Mikel Arteta has relayed Arsenal’s explanation for plans to remove around 60 jobs, while distancing himself from responsibility for the restructuring. The manager also confirmed that the club will take another official squad photograph after William Saliba missed the original session for a medical appointment.
The proposed redundancies emerged shortly after Arteta signed a lucrative four-year contract. That proximity has brought Arsenal’s spending priorities under scrutiny, although reports agree that the workforce review began before the new deal was announced.
Arteta presented the changes as part of an effort to improve the organisation and support further sporting achievement. But he repeatedly indicated that questions about the process belonged elsewhere. A club press officer subsequently stopped further questioning on the subject, directing responsibility towards the executive leadership.
What Arsenal are proposing
Multiple outlets report that 60 positions are affected across a permanent workforce of 871, equivalent to roughly seven per cent. Coaching and performance roles supporting the men’s and women’s teams are protected, alongside community, charitable and security operations.
There is, however, a meaningful difference in how firmly the final redundancy figure is presented. Some reports describe 60 departures as settled; another describes up to 60 positions at risk, with Arsenal seeking to limit compulsory losses through redeployment.
That distinction matters for employees. The number of roles identified in a restructuring is not necessarily the number of people who ultimately leave. The reporting does not establish how many alternative positions exist or how many affected staff could move into them.
The review was conducted with Boston Consulting Group. Catering and travel are among the departments reported to be affected, while one account also identifies the academy and Arsenal Women more broadly as protected. Across the coverage, the clearest common ground is that the immediate playing and performance structures are being insulated from the reductions.
That suggests a targeted reorganisation rather than an equal reduction throughout the club. It also leaves unanswered how work currently performed by departing employees will be distributed, reduced or replaced.
The contract comparison needs context
Arteta’s renewal inevitably sharpens the contrast. Reports differ on its precise annual value, describing it variously as around £20m, as much as £20m or more than £20m. Those accounts do not provide a consistent basis for a definitive salary figure.
Nor does the timing establish that his contract caused the redundancies. The review was already under way before Arsenal secured last season’s Premier League title, according to the reporting. Treating the two announcements as a single financial transaction would go beyond the available evidence.
Nevertheless, separate decisions still communicate a shared set of priorities. Arsenal are committing substantial resources to their manager while seeking savings elsewhere. Explaining why that allocation is appropriate requires more detail than a general appeal to future success.
Arteta can describe the rationale given to him, but he cannot answer every question about departmental staffing. His position therefore contains two elements: support for the club’s stated direction, and a limit on his own authority to explain its implementation. Describing his response simply as an unqualified defence misses that distinction.
Revenue does not settle the argument
Arsenal’s latest reported accounts provide context without resolving whether these particular cuts are necessary. Revenue reached £691m in 2024-25, yet the club recorded a £1.4m loss. Operating costs increased from approximately £148m to £201m.
Those figures show why record income should not automatically be read as surplus cash. They also show why rising expenditure is relevant to management’s review. But they do not identify the expected savings from these redundancies or demonstrate that cutting these roles is the best available response.
The key missing information is therefore practical: the savings target, the cost of implementing the changes and the assessment of their effect on services. Sporting success cannot supply those answers, just as a loss in the accounts cannot by itself justify every proposed reduction.
Saliba’s absence has a clearer explanation
The squad photograph issue is more straightforward. Arsenal said Saliba was attending a medical appointment, and Arteta explained that earlier attempts to arrange the session had already been cancelled three times.
Commercial commitments, including people travelling for the shoot, contributed to the decision to proceed without him. Arteta said another photograph would be taken with Saliba included and indicated that the defender was comfortable with the situation.
Nothing in the supplied reporting supports interpreting his absence as a sign of a dispute. Here, unlike the restructuring, Arsenal have supplied both a specific explanation and a proposed remedy. The employment changes still require that greater level of clarity from those responsible for delivering them.