Really, really interesting debate - some excellently made points from both sides
I feel a bit like I'm butting in at this point, but as I started it I think I'm entitled to
PNP - from the little I know about the SPL (I was based in Edinburgh for a few months. Beautiful city.), it does seem to have been run quite shoddily over the years. Compared to the EPL who from more or less day 1 of mass televised football have been pushing for bigger and bigger coverage and funding - and largely receiving both.
However, I would also argue that the last few seasons in particular (just when record-breaking TV deals have begun to flow into the PL) demonstrate that money, whilst highly useful, is
far (and getting further) from being the be all and end all of the game (thankfully). If you look at the teams who have with alarming consistency made a mockery of our 'finest' teams in the CL and even EL, and compare the budgets of the clubs involved, this is clear as day. For years now, the average PL club has layed out a higher net spend than their European equivalent will spend in a decade. Take West Ham for example, mid to top half side never going to get relegated. Net spend close to £30m. Compare that to let's say Real Betis. Net spend last summer of less than £6m. West Brom? Net spend of over £25m. Athletic Bilbao? £5.5m. Sevilla - twice champions of the EL? Net
profit of over £11m!
Even the larger picture tells it's own story: last year, PL clubs spent over £800m on transfers. The nearest anywhere in the world came to that were La Liga (£400m) and Serie A (£300m). Those figures aren't even close. And if you remove Barca and Madrid from the La Liga figure, you're basically below Serie A and the Bundesliga anyway.
And yet, time and again, PL clubs are humiliated in Europe often by squads whose total cost is less than that of a single player.
I've argued almost all season that the more money proliferates through the sport, the more predators there are snapping up the top fish in the sea, the more important it becomes to spend
wisely rather than
aggressively. We see this with clubs like Palace, Leicester, Southampton etc. Clubs whose revenue and fanbase is a
fraction of the big guns, yet look at how much ground they've closed on the sugar daddies in 2 or 3 short years because whereas the financial giants are still stuck in a mindset of haphazardly throwing wads of cash at the problem until it runs away, these 'small' clubs are making astute signing after astute signing.
This is starting to show gradually at a domestic level. But a whole season is a long, endurance marathon. I believe that to a greater and greater extent, the big clubs are only able to maintain their success due to sheer strength in numbers. United are playing worse football than 5-6 of the teams currently below them. But they will still finish higher because at the business end of the season, the sheer size of their squad (in terms of truly PL quality players) will show.
In Europe, where it is down to 90 minutes of quality rather than 38 games of quantity, the PL is being exposed regularly for what it has sadly become. A huge corporate balloon full of hot air.