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.