The Premier League is celebrating another extraordinary summer of spending. Billions have changed hands, transfer records have fallen and clubs have once again demonstrated financial muscle that most of Europe can only envy.
There is just one problem.
Has the Premier League actually got much better?
Because increasingly it seems to be spending money buying players from itself.
Morgan Rogers has moved from Aston Villa to Chelsea, Elliot Anderson from Nottingham Forest to Manchester City, Sandro Tonali from Newcastle to Tottenham and Bruno Guimarães from Newcastle to Arsenal. Sávio has swapped Manchester City for Tottenham, Carlos Baleba has joined Manchester United from Brighton and Mateus Fernandes has left West Ham for Tottenham.
Meanwhile Cody Gakpo has been linked with a move from Liverpool to Manchester City, with Enzo Maresca also hoping he can be reunited with Enzo Fernández from Chelsea.
But despite the vast sums involved, as far as the Premier League is concerned, there has been not one additional footballer acquired.
Every one of those deals can be presented as evidence of ambition by the buyer. But every winner creates a loser. Chelsea gain Rogers; Villa lose him. Tottenham acquire Tonali; Newcastle surrender him. Tottenham strengthen their squad further with players taken from Manchester City and West Ham.
It is transfer activity masquerading as collective progress.
There are perfectly sensible reasons behind it. Premier League clubs increasingly want players who are Premier League-proven. Why gamble £40 million on somebody from France or Germany who may take a year to adapt when £70 million buys somebody who already knows the competition?
But that logic is helping to create a market increasingly detached from reality.
English clubs know their rivals are rich, so they charge them accordingly. A £40 million footballer becomes a £60 million footballer because the buyer can afford £60 million. The selling club then has £60 million to spend and discovers that everybody else knows it.
Round and round the money goes.
Accounting regulations add another layer. Selling clubs can recognise transfer profits immediately while buyers spread the cost across contracts. One enormous deal creates the financial capacity for another, and another.
The result is a Premier League transfer market that increasingly resembles its own economic ecosystem, generating spectacular numbers without necessarily generating an equivalent improvement in quality.
That does not mean clubs are wrong to buy domestically. Individual teams can clearly improve. Nor does it mean the Premier League has failed to attract outstanding players from overseas.
But the obsession with gross spending increasingly tells us very little.
If Chelsea buy Morgan Rogers from Aston Villa for £117 million, English football has not suddenly acquired £117 million worth of additional talent. It has simply moved an existing asset from one Premier League club to another.
Perhaps that is the number worth examining when the window finally closes. Forget how many billions Premier League clubs have spent. Ask how much has actually gone overseas to bring new talent into English football – and compare it with the value of players who have departed.
The Premier League has never been richer. Whether endlessly selling expensive footballers to itself makes it any better is another matter entirely.
