Exactly. If you want to limit City’s spending, along with

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.