Rasmus Hojlund's transfer value continues to rise with his performances for Napoli during a loan spell from
Manchester United.
He left on a season-long loan deal, which also includes an obligation to buy. The reigning Serie A champions will have to pay United €44million (£38.8million) next summer provided certain conditions are met.
The Reds have already received a €6million (£5.3million) loan fee from Napoli, which could mean the total fee for the transfer would reach €50million (£44.1million) if the permanent transfer is completed.
Hojlund left
Old Trafford in the summer after scoring 26 goals across two seasons at United, and managed 10 across the entirety of the previous campaign.
Since signing for Napoli, the Denmark international has four goals to his name across his first 10 appearances.
He started well firing in goals and while they have started to dry up, his coach Antonio Conte continues to see him as a key player for him.
Hojlund is set to complete a permanent move to Napoli next summer and with the striker enjoying his time in Italy, his market value appears to have increased over the last few months.
The CIES Football Observatory have crunched the numbers and put Hojlund's current market value at between €79million (£69.7m) and €92million (£81.1m).
This marks quite a significant increase in Hojlund's value since the end of last season.
Back in June, the same website listed the striker's value on the transfer market as between €59million (£52m) and €76million (£67m).
There have even been rumours that United could have the option of recalling Hojlund when the January transfer window opens, in the aftermath of Benjamin Sesko's knee injury.
The Slovenian international suffered the injury before the international break, with further updates since claiming that the striker will be on the sidelines for up to a month.
At the time of the injury, there were fears that Sesko could be ruled out for an even longer spell.
This led to rumours about whether or not United could recall Hojlund in January, but this will not be the case due to there being no such clause included in the transfer, which was agreed earlier this year.