If a team outside the ‘big six’ had a load of money pumped into them, which helped them break in, it would be a nice change. That does not mean that I am not a little dismayed by the amount of money that gets bandied around for this player and that player, particularly a precedent such as that of one player (Yaye Toure) earning more wages in a week than a whole team (Blackpool) put together.
They were in the same division last season, but the gulf in finance put them leagues apart. That is now literally true following the latter’s relegation, but its analogy also applies to the revenue generated by clubs in the lower tiers below the Premiership as they find themselves adrift in the stormy seas of the football league further away from the shore where the elite enjoy the fruits of their success.
Although this is not to say that spending money guarantees affluence on the pitch as it still has to be spent wisely, but there is still no doubt that big bucks can substantially help a side whilst at the same time leaving others behind. Don’t tell me that without Jack Walker’s millions, Blackburn would have still won the top division.
The majority, if not all of their regular first team members were bought after they were bankrolled by Walker and co. As I said, it had to be spent wisely, which it was, but those players who played such vital roles in their success could not have been brought into the club if it wasn’t for the finances available.
Clubs should be rewarded based on their league position, but with more money from Television rights going to the ‘big’ side’s, the gulf is surely too wide between the top and lower teams for those smaller clubs to mount a serious challenge to the elite. This wasn’t so much of a problem in previous years, so even though the Liverpool side of the ‘80’s gained more financial reward for their success, the gap between them and the other clubs in terms of revenue was not so great therefore it meant that less glamorous side’s such as Watford and Southampton (both runners-up to the Reds in the decade) were able to give the Merseysider’s a run for their money, both on and off the pitch.
This does not only apply to transfers, but also the opportunity to put more into youth projects, but if the game carries on at the unequal rate that it is going at the moment then the competition for success will dwindle further away.
Give us your thoughts. Feel free to leave me any comments on here and/or on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr or YouTube:
https://www.facebook.com/rickymurraywriter, rickymurraywriter.tumblr.com, www.youtube.com/rickymurraymusic
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.
To have a peak at the top SEVEN available FREE TRANSFERS this summer, click here.
Or to have a look at 10 ways a football lover can spend this summer, click here!
The age of “the big four” has gone. The title race has become broader with each passing season.
4 is now 6…
On one hand Man City are being made out to be a new boil on the bottom of the Premiership and football as a whole. With FIFA doing their utmost to protect the clubs at the top from the intruder. And on the other hand you are pointing out that due to Man Utds past wealth (Floating on the stock exchange in the early 90s) they ended two decades of league failure with two decades of league monopoly. You can’t have it BOTH ways!
Why use Toure as a comparison for silly wages? Why not compare to Rooney who is the Premierships top earner? You see it’s these sort of loaded comments that really stick in the neck of City fans. Its much easier and convenient to sweep the truth about Rooney and Man Utd’s 20 years of MASSIVE SPENDING under the carpet and pretend that they actually only ever had home grown players who played for nothing. Lets not allow the truth get in the way of a good story hey? Carry on the City bashing, after watching 3rd tier football not so long ago we just don’t care.
To reply to both comments: I didn’t mention anything about Man Utd’s past wealth. In any case, their wealth was generated much by the people at the club themselves. Their size and stature within the game goes back to the days of Matt Busby when United were the first English side to compete in the European Cup, which meant they were able to spread their horizons to other places as far away as Asia where they have a massive following. That’s how they AND Liverpool did it.
I wrote in the article that it’s refreshing to see another team competing at the top like City are. I was sticking up for them. BUT it has to be said that while United and Liverpool have built up their wealth, firstly getting a great side together, winning titles which in turn made them famous and able to sell merchandise and the like all over the world, City and Chelsea have had handed to them on a plate by rich billionaires. Would you agree with that?
Massive spending eh Darren? And the article is deflecting away from that? Why let facts get in the way of a good yarn mate. Follow this link. Then shut your mouth. 1/2 a BILLION pounds youve spent
http://www.footballtransfertavern.com/2011/07/premiership/transfer-spend-of-your-club-since-1992?
Danny. Oh no your not another one who thinks you can compare money spent in 1992 with money spent in 2011. Ask your self this mate. Who spent the most in 1992, who in 1993, who in 1994 etc up to the present day. You’ll find Man Utd outspent everyone else EVERY YEAR for all but a couple of years in twenty……. Now you shut your mouth. I bet you are one of those who thinks that because you pay council tax over ten months, this means that you get two months free aren’t you? Darwin was only half right in your case, some people never quite managed evolution.
Ha ha ha now that is rich my friend bringing Darwin and evolution into it when i have just presented you with cold hard facts and your response was a frankly p*ss weak retort followed by an insult. Id love to get into a battle of wits with you pal but i find it highly unsporting fighting unarmed opponents, so regards 🙂
Danny, your cold hard facts rely on putting together all money spent over twenty years and adding it together to get a final figure which you use to prove your point. My point is you can’t just add the money spent in 1990 to money spent in 2011, because the true value of both is very different. Surely you can see that. Now remind me again, who spent the most in 1993, who in 1994, who in 1995 etc up until the present day. This way the real cold hard facts will be there for all to see and not just muddied with misguided statistics.
In the mid 90’s Sky pumped just shy of £750 million pounds into Manchester United. Rich individual or rich corperation? To me the two are the same. Except that in this case the organisation investing also held the rights to broadcast it’s merchandise all over the world.
Conflict of intrests? The Monopolies Commision certainly thought so when Murdoch tried to invest a further £1 billion to buy the club outright. They blocked the move. Quite why it was acceptible to own a sizeable percentage in the first place in anyones guess.
You are only fooling yourselves if you beleive Manchester United’s dominance has been without any investment from outside the club. As I said, what’s the difference between Abramovich and Murdoch and the end of the day?