By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
mZuzek said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Still, it's incredibly ironic that people complain about "non-traditional" teams winning things and competing for the best players, but also complain about a competition thats purpose is to make it nigh impossible for anybody new to ever compete with an "elite" group of clubs. It's kind of contradictory.

Plus I'd definitely rather have teams like Man City and Chelsea make the Premier League interesting, than for it to be like the Bundesliga where there's not really much point watching it because you know Bayern will just win in the end anyway.

The issue isn't with non-traditional teams winning things, it's with these teams rising to the top by spending a fuckton of money they never earned on the pitch. No one has beef with Leicester winning the Premier League, because they did so on merit.

Chelsea and Manchester City only are what they are because of their billionaire owners throwing money at the club. You can't deny that. Out of these two, Chelsea at least has a bit more tradition, which is why most were rooting for them today, but they definitely wouldn't have gotten there without russian money.

So, it's not incredibly ironic at all. People don't like Chelsea and Manchester City (and PSG) for the same reason they didn't like the Super League - because they don't like it when money rules the game.

Which is what you'd have without the likes of City, Chelsea and PSG regardless. If that's what people think then they should hate Man Utd, Liverpool, Barcelona, Real etc. just as much. Anything less is a double standard. Money is money, it doesn't matter where or who it comes from. I also have to ask how many neutral fans hate increased competition? Because to me it seems most of the hate is from fans of "traditional" teams upset that their teams can't easily dominate anymore and actually have some competition.

Not to mention it has a positive effect on the game as a whole. I don't think that it's a coincidence that the most competitive top European league (thanks to Chelsea and City breaking up the Utd (and a bit of Arsenal dominance) is also by far the most popular. Plus in France revenues across the league are up (or at least they were pre-covid) because people want to see the stars that PSG have brought to the league. And while that's a negative too since they're the only team with money making the league less competitive, they've only managed to win 4 league titles in a row which is less than Bayern/Juve's recent 9 in a row and even less than Lyon's 7 in the decade prior to the PSG takeover too so it hasn't negatively affected the competitiveness of the league (yet). Plus, without PSG buying Neymar, Barcelona wouldn't have bought Coutinho. Without that happening would Liverpool still have bought van Dijk and without him would they have won the Premier League for the first time ever?

As far as I'm concerned it's much better for money to be spread out over as many wealthy teams as possible so that the sport is more competitive and exciting, rather than concentrated in the hands of the few and boring.