My point was that you don’t have to sell your players, look at Palace this summer. You want Zaha? £100m thanks. That’s much harder to do when your employment law states you must insert release clauses into everyone contract. It’s easier for the bigger teams to pick these better players up from smaller teams.
Jonathan Wilson: football is broken
- Thread starter berbatrick
- Start date
He’s banging this drum a lot but it’s just starting to sound like ‘old man shouts at cloud’ now. If clubs were run better money wouldn’t matter all that much.
They've won it with the first and second most amount of points in Premier League history. A team that amassed 97 points still didn't win the league and that team does not have the same financial capabilities as City. City have broke the record for consecutive wins and currently are on the second largest amount of wins.
Dunno mate, they've been in the CL places for a while now and came close to winning the league twice. Why would they suddenly fall away?
Would you rather a foreign billionaire came and gave them a billion quid so we could have another meaningless trophy-grabber?
Yeah I'll be stealing that one.
Not saying they will fall away, as such, but rather 'stagnate'. Spurs do not have the financial clout to become regular competitors for the PL title.
If a billionaire owners is what it takes then so be it. Anything that puts the smaller clubs on an even keel to those of considerably higher wealth is fair game. It happened to City, PSG and Chelsea, why shouldn't it happen Spurs or Leicester?
Unless you can come up with a better solution? Other than a European super league where the rich and powerul battle it out amongst themselves, that is.
That happens in a domestic league as well
from 2nd to midtable mediocrity in 12 months
we may not want to admit it but thats where we are
Is this an opinion people actually have? They’d rather watch a 6-0 drubbing rather than a close game? At any level?
Leicester's star player in that title run was bought for 50m to warm City's bench, that says quite a lot.
For comparison, United's wasteful/bench purchases were buying the star/young player of mid-table clubs like Villa/Blackburn/Fulham (Young/Jones/Smalling). I do think the financial dominance of the big clubs lately is unprecedented.
The American sports system is built on protecting billionaire's money which makes it the most American thing ever.
So by your logic, if one cyclist takes drugs in the tour de france, they all should? Surely the answer is to stop the ones who are taking drugs in the first place?
City's owners are already distorting the landscape. Do you want to distort it even more? If it just becomes about who's got the richest owner, the whole thing will become completely meaningless, not to mention completely unsustainable - as soon as these owners pull out, the club goes bust.
The reason football is so unequal now is the money which has entered the game recently. If City didn't have their billionaire owners, the top 2 in the PL and CL would be Liverpool and Spurs - two clubs who don't have anyone putting money in.
Personally, I'd be in favor of getting the leagues together and agreeing a maximum spend on wages and transfer fees. If it meant stopping City and PSG, all the other big clubs would buy in. They'd need to create an overarching body to enforce it, democratically chosen and elected by the clubs, but it's not beyond the wit of man.
It's not perfect but it's certainly better than the idea of encouraging clubs to court billionaire owners and devalue the competition further.
Games with lots of goalscoring opportunities in more entertaining than games with few goalscoring opportunities shocker.
If one team is dominating it is a less interesting story. You are definitely odd for going against this idea. How many sports stories that have reverberated through the ages were a complete slaughter?
If you really believe the bolded then there's no point.
Someone else in this thread said there's no point having this discussion on a Manchester United forum and I'm coming closer to agreeing with him.
Elite sport is not a Hollywood film though.
The most beloved sports stars and teams throughout the world tend to absolutely dominate their fields.
Obviously football needs a balance between thrashings and tight ground out victories, but to say you get no enjoyment out of watching one team stylishly dismantle another is pretty weird to me.
City's owners arrived into an already distorted landscape. It was 2008, right in the middle of United winning 3 Premier Leagues on the bounce and a CL, something which City have not matched after 11 years of ADUG's game-killing ownership. Of course, how United got there (organic growth and a great manager) is very different, but did Watford have any more chance of winning the league in 2008 than they do in 2019? People keep referencing Leicester's title win (that's Leicester that broke FFP to reach the PL) as some kind of modern football success story, yet that happened during the sugar daddy era, not before. Of course big teams from big cities have usually dominated football, but the trend towards elite capture of the game really kicked into gear with the formation of the Premier League and the redesign of the European Cup/Champions League. The route to organic growth to reach elite status is now impossible for any mid-table team to achieve. The only route to take Manchester City or Southampton or any other mid-table team from mid-table to elite status is a sugar daddy, but that route is now closed due to FFP.
Kick City out of football tomorrow. United, Chelsea, Arsenal, Spurs, and Liverpool now have one less challenger. Doesn't really help Watford though, the game's structure and revenue is still skewed towards those elite clubs. United have had an absolutely shocking season, yet still finished 9 points clear of their nearest challenger, Wolves. That's Wolves that broke FFP to reach the PL.
I understand and agree that the sugar daddy model is anti-competitive and unsustainable. It further distorts an already long-distorted landscape. It makes perfect sense for United fans to be anti-sugar daddy, because it directly impacts you. But let's be totally honest here, you're absolutely fine with a sugar daddy-free, anti-competitive football structure that United can dominate.
Last edited:
Elton loves them
The evidence that football is broken could be supported by the fact TV viewership has dropped quite a bit and is usually around the 600,000 mark in the UK.
To compare, reruns of Family Guy on BBC 2 a few years ago attracted 1million at times.
Granted, viewing stats do not include illegal streams and Sky Sports actually claimed a small increase last season (against a much larger drop longer term).
To compare, reruns of Family Guy on BBC 2 a few years ago attracted 1million at times.
Granted, viewing stats do not include illegal streams and Sky Sports actually claimed a small increase last season (against a much larger drop longer term).
Also Premier League football is beyond a paywall. Obviously it’ll get a smaller viewership.
Yes Watford did have a better chance in 2008. Much better. As did teams like Villa.
If the final scoreline was 1-0 with 60-40 possession for City, would football have been "not" broken?
He goes through the possession stats for the entire season , pointing out that one-team-dominating is much likelier now than even 10 years earlier.
Yes and no. They had zero chance in 2008, which is why they got absolutely nowhere near. They still have zero chance now for two reasons: 1) a further 11 years of elite entrenchment; 2) the addition of one sugar daddy. I think the former is ultimately more damaging to the long-term competitive health of the game.
You either want genuine competition or you don't. I absolutely support banning sugar daddies (anti-competitive), but I also support the adjustment of football's current structure of elite capture (anti-competitive). If you only want the former, but not the latter, then you're not seeking competition, you're seeking United dominance. I understand that, football fans are tribal and hypocritical to suit their needs.
Last edited:
Good post up until the last bit.
The era that United dominated was totally open to competition, its just that most clubs were run so badly in that era that no-one came close. As Liverpool are showing right now, it's possible (and has always been possible) for other clubs to thrive in that environment too.
If football isn't competitive, there's no point watching it. Clubs like City make football less competitive, not more so.
Yep.
Lesser teams have the occasional chance to win an FA Cup Probably once a decade.
1990s was Everton
2000s was Portsmouth
2010s was Wigan
Wouldn’t be surprised if another crap team did it in the next decade. You’ll probably have another couple of occasions where they get to the final and put up a decent enough fight, as Palace and Hull have done and another total blow out.
There'll be a bit more denial and a bit more crap to wade through than other subjects but theres always a few good posts. Like the one you mention.
Sorry, I do fully understand the point, in many ways, your comment highlights the issue that are highlighted by the piece written by Jonathan Wilson. You seem to equate 'success' for a football club, in the number of trophies they win, how often, and whether they can sustain a challenge to win a title. If that is your measurement for a club's success, then football is truly, truly dead.
How you can say that the Ajax approach to running a football club can be viewed in any other way apart from successful is beyond me. Ajax are a fantastically successful football club. Fantastically. How you can state that their model is 'unsustainable' is pretty alarming. Ajax have an outstanding coaching structure, this is foundation for their ongoing success.
This is still true apart from Italy and Germany where CL money have distorted the leagues. Note that these leagues suffer from lack of big investments. In England different teams were winning the PL for nearly a decade from 2009 to 2018. Unlike between 1976 and 2001 when Liverpool and then United completely dominated.
The points totals have changed mostly because of tactics. No way did Ajax 70-73 suffer from lack of enough talent to utterly dominate the domestic league. They were one of the most talented sides ever. Tactical developments have made it possible for top teams to amplify the difference in quality between them and the rest. Surely, you don't think that City 17-19 have more talent in their ranks than United 07-09. United 07-09 had several of the very best defenders, midfielders and attackers in the world. Perhaps only KDB and Aguero would be guaranteed starters for United 07-09. City 17-19 win more points because Guardiola tactics is better at amplifying the difference in quality. Imagine the difference in quality between United 99 and most of the PL teams back then. It was huge. Clearly, it wasn't the absence of enough talent that stoped them from going close to 100 pts. It was tactics. The game was more chaotic and lesser teams could spring a surprise more often.
In 2008 Spurs finished 11th ... and 8th the following season.
Fast forward 11 years and we've become an established top 4 club and are soon to play a final match for the biggest trophy in club football. Moreover, we've built a world-class stadium and a world-class training centre. And we've reached the global top 10 income-wise. All done without a sugar-daddy.
We've not yet become an elite club, but that's the aim and we've taken big steps towards it - steps that include establishing long-term foundations. If we succeed it will show that a sugar-daddy is not the only way forward.
Good post.
Also good post.
Good article , very good points, and a super league is not far away?
I think the obvious move is to cut down the amount of non-academy players a team can have.
The problem isn't that City or us in the past or whoever have such a dominant first XI, it's that players like Jesus, Sane, Mahrez, Gundogan and Stones should be starting elsewhere, not warming the bench and coming on with 20 to go.
Also by making academy players more vital, teams would be motivated to produce better players. You would have to find a way to deal with the arms race of signing teenagers that would occur.
The other thing that could work is a luxury tax on transfers and wages over a certain amount.
The problem isn't that City or us in the past or whoever have such a dominant first XI, it's that players like Jesus, Sane, Mahrez, Gundogan and Stones should be starting elsewhere, not warming the bench and coming on with 20 to go.
Also by making academy players more vital, teams would be motivated to produce better players. You would have to find a way to deal with the arms race of signing teenagers that would occur.
The other thing that could work is a luxury tax on transfers and wages over a certain amount.
Spurs under ENIC/Daniel Levy have been brilliantly developed in all aspects of the club. Absolutely no dispute on that at all, and you're now a sustainable member of the elite. One of the, if not the, best managed clubs of the recent era. I do think there's a variety of different issues to consider though: 1) Spurs from the mid-1990s to mid-2000s were drastically under-performing against their potential, you were effectively a sleeping giant due to poor management; 2) Spurs have long been a very big club with a storied history and a large fanbase; 3) Spurs were a key player in the ending of shared ticket revenue in the 1980s and the foundation of the Premier League in the 1990s, which were both driven by the greed (let's be honest) of the "big five" at the time, and were the first club to list on the stock exchange. What I'm trying to say is, Spurs are hardly a romantic rags to riches story. You're more a story of a big club now being managed well to meet (and exceed) your potential. I think we've had this discussion before, but when I said "mid table" clubs, I'm really meaning clubs in a far less advantageous position to the one Spurs were in.
It'll be interesting to see if anyone can follow Spurs' path in the future, maybe Everton, the only one of the old "big five" not currently in the elite club? Plenty of others with huge potential too like Newcastle, Wolves, Villa, even Leeds, etc. It'll take unbelievably good management for anyone to do it, and overcoming the one step forwards, two steps back challenges that Spurs suffered through when other clubs (United, Real, etc.) took your best players. Under our sugar daddy, City have benefited from good management too, but obviously the biggest thing is that the spending power allowed us to totally jump over that one step forwards, two steps back issue and hold on to all our players, while at the same time allowing us to make unlimited mistakes in the transfer market. Spurs have had to be close to perfect to achieve what you've done, and so will any other club that tries to follow your model. City (due to our sugar daddy) didn't need to be.
The likes of City and Chelsea would just dramatically increase their already extensive youth player poaching with that rule.
City and PSG can not be run according to FFP rules and how long will the rest of the teams put up with these circus acts. PSG with Neymar,Mbappe and the rest in the French league, we all know this does not add up. Same appplies to City and there seems to be something could be done in regards to them. PSG chairman on the board of UEFA is also astounding as given they own PSG, Bein sports and now have a seat a the UEFA board.
Great post. Completely agree.
It is, was and has always been possible for clubs to rise without a sugar daddy. Worth remembering that Liverpool weren't even the best-supported club in the North West when they were hoovering up titles. United also built their success on an 'organic' model, investing in the youth academy and identifying the right kind of signing (although, you're right, the changes to the first division and the European Cup definitely helped us in recruiting top talent).
As you say, it's really difficult for anyone to break into the elite without a billionaire backer but if Spurs (and Liverpool) can do it, other clubs can too.
It's a good idea but I imagine it would get knocked down under freedom of trade legislation.
This would be the real challenge; applying some sort of global regulation that couldn't be nixed by the lawyers.