Buenos Aires -
"We cannot sign like Chelsea because our owner is not a country or an oligarch," Jurgen Klopp complained - and used it as an excuse when asked about the reinforcements of the London team, which totaled 223 million euros (always adding hefty commissions, which do not appear in the transfer amount, and the commitment to pay high contracts for four or five years in full; the player ensures that when signing). First of all, it must be clarified that Chelsea was suspended by FIFA for two markets without signings, now they have caught up.
- Jorge Barraza: Will it be the most exciting Premier League of all?
Klopp referred in the first case to Manchester City and PSG, which are owned by sovereign investment funds from the United Arab Emirates and Qatar respectively. In other words, they belong to those countries. And in the second case, to Chelsea, owned by the ultra-rich Russian Roman Abramovich. The criticism lacks meaning from the moment Liverpool is an asset of John W. Henry, who also owns the Boston Globe and Fenway Sports Group, an American corporation that owns the Boston Red Sox, a NASCAR racing team, and various minor companies. In other words, Henry ranks lower than Abramovich on Forbes' list of billionaires, but he is not a beggar. It is worth noting that Liverpool is a team built with money. Except for Alexander Arnold, the rest of the squad comes from other clubs at high prices. Only the goalkeeper Alisson and the defender Van Dijk cost him 73 and 85 million euros (requested by Klopp). In this current transfer window, they have just invested 100 million in Tsimikas, Thiago, and Diogo Jota. Don't be fooled, Mr. Klopp.
- Jorge Barraza: The Flick method: affection, rigor, and respect
It goes without saying that PSG, City, or Chelsea are wealthy clubs, all the big ones in Europe are. Those accustomed to being the champions are bothered by the appearance of new competitors with title chances, but it is healthy for football. It is also important to respect Financial Fair Play, which means being able to spend up to the limit of genuine income generated by the club.
There is a misguided distrust regarding the arrival of companies or fortunes to football. Chelsea was a traditional club in London that had won a league title (in 1955) until the arrival of Abramovich on July 1, 2003. From that moment, it had exceptional growth and became a global club, winning 18 titles, including 5 leagues, 5 FA Cups, 2 Europa Leagues, and a Champions League, in addition to a dozen runner-up positions. It has been phenomenal for its fans and for English football. Almost the same happened with Manchester City, which became a leading club in the world after the arrival of the Emirati fund. They only had two league titles in their history (1937 and 1968), now they are a multi-champion sitting at the same table as Real Madrid, Manchester United, Bayern Munich, or Barcelona. The same happened with Paris Saint-Germain, a club that had two domestic championships and, since the arrival of the Qatari group, added 7 more, plus 11 national cups and has just reached the Champions League final. The three teams are already at the top. Is it bad for football to have more strong participants with access to success...?
- Jorge Barraza: The goal has come in the Copa Libertadores
We are currently experiencing a similar process at Everton, a club with tradition but far from success for decades. The British-Iranian businessman Farhad Moshiri acquired the club, injecting more than 300 million euros (some say 500), and fans are witnessing a blue rebirth that hopefully will lead to more titles, further improving the competition in the Premier League and football in general. Between 1973 and 2013, Liverpool and Manchester United won 24 league titles between them. Now it would be impossible, the competition is much stronger. In Germany, the Red Bull beverage company founded RB Leipzig in 2009 on the ashes of an old club from the eastern city. They started in the fifth division, climbed up, reached the Bundesliga, and in 2017 finished second behind Bayern Munich; now they have just reached the Champions League semifinals. They continue to grow. Some decried the commodification of football, however, reality shows that these companies or millionaires are only putting money in. And what the Bundesliga needs is precisely for rivals to challenge Bayern, someone who can overthrow them and bring attraction to the competition.
Hopefully, large economic groups will help reverse the sharp decline of South American football.
Let's not go far, we have the Colombian example of the Ardila Lülle conglomerate, which arrived at Atlético Nacional and made it the number one team beyond Colombian football, winning 21 titles since 1996, including a Copa Libertadores. The sport needs more Ardila Lülles.
Hopefully, large economic groups will help reverse the sharp decline of South American football. What could be worse than the current slump, the defeats, the ostracism... River Plate, in addition to transferring Juan Fernando Quintero to China and putting all its squad up for sale, has just asked for a loan of 500 million pesos to pay off debts, salaries, and operating costs. And this is not a temporary issue, our clubs have been suffering from financial problems for a long time. Wouldn't private investors be good for Argentine football...? Someone who puts in 50 or 100 million dollars in Independiente, Racing, San Lorenzo. Instead of just Boca and River, let there be ten. Or someone who injects economic strength into Peñarol to make it Peñarol again. Private investment is a bad word in certain media, but if we want to truly become competitive again, we will have to open our minds. Meanwhile, we are increasingly becoming fans of European football and its clubs. (O)