Arsene Wenger - “The huge financial power of some clubs is basically destroying the competition."

[RedSky]

Not sure why you posting in euros for English clubs but in any case you are way off the mark with those figures for NET spend over the last 4 years for both City and United. 7 years maybe. Checking on the transferleague site, City's NET spend for the last 7 years is c£566m and United c£525mil.

Taken from Transfermarkt.co.uk. Posting in Euros as its easier to compare them to European clubs. #feckbrexit

 

[SpyLuke10]

The fact that the premier league is considered competitive when only really 6 teams have any chance of winning the league in the next 10 years just shows how uncompetitive the other European leagues are and is really quite sad, I mean compare that the other sports where the leagues have salary caps, etc, any team in the NBA could be champions in the next 5 years, let alone 10, with very good management, recruitment, player development, and some luck.

 

[endless_wheelies]

Is his point that Barceona have more money than Real Madrid?

Also it's not like Manchester City have won the Premier League every year for the past decade. They were kicked to the curb by Leicester before they lucked out on a very specific manager.

 

[1Manchester]

It's really not that complicated. Its easy to understand why the "Super League" idea has never caught on even though people have been talking about it 30 years. The Champions League evolved instead of the richest clubs breaking away in the 1990s because the domestic + CL model is simply more profitable than a super league idea. Period.

And the point I was trying to make was that reason why UEFA established (then repeatedly reorganised) Champions League was precisely to prevent the creation of a European Super League. After all if the potential success of the ESL was as bad as you claim then UEFA would have still retained the European Cup as it was before 1992, simply because the big clubs would have no leverage to force UEFA to make all those changes in the first place.

1) A breakaway league of the 6-8 richest teams is not enough to obtain a broadcast contract that is worth more than both the current domestic and CL money. The reason is simple: games. more games = more money on contracts. A super league with 6-8 teams cannot generate enough matches to even come close to matching the current domestic + CL money. You could try having the teams play each other 4-5 times in league to make up for it but that would get very boring very quickly.

Again you seem to assume that firstly the Premier League, the LFP (Spain), the DFL and the LFP (France) would all be willing to kick out those clubs (and lose vast amounts of money in the process) in solidarity with UEFA and that secondly you seem to assume that the other big-medium size clubs in England, Germany, France, Spain and Italy would all love to lose out financially (and their best players) as well by not also joining such a Super League.

Besides even if both the leagues and the other big clubs where all collectively dumb enough to agree to such stupidity (unlikely), one has to realize that even the league only consisted of 6 of the biggest clubs in Europe, it would be more than compensated for the fact that the games themselves would all be among the biggest games of the European Footballing calendar in terms of viewership and marketability (1), games which any sports broadcaster worth their salt would have to have on their channels. So if lets say if the broadcasters collectively offered £4.8 billion over 3 years for worldwide broadcasting rights (a figure which is less that BT Sport and Sky paied for the domestic rights to both the EPL + CL) (2), it would make financial sense for those 6 clubs to leave.

Likewise even if the broadcasters where also dumb enough to pass on such games, then the ESL/Clubs can take the opportunity to cut out the middle man and offer their own (legal) streams/broadcasts direct to the fans themsevles, which would allow them to increase their broadcast revenues compared to now.

2) So that leads to (2) because a Super League is not going to be attractive to any more than 6-8 teams. Arsenal, Liverpool, Tottenham, Atletico, Dortmund, etc have zero incentive to join a super league. That super league would have to somehow absolutely guarantee those teams more profits than the current domestic + UEFA set-up and as (1) shows that is almost impossible for a super league to guarantee.

Again as I said in my last post, those clubs face a choice; either lose out in terms of broadcast revenue and the prospect of retaining their best players (3) or actually increase their overall revenues and perhaps even better compete with the other (main) clubs in Europe on a more level playing field than in most of Europe's Leagues.

I mean for example if you where Atletico and Dortmund for example, this would be the best chance you are ever going to get to catch up with your bigger more dominant rivals (we all know who they are) (4) while if you are Tottenham you can pay for the new stadium without having to sell your best players to help pay for it thanks to the increased broadcast revenues.

And even then those sides are all trading top of the table status to become bottom of the table cannon fodder.

Well considering the broadcasting/commerical revenue disadvantages Tottenham, Atletico, Dortmund face compared to their bigger rivals (and yes Arsenal is one of those), they all seem to be doing quite well to compete with them. So it is not reasonable to suggest that they going to be "cannon fodder" for those bigger teams rinstead of saying they wold be more able to compete with them.

Arsenal whines about competing with three richer clubs.

A club which makes more in revenue than PSG (even with all the Qatari sponsorships) a member of one of the (Non Gulf Royal) richest families in the world as their majority shareholders and one of the richest people in Russia as a minority shareholder.

No way they would abandon ship on the current model just to enter a competition with 8 richer clubs. None of the Arsenal, Liverpool or Tottenham owners would ever do that.

Not even for £100 million more in broadcast revenue (at least) and to enable them to better compete with those 8 richer clubs? I cannot see the likes of Levy (who has a new stadum to pay for) saying no to that nor Arsenal (considering their keeness on the revenues in the Champions League) considering the negative (financial) consequences on the CL with the emergence of the ESL.

Its a nice novelty idea to ponder in the pub every once in a while when drunk, but there is a reason the game has evolved the way it has. In the end, its much more profitable to stick with the current domestic + UEFA rules than if the richest 6-8 tried to break off and form their own thing outisde UEFA, FIFA, FA, etc.

The game has evolved the way it has partly because of the demands of the Big Clubs and partly because UEFA is as greedy/corrupt as they are (if not more). Reguardless a ESL (depending on how it is formatted) could easily be as lucrative as PL and CL combined (assuming the leagues are stupid enough to kick those ESL clubs out of their leagues) for the reasons I have explained thoughout this post. Reguardless

Re: the Rea/Barca factor
Also most of your posts seem to be based on the flawed argument that only going PSG/City levels of sugar daddy could have ever provided competion for Real/Barca. That simply isn't true. The Real/Barca dominance of the late era results from two basic temporary factors: they had the two generation greats in Messi and Cristiano but more importantly - this was the tail end of their completely unfair dominance of La Liga broadcast money which gave the two sides an unfair competitor advantage over PL, BL, Serie A sides for the last 15 years. Even before that but the effect really manifested in the 2000s.

Removing Real/Barca's unfair competitor advantage of broadcast contracts would have naturally balanced the playing field without the need for insane country backed clubs. But now instead we are locked into that era. So you are incorrect that sugar daddy's were somehow necessary to provide competition. Removing the braodcast advantage of Real/Barca and letting the cycles naturally evolve would have been preferable to state owned sugar daddy clubs which now locks in a far smaller amount of competitors than would have naturally existed.

We can debate endlessly about why Real Madrid and Barcelona are the 2 dominant clubs of Europe (reasons which date back many decades), the fact is that they have for better or worse reached that position though those various reasons and because of this they have broken new ground at how successful a football club can be in Europe. More importantly the fact is that neither Manchester United (5) nor Chelsea (6), nor Juventus, nor the Milan clubs (7) and not even Bayern Munich have been able to compete with these clubs no matter how much they have spent.

Thus considering how both clubs have raised the bar it is not unreasonable to suggest the only way you are able to get any club to properly challenge their dominant position in Europe is by allowing clubs like City and PSG to heavily invest in their squads (8) to enable them to properly challenge them (9), especially when it comes to buying the best players in the European Leagues. Because for all the investment both clubs have done, it has only been enough for them to reach the same level as the likes of Manchester United, Chelsea and Juventus.

I am doubting that even clubs like Bayern would want to entertain your idea. Bayern is quite content to sit where they are. Why would they willing leave just to constantly content with clubs much richer than them when they can dominate Germany?

Much richer than them? Seriously? Considering how they monopolise German Domestic Football, enjoy a vast amount of commercial revenue (highest of any football club unless I am mistaken) from the major companies of Germany and will benefit from considerably higher broadcast revenues than they currently do at the moment (10), I would strongly question such a claim. Likewise when you take account of the likelihood that broadcast revenues that the other Bundeslega clubs get would fall as a consequence of them going to the ESL, it would mean that they would be more able get the best players from those clubs and thus dominate German Domestic Football even more.

When you add all those factors together, it is no surprise that Bayern's own CEO has covertly supported such a concept (11) and in turn he has also been in the forefront in pushing for more changes in the Champions League.

Notes

(1) Especially if those 6-8 capitalize on the lack of FFP and increased broadcasting revenue to buy up the best players from the big-medium clubs who have opted out of the ESL and more importantly the fewer number of games per season would enable the players of those teams to put more effort into each game.

(2) In other words £250 million minimum for all the 6 clubs, with the champions getting an additional £30 million, the runners up getting an additional £20 million and the other 4 teams getting an additional £12.5 million each.

(3) Especially since the ESL would be able to offer both higher wages and top-level football while the big/medium football clubs (outside the ESL) would likely look into cutting the wages of their players due to reduced revenue.

(4) Not only thanks to the increased broadcasting revenue, but also because of the likelyhood that the revenues of such a ESL deal would distributed as equally as is the case in the Premier League, which would be a step up compared to the TV Deal's in the Mainland European Leagues.

(5) Even with Fergie, Rooney and Ronaldo, likewise the fact that United ended up selling Ronaldo to Real expressed this failure more than anything else.

(6) For all Roman Abramovich billions, they are still a long way off being on those clubs level, which more than anything else will be the reason why Hazard and Courtois will end up leaving Cheslea and thus (I fear) end up at Real.

(7) In the 90s they certainly could, however they where already falling behind those clubs in the 2000s (Hence the sales of Ronaldo Luis and Kaka to Real, Zlatan to Barcelona and Crespo to Chelsea) and these days they are both in a shadow of their former selfs.

(8) Especially if they play in the Premier League (like City) and thus find it more difficult to win (let alone dominate) their league in question when compared to Real and Barcelona in La Liga. So if they want to be in a position to challenge their domestic rivals at home and Real/Barcelona, they need to have a stronger overall squad (and certainly more strength in depth than either of those 2 clubs) than Real and Barcelona.

(9) A situation which we are nowhere near in doing considering how poor our European record is compared to our Domestic one, after since the 2008-2009 season we have won 2 League Titles (while finishing 2nd twice) and 3 Domestic Cups while only getting past the Round of 16 once. In comparison Barcelona have won the League 6 times (alongside 5 Domestic Cups and three 2nd place finishes) and has won the Champions League 3 times (alongside 3 Semi-Final appearances and 3 Quarter Final appearances) while Real Madrid has won the League Twice (alongside 2 Domestic Cups and six second place finishes) and the Champions League 3 times (alongside 4 Semi-Final appearances).

(10) According to the latest figures from the Deloitte Football Money League, Manchester United got £194 million from broadcast rights while Bayern Munich got £126 million. Now if they both got £262.5 million per season (and this assumes they don't finish 1st or 2nd) under the ESL broadcasting deal it would mean that Bayern's broadcast rights revenue increase by £136.5 million (in other words more than double their current revenues in this area) and United's would go up by £68.5 million. Which on its own would allow Bayern (even taking account of the increased broadcasting rights revenue of United) to have a similar level of revenue to Manchester United.

Likewise if Bayern feel it is still not enough to properly compete with City and PSG then they could always increase their commercial sponsorship revenue to an even greater extent since there is scope to do so. For example when it comes to their kit deal Bayern and Chelsea have similar worldwide shirt sales, let Chelsea get £60 million a year from Nike while Bayern get a "mere" £42.5 million per year from Adidas despite the "special relationship" the company has with Bayern. So increasing the deal by £20 million per season (to £62.5 million) would not be unreasonable.

Long story short, with an ESL broadcasting deal and a better kit deal alone Bayern's revenues could easily reach £650 million per (up from £500 million currently), likewise with other improved sponsorship deals it could even go as high as £700-750 million. Surely that would be enough to compete on transfers with the likes of City...

(11) The only reason why he has not been more open about it is due to opposition to an ESL among their fanbase (who lets not forget ultimately own the club)

 

[deafepl]

(10) According to the latest figures from the Deloitte Football Money League, Manchester United got £194 million from broadcast rights while Bayern Munich got £126 million. Now if they both got £262.5 million per season (and this assumes they don't finish 1st or 2nd) under the ESL broadcasting deal it would mean that Bayern's broadcast rights revenue increase by £136.5 million (in other words more than double their current revenues in this area) and United's would go up by £68.5 million. Which on its own would allow Bayern (even taking account of the increased broadcasting rights revenue of United) to have a similar level of revenue to Manchester United.

Likewise if Bayern feel it is still not enough to properly compete with City and PSG then they could always increase their commercial sponsorship revenue to an even greater extent since there is scope to do so. For example when it comes to their kit deal Bayern and Chelsea have similar worldwide shirt sales, let Chelsea get £60 million a year from Nike while Bayern get a "mere" £42.5 million per year from Adidas despite the "special relationship" the company has with Bayern. So increasing the deal by £20 million per season (to £62.5 million) would not be unreasonable.

Long story short, with an ESL broadcasting deal and a better kit deal alone Bayern's revenues could easily reach £650 million per (up from £500 million currently), likewise with other improved sponsorship deals it could even go as high as £700-750 million. Surely that would be enough to compete on transfers with the likes of City...

Hold on, you forgot Brexit has impacted heavily on United's revenue by 200m euro date back to 2016, United have got richer in pounds but in euro, it didn't grow up much because pounds have gotten weaker. If Brexit never happened, Bayern has a long way to compete with United's potentially 850m euro. A new international EPL TV right auction is coming on its way and is more likely to double the price they paid for 2016-2019 EPL TV rights. I am sure pounds will return to its normal currency in a decade.

Bayern Munich had UCL which increased their broadcast revenue and United didn't make it to UCL twice and didn't receive qualification money in 2017 because they qualified via EL. However, when we heard that Sky and BT paid £5 billion together for TV rights, it was a crazy amount, considering EPL's relegated teams would earn more much in TV rights than Bayern Munich, that was a year before Brexit happened which affected every English team.

Bayern Munich doesn't need to improve their sponsorship deals to completes on transfers with the likes of City because there's FFP in place, City can't spend much as much as they like. Bayern Munich is attractions place for a world-class player to join and City aren't cos nobody knew about City much as before, that forced City to overspend in the transfer window and wage and City have to try to compete with top clubs in EPL for players, Bayern doesn't. Why would they need to worry about City? City's squad cost much twice as Bayern Munich.

Off topic, as you see, Brexit and TV rights caused transfers window inflation, that's why English teams to have to pay much for players aboard because of weak pounds. For an example, if Brexit never happened, we would be brought Pogba for £75m which Juventus want 105 euro for it.

 

[shuggie]

He really hates City and it's great.

And yet he's directly responsible for helping the most financially powerful to be successful.

He transferred RVP to united thus assuring them of the title and this year Sanchez too (he would've happily sent him to city too)

He's transferred several players to city who he clearly despises.

Every time he has done this he has weakened Arsenal at the expense of one of the Manchester clubs.

You reap what you sow. He is yesterday's man. I don't remember any of this when it used to be a 2 horse race between Utd and Arsenal.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

snipped for brevity

Oh you are assuming the richest clubs would all stay in their domestic competition and then just break off on their own to form a "Super League" instead of the Champions League?
I am not even sure that is possible. At that point, you'd need a lawyer familiar with the intricacies to figure out if that is even possible but guarantee its not as simple as you seem to be assuming.

Also, most of your arguments are based on pretty healthy assumptions that seem quite dubious. For instance you are just assuming this new Super League is going completely dwarf the current Champions League in braodcast revenue with many less actual games (a massive assumption that is economically questionable).

And I think you are very far off base about the desire of clubs like Atletico, Dortmund, Arsenal, Tottentham and Liverpool to become bottom table cannon fodder for oil funded dynasties. Clubs like Atletico and Dortmund won their leagues because there was only one or two richer clubs not 6-7 richer clubs.

Anyway, agree to disagree because too much of your arguments are based on assumptions and knowledge beyond what we can know. Personally I think we see wage caps long before the richest 6 ever tried to breakaway. You disagree. Let's see what actually happens in future!

 

[1Manchester]

Oh you are assuming the richest clubs would all stay in their domestic competition and then just break off on their own to form a "Super League" instead of the Champions League?

I am not even sure that is possible. At that point, you'd need a lawyer familiar with the intricacies to figure out if that is even possible but guarantee its not as simple as you seem to be assuming.

What I am saying is that for the various reasons I have previously stated, I highly doubt that the Domestic Leagues would kick out any ESL participating clubs out of their league due to the financial consequences of such an exclusion. Likewise legally of course there are no real barriers for this to happen since UEFA does not have direct control of the National Leagues and thus who plays for them.

Also, most of your arguments are based on pretty healthy assumptions that seem quite dubious.

Nope, they are largely based on the actions and agendas of the clubs themselves, the leagues, the broadcasters, the associations and UEFA above all else. Especially when it comes to all those institutions and their relationship with money.

For instance you are just assuming this new Super League is going completely dwarf the current Champions League in braodcast revenue with many less actual games (a massive assumption that is economically questionable).

I never said that the Global Media Rights sales of 6-8 team ESL would be bigger than the Global Media Rights Sales of the Champions League (Which will be £1.8 billion per year with the 2018-2021 TV Rights deal). What I was saying that the clubs themselves would likely receieve more (even if the overall deal is smaller than what is currently the case with the ESL) due to the fact there would be more "big" games (in terms of quality and popularity) even if there are fewer games overall. Likewise I also said that even if the broadcasters are stupid enough not to pay top dollar for the rights to the ESL, then the league (and the clubs themselves) can simply retain the rights and broadcast the games themsevles.

And I think you are very far off base about the desire of clubs like Atletico, Dortmund, Arsenal, Tottentham and Liverpool to become bottom table cannon fodder for oil funded dynasties.

I know you have been trying to avoid this subject no matter how many times I mention it, but for the reasons I have stated previously the fact is that (despite the advantages Arsenal have) Arsenal chose to not compete with the other Big European Clubs. So if they so wished they would be anything but cannon fodder against the likes of Bayern, PSG, Chelsea, Manchester United, Manchester City, Juventus, Barcelona and Real Madrid.

Personally I think we see wage caps long before the richest 6 ever tried to breakaway.

Even if UEFA forced all the clubs, leagues and associations at gunpoint to agree, there is nothing stopping the clubs from finding ways around and there is nothing stopping clubs in North America and Asia using this as an opportunity to get the best players of Europe's national leagues.

Thus you need to think more smartly than just simply imposing a wage cup. Hell alongside what I have said previously I would even go as far as banning sponsorship of clubs and requiring all broadcasts to be made free to air if you really want to bring wages down. Fat chance of that happening though.

You disagree. Let's see what actually happens in future!

Fair enough.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

I know you have been trying to avoid this subject no matter how many times I mention it, but for the reasons I have stated previously the fact is that (despite the advantages Arsenal have) Arsenal chose to not compete with the other Big European Clubs. So if they so wished they would be anything but cannon fodder against the likes of Bayern, PSG, Chelsea, Manchester United, Manchester City, Juventus, Barcelona and Real Madrid.

I never avoided anything. Arsenal can spend more than they are for sure but in your super league they along with Liverpool, Tottenham, Atletico, Dortmund would still just be cannon fodder unless they saw some increased profit streams to bring them closer to par with the big boys like City, United, PSG, Real and Barca.

Arsenal has 40% the commercial revenue of United. Other than one summer where Arsenal blows their bank balance out, they won't have the resources on the level of United.

I believe wage cap would happen before this hypothetical super league concept you made up.
Since neither can prove the other wrong until the future happens there is no point debating your assumptions.
If this super league has any talk in reality, then let me know. Otherwise cheers.

 

[Cal?]

No team should be able to have a hegemony in football.


I wholeheartedly agree (even if the trend is overstated e.g. we've just seen with the Sanchez deal that United can compete with City financially) My issue is, people do not want changes to make the sport 'fairer', they just want changes to preserve the status quo. They want changes that will cement their teams place at the top indefinitely. Yet most try and dress it up as part of some moral crusade.

I certainly don't, I'm still hoping someone finds a way to break the TV deal.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

I wholeheartedly agree (even if the trend is overstated e.g. we've just seen with the Sanchez deal that United can compete with City financially) My issue is, people do not want changes to make the sport 'fairer', they just want changes to preserve the status quo. They want changes that will cement their teams place at the top indefinitely. Yet most try and dress it up as part of some moral crusade.

Sanchez who we straight swapped for Miki?
One single transfer with high wages is not the issue. Look at City's spend over the last 10 years. Fact is you'd need another state backed club to compete financially over the long term. Luckily for United we generate a lot of revenue the right way in order to compete, but under the current system, if it really comes down to long term financial competition City or PSG will buy it.

 

[Cal?]

Surely the Premier League is a fairer system? Could you imagine how much money Manchester United would earn from selling their TV rights on their own compared to say Bournemouth? The gap between the top 4 to the rest would be significantly greater than it already is.

If only that happened...

 

[Mastadon]

And yet he's directly responsible for helping the most financially powerful to be successful.

He transferred RVP to united thus assuring them of the title and this year Sanchez too (he would've happily sent him to city too)

He's transferred several players to city who he clearly despises.

Every time he has done this he has weakened Arsenal at the expense of one of the Manchester clubs.

You reap what you sow. He is yesterday's man. I don't remember any of this when it used to be a 2 horse race between Utd and Arsenal.

Has he really? We got 24m for RVP who had a year left on his contract and would have caused a huge stink if we had forced him to stay only to walk off to United for free anyway 12 months later. Sanchez had 6 months left on his contract and he wasn’t playing well. We got what we could for him.

The players we sold to City were all at premium prices and were proven to be good decisions. 40m for Adebayor and Toure was fabulous business in 2009.

Easy to criticize Wenger as you have seen during the post Fergie years managers who can deliver consistently are incredibly rare. If you had Arsenal’s finances under the post Fergie years ago you would be mid table. As it is all United have done is throw money at the problem until things started working. Doubtless hundreds of millions more will be spent to win the next title.

Nice if you can afford it but totally illogical to criticize those that cannot afford a scattergun strategy.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

If only that happened...

I agree.

That would hurt Chelsea and City the most. Arsenal and Liverpool would be able to sell their TV rights for more than City based on world wide fan base.

 

[ayushreddevil9]

Has he really? We got 24m for RVP who had a year left on his contract and would have caused a huge stink if we had forced him to stay only to walk off to United for free anyway 12 months later. Sanchez had 6 months left on his contract and he wasn’t playing well. We got what we could for him.

The players we sold to City were all at premium prices and were proven to be good decisions. 40m for Adebayor and Toure was fabulous business in 2009.

Easy to criticize Wenger as you have seen during the post Fergie years managers who can deliver consistently are incredibly rare. If you had Arsenal’s finances under the post Fergie years ago you would be mid table. As it is all United have done is throw money at the problem until things started working. Doubtless hundreds of millions more will be spent to win the next title.

Nice if you can afford it but totally illogical to criticize those that cannot afford a scattergun strategy.

Agreed until the bold part. Under Moyes, yeah it was scattergun but the recruitment under subsequent managers has been well laid out and organized. LvG just was very bad with his targets - blind, depay, morgan, rojo were just not good enough to play his 'philosophy'. Barring Lindelof, Jose has signed most sought out players.

We have the resources, and we have a manager who knows how to use them.

 

[Web of Bissaka]

"Huge financial power...destroying the competition" ?

Sounds like someone is giving an excuse he can't compete and win EPL anymore.

I mean, Leicester and Spurs say hi.

Tbf, there are some acceptable points of what he's saying - United's giant finances ensure us at least always challenging but it's also highly dependent on the manager, Chelsea and MCity situation is obvious, making it harder but not impossible.

Still doesn't justify him losing the competition, since top class players are still interested in joining Arsenal.

 

[Handsome Devil]

I certainly don't, I'm still hoping someone finds a way to break the TV deal.

Can you imagine the frenzy to obtain a TV deal with United. indeed.
However, what is to stop some "independent" Abu Dhabi based TV company buying City's broadcasting rights at an outrageous price and then leasing them out to other channels to beam out to City's dozens of fans around the world?

 

[Cal?]

I agree.

That would hurt Chelsea and City the most. Arsenal and Liverpool would be able to sell their TV rights for more than City based on world wide fan base.

Chelsea may be okay, they’ve established a fan base about the size of Arsenal

 

[Cal?]

Can you imagine the frenzy to obtain a TV deal with United. indeed.
However, what is to stop some "independent" Abu Dhabi based TV company buying City's broadcasting rights at an outrageous price and then leasing them out to other channels to beam out to City's dozens of fans around the world?

It’ll still cost Abu Dhabi more in the long run. As soon as Trump gets impeached and the world moves towards renewable energy, pumping oil out the ground won’t be anywhere as profitable.

 

[Ecstatic]

I think the football business is the fairest industry in the world.

There are no mergers like West Ham is absorbed by Manchester City and ceased to exist.

If a club is very rich, the price to pay is to overpay players (wages, transfer fees).

Wenger strangely forgot to mention the fact that the Premier League has unparalleled broadcasting revenue, which contributes to a massive gap with other European clubs.

 

[Cal?]

I think the football business is the fairest industry in the world.

There are no mergers like West Ham is absorbed by Manchester City and ceased to exist.

If a club is very rich, the price to pay is to overpay players (wages, transfer fees).

Wenger forgot to mention the fact that the Premier League has unparalleled broadcasting revenues

Wimbledon fans beg to differ