Chelsea Spends Like A Superpower Acts Like A Project

The Manchester United game was a wake-up call. Chelsea started the season ahead of United, but now the roles have reversed.

After both managers left, Chelsea declined while United improved.

Rosenior was unpopular from the start and quickly faced the anger of Chelsea fans. Fans are now directing their frustration with the club’s direction at the boardroom.

Protests against ownership are now a fixture—a glaring indictment of BlueCo’s failing stewardship.

One fan group, NotAProjectCFC, sums up the stands’ feeling. Their name criticizes the strategy of buying young, unproven talent to sell later.

Clubs popularized the ‘project club’ label in the 2000s for teams still chasing success.

At clubs like Manchester City, Tottenham, Brentford, and Leicester, the project idea became both inspiration and excuse for unrealized ambition.

One team that was almost never a ‘project club’ was Chelsea. If anything, they were the opposite; under the leadership of Roman Abramovich, it was immediate success or drastic action. Managers lasted barely two seasons, and although they built a good youth team, the transfer policy was very much ‘win now.’

BlueCo’s aggressive switch rattled Chelsea fans unused to this approach.

As NotAProjectCFC bluntly put it: “With recent events and the ongoing betrayal of what used to make Chelsea unique, it’s f****ing obvious: this regime needs to be confronted with persistent resistance."

“It is clear to us that the current ownership are not listening. They do not care about supporter concerns and they are jeopardising the future of our football club,” they added.

Chelsea’s real problem isn’t angry fans, a poor team, or even the ‘project’ direction.

The real issue is that Chelsea still spends superpower-level money on the ‘project.’

LONDON, ENGLAND - OCTOBER 4: Moises Caicedo of Chelsea goal celebration with Enzo Fernandez of Chelsea after scoring to put Chelsea 1-0 ahead during the Premier League match between Chelsea and Liverpool at Stamford Bridge on October 4, 2025 in London, England. (Photo by Crystal Pix/MB Media/Getty Images)

Getty Images

The upshot is that while Liverpool and Arsenal are acquiring established world-class players, like Florian Wirtz and Declan Rice, for high prices, Chelsea are paying the same rate for talents, such as Enzo Fernandez and Moises Caicedo, who are not yet proven.

Now, the argument from the ownership’s perspective is that Rice and Wirtz are likely to depreciate in value and become a net cost to their rivals, whereas Fernandez and Caicedo won’t.

But this only works if the players improve. With an inexperienced coach and squad, that’s unlikely.

You therefore end up in a scenario where players start wondering if they need to leave to improve, and the club is not in a strong enough position to demand a fee that represents a good return on investment.

This spending can’t last. If Chelsea cuts the budget, it must commit fully to the ‘project’ model and buy even less proven talent.

Chelsea fans won’t like this, but it’s likely that the club will miss the Champions League.

One thing is clear: You can’t spend like a superpower and act like a project.

This article was originally published on Forbes.com