Yes so I see, the EPL isn't exactly lacking in quality, I think the two 'big' Spanish teams are better teams than any in the EPL right now though. The EPL is however pure drama there really is no 'easy game' (although Sunderland are doing their utmost to be different this season), the so called big clubs at the top are regularly getting beaten by so called minnows, there is a close 'parity' between the clubs in the EPL, I think City, Spurs, Arsenal, Chelsea, United, Liverpool and Everton all have a realistic chance of winning the league this season (I do hope its Chelsea), and although I believe there are two teams in Spain, one in Germany, one in France and one in Italy that (arguably) are currently better than the English teams the fact that Liverpool won the Champions League when only finishing 5th in the Premiership while Chelsea won the Champions League while only finishing 6th in the Premiership shows that there is still quality there, I'm not sure if any clubs in any other leagues have won the Champions League whilst finishing in such a lowly position in their national league?
Did you leave out all Real Madrid games including pre-Mourinho? Or Rijkaard's Barca knocked out by United? It would help the cause if you included them. Another typo, I assume, as you said you left them out. In the end it's a cup tournament where fluke results can happen. And have. Replays are few and far between. And they don't really take the League Cup too seriously until it reaches, perhaps, the quarterfinals. Spain may have a thirteen day winter break but it's followed immediately with two-legged Copa del Rey ties. January/early February is non-stop with weekend / mid-week play. More profitable, I agree. More important? Not convinced. I would think any club in England would be proud of successfully defending the Europa League. Ferguson's United has absolutely nothing to do with the status of today's Premier League, which is what the opening post talks about. Different thread, different topic. Too many limitations to attempt to boost the status of today's Premier League clubs in Europe... or discredit the strength of La Liga clubs. Aw, poor Puck got offended again because his methods were challenged so he resorts to the only method he knows: By attacking the poster. And yet I still love you. Puck.
Real Madrid in 2000. They finished fifth in La Liga that season. And unlike their English counterparts five years later, the RFEF abided by the UEFA statutes that were in place at the time and selected one club (in this case, holders Real Madrid) over another (fourth place Real Sociedad) to enter the 2000-01 Champions League since no more than four clubs from any one league were allowed to participate in Europe's prestigious tournament. It was an expected decision that wouldn't be respected and appreciated until five years later when "the most popular league on the planet" bitched and moaned about UEFA's rules/format enough that they were able to get one club over the maximum into the 2005-06 tournament.
The less is said about your shitty debating tactics the better but there were only two 'limitations': Champions League only and leave out the two teams everyone knows are better. That is not 'many'. Instead of addressing what is a better starting point (one loss since 2007 in 21 ucl matches) you showcase a sad and pathetic type of agressiveness from the start. Discrediting La Liga is ultimately something the league themselves will do on the long term. Matter of time and journalists willing to expose (cf. Serie A). I guarantee you this and then they will sitting crying in the corner together with Tebas, Villar and their Iberian and South American lemmings & conspirators alongside. That is however not the point. The point is that "better league" depends on where one is looking at.
@PuckVanHeel That your theory places relevance on Liverpool slaughtering Real Madrid in the Champions League seven years ago while totally ignoring Liverpool knocking out Villarreal in last season's Europa League in helping to determine which league is 'better' today suggests that I'm not the one who needs to back away from this thread.
Problem is here, leaving RM & FCB out, thats like leaving 2 of the top performing English sides out each season and then doing the comparison. Things look a lot worse for PL clubs when you move the date closer and include say last 5 years, other then Chelsea and a pretty fortunate 2012 victory the results are poor in CL, also they have not met or had the chance to even meet the top two, i.e 12-13, Malaga got the the last 8, by then all English clubs were out and they did not meet any en route, same with Atletico Madrid in 14-15 reaching quarters and then reaching final in 15-16, and they beat Chelsea en route in 13-14. Add in Real Madrid and Barca and things are considerably more lop sided.
I'd say that this depends on the idea one likes to investigate. If the idea is that the top English teams have a solid chance to win against the numbers 3-5 of Spain (or 4-5) then it is a proper inclusion. I agree that this is a good point and head-to-head results are not perfect. You don't make life easier when you lose against Basel or against Panathinaikos. English clubs have also a terrible record against RM and FCB compared to a Borussia or PSG even. With Arsenal on top of the pile (vs Bayern too). Still, English teams in poor shape couldn't always escape the Spanish teams. Chelsea in 2011-12 was in bad shape and they drew (1-1) and won (3-0) against Valencia. They finished 6th in the league and had the lowest points total since 2001. Manchester United was in 2013-14 in a terribly bad shape (under Moyes) finishing 7th. They won at home and drew away against Basque club Real Sociedad. Finally, Manchester City in 2015-16. They had the lowest points total since 2009 (finished 4th), were below their best throughout the season but beat Sevilla 2-1 at home and then won 1-3 away. At a stretch you might also count 2013-14 Chelsea which had hardly a world class player at that point and that is when they lost 1-3 to Atletico Madrid (after a 0-0 draw). Since 2011-12 the record is 6W, 3D and 1L (goal diff. 16 for - 7 against) in UCL matches against Spanish teams bar FCB and RM. The three draws include two 0-0 games and one 1-1 match.
Seems to me people aren't discussing the 'best league in the world' rather who currently has the 'best' club teams which is a different thing altogether (I hasten to add that it might not be Spain that has the best club teams anyway! There are also German, English, Italian and French clubs that can claim to be 'the best' right now). The best league has other things as well as the quality that makes it 'the best', it needs full stadiums, strong teams top to bottom so that the competition is 'tight', entertaining football and a bit of 'blood and guts' too (can't stand the way some players 'roll around' the floor, which happens in some leagues more than others), in other words in needs to be 'entertaining' which is after all the name of the game! The EPL scores high in all of these. At the end of the day 'the best' football league is going to be the one that is the most popular, the one that people want to watch above all others, perhaps we should see which league attracts the most 'eyeballs' worldwide for our answer, this is by far the best way to measure which is 'the best'.
This is an argument fans of the Premier League always make. There's no question that the Premier League is the most popular. It's been this way as far back as I can remember. I would even bet that the old First Division/EPL had higher TV ratings worldwide over Serie A during the late-80s/early 90s, a time when Serie A was clearly the best league on the planet. Anyone who's of the mind that "popularity = best" should have a look at past Ballon d'Or results.
I'm not claiming this makes it the best but there are 4 teams in the PL with odds of 13/2 or shorter to win the league at present. Then Spurs and United are 20/1 and 28/1 respectively. Not sure but I doubt any other major league can compare with that.
What does Ballon dor (whatever that is) have to do with it? Are you once again mixing up 'best teams' with the best league again? Popularity IS the best way to measure what is the 'best league', in fact its the only way, to be the best league you have to have a lot of ingredients in place that makes it the league that people want to watch the most and the league that the TV companies are prepared to pay the best prices to show.
By that token Coronation Street is the 'best' programme on TV or Candle in the Wind is the 'best' song ever. Popularity doesn't necessarily equate to quality.
It's the best way for you because it's a convenient argument. The Premier League does a great job of promoting itself, and even when Manchester United won 8 of 11 titles the league still drew in the most eyeballs. I agree that many ingredients are needed to determine which is "best" but there will always be debate. The Bundesliga consistently tops the big leagues in both attendance and average goals per match. And it stands to reason that the best league would include the best teams, which are currently in La Liga based on European results. In the late 2000s EPL fans claimed their league to be the best and pointed to the Champions League semifinals in 2008 and 2009 as proof. I would argue that many watch the EPL because the clubs have familiar names due to their rich long histories. They also do a lot of pre-season touring overseas to help promote the product. But being the best at promotion doesn't equate to making their league "the best".
The English language makes the Premier League (resp. First Division in the past) much more accessible internationally than all other European leagues.
Also it is marketed far better than any other league. The PL has international feeds of high quality via IMG, produce good magazine shows and are better at branding. Games are scheduled at sensible times and are scheduled a long way in advance. By and large the referees are quite consistently good. All that stuff counts. The English language magazine programmes of the Bundesliga and Serie A are very poor. They sound like someone has used Google translate to convert them from the original so they are riddled with expressions that mean nothing in England and the voice over is stilted. That harms them in terms of international exposure. The Spanish league suffers from poor scheduling, poor referees and a generally haphazard organisational structure. Moreover the PL has far more international players and so appeals to fans of every country because there is a good chance that your own favourite countryman is playing there.
Citing Ballon d'Or always was (I'm not saying it is 'now' but say in earlier decades) very flawed. Not the least because of block voting and the First Division players 'suffered' from playing in tactically astute teams. The perception was always that the First Division was less individual oriented, and this provided a deduction to the Liverpool players at the time. What happened is that the mastery of the then-modern pressing game, a mild offside trap, and the back four movement worked against the individual players playing there (see e.g. the Keegan-Dalglish swap and domestic + international valuation). This is probably not true today, but I'm very sure it was at the time, and some voters applied this logic. The 1984EC final was in many previews billed as "the stars versus the team". Always a nice narrative.
Popularity IS a way to measure 'the best', people choose to watch the EPL for a reason. It's not even like its a close run thing, at the end of the day people can choose which football league to watch and people overwhelmingly choose the EPL, language has nothing to do with it. If anybody can think of a 'better' way to measure the best league I would be interested to hear it. Football is about 'entertainment' and (arguably) it might not have the best teams but the EPL is the most entertaining. If Spain wants to 'catch up' and attract the eyeballs and therefore the cash cow that is TV money its going to have to change its focus from just stuffing two teams full of world superstars to making its league more competitive.
Some of it is beyond the control and capabilities of the league. The economic crisis has generated some deep holes. Not at the very top, but below the top three it has certainly done so. Without a massive cash injection by the government the league had ceased to exist. Also: actively trying to compete and win the Europa League is an exposure and eyeballs strategy too. The top teams still serve a gigantic Spanish-speaking market (and Portuguese speaking for that matter), which sponsors as Nike have noticed recently again. And the eyeball-savvy UEFA too.
I'd say that's quite a narrow way of looking at it. Popularity might be a way of gauging the "best" but it's not the only way by any means. For me the big point in favour of the PL is the wealth of the lesser teams and the competitive balance in place among the top sides.
At the end of the day its all subjective, why not enjoy all the leagues (like many do), I'll say one thing league football from any league is generally far more entertaining than its international counterpart.
Responding to the first thing I underlined, one thing that makes me watch the EPL is that the club names are in English, and a higher percentage of the players are from English-speaking countries than for the other top leagues. I don't mean that out of prejudice. It's just simpler to not have to learn pronounciations. I also didn't get Gol TV (which had La Liga and the Bundesliga then) when I became a Manchester United fan. Responding to the second thing I underlined, top clubs and leagues competing against each other in the Champions League is a reason why a top soccer league would never make a salary cap like some American leagues have. If you were in charge of La Liga, would you want Barcelona, Real Madrid, and Atletico Madrid to get closer to the rest of the La Liga clubs if it meant those clubs doing worse in the Champions League? In any top league, the three most popular clubs will have way more than 3/20ths (or 3/18ths for the Bundesliga) of the fans of a club in that league. I don't like how many goals Barcelona, Real Madrid, and to a lesser extent Atletico Madrid are able to score, but would making the clubs more equal increase the popularity of La Liga? Are there people who don't watch La Liga who would become fans of Real Sociedad or Las Palmas if Barcelona, Real Madrid, and Atletico Madrid were closer to the pack? It depends. I don't want to watch Germany dominate San Marino, but there are some surprises in national team games like Georgia beating Spain (albeit in a friendly), Iceland qualifying for Euro 2016 with a low population, and Trinidad and Tobago qualifying for World Cup 2006 with a low population. In October 2013, Portugal only got a draw at home in a World Cup Qualifier against Israel, who is now 79th in the FIFA Rankings. That let Russia, who is now 53rd in the FIFA Rankings, win the group. Portugal beat Sweden to qualify for World Cup 2014, but were eliminated in the Group Stage. Then they won Euro 2016. National teams can change quickly.