I’m not sure where this belongs, so please forgive if in the wrong place.
I’m reading the book “Glory, Glory Gone”. The first section lightly touches on the period pre & post Double winners.
The author points out that until 61 Spurs spent big ( and well ) as did most of the bigger clubs but there was a wage cap in place. Once it was removed, Spurs lost their advantage and were unwilling or unable to spend on wages the way other clubs started to do.
Spurs were arguably the last club to succeed based on coaching and tactics alone as the double came under wage restraint.
As the club moved through the 60’s and into the 70’s they could not compete with the wages ( or would not ) and the claim is that Nicholson would not take part in the bung culture, that became ever more relevant in tipping a balance.
Move into modern day football, and it’s Spurs and Levy who most want FFP ( and I am sure a wage cap ).
The evidence seems to be clear, the higher the wages ( and win bonuses ) the more premium players you get and the more likely you are to win.
Not drawing much in the way of conclusions other than to think, that perhaps there is no escape from the reality that money is the most impactful part of football overall at elite level, the bigger clubs, pay the bigger wages and more often than not win, and it’s been this way always in modern football ( obvious maybe )
It’s a good read, hope others can get a chance to read it.