Manchester City has been chastised for "letting go" of certain players, but this is not always their choice.
City cannot always retain the players they desire.
Manchester City is an incredibly powerful football club, with the trophies and financial resources to back it up.
The Blues have won four of the last five Premier League titles and are now among the favorites to win the Champions League, while they also topped the 2022 Deloitte Football Money League, a ranking of the highest-earning teams.
However, that does not mean that City, whether under the leadership of Pep Guardiola on matchday or Khaldoon Al-Mubarak in the boardroom, can do whatever they want.
That reality must surprise some of City's detractors, who have created the myth that City are some evil force hell-bent on world dominance and hoarding all the best players. In connection with Raheem Sterling's future, the narrative that City possesses ultimate power has resurfaced.
Sterling appears set to join Chelsea in a deal worth an initial fee of £45 million, becoming the club's second attacker to leave this summer. Gabriel Jesus recently joined Arsenal for £45 million.
In an ideal world, City would have kept both players - Guardiola is a huge fan of both - but various factors dictated that sales had to - and will - take place.
Both forwards' contracts were set to expire in 2023, so this summer represents City's last chance to earn transfer fees close to the duo's true value. Suitors would have had more bargaining power if negotiations had taken place in January, because both could have left for nothing when their contracts expired.
Both players' decisions to leave are thought to have been influenced by a desire to play more regularly, and as we all know, Guardiola has a policy of not keeping players who do not want to be at the club.
As a result, it's perplexing when pundits like Paul Merson come out and blame City for selling players like Jesus and Sterling or not renewing their contracts. The players, not City, made the majority of the departure decisions.
In football punditry, an odd view of transfer business appears to have developed, in which a player leaving a club must be due to the club deciding not to keep them, or making a bad decision.
In the cases of Jesus and Sterling, City desired to retain both. Because neither wanted to stay, the obvious course of action is to sell and generate revenue to fund future signings and sustain operations (something they are often accused by the same pundits of not doing.)
Clearly, City cannot always do whatever they want. Players have clout, and if they choose to seek greener pastures, City will not stand in their way.
blogpay
