Above all else, we can definitely agree that Leicester's miracle was one of the best sports stories ever. That was simply amazing.

But, it was sort of "the exception that proves the rule" right?

Not really. Leicester in particular winning was an extreme event, but any small club winning in any league, much less extreme. Remember Chapicoense?

It happens once every 30 years and it is one of those improbable events that somewhat, someway happen, and after the event we get back to normal real quick (top teams aka those with more money in the Premier League winning, Milan, Juve, Inter in Italy, and Real or Barca in Spain, and of course Bayern in Germany). Then, there are some minor (in terms of fans, history) teams that get to the top echelon of their respective championships. But here is the catch: they go up there because they spend like crazy, like Parma, Roma, Lazio in Italy in the late 90s, early 2000s, Leipzig with the Red Bull money, and how can we forget the Real Betis and Deportivo La Coruña?

This fans reaction to the proposed ESL is ridiculous. Football is of and for the fans? How laughable. Players making millions and millions, oil money and money from suspicious financing changing teams from minor characters in the national stage to top teams (see Chelsea, ManCity, PSG). How can true fans support Chelsea when the money from Abramovich change the dimension, the spirit of the team? Or Manchester City, with working-class fans that are now supporting a team that in one week is spending more than an Onassis in a year?

My football, the "romantic" football, ended in the 80s. Certainly a time in which players were already paid handsomely, but also a time in which you could see players play for the "shirt", in which teams had an identifiable "culture" and "spirit" that was shared among players and fans. A sport, not just a pastime. I cannot stand watching a game now.

>How can true fans support Chelsea when the money from Abramovich change the dimension,

Man City were getting 30,000 fans attending in the third tier. Sunderland gets 30,000 fans attending in the third tier.

Minor characters on the European football stage with a good local following. Schalke04 in Germany, Roma, Lazio, Fiorentina (when in B, Lazio and Fiorentina were making 30k+ each Sunday) in Italy, ManCity in England. Before the oil money, at first approximation nobody outside of England knew about ManCity (or Sunderland...). My point is that teams with large local followings had a certain "spirit" (working-class City fans against the less working-class United fans, working-class Torino fans against more posh Juve fans) and tradition that has been razed to the ground by the arrival of owners who have yes a ton of money, but nothing in terms of the local culture. If I were an old-time City fan, I would not be able to support a team that has nothing to do with what the team historically represented, has nothing is terms of local property, and could play in Manchester or in London or in Newcastle and it would be exactly the same.

I understand your point better now - thanks.