- Football’s descent into chaos: something now has to give
- In the end this referee and injury nonsense has to stop
By Nitram
In conversation, I have had it said to me: “There is a certain hysteria about MCFC dominating the Premier League”, as if somehow we have all got this wrong. Manchester City aren’t looking to monopolise the Premier League. They just want everything to be fair.
To which I say, REALLY?!
So let’s have a look at what Manchester City have achieved, where they are, and where they appear to want to go.
These are the facts:
Manchester City have won eight of the last 13 Premier League titles since the takeover. That’s 61%.
They have won seven of the last eight Premier League titles. That’s 87% If that’s not ‘dominating the Premier League’ I don’t know what is.
Man City have won the last four Premier League titles. That’s 100 % If that’s not ‘dominating the Premier League’ once again I don’t know what is.
This is their domestic domination since the takeover in a little more detail.
- First: eight times = 61%
- Second: three times = 23%
- Third: once
- Fourth: once
So, that’s finishing first or second 85% of the time since they first won a title post- takeover. If that’s not ‘dominating the Premier League’ I don’t know what is.
And thus, even with the current draconian rules, okay illegal rules if you insist, Man City are a gnats cock from total domination. Worrying about that is not hysteria. Yes, we have had dominant teams, and duopolies in the past, but never one team so dominant for so long.
Indeed if you want to see what domination does look like, take a look at Scotland. In 12 of the last 13 seasons in Scotland, Celtic have won. And possibly linked to this is the fact that February 2012 Rangers went into administration, thus leaving one club with far greater financial resources than the rest. That’s not identical to the Premier League now of course, but it shows what happens when one club is financially unencumbered, while its rivals lag far behind.
But in England it is even worse than that. For despite being able to monopolise the PL as much as they are, they are still not happy.
It was said, partly in their defence, partly as a pacifier I think, that “…..several of those titles were very, very tight,” as if that somehow makes this monopoly okay? As if we should be in some way satisfied that we can at least finish that close.
So, let’s have a look at how close things really are shall we:
20/21 Man City finished 12 points ahead of Man Utd in second spot. Hardly a close run thing I think you’ll agree.
Okay, the next the seasons the runners-up were a bit closer, but beyond the front two it’s a different story:
2021/22 Man City finished one point ahead of runners-up Liverpool but third placed Chelsea were an enormous 19 points behind Man City.
2022/23 Man City finished five points ahead of runners-up Arsenal but third placed Man Utd were an enormous 14 points behind Man City.
And the next season we were lucky enough to see two teams chasing them, but again beyond that the picture is bleak:
2023/24 Man City finished two points ahead of runners-up Arsenal. Okay third placed Liverpool were reasonably close a mere nine points behind Man City, but here’s the thing: fourth placed Aston Villa were an enormous 23 points behind Man City. That’s closer to Wolverhampton in 14th place.
But this is the key point. Even with this monopolising of the Premier League Man City are still not happy. And it is Arsenal, the team that has run them the closest over the last couple of seasons who are, surprise surprise, the ones in their sights.
The reality is we’ve had to spend an enormous amount of money just to get that close. Not as much as Man City initially spent to facilitate their rise to the top (ONE one BILLION net in the first 10 years of the takeover ON PLAYERS) but a lot nonetheless. And to do that we have taken low or interest-free loans from our owners. And guess what, Man City don’t like it.
Even though we will ultimately have to service that loan, (as opposed to the limitless sponsorship deals that support Man City’s spending), they still want to limit what we can borrow or how we can borrow it. Basically, anyone who doesn’t want to be financed by an Oil State will be stymied in their efforts to chase Man City down.
Look, I admit I don’t know the ins and out of everything that’s going on, but to me it’s as clear as night and day that Man City want to be allowed to completely monopolise the Premier League if they are not doing so already. They think they should be allowed to accept any sponsorship deal, no matter its provenance, whenever they want, however much it is. Whilst at the same time restricting others’ abilities to subsidise their income with loans..
No, they probably don’t want to bankrupt anyone. Without opponents, they have nothing. Without a tournament, they have nothing. This is obvious. But threats are how bullies work. They rely on their threat to get their way. Okay, if they have to take someone, or something down they will, and Khaldoon al-Mubarak has said they will do exactly that if necessary.
Apparently we should be happy just to get close.
They also appear to be prepared to sue anybody who they see as an obstacle to their ambition, on the basis that they have enough wealth to pursue cases indefinitely, regardless of cost and however long it may take.
Like it or not, professional football is a business, & that’s how dominant companies operate….to maintain or increase their market share.
ukesox
I agree, but the point is Man City fans don’t.
According to them, they don’t want total domination. Quite the opposite in fact. This is, by their account, some sort of ‘crusade’ to break up and dethrone what they call the ‘Red Cartel’, from their position of dominance.
They simply don’t accept the fact that Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal have EARNED their status by running their clubs well.
They don’t accept that Man City fell to the depths they did because they ran their club poorly. 20 managers in 40 years they had.
Oh no, we all only won things because of some imaginary cartel.
The fact Man Utd got relegated, Liverpool went 20 years without a title and Arsenal were so poor everyone took the piss for 10 year because we won nothing,(still are actually) seems to pass them by. As I have said many times, some Cartel that!!!
Did Man Utd help Liverpool win all those European trophies?
Did Liverpool help Man Utd lord it over them for 20 years?
Honestly you couldn’t make the **** up they come up with in order to justify what they are doing.
The saddest thing is they pretend they are doing it ‘for all the little clubs’. Really? To make the Premier League fairer. Really?
But back to your point, yes football is a business, and yes this is how dominant companies work, but this is also a sport. And sport is about competition. Without competition you have no sport.
In business nobody cares if someone is top dog year after year, as long as they don’t abuse that position by trying to become a monopoly you can carry on. But the difference is we don’t have to sit and watch them week in week out. All we do is pop in and buy stuff. Sainsbury’s versus Aldi is not a spectator sport!!!
Sport is different, and should be run different.
But of course, due to geographical and historic reasons you do have dominant clubs. It is a reality of sport as you have dominant Nations. Personally, I have never had an issue with Man Utds dominance, (or Liverpools for that matter), even when we were battling them. Man Utd had more money because they got there first, with a great manager and a great team, then they marketed themselves brilliantly.
I have never suggested that Man Utd or Liverpool should be subjected to any financial restraint. They earned their money. I have no issues with what they spend.
I have always said it is up to us to win the Champions league, and then on the back of it market our club as per those two. There are no short cuts. Or at least there shouldn’t be. We just have to up our game.
And we are trying to do that, in what I believe is the right way. And we would of done it, is 2 clubs hadn’t been financially doped in such a way that all our efforts were undermined. But we are still trying. We have a manger that could, with a fair wind still do it. And it wont be because of some imagined Cartel.
But Man City simply cant even stomach the possibility can they.
-Criticising OUR financial model if you can believe that.
-Accusing US of dark arts if you can believe that.
-Asking US to explain ourselves if you can believe that.
Competition. I don’t think it’s even in their vocabulary.
Nice article , Nitram . What interests me is the number of players that we had to buy , to get rid off , or just dump them for free , since MA took over . That is a lot of money that we had to spend to stay competitive .
That we also at the same time promoted players from our own ranks , pleases me no end . But to stay in touch with the competition we let quite a few crowd favorites . I would have loved to have won things with these players , but time and tide waits for on one !
The other sore point that I have is the uselessness of the BIGMOB . And lets not even get started with VAR ! And useless and mindless Internationals are decimating our team.
I have come to the point in my life that I only look forward to those 90 minutes that The Arsenal play . Without the sounds mostly ! I still do get up from my seat occasionally , shouting , ” Yes ! YES ! OH YES !” I still look forward to when we throw the kitchen sink at the opposition !
Up the Gunners !
@ ukesox
“Like it or not, professional football is a business, & that’s how dominant companies operate”.
Actually, that’s complete tosh. Dominant companies do not benefit from limitless subsidies for which there is no payback. Even one country cannot subsidise a business to that extent. Other countries impose tariffs and embargoes to stop it. And companies do not dominate the market by becoming a monopoly, (not in this country at least) that’s why we have the mergers and monopolies commission, to actually stop that level of exploitation of the market and the people who operate within that market place. That’s actually bad for the consumers!!
A much better analogy for Man City would be that of a dictator who dominates at all costs, does away with the rules which allow for fairness/competition and merely eliminates the opposition by fair means or foul. If Man City were to get 38 league wins every season they would believe that was ok; that they deserved it; and that they were doing nothing wrong. What’s more, their fans would still bleat on about how it was “good for football”. Football will implode if Man City get their way and their owners will just walk away and find another play thing. That’s what they do!
Hi Nitram,
As per our exchanges in the article, “What if an infinitely rich owner bankrupts the Premier League?” I’m happy to share my thoughts on your article.
“Is Man City’s aim complete domination of the Premier League, or are we all just being hysterical?”
Of course it is, but isn’t that the case for all clubs and that doesn’t mean some of the comments about domination I’ve read and heard in the media, aren’t overblown – hysterical is possibly too emotive?
The more concerning question for the rest of the Premier League, assuming MCFC aren’t found guilty of the more serious charges in their “115” case, is, “Will they dominate the Premier League for a sustained period that has no historic precedent?” The facts presented in your article suggest this is already happening, but I disagree.
” Yes, we have had dominant teams, and duopolies in the past, but never one team so dominant for so long.” Really? Let me present some facts to support an alternative view.
Sheik Mansour took ownership in 2008, some 16 years ago. In that 16 year period, MCFC won the Premier League 8 times. It is a pretty good record, but two clubs can lay claim to a better record – Liverpool won 10 top flight titles over 15 years between 1975-6 to 1989-90 and Manchester United won 11 titles over 17 years between 1992-3 to 2008-9.
If one only considers MCFC under Pep, it’s 6 Premier League titles in 8 years; both Liverpool and Manchester United managed that; I’ll concede they didn’t manage 6 in 7 years.
One could argue MCFC still haven’t matched Liverpool and Manchester United’s feats.
So, to summarise, as I said in the comments section of a previous article, as far as Premiership titles go it might look like domination, but four of those titles could have easily gone to the challenging team – Manchester United on goal difference, Liverpool by a point, on two occasions, and Arsenal by two points. Total domination, as far as I’m concerned, would be wrapping up the title by Easter.
I’m not sure what the bully claims relate to. If you could clarify whether you are talking about MCFC defending itself against UEFA’s and Premier League’s accusations, or the recent APT case I’ll happily share my thoughts on that matter.
Tim
Thank you and again some good points.
It is true, as I said, that we have had periods of domination by one team, such as Manchester Utds.
But I think this is different and I think it is different for a couple of reasons.
1 – As much as every teams aims to win the Premier League every year, I don’t believe Man Utd ever wanted to do so other than via the money they generated through their incredible success, their genuine world Wide marketing and their TV money. Their owners actually take money out.
2 – Man City simply want to be allowed to pile money into the club at whatever rate they need, to maintain their dominance. If a team gets close they will double the sponsorship deals. If a team gets close they will claim they are illegally financed.
THEY DO NOT WANT OR CARE ABOUT OMPETITION.
No matter how much money Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal spend they spend it with peril. If they get it wrong, under their models they will fail.
Manchester City want to operate a model that has no peril at all.
I think Arsenal are a well run football club. We are, as a result of years of success, a rich club. But we were in peril for years simply because we built a Stadium. We are still in a position that if we mess up we could fall dramatically.
Do you think that ever, under the model that Man city want to operate, that would EVER be a possibility. Yes they may drop to 3rd or 4th, but I very much doubt it. The owners will simply not allow it to happen.
They want to, and are trying to move to a position where they will be allowed to, throw as much money as it takes to maintain their dominance. Whatever it takes.
It is different. Very different, to anything we have seen before.
This article is as hysterical as any other I’ve seen. Calm the fuck down. Funny really, in the period when united won 13 titles, three clubs won it in that period. Now we have a farmers league, in the time thst City are dominant, 5 clubs have won rhe league….although, arsenal aren’t one of them.
Which is pretty funny really, isn’t it?
I think really FD you ought to expand your reading. Of course no one can force you to read more, but a greater depth would perhaps help you a littlle.
Hi Nitram,
I’m sorry about my delay in replying. Here are some further thoughts about your thoughts.
“Man City simply want to be allowed to pile money into the club at whatever rate they need, to maintain their dominance. If a team gets close they will double the sponsorship deals.”
Do you have any links to prove MCFC have doubled their sponsorship deals recently?
Well, if your comment is true, I guess MCFCs’ owners haven’t felt any competition for at least the last five years and that must be soul-destroying for everyone connected with Liverpool and Arsenal. I say this because MCFC’s net spend is far less than Arsenal’s and about the same as Liverpool’s – https://www.givemesport.com/every-premier-league-club-net-spend-ranked/
“If a team gets close they will claim they are illegally financed.”
I guess this is a reference to the recent APT ruling. Unfortunately, it turned out not just to be a claim; the panel agreed that it was illegal. Here are some excerpts from the article courtesy of the Manchester Evening News – https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/richard-masters-inadvertently-helps-man-30096369
Three senior judges agreed with them that “owner funding, like state aid, is subsidisation. That is particularly so when other sources of external funding are not permitted.” However, they subsequently concluded that it was unlawful to exclude shareholder loans from Profitability and Sustainability Regulations when the same treatment was not afforded to APTs and it was classed as an object infringement of competition law.
“An object infringement is the most serious sort of grievance. It means that you don’t actually have to do a detailed dive on the impact of that infringement,” Jack Williams, a barrister in competition law at Monckton Chambers told the Manchester Evening News.
“They didn’t have to go through loads of economic analysis. It’s dressed up over 175 pages but they’ve basically looked at these terms and decided they are discriminatory and unlawful.”
“I know they’re trying to downplay it as a tweak of the rules and yes the whole thing doesn’t come crashing down but it’s an object infringement so the most serious sort in competition law, and the fact they’ve been found to have a process that doesn’t work.
“You would hope it’s a real wake up call for the in-house decision making process. I keep saying how basic this is but they didn’t comply with basic fundamental principles of legal fairness and due process. That is a damning finding for three senior judges to make.”
Under those, now illegal, rules weren’t MCFC also allowed shareholder funding? Wouldn’t this have been an excellent way for MCFC to circumvevnt the other problematic APT rules? Why didn’t they do it? I’ve got some ideas but I’d like to hear your thoughts first, because mine involve challenging the thoughts regarding profit as expressed in your first point.
Maybe we can discuss the concept of ‘peril’ at a later date and you can provide some evidence that MCFC don’t want competition, and explain exactly what business model MCFC are using and how it differs from the other Premier League teams.