Outside Manchester City's Etihad Stadium is a lustrous silver statue of Sergio Aguero - mouth agape in ecstasy, kit swirling over his head - depicting his goal celebration after securing the club's first Premier League title. It is the immortilisation of the most famous goal in English league football history, when City snatched the trophy away from Manchester United in the dying seconds of the 2011-12 season. But what if the goal never happened?
What if Aguero had never played for the club? What if City had opted to abide by football's financial rules instead of purposefully breaking them through a "disguised funding scheme"? The revelation that the club has been found guilty of the charges brought against it by the Premier League three and a half years ago has left football fans around the world questioning the legitimacy of City's achievements between 2009 and 2018, when they were the most successful club in English football and cemented themselves among the global game's elite.
Some fans are referring to it as the asterisk era, and there is a possibility City could be retroactively stripped of the honours they earned during the period, with some clubs seeking legal advice over potential financial compensation. So how exactly did City's "hugely overstated" income impact their actions in the transfer market, how key were the players who were brought in, and what does it all mean for both the past and the future? Manchester City spent about £1.2bn on new players in the transfer windows between summer 2009 and January 2018.
In that time, the club won seven major trophies - three Premier Leagues, one FA Cup, and three EFL Cups - having previously gone without a significant honour since 1970. The players they purchased during that time included some of the world's best, in all areas of the pitch. Multiple were signed for figures in the tens of millions every summer and made a huge contribution to the club's consistent success.
The graphic below demonstrates how much City spent in each summer and across the whole time period, and contrasts it with the amount of money that the commission which has found the club guilty determined had been falsely pumped into the club by its owners, under the guise of sponsorship income. City did not only generate revenue from sponsorship funds in that time. And income is also spent on many things other than transfers, including player wages, utilities, insurance, infrastructure, marketing, foundations and more.
But the figures underline the fact that City would simply not have been able to purchase the quantity and quality of players they signed during their era of domination had they not been conducting what the commission described as a "concerted campaign to falsify" their financial accounts. If City's financial power had been slashed by the extra £830m the commission says they falsely added to their books, their transfer spend would surely have been massively reduced. Chop the amount in half, say, and maybe they would only have brought in half the amount of players.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
