Same clubs always winning
- Optimism to succeed. A further and last reflection from AKH
- What Arsenal have to do next season to become even better?
By Tony Attwood
In Scotland, Celtic have won the league 11 times out of the last 12 (and there’s a suggestion people are getting a bit bored by it all). In France, Paris Saint-Germain are about to win Ligue 1 for the ninth time in 11 seasons. Although in Germany there is a bit of excitement because although Bayern Munich look likely to win an 11th straight title they are only one point ahead of Borussia Dortmund, which makes a change.
But now compare these scenarios with earlier days in England.
- Between 1931 and 1935 Arsenal won the league four times in five seasons.
- Between 1976 and 1980 Liverpool won the league four times in five seasons.
- Between 1982 and 1986 Liverpool again won the league four times in five seasons
- Between 2007 and 2011 Manchester United won the league four times in five seasons
That is four runs in around 80 years of football (removing a period for the second world war).
But now, assuming that something utterly extraordinary doesn’t happen, Manchester City will take this on to a new level in England winning the title five times in six seasons – something not seen before in English football. So what does this say about the competitive nature of the Premier League?
Considering this recently, the Athletic seemed to argue that it doesn’t really matter too much because ultimately Guardiola will leave and “City will, for a while at least, struggle to recreate this level of superiority.”
But really, is that likely? With the type of money that Manchester City now have at their disposal, will City struggle? Will they not, when left to their own devices as PSG are in France, simply bring in another Guardiola who will buy up even more talent?
Indeed as the Athletic article on the subject points out, in Europe clubs change their managers as a matter of course, often after the club has just won the league. Laurant Blanc, Thomas Tuchal, Unai Emery… win ratios in the 70%+ zone, they leave, the club goes on and on.
But it is more than the fact that everyone else is then playing for second place. It is that the top team can buy everyone they want. The competitiveness gets lost because as soon as a new star emerges he’s off to one of the big boys.
Which is probably why the issues of the 115 charges brought against Manchester City, and the suggestion that Newcastle United are under the control of the Saudi state, are being talked about in football a lot more than football journalism would have you think.
There is also a suggestion that the Premier League will win its case against Manchester City, strip the club of their titles, and the owners might walk away in a fit of pique, Saudi Arabia will walk away from Newcastle, and the League will run its own show.
Certainly, the reports in the Guardian a couple of months back show that there really does look to be a clear case of state involvement in the Sovereign Wealth fund that was used to buy Newcastle. And indeed that case does look rather amusing since it appears that in yet another court case Saudi Arabia describes the fund that bought Newcastle, as “a sovereign instrumentality of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” run by “a sitting minister of the Saudi government”. I think they shot themselves in both feet on that one, but time will tell.
And we don’t know as yet who is buying Manchester United, but Qatar looks the most likely purchaser.
Now in response to this, the Athletic article claims that “Football is cyclical, and both United and Liverpool can attest to periods in the wilderness after eras of domination.”
Well yes, but there is nothing in the constitution of the Premier League that says this cyclicality in football, automatically continues. And in noting, “City’s wealth and the sensible way in which they’re run…” the article suggests that whatever happens the club will get away with whatever financial meanderings they are playing about with. And yet they have not been sensible enough to avoid being charged with “breaking financial fair play rules” 115 times. That really is pretty careless.
So the comment that City, “won’t fall that far, but they will still likely have difficulties when Guardiola finally goes,” might well be the most gigantic misunderstanding of all time. Guardiola going is not the issue.
What we have to remember is that the Premier League was in itself a breakaway league set up by a group of 1st Division clubs, fed up with being under the yoke of the Football League. So the clubs broke away and then asked the FA to be their controlling body before kicking the FA aside, and taking over control themselves. Having shown they can act in that most dramatic of moments, I’ve no doubt they can do so again to swat away the annoying hornet that Manchester City has become.
In this regard, I am moved by the commentary in Economics Observatory which in part says, “it seems likely that City did break the rules. After all, they became a successful team while doing precisely what the financial fair play regulations were designed to prevent. In the process, the club spent much more money than their revenues could ever support.”
What’s more, all 19 other members of the League at the time signed up to the case. If the League wins, I wouldn’t be surprised if the owners of Manchester City either walk out totally, or pick up the club and move it to France to play in Ligue 1 alongside its other poodle, PSG.
If Manchester City wins, I suspect the rest of the League will walk out and set up another competition just as they did when leaving the Football League. They were resolute and audacious in going after a bigger share of the money. Now Manchester City, by winning everything all the time, has removed that objective, and I think the other clubs want the competition back.
So it actually doesn’t matter if the League wins the case or not – the Premier League is a breakaway league and is used to having power. Manchester City have removed that power, and the League will take it back, even if that means 19 clubs resigning and setting up “The English League”.
This is not a scenario you’ll read in other places, largely because a central part of football journalism is to support the status quo. But we’ll keep on trying to look at this issue from a historic and contemporary perspective. It seems to make more sense that way.
Tony,
You stated, “So it actually doesn’t matter if the League wins the case or not – the Premier League is a breakaway league and is used to having power. Manchester City have removed that power, and the League will take it back, even if that means 19 clubs resigning and setting up “The English League”.”
Do you really believe MCFC currently are in more powerful position than Manchester United were under Sir Alex Ferguson?
In my opinion, the Glazier’s ownership has been a godsend for the other Premier League clubs because they have hamstrung that club for more than a decade. Imagine if Abu Dhabi had bought Manchester United instead of Manchester City. I don’t think you’d be writing about Manchester United winning five of the last six league titles; I think it would be more like fifteen of the last sixteen titles!
If Manchester United had won fifteen of the last sixteen titles would the Premier League form a breakaway league to exclude Manchester United? Remember your comment above is about the Premier League taking back it’s power from a club.
@ Tim
What an odd question! A principle is a principle. Why would it be any different just because it was a different club who was breaking the rules?
Hi Mikey,
Thanks for taking the trouble to respond.
Let me see if I can explain my understanding of Tony’s article and then you might not think my question(s) so odd.
I highlighted the penultimate paragraph of Tony’s article, and in that paragraph Tony is specifically speculating on what the Premier League might do to wrestle power back from MCFC.
I believe Tony makes an attempt to describe evidence of MCFC’s power and how it came about. Let me try and tackle each of these issues in turn.
With regard to the evidence of this power Tony cites four different occasions when clubs won the title four times in five seasons, and then states: “But now, assuming that something utterly extraordinary doesn’t happen, Manchester City will take this on to a new level in England winning the title five times in six seasons – something not seen before in English football.”
Unfortunately, Tony’s statement is incorrect. If Tony’s research had been more thorough he would have noted that Manchester United had already won the Premier League five times in six seasons, between 1995-1996 and 2000-2001.
If Tony had looked over a longer time period he would have found two occasions where two teams, Liverpool and Manchester United, were even more dominant than MCFC are today. If MCFC win the Premier League this season that will be five titles over the last nine years. Liverpool won seven titles in nine years (1975-1976 to 1983-1984), a feat Manchester United equalled (1992-1993 to 2000-2001). If MCFC are going to match that level of domination (power) they are going to need to win two of the next three Premier League campaigns after the current one.
Moving on to how MCFC achieved this power, Tony cites, in my opinion, two main reasons: the unlimited wealth and spending of their owners and the off-field cheating – circumventing FFP rules.
So, if I’ve understood the article correctly, and I can’t be sure I have since Tony has not replied, power and cheating are not the same thing in Tony’s article, but power was achieved in large measure by cheating.
Mikey, if you’ve managed to read to this point, hopefully I have been able to explain myself sufficiently that you no longer consider my question(s) odd.
@ Tim
OK, I see the point you’re making about the stats and that makes sense. Thank you for enlightening me.
What doesn’t make sense is completely ignoring the 115 charges brought against Man City and impact their wealth and spending has had since I believe this is the the basis for Tony’s argument which doesn’t really change irrespective of any statistical inaccuracy. I may be wrong.
i see the FA has banned Toney for 8 months for gambling. No word on whether they will ban any referees for cheating.
The Toney affair tells us that players are not allowed to bet on football. What about owners, directors, coaches, backroom staff, referees, agents, FA and PL officials and journalists?
When you consider that the media, including Sky Sports, spend so much of their time concocting transfer stories, it seems rather odd that the same organisation is setting odds for the outcome of those same stories.
Is the “regulator” nothing more than a smokescreen?
You will not read anything about this outcome because it is the conclusion of a demented mind.
Have to congratulate you though. Is this a first article where you do not have a go at the press?
Well done
Hi Mikey,
I am sorry I wasn’t able to respond sooner, but life has a way of intruding.
It looks like I haven’t been able to explain myself sufficiently; I’ll give it one more go and try and explain why the 115 charges were ignored in my original post.
The following two paragraphs of Tony’s article clearly relate to the allegations levelled at MCFC, and I include them below.
“What’s more, all 19 other members of the League at the time signed up to the case. If the League wins, I wouldn’t be surprised if the owners of Manchester City either walk out totally, or pick up the club and move it to France to play in Ligue 1 alongside its other poodle, PSG.
If Manchester City wins, I suspect the rest of the League will walk out and set up another competition just as they did when leaving the Football League. They were resolute and audacious in going after a bigger share of the money. Now Manchester City, by winning everything all the time, has removed that objective, and I think the other clubs want the competition back.”
Of course, my original post wasn’t concerned with either of these paragraphs; my original post concerned the following paragraph,
“So it actually doesn’t matter if the League wins the case or not – the Premier League is a breakaway league and is used to having power. Manchester City have removed that power, and the League will take it back, even if that means 19 clubs resigning and setting up “The English League”.”
In isolation, the paragraph I commented on is not directly about the charges; it is, in my opinion, about ‘power’. If that’s the case why would I need to comment on the charges?
I think the ‘power’ Tony is referring to is, in part, about the owner’s spending and. of course, he is able to spend because of his wealth. MUFC have spent roughly the same over the period and achieved very little, so power can’t just be about the level of spending. If the previous sentence is valid then ‘power’ must also include dominance on the pitch, and Tony described in some detail MCFC’s dominance in relation to previous eras, over a specific period of time. Unfortunately, Tony neglected to highlight two periods where Liverpool and MUFC had arguably more power on the pitch than MCFC currently has, and he didn’t notice MUFC had already achieved what he claimed was, “… something not seen before in English football.” I believe these omissions weaken Tony’s argument greatly; you and Tony may not agree.
Based on my understanding of the three paragraphs in this post, all taken from Tony’s original article, what I found fascinating was the idea that the Premier League clubs are going to get MCFC out of the top tier of football, legally or otherwise – it almost sounds like the some sections of the MCFC fanbase. If the legal judgement is not to their liking they’ll simply ignore it and create an “English League”, using the excuse MCFC are too powerful. If Tony is right, it sounds like you’ve got nineteen clubs that are just as respectful of rules and laws as a “guilty” MCFC – pot calling the kettle black somehow enters my thoughts!
I hope you can now understand why I didn’t comment on the charges, and hopefully you can see that the spending and wealth topics are implicitly wrapped up in the idea of ‘power’.