Yet for their new risk-prone clubs these types of transactions are essential to boost transfer portfolios, as high-risk players make up a growing slice of the summer window’s order book.

To the casual observer, a move for Naby Keita doesn’t make logical sense. Even his new club Werder Bremen admits, through its ‘head of scouting and professional football’, that because of injuries he “didn’t play as often as he’d have liked to” at Liverpool.

No sooner had the club issued its typically German and honest welcome statement, that Kieta suffered injury to his abductor muscle in the warm-up for what should have been his debut against VfB Oldenburg, earlier this month.

So why are clubs taking extreme chances with players they hope will somehow reverse the very long odds and consistent downward data patterns which have overshadowed their careers?

Two reasons: One, is due to the rising cost of borrowing in the current banking environment, where buying cash is becoming a very expensive business.

And the second is supply and demand – the dearth of quality players, no matter how distressed, at the right price.

More clubs are now looking at high-risk, often free agents, as opposed to paying big money for a new player – who still only has a 50-50 chance of becoming a regular in the first team (by an industry-accepted ratio).

And it’s not just mid-table Bundesliga teams who are working off the risk principle - some of Europe’s elite clubs have already jumped on football’s fastest-growing transfer strategy.

Liverpool is the leading example of a side that has taken incredible risk in the past 12 months as part of its overall talent acquisition policy - indeed the club’s loan purchase of Arthur Melo is an example of a €10m investment returning zero value.

Last September the Reds secured the services of Arthur for a €4m season-long loan fee, with €6m worth of salary on top, after Arsenal, Roma, Lyon, Rennes, Sporting Lisbon and Valencia decided that such jeopardy was too rich for them.

One season, and 13 minutes of total game time later, Arthur returned to Juventus and has since been dispatched to Fiorentina, once again on loan and for a €4m (all-in) fee.

But not before Juve extended his contract by another year, a financial insertion after it realised the extraordinary demand for a player who retains strong value even as a risk-laden loanee.

Compared to Arthur’s expensive terms, Naby Keita’s permanent move does not pose anything like the same financial gamble, even if the player fails to hit a fraction of his less than 20 games a season average for Liverpool.

Kieta’s arrival at Werder Bremen came on a free transfer, so the German club’s only significant outlay was his salary, which is estimated at a quarter of his wages at Anfield - now working out at €1.5m per year, with bonuses.

The bonus payments will be easy for Bremen if Keita achieves his targets, and the salary is meagre for a Champions League, Premier League and World Club Cup winner, taking up just 1.5% of the club’s overall income (€92.8m).

Mo Salah’s £18,200,000 wage represents 2.6% of Liverpool’s €701.7m revenue.

Former Manchester City financial adviser Stefan Borson told The Pitch that such detail is “all relative” in football risk.

“This is a player that Liverpool bought in 2018 at the height of their recruitment prowess for €62m (their second most expensive signing ever at the time) and he’s still only 28,” Borson told The Pitch.

“And, importantly, Werder Bremen don’t think he will fail. They know there is a chance but they are confident they will get something out of him.

“Perhaps it will prove to be misplaced but that’s their equation.

“And who knows, if he has a great season, perhaps he is back to the Premier League next year or even Saudi’ for €40 or €50m.” 

Stefan Borson points to three key factors which influence the strategy now common among risk tolerant clubs, clubs who want ‘rid of a player at any cost' and agents who can influence and control the markets.

The case of Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang is “almost the perfect risk study” says Borson.

“Here you had a player where Arsenal wanted him out and would do whatever it could to achieve that goal,” explained the lawyer and accountant.

“That meant selling him at any cost – in this case, for a free transfer to Barcelona, maybe even with a wage subsidy.” 

Aubameyang only lasted six months at the Nou Camp before a chaotic Chelsea transfer policy – under Todd Boehly’s early ownership – saw a fee of £12m paid for the player, another highly speculative and hopeful move.

That proved disastrous with one Premier League goal for the Blues, and a season infamously framed by a game against Manchester City in January, where the striker was subbed on and then off again.

“Football is no different to any other business, everything and everybody has their price,” continues Borson.

“With Aubameyang and his salary of perhaps up to €150k a week, that is a risk some clubs (Marseilles) are willing to take, especially once they had disavowed Chelsea of the notion that he could also command a transfer fee.” 

Manchester City’s Jaoa Cancelo, another risky but more expensive option available to the market, will be the next one to test the risk theory.

Cancelo was reportedly difficult behind the scenes at City, but still his agent Jorge Mendes manufactured a swift move to Bayern Munich during the last window.

That didn’t work out and he’s back at the Etihad for now, where Borson believes “City would now likely take a 50-60% per cent reduction to the £60m they paid Juventus and the (buy-out) option that they put into the Munich loan agreement.” 

With representatives as powerful as Mendes, injured or difficult players can find attractive new options very quickly, particularly with clubs where agents act as transfer intermediaries on multiple and repeat deals.

Borson believes with Cancelo it was likely Mendes said to Bayern, ‘do me a favour with this one and I’ll make you whole with the next great deal that comes along’.

“This happens with estate agents, developers, IPO bankers and institutional shareholders – again, football is no different regardless of the ethical issues.” 

When streams become reality in bumper week for live sport 

THE real story is not even the record number of viewers for a women’s football match - in this case the combined 871,000 viewers who tuned in to the Republic of Ireland Women’s World Cup Finals debut opener v Australia one week ago.

Of even greater significance is how the number broke down from television viewers to streamers, with 511,000 watching on TV and another 360,000 ‘digitally' – the second highest ever streamed game in this country, after the epic Argentina v France 2022 World Cup Final.

For Ireland’s opener in Sydney, this large tech audience is down to two key factors – time of day, when adult viewers will have been watching in work on desktop or mobile devices, and a youth audience who are as likely to watch sport on their mobiles as on television.

The World Cup kicked off a bumper week for RTÉ Sport which also recorded an average television audience of 830,000 viewers for the All-Ireland Final on Sunday – its largest hurling viewership in four years, with an additional 9,000 watching on RTÉ2+1.

The numbers of those who watched Limerick’s four-in-a-row win over Kilkenny on live stream was 193,000 on the ‘Player, up from 109,000 for last year's decider.

Integration of GAA, camogie and ladies football begins 

THE process of combining the three key Gaelic games associations into one over-arching body has taken its first formal steps with a major survey of stakeholders underway.

A questionnaire seeking opinions of the implications of integration and its benefits, as well as the challenges it will bring, will guide the steering group “to ensure the process is as seamless as possible”.

All members are asked to take part in the study, which is being run by an outsourced market research agency, Behaviour and Attitudes, to provide an independent assessment for the unification of all three organisations.

The survey asks members of the GAA, LGFA and Camogie Association about how they feel on a vast and wide range of issues, covering everything from equality to innovation and sponsorship to finance.

The results will prove fascinating on what will be a long and winding road towards a combined three-association organisation.