Must be funny in a rich man's world. I cant remember which of the famous enlightenment philosophers wrote those famous words but in the modern world of Premier League football, they ring true. Part of me despises the monotony of Man Utd and Chelsea battling it out for the title year in year out, especially since Chelsea are, and always have been, a relatively small club (one league title before the moscow mafia moved in). However, it is hard to argue against the quality of football played in our top flight. The players are quicker, stronger, and probably better than ever before. So, grudgingly, I have to accept that the sport as a product is improving, even if meaningful competition between clubs is diminishing... or is it??
Proposition a) Tottenham - As a proud scouse lad, going to school with a bunch of shandy drinking southern softies was never easy. Most of the lads in my school were Tottenham fans, which instantly meant I hated them. However, over the last couple of seasons it has become impossible to deny the rise of the boys from the lane. For me, Modric is one of the best players in the league, and then there is Van Der Vaart, Lennon, Bale, all of whom would be banging on the managers door for a start at any team in the league, possibly the world. This has all been achieved through sound financial management from Tottenham's owners ENIC. Daniel Levy has proven to be a fantastic chairman and has secured the resources necessary for good old 'arry to succeed. This is the organic model of club development, in stark contrast to the cash rich Man City model of buy everyone now. But does this one example alone prove that clubs can still compete with the best if they manage their money properly, or is it simply that Harry Redknapp is (allegedly) a bung paying, tax-dodging cheat who has got half the agents in Europe on his books? Either way, I contest that the rise of Spurs is 'good for football' and as such should be applauded. Money is important, always has been, always will be. But there is an x factor, the combination of managerial skill, player acquisition, and confidence/ability of the team. These are the really important factors that ultimately determine success and this can not be bought. The rise of Spurs shows that if clubs get their books in order, and the right personnel in place, then the sky is the limit.
Proposition b) Harry Redknapp is (allegedly) a bung paying, tax-dodging cheat with half the agents in Europe on his books, and Spurs are simply over-performing at present. They wont qualify for next years Champions League, Van der Vaart will be off in the summer, Redknap will either finally be prosecuted for his crimes or he will take the England managers job. The wheels will come off and Man City will be the new kids on the Champions League block, reaping the enormous financial benefits that come with qualification for the tournament. The 'sky 4' as we used to know them are all benefiting from unfair financial advantages over their Premier League counterparts that allow them to invest in players that other teams could only dream of. Football is no different to any other business these days and comparing Man Utd and Chelsea to Blackpool is like comparing Tesco and Sainsbury's to your local corner shop.
The truth most likely lies somewhere between the two arguments above. But as an Everton fan, a club with plenty of history but next to no money, who came within touching distance of the Champions League dream, it is hard not to look on enviously as those with bigger pockets battle it out for the top honours.
