The nation’s game has every reason to be in good shape. Football remains by far the country's most popular sport and there is big finance in the game that has enabled clubs to improve their stadiums and bring the world's best players to our shores. As a result the standards of play have improved and our elite clubs once more stand toe to toe with the cream of Europe.

However, the impact of finance on the game is not all good news - its significance in football success grows year on year, leaving the league table more predictable and the fans digging deeper and deeper to follow the game.

Money has always been a factor in football, it has always been a part of the fabric of the game. A factor that if managed well could help bring success or keep a club afloat, if managed poorly could ruin a club’s potential or cost them their very existence. In recent seasons - and especially since the dawn of the Premiership - finance have been both a factor of success and a product of it. TV monies and coverage brought new revenue streams, especially for winning teams. In the Premiership years, success has paid for more success.

A review of Premiership past winners raises eyebrows about the influence that finance in football has in the modern game. Prior to Arsenal’s title win in 2004, Manchester United had won an incredible eight titles in 11 years. If we exclude Arsene Wenger’s Arsenal, you will note that the only other winners have been the club with the biggest wad of money. In 1995, Blackburn came from obscurity to win the title and Chelsea also rose rapidly from a rather false fifth place, leveraged by huge debts, to take the 2005 and 2006 Premiership crowns. Out of 16 Premiership titles, only three have been won with by clubs without financial domination - and then only by the same side.

The statistics raise question marks about the future of our game. Is it one based purely on financial strength? To help answer this question a closer review of the circumstances of Arsenal’s title successes and Liverpool’s title drought will give perspective to the statistics.

The circumstance of Arsenal's title wins begins with the the board’s decision to hire Wenger in 1996, so that is where we begin. At that time, Wenger’s biggest rival was Alex Ferguson, who had already won four out of five Premiership titles. If Wenger was to win with Arsenal, he would need to beat a Manchester United team with a fraction of the budget. He would also need to beat a dominant team and a manager with a 10-year head start. As it turned out Ferguson’s team would go on to win nine more trophies, including the two in Wenger’s part season, and Arsenal would claim seven. Wenger’s acumen in the market and ability to spot young players was to be a crucial factor in being competitive.

Liverpool, England’s most successful side, have not won the league title since the Premiership began. If any English side was capable, it would surely be them. It leads me to conclude that Arsenal’s success was an exception to the rule.

You will recall that the 2004 side did beat a Chelsea team with the funding of Roman Abramovich but that side was built prior to his arrival, while the Arsenal team was at its very peak. It took a history-making side to stop Chelsea but it could not be sustained. Arsenal would need to grow a new team rather than buy it instantly. Could they have done so at Highbury and win in today’s climate?

Chelsea were, prior to Abramovich, in much the same situation as Leeds United and could have easily gone the same way as Leeds, whose debts were substantially less than the south London club. But Chelsea escaped the fate of Leeds and struck gold when Russian oil baron Abramovich bought the club.

Chelsea’s reward for living way beyond their means in an unsustainable fashion could not be further from that of Leeds. They were rewarded with almost unlimited financial power which, beyond questionable doubt, is the reason for their position as double champions rather than struggling for their very existence.

Chelsea's position has set a dangerous precedent and the reality is that same route is already being followed by Aston Villa, Portsmouth and West Ham. Liverpool may follow suit, too, with backers in the same league as Abramovich.

The league’s wealth attracted the best players, the best players made the Premiership the best league and the best league has now attracted yet more money. The question football must ask itself is whether inorganic finance is good for the game. Are we happy to see a football league that in effect equates to a who’s who of the business world? Where is the footballing merit in what is effectively like winning the lottery?

Leeds United came close to cementing their position among the top four but their tactics of spending monies they simply didn’t have backfired in a huge way. It's an own goal that now sees them facing the possibility of relegation to the game's third tier. It is a story of running a club in an unsustainable way. Ironically, that Leeds team had so much talent come through the academy and could have served as the core of the club.

At the other end of the football ladder, as was the case with Leeds, living beyond your means does come with a penalty. For clubs who fall into administration there is a 10-point penalty. I am pleased to see that introduced to football - it is good to see clubs rewarded for running the club in a sustainable way. Maybe there is a precedent that can be followed at the other end of the scale.

The stadiums are big, the game never more popular. It does not need finance from abroad. Football could thrive in a healthier state without it, where the factor finance becomes once more one element of management in the game and where wage fees and transfer prices settle down to a natural level. I hope football chooses an organic path.

http://www.arsenal-land.co.uk/columns/?col=251

Is there too much big money in football? Sportingo would welcome your thoughts on this article.
Find more discussion on this topic at the Leeds United Forum as well.