Manchester City's Spending - Does Pep Have A Point?

Some Might Say

As Manchester City closed in on their fourth Premier League title in a row (and their sixth in seven years), their outstanding manager Pep Guardiola was asked whether this might be a little, well, boring.

The response was forthright: “It's boring? It's not. It is so difficult. Before do you know what it was? It was the money.”

The Catalonian added, “It was the reason why Manchester United should have won all the titles. All of them. And second Chelsea, all the titles. And third, Arsenal. All the titles. They spend much more in the last five, six years than us, net spend. They should be there, but they are not.”

This is far from the first time that Guardiola has bristled when it has been suggested that City’s success has been driven by money.

Indeed, a year ago, when asked about Manchester United, Pep entered full sarcastic mode, “If they spend a little more money, yes. It’s because they didn’t spend, isn’t it? It’s normal, they’re in the position they normally should be. The reality is that two teams, Liverpool and ourselves, have done incredibly well in the numbers.”

Of course, nobody would claim that Manchester City have not spent a lot of money, but does Guardiola actually have a point?

Let’s take a look at City’s spending, from a number of angles.

We will compare their expenditure against the teams mentioned by Pep, namely Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal, but also focus on the other members of the Big Six, so include Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspur.

In addition, we will extend the analysis to a couple of aspirational clubs, who have spent big in the last few years, having been backed by wealthy owners, i.e. Newcastle United and Aston Villa.