Can a small club ever become a big club?

[Fortitude]

I see City being called a small club on here all the time, Chelsea used to get called that, too. I don't know whether Chelsea are now accepted as a giant, but it sure feels like they are.

If they are now a giant, I guess this thread is at an abrupt end, but if not, can the likes of City, Chelsea and whoever else who is deemed small ever be seen as big clubs?

If so, what is it that they need to do to become the so-called big club that it so often seems like they're not acknowledged as?

 

[JamesB__]

Question should be can a small club become a big club without a sugar daddy.

 

[Bill Hartzia]

It's a bit like old money vs. the nouveau riche = there's a snobbery that contends latecomers are typically perceived as ostentatious or lacking in good taste.

The answer us "yes" - small clubs can evolve into big clubs. However, the established elite will for a lengthy period of time hold the whip hand when it comes to historical achievement.

 

[Tommy]

Sustained periods of domination & the passage of time. Nothing else will suffice.

 

[Raw]

I wouldn't call Chelsea a giant. Clubs like United, Liverpool, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus, Milan and Bayern are giants. Chelsea are a step below.

The way football is now, it's close to impossible without ridiculous amount of backing from rich owners. Once you got the money, you'd need a sustained period of dominance lasting for many many years, possibly up to about 20 years of winning domestic and European titles.

 

[OverratedOpinion]

Man City are a big club in a lot of ways, brilliant squad, some very esteemed people associated with them, good T.V exposure, decent number of fans and a infrastructure to rival nearly anyone.

I think there is a type of prestige and tradition which takes a very long time to build. Clubs like ourselves, AC Milan, Liverpool, Real Madrid etc took decades and decades to establish those two factors. It is entirely possible that City could do so but not for at the very least 20 years. I actually think them and PSG will have an especially long wait as far as public perception due to their ascension not being in any way organic.

 

[stepic]

City are now a big club. They compete for titles, CL, and attract some of the best players in the world.

What they aren’t are a historically big club. Only time will help that, and then have a lot of time to make up.

 

[Neil_Buchanan]

I wonder about this when I look at Everton's recent spending, it almost seems pointless. What are they hoping to achieve? How far can they go when the competition is so far ahead of them.

 

[Fortitude]

Question should be can a small club become a big club without a sugar daddy.

Well no, because even with the sugar daddy's, these clubs don't seem to be regarded as anything but a moment in time. They're always called small as is. The question is, why?

 

[2 man midfield]

Yeah, but it requires some history. The ability to win the big trophies over decades, so it can’t happen overnight.

 

[Hound Dog]

It all depends on how long owners of financially-doped clubs are willing to pump money in and whether the club becomes capable of winning consistently on its own means during this time.

PSG were a bit of a joke until the big takeover, Chelsea were not the best team in London, City were a midtable Premier League club. However, if these clubs manage to sustain what are doing now for an extended period of time, their past will become only a footnote to a new generation of fans in a couple of decades or so.

Having said that, I am pretty certain that Chelsea are past their best.

Is it possible to do it without financial aid; Football Manager - style ? Nope. Making it big is becoming less and less for people and has never and will never happen for clubs. Just how capitalism works.

Every time a smaller club had markings of being able to form a dynasty, a bigger club comes and takes their best players. Heck, it even happened to United a decade ago (admittedly, with one player, but my point stands).

 

[IrishRedDevil]

Pump steroids into anything and it’ll grow. When you have owners that can afford an endless supply of the best steroids, that’s winning the lottery.

 

[DRM]

I wouldn't call Chelsea a giant. Clubs like United, Liverpool, Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus, Milan and Bayern are giants. Chelsea are a step below.

The way football is now, it's close to impossible without ridiculous amount of backing from rich owners. Once you got the money, you'd need a sustained period of dominance lasting for many many years, possibly up to about 20 years of winning domestic and European titles.

Im with you, however consider this. My cousin who was born in 2000 has seen Chelsea win a lot of titles, including a CL! In his eyes, Chelsea are a giant as all he knows of Chelsea is success! Likewise kids growing up between 2011 and now, they see city as a bigger club than us, they just don't associate united with success anymore.

 

[dove]

Well no, because even with the sugar daddy's, these clubs don't seem to be regarded as anything but a moment in time. They're always called small as is. The question is, why?

Probably because we just don't want to accept it. When I was growing up, City and PSG were nowhere to be seen and Chelsea were 5th-6th best team so I will probably always view them as smaller clubs. However people born later probably think the same about the likes of Arsenal, Milan etc. To them Chelsea, City, PSG will appeal much more than these 2 simply because of success.

 

[JamesB__]

Well no, because even with the sugar daddy's, these clubs don't seem to be regarded as anything but a moment in time. They're always called small as is. The question is, why?

Sugar daddy’s will take longer to be considered big clubs because the way they’ve achieved the success is so hollow. It could’ve been any club that that owner chose, it just happened to be PSG and Man City instead of say, Nantes and Southampton. They haven’t earned a shred of their success.

Compare that to a side like Dortmund or Atletico (maybe Spurs to a lesser extent). These were all medium sized clubs compared to the giants, but their organic success over the last few years is pushing them towards that top tier. Maybe it’s personal bias but I’d consider those three clubs to be far more glamourous sides to face because they aren’t lottery winners.

 

[Schneckerl]

Small/club big club hierarchies were kind of determined up until the 70s unless I'm missing something. Can't think of a big club which established itself after that.

However there hasn't been a 'new' club which won multiple CLs or had sustained dominance.

 

[ZIDANE]

It depends on how you define a big club.

We've seen money pumped into clubs and they now have better stadiums, youth development, club structure, better manager and players than what would often be referred to as the big clubs in yesteryear. What they can't do is re-write history so if you define a big club as having a history of winning over the past 100 years then there's a select few.

For me it is a history of competing over a long period of time and having the fan base plus financial strength over that time. That's what currently separates United & Liverpool from the likes of Manchester City, Notts Forest, Leeds, and Newcastle. [From a big English club perspective].

 

[OnlyTwoDaSilvas]

On the flipside, can a big club ever stop being a big club? Or once you're big, are you big forever?

Liverpool haven't won a title in nearly 30 years, but they're still a huge club and I don't think they ever stopped being even though they've had quite a few crap seasons. How long would a drought have to last for the club to be knocked down a tier or two?

 

[Zehner]

Atletico, Dortmund and arguably Napoli are examples of clubs that made it into the top tier "organically". Usually such examples diminish quickly (Leicester exemplarily) but these three clubs are sustainable.

However, you need exceptionally good strategic decision making and a long term vision for that to work.

 

[VeevaVee]

Question should be can a small club become a big club without a sugar daddy.

Think it would've been possible if the sugar daddy clubs hadn't happened. Now costs have soared and it's an even bigger mountain to climb.
It's difficult because the best players of smaller clubs would rather move once they get the opportunity too.

 

[altodevil]

On the flipside, can a big club ever stop being a big club? Or once you're big, are you big forever?

Liverpool haven't won a title in nearly 30 years, but they're still a huge club and I don't think they ever stopped being even though they've had quite a few crap seasons. How long would a drought have to last for the club to be knocked down a tier or two?

Success=Fans='Bigness'. Fans tend not to disappear regardless of present fortunes. Therefore I'm of the opinion that when you've made it, you are there to stay.

 

[Mr Smith]

As much as people won't like to admit it, I think the fact that City convinced Pep Guardiola to join them (prevously manager of Bayern and Barcelona, multiple league title and CL winner) probably does make them a big club. That and the 3 league titles to their name in the last 8 years.

 

[Ødegaard]

Atletico have made themselves into a big club in my eyes. Dortmund & Tottenham are not far away.

 

[11101]

On the flipside, can a big club ever stop being a big club? Or once you're big, are you big forever?

Liverpool haven't won a title in nearly 30 years, but they're still a huge club and I don't think they ever stopped being even though they've had quite a few crap seasons. How long would a drought have to last for the club to be knocked down a tier or two?

Nottingham Forest.

Liverpool have stayed in the top league though, I think that's what did it for Forest.

I think to be a true big club it takes historic rivalries and moments over decades. None of the oil clubs have been around that long to know if they will ever attain that status.

 

[VeevaVee]

On the flipside, can a big club ever stop being a big club? Or once you're big, are you big forever?

Liverpool haven't won a title in nearly 30 years, but they're still a huge club and I don't think they ever stopped being even though they've had quite a few crap seasons. How long would a drought have to last for the club to be knocked down a tier or two?

This has surely been driven by the club, the fans and the media. Both have always made out they're a huge club still. They obviously are a 'decent' club in the grand scheme, but they've kept a grander facade going than has been the truth over the years.

 

[Zehner]

On the flipside, can a big club ever stop being a big club? Or once you're big, are you big forever?

Liverpool haven't won a title in nearly 30 years, but they're still a huge club and I don't think they ever stopped being even though they've had quite a few crap seasons. How long would a drought have to last for the club to be knocked down a tier or two?

Thing is, you simply won't remember that the club used to be a big one.

Can only speak for Germany since I don't know other leagues' histories well enough but teams like Hamburg, Gladbach, Schalke once were great teams.

 

[Dve]

Sugar daddy’s will take longer to be considered big clubs because the way they’ve achieved the success is so hollow. It could’ve been any club that that owner chose, it just happened to be PSG and Man City instead of say, Nantes and Southampton. They haven’t earned a shred of their success.

Compare that to a side like Dortmund or Atletico (maybe Spurs to a lesser extent). These were all medium sized clubs compared to the giants, but their organic success over the last few years is pushing them towards that top tier. Maybe it’s personal bias but I’d consider those three clubs to be far more glamourous sides to face because they aren’t lottery winners.

Maybe hollow, but it only takes one generation to change that. The kids in Paris grow up with PSG being a superclub, and they will probable disagree with you that their affection for the club is hollow. A bit different maybe, if you as an adult start cheering for some club only from the moment they are winning every game. Or from the moment one specific manager is hired.

 

[Charles Miller]

A big club is not mainly about titles imo. Big clubs are those that have significant portions of the football fans through the decades in some traditional football nation.

 

[el magico]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...till-the-same-ones-as-100-years-ago-lkc0pddtk

Some on here need a history lesson.

 

[Stepney73]

Just look at Blackburn

They are now more or less(as a club)in the same place they where the day before Jack walker took over.

If Chelsea have to stand on their own two feet they will be around the Europa/cl places in the table with the odd domestic pot(again the same as they where the day before RA took over)

If city's owners pulled out tomorrow and they had to stand on their own two feet city would go back to being a mid table club within 5 years.



So the answer to the op is

NO

 

[RooneyLegend]

We were a yo-yo club before Sir Matt Busby.

 

[Dante]

Chelsea are pretty much a big club now. PSG are getting there.

To make it as a big club, you need a generation of success/competetiveness: about 25 years so that support can be passed down from father to son. Chelsea in are getting close. They're particularly big in Africa, for example, and in a few years will be properly established.

 

[Stepney73]

We were a yo-yo club before Sir Matt Busby.

We also got relegated in 1974 but still had the highest attendances of any other team IIRC

 

[BobbyManc]

Bit of a tiresome debate as the definition of what makes a club 'big' is so arbitrary. What I'd say though is City are now at the stage where we can attract players without having to offer them more money than other sides. That's good enough for me.

 

[JPRouve]

Sugar daddy’s will take longer to be considered big clubs because the way they’ve achieved the success is so hollow. It could’ve been any club that that owner chose, it just happened to be PSG and Man City instead of say, Nantes and Southampton. They haven’t earned a shred of their success.

Compare that to a side like Dortmund or Atletico (maybe Spurs to a lesser extent). These were all medium sized clubs compared to the giants, but their organic success over the last few years is pushing them towards that top tier. Maybe it’s personal bias but I’d consider those three clubs to be far more glamourous sides to face because they aren’t lottery winners.

Interestingly several years with a terrible owner and people think that PSG was a nothing club.

 

[Dante]

For a club to be 'big', they need to be in the conciousness of non-football fans in all corners of the world.

I don't think City are there yet.

 

[charlenefan]

I see City being called a small club on here all the time, Chelsea used to get called that, too. I don't know whether Chelsea are now accepted as a giant, but it sure feels like they are.

If they are now a giant, I guess this thread is at an abrupt end, but if not, can the likes of City, Chelsea and whoever else who is deemed small ever be seen as big clubs?

If so, what is it that they need to do to become the so-called big club that it so often seems like they're not acknowledged as?

There's a massive different between a small club - a big club - and a giant club

Chelsea and City have always been big clubs. It'll take decades for either to be considered a giant club though and as a result I doubt either will ever be considered as such

 

[Raees]

I’d say Chelsea by virtue of being the first oil rich club and having such a memorable era from 2004-2012 have built up enough of a legacy to be called a big club albeit they’re not a giant IMO. They’re well known globally because of their early impact in the oil rich superpower climate.

PSG give off the aura of a giant of the game purely because they’re the best club in their country where there isn’t any truly big clubs so they by default become the representative of a nation. Like whenever a big club faces PSG in CL ties - I do think Europe as a whole stands up and notices even though in reality they have shown feck all substance in Europe. They’re commercially very appealing and again globally even though no one can be arsed to watch their domestic games.. lots of people want to tune in when they face big sides.

City for me despite their domestic success haven’t built any legacy in Europe and therefore remain a small club IMO and their fans behaviour in the CL just highlights how far they still have to go.

 

[Schneckerl]

On the flipside, can a big club ever stop being a big club? Or once you're big, are you big forever?

Liverpool haven't won a title in nearly 30 years, but they're still a huge club and I don't think they ever stopped being even though they've had quite a few crap seasons. How long would a drought have to last for the club to be knocked down a tier or two?

Maybe Benfica and Ajax? Or even both Milan clubs.

The first two essentially became feeder clubs, because they just can't compete financially with Top 4 league teams.

 

[Josep Dowling]

As much as people won't like to admit it, I think the fact that City convinced Pep Guardiola to join them (prevously manager of Bayern and Barcelona, multiple league title and CL winner) probably does make them a big club. That and the 3 league titles to their name in the last 8 years.

You mean offer more money than any other club right?