Arsenal have built their progress under Arteta on possession, pressing and wide combinations. Their recurring challenge has been turning territorial control into ruthless finishing.
Had Haaland chosen north London instead of Manchester, his penalty-box movement could have given Arsenal a more direct route through tight matches. The fit would not have been automatic: his best football demands fast service, aggressive positioning and a side willing to attack space early.
But Arsenal’s structure could have supplied those conditions. A dominant midfield behind Haaland may have allowed the Norwegian to stay closer to goal, changing the club’s attacking identity and potentially accelerating its return to the top of English football.
Guardiola’s influence at City has been built around positional control, flexible forwards and relentless pressure after losing possession. Remove that project from the timeline, and the manager’s next move becomes central to the alternate history.
He might have extended an earlier chapter elsewhere, or accepted a new challenge with a club seeking immediate control of domestic football. A move to Paris Saint-Germain would have offered elite talent but demanded a different kind of management, with greater emphasis on dressing-room balance and European expectation.
Arteta’s coaching identity was shaped by his time alongside Guardiola before he took charge at Arsenal. A move to PSG could have placed his tactical ideas on a more volatile stage, where winning the league is expected and Champions League progress defines the season.
Arsenal, meanwhile, would have needed a different builder. The club’s patient, structured development might have taken another direction entirely.
The next time Haaland, Guardiola or Arteta changes club, this alternate-history debate will gain another branch. Football’s biggest “what if?” questions rarely stay theoretical for long.