It's not clear to me that Chelsea spending a large amount on players ten years ago and City more recently is what has raised players wages across the leagues. It's certainly a common assertion but how can it be established? Why do the managements of the other 90 clubs feel that just because Chelsea and City were paying high wages that they had to? It's not as if had they refrained from doing it all their players would go to Chelsea and City.
Yes, I think TV money plays a much bigger part in the inflation of wages. At the end of it it just seems that clubs pay as much as they think they can afford, and so constantly live on the edge. TV money should have made Premiership clubs rich. But they just used it to be in constant spiralling-up auction on player wages.