Tottenham Hotspur host Manchester United on the weekend, but despite it being a rematch of last season’s Europa League final, both clubs have spent pretty poorly over recent times.
Rather shockingly, Tottenham Hotspur finished 17th in the Premier League; meanwhile, Manchester United ended up just a few places higher in 15th.
For the two Premier League titans, it was a rather damning indication of how both clubs have really dropped the ball in terms of constructing suitable squads for the demands of European football.
Ahead of the weekend’s clash, TBR Football has spoken to the site’s Head of Football Finance, Adam Williams, to assess where it has gone wrong for Spurs and United in the spending department.
Tottenham and Man United’s spending compared
Whilst it’s key to note that squad value is subjective, CIES believe that Spurs’ squad is valued at around £907 million.
On the other hand, United’s squad is valued £197 million less than their Premier League counterparts at £710 million.
When asked about the difference in valuation between the two squads, Williams told TBR Football: “Ultimately, squad value is subjective. There are a few different research firms that try and quantify it, and that can be a useful entry point. CIES, for example, value Spurs’ squad at £907m, while they value United’s at £710m.
“But they would be the first to acknowledge that player value is about supply and demand, market forces and game theory.
“A player with a long throw, for example, is probably worth a fair bit more today than he would have been a season or two ago because of how tactics have evolved.
“Different clubs have different needs, and player value in the transfer market is decided based on that. Similarly, a club that desperately needs a centre-back will pay above the going rate. There’s a buy side and a sell side to valuation.”
Tottenham and Man United’s poor spending highlighted
But one thing which can be quantified is costs and investments, with neither club seeing positive results from their recruitment of players.
Combining Spurs and United’s wage bills and amortisation costs, they get the eye-watering figure of £864 million.
“What we can quantify is cost and investment. And here, we see that United and Spurs are miles ahead of every other club outside the so-called Big Six. For Spurs, the most up-to-date accounts we have are from 2023-24, when they spent £222m on wages and registered amortisation, which is how clubs account for transfer fees over a player’s contract length of £136m,” added Williams.
“For United, we’ve got their 2024-25 accounts. Their wage bill was £313m that season and amortisation was £193m, so they were considerably ahead of Spurs in both metrics.
Both squads have wasted big money on poor signings, with Tottenham spending £60m on Richarlison and Man United paying £72m for Rasmus Hojlund.
“Clearly, when you look at their outputs last season, neither club has got value for money for their investment. That is going to be reflected in how the market views United and Spurs players. Spurs obviously got out of jail with the Europa League win.
“But for United, that season has cost them over £100m in European revenue and might also have wiped, say, 5-10 per cent off the values of some of their players. Look at Antony, Hojlund, Sancho and so on. These players are wage black holes and have cost the club hundreds of millions all told.”