In the nine years from 1975 to 1984, Liverpool won seven league titles and four European Cups. And this was fine.

In the nine years from 1992 to 2001, Manchester United won seven league titles, including three domestic doubles and the treble. And this was fine.

Shortly after this, Arsenal became the first team since the League’s inaugural season to remain undefeated for an entire campaign. This after winning two domestic doubles in the space of five seasons. And again, this was fine.

When I say “this was fine”, I mean as far as the media and the public consensus were concerned. The pundits and experts would simply fawn over how great the players and manager(s) of these sides were.

Even supporters of their rivals, while obviously unhappy with their success, had to grudgingly accept that these dominating teams were simply better than the rest of the competition and were having their time in the sun. No-one felt as though the fabric of the game was damaged or that the heart of football was being ripped out.

Manchester City are currently enjoying a similar period of dominance - six League titles in the last seven seasons – and suddenly it’s a problem. Suddenly, it’s bad for the game. It’s a monopoly. The league’s in danger of becoming boring.

I would therefore argue that the problem isn’t that someone’s having a period of dominance. The problem is that Manchester City are doing it. More accurately, the problem is that someone other than Arsenal, Liverpool or Manchester United are doing it.

The Red Cartel

Arsenal, Liverpool and Manchester United. The Red Cartel. Members of the old G14. Part of the initial plans for the more influential European clubs to form a breakaway league back in 1998. Over the years, the latter two in particular have gradually wrestled more and more control of the media, to the point where watching Sky when either of them are playing is akin to watching LFC TV or MUTV respectively.

I’m sure readers of this article can cite their own examples of biased coverage over the years so I won't bore you with my own. All I want to add here is that the only time balanced coverage is provided and post-match reaction is applied fairly is when they’re playing each other.

Just look at Liverpool’s 7-0 victory against Manchester United last year. If Liverpool had beaten anyone else 7-0 (except maybe Arsenal), the reaction would have been all about how wonderful Liverpool are, with no consideration given for their opponents playing and defending exceptionally poorly.

Furthermore, imagine the reaction if Manchester United had lost 7-0 to anybody else (except maybe Arsenal). One only has to look at Luvvie Neville’s unprofessional rant when we beat them 4-0 in 2019. “Everton. Everton!” indeed.

The occasional breach of this cartel seems to be allowed – the media were relatively easy on Blackburn Rovers and Leicester City when they had their moment.

It was too late to stop Chelsea

However, it seems that if any of these upstarts threaten to have lasting success, they must be taken down. There is speculation that it was Chelsea’s emergence as a force in Europe that prompted the creation of the so-called Financial Fair Play rules.

It was already too late to stop Chelsea, and the same year that Chelsea first reached the Champions League Final, the takeover of Manchester City happened. By the time the rules were finalised and became law, City’s extravagant spending had seen them already established as one of the best teams in the land.

Their success could pave the way to self-sufficiency at this level – future sponsorship and commercial deals that they wouldn’t have without the spending that had gone in the past, the income from being Champions League regulars, plus selling players on that they’d already spent big on. It looked like it was too late to stop them too. But that wasn’t going to stop them from trying.

Man City have already had to fight a 2-year European ban in the courts, the case against them thrown out as soon as it went to an actual court, in this case the Court of Arbitration for Sport, as opposed to Uefa’s kangaroo equivalent. Upon learning that the ban wasn’t happening, Klopp declared it a “bad day for football”. The remainder of the old Sky Six, along with Burnley and Wolves, clubbed together to write to CAS insisting that the ban be upheld.

Burnley and Wolves were in the running for a European place at the time and presumably felt they could benefit if City were banned – it seemingly not occurring to them that, if they were ever fortunate enough to have wealthy owners themselves, the cartel would be trying to do the same to them. As someone brilliantly observed on here at the time, it’s like they’d been allowed to sit with the cool kids for a day.

I find it absurd that, in a game in which it’s considered unbecoming to ask the referee for an opposing player to be booked, it seems perfectly fine to ask for a fellow club to be docked points or banned from Europe.

The Premier League should really have the word “League” removed because this is not how clubs supposedly in league with each other behave.

Financial Fair Play and the Profitability & Sustainability Rules

There are contributors to this site who are far better equipped than me to dissect the numerous current charges against Man City; instead, I’d like to exhaust arguments for the Financial Fair Play and Profitability & Sustainability rules…

1) It will stop clubs going into administration 

Since these rules have come in, Bury have been liquidated. Bolton were a few weeks away from the same fate, and at the time there were around half a dozen other clubs in the Football League teetering on bankruptcy. So, if FFP is designed to prevent this from happening, it’s failing miserably.

2) It will punish clubs who spend recklessly

Frankly, I think the consequences of doing this are punishment enough. Look no further than the mess we’ve been in for the past few years.  Clubs who do this end up with a disjointed squad and players they can’t offload because no-one else will be silly enough to match the wages they’re currently on.

If anything, fining or deducting points from clubs who do this will increase the risk of them breaching the rules again, or force them to sell players to offset the fine or lost prize money from points deductions, creating a vicious circle for them.

3) It stops the monopoly of the richest clubs winning all the time 

This is how this piece began. [That must feel like a long time ago to anyone still reading this!] In addition to the earlier dominance of Liverpool and then Manchester United, elsewhere, these rules will only strengthen the hold that other members of the G14, such as Bayern Munich and PSG, have on their respective leagues, and the game will become boring.

And domestically, if these rules had been in place when the breakaway to form the Premier League happened, only Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool would have won it.

That's apart from the 5,000-to-1 exception of Leicester City, and even since then, they’ve been in administration and had points deducted in the  years they’ve been outside of the Premier League, so it’s possible that, had FFP been in place and enforced a few years earlier, they wouldn’t have been able to compete for it either.

Even so, it would be once in the last 32 years that someone outside of the Red Cartel would have won it. How’s that for a monopoly?

And maybe that’s how the powers that be want it. Towards the end of his time as CEO of the Premier League, Richard Scudamore somewhat let the cat out of the bag when he admitted, or even boasted, that it was good for the Premier League’s marketability and income when the more glamourous clubs win it, arguing that more people will tune in if Tiger Woods is on the brink of winning a major than if two much lesser-known golfers were fighting it out.

The reality of Financial Fair Play is that every year, clubs with lower turnovers are forced to sell their prized assets or most promising young players to clubs with higher turnovers in order to satisfy PSR. The reality is that the already rich clubs get richer and more successful, while the poor clubs find themselves even more depleted.

Even those who do manage to have some degree of success aren’t allowed to build on it. The points deductions doled out to Everton and Nottingham Forest have had the desired effect in deterring other clubs from strengthening.

In the last two seasons, Newcastle and Aston Villa respectively have found themselves with Champions League football to offer, maybe for the only time in a generation. Yet instead of being able to take advantage of this by bringing in players who normally wouldn’t be attracted to their clubs, and thus improve further, they’ve had to reign their spending in. Inevitably, this resulted in Newcastle failing to qualify again last season – whether Villa can do it again remains to be seen but it’s doubtful.

In short, Financial Fair Play seems to mean the opposite of its name. It’s like something out of 1984, in which the Ministry of Love doles out punishment, the Ministry of Truth churns out lies and propaganda, etc.

Which leads nicely to the other way they’re trying to keep Manchester City down – turning public opinion against them by controlling the narrative.

He who controls the past

During the build-up to the start of this season, how many times did you read or hear words to the effect of “we can’t have Man City coasting to yet another title”?

Coasting? Arsenal took the race to the final day last season. The previous season, Arsenal led the table for all but the last few weeks. And in the season before that one, Liverpool pushed them to the last day. It’s hardly “coasting”.

But that’s become the narrative. That’s the message the cartel’s chums in the press are getting out there, in order for the public to want them to be heavily penalised – the implication is that the only way Manchester City can be stopped is by being docked points or better still be kicked out of the competition altogether, because their wealth has supposedly given them such an unfair advantage that the rest of the league (and by “the rest of the league”, they mean the Red Cartel) can’t compete.

There’s also been some heavy-handed and out-of-context criticism of their supporters, the media doing their best to paint them as pantomime villains.

City Fans and The Emptihad

On the subject of their fans, the media have also indulged in revisionist history, which really could have come from 1984.

Prior to their takeover, Manchester City’s fans were widely praised for their loyalty and enthusiastic support, given the success of Manchester United during this period. The plaudits were such that they bordered on irritating to fans of other clubs – as our club’s fanzine When Skies Are Grey once put it, you’d think no-one else had ever had to co-exist with more successful city rivals.

The media and public consensus have since done a full 180 – now, City are portrayed and therefore widely perceived as a plastic club with plastic supporters who can’t fill their ground.

Records show that, in the season they were relegated to the third tier, they had a higher average attendance than several Premier League clubs. Even during that season when they were in the third tier, the only club outside the top flight with a higher average attendance were second-tier runaway champions Sunderland, in a big capacity new stadium.

Maybe at some point, the cartel will find a way to expunge these records too. For now, they don’t need to, because it seems the facts don’t matter, only the narrative that’s peddled.

A further example of revisionism

When Sergio Aguero scored that late late winner against QPR, which meant Manchester City took the title from Manchester United at the last, I don’t think there’s a Liverpool fan (or Arsenal fan, for that matter) around who wasn’t celebrating like it was their own team who’d scored it. There was no mention of them being FFP cheats then, or any concerns raised about human rights abuses in Abu Dhabi, or sportswashing etc.

In the years that have followed, City have since been the only thing standing between Liverpool, and more recently Arsenal, and further titles… and now it’s a different story.

We are at war with Manchester City. We have always been at war with Manchester City…

So what does this have to do with Everton?

Well, at the time of our PSR charges and punishments last season, there was some resentment from our fans towards Manchester City. The fact that the powers that be seemed to be fast-tracking our case which contained far fewer allegations of breaches, while all City’s charges were being put to one side, understandably seemed unfair.

There was even a degree of sympathy directed our way from our neighbours. However, it seemed to be from the angle of “what about City?!” rather than outrage that such rules exist and were being applied so heavy-handedly. In other words, any support from them was more about their wanting to see Man City punished than any concern for ourselves.

And that’s why, despite the fact that they’ve now surpassed our nine titles – something I said would never happen back when they were pursuing Joleon Lescott (shows what I know) –  I don’t bear any grudge towards Manchester City.

The way I see it, the punishments towards ourselves and Nottingham Forest last season were done to set an example, to show that the authorities would follow through on threats of points deductions, and most crucially to try to set a precedent before the big trial against Manchester City.

And if it could also scare other wealthy clubs out of furthering their ambitions, (and I believe it has, given my earlier comments about Aston Villa and Newcastle Utd), all the better for it. It seems those outside the cartel have to learn and know their place. And sadly, that includes us.

These rules ensure that Manchester City will be the last club to breach the cartel, and they’re now doing their best to consign their recent success to the history books. Re-written or otherwise.

The End

Right, I’m going to take my tin foil hat off now and enjoy the return of club football this weekend, and hope Ipswich won't follow in Luton’s footsteps by getting their first top-flight win a generation against us.


Reader Comments (14)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer ()


Barry Rathbone
1 Posted 18/10/2024 at 23:11:30
Anyone who blocks Liverpool gets my vote and I don't care how they do it – nice one, City.

The 3 teams you mention infest the media so bias against City is absolutely expected and, let's be honest, journos have never been even-handed because most are unknowledgeable frauds.

One thing that is different about success of recent times is fandom is no longer as local, meaning the passion is noticeably diluted. City's open-top bus celebrations are very lukewarm not what I would have expected given their history from an alleged sleeping giant.

My theory is football has died; yes, people attend and watch on TV while playing pool or going out to get pissed but clubs are no longer representative of their area of origin.

Derek Thomas
2 Posted 18/10/2024 at 23:23:09
Infamy, Infamy, they've all got it Infamy.

A decent rant there David. Not saying you're wrong though, throw in the various aspects of the whole VAR and refereeing thing and you've probably nearly filled your 'why we all hate modern football' bingo card.

Fred Quick
3 Posted 18/10/2024 at 23:47:33
Interesting article, David, the red cartel are always going to try and wield their power as often as they can get away with doing so.

For much of the 2010s, with broadcast revenues increasing rapidly, many Premier League owners made little effort to stoke hostilities with their loyal fan bases by putting up ticket prices. Indeed, Manchester United generated little more from matchday income in the 2021-22 season, as football emerged from the pandemic, than the club had in 2010-11 (see chart above).

However, this uneasy truce between fans and owners has ceased. The relative flatlining of broadcast revenues since 2017, along with cost control rules that are starting to affect clubs' ability to spend money on player signings and wages, has changed club appetites for dampened ticket prices. This has resulted in noticeable rises in individual ticket and season ticket prices by some clubs.

However, season ticket and other local “legacy” fans generate little money compared with the more lucrative overseas and tourist fans. They may only watch their favourite team live once a season, but when they visit, they are far more likely not only to pay higher matchday prices, but to spend more on merchandise, catering and other offerings from the club.

Today's breed of commercially aware, profit-seeking US Premier League owners – pioneered by the Glazer family, who saw that “sweating the asset” meant more than watching football players sprinting hard – understand there is a lot more value to come from English football teams. The clubs' loyal local supporters may not like it, but English football's American-led revolution is not done yet.

Why America is buying up the Premier League and how it will impact the future of football

Nick Page
4 Posted 18/10/2024 at 23:51:03
Good article. But the only reason you and we hate red is because of Atletico Madrid.

A bastard child, nobody wanted. A chip on their shoulder, despite everything - why? Because they know. They aren't original nor are they unique and they don't represent anything Everton doesn't either.

They hate it. They're usurpers. It's in their DNA. They stole the badge, they stole the name of the City. They're the luckiest football club on Earth. They have no grace and only care about winning.

No other football club anywhere in any city that is shared has had to put up with what Everton Football Club has. If you hate them you don't hate them enough.

Like Atleti said, “Between the press and the refs, they've had a 120-year long walk of honour." Liverpool's actual history began in the '60s with Shankly. How they won league titles before that was mainly luck of timing.

Nobody even knows who played for the fucks bar Billy Liddel. There was no history. First FA Cup final win during Merseybeat. Modern not historic. They were in the right place at the the right time with Europe (Forest, Villa, Ipswich, Derby) and then fucked us over more than anyone.

It's not red, or reds, it's them. Made a deal with the devil.

Paul Ferry
5 Posted 19/10/2024 at 03:47:31
I'm very surprised to see this way-too-long and wavering OP got posted in the first place after MK's midweek blast against any mention of them at all.

I hope that others get something out of it and the chat that follows. It was a waste of a few minutes for me. But at least I stuck with it until the end.

Michael Kenrick
6 Posted 19/10/2024 at 08:39:42
Paul,

I had that same feeling as I read the first paragraph... but resisted the urge to hit the delete button. Although it's mostly an amalgam of the 'why them not us' whining that I think I've heard before.

Perhaps you could focus your forensic skills on Nick's post? I changed 'Athletic' to 'Atletico Madrid' because of the Atleti quote further down... but isn't the connection Nick is making a little strained? It's Atletico who play in red and white, isn't it?

Brian Harrison
7 Posted 19/10/2024 at 10:34:48
David,

I can't disagree with anything in your post, surprised that MK didn't rebuke you for mentioning our neighbours and a north London club and 2 from the other end of the East Lancs Road.

Something that is worth mentioning is that we were among the cartel of 5 who instigated the setting up of the Premier League. The problem was that our main benefactor, Sir John Moores, his financial backing and driving force was on the wain, and we didn't have the financial clout to compete with the other 4 cartel members.

Then Man City came along and blew them all out of the water and continue to dominate the Premier League, with their nation-state ownership which should never have been allowed.

But the Premier League back then were more interested in getting as much financial investment as they could to back up their claim that the Premier League was the biggest and the best.

Also, with another nation-state owning Newcastle Utd and Man City winning their battle with the Premier League over sponsorship from close associates being allowed to invest; this has blown a massive hole in FFP rules which Man City and Newcastle will drive a horse and cart through.

So we may end up with only those owned by nation-states competing for the main titles.

Brian Denton
8 Posted 19/10/2024 at 10:53:41
Barry's opening line in the opening reply is spot on.

As far as I'm concerned, Man City can win the next 20 titles on the trot. They'll all be accompanied by a metaphorical asterisk, and it will mean Liverpool will never win another title in my lifetime. I'll settle for that.

Declan Brown
9 Posted 19/10/2024 at 11:19:22
There's been some cracking articles on here that I couldn't better myself in a lifetime of trying.

David, this is the best I've read to date about the state of football (not just Everton). You've covered all the bases – there's nothing really else to add to it. Brilliant brilliant brilliant article.

This should be given to and read by every football fan in Britain (and even further afield to give a feel of how English football really is right now).

Hitting the nail right on the head is a massive understatement.

Robert Tressell
10 Posted 19/10/2024 at 11:46:17
Football now exists to drive commercial revenues, further political agendas, and even validate appalling regimes. It is no surprise therefore that it is now rigged. And it is rigged.

Not quite corrupt perhaps but the media circus surrounding football and the various rule changes (on and off the pitch) are very much skewed in favour of a few global giants. We are not one of them.

We're not a flash-in-the-pan good news story like Brighton which will end up coming and going. Therefore media coverage, our treatment by the authorities, and even refereeing decisions, are blatantly unfair.

Navigating the political landscape and media circus is something the new owners will need to get good at.

Michael Coffey
11 Posted 19/10/2024 at 14:18:24
I have long thought it hilarious that, of all clubs, Man City should stumble into untold wealth and success. A club that spent £1M on Steve Daley, that collapsed into Division 3, supported by fans who gave us the inflatable banana. And then there was Peter Swales. For most of my football life, they were the gift that kept on giving.

So yes, I'm okay with them winning the lot. Forever. Not only do their fans deserve it, the more they win everything, the more the Premier League reveals itself to be the Big Mac that will ultimately eat itself.

Stu Darlington
12 Posted 19/10/2024 at 14:48:37
Good post, Robert,s ays it quite succinctly and accurately. Top-level football is a global business today worth millions if not billions.

The top leagues in Europe want a share of the spoils and can rig the rules any way they want to ensure this. The sad thing is that it has opened a chasm between league administrators and true football supporters.

The money men only care about the bottom line, and supporters want to see good entertaining football and enjoy the partisan atmosphere created at games.

Sadly, I don't think there is any way back now; money, power and influence will always win out. So the best we can do is enjoy it while we can – even if this means sucking up Dyche and his selection and game management eccentricities!

Si Cooper
13 Posted 20/10/2024 at 01:16:40
Brilliant someone has posted but I find parts to be just speculation and at odds to why I thought PSR was ‘birthed'.

I seem to remember it came about because Michel Platini wanted a mechanism in place to prevent English clubs completely monopolising European competition. That has worked to an extent but one consequence of it has been the growing margin between the haves and have-nots.

Man City are no better or worse than the rest of the indentured just because they were the last up the ladder before it was pulled up.

I'd be happy for English clubs to become also-rans in Europe if the pay-off was that a level playing field was ‘recreated', but the Premier League bosses are obviously more bothered about their brand being top dog than the competition being as fair as possible.

Dupont Koo
14 Posted 21/10/2024 at 02:29:07
Bayern Munich won 10 Bundesliga titles IN A ROW since David Moyes' last campaign at Goodison: it didn't stop German fans of other clubs from filling their stadiums week after week. Ask fans of Dortmund, Leverkusen & Werder Bremen (let alone a fallen historic giant in Hamburg, good lord we should be grateful that the last 3 seasons didn't turn us into them on this side of the Channel) whether they have been turned bitter with the insurmountable gap between them and Bayern, I'm sure at least half of them would say yes.

My point is, didn't it make it especially sweet when a giant bully like Bayern fall on their faces suddenly in farcical & unexpected fashion? (Though I would prefer the architect of such demise is not an Ex Red Shite)

In the movie "Invincible", there was a scene where the father told the son (played by Mark Wahlberg) that despite the family & the city's 3 decades of economic struggles (the movie's background was late 1970s Philadelphia), what kept him going everyday at the factory was his beloved Philadelphia Eagles' lone title win in 1947 (the real world Eagles broke the drought in 2014).

I know Graeme Sharp's screamer against the Red Shite in 1984 is a similar totum to a lot of Evertonians.

In short, hope springs eternal, so let's keep our fingers crossed with BMD & the Friedkins: COYB!


Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.



How to get rid of these ads and support TW


© ToffeeWeb