Have state funded oil clubs ruined football?

[Oly Francis]

I'm not against billionaires backing clubs, like Chelsea for example, because at the end of the day they're trying to be self sufficient in a real way. State backed clubs on the other hand should have no place in football, they generate money through sponsorships from their own companies, and create deals that aren't reasonable. And they could use that for sponsoring players as well, for example Messi wouldn't just be getting a massive contract by joining PSG, he could be also getting some massive deals from State companies like Qatar airways or QNB, and that wouldn't add any financial strain on PSG.

Some would argue that other top clubs spend a lot of money as well, but the difference is that clubs like United or Madrid still need to be responsible, otherwise they'd end up like Barca, with PSG and City there are no consequences, so it's like someone using a cheat code.

It would be pretty naive to think it started with oil clubs. Not even going back to the Berlusconi era, there's links of interest in a lot of top "historic" clubs.
Juventus main sponsor is Jeep, owned in part by the Agnelli family.
Bayern is sponsored by Adidas and Allianz who are shareholders in the company owning their professionnal team...

 

[stevoc]

Like the Bungesliga now or the Prem in the late 90s, early 00s. One side miles better than everyone else.

Arsenal won 3 league titles out of 8 between 96-97 to 03-04 and came very close most other seasons.That's hardly comparable to Bayern winning 8 Bundesliga titles in a row.

 

[duffer]

Arsenal won 3 league titles out of 8 between 96-97 to 03-04 and came very close most other seasons.That's hardly comparable to Bayern winning 8 Bundesliga titles in a row.

From 93 to 03 Man United won 8 out of 11 league titles.

Bayern have won 9 out of the last 11 German titles.

It's pretty comparable (my timeframe was a little off, saying late 90s instead of early 90s).

Both Man United and Bayern totally deserved and earned their dominance but let's not pretend they were/are not one team leagues.

 

[UncleBob]

In Europe? Barcelona, Real and occasionnaly Bayern crushing pretty much everybody. People here tend to forget that PL has huge TV rights in part because City and Chelsea invested a lot, which allowed english teams to be far more competitive.

 

[Oly Francis]

There's nothing funny about that. It would be delusionnal to think that having 2 extra clubs spending big bucks to attract expensive players doesn't play a role when assessing the TV rights.

 

[UncleBob]

There's nothing funny about that. It would be delusionnal to think that having 2 extra clubs spending big bucks to attract expensive players doesn't play a role when assessing the TV rights.

It is a fairly fecking funny spin because it can't be measured.

 

[TheReligion]

In Europe? Barcelona, Real and occasionnaly Bayern crushing pretty much everybody. People here tend to forget that PL has huge TV rights in part because City and Chelsea invested a lot, which allowed english teams to be far more competitive.

The TV money is down to City and Chelsea? What?!

 

[TheReligion]

From 93 to 03 Man United won 8 out of 11 league titles.

Bayern have won 9 out of the last 11 German titles.

It's pretty comparable (my timeframe was a little off, saying late 90s instead of early 90s).

Both Man United and Bayern totally deserved and earned their dominance but let's not pretend they were/are not one team leagues.

What does that really tell us though?

United had Fergie and one of the best batch of young players to play the game.

 

[Oly Francis]

It is a fairly fecking funny spin because it can't be measured.

You can't measure it but it's real, the Manchester derby is now an ultra popular game worldwide when it used to be totally ignored outside of the UK (and not as popular within). More viewers, more money.

The TV money is down to City and Chelsea? What?!

You forgot to read part of the sentence where I said "in part". More teams with good players = easy show to sell = more viewers. It's not that hard to understand.

 

[UncleBob]

You can't measure it but it's real, the Manchester derby is now an ultra popular game worldwide when it used to be totally ignored outside of the UK (and not as popular within). More viewers, more money.

You forgot to read part of the sentence where I said "in part". More teams with good players = easy show to sell = more viewers. It's not that hard to understand.

 

[duffer]

What does that really tell us though?

That it can sometimes take a massive influx of cash to prevent a decade of one team dominating the league.

Depends on what you prefer I guess. The bungesliga where one side has won the last 9 titles in a row or the Prem where in the same period, you've had five different winners.

 

[Oly Francis]

You do realize you look like an ass with your smiley replies backed by pretty much nothing?

If you want facts, here's a fact for the US for exemple :


Monday’s EPL match between Manchester City and Manchester United drew a 0.7 U.S. rating and 1.033 million viewers on ESPN Monday afternoon, the largest audience ever for an EPL telecast on U.S. cable television.

The telecast topped the previous record — 610,000 viewers for a 2010 Chelsea/Arsenal match on ESPN2 — by 69%.

The match also drew 273,000 viewers on ESPN Deportes.


https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2012/05/manchester-derby-sets-epl-viewership-record-on-espn/


But yeah, sure, the fact that Chelsea and City were made competitve by huge investments has no role in that.
I'm sure the manchester derby was as popular back in 2007 when City was at the bottom of the league.

 

[TheReligion]

You do realize you look like an ass with your smiley replies backed by pretty much nothing?

If you want facts, here's a fact for the US for exemple :


Monday’s EPL match between Manchester City and Manchester United drew a 0.7 U.S. rating and 1.033 million viewers on ESPN Monday afternoon, the largest audience ever for an EPL telecast on U.S. cable television.

The telecast topped the previous record — 610,000 viewers for a 2010 Chelsea/Arsenal match on ESPN2 — by 69%.

The match also drew 273,000 viewers on ESPN Deportes.


https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2012/05/manchester-derby-sets-epl-viewership-record-on-espn/


But yeah, sure, the fact that Chelsea and City were made competitve by huge investments has no role in that.
I'm sure the manchester derby was as popular back in 2007 when City was at the bottom of the league.

I'm not sure of the point here though? The TV money would be the irrespective of it being city. It's just the fact is two of the current top teams playing the same way as it would have been when United were playing Arsenal and the likes back in the day

You don't need oil money for that.

 

[TheReligion]

That it can sometimes take a massive influx of cash to prevent a decade of one team dominating the league.

Depends on what you prefer I guess. The bungesliga where one side has won the last 9 titles in a row or the Prem where in the same period, you've had five different winners.

Or a good youth academy, coaching set up and manager?

Money is the easy route of course but not the only one.

 

[stevoc]

From 93 to 03 Man United won 8 out of 11 league titles.

Bayern have won 9 out of the last 11 German titles.

It's pretty comparable (my timeframe was a little off, saying late 90s instead of early 90s).

Both Man United and Bayern totally deserved and earned their dominance but let's not pretend they were/are not one team leagues.

Fair enough mate yeah that period is more comparable, certainly between 93 and 01 United were dominant to an extent approaching Bayern or Juventus in the last decade. Though I personally don't think United could have maintained that level of dominance to the present day with Liverpool and Arsenal in the same league.

 

[Schmeichel's Cartwheel]

In Europe? Barcelona, Real and occasionnaly Bayern crushing pretty much everybody. People here tend to forget that PL has huge TV rights in part because City and Chelsea invested a lot, which allowed english teams to be far more competitive.

PSG fan defending oil clubs...

 

[stevoc]

There's nothing funny about that. It would be delusionnal to think that having 2 extra clubs spending big bucks to attract expensive players doesn't play a role when assessing the TV rights.

The PL was one of the if not the most watched league in the world before City were bought by Abu Dhabi. Chelsea were already a top club pre Roman so it would be hard to gauge what affect that had on appeal.

 

[stevoc]

Or a good youth academy, coaching set up and manager?

Money is the easy route of course but not the only one.

That was the case in the past but with these state funded clubs with unlimited wealth. Getting bought by a Sugar daddy is ironically probably the only way for smaller clubs to ever hope to compete with Sugar Daddy clubs these days.

 

[Pronewbie]

It would be pretty naive to think it started with oil clubs. Not even going back to the Berlusconi era, there's links of interest in a lot of top "historic" clubs.
Juventus main sponsor is Jeep, owned in part by the Agnelli family.
Bayern is sponsored by Adidas and Allianz who are shareholders in the company owning their professionnal team...

This. Perhaps in the near future we'll have Big Tech clubs. Maybe Arsenal and Spotify can start the ball rolling.

 

[TheReligion]

That was the case in the past but with these state funded clubs with unlimited wealth. Getting bought by a Sugar daddy is ironically probably the only way for smaller clubs to ever hope to compete with Sugar Daddy clubs these days.

Oh I know that. I meant back then. Some are suggesting the only way was for Chelsea and City to get massive cash injections. I argued that United had sustained success not solely down to money but because of Fergie and the development of the class of 92.

 

[Lord SInister]

I'm sorry pal, that isn't how it works, I tell you the point I was making not the other way around.

If the players want to leave and nobody wants to watch it then what does that tell you? It's a shite league. Who's faults that? Mine? Because I called a spade a spade.

But that's not the point you were making, I've hijacked your point now, and I'll tell you what point you were making. Eh Rouve?

My point was regarding who in their right minds wants to watch Messi and co tear apart a league that struggled to compete with PSG before their arrival. It's like a cat toying with a mouse. But go on, tell me what I really meant.

If people didn't mind watching Barcelona and Real Madrid or City recently tear apart teams, reaching 95+ points in their respective league's, why would they not watch Ligue 1.
Especially when Ligue 1 has superstars like Ramos, Mbappe, Neymar and obviously Messi.

The competitive league debate is meh, the reason why EPL has most numbers of viewers is due to langauge advantage, not because it is "oh so competitive".

People like shiny things, hence we see City worldwide fanbase increasing while Liecester despite working hard against all odds, isn't doing it at thier level.

 

[UncleBob]

You do realize you look like an ass with your smiley replies backed by pretty much nothing?

If you want facts, here's a fact for the US for exemple :


Monday’s EPL match between Manchester City and Manchester United drew a 0.7 U.S. rating and 1.033 million viewers on ESPN Monday afternoon, the largest audience ever for an EPL telecast on U.S. cable television.

The telecast topped the previous record — 610,000 viewers for a 2010 Chelsea/Arsenal match on ESPN2 — by 69%.

The match also drew 273,000 viewers on ESPN Deportes.


https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2012/05/manchester-derby-sets-epl-viewership-record-on-espn/


But yeah, sure, the fact that Chelsea and City were made competitve by huge investments has no role in that.

It's just not a very interesting fact as it's pretty much meaningless. Title decider, 3 matches remaining, City could go on level points and have the advantage in the title race. The global appeal of Manchester United is what it is, a top match including United is always going to attract extra viewers, the 14-15 season when Arsenal finished 3rd and looked like competing for something, the United - Arsenal match had 1.54 mill viewers. Replace it with another team competing for trophies and viewing numbers increases, it's not rocket science.

In terms of the overall role. The Premier League has always been insanely popular, the large increases in tv rights deals prior to the making of Chelsea V2 and City V2 underlines it. With the numerous factors that comes into play, economic growth, the already existing popularity, it's fairly fecking difficult to speculate how much of an impact, if any, the insane amounts of money piled into City and Chelsea has had on the tv rights deals, and if it would've been impossible to replicate it if the investments hadn't been made and other clubs had competed instead.

 

[FatTails]

City have won five of the past 10 league titles, and that’s in the self anointed “most competitive league in the world”.

On the heels of dominating the league last year, winning a domestic cup, getting to the semi-final of the other domestic final, and the final of the European final, they will be spending 230m+ on two players to further strengthen their positions. This is at a time when most football clubs that are actual businesses, rather than publicity stunts, are feeling the effect of the first global pandemic in the past 100 years.

Did they ruin football? It depends. If you are ok with watching a league where one team starts year in, year out, with a 40%-50% probability of winning the league and at least that much of a chance making it to the final of the domestic cups, then it’s fine.

 

[duffer]

City have won five of the past 10 league titles, and that’s in the self anointed “most competitive league in the world”.

Juve have won 9 out of the last 10 in Italy. Bayern 9 out of 10 in the German League. Celtic 9 out of 10 in the Scottish league.

Maybe they need some sugar daddies to save football in those leagues.

 

[GMok]

All the talk here about oil funded clubs is the perfect example of selective outrage. It is only against those clubs who seriously challenge the hierarchy of the conventional big/elite clubs. Everton has a wealthy owner, so does Villa, so does Leicester. Do we see the same vitriol? No, because these clubs don't challenge Manchester United or Liverpool the same way Chelsea or Manchester City does.

Money is the only way smaller clubs can compete in the plutocracy of the football world. There is no other solution. Tottenham tried to t=do it the right way, but they failed, which was inevitable. Also, the United supporters talking about class of 92 and Ferguson, fail to mention that United took the most advantage of the new money in the Premier League. It was good on Utd, but it's still money, whatever way it came.

Finally, the term plastic is also kind of hypocritical. I can definitely say a big chunk of the international support for Man Utd was from glory hunter fans in the subcontinent, who saw United winning league in Cable TV, and went ahead supporting them.

 

[FatTails]

Juve have won 9 out of the last 10 in Italy. Bayern 9 out of 10 in the German League. Celtic 9 out of 10 in the Scottish league.

Maybe they need some sugar daddies to save football in those leagues.

You’re underestimating the effect oil clubs have had on the transfer market in Europe, and how hard it’s made it for teams across the continent, not just in their local leagues.

 

[Wolf1992]

The Bosman ruling was about players leaving on free transfers wasn’t it? Like Sol Campbell was a bosman. What’s that got to do with number of foreign players?

No matter the reason why it happened...it ruined the balance of European football, it's not that hard to understand.

The more money the more quality of foreigners you can hire, as there is not limit you can buy as many foreigners as you can since european don't count as foreigners anymore.
Look at Inter 2010 vs Bayern in the UCL : ZERO italian players in the starting line-up.

In no way City would dominate the PL with 8 english players and only 3 foreigners, they would still win it but not with such ease as they did with Aguero,Kompany,De Bruyne,Ederson,Gundogan, Bernardo Silva,Fernandinho,David Silva,etc
Also that provoked dutch and portuguese players to move out of their leagues more often to enrich top 4 leagues, not only the top teams but also the mid table ones making those leagues more competitive.

You have to be blind to deny that the gross imbalance in quality between top teams and medium/small teams in Europe has nothing to do with Bosman ruling.

 

[He'sRaldo]

It's funny reading this sentiment after seeing the absolute pasting Dortmund got for trying to hold onto their star player for another year and not sell to us.

Seems like even if you try to do the right things and grow organically, you'd better still know your place.

 

[Wolf1992]

Not only, it also prohibited domestic football leagues in EU member states, and also UEFA, from imposing quotas on foreign players. After that, all the players from smaller countries like Ukraine or Croatia started to move to richer countries and it totally destroyed their leagues. The Bosman ruling really was what reshape football in Europe, FAR more than any oil club.

Exactly this.

How can people ignore the fact that now top teams can hire top european players, and as they don't count as foreigners anymore they can hire as many as they want with their big money from TV rights and marketing(thanks to globalization).

The fact that there was zero italian players in 2010 Inter was ridiculous, remember that italian football was in shambles back then, no way they would have reached the UCL final with 8 italian players, as the quality of italian players back then was rubbish (except for Balotelli), and they had no replacement for the 2006 WC champions.

People just creating strawmans to put all the blame of this imbalanced european football on oil money...so ridiculous.
I don't like oil money, but this "oil money ruined football" doesn't make any sense.

 

[RUCK4444]

If people didn't mind watching Barcelona and Real Madrid or City recently tear apart teams, reaching 95+ points in their respective league's, why would they not watch Ligue 1.
Especially when Ligue 1 has superstars like Ramos, Mbappe, Neymar and obviously Messi.

The competitive league debate is meh, the reason why EPL has most numbers of viewers is due to langauge advantage, not because it is "oh so competitive".

People like shiny things, hence we see City worldwide fanbase increasing while Liecester despite working hard against all odds, isn't doing it at thier level.

La Liga is competitive and has more than the big two clubs as I’m sure we will see this season, those players you listed for Ligue 1 all play for the same team… which is the point.

The premier league is the most watched because its the best league and by a distance, it also has multiple famous clubs who all compete (although it cyclical like everything.)
Nothing to do with language

 

[Wolf1992]

La Liga is competitive and has more than the big two clubs as I’m sure we will see this season, those players you listed for Ligue 1 all play for the same team… which is the point.

The premier league is the most watched because its the best league and by a distance, it also has multiple famous clubs who all compete (although it cyclical like everything.)
Nothing to do with language

Language helps, english is the most spoken language behind chinese.
Many people around the world adapt english as their second language, even over a language from a neighboring country which they have more in common.

The biggest and most marketable movies are in english, which is why people in anglo countries don't even care about non-english movies...why should they? The most watched movies are in their language, which is also why they generally don't care about learning a second language either...they don't need to.

 

[stevoc]

All the talk here about oil funded clubs is the perfect example of selective outrage. It is only against those clubs who seriously challenge the hierarchy of the conventional big/elite clubs. Everton has a wealthy owner, so does Villa, so does Leicester. Do we see the same vitriol? No, because these clubs don't challenge Manchester United or Liverpool the same way Chelsea or Manchester City does.

Money is the only way smaller clubs can compete in the plutocracy of the football world. There is no other solution. Tottenham tried to t=do it the right way, but they failed, which was inevitable. Also, the United supporters talking about class of 92 and Ferguson, fail to mention that United took the most advantage of the new money in the Premier League. It was good on Utd, but it's still money, whatever way it came.

Finally, the term plastic is also kind of hypocritical. I can definitely say a big chunk of the international support for Man Utd was from glory hunter fans in the subcontinent, who saw United winning league in Cable TV, and went ahead supporting them.

Every team in the league benefitted from relatively similar amounts of PL TV money.

United took advantage having a world class manager, a once in a lifetime crop of youth players and smart transfer business
while working within a budget.

Every other team back then had access to money, some more than United.

 

[Acheron]

They kind of have but I blame more FIFA, think they're the main culprits in the bigger scheme of things.

 

[RUCK4444]

Language helps, english is the most spoken language behind chinese.
Many people around the world adapt english as their second language, even over a language from a neighboring country which they have more in common.

The biggest and most marketable movies are in english, which is why people in anglo countries don't even care about non-english movies...why should they? The most watched movies are in their language, which is also why they generally don't care about learning a second language either...they don't need to.

This has no relevance, of very very little.

For a start the people watching in foreign countries are watching their their own tv coverage with pundits and commentators speaking their native language.

 

[Lord SInister]

La Liga is competitive and has more than the big two clubs as I’m sure we will see this season, those players you listed for Ligue 1 all play for the same team… which is the point.

The premier league is the most watched because its the best league and by a distance, it also has multiple famous clubs who all compete (although it cyclical like everything.)
Nothing to do with language

Language helps a lot.
For example you don't find many juicy social media tid bits or youtube videos or analysis of other leagues. How many fan channels of say a club like Sevilla or Atletico Madrid or Roma available there in social media?

Take example of our forum or RAWK or bluemoon or other English languages. An Asian or Middle eastern or American or Indian or African poster, who doesn't speak or understand Romance languages would never log in or sign up for a non-English speaking forums. But since most of these regions know how to speak in English or atleast understand basic English, hence we see how popular EPL is. La Liga especially El Classico was popular due to the having two of three most popular clubs in the world (EPL has only United which can compete with or trump either in terms of brand value and popularity) with two global superstars in each team. Or else why do you think a club like Atletico which such immense performances in last decade is not as popular as say Arsenal in English speaking world, when in terms of competitiveness they have been miles ahead of Arsenal in last decade reaching two finals and winning and always competing for La Liga.

Language plays a very key role as far as coverage is concerned.

And EPL being competitive is bull, apart from that crazy season in 2018/19, we have hardly seen any close race since Liecester, same as Ligue 1 with one team winning it thrice, while two teams disrupting them in between(Monaco and Lille).

This competitive league, any team can beat any team, blah blah blah is all marketing key phrases put into the mind of public by repeatedly saying these exact things by pundits, media and social media.

The reason why EPL is popular is because of its marketing, not because it is "most competitive league" in the world. That would be Brazilian Serie A, and barely anyone watches it outside of Portuguese speaking world.

 

[Brightonian]

If people didn't mind watching Barcelona and Real Madrid or City recently tear apart teams, reaching 95+ points in their respective league's, why would they not watch Ligue 1.
Especially when Ligue 1 has superstars like Ramos, Mbappe, Neymar and obviously Messi.

The competitive league debate is meh, the reason why EPL has most numbers of viewers is due to langauge advantage, not because it is "oh so competitive".

People like shiny things, hence we see City worldwide fanbase increasing while Liecester despite working hard against all odds, isn't doing it at thier level.

I'm not actually disagreeing with your overall point, but I'm curious as to what you think language has to do with it. They're kicking a ball, not reciting poetry. A broadcaster can put their own commentators speaking their own language over football from anywhere in the world.

 

[Nou_Camp99]

Said it for years....PSG and City won't be looked back on positively by footy fans. Financial investment has always been a factor in sport and football in particular, however we have never seen anything quite like this before. It really is a huge stain on the game. Sport and success should never be inevitable. However PSG n City winning loads of trophies has the feeling of inevitability about it no matter who the coach is. Mancini Pellegrini both winning the title basically sums up that what Pep has done at City isnt all that special.

 

[lefty_jakobz]

Oil clubs have just taken the boundaries a little further, the real ruination of football started with the PL.

 

[slyadams]

From 93 to 03 Man United won 8 out of 11 league titles.

Bayern have won 9 out of the last 11 German titles.

It's pretty comparable (my timeframe was a little off, saying late 90s instead of early 90s).

Both Man United and Bayern totally deserved and earned their dominance but let's not pretend they were/are not one team leagues.

There's two problems with your comparison:

1. Bayern have won 9 in a row, that is pretty different from 8 out of 11 in my opinion.
2. United won those 8 titles with an average point advatage of about 7.5 points. Bayern's average point advantage is 13.6, a massive increase. In fact only 2 out of those 9 were won with a different less than United's average (7 and 2 points).

 

[arthurka]

Oil clubs have just taken the boundaries a little further, the real ruination of football started with the PL.

Please tell me more what you mean by little?