Brighton’s transfer model is rightly hailed as masterful, but Liverpool and FSG cannot implement it directly. The reality at Anfield is very different.
FSG isn’t quite synonymous with ‘Moneyball’, but it’s not far off. That’s quite the achievement, considering the strategy was developed thousands of miles away from the headquarters of the Liverpool owners.
Anyone who has watched the Brad Pitt film of the same name will be familiar with the story. Moneyball originated at the Oakland A’s in California, where Billy Beane ripped up the traditional scouting playbook and found gains by using data in new and innovative ways. It wasn’t enough to deliver the World Series — but FSG won it soon afterwards with the Boston Red Sox, using the exact same principles.
Indeed, John Henry tried to attract Beane to the Red Sox: that meeting even appears in the film. While he could not land the architect of Moneyball, the idea stuck at FSG, and it was still very much a talking point by the time the Americans took over at Liverpool.
Naturally, Moneyball at Liverpool looked very different to the same strategy in baseball. But plenty of fundamentals were the same: FSG invested heavily in an industry-leading data department, which was undoubtedly a massive factor in ultimately delivering the club’s greatest period of success in the Premier League era.
But Liverpool is no longer the standout club when it comes to this strategy. Finding undervalued gems, netting massive transfer fees and then reinvesting in more future stars, Brighton is clearly the Premier League’s new top dog in this regard.
Naturally, amid plenty of frustration this summer, there have been calls for Liverpool to simply ‘copy Brighton’ in the transfer market. After all, FSG was prepared to stump up an eye-watering $139m (£110m/€129m) for Moisés Caicedo, a player the Seagulls had signed for a reported $5.7m (£4.5m/€5.2m) as recently as 2021.
But it’s not as simple as just taking the Brighton approach and transplanting it into Liverpool, as Henry did with Moneyball and the Red Sox all those years ago. There’s a number of reasons for that.
For one thing, Brighton and Liverpool already share similar philosophies. The project on the south coast is effectively the next instalment in Moneyball, with the Seagulls amazing everyone with the consistency of their scouting prowess. Tony Bloom, an owner who made his fortune in gambling, is undoubtedly relying on data to fuel his advantage.
So is Brighton just doing Moneyball better? That’s certainly a part of it — Bloom and his team have been quicker to tap previously under-explored markets, while there are some valid concerns about the quickfire exits of a number of Liverpool’s original data department, including Michael Edwards and Julian Ward
But there are also fundamental differences between Brighton and Liverpool which mean the two clubs simply have to operate differently.
Ultimately, perhaps elements of Moneyball have a natural shelf life. Liverpool simply could not flip its best players with the same regularity as Brighton: supporters would not accept such an approach from a truly big team. With elite players remaining at the club for longer periods, new signings find fewer opportunities, and their values do not inflate so drastically — suddenly, the whole model requires something of a rethink.
And it’s not just that. So-called big clubs pay a reputational penalty in the transfer market. To some extent, it doesn’t matter where Liverpool conducts its business: its name carries an expectation, and selling clubs sense a payday.
