In the 2015-16 season, Leicester City accomplished the impossible, defying 5000-1 odds to clinch their first Premier League title – a rare instance of the league slipping away from the traditional “big 6” teams in England.
Similar surprises unfolded in Europe's top five leagues. Montpellier upset PSG by securing Ligue 1 in the 2011/2012 season, Wolfsburg temporarily disrupted Bayern Munich's Bundesliga dominance in 2008/09, and Deportivo La Coruña claimed La Liga in 1999/2000 for the first time in their history.
The list goes on.
If we go even further back the timeline, Osvaldo Bagnoli’s Hellas Verona achieved their first - and seemingly last, Scudetto in the mid-80s, outpacing Giovanni Trapattoni’s iconic Juventus side who had won 5 titles in 8 years before.
Nottingham Forest, led by Brian Clough, rose from 13th place in the second tier the previous season to claim glory in the late 70s in the top flight. Football cherishes these rare, seemingly irreplicable moments of magic.
But for better or for worse, depending on your perspective, money has undeniably rewritten the rules. It means league winners are likely to be exactly who you expect them to be —more often than not. It's not like that hasn't always been the case, but it's more so now.
According to the CIES Observatory, transfer fees saw a staggering 240% increase between 2012 (€1.956 billion) and 2019 (€6.650 billion). While the COVID-19 pandemic brought a temporary slowdown, with a 28% dip in 2020 (€4.781 billion) and another 20% decline in 2021 (€3.822 billion), the Premier League held onto its hefty spending crown among the big 5 leagues in Europe.
Between 2012 and 2021, the EPL went all out, dropping nearly €16 billion on player signings. La Liga took a more conservative approach, spending 56% less with almost €7 billion. Serie A wasn't far behind, with a 44% reduction, coming in at €9 billion.
While the Bundesliga took a significant cut, splurging 65% less with €5.4 billion, Ligue 1 was the thriftiest with €5.3 billion, a whopping 67% less than the EPL, which would've been significantly less if Qatar Sports Investments never bought PSG in 2011 and decided to break the transfer market with Neymar Jnr and Kylian Mbappe.
But a lot of these transfers came from traditional top 6 clubs in their respective leagues, which means the financial chasm between these clubs and the ones with less financial power is undeniable.
So, the gap between the world's wealthiest clubs, leagues and their less fortunate counterparts is widening, making a repeat of Leicester City's magical 2016 title run seem as unlikely as Sean Dyce playing possession-based football in this decade —exactly impossible. David no longer stands a chance against Goliath.
The Premier League, since its inception in 1992, has spanned 32 seasons. But only eleven managers have lifted the trophy, a remarkable statistic considering it’s been around for 31 years.
Of the 51 teams that have played in the League, only seven have won England's top flight, which amounts to approximately 14% of the total number of teams. While this may appear uncompetitive, Sir Alex Ferguson's dominant Manchester United side, with their 42% share of all league titles, played a significant role in this one-sidedness, holding England hostage for 20 years.
But how much of it was down to a set style of play and a coherent team building?
We've seen an evolution of tactics in the league over several years. From the popular counter-attacking style to the more possession-based experience, all the way through to a mix of both. But which has been the most effective?
If we try to judge any one style winning the league, it would be the Sir Alex Ferguson style, not simply because it dominated the league the most, but because it could be termed the "anti-style" as Sir Alex never actually had any one style.
It wasn't like Pep Guardiola's possession-obsessed system, Jose Mourinho's emphasis on defensive football, or Jurgen Klopp's extreme counter-pressing.
Ferguson's longevity only came as a direct result of his ability to adapt to changes as often and as quickly as possible. He never limited himself to one dogma or school of thought, and he always learned from his mistakes.
When José Mourinho won Chelsea's first-ever league title in the 2004/05 season with 95 points, denying Arsenal a second consecutive title while breaking the duopoly Man United and the Gunnars enjoyed for 9 years, it marked one of the few times Sir Alex Ferguson faced genuine pressure, particularly with the Glazer ownership gaining traction.
Mourinho's arrival in the league was accompanied by a reputation for unparalleled pragmatism, emerging as one of the earliest examples of a top manager meticulously recruiting highly specialized players who seamlessly aligned with his desired playing style.
Pep Guardiola followed a similar approach when he came to England in 2016, dedicating a season to acquiring the specific profiles he needed to establish a new era at the Etihad Stadium.
But that's about the only thing both managers had in common.
Mourinho's pragmatic approach to management, paired with his ability to identify and acquire players who perfectly suited his tactical vision, proved to be a formidable combination —for the first two seasons, at least.
His arrival in the Premier League had the same effect as Arsene Wenger’s because it marked a turning point that introduced a new level of tactical sophistication and managerial influence that would profoundly impact the English game for years.
Jurgen Klopp took a slightly different approach approach to player recruitment at Liverpool, not necessarily because he wanted to, but because he had to. It was more data-driven than player-specific.
He had to rely on the club's analytics department to identify players who fit his style of play, rather than handpicking individuals he had seen play —one of the first use of the term “Moneyball” in football.
In 2019 Liverpool's then-chief executive Peter Moore said;
“The speciality experience of our Sporting Director – he and his scouting staff and analytical staff are the ones that build the squad. Jürgen Klopp, as the manager, gets the best out of that squad.”
It led to some surprising signings, like Mohamed Salah, whom Klopp reportedly considered too skinny for the Premier League and favoured Julian Brandt instead, at Bayer Leverkusen.
So, based on our understanding of history, what do teams need to do to win the league?
If it was solely about spending the most money, Chelsea would be on their way to their 6th title this season, because they've spent far more than any other club since Todd Boehly took over. And if it was about a possession-based style of play, then the rest of the teams in the league might as well just give up.
But I think we can learn from Sir Alex Ferguson's teams and their remarkable adaptability.
He employed a lot of styles with different players within different tactical frameworks, but they shared some intriguing commonalities that many fans tend to overlook.
While having a solid defence and a goal-scoring offence are obviously important, I've always found these factors to be a bit too simple and obvious —even though the numbers back it up.
Even a 2010 study in the Journal of Human Kinetics looked at this closer and came to the same conclusion.
The study analyzed 308 La Liga games and found that offensive dominance through greater shooting efficiency and ball control was the big thing that separated the top teams from the rest of the pack.
While you don't win the league in the first game of the season, you can certainly lose it there. This is why the foundation for winning starts at the top – with ownership.
Sometimes, you can identify teams with a strong chance of challenging for the title well before the season even begins.
There's a reason why Man United haven't won any titles in recent years.
A stable and consistent club structure is crucial for success. Clubs that can swiftly identify squad weaknesses and address them with the best possible signings already do half the job of winning a title.
And in today's dynamic football landscape, adaptability is another key ingredient.
Highly adaptable players have proven to be the most consistent performers. They can seamlessly adjust to changes in tactics and overall strategy, which usually gives their team a significant advantage.
And then there's maintaining squad fitness to foster on-field cohesion which, I think, is the most crucial factor in achieving consistency, and only consistency can lead to trophies.