Introduction
The summer of 2025 will be remembered as a record-breaking window – not just for the money spent, but for the way deals were done. This was a market defined by creativity and constraint in equal measures: loan-to buy obligations, intricate sell-on clauses, and players signing under multi-club ownership? All whilst the pressure of the 2026 World Cup rises on the horizon. Could that have shifted decision-making?
It may have felt chaotic, hard to follow and understand, but that is exactly what makes the transfer window so special. In this article I will look to break down exactly what happened and answering the question: Why?
The new trend? Loan with obligation-to-buy: sharing risk and reward
One of the clearest examples of a shift in deal structures was the increasing usage of a loan-to buy obligation. So, the question is why? Let’s unpack a deal and understand the benefits of this deal structure.
Rasmus Hojlund from Manchester United to SSC Napoli
- Season-long loan from Man United to Napoli
- €6 million paid upfront (Loan fee)
- Obligation to buy clause €44 million
The most important thing to understand about a loan with obligation to buy clause is that an obligating event is necessary for the clause to activate.
In this case the obligating event in the deal is:
- Napoli qualifying for the Champions League
- Hojlund reaching a minimum number of appearances
Initially it is easy to see the deal and assume that the main purpose behind this type of deal structure is something to do with PSR. However, I believe there are reasons behind these type of deals that are far more beneficial than PSR numbers.
- Clubs are able to share the large portion of risk when making a transfer.
- Napoli aren’t fully committing to a full transfer fee upfront. They are striking the deal on the basis of success. This helps them manage risk if their vision for success is not achieved with the player.
- Man United are given a loan fee (early compensation) + wages being covered. This provides them with financial incentive in the short term of losing the player.
It guarantees the player a stability
If the deal is made on obligation causes it reassures the player and clearly helps them to understand what they need to produce to secure the move themselves. If the deal is on an option to buy for example, it is hard to feel you have a place in your new team that is guaranteed. Hard to feel settled about your own future. Especially with Man United bringing in a new striker (Benjamin Sesko) with such a high transfer fee and a young profile, for Hojlund it makes sense to not risk going back to Manchester United through an option-to buy as the long-term position to be the striker for Manchester United looks to be cemented.
The impact of a €85 million release clause active from 2027
Once/if Hojlund’s move to Napoli becomes permanent, his contract includes a release clause of €85 million active from summer 2027.
This allows Hojlund future guarantees and success for both buying and selling clubs. Hojlund understands that if he succeeds at Napoli any club that is interested in him from the summer of 2027 can buy him at €85 million. This is clear and an obligation. This brings success to both Man United & Napoli as well. If the player is sold for €85 million then Napoli makes a profit from their initial permanent transfer fee of €44 million. Man United also then have a 5% sell on clause, making them some more money back.
This could be the explanation for why there were over 47 loans with obligation to buy deals this summer.
Nicholas Jackson from Chelsea FC to FC Bayern Munich
- Initial loan fee: €15 million (€3 million contributed by the agent)
- Obligation to buy clause €80 million package and sell on clause
In this case the obligating event of the deal is:
- 40 appearances
However, Jackson’s agent Ali Barat has said: “They have a mandatory purchase option (of €80 million) if he plays 40 games, but they also have a €65 million option (if he plays fewer than 40 games).”
Why this deal doesn’t follow the principles of an obligation to buy clause
A quote from Bayern’s Honorary President, Uli Hoeneß:
“Jackson’s obligation to buy will ONLY be activated if he starts 40 games… it’s IMPOSSIBLE.”
The quote shows the intent of the deal. With high condition triggers, it’s hard for the deal to provide any long-term guarantees for the player. Even minor rotation or injury could put the deal in jeopardy or make it impossible to complete.
However, with there still being a fixed price option of €65 million (if less than 40 games are played) this still maintains Jackson’s incentive to continue playing and to give reasons for Bayern to consider paying the €65 million potentially in the summer.
Therefore, the structure of Jackson’s deal may not fully align with the principles of a loan with an obligation-to-buy, as the difficult obligation trigger offers the player little certainty about his long-term future. However, the inclusion of a reduced fee if he plays fewer than 40 games still leaves the door open, giving both player and club a platform to share success.
Signing to two clubs at once?
‘Julio Enciso deal sealed by BlueCo group’ was the headline. However, what did this deal truly look like beyond the headline?
- Initial transfer fee: €16 million + €2.5 million add-ons
- Contract with Strasbourg: 4 years
With the structure of this deal, it is important to understand that a contract has been signed with Strasbourg. Regardless of media reports about joining Chelsea in 2026, it is legally not guaranteed—only a potential, albeit a highly likely one. The player would still be required to negotiate a contract with Chelsea if the conditions for a move in 2026 are to be met.
But what is the purpose of such a structure?
- It guarantees the player experience and playing time within Europe.
- With Chelsea currently being a highly competitive team, it is hard to see how Julio Enciso would have fit in the team immediately. Instead by going to Strasbourg he is able to gain experience and showcase his talent.
- With a World Cup summer on the horizon Julio Enciso will know he needs to be match fit to make the squad for Paraguay. Having a larger chance of acquiring minutes for Strasbourg in Ligue 1 could have been a deciding factor behind the move.
- With the player understanding the multi club ownership, he will know what is required of him on the pitch to earn his move to Chelsea as the deal may be ‘pre-agreed but contingent on formalities’.
Who holds the cards? Players vs clubs
The summer transfer window arguably saw some controversial moves by players. And the question is often raised: do the players have too much power, or is it justified?
Alexander Isak from Newcastle United to Liverpool FC
- Conditions of the deal: £125 million fixed fee
Isak leveraged his position to force a move out of Newcastle from early in the transfer window. His absence from pre-season training and early league matches indicated a clear intent to leave. While Newcastle stayed firm on their position on not selling until ‘conditions were met’ through finding a replacement striker, Isak escalated the tension between him and the fans through a social media post after the PFA’s.
So, let’s understand the position and power both club and player asserted:
- Isak refused training, with no aspiration or intent of joining back with the Newcastle first team in the long term. This meant Newcastle United would find it hard to keep onto a player with such a value, sitting outside of the squad.
- However, Newcastle also had leverage. With the 2026 World Cup coming up and Gyokeres being fierce competition for the starting striker position, it would have been hard for Isak to make the World Cup squad while absent from his club.
While this may have given Newcastle United some leverage, two factors prevented them from fully asserting their power:
- Newcastle would be having a £125 million player not in their matchday squad which could be reinvested into a new striker.
- Newcastle United needed a striker with Isak’s intent of not wanting to play. If funds opened up through a transfer they could acquire a replacement, as seen in the transfer of Woltemade.
The reasonings are further seen in the statement which was released by Newcastle United. As Newcastle emphasized the need for conditions to be met in order for a deal to be completed:
“As explained to Alex and his representatives, we must always take into consideration the best interests of Newcastle United, the team and our supporters in all decisions and we have been clear that the conditions of a sale this summer have not transpired. We do not foresee those conditions being met.”
Therefore, it is hard to answer whether the club or player possesses more power as it can be dependent case by case. The balance of power can shift depending on a player’s value and the remaining length of their contract.
An example of a club extorting its maximum power can be seen in the treatment of Raheem Sterling and Axel Disasi. Both left out of the squad and training at different times compared to the senior team. It is important to remember when a club feels a player no longer possesses value to the club the shift in power can change quickly and drastically.
Conclusion
The summer transfer window of 2025 was an example of how football continues to evolve. The transfer window is where money, strategy, and timing come together in creative yet unexpected ways. From loan-to-buy obligations carefully structured to manage risk, to multi-club ownership deals designed to develop talent, and high-stakes power plays between clubs and players, the window reflected both the creativity and complexity of modern football transfers.
World Cup years only up the stakes, influencing clubs and players to make calculated moves that take into account both immediate performance with long-term career and financial goals. Ultimately, whether it’s the structure of a contract, the activation of a release clause, or the negotiation of power between player and club, this summer transfer window reminds us that football transfers are more than transactions—they are strategic chess games played on the global stage.
