The last time I wrote a post, it sparked mass controversy. This time I’ll try to keep it more low key in that sense . I’ll also keep it (relatively) short and to the point.

Many people (myself included) believe that the premier league is the most entertaining league. Fast football. End-to-end stuff. Arsene Wenger even goes as far as saying that this (England) is the centre of the football world and that the English fans are “unique”. My question is: is it becoming the most dominant league in the world?

A much talked about point of late is that 3 of the 4 CL semi-finalists last season were English clubs – something that (I think) has never happened before (for English clubs that is). Some say that it’s an anomaly – a one-off. Others (Sir Alex included) say it illustrates that English football is finally starting to dominate Europe – something the Spanish and Italians have done for a while. By dominate, I don’t mean one club only (e.g. Liverpool in the 80s) but 2 or 3. In Chelsea, Man Utd and Liverpool; England have 3 such clubs that could start such domination (Arsenal fans will argue that they should be in this – I’m not so sure ).

Another point is the growing number of takeovers in the English game reflecting the growing attraction of ownership of English clubs. Chelsea, Man Utd, Liverpool, West Ham and Aston Villa to name a few that have foreign owners. Why so? The fact that total club revenues (according to Deloitte) for 07-08 were 1.8bn, 40% higher than its next competitor (Serie A), makes it is easy to understand why. But thats just the beginning of the good news for English clubs.

Next year, as is well-publicised, will see the introduction of an extremely lucrative TV deal that will, for the first time, match our counterparts in la liga. Actually, the TV deal will result in English clubs surpassing Spanish clubs. Next season’s top club will be compensated with £50m. The bottom club will earn a reported £27m. Not too shabby heh? To put this into perspective, the premier league will only be behind the NFL in terms of TV deals. So what does this have to do with dominance? In fact, it has a lot to do with it.

More money (significantly more), for all English clubs, will mean that they can compete even more with foreign clubs for the best players; for the best talent. Couple this with the fact that many clubs have foreign owners who are eager to invest in players and the picture is even brighter. Some of the effects can be seen already. West Ham, for example, were prepared to offer £18m for Darren Bent. This is a club which just survived relegation. Villa spent big in the Jan transfer window (for a mid-table club). Compare this to the other major European leagues and I doubt you would find either a mid-table club or relegation club spending as much.

In addition, the premier league is now attracting young talent more than ever – like a moth to a flame. Make a list of all the best ‘young’ talent in the world and see how many are now based in England. When I say young talent I mean guys that have proven themselves in some sort as being quality players. Consider the following players: Ronaldo, Rooney, Fabregas, Denilson, Messi, Higuain, Sergio Ramos, Aguerro, Torres, Tevez, Nani, Anderson, Eduardo da Silva, Giovanni Dos Santos, Robinho, Mascherano, Podolski, Lennon, Mikel, Robben, Martins, Schweinsteiger, Dani Alves, Huntelaar, van der Vaart….there are more players, which I have missed out on so dont harp on that. My point is this, how many of those players are now based in England? Quite a few I would say and definitely more than ever before.

To conclude the post: the premier league is now the most lucrative league and together with investment from foreign owners, clubs are able to prize away more talent than they could before (and possible, in time to come, more than other top European leagues). Ultimately, this could result in the premier league becoming the dominant force in European football.

As usual, I would love to hear your guys thoughts.

From Soccerlens.com - Football News

With Manchester United’s recent summer buying, many non-United fans and pundits alike have come out saying that United are now the same as Chelsea in the transfer market – that United are attempting to “buy” success and that they are spending uncontrollably; much like Chelsea did. As a true United and football fan, I say “no, thats not true” and my argument is an unbiased one.

If you take a look at the Chelsea era pre-Abramovich compared to now, there is a revealing stat: Chelsea never spent as much, or even close to as much, as they are spending now. Since the Russian took control in the summer of 03, Chelsea have spent around ₤325m on transfers – that averages ₤81m peseason over the 4 years (I havent included 07 transfers yet). Over the same period they have received only ₤49.4m for players sold which means their net transfer expenditure is 275.6m (average of around ₤70m).

Manchester United, on the other hand, have spent ₤36m over the 2 seasons since the Glazers took over but more importantly, we have sold players to the value of ₤21.5m (again, not inclusive of 07 summer). This season, thus far, we have purchased Hargreaves (₤16m), Nani (₤14m), Anderson (₤18m), and Kuszczak (₤4m). The fees for Nani and Anderson, muck like that for Carrick, are not paid up front, but have clauses and sub-clauses attached but for the ease of simplicity, lets take the entirety of the fee. Thus far, that equates to ₤52m for the summer and with rumours of Tevez moving for around ₤20m, it is easy to see why people believe we are following in Chelsea’s footsteps.

But, there is a massive difference. Unlike Chelsea, who never spent that sort of money pre-Abramovich, Utd have always been able to spend and spend big. Driven by success on and off the field, Utd bought van Nistelrooy (₤19m), Veron (₤28m), Ferdinand (₤30m) and Rooney (₤27m) all for big money and all before the Glazers took over. Chelsea, on the other hand, bought no one for “mega bucks” before 03. Such has been Chelsea’s spending lately that it actually drove the club into all-time record losses.

Since the Glazers took over, it’s clear that the transfer kitty is dictated by how the club performs on the field. Performing well means that there is higher prize money and hence, a greater kitty used to re-invest into the club. If you look at a couple of seasons ago, we finished 3rd in the league, performed miserably in Europe and the overall result was less money available for transfers. This season was completely different. We won the league (₤20m), reached the semi finals of the CL (₤21m) and reached the final of the FA Cup (₤7.5m?). Thats close to ₤50m already in prize money. Add the ₤6m we are still owed in compensation for Mikel, ₤6m for Smith (who is likely to leave) and possibly another ₤5-6m for “dead-wood” players (Richardson, Silvestre etc etc) and you can see exactly where the money for our transfers has come from.

Unlike Chelsea, our transfer funds are self generated and not contributed by our owners. Looking into the future, if the investment does indeed pay-off and contributes to our on-field success, expect more big money transfers. League winners of the 07-08 season are expected to receive ₤50m in prize money – a record new – and when you add prize money from Europe and the local cups, you can see exactly why Utd have decided to spend their entire transfer kitty this summer: to drive the club forward in search of continued success; a kind of ‘ripple-effect’.

Note: all prize money is inclusive of TV deals.

Utd source for transfers: Soccerlens and Red11

Chelsea source: SoccerBase

Update: Jade writes:

The company is liquid and solvable, its finances are far from being at risk, however as Shaheen said in his final paragraph this puts Man Utd in a spot where it needs constant on-field success to be able to keep up with Chelsea on the Transfer Market.

Also see:

Football Debt, Spiralling Wages and the future of European Football
Manchester United’s debt, analysed
Chelsea FC’s financial accounts and understanding Roman Abramovich

From Soccerlens.com - Football News