Chelsea wage theory relies on football changing with them

To win the biggest titles, you need to pay the highest wages

Photo by Chris Lee - Chelsea FC/Chelsea FC via Getty Images

Chelsea’s second failure to capture the signature of Michael Olise was centered around an unwillingness to commit significant wages to the winger.

Olise is now boarding a flight to Munich rather than a cab to SW6. For Chelsea’s decision makers, its another stumble in an already rocky summer that has seen the appointment of an unproven head coach, fears over unwanted sales and more investment on tomorrow rather than today.

Whether you believe that the sole reason Olise to Chelsea did not happen was purely due to wages, lets take that line at face value. And frankly, it is not a ludicrous one given the way Chelsea have rapidly lowered the wages within the first-team squad since the beginning of 2023.

Raheem Sterling at a reported £300,000 a week is the clear outlier in Clearlake’s Chelsea.

But even in the days since The Athletic reported that the Blues have pulled out of the deal based on financial grounds, we have witnessed conflicting reports. Simon Johnson broke down this issue in depth, citing that there is “no strict wage policy in place” and that to outlay such, they would need more experience behind a prospective signing to do so.

There is a problem; Chelsea have proven hesitant to buy those types of players.

Tosin Adarabioyo at 26 is an outlier, but him being a free agent is context needed for that particular deal. The almost £20m spent on Omari Kellyman from Aston Villa and then £6m for Marc Guiu from Barcelona tell us something completely different.

Chelsea still appear to be chasing younger names under their model and actions will speak louder than any media brief.

They reportedly do not value Olise, Nico Williams or Alexander Isak as worthy of such finance, so who would be in their model?

In theory it is nice to want a low wage bill, where you pick up players for smaller fees and gain high value out of them. That is pretty much the aim of every transfer. Cole Palmer, Nicolas Jackson and Malo Gusto fit into this bracket.

Though reality tells us something different. Wages and success are often, not always, correlated. In the Premier League, the picture is pretty clear.

A report in May showed that Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool make up the top five.

This is highly unsurprising given these are the accepted biggest clubs in the land, with vast financial power. Manchester United’s inflated wages and Chelsea vast spending feel like outliers in a group consisting of three teams who competed for the league title.

The wages of Arsenal and Liverpool bust a few myths that the duo are “punching above their weight” and “Working on a Burnley budget” to compete with the bad guys. But the broader trend shows you that the clubs Chelsea aim to still be competing with are no slouches when handing out high wages.

A reality of the footballing landscape is one that Chelsea contributed to, and that is inflation.

There remains a likely immovable object that stands in Chelsea’s way if they want to compete with other super clubs for the best names, and that is accepting a level of wealth you need to commit. That is not to suggest you naively chuck everything at every new player and you have no discipline.

But if you don’t, you will soon find yourself lower down on the food chain. Losing your best players at unwanted moments and risk developing players for someone else. The sort of players Chelsea used to buy as they headed into their prime.

Chelsea clearly need results soon. The skirting and dancing around PSR is not only pathetic, it is prolonging the inevitable.

This is where we get to the automatic response of whenever you dare question: THE PROJECT. That incentivized contracts resolve everything. The logic being that Chelsea players will inevitably be rewarded by their success and be offered the sort of wages that truly reflect their talent as the club wins more.

As Simon Johnson detailed, the majority of the Chelsea squad were financially punished for failing to qualify for Europe in the 2022/23 campaign. Their performances on the pitch connect with how much they are paid. This is the idea of a meritocracy – and an idea I think most supporters viscerally get behind.

There is a problem; other football clubs with vast finances exist.

There is a problem; Chelsea need to start winning to see their incentivized contracts realized.

Another counter seen regularly is suggesting that you simply cannot have a player paid more than everyone else because it will upset the dressing room. This forgets that Chelsea players will have peers, or their own agents, with knowledge of how players of similarly quality are currently paid elsewhere.

If Cole Palmer continues on his current path, his salary will need to match that. If Chelsea are competing and winning trophies, playing Champions League football and battling with the best domestically and on the continent, no problem. If they are not – which so far under Boehly and Clearlake hasn’t been the case – it is.

Palmer will not only see financial advantage in moving but probably more defining, competitive advantage too.

Since last summer, when Paul Winstanley and Laurence Stewart’s theory was put into effect, there has remained a strange conflict that has been unavoidable. Chelsea’s sporting directors have tried to act like they are recruiting for a smaller club.

They are recruiting for a club with limited resources, lesser pull and an admission that they do not sit amongst the best.

The theory in practice of buying cheaper, developing and making big profit is not a dumb one. Need we look at Brighton and Brentford for two great Premier League examples in recent years. The Red Bull model, which Chelsea are determined to emulate, has operated in a similar way.

It is working within you means and maximizing your resources. This is commendable and deserves praise.

This was the mindset present at Winstanley and Stewart’s former clubs Brighton and Monaco.

There is a problem; Chelsea are not in that bracket of club.

We are talking about a football club that was purchased for over £2bn in 2022, that lifted their second European Cup in under a decade in 2021, that has been one of the most successful institutions since the turn of the century.

Chelsea are not plucky underdogs, nor they are a team that acts like one fighting against a lopsided financial system.

They have also not spent like one either. Need we mention the £1bn figure? Or the reality the club bought, not one, but two players for over an £100m fee in 2023.

These are not the acts of a club tightening its pursestrings. It is not hard to see why there is a “Chelsea tax” on any deal, even for ones signed from Barcelona’s academy.

Unless Clearlake has some Men in Black style memory pen that can wipe everyone’s memory of the Abramovich era, Chelsea are viewed in the elite so they are gonna be priced that way too.

It begs the wider question, if you are going to spend this lavishly and be regaeded as an elite club anyway; why act in this manner? Is it all just theory, the Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng of football putting long discussed hypothesis into motion.

And one last, but relevant point, is that when trying to lower wages and your expenditure in the transfer market, surely the way to help is by promoting talent from your own academy?

But of course There is a problem.

Follow me on X @SonOfChelsea. Subscribe to YouTube channel SonOfChelsea and you can listen to the show on your favourite Podcast provider.