I think that bid was bought year ago.. around 1998... no way Brazil had the best proposal for the World Cup.. same goes to Russia and Qatar
Out of the big clubs you mentioned... 2 of them were not the big clubs less than 10 years ago... Barca is something fairly "new" when it comes to big world dominance. Juve is big in Italy, but it's AC Milan's bitch when it comes to International competition. Times changes and those top clubs will keep rotating, Man U has a real dominance on their league much like Bayern has on theirs for the longest time. Which has kept them as a dominant team for a long time, while Real Madrid has always been big players and still are in the International stage. Plus playing for the top team kind of makes it easy for you to shine. Shinning in Dortmund, Shaktar, Tottenham, Chelsea, Santos, Corinthians, Porto etc... that's how you know the player is good.
Somebody on the European league thread made a great point. That if there was an European league, some of the top teams in their own countries would become avg teams since they wouldn't be winning anything on that Big Euro league and it would cause the downfall of these teams. I agree.
That was dripping with sarcasm bro, I just thought dude's argument that germans only stay with german clubs cause they lack the class to play for a big club was hilarious
Do some research and you will see that you are wrong about Barcelona and United. Though they have had their cycles, Barcelona have been a world club with world class players for much longer than 10 years. They have won La Liga more often than United have won the EPL and they have a better record in the Champions League than United. They also have the best record of all teams in the (now defunct) UEFA Cup Winners Cup, a competition that was quite hard to win. It's actually United that have only been good "recently", with recently meaning the last 20 years. Before that they had a good season here and there and were midgets next to Liverpool. (now defunct)
the Barcelona has won la Liga many times argument becomes the same argument for Juventus.. which has won Serie A many times but are AC Milan's bitch when it comes to international play. Hence my post of Barca being fairly new at the WORLD dominance of the sport. 2006 they won their first CL and lost the CWC, after that they have won 2 CWC which means they have been dominant winning 3 CLs and 2 CWC since 2006. Before that, none. And United since the EPL started it has pretty much dominated the league for the majority of the years. But I never questioned United. He put Real, United, Barca and Juve, and I questioned Barca and Juve. Juve has 2 CLs and 2 Intercontinentals Barca has 3 CLs and 2 CWC Real has 9 CLs and 3 intercontinental - most dominant team in European history Man U has 3 CLs, 1 CWC, 1 intercontinental - but dominates it's local league (12 titles in 20 years) much like bayern (10 in last 20)
Yeah, but most who (will) comment negatively if Brasil doesn't win won't care about the sample size. They'll just openly muse about why a NT with six successful World Cups under their belt couldn't get the job done at home on two occasions.
Barcelona > United. Refer to the stats summarized on sites like wikipedia. It's pretty obvious. In both CL and domestically. And over longer periods of time. And if you understand how the competitions that are now known as the CL and Europa League were organized in the past (you obviously don't, since you seem to start Barca's stats in 2006 even though they won what wound up being the CL before 2006), you will see how Barcelona would have even better stats if they didn't share a league with another great team (Real Madrid).
Once again.. Barca has become Barca in the past 8 years, before that, Barca was a really good team, that wouldn't win anything in international play. I'm not comparing current Barca vs current Man U. I'm making a point that Barca IS fairly new on the "world's best team" stage. and less than 8 years ago, Barca was a team that won La Liga but were bad losers in the CL, they only had 1, compared to Real's 9 and AC milan's 7 (these were the big boys in Europe from 2006 back) Now Barca has 4, and 3 fairly recent. But people want to act like Barcelona has always been this monster winner when the reality is.. 8 years ago they only had 1.
My point was that Barca's history is greater than United's, yet you claimed that United has been a "big club" for longer than Barca. Also, you are changing your argument from your original description of "big club" to "world's best team". Those are not the same, the latter is more exclusive. I am pretty sure that wen Stoichkov, Rivaldo, and Laudrup were are Barca the team was not too shabby.
there are tons of big clubs, galatassaray, celtic, rangers, olympiacos are all big clubs.. I'm not changing my argument just put it on the correct context and stop nit picking. You know exactly what I meant. And great Barca had all of those players.. and they won La Liga.. wooopededooo
Guigs is also selectively applying a selective standard just for Man U -- domestic success. Throughout history, Real has been the dominant club. Barca has been the second best most of that time in Spain. So you would need to consider that when you are looking at domestic success. Would Man U have won as many domestic titles if Real were in the EPL, vs getting to play against Liverpool and West Ham?
Yes, plus this extends even to international play. Prior to 1998, only the title holders for each country were allowed to enter what now is the Champions League. Runners up would go to the UEFA Cup and cup winners to the Cup Winners Cup . So being in a league with another great team, Real Madrid, made it hard to win what is now the CL because many times you wouldn't even qualify.
Then you could also say I'm being selective about Bayern right? because I made the same case for them. Or are you disputing just the Man U one?
There are 17 brasilians still active in the quarters more than any none european team. Heck they have only half as many as Spain who have three clubs still active in the competition. Even with three clubs from spain there are only 34 spaniards active in the quarters. German with two teams active have the most with 36 which isnt that much either with two teams in the competition. And I didnt even counted Pepe and Thiago Motta two brasilians that play for other national teams if I wouldve that makes 19 brasilians. And remember a lot of the spaniards and germans in the competition are bench warmers and young local kids that hardly get to play. Same goes for italians, frenchmen and all of the european countries with local clubs still playing. That's not the case with most brasilians. Number of players still active in champions league from each country: Germany 36 Spain 34 Italy 21 Turkey 18 Brasil 17 France 15 Argentina 11 Portugal 7 Chile 5 Uruguay 4 Holland 3 Croatia 2 Mexico 1 USA 1 England 1 Russia 0 I didnt do every country but that alone gives you an idea of how much talent brasil produces. When without having a local club in the competition they have more players than countries with local teams competing like France. Holland a top football country in the world must suck in your eyes because they only have three players. Russia has none and are ranked by #10 in the world by fifa. And of all the teams ranked ahead of brasil by FIFA only Spain, Germany and Italy have more players active in the competition. []__[]
So what you're saying is Brazil produces less talent than Turkey. I think we can all agree with that.
Brazil has over 600 players in Europe as exports Second place in the export business in Europe is France, with about 250. That just kind of tells the talent Brazil has.
That wasnt the point, the point is that brasil still has as much talent as any country out there. The original guy i was replying to was implying that brasil had not talent anymore because of the number of players still active in the champions league. If you go by his reasoning then Holland, Argentina, Uruguay, Russia, France, Portugal and a bunch of other teams suck also and have no shot at world cup 2014. I also forgot about thiago alcantara who is brasilian buts plays for brasil. They produce so much talent that they can afford to donate some players to other countries. []__[]
If thiago felt Brazilian, I would have no qualms with that. He feels Spanish, so he plays for Spain. As far as donating, that's a far fetched arrogant statement. Some years ago Spain was called racist because we had no black players, once a few had the quality for la roja, we are apparently stealing talent from Brazil. Had thiago been playing in brazil, he would of been over hyped as the next iniesta. For the size of brazils population, they are extremely lacking in talented footballers. Just how many brazillians today would you call "world class"?