How come the most successful clubs are ALMOST NEVER based in the capital?
>Portugal - Porto
>England - Man. City
>Italy - Inter Milan
>Germany - Buyern
>Spain - Barcelona
>Russia - Zenit
Why is this the case? What explains this phenomenon?
Soccernomics dedicated a chapter to this. Basically the theory is that alot of "second cities" put alot of resources and pride into their teams as a way to showcase their cities.
Prove me wrong, idiot.
Shut up. Dumbass.
PSG is currently the strongest team in France. But Marseille IS historically the strongest team in France. PSG is pathetic though, and they're only slightly relevant because of sand coon money.
In my opinion, Inter is the strongest Italian team at the moment. But again, historically, Juve is the most successful club.
Yeah, but then again, London based teams haven't been that successful either with the exception of Chelsea. Memes aside, Arsenal is a joke. Manchester is the city of football in England.
benfica(lisbon) is a bigger and better than porto in every concievable way
real madrid is arguably the biggest club in the world
all based in the capital, the list goes on and on
poortugal is fucking retarded
Footballing was traditionally associated with industrial towns like Manchester, Liverpool, Nottingham, Munich, Dortmund, Turin, Milan, Rotterdam. For those working dull jobs in the weak, the culture of footballing on a Saturday was almost as ingrained as church on a Sunday.For those in the more administrative capitals with more comfortable tertiary jobs, it wasn't as important.
Now, football is all about where the money is - and naturally that's usually the capital. We've already seen a gradual shift towards in power back towards clubs like Arsenal, Chelsea, PSG and Roma, often through massive third party investment. Some of the industrial clubs are lucky enough to have garnered reputation and investment so they've survived - others like Nottingham/Everton and most German/French clubs are doomed to forever live in the shadows of their former glory.
The example is Real Madrid because they were heavily invested in by the state as an instrument of fascist propaganda.
In the UK, London has always been the cultural hub of the country. There are so many more high-brow activities available than simply watching a game of football.
In the dead end industrial towns that offer very little in the way of cultural activities, football and, in some towns rugby league was the only source of excitement. These clubs benefited from more passionate support, better finances, better crops of players coming through the ranks and ultimately became more successful because of it.
Don't senpai me, home boy desu. I spent years on this. I've dedicated my life to this. This is who I am. I KNOW these things, alright?
>benfica is better than porto in every concievable way
Since 2000 Porto has won the league 9 times. Benfica has only won the league four times. Porto has won the CL and the EL since 2000. It IS the most successful club in Portugal. Benfica won the league more times, decades ago, because the regime helped the club.
>real madrid is arguably the biggest club in the world
Financially speaking? Kek at their achievements. What a blunder. Barcelona is superior, there is no denying this.
>goes on to list a bunch of irrelevant shit tier leagues like the Dutch league
Does anyone really care? Does anyone really care about these countries? Is there anything apart from the capital in those shitholes?
Pretty good analysis. Gary Neville wrote an article recently that said the power if shifting to clubs in the Greater London area because that's where players want to live.
He was afraid of the Premier League of the future being nothing but clubs around London and two Manchester teams.
when it comes down to turnover and fanbase, real madrid is second only to manchester united. Real is a bigger and better club than barcelona in every way at the moment
I can say the same thing about benfica, bigger fanbase, more trophies and financially stronger than porto
Just because you dont care about shitty countries doesnt mean they dont exist, they make up the biggest part of the world and disprove your retarded 'theory'
Now go get a job or something
>when it comes down to turnover and fanbase
Irrelevant when we're discussing great clubs. Money doesn't make a great club. Look at PSG.
Real is NOT a bigger or better club than Barcelona in ANY way. Who's the champion at the moment, loser?
>I can say the same thing about benfica
You can, but then you'd just out yourself as a moron. Do you really want to do that?
>doesnt mean they dont exist
It sure feels like it.
The interesting thing about London is that its always had a decent football culture, its just been fairly detached from that of the rest of the country. Most countries have one or two teams from their capital, both of them proudly bearing the city's name. London has none of those, there is no 'Team London'.
Thats because London itself operates more like a region/country than it does a city. Each borough operates with a great deal of devolved power and culture (especially since each is so ethnically diverse). Too right seeing as its a collection of towns and settlements that just sorta merged together.
>says Paris is the best club right now but Marseille historically is better
>Barcelona is the best club right now but Madrid is historically better
durrrr durrr DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Glasgow used to be the biggest city in Scotland by a country mile. I know its not the capital and never was, but it was almost London tier at one point. Then the trade left and the city rotted and its the shite place it is now.
For English football, when it first became professional most Southern teams wanted it to stay amateur, because they had nice jobs and saw it as a hobby that would be cheapened by money. Northerners, however, all worked down t'pit and wanted to be able to get a better job kicking a ball for a living. If you look at the first few seasons of the Football League (starting in 1888), there are NO Southern teams because they were all still amateur.
I don't know what happened in other countries, but it could well have been the same there, that teams in the capital didn't turn professional until later on.
>For English football, when it first became professional most Southern teams wanted it to stay amateur, because they had nice jobs and saw it as a hobby that would be cheapened by money. Northerners, however, all worked down t'pit and wanted to be able to get a better job kicking a ball for a living. If you look at the first few seasons of the Football League (starting in 1888), there are NO Southern teams because they were all still amateur.
At least there was no split like what happened in the rugby.