According to Crickex Login, Manchester City has officially confirmed the unexpected return of former captain Ilkay Gundogan, just one year after his departure. While fans were delighted by the surprise reunion, many were equally shocked by how quickly the deal unfolded. As manager Pep Guardiola admitted, the move came out of the blue—but once the opportunity arose, City didn’t hesitate.

The surprise stemmed from the fact that Gundogan still had one year left on his contract with Barcelona, and he wasn’t originally on their transfer list this summer. However, Barcelona’s ongoing financial turmoil—highlighted by their inability to register new signing Dani Olmo—put them in a tough spot. With Gundogan carrying a hefty wage bill, he quickly became a logical candidate for release. Ahead of the deal, speculation swirled: some fans criticized Barça for mistreating Gundogan, others claimed City wouldn’t pay a transfer fee, and one hot topic sparked further debate—Barça allegedly still owes Gundogan two years of unpaid wages.

This raised questions: if Gundogan was negotiating with City, how could there still be salary issues with Barcelona? The answer lies in how football transfers often work. Although FIFA officially forbids clubs from contacting players under contract without their current club’s permission, in reality, discussions often begin between the new club and a player’s representatives. It’s only logical—why negotiate a fee if the player doesn’t want the move? A recent example is the Saudi bid for Vinícius Júnior, where initial contact was made with his camp before any formal talks with Real Madrid.

In Gundogan’s case, City had no intention of paying a fee. That left two options: a contract termination and free-agent signing, or a symbolic zero-fee transfer. The free-agent route is common, either via early mutual termination or when a contract expires. Take Kylian Mbappé’s move to Real Madrid—he agreed to terms while still under contract, as FIFA allows negotiations within the final six months of a deal.

The controversy over whether Barcelona owes Gundogan backpay stems from an automatic extension clause. When he joined Barça in 2023, the two-year deal included a renewal trigger if he played more than 60% of matches in the first season—which he did. Legally, that extended his deal to 2025. Thus, some argue Barça is obligated to pay him for both years. Crickex Login notes that while the argument isn’t entirely wrong, it overlooks the financial urgency behind the move.

From Barça’s standpoint, registering Dani Olmo was the immediate priority. Although Gundogan wasn’t initially expected to leave, he was among the few players attracting external interest—especially from Manchester City. Since other players on the roster couldn’t be offloaded, releasing Gundogan became a painful but practical solution.

Crickex Login concludes that Barcelona’s decision was driven by necessity, not choice. Letting Gundogan go was a strategic move to ease their financial burden. While fans debate fairness and obligation, the club’s actions reflect a broader economic reality—sometimes, even heroes must leave to keep the ship afloat.