How bad is top-flight football going to be in 5 years?

DevilRed said:

Nothing lasts forever in football.

Eras change.

People have been saying the same thing about Manchester United and arsenal. Manchester United and chelski. Manchester united and citeh. Now its the dippers and citeh. If you go far back it was the dippers in the 80s.

I think la liga is going to struggle for a while. Don't let this years cup run by madrid fool you. They were far inferior team to both chels and citeh. Not taking credit away from madrid, but they definitely had a huge element of luck to make it to the final.

They are now struggling to attract the top talent to spain. Simply put, the oil clubs (and english clubs) can outbid them.

Click to expand...

Exactly this. The real difference is that there aren’t massive European clubs who can hand out batterings to the best PL teams because the money drain is really showing now. People like competitiveness and unpredictability, these things are leaving football as it stands.

City, Pool, Chelsea, United all have the wealth to keep jostling around for top spot but it means getting manager and recruitment spot on. Newcastle likely will be there soon as well.

City and Liverpool will remain the pre-eminent force in English football for the time being. Newcastle is going to come in very strong but I guess they're going to have to fight against the lack of sexiness of Newcastle as an abode for young millionaires I cannot see Mama Mbappé wanting to live on Tyneside.

I think one good thing that will come out of this oil fueled football era is a lot of dischanted fans turning to second tier football for that classic football feel.

We should let the 'oil clubs' go into their own wee super league and let the rest of us get on with it.

Honestly don't think this is a great take. There have been period like this throughout the last 40 years. Dippers in the 70s-80s, Utd in the 90s-mid 00's (although you could argue 90s-10s) and now City. The only real outlier in those periods were the mid 00's-mid 10's were Chelsea and City took over and exchanged along with Utd once Utd fell back a bit, although as you'll see overall Utd were still dominant.

I mean, let's looks at the stats:

Dippers 1973-90 - 11 in 18 . 61% of titles in 18 year period.
Utd - 1993-2003 - 8 out of 11 1993-2003 or 13/21 1993-2013 - 72% in 11 year period
Or;
62% in 21 years.


If we go by City since their first PL win, it is:

City 12-22 - 6 out of 11. 55%

I honestly get the money arguement, but I think the real thing with City is Pep. Once he goes I can see them quickly going back to where they were prior to him, unless they pull what Liverpool did with Paisley and Fagin. Additionally, both Utd and Dippers either did 4 out of 5 or came close (cannot remember with the Dippers.)

DevilRed said:

Nothing lasts forever in football.

Eras change.

People have been saying the same thing about Manchester United and arsenal. Manchester United and chelski. Manchester united and citeh. Now its the dippers and citeh. If you go far back it was the dippers in the 80s.

I think la liga is going to struggle for a while. Don't let this years cup run by madrid fool you. They were far inferior team to both chels and citeh. Not taking credit away from madrid, but they definitely had a huge element of luck to make it to the final.

They are now struggling to attract the top talent to spain. Simply put, the oil clubs (and english clubs) can outbid them.

Click to expand...

more star players would rather play for Barca and Madrid than English clubs

What was different in nineties?

Man. United won in 93, 94, 96, 97, 99 and then the next two leagues after. 7 title wins in 9 seasons. Pretty sure in 99-00 you won the league by early Easter despite having a come down season after winning the Treble.

Currently it's a bit like La Liga was a decade ago, Man. City and Liverpool are just very very good currently and that's reflected in other competitions.

However Pep might leave at some point in next two years so Man. City's intensity will inevitably drop and we've seen them after poor seasons before when changing manager.

Liverpool a little different with Klopp extending but they have many key players around 28-30 bracket so will need to continue to recruit smart over next 2-3 seasons and Liverpool have messed that up before although Konate and Diaz do look fantastic.

Newcastle will inevitably make top 4 at some point in next five years so we've all got that to look forward to. Perhaps one day they'll be another Leicester type season but so much needs to come together for that it's very remote.

Cry me a river, always the same nonsense. We’ve spent just as much money and finished 6th, not 2nd or 3rd, the problem is Pep Guardiola. If he takes over United six years ago and spend the same money we have done in the same years, we win the league multiple times and this thread doesn’t exist. They have the best manager in the world, Liverpool does too, they have both found a level in this league which has never been seen before - probably never will be witnessed again either. 93 and 92 points respectively in a season where much has been on autopilot and is quickly forgotten, where City haven’t been mesmerizing and where Liverpool have played a semi-fit Salah since the African Cup earlier this year. How many times did Ferguson and Wenger finish on 93 or more? Not a single time.

When these two fellas leave the island, those teams won’t win automatically anymore and it’s up for grabs.

The idea that City ruined football is bonkers. It's greed that has (somewhat) ruined it. Clubs like Barca and United have no one to blame for their demise but themselves.

I'm not against an improved version of FFP, but even with an even playing field, there's no guarantees. Bayern Munich have just won the Bundesliga, a supposedly "fair" league, for the 10th time in a row.

James Peril said:

Cry me a river, always the same nonsense. We’ve spent just as much money and finished 6th, not 2nd or 3rd, the problem is Pep Guardiola. If he takes over United six years ago and spend the same money we have done in the same years, we win the league multiple times and this thread doesn’t exist. They have the best manager in the world, Liverpool does too, they have both found a level in this league which has never been seen before - probably never will be witnessed again either. 93 and 92 points respectively in a season where much has been on autopilot and is quickly forgotten, where City haven’t been mesmerizing and where Liverpool have played a semi-fit Salah since the African Cup earlier this year. How many times did Ferguson and Wenger finish on 93 or more? Not a single time.

When these two fellas leave the island, those teams won’t win automatically anymore and it’s up for grabs.

Click to expand...

City will always be right up there by default of having endless cash. Bad season? New manager, £250m on signings. No one can compete with that.

And the 'we've spent as much money as them' is really really tired, people keep repeating it but it's not correct at all. If you set the time frame from 2015 onwards or whatever goalposts to suit the argument then maybe, but go back to 2008 and they've blown us out the water. For some reason people never include De Bruyne, Aguero, Silva, Kompany and Fernandinho into the spending argument - that's about £400m of talent in today's value that's never taken into account. Who did United have in 2015? Rooney and De Gea?

I think you guys are a bit too negative and should put a little more trust into the sport itself. What made football so popular to begin with was that it was a sport for everybody. The people behind City, Newcastle and PSG use football as a means to pursue their goals (greenwashing, PR, political influence, ...) but in order to do that, they need it to be healthy. If people become too attached from it, it will lose what makes it so fascinating and thus what qualifies it to be exploited in the way they're trying to. Football is a story and right now they're antagonists. And nobody likes stories in which the bad people always win. It's like a TV programme - you put one ad in it and you make money, two make even more, three as well - put at some point it flips.

And there is already resistance. The Super League was a first try, even if it was a completely misdirected one. In the end, the power is with the clubs that bring in the audiences.

In the end, I believe the core of the problem is that football as a system is too monopolistic. Winning brings you more money, more money increases your chances of winning. We need to break that mechanism and make it possible that teams challenge for titles without having gigantic budgets. Back to the roots, so to speak. The super rich clubs are currently making the elite clubs of the past swallow their own medicine. But that's only possible because success is so dependent on money in the first place

Botim said:

The idea that City ruined football is bonkers. It's greed that has (somewhat) ruined it. Clubs like Barca and United have no one to blame for their demise but themselves.

I'm not against an improved version of FFP, but even with an even playing field, there's no guarantees. Bayern Munich have just won the Bundesliga, a supposedly "fair" league, for the 10th time in a row.

Click to expand...

The Bundesliga is far from fair. Actually 50+1 makes it the most unfair league of all because it is almost impossible to catch up to the top clubs organically. They are economically stronger and grow faster than the rest. Bayern winning it 10 times in a row is a consequence of the system.

A salary cap is what is truly needed, yes. Without it, the gaps between clubs will only become bigger and bigger so that investors are the only possibility to catch up (if they are allowed in the first place). That's the core of the problem.

Mb194dc said:

Football will reform itself around that reality, eventually. People won't want to watch football if it goes as you suggest, when the money dries up, changes will be made.

Click to expand...

That's why I think a super league is inevitable. The petrol state clubs make it so expensive and uncompetitive, a super league may have to happen.

The top flight is more competitive than ever i believe. Making the premiership a joy for the neutral.

I do however believe the quality of football has went down since rules have become stricter and Since youth players started getting 10ks as wages before they even kicked a ball and since the introduction of technology - Gks defenders midfields attackers all make mistake so can officials. It has also create a big gap between those at grassroots level.

In short moneys has fecked up the working mans game.

The people saying Pep are spot on and even though it is funny that he fails in the CL. This is what happens when you hire a manager that has a set way and buys players to suit that style.

Since Pep took over we have matched City’s spending but instead of hiring the right manager we hire terribly and the managers we do hire just sign players for the sake of it.

There is a reason why the likes of Liverpool sign players and they rarely fail is the manager knows what style he wants and signs a player suited to that

Tyrion said:

That's why I think a super league is inevitable. The petrol state clubs make it so expensive and uncompetitive, a super league may have to happen.

Click to expand...

I think the opposite is true - it wouldn't be as competitive without the petrol clubs. The problem is with the system. The longer it goes, the greater the gap between clubs becomes.

In the Super League, the same will happen eventually. It's no solution to the problem, really. It's just prolonging the inevitable.

Because money ruining football is completely new. The end is nigh for clubs who can only spend 0.5 billion on transfers.

BD said:

City winning 4 out of the last 5 premierships, and the league needing Liverpool to have a super manager and nailing key signings just to make it appear competitive. Without Klopp, City would be on 5 leagues in a row and heading towards more. City follow this up by signing one of the best young strikers in the world. Then we have Newcastle now trying to emulate what City have done, and presumably they'll be in the top 2/3 teams before long.

PSG throwing unlimited money at Mbappe, because they can. Sure it's funny seeing Madrid not getting what they want all the time, but soon everyone except for the oil-clubs will be able to offer this sort of money. Most of the best players will inevitably pool at City, Newcastle, and PSG.

This is different than United or Madrid or whoever buying the best players in the 2000's - the gulf here is on another level. What's the point of a club like Arsenal anymore - they'll be fighting for top 4 (soon to be top 5 with these CL rules coming in) at best for the foreseeable future, and have absolutely no chance of getting close to winning the league anymore. Unless they got bought over by a country of course. We're only saved by the fact we have so much money ourselves, but presumably over time we won't be able to live with these clubs/countries anymore.

Click to expand...

I will say it with each fecking post, this forum is slowly morphing into RAWK with threads like this one. My advice, do something with your life man, football is not everything.

To answer your thread and be as well a lifeless negative cnut though: they're winning by pumping money in and, in order for others to do the same, they need to pump money in. What is the issue?

Are you trying to say that the billionaires owning clubs might be forced to spend their own actual money(eg:Glazers) in order to compete with oil/state funded clubs? How in the feck is that a bad thing and who in the feck cares about Arsenal or the clubs that can't compete financially? Is there some sort of written law that competing in football needs to be equal for everyone and not proportional to the level of investment made?

First of all, every sport on this planet is a business before it's a competition. Every business will have some degree of political/financial/power influence(states buying clubs etc). If you can't see or understand that as a fan(and I'm not referring to you personally), you need to give your head a serious check. It has been like this for 50 years, you only now have the means to notice it.

If there's any of you here thinking that football 10-20-30-40 years ago was some sort of pure sport, you're blinding yourselves. Remember how sport was invented, why and for whom.

Zehner said:

I think you guys are a bit too negative and should put a little more trust into the sport itself. What made football so popular to begin with was that it was a sport for everybody. The people behind City, Newcastle and PSG use football as a means to pursue their goals (greenwashing, PR, political influence, ...) but in order to do that, they need it to be healthy. If people become too attached from it, it will lose what makes it so fascinating and thus what qualifies it to be exploited in the way they're trying to. Football is a story and right now they're antagonists. And nobody likes stories in which the bad people always win. It's like a TV programme - you put one ad in it and you make money, two make even more, three as well - put at some point it flips.

And there is already resistance. The Super League was a first try, even if it was a completely misdirected one. In the end, the power is with the clubs that bring in the audiences.

In the end, I believe the core of the problem is that football as a system is too monopolistic. Winning brings you more money, more money increases your chances of winning. We need to break that mechanism and make it possible that teams challenge for titles without having gigantic budgets. Back to the roots, so to speak. The super rich clubs are currently making the elite clubs of the past swallow their own medicine. But that's only possible because success is so dependent on money in the first place

Click to expand...

Not since professionalisation, so since the 1880s it hasn't. Once football went professional, the teams with rich mill owners moved to the top of the game, this settled down a little due to other rich owners supporting other clubs and/or a team having a good youth team come through; however this isn't comparable as up until the 70s players generally stayed in their local area a lot more than now; however that is a societal phenomena. The idea that football in the professional era hasn't been shaped by external money is a fallacy.

I am not sure how football has developed other countries, but in England, relative to period, very rich owners have been a part and parcel since it's inception.

I have even outlined how in England the 70s-00s were dominated by two teams to more extent than it has since City started winning.

For me this is a RAWK level type of complaint you saw from them before they got Klopp.

Dave Smith said:

Not since professionalisation, so since the 1880s it hasn't. Once football went professional, the teams with rich mill owners moved to the top of the game, this settled down a little due to other rich owners supporting other clubs. The idea that football in the professional era hasn't been shaped by external money is a fallacy.

I am not sure how football has developed other countries, but in England, relatively to period, very rich owners have been a part and parcel since it's inception.

I have even outlined how in England the 70s-00s were dominated by two teams to more extent than it has since City started winning.

For me this is a RAWK level type of complaint you saw from them before they got Klopp.

Click to expand...

Very interesting, didn't know that. Do you know any good reads about these times?

Anyway, I think this doesn't really contradict my point. The system behind European football is monopolistic and the longer it goes on, the less evenly the money is distributed. So naturally you had more competitive teams in earlier eras than you have now. Without City, Chelsea, PSG, etc. it would look even more onesided because it is impossible for clubs to catch up organically, as evidenced by the Bundesliga where such investments are ruled out and one club dominates in unprecedented manner. So to speak, the "oil clubs" are like startups accelerated by investors to challenge established competitors. With the difference that some of them don't even try to be profitable.

I think you're right that's this is a bit rich/salty coming from United fans but nonetheless the point is legit. This can't go on like this forever because in the end, you really have one monopolist and the competition is effectively dead like it currently is in the Bundesliga. I think there have to be mechanisms put into place that ensure a bigger fluctuation at the top.

Can see a lot of us losing interest in watching oily billionaire clubs compete every year. Definitely can see it being the future of football.

Iker Quesadillas said:

PSG having infinite money doesn't matter that much imo. They're in Ligue 1.
Manchester City are a problem for the PL, I would imagine if Newcastle become similar and PL races become dominated by them, I imagine your fans will have an uproar.

Click to expand...

Hard to see it not happening tbh. With the kind of money Newcastle will have they'd have to be mismanaged Woodward style not to compete. Then it's a question of whether clubs like United Liverpool and Arsenal are able to be more efficient which is very hard.

BD said:

This is different than United or Madrid or whoever buying the best players in the 2000's -

Click to expand...

Ok.

waza7111 said:

According to this website our net spend is only £27 million less than City since SAF retired-

https://www.planetfootball.com/quic...alex-ferguson-man-utd-city-liverpool-chelsea/

No idea if it's true or not but if it is then it shows the value in signing the right players and having a great manager.

Click to expand...

It's not really so strange - just because City have the most money and the most success, that doesn't mean they're neccessarily the biggest spender.

If you look at the 90s and 00s combined - a stretch where United were clearly both the richest and most successful club - our net spend was only the fifth highest in the PL. Liverpool, Spurs, Chelsea and City all spent more than us (net). Chelsea's net spend was more than twice as high as ours. Three of them (LIV, CHE, TOT) also exceeded our expenditure, ie spent more, period.

If you look at just the nineties, we were outspent by Liverpool and Newcastle. In fact, Liverpool spent nearly 50% more than us on transfers, whether you look at net or just expenditure. So much for United's dominance being founded on superior spending power. It is probably worth noting that Liverpool were then in a similar position as we are now, trying to get back to a previous position of dominance.

In the past decade, it's City, Chelsea, United, in that order - but all in the area of 1.5 bn expenditure. Then it's Liverpool and Arsenal at around 1 bn. The net balance looks very different, reflecting huge differences in income from player sales. Among the big spenders, varying from more than 1bn (Chelsea) to less than 400m (Arsenal).

All in all, I think you can say the following:

1. Being a top club is expensive
2. Becoming a top club is even more expensive
3. Being a former top club that tries to get back to being one is probably the most expensive of all.
4. There is really not a strong correlation between spending the most and getting the best results. Being able to spend with the best just buys you a ticket to be present at the big table, from there it's down to the quality of your organisation and decisions.

PL will be just fine as long as ourselves and Chelsea get our act together.

GinobiliTheGOAT said:

more star players would rather play for Barca and Madrid than English clubs

Click to expand...

Might have been the case before, but more and more star players are now signing for english clubs (or oil clubs)

Haaland. Sancho. mbappe. havertz etc.

I'll probs move down to following a lower league team home and away if the current trend of football continues, once liverpools team ages and they go back to top half irrelevance and the newcastle/city era begins i'm not sure i'll be that interested.

Bwuk said:

Newcastle will win the league before we do.

Click to expand...

Newcastle won't win the league for at least 3 years. I see them getting Europa League next season. They'll need a better manager and better players to get into top 4 first.
I can see us winning the league in the next 3 years if ETH is given time and resources to do so.

youmeletsfly said:

Is there some sort of written law that competing in football needs to be equal for everyone and not proportional to the level of investment made?

Click to expand...

No, but the problem is - and I disagree with those who blame it solely on the oil clubs - that football, and sport in general, needs competition. The less competitive it is, the less interest it generates.

Bayern winning ten titles in a row is awful for the Bundesliga. A handful of clubs hoovering up all the talent and trophies is awful for football, even if it is perfectly consistent with how business works in general.

Zehner said:

I think the opposite is true - it wouldn't be as competitive without the petrol clubs. The problem is with the system. The longer it goes, the greater the gap between clubs becomes.

In the Super League, the same will happen eventually. It's no solution to the problem, really. It's just prolonging the inevitable.

Click to expand...

Iirc, the super league had rules about spending and financial fair play. It could have actually led to a level playing field (albeit a cordoned off one).

Do people not realise Newcastle are the richest club on the planet? Their grip will be the tightest of all and the only people that can stop that have absolutely no interest in doing so. The amount of pockets being greased will only get more extensive.

If you think Chelsea or City are bad, you've not seen anything yet.

If they aren't the dominant force in the country at around the 5yr mark, they will be falling well below expectations as far as I am concerned.

Klopp will have to prove himself the next Fergie, and Pep will have burned himself out or quit by then. ten Hag will either be a godforce or gone by then, too. But Newcastle will have the best of everything by then; they will usher in the first genuine football manager hack squad, rather than the lesser names of City or unbalanced mess of PSG.

Tyrion said:

Iirc, the super league had rules about spending and financial fair play. It could have actually led to a level playing field (albeit a cordoned off one).

Click to expand...

Not if the amount you're allowed to spend is tied to your revenue. You need to have a general cap that maybe increases season by season to compensate for inflation. But as far as I know, the gap would've only grown further and further. Especially since the permanent members earned more per default than the temporary ones

Siorac said:

No, but the problem is - and I disagree with those who blame it solely on the oil clubs - that football, and sport in general, needs competition. The less competitive it is, the less interest it generates.

Bayern winning ten titles in a row is awful for the Bundesliga. A handful of clubs hoovering up all the talent and trophies is awful for football, even if it is perfectly consistent with how business works in general.

Click to expand...

Yes, for sure, I totally agree.

But a sport needing competition vs what happens in reality are two different things.

It's not a given that a competition is "competitive", especially when there is a shit ton of money to be made and a shit ton of social media attraction if you are winning.

At the very top, a competition is a quality measurement of input vs output. As long as you have a proper structure, the more you pump in, the better the result.

Botim said:

The idea that City ruined football is bonkers. It's greed that has (somewhat) ruined it. Clubs like Barca and United have no one to blame for their demise but themselves.

I'm not against an improved version of FFP, but even with an even playing field, there's no guarantees. Bayern Munich have just won the Bundesliga, a supposedly "fair" league, for the 10th time in a row.

Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with FFP as long as they have the power to properly audit every club, the issue is clubs are clearly circumnavigating it in secret or, in City's case, in the open but with no care in the world for being caught.

Regulus Arcturus Black said:

City and Newcastle will completely dominate English football.
It’s inevitable.
A football club can’t compete with a state, else you risk doing a Barça.

Click to expand...

Weirdly, I think Harvey Elliot might be the most crucial player in the Prem, since Liverpool are young enough with Allison, Konate, TAA, Diaz and Jota to be good in those spots, but their midfield has no real youth in it.

We have also spent alot of money over the last few seasons. If it was only down to money then we should be the second best team in the league but we aren’t.

I think the top 4 clubs can have players of equal quality and it is down to how the clubs are runned and the manager in charge.

The only extreme change that can change the dynamics of the league is City/New Castle becoming a Bayern Munich and taking players from all the teams, including the other top 4 teams.

This is our year!

I really cannot understand why people are saying that City's dominance is down to Pep, while there has been a clear, decade-long trend in all of the major European leagues with teams with the most money enjoying an unprecedented era of dominance.

See Bayern, Juve, PSG. Spain the sole exception.

RedDevil@84 said:

City scored 99 goals without Haaland. They are going to get silly next season itself.

Click to expand...

And score approx 110 goals.

Powderfinger said:

City will come back to earth a bit after Pep leaves but overall the trend is only going to get worse. I don't think people are prepared for what Newcastle might end up spending if/when MBS decides that he doesn't want to be the small dick Middle Eastern club owner anymore. Or wait until China figures out that pumping a couple billion into West Ham would be a cost effective way to enhance their soft power and negotiating leverage in Europe.

People just don't want to face this reality but the only way out of the problem are regulatory structures that aren't completely corrupt and/or beholden to the countries owning these clubs. And the only plausible way to do that is some kind of super league, which gives the power to establish and regulate spending rules to member clubs themselves rather than UEFA or the UK government.

Click to expand...

I have said some silly stuff in the past and thought, what the feck did I mean with that...so just for a laugh, please explain how China purchasing West Ham means they have a leverage in Europe and why would China want leverage in Europe in the first place as they have way more bigger things on their mind (and I'm assuming you mean UEFA, not EU)