Costliest Squads

[Spike]

https://football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/b5wp/2021/wp346/en/

It's a little old but interesting nonetheless. It's mad how much money English teams spend in comparison to the rest of Europe. Real Sociedad came fifth in the 20/21 season compared to Leicester that came in fifth that season as well.

Maybe fans needs to stop complaining about lack of spending and criticising other teams for spending... glass houses and all

[JoshBRFC+]

The list won’t really be a shock to anyone.

England is the richest league in the world and probably always will be, we did invent the game. 

[Rucksackfranzose]

27 minutes ago, JoshBRFC said:

The list won’t really be a shock to anyone.

England is the richest league in the world and probably always will be, we did invent the game. 

More to do with English  being the lingua franca thanks to the USA, than with England inventing the game, to be frank.

[JoshBRFC+]

1 minute ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

More to do with English  being the lingua franca thanks to the USA, than with England inventing the game, to be frank.

Whatever helps you sleep at night .

In all seriousness, records do vary, but i've heard records of English folk kicking pigs bladders around. 

[Spike]

1 hour ago, JoshBRFC said:

The list won’t really be a shock to anyone.

England is the richest league in the world and probably always will be, we did invent the game. 

Why are you proud of the sport having a monetary glass ceiling for success? Unless you’re just having a joke.
 

It is really odd how English fans for the most part are working class, yet have very upper-class snobby attitudes when it comes to football. It’s like an old boys club that very much dislikes any upstarts or outsiders.

[JoshBRFC+]

31 minutes ago, Spike said:

Why are you proud of the sport having a monetary glass ceiling for success? Unless you’re just having a joke.
 

It is really odd how English fans for the most part are working class, yet have very upper-class snobby attitudes when it comes to football. It’s like an old boys club that very much dislikes any upstarts or outsiders.

That’s an incorrect assumption. My team is in the lower leagues doing shit for years. I also follow lots of European football not just England.

I’m just being honest. 

[Spike]

7 minutes ago, JoshBRFC said:

That’s an incorrect assumption. My team is in the lower leagues doing shit for years. I also follow lots of European football not just England.

I’m just being honest. 

It isn’t an assumption. It is an observation, not an observation of you mind but something I have definitely noticed with others, and not necessarily on here.

[JoshBRFC+]

5 minutes ago, Spike said:

It isn’t an assumption. It is an observation, not an observation of you mind but something I have definitely noticed with others, and not necessarily on here.

Oh no doubt that there’s  people like that around, there’s cunts in all sports mate . I wouldn’t say that’s generally how us as English football fans are though. 

[Spike]

Just now, JoshBRFC said:

Oh no doubt that there’s  people like that around, there’s cunts in all sports mate . I wouldn’t say that’s generally how us as English football fans are though. 

Hmm, I don’t know. In my experiences there is a subset of fans that seem to get offended when a team that isn’t in the big boys club do well, as if they [don’t deserve success because they never had success]. 

[JoshBRFC+]

30 minutes ago, Spike said:

Hmm, I don’t know. In my experiences there is a subset of fans that seem to get offended when a team that isn’t in the big boys club do well, as if they [don’t deserve success because they never had success]. 

It’s a minority that you’re talking of though.

I think I can talk for the majority of us on here and I’m sure others will back me up, but we thoroughly enjoyed as neutrals seeing Leicester win the league. That’s a prime example, much more exciting and I think as a nation we love an underdog story. 
 

It’s slightly different, but to go with what you’re saying(I think!?) there are those who frustrate me when let’s say a ‘big’ club gets relegated… eg Leeds and people say they’d rather see them in the Premier League than a smaller team as they’re a big club. Whereas my perspective would always be.. no you’re where you are because you deserve to be there, irrespective of your fan base you have to earn your place. 

[Spike]

8 minutes ago, JoshBRFC said:

It’s a minority that you’re talking of though.

I think I can talk for the majority of us on here and I’m sure others will back me up, but we thoroughly enjoyed as neutrals seeing Leicester win the league. That’s a prime example, much more exciting and I think as a nation we love an underdog story. 
 

It’s slightly different, but to go with what you’re saying(I think!?) there are those who frustrate me when let’s say a ‘big’ club gets relegated… eg Leeds and people say they’d rather see them in the Premier League than a smaller team as they’re a big club. Whereas my perspective would always be.. no you’re where you are because you deserve to be there, irrespective of your fan base you have to earn your place. 

Hmm, maybe but there is a lot of dismissiveness and hypocrisy. [X only won because they bought the league]  but when [Y did it was deserved]. Despite the fact all teams spend atrocious amounts of money. Even Leicester, an underdog, relatively spent a fortune on a lot of those players. Not by the comparison of a team like Chelsea or Man City but they had funding that excludes 99% of English teams.

[Tommy]

11 hours ago, JoshBRFC said:

England is the richest league in the world and probably always will be

That's because English clubs sell their soul to every random billionaire cunt there is. 

[Rucksackfranzose]

1 hour ago, Tommy said:

That's because English clubs sell their soul to every random billionaire cunt there is. 

To be fair, their TV contracts also don't disturb, I guess.

[Azeem]

2 hours ago, Tommy said:

That's because English clubs sell their soul to every random billionaire cunt there is. 

[DeadLinesman]

3 hours ago, Tommy said:

That's because English clubs sell their soul to every random billionaire cunt there is. 

It’s the owners to be fair. You ask any supporter and they’d pick the 50+1 system any day over this.

[Spike]

3 hours ago, DeadLinesman said:

It’s the owners to be fair. You ask any supporter and they’d pick the 50+1 system any day over this.

Doubt it.  A lot of fans only see success because of their owners having too much money. I don’t even necessarily mean trophies, clubs like Leeds would probably have dissolved if not for investment.

Given the structure of how the TV rights works, when the Premier League became international, the state of English football would just be Manchester United winning everything. There would be no Blackburn in the late 90s, Arsenal petered out and couldn’t keep up, no Chelsea, no Manchester City, it took Liverpool 30 years to get there and maybe they wouldn’t have, if United had a brutal stranglehold on the entire landscape. It would be even worse than Germany, Man United have faaaar more money than Bayern.

Think about it, if Robers didn’t sign Shearer, maybe United get to him before Newcastle. If Chelsea didn’t have the money, players like Lampard, Terry, Cole, may have been Man United players, and so on.

50+1 is a romantic ideal that is completely antithetical to the commercialisation of English football, it would serve only the established teams that have a head start on all others, and Man United has a head start on the head start.

[OrangeKhrush]

TIFO IRL for the Athletic covered the wealth of English teams vs Europe and even without billionaires the last placed team earns more than the 6th place team in La Liga,  a lot more than any other league.   Teams like Notts forest can spend more due to the leagues equitable sharing of revenue.   In spain, germany etc the big clubs sucked the life out of revenue leaving scraps to the rest as a result the leagues got poor and predictable.   England has 7 or 8 good teams and mid table teams are still better than most CL teams from other European teams. 

The Premier League is the best because it is well marketed and the competition is better/deeper. 

[Spike]

19 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

TIFO IRL for the Athletic covered the wealth of English teams vs Europe and even without billionaires the last placed team earns more than the 6th place team in La Liga,  a lot more than any other league.   Teams like Notts forest can spend more due to the leagues equitable sharing of revenue.   In spain, germany etc the big clubs sucked the life out of revenue leaving scraps to the rest as a result the leagues got poor and predictable.   England has 7 or 8 good teams and mid table teams are still better than most CL teams from other European teams. 

The Premier League is the best because it is well marketed and the competition is better/deeper. 

Not really. The TV deals are far huger in England so even a smaller piece of the revenue is more money than all other leagues in the world. The PL is the most expensive TV sports deal in the world, it was also the first over the finish line with the Sky Sports deal. The Murdoch empire just exported the sport to every corner of the world before any other league, so it had a head start. In Australia for a long time it was easier to watch the English league than the Australian league. Why? Because Murdoch had a stake in the PL and not the A-League, so it received more coverage. The only reason the PL is most the popular league is because it was picked to be by Rupert Murdoch. It isn't because 'it da best' and 'we invented it la'.

[DeadLinesman]

2 hours ago, Spike said:

Doubt it.  A lot of fans only see success because of their owners having too much money. I don’t even necessarily mean trophies, clubs like Leeds would probably have dissolved if not for investment.

Given the structure of how the TV rights works, when the Premier League became international, the state of English football would just be Manchester United winning everything. There would be no Blackburn in the late 90s, Arsenal petered out and couldn’t keep up, no Chelsea, no Manchester City, it took Liverpool 30 years to get there and maybe they wouldn’t have, if United had a brutal stranglehold on the entire landscape. It would be even worse than Germany, Man United have faaaar more money than Bayern.

Think about it, if Robers didn’t sign Shearer, maybe United get to him before Newcastle. If Chelsea didn’t have the money, players like Lampard, Terry, Cole, may have been Man United players, and so on.

50+1 is a romantic ideal that is completely antithetical to the commercialisation of English football, it would serve only the established teams that have a head start on all others, and Man United has a head start on the head start.

It’s not my fault that any of that occurred. That being said, I’d trade every single one of those fucking titles not to be privately owned by anyone. I support enough teams outside of football that win fuck all. Plenty of other fans aren’t turned off by being owned by oil states or billionaires either. 

[Spike]

8 minutes ago, DeadLinesman said:

It’s not my fault that any of that occurred. That being said, I’d trade every single one of those fucking titles not to be privately owned by anyone. I support enough teams outside of football that win fuck all. Plenty of other fans aren’t turned off by being owned by oil states or billionaires either. 

That wasn't really my point.