If You're Going to Trash Talk At Least Get Your Facts Straight

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts"

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

My Twitter timeline turned into a trash talk fest between Arsenal and Manchester United fans in the immediate aftermath of Arsenal's loss in the Carling Cup.  The two teams may not have been rivals for a Premier League championship for over half a decade, but the animosity from earlier clashes hasn't died down.  I've generally tried to stay above the fray because it often sounds like sore loser syndrome when one tries to defend the indefensibly poor play of their team - even if it was poor play for only a few seconds.  There is, however, a point where I reach my limit, and it is when opinions try to be passed off as facts.

I reached that point when I saw this tweet come across my timeline:

In 6yrs, Arsenal spent £107.9m on 30 players (0 Cups). United spent £123.7m on 21 Players (over 10 Cups)!

This is a patently false assertion, the expenditures listed are incorrect, and the goal really is to excuse Manchester United's position as consistently being in the Top 2 when it comes to transfer expenditures, year-in and year-out.  Let's review the actual expenditures by each team from the 05/06 season through the 10/11 season (all data is taken from the Transfer Price Index):

• Arsenal: £130.2M at time of purchase for 24 players (£167M in 2010-2011 GBP per the TPI)
• Manchester United: £196.9M at time of purchase for 24 players (£223.8M in 2010-2011 GBP per the TPI)

But that's not the real measure in disparity between what resources the two clubs have available to them.  The real difference is measured in their Sq£, which takes into account the cumulative costs of all transfers currently on the squad (like Wayne Rooney's 04/05 transfer that would cost £49.1M if executed today).  The average Sq£ (in 10/11 GBP per the TPI) for the two teams from 05/06 to 10/11 is shown below.

• Arsenal 10/11 Sq£: £140.9M
• Manchester United 10/11 Sq£: £284.1M

Over those years, Manchester United has had a more than two to one advantage in the terms of the cost of players it can put on the pitch.  Compare that to the suppossed 14% advantage that United enjoyed in the tweet, and you see that the estimates aren't even close.  As was demonstrated in this series of posts, it is that ever increasing amount expended on transfer fees that has allowed Manchester United (and to a certain degree Chelsea) to maintain their high finish position in the league.  Frankly, what Arsene Wenger has been able to do with such a meager budget - average finish of 2nd when his financial resources should have put him 6th - is nothing short of amazing.  In recent years it's become even more magical, where his 10/11 expenditures have him finishing 10th when in reality he's challenging for the Premier League title.  I'd like to see how well Alex Ferguson would do if he were actually constrained by such a budget that refuses to take on debt.

Yes, Manchester United fans should rightfully crow about their cups.  They won them, and Arsenal hasn't over the last six years.  However, no one should kid themselves that the clubs have two different expectations based upon their financial commitment in the transfer market.  To compare the two as equals is a bit absurd - whether its a Manchester United or an Arsenal fan doing the comparisons.

One could also argue that Chelsea's, Manchester United's, and Manchester City's of buying players at any cost to win championships is EXACTLY why the EPL has the highest debt load of any UEFA league and why UEFA is having to institute financial fair play rules.  But that's a discussion for another time...