Seismic role reversal means Manchester City could leave Chelsea behind

The super-rich tend to attract envious glances. Sometimes they direct them as well. Chelsea and Manchester City meet on Sunday at a spell when seasons are on the line and accusations of underachievement can be levelled. In troubled times, there is a tendency to eye others resentfully. That may be particularly pronounced among the nouveaux riches, whose recent history shows they have been particularly acquisitive.

These are two clubs who have become billion-pound investments, considering the amounts committed to players past and present. Yet, whatever the relative strength of their respective squads, the rivals are role models for each other in other respects. City can only wish they had Chelsea’s European record. The 2012 Champions League victory represents the high point in their history. Yet as City attempt to navigate a path to a first quarter-final in the continent’s most prestigious competition, it is perhaps more pertinent that Chelsea have already reached seven semi-finals in the Roman Abramovich era. Even before Roberto Di Matteo’s improbable triumph, they had established themselves as European heavyweights. City, with tough draws and early exits both seemingly annual events, are cast as serial let-downs.

They are still perceived as big spenders whereas Chelsea have developed a more sustainable financial model since the early years of the Abramovich ownership. Chelsea’s capacity to command sizeable prices for players who are not in their team has made them the equivalent of the businessmen who buy undervalued companies to sell them at a profit. Chelsea erred, admittedly, in recouping just £18 million for Kevin de Bruyne, who City purchased for three times as much 18 months later, and Petr Cech’s £11 million price felt discounted. Yet they brought in around £160m for Ramires, Romelu Lukaku, David Luiz, Andre Schurrle, Juan Mata and Ryan Bertrand, none of whom figured in Jose Mourinho’s first-choice 11. Abramovich might not have had such a big mark-up on the gas that made his fortune.

Yet City have outstripped Chelsea commercially. Their turnover was £33m higher last year. City may overpay for players – director of football Txiki Begiristain’s negotiating skills leave something to be desired – but they have proved better at attracting partners and sponsors; some £62m better, to be precise, in the 2014-15 accounts. They have gone from recording a loss of £197m to posting a profit within four years. The fiscal gulf between them is set to grow, assuming City are in next season’s Champions League and Chelsea are not. These are clubs who have been defined by money and one is set to bring in rather more than the other.

But the prime reason Chelsea can harbour jealous feelings about City is found in Munich. City’s pursuit of Pep Guardiola has taken less time than Chelsea’s and been concluded successfully. Chelsea seem forever unfulfilled, invariably looking for their ideal manager, and now aware the closest candidate is bound for the Etihad Stadium. Guardiola is not merely a status symbol. Bayern Munich’s impending coronation will take his total to six league titles in seven seasons. The Premier League is more competitive, but his appointment positions City to dominate English football.

Rewind nine months and there has been a role reversal. Chelsea seemed the likeliest to enjoy a spell in the ascendancy. They had a proven winner of a manager, in Mourinho, committed to a long-term contract, a squad where only John Terry was in the autumn of his career and what appeared a formidable mentality.

In contrast, City seemed to face an uncertain future. They had been displaced as champions by the resurgent Londoners. Their squad was ageing and the only players with much resale value were the ones they required on the pitch. Their spending had been limited by failing Financial Fair Play and they seemed to have less room for manoeuvre in the transfer market.

Instead, the relaxing of the rules and their booming commercial revenue permitted a record £158m outlay last summer. City’s explanation as to its affordability involved citing amortisation, conveniently a word that the majority do not understand, but the sense is that a similar budget is available again for Guardiola.

Admittedly, Manchester United boast still greater resources. Their turnover will swell beyond the £500m mark this summer. They excel at monetising their massive fanbase and exploiting the global interest in events at Old Trafford. Yet until they can marry commercial acumen off the field with the ability to appoint the right manager and sign the right players on it, they will be a financial, rather than a footballing, superpower.

And, like Chelsea, United are mired in instability now. The notion the London club had acquired a group who would be the bedrock of the squad for the second half of this decade has been discredited. Eden Hazard, supposedly the jewel in the crown, has not scored in open play all season and is flirting with Paris Saint-Germain. After several successful transfer windows, last summer’s ranks as a failure. There may be a clearout; perhaps because the next manager requires one, and perhaps regardless of his wishes.

If history threatens to repeat itself at Chelsea, City are entering a new stage of theirs. If Chelsea hired perhaps the world’s best manager when Mourinho first joined in 2004, City have done it now. There is a theory that Manuel Pellegrini, the man cast aside to make way for Guardiola, could end up at Stamford Bridge.

Chelsea may well be casting covetous looks at the City dugout: less on Sunday, however, than for the next three seasons.