97 Points and No Title: Who Suffered Most in the Manchester City Era?

On one page of my notebook, the date 12 May 2026 is still written in thick black ink. Beside it, two numbers — 97 and 98. It was nearly 1 a.m. in my Sydney apartment, Anfield's final day on the laptop screen. Liverpool finished the season on 97 points and were still not champions; Manchester City had 98. A one-point margin, and yet that margin was everything. I watched 27 of those 29 matches live; the two I missed still leave questions in my notebook. Because here the numbers are not just numbers — they are a portrait of an era. Three years later, in May 2026, almost the same picture. Liverpool on 92 points, 18 clear of third-placed Chelsea — and the title still went to City, on 93. That was when it became clear the question is not 'who won,' but 'whose suffering did City's reign cause, and how much.' City's rise did not happen in one season. After the club was bought in 2026, they gradually redrew English football's balance of power. What was once the 'Big Four' slowly became a race among the 'Big Six.' But City's case is different: they did not merely win trophies; they bought the best players out of their rivals, strengthening themselves while weakening the opposition. Call it talent extraction. Pep Guardiola's side often sits around 60 percent possession. To me, though, possession has always been football's most deceptive statistic — plenty of teams hold 60 percent of the ball and create nothing. City's real weapon is not possession; it is how high they push the points threshold required to win a title. In this era you need more than 90 points to be champions, and even 97 is not enough. The higher that bar has risen, the more clubs have suffered. Mid-tier clubs — Newcastle, Everton, Leicester, Aston Villa — have felt the most pressure. One thing is easy to forget about them: in this era, climbing the table is not only about building a squad, it is about keeping your stars. A club that cannot hold on to its best players has no choice but to start over every season. The most measurable damage belongs to Liverpool. Jürgen Klopp's team finished second behind City three times. In 2026-19 they took 97 points — one fewer than City, yet 25 more than third-placed Chelsea. In 2026-22 they took 92 — again one behind, and 18 ahead of third-placed Chelsea. Klopp's side was not merely a chaser; it was clearly the second-best team, held back by an even stronger opponent. Their suffering was measured in points. Others suffered by losing players. Start with Tottenham. After the 2026-17 season, Kyle Walker moved to City for £50m. My notebook had flagged the possibility early, but the contract clause and the fee closed the deal. Saying Walker's exit alone shattered Spurs' golden generation would be an exaggeration, but their line of improvement plainly stalled. Aston Villa's fall is the most dramatic. From 2026 to 2026 they finished sixth three seasons running. Then Gareth Barry (2026) and James Milner (2026) both left for City. Villa slid to ninth, and in 2026-16 they were relegated with just 17 points. Villa are the example of how a mid-tier club can come apart — though a caution is essential: blaming their relegation entirely on City would be wrong. Everton lost John Stones, Joleon Lescott and Jack Rodwell — all to City. Leicester lost Riyad Mahrez, whose later success showed how wide the gap between Leicester and the top had become. And Arsenal? Emmanuel Adebayor, Kolo Touré, Gaël Clichy and Samir Nasri — four players, all to City. Chelsea appear on the list too; the argument runs that without City they could have won more. Newcastle sit sixth, but their suffering is never detailed, so that ranking is thinly supported. Here is the bigger pattern. I do not follow the transfer market; I audit the footprints it leaves — and those footprints say the best player at almost every major club eventually walked towards City. City did not shop abroad for unknown talent; they bought proven Premier League stars, from direct rivals and mid-tier clubs alike. This is not just about weakening a squad — it is a self-reinforcing cycle: success brings revenue, revenue brings stars, stars bring more success. Now I want to be careful, because this debate is essentially a counterfactual list — 'if City had not risen, who would have won what' — and counterfactuals are inherently subjective. Arsenal rank only tenth despite losing four important players. Why? Because the ledger does not run one way. In 2026 City's assistant coach, Mikel Arteta, took over at Arsenal, and Arsenal have benefited ever since. Talent does not always flow in one direction. My second caution concerns sample size. Liverpool's 97 and 92 points are hard evidence across multiple seasons. But the 'suffering' of Villa, Everton and Tottenham rests largely on one or two departures. In my method, drawing big conclusions from one match or one season is off-limits. The notebook can be the first witness, never the verdict — nothing is confirmed without a contract clause and a second source. And with so many fees undisclosed, the paper trail cannot fully measure the damage. Looking ahead: any decision against City under financial rules (FFP/PSR) could rewrite this whole 'who suffered most' list. Whether post-Klopp Liverpool can return to 90-plus points, whether Arsenal can win a title under Arteta, and whether clubs like Villa and Newcastle can climb back into the top four — those are the next chapters. So the question lingers: did City's reign drain the league of talent and weaken it, or force its rivals to become better?