How much is too much money to spend for Premier League title? | OneFootball

Do you understand football’s economics?

I’m not talking about the investment from murderous regimes as if they are not the product of autocratic states that are killing, raping and torturing people in their thousands. Yeah, just shut up about that. Keep politics out of sport, eh. Enjoy the blood money and the degradation of our once-great civic institutions and stop crying your liberal tears. Mass murder endorsers have replaced terrible sportswear employers. Nothing wrong with that. The authorities are happy to wave them all through without question. It’s not us so what does it matter? People are dying all over the world.

But forget that hellscape and moral-free context. I’m talking about day-to-day economics. They make absolutely no sense. How do clubs with a guaranteed paying public, and guaranteed millions just for existing in the Premier League, manage to lose money or have to sell a player to keep within PSR rules? It’s a luxury which they frequently abuse. And despite recent previous lavish spending they will still complain. Oops, we accidentally lavished £100m on someone who turned out to be not even worth a third of that.

Is it part of the idea that money can buy you happiness? Manchester United have proven the folly of trying to buy rather than build talent. Sunderland are riding high having spent no more than £27m on any player (okay, they spent a lot in total but didn’t put all their eggs in one expensive basket).

It often feels that the big money transfer is the flared loon pants at a time of skinny jeans. Outdated and outmoded, using money as a substitute for intelligence has become the PL de facto mode but with the under-performance of Alexander Isak, Florian Wirtz, Antony, Jadon Sancho, Darwin Nunez, Wesley Fofana and many others it has surely passed as anything other than sporting Viagra for the impotent. Are any Chelsea players worth what they cost? There have obviously been big-money successes, but they are very much in the minority.

Given the league is financially hugely superior to any other league in world football, if money equated to quality – which it is always assumed it does – why do Premier League teams ever lose to other far less resourced European clubs? They should have far better players but they evidently don’t. What has all the money actually bought?

Much is claimed about the ‘quality’ of this expensive league. But if you saw the Serie A goals this weekend, you’ll know how such judgements rely on us seeing no other football. The ‘best league’ garbage mind wipe is as widespread as ever, but I don’t know what that word ‘quality’ means. Is it just a catch-all term to describe anything good by any footballer? Is there a ruler by which you can definitively measure ‘quality’? Can anyone say categorically what is and isn’t ‘quality’? Because whatever you say it is, I’ve seen it in amateur matches by teams who wouldn’t be thought of as ‘quality’. I’ve seen so-called ‘quality’ at every level.

‘Quality’ isn’t rare or unusual. But the most enjoyable games are invariably ones where mistakes are legion and the most boring are the ones where none are made and could thus be said to be good ‘quality’. How far does that get us? Is it worth paying extortionately for something so common?

What are we watching for? Not for this notional ‘quality’ but for fun and excitement. And as anyone who watches La Liga and especially Serie A, B or C, the Bundesliga and Bundesliga 2 and 3 can attest, they are certainly no less entertaining than a typical Premier League game and frequently more, often played by players who cost a lot less, by teams often unable to throw away big money on a player. So why are Premier League clubs addicted to the transfer largesse?

It’s often said the Championship is the most enjoyable league. So, I ask again, what are these clubs in the PL spending all this money for? Just to avoid relegation into a more exciting league? That’s a bit weird isn’t it? You’re spending millions to be in a more boring league, just to earn enough free money to do it all again next season, ad infinitum, spending fortunes but achieving nothing except stasis. Just doing an Everton season after season. See? It all makes no sense. It’s as if football isn’t even played for us at all.

The huge investment in clubs by the bloody hands of autocratic regimes does tend to lead to one of their teams winning the league, just from the sheer volume spent over several years. Is that what you want? Is that what it’s all about? Spending your way to the top with blood money isn’t a sporting achievement as much as it’s a political and financial one.

Where’s the joy in seeing the heavyweight champion of the world beating up your one-legged mate? People for whom everything that comes with the evil investors is an acceptable consequence as long as they spend as much as they can, for as long as they can, have ushered in some heinous devils. But, though not everyone can afford to get a big money transfer wrong, they stick with the concept. Spending what they often can’t afford. For example, look at how much West Ham have spent in recent years. Over £400 million! Wasted. What did that achieve? Currently 18th. They’re not untypical; so much free money has made them careless and lazy in thinking they can afford to fail with a transfer.

How much better would it be if all the free money was focused on developing young players and clubs were content with being an important, aspirational part of the country’s regional culture? Would anyone enjoy it less? Think what could be achieved with those hundreds of millions.

I don’t believe enjoyment and spending follow the same upward curve. Increasingly hysterical multi-million fees spent on players with feet of clay, could be far better spent providing a pathway for kids to progress to the first team. That matters. It’s socially responsible.

Can’t clubs see that this transfer model is extremely suboptimal and frequently wastes lots of resources? The money doesn’t achieve anything that couldn’t have been achieved more organically with thoughtful coaching. But that seems beyond their ken.

More existentially, is even winning worth the billions spent achieving it? I’m sure Arsenal or City fans wouldn’t question it, but that view isn’t definitive and it surely has to be asked by those less one-eyed. How much has to be spent over what period of time before the spend invalidates the achievement? You can’t win a beauty contest just by being the biggest spendthrift, as much as clubs labour under the delusion that they can. How many big-money failures does there have to be before clubs realise they’re just wasting money?