Why the Premier League has taken on the fight against domination by one club.
I’m hardly the first to say it all started with Roman Abramovich; David Dean was acutely aware what RA’s work at Chelsea meant for Arsenal, and saw exactly where it was going. I was, I fully admit, far too excited by the unbeaten season to notice – but then so were many others. I remember people dancing in the North Circular Road after the final game, not realising the threat that the whole league was facing.
Wenger did understand of course, because he invariably understood. He spoke of the dangers of clubs having “financial resources which are unlimited.” And he used a phrase which links very much to an article I offered the other day, complaining of Chelsea under Abramovich, “For me, it’s a kind of doping because it’s not in any way linked to their resources.”
Now if you are kind enough wander through my meanderings here you’ll maybe have noticed my interest in why foreign investors keep buying into football clubs that lose money year by year. And it is interesting that when Abramovich took over Chelsea there were even fewer rules than there are now. The Premier League had become “football’s Wild West” as the Daily Telegraph wrote, and that was before the Abu Dhabi United Group outbid Chelsea to sign Robinho.
The problem seemed to be that the football finance rules were created by people who either weren’t in business and hadn’t been for some time. Now I’ve never pretended to be a big time business operator and my business (before my retirement) had about 40,000 square feet of factory space and 35 staff. But even so we seemed to know more about profitability and sustainability rules than many football clubs even though within the company all we had was two accountants and one lawyer.
Today’s football clubs are packed with accountants and lawyers – sometimes it seems they have more of those than they have players.
Arsene Wenger made a remarkable statement which suggested that Uefa were taken by surprise, and in a trice, FFP came to an end. Der Spiegel then published its Football Leaks documents.
Sometime around this point Uefa started to investigate football finances, and was overwhelmed by the data it found, including some issues that pointed to everything not being quite right at Manchester City (although of course I can make no judgement on that, I have not seen the documents).
The Court for Arbitration in Sport at this point sided with the club on the question of how old some of the claims were but also noted that the club had not co-operated with the enquiry. Insiders like Jürgen Klopp, José Mourinho and the like started to make statements suggesting all was not well in football, although those comments didn’t get much coverage in the English press.
The UK government however then set up a football regulator and clubs set up legal departments the like and size of which no one had ever seen before as attention turned to Manchester City, Newcastle and others. The Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund takeover of Newcastle was questioned and rules were tightened. “Fair market value” issues were questioned. Methods of assessing values, not to mention the entire financial set of rules, were also questioned.
And there is a worry about the Premier League. As we have often mentioned, in Germany and France, you can’t bet on who will win the league next season, because we already know. Now that doesn’t mean that those leagues are fixed but it does show the danger of allowing one club in a league to have resources way beyond those which any other club can dream of. It is a central part of the attraction of the PRemier League, but it began to be whittled away in 2017/18.
Leicester’s league victory for the first and only time in 2016 had been seen as a triumph of the Premier League’s diversity. The “old firm” victories had been jettisoned as in four consecutive seasons four different teams had won the league, one for the first time in its entire history, one for the second time and one for the fourth time. The only regular winner from years gone by was Manchester United who clocked up their 13th league title.
The Premier League could laugh at all those other leagues which had just one or two clubs who could win – in the Premier League you really never knew what was coming up next.
The only trouble was that in six of the next seven seasons only one club – Manchester City – won the league. And of course there was nothing wrong with that if the club wee genuinely the best in the land because of their training and skills and quality and the like. But if they were dominating because they could spend far, far more money than everyone else, that really wasn’t the idea at all. Maybe all those rules that had previously been introduced to try and stop the German and French model of one team winning the league year after year were needed in England.
In 2023/24 Manchester City won the league for the fourth time in a row and by this time so many questions had been asked about their finances, that it was clear that some people were getting worried. The winners in the following two seasons (Liverpool and Arsenal) were hardly newcomers to the title, but they were neither of them, the same club winning the trophy year after year.
Now that the Premier League has tasted the repetitive footballing world of France and Germany, and decided it doesn’t like it. Of course if a team really can become utterly dominant through perfectly normal and legal measures, fair enough, but not through the simple approach of having an awful lot more money than everyone else.
And that is now what the Premier League has decided to fight. The domination of the entire league by one club, with more money than everyone else put together.
But is it a “….fight against domination by one club”. or more, a fight regarding HOW they became so dominant?
Lets not forget, when the Premier league first came in to existance Manchester United won 7 of the first 9 titles.
Btween ’71 and ’85 Liverpool won 7 out of 9 first division titles. 11 from 15 btween ’73 to ’90
Over the period you highlight post Liecster City and Chelsea, Manchester City won 6 out of 7. If you extend that to take in the last 2 years they have won 6 out of 9.
So, an argument can be made that Manchester City are currently not as dominant as neither Manchester United or Liverpool in thier pomp.
Were the powers that be bothered about one club dominence back then? I don’t recall them being so. Was anybody? I often hear those early premiership seasons being regailed as the ‘peak’ of English football. No complaints about Uniteds dominance. Or Liverpools. Quite the opposite actually.
So no, I don’t really see this as a fight against one teams dominance, rather a fight against HOW they achievded that dominance, and about how the future will look on the back of that.
If Man City had achieved what they have without financial doping I don’t think anyone would give a damn. But they haven’t. They have been bank rolled via an infinite pot of money. And that is the issue. INFINITE.
It is obvious to anyone with half an eye that allowing clubs to be run on this basis is unsustainable. It would efectively bankrupt any club trying to keep up, if it run itself on the financees it generates through the usual income streams.
The problem we have with this is the undercurrent of envy and jelousy towards the teams who are percieved as the ‘Red Cartel’. Namely Manchester United, Liverpool and Arsenal.
On social media we are already seeing certain sections of certain fanbases in support of Man City, simply on the basis of ‘How else can a team break the ‘Red Cartel’?
Yes, these people are utterly deluded but that is what they say.
Why are they deluded? Because as I have pointed out before, if you go back to the late 60’s early 70’s Man City were as big as United and Arsenal. United got relegated in the early 70’s. Prior to Sir Alex, United went 25 years without a title. There was no cartel saving them from that.
Prior to Liverpools dominance of the ’70’s and 80’s they had won 2 titles in 25 years. Prior to Klopps title winning season Liverpool went 29 years without a title. Some ‘Cartel’ that!!
Prior to Arsenal’s Premier League title last season we had gone 21 years without a title, and endured endless piss taking into the bargain. Prior to our double triumph in ’71 we went 17 years without a title. Again no Cartel came to our aid.
But in adition to that no BILLIONAIRRE with bottomless pockets came to our aid either. Yes, liverpool had a dalience with ‘Litlewoods’, but that was pittance in comparison to the ‘oil’ money. Man United’s owners have taken more OUT than they have put in FFS.
As far as I can see, Liverpool, Man Utd and Arsenal have achieved what they have over decades of good ownership, managment and player aquisition. It hasn’t stopped them having substantial ‘dips’ but they have recovered, again through good ownership etc.
Man City could of done the same, but as I have said on here many times, they were terribly ran. Bad owners employing bad managers buying bad players. For 30 years they went through a manger every 2 years.
Arsenal, Man Utd and Liverpool, didn’t do that to them. None of us got them relegated to the third tier of English football. They did that all by themselves. And by the way, nobody caused Chelsea to by worth just ONE POUND. Thay did that to themselves as well.
And as far as Arsenal are concerned, all I know is we have EARNED our place back at the top. It took as over 2 decades of pain and insults, but through good ownership, mangment and player aquisitions we did it.
Man City could of done the same. There was nothing stopping them, but they didn’t want to. They chose to break rules and CHEAT their way to the top, and now, hopefully the pigeons have came home to roost.
As for the fans, I have very little sympathy. They have been lording over everyone via iligitimate means for too long. No modesty. No contrision.
Nitram, you must be a sniper, cos you just hit the bulls eye…
Man City fans, in their desperation to either defend or justify their clubs behaviours have come up with 2 main defences.
If you are not cheating you are not trying.
Matches are won on the pitch, not in the boardroom.
Surely, if both of those statements apply to Man City as a way of justifying breaking financial rules then surely, under the same judgement, the creation of a Red Cartel to ensure victory on the pitch is also justified?
After all, matches are won on the pitch not in some Red Cartel boardroom!!
And if the creation of this mythical Red Cartel was ‘cheating’ then surely that isn’t an issue either, because apparently if you are not cheating you are not trying?
So Manc fans, enough with this Red Cartel nonsense, because even if it did/does exist, by your own words it is irrelivent because a) it doesn’t affect what happens on the pitch, and b) if it did, that’s okay because ‘cheating’ is what all ‘winners’ should be doing.
Honestly, what I am reading from City fans is beyond laughable.