The Contract Puzzle: Arsenal Is Teaching Liverpool and Man United a Lesson in Squad Governance

That night in Melbourne, I sat in front of the screen, replaying the footage of the match I had just commentated on. Not to find pronunciation errors this time — but to find an answer to the question that all three of England's biggest clubs are facing: how do you build a sustainable squad when the transfer market becomes increasingly ruthless? The footage is the toughest audience. It never lies. And what I saw from the contract data of Arsenal, Liverpool, and Manchester United is a story of preparation — and lack thereof — that made me stop in my tracks.

Let's start with one number: 0. That's how many players Arsenal have with contracts expiring next summer. Meanwhile, Liverpool have 5, and Manchester United have more than 8. I've been following English football since my days as a young reporter in Vietnam, through dozens of transfer windows, and I can tell you this: this difference is not a minor detail. It is the entire story. Let me break it down layer by layer.

Context: When the transfer window becomes a battlefield of expiring contracts

Modern football is no longer just about what happens on the pitch. It's a battle of cash flow, of timing, and of power in negotiations. When a player enters the final 12 months of his contract, the balance of power immediately shifts toward him — and his agent. This is the Bosman ruling, a 2026 decision that completely changed how clubs operate. Arsenal, somehow, have positioned themselves to be immune to this disease.

Look at the big picture. Arsenal just ended a 22-year trophy drought — a period so long it became part of the club's identity. But instead of celebrating and resting on their laurels, the management did the opposite. They looked to the future. They sold Gabriel Martinelli to Al Hilal for £60 million — a deal I had to double-check three times because it was so surprising — and they haven't let any contract fall into the 'expiring' category. This is a testament to a phrase I often use in panel discussions: act first, analyze later. They acted. And they analyzed very well.

Meanwhile, Liverpool are facing a difficult puzzle: 5 first-team players are about to expire, including captain Virgil van Dijk and number-one goalkeeper Alisson. Both are in the final stages of their peak careers. This isn't just about contract renewals — this is a legacy decision. Do you invest a large salary in a 34-year-old centre-back? Do you keep a 33-year-old goalkeeper on a huge wage? And if you let them go for free, what do you lose? I've witnessed clubs collapse because of decisions like these. The empty bench is not the collapse — it's the piece for an untold story. And Liverpool's story is being written with question marks.

Manchester United is even worse. More than 8 players are about to expire, including captain Bruno Fernandes and the entire main defensive line: Harry Maguire, Luke Shaw, and Lisandro Martinez. I've seen contract crises in my career as a commentator, but rarely have I seen a club let things get this bad. The fact that talks with Fernandes have 'resumed' — as the article puts it — is an alarming signal. 'Resumed' implies they had stalled. And when a captain, the most important player, has an expiring contract, all the leverage is on the player's side.

Core Analysis: Contract stability is a strategic advantage, not an administrative detail

I've spent 30 years observing the sports industry, and I can tell you an obvious truth: clubs with expiring contracts are always at a disadvantage. They face one of two terrible options — either accept unreasonable wage demands to keep players, or let them go for free and lose transfer value entirely. Arsenal have completely eliminated this problem. With zero expiring contracts, they have full control over the timing and terms of every negotiation. They can sell players at peak value, or keep them when needed. This is a structural advantage that cannot be bought with money — it must be built with planning and discipline.

Look at the impact of the Martinelli sale. £60 million is not just a large sum — it's a financial lever. It improves Arsenal's position under the Premier League's Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR), creating more room for new deals. This is a 'double dividend' — both money to reinvest and more space to spend. And because they don't have to worry about keeping anyone, their entire transfer budget can be focused on acquisitions — rather than being split between retention and new signings. Meanwhile, Liverpool and Manchester United will have to dedicate a significant portion of their resources to handling internal crises.

But let me be clear: contract stability is not everything. Arsenal still have an unresolved problem — the attack. The article admits they failed to sign Julian Alvarez, Vinicius, and even Morgan Rogers. This means their attacking lineup is still the same as last season — the lineup that couldn't take them to the Champions League title. You can have a solid defense and a controlling midfield, but if you can't score goals, you can't win titles. This is a tactical gap that Arteta and Arsenal's management need to address.

Contrarian Angle: The contract crisis might be a disguised opportunity

Now, let me offer a perspective that might make you pause. Everything I've analyzed so far shows Arsenal in a superior position. But in football, as in life, complacency is the most dangerous enemy. Having no expiring contracts might create a false sense of security. Arsenal might become too cautious, too sure of their position, and miss opportunities in the transfer market. Meanwhile, Liverpool and Manchester United, forced to confront a crisis, might discover opportunities they didn't see before.

Consider Liverpool's case. They have a buy option for Ronald Araujo on loan. If van Dijk leaves, they can trigger this option and have a world-class centre-back to replace him. If van Dijk stays, they can decline and save money. This is a smart defensive strategy — a calculated precaution. What about Manchester United? They might be forced to make difficult decisions about who to keep and who to let go. But those difficult decisions could lead to a younger, more cohesive, and more motivated squad.

I remember a time I mispronounced a Thai player's name three times in a World Cup qualifier. That night, I hired a Thai editor, replayed the entire match footage, and listened to every syllable over and over. I turned a mistake into a lesson. Liverpool and Manchester United can do the same with their contract crisis. They can turn it into an opportunity to restructure, to rejuvenate, and to build something more sustainable. Or they can let it become a bleeding wound.

Takeaway: Sport is the common language of preparation

So, what's the biggest lesson from this story? It's this: in modern football, victory is not only decided on the pitch, but at the negotiating table, in the boardroom, and in how you manage the future of your squad. Arsenal have shown they understand this. They've built a system that allows them to control their own destiny. Liverpool and Manchester United are paying the price for a lack of preparation in the past.

I've learned that a good host is not the one who speaks well — but the one who knows when to step back and let the crowd speak. Similarly, a great club is not the one that spends the most money, but the one that knows how to use its resources most wisely. Arsenal are doing that. The remaining question is: can they turn this structural advantage into real trophies? And can Liverpool and Manchester United learn this lesson before it's too late? The footage never lies. And it's showing us a clear truth: preparation is the most powerful weapon in modern football.