Essential The Official Football (Soccer) Thread - Life and Death for South America, Pre-Season for Europe: The Club World Cup

[null]

This isn't exactly accurate. The Dallas Cowboys, the richest sports franchise in the world, haven't won a championship in over 25 years. The New York Knicks, the third richest team in the world, haven't won a title in close to 50 years. And they were terrible for 20 years for the most part until last year. shyt the New York Yankees, the second richest sports franchise in the world, haven't won or been to the World Series in 13 years. The American sports fan isn't as fickle as you presume.

steelers are man utd are they not? historically at least.

the mere fact that you can change names and keep a following or change location massively is very un-european football.

for pool and man utd even leaving anfield or old trafford would be a big problem for many fans

big club stadium names are not for sale.

there is no amount of money in the world that can buy you the glamour that real madrid's history gives them. the big names, the big records, the firsts in europe, the royal connection.

money cannot but that.

barca with ronaldinho and maradona. no amount of money can buy that shine. even winning the champions league 10 years in a row would not equate to what those great names have given the club. maradona defeating the english after the falklands war ... c'mon now.

charlton, best and law ain't being touched by anything city of chelsea have because of the cultural totems that they are associated with. england winning the world cup. best being the 5th beatle the leaders of the brittish invasion into the USA in the decade of love post WWII. law and 'em winning the first england european cup. and then you have SAF being the greatest, beckham, ronaldo's shine raising united's profile right when football went to da moon. you can't surpass all those great societal reference points with a trite few years of trophies. you just cannot.

 

[Low End Derrick]

 

[Kunty McPhuck]

I don’t watch soccer but this came across my YT feed and I watched the whole thing. That shyt has me dying



Also someone please tell me what the consequence was for what Balotelli did at 4:12. I would have cut his ass that same day & sent him to a team in the middle of Siberia

He got subbed not to longer after and iirc he got sold 6 months later.

 

[ThrobbingHood]

 

[SCORCH]

maybe you are not just sure how this club size thing works.

man city, chelsea, leicester and liverpool are all smaller than utd, despite winning the league more recently.

PSG is smaller as well.

these clubs are all smaller than AC milan too, who themselves haven't won anything major in years.

give it another 10 - 15 years then it will be close but right now, no chance.

this is not the USA where winning elevates no-name no-mark muppet franchises to the top table.

it doesn't work like that in football.

despite liverpool being out of it for 20+ years they remained and remain far bigger than man city, chelsea and the other pretenders.

a reordering of the football pecking order takes breeding. roots are deep and legacy counts for something.

like some UK MP's decry others for being "the type of family that buys rather than inherits furniture" you cannot buy class. you cannot buy legacy and you cannot buy greatness.

the royal houses of european football are very hard to shift and man utd and liverpool are the only english clubs at that level.

Man Utd have had two major periods of success in their history (Busby/Ferguson eras), won legacy fans worldwide and have reaped all the rewards that come with it.

Utd killed the 90s/00s in particular and you now believe they have usurped Liverpool as the biggest club in the country.

So clearly, winning and building your brand on the back of success is ultimately all that matters. Congrats on being able to do that before the likes of Chelsea, Man City etc.

'Roots are deep and legacy counts...' = I agree. People like to support winners and that support will be passed down to their kids and so on. It's why you have adults now who were born and raised in London who support Man Utd / Liverpool and will travel 350 miles to go watch a 'home' game. Who knows, maybe in time their children will decide to support a London based winner and save money on petrol and train tickets.

*Not buying Man Utd being a bigger club than Liverpool when it comes to history. Man Utd may have more legacy fans nowadays and can pack in an extra 20k tourist into Old Trafford but Liverpool have double the European Cups and despite not winning a league title in 30 years still have 19 to Utd's 20.

 

[TobiOT]

 

[TobiOT]

• This is Villarreal's sixth Champions League match against Manchester United. The Yellow Submarine are winless in all five previous meetings (D4 L1).
• Manchester United have failed to keep a clean sheet in the Champions League this season, shipping seven goals in their four games.
• Villarreal have never beaten an English club in the Champions League in 11 attempts (D6 L5).

• Manchester United have only won seven of their last 24 away Champions League matches (D6 L11) and are winless in their last four on the road (D1 L3) since a 2-1 win at Paris St-Germain in October 2020.

Ole's presence is still there, so you know what time it is.

 

[Ukbrotha]

steelers are man utd are they not? historically at least.

the mere fact that you can change names and keep a following or change location massively is very un-european football.

for pool and man utd even leaving anfield or old trafford would be a big problem for many fans

big club stadium names are not for sale.

there is no amount of money in the world that can buy you the glamour that real madrid's history gives them. the big names, the big records, the firsts in europe, the royal connection.

money cannot but that.

.

This will happen. Football has given its soul to money. its inevitable.

 

[Liu Kang]

maybe you are not just sure how this club size thing works.

man city, chelsea, leicester and liverpool are all smaller than utd, despite winning the league more recently.

PSG is smaller as well.

these clubs are all smaller than AC milan too, who themselves haven't won anything major in years.

give it another 10 - 15 years then it will be close but right now, no chance.

this is not the USA where winning elevates no-name no-mark muppet franchises to the top table.

it doesn't work like that in football.

despite liverpool being out of it for 20+ years they remained and remain far bigger than man city, chelsea and the other pretenders.

a reordering of the football pecking order takes breeding. roots are deep and legacy counts for something.

like some UK MP's decry others for being "the type of family that buys rather than inherits furniture" you cannot buy class. you cannot buy legacy and you cannot buy greatness.

the royal houses of european football are very hard to shift and man utd and liverpool are the only english clubs at that level.

You know @SCORCH is a UK breh and knows about footy right ?

 

[TheOptimisticCynikal]

Man Utd have had two major periods of success in their history (Busby/Ferguson eras), won legacy fans worldwide and have reaped all the rewards that come with it.

Utd killed the 90s/00s in particular and you now believe they have usurped Liverpool as the biggest club in the country.

So clearly, winning and building your brand on the back of success is ultimately all that matters. Congrats on being able to do that before the likes of Chelsea, Man City etc.

'Roots are deep and legacy counts...' = I agree. People like to support winners and that support will be passed down to their kids and so on. It's why you have adults now who were born and raised in London who support Man Utd / Liverpool and will travel 350 miles to go watch a 'home' game. Who knows, maybe in time their children will decide to support a London based winner and save money on petrol and train tickets.

*Not buying Man Utd being a bigger club than Liverpool when it comes to history. Man Utd may have more legacy fans nowadays and can pack in an extra 20k tourist into Old Trafford but Liverpool have double the European Cups and despite not winning a league title in 30 years still have 19 to Utd's 20.

Liverpool in the 70s/80s had a similar run that United had in the 90s/00s. Obviously football would be more widespread in United's era of dominance due to matches being more accessible with television and internet plus Liverpool don't have a David Beckham or a Cristiano Ronaldo football icon that's been part of your history or a Treble. There's no Class of 92 equivalent (a lot of Liverpool legends, especially in that 70s era were bought from Scotland.) All those things count. Even when United were in the Second Division for that brief period, their match attendance numbers didn't waver much and topped a lot of clubs that were in the first division.

 

[SCORCH]

You know @SCORCH is a UK breh and knows about footy right ?

A Man Utd legacy fan telling me his club is bigger because they're currently in the mud.

They're starting to sound like Liverpool fans in the Jay Spearing era.

 

[null]

You know @SCORCH is a UK breh and knows about footy right ?

is he true UKDOS tho

 

[null]

They're starting to sound like Liverpool fans in the Jay Spearing era.

Liverpool were always bigger than chelsea and city. That's the point.

Remember blackburn ...

 

[null]

Utd killed the 90s/00s in particular and you now believe they have usurped Liverpool as the biggest club in the country.

So clearly, winning and building your brand on the back of success is ultimately all that matters. Congrats on being able to do that before the likes of Chelsea, Man City etc.

nah not clearly .. i actually think that liverpool are bigger than man utd when it comes to sustained international success .

and there is a case to say liverpool are bigger overall .. although i don't agree with it.

it is close.

the one thing that man utd have that liverpool lack is glamour. and liverpool will never have that due to scouseland.

that is what makes man utd a bigger media club which is pushed by the media more, therefore garnering more fans.

and man utd was still the top club in the UK before fergie.

you cannot replicate the 60's and the global recovery of normality after the total destruction WWII now. you cannot replicate england's one and only world cup win. these things are seared in history and these things are part of the man utd story. like fergie came up with the globalisation of football, man utd came up with the television and popularisation of football and the glamour of the swinging sixties. we see film of man utd and best in the sixties. we don't see the same for arsenal in the 30's. man utd were the first glamour team due to their come up in the age when glamour totems in mass media were first created. that works to their benefit.

"the golden age of hollywood" is just that and will remain that as long as hollywood is as it is now. likewise that 60's cool/beatles/worldcup win/fashion icons aand all the other societal trends are bound up with the story of man utd and work to man utd's favour.

when we move to VR-footy the then dominant teams will have their chance to write their football achievements into the firmament of major cultural, societal and technological shifts. for now man utd will remain (in england) the masters and dominant team in our current shared zeitgeist. even with natural attrition it would take decades to change that.

even now adverts and media constantly refer back to the "cool 60's" because it is an important cultural period within the western world. probably the most important positive one for the last few hundred years.

when was the last time you read or heard of the "glamour of chelsea FC or man city" in the press. it is a constant refrain when it comes to man utd and whether you like it or not, this history bolsters man utd's preeminence in addition to the bigger numbers, larger media presence, income, trophies etc.

 

[null]

This will happen. Football has given its soul to money. its inevitable.

maybe but tradition means a lot in england. look at her maj ...