What if Roman Abramovich never bought Chelsea?

History often pivots on moments that feel small at the time. A pen scratching a signature in a London office in July 2003 set in motion a revolution that reshaped English football forever. Roman Abramovich’s arrival at Chelsea didn’t just alter the trajectory of a West London club, it bent the entire Premier League into a new shape. But what if that deal had never happened? What if Abramovich, swayed by Monaco’s Mediterranean calm or Spurs’ potential, decided Chelsea wasn’t worth the gamble?

In that alternate reality, Stamford Bridge looks very different. The club, under Ken Bates, was staggering under debts of around £80 million, its very future dependent on Champions League qualification. Without Abramovich’s billions, Chelsea would likely have been forced into austerity. The likes of Hernán Crespo, Claude Makélélé and Juan Sebastián Verón never arrive, because they were bought in the first great spending spree of the Abramovich era. The spine that José Mourinho inherited never materialises.

That means no Mourinho swagger in 2004, no “Special One” announcing himself to the English press. Without him, Chelsea do not smash Manchester United and Arsenal’s duopoly. The Invincibles’ run might have ended differently, but Arsenal could have stayed dominant a little longer. United’s dominance under Sir Alex Ferguson would probably have extended unchecked. Liverpool’s rise under Rafa Benítez may have carried greater domestic weight without Chelsea blocking their path. The 2005 Champions League semi-final might not be remembered for Luis García’s ghost goal, because Chelsea wouldn’t even have been there.

Frank Lampard, John Terry and Didier Drogba are names that still carry weight, but their stories change. Terry, the captain, might have been tempted elsewhere without the sense of a project fuelled by ambition. Lampard, already a fine midfielder, may never have reached the Ballon d’Or shortlist heights without the platform of Chelsea’s title-winning sides. And Drogba? Without Abramovich’s cash, he may have stayed in Marseille, or been snapped up by Manchester United. Imagine Old Trafford reverberating with his goals rather than Stamford Bridge.

On the European stage, the consequences ripple even further. Without Chelsea as a new superpower, English football’s representation narrows. The 2008 Champions League final in Moscow (Chelsea vs Manchester United) doesn’t happen. The all-English final era might never begin, with Spain’s giants continuing to dominate unchecked.

And the Premier League itself? Abramovich’s billions acted like a flare gun. Wealthy investors saw what was possible. Sheikh Mansour’s move for Manchester City in 2008 was influenced, in part, by the Chelsea model. Without Abramovich blazing that trail, City’s takeover may have been delayed, or looked very different. The Premier League might still be rich, but perhaps not the global juggernaut it is today, where billionaire owners shape the destiny of clubs overnight.

Chelsea, without Abramovich, may have slipped into the same faded aristocracy as Aston Villa or Everton – storied, proud, but forever chasing glimmers of past glories rather than writing new ones. Instead, they became kings of Europe, twice. Football as we know it today owes much to one man’s whim in 2003.

History is often written in boardrooms as much as on the pitch. In this reality, Abramovich chose Chelsea. In another, he didn’t – and the Premier League may never have become football’s loudest, richest stage.