Trev, I can't say I agree with you.
You seem to have this weird view, that football clubs should just be these quaint little play things, like bookclubs at primary school. They're nothing of the sort mate; they're businesses, many of whom have shareholders who've invested in them. Seriously, need to change your mindset on this: they're companies, not cute little charities!
Why be envious of Man Utd anyway? All that they have, they've earned it through good decision-making. Conversely, those that don't have it, have earned their lot through brick decision-making. I don't understand your weird view, that everyone should exist on this falsely level playing field - what planet are you living on??
It is right that success is rewarded, otherwise what's the point? Where's the incentive in taking a risk or being bothered about making good decisions if, at the end of the day, you'll only ever be on a level playing field with everyone else? Sorry mate, but that's just gonad*s. What you'd end up with, is the most boring and dull league ever, as all sense of competitiveness will simply disappear. Well, you need competition in order to continually raise standards, otherwise you'll become stagnant and decline relative to your contemporaries.
I wish I could see benefit in your ideal, but - sorry - I only see a flawed, out-of-date interpretation. Would we all love it if everything was equal? Yeah - damn right, but that's not reality though is it? It doesn't work like that. If clubs have earned their success, then - in my opinion - you have absolutely no right whatsoever to deny them the fruits of their labour. And as for the other clubs? Well, it's upto them to make better decisions or investments, in order to climb the ladder; you don't go pandering to them, that's simply ridiculous!
On a personal level, I work damn hard and I get paid extremely well for it. But were there not that level of recompense, then - without a shadow of a doubt - I wouldn't work anywhere near as hard, because there'd be no incentive for me to do so. I'm in a competition to maintain that level of pay which I can command, so I'm continually under pressure to maintain my outputs and record - and that forces me to think in a certain mindset; performance-related remuneration. That's the exact same structure which is applied to football clubs, and I cannot see why there is or should be a problem with it.
Again, I'm arguing what I think football and its clubs
should be, not what they are. The 'primary school bookclub' or 'cute little charities' comparisons are just hyperbole so I'll ignore them.
And again, I'm not talking about a level playing field. I'm talking about a less ridiculously unlevel one. This is what it currently is:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ar278ojCb...imS6kD8/s1600/10+Liverpool+Revenue+League.jpg. From Wigan to Villa is not a level playing field; revenue gradually increases from ?ú51m to ?ú92m - an 80% increase spread pretty evenly over 14 teams (?ú41m). My issue is what happens next - the huge leap from Villa to Emirates Marketing Project of ?ú61m, and the disparities that get bigger and bigger between each club from that point on.
In today's globalised game, the Champions League has created a 2-tier system whereby the teams who qualify for the Champions League are in a league of their own. This becomes a vicious circle because once you have those extra funds from qualifying and getting the increased exposure and popularity that comes with it, you have a disproportionate advantage over all the other teams in the league which makes it very easy to finish above them again, and thus entrench your financial advantage even more.
What is the point if success isn't rewarded you ask? In football, success in and of itself is the reward. That's the point of sport. Competing on a fair playing field and trying to win. And again, I'm not talking about a level playing field; I'm talking about reducing the disproportionate financial advantage that the Champions League teams have over the ther other clubs in the league.
How would such a league be boring and dull? How would all sense of competitiveness disappear? The point would be to
increase the competitiveness! If it wasn't for Chelsea and City getting billionnaire owners, which everyone agrees is wrong, there would have been TWO league winners in the last 14 years. How is that competitive? In that same period, 88% of Champions League spots have been taken by the same four clubs. Again, how is that competitive?
Again, you're talking about what the situation is, whereas I'm talking about what I think it should be. And again, the top clubs have only earned their success because after a little bit of success, the reward is so disproportionate to the rest of the league that it becomes pretty easy to maintain that success and thus get rewarded even more.
As for other clubs needing to make better decisions or investments in order to climb the ladder, it's pretty difficult to do that when the top teams have such a gigantic financial advantage over you.
And again as I've already said, when it comes to economics I understand people who value incentive over equality. So your example of yourself at work is irrelevant IMO. As I said before, in football success should be an incentive in itself; that's what sport is about. And I'm not against some financial reward; I'm just against the disproportionate reward that the Champions League teams get, because it creates a self-fulfilling 2-tier system that reduces competitiveness in the league.
