According to a study, Brexit has cost Premier League clubs £270m already, with the pound’s post-referendum weakness making players abroad noticeably more expensive.

Because the Premier League buys most of its players from the European Union, many of the deals are structured to be paid in euros. In the past, the strong pound has been a tailwind for buying clubs, improving their income and cash in comparison to their continental peers.

READ MORE: Fulham set to confirm Andre Schurrle capture

READ MORE: Jorginho helping Chelsea to adapt to Sarri’s style

READ MORE: Aurier throws down gauntlet to Trippier: ‘Now is my time’

A bwin report has tallied the 146 European signings made by Premier League clubs, and it believes that the transfers that cost £2.16bn after the referendum would have cost £1.89bn. That is a rise of £270m, and an increase of around 14.3%.

While British clubs have failed to benefit from currency changes, European clubs dealing in euros have saved a respective €92m on signings from the Premier League, with €634m needed instead of fees that would have been €726m.

The headline figures are:

• Brexit has cost Premier League clubs £270m in increased transfer fees

• It has saved European clubs €92m

• Pogba would have cost £80.4m instead of £89.8m

• It has cost Liverpool almost £20m on Alisson and Naby Keita, a total of £103.3m instead of £120.1m

• On the other hand, Philippe Coutinho cost €125m instead of €145m, which would have been £111m.

• Manchester City took a £38.5m hit on Benjamin Mendy and Aymeric Laporte.

• And Chelsea spent £37.9m extra on securing Alvaro Morata and Jorginho.

However, there are reasons to take a second look at the figures, and be more sceptical of the figures. The Premier League clubs are, by league, the most powerful spenders in world football. That means that when they come to purchase players from the continent, clubs are often said to put a premium on the deal. If clubs are less affluent, then that premium might be commensurately adjusted.

Another point to consider is that the Brexit referendum took place in June 2016, which was just before the new Premier League domestic broadcast deal kicked in the following August, just two months later. A 70% uplift in revenue from Sky and BT was worth £5.14bn over three years – which might lead to a natural increase in any transfers spending. Any revenue from the US TV deal could have been priced in dollars, meaning that the strengthening of that currency could offset the weakness against the euro.

Thirdly, if clubs receive euros from players that they sell abroad, those euros can be used to purchase any other players – if the majority of transfer deals are done in only one currency, then any fluctuations become less significant.

Clubs also are aware that they have to deal in a number of currencies over the course of a few years, and may make use of financial products that can hedge against any large fluctuations in their deals, and it also depends how much of the payments are made up front, and how much are staggered in instalments.

And a final point to consider is that Britain’s economic recovery kicked in well ahead of the Eurozone’s meaning that a downturn in the cycle was likely to hit before it did abroad, which in turn might have depressed the euro against the pound. As the Eurozone appears to be doing much better economically, that could end up ultimately strengthening the euro; a change not necessarily related to Brexit.