I'm not arguing it's not from the great TV deal. I'm saying that it is the primary factor of distortion, not a single club throwing money around. They can only have so many players in their squad.
When you think of big purchases that have shifted the market, what comes to mind: Neymar, Lukaku, Haaland, Caicedo, Rice, and so on... This is imperfect but I'm sure someone can pull up a spreadsheet. Now when you look at a list of such transfers, do you solely see City as the boogie man, or do you see a league flush with (deserved) cash using cash to hover talent up, increasing player prices? Inflation: too much money chasing too few goods/players.
Ok, blame City for full backs being over £50M, but that's about it.
Look, for some, being state owned is their red line, and they trust that the potential for billionaires to go bankrupt prevents the worst cases of inequality that a state owned club can get into. I for one think that line of thought is compromised personally (it pretends that all was well before 2010) but to each their own. My red line is that any form of wealth disparity (earned/unearned) that can be used to overcome sporting incompetence is harmful to sport, and beyond that line I can't be arsed splitting the diff between Abramovich and Mansour.
.
