Football: The big 4, more different than you think

Tuesday's Times (2nd December, p81) ran a very interesting set of figures which set out to show that the Big Four buy more players in the summer than in January. What was much more interesting, though, was what the figures revealed and the article didn't focus on.

First, the sheer amount the Big Four have been spending in recent years. Chelsea almost £400m since 2003. Manchester United over £200m, Liverpool over £150m and Arsenal over £100m. The days when small clubs like Derby and Nottingham Forest could win the English league are pretty much over. Clubs like Newcastle, Tottenham and Leeds who think of themselves as big clubs will either bust a gasket financially (like Leeds) or have some either kind of breakdown (like Newcastle and Tottenham) in the attempt to keep up. The financial gap between the top clubs and the rest is huge. The possible exceptions are clubs like Manchester City who manage to lure big money owners, but that's still too early to say. Money matters. Yes, Chelsea had three terrific managers and bought well, but they outspent everyone, even Manchester United by 2:1. In recent years, the clubs who spent most, won most. So far, so predictable. Less obvious are the differences between the Big Four.



Arsenal and, until recently, Liverpool, spent far less. Wenger is famous for what he has achieved with comparably small budgets. But he is now becoming just as famous for not winning anything. What is crucial is not just the first team though players like Ballack, Carvalho and Deco don't come cheap, nor Tevez, Berbatov and Nani. What really matters is the size of squad. You don't just need two top strikers to win trophies. You need four: Tevez, Berbatov, Ronaldo and Rooney; Torres, Keane, Kuyt and Babel; Drogba, Anelka, Kalou and Di Santo. And not just up front. You need strength in depth all the way through the squad. basically, you need two first teams because injuries, suspensions, international matches and week after week when you're playing two crucial matches every week -- all that, takes its toll.

But there is something else about these spending figures. Chelsea hti the ground running: £270m in 3 seasons (2003-05). But in the last couple of seasons, which have been less successful, they spent less than £70m. The year United fought back and won back the League title, Cheslea spent less than £20m. United, by contrast, spent less than £40m when Mourinho was winning the Premiership, back to back, and then spent nearly £100m to win and retain the title themselves. Liverpool spent little and as a result weren't in contention then in the last two seasons they outspent Chelsea and United to buy new players for almost £90 million. And there they are in contention. Arsenal simply haven't been able to compete financially, and as a result have not won anything for three seasons. In the spring, those young legs which ran rings around everyone in the autumn, slowed down, trying to win trophies on three fronts.

This makes dispiriting reading for fans and board members across the nation. You don't just need a great manager and great players. You need a hugely rich owner who will spend £200-400m to buy success. Nothing else will do.