The Beautiful Game's Sole Criticism

Football, especially the English Premier Division, is subject to much praise and, of course, rightly so.

Not only does the game involving 22 players, a rubber ball and two goals create such vast entertainment that rivals Hollywood and possesses huge passion and culture that undermines the billions in Bollywood but it also unites the world in a way no other organisation can relate too.

The United Nations (UN) goal to create political stability and disperse poverty world wide can boast 192 members and was founded in 1945, after World War Two killed its final soldier. Meanwhile FIFA, with the goal to create stability in football world wide, shadows the UN's member total with 208 associates, furthermore the head body of football was founded in 1904 and survived, unharmed, through the World War years.

So football does, correctly, receive praise after praise after praise and long may it continue.

But when a criticism is discovered, buried amongst the praise, it comes in hard and powerful. They say money makes the world go round and for many years football ignored and proved the cliche wrong as football enjoyed some of its finest spells in years where shillings were hard to come by. Now-a-days shillings are even more scarce as the rolls of millions and billions, swept in, by wealthy, affluent business men from abroad invest their change into clubs and change the face of football.

Jack Walker may be the typical Englishman, but when he invested his millions into the small club of Blackburn Rovers in 1991 the northwest club stormed up the leagues and eventually won the Premier Division in the 1994-1995 season, something which would have been hugely impossible without the Walker millions.

The money men from Abu-Dhabi are the latest group to take over a Premier League club

Roman Abramovich came over from Russia to London and invested millions, of his billions, of oil money into the financially struggling Chelsea. The Kings Road club became Kings of England just two years later and have enjoyed an abundance of success thanks to the Russian.

Then other businessmen with an eye for a profit realise the money available in the booming Premier Division and they quickly jump abroad their private jets to snatch the club off a struggling English chairman and walla the club is reborn with virtually any superstar footballer within their reach.

The Glazzers, who took over Old Trafford and spurred more success into the club, preceded Hicks and Gillett's Liverpool takeover, which has, ironically, resulted in more starvation of trophies.

Then it was Manchester City's turn and the Royal family of Abu-Dhabi, who invested almost £100 million worth of players in just five months with success for City almost inevitable.

So, why is this so bad? For football it's brilliant - a chance to cement itself as the world's greatest sport but it is the fact that this money is being thrown around like a reality Monopoly game into a sport which really doesn't need it that has created the criticism.

In an era of recession, an era of a credit crunch and with world wide poverty still not cured these billions should be ploughed into the UN and other needy organisations with not a second thought - but then again, without the influx of money, would football really rival Hollywood? Would a two-horse title race between Arsenal and Manchester United, year-in year-out, be as entertaining as a five or six or even seven horse race now Chelsea, Liverpool, Aston Villa and Manchester City have millions, rather than pennies, to spend?

Whatever your opinion, there seems to be no end to the billions being piled into football.