List of the 30 biggest clubs (by France Football)

[King7Eric]

I don't understand why you dismiss Barcelona's success just because it is more recent. It's not like with City who may have won more in recent years than you guys, but have won less historically. Barca's have won more recently as well as over the whole club history. Their success is dominated by the last 15 years, but if you take out a particular decade and a half from United's history as well, you end up on the same level again if not lower.

Seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Its difficult to provide accurate data on things other than social media but here's a link. https://travel.zeelo.co/the-top-15-biggest-and-most-supported-football-teams-in-the-world/
I can't vouch for this statistical accuracy mind you. But social media is also a flawed way to measure a club's popularity. I'm not on Twitter or Instagram. So does that mean I'm not a Utd fan?

Regarding the 2nd part, I'm not dismissing Barca's success because of its recency. What I'm trying to say is titles such as the biggest club are dependent on more than just trophies. A lot of other cultural factors come into play into making something more popular, and hence "bigger" for a layman. For eg Beckham was a bigger name than Iniesta, but he wasn't a better player than Iniesta. It was reasons beyond footballing metrics that made him bigger. Similarly, if we bring this debate to a club level, Man Utd have been the top dogs in England ever since the PL started getting broadcast globally, whilst Barcelona until recently( maybe even now) have been in Real's shadows. The PL is by far the most watched league in the world and its top dogs are obviously going to be highly popular all over the world. Then there was the 99 treble and the romanticization of the way it was achieved plus the story of Munich and legends like Best getting widely known. Due to these reasons, by the early 2000s Utd had amassed a global popularity that based solely on footballing metrics it shouldn't have.

Barca's popularity came on the basis of Ronaldinho and Messi and in the last few years over their public campaign as the face of Catalan independence in the face of Spanish oppression. While Utd have retained their popularity that they started gathering 25 years ago, its too early to say how Barca's popularity will withstand losing Messi. Hence, I say that based on their success in the last 15 years, it is too soon to call them as the 2nd biggest club of all time. We need to see if they maintain this popularity in the next 10-15 years.

 

[extincti fugax hominum]

They really took this measurement thing seriously didn't they? So much so that they put Fenerbahçe's logo for their arch rival Galatasaray Seriously though, joke of a list imo. It implies that if you won the lottery with some Russian oligarch or state-backed organizations then you're suddenly a big club which is totally wrong. In no world PSG, City or Chelsea are a bigger club then the likes of AC Milan, Arsenal or Internazionale. No Porto is a joke too. This list can only be valid for a certain time scale (like last 10 years maybe in this case ?). Factors like 'social media following' and 'shirts sold per year' cannot be measuring criteria in general either.

 

[Chipper]

I don't know what you mean because PSG were one of the better clubs in Europe in the 90s. French football has always been competitive the club with the most league titles is ASSE with 10, you talked about Monaco they are third with 8.

Can't say PSG made much of an impression on me in the 90s, don't know what it was like for others of course. Maybe where you come from, and therefore what you were exposed to on tv plays is a factor? Or it could just be me of course.

I'm English and PSG as a club is 9 years older than I am. Taking the late 80s and the whole of the 90s in one chunk Marseille and Monaco were the two French clubs that I heard most about. Bordeaux were more on my radar than PSG too, even Auxerre. We then then had the dominant Lyon era in the 2000s.

PSG won a number of French cups in the 90s but it's only more recently that I really became aware of that. The French cup wasn't something I, and I suspect many people in England and perhaps elsewhere simply didn't hear about at that time. It didn't make much of an impression in the media if any and I don't really remember ever seeing them play on tv. They had no historic reputation to look back at that time either of course, like a lot of foreign (to me) clubs who forged a reputation having done well in the European cup in the 50s/60s/70s.

All in all it means that the idea of them being a big club is a bit of struggle to me. It's all so new.

The following is a bit hyperbolic and I'm deliberately being a twat, but sort of an MK Dons (their foundation story) with City money is what they are in many ways. It wasn't that long ago (soon after the Qatari investment) that Pauleta won a vote as their all-time greatest player. Pauleta FFS. You look at all the legends of most of the other big clubs then you have bleedin' Pauleta. He wouldn't win such a vote now of course, but even that shows the recency of their rise, which takes a while for those of us of a certain age (I'm not that old, 40 this year ) to get used to.

 

[JPRouve]

It's interesting that 3 french clubs out of 30 is seen as a bias.

 

[Casanova85]

Stuttgart included but no Seville or Porto

 

[Camara]

It's interesting that 3 french clubs out of 30 is seen as a bias.

It's 3 clubs in excess

I mean, PSG is a nobody that won the lottery (Lyon also did n-titles in a row 10 years before), Monaco did nothing extra-special in its history, OM actually won 1 CL but when you compare to someone like FC Porto you can see the sharp difference in performance.
Saint-Etienne should be ahead of Monaco yet because it doesn't have a sugar daddy doesn't even make to the final list.

Also how is it even possible for FC Porto to not be in the list?

 

[Revan]

Its difficult to provide accurate data on things other than social media but here's a link. https://travel.zeelo.co/the-top-15-biggest-and-most-supported-football-teams-in-the-world/
I can't vouch for this statistical accuracy mind you. But social media is also a flawed way to measure a club's popularity. I'm not on Twitter or Instagram. So does that mean I'm not a Utd fan?

This is, all these links (typically from English sites) that estimate the number of fans are total bullshit. Have yet to see one which actually did a real poll in that aspect, or explain the methodology on doing it.

The number of shirts sold is actually valuable info (though it might also depend on how rich is the population of that country), social media following is valuable too. Not perfect, not even close, but better than sitting on a couch and deciding that United has 650m fans, while Barcelona has 500m or whatever. And no, you not being in Twitter doesn't make you less a fan, but you can expect that in average, the percentage of United fans not being in Twitter is around the same as that of Barca or Madrid. Of course, it might be a flawed assumption and someone with more data might have a better estimation (as in, maybe people who are younger tend to be more present in social networks, and they tend to support Barca/Madrid cause of recent success).

I
Barca's popularity came on the basis of Ronaldinho and Messi and in the last few years over their public campaign as the face of Catalan independence in the face of Spanish oppression. While Utd have retained their popularity that they started gathering 25 years ago, its too early to say how Barca's popularity will withstand losing Messi. Hence, I say that based on their success in the last 15 years, it is too soon to call them as the 2nd biggest club of all time. We need to see if they maintain this popularity in the next 10-15 years.

Every club had a historical period when they became big or made that step to elite. Someone said in the previous page that before Ronaldinho/Messi era, they had just 16 titles or so. So what? Before Fergie era we had just 7 league titles. Barca historically have been a big club, though like United they didn't have as much success in the pitch as the likes of Madrid, Bayern or Milan. However, they have had more success than any other club in the last 15 years, so obviously their status has grown. Success makes a club bigger, failure makes it smaller. Ajax was easily a top 5 (maybe even the biggest club in the seventies) club not long ago, but now they are not. City were second tier English club at best, but now they are favorites to win UCL. Dynamics change with time.

 

[King7Eric]

This is, all these links (typically from English sites) that estimate the number of fans are total bullshit. Have yet to see one which actually did a real poll in that aspect, or explain the methodology on doing it.

The number of shirts sold is actually valuable info (though it might also depend on how rich is the population of that country), social media following is valuable too. Not perfect, not even close, but better than sitting on a couch and deciding that United has 650m fans, while Barcelona has 500m or whatever. And no, you not being in Twitter doesn't make you less a fan, but you can expect that in average, the percentage of United fans not being in Twitter is around the same as that of Barca or Madrid. Of course, it might be a flawed assumption and someone with more data might have a better estimation (as in, maybe people who are younger tend to be more present in social networks, and they tend to support Barca/Madrid cause of recent success).



Every club had a historical period when they became big or made that step to elite. Someone said in the previous page that before Ronaldinho/Messi era, they had just 16 titles or so. So what? Before Fergie era we had just 7 league titles. Barca historically have been a big club, though like United they didn't have as much success in the pitch as the likes of Madrid, Bayern or Milan. However, they have had more success than any other club in the last 15 years, so obviously their status has grown. Success makes a club bigger, failure makes it smaller. Ajax was easily a top 5 (maybe even the biggest club in the seventies) club not long ago, but now they are not. City were second tier English club at best, but now they are favorites to win UCL. Dynamics change with time.

I agree with you regarding the data methodologies, there needs to be more holistic and accurate data.

And yes their status has grown, but whether their popularity withstands a dip in on field success (like Real had in the mid to late 2000s or we are currently having) will be a better test of how big they globally are. Anyway to each his own, I hope I've explained to everyone why I don't consider them as the 2nd biggest club of all time, because I don't have anything else to say on this. If you are unconvinced I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[FootyGirl88]

City are too high on that list

 

[BBRBB]

Can't say PSG made much of an impression on me in the 90s, don't know what it was like for others of course. Maybe where you come from, and therefore what you were exposed to on tv plays is a factor? Or it could just be me of course.

I'm English and PSG as a club is 9 years older than I am. Taking the late 80s and the whole of the 90s in one chunk Marseille and Monaco were the two French clubs that I heard most about. Bordeaux were more on my radar than PSG too, even Auxerre. We then then had the dominant Lyon era in the 2000s.

PSG won a number of French cups in the 90s but it's only more recently that I really became aware of that. The French cup wasn't something I, and I suspect many people in England and perhaps elsewhere simply didn't hear about at that time. It didn't make much of an impression in the media if any and I don't really remember ever seeing them play on tv. They had no historic reputation to look back at that time either of course, like a lot of foreign (to me) clubs who forged a reputation having done well in the European cup in the 50s/60s/70s.

All in all it means that the idea of them being a big club is a bit of struggle to me. It's all so new.

The following is a bit hyperbolic and I'm deliberately being a twat, but sort of an MK Dons (their foundation story) with City money is what they are in many ways. It wasn't that long ago (soon after the Qatari investment) that Pauleta won a vote as their all-time greatest player. Pauleta FFS. You look at all the legends of most of the other big clubs then you have bleedin' Pauleta. He wouldn't win such a vote now of course, but even that shows the recency of their rise, which takes a while for those of us of a certain age (I'm not that old, 40 this year ) to get used to.

In the 90s PSG made 5 European semifinals in a row, including one in CL, 1 CWC win and another final, regularly beating the biggest clubs and topped the UEFA club ranking in 99. Did you even watch football?

 

[Denis79]

City above AC Milan, Bayern and Arsenal... list is wank if it's based on that criteria.

 

[JuveGER]

Regarding the 2nd part, I'm not dismissing Barca's success because of its recency. What I'm trying to say is titles such as the biggest club are dependent on more than just trophies.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that there is more to it than trophies. The list includes various other metrics, most end up in favour of Barcelona. But it appeared to me that you were dismissing Barcelona, because their success has been more recent. You make related references several times. If that's an misunderstanding, then fair enough.

Hence, I say that based on their success in the last 15 years, it is too soon to call them as the 2nd biggest club of all time. We need to see if they maintain this popularity in the next 10-15 years.

The list isn't about the future. The future is up in the air. Speculation about the future is futile. Maybe they won't be able to maintain their populariy. But who knows whether United will maintain its popularity if the lack of success continues? Barcelona certainly seem better equipped to have a great future at the moment. And given there more recent success, their fan base is probably younger and will be around longer. But the list rightfully includes present and historical metrics. We can argue about the balance between the past and the present metrics as well as the metrics itself. But there are several metrics in favour of Barcelona, including critical ones like revenue (although that is going back and forth a bit), trophy haul, individual success of its players, better squad and so on.

Anyway, I have spent enough time on this debate. Was nice chating with you. Take care!

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I count at least 15 teams bigger than PSG.

 

[JuveGER]

In the 90s PSG made 5 European semifinals in a row, including one in CL, 1 CWC win and another final, regularly beating the biggest clubs and topped the UEFA club ranking in 99. Did you even watch football?

I certainly watched the 1996 UEFA Super Cup

 

[Ramos]

Juve should be top 5. I Would swap them with Liverpool.

Way more domestic titles, more EC1 finals, more Coppa's vs FA Cups, more EC2/EC3 cups, more intercontinental cups, more legends that played for them and are also the bigger team right now.

Liverpool on the other hand obviously has more EC1's (very important criterium, i realize that) and maybe the fan thing going for them.

I suppose all those EC1 finals that Juventus lost is costing them here.

 

[JPRouve]

In the 90s PSG made 5 European semifinals in a row, including one in CL, 1 CWC win and another final, regularly beating the biggest clubs and topped the UEFA club ranking in 99. Did you even watch football?

Maybe broadcasters didn't show them. It's strange to mention Marseille during that period though because most of the 90s are terrible years for the club.

It's 3 clubs in excess

I mean, PSG is a nobody that won the lottery (Lyon also did n-titles in a row 10 years before), Monaco did nothing extra-special in its history, OM actually won 1 CL but when you compare to someone like FC Porto you can see the sharp difference in performance.
Saint-Etienne should be ahead of Monaco yet because it doesn't have a sugar daddy doesn't even make to the final list.

Also how is it even possible for FC Porto to not be in the list?

You see that's typically the type of thing that I find surprising. Monaco won most of its trophies without a sugar daddy, it's one of the pre bosman clubs but people talk about no history. Monaco and ASSE have comparable history.

 

[BBRBB]

I certainly watched the 1996 UEFA Super Cup

I'm sure this one never existed

Juve and Milan are the main clubs that we didn't beat in that time.

 

[JuveGER]

I'm sure this one never existed

Juve and Milan are the main clubs that we didn't beat in that time.

Don't think we have met in a competitive match since then. Hopefully, we meet in the quarter finals in a couple of weeks!

 

[Harry190]

Only British people think United is bigger than Barcelona.

You live in La La Land if you believe that.

Africa+ Asia + North America.

 

[BBRBB]

Don't think we have met in a competitive match since then. Hopefully, we meet in the quarter finals in a couple of weeks!

There was the UEFA cup semifinal in 93 before, damn Baggio

Why meet in quarters? See you in the final

 

[King7Eric]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that there is more to it than trophies. The list includes various other metrics, most end up in favour of Barcelona. But it appeared to me that you were dismissing Barcelona, because their success has been more recent. You make related references several times. If that's an misunderstanding, then fair enough.




The list isn't about the future. The future is up in the air. Speculation about the future is futile. Maybe they won't be able to maintain their populariy. But who knows whether United will maintain its popularity if the lack of success continues? Barcelona certainly seem better equipped to have a great future at the moment. And given there more recent success, their fan base is probably younger and will be around longer. But the list rightfully includes present and historical metrics. We can argue about the balance between the past and the present metrics as well as the metrics itself. But there are several metrics in favour of Barcelona, including critical ones like revenue (although that is going back and forth a bit), trophy haul, individual success of its players, better squad and so on.

Anyway, I have spent enough time on this debate. Was nice chating with you. Take care!

Cheers mate

 

[Camara]

You see that's typically the type of thing that I find surprising. Monaco won most of its trophies without a sugar daddy, it's one of the pre bosman clubs but people talk about no history. Monaco and ASSE have comparable history.

I didn't say Monaco had no history, I said they did nothing extra-special in their history, this comparing for the top 30 clubs in the world.
If I had to choose between Saint-Etienne and Monaco I would say Saint Etienne because they both never won the CL (or any european competition) and ASSE is leading slightly in titles.

 

[JuveGER]

There was the UEFA cup semifinal in 93 before, damn Baggio

Why meet in quarters? See you in the final

Well, I don't want to loose another final, but also dont want to see Buffon's heart broken in another final

 

[Ramos]

In the 90s PSG made 5 European semifinals in a row, including one in CL, 1 CWC win and another final, regularly beating the biggest clubs and topped the UEFA club ranking in 99. Did you even watch football?

Agreed. Not the first time i notice people seem to have completely forgotten about this. Feels like some think the Qatari's bought Angers not PSG.

I mean: Djorkaeff, Weah, Ginola, Rai, Lama, Ricardo Gomes, Valdo, Leonardo ... Those names must ring a bell, right? And i'm not even French.

 

[anant]

The methodology has a few flaws which is resulting in certain metrics being considered multiple times:

1. Number of players in current squad to have won a World Cup -
Biases the analysis in favour of the biggest team of the most recent WC winner. A better metric would have been the number of players that were playing for the club at the time of a particular nation won a WC, or maybe how many players did the club signed who had won a WC previously

2. Continent level titles won (eg. Champions League)

3. Shirts sold per year.

4. Annual revenue
Revenue of a club is dependent on basically 4 factors- Stadium tickets, sponsorships, Merchandise, Transfers and TV revenue
Stadium tickets factor is being considered under average attendance. While I do get the fact that sales =/= revenue, it makes no sense to consider a factor like average attendance and then another factor where this number plays a role
Sponsorships is pretty much dependent on the visibility of the club, and how big a brand it is. If one does plot the correlation plot of Social media followers vs sponsorships, I'm pretty sure that they will come as pretty correlated
Merchandise is already being tracked by Shirts sold

5. Record transfers fee paid
This biases the study towards the bigger and more modern day superpowers. If anything, it punishes clubs who prefer to promote from within as well as clubs which prefer to look elsewhere for cheaper alternatives

6. Average attendance.

7. Market value of current squad
This is another factor that is punishing historically dominant teams including teams whose dominant era was in this millenium!

8. Ballon d'Or trophies won since 1956
Like others have already said, the award was exclusive to only Europeans in the earlier days, which skews the results in favour of certain European teams

9. Social media following
Firstly, social media is a recent phenomenon. Sides like Ajax, Milan sides, etc. stand no chance of competing as today's youth wouldn't be following them because they are a team of the past.
Additionally, if they intend to use it as a metric of fan following, the shirts sold is a better metric or conducting a Market research exercise to find the total number of fans of each club is the way it should be done

10. Clubs with biggest mythical status.
While, I get what they want to get out of this, the metric has a non measurable aspect to it. Are you including every superstar as one? If yes, is it fair to say that Johan Cryuff and say a Di Stefano had an equal influence on the game? If no, how have they separated the 2?

If it were up to me, I'd consider just the following criteria:

1. Trophies won: European and domestic (only CL, league and primary cup competition), with domestic having lower weight than the the continental prize
Also, weights of older trophies to be kept slightly lower than more recent prizes. Basically, a CL won in early 2000s has higher weight than one won in 1960s, however, the prize won last year and one won say, 5 years ago are considered equals

2. Fan following- Market research exercise, in case the numbers aren't reliable then shirt sales

3. Former CL/WC winning Players signed - Just a couple of conditions to be -1. the CL/WC should have been won with the player having made x appearances in the run 2. the win should have been in the last 5 years; 3. The player signed should be less than x years in age

4. Mythical status- Based on the network of transfers and market price. Basically,among only those players whose max market value reached more than a threshold amount (inflation adjusted), which club was a player playing for at the time his market value was highest

 

[Minimalist]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

For those asking about the mythical status computation

Jesus christ. We install a Tolkien character as our manager and we still can't top the mythical table.

 

[Chipper]

In the 90s PSG made 5 European semifinals in a row, including one in CL, 1 CWC win and another final, regularly beating the biggest clubs and topped the UEFA club ranking in 99. Did you even watch football?

Yes of course I watched football. I was going to United week-in week-out and watching more on TV. There was very strong focus on English teams. There was a bit of Serie A on Channel 4 as well and that was about it.

There was coverage of English vs Englsih in domestic competition, Englishvs. non English in European competition, Champions League finals and I seem to remember some but not all UEFA Cup finals being on too when an English team wasn't in it. I've no memory of CWC finals without English teams being televised, let alone semi finals. I suppose you could have got it on a foreign satellite channel but many less people had satellite tv or even cable in those days.

The game in general and the tv coverage was nowhere near as global, and as such PSG weren't much of a well known entity in England.

 

[Infordin]

1. Real Madrid

2/3. Manchester United = Barcelona

4/5/6. Bayern = Liverpool = Juventus

 

[carvajal]

Poor Milan,7 european cups,loads of great players, being a top club from the 50's and they are 11th...
If Independiente and Boca are there, River should be too.
Barcelona too high

 

[BBRBB]

Yes of course I watched football. I was going to United week-in week-out and watching more on TV. There was very strong focus on English teams. There was a bit of Serie A on Channel 4 as well and that was about it.

There was coverage of English vs Englsih in domestic competition, Englishvs. non English in European competition, Champions League finals and I seem to remember some but not all UEFA Cup finals being on too when an English team wasn't in it. I've no memory of CWC finals without English teams being televised, let alone semi finals. I suppose you could have got it on a foreign satellite channel but many less people had satellite tv or even cable in those days.

The game in general and the tv coverage was nowhere near as global, and as such PSG weren't much of a well known entity in England.

Indeed it was about the same in France but focused on French teams for live games but there were weekly shows to keep up with the rest.

 

[IronCroos37]

Liverpool should not be that high. They have not won a title in 20 what years.

 

[Sandikan]

Man city 9th!!!

 

[Pink Moon]

Celtic have won the CL (European cup) and are a historically big club. City and PSG have no history outside of the past 10 years. I'd argue Celtic have twice as many fans as both clubs too.

Yep.

PSG are a nothing club. There's posters on here who are older than them. Being state backed and financially doped doesn't make you a big club.

 

[JPRouve]

Yep.

PSG are a nothing club. There's posters on here who are older than them. Being state backed and financially doped doesn't make you a big club.

PSG is the Stade saint germanois, I doubt that anyone on this site is older than that.

 

[Chipper]

Indeed it was about the same in France but focused on French teams for live games but there were weekly shows to keep up with the rest.

I do remember something called Eurogoals on Eurosport that showed a lot of the goals form the different leagues, but I'm not sure if that was on in the mnid 90s or if it started later. My family got cable in around '95, no satellite before that time. Still, I suppose Eurosport was a bit of a niche channel anyway compare to Sky Sports.

Just looked to see what English clubs you played during that kind of period - Arsenal and Liverpool in CWC semi-finals. I suspect they would have been on tv but I really don't remember them.

Not going to pretend I watched every game that was on television though. The year you played Arsenal I was probably more interested in United games at around the same time. We had Liverpool the day after the first leg and the FA Cup semi final and it's replay just before and after the second leg. I was at all 3 of those. Then there was probably school work and there were less tvs in houses in general, my mum might've wanted to watch soap operas or something. Didn't see the final either (Arsenal v Parma) as I would have been at United v Southampton on the same night.

'97 v Liverpool came a day after our double 0-1 losses in the Champions League semi finals aginst Dortmund. I might've not wanted to watch football after those.

 

[Demyanenko_square_jaw]

Agreed. Not the first time i notice people seem to have completely forgotten about this. Feels like some think the Qatari's bought Angers not PSG.

I mean: Djorkaeff, Weah, Ginola, Rai, Lama, Ricardo Gomes, Valdo, Leonardo ... Those names must ring a bell, right? And i'm not even French.

It seems quite forgotten now that in the early-mid 90s the French league was only behind Serie A in the coefficients for about 4 years. Their top teams at the time all had deep runs in Europe, with Marseille and PSG winning trophies.

PSG were a great team around the time of their uefa cup and CL runs, it took Baggio and Savicevic giving all-time great performances to put them out in semi-finals. People rightly still talk a lot about the Ajax of that time, but in the 94/95 CL PSG played just as well as them as an attacking team. they didn't match up quite as well against Milan, but would still have been 50/50 against Ajax that year imo.

 

[billybee99]

Only British people think United is bigger than Barcelona.

I'm not British. I think United is bigger than Barcelona.

 

[damageinc.]

France Football have compiled a list of the 30 biggest clubs on the planet. Judged over 10 factors.

10 Factors:

1. Number of players in current squad to have won a World Cup
2. Continent level titles won (eg. Champions League)
3. Shirts sold per year.
4. Annual revenue.
5. Record transfers fee paid.
6. Average attendance.
7. Market value of current squad
8. Ballon d'Or trophies won since 1956
9. Social media following
10. Clubs with biggest mythical status.

This is the final list.


Discuss.

Pretty laughable classification by a laughable french newspaper

 

[Inter Yer Nan]

For what it's worth (nothing) in my opinion my perception is that the order is something like this :-

1. Real Madrid
2. Manchester United
3. Barcelona
4/5. Bayern Munich/Juventus
6. Liverpool
7. AC Milan
8. Inter Milan
9/10. Atletico Madrid/Arsenal

The Italian League falling in popularity as hurt their big three IMO. 20 years ago I think they'd have three in the top 5.