bigh0rt wrote:I have more respect for teams like Man City and Chelsea, who at least don't try to mask over or pretend they're doing something other than what they're doing.
A lot of City fans I've come across were the ones who would voice they were the only club actual Mancunians supported and they didn't sell out like United, as a global corporate brand. Oddly, the club pander to emerging markets as the lovable otherwise irksomely fashionable underdog and they don't bat an eyelash. They fired their best performing manager in Roberto Mancini in recent seasons over just one underwhelming season in which they still finished runners-up and FA Cup finalists.
As for Chelsea fans, I have respect for a few of the die-hard Chelsea fans I've met. Otherwise, I never really had a net positive experience with Chelsea fans, especially in the early 90's when their fans were a much different lot than the more innocuous lot that turn up for the games. Football fans in general, are a tribalistic bunch with lots of preachiness and patronizing on many sides. It's part and parcel, really.
Still, I think there's a difference between the likes of Man United, Barcelona, Real Madrid, and Bayern Munich from Man City, Chelsea, and PSG (and possibly Monaco). The former group had success which had begotten more success, funded by what they do earn. The latter group won the sugar daddy benefactor's lottery and do just as much, if not more, to distort the football transfer market. I'm not exactly supporting the notion of a constant oligarchy in club football by any means. In fact, the emergence of City/Chelsea/PSG/Monaco do more to hurt the likes of Arsenal, Spurs, Ajax, and Dortmund, proper clubs built organically and based on their own histories and traditions.