Is an Abramovich-type buy out the only way to cope?
By: Rob | May 3rd, 2008
As the Roma buyout saga continues with lots of ‘I’d like to’ ‘you’ve done nothing’ ‘what’s going on?’ type newstories, Born-in-England-Italian-Roma Midfielder Simeone Perrotta has hinted that he would quite like his club to get bought out by someone with lots of backing – not only that but that its the only way to be sucsessful in this day and age.
The midfielder had this to say:
“The English clubs have a stratospheric economic power and it will be increasingly difficult to compete with them for international titles
Every year they sign the top players on the market by spending sums the rest of the continent cannot match.
Economic power means a great deal in football now and allows them to take the best players in circulation. This is why the English sides are dominating in Europe right now”
So is he right? Is it a case that football’s elite will become playthings of the very rich, and that you won’t get the upsets of the ’smaller’ clubs making a run through the Champions League anymore?
Well of course a couple of years ago we had Porto, led by Jose Mourinho, basking in a generation of talent and a brilliant manager. But as more and more clubs look to the Abramovich treatment, it (I’m thinking the Champions League in particular) is going to look increasingly like a playground of the richest people on earth. I’m not sure I like this.
I’ve always loved it when a little team completely upsets the odds and runs through the tournament. I’m sure it could happen in the future – just a talented bunch of youngsters coming together at the right time, but if you have seven or eight clubs who have Billionaire backing, not only would it mean that the Champions League would be in danger of turning into a competetion between just those teams, thier hegmony would be broken much less often.
The other thing is the personality of the clubs. Each club does have a sort of image (a ‘Brand Image’ if you must) that either endears you to a club or makes you hate it. Liverpool for example have a love of thier wide reaching history and a certain confidence/arrogance that they should remain at the top of the European tree. Ajax has an image of producing umpteen quality youngsters, playing all out attacking football, 433, etc.
Chelsea’s image undoubtedly changed under the Abramovich take-over. They have a kind of ubiquotious-bully-boy-nouveau riche thing about them, which either turns people away or excites people. Roma have quite a strong image I think, something that has always appealed to me, but there is a worry – talismatic captain Francesco Totti has expressed similar sentiments I believe – that a big buyout from forign owners would alter or ruin the club’s image.
I can see why it would be appealing for a club like Roma though. The money would mean they would be able to build a squad to really really compete with the big boys. They are on the cusp of it as they are, but they don’t quite have the squad depth to make it yet, which makes them a good prospect for a buyer as well.
In some ways it looks kind of inevitable, but I’m just not sure that its for the good of the comepetition and the game as a whole. Sure when Roman came in and threw hundreds of millions at Chelsea it was exciting – a whole range of world class players would be playing for one side, and a new competitor for the EPL and the CL, but it’d just exasperrate the gap between the top sides in Eurpoe and everyone else. I’m not convinced that is for the best.
What do you think. Comments are, as always, welcome.
 |
Soccer Forums | Champs League Schedule |  |
 |  |
Category: 
Tags: Billionaires, Champions League, Chelsea, Jose Mourinho, Liverpool, Other News from Europe, Perrotta, Porto, Roma, Roman AbramovichSubscribe
|
Print
|
Share
      |
Comments
-
I’m against mega rich owners. A club should be self supporting and not dependent on just one guy’s pocketbooks. It balances the playing field a lot more since billionaire owners are only interested in clubs that would reap profits (ie ones in England).
Posted from
United States
-
Inara. You are quite right. Clubs should be self-supporting. There is too much money in the game especially in the Premiership. Ranieri and Mourinho suffered under Mr A and now look what is happening to Eriksson with City’s Thailand’s owner.
Posted from
United States -
Thanks for the Ajax shout-out. And I agree. I love Roma because they are Roma: Totti, De Rossi, what Aquilani and Curci may become, the Sud, etc. If they go out and buy Amauri or Mario Gomez and 3 or 4 other top-dollar guys, I will probably still cheer for them for a season or two. But then they will become just another “big club”, and I will wonder why I even bother.
Posted from
United States -
Inara – Its only a matter of time before they run out of profitable prem clubs and buy out anyone else in the CL though isn’t it?
areallatichasanyonetoldyouuournameistoolong – I was critical of both the sacking of Ranieri and Jose, but you can’t argue that Jose did a better job than Ranieri, and Grant has done an amazing job taking the reigns from Jose. He has in fact scored more points in the EPL than Alex Ferguson since his appointment.
Matt – I’ll always throw in an Ajax shout out when I can. I rather like them, and Johan Cruyff is something of a hero to me. I did a profile of him here somehwere. But yeah I agree about Roma. They’ve become one of my favourite clubs, I’m not sure that would stay even with more success.
Posted from
United Kingdom -
But you forget to mention clubs like Real Madrid who are doing this for decades. So is Barca. Wasn’t Maradona’s transfer the most expensive in that decade? Manchester Utd in last 15 years. Even Roma under Capello. If my memory serves right Capello was given huge transfer budget in 2000. The key difference is all these clubs used the money generated from footballing means. Atleast 80% of money was from footballing means. For Chelsea its 50% from Roman’s chequebook. But he is not stupid to pour money for fun. Chelsea’s turnover 4th highest in the world (in terms of football clubs). Every year their revenues as well as profit margins are improving.
As far as smaller clubs winning CL. Porto won the CL when Real Madrid had squad full of galacticos. Porto beat Man Utd when Man Utd’s squad budget was 10 times than that of Porto. That year all the 4 clubs in CL were underdogs. Monaco had beaten Real Madrid. Porto had beaten Man Utd. Chelsea had beaten Arsenal. Depo had beaten Milan (4-0). And all these beaten clubs had superstar players. Still they got defeat. This means it doesn’t matter how many superstars you have. If you play like a team then you can beat anyone. And yes this year Fenerbahce defeated Chelsea.
Posted from
Australia -
I did love the Monaco/Porto final. Though I wanted the French side to win.
Adam, you mention that 50% of the money spent by Chelsea is from Roman’s pockets, but you forget that without his initial investment they wouldn’t have theother 50% to spend either. They were hardly rich in the Bates eta. Its all his, because he completely owns the club.
I didn’t mention Real or Barca. Real have an awful club image if you ask me – probably why half of spain detests them while the other loves them. Its the arrogance of champions, which also shows in Liverpool, or in Turin at Juventus. Man United have undoubtedly got some in the last 15 or so years too.
Barca have a ‘More than a club’ image, where they represent Catalonia and a slightly political, rebelious vaguely leftist position as a hangover from the Franco days. They also have the reputation of playing beautiful football, as a hangover from the Cruyff days. They have a strong image, but the reason I didn’t mention Spanish clubs is because they aren’t bought and sold in quite the same way with the presidential elections.
Of course there will always be upsets, but will they get less often if the CL becomes a playground of the very rich? Time will tell.
Posted from
United Kingdom -
Money is undoubtedly important. Cannot be overlooked. I’m not convinced, though, that it’s ruining the game.
In the case of English dominance, I see club-quality & management having equal influence. Even now you see that Dynasies like AC Milan have uneven years.
I think we will see the money clubs always contending, but it does not rule out another Porto, or Fenerbahça from going even further one year or the next.
Posted from
United States -
Spot on Rob. Chelsea were doing “Leeds” in Batesy’s era. But things are changed.
Posted from
Australia
Comments are closed
Home 
