Are Chelsea and City ruining football? Pt 1

The Premier League has been romantically dubbed the best league in the world, and its captivating lure of players from all over the world is unmistakable. The traditions of the English game are as attractive, if not more so, than those of any other footballing nation. But let’s not kid ourselves that players with global appeal are pulled to these shores by the heritage and romance of the game, rather than by following the smell of money.

Arsenal have long claimed that they run a football club the way it should be run, and this elicits a finite amount of sympathy from the lovers of the game, who recognize that they attempt to blood a handful of home-grown players, and blend them as effectively as they can with experienced players from overseas. However, these tactics have failed to yield a single trophy in nine years, causing even the fans to undermine the manner in which the club us run.

The flip side of the ethical coin is the likes of Chelsea and Manchester City being run like a business, at the expense of the soul of the respective clubs. Business is no respecter of origins or passion, but is merely a means to an end. There is something wrong with the game, when people are allowed to buy football clubs, and bankroll the club themselves. The purchase of players is not performed through the enterprising inventiveness of the clubs concerned, but courtesy of the owners funding the acquisition. They are digging deep into their pockets and buying global stars with their own cash. From a business perspective, this is above board, but for those who love the game, and fans of anyone else outside the fortunate clubs who are used by Sugar Daddies as playthings, it seems to jar with the beauty of this national institution.

Money will always be a factor, it is the nature of the world in which we live, but clubs with little or no history or heritage should not be suddenly thrust onto the heavyweight map on the basis that they have been picked at random by the rich, who could just have easily have elected another club.

Look at Chelsea, for example. Roman Abramovich is the only factor that stood between a team competing regularly in Europe, and a team facing bankruptcy and tumbling down the divisions. He opted for the Blues on a whim, but could easily have been persuaded to buy Tottenham Hotspur, thus transforming their fortunes without any effort on their part. There are several similarities between the two London clubs, and, if anything, Tottenham boasted the most success, with several league titles and FA Cups under their belt, and also some European silverware locked in the trophy cabinet. Location would not have been an issue, or current status. But the Blues it was, and the backdrop of the English game was forever changed.

A similar story punctuates Manchester City’s recent rise to fame; a club which had last won a league title in 1968 (followed shortly after by an FA Cup victory), and unable to shoehorn their local rivals out of the limelight. Yet a moneybags owner, who apparently was either partial to the light blue colour, or was unable to get his hands on the club down the road, snapped up the club as transfer deadline was approaching, and duly whipped some players away from under the noses of other interested parties. And so a new dynasty dawned.

However, these meteoric rises in the clubs fortunes cannot be entirely saddled with the guilt of destroying our game. Without their rolling of a double six and simultaneously holding the trump cards in the game of chance, Manchester United would have comfortable walked away with the last nine Premier League trophies under their arms. That cannot be good for football either. Something had to be done to force them to vacate their lofty perch, a platform which has brought them unrivaled success in recent years.

But the financial bar has been raised to a level which is unattainable for most clubs, and Manchester United have only been able to cling onto it with their fingertips due to finances that have been generated by the club itself. United fans will attest to the pain at having their football club taken over by business men, but let’s not underplay the fact that they have not funded any of the purchases or wages out of their own pocket. The club is still sustaining itself, owing largely to its huge fan base, and global branding. To highlight a further blot on modern football’s copybook, the Glazers are not even fans of football, much like you don’t have to be a fan of pencils in order to sell a load of stationery.

Yet even the Old Trafford club have had to stoop to marketing their club, raising awareness across Asia, and doing what it can to boost shirt sales. However, one must feel that if they had en Emperor calling all the shots and bankrolling purchases, they wouldn't need to be so inventive in the market place.

Part 2 to follow