What makes A good team?
As shown in the previous parts of a magazine, there are clearly the top teams. These top teams can be easily noticed by the form they are in. At the start of the magazine the goal was to find out what makes a good team by looking into the most successful teams attributes and choosing a few. It is evident that the best attributes for a team to have are based around the financial aspect,
As shown in the Manchester United section, it clearly stated that the debt that the club had been saddled with had brought them down in domestic cup success. Whilst the club may have done well in their success in their own league, they failed to succeed at abroad success (Champions League). With only two Champions League trophies, it suprises me that they win so much in their league. It is clear that if they did not have the £800 million debt, they would have done much better. With more money on the table to buy their transfer targets, like Eden Hazard, they would have more diversity to work with in the big matches. Losing to Barcelona twice in the Champions League Finals, Manchester United would have benefited with more first team players, which would have been bought. With only enough funds to buy a certain amount of players, Manchester United were limited. It was due to their sponsors, fanbase and merchandise sales that they had any money to spend in the first place. Their intelligence to buy players that would not only boost their squad but boost their sales made them a lot of money. Known as one of Manchester United's biggest traits, it may have been the driving force behind 20 league titles. Merchandise and Fanbase both make up the main traits for a good team, as debt. It is clear that Manchester United would have been a much better team had there been no debt, so a good team must not have much debt.
What also makes up a good team is the owners commitment to the club. Owners can provide both financial and business advice to the club. They contribute to overall makings of a club, saying wether a decision will benefit the club or not. Owners play one of the biggest roles in determining the clubs progress. As shown with Chelsea, Roman Abramovich commitment to the club brought not only trophies, but an international presence. He is, in my opinion, one of the best managers a club could have. It was him that brought Chelsea to where it is today. It is also noted that Manchester City's manager also brought the club to where they are now with their commitment. By bankrolling the club, they have created one of the best sides in the world. The opposite of a good owner, Stan Kroeke (Arsenal) and Malcom Glazer (Manchester United), have seriously stunted the clubs success. They have brought debt and a will not to spend into the clubs. Whilst this may not affect Manchester United, it is clearly shown in Arsenal that this attitude does not bring success.
It is clear that the main attributes that make a good team revolve around the financial aspect of football. Whilst this may be not what football was originally intented for, this is the sad truth of things. By showing two clubs with a completely different aspect (spending and global poweress), I wanted to show that in order to be a big club, you have to commit to spend. As shown with so many football clubs, how big your wallet is generally tells how good a club is. Whilst in some cases this is not the case, the Champions League has now become a league for the top spenders.