Liverpool’s summer spending is already under the microscope, and Michael Owen says the club’s expensive new arrivals are being judged against a very high standard. Speaking to GOAL, the former Liverpool striker said the key issue is not whether the players are talented, but whether the fees attached to them can be justified by their output.
That scrutiny has grown quickly because Liverpool invested £116m in Florian Wirtz during the summer 2025 window and also spent heavily on Alexander Isak, Hugo Ekitike and Jeremie Frimpong. Owen said the money is “not looking value for money at the moment,” pointing to the pressure that comes with such large fees.
His comments land at a time when Liverpool’s team performances have been described as poor, even though Isak has still managed four goals. The broader concern is that the club did not make those moves for long-term patience alone; they were made to deliver immediate impact.
Why the pressure is building so fast
Wirtz struggled against Manchester City playmaker Rayan Cherki in the current match period, while Bradley Barcola has yet to record a goal contribution through five appearances in all competitions. That early return has helped fuel the conversation around Koumas Liverpool and the rest of the club’s high-fee recruitment.
Owen was clear that he does not see the players as a talent problem. “I don't think that they're necessarily bad players at all. In fact, I think they're exceptional players,” he said. But he also added that the scale of the fees changes the expectation completely.
That was especially true in his comments on Barcola, where he said Liverpool need “Mo Salah numbers” to justify a fee of that size. He added that nobody is going to reach those figures, but the benchmark shows how sharply value is being measured at Anfield after a major transfer window.
For Liverpool, that means the debate is no longer just about whether the signings will settle in. It is about whether they can start delivering the kind of output that makes the summer outlay look sensible. Owen’s view was simple: the quality may be there, but the numbers have to follow if the spending is going to make sense.
