Why Peyton is an Elite Brand, not an Elite Player

Wherever you are from, chances are you have heard of Peyton Manning. In fact, you probably know him as the "greatest quarterback of all time."

Is Manning the most talented quarterback of all time? No. Lack of athleticism, inability to throw the deep ball, and the occasional inability to throw a tight spiral take him out of the discussion. 

Is he the most successful quarterback of all time? Not even close. Manning's career playoff record: 11-12. 5 quarterbacks have won more playoff games. 96 (!) have a higher career playoff winning percentage. 23 have won more Championships. No quarterback in history has suffered as many playoff losses.

Manning is the greatest ever at something, though. 

Marketing.

Calling Peyton Manning the greatest quarterback of all time is like declaring the Big Mac the best burger ever. It's nonsense.

Successful branding can work miracles for a business. A strong brand can allow a business to sell an inferior product more frequently--at an equal or sometimes even higher price--than a superior competitor. 

Good brands aren't easy to create. It takes a lot of work to market the brand effectively. Inherited connections (the family you are born into and the access to capital that family provides) and luck also are significant factors.  

The currency of the NFL is popularity, not simply money. The more popular a player is, the more people watch him on TV, and the more valuable NFL broadcasts become. 

Therefore if you have a player with an inferior skillset (meaning his talent, by itself, won't do the job) you make him popular by building his brand and marketing it well. No player has ever done this as well as Peyton Manning.

Manning is the son of one of the SEC's most beloved quarterbacks, Archie Manning. Archie used his connections as a former New Orleans Saint and broadcaster to convince the New Orleans coaching staff to let Peyton sit in, and sometimes even run plays, at Saints practices during his junior year of high school. 

It also helped that Manning was lucky enough to be drafted by Indianapolis, who play their home games indoors. Quarterbacks who play indoors generate 15% better statistics than those who play outdoors. 

All the factors are present here. Manning had inherent connections at birth, and used them wisely. He had good luck to play where he did, because he had no control over where he would be drafted.

Manning has also been marketed more intelligently than any player ever. No athlete is on more commercials than Peyton Manning. Few have ever hosted Saturday Night Live. Seldom are athletes as comfortable and humble in front of the camera as Manning. This has made him a media darling.

Businesses pay large sums of money to public relations firms for a reason. Effective public relations can improve public opinion of a brand without letting their actual product do the talking. PR creates demand that the product itself doesn't create on its own.

Manning is a public relations dynamo. He displays remarkable humility when interviewed, and his gifts to charities are well-known. No football player in history has been more adept at controlling their media narrative. But none of this tells the public anything about Manning's demeanor on the field.

These 3 factors combined to make Manning a very popular quarterback (especially in the South) very early in his career. And the NFL took steps to make sure they could profit as much as possible from this popularity.

Rulemakers often tweak the rules to help promote a successful brand. Politicians frequently give successful businesses incentives to develop and grow in their areas because they know they'll get something in return--in the form of jobs, tax revenue, or other political capital. The NFL did the same thing with Manning. 

The NFL did this in two ways. First, the NFL tweaked the rules to decrease the risk of injury to all quarterbacks in the league. Then, the NFL significantly changed the type of pass defense teams were allowed to play. 

Take a look at the timeline:

1998: Manning was drafted #1 overall by the Indianapolis Colts.

1998-99 season: The Colts go 3-13, and Manning leads the league in interceptions, in his rookie year.

1999-2000 season: Colts go 13-3, Manning makes the Pro Bowl, but loses his first playoff game. 

2001 offseason: NFL decides to more strictly enforce the roughing the passer penalty in order to keep quarterbacks from getting injured.

2002 offseason: NFL bars all helmet-to-helmet contact with the quarterback, even if a change of possession occurs. Helmet-to-helmet hits are still legal against any other player at this time.

2003-04 season: Manning wins his first MVP and wins his first playoff game in his 4th attempt. In the AFC Championship, Manning struggles against the New England Patriots' bump-and-run coverage. Manning puts up a 35.5 passer rating and throws 4 interceptions in a 24-14 loss to the Patriots.

2004 offseason: NFL bans bump-and-run coverage.

2004-05 season: Manning wins second consecutive MVP and throws for career-best 4500 yards. He also completes an NFL record (at the time) 49 touchdown passes. In his first 6 years, Manning had averaged 27.8 touchdowns per season. 2004-05 brought a 76% increase over his yearly average. But he still loses to the Patriots in the AFC Championship, 24-3.

2006 offseason: NFL bans all hits below the quarterback's knees.

2006-07 season: Manning wins his first, and only, Super Bowl.

There have been no further quarterback-related rule adjustments since Manning's Super Bowl victory.

When Manning entered the league, defenses were allowed to play "bump-and-run" coverage. A defender could make contact with a receiver to keep him from running his intended route so long as the ball wasn't in the air. This sort of coverage forced quarterbacks to be able to throw the ball deep. If you could throw it deep, you could force opposing defenses to play more conservatively, sitting further back to avoid getting beat for big plays.

One of Manning's most glaring weaknesses has always been his arm strength. He lacked the ability to make opposing defenses honor the deep pass, and struggled to complete passes and avoid interceptions against more physical, bump-and-run defenses early in his career.

In 2004, after one of Manning's worst games ever (against the league's best bump-and-run team in the AFC Championship), the NFL made this style of play illegal. Starting in the 2004-05 season, defenses could only make contact with opposing receivers within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. Any contact deeper down the field would result in a penalty and an automatic first down.

The result of this rule change was a complete change in the skills required to be a valuable quarterback. Deep passing had, for a long time, been the most valuable attribute a quarterback possessed. Eliminating bump-and-run meant receivers would be open earlier in plays, making accuracy on shorter throws much more vital than it had been before.

The NFL tweaked its rules to maximize offensive firepower at a time when Peyton Manning was the MVP and league's most popular offensive player. Ray Lewis, who had been recently charged for murder, was the league's biggest defensive star at that time. The NFL wanted to promote offense (and thus Manning) as much as possible. They wanted quarterbacks to be ambassadors of the sport to the public. And they wanted to run as far away from Lewis (and thus defense) as possible. 

Manning is not the only one to benefit from these rule changes. Drew Brees, Tom Brady and many other quarterbacks have seen their careers lengthen and their stats inflate in the last decade. 

Manning will retire with the greatest statistics of all time. He will retire as the most popular player ever. All while competing against other higher quality players.

Substitute "player" with "burger," and "statistics" with "sales." All of a sudden you are talking about the Big Mac.

Manning is very intelligent, he works extremely hard to improve himself, and he possesses many other excellent qualities. Peyton Manning is a consistent, Hall of Fame quarterback who has had a remarkable career. He's got a "special sauce" about him, that's for sure.

But when compared to Warner, Brady, Favre, or Rodgers--Peyton Manning is the inferior product.

Arsenal Escapes with a Point Against Hull

Or...

Arsenal Robbed By Another Referee

What's the story to take from Saturday's match?

Depends on your perspective, I guess. Here's mine:

Arsenal is too big a club to drop points against Hull at home. Arsenal is too big a club to blame results on a referee decision that took place 75 minutes before the match ended.

Arsenal is too big a club to win just 2 of its first 8 EPL matches. And Arsenal is too big a club to be 11 points behind the league leaders at such an early stage.

Arsenal dominated the opening 15 minutes against Hull. Alexis Sanchez scored a fantastic goal to take the lead. Sanchez was miles better than any other individual player on the pitch. But Hull were a better team than Arsenal.

Hull were level within 5 minutes of Sanchez's goal. The referee missed a foul when Mo Diame pulled back Mathieu Flamini. But Arsenal also made 2 mistakes in the build-up.

Nacho Monreal played like a fullback thrust into an uncomfortable position. His timid "challenge" on Diame when the Hull player first received the ball was downright cowardly. It's the type of defending you'd expect from a player thrown into an unnatural position.

But luckily, Mathieu Flamini was in position to cover for Monreal. Flamini darted in front of Diame and was in a great position, but rather than booting the ball out for a throw or corner--with Diame (literally) on his back--Flamini bizarrely attempted to play a 5 foot pass to Mertesacker rather than clearing the danger. This is where "keeping the ball" goes wrong.

At the end of the day, I try to analyze what Arsenal can do better. It's useless to worry about what a referee could have done better. We have no control over referees. We have full control over ourselves. And Arsenal made two glaring, foolish mistakes on the buildup to that goal. Mistakes that got punished.

Diame's goal was in the 17th minute. From that point on, Arsenal only had 3 more shots on target.

Not good enough.

This is a tactical problem.

Hull set up with 3 center halves and 3 central midfielders. They simply clogged up any available space for Arsenal to try their preferred short, intricate passing game. And like we've seen so many times, Hull's pragmatic, negative, defensive approach neutralized Arsenal's attack quite easily.

Wenger praised Hull's defending post-match. I'm not sure why. Our new 4-1-4-1 formation is hopeless. Anyone can defend against it.

Arsenal spent more this summer than Hull have spent on their entire starting XI. It's not all about the money, as so many want to believe. Sometimes its about executing a game plan.

Arsenal rarely does.

Hull's second was scored just 31 seconds into the second half as Arsenal came out from the break complacent and lazy. Like a team who thought Hull's first goal was an unfair fluke. A team that deserved to be winning. An over-confident team.

Even after falling behind, Arsenal could not muster a shot on target until the 86th minute, when Sanchez's header was pushed out for a corner by Hull's 3rd string goalkeeper. Santi Cazorla, who had a poor match, took the set piece with his weak foot, overhit it, and Hull nearly countered for a victory-clinching 3rd goal. A miserable pass by Jake Livermore wasted a 2 on 1 opportunity.

When Sanchez received the ball in the center circle in stoppage time, Arsenal were lucky to still be in the game. He proceeded to dribble past multiple Hull players and find Danny Welbeck in a great position inside the box. Welbeck had great composure as he poked the ball in with his left foot.

At that point it actually looked like Arsenal could steal a win. Kieran Gibbs nearly scored on a cross to the back post but the Hull keeper saved it well. And on the very last corner of the match, the ball fell to Monreal in the box with no one near him but the Spaniard whiffed.

Poor preparation led to a situation where Arsenal was forced to play Nacho Monreal at center half. Poor motivation led to Hull's second goal just seconds after the second half began. And poor tactics have led to a toothless, predictable Arsenal attack.

Poor management continues to cost Arsenal a chance to win the Premier League. We can only hope Wenger will eventually recognize his mistakes and address them.

Problem is, there is a decade-worth of evidence suggesting he won't.

Interpreting Today's AGM

Arsenal's board and upper management met with the supporters today for the club's Annual General Meeting (AGM).

Last week I showed how Arsenal under-performs compared to similarly-valued clubs in Europe. I maintain that Arsenal's financial clout is strong enough to put together a much more competitive team than it does currently.

I am convinced Arsenal is under-achieving. Therefore I will analyze the answers given, as well Arsene Wenger's speech, at the AGM with a very high degree of scrutiny.

Chairman Sir Chips Keswick kicked it off with a question about the murky 3m fee paid to the owner's subsidiary company, Kroenke Sports Enterprises (KSE).

I will break down the question, and the answers (or lackthereof) provided:

1) Was competitive tender issued (meaning did KSE have to compete with other sports analytics companies for Arsenal's business)?  No, AFC did not make KSE compete for our business.

2) What specific services did KSE provide? A wide range of services.

3) Why were these services needed? Because it was of upmost importance.

4) Will there be similar future fees? Maybe, that depends.

Sir Chips answered just 1 of the 4 prongs of the question. And the answer he did provide was alarming. Not only could the chairman not describe with any specificity what services were provided, why they were important, or whether they would continue in the future--he also freely admitted that Arsenal did not force KSE to compete with other similar companies for the services rendered.

Everything about this answer is concerning. The chairman did nothing to ease supporters' fears that the owner has simply taken money out of the club in the form of this fee for nondescript "advisory services" to the owner's subsidiary company.

While Man City's and Chelsea's owners use their outside companies to try to artificially (aka fraudulently) beef up the income of their clubs due to FFP, Arsenal seems to be using club revenue to artificially beef up the value of their owner's other companies. When people complain about Arsenal's lack of ambition, this is what they are talking about.

When asked about the appointment of Stan Kroenke's son, Josh Kroenke, to the Arsenal board, Lord Harris replied:

Josh has a chief executive role in basketball, ice hockey and soccer teams in the US. He has a background playing basketball and football. He has knowledge and insight at the disposal of Arsenal FC.

It's true, Josh Kroenke is the chief executive of the Denver Nuggets, Colorado Avalanche, and Colorado Rapids. But as far as his knowledge and insight goes, let's actually look at the Kroenke family's level of success with their 4 US sports franchises.

Stan Kroenke bought the Nuggets and Avalanche in 2000. He bought the Rapids in 2004. And he bought the NFL's St. Louis Rams in 2011. NFL bylaws prohibit any owner from being involved in the day-to-day operations of any other professional sports team, and therefore Josh was promoted to chief executive when Stan took over the Rams.

In over 40 combined seasons under Kroenke family ownership, their teams have combined for a total of 2 championships. 1, the Avalanche's Stanley Cup winning team of 2001, succeeded with the previous owner's players and and the previous owner's coach. The other, the Rapids' MLS Cup victory of 2010, was a team that finished 5th in their conference with a 12-8-10 record (to put that season in EPL terms, that's 44 points of 90 available, a success rate that is usually just good enough to finish in the top half of the table, but nowhere near the top 4) and the Rapids got hot in the Americanized playoffs to come out with an undeserved championship, when judging their season as a whole.

The Kroenke family has a record of sporting failure. I fail to see any positive insights and knowledge Josh Kroenke can offer as a member of the Arsenal board. I am disappointed to see him there.

Arsene Wenger, as always, gave a rousing speech to the audience, proclaiming he is proud of what his team has accomplished and urging the supporters to get behind their efforts.

Wenger: I know you (supporters) are ambitious, skeptical, and critical...I know we have 1 thing in common, we are loyal to this club and we love this club.

I liked this statement quite a lot. I have a very hard time with Arsenal supporters who perceive any criticism of Arsenal--be it the manager, the players, or the general ambition of the club--to be disloyal Arsenal 'hatred.'

If you believe that the role of the supporter is to be relentlessly positive, then support the club that way. There are others who believe criticism is necessary to prevent complacency and stagnation. Both sets of supporters simply want the club to be as competitive as possible, they just have different philosophies as far as how to get there.

The fact is there is no one way to support this club. At the end of the day, everyone wants the same goal. For Arsenal to be as good as possible for as long as possible. So even if you disagree with other Arsenal fans, respect their opinion and don't degrade them for it.

Wenger: We worked on different aspects to strengthen our side. We bought four players, we lost two defenders in Vermaelen and Sagna and bought two defenders in Debuchy and Chambers. We were able to buy as well Sanchez and Welbeck...I believe we have done remarkably well on the transfers. I agree we could have bought one more player, we didn't find him. We will try in December to rectify that because we are a bit short with the injuries we have. We will rectify that in the transfer market in January.

I agree with Wenger for a lot of this statement. The 4 players bought are quality players. But I am concerned with his statement that "we didn't find" the one player the club needed at the end of the window.

First, I disagree that only one was needed. We need 2, a center half and a holding midfielder, at least.

And if Wenger can't find anyone who can do a job, at the least as a reserve defender, maybe he should set his sights a little lower. Wenger is a mastermind of the transfer market, but this skill is somewhat marginalized by his ultra-cautious, reluctant approach. Sometimes, the club would be better served if Wenger was less picky and filled positions of need with one of the best players available, even if he believes that player to be worse than an alternative that might become available at a later time.

And as far as his promise to deliver the player we need in January, talk is cheap in October.

 Wenger: We've tried as well...to strengthen our prevention work for injuries...The team is united. They still lack a bit of confidence because we've been hit hard by injuries again. But this year they've been post-World Cup injuries. Ozil got injured on his own. We had Debuchy get injured on his own. We had Giroud who got injured at Everton from basically nothing.

More of the same, I'm afraid. Wenger has consistently held himself blameless for his club's devastating struggles with injuries every year. This time it's the World Cup's fault, not his.

When Wenger says an injury was caused "on his own" or "from basically nothing," he is saying these are non-contact injuries. The problem with that perspective is, we know fatigue causes injuries just as frequently as a hard tackle. The World Cup was not unforeseen. Adding more depth to the club to be able to rotate more players when others were fatigued and needed rest is the best way to combat fatigue injuries. Depth can keep a strong squad of players available for a longer period of time. Therefore, until the manager is willing to take on the larger burden of managing a bigger squad, I fear nothing will ever change on the Arsenal injury front.

Chief executive Ivan Gazidis then fielded a two pronged question about how the club could raise ticket prices when it sat on such a large sum of cash in the transfer window. Gazidis's justification for raising ticket prices was clear.

We make responsible and reasonable decisions. We understand the pressures. We have tried to take a balanced approach to competing pressures. We have relied mostly on commercial and broadcast increases (in revenue) to compete at the level we demand...Demand for tickets continues to far exceed supply.

It's really that simple, people. Arsenal continues to increase ticket prices because the demand for tickets continues to outweigh supply. Therefore, rather than letting scalpers earn a profit off of the secondary market that springs up when Arsenal keeps ticket prices too low, Arsenal has raised ticket prices to take full advantage of a high-demand product with a limited supply, like any rational business would.

Im not saying those who claim "we pay the highest prices in England, so we deserve a better team" are wrong. Not at all. I agree with that sentiment. But I understand the club's decision to increase prices in order to minimize the profits ticket dealers reap from on the secondary market. It's a decision any responsible business would make.

Gazidis also discussed how much cash was actually available at the end of the window:

There is an inaccurate analysis about cash available. We are not hoarding a vast cash balance. We do not try to broadcast our cash situation but the situation is more complex.

In back-to-back sentences, Gazidis says "we are not hoarding cash" and "we do not try to broadcast our cash situation." So which is it?

Understand that the club has a major incentive in keeping their cards close to their chest on this issue. Negotiating transfer fees only becomes more difficult when your adversary knows you're holding enough money to fund a small country's deficit in your back pocket.

Think critically about Gazidis's answer, and you understand his motivation to lie about/not reveal the true extent of Arsenal's cash reserves.

The good thing is, you can look at the numbers for yourself (and the bad thing is, so can the clubs we try to buy players from).

I used Bobby McMahon's excellent analysis on Forbes.com (and converted US$ to pounds) for all of the below figures.

First, for those fans who still believe the Emirates Stadium debt is the main factor holding back the club, look at what has happened to that debt in the last 7 years. The debt was at its highest in 2008, at 411m. Today the principal balance of that debt has been lowered to just 241m (largely due to the successful Highbury property development). The debt has already nearly been cut in half.

Annual interest on that debt is 13.5m, and Arsenal has paid 19.5m per year for the last few years, paying off 6m from the principal balance on a yearly basis. If Arsenal continued to pay off the stadium debt at these increments, it would take an even 40 years to pay off the principal in full. This is a payment plan that leaves enough income untouched to add much more quality to the team  every year.

Don't forget that Arsenal's annual revenue has exploded since the stadium was built. Matchday income doubled immediately, but progress on the commercial and broadcasting fronts, as the EPL becomes more and more popular worldwide, have driven this growth in revenue.

Look at how Arsenal's broadcasting, matchday, and commercial revenue has increased since the stadium was built:

Revenue source	2006/07	2013/14	% increase
Broadcasting	44	121	175%
Matchday	91	100	10%
Commercial	42	77	83%
Total	177	298	68%

Now let's look at how last year's 298m in revenue was used:

2013/14 REVENUE DISTRIBUTION

The debt payment costs Arsenal just 19m, only 6.5% of Arsenal's 298m revenue. The majority goes to wages, as you can see, but a very large portion of last year's revenue (75.5m) has not been spent.

The club already had 132.5m in cash reserves entering into last season. Add 75.5 more and the reserves equaled 208m when the financial report came out in June.

Here's the thing, if you thought last year's revenue was great, just wait until you see the numbers for this year. Commercial revenue has nearly doubled thanks to new deals with Puma, Emirates, and others. These deals will bring in an extra 70m in commercial revenue next year.

In addition, the 3% increase in ticket prices will bring an increase in matchday income, although not likely a 3% increase due to diminishing returns (i.e. tickets are more expensive, so purchasers are less likely to buy concessions or memorabilia on matchdays). A conservative estimate would be a 1.5% increase in matchday revenue this season. Broadcasting revenue will not rise unless Arsenal's position in the league table improves, or the club makes a deep run in the Champions League, and therefore is on more televisions than last season.

A conservative estimate of this year's eventual revenue would be the same broadcasting revenue as last year (121m), a 70m increase in commercial revenue (147m), and a 1.5% increase in matchday revenue (101.5m) for a 24% increase in total revenue (71.5m) to an astounding 369.5m.

It is impossible to know how that revenue will break down next season, because transfers could yet take place and new contracts could be handed out at any point. We do know Arsenal had a net transfer spend of approximately 64m this summer, and those players will add at most 15m to the wage bill.

Therefore lets look at Arsenal's projected financials, admittedly with some key, and probably unrealistic, assumptions (1: that we finish in the same positions in the EPL and UCL as last season, 2: that no new players are bought, 3: that no current players are given new, lucrative pay raises, and 4: KSE takes the same 3m fee for themselves as they did this year).

PROJECTED 2014/15 REVENUE DISTRIBUTION

The increased commercial revenue, despite a higher net transfer spend and a higher wage bill, has still increased. Unaccounted revenue should rise above the 100m mark over the next year.

Simply put, Arsenal is on track to earn enough money to invest more in the team. Much more. And Ivan Gazidis, wisely, wants to conceal this fact in order to better negotiate with other clubs for future transfers.

Late in the meeting, A supporter in the audience asked whether funds were available to further strengthen the defense this summer, and if so--why were these funds not used.

Sir Chips responded: The board backs Arsene Wenger 100% on football decisions. Its not up to me as chairmain to decide on football, not the fans, it's up to Arsene Wenger...If he has a plan we back it, if he doesn't have a plan we keep quiet.

Gazidis assured: We did not withhold cash reserves from the manager.

Wenger had no comment.

When many people bemoan the lack of ambition by the manager, this is what they are talking about. The board is, and have been, unequivocal in support of Wenger. They have been equally unequivocal, for years, about the resources available to him.

Therefore when Wenger doesn't use the club's significant resources to strengthen his team to the full extent capabale, many say it's because Wenger is not ambitious enough.

I do not agree with this notion. I believe Wenger is ambitious. I believe he wants to win trophies more than any supporter does. I simply think its a case of misguided priorities.

I think Wenger mistakenly values the unity and togetherness a small, tight-knit squad can create higher than the contingency and versatility a larger squad with more depth provides.

And I believe Wenger's mistaken priorities are the root of Arsenal's problems.

Therefore I continue to look forward to--and do not fear--the prospect of a new Arsenal manager in the near future.

Building a Champion

How long do we have to wait?

Arsenal, the 5th most valuable football club in the world, has gone 10 years without winning a European title or their domestic league.

I'm not saying "we don't win anything." I appreciated the FA Cup victory in May. I appreciated it in 2005.

I can appreciate the joy of winning a domestic cup while also understanding that a club at Arsenal's level should be winning more.

Compared to the most prestigious trophies--domestic league titles and European cups--success in a domestic cup is more random than a major trophy. Basically, small clubs can win domestic cups. Only big clubs can win major trophies.

Look at the number, and caliber, of clubs who have won domestic cups in the 4 major leagues (Germany, Italy, Spain, and England) over the last 10 years:

Domestic Cup Winners:

FC Nuremberg
Werder Bremen
Schalke
Dortmund
Bayern Munich (6 times)
Lazio (twice)
Napoli (twice)
Roma (twice)
Inter Milan (4 times)
Real Betis
Espanyol
Sevilla (twice)
Valencia
Barcelona (twice)
Real Madrid (twice)
Atletico Madrid
Arsenal (twice)
Liverpool
Chelsea (4 times)
Portsmouth
Manchester City
Wigan Athletic

That's 22 different teams for 40 available trophies. Of those 22, 13 are listed in the world's top 20 most valuable football clubs, just 59%,

4 clubs (Wigan, Portsmouth, Real Betis, Nuremberg) are not even currently in their own country's top division.

That 59% ratio suggests winning domestic cups has been far more random than winning more significant trophies over the same period of time. To make my point, I will compare that 59% level of economic diversity with the champions of each of these countries' domestic leagues over the past 10 years.

League Champions:

Bayern Munich (6 times)
Stuttgart
Wolfsburg
Dortmund (twice)
Juventus (3 times)*
AC Milan *
Inter Milan (5 times)
Barcelona (6 times)
Real Madrid (3 times)
Atletico Madrid
Chelsea (3 times)
Manchester United (5 times)
Manchester City (2 times)

* in 2004-05 Juventus forfeited the Serie A title as a penalty for match fixing. AC Milan finished second that season. Depending on your opinion, either team won Serie A that season. Since no champion has been officially acknowledged, I have not awarded a domestic league title to either team.

13 teams for 39 available trophies. and of those 13 teams, all but 2 are among the world's 20 most valuable clubs. 11 of the 13 are in that exclusive list, a rate of 85%.

Now let's look at the last 10 Champions League winners.

European Cup Winners:

Liverpool
Barcelona (3 times)
AC Milan
Manchester United
Inter Milan
Bayern Munich
Real Madrid

That's just 7 different teams in 10 years, and 100% of those 7 are included in the world's 7 most valuable clubs.

In total, just 11 clubs have won the 49 significant (domestic league titles and European championships) trophies over the past 10 years.

Clearly, club value has an extremely strong correlation with club success. And Arsenal, despite the club's strong financial value, has not enjoyed the same competitive success both in England and in Europe a their financial rivals.

I decided to plot this information on a graph to further illustrate my point. The below scatter plot shows the expected return (significant trophies) by club value (in millions of US$):

As you can see, Arsenal has vastly underachieved when compared to other similarly-valued clubs over the past 10 years, No club is further below the line of best fit than Arsenal. 11 clubs have won more significant trophies than Arsenal over this time period, 7 of whom have much weaker valuations.

The money is there, people. Even if Arsenal didn't have enormous sums of cash reserves in the bank (we do) Arsenal could easily take loans out against the strong value of the club to put a more competitive team on the field. There is no doubt, when looking at the numbers, that Arsenal could--and should--be winning more significant trophies than we have over the past 10 years.

SO PLEASE STOP USING OIL MONEY AS AN EXCUSE FOR ARSENAL'S SHORTCOMINGS.

The fact is Arsenal have the resources to put together a team with enough quality to win the EPL and the Champions League. We have possessed the necessary resources for a long time. And we have not used those resources effectively.

The only conclusion one can take is that Arsenal has underachieved for 10 years. And somehow, Arsenal have not changed managers during this period of blatant underachievement.

Many Wenger supporters have suggested the manager is striving to build Arsenal into some sort of Barcelona 2.0. That's why so many support "keep the ball" tactics  and so many are willing to accept losses. Somehow, a large portion of Arsenal supporters are willing to accept losses because they still believe that Arsene Wenger will be able to develop his team into an unstoppable force if he can get the time required to develop the club's culture in his vision.

Here's the problem. Teams like Barcelona don't take 10 years to produce results. They do require more than one manager to get there, however.

If we want to be the new Barcelona, let's actually look at how Barcelona developed.

Frank Rijkaard took over for Louis Van Gaal in January of 2003. In his second full season at the club, Rijkaard won La Liga. In this third, he won it again, and added a Champions League victory against Arsenal in Paris in 2006. 3 significant trophies in 2 years.

And then Rijkaard suffered two straight years without a significant trophy. He was sacked at the end of the 2008 season.

When people say Wenger is developing the "new Barcelona" they are presumably saying he can create a similar team to the treble-winning 2008-09 version of Los Blaugrana--Pep Guardiola's first year in charge.

Over the 10 years that preceded that Barcelona team, they went through 5 different managers, including two separate spells with Van Gaal.

The fact is, in aggregate, a new set of eyes adds value to a football club. Turnover at the manager position creates value. It normally does not hurt a club. In fact it is more frequently much more beneficial than destructive.

Situations like Manchester United's are not a warning sign. They are the exception to the rule. A tenure like Sir Alex Ferguson's, where one manager sustains success for an extremely long period of time, has happened just once. Every other big, trophy-winning club in Europe employed 3 or more managers over the past 10 years.

This makes sense. Football clubs stagnate when one manager is given too much time to attempt and reattempt and reattempt to implement their own personal ideals on their team. A new set of eyes is normally able to quickly address their predecessor's overlooked vulnerabilities, while maintaining the old manager's strengths, and win trophies as a result.

It's why Arsene Wenger's attacking philosophy brought so many great results during his initial years at Arsenal. Wenger took over a George Graham team that already knew how to defend. He taught the club how to attack. And in so doing created the best team England has ever seen.

But 10 barren years have shown that Arsene Wenger is not the exception to the rule. He is not without weaknesses. A new manager will be better equipped to address those weaknesses.

Rather than let the club stagnate, Arsenal needs to be brave.

Arsenal needs to sack the best manager the club has ever known. 

To move the club forward.

And build a champion.

Time to Question the Manager

Forget the win against Galatasaray. The Turkish giants are somehow managed worse than us. 

Arsenal got knocked out of a cup, and took just 1 point from 2 matches (without leaving London) in less than 2 weeks.

Arsenal entered this season with a new-found emphasis on "keeping the ball," as if possession is the be-all and end-all of modern football. A 4-1-4-1 formation has been used with this directive in mind.

At the beginning of the season, while Mesut Ozil was rested after his World Cup campaign, most supporters believed this formation would be scratched as soon as "the world's best #10" came back. Ozil returned. The ineffective system has remained in place.

A late victory against manager-less Crystal Palace brought 3 points. And then the Gunners drew 4 matches out of 5, with the lone victory coming against a flu-ridden Aston Villa side in Birmingham.

Sunday's 2-0 defeat to Chelsea means this is Arsenal's 2nd worst start ever in Arsene Wenger's career.

The new formation has looked terrible. The lack of depth in defense and defensive midfield has been exposed. The best players in the team have been misused (Ozil in nearly every match) or quizzically dropped (Alexis vs. Spurs) in the name of "keeping the ball."

Arsenal has the third-highest wage bill in the Premier League--higher than Chelsea's this year and higher than Liverpool's last year. 

Arsenal is not in a transition period like Manchester United. Arsenal spent twice as much as Manchester City on new transfers this summer. 

And this Arsenal team is worse than every other Arsenal side in Wenger's reign that did not lose 8-2 at Old Trafford.

There is no excuse. Arsenal has underachieved for years. But this year, the underachievement is worse than ever.

The "strategy" to "keep the ball" is failing.

In the Spring of 2012, Arsenal kept an attacking 4-2-3-1 formation but instructed the defensive fullbacks to play conservatively and not get beaten. The result was a skyrocket up the table, catching the Sp*rs before they could remove their "Mind the Gap" shirts, and securing Champions League qualification when it seemed impossible.

That next fall, just after the addition of Ozil, the same conservative tactics remained. And Arsenal enjoyed good results, leading the table for most of the year until January.

But as the fixtures got more difficult, that defensive solidarity was abandoned for some reason. Suddenly all that mattered was scoring goals, and the fullbacks both pushed forward with reckless abandon whenever Arsenal had the ball, leaving gaping holes at the back.

Results suffered. 

Humiliating losses at City, Liverpool, Chelsea, and Everton pushed Arsenal back down to 4th place. 

But rather than blaming the over-aggressive, foolish deployment of the fullbacks, Wenger was able to deflect the blame onto an inability to "keep the ball" in midfield.

The rest of the Arsenal players (and a majority of the fanbase) echoed the manager's viewpoint. All of a sudden, keeping the ball was Arsenal's #1 form of defense. You can tell this by examining the criticism of players like Mathieu Flamini.

Flamini, the only midfielder in the entire Arsenal squad with even the slightest amount of defensive ability, has been blamed for goals conceded because he sometimes loses the ball in midfield. 

Admittedly, when he does lose the ball, there are so few players in defensive positions behind him to clean up the mess that it does lead to goals.

It's true, in the current tactical setup, players like Flamini keeping the ball at all times is crucial to prevent the concession of goals.

But this in England, not Spain. 

Players get kicked, Fouls aren't always awarded. And every player in England, no matter how good their first touch is--or how quick they can find an accurate pass, will sometimes lose the ball in midfield. 

The recent past has proved that a more conservative approach with the Arsenal back-line has brought defensive solidarity while also preserving the potency of Arsenal's attack.

So rather than blaming midfielders who can actually defend, like Flamini, for goals conceded, Arsenal's manager, players, and fans should be concerned with the obvious vulnerabilities of Arsenal's foolishly open tactical system.

But the collective conscious of the club has become obsessed with "keeping the ball," justifying this new, ineffective formation.

And simply put, these tactics are awful.

I cannot rationalize Wenger's decision to abandon the conservative defense-first approach that worked so well in 2012. He has been more conservative this year, but in the wrong areas. And in so doing he has marginalized the most considerable amount of individual talent (Ozil and Sanchez) that is available to him.

Arsene Wenger is misusing the resources available in order to implement his own ill-conceived philosophies, rather than utilizing a system that maximizes his players' qualities. Wenger's system is failing to provide his team the best chance of winning matches.

And at the end of the day, getting the most out of the players available is Wenger's job.

Frankly, Arsene Wenger does not do this job as well as his competitors. 

And therefore, Arsene Wenger remains the single biggest liability holding back Arsenal FC. 

Just 2.5 more years to wait.