So you're saying that it only counts as spending money if the owner does it at a loss out of his own pocket?
That still feels like a little bit of a stretch for me, though, because that line of argument assumes that all of the owners of the other clubs aren't doing the same thing - raising ticket prices, concessions, etc. If only the American owners were doing that, then ok, but I don't think that's the case. I'm pretty sure I remember pretty recent complaints about Everton trying to raise ticket prices too, and of course they'll be going up in the new stadium no matter what nationality the owner is at the time.
Not to mention that if the owners really wanted to, they could just pocket all of that extra money from the fans. They're not obligated to spend it on buying players or anything else. So if they do turn around and reinvest a large portion of it, then I don't see how that's not spending money.
Look, I'm not trying to say the American owners are generous angels, but neither are any of the other owners by the same criteria. Honestly, I think it would be great if all of the Premier League clubs were owned by the fans as a first option (something akin to the German model) or at least by rich English people if they must be owned by rich people. But right now today the two realistic options for new ownership for a Premier League club are either American or Saudi / Qatari.
I just think the arguments floating around to say that the American option is worse than the Saudi option are disingenuous (none of my points are necessarily directed solely at you in particular). Nobody is doing any of this out of the kindness of their hearts. They're all in it to make money, whatever their nationality. If the Saudis aren't being blatant about taking immediate profits, it's because for them it's a longer-term play to sportswash their country's reputation on the world stage, so they can cash in on that enhanced reputation in so many different ways later on.
