Fourth place in the Premier League – and with it, Champions League football – has never been more keenly contested. We take a look at each of the contenders and present the case for and against their claiming the final place at football’s richest table. Following Liverpool, here is the case for Manchester City.
With their money, Manchester City are going to be a force in football come what may
To say Manchester City are a rich is a bit like saying that Portsmouth are in a spot of bother. They have already spent more since their change of ownership than any other club and it is clear that the spending is not going to end there. Indeed as soon as they can offer Champions League football, the level of player they will be able to attract will increase along with that spending.
One way or another, the near-limitlessly funded club are going to be regulars in the Champions League, they might as well sow up that position now.
The Counter:
The Premier League already has one club monopolising a Champions League place because of funding outside of their natural means, having a second can’t be good for a league that has unnaturally funded clubs through inconceivably rich benefactors (Chelsea, Manchester City) or inconceivably large debt (Manchester United, Liverpool) dominating those clubs who are managed within their means (Arsenal, Tottenham, Everton, Aston Villa).
It’s about time someone broke up the top four
Chelsea, Manchester United, Arsenal and Liverpool. It is the same story every season – those four clubs are the most attractive for players because they can offer the highest wages and Champions League football. Their reward is 20 to 30 million extra every season which in turns ensures they qualify for the Champions League. This is demonstrably anti-competitive and creates a tiered structure in the league where 16 of the teams effectively have zero chance of actually winning the competition. With their wealth and ambition, Manchester City have the best chance of breaking into, and ending this self-perpetuating cartel.
The counter:
There’s no counter for the basic argument – Manchester City replacing one of the existing top four (Liverpool probably). However all it will do is to replace one team with another that has far greater resources to stay there. Indeed Manchester City don’t need the Champions League money – they need to be in the competition to attract the best players.
City will also be able to challenge for the title
Why stop at breaking into the top four when you can break up the top two of Manchester United and Chelsea who have dominated the competition for the past five years?
The counter:
If they were to break into this top two at the expense of one team, it would almost certainly be Manchester United whose squad is surprisingly weak (for a team who have won the competition for the last three years). So at the top of the game we would have two teams funded by private wealth and operating far above their natural means.
City will also be able to challenge for the Champions League
The more teams we have competing in the final stages of the Champions League, the better English football we be, the higher our coefficient will be, the better off we will all be. Manchester City stand the best chance of the challengers for fourth place of competing with the best of Europe.
The counter:
Liverpool – and especially Benitez – have already proven that you need more than just a squad packed with quality to compete in the Champions League. In fact Benitez has proven you don’t need a squad packed with quality at all… Even Jose Mourinho who seems most likely to take over at City next season hasn’t been able to bring the Champions League at either Chelsea or Inter. Liverpool have the experience, knowhow and track record to compete with the best of Europe.
Conclusion
Long-term, Manchester City are almost certain to nail down one of the four Champions League spaces and the remaining contenders will be competing for fourth with either Arsenal or Manchester United.
There is plenty of scope for short-term disruption of this plan however. It is likely that City will not finish fourth this season because of all the teams around them, they have neither the best attack nor the best defence and their manager is under the most pressure (with maybe the exception of Benitez). Assuming they don’t get fourth this season, another change of manager will be preceded by another round of £100m+ spending on players who are motivated more by money than achievement or glory.
Hence the importance of City bringing in Jose Mourinho – a coach of such renown that players may move there simply to play with him (and the near-guarantee of future success).
As for this season, maybe it would be nice for a team whose long-term membership of the hallowed top four is far less than guaranteed to have a chance to pit their wits against the best Europe has to offer.
