Have state funded oil clubs ruined football?

[Dancfc]

It's always something that makes me giggle a bit when I hear english fans very proud of their teams "deserving" their revenues. Money comes from somewhere, and english teams are wealthy in large part because clubs get a lot of money through excessive ticket prices or expensive tv subscription. Is it that righteous? More than Qatar money for sure but still, it's taking a lot from the fans pockets. From a very selfish point of view, i'm sometimes happy Qatar spends its money and not mine.

And the ironic thing is, who are the biggest benefactors of fans gloating about net spend and doing it "the right way"? Owners like Kroenke and The Glazers because they can hide behind that mindset to carry on getting away with their hatchet jobs on their respective clubs.

 

[Robertd0803]

Simply put yes.

PSG bought Neymar for a release clause that was so stupidly high its like it wasnt a real figure.

City can spend stupid amounts of money on 4 RBs in the space of 2 seasons while every other team struggles to manage to afford one with a few exceptions. Plus the fact they are clearly fixing the books and not operating on the same level as anyone else.

Its like money isnt real to them.

 

[Amadaeus]

City just lost to Spurs on opening day, Chelsea almost missed top four last season and psg lost league one to Lille. So, no they are not. They actually make other teams stronger by giving large amount of funds for their quality players and if those clubs buys properly, than can put up a good challenge in their league and win trophies.

Not sure why this thread is still open or hasn't been merged when the answer is straightforward.

 

[UtdAgain08]

Nope it'll be all the sweeter when we win the league and Champions League under Ole.

 

[Sassy Colin]

No they haven't and they won't in the future either, before them Chelsea were suppose to be major culprit with their billions but they are more less Run as business now similar thing would happen to City and Psg as well they will try to become self sustaining with occasional spending spree just like any other major Club in not so distant future.

Funny how often Chelsea seem to get a free ride. Have you seen how much they spent the last couple of years?

 

[appleman]

I think it'd be most interesting if all teams had sort of an equal start every season, and as such the stars would be divided a little more over leagues and clubs. Then tactics and managing your talents will become more important than marquee signings and overpaying your competition into a weaker side, to stay strong as the Bayerns, Reals, Citys, (but also Uniteds), etc. But with the elite being the way it is and has been before the rich ownership/investors/sponsors, that's not going to happen.

So things being the way they are I kinda am not going to check the background of it all anymore. Also, in FIFA or PES I occasionally increased transfer funds to create a star side, though that bored way quicker than building something up (NO I DID NOT SECRETLY CHECK WHO DEVELOPS INTO CERTAIN STARS ONLINE), but it did make me feel like there's some truth to the 'interesting project' statements when players join the richest of clubs. Even if United was a star club earlier, them and the quick-rise-rich clubs are star clubs now too. Joining a team with De Bruyne, one with Neymar, one with Ronaldo, one with Pogba, does sound like something a lot of people want to experience, especially since it's easier to be excited when following teams challenging for titles than the more abstract concepts of Conference League play-off positions.

It's also that I follow football way less than before, so it seems extra unnecessary for me to think and read about how the big clubs of today or tomorrow got to where they are. I follow Atlético, and to a lesser extent I follow United and a few other clubs when I feel like it. The lesser extent clubs are based more on their squads than is the case with Atleti for me. So if PSG put together a team that's put together nicely in a tactical construction, that make me want to play with them in PES (or the like), I'd gladly watch the occasional game. Overpowered players/teams kinda turn me off, though (I've got pinches of hipster flowing through my veins), and for some reason Messi's playing style doesn't do it for me, even though his dribbles, finishing and throughball passing are so so good. So, I don't think I'll play with them. But the idea is nice and the highlights reels could be great, too. But the type of Pogba (it's probably also why I'm more lenient with him than people who demand more consistency), the type of Greenwood, etc, make me enjoy following Man Utd. Just because United is rich and in a privileged position where their horrible spell didn't kill them, doesn't make me hate them. What it means to earn that security through past successes, I don't really know, but for the right now I am glad to have a Man Utd around, and some of the rich clubs provide nice squads that have widened the groups of challengers in the Premier and Champions Leagues.

Whether any of that is fair or not, I don't have the energy to care. Heck, I even wonder where I got the energy from to write this rubbish about it from.

 

[Schmeichel's Cartwheel]

City just lost to Spurs on opening day, Chelsea almost missed top four last season and psg lost league one to Lille. So, no they are not. They actually make other teams stronger by giving large amount of funds for their quality players and if those clubs buys properly, than can put up a good challenge in their league and win trophies.

Not sure why this thread is still open or hasn't been merged when the answer is straightforward.

That isnt true at all. Trying to keep up is the reason clubs like Barca, Real, Juve and Inter are ruined financially. In the summer of 2017 PSG spent 200m on Neymar and agreed a 160m deal for Mbappe the following season, while City spent £285.75m. Not even the giants of the game can keep up with that, and if they try they are going to fecked in the future. City and PSG can do that every year, there's zero risk. Over the last 4 years City have spent about 200m on fullbacks alone. They will never face the consequences in the way Barcelona are now for spunking money up the wall.

 

[P-Ro]

Funny how often Chelsea seem to get a free ride. Have you seen how much they spent the last couple of years?

Less than half of your net spend in the last 5 years.

 

[Sassy Colin]

Less than half of your net spend in the last 5 years.

What about "the last couple of years" didn't you follow? Didn't you have a transfer ban in that time, too?

 

[Dancfc]

What about "the last couple of years" didn't you follow? Didn't you have a transfer ban in that time, too?

Most of last summer's spend was covered with the Hazard and Morata sales.

Most of the Lukaku money has already been recouped.

 

[P-Ro]

What about "the last couple of years" didn't you follow? Didn't you have a transfer ban in that time, too?

Why not just say last 14 months then? Regardless your point was that we get a 'free ride' which is silly because a) we don't get a free ride anywhere and b) we actually move on players for money including about £100m from our academy this window so our net spend is way less than yours.

 

[Hughie77]

Its here to stay, sadly cant do anything , its the governing bodies issue and that has show in recent years, that the Oil rich clubs especially one can flout the rules over years and years and get away with it. Over the same years other clubs stuck to these rules and , somehow that club who broke them can now benefit from covid rule, with FFP. This seems to be fair! In what way dont know, Premier league still doing there own investigation , which will find enough to fine them to put more money into the FA .

Everyone happy then the more there is loads of money the more there is corruption. Always will be . Wasnt FFP brought in After these owners turned up !!! Strange that.

 

[Cait Sith]

They played their part. Maybe I've also grown out of it by now but I can't stomach football anymore. Slave state dictators and oligarchs owning European clubs and throwing fantasy money into Twitch/TikTok generation manchildren like Neymar and MBappe.

Can't take myself seriously being older than 16 and cheering for that type of sports.

 

[Wolf1992]

Oil states didn't ruin anything, Football was already ruined by the Bosman ruling.

Even if City was rich as F due to oil money, they wouldn't be anything close to overwhelm the EPL if they had to use 8 english players and only 3 foreigners, the same goes to Real Madrid, no way Real would have won 3 CLs in a row with 8 spanish players and 3 foreigners.
No way PSG and Juve would overwhelm their respective leagues with 8 french/italian players and just 3 foreigners, same goes to Bayern Munich.

Going from "just 3 foreigners per club" to "use as many foreigners as you want" it's a HUGE boost for rich teams like Barcelona,Bayern,Real Madrid,United,Liverpool,PSG, Chelsea,Bayern,etc
The more money you have the better foreigners you can buy, just look at the EPL as example of this.And it's worse when there is no limit, so you can use as many foreigners as you want.

I dislike oil money in Football, but stop using it as strawman for the talent disparity we see nowadays, this shit was caused by Bosman ruling and Globalization.

 

[Schmeichel's Cartwheel]

Funny how often Chelsea seem to get a free ride. Have you seen how much they spent the last couple of years?

Their net spend is actually ridiculously low.

 

[RedSinha]

Their net spend is actually ridiculously low.

I don't understand the importance that's placed on net spend so much, especially when it disparages United's transfer dealings compared to clubs like Liverpool or Chelsea.

These clubs make money selling their youth players by the dozen and also somehow manage to get decent fees for their deadweight, which is impressive tbf. But that's just one part of their revenue system. United aren't good at it or simply don't need to do it because we keep getting pillow sponsors and tractor sponsors. Why not include those deals when talking about net spend? It's all about the money available to you during the transfer window and some clubs don't get official noodle sponsorship, so they have to make money somehow and they do it by selling off players.

At the end of the day, discussing net spend for clubs like Chelsea or City don't really make much sense to me other than PR.

 

[RedBanker]

How about non-oil state funded clubs like Real Madrid? Or clubs like Bayern who repeatedly weaken their competitors repeatedly to ensure success? That's alright? Disparities have always been there in football. Oil money was bound to be an integral part of the game sooner or later. Tomorrow 5 other billionaires may invest in football. Will change nothing. Winning one game over 90 mins has and will always be the crux of the game. Not how many millions were spent in the summer.

 

[Wolf1992]

How about non-oil state funded clubs like Real Madrid? Or clubs like Bayern who repeatedly weaken their competitors repeatedly to ensure success? That's alright? Disparities have always been there in football. Oil money was bound to be an integral part of the game sooner or later. Tomorrow 5 other billionaires may invest in football. Will change nothing. Winning one game over 90 mins has and will always be the crux of the game. Not how many millions were spent in the summer.

Let's not forget about the Bosman ruling.

Without Bosman ruling City wouldn't be anywhere close to dominate the EPL consecutively, as they would have to line 8 english players, and only 3 foreigners, that reduces their potential by a huge margin.

 

[duffer]

Why not include those deals when talking about net spend?

Because when a team sells a player, they no longer have that player. You get the money but lose the player.

When Chelsea sold Eden Hazard, we no longer had Eden Hazard in the team.

That's why people talk about "net spend" in relation to a clubs transfer dealings.

If Man United suddenly sold Bruno for £150 million, the £100 million spent on Varane and Sancho would look very different.

 

[Ladron de redcafe]

Oil states didn't ruin anything, Football was already ruined by the Bosman ruling.

Even if City was rich as F due to oil money, they wouldn't be anything close to overwhelm the EPL if they had to use 8 english players and only 3 foreigners, the same goes to Real Madrid, no way Real would have won 3 CLs in a row with 8 spanish players and 3 foreigners.
No way PSG and Juve would overwhelm their respective leagues with 8 french/italian players and just 3 foreigners, same goes to Bayern Munich.

Going from "just 3 foreigners per club" to "use as many foreigners as you want" it's a HUGE boost for rich teams like Barcelona,Bayern,Real Madrid,United,Liverpool,PSG, Chelsea,Bayern,etc
The more money you have the better foreigners you can buy, just look at the EPL as example of this.And it's worse when there is no limit, so you can use as many foreigners as you want.

I dislike oil money in Football, but stop using it as strawman for the talent disparity we see nowadays, this shit was caused by Bosman ruling and Globalization.

I was always under the impression that the Bosman ruling was strictly related to contract status and that the limits on the number of foreigners in a team was a separate issue that UEFA dropped.

Are those two related?

 

[RedSinha]

Because when a team sells a player, they no longer have that player. You get the money but lose the player.

When Chelsea sold Eden Hazard, we no longer had Eden Hazard in the team.

That's why people talk about "net spend" in relation to a clubs transfer dealings.

If Man United suddenly sold Bruno for £150 million, the £100 million spent on Varane and Sancho would look very different.

My point was more about Abramovich or the Sheikhs' pockets being so deep that talking about net spend when it comes to these clubs is mostly redundant other than towing the line for FFP. United makes up for its terrible moves in the transfer market by getting these sponsorships in (and all the other forms of revenue like matchday and TV rights), which I'm guessing keeps us well within our FFP restrictions.

Chelsea or Man United will never *need* to sell any players for the money. Eden Hazard was sold the same way Ronaldo was; the clubs weren't desperate for the money. It is genuinely quite impressive that Chelsea can keep a low net spend though but I'm just saying when it comes to the big clubs who are loaded with cash, net spend doesn't mean anything.

 

[TheReligion]

Because when a team sells a player, they no longer have that player. You get the money but lose the player.

When Chelsea sold Eden Hazard, we no longer had Eden Hazard in the team.

That's why people talk about "net spend" in relation to a clubs transfer dealings.

If Man United suddenly sold Bruno for £150 million, the £100 million spent on Varane and Sancho would look very different.

Do we not think net spend can be easily manipulated though by clubs? The same way city have been proven to be circumnavigating wage bills by playing players and staff elsewhere and in other ways as confirmed by Mancini and others from that era.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

no way Real would have won 3 CLs in a row with 8 spanish players and 3 foreigners.

The Spanish national team won three major titles in a row so in all likelihood the players would have all gone to Barcelona and Real Madrid and won all the CL titles.

 

[stevoc]

City blowing us out of the water with what they can spend on fees and wages is only like us blowing clubs out of the water previously.

You can say that we earned that money legitimately etc etc but the end result is still the same, which is massive financial disparity.

You could actually argue the money into City and Chelsea is positive. If anything its only lead to a more competitive league, whereas had it not happened there would probably be only 1 or 2 teams with a realistic chance of winning the league.

It's mad if you've been a United fan for any great length of time and believe this actually happened beyond about 2 transfer windows before Roman came.

 

[duffer]

Do we not think net spend can be easily manipulated though by clubs? The same way city have been proven to be circumnavigating wage bills by playing players and staff elsewhere and in other ways as confirmed by Mancini and others from that era.

Accounting of transfers is always manipulated a bit. Staggered payments, amortisation, loans with obligations to buy, etc.

Unless Roman is straight up giving the likes of Roma the money to pay for Tammy Abraham then I think "net spend" is one reasonable way to look at investment.

Chelsea have spent 100 million quid (give or take a few million) on players this window. We also sold about 100 million quids worth of players. We got Lukaku but lost a load of promising young players. Short term looks good, long term could look horrific.

Its just short sighted (and pretty obviously agenda driven) to ignore player sales.

 

[appleman]

Let's not forget about the Bosman ruling.

Without Bosman ruling City wouldn't be anywhere close to dominate the EPL consecutively, as they would have to line 8 english players, and only 3 foreigners, that reduces their potential by a huge margin.

You're quite the cosmopolitan, aren't ya

 

[TheReligion]

City blowing us out of the water with what they can spend on fees and wages is only like us blowing clubs out of the water previously.

You can say that we earned that money legitimately etc etc but the end result is still the same, which is massive financial disparity.

You could actually argue the money into City and Chelsea is positive. If anything its only lead to a more competitive league, whereas had it not happened there would probably be only 1 or 2 teams with a realistic chance of winning the league.

Sorry mate I can't agree with that.

What is actually happening is these clubs are gradually pushing up wages and fees which it turns puts immense pressure on the more organically grown clubs to compete and stretch themselves. Each time City, PSG and Chelsea drop £100m on a player or buy £60m squad players and pay them big money the bench mark is raised when United and others make enquiries.

The gap is gradually going to increase and this is clear when you look at trophy winners the past 4/5 years.

 

[stevoc]

No but anyone who thinks it isn't trending in that way is completely delusional. PSG and City are only going to get worse. COVID should have taught everyone this. Real clubs had to operate differently while these clubs+Chelsea just spent more money. Just because financial disparity existed 20 years ago, doesn't make it okay now. Would you rather european football evolve in a more level playing field or just continue to get worse? Personally not a fan of all the best players in the world going to some random league I don't care about to play for some team that barely existed before some shitty human beings wanted to chance perception about themselves.

Yep and that's the point many seem to be missing, these 'Oil clubs' may have made things more competitive over the last decade but I highly doubt it stays that way. Especially now that FFP is effectively gone and they won't have to even pretend to comply with it now.

The owners of City and PSG have no interest in football or through making money through football and that will lead to both dominating football year in, year out (plus any other eventual gulf state owned clubs).

Let's see how competitive football is in 5-10 years.

 

[stevoc]

Messi went to psg the same reason Ronaldo went to real Madrid.Simply money. What should messi do keep his fingers crossed and reduce his pay because his childhood club became bankrupt. Footballers have very minimal window to earn as much as they can.

I will be happy if these players got more money than clubs and it's ceos. Because players entertained us not these stupid money grabbing clubs and it's overpaid ceos.

Players now has options to earn more and they should rightfully earn as much as they can. Oil clubs or traditional clubs they will goto highest bidder.

Of course if the player get career threatening injury nobody will look after them neither traditional club nor oil club.

I am happy because of oil clubs players have the leverage to negotiate better deal for their own good from their current employer.

As some one said many big teams poached talented youngsters from lesser leagues and luring players from even rivals. It's always happening nothing new here in football.

He could have made the same money at United, he wanted to play in Spain.

 

[TheReligion]

Messi went to psg the same reason Ronaldo went to real Madrid.Simply money. What should messi do keep his fingers crossed and reduce his pay because his childhood club became bankrupt. Footballers have very minimal window to earn as much as they can.

I will be happy if these players got more money than clubs and it's ceos. Because players entertained us not these stupid money grabbing clubs and it's overpaid ceos.

Players now has options to earn more and they should rightfully earn as much as they can. Oil clubs or traditional clubs they will goto highest bidder.

Of course if the player get career threatening injury nobody will look after them neither traditional club nor oil club.

I am happy because of oil clubs players have the leverage to negotiate better deal for their own good from their current employer.

As some one said many big teams poached talented youngsters from lesser leagues and luring players from even rivals. It's always happening nothing new here in football.

Ronaldo didn't go to Madrid for money at all.

 

[stevoc]

Oil states didn't ruin anything, Football was already ruined by the Bosman ruling.

Even if City was rich as F due to oil money, they wouldn't be anything close to overwhelm the EPL if they had to use 8 english players and only 3 foreigners, the same goes to Real Madrid, no way Real would have won 3 CLs in a row with 8 spanish players and 3 foreigners.
No way PSG and Juve would overwhelm their respective leagues with 8 french/italian players and just 3 foreigners, same goes to Bayern Munich.

Going from "just 3 foreigners per club" to "use as many foreigners as you want" it's a HUGE boost for rich teams like Barcelona,Bayern,Real Madrid,United,Liverpool,PSG, Chelsea,Bayern,etc
The more money you have the better foreigners you can buy, just look at the EPL as example of this.And it's worse when there is no limit, so you can use as many foreigners as you want.

I dislike oil money in Football, but stop using it as strawman for the talent disparity we see nowadays, this shit was caused by Bosman ruling and Globalization.

So you think it would be good for football if clubs could just prevent players from moving to another club indefinitely regardless of whether or not their contract is up?

 

[BalanceUnAutreJoint]

Football didn't wait for oil clubs to have huge financial gaps between the top clubs and the rest.

 

[Schmeichel's Cartwheel]

Oil states didn't ruin anything, Football was already ruined by the Bosman ruling.

Even if City was rich as F due to oil money, they wouldn't be anything close to overwhelm the EPL if they had to use 8 english players and only 3 foreigners, the same goes to Real Madrid, no way Real would have won 3 CLs in a row with 8 spanish players and 3 foreigners.
No way PSG and Juve would overwhelm their respective leagues with 8 french/italian players and just 3 foreigners, same goes to Bayern Munich.

Going from "just 3 foreigners per club" to "use as many foreigners as you want" it's a HUGE boost for rich teams like Barcelona,Bayern,Real Madrid,United,Liverpool,PSG, Chelsea,Bayern,etc
The more money you have the better foreigners you can buy, just look at the EPL as example of this.And it's worse when there is no limit, so you can use as many foreigners as you want.

I dislike oil money in Football, but stop using it as strawman for the talent disparity we see nowadays, this shit was caused by Bosman ruling and Globalization.

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?

 

[stevoc]

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?

During the process the ECJ in looking into the freedom of movement of players in football also ruled that quotas limiting the number of EU citizens were also incompatible with EU freedom of movement laws for workers.

 

[Oly Francis]

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?

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.

 

[ROFLUTION]

What would football have looked like without the oil clubs?

 

[Oly Francis]

What would football have looked like without the oil clubs?

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.

 

[duffer]

What would football have looked like without the oil clubs?

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

 

[BusbyMalone]

The financial disparity in the game, in general, has ruined football. Or is trending that way, anyway. Obviously, this has been exacerbated by these clubs with PSG deliberately short squeezing the market by inflating transfer fees and wages when it comes to the likes of Neymar and Mbappe. By doing this they knew that only clubs like City, Chelsea, and maybe United can compete. Although saying that, not even United are in the same league as those in terms of their financial might.

But, again, this is more of a general point. I'm fully aware that as a United fan there aren't many teams in the world who have spent more than us over the past few years. This isn't necessarily pointing the finger at anyone else while ignoring what we've done, but just saying that it's trending in a way that seems unsustainable.

 

[Someone]

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.