Why The Media Narrative About Manchester City’s ‘Domination’ Is Nonsense

In the aftermath of Manchester City’s 1-1 draw with Southampton Pep Guardiola tackled the bizarre narrative head-on.

“Sometimes it’s difficult for me to understand, [after we] drop points, for them to say that now the race is open, when before it’s over,” Guardiola mused.

“I would love in January to be 40 points in front of teams like Liverpool and Chelsea, the big rivals. But in January it is impossible.

“I would say I didn’t expect to be in this position with this margin. It’s not big, but it’s OK.”

This idea that the league title was somehow wrapped up began after the Mancunians defeated Chelsea 1-0 the previous weekend.

The game had been billed as a must-win, not just for Chelsea, but the for good of the competition and, when they failed to do so, it was a death knell to the league title race.

As much was evident in the post-match analysis of British broadcaster BT Sport whose presenter Jake Humphrey said “that’s it isn’t it” when the program cut back to the studio.

Match-winner Kevin De Bruyne found himself having to diplomatically answer questions in this vein, yes, he said, whilst the lead was large, there was still a way to go.

A much-repeated, but misleading fact, that no club had let a 13-point lead slip from this position, although Newcastle United had lost a 12-point gap, was also pushed out by many outlets. 

It was a bleak picture and Premier League fans who switched then could be forgiven for not tuning back in until August, given the rhetoric.

Perhaps more perspective will be drawn with Liverpool close to cutting the gap to 8 points. 

But the rush to portray a bleak landscape ahead for the English league whenever City has looked like establishing a dynasty has been a constant media narrative.

The financial might argument 

A more significant indication that Manchester City was establishing itself at the top of the pack in January came not on the pitch but on the balance sheet.

The $772 million the club earned in its most recent set of accounts saw it overtake Manchester United ($669 million) for the first time.

Figures for both clubs were affected by the Coronavirus suspension of the 2019/20 season, which effectively saw two campaigns rolled into one set of accounts and changed some commercial deals.

United’s drop below their bitter rivals was also a result of the lack of fans for many of the games.

And, while it’s tempting to see this as a sea-change moment, even City’s hierarchy has been reportedly playing it down.

Regardless of whether it’s proving to be a successful season on the pitch at Old Trafford, the signing of Cristiano Ronaldo will provide a stimulus off it and with soccer once again being played in front of crowds it would be no surprise to see them back on top next time.

It just goes to show how United, who next season will have gone a decade without winning the league, has done a remarkable job remaining financially on the same footing as City. 

It should also be highlighted that Chelsea, who are the European Champions and have probably the best quality squad in the division, are hardly lagging in the financial stakes and have an owner more than capable of covering its losses.

Liverpool, who remain City’s main rival soccer-wise, will also be boosted by both the return of fans and an expanded stadium in the near future.

The Pep Guardiola effect   

The difference between a side like United and Manchester City is not that the blues are massively outspending its rival, the expenditure difference between the two squads is relatively small, it’s that they can do more with what they have.

That is because of their manager Pep Guardiola who has delivered three Premier League titles from a possible five. 

During that time United has continued to struggle to find someone capable of filling legendary manager Sir Alex Ferguson’s shoes. 

Current United manager Ralf Rangnick is the third different man to face Guardiola during his tenure, with a fourth new coach due in the summer to replace the interim man.

The Catalan coach’s style of play has also had a role in establishing the narratives about dominance.

It took him a season to do it, but when it clicked Guardiola’s side was rampant.

His first Premier League-winning saw the club collect 100 points and win the title by a giant 19-points. 

But it wasn’t only the margin of victory, Guardiola’s team suffocated their rivals, they monopolized possession in almost every game, making contests sometimes embarrassingly one-sided.

As the media has sought to explain these imbalances the explanations have moved further away from the field of play.

Even then things have hardly been easy.

The season after Guardiola’s first crown, Liverpool came at them strong, the two sides went toe-to-toe with City coming out victorious on the final day. It was a second successive title, but it was the opposite of a procession. 

After that, they were overhauled by Liverpool who themselves won the league at a canter.

When City retook its crown last year it was by a large margin, but it was also thanks to a new tactical system Guardiola implemented with a false 9 and from a less than impressive start.

They’ve continued the form that delivered such an impressive campaign into the current one, hence the team reaching the summit.

But at some stage, Guardiola will leave, and, as happened with United, there may well be a period of adjustment where success is harder to come by.

How the club recovers from that remains to be seen, but to expect them to dominate would be ridiculous.

United’s successful storytelling

The idea that England is becoming dangerously uncompetitive is an interesting contrast to the ‘greatest league in the world’ narrative that came about during Manchester United’s period of domination in the 1990s and 2000s.

At the time the actions of United were not dissimilar to that of their bitter cross-city rivals. 

As well as hoovering up titles on the pitch and cherry-picking its rival’s best talent, the club transformed itself into a commercial juggernaut that put it significantly ahead of the rest of the league.

So great became the imbalance in revenue it nearly bankrupt one rival (Leeds United) and ushered in the era of the oligarch (Chelsea) at others, as teams tried to bankroll a challenge of Manchester United.

However, what the club was equally adept at doing was creating a story that ran contrary to the concept of an overly-rich giant establishing a monopoly.

It was built around the fact Ferguson’s second great United side was dominated by the so-called ‘Class of 92’ youth team, which featured David Beckham, Paul Scholes, Ryan Giggs and Gary Neville amongst others.

The successful way the club managed to direct the focus on this remarkable group of players, rather than the stars they’d taken from rivals always gave the sense that its success was more homemade.

But staples of the team like Roy Keane and Andy Cole were acquired for British record transfer fees, and they were consistently amongst the highest spenders every year.

With Ferguson gone and the class of 92 a distant memory, the reality of Manchester United’s financial power has come more into focus.

But with increasing polarisation between the top and bottom of the game, it seems unlikely any side who begins to dominate the English game will not be heralded with fear and trepidation.