For me a big club is a club that has these features:

- Current Success
- Past Success
- Stadium
- Fan Base
- Attractiveness to players

while a top club is:

- Current Success

many people confuse top club and big club. for example

Arsenal is a bigger club than City however City are a better club

Wilshire is on the right direction i think - though i feel stadium is a non entity and i think the other things are ranked and have more merits than the other. So in importance i would say:

Current Success
Pulling power (current recognition in the world)
World fan base
Past success (Limited to the last 10-15 years max)
Knowledge of Clubs etc

Being a big club is all relevant i feel to the here and now

So i agree with Reina - there are other bigger clubs available to him, including half a dozen in the prem alone. Liverpool used to be a big club, if not the biggest in the world 30-40 years ago, however nowadays they are far from the biggest.

Other things that can also change how big a club is, is where the person is. For example in my opinion in alphabetical order (as i dont want to start a slagging match) the 5 biggest clubs in the EPL are:

Arsenal
Chelsea
Manchester City
Manchester United
Spurs

However if you asked in Brazil they would say:
1st Chelsea = Man U
3rd Arsenal
4th Liverpool
5th Man City = Spurs

So many things can change also what people think are big clubs

In almost all parts of the US (particularly South and West Coast) Chelsea, United, Barca and Madrid are seen as the 4 biggest clubs. No one else even comes close

In the seventies there was only one big (huge) club - Liverpool both home & in Europe - & then Leeds from success mainly domestically

Aston Villa & Nottingham Forest bucked the trend by being the best in Europe (twice) one under a genious manager. - mainly from having a superb crop of players at one time, (a bit like Belguim now) - neither are big now in the new sense of the word

Man Utd weren't that great before the Prem but saw the opportunity under excellent leadership at the right time & built up to becoming the biggest club in the world, & rightly so (again with a genuis manager)

Arsenal saw the potential in Wenger who cultivated probably the best side(s) seen in the Prem, but have latterly massively underachived - for a decade...

Since the Premiership other clubs have been made big (huge) via inputs of money, Chelsea & Man City being the prime examples, - but money doesn't always buy success (see Arsenal above of late)

so - compare Notts Forest to Chelsea....Aston Villa to Man Utd Leeds to Man City - it can't be done....& never will be now, good players get snapped up by the top clubs early..& so they should.

By far the biggest casualties since the Prem have been Liverpool...they should be where Man Utd are now, apart from an unlikely European win in 2005 they've massively under achieved from their 70's heyday.

This season may see the biggest shake up for some time with SAF leaving, Jose returning, & Arsenal actually threatening to spend money...

Time will tell

footnote - in probably the least (legally) populated area of the country Ipswich & Norwich are huge...

go figure

Sheriff, Utd were bigger than Liverpool even in Liverpool's
halycon days of the late 70's and 80's.

Utd's freakish following stemmed from the Busby babes and the wave of national sympathy following their tragic losss. Whereas Liverpool's mass national and international following was spawned on the back of all the tittle's amassed during the Shankly, Paisley days.

Utd werent bigger than Lfc in the 70's and 80's

Yes they were!

Utd were always the glamour club in the 70's and 80's.

Dodger

No club in the UK has been able to match the size of Manchester Utd in terms of the support they can command ever since the MAD, even Gary Neville attributes the phenomenom of the Club to that!

Sherrif explain again why you think Arsenal have underachieved.

Brum...i'd have to disagree to a point...yes when we were at school everyone followed Utd as the glamour club from Docherty through to Atkinson, but no way Utd were bigger than Pool mate...

wum...seriously....you need me to explain the best part of ten years with no silverware for a side that has not been outside the top 3 & in the CL for the last 15 odd years running

it's just not acceptable for a club their perceived size

just speak to some goonz....oh how they'd love to swap with us & our silver laden managerial merry go round policy

Simon West

You cite the following criteria for being a big club;

Current Success
Pulling power (current recognition in the world)
World fan base
Past success (Limited to the last 10-15 years max)
Knowledge of Clubs etc

But then put Spurs in your list. Which of the above criteria have Spurs fulfilled to be classed as a bit club?

oh how they'd love to swap with us & our silver laden managerial merry go round policy
-------------------------------------------------

sacking managers isnt whats brought you trophies

Sorry Sheriff but Utd have always been the bigger club. I don't equate being successful as be a big club. If Crystal Palace wonn the league this season and defended it for 5 years would you consider them a big club?

Growing up in the 70's Utd used to draw crowds of 60,000 when they were in the old 2nd division, about two coaches of Brummie Reds used to go from outside the Rotunda in Birmingham city centre every game, sometimes three for a big game, that was mirrored all over the country from Cornwall to Cumbria - a Liverpool fan in Birmingham in those days was a rarity if at all.

As Liverpool became successful they started attracting fans nationwide wanting to be associated with their success but still never matched the numbers that followed Utd.

The Utd brand has done nothing but snowball ever since and probably only Real Madrid are bigger worldwide now!

crouch.. I never said it was but it's helped enormously... I was more referring to them staying with loser Wenger

Brum - Palace...seriously...how likely is that just once..let alone 5 times - would you think they were...?

that's as likely as me winning the open at Muirfield this year.

Makes me wonder why Liverpool didn't expand their staduim earlier...or move to a bigger one in their heyday

My main point weas Liverpool ruled European football like Barca & AC Milan did/have...& just didn't move on or keep up with play

Brum - Palace...seriously...how likely is that just once..let alone 5 times - would you think they were...?
--------------------------------------------------------

I know Sheriff, but I was just using them as an example that if you win a lot of trophies it doesn't necessarily follow that you're a big club.

Sustain that success and logically it would follow that the size of the club would naturally increase as it did with Liverpool over twenty years. I'm not suggesting Liverpool were not a big club at the time - just not on the scale as Utd!

well...it kinda goes with the territory that you are a big club by winning things..at best you might sneak one cup occasionally (Birmingham Pompey Wigan) as examples...no way these are big in any category...

Birmingham could be in principle...given their location but never will be unless a rich arab buys them.

i'm struggling to think of a team that has won let's say... two trophies - that isn't a big club...they don't exist

Think of it this way Sheriff - we have won much more over the last ten years than Liverpool but we are still a smaller club fanbase wise than they are.

Obviously if things contniue that way then eventually that gap in size would narrow.

do you think so....i'm not so sure

we've won more than pool spurs arsenal put together in that time...we've just got a £300m sponsor deal & back to back euro titles

not to mention Jose's return...so I can't subscribe to that theory mate

I guess you'd have to ask what having a large fan base gives you...

shirt sales maybe...but the majority of fans of a lot of top sides are foriegn & have never been to see the teams...or bought a proper shirt probably - cheap far east copies mostly

Chelsea aren't a 'traditionally' big side but that's all relative I guess.

To someone in 2013 that might be true but then again in 2060 someone might think Chelsea are as traditionally a big side then as say, Everton or Leeds are now.

More fans means more TV packages bought which means more revenue and more sponsorship. Why do you think Liverpool have shirt and sponsorship deals double that of Spurs?

Fanbase is important. It's the very essence of a size of a club.

well...we weren't in the 70's

we were a shabby outfit with a large stand we couldn't afford in a shittip stadium...

happily we've moved on, & we are as big as they come now, barring a 75,000 seater staduim