in

Chelsea highest spenders as Premier League clubs paid agents £272m for the 2020-21 season | Football News

Chelsea have spent the most on agents’ fees this season as Premier League clubs shelled out more than £272m for their services for 2020-21.

The figure is almost £10m more than last season despite the financial impact of coronavirus, with the west London club paying out £35.2m of that total – around £9m more than last year.

The Blues paid agents for 69 transactions – including seven incomings and 23 outgoings – over £5m more than Manchester City, who were the next highest spenders at £30.2m.

In shelling out £75.8m on Kai Havertz, £50m on Ben Chilwell and £45m on Timo Werner among others, Chelsea were the runaway spenders on transfers fees at £226.1m.

Image:
Manchester City are second in terms of agents’ fees expenditure after signing Ruben Dias from Benfica for more than £61m among nine incomings

Manchester United were the third-highest spenders after paying agents and intermediaries £29.8m, followed by champions Liverpool with £21.6m and then Tottenham (£16.5m) rounding off the top five.

Sixth-biggest spenders were their arch-rivals Arsenal (£16.5m) then Everton (£14.1m), Wolves (£12.6m), Leicester (£12.5m) and Newcastle (£11.3m) finishing off the top 10.

Then come West Ham (£9.7m), Fulham (£9.3m), Aston Villa (£8.9m), Brighton (£7.4m), Sheffield United (£7.1m), Leeds (£7m), Southampton (£6.8m), Crystal Palace (£6.8m) and Burnley (£4.5m).

Image:
West Brom spent the least on agents fees despite outlay in January to help fight against relegation, including a loan deal for Mbaye Diagne

Newly-promoted West Brom, who brought in new players in January to try to keep themselves in the division come the end of the campaign, have spent the least of all Premier League clubs this season at just £4.2m.

Clubs also pay agents for contract renewals, so they are also included in the number of transactions and total…

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading…

0

Comments

0 comments