So what's the solution? Well, unless you know a Sheikh or a Russian oil baron there's very little other option. In any case, where does the line of control between the owner and manager end, or for that matter start? The whole situation of ownership is problematic in its very ideals. It seems almost pathetic that football has in fact become closer to it's American counterpart sports, where franchise clubs rule all and consistent movement of players is a given (Something too I will later address). In June 2003 Roman Abramovich initiated this ownership trend by buying Chelsea Football Club. His initial spending the next summer was close to £90million. Incredible figures, yet we have become accustomed to see far superior from the blue side of Manchester.
The point I'm trying to raise is how this spending has actually started to affect the modern world of football. In fact the reason I was finally persuaded to write something on the matter lay in the hands of a certain Zenit St. Petersburg and the Brazilian, Hulk. He was quoted saying to various media sources earlier in the summer that the door was open for a transfer, fair enough. What he also mentioned, however, is that he wanted to play in either England or Spain for what he reasoned to be their global audience and popularity. Ironic then, that after Chelsea were reported to have chased him all summer (which could possibly be rumours) he ended the summer being a 50million euro signing for Zenit. Try telling me it's not about the money. Unsurprisingly the figures for his new contract have yet to be released, ground-breaking as I'm sure they may be; what baffles me further is how his dream move can suddenly change so vividly. In some way this proves how far, backwards perhaps, football has come. When a matter of money alone can solely determine a players intention then a real problem is truly at hand. It's all well owners offering the money but it's something else for the players to actually grab at it, and how. How can a player of Hulk's obvious talent turn down the European Champions' interest for position in an albeit lacklustre league in Eastern Europe. Where, can you tell me, is the real ambition there? Apparently he has yet to rule out a further move, and this somewhat makes the whole situation worse. Far from developing a loyal bond with fans, he wishes to use Zenit as some sort of leapfrog. To be that big fish in the ultimately tiny pond that he has now joined.
This recent move encompasses almost everything wrong about the modern ideals of football. Has player power truly got to this stage? Money rules now, that's evident for after Abramovich came the Sheikh revolution at Manchester City. As a United fan even typing the rival name stings still; for what they 'achieved' last season is built on false ideals. The current argument against United supporters claims that the Red Devils spend just as much money as their big budget-ed rivals. This, according to recently released figures is far from the truth though as a recent 'BBC Sport' article shows:
- 1. Chelsea 673
- 2. Man City 572
- 3. Liverpool 414
- 4. Man United 352
- 5. Tottenham 350
- 6. Arsenal 214
- 7. Aston Villa 201
- 8. Sunderland 187
- 9. Newcastle 174
- 10. Everton 129
- 11. West Ham 123
These are the spending figures for Premier League clubs over the last ten years. Now, as you look at it one can assume that money directly equals success as the leaders of this table would suggest on last seasons Champions League winning form. Yet, does one title and an FA Cup for City really justify spending £572million pounds? In that time Manchester United spent £352million and have won several League titles, a Champions League, one World Club Championship, one FA Cup and three League Cup titles too (I won't mention the various Charity Shield victories). True United had Ferguson, and it has only been recently that City have finally settled on a manager in Mancini, something they appear to be sticking by too. Looking at the list in third position we encounter an incredible anomaly in the form of Liverpool. The Merseyside club show that money definitely is not everything (Aquilani for instance). Okay, that was a bit of a tangent, but you see the point. Chelsea's success can only be accounted for by their spending, with exactly the same going for City.
Does money, therefore equate to success? Without the case of Liverpool, it could be apparent. It's hard, however to call something that has had so much money thrown at it in some cases a 'success'. Does winning so little in such time make the situation any better? I think not, others would strongly disagree. It's true there has been a turnaround at Manchester City, but could any manager with a seemingly endlessly deep pocket to pick out of achieve exactly the same, if not better? What City have done has, in many senses ruined football for true football fans. Money shatters 'loyalty' and drives forth the greed from inside. Take Nasri and Clichy, were they fazed to move after Wenger brought them onto the world stage? Not a chance, not a bit grateful. How many players in that City side could you truly call loyal? Joe Hart, Micah Richards perhaps, yet in the case of Adam Johnson his loyalty was his downfall as he postponed his move away from the Etihad in the pursuit of an eventual breakthrough. It would seem that, although it attracts superstars, money makes the very grass roots system largely ineffective. Why bring up hot prospects when you can buy anyone you want.
So where does this leave us? This post is fragmented in itself but maybe that reflects the nature of the game today. I would, for one, never have thought players would be going for £30million plus on such a regular basis. Shocking, is probably the easiest word to use for this whole scenario. When money is thrown around at will by various billionaire's simply to satisfy their real life game of 'Football Manager' then we truly have hit rock bottom. Maybe I'm just being idealistic in my points, but the various cash injections all over Europe have created this money grabbing trend. Why did Lucas Moura go to PSG and not United? He may argue the style of football, or the manager or even that he wanted a different challenge; but I feel the extra £9million paid out to him probably softened his will in the end. So with such young prospects choosing money over success, surely somewhere somebody really got it all wrong.
