The departure of Lee Kang-in from Valencia five years ago is increasingly being viewed as a significant misstep in the club’s history. Now a new Atletico Madrid player, Lee’s move highlights a decision that continues to baffle observers, especially considering his current market value and the minimal financial return Valencia received. The South Korean talent has officially joined Atletico Madrid, marking his return to Spanish football after a three-year stint with Paris Saint-Germain. His new contract extends until 2031, with a reported transfer fee of 40 million euros (approximately $66.8 million) including bonuses.
Lee Kang-in’s Career Trajectory and Atletico Madrid’s Expectations
Lee Kang-in’s arrival at Atletico Madrid has generated considerable excitement, with expectations high for him to emulate the success of club legend Antoine Griezmann, who wore the number 7 jersey that Lee will now inherit. Diego Simeone, the Atletico manager, and his coaching staff have reportedly been closely monitoring Lee’s progress since his days at Mallorca, indicating a long-standing interest in the player.
His journey back to Spain began after leaving Paris Saint-Germain to sign with Atletico. This move signifies a return to the league where he first made his mark. The substantial transfer fee underscores his perceived value and potential impact on Simeone’s squad.
Valencia’s Financial Stake and a Lingering Regret
Valencia, despite letting Lee depart, stands to benefit financially from his latest transfer due to FIFA’s solidarity payments. As Lee joined the Valencia academy at the age of 10 and developed through their youth system, the club is entitled to a percentage of the transfer fee. This amounts to 3.5% of the total transfer, which is approximately 1.4 million euros (around $2.3 million).
While this is not an insignificant sum, it pales in comparison to Lee’s current market value and Valencia’s role in nurturing his talent from a young age. The club’s decision to let him leave for free, particularly given his early promise and the club’s investment in his development, is a source of ongoing discussion and regret.
A Promising Start and a Controversial Exit
Lee’s talent was evident from his early years. He joined Valencia’s academy in 2011, impressing scouts with his skills. Reports suggest that Valencia scouts were so taken with him during a trial that they insisted he should not return to South Korea without a contract. The club even assisted his family with relocation to Spain to ensure his continued development.
Lee went on to make history with Valencia, debuting for the first team at the age of 17 years and 253 days in October 2018. This made him the youngest foreign player to officially appear in a competitive match for the club, etching his name in their records.
However, his path at Valencia was not without its challenges. Despite rejecting offers from other prominent clubs, including Real Madrid, Lee remained with Valencia. The club, in turn, offered him a new contract with a reported buyout clause of 80 million euros (approximately $134 million). This seemed to signal a long-term commitment.
The Non-EU Player Dilemma and Valencia’s Costly Mistake
The turning point came in 2021 when Valencia faced a difficult decision regarding player registration. Due to limitations on the number of non-EU players allowed in the squad, and needing to make space for Brazilian forward Marcos André, Valencia had to free up a spot. At the time, the non-EU slots were occupied by Max Gometz, Gabriel Paulista, and Lee Kang-in.
With only one year left on his contract and no renewal in sight, Valencia opted to terminate Lee’s contract as a free agent. This decision allowed them to register the new player but resulted in the departure of a homegrown talent without any transfer fee. This move, spearheaded by the club’s board including then-president Peter Lim, is widely considered a major blunder.
According to reports, Valencia needed to free up a non-EU player spot to register Marcos André. With Lee, Gometz, and Paulista occupying these slots, and Lee having only a year left on his contract with no renewal agreement, the club chose to release him. This decision was made to facilitate market operations, leading to Lee’s departure.
Mallorca’s Profit and Conflicting Accounts
Lee’s move to Mallorca as a free agent proved to be a pivotal moment in his career, allowing him to flourish. Mallorca was able to capitalize on his talent, eventually selling him to Paris Saint-Germain for 23 million euros (approximately $38.6 million) just two years later, securing a significant profit on a player acquired at no transfer cost.
Following the widespread criticism of Valencia’s decision, former Valencia director Joses Bordalas initially claimed that Lee was not considered a key player in his tactical plans. However, Bordalas later recanted this statement, revealing that he had no say in the decision to let Lee leave.
Bordalas stated that upon his arrival, he was informed that Lee was already considered a sold player and had to leave. Despite only coaching Lee for a short period, Bordalas asserted that he told the coaching staff that Lee was the team’s most outstanding player. He found the decision to sell such a talent difficult to comprehend and had no input or decision-making power regarding Lee’s departure.
Reports from Spanish sports daily AS corroborate Bordalas’s account, stating that he never requested Lee’s exit and was surprised by the decision. This starkly contrasts with Valencia’s official stance at the time. The differing interpretations of the events surrounding Lee’s departure highlight the controversy and confusion that have persisted.
A Legacy of Missed Opportunity
Ultimately, Valencia was left to accept a mere 1.4 million euros from Lee’s transfer, a fraction of his true worth. Time has proven the immense talent Lee possesses, and his subsequent market value far exceeds the minimal return Valencia received. Ironically, the player once seen as a future cornerstone for Valencia left the club without generating any transfer revenue, solely to accommodate another player’s registration.
The decision remains difficult to understand, even years later. It serves as a stark reminder of how strategic errors in player management can lead to significant missed opportunities, both financially and in terms of on-field success.
