How do you define a Big Club ?

dd972

What are the criteria for defining a 'Big Club' in your eyes? Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal etc are the obvious candidates but surely Nottingham Forest are bigger than Wigan or QPR despite their relative lack of success in recent years,

Aston Villa are a big club who'd be a loss to the EPL imho

West Ham have always struck me as thinking they're bigger than they are.

I'd still class Tottenham as a bigger club than Chelsea in terms of their heritage.

Newcastle could have really taken off if they'd won a Prem or two between 96 and 98, still a sleeping giant really.

Celtic have always seemed a slightly bigger club than Rangers in terms of fan base and world appeal

Carcharodon

You can't, opinions do not make definitions.

Winston Payne

There is "Big club historically" as in one that was big once and isn't now, or one that has an illustrious history but isn't currently at the top table, and there is "Big club now", which may or may not have that history. Preston North End, Huddersfield and Arsenal are historically big clubs. Chelsea and Manchester City are far bigger than the first two now. One of the things we need to move away from in footballing discussion is treating "history" and "success" as synonymous. They aren't. Burnley and Liverpool both have history, but one has had far more success than the other. So to say that one club has history and another doesn't, when both have been around for over a hundred years, to give a topical example, is very irritating and false.

born2bwild

Fifa regulation 11.23 stipulates that:

..the adjectives 'big'; 'huge'; 'massive' or any other comparable superlative term can be appended in description to the name of the football club only if the mean phallic dimensions of the first team squad have been measured to stand at a minimum of 19.3cm in length and 12cm in girth.

I've always played for big clubs.

Richard Hillman

I don't have criteria to define what a big club is because im not a........We will leave it there.

Augmerson

Luton. Big club.

homerjay2005

Big club is defined by history, support base, global fame & honours mostly.

Neil3030

I often find it's a definition ascribed to teams that in many people's eyes "ought to be doing better" for one reason or another.

Man United, for example, are rarely referred to as a, "big club", nor are Barcelona, etc.

homerjay2005

Neil3030 wrote: »

Man United, for example, are rarely referred to as a, "big club", nor are Barcelona, etc.

United and Barcelona are constantly referred to as the biggest clubs in the world, in every respect.

COYVB

"Big club" is only relevant to fans. Usually fans trying to justify something about the club they support. And usually when their club isn't doing so well. Alternatively it can be used to rubbish another person's club where applicable

Let's be honest though, the modern game has about a 10 year relevancy cycle when it comes to this kinda stuff. Fans like to think that something their club won 20 years ago, or that time last century when they dominated a domestic scene counts for anything, or has any influence on the modern club. It doesn't. Villa (who I support) won the European Cup in 1982 - is that relevant to the modern game? No. It's not.

Arsenal, on the other hand, haven't won anything for a while, but in terms of relevancy, their more recent silverware DOES actually matter, mainly because it's the same manager still there. A potential signing would look at Arsenal and Wenger and make a fair assumption that they've done it before and might be able to do it again. A potential signing would not look at Villa and think they're in with a shot of winning the European Cup again any time soon.

Leeds, Forest, Preston, Villa, Liverpool etc. They're all clubs who were big and relevant at some point in their history. Those days are gone. They have history, silverware and supporters, but they cannot compete at the top, therefore they're not a "big club" IMO

padd b1975

Regular winning of trophies.

At least one sustained period of dominance in their history.

Iconic players.

Big ground.

Global recognition.

Rikand

Im happy to let sky sports decide for me because it makes no difference anyways

Neil3030

homerjay2005 wrote: »

United and Barcelona are constantly referred to as the biggest clubs in the world, in every respect.

But there's a very real difference between "big club" and "biggest club in the world"; the latter makes you the former but not vice versa.

CSF

COYVB wrote: »

"Big club" is only relevant to fans. Usually fans trying to justify something about the club they support. And usually when their club isn't doing so well. Alternatively it can be used to rubbish another person's club where applicable

Let's be honest though, the modern game has about a 10 year relevancy cycle when it comes to this kinda stuff. Fans like to think that something their club won 20 years ago, or that time last century when they dominated a domestic scene counts for anything, or has any influence on the modern club. It doesn't. Villa (who I support) won the European Cup in 1982 - is that relevant to the modern game? No. It's not.

Arsenal, on the other hand, haven't won anything for a while, but in terms of relevancy, their more recent silverware DOES actually matter, mainly because it's the same manager still there. A potential signing would look at Arsenal and Wenger and make a fair assumption that they've done it before and might be able to do it again. A potential signing would not look at Villa and think they're in with a shot of winning the European Cup again any time soon.

Leeds, Forest, Preston, Villa, Liverpool etc. They're all clubs who were big and relevant at some point in their history. Those days are gone. They have history, silverware and supporters, but they cannot compete at the top, therefore they're not a "big club" IMO

You're mixing up 'big club' with good teams. Saying that Liverpool are not a big club is about as ridiculous an opinion I've seen on here. Leeds and Villa are huge too. A couple of trips around different Premiership grounds might help you understand that.

batistuta9

Support base, Roma, Lazio & Napoli massive clubs and only 7 league titles between them

Bertser

Support and success.

dfx-

Volume of support. Recent success means almost nothing.

Sheffield Wednesday would be a big club ahead of a fair proportion of recent Premiership teams.

EdenHazard

Leeds and them teams are only big clubs in the context of English football and society(because they are from big urban working class cities) in reality leeds are a nobody team.

JokerD

EdenHazard wrote: »

Leeds and them teams are only big clubs in the context of English football and society(because they are from big urban working class cities) in reality leeds are a nobody team.

Couldn't be more wrong

Leeds are a big club, saying otherwise is ridiculous.

efb

But are they a Top, top club???

Quandary

A more relevant question might be when does a club cease to be considered a "big" club?

Leeds were at one stage a big club but they have struggled away in the championship now for almost 10 years. That length of time away from the premier league makes them slip more and more into obscurity despite their impressive history.

I wonder what the average age of a Leeds Utd fan is today?

Outside of relatively local people its got to be difficult for Leeds to attract new fans I would imagine.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

smileyj1987

Phoenix wrote: »

Am..no

I would say they would be equal . Chelsea haven't got a big history of winning trophies and Tottenham don't have a big history of winning trophies too . But they both have a big support worldwide .

JokerD

Quandary wrote: »

A more relevant question might be when does a club cease to be considered a "big" club?

Leeds were at one stage a big club but they have struggled away in the championship now for almost 10 years. That length of time away from the premier league makes them slip more and more into obscurity despite their impressive history.

I wonder what the average age of a Leeds Utd fan is today?

Outside of relatively local people its got to be difficult for Leeds to attract new fans I would imagine.

Leeds are still a "big" club but obviously we don't have the team of the past, despite this, we've still the same infrastructure, history and worldwide fan base we've always had.

Home attendances have dropped a bit recently, however our away following is still one of the best in the country and always has been, highest average in the league last season.

Still a big fan base here in Ireland, the average age of a Leeds fan for me doesn't really matter, the new generation will be swayed most likely by current success. I support Leeds as my Dad did, nowadays you'll find it hard to find a Leeds jersey in a shop here as we're not in the Premiership. In fact you'll struggle to find most teams if they're not in the top echelons of the Premiership. It doesn't mean there isn't still big clubs out there.

Hannibal

the "big 5" around the late 80's and into the 90's in England were generally refered to and seen as Liverpool, Man Utd, Arsenal, Everton and Spurs. Then there was the big 4 who up until a few years ago was Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea. Now there's a bit of confusion because on form and recent success it's only Man Utd, Man City and Chelsea still guaranteed to be there but because of their fan base and history Liverpool and Arsenal are still bigger than Chelsea and City who's success is down to foreign money men. City and Chelsea have consolidated themselves with Man Utd whereas in the last 3 years Liverpool and Arsenal have gone a few steps backwards and are now forming a group with Spurs and Everton who are a secondary group behind the top 3.

Looking at the second tier in England clubs like Forest, Leeds and Ipswich have all had success in a European competition. Blackburn won the EPL in 1995 but like Chelsea and City that was down to a sugar daddy. Wolves were once big and won the league a few times in the 50's and into the 60's and were UEFA Cup runners up in this time aswell, Sheffield Wednesday and Derby have both had spells were they challenged aswell. Compare their histories to clubs like Wigan, Swansea, QPR, Reading, Fulham etc. and it could be argued that Forest, Leeds, Ipswich, Derby and Wednesday deserve a place in the top league but of course success comes only on the pitch.

The other thing about England that could suprising is how little dominance clubs from London and Birmingham have had considering they're the two biggest cities in England. This is repeated across Europes capitals with clubs from Paris, Rome, Berlin, Moscow and Istanbul having had little or no continental success and in the case of Paris, Rome and Berlin their clubs have struggled domestically aswell.

Lumbo

COYVB wrote: »

Villa, Liverpool etc. They're all clubs who were big and relevant at some point in their history. Those days are gone. They have history, silverware and supporters, but they cannot compete at the top, therefore they're not a "big club" IMO

eagle eye

Its all relative to who you support yourself I think.

roanoke

Stoke City are a big club.

batistuta9

eagle eye wrote: »

Its all relative to who you support yourself I think.

Not really, if you support Wigan you can't say they're a big club

+ you've a big club in your sig - the Red Sox & a small club Blackburn :pac:

dd972

Leeds Utd are definitely a big club, they've got support all over England, most likely built up through their halcyon years from 65-75 or so.

I've always been intrigued by clubs that should be bigger than what they are in terms of their catchment area, Bristol City and Plymouth have ridiculously under achieved over their respective histories, Cardiff are only recently realising their potential.

eagle eye

batistuta9 wrote: »

Not really, if you support Wigan you can't say they're a big club

+ you've a big club in your sig - the Red Sox & a small club Blackburn :pac:

If you support Wigan I'd imagine you would look at Newcastle as a big club. If you supported Newcastle I don't think you would look at Wigan as a big club.

grenache

Liverpool, Villa and Leeds being described as "not big clubs"??? Good lord, what else would you call them!!

Being a big club has little to do with how successful it has been in the past, it's all about its support base, both at home and abroad. Newcastle are a great example, haveng won a trophy in years (a few near misses) but have a massive and fanatical following. Leeds might currently be a Championship side, but that's 100% irrelevant. They're still a big big club who can attract 30,000+ when they are going well in the league. And up to 10 years ago were regularly getting over 40,000 through their gates. Likewise Villa, massive support and the biggest club by far in the Midlands. Have underachieved for years.

As for the guy who claimed Liverpool weren't a big club :rolleyes:

I've seen the likes of Forest, Wednesday and Derby mentioned, I wouldn't call any of them big, maybe medium sized with decent support and huge potential. Certainly a lot more potential than Wigan or Reading.

Lawrence1895

A 'big' club has a loyal fan base (not those who jump on the bandwagon) and has success and silverware without raiding other clubs for their best players.

batistuta9

Lars1916 wrote: »

A 'big' club has a loyal fan base (not those who jump on the bandwagon) and has success and silverware without raiding other clubs for their best players.

what club manage to do this?

Lawrence1895

batistuta9 wrote: »

what club manage to do this?

St.Pauli, Athletic Club Bilbao and Shels

batistuta9

Lars1916 wrote: »

St.Pauli, Athletic Club Bilbao and Shels

Athletic take players from all the other clubs in the Basque country. What ever about the others, i'm not sure,

but most players all come from somewhere else - though that could be viewed as a petty argument

& maybe St.Pauli get players from the fruits of loins of gentlemen visiting the Reeperbahn

Lawrence1895

batistuta9 wrote: »

Athletic take players from all the other clubs in the Basque country. What ever about the others, i'm not sure,

but most players all come from somewhere else - though that could be viewed as a petty argument

& maybe St.Pauli get players from the fruits of loins of gentlemen visiting the Reeperbahn

Apparently. Athletic have stopped that practice recently, as they can't afford high wages anymore (which helped to recruit players from other Basque clubs in the past). A mate of mine, who supports Athletic and who is of Basque origin, told me about that.

Omackeral

Lars1916 wrote: »

St.Pauli, Athletic Club Bilbao and Shels

Shels raided, nay raped, Bohs back in 2006.... So ya can cross them off your list there too pal.

764dak

Lars1916 wrote: »

Apparently. Athletic have stopped that practice recently, as they can't afford high wages anymore (which helped to recruit players from other Basque clubs in the past). A mate of mine, who supports Athletic and who is of Basque origin, told me about that.

Oh, really? So, that's why Athletic brought in Aduriz and Herrera from non-Basque teams.