Football has managed to con itself into a false sense of insecurity and has opened fire at entirely the wrong enemy. Football's problem is not financial but administrative. It has conjured up the predatory state masquerading as the super rich bogeyman determined to win "all the trophies" by inflating the transfer market, paying wages no other club can compete with and dominating the game. It is clear which two clubs are the villains here but it is also clear that the construct is without validity. If we take the game at a European level and begin at the time Sheikh Mansour (NOT Abu Dhabi) bought City in 2008 we note that Manchester City have not yet reached the final of the CL, PSG reached it for the first time, but were beaten, in 2020 and only one club has won the CL for the first time. That club is Chelsea, certainly owned by a very rich man and raised to the first rank by his money, but all the other winners won it for the first time in the 1950s, '60s or '70s - with the exception of Barcelona who had to wait until1992. Real Madrid have won it 6 times this century, which mirrors nicely the 7 times they won it last century. No doubt it will be argued that this is the consequence of FFP which maintained a gloriously level playing field and gave everyone a fair chance, but with that fiction we leave reality and begin telling fairy stories.
The PL has seen two clubs taken over by the super rich enemies of fair play and in the 17 seasons since Mr Abramovitch arrived Chelsea and City have won the title 7 times so far, though they have dominated increasingly in recent years. But in the 11 seasons before Abramovitch only on one occasion did a side other than Manchester United or Arsenal win the title and United won it no fewer than 8 times. Since 2003 United have won it a further 5 times - as many as Chelsea and one more than City. This period of domestic domination by one club - Manchester United - is not put down to money but rather to the brilliance of their manager. What is interesting is that when Ferguson was appointed he was provided with lavish owner investment every season to buy a team which might "knock Liverpool off their f****** perch". This unprecedented spending culminated in the floating of the club on the stock exchange to provide even greater funds and the very next season, with the arrival Schmeichel, Kanchelskis and Cantonna the GPC did buy the title at long last. United were a public company - not exactly state owned, but owned by any member of the public who could grab a share.
So, as we all know full well, involvement of the very rich and the buying of titles here and in Europe is nothing new and little concern was expressed. So what is new? It is, of course, the active participation of UEFA in this bean feast and their alliance with one group of clubs. The exploitation of soccer on the TV and of sponsorship meant that the dominant group of clubs in the 1990s were in a great position along with UEFA to make themselves very rich indeed and dominate the game at home and abroad. The alliance became rather one sided as breakaways were threatened and UEFA was forced to accept club officials on their committees as competition grew. This competition was not only financial - City have shown that they employ their resources better and in Guardiola have the best manager of the day. But UEFA's problem is administrative in that it feels the need to protect not football but its allies of the 90s now they face real difficulty. Football has never been threatened by money but certain clubs are.
UEFA have never identified one rich individual who intends to spend, spend and spend again and to establish a total dominance and win all the trophies. Abramovitch has spent a lot and won a lot but Chelsea have won one CL and are certainly not dominating English football. Sheikh Mansour has never expressed any desire to spend without restraint. In what other area of activity would someone who bought a business, planned a period of heavy investment to become competitive at the high end of the market so as to generate revenue to pay staff and shareholders better be regarded as a dangerous threat. The CBI might express concern about productivity and unit costs but would it really lay down as one of its aims to keep wages down and force them lower!
Football needs investment whether through debt or from the personal wealth of shareholders and any protectionist measures now to protect an elite which maintains its position through "undue influence" when its claim to a place at the top table belongs to yesterday would be disastrous.
