When Uli Hoeneß publicly issued a „buy ban“ in late summer, the message was clear: FC Bayern should remain financially disciplined. Sporting director Max Eberl had to react – and opted for a loan solution on deadline day. Nicolas Jackson arrived from Chelsea FC for a hefty 16.5 million euros loan fee, three million of which was paid by the player’s side, but it remained a costly compromise
Today, six months later, this deal seems like a prime example of how cost-cutting does not automatically mean a clever transfer policy
When you loan a player for tens of millions of euros and also secure an option to buy for €65 million, you expect more than just one-off appearances. Jackson was supposed to take the pressure off Harry Kane, add pace and depth and, ideally, decide games
The reality is sobering: five goals so far – none of them in a game that was on a knife-edge. FC Bayern won all games with a Jackson goal with at least a two-goal difference. Decisive impetus in top games? No such thing
The fact that the Senegalese wasn’t even in the squad for the cup quarter-final against RB Leipzig was a clear signal. In the really big moments, Vincent Kompany obviously relies on other solutions
Particularly bitter: with a loan fee and a rumoured salary of up to €14 million, Jackson will end up costing Bayern almost €30 million. Bayern have rarely burned through so much money in the club’s recent history, let alone for a loan player
For comparison: Colombian star James Rodríguez once cost Bayern 13 million euros on loan, albeit for two years, plus a salary of 6.5 million euros per year
Bayern’s most expensive loan deal was Philippe Coutinho. The Brazil star cost around €8.5 million in loan fees in the summer of 2019, plus a salary of around €25 million. This resulted in a total package of €33.5 million. But: Coutinho scored 20 goals in 38 games and was therefore involved in winning the treble
Squad planning without a clear line?
The accusation is directed less at Jackson himself than at the strategic direction. Munich would have had various options: sign an experienced, cheaper backup or deliberately build up their own talent
The club had a promising striker in Jonah Kusi-Asare, but instead of bringing him on as a development player behind Kane, the young Swede was loaned out to Fulham FC – including an option to buy. He has hardly received any playing time there so far
This raises a double question mark: why invest millions in a short-term loan solution, while giving away one of your own talents who could have benefited at least in perspective?
System question instead of question of guilt
Jackson doesn’t look like a classic bad buy in the sporting sense – more like a player who never really fitted into the system. His strengths lie in transitional play, in open space. However, FC Bayern dominate most games, require assertiveness in confined spaces and maximum efficiency in a few moments
Added to this was the strain of the Africa Cup, which was factored in from the outset. Integration under time pressure, high expectations, little rhythm – ideal conditions look different
Everything points to Jackson returning to London in the summer. The €65 million purchase option is not a realistic scenario under the current circumstances. What remains is a loan fee in the double-digit million range – without any sustainable sporting added value
For a club that always emphasizes economic rationality, this is a remarkable contradiction. The Jackson deal is emblematic of a transitional solution that has not really convinced either in sporting or strategic terms
In the coming transfer window, FC Bayern will have to make adjustments in the striker position, and this time the expectation should be clear: less improvisation, more long-term ideas.