Mate, seriously, I like you, but don't take the fucking piss eh. You've spent nearly that in just over four seasons, so it's as an unfair a comparison as you can get.
Sorry. don't want to be confrontational so let's get back on track.
We're dealing with a whole different set of issues in football these days than we've been used to. I was looking at some pictures of Maine Road the other day and noticed the advertising hoardings around the ground. The local paper, Ford dealer, TV rental company, scrap merchant, pub, etc. No doubt Anfield was the same. Now look at the list of 'Official Partners' of the big clubs. Companies half way across the world many of us have never heard of.
The Gulf states see themselves as a global hub and easily accessible from developed and rapidly developing countries and they want to promote themselves on a global stage. Compared to the Etihad deal, the Qatar deal with PSG is ridiculous but tourism is a hugely under-developed market in Qatar and significantly increasing revenue from it is one of the main priorities of the government there.
Emirates have benefitted hugely from their sponsorship of sports. I've seen a report that Qatar Airways have had a huge increase in brand recognition by sponsoring the weather report on Sky. With the World Cup coming up in 8 years, they'll have hotels built that have to be filled beyond that. That £160m is something like less than 1% of the total tourism development budget for the last few years. And one of the main things (if not the main thing) that's seen all over the world is Premier League & Champions League football. To be noticed, you've got to be consistently successful in these. You've become a global brand on the back of this and people who want to build brands have realised that this is the way to do it.
People like the Glazers, Stan Kroenke, Randy Lerner and FSG took the very American idea of building a portfolio of sporting brands and no doubt thought that by controlling costs while increasing revenue, they could have a nice profitable little stable of luxury brands. But that concept has been overtaken by those who are looking to make luxury brands of their countries and have the means to do that.
The game has been changing since 19th century owners like John Houlding saw the commercial potential of being able to exclusively sell the beer he brewed inside Anfield during games. (Please note that I'm not blaming him for the commercialisation of football, just trying to make the point that it was seen even then as a means to an end). Clubs (including City) paid the best players more than they were allowed to using various ruses up to and including illicit cash payments.
In my lifetime I've seen abolition of the minimum wage, the end of revenue sharing with the away club, the creation of PLC's and flotation of clubs on the stock market, paid directors, increasing commercialisation, wall-to-wall TV coverage, palyers being made millionaires and all the other stuff that we've come to hate but reluctantly accept. This concept of football as a branding for whole countries is just another of these things. FFP was almost certainly the quid-pro-quo the old G-14 demanded as the price for it disbanding and was meant to ensure that no more clubs could challenge the status quo (although sadly when they pulled the drawbridge up, you were still fighting a battle outside the castle walls). The trouble with rules though, however well meant, is that the more you try to stop people doing things, the more they'll try if they think the reward is worth it.
If football wants to find a sensible way of ensuring that owners can invest in clubs but on condition of making them self-sustaining and not burdened with excessive debt, and that competitions are genuinely as competitive as they can be then I'm right behind that. If, on the other hand, they just want to maintain a self-serving cartel then thing like this will happen.
