I agree with you rentboy, but on the other hand you are rather selective, the difference between Arsenal and the average Belgian or Dutch club is much bigger than the financial gap between Arsenal and Chelsea/Man City.
That is also unfair. I never heard you complain about that.
As for Hazard, would you say no to such a (ridiculous) salary? No you wouldn't, nobody would. Hazard is not to blame, even Mansour and Abramovich are not to blame. The traditional clubs are to blame, they formed a sort of cartel throughout Europe and make it extremely difficult for outside clubs. Having a rich sugar daddy is the only way to break through the glass ceiling. I have absolutely nothing against Chelsea or Man City, they are the logical consequence of what happened during the 90's and the 00's. And Arsenal is among the clubs to blame about that...(as are all the other traditional big clubs). Nobody can blame clubs like Chelsea and Man City to try and break in, that is the essence of sports.
You will say that they are acting unfair? Yes, but so did the traditional big clubs.
In short: everybody is against sugar daddies unless the sugar daddy puts his money in their favourite club.
I see where you're coming from and I see your point, gerd. But it is not quite like that.
The gap between Arsenal and Belgian teams is largely due to the difference in appeal of the national Leagues they play in. If Jupiler League had as big a following worldwide as the Premier League (meaning TV broadcasting contracts, merchandise and sponsorship) the most traditional teams like Anderletch and Brugges would be fighting for the same players and for the same glory.
And if you consider how big the Premier League is and how the TV rights are divided fairly between English teams, then this "cartel" should be on its way to extinction. Have you read about how the Premier League TV rights were renegotiated back in 95 or 96? Before there was some sort of cartel indeed, with the biggest clubs getting bigger chunks of the TV deal. But from then on, the relegation teams have been earning almost as much as the top 4 on TV rights.
The Big clubs all tried to fight back - Arsenal, United and Liverpool have all shown interest in breaking away from this deal and negotiating their own TV deals individually. That is mainly because their fan base is massive and they know they are dividing the money their fans generate with the other clubs - these are mass clubs in England. Not by coincidence, they are the 3 teams which won the League the most: Arsenal (13 times), Liverpool (18) and United (19).
And that is precisely the point I wanted to reach. These are clubs with more than 100 years of history and who have gone through much hardship. United was relegated in the 70's, while Arsenal spent decades as a mid-table team, boring boring Arsenal. But through all that, they reached their status on their own steam, winning competitions, growing their fan base and slowly building on that. I'm not saying they are entitled to win more money than other clubs based on past glory. But they have the means to do it, and so they do as any organisation would.
City and Chelsea are very old and traditional too, as you pointed out, but so is Fulham or Nottingham Forest. The point is, before being taken over, neither Chelsea or City had shown any encouraging signs. They just happened to hit the jackpot, the lottery. There was no hard work through years, even decades, to get where they are. For all we know, in 5 years time Middlesbrough could be winning the Premier League and Champions League - if only the right billionaire comes along and decides to play Master League in real life.
The scenario that allowed such opportunities for clubs as Arsenal, United and Liverpool to set themselves apart was the source of the problem. As the sport became more professional, the greater possibilities to capitalise on their success and profile. And the ones who were doing it right, collected rewards. Hence the increased growth in financial power for these clubs in the end of the 80's and start of the 90's.
You can blame modern capitalism for allowing a certain monopoly/cartel to happen among a limited number of clubs. But well, this is only a reflection of the capitalist system, whereas we see Procter & Gamble, Nestlé, Pepsi Co et al, dominate the world.
In the end, football belongs inside this. It is entertainment, and as such, it's a business. Clubs have to be ran like a company, and have to be very well ran to survive. Not even a traditional club as Liverpool is immune to this. You see how they have been mismanaged and see how they would still finish outside the top 4, even if it weren't for City and Chelsea. And there's United, with the Glazers situation, with a massive debt, and they will be trying to keep up with this transfer madness, potentially accumulating even more debt.
All I'm saying is that there are logics behind it, which is business. But with the sugar daddy lottery it's like anarchism. It's random. No merit to get there. And the worst part is the little thing called stability. When it's one person behind it all, not a responsibly run organisation, then it can die at any moment. Abramovich could call it a day after winning the CL. And then what will be of Chelsea?
If they don't stop all these takeovers, I can see all 20 Premier League teams belonging to sugar daddies in 10 years time. I for one think of this Kroenke situation with Arsenal with great worry.
And then it all boils down to this: in times of recession, you see a 21 year old earning £170k a week. I'm not saying Arsenal are whiter than white. Salaries were already ridiculous before the sugar daddies came along. We have even Diabys and Djourous earning £40k a week. I want to make clear that I think it's a disgrace any player winning that amount of money per
week!
But you see the billionaires' spending taking it to a completely different level and skewing the market so badly. It changes everything forever. Hired guns or mercenaries like Adebayor, who is a City reject and actually a very good forward, you see him helping Tottenham to 4th place with half his salary paid by Sheik Mansour. This disregard for money affects players contract renewals too, in a very bad way. Just think of Van Persie seeing Hazard getting £170k a week. And Arsenal trying to stay in touch with reality... RvP is having none of that! I'm sure he won't settle for less than £200k and that's why I think Arsenal is f*cked in regards to his renewal.
Of course I don't blame Hazard, Van Persie or any player in their position. They're not to blame, they have to seize the moment! What a time to be a professional footballer!
The ones to blame are the ones spending that kind of money. This will be the end of the game if they don't put a stop to this. No man is worth the money those guys have been paying.
Sorry about this huge post.
