Is Arsenal's 'Progress' a Mirage Built on Lowered Expectations?

Is This Really Progress?

The dominant narrative surrounding Arsenal Football Club is one of a triumphant return, a project beautifully realized under Mikel Arteta. They challenge for titles, play attractive football, and have rebuilt a winning culture. But let us pause and apply a lens of rational skepticism. Is this widely accepted story of unqualified success entirely accurate, or are we, as a football community, complicit in moving the goalposts for this particular club?

The primary evidence for the "progress" argument is consistent top-four finishes and two consecutive Premier League title challenges, finishing as runners-up. This is indeed an improvement from the late-Wenger and Emery eras. However, the logical flaw lies in the celebration of contention itself as the ultimate achievement. For a club of Arsenal's stated historical and financial stature, is the goal merely to be in the conversation, or is it to win? The glorification of a "title race" that ends in second place feels suspiciously like a consolation prize being marketed as the main event. The underlying contradiction is this: Arsenal's project is praised for its long-term vision and sustainable growth, yet this very model seems to have an implicit ceiling when compared to the ruthless, title-winning efficiency of a Manchester City. Are we celebrating a well-run also-ran?

Consider the evidence from the pitch. The 2023/24 season is a prime case study. Arsenal's challenge ultimately fell short, with key losses to Aston Villa and home draws against lesser opponents proving decisive. This pattern—excellence against the top, coupled with puzzling drops in intensity against mid-table teams—suggests a psychological or tactical flaw, not the mark of a true champion. Furthermore, their record in the UEFA Champions League, while showing promise, ended in a quarter-final exit. Is domestic "progress" enough if it doesn't translate to dominance on the continent? The heavy investment in the squad, breaking transfer records for Declan Rice and Kai Havertz, raises the stakes. This is no longer a youthful project operating on a budget; it is a premium operation with premium expectations. Finishing second with this resource is not an overachievement; it is the minimum requirement.

An Alternative Possibility

What if the true story is not one of Arsenal's rise, but of the competition's temporary fluctuation? Arsenal's points totals in the last two seasons would have won the league in several other years. Their "progress" coincided with a significant dip from Liverpool in 2022/23 and a transitional phase at Chelsea. Manchester City, while still supreme, were not the centurions of previous campaigns. This alternative possibility suggests Arsenal have been excellent at capitalizing on a slightly opened window, rather than forcibly breaking down a door. The test will be when all rivals are at their peak simultaneously.

We must also question the sustainability and mentality of the project. The reliance on a core of young players is praised, but youth brings inconsistency. Is the celebrated "project" simply a longer-term gamble on potential that may or may not fully mature? The handling of the striker position is a glaring example. The failure to secure a proven, elite centre-forward in multiple transfer windows, instead relying on Gabriel Jesus and Eddie Nketiah, points to a potential strategic timidity masked by overall good play. It is an avoidable flaw in an otherwise polished machine.

This is not to dismiss Arsenal's clear improvements. It is to challenge the uncritical acceptance of a narrative. True progress for Arsenal should be measured in tangible silverware, not in admiring nods for a "good try." The culture around the club has shifted from acceptance of top-four to acceptance of a noble second. Has the standard truly been raised, or merely repositioned? As observers, we must resist the allure of a feel-good story and demand the critical analysis we would apply to any other elite club. The next step is the hardest, and it requires moving from being the compelling challenger to the relentless champion. Until that happens, a healthy dose of skepticism about the project's ultimate ceiling is not just reasonable—it is necessary.