Talk:List of most expensive association football transfers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Suarez's fee

British Media reported a fee of £75m (€94m) yet no one use this source of information. But with Bale's one even though Madrid's official page said it is €91m, why include the €100m of the British press?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.177.129.179 (talk) 05:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Gómez

...is missing... reportedly 35 mio € — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.42.11.146 (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)}}

Essien's fee

Michael Essien is missing reportedly £24.4m http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/chelsea/4152512.stm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pankaye (talk • contribs) 18:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

---

List of most expensive association football transfers → List of highest association football transfer fees – More specific and unambiguous - while "most expensive transfers" and "highest transfer fees" are often used interchangeably, this isn't always the case. Telegraph, Forbes, and BleacherReport all provide inflation-adjusted figures to define "most expensive", while Marca, Mirror, Mail, NBC Sports and ESPN all discuss "most expensive" to include payments beyond the transfer fee (i.e. agent/3rd party owner fees). This isn't to say that "most expensive" is incorrect, but that it has a broad and flexible definition and we prefer more specific, absolute names, especially for an ordered list like this. Mosmof (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Mosmof I agree on terminologies and that "expensive" is ambiguous but, with the table having a header sequenced as "Rank Player From To Fee (M £) Fee (M €) Year Ref.", I think that it the content is best described as a list of transfers rather than a list of fees.

suggest List of association football transfers by price or List of highest priced association football transfers . A "... by price" list does not need to be comprehensive. GregKaye 23:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, and personally I trout the OP for going ahead and proposing this after getting nowhere in a discussion about it elsewhere. The simple fact of the matter is that the move proposes a change that is both unnecessary, has weaker grammar ("list of highest" doesn't sit well), and is also pretty vague anyway. I don't like either of Greg's suggestions; the former is obviously a no-go as it implies an exhaustive list, whilst the latter makes it seem like some kind of a shopping experience. "List of most expensive" is a very commonly used thing on Wikipedia as well, and numerous articles are located at that kind of location. And, honestly, what is the real difference between the original title, and the OP's proposal? None, really. It's a pointless move for the sake of doing something. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• It sounds for me list of most expensive association football transfers is better option than the proposed name . I never had confusion about this name before anywhere i have read , so not sure If it is worth it to change the name . although I really think having three articles for kinda the same thing :

1-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_association_football_transfers

2-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_football_transfer_record

3-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_(association_football)

it is a little bit too much..so maybe we can make them one article ? what do you think guys ?Adnan (talk) 04:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 18:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - current name is bad, proposed name is much worse. GiantSnowman 18:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

October 2014

Where is Neymar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.20.71.249 (talk) 12:40, 11 October 2014‎

As explained on the Neymar section of the Transfer article, Santos received £17m for the player. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2014 .(UTC)

Transfer include ALL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.77.4.204 (talk) 23:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Rank

The rank column doesn't sort correctly. Otherwise, it's a half-decent list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. The order has to be in either one of the currencies. The currency rate fluctuation makes for confusing reading. For example, if we use the sterling value (at time of transfer) the list would go:

Bale, Ronaldo, Suarez, Rodriguez, Di Maria, Ibrahimovic, Kaka [...].

If we use the € value (at time of transfer) the list would go:

Ronaldo, Suarez, Bale, Rodriguez, Di Maria, Zidane, Sterling [...].

If fact, at present, the list goes:

Bale, Ronaldo, Suarez, Rodriguez, Di Maria, Zidane, Sterling, Ibrahimovic, Kaka [...].

The question is, why is Bale above Ronaldo. If the answer is that we are comparing the £ values, then why is Sterling (£49m) below Zidane (£46m)? Avash Pandit (talk) 07:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Why would Bale be below Ronaldo using €? RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 08:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The list is clearly biased towards a British point of view. Giving prevalence in the ranking to the GBP tag over the EUR tag is not only misleading (because more of these transfer fees involved a team from a country with EUR than GBP) but also inacurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.165 (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Where is Neymar's fee

I've checked the list numerous times and did not find Neymar and his transfer fee. Why is it so? Can someone explain me. Sammanhumagain^t@lk 17:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You are right in saying that he is missing from the list. Probably because of controversy around the exact transfer sum: Transfer of Neymar from Santos to Barcelona. I see that people have been adding him to the top of this list though, which is not correct. I will try and correct it. Sygmoral (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Sygmoral (talk), THank you. Finally someone answers my query. NextGenSam619^t@lk 13:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Di maria below De Bruyne

Why is Di Maria below De Bruyne even though on the list the transfer value is shown as more in pounds for Di Maria than it is for De Bruyne — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.137.252.216 (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Image of Vidal

I have no problem with the image of Arturo Vidal being used at the side of the page, but the caption beneath said he is 'the most expensive player purchased by a German team.' However, the table, and its links, clearly show that the €38 million fee FC Bayern Munich paid for Vidal in 2015 didn't break the German record of €40 million paid for Javi Martinez by Bayern in 2012. I have changed the caption to show this, but I think it would be better to have a picture of the actual record-holder, not the runner-up, as it were. I am not good with image files so if someone could replace Vidal's image with one of Martinez, that would be great. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Raincloud Kid (talk • contribs) 00:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Rui Costa, Toldo, Thuram and Buffon

Please fix the table with 85 billion lire, 55 billion lire, 80 billion lire and 100 billion lire respectively. Matthew_hk tc 10:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Ramires

In January 2016, Ramires moved from Chelsea to Jiangsu Suning for £25 million (€32.7 million). Can this be added to the table? The Raincloud Kid (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be able to be added. --Dagko (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

As I recall Kaka's transfer to Real Madrid was a World Record for about a month and a half until Ronaldo's. Why is that not mentioned at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.38.130 (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Shifting values

Why have some players, such as Mesut Ozil, not had any of their fees adjusted over time when others have? Ozil's was €50m which translated to £42.5m at the time and that value is still reflected. Comparatively, Kevin de Bruyne's transfer fee was €75m which equated to £54.5m at the time of the transfer. Raheem Sterling's fee was £44m (€63.3m) increasing to £49m (€70.5m). Why have these values been arbitrarily increased? If you adjust these to February 3, 2016 value in €, per the time when the chart was last updated, the transfer fees would decrease when reflected in € yet they've both increased completely arbitrarily. This method and chart is nothing short of nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.6.217.175 (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Accessibility issues

Per MOS:COLOR: Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information. The table uses background colours and nothing else to convey various items of information. This needs fixing. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Leroy Sane

He has signed for Manchester City for 37m. (talk) 12:58, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Bale's fee

Real Madrid's official statement for Bale's fee was 91 million euros, so please correct the fees. No media should be weighted higher than the official from the club itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.175.25.27 (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is it that bales contract which was leaked clearly states 85.1 million pounds sterling, yet the amount shown on the main page is 85.3 million pounds sterling? Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahilebrahim (talk • contribs) 09:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

English/Spanish record-breaking players

Now that Pogba is the most expensive of all time, and the most expensive player purchased by an English team, a picture of Bale as the most expensive player purchased by a Spanish team should replace the picture of De Bruyne. The Raincloud Kid (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Done! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisTakey (talk • contribs) 01:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The most expensive teenager/over 30

Is it really necessary to mention the most expensive teenager? Also, at this point why not the most expensive footballers aged over 30 (Batistuta?)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.6.194 (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of most expensive association football transfers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yDBo7IiW?url=http://www.bilanciomilan.it/2007/HTML/2006/HTML/PDF/bilancio.pdf to http://www.bilanciomilan.it/2007/HTML/2006/HTML/PDF/bilancio.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.goal.com/en/news/1717/editorial/2012/02/26/2928862/crisis-at-chelsea-inter-imploding-but-jose-mourinhos
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/c/chelsea/5035604.stm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/news/newsid%3D1064964.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of most expensive association football transfers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304111357/http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/man-city-transfers-blues-agree-9640924 to http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/man-city-transfers-blues-agree-9640924

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Zidane's fee

It is 150 billion lire. Matthew_hk tc 13:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Pogba's fee

It is 105m+ 5mbonus. Matthew_hk tc 18:52, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

4 August 2017, multi-issue

• 1. Neymar fee to Barcelona. which one should be used? official one that was false, or the fee exposed during tax evasion case? with or without agent fee or to Neymar's family? It is common for Brazilian footballer to have third party ownership and/or the footballer owned a portion of the "economic rights" of the fee. And for agent fee, the fee to Pogba's agent was NOT deduced in the table, as ManU did paid Juve 105m (or less due to solidarity contribution), just Juve re-distributed 27m to agent. Matthew_hk tc 07:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I do believe the total cost should be displayed, which does indeed mean Neymar is in the top10 twice. After all, isn't this list about how expensive a player was to the club purchasing him? Regardless of how you look at it, this means the TOTAL cost should be used, which was £71.5m. according to BBC. [2] [3] If this means some other rows should be updated as well, I do believe that should happen -- and it should be made clear in the introduction of the article. Sygmoral (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

then it would cause issue with Hulk case. The Football Leaks did confirm Porto received 40m from Zenit, but do also confirm Zenit had to pay solidarity contribution to Hulk's youth club on top of 40m fee. Then may be the alleged 60m fee be used instead. Matthew_hk tc 10:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Kicker has Neymar at 86.2 million euro. Also googleing Hulk and fee most links give about 55 million euro. -14:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• 2. Oscar and Luiz fee was 60m and 50m pound respectively according to BBC, not sure it is included bonus or not, but stick to source, it is 60 and 50. Now just need source of euro equivalent (just no transfermarkt). Matthew_hk tc 07:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Neymar to PSG

I think the wording should be changed. It is Neymar cancel his contract himself, backed by unknown source. Just like the case of Mauro Zárate, it had to be confirm the source of money was from PSG, but not Qatar royal family directly in order to confirm it is a "transfer fee". Matthew_hk tc 18:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if it makes sense for him to be listed as yet. I feel we will have some information about where the money came from soon, but until then, I'm not sure it is correct to list this "transfer". — Anakimi_lambaste   22:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Most sources, if not all, call it a transfer. Would be strange if he was missing from this list. -Koppapa (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You're right. I agree. — Anakimi_lambaste   01:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

The calculation for "Percentage change from last record (including inflation) (+/- with %)" for Andy McCombie (1904) is completely wrong. It's only 40.38, not 576.98. Where did 576.98 come from anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.101.201.2 (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed it.[4] It compared to the 1893 record instead of 1903. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

There are two "fee" in the table

I dont understand that. Hddty. (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

They are British Pound Sterling (£) and Euro (€). The column headers and article text say it. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the GBP row should be removed since its value dropped significantly and may cause confusion. — TheMagnificentist 08:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Display top 100

It is necessary to display top 100 players！！ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.68.82.50 (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Why? The consensus here has long been that fifty is a sensible maximum. If you want to try and add 100 players again, you need to justify it (here) first, otherwise other editors will quite rightly keep undoing it. The Raincloud Kid (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

May be top 100 is ok, but not top 51 and 49 blank entries. Matthew_hk tc 05:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

need time to fill it！Table can hide！ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.68.82.50 (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a place for unfinished junk. Matthew_hk tc 09:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

now it is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.68.82.50 (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a very good idea since above 50 could include transfers less than 20 million Euros and that's not very "expensive". — TheMagnificentist 08:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is Salah not listed?

Why is Salah not listed? — TheMagnificentist 08:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Some sources say it was 42 million euros, which doesn't place it in the top 50. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

But he's higher than many per GBP. Shouldn't the British pound row be removed since its value isn't consistent and may cause confusion? — TheMagnificentist 08:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Probably. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, the value of neither of the currencies is consistent. It makes sense to include GBP, if only to illustrate that some transfers might be record-setting in one currency and not another (precisely due to fluctuations in their value). Also, it makes the table consistent with the progression of the record transfer below in the article, where EUR only can not be used because of... not existing at the time. No longer a penguin (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Paul Pogba

It may well be that Manchester United are negotiating Pogba's transfer and will soon sign him, perhaps for the record-breaking free stated here. But it has not happened yet, and the only sources that say it has are clearly unreliable. This page should not list Pogba's transfer to United if it hasn't happened yet (and of course, may never happen). The Raincloud Kid (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

In the second to last paragraph of the section "World football transfer record", the last sentence says "In 2016, Manchester United eventually took the record away from Real Madrid, signing French striker Paul Pogba for €105million (£89million)," but it should be updated to reflect that Pogba is in fact a midfielder. 00:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.82.133 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2017

In the upcoming transfer fee in 2019, Vinícius Júnior will be 18 or 19 years old when he goes to Real Madrid so this row should be coloured red in accordance to the record fee for a teenager as he will cost £3.6 million more than Anthony Martial. 86.180.71.223 (talk) 20:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — TheMagnificentist 20:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I have provided this source I have found. Forgot to add it in the original request. Thanks,

86.180.71.223 (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The change for this specific request also requires a conversion to Euros, and since the transfer isn't happening until 2019, it also cannot be added per WP:CRYSTAL. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Real Madrid paid in euro or in Brazilian real, just need a reliable source to prove his price that was agreed in 2017 not 2019. Matthew_hk tc 19:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Also the user who did the request may have mis-read the information given above the table - the colouring of the rows may be based on fees in euros which UK currency fluctuates. The user probably saw that Vinicius would be worth more in UK currency but not in Euro currency so this row would never be coloured red. And just for an added measure, Zinedine Zidane would have been worth much more in UK currency compared to 2001 which makes the guy worth less compared to recent transfers. He is ranked 9th in the Euros table but in the Pounds table, he would be ranked 23rd, less than John Stones who was worth much less than Zidane in euros. 86.161.5.62 (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Dembele

When are you going to add Dembele? The transfer has already been announced officially — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.189.219.76 (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The deal was not completely done as it was pending medical. Matthew_hk tc 16:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

added age to column

What do you think about added age to columns? Dawid2009 (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Different currencies

It's becoming an issue that, thanks to fluctuating exchange rates, some transfers are worth more in once currency than another transfer, yet less in a different currency. For example, Morata's transfer from Real Madrid to Chelsea is the 10th most expensive in terms of pounds sterling, but only the 13th most expensive in terms of Euros. There is no logical reason to prioritise Euros above sterling, yet what this arbitrary prioritisation does is mean that some transfers that would be in the top fifty most expensive in sterling are not included on the list at all. This is clearly a problem as Euros are not some kind of official currency in football; though 78% of transfers on this list (at the time of writing) involve Euros, 59% involve sterling, so the difference is not so great as to justify one being prioritised over the other. We're left with two options for this list:

• add a third category of a 'neutral' currency (such as US dollars, a good choice as they are a common lingua franca of global finance, as it were) by which to auto-sort the table, taking out the issue of which of Euros or sterling should be prioritised
• have two different tables on this page, listing the most expensive transfers by Euros in one and listing the most expensive by pound sterling in the other.

To me, the former option is much more sensible, but I would be very glad to hear the feedback of other editors on this page. Thanks in advance! The Raincloud Kid (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

if you convert it yourself, it see more likely a WP:OR. I doubt the US news coverage had enough data we need to fill the neutral currency column. Matthew_hk tc 03:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I take your point, but surely if you quoted actual currency statistics from the day of each transfer, according to official sources (and there definitely will be official records of currency exchange rates) then that wouldn't be inappropriate original research? The Raincloud Kid (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

But in reality, the fee was paid via installments and currency fluctuate. The policy of wikipedia already said no currency exchange . On top of inflation calculation, it is pretty much WP:OR than simple math. Matthew_hk tc 07:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Just my two cents worth, but if the decision is to reduce this to one currency, it makes more sense to scrap the GBP and rely on the much more widely used € for a benchmark.46.7.195.132 (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Undo ill-advised merge of record progression

I disagree with the August 2017 "merger" of the record progression page (world football transfer record) into the top-50 page (List of most expensive association football transfers)

1. I suggest renaming the de-merged article from "world football transfer record" to World football transfer record progression or World association football transfer record progression to better reflect its contents and avoid any misconception that is is a duplicate of "List of most expensive association football transfers".
2. The original merge request (and hatnotes from and to) proposed merging from "List of most expensive association football transfers" to "World football transfer record" whereas the actual "merger" was in the opposite direction.
3. This current article is not a merger; it is concatenating two articles one after the other. A merger is about melding the two into a single seamless whole, removing duplication of content. In this cases, the only duplication is the few transfers on both lists, which are still (correctly) on both lists. The merged article is: lede of top-50 article; then lede of progression article; then top 50 list; then progression list. How is this better than two separate pages?
4. The merger "discussion" was two people in 2015, nothing for two years, then one more person. The arguments offered are weak:
   1. Original requester Adnan n2 seemed to base the proposal on the fact that both articles replicated parts of Transfer (association football) (in 2015 that article had a Highest fees section duplicating much of the record progression, and a Players section replicating the top-50). I don't know why Adnan didn't suggest merging both lists up to "Transfer (association football)" rather than merging one to the other. In any case there is at most an argument for WP:SUMMARY moving excessive detail out of "Transfer (association football)" and into the respective child articles, not to merge the children to the parent (much less merge to each other).
      • Adnan also said "both of them talking about the same topic which is transfer record and even one of them stop being updated since 2013",
        • "both of them talking about the same topic which is transfer record" - no; only a minority of the top-50 were ever a record.
        • "even one of them stop being updated since 2013" I don't understand; "List of most expensive association football transfers" was created in 2014; "world football transfer record" was regularly updated in 2014. Maybe Adnan means the record had not changed from 2013 until the time of writing in 2015? Which is of course not a reason to merge. Neither Farthest South and Farthest North will ever be improved, but shouldn't be merged.
   2. Liam E. Bekker (like Adnan's "same topic") says "the two articles are very similar". If this means the layout and topic are similar, that's true. But the information is completely different. For analogy, 1969–70 FA Cup and 1970–71 FA Cup have similar layout and topic, but the information is completely different.
   3. Leo Bonilla says: "The merger of the two articles will accomplish WP:DUE and both articles are similar in WP:MOS so it's not recommendable to have them separated."
      • I don't understand what "similar in WP:MOS" means or how it is relevan. Is it Liam E. Bekker's "very similar" addressed above?
      • I'm not sure how WP:DUE is relevant; there seems to be no POV involved. Is it claimed that having two articles about record transfers makes record transfers sound more important than they really are, whereas having only one article gives a more realistic assessment of their importance? I don't think that is a valid concern or a context for invoking WP:DUE.

jnestorius^(talk) 14:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of most expensive association football transfers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6BpztUQzs?url=http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/history/memories/teesside/3603267.The_player_with_the_Common_touch_/ to http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/history/memories/teesside/3603267.The_player_with_the_Common_touch_/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Mbappe

How come his transfer isn't listed? Isn't he the 2nd most expensive player of all time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.67.17 (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

He joined PSG initially on loan and no news update regarding the outright transfer yet. Matthew hk (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Naby Keïta

Since Naby Keïta was not announced officially (unlike Vinícius Júnior). It is not good to include him yet. Matthew_hk tc 10:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Seem Liverpool had announced the transfer in August 2017, which should be add him to the list? Matthew_hk tc 18:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Jorginho

This player has to be included in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcas89 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Fabinho

• Hi, I have gone ahead and boldly removed Fabinho from the list. His fee, as reported, included bonuses of €5 million, which should have been extracted before adding him. This leaves him short of the threshold required for the list, so I have removed him. Here is the entry for posterity, or if it needs to be re-added.

|{{flagicon|BRA}} [[Fabinho (footballer, born 1993)|Fabinho]]|{{flagicon|FRA}} [[AS Monaco FC|Monaco]]|{{flagicon|ENG}} [[Liverpool F.C|Liverpool]]|Midfielder|€51|£43.7|[[2018 in association football|2018]]| align="center" |<ref>{{cite news|url=http://global.espn.com/football/story/3511922/liverpool-agree-deal-to-sign-fabinho-from-monaco?src=com|title=Liverpool agree to sign midfielder Fabinho from Manaco}}</ref>

- Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Dembele's color

Did he also broke the teenager record? BTW what age define as teenager, U21? Matthew_hk tc 16:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the current legend, it says 'at most at the age of 20 years old', which would include Dembele, since he had turned 20, 3 months prior. Since Mbappe was on loan the first year at PSG, and the actual transfer was a year later, Dembele has been the world's most expensive teenager for a year. But assuming priority follows the legend from top to bottom, national league record has priority over teenager color, so blue should be the correct color. Krughal (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

4 players have broken the record twice?

Surely 4 players have broken the record twice: first Alf Common, then David Jack? Redvoler (talk) 10:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

June 2019

João Félix was just transferred from Benfica to Atlético Madrid for 120.000.000 € — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.189.219.225 (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Fees table – width:100%

Hi, is there a reason why the width of the fees table is 100%? Looks a bit awkward to me. Liamwpk (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Problem with color

I don't think the color used for

  Fee broke the world football transfer record at the time of the transfer

is good as it's bland and, on my computer, I can barely see the difference with white lines. Elfast (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Paolo Rossi

Regarding Paolo Rossi, this article states that then record transfer fee was from Vicenza (payee) to Juventus (payer) in 1976. When I read articles "Paolo Rossi" in English and Italian (enwiki, itwiki), it seems that record sum was paid by Vicenza to Juventus in 1978 and Rossi was co-owned by both clubs from 1976 to 1978. Why should Juve pay to Vicenza in 1976 when he was owned by Juve even before 1976 and he was not owned by Vicenza before 1976? Or why should Juve pay to Vicenza in 1978, when he played for Vicenza after 1978? Juve bought Rossi back from Vicenza in 1981, but it seems this transfer was not the record. The source used in this article (BBC) states only sum and year 1976, but not from which club to which club. I understand that year is stated 1976, because in this year co-ownership started and in this year Rossi started to play for Vicenza. But I think the clubs are incorrectly swaped in this article (in this list).

Suprisingly, List of most expensive association football transfers on itwiki also states that Rossi went from Vicenza to Juventus in 1976. Nadsenec2 (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Co-own means "50% ownership" on paper, but actually more act like bought back rights. While i would like to read the original citation for the wording for fee. Is the actual fee times 2, is the world record, or the actual fee for the 50% already broke the record. Matthew hk (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Sancho

Should Sancho be listed as £68m (+5m add ons), rather than £73m (including 5m add ons)? This would be consistent with other similar transfers listed. Jopal22 (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Historical progression table

In the section Historical progression, it says that fees after 1999 are in euros and that before 1999 they are in GBP, but they are not and the column in the table is in GBP. This is confusing. 73.162.91.15 (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021

Where is Neymars transfer from Santos to FC Barcelona? The transfer was in court revealed to be 86,2 million euros according to hundreds of reliable sources. That should put the transfer on place 16 today.

Santos received approximately £14m for Neymar, which was the transfer fee. The fee paid to Neymar's parents was something completely dodgy and corrupt but can't be described as a transfer fee. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

BRD

Kingsif, you made a bold edit, I reverted twice, the onus is on you to discuss, rather than reverting again and again. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Bro, you reverted three times, check the edit history. More importantly, you ec'd me posting the discussion directly below this, which I had already said I would open. Shocking, but I was actually doing what you dirtily say here I haven't tried to. Pfft. Kingsif (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Bro, bro, bro. Coulda woulda shoulda. You made a bold edit, I reverted, you bold edited again, I reverted again, you bold edited a third time, I reverted a third time. Don't blame me for your failure to adhere to BRD. Thanks. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I literally explained you ec'd my discussion. What more do you want? Gonna re-explain BRD in lieu of anything relevant? Of course, I can also dispute that a logical section move is not even BOLD, that you personally just don't want to see women on the article (removed a version years ago, questioned developing the women's list above, keep saying it's undue) - and if it isn't BOLD, and you just don't like the edit, onus is on you to ask about it, no? Kingsif (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't ec'd your attempt at a discussion until after the third time I reverted you, stop blaming me for your failure to adhere to BRD, thanks. How is the section move logical? If players should be in the same section, then by that logic, why are we giving undue prominence to women's football transfers at all when they are so unsubstantial, shouldn't the lists be merged to "list of most expensive association football transfers", which would completely remove transfers peaking at £250k... it's a list of most expensive football transfers, players and managers in mens football are different, and women's football is distinct from men's football. Oh and there's a reason I'm also not arguing for a list of the most expensive non-league transfers, funny how you find an edit from two years ago and ignore that summary, isn't it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not how it played out, but at least everyone can just look at the article edit history. If this thread is meant to be on the topic of you trying to say that, you understand that I brought up other things to show that I wasn't BOLD, your editing view is just fiercely against it. Like, not to discuss those things.
But let's be clear, players are players and managers are not, it is logical to keep different lists of players together. I'm not convinced you know what logic actually means, and are just using it as "what someone thinks" - there's no logic path that is "keep the lists of players together means keep only one of these lists". You're also out of date on women's transfers. And that edit from two years ago is, again, just evidence of your continued dislike of this topic, don't know why you're bringing up another subject! Kingsif (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

It definitely is how it played out. Did you not edit the article and then get reverted, and then this happened twice more? Oh, it is what happened. It's far more logical to keep men's football and women's football as separate sections, as they are two different sports. If they're the same sport, they should be treated equally and only the top 50 transfers combined kept. How is any of that illogical? £250k, £400k, same difference, it's still less than non-league players have transferred for 👍. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I made an edit, that you reverted three times first. Like, count? And, still off-topic, but are you deliberately misunderstanding? By keep the players together, I clearly mean the edit you don't like: different sections on men and women players next to each other. Like, you're inventing something you can argue somehow both against (you don't want to merge women and men because you think they're different sports) and for (you do want to merge because the top 50 overall will just be men), rather than engaging with the actual edit. And, for the record, before you unanimously removed the list of women a few years ago the first time, it was above the managers, too. Seems like you're the only one who doesn't like it. Kingsif (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you made a bold edit, then I reverted. So, you made a total of three bold edits before you attempted to begin a discussion. Like, count? How am I inventing the concept of men's football? Also, no, for the record, when the table was removed two years ago, it wasn't above the managers section, because the managers section wasn't in the article! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

So you have been ignoring everything I've been saying, got it. No, you're obviously not inventing the concept of men's football, you're obviously inventing a fictional stance that you're trying to say I'm taking (the idea of merging men's and women's records), which I'm not, because it favours what you want to do. I have to assume you're being deliberately obtuse so you don't have to respond to the actual point because that wasn't in the least unclear. Kingsif (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

You haven't said anything beyond "men's and women's players should be in the same section", you haven't explained why and you haven't argued any of my points beyond vague remarks. Oh and you don't archive ongoing discussions, what are you doing? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, if the point of this discussion thread is BRD as you started it, I said that my first edit wasn't BOLD, you just don't like it personally, and that you made three reverts. You refused to engage with that, made up a fictitious stance you claim I'm taking so you can argue against it and get your way, and we've gone into circular debates about other stuff. Other people won't be able to follow this. The point of the thread - that you started - has been truly lost, and no progress is being made because rather than add anything new you just keeping saying "no you're wrong" to whatever I put. That is absolutely time for archiving a dead-in-the-water thread so that your, my, and any talk page watchers' time is not further wasted. Like, really, what are you doing? Starting a thread to be pointy to someone then only talking around them, and for some reason wanting to keep doing it instead of engaging with a discussion that might actually come to a resolution. Is your plan to wear people down or what? Kingsif (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

You don't get to declare your edit as not being bold, it just was! Stop backtracking and trying to blame me yet again for your refusal to adhere to BRD. Bold (you), revert (me), discuss (you). But it seems nothing is ever your fault is it pal. I've tried discussing it but when you are making insinuations about my character and my actions, what progress could possibly be made? Absolutely pathetic. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

If I say I don't think my edit was BOLD, with reasoning remember, I expect you to give reasons why you disagree - not just declare that it is! Or what was the point in opening a discussion about it! But it seems you don't have to answer to anything, do you? (See how it goes.) And "pal" you really haven't tried discussing jack shit, you've adamantly ignored everything I've said (and I have at least tried) in order to go off about "list shouldn't have women" (still without good reasons), even though this thread (which, let me remind you, you started) is not on that subject - and you've completely disengaged with the actual thread on the article content because you can't read nine lines. This is absolutely futile, you go in circles about nothing of substance until I challenge you to make a point, and then yell at me. This thread should have been discarded long ago for violating WP:NOTAFORUM. Kingsif (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I have answered you. I think your bold edit was incorrect, I think the sections focusing on men's football should be back-to-back in the article. I think the women's football section should come after that. Which part of this are you struggling with? I also didn't say the "list shouldn't have women", you've just invented that quote, please remove this. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Which part of on-topic are you struggling with? You started a thread to say "you [Kingsif] broke BRD". I replied saying that not only had you [ItsKesha] caught me in an edit conflict, and that you had broken 3RR, but I also did not think my initial edit was BOLD in the first place, and explained why. Your next four replies were nothing more than variations on "no you broke BRD, I will explain what BRD is, and by the way I don't think the women's section should be above the manager's section/included at all" – I suppose those are technically answers, but you did not answer on-topic, even as I tried to steer you there.
If you want a discussion on the content, here's an idea, start a discussion on the content. I have at least twice previously in this thread suggested that we were talking at cross-purposes (me, on the topic; you, on your opinions), and to those comments you have also given replies to the effect of "no you broke BRD, by the way...". Like, you've clearly not actually been digesting my words, just wanting to argue. Not that you need to, you made your stance well known long ago. By the way, I think that stance is incorrect.
So, let's make it absolutely clear, there is no purpose to continuing this thread that is maybe about BRD but isn't really and isn't going anywhere, nor would there really be purpose to a thread on the location of the sections in the article that only has the pair of us involved. If you want to start that thread, and leave a comment, I might also leave a comment - and then let's not debate between ourselves in it, just wait for a 3O. Kingsif (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Which part of BRD are you struggling with? I've explained to you umpteen times what it is and how you broke it. Which part of me explaining why the men's and women's sections should be separated are you struggling with? You keep ignoring and ignoring and ignoring. This is clearly your pattern. Ignore, ignore, ignore. And again you do a wall of text that says absolutely nothing in relation to my last comment. It's really simple. I'll repeat it for you in 10 words. Men's football and women's football sections should be kept apart. Got it? Want to reply to this, or are you going to waffle on and on and on and on about things I'm not going to read? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Top 10 women

Can probably be combined with info from this article version. -Koppapa (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Kingsif (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Women's transfers

Is an extensive list really required for transfers that are all less than that paid for a fourth division player in 2022? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion on the length of the list. I don't think to show equity between men's and women's the lists need to be the same length - the markets are clearly different. But, then, the list of managers seemed to expect to reach 50 and was marked as incomplete before the list of women was (most recently) added - which suggests that regardless of the different markets, all the lists should aim for a fixed length. And while it makes sense to only include fees above the ordinary, I feel that the men's list also dips below a level where the fee is fairly standard. I will say that I personally was not planning to include fees below say the €50,000 mark, which is the point at which they seem to be consistently discussed as high, then @Seany91: added the NWSL list from $25,000 up, so that seems to be the bottom. Perhaps a better question is, really, do we count the NWSL trades as equal to transfers, since it's money that only "exists" when trading to a club outside of the US. Kingsif (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Most expensive African

Technically is Ronaldo not the world's most expensive African footballer? Madeira is on the African continental plate. Salty1984 (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The geography of the near-African islands is a whole other debate; in this list, the "continents" are listed and counted as confederations, regardless of birth location (e.g. someone born in the UK representing Nigeria internationally would be an African player) - Cristiano Ronaldo's confederation is UEFA. Kingsif (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

transfers in £

Why are the sum of the record transfers in pounds ? The common currency in europe is € . This does not make any sense. 2001:818:DCC2:D500:E8F2:D65B:D479:9FD7 (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Er, the transfers are listed in various currencies. If you're asking why sterling is included and used for the progression table, I'd assume it's because for a long time there were only paid transfers of British players (and between clubs in Britain), or maybe because most of the men's list were transfers before the Euro existed. It would actually be impossible to retroactively convert to a currency that didn't exist. Yeah, using Euro wouldn't make sense. Kingsif (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, as this is the English language Wikipedia, the sources tend to use the pound as the primary currency. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Mudryk

Chelsea bought Mudryk for 100m euros Yeetmaster25 (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Mudryk

Chelsea bought Mudryk for 100m euros. Yeetmaster25 (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)