Ever since Roman Abramovic and Jose Mourinho pulled off a hitherto unprecedented Houdini act with Chelsea, buying success in an instant, Europe has been taken over by a ‘cash revolution’. This has involved several billionaires taking over clubs and injecting huge sums of money, hoping to land instant success and emulate the ‘AbraLsea’ act. Chelsea did break new ground, going against cliché that ‘money can’t buy class and history’. They seem to have created a new catchphrase, ‘money surely can buy success and create history; we witnessed Chelsea lift the Champions League, in a season they finished 6th and struggled all throughout’. Not quite as catchy, but still!
Several clubs have been drafted into this new league, of the ‘cash kings’, all with the aim of replicating Chelsea in their respective countries; Manchester City in England, PSG in France, Anzhi in Russia and Shanghai Shenua in China.
But the question must be posed; How much can money really buy? It certainly can and will purchase skill, potential and competitive advantage. But does it really create a team? Chelsea only won the Champions League 9 years after the ‘cash revolution’ and after spending an estimated £2 Billion. And frankly on the balance of play it’s hardly what they merited. Manchester City have been equally extravagant in their spending, but didn’t pull off a ‘Chelsea’ and win the league in their first year. Indeed, if what we see is anything to go by, it will take them twice the time Chelsea did to lift a Champions League and PSG will suffer the same fate
The reason seems apparent; money buys great players, not great teams, Manchester City, Chelsea, PSG, Anzhi and till recently, Madrid, are rarely easy on the eye. Most of their matches are decided by a single moment of individual brilliance. Ronaldo stole it from City at the death, Drogba ‘packing the trophy in his pocket’ in Munich, and Sergio Aguero’s injury time winner breaking the hearts of the red half of Manchester.
PSG were passengers against Porto, Manchester City should have been beaten by Dortmund, Chelsea should thank the heavens for the brilliance of Oscar; Juventus were much the better side. They hardly seem to have that bit of team chemistry, the flair of an in sync machine. The river water fluency and smoothness, the type that you see at Barcelona, Arsenal, and Swansea
In the years just passed, Manchester United have made it to 3 Champions league finals and one semi-final, Barcelona to 3 finals and one semi-final, Bayern Munich to two finals. The cash kings however, have struggled. City look out of place in the Champions League. Madrid went for 6 years without reaching the quarter final stages, and PSG; well, they are still relatively new, but judging by the way they played against Porto, they will not match the elite of Europe.
It has become more apparent to me that, player experience, on its own doesn’t do much in Europe’s biggest stage. There is need for something bigger, something the cash kings may only get with time, and success; which will not be that easy. This something is ‘team experience and history’. Winning the title in their respective countries has little meaning, very little on Europe’s big stage.
The Champions League is something cash can’t buy and with financial fair play coming into the picture, my question becomes all the more fascinating and worthy of debate. How much can/ will money buy? Can money buy success, class, history, and the pinnacle of European success?
What’s your take on it? How much is £2 billion worth on a football pitch?
Introducing the neat little app that’ll pay you to view content tailored to your interests:
ThisisFutbol.com are seeking new writers to join the team! If you’re passionate about football, drop us a line at “thisisfutbol.com@snack-media.com” to learn more.
Why clubs like Manchester City are struggling to replicate Chelsea’s success ?????
How many points were Chelsea behind the Champoins at the end of last season? Clueless
You’re right so far behind city and only won the FA cup and champions league
After how many attempts in champions league? You won it by accident, you played ugly brand of football so don’t brag about it.
Ugly? Chelsea won that game because they knew they couldn’t dominate the game against the likes of Barca’s passing wizards. They rely on splitting a single defence line with through passes and that’s what Di Matteo countered. He line up a defence line and a midfield line of defence infront of the box to limit their passing into the 18 yard area. The fastest players were out wide for when they had to counter attack while Drogba waited around the half way line. Learn more about football and then maybe you can comment on Chelsea’s Champions League victory last season.
We played solid defensive football, It may not have been pretty at times but we did what needed to be done to win the game…. Win the game first look good second, that’s what wins trophies.
Ugly brand?
Only write if you understand football, don’t shower words outta you gob like your a critic coz you only end up sounding like a blinking idiot!
Excuse me Mr Juvenile Retard, any type of football played offensive or defensive are types of football.. Defending is as much football as attacking… So if Chelsea chose one and Barca play another it isn’t accept..
Nincompoop!
Uneducated drivel.
Good article!! I agree with you, money can’t by success even if today u buy messi,xavi,ronaldo,falcao e.t.c you won’t solve anythng you will jst create your own problems! It takes time to be successful,psg,city,zenit,dortmond e.t.c should be patient like chelsea did to be successful!!
what drivel, what has happened to proper journalism.
This isn’t journalism. It’s the equivalent of posting on a public forum or a blog.
Chelsea to be thankful for Oscar’s brilliance? They outplayed Juve and Pirlo was kept very quiet (something that doesn’t happen very often). In fact, it took a Mikel miss-pass for Juve to salvage a draw.
Ps: Its actually roughly £1b that Roman has spent on Chelsea, not £2b! #hugedifference!!
your reports are wrong, chelsea have spent a little over 2 billion intransfers and wages since roman took over. And in my view Chelsea hogging the ball and not threatening isnt domination, Juventus were by far the better side. And in the end, it will still take Man City 18yrs to win the champions league.
I would lay you any money you like that if any of the teams bought messi and ronaldo they would win the champs league
And who does this editor support? Jealous article. Chelsea have spent 1 billion not 2. If your gunna write give real facts not fake. And yes Chelsea finished quite a few points behind but would rather finish 15 and win the fa cup and cl then the premier league. Over the last 9 years we’ve won the most trophies at the bridge. We would have done better if it wasn’t for that nob head avb. Let’s see how this season goes.
Juventus the better team? Did you actually watch that match?
What a truly awful article, when Chelsea took over they were already a relatively successful side finishing 4th and winning trophies a few years before with Vialli, Roman took over invested over 100 mill and it still took them over a season to win it. City before the takeover had a awful end to the previous season which culminated in an 8-1 defeat to Boro, so its obvious they would take far longer that Chelsea build a successful side. However they should have achieved CL football in their second season of high spending but didnt mainly due to Hughes overpriced and poor buys.
If you look at the white tee shirt in the ad just below your article, the logo on it sums up your article perfectly.
Juventus were far the better team!?Were we watching the same game??
Lol Chelsea dominated possession and ultimately controlled the game with a 4-3-3 system against a 3-5-2 system who should have out played Chelsea in midfield. It was only Mikel’s mispass that cost them that last goal. Juventus never dominated the game.
Firstly.. Chelsea did not win it in Romans first year. got to the semi final of the champs league and second in the league. arsenal went undefeated.
Secondly chelsea were already a champions league team, not locked in, but we had the spot, saved Roman a lot of money. City must have spent 400 million just getting into the top 4, and they still have players on their books from the attempt.
And as far as the comments go… every player/manager knows there is a huge amount of luck involved in winning the champs league, last season chelsea had the luck, but also the greatest desire to win. it paid off..
City fans do not understand how hard it is to win. perhaps being knocked out in the group stages for the second year running will teach them a thing or two.
Also all reports put romans spending at 1 billion pounds not 2… i get that 1 billion here and 1 billion there is not much in the world of journalism… but its a bit harsh to double his spending… especially when you consider resale value of the club… maybe 600 M (Big ground in the middle of London) that puts Roman 400M in the Red… about what city spent on Robiniho Ade roque bridge K toure and the rest of their flops who cant make the squad..
Wow, this is almost as bad as the article above.
I note you don’t use Chelsea’s pedigree in the Champions League to support your argument. Now why is that? As for comparing Chelsea & an apparently superior Swansea? Mate do me a favour and stick to computer games!
Have not read an article with so many fact errors in a long long time. Just to mention two, Chelsea won the Champions League the 8th year after Roman took over the club and what in the world has the league position to do with a cup tournament which always have at least one element of luck built into it? And Chelsea did not win the Premier League the first year Roman owned the club. Redo – and please check your facts before you write – drivel.
This article is a waste of 5 minutes of my life I will never get back. Sentimental & lazy write up.
Bitch arse article written by a bitch-arse lifeless motherfucker!
“In the years just passed, Manchester United have made it to 3 Champions league finals and one semi-final, Barcelona to 3 finals and one semi-final, Bayern Munich to two finals. The cash kings however, have struggled.”
haha chelsea have made 2 finals . Lost one of them on one single penalty. Should have beaten barcelona in one semi final with 3 clear penalties not being awarded and a last second goal putting barca through. They have been the most consistent semi finalist for years and years. The best record by far in champions league consistency and repeatedly the highest co efficient.
Furthermore why are chelsea and man city seen as cash kings but barca and bayern not? barca spend millions and bayern bought robben ribbery etc . The world has a very lopsided view not just the writer of this article. Amazes me!!
Chelsea won the champions league on merit..no team in the world can play barca with nine men and play a two all draw from two goals down..we waited eight years to win the ucl after four semi finals and two finals showing..we have spent £1b since the revolution and not 2 as u claimed..people talk about our impatience with managers but looking back it has made us greater..we did not rely on just drogba in the ucl but it was the best of football and determination i had ever seen in my life..we are a nightmare to any team at any time…you need to watch our game vs juventus again..very poor article