Putting emphasis on being a big club is done by fans of clubs without recent success as though it's something to be prideful of.
Football is about winning things and winning things recently.
According to X Celtic have nearly 1m followers and Arsenal have 22m.
The reach the epl clubs have nowadays is unreal to what the spl clubs have.
The best indicator of how big a club is, is what pull they have on players.
Real are the biggest club - TAA and Mbappe left Liverpool and PSG for them, despite those clubs wantingto retain them. So Real are a bigger club than both.
Frimpong left Celtic for Leverkusen, the moved on to Liverpool. So Leverkusen are bigger than Celtic but smaller than Liverpool.
O'Riley left Celtic for Brighton. So Brighton are bigger than them.
It isn't about racking up wins in a tinpot league where the average player wouldn't start for a Championship side, nor winning a single prestigious trophy 50+ years ago. That is all just cope.
On the surface that looks like a good argument and fairly logical with a good conclusion (I’d say Real are the biggest club in the world) but players move for so many reasons, more money, better leagues etc.
The bundesliga is a better league than the SPL (you could argue that the EFL league 1 is a better league tbh) so of course you’re choosing that. It’s career progression not size of club.
Then of course you’ve got the money aspect. If player transfers were the only measure of size, then Saudi clubs would be ‘bigger’ than most of Europe right now—and no one actually believes that.
Everbluesince92Putting emphasis on being a big club is done by fans of clubs without recent success as though it's something to be prideful of.
Football is about winning things and winning things recently.
I get why people say that—recent success is obviously a massive part of football. Winning trophies is the ultimate goal, no question. But suggesting that being a ‘big club’ doesn’t matter unless you’re winning right now kind of ignores what makes football what it has become.
Clubs don’t just become ‘small’ overnight because they haven’t lifted a trophy in a few years. Being a big club is also about the legacy—the history, the fanbase, the identity that’s been built over decades. That’s why people still talk about clubs like Celtic, ManUre (during their drought), or even clubs like Leeds or Florist ( spelling mistake on purpose, they are as intolerable as the vile) with respect—they’ve shaped the game’s story.
It’s not just nostalgia either. That legacy still matters—it’s why huge crowds still turn up, why the shirts sell worldwide, and why rival fans still care when those clubs lose or win.
Winning matters, 100%. But if football was only about what happened in the last five years, clubs like Chelsea and City would be called the biggest in England already, and everyone else would just have to shut up. But that’s not how football culture works—and that’s kind of the point.
Good to see AI isn’t all that developed yet, alongside the multiple other errors pointed out, Linfield have won the most titles of a British team.
Jameron CeromeIsn't this just AI generated?
Yes it’s obvious; I’ve already admitted it. It stems from another thread, I just couldn’t believe people weren’t having Celtic as a big club and me arguing ManUre and Liverpool were the biggest in England.
JourneyOnOn the surface that looks like a good argument and fairly logical with a good conclusion (I’d say Real are the biggest club in the world) but players move for so many reasons, more money, better leagues etc.
The bundesliga is a better league than the SPL (you could argue that the EFL league 1 is a better league tbh) so of course you’re choosing that. It’s career progression not size of club.
Then of course you’ve got the money aspect. If player transfers were the only measure of size, then Saudi clubs would be ‘bigger’ than most of Europe right now—and no one actually believes that.
Quality of league is part of what makes a bigger club - being in a low quality league caps your size. Which is what has happened to Celtic - they're a big fish in a small pond, the size of the pond limits how big they can be.
The money aspect is a part of it - the Saudi clubs are limited again by league quality though. Ambitious players reject them - they get big name players who are declining and a very few players in their prime who have been squeezed out of clubs and accepted what they could get. I can’t think of any players a 'big' team wanted to keep/ sign who is in the Saudi league?
Some have definitely gone. Chelsea lost N’golo Kante, Koulibaly and Ziyech. As well as a Brazilian lad before that. Inter wanted Koulibaly but he chased the dollar.
Edit- the Brazilian lad was Oscar who went to China. Money talks. Ivan Toney could’ve gone to a top club but chose Saudi
Rab C NesbittSome have definitely gone. Chelsea lost N’golo Kante, Koulibaly and Ziyech. As well as a Brazilian lad before that. Inter wanted Koulibaly but he chased the dollar.
Edit- the Brazilian lad was Oscar who went to China. Money talks. Ivan Toney could’ve gone to a top club but chose Saudi
From memory, Kante left at the end of contract after not being offered a new one and they wanted rid of Koulibaly and Ziyech - Saudi teams were the only ones willing to buy them.
Toney ended up there because he wouldn't sign a new deal so Brentford wanted to sell him, and the only offer was from the Saudi league.
I don't think any of them were in the position of picking Saudi clubs over other teams.
Rab C NesbittI’m certain Inter Milan wanted Koulibaly
I think they tried to loan him or swap him for Onana, Chelsea weren't interested in either option.