Can a small club ever become a big club?

[MsNuno]

Interesting question depends on how you define big club both Leicester and Blackburn have won the premier league more recently than Liverpool but wouldn't call either a big club, you wouldn't see kids wearing Blackburn or Leicester tops outside of those towns whereas you get plenty of kids with Man Utd/Liverpool or Chelsea tops everywhere.
there's lots of different factors involved years of consistently performing well and being a worldwide known name very difficult for a small club to break into that in this day and age in my opinion

 

[Stepney73]

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.

When city can do that without someone else picking up the tab is when they will be considered a big club.

 

[Denis_unwise]

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.

The huge salary & unlimited transfer budget is what persuaded Pep to join City. If they had told Pep he would be receiving the going rate of pay & a transfer budget commensurable with the other top 6 clubs he wouldn't have joined.

 

[Stepney73]

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.

I bet pep couldn't even name man city's ground 11 years ago

 

[carvajal]

I think it would be possible with constant investment. It depends a lot on the size of the city.
To give the example of Deportivo. A city of 250,000 inhabitants, without large investors.
They won la liga, copa, reached semifinals in C.L and played and won Manchester, Bayern, Milan, etc.
Now they have more caché in the country but more than 10 years of success has not been enough to create true fans outside the country nor investors interested in their potential or their history.
I do not think that today any player dreams of playing here, nor do I think any father educates his son in "deportivismo" simply because he saw Tristan and Valerón ten years ago.

 

[africanspur]

I bet pep couldn't even name man city's ground 11 years ago

That surely kind of proves his point? He may not have known their ground name 11 years ago but is now managing them to league titles?

The thing is, these things don't happen instantly or even that quickly. It didn't for Man Utd or Liverpool and it wouldn't for Chelsea or Man City. In 10-15 years time, we can start to see how these clubs are perceived after a period of sustained success. The reality is that while Chelsea may not be huge like Real or Man Utd are in terms of global fanbase, they are so so much more so than they were pre-Roman.

In this era of big money though, I think it is much more difficult, if not almost impossible, for a club the size of Real or Man Utd or Bayern to really fall by the wayside. Juve get relegated, spend a few seasons rebuilding and then dominate Serie A utterly again for almost a decade now?

 

[Revan]

Of course. Chelsea is one of the biggest clubs in the world nowadays, and City are fast becoming one of the biggest too. They are favourites to win UCL and one of the top destinations for top players.

 

[OnlyTwoDaSilvas]

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.

Yeah, those are good examples. With Milan and Inter, you do feel like they could come back in 2 or 3 years with the right strategy and planning behind them. But there's likely no way back for the likes of Ajax to the top of European football.

 

[Andrew~]

The problem is using these words, 'big' and 'small'. They came from the fact that, until recently, a club's success was tied to its fanbase - the bigger the city the club is from, the higher the revenue, the more likely they win the league. Example in England, the 'biggest' clubs essentially dominated the largest population centres: United, Liverpool, Newcastle, Leeds etc. London is kind of unique because it usually has a population much larger than all the other places combined so it can sustain more 'big' clubs than anywhere else.

So whether a 'small' club can ever become a big one depends on what you mean by big - fanbase? Revenue? Trophies?

 

[hocane]

Top 6 clubs in England based on domestic success:

1st Man United, 42 trophies
2nd Liverpool 41 trophies
3rd Arsenal 30 trophies
4th Chelsea 22 trophies
5th Aston Villa 20 trophies
6th Everton 15 trophies

Aston Villa probably the one surprising here to the younger people, but they are a proper club and it's a tragedy that they play in the Championship, not good for the Premier League at all, we need clubs like that instead of the likes of Huddersfield and Bournemouth

Spurs and Man City still have alot of work to do in order to get inside this big name company. As of how to determine a big club? I would say, size of the city, fanbase, domestic success and training facilities, stadium size

 

[padr81]

Top 6 clubs in England based on domestic success:

1st Man United, 42 trophies
2nd Liverpool 41 trophies
3rd Arsenal 30 trophies
4th Chelsea 22 trophies
5th Aston Villa 20 trophies
6th Everton 15 trophies

Aston Villa probably the one surprising here to the younger people, but they are a proper club and it's a tragedy that they play in the Championship, not good for the Premier League at all, we need clubs like that instead of the likes of Huddersfield and Bournemouth

Spurs and Man City still have alot of work to do in order to get inside this big name company. As of how to determine a big club? I would say, size of the city, fanbase, domestic success and training facilities, stadium size

Huddersfield have 3 league titles. Only 10 clubs in english football history have more. More than Spurs. The fact people say Villa belong and someone like Huddersfield doesn't shows that great clubs get forgotten. A shining example of what could happen to Villa if they don't get their act together.

 

[RochaRoja]

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?

No, the only big clubs are Sheffield FC, the Wanderers and Preston North End.

 

[RochaRoja]

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.

Have you been to the Asia-Pacific region?

I see as many Chelsea shirts around here as Madrid, Barça and United. They are massive.

I’ve heard that you see a lot of Chelsea shirts in North America too. And they’re huge in Africa due to Drogba, Essien and Mikel.

 

[Sky1981]

Like it or hate it chelsea and city has become a giant of europe.

We can cling to "they have no tradition" and all that but over time they slowly established themselves as the new kids on the block. Before eventually become the old kids until the next johny come

 

[RochaRoja]

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.

I wouldn’t say that was a reason. Lyon was just as dominant as PSG is now in the previous decade but were never seen as a big club internationally.

 

[Sky1981]

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.

Milan fans are dwindling nowdays. No kids would know the greatness of milan. It's all about city/chelsea among the kids now. United still well supported. Even liverpool fans started to become less among the younger generation

 

[RochaRoja]

Top 6 clubs in England based on domestic success:

1st Man United, 42 trophies
2nd Liverpool 41 trophies
3rd Arsenal 30 trophies
4th Chelsea 22 trophies
5th Aston Villa 20 trophies
6th Everton 15 trophies

Aston Villa probably the one surprising here to the younger people, but they are a proper club and it's a tragedy that they play in the Championship, not good for the Premier League at all, we need clubs like that instead of the likes of Huddersfield and Bournemouth

Spurs and Man City still have alot of work to do in order to get inside this big name company. As of how to determine a big club? I would say, size of the city, fanbase, domestic success and training facilities, stadium size

I guarantee you that at least 95% of the world considers Manchester City to be a bigger club than Everton.

It’s such a generational thing to be honest. People mention Nottingham Forest as a “big club” but they were a nothing club about three years before their first Champions Cup win. Most people of my generation who grew up watching Parma as a big team in Italy and a formidable force in European football don’t care that before Parmalat pumped money into the club at the start of the nineties they were an irrelevance.

That’s two examples right there of clubs that became “big” overnight.

 

[Charlie Foley]

I wouldn’t say that was a reason. Lyon was just as dominant as PSG is now in the previous decade but were never seen as a big club internationally.

Yeah. Lyon weren’t buying Neymar level players from Barca.

 

[Charlie Foley]

So are we saying benfica aren’t a big club? Feels weird that. In what market/arena? What if they had won europa league in 2013, or 2014? (Best team in both finals).

 

[P0GBA]

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

I honestly don't remember anything in between George Weah playing for them and the Qatar takeover.

 

[P0GBA]

I think Chelsea has been a big club for some time now. What puts them above City is bigger signings and the Champions League win. The Torres transfer was the turning point around 2011 as he was one of the best Premier League players at the time and then they won the Champions League the following year. I do think the location of the club does give it some extra prestige globally. I'm not sure the same prestige would be there if Abramovic had bought West Ham.

If City signed one of the top premier league players e.g Hazard, Pogba or Kane and won the Champions League while selling out their tickets every week then I think the would then be under consideration to be a big club. Ironically i was more impressed with their signings when they signed Robinho, Aguero, Silva and Toure. They haven't really attracted any major signings I.e from one of the big clubs although they have signed good players from the smaller teams.

 

[Hound Dog]

Huddersfield have 3 league titles. Only 10 clubs in english football history have more. More than Spurs. The fact people say Villa belong and someone like Huddersfield doesn't shows that great clubs get forgotten. A shining example of what could happen to Villa if they don't get their act together.

In fairness, Huddersfield won those almost 100 yeard ago and in consecutive seasons. Enough yo make them a great club? Don't think so.

 

[Rito]

Many of the traditionally big clubs had loads of cash injected into them at some point in time. We all know the history of probably the biggest of them all, Real Madrid. Arsenal was once called the bank of England club in the '20s and '30s. Northern Italian clubs like Milan, Inter, Juve etc. had always been richer than southern clubs. Bottom line is, money has always been a factor. So it's a bit rich coming from the traditional big clubs to look down upon the new entrants because of the "sugar daddy" model.

It's like those developed countries, after years of exploiting the natural resources and polluting the atmosphere, suddenly want the poor/developing countries to stop their own industrial revolutions and start saving the world. It's done just to create a barrier so that the rich/big gets richer/bigger.

 

[Thiagoal]

To answer the question, in my mind, would be to pose another question: without their billionaire backers, would they still thrive at the top of the league? If not then they will naturally fall back to their level (or go bust)

 

[Kapardin]

It depends on the way you look at it. Based on history, of course, Aston Villa, Benfica etc are big clubs, for instance.

However, if you are looking at it in the context of money, attraction to players and modern day standing, then Chelsea and City have officially "become bigger" than Aston Villa or Benfica. Now, this would be sacrilege for old school fans, but in the modern game, only money and success matters.

A club can "become" big or small depending on their lean years nowadays. Perhaps a better way of looking at it would be "Are clubs successful now? If so, they are big enough".

 

[Zehner]

I honestly don't remember anything in between George Weah playing for them and the Qatar takeover.

You don't remember Ronaldinho? Shame on you.

 

[RoyH1]

I wouldn’t say that was a reason. Lyon was just as dominant as PSG is now in the previous decade but were never seen as a big club internationally.

There's something about being the only big club from Paris that Marseille and Lyon will always lack when it comes to " brand recognition" (god I hate that expression). That combination of being the only club from the arguably most glamorous city in Europe and unlimited funds emanating from the gas fields of the Gulf is hard to top.

I've got a hypothetical scenario that I've always applied when thinking of how big clubs really are. It goes as follows:

Your club is found guilty of massive tax avoidance and fraud by the European authorities. The club is forced to sell all it's first team players as well as it's stadium and other assets. The owners are imprisoned or forced to leave the country. Only the clubs HQ and training grounds are left and a government appointed administrator is appointed in order to bring the clubs finances in order. To add insult on injury, the club is also demoted to the second level in its country.

Can said club bounce straight back to the top level, and be back in contention to play European football within 3 to 4 years, playing to a full house without external financial backing? I think the likes of Bayern, Juventus, Real and Barcelona all pass the test. I think we do too as do Liverpool and Arsenal, but it is much harder to pull off in England due to the level playing field of the Championship and the Premiership.

 

[King7Eric]

People often criticize clubs being bought by billionaires and having massive money pumped into them and turning challengers within 2-3 years, but I actually think this is what makes football interesting. If there was no concept of sugar daddies, the same few clubs would keep dominating for decades. Look at Spain for example, Its been Real and Barca for decades, with the odd year where Valencia or Atletico win the league, but they can never sustain it and become bigger than Real-Barca because ultimately their resources will be dwarfed by those of the traditional big 2. Another good example is Spurs, who have gone about the "correct way" as a club, without a sugar daddy and have built a great solid team, but they have pretty much reached their glass ceiling. Its hard to fathom Spurs winning 3-4 league titles in a decade no matter how well they are run or if they are able to keep hold of their best players.

Unless you add the sugar daddy clubs to the picture, a small club will never turn into a club that can regularly challenge for titles and for me that's to the detriment of football if the same 1-2 teams keep winning every year, look at how Scottish football has died a slow death, the quality if the Seria A has also gone down because one club is far superior to the rest. So I don't begrudge a City or a Chelsea having a sugar daddy, its what makes football interesting and in the present scenario is the only way a small club can turn into a big club.

 

[flappyjay]

It's impossible for a small club to turn into a big club. Imagine if Bournemouth recruited well within their means and the players push them into a top four finish. What happens next is going to be the giants picking off the decent players from that group. Even big-Ish clubs like dortmund can't cope with the pull of the giant clubs. Sancho is probably going to be playing in England, Spain or for Bayern in the next three years.

 

[man united 4eva]

Top 6 clubs in England based on domestic success:

1st Man United, 42 trophies
2nd Liverpool 41 trophies
3rd Arsenal 30 trophies
4th Chelsea 22 trophies
5th Aston Villa 20 trophies
6th Everton 15 trophies

Aston Villa probably the one surprising here to the younger people, but they are a proper club and it's a tragedy that they play in the Championship, not good for the Premier League at all, we need clubs like that instead of the likes of Huddersfield and Bournemouth

Spurs and Man City still have alot of work to do in order to get inside this big name company. As of how to determine a big club? I would say, size of the city, fanbase, domestic success and training facilities, stadium size

Top 6 clubs in England based on domestic success..?

Your figures are way off , domestic success means.. League Titles..FA Cups.. League Cups...
Therefore..

1st United - 20 + 12 + 5 = 37
2nd Liverpool - 18 + 7 + 8 = 33
3rd Arsenal - 13 + 13 + 2 = 28
4th Villa - 7 + 7 + 5 = 19
5th Chelsea - 6 + 8 + 5 =19
6th City - 5 + 5 + 5 = 15
7th Everton - 9 + 5 + 0 = 14
8th Spurs - 2 + 8 + 4 = 14

 

[Zlatattack]

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.

I think the aim is to do a Spurs. Break into the top 4. For them if they can manage that a few times, then maybe they can build up a squad to challenge regularly.

Theoretically with us and Arsenal in transition this was a good opportunity for them - but they blew it.

I dont think they spend wisely. Look at thier strikers!

 

[TheLiverBird]

Indeed I don’t get this notion where if you’ve been taken over from a sugardaddy and get to the top, you ain’t a big Club because you haven’t done it the “hard way”......what??

That’s too small minded

For example anyone saying City aren’t a big Club are deluding themselves.

Who cares how they got to the Top, who cares if they were a nobody before their current owners came in with little history.

What are they now?

Are they competitive in the biggest competitions? Are they regularly competitive in winning titles and cup trophies, do they have some of the worlds best players, are they attracting some of the worlds best players/Managers, have they got a sustainable foundation.

Man City have all the above, they were a small club, their Sheikh owners have made them a global heavyweight of a Club.

Even their stadium and incredible training facilities are pretty much second to none, facilities that the worlds greatest’s would dream to use.

 

[KirkDuyt]

Of course they can. If City retain this level for another 5-10 years they are giants. New football fans are born every day. No one born in the 90s thinks Liverpool is bigger than Chelsea and City. History is just that. Recent success Trumps it every time. It just has to be consistent.

 

[altodevil]

I think Chelsea has been a big club for some time now. What puts them above City is bigger signings and the Champions League win. The Torres transfer was the turning point around 2011 as he was one of the best Premier League players at the time and then they won the Champions League the following year. I do think the location of the club does give it some extra prestige globally. I'm not sure the same prestige would be there if Abramovic had bought West Ham.

If City signed one of the top premier league players e.g Hazard, Pogba or Kane and won the Champions League while selling out their tickets every week then I think the would then be under consideration to be a big club. Ironically i was more impressed with their signings when they signed Robinho, Aguero, Silva and Toure. They haven't really attracted any major signings I.e from one of the big clubs although they have signed good players from the smaller teams.

Sterling? Walker?

 

[Wheato]

Obviously, if the Abu Dhabi Royal family/Mafia bought Leeds United, they would be sitting where City are now. So by that reasoning, a small club can become a large club. The key is if they can sustain it without the sugar Daddy. If not, then the whole thing is just a facade. When the success runs out, then the glory hunting fans will drop off.

 

[Member 115509]

It is possible, money can be pumped into a small club to allow them to compete at a higher level - Parma, Blackburn, Monaco, Gretna, RB Leipzig.
Whether it can be sustained is another question, usually ends in tears.

 

[Coxy]

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.

I was about to use Forest as an example. A small club delivered 2 European cups. They are now back to being a 'small' club but with a rich history.

 

[GlastonSpur]

… Another good example is Spurs, who have gone about the "correct way" as a club, without a sugar daddy and have built a great solid team, but they have pretty much reached their glass ceiling. Its hard to fathom Spurs winning 3-4 league titles in a decade no matter how well they are run or if they are able to keep hold of their best players.

Unless you add the sugar daddy clubs to the picture, a small club will never turn into a club that can regularly challenge for titles …

In terms of points gained, Spurs are so far having their best season ever in the Prem. Compared to last season we are, I'm told, +10 points in terms of equivalent fixtures and +11 points in terms of the same number of games.

This cuts the ground from under your claim that we've reached our "glass ceiling", especially since that same claim has been made about Spurs for each of several season past.

And this points gain is occurring even before we move into our new stadium - with all the extra income and other benefits (like greatly improved home support atmosphere) that come with it - and whilst we're having to play our "home" games at Wembley.

The thread title should also be changed, since most of the clubs discussed, including Spurs, have never been "small clubs" to start with. There are small clubs, medium-sized clubs, big clubs and giant clubs.

 

[King7Eric]

In terms of points gained, Spurs are so far having their best season ever in the Prem. Compared to last season we are, I'm told, +10 points in terms of equivalent fixtures and +11 points in terms of the same number of games.

This cuts the ground from under your claim that we've reached our "glass ceiling", especially since that same claim has been made about Spurs for each of several season past.

And this points gain is occurring even before we move into our new stadium - with all the extra income and other benefits (like greatly improved home support atmosphere) that come with it - and whilst we're having to play our "home" games at Wembley.

The thread title should also be changed, since most of the clubs discussed, including Spurs, have never been "small clubs" to start with. There are small clubs, medium-sized clubs, big clubs and giant clubs.

Look mate, I ain't getting into an argument with you about Spurs. I did once before and I realized there's no point discussing anything with someone who's so unwilling to change their point of view. So yeah Spurs are great, their new stadium will be great and you will be winning trophies left, right and center.

 

[Che Guevara]

"Small club" and "Big club" are statuses that can change over time, they are not necessarily permanent. A century ago the dominant clubs were different from now. Aston Villa may have won 20 trophies but it's ridiculous to suggest they are bigger than Man City right now. City and Chelsea took short cuts thru financial doping to rise to "Big club" status, but that's the current trend. Forest were once a massive club, but they have hit hard times.