Football transfers and contracts are changing
In January 2025, Erling Haaland signed a 9.5-year contract extension at Manchester City. A lengthy commitment from both sides, but not uncommon in football these days. With especially Chelsea – since the £4.25 billion takeover in May 2022 – handing out lengthy contracts to new signings.
Such long contracts is just one of several trends observable when it comes to football transfers and contracts in recent years. With clubs remodelling their transfer deals and contracts to reduce risks and adhere to financial regulations. So, how and why exactly have football transfers and contracts changed?
Longer contracts
When Chelsea first started signing players on lengthy deals, it raised a few eyebrows. Signing young players for significant transfer fees and on long-term contracts has become the norm at the club though since the arrival of the American owners. At first, this business model aimed to overhaul the squad in a short period while adhering to financial regulations. By handing out longer contracts, Chelsea could amortise the transfer fee over a longer period and thus spend more in the short term. UEFA has since changed the regulations limiting the amortisation period to a maximum of five years.
Despite this Chelsea still hands out lengthy contracts – generally of at least six years – to new high value signings. In the 2025 summer transfer window, the Blues signed defender Jorrel Hato for £37 million from Ajax on a seven-year contract. While eight-year contracts were handed out to Mamadou Sarr, Estêvão and Dário Essugo. All of them 20 years or younger.
That is far longer than the average length of contracts handed out to players. In 2024, contracts in transfers had an average duration of around a year and a half (18.9 month). While only 4.5 percent of transfers involved contracts lasting beyond four years. In line with Chelsea’s strategy, young players tend to have longer contract. In 2024, transferred under 18 players had an average contract duration of 2.5 years (29.6 months) while contracts of players between 18 and 23 averaged two years (24 months).1
Long-term strategy
Investing in young players and securing their services for many years is a long-term business strategy. Chelsea assembles a (young) squad capable of winning major trophies – they won the 2024/25 Conference League and 2025 Club World Cup. At the same time, they own players who when good enough will contribute tremendously on-field and when not can still likely be sold for significant money in the future. Such as Noni Madueke. The English winger was bought for a reported €35 million from PSV in January 2023. Two-and-a-half years into his seven-and-a-half-year contract, the Blues sold him to Arsenal for €56 million. 60 percent above what they bought him for.2
It is not a new business strategy though. Real Madrid for example has bought several talents – like Vinicius, Rodrygo, Martin Ødegaard, Takefusa Kubo and Endrick – young, before their prices skyrocketed even further. Yet, Chelsea is doing it on another level. With other clubs starting to consider whether they should copy this business model.
Clear difference amongst Top Six
For now, there is still a clear difference in average contract duration for players from Chelsea and other clubs. Chelsea’s starting XI during the opening league game of the 2024/25 season had an average contract length left of 6.2 years. The highest amongst the Premier League Top Six. Tottenham came closest with their starting XI having four years of contract left on average.
Arsenal (3.1 years), Manchester City and Manchester United (both three) followed. While Liverpool players had on average 2.7 contract years remaining. Which was heavily influenced by three starters having only one contract year left. During the 2025 Community Shield, for example, it had risen to 3.2 years.
Release clauses
Like long contracts, including release clauses also reduces the risk of losing players on a free and thus protects high investments. Especially in Spain, release clauses are common practice. Mostly to prevent court cases as the law stipulates that players must be able to unilaterally terminate their contract. In return teams should receive some sort of compensation.
In recent years, clubs have significantly increased release clauses. With several key players at Barcelona – like Lamine Yamal, Pedri, and Gavi – and Real Madrid – like Vinicius, Kylian Mbappé, and Jude Bellingham – having a €1 billion release clause. It is a response to the increasing buying power of some (Saudi Arabian) clubs. With PSG buying Neymar from Barcelona in 2017 by paying his €222 million release clause being the best example. As few believed such an amount would ever be met.2
The transfer is still the most expensive. In fact, the five most expensive transfers have all been concluded by clubs paying a release clause. With Atlético Madrid even paying more than the €120 release clause set by Benfica for João Félix in 2019 to secure better payment terms.
Top 5 most expensive transfers including a release clause [source: Transfermarkt2]
| Player | Selling club | Buying club | When | Reported release clause |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neymar | Barcelona | PSG | 2017 | €222 million |
| João Félix | Benfica | Atlético Madrid | 2019 | €120 million (paid €127.2 million) |
| Enzo Fernández | Benfica | Chelsea | 2023 | €121 million |
| Antoine Griezmann | Atlético Madrid | Barcelona | 2019 | €120 million |
| Jack Grealish | Aston Villa | Manchester City | 2021 | €117.5 million |
Over and under market value
Sometimes release clauses provide clubs with far more transfer income than players’ market value. Aston Villa, for example, never expected Jack Grealish’s £100 million (€117.5 million) release clause to be met. Yet, City did, despite it being far above his (then) €65 million market value.2
Other times, selling clubs lose out. Like Dortmund when they sold Haaland for €60 million to City in 2022 while the striker’s market value was €150 million. In the future, City may experience something similar. With reports suggesting that a release clause in Haaland’s latest City contract will come into effect in 2029 or 2030 and will then steadily decrease during the remaining contract years.
There are also clubs for who release clauses have been instrumental in topflight survival. Such as Athletic Bilbao. Since their philosophy is to only play players with Basque origin, they have a limited market to scout players. They rarely receive incoming transfer sums, but when they do, they are significant amounts. As they set high, but reasonable release clauses for their star players and rarely enter negotiations.
Between 2010/11 and 2023/24, they sold just four players – Javi Martínez, Ander Herrera, Aymeric Laporte, and Kepa Arrizabalaga – for a fee. Yet, they generated €221 million in transfer sums with all four leaving for their release clause. Their next lucrative sale could well be in-demand Nico Williams. Since his release clause increased by over 50 percent to reportedly €95 to €100 million when he signed a 10-year contract extension in July 2025.
Summer 2025
During the 2025 summer transfer window, there have been several Premier League players who have moved after their release clause was met. Dean Huijsen moved from Bournemouth to Real Madrid for £50 million. While Matheus Cunha moved from Wolves to Manchester United for £62.5 million.
Mohamed Kudus reportedly had different release clauses in his West Ham contract. European clubs would have to pay £85 million, while Saudi Arabian clubs would have had to pay more. Eventually, Kudus moved to Tottenham for £54.5 million.
Sort fees
Although more common, release clauses only account for a fraction of all transfer fees. In 2024, only 0.8 percent of all fees were paid through a release clause (2023: 0.1 Percent). With 80.4 percent of all transfer fees being fixed fees, amounting to $6.91 billion. Conditional fees accounted for 18.8 percent ($1.61 billion), up from 16.1 percent in 2023.1
Sell-on clauses – a percentage of an eventual future transfer fee – have also become more popular over the last decade. In 2024, 49.2 percent of all permanent transfers and loans included such a clause. In 2016, this was only 24.4 percent. The sell-on fee percentage included is dependent on factors such as player’s age and the amount of the fixed transfer fee. Clubs especially tend to include such clauses for young players, with 72.7 percent of transfers for players under 18 including one in 2024.
The average sell-on fee percentage was 22.2 percent in 2024. Yet, they vary greatly, up to over 60 percent.
It has resulted in clubs receiving some extra income for former players over the years. In 2025, sell-on clauses for Anthony Elanga, Alvaro Carreras and Maxi Oyedele generated £15 million in extra income for United. While Arsenal reportedly received around £8 million in additional payments for former players Granit Xhaka and Aaron Ramsdale.
Liverpool reportedly also included a sell-on clause in the £65.5 million-sale of Luis Díaz to Bayern. As the 28-year will likely move again during his career – maybe even for a lucrative adventure in Saudi Arabia – Liverpool’s eventual return could rise.
The role of financial regulation
Financial regulations, such as the Premier League’s Profit and Sustainability Regulations, have forced clubs to adjust their approach to transfers and contracts. Apart from creative approaches like longer contracts, sell-on clauses or conditional transfer fees, clubs also adjust players’ contract terms. Especially performance related pay is key for clubs to cope with revenue fluctuations due to (lack of) sporting success. With performance related pay typically accounting for 15 to 25 percent of larger clubs’ wages.
Such clauses mean that when a club wins silverware, they must pay bonuses to their players. Manchester City, for example, paid £35 million in bonuses after winning the Treble in 2022/23.
Which is possible because on-field success can generate a lot of income. Chelsea earned around £85 million by winning the 2025 Club World Cup. While Nottingham Forest will receive at least €4.31 million (£3.72 million) by having qualified for the 2025/26 Europa League.
The opposite is also true, with salaries being reduced if targets are not met. Like most United players reportedly earning 25 percent less by failing to qualify for the Champions League.
Such performance related pay, longer contracts, and conditional fees are all strategies used by clubs to try to maximise their investments while adhering to financial regulations. Clubs will always try to adapt as they want to keep spending as much as possible to try to achieve on-field success.