As Arsenal and BVB discuss (or don’t discuss) their ideas for what it might take to transfer Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang from Germany to England, we were reminded of our wife’s teaching us about neogtiation theory and the BATNA, or the “Best Alternative to a Negotated Agreement”. This is a luxurious way of saying “fallback position”, or “what you get if it all falls apart”, and also “where is the leverage”. Assessing the BATNA will tell us a little bit about where each team stands, which team might be more incentivized to cut a deal, and when each side might walk away from the table. The BATNA assessment doesn’t tell us anything about whether a deal will actually get done, and it sure as hell doesn’t give us any clue about whether there are rational (or competent) actors on each side of the table. working on behalf of either team. But we might be able to at least get a sense of the perspectives in play, and also why this is taking (at least according to fans and scribes) such a “long” amount of time to get resolved.
Arsenal BATNAs
- Current roster, as is. The best alternative is our current roster of strikers: Lacazette, Giroud (if healthy), Welbeck, Nketiah (though admittedly unproven). And, our offensive-minded midfield, with Ozil, Mkhitaryan, Ramsey, Iwobi, Wilshere. One would think that goals, and the production of goals, are not on short supply with the Arsenal. This is NOT a judgement about whether PEA would add to the supply, or whether he is the “right man at the right time”. The question is what is our alternative to a negotiated agreement for PEA. The BATNA for Arsenal, with regards to strikers, is a healthy, offensively minded squad that should score goals for the remainder of the EPL and EL seasons. Not much of a leverage point for Dortmund, despite what many vocal supporters of this acquisition might think.
- An alternative purchase, not PEA. In the timeframe left in the window this is an issue, barring other parallel negotations nobody has leaked and that we aren’t privy to. This is a leverage point for Dortmund.
- £45-55M in pocket. Not spending the money means the best alternative to the negotiated agreement is that Arsenal keeps the cash, cash they may not be able to spend quickly and which will certainly depreciate in this market. Probably not much leverage here for Dortmund based on how much Arsenal (perhaps foolishly) seem to value cash.
Dortmund BATNAs
- Current roster, as is. PEA, a world-class striker, remains in their first team. Perhaps disgruntled, perhaps not. We don’t know the actual situation here, and while (via press/gossip) there’s a sense he’s unsettled, the manager has said if he’s fit he’s in the first team. His contract runs through 2021, so he is going to have to submit a transfer request to force the team’s hand, which he has not done. The window closes soon, so BVB’s best alternative is a squad with a proven world-class striker in the mix for the next five months. No leverage for Arsenal here, without knowing that PEA is palpably unsettled. If he’s distinctly unhappy this is a reasonable leverage point for Arsenal.
- Beyond those five months, PEA is still an asset, and he can be marketed to the highest bidder in June, with more suitors (though for a player eight months older once the season starts). BVB’s best alternative to a negotiated agreement here is that they retain a significant, sellable asset. No leverage for Arsenal here. In fact, quite the opposite if the player can be expected to do his job until May.
- No money from Arsenal. Whether £45M or £55M, Dortmund’s best alternative with regards to the money is that they are where they are now, without this stack of cash to spend on youth, on wages for others, or for any other reason, until a later date. For a club like Dortmund this money may have more value in hand than not, so perhaps a minor leverage point for Arsenal.
It seems to us that in looking at the team BATNA’s there’s a real wash here, and if anything BVB is in a slightly stronger position. Hence, the “dithering” that we like to ascribe to Arsenal and their negotiation history may not be dithering, but rather complexity and a simple lack of serious motivation to spend whatever their negotation partner demands. And Dortmund, while staring at a significant sum of money, seem similarly indisposed to accepting whatever Arsenal decide that sum is, simply because it is significant in the moment.
And from our own vantage point both sides seem quite warranted in their stubbornness, in their inaction – as much as the fan in us wants the Gabonese striker in the fold. Arsenal might expect improvement with PEA in their squad, yet based on their own assessment of their current roster that improvement might be seen as incremental, and not worth spending this large sum of cash now. Dortmund, facing a tight table in Germany, rightly sees PEA as a longer-term sellable asset (barring serious dysfunction and disruption by the player) and has little need to sell him immediately. Unless they have already allocated the funds from a potential sale, their business can wait until the early summer, as a fallback.
Looking at the BATNAs here actually gives us a bit of pause that a deal will get done. Neither team is starting awith a legitimately dire alternative. Neither side faces a best alternative that is leveragable to the other side once the full picture is drawn. And these may be the issues in getting this deal across the line.
Immovable object, meet immovable object?