In a follow-up to “The Cost of Success: English Premier League,” where we saw that to a certain extent, that spending has brought clubs more success (i.e., higher positions in the league table), but spending more money on transfers didn’t necessarily reflect all the causes for success.
[i class=”fa-chevron-circle-right”] We can use the wages paid to all players over five seasons and compare it to the number of points accumulated over five seasons.
[i class=”fa-chevron-circle-right”] The assumption is that wages would reflect players’ skills and contributions and take into account contributions made by players not brought in that five year period.
[i class=”fa-chevron-circle-right”] The champions are awarded 20 points, runners-up 19 and so on, the team that finishes in the bottom gets 1.
[i class=”fa-chevron-circle-right”] The ★ indicates teams that are in “Top Four,” the four teams that consistently finished in the top four between 2005-2009.
Do wages reflect performance better?
[i class=”fa-check-circle”] There’s a clearer relationship between wages and points than transfer spending and points.
[i class=”fa-check-circle”] The teams who have a higher total wage payroll have more points.
[i class=”fa-check-circle”] The “Top Four” teams have the four highest wage spending and have the highest number of points.
- Players aren’t the only cause of success; managers could’ve gotten better performances from lower-wage players.
- If teams get relegated, they start in the lower league, where they could perform better.
- There could be a time lag between spending and success.
- Wages don’t necessarily reflect how well the player has played.
Source: Deloitte Money League