Biggest Clubs in the world?

First topic message reminder :

I have been having an on going arguement at work, about this. And was just wondering what other peoples thoughts are.

In my opinion you have to decide why they are big clubs first. Is it tropheys won? or is it Finance? Is it the history of the clubs? Or is it the amount of fans that support them? Is it that they have changed football in some way? or the players that have/do play for them. Or is it the appeal national and worldwide of the club?
Now all these aspects are relevant obviously, but which is the MOST IMPORTANT 2 aspect in your opinion & Why?

The biggest clubs in my opinion are-
Mancheter United,
Liverpool,
Celtic,
Glasgow Rangers,
Barcelona,
Real Madrid,
Juventus,
AC Milan.
This is because the 2 biggest aspects in my opinion are - history & appeal of a club.

But There are so many clubs world wide that could be added. So who would you add ? and do you agree or disagree with who i believe are the worlds biggest clubs?

I am intrested in what other people think, so feel free to contribute your thou

prettyboykev wrote:

Derbyblue wrote:

prettyboykev wrote:A.C are Italy's biggest club that's pretty much a fact. Juve are a big club but I would have both Milan clubs above them. Juve struggle for crowds at times. that's something you can't really level at the Milan giants.

Have Juventus' crowds not improved since they were able to rebuild the Stadio delle Alpi/Juventus Staidum? (I actually don't know the answer to this question.) It's ok to say they have had small crowds during recent years, but if you look at the fact they were playing in the Stadio Olimpico di Torino which has a capacity of 28,000 then what attendances can you expect? Also Juventus are actually recognised as being the most supported club with in Italy. If history matters then Juventus are an older club than both AC and Inter milan, have only had 1 season out of the Italian top flight and are Italy's most successful club.

Also a horrible club that buys refs putting a black mark next to there whole history. You are right though there crowds have improved but still not on a par with the Milan clubs.

Juventus' new stadium has half the capacity of the San Siro so of course the crowds can't be on a par with the attendances of the Milan clubs. AC Milan were involved in the same scandal.

24 thousand watched the Juve - Milan match tonight in a 41 thousand capacity stadium.

Derbyblue wrote:Just a small question, only Tigerrobins has put Juventus above AC Milan, which isn't really something expecting so I was wondering why people put AC Milan above Juventus?

I put them higher because of the reason's you have put later on. Also because Juventus have more different succseful eras, and the fact that having become only the 2nd italian team to own there own stadium, So it could be aurged that they are leading the way again.
Though it is only my opinion, and i can see why people would put Milan ahead, in this case i think it' s more about people's individual opinion then some of the others.
I don't agree about crowds though, we know that seria a is on it's lowest ebb for at least 20 years. And due to different reasons italian supporters arn't going to games anymore.

tigerrobins wrote:and the fact that having become only the 2nd italian team to own there own stadium, So it could be aurged that they are leading the way again.

Doing something 2nd isn't really leading the way, is it?

User Name wrote:

tigerrobins wrote:and the fact that having become only the 2nd italian team to own there own stadium, So it could be aurged that they are leading the way again.

Doing something 2nd isn't really leading the way, is it?

That's a fair point to a stupid comment by myself.
What i meant is that they are the 1st big club to own there own stadium ( Modena is the other one i think). So they will get all the revenue from the stadium, unlike most other clubs who's stadiums are council owned, and shared.

Kev, as we all know Celtic won the European cup in 1967, ages ago, hardly makes them a big club now, does it, after all Bucharest won it too, Rangers only ever won the cup winners cup. Gothenburg won the uefa cup twice, so by the history rationale, they are a bigger team than rangers?

super_realist wrote:Kev, as we all know Celtic won the European cup in 1967, ages ago, hardly makes them a big club now, does it, after all Bucharest won it too, Rangers only ever won the cup winners cup. Gothenburg won the uefa cup twice, so by the history rationale, they are a bigger team than rangers?

Do Gothenburg have Rangers or Celtics fan base? Have Gothenburg won 42 league titles?

I said fan base was more important than history.

Kev, what difference does it make how many times you have won a tinpot league? Skonta riga and rosenborg have won their leagues loads of times. Does that make them big teams? Do you think barca or man u are losing any sleep because they haven't won their domestic league as many times, no of course not, do they hark hack to 67 all the time, they'd rather win half as many but within a better league. So now your argument comes down to fan base only. Yes , the OF have a lot of 'fans' albeit most with a tenuous link, but what use is that if you can't attract players, get humped in Europe, play in a tinpot league and get hammered by foreign minnows.

The OF were certainly big clubs at one time, but they aren't anymore.

super_realist wrote:Kev, what difference does it make how many times you have won a tinpot league? Skonta riga and rosenborg have won their leagues loads of times. Does that make them big teams? Do you think barca or man u are losing any sleep because they haven't won their domestic league as many times, no of course not, do they hark hack to 67 all the time, they'd rather win half as many but within a better league. So now your argument comes down to fan base only. Yes , the OF have a lot of 'fans' albeit most with a tenuous link, but what use is that if you can't attract players, get humped in Europe, play in a tinpot league and get hammered by foreign minnows.

The OF were certainly big clubs at one time, but they aren't anymore.

Shock, Super Realist is on his Anti Old Firm soap box again.

Nice example. Most Old Firm "fans" have a tenuous link...Are you going to acknowledge the glory hunters that follow Man Utd, Chelsea et al? No, because that doesn't fall in to your Anti Old Firm agenda.

For the record, I would not put us in the same leagues as the Barcelonas or Man Utds of the world. Possibly for fan base, but that is where the comparison stops.

Fan base means very little when those fans put nothing into the club, there must be many millions world wide whose gran was Glaswegian and so will claim to be a fan of one of the OF, but unless they buy shirts or scarfs, subscribe to tv channels, pay club membership fees, or even come over to watch a game every year or two, they give nothing of value to the club they claim to be fans of, give me 1 supporter over 20 fans every day of the year.

ReallyReal wrote:Fan base means very little when those fans put nothing into the club, there must be many millions world wide whose gran was Glaswegian and so will claim to be a fan of one of the OF, but unless they buy shirts or scarfs, subscribe to tv channels, pay club membership fees, or even come over to watch a game every year or two, they give nothing of value to the club they claim to be fans of, give me 1 supporter over 20 fans every day of the year.

Again, someone focussing on the Old Firm when talking about "fans".

Are the Old Firm the only teams in the world with "fans" instead of supporters? Get a grip.

Celtic Warrior wrote:

super_realist wrote:Kev, what difference does it make how many times you have won a tinpot league? Skonta riga and rosenborg have won their leagues loads of times. Does that make them big teams? Do you think barca or man u are losing any sleep because they haven't won their domestic league as many times, no of course not, do they hark hack to 67 all the time, they'd rather win half as many but within a better league. So now your argument comes down to fan base only. Yes , the OF have a lot of 'fans' albeit most with a tenuous link, but what use is that if you can't attract players, get humped in Europe, play in a tinpot league and get hammered by foreign minnows.

The OF were certainly big clubs at one time, but they aren't anymore.

Shock, Super Realist is on his Anti Old Firm soap box again.

Nice example. Most Old Firm "fans" have a tenuous link...Are you going to acknowledge the glory hunters that follow Man Utd, Chelsea et al? No, because that doesn't fall in to your Anti Old Firm agenda.

For the record, I would not put us in the same leagues as the Barcelonas or Man Utds of the world. Possibly for fan base, but that is where the comparison stops.

It hardly needs an explanation Celtic, I'm no more a fan of Man U or Barcelona, but they're not the ones pretending to be something they are not. Every "big" team in the world has a lot of glory hunters, but that doesn't make them big teams.
In order to be a big team you need a lot lot more than a fan base or a very distant history which actually bear no relation to the size of the club.
To be a big club you have to do well in big competitions. I think the OF have won about 1 of their last 20 odd European matches, that's not what big teams do.
They also have to have the ability to be revered, feared and respected across an area. Once again I don't think the OF fall into that category. They also have to be attractive to top players, once again, who in their right mind would sign for either two?

I don't disagree that they were once big teams, but it's a stretch to say they still are. Perhaps one day they will be again, but at present, they are just two very poor teams who have a little bit more interest in them from ex-pats and those with colonial feelings

I don't disagree.

We are living on past glories. You don't hear Aberdeen fans claiming to be a big team because of their former exploits in Europe.

It goes on at all levels though. When will we hear the end of England's win in '66?

We have a massive fanbase, you might not include that in your criteria of selecting a list of big clubs, others will.

In my opinion we are still a great club, but we are a shadow of our former years.

Celtic, how about a compromise. Celtic (and Rangers) are big clubs in regard of their support, but not in their importance or standing in the game?

That's not a compromise Super. If you read my comment I said I don't disagree. So is there really a need for a compromise?

Celtic Warrior wrote:When will we hear the end of England's win in '66?

When the Scottish stop mentioning it as a way to get at England.

I've hardly heard an Englishman mention it for years. I frequently hear the scottish mention it, saying we never shut up about it

Probably they'll stop talking about '66 when Scotland stop talking about beating England in '67 and Celtic stop talking about being the first British club to win the European Cup in 67.

So you watch the World cup with the volume off then?

I remember the World Cup in Germany, the opening game was Germany Vs. Costa Rica. We had it on at work and took bets on how long it would take to get mentioned. Within 18 minutes of kick off as I remember it.

That was not brought up by the Jocks.

Counter arguments there Realist. We'll stop mentioning it when they stop mentioning it.

I agree; I'm fed up of the "we won the big one" argument.

Discussions between Old Firm fans always end up in a Holly Wilaboobie-for-tat and that will inevitablly be mentioned. It's the Godwins Law of Old Firm discussion boards.

Celtic Warrior wrote:

ReallyReal wrote:Fan base means very little when those fans put nothing into the club, there must be many millions world wide whose gran was Glaswegian and so will claim to be a fan of one of the OF, but unless they buy shirts or scarfs, subscribe to tv channels, pay club membership fees, or even come over to watch a game every year or two, they give nothing of value to the club they claim to be fans of, give me 1 supporter over 20 fans every day of the year.

Again, someone focussing on the Old Firm when talking about "fans".

Are the Old Firm the only teams in the world with "fans" instead of supporters? Get a grip.

I only mention the OF because you'd ranted about others mentioning them previously.
ALL clubs have fans that contribute nothing to the club they profess to love, but the other BIG clubs that have been mentioned do actually have millions of fans worldwide that support their club by buying things or subscribing to tv channels/web sites etc., this is how they get a large portion of their revenue and that's what separates them from the once big, or always average clubs.

Bonojurno

My Top 10 Clubs:-

Real Madrid
AC Millan
River Plate
Manchester United
Bayern Munich
Juventus
Ajax
Liverpool
Corinthians
Barcelona

And I would rate another 20 clubs before I even got to either of the Glasgow clubs. What nonsense. Ajax with Total Football have inspired generations. What have Rangers and Celtic inspired? Religious nonsense and excuses for violence.

There is no place for that in football.

Basically just LOL at all the clueless, arrogant muppets putting Man U above Real Madrid.

consigliare wrote:Basically just LOL at all the clueless, arrogant muppets putting Man U above Real Madrid.

I don't think it's that clueless to be honest, Real Madrid last won their league title in 2007 and last won a European Cup in 2002. Manchester United have been consistently in the title race and more often than not has come out on top, and they won the Champions League in 2008 as well as getting to two finals after that. Manchester United's world fan base is bigger than Real Madrid. They are worth more than Real Madrid.

The only area that Real Madrid can beat Manchester United in is perhaps history, but United's history is hardly bad.

This is coming from a Liverpool supporter. I would think before you start calling people "clueless, arrogant muppets" because it might turn out you're actually describing yourself.

Alessandro Ciambella wrote:Bonojurno

My Top 10 Clubs:-

Real Madrid
AC Millan
River Plate
Manchester United
Bayern Munich
Juventus
Ajax
Liverpool
Corinthians
Barcelona

And I would rate another 20 clubs before I even got to either of the Glasgow clubs. What nonsense. Ajax with Total Football have inspired generations. What have Rangers and Celtic inspired? Religious nonsense and excuses for violence.

There is no place for that in football.

Bawbag.

Can't really argue with that though User. The OF are hardly inspirational, nor are they a model for any club to aspire to.

In regards to the mockery that was dished out for the mention that Spurs are a bigger club than Rangers or Celtic.

Let me ask you this.

Could Rangers or Celtic buy the likes of VDV?

Hero, they couldn't even buy Van Der Valk the Dutch Detective.

I honestly think the problem with the OF attracting big players is the league they are in. I can see the attraction of playing the same team four times a season if I am honest.

Well Steve, they've only got themselves to blame. Every year it's the same, crying into their Daily Record that the league isn't competitive enough yet every year they asset strip the best players from their competitors. They can't have it both ways.

The difference now is that players are realising that playing for the OF doesn't do much for your career and winning tinpot trophies is fairly meaningless given what you have to beat and so are signing for higher quality teams and a more competitive league in the Championship.
Big clubs attract, and can afford to attract big players.

bradford city.

This is the Forbes list of most valuable clubs in the World for 2011:

1. Man Utd
2. R. Madrid
3. Arsenal
4. Bayern Munich
5. Barcelona
6. AC Milan
7. Chelsea
8. Juventus
9. Liverpool
10. Inter Milan
11. Tottenham
12. Schalke
13. Lyon
14. Hamburg
15. Man City
16. Stuttgart
17. Werder Bremen
18. Marseille
19. A. Madrid
20. B. Dortmund

My top ten was:

1. Man Utd
2. Barcelona
3. Real Madrid
4. Liverpool
5. AC Milan
6. Juventus
7. Chelsea
8. Arsenal
9. Inter Milan
10. Bayern Munich

Okay I didn't get them in the right order but I had the full ten in there.

I think the clubs between 10 & 20 are very intresting, i doubt that many would have guessed quite a few of them. Marseille for example.
Also shows how strong the Bundersleige is, one of the most open competitions, biggest crowds, most goals, and very fan friendly with decent prices (€13 to stand at Dortmund).

Whilst I agree that Rangers and Celtic aren't in the top ten clubs, I woudl still argue that they are fairly sizeable clubs. Rangers got to the Uefa Cup final only a few years ago. Celtic were in the knockout stages of the champions league as well and getting to the uefa cup final at the begining of the decade. I can't remember if they won it or not. I would rank them ahead of teams like Stuttgart, Schalke, Hamburg and maybe on a par with Marseille.

For sure ahead of Bremen? just kind of a solid Bundesliga team who have done little in Europe and have never made any marquee signings to put them on the map bar perhaps Klose.

Werder Bremen got to the UEFA Cup Final in 2009 and only lost 2-1 after extra time...

As did Celtic in 2003 Rangers put them out the year before on the way to the final. They've all been to the last 16, though maybe Werder have been one or two more times.