PSG's interests are tied up in the CL because of their Qatari owners - likewise with the World Cup. Their actions aren't motivated by the greater good. That doesn't lessen the awfulness of what the horrible 12 did, though. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Support the club and not UEFA / PSG
- Thread starter SinNombre
- Start date
Of course. Just would argue that doing a good thing for bad reasons is better than doing a bad thing for bad reasons and threads like this attempting to obfuscate this basic fact are a bit of a joke.
The problem with Paris, City and Chelsea is not if they broke the record once or twice. The problem is how they started spending big on different players, both in transfer sums and contracts, like Lavezzi, Pastore, Moura etc out of nowhere. They have continued an unsustainable model that Real inagurated in early 00s. We can blame Barca, United, Juve for spending big in wrong players, but a) they had to follow and b) their spending was based on revenues.
PSG and Chelsea before being sugar daddy clubs were average European teams and City was a wee club in Manchester. As a result, the last 8 years PSG transformed from a mediocre team in among the top 8 European teams just because UEFA aggreed on Qatar's World Cup bid.
Thing is, when it comes to PSG at the very least, the figures make sense. The Neymar and Mbappe transfers involved astronomical amounts and they didn't bother trying to dress those up. And since then they've let the rest of the squad deteriorate quite a bit. It's not like they're signing world-class players every summer for suspiciously low fees. No: they spent huge money on a couple of superstars and have a significantly unbalanced squad as a result.
That's not to say they're nice honest people who just work really really hard - it's just that their recent spending clearly hasn't been anything special.
They didn't have to follow - and they spent big on players long before PSG or City ever came on to the scene. One or two clubs can't inflate the market on their own. That's not how this works. The market is inflated because of the ever-increasing, and vastly successful, commercialisation of football. Whenever lots of money comes into football, the biggest players don't hold back in splashing a lot of that on the biggest names. Look at the insane spending of the late 90s Serie A. @DOTA got it right: this is how capitalism works. The German model is pretty much the only safeguard.
Also, if Barcelona's spending was based strictly on their revenues, they wouldn't be up to their eyeballs in debt.
Yes, they had. Otherwise, they will not be able to compete, look at Arsenal for example. One or two transfers cannot inflate the market, but 3-4 teams with multiple transfers can and have inflate the market. Imagine one year all house transactions in a region equal in sum 100 millions. The next year is 102 millions. Suddenly, 4 companies come and start spending100 millions each on multiple houses. What do you think will happen? The big teams were spending bigger than the small ones already but not in that level. Not even close. I said that Barca has mismanaged their transfers, but their flawed idea was more spending - more reveunes. It failed, but they did not win the lottery, as the 3 other teams did.
Listen Ed, I know you have extra time on your hands today, but really.... just leave the Caf alone to celebrate the humiliation of your ex-bosses.
This is kind of where we disagree. Big clubs were outspending everyone by massive margins (look at United's 2001 summer transfer window) - and then acted shocked when someone else came along and started spending similar amounts.
This is quite simply the consequence of unlimited private/commercial investment. The idea that when Roman Abramovich spends a lot of money on a football club, it's bad but when Vodafone does it, it's all right. They're the same thing: commercial investments that increase the amount of money in football and drive up costs. The motivation is irrelevant.
Where is man shitty?
You bought a stupid player for quarter a billion euros ffs.
Well said.
I see what you mean, and i m not saying that the others are angels. But even in 2001, United had the most revenues of any football club, from TV, prizes, gate receipts, sponsors, whatever. Even if I dont like how the gap was growing, at least there was an explanation; if you are succesful you can spend. United untill early 00s was spending less or similar to Liverpool, Newcastle, Everton, Blackburn, Leeds etc. Blackburn and Leeds paid the price for their unsustainable -or flawed- business model. Yet, Chelsea backed by an oligarch started spending a sum equal or more to their income (not profit), while having amassed already big debts. Just an example, in 2003 their income was 130 millions and their net spending was 170 millions.
Exactly this.
Lots of people indulging in whataboutism here.
United buying Maguire for 80m didn’t change the game’s economics.
PSG with no revenue buying Neymar for 225m (!) did.
It changed the game forever in terms of how transfers, agent fees, wages work.
PSG / Qatar buying a WC did the same.
United earned it, which is exactly the fight against ESL.
They have also been champions of sustainability, that holier than thou Bayern copied as is well documented.
Can’t fight for “earn it” when it comes to ESL but be happy to pander to a corrupt PSG/Qatar when it comes to football’s problems.
I think you're giving the financially doped teams too much credit here. They accelerated the inflation of transfers and wages, but it didn't require them. Look at Real Madrid's galactico spending, and put that into relation to their revenue at the time. Didn't Zidane go for something in the region of £70m back in 2001! Figo was bought for £55m in 2000. Even Ronaldo's transfer in 2009 was almost a quarter of their entire revenue. The same goes for Rio's tranfer to United, or Veron's for that matter. That was a lot of money back then. If you take Real's revenue figure now, and divided them by 4 similar to Ronaldo's fee, you'd come close to that 200m you'd need for someone like Mbappe.
It's not entirely the sugar daddy clubs who've been driving irresponsible spending, it's also overspending by other clubs even before that and their massive revenue growth since then. The Premier League's tv deal alone means the domestic transfer market is incredibly expensive.
Exactly this.
Just like Qatar/PSG spent zero money to get the WC in 2022
Everyone obviously wanted to play the WC in the desert in the summer in 45C heat in stadiums built by slave labor.
I know you like to play the fool but even you can’t be this oblivious.
Ah yeah fair enough!
I'd add that the problem isn't even that PSG and City outspent everyone else, it's that they were spending as if they were one of the few elite clubs who can (and they could). So in a way, you could say the "market" can only support a few of those rich clubs. Adding in a couple more drives the prices up massively, whereas if it's just the few established clubs spending big and outmuscling small clubs, it doesn't affect the prices as much.
Nonetheless, I think the premier league tv rights does far more to the price level than a couple of oligarch teams ever could.
What's the point? The WC is a totally different topic. You were claiming that PSG would simply outspend everybody else and that's evidently not the case.
Are they the good guys in this story? No, they aren't in any story. But as the past few days have shown, no club owners are.
The were slowed down by FFP which has been scrapped by the way
Go back and read the original post.
No one claimed that.
PSG broke the game by increasing transfer fees, agent fees (including under the table) and wages to unsustainable levels in one window.
They are also in bed with UEFA and FIFA and none of them have any incentive to protect the game.
Alright, I get that but nobody, literally nobody, has forced Barca and co. to follow their lead. Especially since the first 100m transfers were already seen through before the Neymar signing. Neymar himself was signed by Barca for a package around 100m, Bale was more expensive than 100m, Pogba allegedly, too.
Barca has literally spent more than 400m on the transfer fees of Dembele, Coutinho and Griezmann although every single one of those players hard to integrate in a squad with Messi. That's madness! Blaming PSG for that is just searching a scapegoat.
PSG broke the market. It allowed Dortmund to ask for 120 odd million for Dembele ffs. Barca were never going to get a fair price with 200m in their pocket.
Clubs are vultures. Its why investing after a big sale rarely works for big clubs
I will support UEFA. Why shouldn't I
Didnt it kind of start with the Galacticos? Football has been a commercial monstrosity since the late 90s. That's hardly PSG's fault.
Nobody forced Barca to pay that sum.
If they wanted to get in immediate quality after having PSG steal Neymar from under their nose, they kind of were imo. They were never getting a cheap deal from anywhere. It was a frenzy that summer.
It's probalby Ed trying to justify his bullshit and deflecting blame.
Agreed. I really hope BoJo wasnt just talking out of his arse and is actually looking into how we could adopt the german way of doing things with 51% fan ownership of our clubs. Might not get rid of the scum, but it sure would make it harder for them to be as scummy.
Of course it influences the prices selling clubs are demanding from them. But there's just no justification to spend 140m on a 20 year old with only one great season to his belt, especially if he doesn't fit the clubs philosophy and has a difficult personality. Moreover, let's not forget that Barca's financial madness had already begun. They spent probably around 200m on Suarez and Neymar before that when they already had 5 or 6 top earners in their team (Busquets, Pique, Iniesta, Xavi, Messi). And still, this team didn't even have a proper back up attacker which is the reason Dortmund and Liverpool could ask for as much in the first place. If there has ever been decadence in football, it's been at Barca in the last 7-8 years.
I'm a huge admirer of Barca. I've still got two Ronaldinho and one Deco shirt in my closet, I watch almost every game I can of them due to Messi but they have only themselves to blame.
PSG only broke the market for those transfers because other clubs knew Barcelona was wealthy at this time. And that's pretty much it. As I mentionned earlier, united bought Lukaku for 85M€ before neymar's transfer and sold him for 75M after so we can't say the market went crazy after that.
What are you on about? You prefer to be owned by Roman than "us"? Who is "us"? Do you think that every American is a Glazer? You're rambling about the Glazers/Trump/USA like a broken record.
First, I'm not a "supporter" of any politician. Leave non football discussions to the politics thread.
Second, I hate the Glazers, unlike Chelsea fans who adore Roman. Let's not forget that while Roman bought you some trophies, the Glazers did the opposite to us - leached our club to line their pockets.
Third, why would I be gutted about the SL? If you would've read my posts you'd seen that all I said is that I would welcome it while listing pros and cons, and that I find it very hypocritical that corrupt oil clubs and a corrupt organization such as uefa are somehow the good guys in all of this.
Well Neymar went for over double that? Now that massice Lukaku deal is the rate for quality defenders. Theres always 1 transfer thst pushes the record and rises the tide of transfers behind it.
Ceferin gave himself a big raise. You can't even make this up 
What club?
Can’t believe a PSG fan has the cheek to come up with this. Wow.
Most corrupt organization propped up by slave oil dollars. Let’s all bow to our sheikh overlords, bastions of morality that they are.Ceferin gave himself a big raise. You can't even make this up
Yup. The attempted deflection by our fans has been embarrassing.
I'm not American but when I separate the man Trump from his policies as President and compare it to that of his political opponents now running America, the democrats, his was far better in the interest of Americans and being the President of the United States of American I see no problem with that. I guess that makes me a MAGA/Qanon/crazy conspirator/ insurrectionist trumpster?
But wait I'm also not in support of the ESL so what's happening here? Is it possible that one can have differing stances on different issues?
The ESL was an attempt to monopolize the game by a few rich assh*les, an extreme (but not limited to) consequence of capitalism but lets not pretend this is some Trump people ploy to hurt your feelings.
But wait I'm also not in support of the ESL so what's happening here? Is it possible that one can have differing stances on different issues?
The ESL was an attempt to monopolize the game by a few rich assh*les, an extreme (but not limited to) consequence of capitalism but lets not pretend this is some Trump people ploy to hurt your feelings.
What are you even on about? I literally didn't use the word "us", not sure why you're using quotes there. Also, I'm American mate. Of course I don't think every American is a Glazer as I have a different surname.
You're the one who brought up Roman in the first place as a negative comparison to your own owners? Not sure why you seem upset that I'm less upset with our ownership than you are with yours?
I think it's completely fair to state that the likes of us, City, and PSG have certainly done harm to the game in the past, and that UEFA as a whole has been grossly incompetent at times. But there's levels to this mate - just because a bathroom needs renovating doesn't mean burning the house down is the right course of action.
Up there with the dumbest things I've ever seen on this forum. Unless you're limiting your definition of "Americans" to "American billionaires" this is staggeringly off base.