Jonathan Wilson: football is broken

[Bobski]

Of course he is right. How much better would European football be if the top clubs could not stockpile so many top players? Look at City in the Cup final, in an ideal world guys like Sane, Mahrez and De Bruyne etc are out there competing against them, raising the level of other teams rather than coming off the bench. Just too easy when instead of having to come up with a solution to a problem, you can just throw another world class player on.

Even the original Galactico's couldn't do that, the whole process was about 5/6 top players then supplement them with youth, the Zidane and Pavon approach. Not just blaming City as it has been a Europe wide phenomenon for years, cannon fodder leagues. The Messi and Ronaldo fanboys will not like it but I am much less impressed by their stats than I should be, their performances yes, but their numbers are bloated by this reality.

Crying shame that this Ajax team is pretty much stillborn, picked off, like Monaco and Dortmund before them before they had a real chance to develop together and achieve something meaningful.

 

[Jeffthered]

In 2008 Spurs finished 11th ... and 8th the following season.

Fast forward 11 years and we've become an established top 4 club and are soon to play a final match for the biggest trophy in club football. Moreover, we've built a world-class stadium and a world-class training centre. And we've reached the global top 10 income-wise. All done without a sugar-daddy.

We've not yet become an elite club, but that's the aim and we've taken big steps towards it - steps that include establishing long-term foundations. If we succeed it will show that a sugar-daddy is not the only way forward.

Excellent post. Spot on. Shrewd Management of a Club, and hiring some promising managers, alongside a very good youth system.

 

[JohnnyKills]

Of course he is right. How much better would European football be if the top clubs could not stockpile so many top players? Look at City in the Cup final, in an ideal world guys like Sane, Mahrez and De Bruyne etc are out there competing against them, raising the level of other teams rather than coming off the bench. Just too easy when instead of having to come up with a solution to a problem, you can just throw another world class player on.

Even the original Galactico's couldn't do that, the whole process was about 5/6 top players then supplement them with youth, the Zidane and Pavon approach. Not just blaming City as it has been a Europe wide phenomenon for years, cannon fodder leagues. The Messi and Ronaldo fanboys will not like it but I am much less impressed by their stats than I should be, their performances yes, but their numbers are bloated by this reality.

Crying shame that this Ajax team is pretty much stillborn, picked off, like Monaco and Dortmund before them before they had a real chance to develop together and achieve something meaningful.

Yeah bang on. The problem isn't that clubs like City and PSG can throw money at new signings; it's that they don't have any need to get rid of the signings that can't get into the team. They don't need to balance the books so can keep top-class players on their bench.

 

[Yorkeontop]

The American sports system is built on protecting billionaire's money which makes it the most American thing ever.

You got a point there.

 

[BobbyManc]

Excellent post. Spot on. Shrewd Management of a Club, and hiring some promising managers, alongside a very good youth system.

With plenty of trophies to show for it.

 

[Random Task]

Sorry, I do fully understand the point, in many ways, your comment highlights the issue that are highlighted by the piece written by Jonathan Wilson. You seem to equate 'success' for a football club, in the number of trophies they win, how often, and whether they can sustain a challenge to win a title. If that is your measurement for a club's success, then football is truly, truly dead.

How you can say that the Ajax approach to running a football club can be viewed in any other way apart from successful is beyond me. Ajax are a fantastically successful football club. Fantastically. How you can state that their model is 'unsustainable' is pretty alarming. Ajax have an outstanding coaching structure, this is foundation for their ongoing success.

You seem to be moving the goal posts here. This discussion was originally about the existing gap between the football's elite and the chasing pack, and how closing that gap is practically impossible given the financial power of those currently sitting on top. I happen to agree with that assessment 100%, and my posts in this thread reflect that belief. That said, when I say Ajax's model is unsustainable, I meant so in the context of Jonathon Wilson's article.

Look, Ajax have had a great year. They won their domestic league for the first time in 6 years, had an excellent run in Europe, and they achieved it all playing fast attacking football. I enjoyed watching them just as much as everyone else did. But truth be told, the real reason I enjoyed Ajax's successful season is that I knew United would in for one or more of their many talented players.
I didn't feel that way watching Barca, PSG, Real, Juve, Bayern, City or Liverpool because their players are out of reach for United (for the most part anyway). Ajax, along with a great many other lower tier football clubs, operates in a manner that serves to benefit the richer and infinitely more powerful clubs around Europe. That's the cold hard truth, the underlying point in J.W's article.

 

[Random Task]

Excellent post. Spot on. Shrewd Management of a Club, and hiring some promising managers, alongside a very good youth system.

A very good youth system that benefits who, Ajax?

Sure, for a few years anyway, that is until a rich club comes along and prizes them away.

 

[SCP]

My point was that you don’t have to sell your players, look at Palace this summer. You want Zaha? £100m thanks. That’s much harder to do when your employment law states you must insert release clauses into everyone contract. It’s easier for the bigger teams to pick these better players up from smaller teams.

Not really. Imagine Palace says 100 million Euros or Pounds if you want for one of their best players and club X says no. If they turn their interest into a Bilbao player they certainly won’t find anymore low release clauses there. Why? Because they have money to keep their best players. How much Chelsea payed for Kepa? A few years ago Bayern for Javi Martinez?

Anyway release clauses are certainly more fairer in Spain than here in Portugal, where they put bombastic high release clauses and spin all the way they will sell X player for 100 million, when in fact so far the record sale by a club was reached this year with Real Madrid paying 50 million euros for Militao.

If you see the recent signings by Barcelona they are approaching players from outside La Liga, while Real Madrid is signing players with less than 18 years by 50 million or less from Brazil.

Let’s see if they sign top experienced players if they come from those clubs.The only top non Real or Barcelona player available there who might interest them is Griezmman, and even that is doubtful.

What is the difference between Bayern buying the best Bundesliga players or the top Premier League clubs?

There is a lot of hypocrisy around this subjects. And by the way don’t get me wrong but while Jonathan Wilson may have a point on these subjects, the reality is clubs from peripheral leagues like Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands or even France also need the revenues from selling their best players.

Better not even talk about other leagues. And by the way, the smaller clubs on other leagues also need money from non elite clubs.

Want to change this? How? If the best solution is always repeating the same thing there are always 2 options. Don’t watch or don’t pay subscriptions to feed the business. Or else let the others who want to see top teams or new toys on their team to enjoy it, instead making money stating the obvious thing to repeat the same article next month.

 

[Aloysius's Back 3]

All these fans on here talking about how the game is ruined is just coming to the conclusion of whar others have been saying - no one is scared of United anymore.

They blamed us for money back in the day & now we blame them for it.

 

[leet]

City isn't what it is just because of the money. I mean, we've spent shitload as well, but aren't even close to them right now. The answer to this is simple. You might have all of the money if the world, but if you don't spend it "wisely" then it's just waste of it.

Fulham is another good example of this. They've spent 23898279 pounds and got nowhere, while there was Cardiff that spent almost zero and was really close to staying in the league.

Point is that we could've been still better than City if money was spent in the right way.

Also, I don't think football is broken, to be honest it's never been better.

 

[VeevaVee]

This is just nostalgia. There are no fewer “names” now than back in the 90s.

If anything, in England there’s more top quality spread around the clubs now than there was back then.

Don't believe that to be the case. In England, yeah maybe. Still nowhere near as iconic though, and it's not just nostalgia.

 

[Keeps It tidy]

Don't believe that to be the case. In England, yeah maybe. Still nowhere near as iconic though, and it's not just nostalgia.

It is mostly nostalgia. Players probably do not seem like "icons" to you anymore because you are no longer 12, you are probably older than Footballers at this point, which all means you do not look up to Footballers anymore. But, I bet the kids of this era still look up to Footballers as "Icons" just like you did when you were younger.

 

[Cheesy]

In 2008 Spurs finished 11th ... and 8th the following season.

Fast forward 11 years and we've become an established top 4 club and are soon to play a final match for the biggest trophy in club football. Moreover, we've built a world-class stadium and a world-class training centre. And we've reached the global top 10 income-wise. All done without a sugar-daddy.

We've not yet become an elite club, but that's the aim and we've taken big steps towards it - steps that include establishing long-term foundations. If we succeed it will show that a sugar-daddy is not the only way forward.

I mean...if anything, Spurs accentuate the problem. You've been (generally speaking) a fantastic side for years. You have a fantastic manager. You play good football. And yet you've only come 2nd once and you've not really come that close to winning the PL. A CL win is, of course, potentially imminent and that'd be massive, but then as much as it'd be phenomenal you'd clearly be the odd club out in that most who've won it in recent years are established giants or (in Chelsea's case) incredibly rich clubs. But if you don't win it, then you're in the position of having invested and spent wisely, having been managed superbly...and yet not actually winning anything.

And it's not as if you were a tiny non-entity before. 2008 and 2009 were relatively disappointing seasons for the club but Spurs were acknowledged as under-performing at the time. In 06 and 05 you finished 5th, almost toppling an Arsenal side that got to the CL final. Before Pochettino came in you'd been in the top four a couple of times. Historically you've won plenty of FA Cups, you have a league and cup double, and you play in the capital of one of Europe's biggest cities.

And again - you're the odd one out. The other five established clubs are either the three most successful sides in the history of the English game, all sides who've been able to utilise their prior history to continue to build and establish financial dominance, or clubs who've succeeded because of incredibly rich owners. And, sure, every so often a team might come along and do a Leicester, but that's not really the argument. Surprises can happen. Obviously. But the issue is we're seeing a select number of sides become more and more dominant in more big leagues. Dortmund, say, winning the Bundesliga once every ten years while Bayern win the rest might be a surprise if/when it happens, but it doesn't really alter the argument. Success just becomes a brief interlude become normalcy is restored. Which is a dreadful culture to see develop in a team sport where competitiveness is half the fun. If teams aren't competing to one day win, what's the point?

 

[redIndianDevil]

They should switch up their game then. Maybe try being more pro-active on the ball instead of waiting for a mistake.

Why should they, they are not doing anything illegal, they are following a valid tactic, it's the city players who are hiding behind referee incompetence. If City couldnt do their rotational fouling, their system would get destroyed.

 

[redIndianDevil]

Neymar changed it due to player power.

I don't think the transfer fee's are the problem but a wage cap should be placed instead.

That way the power goes more in to the clubs agreement with each other than purely just trying to entice a player with higher wages first.

I think it's easier to spread a wage cap world wide than ask different clubs which are merely businesses to stop spreading high levels of cash to other businesses for their players.

That is completely ridiculous, the footballers have to be paid the highest, without them there is no spectacle, why should rich billionaires hiding their money in tax havens benefit from the hardwork, blood and sweat of working class guys who have dedicated their life for football. Plus the footballers actually spend the money and put it into rotation instead of stuffing it in some bank.

It was PSG that should have been punished for their ridiculous spending, FFP lost any credibility after they allowed PSG and City to continue spending.

 

[Keeps It tidy]

That is completely ridiculous, the footballers have to be paid the highest, without them there is no spectacle, why should rich billionaires hiding their money in tax havens benefit from the hardwork, blood and sweat of working class guys who have dedicated their life for football. Plus the footballers actually spend the money and put it into rotation instead of stuffing it in some bank.

It was PSG that should have been punished for their ridiculous spending, FFP lost any credibility after they allowed PSG and City to continue spending.

Yeah and with a wage cap teams would pull a lot of tricks to get around it. Players would take less money to join a top side. Top clubs might use Nike, Adidas and other sponsors to make the difference. And some worry about player power it would get worse with a wage cap. Sort of how the max salary in the NBA makes it so the star players in the NBA so powerful.

 

[RooneyLegend]

This is bullshit though.

Real won the European Cup 5 times in a row 60 years ago and scored 7 (!) goals in the 1960 final.

Cruyff's Ajax dominated the Dutch league and Europe, same with Beckenbauer's Bayern. United won 8 of the first 11 PL titles. Barca won 7 of the last 10 titles in La Liga.

The reason why Juventus and Bayern dominate their leagues to that extent is down to lack of massive investments in other clubs, of sugar/oil daddies. Imagine the PL without Blackburn, Chelsea and City: United would have won 16 of the first 20 titles, and Arsenal the other 4. That would be worse than Germany, Italy and France. The issue with the big money in football is much more complex than Wilson seems to realise. The problem of the Bundesliga and Serie A is the lack of enough money/invsetments, not too much money.

The difference is our teams were beatable. We won almost every year but not in this manner. In fact, in most of the top leagues teams haven't historically been this dominant in how they've gone about their business of winning.

 

[RooneyLegend]

Particularly due to the fact that big clubs have the means to keep their players which means that every time that one of these club build a WC backbone, even on the cheap, they dominate for roughly a decade. In sport the most critical thing is to keep your best players, if you can do that you are going to dominate and the reality is that only a handful of clubs are able to do it in any given decade. An other point that I noticed, maybe people will like to check, teams that dominate are in the largest European cities, it's not a coincidence.

Thats an important point right there. The issue is only a handful of teams can keep their best players these days. Everyone else keeps building and then watching everything fall apart. Look at what happened to Klopp's Dortmund, Simeone's title winning side, The Monaco side.

Under these conditions of super rich clubs being able to poach players when they feel competitiveness goes out the window. The difference financially has become too big.

 

[BergkamptoOvermars]

Personally I feel managers such as Hodgson and Howe sign poor players which make it difficult for their teams to close the gap.

Crystal Palace for example have been happy with Mediocre such as Townsend and McArthur in midfield for a few seasons now. If these clubs actually worked to implement playing philosophies and brought suitable players for a style of play, the league would be more competitive.

There is all this money in football but seemingly managers and coaches do not work hard enough selecting the right players to suit a way of playing.

 

[RE1999]

To use an example from another sport, English premiership rugby has a salary cap and a playoff system to win the league (top 4 compete in semi finals, then a final). As a result, even the 4th best team has a chance to win the league if they play well over 2 matches. The salary cap means the finances are relatively even and this makes the league far more competitive.

The (probably) biggest rugby team in the country, Leicester, nearly got relegated. The last round of the season decided a lot of the final standings. Even the current Saracens team which is dominating the domestic and European competition is made up of largely home grown players.

Compare that to French rugby where a few rich owners have teams which dominate the league.

Even American Football has the draft system to even things up and as a result you never quite know who is going to win it.

Clearly things can be done to make professional sport more competitive, however as long as those at the top are making huge sums of money, nothing will change in football.

 

[VeevaVee]

It is mostly nostalgia. Players probably do not seem like "icons" to you anymore because you are no longer 12, you are probably older than Footballers at this point, which all means you do not look up to Footballers anymore. But, I bet the kids of this era still look up to Footballers as "Icons" just like you did when you were younger.

I understand that, but it’s not the same anymore. Look at this team for example.

Look at some of our teams in the past and plenty of others. Footballers aren’t cut from the same jib now.

 

[DenResched]

while most United fans called for total rebuild in one summer, now we're talking how money destroy football.

Do you really think there will be a solution if the football customers actually the one who made such demands for big boys?

 

[VeevaVee]

while most United fans called for total rebuild in one summer, now we're talking how money destroy football.

Because
a) that's the way it is now, there is no choice if you want to compete
b) our team is fecked from both no spending and shite spending (not enough spending in Fergie's last years, shite spending since, up until last summer with no spending)
and c) we've earned the money.

 

[Enigma_87]

It is mostly nostalgia. Players probably do not seem like "icons" to you anymore because you are no longer 12, you are probably older than Footballers at this point, which all means you do not look up to Footballers anymore. But, I bet the kids of this era still look up to Footballers as "Icons" just like you did when you were younger.

Not really mate. Look at that recent Barca team - Messi, Iniesta, Xavi, Henry, Dani Alves, etc.. It's not a question of era IMO.

 

[Keeps It tidy]

I understand that, but it’s not the same anymore. Look at this team for example.

Look at some of our teams in the past and plenty of others. Footballers aren’t cut from the same jib now.

Zidane's Real will be viewed in a similar fashion.

 

[VeevaVee]

Zidane's Real will be viewed in a similar fashion.

Yeah. Seems the last of iconic teams like that, along with Barca.

 

[Jeffthered]

With plenty of trophies to show for it.

Successful football is NOT all about winning trophies! Football, as a game, is far, far, far more than just success. I am surprised that many just see it as winning a trophy. Does Man Utd mean more to you if we win something?

They don't to me.

 

[Jeffthered]

You seem to be moving the goal posts here. This discussion was originally about the existing gap between the football's elite and the chasing pack, and how closing that gap is practically impossible given the financial power of those currently sitting on top. I happen to agree with that assessment 100%, and my posts in this thread reflect that belief. That said, when I say Ajax's model is unsustainable, I meant so in the context of Jonathon Wilson's article.

Look, Ajax have had a great year. They won their domestic league for the first time in 6 years, had an excellent run in Europe, and they achieved it all playing fast attacking football. I enjoyed watching them just as much as everyone else did. But truth be told, the real reason I enjoyed Ajax's successful season is that I knew United would in for one or more of their many talented players.
I didn't feel that way watching Barca, PSG, Real, Juve, Bayern, City or Liverpool because their players are out of reach for United (for the most part anyway). Ajax, along with a great many other lower tier football clubs, operates in a manner that serves to benefit the richer and infinitely more powerful clubs around Europe. That's the cold hard truth, the underlying point in J.W's article.

I think the first point in bold is, if genuine, rather sad. You enjoy football for how it may benefit the team that you support. I think a little more widely than that, and try and appreciate a broader outlook of the state of the game. Just a different approach I suppose.

I don't agree with the second point in bold. I don't think Ajax exists to serve anybody. Do you think Boca Juniors, River Plate, Flamengo.. and other BIG South American clubs exisit to serve the interest of Barca, Real.. or the European leagues ? Of course not... but there may be a natural progression for players, due to cash. But it isn't about one region or team in 'servitude' to another.

Good debate though, so thanks for your comments.

 

[BobbyManc]

Successful football is NOT all about winning trophies! Football, as a game, is far, far, far more than just success. I am surprised that many just see it as winning a trophy. Does Man Utd mean more to you if we win something?

They don't to me.

The point is it's all well and good lauding Spurs for their "natural" rise as a top side in England (let's put aside the fact they were the first club to flagrantly contravene FA rules to float on the stock exchange market in 1983 to fund big spending and had to later be buttressed by the personal wealth of their directors), but it neglects the reality that they have won nothing to show for that in recent years. They may well win a Champions League which would be a phenomenal achievement but that would be a bit of a freak happening, as was Leicester winning the league or Wigan winning the FA Cup. I'm challenging the claim that Spurs "success" somehow contradicts the claim that teams like City could only win trophies via external financing, because Spurs "success" does not currently include anything actually tangible like a Premier League or a cup.

 

[purgethefallen]

Successful football is NOT all about winning trophies! Football, as a game, is far, far, far more than just success. I am surprised that many just see it as winning a trophy. Does Man Utd mean more to you if we win something?

They don't to me.

If success is not winning trophies, then what is the measuring stick?

 

[RE1999]

If success is not winning trophies, then what is the measuring stick?

The share price.....

 

[Welby5]

Look, I get what you're saying and it's an interesting post, but think you're approaching it the wrong way.

To take your example of United and Arsenal, neither of those two clubs had had any recent success before they started to dominate. United hadn't won the league for 26 years before Fergie won his first title; Arsenal had only won three league titles in 27 years before Wenger claimed his first. It wasn't like they were dominating in perpetuity.

Why did they start to dominate? In United's case, they built a brilliant youth academy and sprinkled some high-quality bargains (Cantona, Schmeichel, Kanchelskis) on top. Arsenal bought some high-profile players but the real secret was their knowledge of the untapped French market. In neither case did they blow anyone out of the water financially.

Surely any club could have copied these models, right? But no, instead of pursuing long-term success the other big clubs (Newcastle, Leeds, Chelsea in the late 90s) threw money at big-name signings and got themselves into financial trouble. Money did nothing to improve their situation.

If you look at the other major leagues, it's true that one or two clubs tend to dominate. But money has only exacerbated that problem; just look at Milan when they were bankrolled by Berlusconi, or PSG under the Qatari regime. When one club has money, it's even less likely that a club like Monaco will burst through.

Even if a billionaire financier comes in and makes things more competitive, it's a bit of a fool's paradise. City have upset the established order but they've done so in a way that's totally contrary to the spirit of the competition. It's a bit like complaining about Usain Bolt's dominance of the 100m and proposing that all the other runners take steroids to close the gap.

It's still very much possible to challenge the elite without spending a fortune - just look at the CL final, and indeed the semi-finals. Look at Leicester and Atletico Madrid. If there were no sugar daddies in football these clubs would have more of a chance, not less.

Great post, apart from the bit where you lumped Chelsea's spending in with that of Newcastle and Leeds, saying money did nothing to improve their situation.You could not be more wrong about it not improving Chelsea! Chelsea were literally dying as a football club, so broke they were unable to little more than fight to stay at the Bridge, which they didn't even own. Not even havng a training pitch, nevermind a state of the art traiining centre. Imagine just how big a disadvantage that was for Premiership players. A stadium which was 3 sides slum nearly 100 years old. Neo Nazis destroying the reputation of the club and attendances down to levels which would have seen the club fold if something drastic was not done. Ken Bates and the board came up with a longterm plan to transform the team, stadium and every aspect of the club. They of course knew it meant taking the club into debt, but the long game was to get everything in place which would then make them ripe for a big takeover. Bates gave an interview right at the start of it all, saying "mark my words, Chelsea will overtake Arsenal in competing for the big trophies". Bates had a gob on him, but his actions ended up matching his words that time.

 

[adexkola]

If success is not winning trophies, then what is the measuring stick?

It's not the only measuring stick for sure. Otherwise 18 clubs in the PL have "failed".

How about winning games? How about playing great football? Having a great relationship with the supporter base? Community stuff? Competing to the best of one's ability? You know, sport?

 

[purgethefallen]

It's not the only measuring stick for sure. Otherwise 18 clubs in the PL have "failed".

How about winning games? How about playing great football? Having a great relationship with the supporter base? Community stuff? Competing to the best of one's ability? You know, sport?

Apart from winning games, why would you class those others as "success"? It doesn't make sense.

 

[adexkola]

Apart from winning games, why would you class those others as "success"? It doesn't make sense.

Go read the charter or vision of any football club. It's more than just winning trophies and/or games.

When clubs are actual extensions of the communities and cities they are based in, then it's more than the 90 minutes. The day clubs become U.S. style franchises that can be yanked from city to city, you may have a point.

 

[Welby5]

Great post, apart from the bit where you lumped Chelsea's spending in with that of Newcastle and Leeds, saying money did nothing to improve their situation.You could not be more wrong about it not improving Chelsea! Chelsea were literally dying as a football club, so broke they were unable to little more than fight to stay at the Bridge, which they didn't even own. Not even havng a training pitch, nevermind a state of the art traiining centre. Imagine just how big a disadvantage that was for Premiership players. A stadium which was 3 sides slum nearly 100 years old. Neo Nazis destroying the reputation of the club and attendances down to levels which would have seen the club fold if something drastic was not done. Ken Bates and the board came up with a longterm plan to transform the team, stadium and every aspect of the club. They of course knew it meant taking the club into debt, but the long game was to get everything in place which would then make them ripe for a big takeover. Bates gave an interview right at the start of it all, saying "mark my words, Chelsea will overtake Arsenal in competing for the big trophies". Bates had a gob on him, but his actions ended up matching his words that time.

Mods : Why do my posts appear as one big paragraph? When typing i use spaces for lines and paragraphs, but when i post them they turn out diifferent as one huge paragraph. II post on internet tv , not a mobile or laptop.

 

[Stick]

If success is not winning trophies, then what is the measuring stick?

Leave me out of this and take your measuring tape with you....

 

[The Midnight Rambler]

Excellent post. Spot on. Shrewd Management of a Club, and hiring some promising managers, alongside a very good youth system.

Some great points in this debate but with so many people quoting Spurs and nobody else, shows they are the exception rather than the rule.

In England during the same period, nobody else has broken into the top circle without massive external investment.

It's the same argument used when saying that kids from public schools and poor backgrounds can of course become top executives at national/international companies and earn fortunes....yes technically they can but it ignores that the entire ecnomonic structure is stacked against them. So getting back to football, a Spurs situation only highlights how rare this is and proves Wilson's point.

 

[andyox]

Some great points in this debate but with so many people quoting Spurs and nobody else, shows they are the exception rather than the rule.

In England during the same period, nobody else has broken into the top circle without massive external investment.

It's the same argument used when saying that kids from public schools and poor backgrounds can of course become top executives at national/international companies and earn fortunes....yes technically they can but it ignores that the entire ecnomonic structure is stacked against them. So getting back to football, a Spurs situation only highlights how rare this is and proves Wilson's point.

Yes this is exactly the point. Spurs have done it, and should be congratulated for it, they've been run absolutely brilliantly. For the majority (maybe all?) clubs below the current top 6, shrewd management, promising managers, great youth system, and excellent scouting/use of limited transfer budget isn't going to be enough. And that's the problem -- it should be enough, it should be possible. But it isn't.

The obvious counter-example to Spurs is Southampton, who have also been well managed, also hired managers well for the most part (Koeman, Pochettino, maybe Hasenhuttl), have developed an almost peerless set of brilliant youth players (Bale, Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Shaw, Lallana, etc.), and have also bought extremely well (Mane, van Dijk, Schneiderlin, Lovren, etc.). And where has that got Southampton? All those players and some of those managers were poached by the top 6, and Southampton fought relegation this season.

 

[The Midnight Rambler]

Yes this is exactly the point. Spurs have done it, and should be congratulated for it, they've been run absolutely brilliantly. For the majority (maybe all?) clubs below the current top 6, shrewd management, promising managers, great youth system, and excellent scouting/use of limited transfer budget isn't going to be enough. And that's the problem -- it should be enough, it should be possible. But it isn't.

The obvious counter-example to Spurs is Southampton, who have also been well managed, also hired managers well for the most part (Koeman, Pochettino, maybe Hasenhuttl), have developed an almost peerless set of brilliant youth players (Bale, Walcott, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Shaw, Lallana, etc.), and have also bought extremely well (Mane, van Dijk, Schneiderlin, Lovren, etc.). And where has that got Southampton? All those players and some of those managers were poached by the top 6, and Southampton fought relegation this season.

Yes great example. Although Southampton did appoint Hughes so it's tough to feel symapthy haha.

But yes, even for a club doing things well, there is little protection against mistakes compared to a top 6 side club who can waste millions on bad decision after bad decision but still be cushioned.

And we're not even touching the disconnect between community and club that all this corporate influence has fostered.