Has Manchester United and Chelsea ruined the premier league?

[Mike Sanders]

This is mostly in regards to clubs being able to buy quality players and more importantly keep their home grown talent.

Now a lot of manchester united fans will probably think that Chelsea are worse for this... but the truth is that Man Utd started it all and Chelsea just took it to the extreme.

Manchester United - Although not many of the tranfers worked, they did have a habit between 1995-2003 (pretty much on their own) of poaching other clubs talents. Dwight Yorke and Wayne Rooney are 2 of the 'better' examples.

Clubs like Liverpool/Spurs are trying to keep up with this trend, but they cannot do it, Spurs fans are more realistic, some Pool fans are totally deluded that they can compete at the top level.

Anyway... in short, it pains be to see great players that MU and Chelsea have going to waste - SWP and (What was Alan Smith) are 2 good examples.

[weeshuggy]

I wouldn't lay the blame for what is happening to football on Chelsea or Man Utd. It's more an evolution of what's been going on since the time the Italians (followed by the big guns of Spain) started throwing their money around decades ago and sweeping up most of the world's best players. If any one entity is more at fault than most, I would say television and the demand of the viewing audience are the ones to look at. It's TV money that is driving the football market these days and it is the consumer (in other words the ones who watch TV) who buy the goods that allows the manufacturers to spend millions on advertising. That advertising money eventually ends up as contracts that give truckloads of cash to the EPL (Wigan and Portsmouth and Chelsea and United et al). The 'big' four of the EPL are only doing what any other club in the league would be doing if the shoe (in this case the boots) were on the other foot (feet)!

Of course in the society of today....money breeds money...the more you have, the more you are going to get.....once you reach a certain plateau, it will take a disaster if gigantic proportions (like the collapsing of the stock market) to drive you into bankruptcy. In the case of football.....this would be akin to the TV networks pulling the plug on the sport and that is highly unlikely to happen any time soon.

With the American and Asian markets just about ready for the onslaught of more Beckhams, Manchester Uniteds, Liverpools and Real Madrids, allied to their own ever-increasing interest in the game, it is very much going to be more of the same, with the rich getting ever and ever more richer. Better get used to it sunshine.....football isn't the football of yesterday anymore.

[Hybrid]

They may be buying the best players,and the best players win titles for them.It's a very simple logic.We actually have a very thin squad while Chelsea has 3-4 players for each position.Once Heinze goes Evra would be the only left back for the club.There's no direct replacement for Ronaldo either.Nani's for Giggs and Anderson's for Scholes.Besides,money does not = success.Remember West Ham United?They barely survived the last season.United has overspent on some players I agree,but it's Chelsea that jacked up the prices.Spending 20 million and 30 million on players that don't always bring results.They've jacked up the prices so much that 10 million now is considered cheap.

I don't feel that Liverpool fans are being delusional,even though I'm a Red Devil through and through.They have a fair chance of winning the league every season,but they're inconsistent.Especially when the league's not the same as 10 years ago where champions lose 10 games and still win the title.We can't afford to lose more than 5 games if we are to challenge for the title.The title challengers win almost every match,occasionally getting a draw or a loss.

ynwa,that's a lot of talk coming from someone who has 17 BARREN YEARS AND COUNTING.We'll wipe your record off the face of the Earth in a few years.You guys would be nothing but under-achieving has-beens after that.

[pfc123darkknight]

unfortunately, the premier league is all about Money and who as the biggest clout.
I don't agree with it myself but at the moment money talks and if my club is to be successful we have to go along with it.
Jimmy Hill fought to get rid of the wage cap years ago. maybe it's time to bring it back.
To blame United for this state of affairs is really unfair. don't get me wrong, i hate the money side of my club but if we want to stay at the top we have to go along with it for now.
so the answer to your question is, yes having two dominant teams is not good for the game but i wouldn't swap our position for anyone elsies and no fan in their right mind, doesn't wish that their Team was winning things year after year.

[deano]

can i just say this man united do what they are doing with money generated by the club so i think that give them the right to compete as they do.. yes chelsea are bank rolled by a multibillionaire but they dont win everything do they as for spurs and liverpool?? i understand what your saying about spurs but with liverpool your argument is falling on deaf ears because they have spent there fair share and they also have the cash to splash from outside football like chelsea..
and try to remember this in liverpools glory years they like chelsea were bankrolled by outside interests littlewood pools and no one could compete with them since the national lottery came the littlewoods pools money has dimminished and so have liverpool. they are ready to start challenging again BUT with money from outside the game?? think about it...

[barbara_lloyd911]

I am a HUGE Chelsea fan.... but I have to amit that YES.... they HAVE in a way.. its become so PREDICTIBLE now.

[J. ash]

its a simple rule in a game, dont play the game if you cant handle the pain!!

[caring_sensitive_medic]

Yes i belive they have but i dis-agree with a "super" leauge anyway the prem was set up with money and tv in mind if the top two played a home grown squad would they win?? i dont think so.

[Steven M]

No, SKY TV and the F.A. between them ruined it. The league was much tighter and more competitive before SKY started paying the big clubs silly money, now it is normally won with a month to spare. A team like Fulham get far less money than Chelsea from SKY, even though Chelsea are already stupidly rich. The F.A. haven't got the collective backbone to do something about it. But yeah, Man U and Chelsea aren't helping - it means that every other club will have to be bought by a billionaire just to give them a fighting chance. They buy whoever they want, sometimes without obeying the rules (Ashley Cole, Jaap Stam and Carlos Tevez were all tapped up) and every other team just has to put up with it, and again, the F.A. do nothing to stop it (other than fining Chelsea over Ashley Cole - yeah go on, fine a billionaire, that'll teach him...) It has turned out that the league is now more of a procession than a competition. Man U or Chelsea 1st, Liverpool 2nd or 3rd, Arsenal 4th, everybody else competes for the European places. Its sh!t.

[Utd4Life]

What da hell r u on bout if united wasnt in da prem it would b boring only bout 3 or 4 teams play exciting football but they r not @ da top have u got comman sense man u r da mst exciting team in england even da world im gonna ask a question who is da most entertaining footy club in da world?and player man u all da way