Man.Utd 8 Arsenal 2, Man.City 5 Spurs 1. Simply put, it was matches of the haves versus the have-nots.
The four teams who will battle it out for the Barclays Premior League title, Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool and Chelsea, all have one thing in common. They are owned by foreign businessmen with money to burn. United are owned by the Glazer family while Liverpool is controlled by fellow Americans the Fenway Sports Group. City are in the hands of the Abu Dhabi royal family while Chelsea are still controlled by Russian oligarch billionaire Roman Abramovich.
All four teams have spent more than all others this transfer season. United spent £50 million while Chelsea and City parted with £72 million and £76 million each. Liverpool just only spending £50 million (that figure excludes what they spent in January when they brought in both Luis Suarez and Andy Carroll)
In the Premier League (as in Spain with Real Madrid and Barcelona ) the gap between the richest clubs and the rest is growing. It is a the league of haves who can win the title and everybody else who aim for either a Uefa Cup place or just simply to avoid relegation. A duopoly already exists in the Scottish Premier League with Rangers ( presently facing its own financial problems of tax demands from Her Majesty) and Celtic, both having dominated football in the country for decades, and the effect seen in the recent dire results of the national side.
No other side has a realistic chance of challenging for Barclay League honours unless one of two things happen:
1. They are bought by an extremely rich foreign owner or …
2. They play miracle soccer week in, week out.
Such one-sidedness isn’t healthy for the game but the status quo doesn’t look like changing any time soon. Sponsorship and merchandising are integral aspects of any football club’s everyday activities. Clubs are now known as brands – even some players such as Beckham and Rooney. There is regular tinkering with the laws of the game to make it a more entertaining, and thus a more saleable "product". Most football fans would agree that money coupled with the greed of the big clubs is spoiling the game. The only way to stop the rich clubs getting richer and the poor clubs getting poorer is not to limit the amount of money in the game or to distribute it more evenly – a virtually impossible task anyway – but to take the money out of football altogether. And that in turn means abolishing money in all other areas of life.
Adapted from Sports Leader article with additional comments from SOYMB
So you think there would be competitive sport in a socialist society?
ReplyDeleteDepends on what you mean by winning and losing and the format and style may be different.
ReplyDelete..i remember my days of youth where we played games that lasted all day and involved scores of players, you went home for dinner while the game continued without you, you returned to join in again...the final score might have been a bit irrelevant but we knew who played best, who had the skills and both sides carried players who couldn't kick a ball.
But, yes, i think there will be sports where we match one another to test who are the better. Maybe not in the boxing ring where we see 2 men trying to bash eachother into temporary 10 second unconsciousness (still to see one of the wealthy class engage in it and not some poor ghetto or 3rd world kid). i watched cage fighting, sponsors Burgerking, on cable other day and it sickened me.
See anarchist football for how football may develop on my personal blog, (just speculation by some anarchists tho, not political canon)
http://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2007/06/anarchist-football.html
Also related maybe the democratic structure of the Gaelic Athletic Association, that has still survived long after the demise of amateurism of rugby
http://mailstrom.blogspot.com/2009/03/socialism-of-gaelic-athletic.html