According to the latest from renowned transfer journalist Fabrizio Romano, the picture around Premier League midfield recruitment this summer has tightened again: Arsenal remain strongly interested in Newcastle United midfielder Sandro Tonali, while Manchester City have listed Tonali as a fallback after talks over Nottingham Forest midfielder Elliott Anderson stalled. The two tracks are intertwined, directly affecting title contenders’ squad shapes and the league’s competitive order.
Issue: Midfield reinforcement is now a hard requirement for title challengers
Under Mikel Arteta, Arsenal have just completed a landmark season—winning the Premier League for the first time in 22 years—yet lost 4-3 on penalties to Paris Saint-Germain in last week’s Champions League final. The substantial revenue from the Champions League gives them financial room in the summer window, but squad depth and positional priorities have not disappeared because of the title. Romano had already noted that Arsenal are “expected to sign at least three players” this summer, with wingers the top priority, while a midfielder and right-back are also “almost certain” to be on the list; striker options depend on departures.
Manchester City likewise treat midfield as a must-fill position. The Athletic’s David Ornstein confirmed on Wednesday that City submitted a bid to Forest for Anderson but had it rejected. Romano wrote on social media: “Manchester City continue talks over Elliott Anderson after their first offer was rejected, but Forest want more than £100m; if the Anderson deal cannot be done, Sandro Tonali is emerging as a strong backup option for City. Arsenal also remain interested in Tonali.”
From an institutional and competitive standpoint, spending by the Premier League’s title-chasing group in midfield is no longer a “nice-to-have” but a structural response to Champions League disappointment, end-of-season fixture congestion, and the toll of competing on multiple fronts. Platform data show that on Matchday 38 of the 2025 season, Manchester City lost 1-2 at home, Newcastle won 2-0 away, and Nottingham Forest drew 1-1—all three clubs ended the league in different ways, setting the backdrop for asking prices and mental valuations in summer negotiations.
Tug-of-war: The £100m threshold and “Plan B” logic
Anderson is 22, and his performances in Forest’s system this season have made him Manchester City’s top midfield target; Forest are holding out for more than £100 million, which in effect raises the time cost and opportunity cost of any deal. If talks stall, City’s pivot to Tonali as “Plan B” is no accident: the Italy international has already shown he can handle the Premier League rhythm at Newcastle, and with he and Anderson at different clubs, City have another path they can push in parallel at the negotiating table.
Arsenal’s involvement has made the picture more complicated. The Gunners spent heavily on Zubimendi last summer and already have Declan Rice in the squad; former Arsenal defender Nacho Monreal said that signing Tonali as well would “obviously” give them “one of the best midfields in the world,” but conceded that “having Tonali, Zubimendi and Rice at the same time would be too much” and that, in reality, they might need to sell either Zubimendi or Rice to complete the jigsaw. That comment captures the real constraints on modern elite recruitment: it is not about a lack of players, but registration slots, wage structure and how tactical roles are shared out.
St James’ Park, the Etihad and the City Ground each carry a different financial model and set of fan expectations for Newcastle, Manchester City and Forest respectively. If Tonali leaves, Newcastle lose a core asset; if Anderson goes for a big fee, it touches Forest’s capital for Premier League survival and the pace of their rebuild. The transfer market is never a string of isolated bids—it is a redistribution of power within the league.
Data and the fixture list: the reference frame the final round left behind
Set against recent results on the site, matchday 37 saw Newcastle win 3-1 at home and Forest-related fixtures include a 3-2 scoreline, while matchday 38 produced clearly divergent outcomes for all three. Manchester City (code MCI), at the Etihad in Manchester (capacity 55,097), failed to sign off with a win; Newcastle (code NEW) took points away from home outside the St James’ Park setup (capacity 52,758), showing squad resilience; Nottingham Forest (code NOT) finished with a draw at the City Ground (capacity 30,576) and still hold negotiating leverage. None of this replaces transfer-fee talks, but it shows the three clubs were not in the same place competitively or psychologically at the end of the season.
On the Horizon: Summer Window Watchpoints and What's Next
For fans and observers, the key things to watch next are clear: whether Manchester City will raise their bid for Anderson, whether Forest will soften their asking price above £100m, Newcastle's stance on Tonali, and how Arsenal balance midfield spending against their priority for a winger. Romano says the Gunners have "already started working on and planning for summer transfer business," and with at least three signings expected, multiple tracks will move in parallel—Tonali and Anderson may not be an "either-or" end point but part of a chain reaction within the same window.
From a professional read, City need a Premier League-ready, immediate-impact midfielder more urgently; Tonali as Plan B fits a plug-and-play logic. If Arsenal are genuinely chasing Tonali, they must face decisions on midfield redundancy and who to sell, or risk repeating the old trap of stockpiling stars and squeezing playing time. Newcastle are caught in the middle, both guarding against City pivoting after failing to land Anderson and bracing for a substantive Arsenal offer for Tonali.
The 2026 summer window is still in its early stages; all figures and timelines should be taken from public outlets such as Romano and Ornstein. The Premier League midfield battle will set the starting line for next season's title race and Champions League qualification; with the first bid already rejected, "interest" statements away from the negotiating table are often just the opening whistle in a pricing standoff.
