Of taking oil money, as opposed to money from US, UK, Malaysian, Chinese, or Thai billionaires?

It didn't seem to be an issue until Man City started winning consistently since many top teams had and have Middle Eastern airlines as primary sponsors, not to mention other dubious associations including Visit Rwanda, Chinese and Far Eastern gambling concerns, and serially convicted money launderers like Standard Chartered.

As to the nonsense "sportswashing" smear, how much of that gets allocated to City's 24% of Chinese and American ownership? It seems a particular and new concern among City's rivals.

I think it's few, if any (maybe Bundesliga with their ownership laws, although the RedBull, I mean Lawn-ball-sport fella cracked me up with his audacity) teams that have likable owners and are rather either some petrostate, hedge funder, or connected businessman, but there is also a difference between Qatar & Abu Dhabi having essentially unlimited funds and having a global pissing match for bragging rights, Emirates sponsoring Madrid (and as a dues-paying socio, I'll admit we have built-in advantages vs most teams), and "regular" billionaires like Enos Kroenke (who has spent a fortune on the Rams & reaped rewards) or John Henry (ditto with the Sox), let alone the guys who are rich by our standards but peasants to the above. Bayern has been throttling the Bundesliga, and I'd think they would want some sort of FFP precisely so Man City and QSG can't spend gobs of money.

allow for some level of capital investment, I would understand and could support such a system. If it regulated debt, which was one of the original focuses, all the better.

The FFP passed as a bulwark against City and future investment was designed instead to lock the structural advantages of traditional powers through cash flow spending and prevent significant investment or initial capital infusions for anti-competitive reasons.

The truth is City now don't need outside investment and haven't for years.
Their consistency in making Champions League (11 years on the trot), having the good fortune of sharing in the Premier League TV contracts, and regular league successes put them will keep them in the top 3-5 in global revenue for the foreseeable future, so long as they can maintain on field performance, which is fortunate for their fans, as they are exceptionally well-run.

Thanks for the thoughtful post, BTW.

On paper, I should greatly dislike City as a petroclub and with Pep, but actually respect how they've built a real club rather than just grab-bagging like my own Galacticos (the recent restraint has been a pleasant surprise) and more recently Qatar's binge, and guys like Kompany, Silva, KDB are also very likable. Your our last paragraph is dead-on too, where they may have needed the capital initially, but they're now a well-run machine (Ferran IMO is whom PSG lacked) that has a structure and revenue in place to consistently win. Barca's financial collapse has been sad to watch, and while I don't know what the exact solution is, I think something like your point on debt + the Bundesliga model may be more sustainable for the game as a whole, even if big money is here to stay

288 per game behind Liverpool.

Just some ribbing, ticket sales are a drop in the bucket compared to TV and sponsorship money.

And to the larger point, two responses. First, I don't think it's fair to equate shirt sponsors to actual ownership of the club -- those are clearly two different things. But regardless, I don't think City's ownership is nearly as problematic as PSG or Newcastle. The latter two are pretty clearly sportswashing endeavors owned by regimes that cast aside human rights like tissue paper. The UAE/Sheikh Mansour seem to be just splashing cash on a vanity project. Arguably bad for competitive balance, but if the money is being spent within the rules, I don't have an issue with it.

I mostly was responding to Mike's comment that no one can should oil money by noting how pervasive those and similar socially challenged industries are throughout football, through ownership and for far longer through sponsorships that were never seen as particularly problematic.

I like to think the City Group is more than a vanity project and that the team acquisitions (most recently adding Uruguay, Brazil and Italy (the latter two not yet closed) is a pretty innovative and well run model, but recognize I'm disposed to that conclusion.

everyone else’s, so that no club can get a competitive advantage by outspending opponents, I can support that. Even if it’s bad for my favorite club. There is something to be said for promoting parity and allowing supporters of all clubs to feel like they have a chance to win if their organizations are run well enough.

But Tebas and the rest of the old elite who are complaining about City’s supposedly outlandish spending—besides being complete hypocrites—aren’t interested in having a level playing field. They want to have the deck stacked in their favor. It’s a sham, and it isn’t justified by concerns about sports washing.

And if we are going to start canceling football owners because we don’t approve of their off-field relationships, that’s fine—they just did it to Chelsea. But you should be consistent in that endeavor as well. So no sponsorships or investments originating from countries with dubious human rights records. And why limit it to human rights? What about unethical business practices? I find it interesting that the moral lines in the sand everyone seems willing to draw end right about at the point where it would start adversely affecting the other big clubs.

I guess Phil Mickelson must be a City supporter who is just taking flack from rivals.

And those voicing concern about Qatar and the World Cup are also just whining about City.

I have no interest in debating a subject with folks that refuse to acknowledge a pretty well known issue.

Tebas was whining on behalf of Real Madrid, because they missed out on Haaland. And he said he felt in his gut that City must have breached FFP, and PSG too, because how else could Real Madrid miss out on Mbappe and Haaland?

To suggest he’s whining because Arab owners aren’t committed to the sustainability of domestic leagues is just stupid. Especially given that he’s whining on behalf of clubs that are committed to destroying domestic leagues through the Super League.

I’m not going to keep explaining.