The death (sorry departure) of Jose Mourinho has been perhaps the most analysed football story of recent times. The reasons behind the Portugeezer’s departure have extended from the state of Chelsea’s football to the ruthlessness of an owner regarding Chelsea as a ‘plaything’.  Others say that Mourinho has bequeathed a poorer team to Avram Grant than the one he inherited from Ranieri, still more claim that Abramovich wants to play at management, while there is credence in the theory that Mourinho was dismissed in September to prevent Chelsea’s big stars leaving en masse.

All these suppositions have an element of truth – yet there’s a factor most pundits seem to have ignored. Chelsea’s sudden decline has been hastened by the rest of the league catching up. Since Abramovich’s arrival in 2003 the Premier League has undergone a revolution whereby clubs such as Manchester City and Aston Villa, that were previously regarded as also-rans, now have the wherewithal to spend upwards of £25 million on a striker. City’s transfer budget for the January transfer window is allegedly £150 million, and even if this is a bit of an optimistic figure, it’s certain that their new Thai owners now have a right to believe that City can have a crack at the top four.

The same could be said of Newcastle, Villa, Portsmouth and Everton. Meanwhile Chelsea’s fellow top-four dwellers Arsenal, Liverpool and Manchester United have all undergone rapid transformations. By switching either stadia or owners, they are now in a far healthier position than in 2004 meanwhile Roman has sought to limit the club’s financial outlays. The new TV Rights deal hasn’t helped Chelsea in this respect either. 

When Abramovich and Mourinho were first united, Chelsea were the only high rollers at the table. Suddenly it seemed that a player’s ambition wasn’t to win trophies or international honours but to join the Stamford Bridge gravy train – just ask Scott Parker who sacrificed a potential England career for the lure of the rouble. For a club that remains the fourth or fifth best supported in London, Chelsea went from underdogs to cock o’the walk overnight. The financial advantage Abramovich gave them brought the Blues successive league titles and, while Mourinho’s achievements will remain legendary among Chelsea fans, it is easy in hindsight to regard them as the minimum requirements, especially as Arsenal were in the process of funding a new stadium and Manchester United went through seismic changes in the boardroom and dressing room. 

Tabloid writers were quick to claim that Mourinho’s Chelsea team would rule for decades to come and that the financial advantage Abramovitch offered would ensure that even after the Special One’s departure, any successor’s success would be guaranteed. As it turned out Chelsea’s financial advantage lasted less than three seasons as the signings of Ballack and Shevchenko undermined Mourinho’s game-plan and his lack of success in Europe cost him his job.  

So, in the new order of things, where do Chelsea fit in. Clearly, if the claimed levels of investment are to be believed, Manchester City have as much spending power as Chelsea. They have a bigger stadium as well and a fan base no smaller than the London team’s and a higher profile manager now that Mourinho has gone. Newcastle, also under new ownership, have a larger support than the Stamford Bridge side although the size of Mike Ashley’s spending power remains unclear. Then there are the likes of Aston Villa and Portsmouth with foreign owners eager to fund assaults on the Champions League. Chelsea could now be out of the top six in terms of spending power and potential. 

For the moment, provided Avram Grant can prevent a mass player exodus from West London, Chelsea still have a team to compete with the best – but now that their financial advantage has all but disappeared it seems their short-lived domination of English football has ended with it. Whither Peter Kenyon’s 10 year plan for world domination?