Just looking at total expenditure, not net expenditure (i.e. left out money made from transfers, just looking at money spent).

Additionally, these are only transfer fees that have been disclosed to the public. No undisclosed transfer fees (e.g. Neymar) have been included because the sources are too unreliable. All transfer fees were added up from transfermarkt.com just for consistency's sake.

1. Manchester City: 690.75
2. Manchester United: 680.76
3. Chelsea: 601.05
4. Paris Saint-Germain: 596.05
5. Juventus: 491.31
6. Barcelona: 474.67
7. Real Madrid: 448
8. Atletico Madrid: 376.56
9. Roma: 375.75
10. Monaco: 371.66
11. Arsenal: 366.23
12. Bayern Munchen: 344.2
13. Napoli: 313.09
14. Borussia Dortmund: 285.55

Awesome,

Somewhat expected, except it would be nice to see the disclosure transfer fees. I believe Barca would move above Juve. and also Bayern (I forgot where I saw it that they have quite a few hidden, exchanges - but dont take all the word from that).

These kinds of data can be used in contrast with the achievement they have, and see if it worth it.

So far,

Manchester United and Arsenal bring only SHAME!

Chelsea, madrid and barca money well spend!

Net expenditure is more interesting, right? Below stats from 11/12 - today. Loans included.

Since Abramovich took over Chelsea:

Porto +418m.. impressive..

Also,, not sure whether these stats include undisclosed fees.. ex Barca's shady transfers..

Link: http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/transfers/einnahmenausgaben/statistik/plus/1?ids=a&sa=&saison_id=2002&saison_id_bis=2016&land_id=&nat=&pos=&altersklasse=&w_s=&leihe=

Why do the Italian teams have like 100-300 more arrivals on average than anyone else? That's kind of weird.

think you should put at least a closeish price for doubtful ones. otherwise juventus and chelsea have spent more than barcelona and real madrid...

@SunFlash: good point.

Italian temper????

Chelsea's high amount of arrivals is due to their transfer policy.. Buying players and loaning them out basically.. It's also interesting that Chelsea has the highest transfer income in the last 5 years or so. Done some good business.

Still, does it not seem to be a ridiculously high number of arrivals for all clubs? Guess they include academy players, B team players and so on..

Bayern, Barcelona, and Real Madrid just prove that what matters is who you buy, not how much or how many. Barca and Madrid only have 170 transfers since 2003, and Bayern have even less at 125. Just compare their success in the past 14 years with the big spenders (City, Chelsea, United in recent years, Liverpool, Juventus, Inter) who have 350+ transfers (Juventus has almost 700!).

Although to be fair, Barcelona have only assimilated a handful of their transfers into their starting XI in recent years (Suarez, Alves, Rakitic, Neymar, etc.). Madrid and Bayern... more so (Lewa, Hummels, Costa, Robben, Ribery, Boateng, Neuer, Olic, van Buyten, etc. and Madrid got their entire lineup basically from elsewhere lel).

Chelsea have a sort of hit-and-miss policy.... they buy a bunch of players and whoever happens to work out joins their team. It's really taxing on the players because they lose important chunks of their career playing no professional football, and it doesn't seem to be the best of strategies either. I think that if Chelsea had a better man managing their transfers, they wouldn't be spending on useless junk or selling potential stars (De Bruyne, Lukaku, etc.). What do Chelsea fans think?

Also United's transfer policy has been f*cked since Sir Alex left. City has a similar policy to Chelsea, except they tend to purchase more high-profile men more often.

Russian mafia runs London :D

Bayern, Barcelona, and Real Madrid just prove that what matters is who you buy, not how much or how many. Barca and Madrid only have 170 transfers since 2003, and Bayern have even less at 125. Just compare their success in the past 14 years with the big spenders (City, Chelsea, United in recent years, Liverpool, Juventus, Inter) who have 350+ transfers (Juventus has almost 700!).

United did change their transfer policy after Fergie left. Before it was buy a decent amount of people for low-to-mid range fees - now I don't think we buy anyone beneath 30M. Doesn't feel like it anyway.

@SunFlash

The worst part is that United spend those ridiculous sums of money on mediocre players at best. What you guys used to pay for van Persie, Berbatov, and (almost) Tevez is now being dished out, on a regular basis, for players like Schneiderlin! Even when you do purchase world-class players like Falcao and di Maria, your manager doesn't know how to use them. It's astonishing for me because the only United I can imagine is Fergie's United, who were always world-beaters for as long as I have watched them.

Don't have to tell me, I'm well aware.

@Dynastian: I agree with you in principle, especially about the hit-and-miss policy, but

I think that if Chelsea had a better man managing their transfers, they wouldn't be spending on useless junk or selling potential stars (De Bruyne, Lukaku, etc.)

I don't think that statement makes sense. Actually, Chelsea have a very good man (and woman) managing their transfers with a fantastic scouting network that identifies players who are unknown by 99% of people associated with football, like De Bruyne and Courtois. The fact that some of these players got sold is the fault of a certain manager who shall not be named. Regarding the useless junk - I'm pretty sure that a lot of players were bought only because Abramovich - not the actual man responsible for transfers - requested them. Shevchenko and Torres come to my mind. If a man invests most of his cash into your club, you obviously try to keep him in good mood. Do I like that "strategy", though? Absolutely not.

It's just frustrating to watch lol.

You guys are putting salt to our wounds

considering barca has completely dominated europe and CL, a ton shit more than real madrid has, i was expecting barca to be nearer the top. they have produced a lot of players, so makes sense a little.