- + Petar Antevski voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + *Bambii* edited the debate Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
- + *Bambii* voted on a point for the debate Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
- + Zabrcanec voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Kristina Stojcik voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Emmanuel Miche edited the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Sd Aa Sexy joined Global Youth Panel
- + Kristina Stojcik voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Kristina Stojcik voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Kristina Stojcik voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Milka Gerovska edited the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Varfslura joined Debatewise
- + *Bambii* voted on a point for the debate Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
- + Petar Antevski edited the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Kristina Stojcik voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Zabrcanec voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Evels Flulky joined Global Youth Panel
- + Soymn joined Debatewise
- + Kristina Stojcik voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Hoathe Toobe joined Debatewise
- + *Bambii* voted on a point for the debate Should a mosque be allowed near Ground Zero?
- + Rlblois joined Debatewise
IS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY AMASSED BY MAN CITY AND CHELSEA RUINING FOOTBALL?
Manchester City's recent £107 million record bid for AC Milan's Kaka has reopened debate on the effects of billionaire owners taking over Premier League clubs. Similarly Roman Abramovich's money has allowed Chelsea to become a title-challenging team over the last few years due to the players and managers they have been able to afford. Does the influence of money promote greater competition in the League or merely widen the gap between success and failure? Perhaps more importantly, does the influx of this money make the football experience more or less enjoyable for the paying supporter?
Is the amount of money amassed by Man City and Chelsea ruining football?
Yes, because... Widens wealth gap
Newly promoted teams don't stand a chance against teams with huge stocks of money as they simply cannot compete financially. If you compare the club record signings of Manchester City, Robinho for £32.5m (1), and of Stoke City, Kitson for £5.5m (2), there is a huge gulf. How can the poorer teams expect to keep pace with those that can consistently outgun them in the transfer market?
(1)http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/ man_city/7593026.stm
(2)http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/stoke _city/7516186.stm
See history of changes to this point
Is the amount of money amassed by Man City and Chelsea ruining football?
Yes, because... Clubs cease to be run as profit making businesses
Does not encourage football clubs to be run in a financially viable manner. Since the arrival of Abramovich, Chelsea have been making massive annual losses - most notably "an annual loss of £140m in the financial year to June 2005" (1). Although they are attempting to become self-sufficient now, they have previously been risking their existence by putting all faith in the continuing generosity of the owner - one who sees owning a team as a hobby and may one day become bored.
(1)http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier- league/chelseas-163140m-loss-sets-a-new-record-524822.html
See history of changes to this point
Is the amount of money amassed by Man City and Chelsea ruining football?
Yes, because... Increases pressure on managers
Encourages instability in the football clubs that are owned by super rich investors. Jose Mourinho and Avram Grant have been high profile managerial casualties at Chelsea, while there is almost daily speculation on the future of Mark Hughes at Manchester City. This could potentially drive big name managers away from the English game in the long term.
See history of changes to this point
Is the amount of money amassed by Man City and Chelsea ruining football?
Yes, because... In the long term fans may have to foot the bill for unprecedented transfer fees
In the wake of the Kaka transfer situation Steve Bruce, Wigan manager, commented: "When a big player is out there it does inflate your prices" (1). Fans may have to suffer financially to support the ridiculous wage demands of new superstars. Season ticket prices may have to rise rapidly in order to maintain some kind of stability, which could subsequently drive loyal fans away from a club they have supported for many years.
(1)http://www.football365.com/story/0,17033,8652_4801 972,00.html
See history of changes to this point
Is the amount of money amassed by Man City and Chelsea ruining football?
No, because... Improves the quality of football on show
More money is good for the Premier League, as it brings worldwide superstars to England and thus improves the prestige associated with our club competition. If the quality of the football witnessed by the paying fans (ultimately the lifeblood of a football team) improves, why should there be any complaints? One could look at the recent domination of English clubs in the Champions League as evidence of the improved quality on show every week.
See history of changes to this point
Is the amount of money amassed by Man City and Chelsea ruining football?
No, because... Newly monied clubs are merely improving their potential of winning trophies
Money has always played a big part in success. Manchester United, Liverpool and to an extent Arsenal always have money to spend and they have been the most successful teams in recent years. Manchester City and Chelsea should not be blamed for wanting to break into the higher echelons of the league.
See history of changes to this point
Vote on this debate: Is the amount of money amassed by Man City and Chelsea ruining football?
Modified:
06 Apr 2010
Point 1. Widens wealth gap
Newly promoted teams don't stand a chance against teams with huge stocks of money as they simply cannot compete financially. If you compare the club record signings of Manchester City, Robinho for £32.5m (1), and of Stoke City, Kitson for £5.5m (2), there is a huge gulf. How can the poorer teams expect to keep pace with those that can consistently outgun them in the transfer market?
(1)http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/m/ man_city/7593026.stm
(2)http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/stoke _city/7516186.stm
Point 2. Clubs cease to be run as profit making businesses
Does not encourage football clubs to be run in a financially viable manner. Since the arrival of Abramovich, Chelsea have been making massive annual losses - most notably "an annual loss of £140m in the financial year to June 2005" (1). Although they are attempting to become self-sufficient now, they have previously been risking their existence by putting all faith in the continuing generosity of the owner - one who sees owning a team as a hobby and may one day become bored.
(1)http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier- league/chelseas-163140m-loss-sets-a-new-record-524822.html
Point 3. Increases pressure on managers
Encourages instability in the football clubs that are owned by super rich investors. Jose Mourinho and Avram Grant have been high profile managerial casualties at Chelsea, while there is almost daily speculation on the future of Mark Hughes at Manchester City. This could potentially drive big name managers away from the English game in the long term.
Point 4. In the long term fans may have to foot the bill for unprecedented transfer fees
In the wake of the Kaka transfer situation Steve Bruce, Wigan manager, commented: "When a big player is out there it does inflate your prices" (1). Fans may have to suffer financially to support the ridiculous wage demands of new superstars. Season ticket prices may have to rise rapidly in order to maintain some kind of stability, which could subsequently drive loyal fans away from a club they have supported for many years.
(1)http://www.football365.com/story/0,17033,8652_4801 972,00.html
Point 1. Improves the quality of football on show
More money is good for the Premier League, as it brings worldwide superstars to England and thus improves the prestige associated with our club competition. If the quality of the football witnessed by the paying fans (ultimately the lifeblood of a football team) improves, why should there be any complaints? One could look at the recent domination of English clubs in the Champions League as evidence of the improved quality on show every week.
Point 2. Newly monied clubs are merely improving their potential of winning trophies
Money has always played a big part in success. Manchester United, Liverpool and to an extent Arsenal always have money to spend and they have been the most successful teams in recent years. Manchester City and Chelsea should not be blamed for wanting to break into the higher echelons of the league.