Well, that got screwed up somehow; I wasn’t paying attention. It should have said something like leveraging their success and position.
What the big clubs have done is take their success that existed as the Premiership started and used it to generate more income. They attract wealthy investors (Chelsea), they merchandise like crazy (Man. U.), etc. This increases the income stream, allowing them to buy better players, AND to increase their marketing and investment efforts.
In America, the comparative effects can be seen in looking at the Atlanta Braves and the Chicago Cubs of baseball. Both teams in the mid-80’s were located in good markets, and had recently undergone a period of unusual success. But whereas the Braves managed to attract a wealthy investor (Ted Turner), who used his media empire to launch season long coverage of virtually every game the Braves played, all on his private cable channel available nationwide, then used the channel to plug his team shamelessly and develop its merchandising potential, to the point the Braves became a kind of “America’s Team,” the Cubs, also bought by a media company, and also having a captive television channel broadcast on cable nationwide, didn’t follow the same path. Instead, the Cubs share WGN with the White Sox (the other Chicago team), resulting in far fewer games on WGN in the last few years than in the 70’s, when virtually all Cubs games were on the air. And while the Cubs “laughable losers” image, their popularity from not having been to the World Series since 1945, etc. should create a merchandisers dream, and despite the fact that there are Cubs fans literally everywhere the team travels, the Cubs owners haven’t been as shameless about plugging and pumping the team.
The result? The Braves have won the Eastern Division of the National League something like 14 years in a row; the Cubs in the same time frame have been to the playoffs twice, and often struggle to get above .500. It’s all about the money, which is no surprise. In the American League, the Yankees of New York City have the best record over the long haul, because they make and spend more money than anyone else in baseball.
I think that if you want a real contrast in England, you should look no further than Liverpool, which likes to “talk the talk” on spending, etc., but obviously is no longer quite able to “walk the walk.” The do well, 5th, 4th and 5th the last three years, but they haven’t actually challenged for the title in quite a while, and given that they are regularly in Europe, they should be doing better. Obviously, they are doing better than sides that don’t regularly get across the Channel, but that’s not saying much. Still, are the faithful at Anfield really unhappy that their directors haven’t gone the way of Man. U? I doubt it, if you put it to them that way.