Unpopular opinion: Oil money is fine (in the PL), & the hatred towards the clubs comes from...

[Tommy]

Entitlement & jealousy, moreso than any sort of morality.

City, & Chelsea before them - Both of them ruffled some feathers when their multi-billionaire sugar daddies took over, but their success has not been damaging to the league, and the hatred they've received is driven by factors other than the supposed morality a huge chunk of people claim. In the last 10/11 years, since the City owners have taken over, we've seen the following:

• Some of the best attacking football the league has ever seen.
• Two of the best all-round teams in Chelsea/City that the league has ever seen.
• A more intense competition at the top of the table.
• Not a single team has defended the Premier League, so it's not like they've bought invulnerability (like PSG did in their league, which is an issue).

Both entertainment value & competition have increased since Roman & the Shiekh's, so that's a good thing, no? To me, yes. I might've despised Chelsea at the time, but in hindsight, their rise to power has been fantastic for the league, and it changed the way I view City currently.

City's owners get stick for their awful human rights record (& rightly so), but I truly believe the overwhelming majority of their rival fans don't actually give a shit about any of the atrocities going on elsewhere in the world. They're more concerned with their league position than the state of human rights in Abu Dhabi & elsewhere. They're more worried about improved competition. They're worried about how it should be them at the top of the league, as these oil clubs just bought their way there.

... All the while secretly wishing it could be them playing the way City do right now. I know I wish we had a squad like theirs.

Am I wrong? If so, I have to ask one thing... Do you ever question your purchase of new technology (phones especially) knowing they're coming, in part, from modern slave labor companies like Foxconn? Or is that different because it adds something to your life, while oil money in other clubs seems like an injustice against what works for you.

I know I'll get stick for this, but whatever

 

[GifLord]

Without the sugar daddies Arsenal would still be an elite english club fighting for premier league trophies and Liverpool might have won a few aswell. Because lets face it all of those high profile players that went to Chelsea and later to City would have either ended at Utd, Arsenal or Liverpool. They basically fecked up the top 4 hierarchy and inflated the transfers prices

 

[Mojo_]

Let’s see how you feel if City beat Liverpool to the title again this year

 

[Siorac]

If you look at the "Saudis rumoured to buy United" thread, it is quite obvious that the antipathy towards City and PSG and Chelsea do not come from some moral high ground about "earning our money the right way". It is simple snobbery and entitlement from the football aristocracy. A significant percentage of our fans are enthusiastically welcoming even the mere rumours of similar investment in United. So yeah, it's pretty much about "them nasty foreigners stealing our trophies". Everything else is mostly hogwash.

This of course does not apply to fans who oppose any potential Saudi takeover. But in that thread at least it feels like they are a minority.

 

[Nou_Camp99]

It isn't fine at all but it seems to be here to stay. City have got a ridiculous advantage over everyone just like PSG do. It's beyond anything we've seen before in football when you've effectively got two countries backing them both.

The CL final could well end up being Qatar V UAE too. Would really hammer home the ridiculous nature of it all.

And I still don't want the Saudis here at my club.

 

[Siorac]

Without the sugar daddies Arsenal would still be an elite english club fighting for premier league trophies and Liverpool might have won a few aswell. Because lets face it all of those high profile players that went to Chelsea and later to City would have either ended at Utd, Arsenal or Liverpool. They basically fecked up the top 4 hierarchy and inflated the transfers prices

Transfers prices are inflated by increased revenue. Yes, the Neymar transfer might not have happened without a club like PSG. But before that the world record was broken by Manchester United and before that, Real Madrid - FIVE TIMES in a row.

Without City and Chelsea, Arsenal would have finished higher up the table a couple of times. And, incidentally, United would have ruled the league entirely between 2007 and 2013, much like Juventus do in Italy or Bayern in Germany.

 

[RochaRoja]

It’s obviously not okay and is a stain on the game.

But, yeah, most fans who are outraged about it care far more about it being a stick to beat their rivals with than they do about the actual human beings who are suffering because of these cnuts.

90%+ of United fans would love it if the Saudi regime pumped money into the club and put them above and beyond City’s level. Morality goes out of the window when it comes to supporting your football team unfortunately.

 

[Tommy]

It isn't fine at all but it seems to be here to stay. City have got a ridiculous advantage over everyone just like PSG do. It's beyond anything we've seen before in football when you've effectively got two countries backing them both.

The CL final could well end up being Qatar V UAE too. Would really hammer home the ridiculous nature of it all.

And I still don't want the Saudis here at my club.

& what have they done with that ridiculous advantage? They're yet to defend the league (although this year is looking likely), have done little to nothing in Europe, & have nothing else to show but a few domestic cups. They've bought the ability to compete at the highest level, sure, but they've not bought the ability to render the competition hopeless. Nothing wrong with that.

PSG is a whole different kettle of fish. Their investment has ruined that league.

 

[Treble]

The OP is mostly right. There is a lot of bitterness dressed up in moral reasoning. Without Chelsea and City this league would be miles behind La Liga and maybe not better than Seria A and the Bundelsiga. The rise of the league has come with Chelsea and their success wasn't bad for us. Even Liverpool reached two CL finals in those years and we won three consecutive league titles and the CL. Liverpool are having now their best league campaign ever, Spurs too.

 

[Gehrman]

Despite the fact that I don't like seeing City being as strong as they are at the end of the day City & Chelsea have made the league more competive.

I would also say they are one of the reasons that the EPL is the best league in world IMO. However this only works leagues where they are other strong teams. Fx like PSG they just buy a monopoly. In the PL there are a number of clubs with the potential to challenge for the title even though City are miles ahead atm in squad quality and depth.

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing something similar happen in Germany or Italy where it is most Bayern and Juve walking the league every year. Or spanish team being oil pumped to knock Real Madrid of their perch.

 

[KirkDuyt]

Formerly by far and away the richest clubs in the world complaining about other clubs now being even richer is an endless source of enjoyment for me.

Cry me a fecking river.

 

[Karel Podolsky]

Because lets face it all of those high profile players that went to Chelsea and later to City would have either ended at Utd, Arsenal or Liverpool.

That's a good thing.

 

[Needham]

Is this covert psyops to soften us up for a Saudi takeover?

90%+ of United fans would love it if the Saudi regime pumped money into the club and put them above and beyond City’s level. Morality goes out of the window when it comes to supporting your football team unfortunately.

90%? Try running a poll. My guess is it would be nowhere near that. Morality didn't go out of the window during the green and gold protests. It just had little effect.

 

[Tommy]

Is this covert psyops to soften us up for a Saudi takeover?

90%? Try running a poll. My guess is it would be nowhere near that. Morality didn't go out of the window during the green and gold protests. It just had little effect.

90% perhaps wouldn't openly admit to it, but I reckon the truthful number would be somewhere about that. How many folks would actually stop following/watching their club if the Saudi royal family took over & pumped hundreds of millions into their club? Less than 10%, that's for sure.

There would be a huge portion of the fanbase that'd be all "ahh, no, it's wrong... But uhh, we can sign Mbappe now, right? WOOHOO!" I know that's how I'd be.

 

[horsechoker]

I'd be more comfortable if it happened to Newcastle than City. The Bundesliga, Ligue 1 and Serie A could do with some oil money to break up the hegemony in those leagues. I think most of us are bitter because it's City who has benefited to most from it, a lot of us dislike Chelsea but they're not our 2nd biggest rival. Plus City went from nothing to something, Chelsea were just about a top 4 club and got taken to the next level.

Liverpool and Spurs have done things in the correct way, spent/sold wisely and made great appointments.

 

[esmufc07]

Liverpool and Spurs have done things in the correct way, spent/sold wisely and made great appointments.

And not won anything!

 

[IrishRedDevil]

Its meant that Chelsea and City have won trophies in recent years instead of the likes of Liverpool - happy days

 

[TsuWave]

How is this an unpopular opinion? many people share this opinion, in fact, you could argue the majority do.

 

[hasanejaz88]

You've sold your soul. But the entertainment is nice, so its okay.

 

[Bojan11]

Its meant that Chelsea and City have won trophies in recent years instead of the likes of Liverpool - happy days

And it also meant we couldn’t hire someone like Pep, who may have guided us to trophies.

 

[JPRouve]

& what have they done with that ridiculous advantage? They're yet to defend the league (although this year is looking likely), have done little to nothing in Europe, & have nothing else to show but a few domestic cups. They've bought the ability to compete at the highest level, sure, but they've not bought the ability to render the competition hopeless. Nothing wrong with that.

PSG is a whole different kettle of fish. Their investment has ruined that league.

Nope, the league is better now than it was before 2012.

 

[MalcolmTucker]

90%+ of United fans would love it if the Saudi regime pumped money into the club and put them above and beyond City’s level. Morality goes out of the window when it comes to supporting your football team unfortunately.

This is bollocks, I was in that thread and there were loads of people against it, some of whom (including me) saying it would be a breaking point where they no longer could support United. Oil money perhaps hasn't ruined the game in the PL, but the successes of the oil clubs are hollow to me.

 

[Needham]

90% perhaps wouldn't openly admit to it, but I reckon the truthful number would be somewhere about that. How many folks would actually stop following/watching their club if the Saudi royal family took over & pumped hundreds of millions into their club? Less than 10%, that's for sure.
There would be a huge portion of the fanbase that'd be all "ahh, no, it's wrong... But uhh, we can sign Mbappe now, right? WOOHOO!" I know that's how I'd be.

Happy to pay you a compliment and say I'd expect a huge number of your match going and Liverpool based supporters would vocally and actively hate a Saudi takeover of your club. There'd be scenes and protests. It's the 13 year olds online who'd be going "WOOHOO!" The original Saudi interest in Utd thread somewhere shows a lot of antipathy to the idea, so I'm going to end by saying I think you are -just a little bit, mind- a shit stirring Liverpool fan.

 

[KirkDuyt]

Are all the clubs with non oil money billionaires a different story then? Because we all know it's only oil billionaires who got their money on the backs of others? Or?

 

[NinjaFletch]

90% perhaps wouldn't openly admit to it, but I reckon the truthful number would be somewhere about that. How many folks would actually stop following/watching their club if the Saudi royal family took over & pumped hundreds of millions into their club? Less than 10%, that's for sure.

There would be a huge portion of the fanbase that'd be all "ahh, no, it's wrong... But uhh, we can sign Mbappe now, right? WOOHOO!" I know that's how I'd be.

I wouldn't stop watching I don't think. It is our club and not theirs, after all. But I'd be deeply, deeply uncomfortable with it and would derive little joy from the club whilst they were in charge.

In fact, I suspect it would probably almost kill any enthusiasm for the sport I still have left. I basically only watch it for United as it is because I find little joy left in the sport football has become.

 

[iHicksy]

Honestly, I don't mind Chelsea's fortune so much. But the reason City's is so much worse because they are blatantly spitting in the face of the financial fair play rules by using financial doping, through shady practises such as self sponsorship through affiliate companies and doubling staff wages to cook the books using a secondary wage structure. All under the guise of "consultancy fees". It's not the fact City have a vast fortune that bothers me, it's the fact that they then go and cheat their way to players and trophies by cooking the books.

 

[Ramshock]

Entitlement & jealousy, moreso than any sort of morality.

City, & Chelsea before them - Both of them ruffled some feathers when their multi-billionaire sugar daddies took over, but their success has not been damaging to the league, and the hatred they've received is driven by factors other than the supposed morality a huge chunk of people claim. In the last 10/11 years, since the City owners have taken over, we've seen the following:

• Some of the best attacking football the league has ever seen.
• Two of the best all-round teams in Chelsea/City that the league has ever seen.
• A more intense competition at the top of the table.
• Not a single team has defended the Premier League, so it's not like they've bought invulnerability (like PSG did in their league, which is an issue).

Both entertainment value & competition have increased since Roman & the Shiekh's, so that's a good thing, no? To me, yes. I might've despised Chelsea at the time, but in hindsight, their rise to power has been fantastic for the league, and it changed the way I view City currently.

City's owners get stick for their awful human rights record (& rightly so), but I truly believe the overwhelming majority of their rival fans don't actually give a shit about any of the atrocities going on elsewhere in the world. They're more concerned with their league position than the state of human rights in Abu Dhabi & elsewhere. They're more worried about improved competition. They're worried about how it should be them at the top of the league, as these oil clubs just bought their way there.

... All the while secretly wishing it could be them playing the way City do right now. I know I wish we had a squad like theirs.

Am I wrong? If so, I have to ask one thing... Do you ever question your purchase of new technology (phones especially) knowing they're coming, in part, from modern slave labor companies like Foxconn? Or is that different because it adds something to your life, while oil money in other clubs seems like an injustice against what works for you.

I know I'll get stick for this, but whatever

Shite opinion

 

[ayushreddevil9]

You pour in billions in the squad and then praise them for being "best ever football/squads". Given the investment, that's the least someone would expect.

 

[King7Eric]

I'm opposed to this rumored Saudi takeover because for me, the history and tradition of Manchester United is more important than trophies. I think we are better than the "smaller" clubs like City or Chelsea who need sugar daddies. So yeah maybe there is a sense of snobbery. But I never put down City or Chelsea's achievements just because it is funded by sugar daddies. I like this foreign investment into the game, it is what gives rise to more challenges and keeps it interesting. I don't want us to be a part of a Real/Barca like duopoly or be in a situation like Celtic or Juve or Bayern are nowadays. Rich clubs force you to raise your standards to compete and Man Utd is all about overcoming challenges which makes our victory that much sweeter.

So yeah I'm snobbish of these sugar daddy clubs because I think Utd are better than them, but I don't begrudge them their success and am quite happy that these clubs have risen, it provides bigger and more interesting challenges to overcome.

 

[anant]

Personally, I feel that there are two parts to the argument:
First being the one you argued and the second being about the fact that football is less focused on the fans and is losing morality.

No one can doubt that competition is good. When Arsenal came into the picture, we benefited immensely as it meant that we had to become better to ward the competition off. Result being that we won the treble. Then as Arsenal were going to begin their slide, Chelsea came up which kept us motivated and we won the CL in 2008 and would dominate in the continental stage for a few more years. Similarly, City coming up has led to a lot of teams including us spending cash to keep pace with them. The problem most people have here (including me) is that, while we can keep pace with such teams (as we are literally the biggest team in terms of commercial revenue), it is not possible for even a club of our stature to keep pace with them year over year. This pretty much dilutes the interest in the sport as it is not a level playing field for anyone especially when you consider the fact that their growth hasn't been organic.

Secondly, to keep pace with these teams, clubs need to explore other options to generate revenue- more expensive tickets, expensive merchandise and all- this directly affects us as it means that I need to spend higher amounts to buy a simple piece of merchandise and the people in stadium are just richer and not necessarily more passionate.

I don't have a problem with Abramovic's takeover, never had one as well, because he is funding the club using his money unlike City who are being funded by a nation! All it leads to is that it acts as a deterrent for the mid table teams with not so rich owners to stop trying to break in the top 4, which has resulted in same teams finishing up in top 4-6 unlike early 90s or earlier where surprises in top 4 weren't a rarity

 

[stepic]

90%+ of United fans would love it if the Saudi regime pumped money into the club and put them above and beyond City’s level. Morality goes out of the window when it comes to supporting your football team unfortunately.

bullshit. a casual glance at the saudi thread will showcase that. but as long as you being part of the 10% makes you feel better about yourself, do keep thinking that.

 

[Denis_unwise]

I don't think many fans are opposed to clubs receiving sugar daddy funding. As a Utd supporter, at the time, i didn't like it when Blackburn & then Chelsea were spending huge amounts & denying us league titles. In the grand scheme of things though it was good for the league. It stopped us completely dominating. These teams did also start to reign in their spending & became self sufficient. It doesn't matter how wealthy an individual is they are not going to keep up the same kind of spending levels comparative to what Blackburn & Chelsea did back in the day.

The problem with City & PSG is that they are state funded. They are showing no signs of reducing their spending or becoming self sufficient. There's nothing wrong with a team spending big for 2 or 3 seasons to try to challenge. It's a problem for the league when one team is outspending all the others over a decade long period due to state funding.

 

[padr81]

Fair play for being honest Tommy and I agree. Its not the nicest thing to say but in general I don't worry about human rights all over the world as long as mine are fine. Yes its mean and yes it's pretty uncaring but it is what it is. Would I rather our owners were better people? absolutely. Do I sit up at night worrying about HR in the middle east? Nope.

Alot of those who have suddenly developed those human rights issue since Pep arrived hadn't got them before about us so while I generally enjoy the banter on here I find it funny. I thought Roman was good for the league when he arrived and the same of us at City (my only issue with City is our blatant ignoring of FFP and I've given my reason on why many times). Roman in particular arrived at a time when the PL needed a hero because Arsenal and United were starting to pull so far ahead of the rest (United likely by some margin) and even with this United were still the dominant team without Roman, the PL becomes the Bundesliga and United become Bayern.

People here will talk about the Saudi thread, but Bluemoon has threads on both Shinawatra (firstly) and ADUG when there was speculation on them, full of the same thing. United fans won't walk away because despite the preaching in here because its City (or was it Liverpool etc...) The reality is the HR argument is probably the only stick left to beat clubs like PSG, Chelsea and City with (bar the clubs shockingly cringe worthy PR department and videos).

Its not a HR thing, its because these clubs have won the lottery and as you said jealousy.

Now that said, I'm sure there are posters on the Caf who had a pre-Pep interest in the situation out there and many posts on Abu Dhabi's HR record before he arrived just like they do afterwards. I just can't find any.

 

[padr81]

I'm opposed to this rumored Saudi takeover because for me, the history and tradition of Manchester United is more important than trophies. I think we are better than the "smaller" clubs like City or Chelsea who need sugar daddies. So yeah maybe there is a sense of snobbery. But I never put down City or Chelsea's achievements just because it is funded by sugar daddies. I like this foreign investment into the game, it is what gives rise to more challenges and keeps it interesting. I don't want us to be a part of a Real/Barca like duopoly or be in a situation like Celtic or Juve or Bayern are nowadays. Rich clubs force you to raise your standards to compete and Man Utd is all about overcoming challenges which makes our victory that much sweeter.

So yeah I'm snobbish of these sugar daddy clubs because I think Utd are better than them, but I don't begrudge them their success and am quite happy that these clubs have risen, it provides bigger and more interesting challenges to overcome.

Fantastic post, fair play. You should be snobbish (I wouldn't say you are btw..), you are United. So should Liverpool fans, they are Liverpool. There is nothing wrong with saying "hey we are United/Liverpool and we are fecking legends".

 

[tomaldinho1]

Instead of justifying your argument by pointing out another industry with serious questions around humans rights (technology - particularly phones) surely you should realise the importance of taking a bit of a stand against another?

What you're effectively saying is 'I know it's shit but it's ok because someone else already did it'.

The oil part of your argument is redundant, none of us care which commodity the money comes from, but I (and judging by the Saudi thread many others) aren't massively keen on allowing investors into our club (or any club in the PL) who don't at the very least comply with Human Rights law. I'm amazed I'm actually having to write this on a thread thinking about it...

 

[padr81]

Instead of justifying your argument by pointing out another industry with serious questions around humans rights (technology - particularly phones) surely you should realise the importance of taking a bit of a stand against another?

What you're effectively saying is 'I know it's shit but it's ok because someone else already did it'.

The oil part of your argument is redundant, none of us care which commodity the money comes from, but I (and judging by the Saudi thread many others) aren't massively keen on allowing investors into our club (or any club in the PL) who don't at the very least comply with Human Rights law. I'm amazed I'm actually having to write this on a thread thinking about it...

I think you missed his point, I think his point is anyone constantly calling out PSG, City whilst walking around with an Android or IPhone is being a tad hypocritical.

 

[RochaRoja]

Is this covert psyops to soften us up for a Saudi takeover?

90%? Try running a poll. My guess is it would be nowhere near that. Morality didn't go out of the window during the green and gold protests. It just had little effect.

This forum doesn’t represent Manchester United’s support as a whole. Remember that the vast majority of your fans are from outside of the UK and Ireland and couldn’t care less about the green and gold protests.

 

[Josep Dowling]

I don't want a sugar daddy at this club, I just want the Glazers out. If we had ambitious owners who didn't mortgage the entire club then we would be self sufficient to compete with the likes of City. The issue we have now is only someone like the Saudi prince can afford to buy us.

 

[Beachryan]

The league was broken - we could certainly have won about 6 straight - but allowing oil money in was not a sensible answer.

If anyone actually wanted a better league it would take real reform, wage caps, transfer limits etc. But that's not going to happen.

 

[Siorac]

(my only issue with City is our blatant ignoring of FFP and I've given my reason on why many times).

This is completely baffling to me. Human rights abuses are a billion times worse than circumventing a set of rules that were clearly and obviously designed with the interests of the wealthy elite in mind. If you don't care about the human rights of others, why do you care about rules dedicated to keeping the traditional elite on top of the game? I'd understand if you didn't care about either but this is absolutely bizarre.