Tottenham Hotspur are firmly in the mire. On their worst run since the Premier League began and sitting just a single point above the relegation zone, the outlook in North London is bleak. Recent performances under interim manager Igor Tudor have done little to inspire confidence, instead suggesting that the miserable league form of the past 18 months may yet continue.

Many have already begun conducting their own premature post-mortems of the club’s decline. Much of the blame has been directed—rightly—at ENIC and Spurs’ long-time owners, the Lewis family. Their stewardship has often been characterised by hesitation and short-term decision-making. Next in the firing line have been managerial appointments, most notably the disastrous tenure of Thomas Frank, whose time in charge produced some of the most disjointed and lifeless football in the club’s modern history. And, of course, there is the player group itself: a squad that has consistently performed well below its collective capabilities. In hindsight, the club’s Europa League success now looks less like a turning point and more like a strange outlier.

Despite their many shortcomings, the owners are clearly incentivised to keep Tottenham in the Premier League. Even allowing for parachute payments and the club’s significant non-football revenues, relegation would carry a substantial financial cost and damage the long-term valuation of the club. Some fans might argue the latter would be a deserved consequence, but the economic incentives for ownership remain clear.

Managers are similarly exposed. Poor results rarely go unpunished in elite football. Thomas Frank may well manage again in the Premier League, but the likelihood is that his next opportunity will come at a smaller club and on a significantly reduced salary. For both owners and managers, relegation carries real financial and reputational consequences.

The problem for Spurs is that the one group capable of saving the club from relegation—the players—face far less risk if the worst happens.

In economic terms, this could be framed as a form of moral hazard or an agency problem. Simply put, there is a misalignment of incentives between the players and the stakeholders who suffer most from failure: the fans and the club’s owners. While relegation would undoubtedly carry some reputational damage for the squad, the reality is that many of Tottenham’s established internationals would have little difficulty securing moves elsewhere. For them, the financial and career consequences of relegation are likely to be limited.

Recent history offers several precedents. Newcastle United’s relegation in 2016 saw players such as Moussa Sissoko and Georginio Wijnaldum quickly secure moves back to the Premier League. The same pattern played out when Leeds United collapsed in 2004, with players like Alan Smith, James Milner, and Mark Viduka finding new homes at the top level soon after. This is not to suggest that players are indifferent to relegation, but it does highlight the uneven distribution of risk. Owners and fans suffer the most, managers often lose their jobs, but the best players frequently escape unscathed.

What makes the situation particularly concerning for Spurs is the contrast between the talent in their squad and that of their relegation rivals. Teams such as Nottingham Forest and West Ham are filled with players fighting for their Premier League futures. For many of them, relegation would mean a dramatic drop in both visibility and earnings. Their incentive to battle for survival is immediate and personal.

At Tottenham, the mindset is likely different. The dressing room is dominated by established internationals who know they would attract interest from other top clubs if the worst were to happen. With those safety nets in place, it is perhaps less surprising that supporters have been subjected to so many insipid and passionless displays in recent months. Tellingly, the most visible flashes of urgency and commitment have often come from players whose futures are more closely tied to the club’s fate; Archie Gray and Mathys Tel among them.

For Spurs fans, the troubling reality is that this incentive problem cannot be fixed overnight. Contracts are long-term, reputations are portable, and relegation clauses rarely shift the balance of risk enough to fundamentally change behaviour. In the short term, the only viable response may be brutally pragmatic: prioritise the players who appear genuinely invested in the fight for survival and accept that some of the squad’s most talented individuals may simply be looking beyond it.

Because if Tottenham do go down, the harsh truth is that many of the players will move on to new opportunities with little more than a footnote on their CVs. The ones left to deal with the consequences will be the fans, the club, and the badge itself.