| A transfer market question for economists 07:52 - Jan 29 with 881 views | Blue_Uprising |
Here is just a general question (particularly for classical) economists.
Why do English players still command such a premium in transfer fees, when it has been clear for many years that overseas players generate significantly more value in the PL? Playing value and sell on value.
Performance:
Most teams in the PL have majority players in their first 11 that are overseas. Language issues are not much of a problem it seems in the modern game. Overseas players are as strong, hungry and powerful as UK.
Information:
Scouting and data networks are far more established/advanced reducing (but not eliminating) the effect of information asymmetries
Rules
Homegrown player rules must be having a significant impact. But they don’t seem too hard to get around with purchasing of young players
Not that the efficient market hypothesis works, but It just seems odd to me that the UK player premium remains so high. When (or will we) reach a point where UK players are actually cheaper than overseas players?
|  | | |  |
| A transfer market question for economists on 08:03 - Jan 29 with 815 views | _CliveBaker_ |
Guess it’s a combination of factors. Selling to a club in the same division is probably less attractive than selling to a club overseas, so the selling club might demand more. Increased likelihood of settling in to the culture and area. Proven in the league you’re buying them for. More robust character references. Among other factors |  | | |
| A transfer market question for economists on 08:48 - Jan 29 with 678 views | JakeITFC |
I think there is a theoretical premium for English (or homegrown) players but I think it is more relevant that they are generally coming from English clubs (mostly in the Premier League) and they are richer that other teams and therefore have less incentive to sell. |  | | |
| A transfer market question for economists on 08:58 - Jan 29 with 632 views | homer_123 |
Premium - not sure they always do nowadays.
Tammy Abraham - £18m for an established English striker (ex international) in his prime.
I think there are as many Abrahams as there are Rice's, for example.
Where I would agree with you, is at the very top end, they do carry a premium, rightly or wrongly. Otherwise, I'm not sure that they do.
Isak, Wirtz, Gyökeres, Ekitike etc. are all players coming into the Prem that Clubs have spent substantial monies on. |  |
| |
| A transfer market question for economists on 12:12 - Jan 29 with 441 views | mellowblue |
| A transfer market question for economists on 08:58 - Jan 29 by homer_123 |
Premium - not sure they always do nowadays.
Tammy Abraham - £18m for an established English striker (ex international) in his prime.
I think there are as many Abrahams as there are Rice's, for example.
Where I would agree with you, is at the very top end, they do carry a premium, rightly or wrongly. Otherwise, I'm not sure that they do.
Isak, Wirtz, Gyökeres, Ekitike etc. are all players coming into the Prem that Clubs have spent substantial monies on. |
Not sure that Tammy Abrahams is a good example. After a bright start to his career and an expensive (at the time move to Roma) and one decent season for them and a half decent one for AC Milan, he has been pretty average for the last 4 years. 18 million is a decent buy but not a million miles off for someone that has drifted to Besiktas. He lacks that progressive improvement year by year that gets the cheque books opening. Also I think Premier league clubs are guilty of seeing good goal tallies etc in weaker European leagues (if you ignore the headline clubs) and assuming those successes will continue in the Prem and are therefore prepared to write bigger amounts. Hojland and Zirkzee for Man U are notable examples of players with big reputations who do not deliver. I hope I am not saying the same about Sindre Walli Egeli in a couple of years. |  | | |
| A transfer market question for economists on 14:54 - Jan 29 with 348 views | DarkBrandon |
Is it that the premium comes from the selling club’s wealth, rather than the players nationality?
So, if you look to buy a player from a mid-table Dutch or French club, those clubs will have a much lower turnover than a mid-table Premier League club.
Consequently you need to make a lower bid to get the selling club interested? |  | | |
| A transfer market question for economists on 18:49 - Jan 29 with 245 views | Blue_Uprising |
| A transfer market question for economists on 14:54 - Jan 29 by DarkBrandon |
Is it that the premium comes from the selling club’s wealth, rather than the players nationality?
So, if you look to buy a player from a mid-table Dutch or French club, those clubs will have a much lower turnover than a mid-table Premier League club.
Consequently you need to make a lower bid to get the selling club interested? |
Looking at some of the transfer dealings in Jan and in the summer it seems more a case of players in the UK leagues rather than UK nationals (although still
maybe a premium for young English talent). But yes seems the financial circulation of funds in the UK drives very high demands and fees vs other leagues.
Seems mad that people will spend 50m on strand Larsen now with his record vs 2 players at 10m that may be as good and have greater sell on potential.
Chelsea may not be so mad (from a purely economic and academic perspective - which I know is not really what football is about).
Just think the market inefficiencies are really interesting. Animal spirits and all that. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
