Why Liverpool Were Right to Extend Salah and Van Dijk Despite Current Struggles
Liverpool’s decision to renew Mohamed Salah and Virgil van Dijk last year is now being second-guessed amid a disappointing title defense—but the criticism ignores the context in which those deals were made. At the time, both extensions were widely praised, seen as essential moves to retain elite talent during a period of transition and emotional turmoil at the club.
The Original Consensus Was Clear
When Liverpool announced Salah’s new contract, the overwhelming reaction wasn’t skepticism—it was relief. Even respected voices like Jamie Carragher called it a “huge relief all round,” framing it as a signal of ambition for the seasons ahead. Van Dijk’s renewal a week later drew similar sentiment. Few questioned whether keeping the Premier League’s best center-back made sense, especially after he’d just anchored a title-winning defense with remarkable consistency.
Paul Merson was one of the only prominent critics, doubting the wisdom of tying big money to a 32-year-old forward. But his lone voice didn’t reflect broader opinion. Most analysts and fans agreed: losing either player would have been far riskier than paying them.
Context Matters More Than Hindsight
A lot has changed since those signings. Diogo Jota’s tragic death shook the squad emotionally. Trent Alexander-Arnold’s departure left a massive void on the right flank. And Arne Slot’s first season as manager has been rocky, with inconsistent performances and puzzling tactical choices.
Salah’s drop in output—just five Premier League goals this season—isn’t purely physical. His motivation and influence appear diminished, likely tied to the team’s wider dysfunction. Van Dijk, while still solid individually, hasn’t been able to single-handedly fix a leaky defense lacking cohesion.
But judging last year’s decisions by today’s results is flawed logic. Back then:
- Salah had averaged 36 league appearances per season over eight years
- He played every Premier League game in the title-winning campaign
- Van Dijk was still widely regarded as the league’s top center-back
- No viable internal replacements existed for either role
The Cost of Letting Them Go Would’ve Been Higher
Some argue the £36–40 million combined salary is too steep for declining stars. But consider the alternative: replacing them.
Without Van Dijk, Liverpool’s defensive frailties would be even worse—they’re already short on reliable center-backs. And finding a winger who can consistently deliver 20+ goals and assists isn’t easy or cheap. Even if Salah’s form dipped, his presence still elevates the squad’s ceiling.
Plus, reports suggest Van Dijk’s deal included performance incentives, limiting guaranteed outlay. Salah’s wage reflected his market value at the time—he wasn’t demanding Cristiano Ronaldo-level money out of nowhere.
Fear of Regret Played a Role—And That’s Rational
Clubs often renew stars partly to avoid the nightmare scenario: watching them thrive elsewhere. Imagine Salah lighting up the Champions League for PSG or Van Dijk marshaling a title-chasing rival. The backlash would’ve been brutal.
Liverpool weren’t acting out of panic—they were managing real risk. Keeping two proven winners during a fragile period was strategically sound, even if the 2025/26 season hasn’t gone to plan.
What Comes Next
One thing is clear: Salah will likely leave this summer. That’s the right call now—his role has diminished, and a fresh start benefits everyone. But that doesn’t retroactively make last year’s renewal a mistake. It was the correct decision based on the information available then.
Van Dijk may stay longer. His leadership and defensive IQ remain valuable, even if his peak has passed. The real issue isn’t their contracts—it’s the lack of squad evolution around them.
Key takeaways
- Liverpool’s Salah and Van Dijk renewals were logical, data-backed decisions in spring 2025
- Current struggles stem from managerial instability, emotional setbacks, and lack of squad depth—not just aging stars
- Replacing either player would have cost more in transfer fees, wages, and performance drop-off
- Hindsight bias is distorting fair evaluation of last year’s strategy
- Salah’s expected exit this summer aligns with natural squad cycles, not contract regret
The lesson isn’t “never pay older stars.” It’s “build a squad that doesn’t rely solely on them.” Liverpool got the first part right. They just missed the second.
— Editorial Team
