Lodatz
11 years ago
I agree with him, but it's double-edged.
As was pointed out, a large part of the rise of the PL to the top of European football was thanks to Roman's acquisition of Chelsea. With that much spending power added to the league (and not just for Chelsea, because don't forget how many stars came into the league via CFC, only to be replaced and then sold on to other clubs), it broke not only the duopoly that Man United and Arsenal had, but also added (overnight) a new English heavyweight in the Champion's League.
Man City hasn't worked out quite the same way, but no-one could deny Chelsea's sudden status as a super-power on the continent in the mid 2000s. That has helped the profile of the league, and in turn made it a more attractive destination for world-class talent who had previously all been flocking to Italy and Spain.
And it's not as though it's just the PL which has suffered from money-related dominance, either. Take the 90s, with Serie A, and the enormous amounts of money that the Italian clubs could offer. How many match-fixing scandals and instances of corruption came as a result of such high-stakes football?
Then Real Madrid in the late 90s to early 2000s, and the Galacticos project. Perez shoveled all that cash (let's face it, his nose is not clean either when it comes to how he got his fortune) into the club, and didn't make a profit either. But, he certainly did establish Madrid as THE place to go if you're a world superstar. In the end, it DID help La Liga, as talent began to amass at Barcelona in response, as well as at other clubs who were trying to keep up. The problem with Spanish football is then in the TV rights and the release clause nonsense, which made it easy for the financial muscle of Madrid and Barcelona to keep their grip on the top.
So, looking back to the PL, yes, it's had an effect, and a corrosive one, upon the integrity of the league, and the value of football as a loyalty sport. You simply cannot have that much money floating around and not create a mercenary environment.
But, how many of us PL fans would truly go back to the days of just Man Utd vs Arsenal every year, and neither of them getting close to European finals (other than in 1999)?
The difference with the acquisitions of City, PSG and Monaco are that they are more blatant than previous such moves. The big question is: do we really, truly object to this on principle (in which case we have only ourselves to blame for letting it happen, under the guise of 'footballing reasons'), or do we object mostly because it simply lays bare and exposes the fact that we're actually okay with it, so long as we're the ones getting the benefit?
I suspect that the latter has a lot more to do with it than we'd like to admit.
Buying Chelsea was a calculated move by a ruthless business man to protect himself from retribution of the Russian government.
How do Chelsea fans feel about the fact that their club is being financed with stolen money?