Well Pele put Santos on the map and Barcelona was already a world renowned club when Messi joined. Also the parameter shifted from the entire world in Pele's time, to exclusively in Europe from the mid 80s till the present day. Basically when a player is good enough to leave an impact on a team in south america they are bought and playing in europe. Barcelona was already an established club so that counts against Messi bringing their name to world football. If you are asking who has a better club career you'd have to say Messi though as his trophy haul is already more impressive. If you are asking who is more important for making their respective teams a household name, then its Pele for Santos (same with Maradona for Napoli).
Personally I would definitely say Messi, however a lot of this was not Pele's fault, for a number of reasons, the first he was not allowed to move to Italy or Spain which would have meant never having a club career that covered Europe's top leagues or playing Europes elite regularly like Messi in CL, also Santos using him as a cash cow and going on so many tours hindered some of Santos home exploits. As a result Pele actually only managed to win the Copa Libertadores twice (Messi on four CL and counting, and this I beleive is much harder to win). A better topic could have been Messi's club career versus Di Stefano maybe?
It's quite hard to compare these two, I think. Back in that era, different countries' leagues basically only had players from their own nation. So if you dominated for you club, you were basically just dominating your country's top talent. And for Pelé, much of his play was in regional leagues, so he was actually usually dominating the top talent of one region of his country. Now, the top leagues/teams have the world's top talents concentrated in them. So if you dominate, especially in the Champions League, you are dominating the world's top talent. So I don't think that Pelé's club achievements compare. His club career just was not against the quality of teams that Messi regularly plays against. To be fair, Pelé also did very well in friendlies against teams outside of Brazil. But those were still just friendlies (even if they were played harder than friendlies today). And even then, the top European teams back then did not quite have the top players concentrated on their roster the way the top European teams do now. So I don't think Pelé did anything for his club that compared to Messi's achievements. But it's a little bit of a tough comparison, because Pelé also largely did not have the opportunity to do anything that matches up to Messi. There was no Champions League. There weren't a few leagues with all the world's best players. It could well be true that Pelé could've done as well as Messi if in the same situation. I am skeptical, because his output in Brazil-wide competition (rather than regional competition) was actually not overly impressive. But it's hard to know. Whether Pelé could've done it or not, though, I don't think his actual club legacy is the same as Messi's, because he simply did not have the opportunity to play competitive matches against the world's best week in and week out like Messi does. In my opinion, Messi is the greatest club player of all time. Di Stefano is perhaps the closest to him, but I think even he is below Messi.
Was Pele not allowed to leave Brazil throughout his entire career? I have seen a number of declarations by him holding that even though he always had offers, his preferred to stay in Brazil as he was very well/comfortable there and did not feel the need to leave (with the constant touring presumably making up for the financial disadvantage of such decision). Which one is the true reason?
I don't really know. I read that he was declared a National Treasure when some European clubs where trying to buy him, so he couldn't leave. But I don't know if that is true.
considering everything, Messi's numbers in club will surpass Pele's I think. who did more and bigger achievements for his club?! Pele. I very doubt Messi would be able to make a show against UCL champions like Pele did to Benfica if Messi was playing in south american team. Pele did it with south american team, he did it against european clubs many times, do you think Messi could have done it?! now, a great moment. Most of Messifans and Maradona fans or Pelehaters use this logic: Pele is an overrated rubbish because he never played in europe, he never played in modern football, football was easier at that times.. none of that squad played in europe before 1963 (which was the year santos won UCL champions), none of them played in modern football. all the players of that squad were overrated rubbishes. contrary, all of Messi's teammates are world class since they played in europe. conclusion: what Messi achieved with world class teammtes was achieved by Pele with overrated rubbish teammates. with this logic, Pele becomes far better. the same goes against Maradona as well: Maradona's teammates were better than Pele's since they played in europe. Pele's teammates were rubbishes since they did not play in europe. they really have great logic.
Pelé's "South American team" included a starting lineup of players that almost all made the World Cup squad of the most dominant NT in the world in that era. They were an absolutely elite team across the board. So it's no surprise that they could beat top European teams (and certainly no surprise that they could beat them in friendlies). Of course, the above brings up the question of whether Pelé could've won tons of European Cups if Santos had been a Europe-based team with all the same players. I think they probably could have. After all, they really did have a stupidly stacked team for that era. But, of course, we'll never know for sure. So Pelé's club legacy simply cannot be the same as Messi's, partially at least because there was no opportunity to equal it.
Pele's club legacy is Santos in Brazil and South America. He does not need to have made it in Europe for it to stand above Messi's. Having said that, I am not sure Pele has a greater club career than Messi anymore, but him doing it in South America does not take away from the legacy.
Oh I agree with that. I didn't mean it had to be in Europe just because Europe is irrationally greater than South America (it's not). But the fact that it was in South America meant that there wasn't any real important continental competition for him to take part in. The Copa Libertadores existed but was new and not taken nearly as seriously as the European Cup. And without a big continental competition, it's hard for Pelé to have competed with Messi's CL legacy.
it was countering those who say "Pele is an overrated rubbish because he never played in europe." like Pele, all of them were playing in america, if not playing in europe or somewhere makes Pele worse and overrated rubbishes, then the rest of that team was worse and overrated rubbishes. I just wanted to show what kind of logic is that. to say "Pele did not play in europe" works against themselves in this example. so, basically, Pele did what he did with 'overrated rubbishes.' (as they assume.) He did not play alongside world class proven stars like Careca, Zola, Xavi, Iniesta, Neri, Neymar. He played with 'overrated rubbishes' only. even in friendlies, he was playing with overrated rubbishes against world class proven stars, against benfica, number 1 team of europe at that time, he was playing with overrated rubbishes. and goes on. Messi do not play with overrated rubbishes who never played in europe.
Pelé didn't play with rubbish teammates. That much is clear from looking at Brazil's World Cup squads in that era. But there's certainly a good argument that many of the teams he played against in the Paulista were rubbish.
The Copa Libertadores was always taken seriously and it's as old as the EC. Some of the Brazilian posters like to claim that their teams did not take it seriously after Santos declined to participate in 66, but they resumed sending their Brasileiro champion in 67 and on. So Pele does have a big continental competition to his credit, just like Messi.
since not playing in europe makes someone (Pele) an overrated rubbish, all of his teammates autamatically become overrated rubbishes cos all of them did not play in europe up untill 63 and may be later as well.. that is the logic which is used against Pele, why not use this logic for everybody?!
NO what he is saying is that Pele not playing in Europe makes him overrated because the OPPOSITION was rubbish, his team mates were not. Not that I agree with him, but that is what he is saying.
I can't say I know a whole lot about how seriously the Copa Libertadores was taken in South America in the 1960s. In fact, I'm not sure I can say much about how seriously the European Cup was taken back then either. My understanding, though, is that the Copa Libertadores was not taken nearly as seriously as, for instance, the Champions League is now. And I think there's perhaps a little more evidence of that than you let on. The tournament only started in 1960 (so it was younger than the European Cup by a bit). Santos didn't just decline to participate in 1966. They also declined to participate in 1967. And all Brazilian teams declined to participate in 1969, as did all the Argentine clubs. Brazilian teams did not participate in 1970. It also seems like Bolivia didn't send a team in 1963, while Venezuela wasn't a part of it until 1964. Columbia did not participate in 1965 or 1966. It's hard for me to dispute people saying it wasn't taken all that seriously when teams/countries consistently started declining to be in it soon after it began. Furthermore, the competition itself only included 9 or 10 teams in the years Santos won. Anyways, if it were the same, Pelé achievements wouldn't exactly look similar anyways. Santos won once, and then won a second time when they were given a bye to the semifinals. They lost in the 1965 semifinals, and either failed to make it or declined to participate every other year. This hardly compares to Barcelona's recent CL record. Hell, Santos only even played 20 Copa Libertadores matches during the course of Pelé's entire career. And he only appeared in 15. It's certainly not the same, regardless of what the reason for it is.
The defending champion were given a bye to the semifinal, those were the rules so it's not valid as an argument against them. It wasn't just Santos, whoever was the winner would begin in the semifinals the following edition. Sure, there was a run of five or so years in the 60s were one nation would not send a team but this is not enough to disqualify the tournament as not being taken seriously - after all, the best team of the competition usually was the winner. In any event, Santos did beat the European champions in the Intercontinental Cup, proving that they were a team of greatness in a global scale. Like I said earlier, I feel that now Messi has surpassed Pele in club achievements, but that's more because of Messi's numerous great seasons at Barca than any downgrading of Santos' success.
I did not mean @lessthanjake , I got his point. I really have seen many people who says "Pele is an overrated rubbish because he never played in europe." I was implying them, not @lessthanjake .
The word "regional" makes everyone think the teams Santos played against were rubbish back in the day. The fact is that nobody knows how tough the league actually was. Barca and Real play "rubbish" teams in La Liga today. What if Pele' had played in Spain and Italy back in the 60s ? Why does that give him more credibility. People are saying those leagues had no rubbish teams just because they were "national" ? Sao Paulo state has always had 4 teams that are typically strong. Sao Paulo, Palmeiras, Santos, Corinthians. That's on par with any national league in Europe. Yes the competition would probably have been tougher for Santos had there been a national league in Brazil in Pele's time including teams from Rio and other states. At the same time, you could probably argue it would have made it tougher than any other league in the world.
I think that's all fair. I think it'd be a little bit hard to say that the Sao Paulo league was definitely worse than a European league was back then. Especially since Brazil was in a golden age, so a Brazil-wide league probably would've been the toughest league in the world at the time. But I do think we can reasonably say that the Sao Paulo league back then was not at the level of top European leagues nowadays. The top few leagues nowadays basically suck up the top talent from the entire world. This is sort of a simplification, but it's almost as if the top four leagues each have ~25% of the world's top players. To me that is clearly superior to a league that only included the top players from one region of one country, even if that country was having a golden era and there were some good teams in the region. It's like if you made a league of only players from Catalonia/Valencia. Spain is producing a golden era of players now, and that league would certainly still have some good teams, but it wouldn't be as good as the current EPL or the actual La Liga. I just don't think there's a real comparison. But, to be fair, I also don't think any league from back then compares, because none of them took the top players from other countries like top leagues do now. So I don't limit this just to leagues that were "regional." It's more of just a difference between eras.
It's probably impossible to compare those 2 leagues. I have to also point out that most of those Spanish Golden generation players play for basically 2 teams. And some of them don't even play in Spain (or haven't for part of their careers) which is the case for Fabregas, David Silva, Cazorla ...
Agreed. I wasn't really trying to make a super direct comparison. Just an analogy. I don't think it's possible for a league made up only of the top players from one country or region to be as good as the top leagues today. And it should be noted that leagues back then are certainly nothing like the Champions League. And given that Pelé barely competed in the Copa Libertadores (the only thing that could possibly be even close to analogous to the current CL), I don't think he competed in competitions that are at the same level as today's players (at the club level at least, obviously). The environment's different. And I don't think this makes a player from back then worse. But I think we should weigh NT performances of players back then more highly than we weight them for current players. Because, back then, NT competition was, by far, the highest level of competition on offer, so it's our best way of seeing how a player would play against the world's very best. Of course, Pelé has an outstanding NT record, so this doesn't hurt him at all. But I think it makes his "club legacy" less than a player today could have, because I just think club play is more important now.
Let's review the honors and the success rate in their clubs: LIONEL MESSI (Barcelona 2004-2019) La Liga (Spain) = 15 played, 10 won = 66% success Copa del Rey (Spain) = 15 played, 6 won = 40% success Super Cup (Spain) = 10 played, 8 won = 80% success UEFA Champions League = 15 played, 4 won = 27% success UEFA Supercup = 4 played, 3 won = 75% success FIFA Club World Cup = 3 played, 3 won = 100% success TOTAL = 62 tournaments played, 34 won = 54.8% success PELE (Santos FC 1957-1974) Campeonato Paulista = 18 played, 10 won = 56% success Campeonato Brasileiro = 15 played, 6 won = 40% success Torneio Rio-São Paulo = 8 played, 4 won = 50% success Copa Libertadores = 3 played, 2 won = 66% success Copa Intercontinental = 2 played, 2 won = 100 % success Supercopa Intercontinental = 2 played, 1 won = 50% success TOTAL = 48 tournaments played, 25 won = 52.1% success Messi has a slight advantage, he has been playing 15 seasons in a TOP team, with Ronaldinho, Etoo, Henry, Xavi, Ibrahimovic, Iniesta, Alves and ultimately with Neymar and Suarez, etc. Pele played fewer tournaments and in the best Santos FC in history (1960-1965) with Pepe and Coutinho, later this club (1966-74) was only a respectable team, as would be the Napoli in the 80s or Valencia FC today. If we review the honors in the national team it is different: LIONEL MESSI (Argentina 2005-2019) FIFA World Cup = 4 played, 0 won = 0% success Copa America = 5 played, 0 won = 0% success TOTAL = 9 Cups played, 0 won = 0.0% success PELE (Brazil 1957-1970) FIFA World Cup = 4 played, 3 won = 75% success Copa America = 1 played, 0 won = 0% success TOTAL = 5 Cups played, 3 won = 60.0% success In the national team, Pelé has a significant advantage, he had the opportunity to play in a TOP team with Garrincha, Didi, Jairzinho, Rivelino, Tostao and Gerson, etc. But it has in its favor, to be the maximum star of that group of stars. Messi did not have such great teammates, but his team had advantages over its rivals, he lost the 2007 Copa America with a B team from Brazil and with Chile, a lower level team than Argentina in 2015 and 2016. Let's review the balance sheet: LIONEL MESSI (2004-2019) Barcelona FC = 62 played, 34 won = 54.8% success Argentina = 9 played, 0 won = 0% success TOTAL = 71 Cups played, 34 won = 48.0% success PELE (Brazil 1957-1974) Santos FC = 48 played, 25 won = 52.1% success Brazil = 5 played, 3 won = 60% success TOTAL = 53 Cups played, 28 won = 53.0% success On the overall balance: Messi has the highest number of honors and Pele a better success rate.
The real face of Messi we see in games with Argentina and not playing with several of the best players of his generation (Eto'o, Ronaldinho, Deco, Henry, Xavi, Iniesta, Alves, Ibra, Alba, Busquets, Neymar, Suarez, Coutinho, now Griezmann etc). Barcelona should have an average of 300 elo rating points above the average opponents, that is a lot. Santos was a TOP team in his day, capable of defeating any team in the world, but that wasn't yet the era of today's superclubs. Santos had fewer internationals in his squad than Barcelona, so less quality to performer. Still, Pele's club carrer is more dominant imo.