@ Gerd - Cheers for the detailed post, I actually agree with a lot of that - particularly the commercialisation of football being distasteful. It's definitely not the same sport I grew up watching.
I know you view any grievance I have with sugar daddies as being reflective of the team I support but it genuinely isn't about that. I grew up in a North American environment where the thought that a team could literally buy a championship just galls. Some teams will always have slightly higher budgets than others at different times, depending on conditions, history, town-size and so forth. That is the way of the world, and until football gets serious about some kind of league-wide salary cap or draft system, it'll always be the case.
But the sheer scale of what Chelsea and City have done within a league is what blows me away. You say that all English clubs have a similar scale difference from Belgian clubs - but they don't compete against each other. Obviously United are held up as the big spenders in the last 20 years of the 'premier league' and that was partly true. But both City and Chelsea outspend 25+ years in just 2 or 3 seasons. Both lose more money in a season than 16 of the teams in the league will have made in that entire 20 year period. That's what I find distasteful. It would be different if Mansour or Abramovich came in with some mad, non-sensical love of City/Chelsea and developed them in such a way that they were sustainable and self-supporting. But they didn't. They created wage bills in line with Barcelona and Madrid, but with none of the revenues. They completely blew apart the English football market (£25+m for Lescott, Barry, Milner, Adebayor, Nasri - madness!) and the wages players' demand.
I don't think that helps anyone, other than those in power in football who are directly financially benefitting. The premier league love it - all those men in suits get even more money, they get their cut. Agents love it, they get theirs. Players like it, double your salary by moving and sitting on the bench? Sure, look at Jack Rodwell (remember him?).
And now only a handful of clubs make money each year in the league. All the others are literally only surviving because every now and then a rich club overspends on a single player, or they get a small (relatively) gift from their owners (Whelan etc).
Look around. Milan are being forced to spend within their means. Juve are being more responsible. Real and Barca only exist because they're bankrupting the other 18 teams by stealing all the TV money. In France football is in a terrible way, and the new tax-regime might destroy the current wage structure. Germany looks good, and that's because it's the most balanced.
I believe football is coming to a crucial point, when the majority of teams just can't keep operate in a sustainable way with the big boys. And that will be very sad, but the powers that be only care about money.
Finally, if you genuinely don't see the difference between the Glazers and Messrs Mansour and Abramovich, let me spell it out. The Glazers have TAKEN more than £500m from United, the other two have GIVEN more than £1.5bn to their clubs. Not sure how they could be any more different.