Former Chelsea midfielder Emmanuel Petit has hit out at the club's owners for handing out excessively long contracts to players, believing it doesn't encourage them to prove themselves.
Dishing out long-term contracts has been the norm at Stamford Bridge since Todd Boehly's consortium took over the club in the summer of 2022.
Eight of Chelsea's current squad are signed to contracts that are either seven or more years long, with star players Cole Palmer and Nicolas Jackson both tied down at the club until 2033.
As of August of this year, the Blues had a total of 191 years worth of player deals – almost double that of any other club in world football.
Petit, who spent the final three years of his playing career with Chelsea between 2001 and 2004, isn't a fan of the strategy.
“Chelsea players landing these long contracts have hit the jackpot,” he said, according to quotes cited on X, the platform previously known as Twitter. “They have nothing to prove anymore. They can sit on these deals for nine years without having to earn a new one."
Why are Chelsea handing out such long contracts?
There are two big reasons Chelsea's new owners have been giving players such long contracts.
Firstly, it means the club can spread the initial acquisition cost of a player over a longer period of time on their books – which is a common accountancy practice known as amortisation. The longer a deal, the more years the money is spread out across.
As a result, this means that the Blues, despite appearing to be investing heavily, are actually spending less each year and can more easily stay in line with the Premier League's financial regulations.
Secondly, giving players longer contracts allows Chelsea to protect their assets, negating the chance that key players could leave the club for free when their contract runs out.
During Roman Abramovich's reign at the Bridge, the Blues had a number of stars leave the club for free when a longer contract would have meant they could have instead been sold.
There are, of course, pitfalls to this strategy.
As Petit said, players are not under pressure to earn a new contract could theoretically rest on their laurels knowing that they are financially secure for the forseeable future. It also means that if a deal with a player does not work out – meaning they aren't playing or improving the way it was initially hoped – and Chelsea can't find a buyer, they will have to continue to pay them regardless.
Speaking with OLBG last year, Blues legend Pat Nevin described Chelsea's approach of signing players on long term deals as a "risky concept."
"Chelsea are now doing the same thing with young players in the hope that they'll improve, increase in value, and then you can sell them at a profit or at least a good percentage," he said, adding: "If it works, it's phenomenal, but it can't work for every player. If every club did this, it'd be a disaster."
Comments