But wasn't the point of money ball we will take a bunch of average players for cheap that fit on stats? Isn't Leicester City different and soccer in general that they have to pick what they can get because of money? I mean can't guys actually go elsewhere while still under contract with a team without being "traded" as we would call it in north american pro sports? I guess you could call it poaching. They will never willingly get a guy like Suarez or Messi among others, intact they are likely to lose a guy like Hardy mid season, no?
As mentioned, teams aren't forced to sell a player unless that players has a release/buyout clause and the offering team meets it. Generally speaking, those clauses are higher than the true value of the player and would basically force an overpayment.
I've heard that Vardy has a release fee of 30 million pounds (roughly 38M euro, 44M USD) but I haven't seen if many of the others do.
Either way, the concept of moneyball isn't crazy given how much less Leicester have spent than the big teams.
http://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1
That's a 5 year look at the current EPL teams.
Over the last 5 years Leicester has spent a total of 81.36M to bring in players (net in vs out). Chelsea, City, Arsenal and United all have single years above that total. Liverpool doesn't have a single year above that, but still has a 5 year total of 215M
Only Tottenam has been able to maintain a consistent high finish while not spending a ton of money, and they've basically been locked in 4th-6th *and* that's helped by the fact that they sold Bale for 100M
If you look at transfer effectivity, which is cost of current players / wins, Leicester is first by a long shot:
http://www.transfermarkt.com/premier-league/transfereffektivitaet/wettbewerb/GB1
Granted that's not an ideal metric, but it gives you the idea that the moneyball idea (finding great value) isn't too far off.
