With Premier League revenues set to hit £3billion in the coming years what impact, negative and positive will this have on the league as a whole and individual clubs? Effectively mid sized Premier League clubs will have the spending power to rival most European giants which will in turn attract many of the worlds top players to England but not always to clubs you might expect. Think signings like Glaston Ramirez to Southampton being commonplace in a few years. Of course the extra spending power might hamper the development of youth at some clubs. This doesnt bode well for the future of England or future England footballers. We could end up like Scotland in 10/20 years time should the younger generation be forgotten about in order for us to enjoy watching the worlds best. Will clubs like Chelsea and City lose their financial advantage? Other factors are already in place to reduce their advantage but what effect will it have on their ability to outspend everyone? The Premier League over the past few years has stagnated somewhat, there are few world class players in the league and compared to just a few seasons back, English clubs dont present the fear they once did in Europe. The new £3billion ere will certainly change that. Will it change the league itself, are we destined for the same top 5 or 6 year after year or will this help level the playing field? *Also, side descussion. Spain are looking into a collective deal, what impact will this have on the Spanish giants?* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22766638
Could happen. I think some clubs will invest more wisely than others. We all know that in the PL we have long term clubs like United, Arsenal and short term clubs like City and Chelsea. I think we will see smaller clubs that you wouldnt expect to challenge closer to the top doing so in the short term before fading away if the success doesnt match the spending while other clubs will invest in their infrastructure and futures meaning little will change in the short term but 5/10 years down the line it will pay of for them. I also think the new deal goes someway to debunking the myth that FFP was intended to keep the elite at the top. The new deal will help level the playing field.
When you give all 20 clubs a lot more money it's effectively meaningless as it just drives up prices for transfers and wages compared to other leagues. But there is an even larger pool of extra money the top couple of sides get through prize money, TV money and CL money which means that it will become a one or two horse race permanently. FFP will kill investment and create a permanent elite of a couple of sides. The league is already the least competitive in terms of league winners it will just sustain the status quo
I reckon if i looked at the 23 years before the Premier League there wouldnt be that many different winners. 5 different clubs have won the Premier League. A quick check shows me that the 23 years before the Premier League a total of 7 different clubs won the title. Liverpool winning the vast majority. So the truth is..... very little has changed with the Premier League except people like to moan about stuff that isnt actually true. The league is basically as competitive. There has always been a top dog. The 23 years before the PL it was Liverpool. Since the PL its been United. Other clubs come and go, some maintain challenges for years like Arsenal ( basically been up there competing for 40 years ) and others are once in a life time challenges like Forest and Derby.
It's the least competitive league of the top 3 by a mile The only team to make a challenge without obscene amounts of money was Arsenal and that didn't last. Every since sky & CL money flooded the game it's been nearly all the titles to the biggest recipient of that cash. Unless you threw Blackburn, Chelsea or City money at it trying to play catch up. And that includes a massive amount of unavoidable cash wasting trying to accelerate the process. And now they want to ban that practise permanently. So there will really only be one club eligible to buy titles and once a decade someone will get lucky with a class first XI and nick one or two. This is really the death of competition. Billionaires had finally brought something resembling competition but that's about to be eliminated.
Newcastle came very close not too long ago. Also I cannot understand how you think La Liga is more competitive than the PL. La Liga is dominated by 2 clubs almost as much as the SPL is dominated by 2 clubs. The Pl is very competitive imo. Within the league there are many mini leagues taking place all season. the relegation battles are a major part of our league and unlike Spain and Germany, the worlds eyes focus on the battles at the bottom almost as much as they do at the battles at the top. In Germany the focus is on Bayern almost completely. Spain its the big 2. In england we have 4 realist league winners fighting it out each season, add spurs in there and thats 5 ( assuming they continue to improve ). No other league has 5 clubs capable of winning the league.
Was more competitive before 2003 Manchester United Arsenal Blackburn Newcastle Leeds Norwich Aston Villa Liverpool Chelsea All clubs who either won or challenged for the title pre 2003. United Chelsea City Since More competitive my arse
Theres one less season but its still fairly close. We were the best team pre 2003 and the best team since. We won more titles than the rest ( combined ) with or without all the oil money.
Lets face it UIR, without MONEY BAGS United would have 4 more titles I'd say. Blackburn City and Chelsea, no 5 more titles. The PL is a 1 horse race if La Liga is a 2 horse race.
Premier League started 1992 5 different winners in 21 years united 13 Arsenal 3 Chelsea 3 Blackburn 1 City 1 La Liga since 1992 5 different winners in 21 years barca 10 Real 7 Valencia 2 Atletico 1 Deportivo 1 Both 5 different winners. If you look at the 2nd placed teams since 1992 deportivo Villareal valencia Athletic Bilbao real Sociedad Real barca Premier league 2nd placed teams Villa blackburn newcastle united arsenal chelsea liverpool city not much difference but it does show that the premier league is more than marginally less competitive than its Spanish counterpart. Take out money bags owners and it would look like this over 21 years united 18 Arsenal 3
Maybe, who knows. We would probably not of needed to up our game and maybe even got complacent allowing others to jump in and challenge. Arsenal would of won more titles, they would of won in 2005 imo. Chelsea paid £150million to overtake Arsenal not United that season. The leagues always been a 1 horse race in that case, dating back to the 70's.
Even with bare facts you just wont conceded a point, 1 extra runner up compared to la liga having 1st on 10 league wins and 2nd on 7? united 13 Arsenal 3, are you seriously saying the PL is more competitive? Really?! To make it simple 3 between the top two in spain and 10 between the top 2 in the PL over only 21 years. Seriously dude, your arguments are weak in the extreme as is your point that the PL would be more competitive without moneybags jumping in
It simply is. 3rd place in La Liga has zero chance of ever winning La Liga. 3rd place in England ( Chelsea currently ) has every chance of winning the title. Hell even 4th ( Arsenal ) have a sniff of it. No club other than Barcelona or Real Madrid will ever win La Liga in our lifetimes unless the pair of them are kicked out of the league. Thats how one sided it is. The entire league is set up to ensure Real and Barcelona win it every season now. The days of Valencia or Atletico Madrid winning it or even finished within 30 points are long gone. The only hope for spain is the collective football deal, a deal that will ruin Barcelona and Real Madrid make the league more like the PL. Hope that answers your question.
