Arsenal: The pros and cons to Wilfried Zaha signing

Arsenal are in the market for a wide player this summer. Would Wilfried Zaha be a good fit? Here are some pros and cons of signing the Crystal Palace man.

The summer transfer window iFind the latest episode of the Pain in the Arsenal Podcast here — The Big Season Reviews full of polarizing debates. And Arsenal’s business — and reported business — this summer has proven no different.

Find the latest episode of the Pain in the Arsenal Podcast here — The Big Season Review

The debate raged around William Saliba for what felt like an eternity. Should the Gunners sacrifice more than half their transfer budget on a player that they would need to wait a year to reap the benefits? And if the player is truly worth upwards of £30m now, why agree to send him immediately out on loan? In the end, Arsenal reached an agreement with Saint-Etienne on structured payments to keep their meager transfer kitty in relatively healthy shape.

More from Pain in the Arsenal

• 3 standout players from 1-0 victory over Everton
• 3 positives & negatives from Goodison Park victory
• Arsenal vs PSV preview: Prediction, team news & lineups
• 3 talking points from Arsenal’s victory at Goodison Park
• Mikel Arteta provides Gabriel Martinelli injury update after Everton win

Then came the debate of Dani Ceballos. The only way Arsenal would secure his signature this summer was on a one-year loan deal with no option to buy next summer (although there are reports of a gentlemen’s agreement between the two clubs that, should the Spanish giants decide to sell Ceballos next summer, the Gunners would have first crack on the purchase). They signed him, but there is uncertainty on the long-term future of the deal.

And then there is the debate that will run and run throughout the final two weeks: Wilfried Zaha.

The enigmatic Crystal Palace winger is a talent to behold at a club that seems to fight relegation on an annual basis. More often than not, Zaha is the lone bright spot for the Eagles. In an Arsenal side loaded with attacking talent, he would fit right in. Dare it be said that he would come to north London and slide right into Unai Emery’s starting XI.

Not only would he figure to be one of the first names on the team sheet week in and week out; it can be reasonably assumed that with so much attacking prowess currently on display at The Emirates, he’d take an already vaunted attack and make it exponentially better. Add to that, Zaha grew up an Arsenal fan. One could not be faulted for thinking that an opportunity to play for the club he grew up supporting would only add to his ambition. Where would Zaha draw the line when it came to winning with his beloved Gunners? Blood? Broken bones? Death?

No one will question Zaha’s talent and ability. But there is another crucial positive to the potential signing: he’s ‘the devil you know’. In other words, he is Premier League proven, ashort stint spent between Manchester United and Cardiff City in 2013-14 notwithstanding, and given the problems that foreign players have had in adapting to English football, that should not go for nothing.

But all of that talent, all of that ambition, and all of the love for Arsenal will only be on display for a short time, maybe three years, max. Should Arsenal complete the purchase of the Ivorian this summer, he’ll undoubtedly pen a new five-year contract. And should Zaha play the contract out to its expiration, he would be 32 when it expired. He is set to turn 27 in November.

Raul Sanllehi and Venai Venkatesham have intimated that once players reach two years remaining on their current contracts, the club will look to work out an extension. Should Arsenal feel an extension is not in the best interest of business, or the player is not interested in remaining at the club, then they will look to sell the player.

In Zaha’s case, he would be entering the final two years on a five-year deal just before he turns 30. Now that is by no means old, nor past the prime of his career, but it is on the tail end of what would be considered his best years and would limit the potential value of a sale. And given what the hierarchy at the club as already said regarding dwindling contracts, it is likely that Zaha would not be offered an extension beyond the five-year deal he could potentially sign.

Which brings to light the idea of selling a player that Arsenal stand zero chance of breaking even on, let alone turning a profit. For a club that seems to be wracked by lack of ownership funding, laying out £60m for a player that will give three — maybe four — good years is a lot of money. The return on investment would be the level of success Arsenal could possibly achieve over that span of time. There would be very little resale value.

If £60m would get a deal over the line, and Arsenal actually had the cash to stump up (it is highly doubtful that Palace will accept anything but full payment up front), it would leave the club with little to nothing left to put towards a center-back for this season.

To whittle this all down, the pro is simple: Zaha would bolster an already lethal offense. Arsenal could simply try to score four or five goals every game. More often than not, they’d probably be successful. But the cons are clear too: the lack of sell-on ability, the age of the player, and the inability to spend at other positions, namely center-back, all coupled with the up-front outlay of cash, poses a serious problem for one of the (supposedly) richest clubs in the world.