Buying the title

Speculation is growing that Manchester City may have exchanged money for players, leading opposing fans to claim that they have ‘bought’ the title.

The Premier League was set up in 1992 as a collective non-profit cooperative with the sole objective of volunteers coming together to mutually benefit society and culture. Rule 3.2.7 prohibits any exchange of money for players or their services.

Since 1992 Manchester United have opted to grow all of their players in small pots on a windowsill in Stretford in a similar method to that used to grow cress.

Sir Alex Ferguson has insisted on only using local, organic soil after attributing Ryan Giggs’ curly chest hair to a particularly good batch of earth.

Since the inception of the Premier League Arsenal has exclusively used the website Gumtree to advertise for all of their players

Gunners midfielder Tomáš Rosický famously signed for the London club after he accidentally happened upon their ‘players wanted’ advert whilst searching the classified site for a replacement rear-wiper blade for his 1998 Hyundai Sonata.

Chelsea assembled much of their 2005/6 Premiership-winning squad from the unsuccessful applicants to Channel 4’s desert island reality television programme Shipwrecked.

And Liverpool’s current squad is entirely made up of discarded public sector managers who are compensated with buttons, small lengths of twine and delicately carved ornate fruit and vegetables, similar to those found in Thai restaurants.

Ian Simms is president of the Manchester United supporters association and spoke to News Manc regarding City’s reported use of financial methods to obtain players.

“It goes against everything the league stands for.”

“When the Premier League was set up everyone agreed that this wasn’t about money, it was about carefully nurturing players in small pots of nutrient-rich soil. Like our ancestors did.”

If City are found guilty their Chief Executive Mark Trimble could be forced to spend the next 12 months on internet forums and social media sites tediously debating what actually constitutes ‘buying a title’.

“To be fair, that does sound a bit harsh”, admitted Simms.

_{Taken from http://newsmanc.co.uk/2012/05/08/sport-manchester-city-may-have-bought-players-in-order-to-help-them-win-the-league/}

Haha good satire!

What I want to know is, why wasn't this type of satire used when Chelsea were accused of "buying the league"? Is it not allowed for southern teams to do it?

PS ManU players obviously play for minimum wage...

A very creative OP and much appreciated. We don't have enough of these types of posts

nice!

Big fan of this!

Yawn

Op should go easy on the Utd fans..........

It's like the Wife leaving with the guy next door.....

Hard to come to terms with!!!

When Wayne Rooney was going to leave United, it wasn't about money. He was concerned that Untied weren't signing any world class players. But apparently now they have as he seems a happy boy always kissing his badge. I am sure the huge pay rise had nothing do to with it.

Although I appreciate the tongue in cheek nature of the article, I do believe football has lost its soul to the money men.

Gordy wrote:Although I appreciate the tongue in cheek nature of the article, I do believe football has lost its soul to the money men.

Debatable. If the football coaching and young British players were better technically, then English teams wouoldn't bother splashing out 10s of millions. Ultimately the lack of good youth players has pushed teams into spending more than they should to make up for lack of skills. Youngsters in this country are more into Playstations than football. :\

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Gordy wrote:Although I appreciate the tongue in cheek nature of the article, I do believe football has lost its soul to the money men.

Debatable. If the football coaching and young British players were better technically, then English teams wouoldn't bother splashing out 10s of millions. Ultimately the lack of good youth players has pushed teams into spending more than they should to make up for lack of skills. Youngsters in this country are more into Playstations than football. :\

And yet Spanish teams, which supposedly have amazing youth systems still spend 10s of millions of pounds on players. Barcelona and Real Madrid have both spent huge sums on players in recent years.

And yet Spanish teams, which supposedly have amazing youth systems still spend 10s of millions of pounds on players. Barcelona and Real Madrid have both spent huge sums on players in recent years.

Those 2 teams sell an amazing amount of shirts abroad, because of how they play. Far ahead of English teams in this area. These teams have shareholders all over the world, so debt is not an issue for them.

Fans who owns their clubs >> Glazers, Abramovich, Sheikh's

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

And yet Spanish teams, which supposedly have amazing youth systems still spend 10s of millions of pounds on players. Barcelona and Real Madrid have both spent huge sums on players in recent years.

Those 2 teams sell an amazing amount of shirts abroad, because of how they play. Far ahead of English teams in this area. These teams have shareholders all over the world, so debt is not an issue for them.

Fans who owns their clubs >> Glazers, Abramovich, Sheikh's

That wasn't your point though, you were saying that English clubs are driven to spending tens of millions of pounds on players when Spanish clubs with supposedly excellent youth set-ups spend lots of money as well.

I'd be surprised if players from the Spanish league sell more shirts than those from England, worldwide.

not a chance, no club in the world has United's level of exposure and support in Asia and those guys are nuts.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

And yet Spanish teams, which supposedly have amazing youth systems still spend 10s of millions of pounds on players. Barcelona and Real Madrid have both spent huge sums on players in recent years.

Those 2 teams sell an amazing amount of shirts abroad, because of how they play. Far ahead of English teams in this area. These teams have shareholders all over the world, so debt is not an issue for them.

Fans who owns their clubs >> Glazers, Abramovich, Sheikh's

Debt is not an issue? http://www.forbes.com/soccer-valuations/list/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/9255702/Manchester-Citys-930-million-spending-spree-to-turn-club-into-Premier-League-title-contenders.html

Nope City haven't bought the title at all, and all their money is legitimately earned through the success of their football club.

"Between 2008, when Abu-Dhabi-based oil magnate Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al-Nahyan bought them, and the end of last season, the club’s total cash outlay was £930.4m, of which only £365.3m was generated from their own operations.

The remainder – £565.1m – had to be supplied by Mansour, the club’s billionaire benefactor. "

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Haha good satire!

What I want to know is, why wasn't this type of satire used when Chelsea were accused of "buying the league"? Is it not allowed for southern teams to do it?

PS ManU players obviously play for minimum wage...

It was...certainly up here it was.

Generally the way me...and my mates feel is:

There is no problem with people spending big money on bringing in expenesive players....in fact to win the title its essential. However and this is the biggy...

It needs to be done over a period of time...not just one or two summers - as Chelsea and Citeh have done....and also needs to be balanced with some players coming through the youth or academy sides.

Aside from Micah Richards how many have Man C tried to bring in....aside from the young forward (forgot his bloomin name) how any have chelsea tried to bring through.

Thus they BOUGHT the title....

The great Liverpool and Man Uts sides were rolling investment and continued success....

So then I take it you would stop supporting Newcastle if a wealthy businessman were to buy 10/11 new players over a quick time?

Also how many players in Newcastle's starting 11 came from academy? I can only think of Ameobi and Taylor (CB) but they are mainly subs players..

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Haha good satire!

What I want to know is, why wasn't this type of satire used when Chelsea were accused of "buying the league"? Is it not allowed for southern teams to do it?

PS ManU players obviously play for minimum wage...

It was...certainly up here it was.

Generally the way me...and my mates feel is:

There is no problem with people spending big money on bringing in expenesive players....in fact to win the title its essential. However and this is the biggy...

It needs to be done over a period of time...not just one or two summers - as Chelsea and Citeh have done....and also needs to be balanced with some players coming through the youth or academy sides.

Aside from Micah Richards how many have Man C tried to bring in....aside from the young forward (forgot his bloomin name) how any have chelsea tried to bring through.

Thus they BOUGHT the title....

The great Liverpool and Man Uts sides were rolling investment and continued success....

Quoted for truth! Agree with all your points, spending is essential, if you look at my post above it is the spending that is out of control and never would be possible were it not for a sugar daddy that is the problem!

The Chelsea striker, you don't mean Sturridge do you? Because if you do, ironically he left City as he thought he wasn't going to get a chance etc

Josiah Maiestas wrote:So then I take it you would stop supporting Newcastle if a wealthy businessman were to buy 10/11 new players over a quick time?

Also how many players in Newcastle's starting 11 came from academy? I can only think of Ameobi and Taylor (CB) but they are mainly subs players..

No one is saying that they wouldn't support their team so that is completely irrelevant. To be honest its not even about bringing players through an academy any more, that kind of thing just isn't possible anymore. You might get one or two gems, but its hard to be consistent with it. Bringing players in when they are relative unknowns at a fairly young age for fairly cheap prices is still building a team. Letting someone play Football Manager and buy whoever they want for however much they want is not comparable

Even if the PL threatened to put a transfer/wage cap the big teams would still fight against it so this whinging on the subject will all be in vain really. As I said earlier the team winning the most PL (ManU) have been regularly benefitting from other teams low budget while they were getting far bigger budgets in the 90's and early 00's, they should deserve credit for developing Giggs, Scholes, Beckham, Neville etc but apart from these the rest have been bought to aid them to the title while other clubs were hardly able to buy anyone.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Even if the PL threatened to put a transfer/wage cap the big teams would still fight against it so this whinging on the subject will all be in vain really. As I said earlier the team winning the most PL (ManU) have been regularly benefitting from other teams low budget while they were getting far bigger budgets in the 90's and early 00's, they should deserve credit for developing Giggs, Scholes, Beckham, Neville etc but apart from these the rest have been bought to aid them to the title while other clubs were hardly able to buy anyone.

You obviously aren't understanding. Utd were generating money through the biggest club stadium in the country, winning trophies throughout the 90s and 00s, thus they were able to spend more on players, and still make a profit. City would win nothing, and have no where near the amounts they have spent since being bought, if it wasn't for some rich boy born into oil money.

Utd were generating money through the biggest club stadium in the country, winning trophies throughout the 90s and 00s, thus they were able to spend more on players, and still make a profit. City would win nothing, and have no where near the amounts they have spent since being bought, if it wasn't for some rich boy born into oil money.

I know that but is it still right that ManU should be able to SPEND MORE on better players than everyone else just because they have higher attendance? Surely every team should be treat equally and have the same limits in transfers if it is to make the league more competetive? Like I say ManU were not up for doing that when no one else had the money pre-Abramovich/Mansour.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Utd were generating money through the biggest club stadium in the country, winning trophies throughout the 90s and 00s, thus they were able to spend more on players, and still make a profit. City would win nothing, and have no where near the amounts they have spent since being bought, if it wasn't for some rich boy born into oil money.

I know that but is it still right that ManU should be able to SPEND MORE on better players than everyone else just because they have higher attendance? Surely every team should be treat equally and have the same limits in transfers if it is to make the league more competetive? Like I say ManU were not up for doing that when no one else had the money pre-Abramovich/Mansour.

That is the essence of competition, so no I don't believe in "Limits" on transfers. What I do believe in is clubs being able to spend what they earn and can afford off their own back. The ideals behind the Financial Fair Play rules do make a lot of sense, if they are enforced. What can't happen is deals like City's 400m sponsorship (largest in world football?) with Etihad Airways (Owned by their owner's brother). Surely the average man on the road can see that something is not quite right here, and frankly UEFA are idiots if they don't see that.

It wouldnt be right that bigger attendance means you get to spend more on transfers. Sorry but that is just benefitting to ManU in England above everyone else. All the good young players would be snapped up by the team with higher income which kills competition which I am against. Not a fan of seeing the same names at the top of the league personally.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:It wouldnt be right that bigger attendance means you get to spend more on transfers. Sorry but that is just benefitting to ManU in England above everyone else. All the good young players would be snapped up by the team with higher income which kills competition which I am against. Not a fan of seeing the same names at the top of the league personally.

Lol I notice that you ignore the points I raised .. there is nothing stopping other teams from building a bigger stadium, once they have the money. Look at Arsenal - a period of strong performance meant they were able to build the Emirates, now they have one of the highest stadium revenues in the country. The only way you could ensure that all clubs get the same revenue is to dole out TV money equally, have a central distribution of young players (like the NFL/NBA) and ensure that teams share any exernal revenue. That kind of model just isn't going to work in football, so there is no reason to think about going down that route. There will always be certain teams at the top, but there is nothing to stop a team from working over a few seasons to improve themselves - See Tottenham and Newcastle. They may well be title challengers in the next few years, if they continue to build on their strong foundations

Josiah Maiestas wrote:It wouldnt be right that bigger attendance means you get to spend more on transfers. Sorry but that is just benefitting to ManU in England above everyone else. All the good young players would be snapped up by the team with higher income which kills competition which I am against. Not a fan of seeing the same names at the top of the league personally.

Lol I notice that you ignore the points I raised .. there is nothing stopping other teams from building a bigger stadium, once they have the money. Look at Arsenal - a period of strong performance meant they were able to build the Emirates, now they have one of the highest stadium revenues in the country. The only way you could ensure that all clubs get the same revenue is to dole out TV money equally, have a central distribution of young players (like the NFL/NBA), implement a salary cap and ensure that teams share any exernal revenue. That kind of model just isn't going to work in football, so there is no reason to think about going down that route. There will always be certain teams at the top, but there is nothing to stop a team from working over a few seasons to improve themselves - See Tottenham and Newcastle. They may well be title challengers in the next few years, if they continue to build on their strong foundations

Football is a false economy which defies the free market. Only way things will not revolve around money is when one of these big owners personally go bust or get bored. Pompy and Leeds are a good example.

I can't really think of anyone but Arsenal who are run ethically financially. I'm not an Arsenal fan but I have massive respect for their business model.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

Utd were generating money through the biggest club stadium in the country, winning trophies throughout the 90s and 00s, thus they were able to spend more on players, and still make a profit. City would win nothing, and have no where near the amounts they have spent since being bought, if it wasn't for some rich boy born into oil money.

I know that but is it still right that ManU should be able to SPEND MORE on better players than everyone else just because they have higher attendance? Surely every team should be treat equally and have the same limits in transfers if it is to make the league more competetive? Like I say ManU were not up for doing that when no one else had the money pre-Abramovich/Mansour.

Are you a communist?

Josiah Maiestas wrote:So then I take it you would stop supporting Newcastle if a wealthy businessman were to buy 10/11 new players over a quick time?

Also how many players in Newcastle's starting 11 came from academy? I can only think of Ameobi and Taylor (CB) but they are mainly subs players..

Obviously i would support my team....but this arguement isnt about that...its about buying the title.

also Steve taylor most definately IS first choice cb alongside Colo...

Plus we have the likes of Shane Ferguson, Sammi Ameobi, James Tavernier, Vuckic all coming through nicely....and dont forget Krul has been here since he was 17...sio has been developed by us.

can only see this getting better by Manager of the Season who has a history of bringing through the youngsters.

Southamptons promotion side has a lot of Pardews influence in it.

bambamwillis wrote:The ideals behind the Financial Fair Play rules do make a lot of sense, if they are enforced.

Really? Surely these rules just makes football less competitive?

Say Barcelona win the Champions League and therefore get the biggest revenue. These rules say that Barcelona can then spend the most money. The other teams will then have to spend less money than Barcelona but still have to try and compete. Barcelona can then pay the biggest wages and transfer fees and therefore get the best players. This will no doubt make it easier for them to win the Champions League again and the spiral continues. The rich clubs get riches and the gaps between teams gets greater.

If these rules had been applied to English football over the past 20 years Fulham and Wigan would still be competing in the lower leagues while the likes of Leeds would have never been allowed to fail.

Soon as ManU stop paying £20 million for Jones £30 million Berbatov etc then City won't have to spend loads like they have.

Main reason for this huge spending was started by ManU in the early/late 00's

Have it

All Time Great wrote:Football is a false economy which defies the free market. Only way things will not revolve around money is when one of these big owners personally go bust or get bored. Pompy and Leeds are a good example.

I can't really think of anyone but Arsenal who are run ethically financially. I'm not an Arsenal fan but I have massive respect for their business model.

I think you may need to go and look at Arsenal's spending in the late 1920s in which they bought several of the top players in one year for transfer fees almost double the previous record.

sportsville wrote:

All Time Great wrote:Football is a false economy which defies the free market. Only way things will not revolve around money is when one of these big owners personally go bust or get bored. Pompy and Leeds are a good example.

I can't really think of anyone but Arsenal who are run ethically financially. I'm not an Arsenal fan but I have massive respect for their business model.

I think you may need to go and look at Arsenal's spending in the late 1920s in which they bought several of the top players in one year for transfer fees almost double the previous record.

The Arsenal business model of today is clearly not the one of the 1920s, and nobody is suggesting it is. That is akin to a economist using an example of Ford in the 1920s and their model then and saying that they won't invest in the company today because they don't use modern techniques...

All Time Great wrote:Football is a false economy which defies the free market. Only way things will not revolve around money is when one of these big owners personally go bust or get bored. Pompy and Leeds are a good example.

I can't really think of anyone but Arsenal who are run ethically financially. I'm not an Arsenal fan but I have massive respect for their business model.

Thankfully my club Norwich is being run financially ethically again. Now we are in the Premier League again, our debts will be wiped out and we can hopefully stay away from debt for a long time

No pun intended but I don't buy into the whole buying the title argument.

Take Utd. Yes they had some homegrown stars in Giggs, Nevilles, Beckham, Scholes, Butt etc, but look at who they bought. Andy Cole £7M, Poborsky £4.5M I think?, Bruce, Irwin, Kanchelskis and Pallister bought. Keane bought. Cantona bought. Yorke £12M. Van Nistelrooy £19M. Ronaldo £12.5M. Rooney £25M. Ferdinand £29M. So I do hope these Utd fans don't start giving this whole we never bought the title tripe.

The one thing I will say is that Utd out of the title winners have produced far more homegrown talent than the rest. I think what is key is that Ferguson can turn average players into very good players. Wenger also does the same, but they struggle to find anywhere near the number of homegrown players that Utd do.

sportsville wrote:

bambamwillis wrote:The ideals behind the Financial Fair Play rules do make a lot of sense, if they are enforced.

Really? Surely these rules just makes football less competitive?

Say Barcelona win the Champions League and therefore get the biggest revenue. These rules say that Barcelona can then spend the most money. The other teams will then have to spend less money than Barcelona but still have to try and compete. Barcelona can then pay the biggest wages and transfer fees and therefore get the best players. This will no doubt make it easier for them to win the Champions League again and the spiral continues. The rich clubs get riches and the gaps between teams gets greater.

If these rules had been applied to English football over the past 20 years Fulham and Wigan would still be competing in the lower leagues while the likes of Leeds would have never been allowed to fail.

How? The rules state that the club must break even within 3 years, they are allowed to make losses of up to £45m over those three years! The rules aren't saying that clubs can only spend what they earn through league placement and cup winnings, it is any commercial revenue. The problem is that City (and probably others) are already finding ways around the rules.

City's deal with Etihad Airways is worth just under £400m over 10 years for shirt and stadium sponsorship I believe. I am copying this from one of my earlier posts on another thread, but take a look at the top stadium deals and the top 5 shirt deals.

Shirt Sponsors
1. Barcelona - 25m a year for 5 years - Total 125m
2. Real Madrid - 18m a year - Total £72m
3. Man Utd - Reported to be £20m a year for 4 years - Total £80m
4. Liverpool - £20m a year for 4 years - Total £80m

Stadium Sponsors - a lot harder to do because football teams rarely have sponsored stadiums
1. Madison Square Garden - £187m for 10 years
2. Barclays Center, New York - £260m for 10 years
3. Allianz Arena, Munich - £10m a year - unknown length of time

So City's sponsorship deal is roughly £40m a year, over 10 years. How and why would a stadium in Manchester, used by a team with a fairly average world profile attract a deal which is equal to the previous highest individual shirt and stadium sponsorship deals. When an iconic arena such as Madison Square Garden, used by the New York Knicks for 41 home games a year, as well as many other events can only get £18million a year why is the Etihad drawing so much more?

Curiously, Etihad Airways' majority shareholder happens to be the brother of Sheikh Mansour ... surely this deal needs to be looked into? It's not just the Etihad deal either. Looking at the partners page on City's website, they are also sponsored by Etisalat (a communications company majority owned by the Abu Dhabi government), Abu Dhabi Tourism Authority, Aabar (an investments company majority owned by the Abu Dhabi government). So it looks like the rules will have no effect whatsoever, unless deals like this are examined.

bambamwillis wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Even if the PL threatened to put a transfer/wage cap the big teams would still fight against it so this whinging on the subject will all be in vain really. As I said earlier the team winning the most PL (ManU) have been regularly benefitting from other teams low budget while they were getting far bigger budgets in the 90's and early 00's, they should deserve credit for developing Giggs, Scholes, Beckham, Neville etc but apart from these the rest have been bought to aid them to the title while other clubs were hardly able to buy anyone.

You obviously aren't understanding. Utd were generating money through the biggest club stadium in the country, winning trophies throughout the 90s and 00s, thus they were able to spend more on players, and still make a profit. City would win nothing, and have no where near the amounts they have spent since being bought, if it wasn't for some rich boy born into oil money.

I don't have any issue with Man U spending big on players (I'd love Cov to be able to do it) but the view that they are different to the rest is simply not the case. Back in the 80s, they had a reasonable fan base but attendances were not significantly different to Liverpool yet they broke the British transfer record on Bryan Robson in the 80s (15 years since they last won the league). They also spent big on Pallister and Keane before winning a title (recent one compared with the wait since the 60's) and immediately broke the transfer record again to buy Andy Cole.

Also they listed on the stock market in the 90s to raise further money to acquire players etc, so this investment is no different to a wealthy owner. i.e. people investing because they think with money the club can grow. If it's all built on football receipts then the club would never have requried further external investment to develop.

Sports_Fanatic wrote:

bambamwillis wrote:

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Even if the PL threatened to put a transfer/wage cap the big teams would still fight against it so this whinging on the subject will all be in vain really. As I said earlier the team winning the most PL (ManU) have been regularly benefitting from other teams low budget while they were getting far bigger budgets in the 90's and early 00's, they should deserve credit for developing Giggs, Scholes, Beckham, Neville etc but apart from these the rest have been bought to aid them to the title while other clubs were hardly able to buy anyone.

You obviously aren't understanding. Utd were generating money through the biggest club stadium in the country, winning trophies throughout the 90s and 00s, thus they were able to spend more on players, and still make a profit. City would win nothing, and have no where near the amounts they have spent since being bought, if it wasn't for some rich boy born into oil money.

I don't have any issue with Man U spending big on players (I'd love Cov to be able to do it) but the view that they are different to the rest is simply not the case. Back in the 80s, they had a reasonable fan base but attendances were not significantly different to Liverpool yet they broke the British transfer record on Bryan Robson in the 80s (15 years since they last won the league). They also spent big on Pallister and Keane before winning a title (recent one compared with the wait since the 60's) and immediately broke the transfer record again to buy Andy Cole.

Also they listed on the stock market in the 90s to raise further money to acquire players etc, so this investment is no different to a wealthy owner. i.e. people investing because they think with money the club can grow. If it's all built on football receipts then the club would never have requried further external investment to develop.

Not really true e.g. We had the highest attendances when we were in the 2nd division. We had already won the title when keane signed etc etc

Also floating on the stock exchange is nothing like having a sugar daddy - profits are required.
No one is saying we never spent any money but lets not pretend its anything like city, Chelsea etc.

Looks to be a good season for money.

City winning the PL.
PSG could well win the French league.
Real Madrid won the Spanish League.

Crimey wrote:The Arsenal business model of today is clearly not the one of the 1920s, and nobody is suggesting it is. That is akin to a economist using an example of Ford in the 1920s and their model then and saying that they won't invest in the company today because they don't use modern techniques...

Might point was more that Arsenal spent far more than other clubs in the 1920s to achieve success and build the foundation of a big club.

That is what the likes of Man City and Chelsea are doing now. Both clubs realize that their spending is not sustainable and both have/ are investing in youth development.

What I don't like about Uefa's Financial Fair Play rules are is stops any other clubs from doing this in the future. Therefore those teams in the Champions League like Man United, Arsenal, Man City, Barcelona, Real Madrid etc that will generate the greatest revenues year after year will always be the big clubs.

The next tier clubs such as Newcastle, Everton, Aston Villa, Atletico Madrid etc will have to work with smaller revenues and therefore not be able to compete with the top clubs.

Atleast with the free market football we have had mid-tier clubs like Chelsea and Man City have been able to make the leap. Under the FFP rules Wigan and Fulham probably wouldn't have made the Premier League.

A couple of things those who wear blinkers all the time might have missed
1. Utd managed to get a head start on the rest of the league by their big spending 20 years ago, they did this because they were the first club to realise that corporate sales is where the real revenue comes from, they redeveloped Old Trafford with this in mind, whereas everyone else took years before they realised it and have continued to play catch up ever since.
2. The massive sponsorship deal City has recently signed says far more about how badly the rest of the PL have marketed themselves than how overblown Etihads payments are.
Look at it objectively, Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool and everyone else have been getting far less than NFL, NBA teams and less than Bayern, Barca, Real, Juve etc. for shirt deals, those who've sold naming rights to their grounds have also received far less than those others I mentioned, yet this is the most watched sporting league on earth, getting higher tv revenue than everyone else and with more big clubs/brands than all other leagues/sports put together, so whay haven't they all been getting the highest levels of sponsorship on earth?
The only answer to that is, ineptitude from their marketing departments, the £400m over 10 years deal that City have signed should have been what Utd and Arsenal were getting around 10 years ago, you have the greatest brand (PL) on earth, make the most of it, don't settle for second best and stop whinging when one club (City) actually get what they're worth.