Liverpool’s City chant puts the club’s own financial history under the spotlight

Liverpool’s 3-0 defeat by Manchester City came with a pointed reminder from the Anfield crowd: City could face relegation as punishment. The chant, reported by the Mirror, sharpened a separate debate about whether Liverpool supporters can claim moral distance from a rival over money in football.

The Mag called the reaction hypocritical, arguing that Liverpool’s own success has also been shaped by wealthy backing. That is an opinion, not proof that the two clubs’ finances or circumstances are the same. But Liverpool’s history and recent spending give the argument specific context.

John Houlding founded Liverpool in the late 19th century after a dispute with Everton over rent at Anfield. The Mag says Houlding then used his financial resources to recruit Scottish players, and that Liverpool won the Football League about a decade later.

The outlet also points to the Moores family, whose wealth from the Littlewoods football pools helped fund Liverpool in the late 1950s, when the club was in the second tier. The Mag credits that backing with helping Liverpool win promotion and top-flight titles, and argues it contributed to the club’s longer-term financial foundations.

The more immediate comparison is Liverpool’s transfer spending. The Mag says the club committed more than £500 million to five players in 16 months: Alexander Isak for £125 million, Bradley Barcola for £123 million, Jérémy Jacquet for £60 million, Florian Wirtz for £116.5 million and Hugo Ekitike for £79 million. Barcola has made one league appearance for Liverpool this season, without a goal or assist.

Those figures make it harder to present Liverpool as a club untouched by major private investment. They do not, on their own, establish that Liverpool and City are in equivalent situations or settle the arguments surrounding City’s possible punishment. The source reports the prospect of relegation as the subject of the chant; it does not say relegation is certain.

That distinction matters. Liverpool left the match 3-0 down, while the chant turned the focus from the result to football’s relationship with money—and to how selectively supporters apply that criticism to rivals.