Man City’s spending ruining football? No, but Manchester United’s might be

A narrative suggesting that Manchester City’s spending has ruined football has arisen recently, but it’s actually their cross-town rivals Manchester United who are the real culprits.

£50 million on a right-back? Ridiculous! £50 million on a left-back? Blasphemy!

Manchester City’s spending in recent years has kickstarted a narrative, that Pep Guardiola’s side are ‘ruining football’ by paying hefty transfer fees for first-team footballers to improve their starting XI and first 18. Of course, Manchester City are relatively new to the whole ‘big club’ game, having only been relevant at the top of English football for decade, which means that they are more vulnerable to criticism since they have the backing of an entire Middle Eastern nation and were one of the first clubs to follow this untraditional path of money being pumped into the club by a foreign investor.

However, especially under Pep Guardiola over the last few seasons, Manchester City’s spending has been rather excellent. Yes, they’ve paid very high transfer fees for a number of players, but essentially every single one of those players has lived up to the fee and perhaps even exceeded it, which begs the question – is Manchester City’s spending really ruining football if the signings are actually quite good? The answer is no.

If you want yes for an answer, look across town to Manchester United, who have spent money in boatloads just like Manchester City in recent years, except on footballers who haven’t lived up to the price tag – most of them not even close to it, in fact.

https://twitter.com/Sporf/status/1075058815341682688

No matter how often and how viciously Manchester United want to point fingers at Manchester City’s oil money and cite it as the reason why they have fallen so far behind their rivals, it will not hide their own transfer spend. Since Manchester United are a legendary, historic club, especially when compared side-by-side with City, they are normally able to spend more money without getting put under the microscope by the fans and media.

It’s time for that to change.

Lukaku (more than twice as expensive as Jesus), Pogba (more expensive than De Bruyne), Matic (more expensive than Gundogan), Fred (more expensive than Bernardo Silva), Maguire (more expensive than Laporte), Martial (more expensive than Sane), and even the likes of Mkhitaryan, Wan-Bissaka, Lindelof, Alexis, and Bailly fall into the category of expensive signings that have not repaid or are yet to repay their transfer fee on the pitch, or in Alexis’ case, his wages.

Even now, Manchester United are constantly linked with expensive transfers despite these sorts of deals never quite working out for them. The Red Devils should be looking for cheaper options with high potential to fill out their squad, rather than splashing major cash on footballers who have so much room to fail.

Just look at the gap between Liverpool and Manchester United in world football at the moment. It’s important to keep in mind that Liverpool have spent less money on transfers while having a far better net spend in general than United over the last 3-and-a-half years.

Now, let me be clear: I’m not saying that Manchester United’s spending has ruined football, but they are certainly more fitting of being accused of it than Manchester City are.

Instead of blaming Manchester City’s spending on the reason they haven’t been able to keep up, Manchester United need to understand that they have dug their own grave with their awful transfer spending, and they only have themselves to blame for their downfall.

All stats and fees courtesy of transfermarkt.co.uk