Chelsea reap good value for their transfer spend, outperform expectations based on cost

LONDON, ENGLAND - APRIL 22: Nemanja Matic of Chelsea celebrates after he scores to make it 4-2 with David Luiz of Chelsea during the Emirates FA Cup semi-final match between Tottenham Hotspur and Chelsea at Wembley Stadium on April 22, 2017 in London, England. (Photo by Catherine Ivill - AMA/Getty Images)
LONDON, ENGLAND - APRIL 22: Nemanja Matic of Chelsea celebrates after he scores to make it 4-2 with David Luiz of Chelsea during the Emirates FA Cup semi-final match between Tottenham Hotspur and Chelsea at Wembley Stadium on April 22, 2017 in London, England. (Photo by Catherine Ivill - AMA/Getty Images)

Chelsea are getting good value for their money, sitting atop the Premier League with the third-most expensive squad by transfer fees. Tottenham are the only team in the Premier League’s top 10 that outperform their expenditure more than the Blues.

Chelsea paid approximately £390 million to assemble their 2016/17 squad. That is the third-most of any Premier League club this season, giving them the sixth-largest gap (+2) between transfer expenditure ranking and place in the table, according to CIES Football Observatory. Chelsea have seven players for whom they paid £30-34 million, with David Luiz the costliest Blue.

Tottenham have the sixth most expensive roster, and so are performing four places better than expected based on cost. Arsenal and both Manchester clubs are under-performing, with Manchester United having the most expensive club but sitting in fifth place.

Chelsea and Tottenham have each fielded 23 players over the course of the season. The Manchester clubs have played 25 each, while Arsenal have used 28 players.

Must Read: Virgil van Dijk is not worth loaning Kurt Zouma to make room

Unsurprisingly, Chelsea have the most players (five) with fewer than 100 minutes this season. They also have the most players with appearances but no starts (five). Nathaniel Chalobah, Ruben Loftus-Cheek, Ola Aina and Nathan Ake are on both lists. Michy Batshuayi has over 100 minutes but no starts. Asmir Begovic has one start, but fewer than 100 minutes.

However, those four players with no starts and fewer than 100 minutes do not add to the club’s expenditure via the CIES study. They all entered via the youth academy, not through transfers.

CIES’s study only includes players that have taken the pitch for each club this season. As a result, it does not factor in Chelsea’s outlay for their sprawling loan army. Manchester United and Manchester City may have paid more for their match-day squad, but those clubs are getting more out of their purchases than the Blues. Chelsea have likely spent much more to acquire players who were promptly sent out, many without even having a full trial.

Next: Reports: Diego Costa and Tianjin Quanjian agree to terms

Chelsea may also outperform their rivals in making a profit on players. The Blues’ bloated loan army can sometimes pay off when it comes time to sell. The club turned a £4 million profit on each of Papy Djilobodji and Patrick Bamford. Djilobodji made one appearance for Chelsea in a League Cup tie. Bamford never played for the Blues despite seven loans.