Firstly, what evidence have you got, other than your opinion that their sponsorships are "way above" market value? And even if they are above market value, why is this "doping" but not good negotation?
City themselves accepted they were guilty of this in 2014 - I suppose the point is negotiation implies two parties, not a state moving cash from one entity to another, which is what happened. But for reference, the etihad sponsor ship, from memory was circa 10x the size of the one between Arsenal and Emirates, which should be comparable. There is of course a case to say Arsenal negotiated poorly, but probably not 10 times worse.
Regarding your point on doping, I think it is key to call it financial doping, which is what it is. I would also consider an electric motor snuck into a bike in the tour de france doping, as I would weights in the bottom of a bobsleigh (Cool Runnings style). I don't think it is a term exclusive to PED's, but more an umbrella term for cheating
Did they accept they were guilty of that? Or that they breached spending rules and the amount they lost? On the same issue, City have challenged UEFA, said they reject their premise, took them to an impartial court, and won. So from a legal standpoint, I would say it's quite reasonable to assume that is their position now (and in honesty I'm not sure it was ever not their position).
In terms of value, Manchester City's sponsorship was negotiated about 6 years after Arsenals. It was also negotiated from the standpoint of a club that would go on to win (what will now be 5) leagues in the space of a decade. Who would dominate English football.
Arsenal negotiated from the standpoint of a team that have not won the league in the 15 years since. There was substantial inflation into football in the years that followed. Essentially the value of deal x would be worth maybe double, maybe treble between 2004-2009.
I'm also going to have to trouble you for the figures of 10 x the value. I seem to remember the Emirates being worth 20m p/a and City's being around 60m p/a. I know Arsenal's next deal, is worth around 40m p/a (which was signed 3 years ago).
Objectively, if you said to be business 1- will dominate said league,a leageu that have double-treble the exposure of when business 2 did the deal and would get 60-70m per/a soonsorship
Business 2, will not win the league, or even compete for the lst in the next 16 years will get a sponsorship deal of 20m rising to 40m per/annum. Do you think those sponsorships match up? Honestly, if I was scoping the market or pre preparing for a sales strategy, I would say the numbers look about right.
I will ask again, on top of this, in a world where Liverpool can make 100m on shirt sponsorship, who have no won a valid league title in 31 years (only a heavily contested dubious one with a huge break out of season) or United who have not won a league in 7 years (or again been close) would a side who have won 5 leagues in a decade, having a substantially smaller spomsorship agreement- for often much more areas of exposure as not only so far above the market rate that it is unfair, but also that it can be likened to taking banned substances that directly improve performance (widely and rightly considered to be the worst offence in sport)?
I am happy to hear the counter view, but I hope you can see, with the numbers I've provided, it doesn't really make an awful lot of sense to me.
