AC Milan used to be one.
PSG financially are one but no real history and the pulling power is purely financial.
Liverpool!
Stick in one or both of the Milans for Liverpool
end of list
I think the pressure in Utd gets less and less. Everyone knows they're awful now and it was simply Fergie who set them apart. Bang average for decades before him and bang average after. Without him they'd have less European Cups than Forest.
The only real difference between Liverpool and United's period of dominance is that United did it under one manager and Liverpool did it under three.
Both clubs hardly flush with success outside of that, unless you count the 1920's.
Klopp looks to be starting era number two for Liverpool, but way too soon to be sure of that.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
The only real difference between Liverpool and United's period of dominance is that United did it under one manager and Liverpool did it under three.
Both clubs hardly flush with success outside of that, unless you count the 1920's.
Klopp looks to be starting era number two for Liverpool, but way too soon to be sure of that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
that's true
but other than liverpool era from the mid 70s - 90, and the united era 90s-mid 10s...no club has ever dominated english club footy for very long
the biggest clubs in europe over the piece as they say are:
R Madrid
Bayern
Juve
Farza
Man Utd
Liverpool
Milan
Inter
comment by peks - 1974 (U6618)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
The only real difference between Liverpool and United's period of dominance is that United did it under one manager and Liverpool did it under three.
Both clubs hardly flush with success outside of that, unless you count the 1920's.
Klopp looks to be starting era number two for Liverpool, but way too soon to be sure of that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
that's true
but other than liverpool era from the mid 70s - 90, and the united era 90s-mid 10s...no club has ever dominated english club footy for very long
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely.
Will be interesting to see what happens in the next 20 years.
There is a small group of clubs capable of winning the league now but arguably it's more competitive amongst that group - much like the difference in the CL vs the European Cup.
The only real difference between Liverpool and United's period of dominance is that United did it under one manager and Liverpool did it under three.
++
Yes, Matt Busby era was rubbish.
Then nobody had heard of Liverpool in the UK until they got promoted in the 1960s and then in Europe in the 70s.
When United won feck all in the 70s and 80s we were still the biggest club in the World.
comment by RB&W (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
The only real difference between Liverpool and United's period of dominance is that United did it under one manager and Liverpool did it under three.
++
Yes, Matt Busby era was rubbish.
Then nobody had heard of Liverpool in the UK until they got promoted in the 1960s and then in Europe in the 70s.
When United won feck all in the 70s and 80s we were still the biggest club in the UK.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
corrected
The only real difference was three European Cups, but that's a big difference. Also during Utds 26 year title hiatus Utd won some FA cups while Liverpool were picking up European trophies. In fact it's not the same at all.
Either way I don't see anyone putting pressure on Utd saying they should win the league in x, y or z year and it's been that way for best part of a decade now.
No one said it was the same.
United also won a European Cup in the Busby era, which wasn't in the Ferguson dominance - just like Liverpool won one outside their dominance.
Anyone can find stats to suit their narrative but the truth is United and Liverpool have had one main period of dominance each and not huge amounts outside of those periods.
Also would add that comparing European Cups in the period of dominance is flawed - very different competition back when Liverpool last dominated for a significant period.
Culture is different across Europe and across the Globe. We speak about some of the biggest clubs in the world, yet we don't bring the likes of Boca Juniors, River Plate etc into conversation because financially that area of the planet is not as well documented as the likes of the Champions League.
I agree you'd need a sustained period of success, or any form of success in the most prestigious competitions to be branded as one of the biggest clubs in the world, but somebody has spoke about perspective.
But then we look at finances from back in the 1930's era when River Plate were spending $10,000 and $35,000 to bring players into their club. Do era's like these get lost to time? Or should the article more appropriately be named "The biggest clubs in world football from 1950 onwards".
In the 1950s United were pretty much significantly dominant in England.
Then Munich set us back
In the mid 60s we didn't do too shabily either.
Overall in the 50 and 60s period United were certainly the most dominant team in England
comment by RB&W (U21434)
posted 13 seconds ago
In the 1950s United were pretty much significantly dominant in England.
Then Munich set us back
In the mid 60s we didn't do too shabily either.
Overall in the 50 and 60s period United were certainly the most dominant team in England
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think United would have enjoyed a period of dominance were it not for the Munich Air disaster, but we'll never know.
When you look at that, along with the recovery a decade later, it's laughable to conclude that only Ferguson has set the club apart.
it's laughable to conclude that only Ferguson has set the club apart.
++
Its actually sacrilege.
SMB re-invented Manchester United after the war in such away which was incomparable to anything else. And this is why United are still the biggest Football Club in the World.
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 27 minutes ago
Culture is different across Europe and across the Globe. We speak about some of the biggest clubs in the world, yet we don't bring the likes of Boca Juniors, River Plate etc into conversation because financially that area of the planet is not as well documented as the likes of the Champions League.
I agree you'd need a sustained period of success, or any form of success in the most prestigious competitions to be branded as one of the biggest clubs in the world, but somebody has spoke about perspective.
But then we look at finances from back in the 1930's era when River Plate were spending $10,000 and $35,000 to bring players into their club. Do era's like these get lost to time? Or should the article more appropriately be named "The biggest clubs in world football from 1950 onwards".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It want that we didn't have any money. But the players wages were capped at a low amount so we couldn't lure players the other way.
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
The only real difference was three European Cups, but that's a big difference. Also during Utds 26 year title hiatus Utd won some FA cups while Liverpool were picking up European trophies. In fact it's not the same at all.
Either way I don't see anyone putting pressure on Utd saying they should win the league in x, y or z year and it's been that way for best part of a decade now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is 7 years the best part of a decade. Using the word decade makes it sound much longer doesn't it
Utd have always been exceptionally well supported, but that's not the point. Liverpool may not have won the league for 30 years but they were still getting to European finals, challenging for leagues and picking up domestic trophies. Utd won a few FA cups and flirted with relegation so let's not pretend there were not entire decades where Utd were anything but elite.
If being good under Fergue and during the 60's makes them truly elite fair play but I'd suggest that sets the bar an awful lot lower than the OP has it.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
The only real difference was three European Cups, but that's a big difference. Also during Utds 26 year title hiatus Utd won some FA cups while Liverpool were picking up European trophies. In fact it's not the same at all.
Either way I don't see anyone putting pressure on Utd saying they should win the league in x, y or z year and it's been that way for best part of a decade now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is 7 years the best part of a decade. Using the word decade makes it sound much longer doesn't it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that's literally what it means.
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 14 minutes ago
Utd have always been exceptionally well supported, but that's not the point. Liverpool may not have won the league for 30 years but they were still getting to European finals, challenging for leagues and picking up domestic trophies. Utd won a few FA cups and flirted with relegation so let's not pretend there were not entire decades where Utd were anything but elite.
If being good under Fergue and during the 60's makes them truly elite fair play but I'd suggest that sets the bar an awful lot lower than the OP has it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just trying to rewrite history.
Pre SAF, in the 80's, United were competitive - barely a year went by in the 80's where they didn't finish top four.
Picked up a few FA Cups along the way.
Post SAF, there's been the small matter of a Europa League of course.
What did Liverpool win in their down time?
Pre Shankly - pretty much naff all post war.
Post Dalglish - a few FA Cups and one European Cup.
It is simply incorrect to try and paint anything outside the Ferguson era as not elite, yet make out Liverpool were elite outside their period of domination.
Liverpool went the best part of 50 years without a title FYI.
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 51 minutes ago
Utd have always been exceptionally well supported, but that's not the point. Liverpool may not have won the league for 30 years but they were still getting to European finals, challenging for leagues and picking up domestic trophies. Utd won a few FA cups and flirted with relegation so let's not pretend there were not entire decades where Utd were anything but elite.
If being good under Fergue and during the 60's makes them truly elite fair play but I'd suggest that sets the bar an awful lot lower than the OP has it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The bar is simple
Huge pressure to win things and consistently be successful.There is a higher expectation for success at Chelsea and City than liverpool due to the money they spend but because they lack other things that make a huge club I cant name them a super power.
That's in your head. Ole won't get the sack if Utd dont win the league, they'll be happy enough with top four.
Where as Liverpool sacked every manager the minute they failed to win a title.
Sign in if you want to comment
The biggest Clubs in World Football
Page 5 of 6
6
posted on 10/11/20
AC Milan used to be one.
PSG financially are one but no real history and the pulling power is purely financial.
posted on 10/11/20
Liverpool!
Stick in one or both of the Milans for Liverpool
end of list
posted on 10/11/20
I think the pressure in Utd gets less and less. Everyone knows they're awful now and it was simply Fergie who set them apart. Bang average for decades before him and bang average after. Without him they'd have less European Cups than Forest.
posted on 10/11/20
The only real difference between Liverpool and United's period of dominance is that United did it under one manager and Liverpool did it under three.
Both clubs hardly flush with success outside of that, unless you count the 1920's.
Klopp looks to be starting era number two for Liverpool, but way too soon to be sure of that.
posted on 10/11/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
The only real difference between Liverpool and United's period of dominance is that United did it under one manager and Liverpool did it under three.
Both clubs hardly flush with success outside of that, unless you count the 1920's.
Klopp looks to be starting era number two for Liverpool, but way too soon to be sure of that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
that's true
but other than liverpool era from the mid 70s - 90, and the united era 90s-mid 10s...no club has ever dominated english club footy for very long
posted on 10/11/20
the biggest clubs in europe over the piece as they say are:
R Madrid
Bayern
Juve
Farza
Man Utd
Liverpool
Milan
Inter
posted on 10/11/20
comment by peks - 1974 (U6618)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 23 minutes ago
The only real difference between Liverpool and United's period of dominance is that United did it under one manager and Liverpool did it under three.
Both clubs hardly flush with success outside of that, unless you count the 1920's.
Klopp looks to be starting era number two for Liverpool, but way too soon to be sure of that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
that's true
but other than liverpool era from the mid 70s - 90, and the united era 90s-mid 10s...no club has ever dominated english club footy for very long
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely.
Will be interesting to see what happens in the next 20 years.
There is a small group of clubs capable of winning the league now but arguably it's more competitive amongst that group - much like the difference in the CL vs the European Cup.
posted on 10/11/20
The only real difference between Liverpool and United's period of dominance is that United did it under one manager and Liverpool did it under three.
++
Yes, Matt Busby era was rubbish.
Then nobody had heard of Liverpool in the UK until they got promoted in the 1960s and then in Europe in the 70s.
When United won feck all in the 70s and 80s we were still the biggest club in the World.
posted on 10/11/20
comment by RB&W (U21434)
posted 3 minutes ago
The only real difference between Liverpool and United's period of dominance is that United did it under one manager and Liverpool did it under three.
++
Yes, Matt Busby era was rubbish.
Then nobody had heard of Liverpool in the UK until they got promoted in the 1960s and then in Europe in the 70s.
When United won feck all in the 70s and 80s we were still the biggest club in the UK.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
corrected
posted on 10/11/20
The only real difference was three European Cups, but that's a big difference. Also during Utds 26 year title hiatus Utd won some FA cups while Liverpool were picking up European trophies. In fact it's not the same at all.
Either way I don't see anyone putting pressure on Utd saying they should win the league in x, y or z year and it's been that way for best part of a decade now.
posted on 10/11/20
No one said it was the same.
United also won a European Cup in the Busby era, which wasn't in the Ferguson dominance - just like Liverpool won one outside their dominance.
Anyone can find stats to suit their narrative but the truth is United and Liverpool have had one main period of dominance each and not huge amounts outside of those periods.
posted on 10/11/20
Also would add that comparing European Cups in the period of dominance is flawed - very different competition back when Liverpool last dominated for a significant period.
posted on 10/11/20
Culture is different across Europe and across the Globe. We speak about some of the biggest clubs in the world, yet we don't bring the likes of Boca Juniors, River Plate etc into conversation because financially that area of the planet is not as well documented as the likes of the Champions League.
I agree you'd need a sustained period of success, or any form of success in the most prestigious competitions to be branded as one of the biggest clubs in the world, but somebody has spoke about perspective.
But then we look at finances from back in the 1930's era when River Plate were spending $10,000 and $35,000 to bring players into their club. Do era's like these get lost to time? Or should the article more appropriately be named "The biggest clubs in world football from 1950 onwards".
posted on 10/11/20
In the 1950s United were pretty much significantly dominant in England.
Then Munich set us back
In the mid 60s we didn't do too shabily either.
Overall in the 50 and 60s period United were certainly the most dominant team in England
posted on 10/11/20
comment by RB&W (U21434)
posted 13 seconds ago
In the 1950s United were pretty much significantly dominant in England.
Then Munich set us back
In the mid 60s we didn't do too shabily either.
Overall in the 50 and 60s period United were certainly the most dominant team in England
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think United would have enjoyed a period of dominance were it not for the Munich Air disaster, but we'll never know.
When you look at that, along with the recovery a decade later, it's laughable to conclude that only Ferguson has set the club apart.
posted on 10/11/20
it's laughable to conclude that only Ferguson has set the club apart.
++
Its actually sacrilege.
SMB re-invented Manchester United after the war in such away which was incomparable to anything else. And this is why United are still the biggest Football Club in the World.
posted on 10/11/20
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 27 minutes ago
Culture is different across Europe and across the Globe. We speak about some of the biggest clubs in the world, yet we don't bring the likes of Boca Juniors, River Plate etc into conversation because financially that area of the planet is not as well documented as the likes of the Champions League.
I agree you'd need a sustained period of success, or any form of success in the most prestigious competitions to be branded as one of the biggest clubs in the world, but somebody has spoke about perspective.
But then we look at finances from back in the 1930's era when River Plate were spending $10,000 and $35,000 to bring players into their club. Do era's like these get lost to time? Or should the article more appropriately be named "The biggest clubs in world football from 1950 onwards".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It want that we didn't have any money. But the players wages were capped at a low amount so we couldn't lure players the other way.
posted on 10/11/20
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
The only real difference was three European Cups, but that's a big difference. Also during Utds 26 year title hiatus Utd won some FA cups while Liverpool were picking up European trophies. In fact it's not the same at all.
Either way I don't see anyone putting pressure on Utd saying they should win the league in x, y or z year and it's been that way for best part of a decade now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is 7 years the best part of a decade. Using the word decade makes it sound much longer doesn't it
posted on 10/11/20
Utd have always been exceptionally well supported, but that's not the point. Liverpool may not have won the league for 30 years but they were still getting to European finals, challenging for leagues and picking up domestic trophies. Utd won a few FA cups and flirted with relegation so let's not pretend there were not entire decades where Utd were anything but elite.
If being good under Fergue and during the 60's makes them truly elite fair play but I'd suggest that sets the bar an awful lot lower than the OP has it.
posted on 10/11/20
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 1 hour, 6 minutes ago
The only real difference was three European Cups, but that's a big difference. Also during Utds 26 year title hiatus Utd won some FA cups while Liverpool were picking up European trophies. In fact it's not the same at all.
Either way I don't see anyone putting pressure on Utd saying they should win the league in x, y or z year and it's been that way for best part of a decade now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is 7 years the best part of a decade. Using the word decade makes it sound much longer doesn't it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that's literally what it means.
posted on 10/11/20
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 14 minutes ago
Utd have always been exceptionally well supported, but that's not the point. Liverpool may not have won the league for 30 years but they were still getting to European finals, challenging for leagues and picking up domestic trophies. Utd won a few FA cups and flirted with relegation so let's not pretend there were not entire decades where Utd were anything but elite.
If being good under Fergue and during the 60's makes them truly elite fair play but I'd suggest that sets the bar an awful lot lower than the OP has it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just trying to rewrite history.
Pre SAF, in the 80's, United were competitive - barely a year went by in the 80's where they didn't finish top four.
Picked up a few FA Cups along the way.
Post SAF, there's been the small matter of a Europa League of course.
What did Liverpool win in their down time?
Pre Shankly - pretty much naff all post war.
Post Dalglish - a few FA Cups and one European Cup.
It is simply incorrect to try and paint anything outside the Ferguson era as not elite, yet make out Liverpool were elite outside their period of domination.
posted on 10/11/20
Liverpool went the best part of 50 years without a title FYI.
posted on 10/11/20
comment by *Robbing Hoody - Clandestine Boat Pleb (U6374)
posted 51 minutes ago
Utd have always been exceptionally well supported, but that's not the point. Liverpool may not have won the league for 30 years but they were still getting to European finals, challenging for leagues and picking up domestic trophies. Utd won a few FA cups and flirted with relegation so let's not pretend there were not entire decades where Utd were anything but elite.
If being good under Fergue and during the 60's makes them truly elite fair play but I'd suggest that sets the bar an awful lot lower than the OP has it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The bar is simple
Huge pressure to win things and consistently be successful.There is a higher expectation for success at Chelsea and City than liverpool due to the money they spend but because they lack other things that make a huge club I cant name them a super power.
posted on 10/11/20
That's in your head. Ole won't get the sack if Utd dont win the league, they'll be happy enough with top four.
posted on 10/11/20
Where as Liverpool sacked every manager the minute they failed to win a title.
Page 5 of 6
6