BS Detector: Raheem Sterling 'cost more than Zinedine Zidane'

You may have noticed Raheem Sterling moved clubs this week.

You may also have read the transfer fee of £49 million, making Sterling the most expensive English player ever.

Furthermore, you may have seen it pointed out that £49m is more than £46.6 million, the fee paid by Real Madrid to sign Zinedine Zidane in 2001.

So Raheem Sterling cost more than Zinedine Zidane, LOL.

Liar.

It's a bit like observing that Buckingham Palace was originally built for £7,000 in 1698, and saying that's incredible because it's the same price as a second-hand caravan.

Isn't it? Anyway, Zidane is Buckingham Palace and Sterling's the caravan.

First of all, exchange rate fluctuations mean the fees are not directly comparable.

Zidane was actually bought for 150 billion Italian lire (remember those?), which translated via euros to pounds. And as a euro is worth less than in 2001, it makes the Sterling's fee look more and Zidane's less.

Ours too - but it's all by way of saying that comparing two sums of money in different currencies 14 years apart is a mug's game.

The biggest factor here is inflation.

Adjusted for UK RPI inflation, the £46.6m paid for Zidane in 2001 is now worth £70.1m.

And working backwards, the £49m Sterling fee was worth £32.6m in 2001 - not much more than Lazio spent on Gaizka Mendieta that very summer.

Actually, he wouldn't.

Overall inflation is one thing - but inflation within football has been much higher, particularly at the top end.

To see how much more money leading clubs have today than in 2001, let's consult our old friend the Deloitte Football Money League.

The average annual income of the top 10 European clubs in 2000/01 was €148.47m.

In 2013/14 (the most recent edition)? €426.07m.

That's an increase of 187% - nearly triple.

Yes - if you've got £20 in your wallet, a cheeky Nando's costs you relatively more than if you've got £100.

Sorry.

To put it another way - when Real Madrid bought Zidane, it cost them around 50% of the previous year's total revenue. Sterling has cost City less than 20% of their revenue (and that's before digging into Sheikh Mansour's infinitely deep pockets).

Adjusted for real 'football inflation' - Zidane's 2015 fee stands at a whopping £133.7m.

You might think City paid too much for Sterling; you might think football transfer fees are obscene; but did he cost more than Zidane? Not even close.

Raheem Sterling cost much less than Zinedine Zidane because inflation.