You definitely seem to be an apologist for the nouveau riche business model that City and PSG follow. I should have phrased it differently, but Bayern didn't buy their way to the top in the same way that City and PSG did. Bayern could afford the big money spends because they have built up a successful club over many decades. They've had a lot of success, but they've also had a lot of ups and downs over that period. Bayern also develops a lot of homegrown talent--can PSG or City say the same?

You make a valid point about City not spending a huge sum for one player, but you should also keep in mind that instead of doing that, they went in and paid over $50M for a good portion of the starting 11. They definitely contributed to driving up market prices for average to above average talent in Europe. They also poured mega-money into building up an academy that has not delivered a significant return on investment. Other than Phil Foden, who else have they produced that is a contributor at the club? They've let some young talent slip away (Sancho), but only Foden has made it up to the first team. Contrast that with United--who currently have at least 5 academy produced players that are significant first team contributors, and have given first team debuts to over a dozen players under Solksjaer's watch.

Bayern also did not have to rely on a sugar daddy owner that wanted to buy his way to the top, and they didn't have to take money from city states that have been accused of significant human rights violations, tacit terrorism sponsorship, or a laundry list of other issues. They also didn't have to "fudge" their revenues by having the state-owned airline as the main sponsor, and paying way more money than was warranted/earned under similar deals at other clubs. There is a reason that both PSG and City have been the subject of FIFA investigations. I also have a similar issue with Chelsea and their scummy oligarch owner Roman Abramovich. He came in before FFP and did the same thing. Chelsea have only recently been able to return to signing transfers after getting nailed for FFP violations.

United, Real, Barcelona, etc. became elite over a long period of time--not after a couple of years of mega-spending by their petro-daddy owners who wanted a seat at the big boy table. They are run like a real business--and that includes debt/capital structuring. United's debt is around ~$500M right now, and it would probably be lower, but they made the decision to not have lay-offs/furloughs for their full-time staff, and they didn't force players and coaches to take a pay cut. Even Barcelona and Real had to do that. United's market cap is also well over $5B USD, so there have a long way to go before they are in real financial jeopardy. Barcelona reportedly has debts that total ~$1B, but nobody seems very worried, because once fans can attend games again, the gravy train will start rolling.

You might not like the old guard, but at least there isn't blood on the money they take in. Can the same be said about PSG, City, or Chelsea?