Why Chelsea hand out long contracts and can it backfire? Answered

Chelsea have recently given unusually long contracts to Datro Fofana (2029), Badiashile (2030) and Mudryk (2031).

They have also handed out fresh long-term deals to Reece James (2027) and Armando Broja (2028) earlier this season.

There are two reasons behind giving longer contracts than usual.

The first is securing players for the long term. This way, they would be sure about their future; for younger players, it's also a sign of Chelsea's confidence in their talent. It's also to prevent situations like those of Rudiger and Christensen last season, when the players left the club for free on contract expiry.

Another reason lies in the Financial Fair Play. Chelsea are using an accounting technique called 'annual amortisation' to stay within the FFP rules.

Here is how it works. The €100m payment for Mudryk will be spread out over eight years in Chelsea's balance books. This way, his transfer fee would go down as a €12.5m yearly expense over the next eight years, as opposed to €25m had he signed a four-year deal.

Can it backfire, though? It definitely can. What happens if a player flops? He'd still be getting paid by Chelsea through all these years as the Blues would find offloading him difficult.

A good example of long contracts going wrong is Saul Niguez. In 2017, Atletico gave him a nine-year contract. In 2021, the Spaniard lost his place in Simeone's starting XI and Atletico were desperate to sell him, eventually sending him out on loan to Chelsea.

Now he's back in Spain after a poor spell with the Blues and Atleti are stuck with him until 2026 — their only hope is he rediscovers his old form.

Hopefully, Mudryk & Co. end up being more like Lionel Messi than Saul. Back in 2005, Barca gave him a nine-year contract to make sure he stays at the club for a long time. For Leo and Barca, it worked — hopefully, it works for Chelsea too.