Manchester City wasn't always the powerhouse they are today. From 1996 to 2003 they faced multiple relegations and promotions jumping from division to division. Manchester City went on a rapid rise to upper-tier English soccer in 2008. This is all due to the new owner at the time Sheikh Mansour. After 13 years he has amassed 5 premier league titles, through an investment that is close to 3.5 billion dollars. Mansour is the chief executive of the Abu Dhabi Mubadala Investment Company. He oversees over 243 billion dollars, while also being the deputy prime minister of Abu Dhabi. It seems illegal that he is able to be a high-serving politician while managing such a large sum of money. Mansour also owns the City Football Group, which has teams in all major cities like New York and Melbourne.
Recently, Mansour had a meeting with Bassar al-Assad, president of Syria and ally of Vladamir Putin. This was a major red flag by the footballing world because the Syrian President is being accused of “Horrible atrocities.” Sanctions are being called upon Mansour as Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich had his assets frozen and is facing sanctions for ties with Russia. Overall, Manchester City and the City Football Group have gone from strength to strength and they have established themselves as a force to be reckoned with, all thanks to middle easter investment. Have these investments been beneficial for football fans worldwide? Should we consider putting restrictions on political figures' investment in football?
All of the information in this article is new news to me. I did not know the background about Manchester City and that their rise to the top of the EPL was influenced by Mansour's investment and his close ties to Abu Dhabi. Personally, I feel that ownership contributes way too much to a club's success but understand why it is allowed. Recently, I've heard that Chelsea's owner is stepping down and I am curious if this information has anything to do with it?
ReplyDeleteBeing a Man City fan myself, this article was really intriguing. I have found it interesting over the last 5-10 years how the future of clubs can do a 180 based on the owner that respective club and the money they possess. One question I ask myself is: should there be more regulations/rules to even out the playing field. As a city fan, I sometimes do not like when they can just go out and spend money to get the best of the best. To me, that is paying to win.
ReplyDeleteI think there's a conflict of interest when you have high political figures investing that much in football. All of this news was new to me while I was reading the article. I would agree with you that it does seem illegal for political figures that have that much money to be investing in football clubs.
ReplyDeleteThese investments have definitely been beneficial for football, as it allowed another powerhouse in the BPL to appear. However, the answer to if those investments were made in good faith to the game of football from someone that had the right intentions is unclear. I believe that the situation we are in as a planet right now is definitely rare, so any owner involved in any way with Putin should have the same interim fate as Abramovich, but that doesn't mean every political figure's investment should be restricted. The investments provided from these owners have dramatically elevated the sport of European football and it would be a shame to restrict that elevation to increase further. But, UEFA placing penalties as they did for Chelsea are what should be done in a situation like this.
ReplyDeleteManchester City's growth to what it is today is all about money. The owner, who is well over 10 billion dollars can sign all the players in the world and not care paying the penalty. In the last 13 years, they have spent over 1.3 billion dollars in transfer fees. Players such as Aguero, Ballotelli, Yaya Toure brought relevance to the club. Today the club is worth over 3.5 billion dollars and have multiple other teams they own in the United States, and China,
ReplyDelete