There aren’t enough arrows to illustrate how much winning > attractive football. I’ll worry about other teams entertaining me. I enjoy if my team entertains fans around the work, but winning comes far before that.
Even Carlos Alberto Pereira in 1994 had to convince the Brazilian people that his “F&$@ joga bonito” mentality would net better and more satisfactory results.
For obvious reasons, if my team won a trophy playing ugly, rubbish, boring football, I wouldn't care the least (for starters because in the mid-90s and early 00s they won lots of kind words from fans of other clubs for entertaining whilst not winning anything that after a while felt incredibly patronising).
But if my club had a stupefying amount of money, and had previously won loads, and had an outlandish budget, and they were playing ugly, rubbish, boring football, I'd propose the manager be fired into the sun. Because we know teams can play football and win big. Just as - and this cannot be emphasised enough -
teams that play utterly abysmal football don't win all the time.
We're told grotesque financial inequality is fine in European football because 'everyone wants to watch the big clubs'. But if all the 'big clubs' want to do is play like Bolton Wanderers circa 2004, why do they need a budget of eleventy trillion euros to do it?
In any scenario where millionaires and billionaires encourage fans to pay more money and in return accept less variety and quality, fans ought to pelt them with rotten fruit, or worse. And when negative coaches who say, 'Results are everything' lose, we should point and laugh, and tell them, 'By your own definition you are nothing. So f*** off, and don't come back until you're more worthy of the world's time and interest than drying paint.'