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.