Philosophising the most important game in world football

Naming the most important club game in club football is perhaps more of a poser than you’d think.

There are two major contenders for the title and both will occur today. The case for one challenger, the UEFA Champions League Final is based around the prestige (and money) that accompanies winning the title of best team in the best league in the most competitive confederation. The case for the other competitor, the English League Championship Playoff Final, revolves around the money (and prestige) that accompanies promotion to the world’s richest league.

The monies on offer are truly remarkable. For winning the most lucrative club competition on Earth, either Real or Atletico Madrid will pocket up to €50 million (or about 1/10^th of Atleti’s debt); while estimates vary on the worth of promotion to the English Premier League, recent hearsay puts the financial windfall for Derby County or Queens Park Rangers somewhere between £80-120 million – potentially three times as much as for the continent’s premier competition.

Players would certainly opt for the Champions League. Administrators, depending on the club, might flip-flop depending on the media forum in which they’re speaking. Fans – well, that’s a different story.

It goes without saying that the Champions League trophy carries just a little more kudos than does the award presented to (at best) the third-best club in England’s second division. As are sponsorship opportunities – for Atletico, at any rate. But, as clubs like Birmingham City, Leeds United and Norwich City have discovered recently, the revenues that the Premiership generates can be life-sustaining (or at least life-altering) – potentially more so than victory in the Champions League.

The counterargument is based purely on the reasons behind football as a concept – do you watch to see your team excel, or is a high, Icarian flight (c.f. Portsmouth) that ends in a near-fatal swan dive worth the fiscal risk not worth the risk? As a fan – or administrator – do you value survival and/or the opportunity to test yourself in an achievable competition, or the (pen)ultimate glory? You play to win the game – but at all costs?

The most important game in club football then depends very much on the audience and can be distilled down to one paraphrase: Survive, or advance?

How to not be a faceless corporate victory tank

The Champions League semi-final draws are now complete, and Bayern Munich will face Real Madrid in one leg, with the other matching Chelsea with Atletico Madrid. While it’s not certain that the four best teams in Europe have qualified for the Final Four, there can be little argument that this quartet are certainly the most deserving.

The most visible storyline emerging from the draw concerns the fate of Atletico Madrid’s goalkeeper Thibaut Courtois, the Belgian prodigy playing for Atleti temporarily – or not – while waiting to assume Petr Cech’s Chelsea mantle. The loan agreement between the two clubs did not explicitly state that the player would be allowed to play against his parent club, meaning his appearance against the Blues would incur a €3 million “penalty fee” per match, an amount far in excess of what Los Rojiblancos’ balance sheet could justify.

It is still unclear as to whether the youngster will be able to play in the quarter-finals, but a ruling today from UEFA seems to strikes positive chords for both Atletico and Courtois. Despite the inevitable (and potentially legally justifiable) clamour that will emerge from West London in response, this is the best solution for the competition.

Courtois has become such a factor for his proxy team that robbing Atleti of his presence would lessen the competition’s status as the world’s most elite football league. Courtois has featured so heavily in his three years at Vicente Calderon that employing his understudy would greatly de-harmonise defensive understanding – a key factor in coach Diego Simeone’s tactics – and rob the side of some morale simply due to their not having one of the world’s top handful of goalkeepers available. Atleti would certainly still be capable of winning the tie, but it would be far more difficult.

Were Chelsea to win without facing Courtois, it would be a hollow victory, a defeat of a team minus one of its key components. Any legal challenge made by the Blues would be an attempt at slanting the balance of the tie in their favour – which they have every right to do – but would nonetheless seem unsporting. But no matter what the context, a larger organization using legal intricacies to minimize their smaller opponents’ chance of victory just doesn’t smell good.

Chelsea have more money than, well, just about everybody. Atletico Madrid employ a goalkeeper on loan from a more prosperous club because he was the most cost-effective option they could find. The club couldn’t afford to replace Manchester-bound David De Gea with a goalkeeper of similar quality permanently, and thus were forced to rely on the loan market.

Mendeleev Tank, courtesy wikipedia

The situation has worked wonderfully well for all three parties: Atletico obtained a potentially world-class keeper, Courtois got ample game time and developed into one of the world’s best, while Chelsea allowed another club to turn an asset into one far more valuable while also earning back a significant chunk of his transfer fee. To further encumber Atletico by legally challenging UEFA’s ruling is their right – but would also turn Abramovich’s behemoth further into a faceless corporate victory tank.

Having the superior financial resources to purchase Courtois in the first place is one thing – bully for Chelsea FC. To then further use that stash to inconvenience opponents who just don’t have the same fiscal means begins to look a little antisocial.

We ... need to talk (about Manchester United)

Some years ago I dated a girl who was no good for me. It didn’t take long for me to work this out – say a couple of months – but for a time I wrestled with the ramifications of us staying together or of me making the break.

It started in a flurry simply because we enjoyed each other’s company. After the initial buzz dissipated though, the relationship never 100% “worked: the good times with this young lady were fun – we had a similar sense of humour, liked the same stuff and were both basketballers of some repute and could bond over that. But we also argued a whole bunch, and the suspicion never went away that she mightn’t the best person with whom I could walk on through life.

This secretive doubt went on for maybe two months before I summoned the courage to talk to my old man about it. I knew he and my Mum liked the girl as a person but didn’t think she was a great “fit”, which in the end was true. The words my Dad had for me that day have stuck by me ever since: “If it’s only the right decision when you’re with that person, then that’s a bit of a red flag”.

In the end, the truth of those words compelled me to end a conflicted relationship, and it was the right decision.

This scenario sprung to mind on Wednesday as I watched the second leg of the Manchester United – Olympiakos Champions League tie. I found myself wondering how United could look so compelling (at least for the first sixty-plus minutes) when compared with recent performances against opposition of quality.

"My" United - complete with Mame Biram Diouf

United played a breezy first half and ... a second one, completely unencumbered by the self-doubt that has defined much of David Moyes’ first year in charge. The change in personnel was minor, as the team basically comprised a similar XI to Ferguson’s first-choice last year, but the difference in outlook was tremendous. Antonio Valencia displayed a right-sided briskness reminiscent of his best, Wayne Rooney showed he might be worth his new contract while a latter-day-Giggs performance just about sealed a perfect day for the Red Devil support.

To the tumultuous throng, it just felt right. And it hasn’t for some time. The mood of the team (and the media surrounding) has for six months been very bipolar, which manic peaks heralding the dawn of a new era and earth-shattering lows that have the players, hierarchy and even fans questioning what it actually means to be “Manchester United” in 2014.

Herein flaps the red flag: existential questions don’t plague happy teams. Very few such posers have been presented of Everton, or Liverpool, Man City or Chelsea. There may be mechanical questions – when/if to play Player X, Y or Z, for example – but none of these lineups, despite great change in personality, have had to endure the same all-pervasive, low-grade conflict as at Manchester United.

This has made watching United more of a chore than in years past: not so much the lack of success as a sensation of watching a once joyful union disintegrate. It’s like watching myself and the girl from my twenties again form the outside. The good times, like Wednesday, are still great fun but it’s harder to get excited about the prospect of the ill-matched 2014 iteration of United. Reasons for hope exist, but are overshadowed by the club relationships aren’t necessarily actually pointing in the right direction.

I’m no longer 25 and my relationship with Manchester United stretches back decades, rather than a few months. It was a good idea to get into bed (so to speak) with United, rather than my girlfriend of a decade ago – I’m not going anywhere. But Moyes’ United have the image of a couple – This is 40-style – tinkering to try and get the sparkle back, without realizing it wasn’t that sparkle that kept them together.

Good times and bad for Manchester United (and I) are still ahead.

Bayern Munich: What's down is up

While listening to the lastest ESPNFC podcast, Iain Macintosh threw in an interesting posit on German football that deserves some investigation.

His theory, which is his, was that Bayern Munich win a few Bundesliga titles in a row, are unseated and then use this opportunity to reimagine themselves as a bigger and better club. Furthermore, he thought this provided hope for 2015 and beyond to shrewd local clubs with great youth development.

Taking a quick look at the list of German league champions reveals the basic mechanics of his dictum are correct: Bayern have won the league eleven of the past twenty seasons and look certain to do so again in 2014. Their longest title stretch spanned the three years from 1999 to 2001.

The flip side of this theory is that despite making the Champions’ League final in 2012 and winning it in 2013, this has actually already occurred and this is the more powerful incarnation of Bayern intimated by Macintosh.

Bayern’s past re-envisionings have come in the face of slip-ups (coughKlinsmanncough) or the local competition advancing their players or tactics beyond them. Looking back over seasons 2012-14, we can suggest playmaking and personnel developments at Borussia Dortmund was responsible for their title victories – meaning Bayern Munich’s success in the One Competition to Rule Them All actually occurred during some of their “down” years.

The logical progression from that position is that Pep Guardiola is actually not involved in the finishing steps of a rebuild, but the earlier ones.

The greater revenue brought about by Champions League success and the increasing importance of globalizing a club’s brand allows a club having a less successful local year (in which they proceed deep into European competition) to repopulate themselves with the likes of Mario Gotze and Robert Lewandowski. Such a large difference – such as a 4:1 spending difference over the past four years between the best two clubs in the nation – is increasingly hard to bridge with tactical and developmental innovation.

Macintosh’s dictum is a true statement. However when applied to the 2013-14 Bundesliga, it is less a statement of potential future challenges than a monochromatic commentary on the future of the Bundesliga.

Farewell Sir Alex Ferguson

It was unexpected, quick and most suitable.

Sir Alex Ferguson didn’t need a cavalcade of fanfare as he announced his retirement today after twenty-seven years as manager of Manchester United, but a simple celebration befitting an uncomplicated man.  Rather than engendering endless speculation by pre-empting his retirement or embarking upon a final series of signature mind games, Sir Alex has chosen a dignified departure. 

Though it has emerged that Everton’s David Moyes will almost certainly take over as the Red Devils’ boss – a move marked clearly with Sir Alex’s fingerprints – today isn’t a day to fete the new, but to remember the older – a man who was quite simply the best.  Despite battles lost, the war was an overwhelming triumph choreographed by a director gifted so supremely with vision, flexibility of thought and strength of character.

These adjectives will be three of the thousands used to describe him today, such is his renown and ability.  He is the defining character in the history of the English Premier League, a league which owes its popularity in large part to the inexorable United sides that accumulated thirteen titles from twenty-one.

It’s odd to think that perhaps his greatest strength was that flexibility.  Over his tenure, Sir Alex earned a reputation for uncompromising forthrightness, a character trait that hardly suggests a man given to adaptability.  However, his pile-driving outward manner masked a communicator not only able to relate effectively to players born across six decades, but to spur – or cajole – whatever greatness lay within.  The sport bears little resemblance to the one he himself played north of the Wall; the circus surrounding it even less, but he has been ever-present – a man defying time and tempering.

His longevity pays ultimate tribute to a pragmatic tactical flexibility.  Over the course of his reign, Sir Alex has not only replenished United’s stocks but also regenerated from within.  The most recent revival saw the dour Champions of 2011 moulded into a collection of title-winning freewheelers.  Neither was “vintage”, but both were utterly effective.

Sir Alex Ferguson’s legacy will include two Champions League wins, thirteen Premiership titles (and sixteen overall), a European Cup Winners’ Cup and five FA Cups.  It is inconceivable in the disposable culture of today’s football that these accomplishments could be surpassed by one man and a team crafted, refined and re-refined. 

However, it is unfair that he will be measured by quantifiable achievements.  The past twenty-seven years have been his greatest bequest: the Fledglings, a magical evening at the Nou Camp and an inherent confidence that triumph lay only ninety minutes away. 

None are more impressive than the figures who dominate our formative years; they linger in memory having immortalized deeds never to be surpassed. Sir Alex Ferguson is the only manager that most living Manchester United – and football – fans have ever known.  For anyone aged under thirty-five, he will forever prowl the sidelines at Old Trafford as his bronzed likeness glares down from a pedestal fronting Old Trafford’s entry gates.  Flickering shadows will replace him, some of whom will succeed.  But none will match the deeds, or be remembered as fondly, as Sir Alex Ferguson.

QPR's Townsend, the £40 million man

When they loaned Andros Townsend to QPR in late January, Tottenham Hotspur sat fourth in the Premiership and could be well satisfied with their past two months.  After taking nineteen points from a possible thirty, they looked forward to a February facing strictly mid-table clubs.

With Gareth Bale and Aaron Lennon offering a pincer attack in outstanding form – and Clint Dempsey, Lewis Holtby and Gylfi Sigurdsson available as well – the club presumably felt they could afford the luxury of allowing the youngster to grow by playing Premier League football regularly.

Townsend, 21, might actually cost Spurs more than anticipated.

He has become – without question – Rangers’ most important player; moreover, he has shown why Harry Redknapp (who, curiously, largely ignored him while at Spurs) took him on a rental across London.  Over the past month Townsend has been the dominant player in the Premiership, regularly beating opponents for pace and guile before swinging crosses into threatening positions. 

His seven games in hoops have borne out two scores, an assist and three Player of the Match nods in his past four matches.  The streak has left him, according to the reputable WhoScored.com, with a cumulative Player Rating for his QPR spell of a stratospheric 7.83.

Left backs both experienced and fleet-of-foot have been preyed upon: his Loftus Road locker boasts the heads of Javier Garrido, Rafael, Danny Rose, Matthew Lowton, John Arne Riise and most recently, Maynor Figueroa.

While hard to fathom after a gut-wrenching draw on the weekend, Townsend could prove the difference between the Hoops’ survival and relegation.  Should Rs stay up – and save owner Tony Fernandes  at least £25 million – it will be on Townsend’s back.

Although figures that size aren’t to be sniffed at, Townsend’s true value might be felt more by his parent club.  Since rising to third in the league in February, Spurs have struggled to cement entry into next year’s Champions League.  While a lack of strikers has been implicit to this shakiness, the team has struggled more since the loss of Lennon – and now Bale – to injury.

Neither Dempsey nor Sigurdsson are as inclined to create for others as for themselves, meaning forward thrusts at White Hart Lane – and, more crucially, away from home – have lacked the incision and penetration of the past six months.  This has only been compounded by the Bale-shaped void on the left wing.  The impetus that marked Spurs’ outstanding form of early 2013 is obvious for its absence.

Should Spurs falter further in the season’s waning weeks, they risk the riches of Europe’s premier competition – which is where missing Townsend really begins to hurt.  Although estimates vary, Champions League group-stage entrants can expect to receive windfalls of a minimum £16 million plus income from extra home games.  Clubs who progress to the Elimination stages could stand to collect up to another £25 million. 

Should Spurs’ absent forwards mean they finish out of UCL contention while Townsend leads Rangers to an unlikely continued existence in the top division, the net turnaround could be as much as £42 million.  While no-one was to know Townsend was capable of replicating his QPR form with Tottenham – the game of “What if” is appropriate only in MathNet – this swing puts him alongside a certain other West Londoner as the only Premiership players worth over £40 million.

The Champions League is back!

This blog’s an unusual place to admit to an unhealthy fascination, but here it goes: I’m a sucker for competitive cookery.  Iron Chef, Worst Cooks in America, Chopped … all of ‘em.  I’m not even a bad cook myself, and have taken a few pointers from my white-hatted idols.  But perhaps the largest lesson I’ve learned from my obsession with culinary jousting is this: presentation matters. 

Don’t sear salmon perfectly and then just dump it on a bed of undressed watercress: the first bite is with the eye!  Anticipation is part of the experience, not just the flavours assembled before you on the plate. 

Anticipation is something to be desired, in and of itself.  A famous and (eventually) wise Vulcan – apparently bereft of emotion and with his opinions firmly rooted in on logic – once said that the having isn’t half as enjoyable as the wanting.  Anticipation can make or break an event.

And what is football, if not a vehicle for anticipation?  A new signing, a new benefactor, even just the thrill of the win or indeed the fight can engender an almost primal satisfaction.  In sport, we find opportunities to anticipate, and then to be amazed: at athletic ability, coordination, nous and ego.  This week’s Champions League matchups, nearly eight weeks in the making, have arrived – they bring with them storylines galore.

Oh, of course today the big leagues are tinged a dirty green and not the vivid rose of our collective childhoods.  But – as Sky Sports constantly reminds us – that doesn’t necessarily make the occasion less. Today’s Round-of-Sixteen meeting between Manchester United and Real Madrid sees two of the most iconic clubs in any sport – and, despite hardly being “vintage” units, still perhaps two of the best five outfits in the continent – pitted against each other.  The Whites will field the likes of Cristiano Ronaldo, Mesut Özil and Karim Benzema, while the Red Devils will almost certainly deploy a forward trident based around Robin van Persie, Shinji Kagawa and the resurgent Freckled Demon.

And it may not even end up being the best match of the day.

Spock might caution that the match may not be all we hope for.  But at this stage, who cares?  We’ve had a meal laid out before us for 56 days, and now it’s time to dig in.

UEFA to force-feed the Golden Goose

The President of UEFA, Michel Platini, has hinted that the confederation is considering dropping the Europa League competition altogether in favour of an expanded Champions League. The move, mooted for some time between 2015 and 2018, would see the unpopular continental second-tier system removed as and football's big money spinner double in size to 64 teams.

Platini has proved somewhat of an egalitarian leader: throughout his presidency, he has championed the expansion of the UEFA European Championships (the Euros) to 32 teams – or over 60 percent of the continent represented. Should the Europa League actually be canned, the Golden Goose Champions League credibility will be damaged: removing exclusivity from anything makes it far more commonplace.

The simple laws of physics state that increasing an object's size doesn't necessarily increase its impact – in fact, often it has the opposite effect.

That's not to say that the Europa League is great, because it really isn't. One of the principal failings of the Europa League has simply been the effort it demands, especially when players must front up in local leagues two days after lengthy trips abroad. Bigger clubs – especially in fixture-full England – have been known to simply send reserve sides overseas, sacrificing the competition for the sake of league position.

Rather than removing the Europa League or expanding the Champions League (which can't possibly hope to bring in more money now that ostensible top clubs are admitted almost by default), a better solution may be to simply resurrect the old UEFA Cup – a true home-and-away cup competition requiring less travel, less meaningless Thursday night encounters and each club having a true puncher's chance of advancing to the next round.

Think about it: Armenian champions Neftchi Baku look set to complete their Europa League experience this season with two points from a possible eighteen, both from draws with Serbian side Partizan Belgrade. The highlight of their continental football this season will almost certainly be a trip to the San Siro to play Inter Milan – in a reinstated UEFA Cup, the players retain their highlight and even have a chance at pulling off the unbelieveable.

A return to a continental cup competition is unlikely to proceed – the extra home dates afforded by a mini-league are simply too valuable for administrators and owners to give up. However, the romance afforded by smaller clubs taking on big money earners would certainly be hard to ignore. It's these realities which make a return to a Cup competition unlikely at best. But we can still hope.

Chelsea find themselves; win Champions League

Chelsea's win over Bayern Munich during Saturday's Champions League final is a triumph that only three months ago was utterly inconceivable.  The club was desperately short of form, many/most/all players had decided unilaterally that Andre Villas-Boas had no business coaching them and the team played with purposelessness rivalling beheaded chickens.

This is certainly due in part to Villas-Boas' methods and the uneasy conflict they created when combined with his remit: beautiful football, better results and a younger, growing team.  That the Portuguese manager attempted a root-and-branch reform in the back rooms of Cobham within months of arriving was certainly ambitious; with hindsight, it appears unfortunate and a little misguided

Chelsea's progress towards a high defensive line and a team composed of rapiers rather than broadswords created a definite schism in the playing staff.  Those players with bucketfuls of personality and credibility - Terry, Drogba, Cole, Cech and Lampard - were still key to this iteration of the team, both on- and off-field; yet the club's future identity was shifted instantly and without consult to a shot-happy Daniel Sturridge, the pitiable Fernando Torres and other youngsters.

This situation wasn't helped by player purchases made by club executives rather than by the man in charge of dictating the squad's sense of collective self, the manager.  Torres, Romelu Lukaku, Kevin de Bruyne, Thibault Courtois, Johnny Kills and Gary Cahill were all young, highly sought-after and supposedly übertalented superstars of the future.  Unfortunately they only exacerbated the personality crisis within the club: were Chelsea a young, fluid, passing team or a team of blunt but supereffective veterans?

Although game tactics were (probably) clear, the entire squad - by dint of confusing statements, puzzling purchases, genuinely odd team selections and an unfamiliar, unsuited gameplan - were a team without an overwhelming sense of purpose or identity.

Courtesy: Telegraph.co.uk

In sport, identity is important.  Not only does it provide a tactical map, but it also generates a sense of certainty in both management and playing staff which helps inherently on a psychological level.   Perhaps one of it's ultimate consequences is with player acquisition.  Rather than plugging in stars from other teams who may not fit the team's  psyche or tactics (a la Liverpool), they can bring in players suited best for their club (say, Blackpool or the latter-day Newcastle United).  A standout example can be taken from this year's promoted teams: after having played the same style in three divisions, Swansea City and Norwich City have succeeded by employing cheap, second- and third-tier players who fit their club's on- and off-field culture.

Since Roberto Di Matteo assumed control, he has created a sense of unity and identity lacking during Villas-Boas' reign.  Even though they finished one position lower in the league than they were when AVB was fired, this too helped: Chelsea became cup-focused and able to coalesce behind an "underdog" persona.  While this worked well against bogey-team Barcelona, it was taken to the n^th degree in Munich: talisman captain suspended, best defender suspended, two centre-backs recovering from injury, backups of questionable quality, key midfielder suspended ...  the pervading instability and queries over the quality of replacement (who'd have though Jose Boswinga and Gary Cahill would start the final only two months ago?) only contributed to a "we'll show 'em" mentality.

Chelsea absorbed tremendous amounts of pressure and then punished both Barca and Bayern when their limited opportunities came.  With some notable exceptions, the Blues have struggled since Mourinho's departure to find a common identity.  Saturday's result came as they found themselves after years of looking.

Teams of the Year - by league position

As the Premier League season draws to a close, it becomes typical to start vetting candidates for awards. Why wouldn't you? I mean, it's like writing about All-Star selections in the NBA – it's easy column inches relying on relative opinions rather than absolute logic and saves you from using undeveloped ideas before they're fully mapped out.

So with seven matches per club left in the English Premiership, the blogosphere gets inundated with posts describing Team/Player/Manager of the Season, Biggest Surprise/Disappointment, Best/Worst Transfer and Favourite Fernando Torres hairstyle.

(Personally, I think he looks better blonde, but he's not wearing it with the same panache he did at Liverpool. It's been one – more – tough year for Fernando).

Recently I've wondered what actually constitutes the “mid-table”. It turns out it's a disparate concept with no strict boundaries, utterly reliant on individual point of view. The closest I've been able to find on the internet of finite definition has been in the black-and-white world of a Football Manager forum – so the chances of me using this information as accurate data are precisely zero.

For the time being I'm happy to characterise the mid-table as teams not likely to earn continental football as a result of their league position, but teams that are also not in danger of relegation. This means, for now, the mid-table encompasses everyone between seventh-positioned Everton and West Bromwich Albion in fifteenth spot.

Given the fact that, for the most part, the most rich and talent-heavy clubs may as well play in their own little league, it's an interesting exercise to select separate “Teams of the Year” from clubs in each section of the table – those contending for Europe, “mid-table” teams and those relegation threatened clubs.

European contenders (4-4-2): Hart, M. Richards, Luiz, Kompany, A. Cole, Tiote, Y. Toure, Bale, Mata, Rooney, van Persie.

Mid-table (4-4-2): T. Howard, Naughton, Huth, Skrtl, Baines, Britton, Sigurdsson, Dempsey, Larsson, Sessegnon, Suarez.

Relegation-threatened (4-4-2): Given, L. Young, Hanley, Berra, Warnock, McCarthy, M. Davies, Hoilett, Moses, Bent, Yakubu.

Only players playing 20 games or more were considered – unless winner of a Player of the Month award (Sigurdsson).

The table above displays quite succinctly the deepening Premier League class divide; a gap it's taken an immense effort from a no-name Newcastle squad to breach. While the selection semantics are polemical – recent form dips cost Silva, Ba and Aguero for mine – suggesting there isn't a boundary of player quality between teams competing for European football this season's and those who are not.

More strikingly, could these “best of the rest” outfits be competitive with clubs in the table's upper reaches? An overactive imagination could convince that the Mid-table team could challenge for a spot in the Champions League if everything went right – but surely no more?

Don't judge a league by its elite

As football has become more and more corporate, the existence of elite cliques of teams in almost all the major four Europeans leagues have become an accepted part of the European football culture. While from time to time over the last fifteen years these subsections have been occasionally disrupted, it's not worth arguing against the balance of European football power being held by a maximum of four clubs in four leagues.

The same clubs almost always take part in the Champions League. While class is routinely (and tediously) said to be permanent, it would be more true to suggest that the established plutocracy is everlasting.

Considering well-earned prize money, league TV rights deals (especially pertinent in Spain), Champions' League income and large stadia, the wealthy club shave such a fiscal leg-up, that those clubs once (still?) associated with a European football superleague are essentially playing in a different league to their club opponents. This leads, especially in England, to clubs flush with imported players: in each of their last Champions' League matches, EPL clubs boasted a total of 12 players who had played with their club's juniors. Only four of those players – Ryan Giggs, Kieran Gibbs, Wojcieh Szczesny and Joe Hart – were starters.

Based on the past few seasons, the best clubs in the world have been Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern Munich and, if you tilt your head to the left and squint reeeal hard, Manchester United. However, these clubs seem to have birthrights allowing them access to European football and the money to buy players that most/all other teams in their respective countries envision only in their stickiest dreams. Barcelona, Real Madrid, Bayern and United now don't accurately represent their respective leagues but sit somewhere in the third standard deviation, part of a superelite that may as well play in a bloody superleague. (An idea that's never totally put to bed, by the way.)

Even though individual rights deals, league finances and priority on junior development makes this an exercise in apples and oranges, the strength of each league's mid-table sides must be evaluated to provide an accurate comparison. Perhaps now it's time to evaluate a league primarily by those squads in the middle of the pack, with both their achievement at home and abroad. Given the regular passage of players from mid-table teams to the elite, this also seems to best describe the league as a whole, rather than just paint a portrait of those paragon clubs.

Talk to a evangelising school principal and he will try to convince you that the best student in the class represents the quality of his teachers, amenities, tributary schools and leadership. However, this is often proved incorrect by assessing those students in the meaty part of the bell-curve. Money unlocks many doors, both in the education system and the football world. How students, teachers, clubs and players perform without that cash most accurately reveals the truth.

What do Chelsea and Dwight Howard have in common?

Wednesday provided the sporting consciousness with an almost – but not quite – final irresolution. Both the world's most public roundball sports suffered from the implacable inevitablity of more uncertainty.

In the NBA, the Orlando Magic's Dwight Howard opted into the final eighteen months of his contract, depriving the free-agent market of it's best big man since Shaquille O'Neal in 1996.

And Chelsea won in the Champions' League.

Initially, there may seem little to connect the two, but similarities soon emerge from the internet's murk. By committing to the Magic for one more season, Howard automatically keeps every hoops rumour-monger in cyberspace flush with “content” – and I use that word in the loosest possible terms – until he signs a long-term contract extension or departs in July 2013.

Who has enough space under the salary cap to keep him? Will a team trade for him without him committing to extend his contract past 2013? Does anyone still care?

Similarly, for their improbable 4-1 win against Napoli at Stamford Bridge on Wednesday evening, Chelsea should be congratulated. The unwelcome – by club and fan alike – result, however, is the fuel the club has unwittingly provided to football equivalent of Star magazine, the abominably-sourced Bleacher Report and other like sites, until the Blues' core players definitively leave the club.

Experts and know-alls-from-afar have penned myriad eulogies for Chelsea since the 2008 Champions' League final; sometimes this has been reasoned, other times speculation. Most recently, these have been the sum of the team's transfer policy moving towards youth amidst yet more nebulous and smoky “player power” reports. Already the Chelsea core has been shorn of two fringe elements, Anelka and Alex, while other veterans are publicised not necessarily for accomplishment but a lack thereof.

Common knowledge suggests disassembling a imperfect squad is prudent and inevitable if not overdue. In this case, the prevailing view may be as flawed as a Fernando Torres finish.

The fine Neapolitan win intimates they can still compete for what should now be known as Abramovich's Folly; the result of which appears to be that short-term savage transition from age to youth will be postponed until the next high-profile stumble. As long as Chelsea retain the so-called cabal, supposition will follow. A humbling defeat at the hands feet of Napoli would only accelerate that disintegration; now, fans are damned to read stories that should all begin with “I reckon”.

Apart from the Blues, who will now face Benfica in the quarter-finals, it seemsthe Perez Hiltons of the football blogosphere are this week's big winners.

UEFA Champions' League: Sergio Busquets, the most hated man in Spain

For a someone playing a crucial role for two of the most lauded clubs in recent history, Sergio Busquets is perhaps both the man who does the dirty work and the face of a popular dictatorship. In other words, Sergio Busquets may be the most hated man in Spain outside Catalunya, a player Spain forgives only when his stunts are used (from their perspective) for their team - another popular autocracy.

Barcelona - and Spain - rule world football. They are the two best teams in the world today and there is much overlap between them as many of the Spanish national team play their club football for Barca - including Busquets, Xavi, Iniesta, Carles Puyol and Bojan. In a league where spectators are forced to tacitly support one of the "Big Two" as well as their own preference, certain players who irritate when playing against your side become fast favourites.

Not so with Sergio Busquets. That's not to say he's not a wonderful footballer - he is almost everything you could want from a defensive-minded midfielder - but his big stage playacting (see here for one example) during yesterday's Champions' League SuperClasico may well have proved the final straw for many neutral observers. In Facebook terms, he will have gone from "Like" to *Dislike* for many neutral observers. Roundly condemned by Madridista fans and commentators alike, his - and other Barca players' - overexaggeration of several minor incidents irritated so much that a game which should have been a wonderful spectacle (and at times was, especially Lionel Messi's marvellous solo goal to seal the win) was overshadowed by the Dark Arts - diving and exaggerating contact to attract free kicks or cards.

Outside Barcelona - where too his actions should not be lauded - it's likely that his performance last night attracted Busquets no fans, and indeed the ire of several sections of press and supporters. UEFA make a habit of not wanting to set precedents and as such are unlikely to sanction him for his actions, especially when the game also prompted a brawl, a foul-mouthed Pep Guardiola presser, Jose Mourinho sent to "The Cage", an arguable red card for Pepe, further alleged diving incidents from Pedro and Dani Alves and finally, a war of words since the match leaving Barcelona investigating a formal complaint.

While many individuals involved with yesterday's encounter appear the worse for their actions and antics, it is Busquets who will almost undoubtedly come off amongst the worst. Firstly, he has priors for "simulation". Secondly, for a Spaniard it's impossible to get a larger stage than a Champions' League Semi-Final against Real Madrid - a match which nominally forces the entire of Spain to choose a side (in a World Cup final, the vast majority will be supporting Spain already).

Finally, these actions only reinforce his popular perception (at least by pundits on ESPN and the Guardian's Football pages) as a player who dabbles - and occasionally dives headlong into - the dark side of the force. Mourinho, though his postgame statements reek of paranoic mania, has a history of playing people offside with his comments and doesn't play such a crucial role in the Spanish national setup. Where Jose seems to have accepted his role is to be disliked by everyone other than fans of his current employers, Busquets must face Euro 2012 next year as one of the faces of a Spanish midfield. He may not be looked at in quite the same way again by the neutral.

Chelsea to scare United fans again

To go all nerd-alert on you, the Jedi code states that fear breeds hate. In football circles that's not quite right: it's one or more of success, arrogance or tactics which breed disdain. To expand a little, Manchester United is a love-or-hate proposition due to their combination of success and arrogance; Sam Allardyce's propensity for ugly football means he'sproductive but unpopular almost anywhere he goes and Kevin Muscat earned the title of "football's most hated" for mixing healthy doses of all three.

As a United fan, I've never really feared Liverpool. Fernando Torres definitely scared me - I'm sure Nemanja Vidic still can't sleep for the Anfield horrors the Spaniard regularly inflicted on him - and am glad he's gone. I don't despise Liverpool's past successes because during my football-following lifetime, any title or cup wins haven't come at United's expense. Any ill-feeling I bear towards the Scouse nation is due to my perception of their fans arrogance; but as a Red Devil supporter I'm also hardly above blame in this department. Although I admit to the rivalry between Arsenal and United and envy the North Londoners' ability to attract top youth prospects, I don't fear them either - how could you be frightened of a team whose enforcer is probably the mad Teutonic goalkeeper they just re-employed?

However, I fear Chelsea. Since I started the topsy-turvy life of a serious football follower early this century, almost everything about them has irritated me beyond all reason. This ire isn't the result of one factor but of many: billions of readily available roubles; nouveau riche fan attitudes; the existence of Dennis Wise and John Terry; other players whose attitude/talent combination elicits just the right amount of bile like Drogba, Anelka and Torres; and tactically astute managers (probably except Avram Grant). Finally - and most importantly - Chelsea are a team accustomed to beating Man U. Only their three League titles and four FA Cups since the millennium can compare with United's haul. For relatively recent fans of the league, the big rivalry isn't Red vs. Red Devil - it's now Blue vs. Red Devil.

And this is what makes the Champions' League Quarter-Finals so enticing and nerve-wracking. These two teams will play in a replay of the 2008 UCL final, an event made more delicious for victorious Red Devil fans when the deciding penalty was missed by John Terry. To make one of the best days ever even better, he then cried on the pitch. Though '99 was special, this was every United fan's decade-long dream. Since that day, Chelsea have proved stronger in most encounters as if jointly motivated and repelled by the failure in Moscow. Both teams don't sport vintage line-ups this year, but battle will commence again.

And it will be a frighteningly watchable spectacle.

Liverpool FC: Reputations big and small

Often you hear of players saying they want to play for a “big club”. What does a big club mean? Is it the nouveau riche of the Manchester City or Chelsea or does it mean the steeped-in-tradition past glories of a Liverpool, AC Milan or Newcastle?

Being a big club is contirbuted to by four factors – the rabidity of their fans (Big edge: Old-school big clubs – as support for teams is passed down from generation to generation the Big Clubs of yore tend to have larger or more territorially-bounded fanbase); money (Big edge: Nouveau riche); results (nearly a 50/50 split here but in England given the recent success of Manchester United you'd probably give it to The Old Guard, this though Chelsea and perhaps this season Man City ensure this is changing rapidly) and arrogance (draw). Given that old clubs will always have money, if not the resource-driven superpockets of Abramovich or Sheik Mohammed, as they built their stadia before the Premier League, it really makes this issue a bit of a wash. Now to the footballer, a desirable club is a club who can pay them more money – as Sol Campbell and Notts County so elegantly proved last year - but usually that involves the UEFA Champions League.

Liverpool have always been a big club but beside their Champions League success in 2004 they haven't had the results to back this up since Stevie G was in nappies. Their money situation is quite scary for the fans as their creditors make veiled threats of a takeover. That fan base, however, remains one of the most supportive and crazy bunches the world has known.

Due to the money situation, recruitment this offseason came down to free transfers – quality ones, it must be said – but let's not beat about the bush, Joe Cole was attracted to the wages on offer rather than the Spirit of Shankly. Had Tottenham forked out the 90,000 a week he requested then you'd think our Joe would have chosen London and Champions League matches in Milan over Liverpool and Europa League matches in Rabotnicki. Liverpool for the last 20 years has only hoped to win titles – falling into the same conundrum as Newcastle United, assuming a Top Four spot is their by divine right. The football world doesn't work like this any more and the English top flight is only now working that out. The game has changed and how well a club adapts to this is reflected in their final league position – and their status as big or smaller clubs.