Tottenham Hotspur find themselves in a precarious position as January nears its end, with no outfield signings made despite mounting pressure and an ongoing injury crisis.
The club recently secured its place among the world’s top ten richest football teams, yet their form on the pitch has been disastrous, suffering six defeats in their last seven Premier League games and slipping closer to the relegation zone.
Ange Postecoglou, unable to name a full bench in the recent 2-1 home loss to Leicester City, has repeatedly warned that failing to bring in reinforcements is a dangerous gamble. The club’s only signing so far has been deputy goalkeeper Antonin Kinsky, leaving fans frustrated as they watch their squad struggle with key absences, including both first-choice center-backs, multiple wingers, two midfielders, two strikers, and their primary left-back.
Postecoglou had emphasized the need for attacking reinforcements even before Dominic Solanke suffered a knee injury ruling him out for six weeks. Despite the urgency, Tottenham remain inactive in the transfer market.
While January is typically a quieter window, overall spending in the Premier League has increased significantly, rising from £90 million last year to £250 million in 2025, with Manchester City contributing a significant portion of that. However, Spurs have yet to make any major moves. The reluctance to spend raises questions about the club’s priorities and financial strategy.
With Tottenham sitting 16 points adrift of the European spots, their best chance of qualifying for the Champions League would be through winning the Europa League, while the Carabao Cup offers a potential route to the Conference League.
Over the past 19 seasons, Spurs have participated in European competitions 17 times, but that streak is under serious threat. Missing out on continental football would have a profound financial impact, costing the club tens of millions in matchday revenue, sponsorship bonuses, and other commercial deals.
Football finance expert Kieran Maguire estimates a £60-70 million loss if Spurs fail to qualify for Europe. If they only secure a place in the Europa League or Conference League, they may face further revenue losses due to fewer high-profile fixtures, limiting their ability to charge premium ticket prices.
Despite this financial risk, Tottenham remain in a strong position off the pitch. They rank ninth in Deloitte’s 2025 Football Money League, benefiting from a robust global brand and growing commercial revenue. Their overall revenue for 2024 reached approximately £516 million.
However, a closer look at their wage bill highlights a key issue. Spurs spend only 42% of their turnover on salaries, the lowest ratio among the world’s top 20 revenue-generating clubs. UEFA suggests that clubs can safely allocate up to 70% of their revenue to wages before encountering financial instability.
Tottenham’s conservative wage structure puts them at a disadvantage in the transfer market, making it harder to attract top talent. While their average weekly salary of £110,000 remains competitive, they lag behind their Premier League rivals in overall wage expenditure.
Tottenham’s financial strategy contrasts sharply with other top English clubs. In 2017, their wage bill stood at £127 million. By 2023, it had increased to £251 million, yet they still trailed behind Manchester City (£423 million), Liverpool (£373 million), Chelsea (£404 million), and Manchester United (£331 million).
Despite outspending Arsenal on wages that year, Spurs’ sixth-highest wage budget often correlates with a similar league position. This cautious approach has contributed to the club’s inability to break into the Premier League’s elite consistently.
Maguire notes that Tottenham’s wage-to-turnover ratio has remained relatively low because the club’s revenue surged following the construction of their new stadium, whereas their player salaries did not increase at the same pace.
The ongoing injury crisis complicates Spurs’ reluctance to spend further. The club is wary of signing players purely to cover short-term absences, knowing that most of their injured stars are expected to return by the end of February.
However, this approach creates additional challenges. Radu Dragusin’s situation serves as a prime example. Initially signed as cover for Micky van de Ven and Cristian Romero, Dragusin’s agent has already expressed concerns about his playing time once the first-choice defenders return. Signing additional outfield players on long-term contracts could lead to similar issues in the future.
Another obstacle in the transfer market is the availability of quality players. Many clubs remain reluctant to sell in January, especially under the new Champions League and Europa League formats. With more teams still in contention for knockout stages, fewer players are placed on the market.
Tottenham also have a habit of targeting young talents from bottom-half Premier League teams or promotion-chasing Championship sides. However, clubs in those positions are often unwilling to part with their most promising players mid-season.
The idea that Tottenham do not invest in their squad is somewhat misleading. Although they famously went 18 months without a signing between 2017 and 2019, they have spent over £800 million on new players since reaching the Champions League final in 2019.
The problem has not been a lack of spending but rather the effectiveness of their recruitment. Newcastle, a club of similar size, faces stricter financial limitations under the Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR), preventing them from making major signings without offloading players.
Spurs, however, do not share this concern. Despite recording losses of £239 million over the past three years, the club’s infrastructure investments and academy spending allow them to remain compliant with financial regulations. Maguire asserts that Tottenham actually turned a small profit when factoring in allowable expenses, meaning PSR restrictions do not hinder their ability to spend.
Chairman Daniel Levy remains a polarizing figure among supporters. During the recent defeat to Leicester, fans voiced their frustration with banners reading, “Our game is about glory, Levy’s game is about greed,” and, “24 years, 16 managers, 1 trophy – time for change.” Chants of “we want Levy out” echoed throughout the stadium.
While Levy’s legacy includes the state-of-the-art Tottenham Hotspur Stadium and world-class training facilities, he is ultimately judged by the club’s on-field success. Despite strong league performances in 2016 and 2017, Spurs failed to capitalize on those opportunities and have not won the FA Cup since 1991. Their only silverware under ENIC’s ownership remains the 2008 League Cup.
While the sporting director, Johan Lange, also shares responsibility for the club’s transfer dealings, Levy has made key boardroom appointments that have shaped Tottenham’s recruitment strategy. Over the years, multiple technical directors have come and gone, including Damien Comolli, Franco Baldini, and Fabio Paratici—the latter departing after FIFA banned him from football due to his alleged involvement in Juventus’ financial scandal. Levy remains the highest-paid chairman in the Premier League but does not take dividends from the club, unlike other shareholders across Europe.
Ultimately, the core issue for Tottenham is not a lack of financial resources but rather a strategic choice not to maximize their spending potential. The stadium project once served as a justification for cautious investment, but that excuse no longer holds weight.
Fans see rival clubs spending aggressively to improve their squads while Spurs remain hesitant. Clubs like Brighton and Brentford operate on smaller budgets but win fan trust through smart spending and a clear vision.
At Tottenham, the disconnect between financial capability and on-field ambition fuels frustration. Whether Levy can regain the supporters’ trust remains uncertain, but without decisive action in the transfer market, Spurs risk further decline in the months ahead.
