payment Structures: From Upfront to Instalments

Historically, player transfers have predominantly involved more immediate, upfront payments. However, the contemporary transfer market has evolved into a financially sophisticated environment. As is often the case, operatives are moving at a quicker pace than the regulators. The standard mechanism for player transfers now involves a negotiated transfer fee, which serves as financial compensation paid by an interested club to the club holding the player’s exclusive contracted playing rights for the early, mutually agreed termination of that contract.  

A pivotal shift in this evolution is the widespread adoption of instalment payments for transfer fees. This practice, where payments are often spread across multiple years, has become the norm. This payment structure enables clubs to manage their cash flow more effectively and commit to larger transfer deals than their immediate liquidity might otherwise permit. The prevalence of these instalment payments means that player acquisition has effectively become a form of unregulated credit spending for clubs. This financial mechanism allows clubs to acquire talent without necessarily having the full cash amount readily available at the point of transfer, thereby committing to substantial future payments rather than immediate lump sums. This directly contributes to the accumulation of significant transfer payables on a club’s balance sheet, as current acquisitions translate into long-term financial obligations. This strategic use of deferred payments is a fundamental driver behind the observed growth in transfer creditors across the Premier League.  

1.3. The Strategic Importance of Transfer Debt and Receivables for Club Financial Health

Transfer payables represent significant liabilities that directly impact a club’s overall debt levels and immediate liquidity. Managing these deferred payment obligations is critical for maintaining financial stability and operational solvency. Conversely, transfer receivables, while classified as assets, often require active financial management to convert into immediate cash.

To address short-term cash flow needs, clubs frequently employ “receivables finance,” a mechanism that allows them to sell a future income stream (such as transfer instalments) to a lender at a discounted rate or to borrow against that specific receivable. This practice provides immediate access to funds that would otherwise be received over an extended period.  Depending on the club’s creditworthiness lenders can vary from high street banks to virtuously anonymous offshore lenders – seemingly with no oversight by regulators.

These figures are not merely accounting entries; they are critical for a club’s compliance with increasingly stringent financial regulations, notably the Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR). Under these rules, the profit generated from player sales and the amortisation of player acquisition costs play a key role in determining a club’s financial health and its ability to avoid sanctions. Therefore, the strategic management of both transfer payables and receivables is central to a club’s financial planning, competitive positioning, and regulatory adherence.  

2. Aggregate Premier League Transfer Creditors and Debtors (2010-Present)

2.1. Overall Growth Trajectory of Transfer Payables (Creditors) Across the League

The Premier League has firmly established itself as the dominant force in the global football transfer market. Over the last decade, Premier League clubs collectively committed an astonishing €23.02 billion in transfer fees, accounting for a substantial 28.1% of the total global market.

This aggressive and sustained investment in player acquisitions has led to the Premier League recording the lowest net spending among major leagues, with a negative balance of -€11.54 billion over the past ten years. This significant net outflow of funds for player acquisitions directly translates into a substantial and growing accumulation of transfer payables across the league.  

The magnitude of these deferred payment obligations is striking. As of February 2025, Premier League clubs collectively owe over £3 billion in future transfer instalments. This aggregate debt has shown a remarkable upward trajectory; for instance, European club debt surged by 50% between 2019 and 2024.

Paradoxically, average debt levels across clubs actually increased by 48% following the implementation of Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations. This suggests that while FFP aimed to curb operational losses by linking expenditure to revenue, it did not necessarily discourage the accumulation of debt- particularly inter club debt.

Clubs may have strategically shifted their financial models, opting for investments in tangible and intangible assets like players (whose costs are amortised over contract periods) and stadium infrastructure (which is often exempt from certain financial calculations), rather than incurring immediate operational losses. This approach allows them to comply with regulatory limits on annual losses while still increasing their long-term financial commitments in the form of non-regulated transfer payables.  

2.2. Trends in Transfer Receivables (Debtors) and their Liquidity Management

As transfer fees are predominantly paid in instalments, transfer receivables represent a significant future income stream for clubs that sell players. However, the deferred nature of these payments means that clubs may often face short-term liquidity challenges, even when substantial amounts are owed to them. To bridge these gaps and gain immediate access to cash, clubs increasingly turn to “receivables finance”. This financial tool allows a club to either sell its right to receive future transfer instalments to a lender at a discounted rate or to borrow against that specific receivable. This practice effectively unlocks the value of the receivable immediately, rather than waiting for periodic instalments- albeit at a financial cost in terms of fees and interest costs..  

The use of transfer receivables financing has seen significant growth, with an influx of instructions from football clubs in recent years. This trend underscores that despite the Premier League’s immense revenues and growing asset base, clubs are under constant pressure to maintain sufficient working capital. It is a direct function of clubs being under-capitalised.

The need to accelerate future income streams, whether to fund new player acquisitions, cover operational costs, or comply with financial regulations, highlights a continuous cycle of debt and deferred income within the transfer market. This mechanism, while providing essential cash flow, also introduces additional financial costs in the form of discounts or interest charges.  

2.3. Impact of Financial Regulations (FFP/PSR) on Transfer Debt Dynamics

Financial regulations have played a transformative role in shaping the dynamics of transfer debt and receivables. UEFA’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations, approved in 2010 with initial assessments beginning in 2011 and break-even requirements from 2013, mandate that clubs balance their spending with revenues and prevent the accumulation of unsustainable debt. Clubs participating in UEFA competitions must demonstrate that they do not have overdue payables to other clubs, players, or tax authorities.  

Similarly, the Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) has permitted clubs to lose up to £105 million over a three-year period, with a maximum of £15 million from the club’s own money, and any additional losses up to £90 million requiring “secure funding” from owners (typically through share purchases).

Often overlooked, but PSR also includes a solvency requirement, obliging clubs to settle overdue payables within specified time frames.  

A notable element that influenced transfer payment structures was the strategy deployed by Chelsea.

This accounting practice allowed clubs to spread the cost of expensive player acquisitions over very long contract durations, thereby reducing the annual amortisation charge that impacts profitability calculations under PSR. For example, Chelsea’s £105 million acquisition of Enzo Fernandez was spread to an accounting cost of £13 million per year over an eight-year contract, and Moises Caicedo’s £115 million fee became £14 million per year.

This strategy enabled clubs to make substantial upfront commitments in the transfer market while minimising the immediate impact on their reported annual losses, thus assisting with PSR compliance. This accounting approach, while compliant at the time, contributed to the overall increase in transfer payables by allowing clubs to undertake larger deals than might otherwise be financially prudent on an annual basis.  

However, this loophole was closed from the 2025/26 season onwards, with a new five-year limit imposed on the period over which transfer fees can be amortised. This change will compel clubs to account for transfer costs more rapidly, potentially leading to higher reported losses in the short term for clubs that continue to spend heavily.

This regulatory adjustment is a direct response to the perceived circumvention of financial sustainability objectives and is expected to significantly influence future transfer strategies and the reported debt burden.  

More broadly, while FFP and PSR aim to foster financial prudence, their implementation has had complex consequences on transfer debt. The emphasis on break-even and profitability has incentivised clubs to invest in players, whose acquisition costs are capitalised and amortised over time, rather than expensed immediately.

This allows for higher spending within regulatory limits while increasing long-term payables. Furthermore, the regulations have underscored the importance of player sales, as profits generated from these disposals can be used to offset operational losses and improve a club’s financial position for compliance purposes. This has inadvertently contributed to a dynamic where financially stronger clubs, with greater capacity for large-scale player trading and access to sophisticated financing, have seen their dominance reinforced, making it more challenging for smaller or less wealthy clubs to compete effectively.  

In simple words, it aids anti-competitive behaviour.

3. Club-Specific Analysis of Transfer Creditors and Debtors

The aggregate trends in Premier League transfer payables and receivables are further illuminated by examining the financial positions of individual clubs. The data, primarily from recent annual reports and expert analyses, reveals significant variations in the scale and management of these obligations and assets.

Manchester United: This club has experienced a dramatic increase in its transfer debt.

In 2013, at the time of Sir Alex Ferguson’s retirement, Manchester United owed other clubs just £34 million in transfer fees. This figure rose to £136 million by 2021. By June 2024, their transfer payables stood at £331.4 million, further escalating to £390.79 million by December 2024, with approximately £200 million of this amount due within the next 12 months.

This rapid increase is attributed to over £600 million spent on new players in recent transfer windows, with many deals structured on extended credit terms. Concurrently, Manchester United is owed £90.8 million in transfer fees from other clubs, with about half of this expected within the next year. When combined with other forms of debt, Manchester United’s total financial obligations exceed £1 billion.  

Chelsea: This club holds the highest reported transfer payables in the Premier League, owing £491 million in future transfer instalments.

This figure is particularly striking as it exceeds their total revenues (excluding player trading) of approximately £452 million for the 2023/24 season by £39 million. Chelsea recorded a profit on the disposal of player registrations of £152.5 million in 2024. The club also faces the need to raise £60 million through player sales to comply with UEFA fines and squad registration rules. Their substantial transfer payables are a direct consequence of heavy spending on new players, many of whom were signed on long-term contracts, which amplified amortisation costs.  

Tottenham Hotspur: Tottenham’s total transfer debt (payables) is the second highest in the league at £337 million.

This represents a significant increase from £88 million in 2019. The club is owed £58 million in transfer receivables. In 2023, £159 million in current liabilities related to transfer fees were due within one year, with £185 million in trade payables due in FY2025. While the club carries substantial debt, much of it is attributable to their new stadium, and strong operating profits and cash balances have generally allowed them to manage liquidity effectively.  

Arsenal: Arsenal owes £268 million in future transfer instalments.

Their cash outflow for player purchases was £247.65 million in 2024 and £184.3 million in 2023. Conversely, they received £54.26 million from player sales in 2024 and £34.85 million in 2023. Their “other creditors” related to player transfers stood at £267.8 million in 2024 and £239.5 million in 2023, while “other debtors” from player transfers were £38.5 million in 2024 and £26.7 million in 2023. The profit on sale of player registrations was £51.1 million in 2024, a significant increase from £10.7 million in 2023. The levels of debtors and creditors are directly influenced by their transfer activity, with instalments being payable and receivable over time. Financial regulations have influenced their transfer market decisions, notably in January 2024.  

Manchester City: Manchester City owes £230 million in future transfer instalments.

Despite significant expenditure on players, the club has recouped £599.4 million from player sales, resulting in a net spend lower than five other Premier League clubs. Their profit on disposal of player registrations was £139.0 million in 2024 and £121.7 million in 2023. This strong performance in player sales helps them manage their net spend and overall financial position effectively.  

Liverpool: Liverpool owes £123 million in future transfer instalments.

Their player receivables (debtors) were £66.58 million in 2023 and £55.09 million in 2022, while player creditors stood at £112.39 million in 2023 and £93.67 million in 2022. Player acquisitions amounted to £133.5 million in 2023 and £68.7 million in 2022. Profits from player sales were £28.1 million in 2022 and £39 million in 2021. Liverpool is generally known for its financial prudence, aiming to maintain a strong financial position within PSR guidelines, despite recent aggressive activity in the transfer market.  

Newcastle United: Newcastle United owes £80 million in future transfer instalments.

Their transfer fees payable within 12 months increased from £32.71 million in 2023 to £86.66 million in 2024, with long-term payables also rising from £47.22 million to £73.68 million. Transfer fees receivable saw a dramatic increase from £2.83 million in 2023 to £74.78 million (within 12 months) and £21.63 million (after one year) in 2024. The profit on disposal of players was £69.8 million in 2024, a significant jump from £2.8 million in 2023. The club is actively working to improve its financial position post-takeover and manage PSR compliance.  

Everton: Before the Friedkin acquisition, Everton faced significant financial challenges, having received points deductions for PSR breaches.

Their total debts, including trade creditors (but excluding a shareholder loan), exceeded £787 million in 2023/24.  (nearly £1,2 billion including Moshiri’s loan)

Creditors (amounts owed by the club) increased by over £20.6 million in 2023/24, compared to £0.32 million in 2022/23, while debtors (amounts owed to the club) decreased by over £12.7 million in 2023/24. Player trading generated a profit of £48.5 million in 2023/24 , with player acquisitions at £54.8 million and cash inflow from player disposals at £80.2 million in the same period. Player sales were for several years, vital for Everton to offset losses and manage cash flow – a fact which severely impacted their negotiating power on many occasions.

West Ham United: West Ham strategically accelerated a number of future transfer fee receivables in 2023/24. This resulted in an implied interest credit of £4.63 million on long-term transfer fees receivable, while incurring an implied interest charge of £7.962 million on transfer fees payable in 2023/24. The sale of Declan Rice contributed significantly to £100.98 million in proceeds from player disposals in 2023/24, alongside £118.42 million in player purchases. The club leverages strategic player sales and the acceleration of receivables to manage its finances and reinvest in the squad.  

Aston Villa: Aston Villa saw its net transfer debt drop to £84 million in 2023/24 from £110 million in the prior year. They invested £168 million in player acquisitions in 2023/24 and £63.7 million in 2022/23. Player sales generated a profit of £64 million in 2023/24 and £22 million in 2022/23. Player sales are critical for the club to balance investment with PSR compliance and manage reported losses.  

Wolverhampton Wanderers: Wolves reported a net player trading loss of £2.6 million in 2023/24, a significant improvement from a £38.6 million loss in 2022/23. Player sales generated a profit of £64.6 million in 2023/24 and £43.9 million in 2023. Amortisation and impairment charges stood at £67.2 million in 2023/24 and £82.4 million in 2023. The club has demonstrated proactive management of player trading to ensure compliance with PSR.  

Leicester City: Leicester City recorded net profits from player trading of £74.8 million in 2023, primarily from the sales of Wesley Fofana and James Maddison. The net book value of their capitalised players was £109.5 million in 2023, down from £162.5 million in 2022. Player sales are a critical component for their profitability, particularly following their relegation, and the club has faced charges for alleged PSR breaches.  

Brighton & Hove Albion: Brighton’s turnover increased by 17.2% to £204.5 million in 2022/23, plus the fees from the sales of Alexis Mac Allister, Yves Bissouma, and Marc Cucurella, as well as compensation for Graham Potter’s move. Fees for Moises Caicedo and Robert Sanchez were not included in the 2022/23 figures as their sales concluded after June 30, 2023.

The club made a partial repayment to owner Tony Bloom, reducing the loan balance from £406.5 million to £373.3 million. Player sales are crucial for their financial sustainability and reducing reliance on owner investment.  

Crystal Palace: Crystal Palace experienced high deficits in the financial years from 2018/19 to 2020/21. While their full accounts for 2023/24 are still pending, the club’s historical financial volatility suggests that player trading remains a key factor in balancing their books.  

4. Conclusion: The Intertwined Future of Premier League Finances and Transfer Dynamics

The Premier League’s financial model, significantly bolstered by escalating broadcast revenues and diversified commercial deals, has fuelled an unprecedented era of transfer spending. This report demonstrates that a substantial portion of this expenditure is facilitated by the widespread use of instalment payments, leading to a continuous and growing accumulation of transfer payables across the league.

The collective £3 billion owed by Premier League clubs in future transfer instalments underscores the extent to which current sporting ambitions are financed by future obligations.

The strategic management of transfer receivables, through mechanisms like receivables finance and timely player sales, has become equally critical for clubs to maintain liquidity and navigate the complex landscape of financial regulations.

These regulations, including UEFA’s FFP and the Premier League’s PSR, have introduced a framework intended to promote financial prudence. However, they have also inadvertently influenced clubs to structure their investments in ways that, while compliant, can still lead to significant long-term debt and do not adequately address the systemic risk of such widespread inter club debt.

. The previous ability to amortise large transfer fees over extended contract durations, for instance, allowed clubs to undertake massive acquisitions without immediately breaching annual loss limits, thereby contributing to the overall growth of transfer payables.

The recent closure of this amortisation approach, limiting it to a five-year period from the 2025/26 season, does signal a shift. This change will compel clubs to account for transfer costs more rapidly, which could lead to a more immediate and transparent reflection of transfer-related liabilities in their financial statements. This may prompt clubs to re-evaluate their transfer strategies, potentially leading to a tempering of future spending or an increased necessity for more aggressive player sales to balance the books.

Ultimately, the future of Premier League finances will remain inextricably linked to the dynamics of its transfer market. The ongoing tension between the relentless pursuit of sporting success, which demands substantial investment in playing talent, and the imperative of financial sustainability, enforced by evolving regulatory frameworks, will continue to shape how clubs manage their transfer creditors and debtors. The ability of clubs to adapt to these changing financial and regulatory landscapes, through innovative financing and strategic player trading, will be paramount for their long-term health and competitiveness.

Systemic Risk

In terms of systemic risk, it’s arguable that such is the extensive cash flow and liquidity within the Premier League, plus the confidence of increased future revenues, that little risk applies. However, I would argue that this is totally blue-sky thinking and does not, in any way, reflect the reality of life outside the Premier League – either in the English Football League or less financially robust leagues across Europe and elsewhere. A Premier League club  entering a period of financial difficulty, with large outstanding trade debts, could be a domino that causes a systemic collapse.

It’s an area that requires, in fact, demands, much closer scrutiny, regulation and attention.