<div><figure class="image"></figure></div>
The inexplicable is often the standard in football.&nbsp; The £14 million pounds Man City paid for Wayne Bridge is inexplicable.&nbsp; Florent Malouda’s protean hairstyles are inexplicable.&nbsp; Arsene Wenger’s ability to see zero penalties against Arsenal is inexplicable.&nbsp; Yet even bearing this in mind, I could not help but rubbing my eyes to make sure I had read the headline correctly:
<a href="http:\/\/soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=671355&amp;cc=5901" target="_blank">Abramovich keen to stop big-spending City</a>
The gist of the article is that Abramovich feels that Manchester City have spent too much and need to be reigned in.&nbsp; Michel Platini agrees and suggests that clubs only should spend what they earn in revenue and failure to break even would result in a banning from European competition.
Yes, the hypocrisy is obvious.&nbsp; Yes, the irony is wonderful.&nbsp; Beyond this, the proposal has some positives, namely that the astronomical fees of this summer might return to earth.&nbsp; Real Madrid has a revenue of about 350 million euro, but even they would not splash out 250 million of it per season like they have most recently, given that operating costs would surely put them in the red.
It’s also not as if this would be disastrous for the Real Madrids of the world, given that large clubs already have large revenues, world-class players, and the ability to attract top talent.&nbsp; It would just promote smart business, in theory.&nbsp; It might even allow a well managed smaller club to break into European football more easily.
Despite these boons, Platini’s idea should not be taken seriously.
Whether one likes it or not, it usually takes money to assemble a side capable of playing attractive football, and almost always takes considerable money to create a side capable of competing for trophies.&nbsp; Even in competitions taken much less seriously than others, such as the Carling Cup, cash seems to be the key to success.&nbsp; In the past 5 years, only large spending teams (Tottenham, Chelsea, and Manchester United) have won the trophy.
While single-elimination tournaments like the FA Cup can always produce the shock of a Portsmouth, Millwall, or Cardiff in the final, the long term trend is once again teams that spend money win.
Results aside, big money also tends to lead to better football visually.&nbsp; Let us look to the example of Liverpool.&nbsp; Two seasons ago, Torres arrived for £20 million.&nbsp; Gerrard and the Spaniard linked up wonderfully, often with eye-pleasing results.&nbsp; Glen Johnson arrives this season for&nbsp; £18 millon and the added quality on the right is even more entertaining.
While I don’t believe that money always buys attractive football, or that attractive football requires money, there does appear to be some connection between the two.&nbsp; Even if Chelsea are criticized for playing “negative” football, it would be difficult to watch an entire Blues match without some excellent play.&nbsp; The same cannot be said of some lesser spending teams, particularly the recently promoted ones.&nbsp; This is not a criticism, however.&nbsp; I accept they do not have the money to spend on players of that calibre.
When it comes down to it however, I would rather watch FC Barcelona (with the 40 million euro right back Dani Alves and 65 million euro Ibrahimovic) and their fantasy football over a more “fair” version of the sport any day.
So if money is the food of football, spend on.

Proposed Caps to Halt Spending Are Bad for Football - World Soccer Talk

Proposed Caps to Halt Spending Are Bad for Football

<div><figure class="image"></figure></div>
Just when you think you’ve seen it all, Torino have shelled out £100,000 to lure Dennis Law from Manchester City. Yes, it’s 1961 and the record transfer fee paid to or by an English club has broken the hundred thousand mark.
Shocking.
The previous record was £65,000 when John Charles moved from Leeds to Juventus in 1957.
Law will move back in a year for a fee of £115,000 to play for City’s rival in-town club, Manchester United. But, it will take until 1970 for the record to reach the £200,000 mark when Martin Peters moves from West Ham to Spurs. And seven years after that, it’s half a million pounds from Hamburg to pry Kevin Keegan away from Liverpool.
By 1979, the million pound mark will be obliterated with Trevor Francis’s £1,180,000 move from Birmingham to Nottingham Forest. Thankfully, it will take until 1986 for the record to break the two-mil mark when Mark Hughes leaves Manchester United for Barcelona for £2.3 million. But then we’ll only wait one more year for Ian Rush’s move from Liverpool to Juve to raise the bar to £3.2 million. I know. It’s insane.
Pause. Drink of water. Gulp.
David Platt’s move from Aston Villa in 1991 to Bari will hoist the record up to £5.5 million. A fee which will also see Paul Gascoigne move from Spurs to Lazio the following year.
Now comes the Premier League era. Things are about to get crazy.
Want yourself an Andy Cole? Only £7 million at 1995 prices.
And then it’s time for Alan Shearer to move from Blackburn to Newcastle. £15 million, my friends. 1996.
Nicolas Anelka from Arsenal to Real Madrid: £22.5 million, 1999.
Rio Ferdinand will change Uniteds: Leeds to Manchester for £29.1 million, 2002.
Where does it end?
Now, look at the sardonically titled graph above.
Everybody up until 1979 looks like they cost nothing. Through the long lens of time, it seems like Keegan, Peters, Law, etc went for pennies. Even the shock of Alan Shearer costing more than 10 million now seems like such a bargain basement price in light of Robinho’s £32.5 move from Real to Manchester City last summer.
Things looked really scary when City were rumored to be offering as much as £130m to try and lure Kaka away from AC Milan. But the move never happened and it looked like the 30-40m mark would hold steady.
But all it would take would be a specific series of scenarios for the stars to align and some ridiculous fee will come along and totally eclipse everything that’s happened so far.
Like, say a Spanish superclub gets all frustrated because their big league rivals go on a tear and snatch up the triple and are anointed the Best Club In The World by gushing pundits and supporters everywhere. Though they’ve set the standard for other outrageously rich clubs,&nbsp; spending millions over the years on Zidanes and Figos and Beckhams and van Nistelrooys, they’ve hit a massive rut. Unacceptable.
Say right around that time, one of the biggest stars in the game, who’d been linked with a big money move to the same Spanish superclub the summer before, who’s clearly been itching for a move as he’s won just about everything possible with his own English superclub as well as the top individual awards… well, say he’s had just about enough of the dreary Mancunian weather and longs for the Iberian climate of his youth. His club losing the Champions League to a Spanish side might just be the hair that breaks the winger’s back.
But he’s so damn good, his current superclub sure don’t want to give him up.
What would it take to scoop this superstar up? About £80 million?
That’s a ridiculous price. Even by recent standards, a jump that high in the valuation of any one player is unthinkable.
I don’t even want to imagine that eventuallity.
I’m still getting over Dennis Law’s whopping transfer fees.

The British Transfer Record Spirals Out Of Control - World Soccer Talk

The British Transfer Record Spirals Out Of Control

<div><figure class="image"></figure></div>
It wasn’t so long ago, I was completely outraged by Chelsea FC’s <a href="http:\/\/www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=412850&amp;in_page_id=2" target="_blank">spending</a>. 16.6m for Mekelele. 24.4m for Essien. 19.8m for Carvalho. 24m for Drogba. As a business, the club could sustain a 140m loss on a year because Roman Abramovich was there to bankroll the transfers. This was bad for football. The value of players skyrocketed. The old high water marks were obliterated. Bayern Munich chairman Karl-Heinze Rummenigge <a href="http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk/football/2006/nov/28/newsstory.bayernmunich" target="_blank">lamented</a> the damage Chelsea spending was doing to European football. Wrecking the balance. Hogging the resources.
Now, with Manchester City as the new fat cat in town, I almost can’t remember why I was so mad at Abramovich.
Last winter rumors of Kaka coming to City abounded. The press figured City’s transfer offer to be as high as <a href="http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/chrisjardine/2009/01/hello_to_everyone_and_hope.html" target="_blank">130m</a>. Thankfully it was turned down and Kaka stayed at Madrid Milan, but the fact City were willing to splash that much out on one player is scary.
City have already set a new British record when they spent<a href="http:\/\/news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/m/man_city/7593026.stm" target="_blank"> 32.5m</a> to buy Robinho from Real Madrid last summer. And they were reportedly talking about shelling out <a href="http:\/\/www.goal.com/en-us/news/88/spain/2008/12/07/1000070/david-villa-closer-to-manchester-city">60m</a> to secure David Villa’s services from Valencia last winter. Villa made it clear then he wanted to stay. Now that Valencia is in serious financial trouble, one wonders if an expensive move may be made after all.
With all the money City are willing to spend it is almost refreshing to see them only pay <a href="http:\/\/www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/mancity/5428777/Gareth-Barry-completes-12m-move-to-Manchester-City.html" target="_blank">12m</a> for Gareth Barry (the remainder of his contract was estimated at about 10m when I last <a href="http:\/\/epltalk.com/liverpool-no-need-for-gareth-barry/6079" target="_blank">wrote</a> about him potentially leaving Aston Villa), but of course the fact they can offer him a meaty salary factors heavily into his move.
As when City coaxed West Ham’s prolific Craig Bellamy away for <a href="http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/jan/19/west-ham-craig-bellamy-manchester-city-transfer-spurs" target="_blank">14m</a>, the promise of City’s future has its lure for players like Barry.
City are not looking to merely follow the Abramovich model. They are looking to crumple it up into a ball and leave it behind them in the dust, while the rest of us wonder… what were we so mad about c. 2006?
Abramovich’s past transfer coups are dwarfed by the prospects of 130m for Kaka and 60m for Villa. At some point City will make good on such offers. At some point a club is going to succumb to the lure of big money and sell the top class player for the outrageous sum and the glass ceiling (already raised so high by Chelsea) will come a’ tumblin’ down.
With the Abu Dhabi United Group behind City and with Abramovich’s wealth hurt by the global economic crunch, the Russian oligarch is slipping from his status as wealthy arch-villain into a role of, well, normal owner. He is not expected to spend anything near the amounts he dropped on the market in his first years at the helm. As Chelsea’s stars age, they seem like a club again. Not a superclub.
But the Chelsea spending model was largely a means to launch the club as a global brand. This has worked. Even if Abramovich curtails his upside-down business model and allows Chelsea to climb back into the positive in the books without his cash injections, the club is in a position to thrive and remain a force in domestic and continental football do to the exposure of the talent they brought in and the trophies they won since Abramovich took over.
This is now City’s aim. Using big name players and the potential marketing power of having the name “Manchester” at their disposal, City can make their way into a higher level of global recognition.
With no spending ceilings in place, there’s no need for pragmatism for business or concern for the damage the outrageous transfer fees can do to the sport.
The scary question is: what other investors will follow this absurd model? What other clubs will raise the bar beyond belief? And how high will the bids go?
In five years 32.5 for Robinho may not seem so crazy when the figure has been eclipsed by the next Chelsea FC or the next Manchester City. I cringe at the prospect.

ALL POSTS TAGGED "transfer fees"

General

Proposed Caps to Halt Spending Are Bad for Football

General

The British Transfer Record Spirals Out Of Control

General

Manchester City: The Next Chelsea FC?