Why Reiss Nelson's Arsenal contract termination really doesn't matter

Arsenal returned to old habits this week when they and Reiss Nelson mutually agreed to terminate the Hale End graduate's contract, bringing to an end the player's 18-year love affair with the North London club.

Joining the Arsenal academy in 2008, Nelson rose through the ranks to break into the first team at the age of 17, making his debut for the Gunners in 2017. He was the last man standing from Arsene Wenger's tenure, and thus, his departure marks the end of of an era at the Emirates.

Agreeing to cut Nelson's contract up into pieces has rehashed some bad old memories for Gunners supporters and provoked anger from certain sections of the fanbase. However, unlike Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang, Mesut Ozil and Nicolas Pepe, this one really doesn't matter.

Arsenal players whose contracts were terminated/mutually ended rather than transferred for a fee, the number is now 12 since 2019:

Henrikh Mkhitaryan
Mesut Özil
Sokratis Papastathopoulos
Shkodran Mustafi
Sead Kolašinac
Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang
Willian
Héctor Bellerín
Nicolas… https://t.co/lVxHxYWbXm

The negative reaction to this news seems to stem from the popular and reasonable narrative that Arsenal are generally bad at selling as a club. Reports emerged in recent weeks suggesting that West Ham were in talks with the Gunners over a deal for Nelson, with a fee of £4 million being mooted.

This ultimately didn't come to fruition, and the hope of this minimal compensation is likely what's caused the frustration.

'We couldn't even get £4 million for Nelson,' is what fans are saying. Ultimately, however, the issue doesn't stem from the inabiility to sell at this point, and the decision makers at the club shouldn't be judged on this.

What club would in their right mind spend £4 million on Nelson this summer? He's 26, hasn't played over 1,000 league minutes in a season in his career and is on £100,000-a-week. Why take the gamble and spend money on him when you don't have to, even if you'd quite like him in your squad for a season?

There was never a world where Arsenal had Nelson on their books after Tuesday's deadline. He was never going to stay and eat up more resources without playing. Thus, with potential suitors well aware of this, why would they offer Arsenal £4 million for a player they knew they could just wait to get for free?

Signing Nelson to a contract longer than a year, particularly with his wages, is a huge risk for a club with the resources of those likely interested in him. He's never been able to stay fit, so not only is not really clear what his true level is, but it's also quite unlikely you'll be able to discover how good he is in one year because he's not likely to play very regularly.

For a high-end Championship club, signing Nelson on a one-year deal for free is justifiable. Paying £4 million and signing him to a muti-year deal, and paying his wages, is ludicrous.

Thus, Arsenal never really had a chance on this one.

In the summer of 2022, after Nelson had spent a season on loan at Feyenoord, managing six goal contributions in 910 Eredivisie minutes, Arsenal were prepared to part ways with the player. The North London club and his representatives searched for potential new homes for him, but nobody came in as he was injured at the time.

He subsequently stayed at Arsenal, and Mikel Arteta slowly re-integrated him back into the squad in some Europa League Group Stage games. A brace against Nottingham Forest, followed by a three-month injury lay-off, followed by that goal against Bournemouth, prompted the Gunners to hand their academy graduate a new four-year deal at the end of the 2022/23 season, when his existing contract was about to expire.

£100,00-a-week were the terms, with Arsenal essentially committing £20.8 million to Nelson over the course of the contract. After signing this deal, he went on to start one Premier League game for the club.

He also spent two years of this contract on loan in West London, making five league starts across these two temporary stints.

For context, David Raya is currently earning £100,000-a-week, and Jurrien Timber is on less. Arsenal committed an astronomical wage to a player who never really had any prospects of being a serious contributor to Arteta's team.

At the time, not much was made of this decision. Many supporters dismissed reasonable concerns that maybe this new contract wasn't quite warranted and that the situation may not ultimately end well.

However, less than a year into the contract, it became very apparent that Arsenal would have no way out of it. No team with a semblance of sensibleness was ever going to bail them out. The writing was on the wall from the moment Nelson put pen to paper on that deal.

Overall, with the final year of the contract revoked, Arsenal paid Nelson £15.6 million per Premier League start over the course of this contract.

Arsenal aren't a bad selling club because they couldn't fetch £4 million for Nelson, they're a largely well-run club that made a very poor decision to hand a lucrative deal to an academy product for sentimental reasons. This was, however, a decision made by the previous sporting director.

There is certainly valid criticism around Arsenal's inability to sell, but this isn't one of the cases that supports this argument.

Generally, the issue isn't the actual selling stage. It's the hoarding of players for sentimental reasons. It's the inability to sell players when it might seem uncomfortable. You can't only sell players when it's extremely obvious that they're surplus to requirements, because these situations are never going to yield sales that seem like 'value'.

That's why Arsenal's stance on being open to selling Gabriel Martinelli and Ethan Nwaneri this summer is an encouraging sign that Andrea Berta is moving the club in the right direction when it comes to selling. Letting both go is a bit uncomfortable, but ultimately Martinelli has a year left and is on too hefty wages, and Nwaneri doesn't have a clear path to first team minutes and is currently a valuable asset.

Arsenal should've sold Ainsley Maitland-Niles to Wolves when a £20 million offer was on the table. Arsenal should've sold Emile Smith Rowe to Aston Villa when there was a £40 million offer on the table. Instead, because sanctioning both players' departures would've been unpopular at the time and they seemed like somewhat valuable squad members, they hoarded them until they'd lost value.

Unfortunately, there cannot be complaints about inability to sell if you're never willing to sell anyone with value.

Arsenal are a well-run club that make mistakes, like almost every institution. The overall goal is to lead the club in the right direction, towards silverware, and the Gunners' hierarchy has done that over the last five years.

Ultimately, not fetching £4 million for Nelson is a penny in the ocean. It means very little in the grand scheme of things for a rich club like Arsenal. It's not going to impact the club in any significant way, so it's not really worth getting worked up about.

Loading recommendations... Please wait while we load personalized content recommendations