Being a City fan, hearing that we have bought the Premiere league title is nothing new. It is spouted as a tediously common riposte to each and every City victory. Opposing fans regurgitate the same line as if it is some sort of justifiable excuse for loosing. My response is simple, “how can we have bought the league if we haven’t won it yet”? So, if City does go on to win the league this year, have we bought it? Well if we have, so have Manchester United, Chelsea and Blackburn. With the possible exception of Arsenal, every team who has ever won the Premier League has done so with millions of pounds.
The obvious examples to consider would be Chelsea in 2004/2005 and Blackburn in 1995. Both teams were accused of ‘buying’ the league title after millions of pounds were pumped into the clubs by wealthy owners. Roman Abramovich spent 210 million on players like Johnson and Makelele before Chelsea won title, while Jack Walker spent 23.56 million on players like Shearer and Sutton at Blackburn; the average Premiership spending being a mere quarter of this at the time. Yet in light of City’s current wealth and success both Blackburn and Chelsea fans are now quick to call the kettle black.
With regards to Manchester United, their success is also a product of substantial money well spent. United splashed out record transfer fees of 60 million pounds for Rooney and Ferdinand and 30 million pounds for Van der sar and Berbatov, amongst several other significant investments. They were the biggest spenders in the UK when they became the first team in history to win the treble in 1999. Football is about winning. To win the Premiere league, you need to have top quality players, to buy top quality players you need substantial funds.
There appears to be a common conception that the sole reason for any player joining City is for the healthy increase in their pay packet; as though being bribed into helping us win the league. But they have been doing this at Chelsea for years. To the common man the modern day footballer no longer plays just for the love of football but is increasingly motivated by the huge sums of money available. It is an argument open to debate but any young player adorned with diamond encrusted jewellery, hanging out of his new Ferrari, arguing his case tends to lack credibility. Wayne Rooney threw a recent tantrum, apparently wanting to leave United because of their ‘lack of ambition’? As much as this pains me to say...19 league titles, 11 FA Cups and 3 Champions League Cups. Manchester United lacking ambition? Really? There were even suggestions that he wanted to come to City. Sir Alex somehow managed to persuade Rooney to stay. No doubt a quick speech and a reminder of the clubs ambitions did the trick - or perhaps it was the small measure of a pay increase to £160,000 a week that proved pivotal.
Other critics – especially Man United ones - argue that City haven’t “earned” their money and therefore haven’t “earned” their right to the title. This is a particular puzzling argument given a football team isn’t an individual entity; it’s an amalgamated force therefore how can it earn the rights of anything? United fans seem to forget that Manchester United’s worldwide fame and fascination evolved through the tragedy that was the Munich air disaster of 1958 as opposed to their football achievements. I can’t blame them entirely for their current bitterness towards their noisy neighbours. It must be infuriating to see your local rivals having money pumped in by their new owners while United continue having their money sucked out by their current owners the Glazer family with not a cent being put back in. The truth is they are jealous. Had the Glazers turned into the never ending money pits that United fans so dearly wanted them to be, they would not have muttered one word about the money not being earned.
Although, undoubtedly influential, we cannot consider a football team’s success as entirely down to money. Money buys and keeps good players but if they are not managed appropriately, then league domination will be an unlikely occurrence. If, for example, I managed City, the likelihood of them even staying in the premiership would be remote, despite the many hours spent playing ‘football manager’ on my generic games console. The money provides a platform upon which a team can be built but it is the manager that must shape a successful team strategies and formations to develop a winning style of play. At the helm of every Premier winning team there has been a great manager. United haven’t renamed a stand at Old Trafford after Sir Alex Ferguson without good reason. When Abramovich took over Chelsea in 1993 the impact of his money did not begin to reap its rewards until Claudio Ranieri was sacked and replaced with Jose Mourinho. The same has happened at Manchester City. City have had riches since 2008 but it wasn’t until Mark Hughes was given the boot and Roberto Mancini took over that any significant changes began to take place.
Of course, no matter how much money you are given or how good your management style is, a team cannot change overnight. If players keep changing, it doesn't help lay proper foundations. Real success takes patience and time. If City has bought the league title, they certainly didn’t pay extra for next day delivery.