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

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.

Of course it matters where it comes from. Those other teams are famous and rich because they've been damn good at winning football games for a very long time. They became the top teams in their league through football played on the pitch, through good managers and projects. Maybe not quite the same for all of them, I don't know their inner workings, maybe there can be corruption involved with some of them, but whatever it is sure is a lot more subtle than "arab billionaire buys team that won the second division 7 times".

The part where you imply that Liverpool would suck if PSG didn't have oil money is just... reaching. Dude.

I make music, check it out here on Bandcamp, Spotify, and Youtube!
my top 50 games