Liverpool, to this day, have had a hard time recovering from this blatant excess of commercialisation. They, of course, would like to be remembered for their four European cups and domestic domination but when you throw your shirt out with the bathwater, no one remembers such achievements; only the rich-get-richer mentality of an already successful club. As the 80's drew to a close and the Liver birds had flown, a new entity was formed to protect 'our' game, as the supporters say. Its name: The Premier League.
In reality, it was the Carling Premier League and the reason for this grave necessity was that English clubs were not getting as much of the Pukka pie as their counterparts in the other 'big' leagues of Europe. The first Premier League winner was Manchester United, who wandered the wilderness until the gracious gods from Sky came to the rescue and helped develop their 'brand'. The following year's blip of Blackburn's millions was of no concern as United were the true protector of the English League.
The Premiership eventually had to throw 'live ballast' overboard in the forms of teams to steady the ship, so that it stayed on the same course as the other football leagues of Europe. Thus the league was pared down to 20 teams. Those dropped teams - who would not have been relegated in any other year- were without a doubt, compensated for the loss of revenue and prestige dropping a division meant and, supposedly, their fans were just as happy clapping in the division below.
Since that time in the Prem, we have now had 3 official champions: Manchester United who had gone 26 years without a league title until the advent of the new top tier, Arsenal who are now 3 Prem title and champion purse-string holders and Chelsea, who had one league title in their history before investment from a Russian oil tycoon. In the case of Arsenal, it is clear to see that money is not always needed in football to be successful, which is more the exception than the rule in the last 30 odd years.
Now there is a new sheriff in town, Manchester City, and he's carrying gold-plated pistols. Backed by the prestige and petrodollars of a member of the Royal Family of Abu Dhabi, Manchester City has offended the 'royal' establishment of, not only English football, but, European football itself. They have spent billions (the exact amount can be found in any match report the team has been invloved in though it rises every few months) on a team that had won nothing for a very long time and had little investment in the same amount of time though their support had maintained constant for a few decades.
The current figure bandied about for City's billions is £500 million, which in the current economic climate seems obscene but nowadays no one tells wealthy industrialists where to deposit their extra cash. The figure is interesting because it is very similar to other numbers in the Premier League. Current champions, United, seeing Chelsea speeding into view took out a loan for a similar amount, which, one would assume, was to benefit their football club. It has been shown that the new American owners also benefited from it but that's their right as the owner of private entity.
Chelsea, like Man City, cannot hide in the money league table as they have been the nouveau riche model that City's owners must have had their eyes on when buying the club. They've spent a lot more the £500mn on their squad and are still trying to catch up with the Jones of the world.
The curious case of Arsenal is of interest. The Gunners make an annual profit in the transfer market and Mr. Wenger appears to control the money situation quite tightly but we must remember there may be a valid reason for all this. They've recently built a new stadium to create more revenue and need to tighten purse strings. And how much did the stadium cost? It seems £500,000,000.
It seems £500 million is the going rate of investment to be competitive at the pinnacle of English football. While one hears the figure often echoed by the name Manchester City it would be more honest of match day pundits to remark that none of the top teams have got where they are by being charity organisations or perhaps it would be better for match reports to reflect what transpired on the pitch rather than in the boardrooms.
I've recently noticed the phrase 'City's millionaires' has been edited to 'City's multi-millionaires' Why? Because almost every team in the English Premier league has millionaires. If money is the only incentive to perform on the pitch than a lot of teams are doing it wrong.
It's not of course limited to the press itself because after every match, the public get to hear the wit and wisdom of the opposing team's manager directly. Recently after Manchester City's 3-0 victory against Stoke, in which City had almost 80% of the ball during the match, Tony Pulis mentioned City's finances 3 times. Does a manager of Pulis' experience really think petrodollars beat his team on the pitch? And it begs the question, what happened in the other defeats he suffered earlier in the season against Sunderland, Swansea, Bolton and QPR?
Of course, all managers suffer from memory loss and blurred vision after a defeat but the obsession of mentioning money before, during and after City matches should be given a rest for one reason and one reason only. City is saving football.
I know there will be people saying, 'how can this be? Money kills football' but please let me present the case. Last year the semi-final and final of the FA Cup, were exhilarating contests with City as the focal point. Sure Birmingham set the stage by beating heavily favoured Arsenal in the final of the League Cup but then they went and ruined their reputation by getting relegated. That's where City picked up their torch and managed to slip by their 2 opponents to take home their first silverware in 30 something years and losing their tag as 'loveable losers'.
The general footballing public no longer had to look at the same predictable names on the cup and were curious to see what was to come of this upstart the following season. City did not disappoint in Autumn of 2011. They came storming out of the gates demolishing a Tottenham team that were believed to be on the same par as their northern counterparts. They continued unabated and were told that every week that there would be the test, which they often past with flying colours, resuscitating the Premier League race.
The Champions League was another challenge that was met but at the last hurdle, the newcomer had fallen though it didn't prevent many pundits from stating that it was the most entertaining group and group stage of the Champions League they had witnessed. This may be known henceforth as the City factor. League Cup. Transfer market. You name it, where ever City's name comes up, love it or hate it, they have added a new dimension as a 'big club' in European football, as Steven Gerrard recently noted.
So while condemning the crass commercialisation of football and, perhaps, society in general, let's pause and thank Sheik Mansour and Manchester City for saving football from becoming old and predictable. No, I'm not talking about Scholes comeback.
No comments:
Post a Comment