In partnership with
Smart starts here.
You don't have to read everything — just the right thing. 1440's daily newsletter distills the day's biggest stories from 100+ sources into one quick, 5-minute read. It's the fastest way to stay sharp, sound informed, and actually understand what's happening in the world. Join 4.5 million readers who start their day the smart way.
Welcome to issue #057 of Contemporary Football, your inside look at how the game really works behind the scenes.
Monday to Friday, you’ll uncover a new perspective on football business, and sometimes a deeper story that sharpens your thinking and gives you an edge in the beautiful game.
If you need support on your football journey, just write me.
January 2026 closed with big numbers.
According to FIFA, clubs completed 5,900+ international transfers.
A winter record.
Almost €1.5bn spent.
Last year’s spending peak wasn’t matched, but activity exploded.
More deals. More movement. More pressure.
On paper, it looks like a healthy market.
On the inside, it feels very different.
First, the data. Then the reality.
England spent the most. Again.
England: $363m
Italy: $283m
Germany: $126m
France: $120m
Saudi Arabia: $99m
Italy also ranks second by transfer revenues:
France: $218m
Italy: $175m
England: $150m
That tells you something.
Italian clubs are not just buying.
They’re selling. And they’re selling well.
Volume up. Certainty down.
Brazil led incoming transfers with 456 arrivals.
Argentina led outgoing with 228 exits.
In women’s football, another signal:
$10m+ spent in January
+85% vs last year
Fewer deals, higher prices
This market is not slowing.
It’s concentrating.
More money around fewer decisions.
And that’s exactly where clubs feel exposed.
What sporting directors are actually talking about
In every conversation I’ve had with sporting directors this January, the concern was never:
“Can we sell?”
That part is clear.
The real question is harder:
“Who replaces him?”
Not positionally.
Structurally.
If we sell our striker, who carries the goals next season?
If we sell our centre-back, who absorbs the minutes, the leadership, the mistakes?
This is not scouting.
This is succession planning.
Selling is easy. Replacing is the risk.
The market rewards exits.
Balance sheets improve.
FFP pressure eases.
Owners are happy.
But the sporting cost arrives later.
Sometimes six months later.
Sometimes one bad season later.
Clubs don’t lose value when they sell players.
They lose value when they replace them badly.
That’s the part that keeps directors awake.
Why January made this worse
Winter windows amplify the problem.
You sell under pressure.
You buy with less choice.
You inherit contracts you didn’t design.
That’s why January feels expensive even when prices aren’t crazy.
The cost is not the fee.
It’s the margin for error.
The shift I’m seeing
More clubs are starting to ask different questions:
What profile replaces this player, not what name?
What performance do we lose if he leaves?
Who is already inside the squad that grows into the role?
What happens if the replacement fails?
Those are approval questions, not scouting ones.
That’s where most clubs are still weak.
A quick note
This is exactly why I built two tools I keep using with clubs:
a Player Trading Guide, focused on timing, exits, and replacements
a Transfer Approval Memo, used before saying yes to any deal
Not to find players.
To avoid bad decisions.
Sometimes the best transfer is the one you don’t approve.
A third insider guide is on the way…stay tuned!
One last thought
€1.5bn was spent this January.
That number will be forgotten by March.
What won’t be forgotten is how clubs handled succession after selling.
The market doesn’t punish ambition.
It punishes improvisation.
And this window exposed who planned and who didn’t.
See you tomorrow,
Federico