Please read : Article from ITV Football
Devil’s Advocate: Chelsea are great
There are very many arguments against the culture of profligate spending of Europe’s richest clubs and how this is detrimental to traditional football values. Richard Ferraris changes gear and plays Devil’s Advocate on behalf of the bete noire of football: Chelsea FC.
Chelsea are frequently cast as scapegoats for the state of football, but without the Londoners the Premiership would be far less competitive.
Roman Abramovic’s spendthrift methodology is another evolutionary step towards globalising football and entrenching it as the world’s best and most exciting sport.
Wealthy owners are part of the fabric of European football history, especially in Italy where the Agnelli and Moratti families have run Juventus and Internazionale as family businesses.
All the talk in the English game is about the burgeoning number of foreign investors.
It would appear as if there is a fair amount of xenophobia surrounding the takeovers, as one need only cast one’s gaze Stoke City and Fulham’s way to observe that foreign ownership doesn’t necessarily lead to the destruction of traditional values.
Football fans seem to have exceedingly short memories as it was not long ago that Manchester United were the literal embodiment of evil when Sir Alex’s forked tongue did all the talking.
David Beckham’s hooves trotted down the right wing and the sick sulphuric stench of rampant commercialism clung to that temple of kitsch; the Theatre of Dreams.
Indeed their domination through the 1990’s equates to perhaps the greatest monopoly over the English League since the round ball was first kicked around in an organised fashion during the Victorian era.
United’s evil empire extended to eight Premiership titles and a one-club cartel with unparalleled buying power in the transfer market.
And in 2003 Chelsea emerged as a rival superpower. An obscure ‘oil-garch’ funded the quest to send the demons of Old Trafford into the purgatory of runners-up.
But to rehash an old cliche: football is a funny game. Neither Chelsea nor United could compete with Arsenal of all teams in 2003 - as the Gunners not only won the Premiership - but did not lose a single league game all season either.
However as all football fanatics (should) know, Chelsea overwhelmed all takers the following two seasons. Predictably recrimations and criticism followed.
“Chelsea are bad for the game…”
“The title was bought…”
Meanwhile in Manchester American Malcolm Glazer launched a hostile takeover of United. The occasional outburst aside most of the vitriol was still directed Chelsea’s way.
While the purists threw projectile vomit Chelsea’s way - very little analysis was centred around what Chelsea had done in terms of blowing the Premiership wide-open.
Prior to the Chelsea revelation only Arsenal and Blackburn had taken the Premiership from the clutches of United, but never for any longer than one season.
Abramovic has thrown £500 million Chelsea’s way in transfers since he took over, indicating that the Blues are more than a dilettante side-show to him. In fact Abramovic’s presence at home games at Stamford Bridge is as ubiquitous as John Terry’s.
The Londoners are good for the English game simply because competition is beneficial. As such under Jose Mourinho - however reviled he may be - Chelsea have set the bar higher.
The erstwhile most-hated team Man Utd have responded to Chelsea’s gauntlet marvelously and are going to challenge them all the way in the 2007 title-race.
Moreover, United have played with sumptuous verve and attacking flair in response to the Blue-tide.
It is now up to Liverpool and Arsenal to hunt down the top-two and if this must be done via foreign investors - then what must be must be.
The Premiership is an elite league and suggestions to curtail and regulate clubs (as some have suggested wage caps and so on) smacks of hypocrisy. Were such measures taken then football would follow Formula One down the proverbial drain.
F1 is supposed to be at the pinnacle of motorsport - but regulations on development and technological advancements have rendered the sport as nothing more than glorified go-karting.
If the Premiership follows this model and also fails to keep abreast with contemporary economic developments then we might as well watch cricket or the Scottish League.
The acolytes of anti-globalisation ought to remember that it is the phenomenon of globalisation which has transformed the Premiership brand into one of the most exciting and lucrative sports spectacles around.
Yet cynics continue to bemoan the lack of parity which has accompanied the footballing revolution as symbolised by Chelsea.
But what the historically-minded fans forget is that even without Chelsea it is absolutely beyond reason to expect the likes of Charlton to compete for major honours.
That is unless someone has £500 million lying around.
Richard Ferraris
