Have state funded oil clubs ruined football?

So, Real have made an opening bid of €160m for Mbappé. But I guess that's fine, since they're an "honest" club (even though they hog all the league's tv money, are practically state funded themselves and in huge debt).

If anything, Mbappé (probably) going to Real should reassure people that even with all the money in the world, a club can't force a player to play for them.
 
Botim said:
So, Real have made an opening bid of €160m for Mbappé. But I guess that's fine, since they're an "honest" club (even though they hog all the league's tv money, are practically state funded themselves and in huge debt).

If anything, Mbappé (probably) going to Real should reassure people that even with all the money in the world, a club can't force a player to play for them.
Click to expand...
They had to sell and loan 17 players in 1 year (multiple transfer windows) to make that bid. Sure they are no angels. But lets not pretend they are on the same level of oil clubs.
 
Giggsyking said:
They had to sell and loan 17 players in 1 year (multiple transfer windows) to make that bid. Sure they are no angels. But lets not pretend they are on the same level of oil clubs.
Click to expand...

We've also sold a lot of players this window and over the past years, how is it any different?
 
Noodle said:
We've also sold a lot of players this window and over the past years, how is it any different?
Click to expand...

If you do the maths you will see Madrid has been competing in terms of net spend with the likes of Pyramids FC the last five seasons. That is how different it is.

Actually, if you go to Transfermarkt it turns out Chelsea are currently in 6th position in that ranking whereas Real Madrid are in position 189.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't say ruined (yet), but it does take away from the achievements of said clubs.

As bad as FFP has been at least it seems to have some (even if minimal) effect on slowing these clubs down. Without it clubs like PSG and City will have unlimited resources to spend. At that point the game may as well be ruined. I have no interest in following a sport which would ultimately be Qatar vs UAE in who can spend the most money.
 
Noodle said:
We've also sold a lot of players this window and over the past years, how is it any different?
Click to expand...
They are selling and loaning 17 players to buy 1 player for 160m. Your club bought 6 players for more than 380m euros in 1 year.
 
Botim said:
But I guess that's fine, since they're an "honest" club (even though they hog all the league's tv money, are practically state funded themselves and in huge debt).
Click to expand...

Real Madrid received €156m from broadcasting revenues in 2019/2020, out of a total of €1417m. That's 11% of the total. Certainly less fair than the PL, but I don't believe 11% is "all the league's money."

I would suggest updating your talking points from the year 2003.
 
Outside investment is a good thing. State-backed sportwashing less so. Sorry if that upsets sensitive City/PSG fans.
 
Iker Quesadillas said:
Real Madrid received €156m from broadcasting revenues in 2019/2020, out of a total of €1417m. That's 11% of the total. Certainly less fair than the PL, but I don't believe 11% is "all the league's money."

I would suggest updating your talking points from the year 2003.
Click to expand...

I exaggerate of course, but 11 of the 18 clubs received less than €60m, so that's a €100m advantage right there, which Real and Barca get every season.

Anyway, my point was that nothing in football is "fair". Bayern consistently ruining their opposition isn't fair. Qatar getting the WC isn't fair. Big clubs building up the debt of a small country while paying their stars millions a week isn't fair. The big leagues getting 4 CL spots guaranteed isn't fair. States funding clubs isn't fair. Owners bleeding their club dry while fans have no say in anything, isn't fair.

The idea that these oil clubs came in and destroyed a wholesome sport is just laughable. It's been poisoned by big money long ago.

At least there's some more competitiveness now in the PL, compared to 15-30 years ago.
 
Real Madrid were the first state run club, and Ronaldo R9 was part of a deal which reduced the Brazilian national debt. Its just now their feckeries have come home to roost and they are fecked that people are complaining :lol:.

Idgaf about the state clubs, as long as we do things our own way we will be fine. In the last couple of years we've been really unlucky to finish without silverware, so we're not that far away from being top of the top.
 
I guess It has ruined it as a sport.

But I'd be lying and saying that it isn't entertaining.

So many good quality and competitive clubs.
 
For me personally, this feels like the first year / Summer in which I have felt that the oil clubs are genuinely starting to ruin my love of football. Not sure why it has taken this long to get to this point, but PSG loading up on Messi, Ramos, Donnarumma and City adding Grealish (& Kane or Ronaldo) all while twisting FFP rules just feels like the start of a really horrible shift, to which these oil clubs could potentially dominate and hoover up all top talent for years to come.

I actually find it kind of refreshing that Mbappe wants to leave PSG, as it gives them a slight taste of what it must be like for other clubs of who PSG take their best talent.

I know people will say that us, Real Madrid, Barcelona etc. have all spent much more money than others in the past, but that was built on success and huge revenues from legit sources, so you can always respect that. The oil clubs faking sponsorships or tweaking transfers to their benefit while they cannot fill their own stadiums (City) is just wrong. Last weekend for City's home opener you could literally buy tickets by the boat load before kick off. Just laughable.
 
Messi is an incredible player but in some ways PSG are taking a step back by signing these old players like him and Ramos, and it'll be even more noticeable if Mbappe leaves next season.
 
Giggsyking said:
They are selling and loaning 17 players to buy 1 player for 160m. Your club bought 6 players for more than 380m euros in 1 year.
Click to expand...
The majority of last season's spend was covered with Hazard and Morata sales.

Lukaku's fee has been covered with transfers outgoings.
 
Dancfc said:
The majority of last season's spend was covered with Hazard and Morata sales.

Lukaku's fee has been covered with transfers outgoings.
Click to expand...

Don’t. They cannot comprehend Chelsea financials. They want to group us in with City and PSG and we are nowhere near that level.

It hurts for everyone to know that Chelsea are in fact one of the leading clubs in FFP and take it seriously. We have never been investigated like the previous mentioned clubs. In fact football is so hurt by this, they sought to change the rules regarding loans. This only accelerated selling our dead wood. In terms of actual academy loans, we are still doing it and still raking in the money because of the strength of our academy homegrown talent.
 
Charrockero said:
Other leagues that were aiming for strong international level and recognition ultimately failed... Chinese league is broken, Indian League didn't last 3 years, Japanese league only has Iniesta, Russian league teams also got broke.
Click to expand...

Except from Russia, the other 3 countries you mentioned have no football cultural background.
It's hard to build a league in a country that doesn't have a background in the sport, which is why the MLS is still shit despite all the money invested.
That's also why all Japan attempts to become big in Football have failed, they produce the casual good players, but other third world countries do the same, and they don't have the quality of infrastructure that Japan has.

If all the money invested in Football in China,Japan, or United States was invested in countries with actual football background like Hungary,Romania, or Ukraine you would see way better results than what the former have showed.
 
Last edited:
SirReginald said:
Don’t. They cannot comprehend Chelsea financials. They want to group us in with City and PSG and we are nowhere near that level.

It hurts for everyone to know that Chelsea are in fact one of the leading clubs in FFP and take it seriously. We have never been investigated like the previous mentioned clubs. In fact football is so hurt by this, they sought to change the rules regarding loans. This only accelerated selling our dead wood. In terms of actual academy loans, we are still doing it and still raking in the money because of the strength of our academy homegrown talent.
Click to expand...
So why do Chelsea owe Abramovich 1 billion pounds?
 
Seven of the top ten players in this year's UEFA player of the year nominations are already at oil clubs. Reasonable chance that one or two of Haaland, Lewandowski & Ronaldo end up at City/PSG/Chelsea at some point in the next 12 months, too.
 
Chelsea fans playing the holier than thou now? They just did everything 10 years earlier.
 
Rajiztar said:
But so called traditional clubs done that forever though. :D
Click to expand...
Are they comparable? Let's choose Arsenal for example. When did they have their "Roman"? And that's a genuine question. I'm not an expert on Arsenal's ownership and investment history.
 
Bubz27 said:
Are they comparable? Let's choose Arsenal for example. When did they have their Roman
Click to expand...
Bubz27 said:
As above really.
Click to expand...

Arsenal is probably the worst example to use as their biggest sliding doors moment was a promotion they "achieved" while they didn't finish in the promotion places, remember the uproar when a team (MK Dons) climbed the pyramid like that in the modern day?
https://www.skysports.com/football/...ed-into-the-top-flight-over-tottenham-in-1919

Also their early Wenger success was funded by a guy called Danny Fiszman, who not only funded the players to propel them from mid table from the title, gave the players (good enough to play in the vastly improved team) already there massive pay rises. By all means don't take my word for it, the club captain of that era himself confirms as much and credits 90% of the success of Fiszman's wallet.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...n-arsenal-did-so-well-says-adams-2319483.html

Funnily enough we wanted Bergkamp at that time but simply couldn't compete with funds Arsenal/Fiszman were putting on the table.
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/foo...-Dennis-Bergkamp-Premier-League-Transfer-News
 
Last edited:
Bubz27 said:
Are they comparable? Let's choose Arsenal for example. When did they have their "Roman"? And that's a genuine question. I'm not an expert on Arsenal's ownership and investment history.
Click to expand...
Recent rumour suggested some Qatari owner will buy arsenal. Hopefully now you will get satisfied. Welcome arsenal into new oil club :lol:
 
Dancfc said:
Arsenal is probably the worst example to use as their biggest sliding doors moment was a promotion they "achieved" while they didn't finish in the promotion places, remember the uproar when a team (MK Dons) climbed the pyramid like that in the modern day?
https://www.skysports.com/football/...ed-into-the-top-flight-over-tottenham-in-1919

Also their early Wenger success was funded by a guy called Danny Fiszman, who not only funded the players to propel them from mid table from the title, gave the players (good enough to play in the vastly improved team) already there massive pay rises. By all means don't take my word for it, the club captain of that era himself confirms as much and credits 90% of the success of Fiszman's wallet.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...n-arsenal-did-so-well-says-adams-2319483.html

Funnily enough we wanted Bergkamp at that time but simply couldn't compete with funds Arsenal/Fiszman were putting on the table.
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/foo...-Dennis-Bergkamp-Premier-League-Transfer-News
Click to expand...
Just using transfermarkt. Comparing spending in late nineties. The period you say propelled them from mid-table to title challengers.
96/97 Arsenal - £5.5m
96/97 Chelsea - £14.01m

97/98 Arsenal - £19.82m
97/98 Chelsea - £16.02m

98/99 Arsenal - £14.36m
98/99 Chelsea - £17.37m

Let's look at the seasons Chelsea propelled from mid-table to challengers.

03/04 Arsenal - £24.68m
03/04 Chelsea - £153m

04/05 Arsenal - £11.23m
04/05 Chelsea - £149.76m

So you were spending more than them back when you couldn't afford Bergkamp (does that make sense? It doesn't to me) and then spending more than them when you actually became legitimate title challengers.

Edit: they got Bergkamp the season before so that's my bad. But their spending didn't significantly increase. It stayed the same. Yours had a down year the year they signed Bergkamp, but over even an 8 year period, you spent roughly the same, if not slightly more. Either way, it doesn't fit this idea that 90s Arsenal are akin to a state run club in today's game.
 
Last edited:
Rajiztar said:
Recent rumour suggested some Qatari owner will buy arsenal. Hopefully now you will get satisfied. Welcome arsenal into new oil club :lol:
Click to expand...
So you can't justify your claim? Okay, thanks for letting me know.
 
Bubz27 said:
Just using transfermarkt. Comparing spending in late nineties. The period you say propelled them from mid-table to title challengers.
96/97 Arsenal - £5.5m
96/97 Chelsea - £14.01m

97/98 Arsenal - £19.82m
97/98 Chelsea - £16.02m

98/99 Arsenal - £14.36m
98/99 Chelsea - £17.37m

Let's look at the seasons Chelsea propelled from mid-table to challengers.

03/04 Arsenal - £24.68m
03/04 Chelsea - £153m

04/05 Arsenal - £11.23m
04/05 Chelsea - £149.76m

So you were spending more than them back when you couldn't afford Bergkamp (does that make sense? It doesn't to me) and then spending more than them when you actually became legitimate title challengers.
Click to expand...
Bergkamp was signed in 1995.

Like Adams said, it was also wages, if his quotes were anything to go by all the good players they still had left would have been poached by bigger/better resourced clubs (I imagine Fergie would have been all over Adams if there was a chance to get him).

Let's look at the seasons Chelsea propelled from mid-table to challengers.
Click to expand...

We didn't finish mid table for over seven years before the take over, infact we were in a title race with your treble winning side a few years before that.
 
Dancfc said:
Bergkamp was signed in 1995.

Like Adams said, it was also wages, if his quotes were anything to go by all the good players they still had left would have been poached by bigger/better resourced clubs (I imagine Fergie would have been all over Adams if there was a chance to get him).



We didn't finish mid table for over seven years before the take over, infact we were in a title race with your treble winning side a few years before that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've acknowledged that in my edit. Is Tony Adams privy to all the wages of all players 20 years ago? I'm questioning the validity of the source there.

But as I said in my edit, Arsenal's spending back then is nowhere close to the spending you made under Roman. Not in any way. You matched their spending over an extended period in the 90s. It's laughable that you're suggesting it is comparable.

As for the second paragraph, it's really irrelevant isn't it. Arsenal finished 1st, 4th, 10th, 4th, 12th and 5th from '91 to '96.
It isn't 2 seasons mid-table out of 6. Do we class that as mid-table? It's yo yo but overall more time higher up the table.
 
I can't understand why anyone other than man utd fans will agree Man City ruined football, when Man Utd spent as much as City in transfer for the past 10 years. What's the difference? In an ideal world I would like all EPL clubs are backed to have same resource as Man Utd so all clubs can compete at the same level. I care less if the money is coming from the owner or the state.
 
ThierryHenry14 said:
I can't understand why anyone other than man utd fans will agree Man City ruined football, when Man Utd spent as much as City in transfer for the past 10 years. What's the difference? In an ideal world I would like all EPL clubs are backed to have same resource as Man Utd so all clubs can compete at the same level. I care less if the money is coming from the owner or the state.
Click to expand...

And yet it was City, along with Chelsea, who sent Arsenal packing down the table. You were probably the biggest losers in their rise.
 
Zen86 said:
And yet it was City, along with Chelsea, who sent Arsenal packing down the table. You were probably the biggest losers in their rise.
Click to expand...
That's the other issue. The question is if state owned club ruin football, my answer is no. It only makes EPL more competitive and entertaining.
 
Rajiztar said:
Recent rumour suggested some Qatari owner will buy arsenal. Hopefully now you will get satisfied. Welcome arsenal into new oil club :lol:
Click to expand...
Arsenal did invest in the squad for the past 5 & 10 years, but just did a poor job. Arsenal outspent everyone in EPL except Man United and City in that period. I wouldn't use lack of investment as excuse for arsenal's poor standing in the league for the last couple years.

https://www.transfermarkt.us/premier-league/fuenfjahresvergleich/wettbewerb/GB1
 
ThierryHenry14 said:
That's the other issue. The question is if state owned club ruin football, my answer is no. It only makes EPL more competitive and entertaining.
Click to expand...
You can’t really believe this can you? Arsenal were entertaining and challenging for the big prizes prior to Chelsea and City based off money coming from their own success and a particularly savvy transfer market manager in Wenger. Oil club finances have made you the modern day Everton or Newcastle.

The other thing being, the PL has never really had a problem in terms of competitiveness and entertainment. Even in the 90s and early 00s, although league titles were shared between us and you, it was still a competitive league.
 
The Corinthian said:
You can’t really believe this can you? Arsenal were entertaining and challenging for the big prizes prior to Chelsea and City based off money coming from their own success and a particularly savvy transfer market manager in Wenger. Oil club finances have made you the modern day Everton or Newcastle.

The other thing being, the PL has never really had a problem in terms of competitiveness and entertainment. Even in the 90s and early 00s, although league titles were shared between us and you, it was still a competitive league.
Click to expand...
The Arsenal challenge was down to the genius of Wenger in transfer market and it is not sustainable. Arsenal back then is just like BVB in Bundesliga. We may win the title once a while and that is pretty much it. The difference in turnover between Arsenal and Man Utd is too big. Oil Club finance didn't make Arsenal the modern day Newcastle. The mismanagement did. Arsenal invested alot in the team for the past 10 years. Lack of investment is not the answer why we finished 8th for the past 2 season.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251152/revenue-of-fc-arsenal-london-by-stream/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/267743/revenue-segmentation-of-manchester-united/
 
Last edited:
Dancfc said:
Bergkamp was signed in 1995.

Like Adams said, it was also wages, if his quotes were anything to go by all the good players they still had left would have been poached by bigger/better resourced clubs (I imagine Fergie would have been all over Adams if there was a chance to get him).



We didn't finish mid table for over seven years before the take over, infact we were in a title race with your treble winning side a few years before that.
Click to expand...

According to Adams himself, Ferguson did try to get him. One of the United players tried to tap him up while they were away for England. Adams said he's happy at Arsenal. I'm not sure when this happened.
 
Have state owned oil clubs ruined the self entitled clubs?
Really really hope so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.