Why should Arsenal not invest in a Striker: A simple explanation using economics and a household budget analogy

The 2022–23 season was Arsenal Football Club's 137th season and the club's 104th straight season in the English Premier League. In addition to the domestic league, Arsenal competed in the FA Cup, EFL Cup, and UEFA Europa League this season, the latter being their 37th European campaign.

Arsenal, managed by Mikel Arteta in his third full season, was the Premier League's second-youngest team, with an average starting age of 25 years and 52 days. After exiting the FA Cup, EFL Cup, and UEFA Europa League, they finished second in the Premier League and qualified for the UEFA Champions League for the first time in six years. Arsenal ended the season with their highest goal-scoring campaign ever in the Premier League. My question then is, why are so many Arsenal fans obsessed with Arsenal getting a new striker??

Arsenal are back in the Champions League and have an almost set starting 11. Any investment in a striker would need to be an upgrade on the current set-up. Looking at the market of elite strikers and knowing how limited they are. The minimum investments in an upgrade would be 100-150 million. To explain why investing in a striker for 150 million may not make economic sense compared to investing in the midfield and defence, let's draw an analogy with an economic situation.

Investing in a striker for a high price of 150 million without considering the balance of the team can be compared to a situation in economics known as the "fallacy of composition." This fallacy occurs when individuals assume that what is true for one part of a system will be true for the entire system. In the context of a football team, it means assuming that improving one aspect, such as scoring more goals, will automatically lead to overall success.

In terms of football, investing such a substantial amount solely in a striker could be seen as a misallocation of resources considering not only FFP but simple budgeting as a club. While a prolific striker can indeed help a team score more goals, focusing solely on attack neglects the importance of a solid midfield and defence. Arsenal survived without their main forward Gabriel Jesus but the loss of Saliba and Tomiyasu at the back saw a drastic loss of form. It's similar to an economy that focuses all its resources on a single sector while disregarding other sectors.

To illustrate this point, let's consider an analogy. Imagine a country that decides to invest heavily in its luxury goods industry, expecting it to stimulate economic growth and generate more revenue. While this sector might thrive, other essential sectors like agriculture, manufacturing, or infrastructure may suffer due to limited investment. Consequently, the country becomes vulnerable to external threats, economic imbalances, and potential instability.

Similarly, in football, neglecting investments in midfield and defence to solely bolster the attack can lead to adverse consequences. A strong midfield is crucial for maintaining possession, creating chances, and controlling the game. Meanwhile, a solid defence ensures that fewer goals are conceded and provides stability to the team.

By disregarding the defensive and midfield areas, a team becomes more susceptible to counterattacks and goals scored against them. Which we saw in the losses against Everton and Nottingham Forrest and the draws against Liverpool, West Ham and Southampton. Even if they have an exceptional striker, their overall performance may suffer, and they might end up losing more games than before. Tottenham is a case in this point.?

In the case of the use of a simple household budget analogy to explain why investing in the midfield and defence might be more sensible than spending a significant amount on a striker.

Imagine you have a limited budget for improving your household. You want to make the most effective use of your money to ensure a balanced and secure living environment.

Identifying the problem: In this case, your main concern is losing games due to goals scored against you. So the problem lies in your defence and midfield, which are responsible for preventing the opposition from scoring.

Analyzing the options: You have two choices – investing in a striker or strengthening your defence and midfield.

Investing in a striker: By spending 150 million on a striker, you hope to score more goals and potentially win more games. However, this strategy does not directly address the issue of conceding goals. It assumes that by outscoring your opponents, you can compensate for any defensive weaknesses. It's a bit like buying a fancy entertainment system for your living room while neglecting to fix a leaky roof.

Strengthening the defence and midfield: Alternatively, you could invest a portion of your budget in improving the defence and midfield. By bolstering these areas, you aim to prevent goals scored against you. This approach focuses on addressing the root cause of the problem directly and creating a solid foundation for success. It's like using your budget to repair the roof, reinforce the walls, and enhance the security system of your house.

Long-term benefits: While a high-profile striker might generate excitement and potentially score more goals, investing in a strong defence and midfield has long-term benefits. By minimizing goals scored against you, you increase the likelihood of securing victories and reducing the number of games lost. It establishes a solid defensive structure that provides stability and allows your team to build from the back. In our household analogy, it's like ensuring your home is secure, well-insulated, and protected against external threats. The long 38-game league season proved this. While?Manchester City got a goalscoring machine in Haaland, the difference came in their defence. Manchester City only scored 10 more goals than Arsenal and on the other end, they conceded 10 goals less. The defence was the difference.?Elite strikers win golden boots, good defences and balanced teams win you titles.?

Budget considerations: A significant factor in making any investment decision is your available budget. Spending 150 million on a striker might exhaust a substantial portion of your resources, leaving little room for other necessary improvements. However, by distributing your budget across various areas like defence and midfield, you can address multiple needs within your means. In our household analogy, it's like allocating your budget to cover all essential repairs and upgrades, rather than putting all your funds into one flashy but narrow aspect.

Ultimately, the decision depends on the specific circumstances of the team and its goals. While a talented striker can certainly contribute to scoring more goals, neglecting the defence and midfield can leave your team vulnerable. Striking a balance and investing in a well-rounded team is often a more prudent strategy for sustained success. Arsenal will probably spend a maximum of 250 million this transfer window. Spending 100-150 million of that on a forward is not financially prudent.?