Occasionally, the Liverpool Echo appears in my search results. It is a publication known for shaping its narrative to align with its readers’ biases, often distorting the truth to the point where it barely resembles reality.
For example, during the Raheem Sterling transfer saga, the Liverpool Echo consistently reported that Sterling refused to sign a new contract with Liverpool FC because he was demanding higher wages. This narrative conveniently mirrored Liverpool Football Club’s official stance and media briefings. Ex-Footballers like Jamie Carragher piled on with unhelpful comments.
However, Sterling’s agent clarified the truth multiple times on TalkSport Radio. Sterling’s reluctance to sign a new deal was not financially motivated. Following the sales of Philippe Coutinho and Luis Suárez for significant fees, Liverpool replaced them with players like Danny Ings, signaling a lack of ambition and suggesting they were a selling club. Sterling, a lifelong Liverpool fan, sought to leave not for money but for career progression, believing Liverpool’s vision did not align with his own aspirations. In other words, it was not about how much money they were prepared to pay, but their own silly fault he wanted to leave.
The fallout from Sterling’s decision to join Manchester City was met with a torrent of abuse (often racist) from Liverpool fans, a pattern that persists to this day. Ironically, the funds from Sterling’s transfer played a key role in helping Liverpool buy players and consequently Liverpool’s eventual Premier League title win in 2020. Notably, (white) players like Robbie Fowler, who left under similar circumstances, and Steve McManaman, who ran down his contract to leave on a free transfer for Real Madrid, did not face comparable hostility from fans or the Liverpool Echo.
The Liverpool Echo continues to peddle questionable narratives, including their reporting on Manchester City’s alleged Premier League Financial Fair Play (FFP) breaches. A recent article came up in my search results and caught my attention:
While the article itself was largely unremarkable, the comments section was filled with the typical uninformed City-bashing rhetoric often seen from Liverpool fans. In response, I posted a factual breakdown of the allegations against Manchester City:
Allegations Against Manchester City:
- Non-Cooperation – This charge is often a sign of a weak case.
- Breaching Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) – Alleged breaches occurred over three periods, but when you analyse City’ accoutns, they could only exceed PSR by £9m in 2016 (if the two sponsorship deals are valued at £0, and Yaya Touré’s payments were added). Other years showed no breaches.
- Breaching UEFA’s FFP Rules – UEFA has already assessed and ruled on these matters. The Premier League lacks jurisdiction to re-litigate them.
- Touré’s Extra Contract – Debatable but not explicitly prohibited by regulations. Mancini’s contract is really out of scope.
- Sponsorship Payments – Claims that Sheikh Mansour directly funded sponsorships have already been explained as part of a drawdown system by Etihad Airways before the U.S. Senate.
It is difficult to see how City’s actions warrant punishment under the outlined allegations.
Despite the factual and non-inflammatory nature of my post, it was blocked with the following reasoning:
“Your comment appears to violate our community guidelines and has been de-activated”
Seriously? Come on Liverpool Echo, are you really that sad?
This is what I wrote:
“There are 5 allegations against City:
5) Non Co-Operation – you only levy this charge if your case is weak.
4) Breaching PSR over 3 periods (where they won 1 league title). If you value sponsorship at £0 and add the Toure payments, City break PSR by £9m in 2016.only. They don’t in the other years.
3) Breaching FFP, only UEFA can assess and enforce their rules, already done. The EPL is a 3rd party and has no power to re-try City
2) Toure extra contract is debatable. Mancini (pre PSR), nothing in rules P7, P8, Q7 & Q8 to say City can’t pay him more.
1) Sponsorship payments from Etisalat and Etihad made directly by S Mansoour. Already explained as a draw down system by Etihad in front of US Senate.
It’s hard to see what City have done wrong or how they can be punished.”
This is the screenshot:
