Manchester City’s recent results have inevitably brought many headlines and, of course, if you support a team whose form is one of mainly defeats then inevitably you’re bound to worry. For me, one thing it demonstrates more than anything else though is how wrong some were to claim that football is dominated by one club in a way that it has never been before. For several years now some have been claiming that City winning trophies is all about money; all about financial power that leaves others unable to cope. When we fail in life it’s easy to blame others but maybe those who make those comments should look at themselves first?
Instead, of analysing why their clubs fail, some have suggested ‘it’s not fair!’ and that there has never been a time when money has ruled football. I’ve been saying that this is untrue and that wealthy football clubs – or clubs that have received significant investment – have always been there, and that money is no guarantee of success. Those of us old enough to remember the late 1970s and early 1980s well know that City, Leeds, Wolves, Chelsea and others found that spending money could also lead to ruin.
You don’t have to look far for articles from this last year which have talked about how unhealthy the Premier League is ‘because of City’ but, as I said at the time, those comments really were out of place. Recent results have demonstrated this further. What I said earlier this year (and in recent seasons) is that significant praise was due to City and their manager Pep Guardiola for everything they’ve achieved in a highly competitive domestic and European scene. It’s also clear that those clubs, fans and others who have tried to explain away a club’s failings by simply stating: ‘It’s unfair, we can’t compete with City’ actually need to look at their own club and recognise its failings. When we fail in life it’s easy to blame others but maybe look at your self first?
City’s current form is not great and defeats are either because the opposition are better or City have failed. It’s not because one team has more money than another; it’s because they played the game better. When City win trophies it’s not because they have more money; it’s because they’ve played better; coached better; found a way to play that’s better… So can those who claim that football is uncompetitive because of City now start to look at themselves first and see why their team fails?
We should all remember, whether at times of success or failure, that football is an entertaining game. Sometimes we win; sometimes we fail… no team has ever dominated for decades and therefore successes like City’s 4 league title in a row really are major achievements that should be celebrated and recognised by all!
Here’s a few articles from months/years ago that challenge/discuss some of the comments about dominance in the past:
Gary James' Football Archive 