This is very subjective of course and all a matter of opinion so remember nobody is right and nobody is wrong. Just put an argument up for who you think it is or agree with other people about theirs. I don't think it will surprise anyone when I say it's my club, Newcastle United. Before football really took hold in Europe, Newcastle were the dominant force in the world before the first World War, we won 3 league titles in 5 seasons, and reached 5 FA Cup Finals (which was considered equally as important to the league then) in 7 seasons. We were the best supported club then as well. We won our last League Championship in 1927, and our last FA Cup win in 1955 a decade, the third in four years, but since then it's been bleak. In 1969 we won the Fairs Cup/basically the UEFA Cup, but that's one trophy 51 years. We've been to numerous finals since, lost them all, we've came 2nd in the League, had 12 point leads, blew them, it's not difficult to understand why some people think the club is cursed. In terms of a true fan base, some might say this is contencious, Newcastle is probably second to Manchester United in England, certainly in terms of average gates, although in fairness, I believe Newcastle and Arsenal could easily get 70,000 if there was room, Liverpool couldn't. If you look at these facts.... Newcastle are the first and ONLY club in the world to average over 50,000 for top flight and 2nd grade football (56,283 Division Two 1947/8 and 53,839 in Division One 1948/49). - 1906/07 Newcastle were the first club in the world to average over 30,000 for league games - 33,235. - 1946/47 Newcastle were the first club in the world to attract over 1 million for league games. - 1947/48 Newcastle were the first club in the world (along with Arsenal and Man Utd) to average over 50,000 for league games - Newcastle 56,283; Arsenal 54,982; Man Utd 54,890. ...it's hard to argue with the fact that there can't be a more underachieving club than Newcastle United. Presently we're the 10th best supported club in Europe, in terms of average gates, and get one of the highest revenues as a result of this. Only Manchester United and Chelsea have spent more money than us in the last 12 years, and far far more than Arsenal, we've spent £52m in the last 16 months alone just on players (which is probably the most in the world over that period), yet still we're shit. It breaks my heart to say I don't believe we'll ever break this hoodoo, and when you look at smaller clubs in a lot of the above terms, winning Champions Leagues (Porto, PSV, BVB), and domestic championships (Blackburn, Chelsea), it's horrible. We've won 11 major trophies in our history, and clubs like Liverpool have won 50. Do you agree with my view point or can you put a compelling case for another club.
Other- Benfica and Juventus. They may have won titles, but for the amount of times they could have won European titles, they deserve to be on this list.
Tottenham haven't underavchieved in europe in general we've played over 100 games in Europe and have won 3 european trophies Uefa Cup - (1971/72) (1983/84) Cup Winners cup (1962/63) Thats more trophies in Europe than clubs like Arsenal, Everton, Newcastle, Chelsea, Athletico Madrid, Sampdoria, Roma, Bayer Leverkuson, Lazio, Rangers etc... The only time we did underachieve was in the European cup semi-final against Benfica in 61/62. in terms of club sizes the biggest Underachieves in Europe are Barcelona, Man utd, Arsenal, Roma, Juventus, Inter, Benfica and Newcastle
I don't think Juventus have under-achieved at all they won Serie A last season, have more titles than any other Italian club, appeared in 4 CL finals in the last 10 years, all this for a club who can't get over 40,000 for most games, ******** 10 million fans in Italy they aren't real fans. Man Utd and Barcelona for me in terms of prestige and status, are the 2nd and 3rd biggest clubs in the world, and I do agree it's under achievement for them to only have 3 European Cup/CL wins between them. Arsenal have maybe underachieved in Europe considering the players they've had in recent years, but not in England. Benfica have the most Portuguese titles so again I don't see how they've under achieved. I agree with Roma, and Newcastle though, these 3 clubs are in the top 10 spenders in world football and nearly always end up with ******** all, you look at the regular gates the clubs get Roma 48,000 and Newcastle 52,000, it's obvious to see something is not right. Inter to a certain extent have under achieved given the money they spend, but they're regularly in the closing stages of the CL and have a glorious trophy haul in general. If you speak to any Tottenham fan they will tell you they have this massive fan base, and while some might laugh at that, they are a well supported club, and for a major club, certainly one of the top 8 biggest in England 2 league championships isn't good enough. I didn't necessarily mean clubs in European competition by the way, I meant European clubs in general, I thought you would've gathered that.
Why? They won the Champions League in 1997, they've won 3 Budesliga's in recent times, and they only get 70 odd thousand because it's £6 to get in and they've not spent even a fraction of what Newcastle and Roma have. Give reasons please.
I wouldn't put Napoli on that list. They underachieved in the European Cup when Maradona was playing but they did win the 1989 UEFA Cup. Not only that, they're from the south of Italy and southern teams don't get enough recognition so what Napoli has achieved is actually very good. If we are talking the big teams, I'd say Juve, Barca and the Gunners. The first two are very successful domestically, have lots of cash and talent but luck isn't with them in the European Cup / CL. I had also put the Arse there because there has always been a lot of talk about them because of their success rate in the EPL bar this season but they have usually been disappointing in Europe. If we talk about all clubs in general, Roma and Fiorentina top my list. They have had many great players and coaches in their history, passionate fans but luck isn't really with them all the time. For instance, Fiorentina had a great team in the 50s but they only won one Scudetto, in 1956. For the rest of that decade, la Viola had been runners-up three or four times. In Roma's case, they were coached under Capello earlier this decade and in Europe, they didn't play like legitimate contenders. You can contact the Liverpool fans and let them boast about what happened in 1984. Any Roma fan would and should be embarrassed of that performance.
it is the club that has made huge loses in germany it hold all transfer records in germany it is expected from them to challenge bayern and all they can do is finish 6th year in year out but they have cut players salary recently
We've spent more than double what Dortmund have. To the other lad Napoli were Italy's best supported club from 1960 to 1989 and in my opinion other than Newcastle, have the most untapped potential of any club. They need a rich owner to go in there.
Newcastle, Aston Villa, even Nottingham Forest from England given their domestic history...and yes Arsenal included, notwithstanding this year. Barca, Atletico Madrid and Athletic Bilboa from Spain. Napoli, Roma and Lazio (Juve should be much more successful given their resources and domestic success....but we all have theories as to why that happens ). Benfica, Anderlecht, PSG, and PSV (remember, they never made it past the first round of the Champions League until last year). But all this is relative. If you include the old Cup Winners Cup, Uefa Cup and Champions Cup, most of these teams have recorded numerous wins. Just usually not translated to cup success.
Real Madrid. With Ronaldo, Robinho, Beckham, Zidane, Raul, Roberto Carlos, and others, they should not be 3rd in La Liga, 11 points back from Barca. They are underachievers, this season, at least.
I don't know how Roma can be called underachievers after this season. They have one star name on their side (who is injured right now) and have loads of youth players but still managed eleven straight wins. They've beat every big club this season with the exception of Fiorentina.
They have had big owners, the only thing is most of them are connected to la Camorra, which is the Neapolitan mafia. Italy are dominated by the clubs in the north and the only ones who are close to them are the ones from the middle. Of course Napoli had a huge fan base, they are based in the biggest city in southern Italy and they had consistent spells in the Serie A. Bilbao are underachievers. Athletic haven't won La Liga since 1984 and in Europe, they have a dismal record. Their appearance in the 1977 UEFA Cup Final is the only thing worth noting as well as a quarter-final appearance in the 1957 European Cup.
It has to be Inter, because with the money they have and the players they have not won the champions league in donkeys years and the Serie A aswell.
Agree...... they spend untold amounts every pre-season, always try to link themselves to great players (Henry) but have won CL or Scudetto in ages!!!
Barcelona. Huge stadium, tons of glory hunting fans, countless domestic titles, and less European cups than Notts Forest.
In terms of the talent that they have, and the amount of success in their domestic league, to me FC Barcelona are the biggest underachivers.
When discussing Man Utd during threads of this nature, everyone should remember the events of Munich before coming to a judgement. That event destroyed any chances of early European Cup triumphs and is often forgotten when examining our European record.
But since we've all been hearing that Man. United is the "biggest club" in the world for more than 15 years, you have to say that one way or another, Fergie has European regrets. Definately not the biggest underachievers, but underachievement nevertheless. p.s. Ever since the demise of the Cup Winners Cup and watering down of the Useless (errrr Uefa) Cup, Id say the richer clubs have gotten richer off the Champions League and the midler clubs have not really made any leaps to the elite, bar Chelski (and that's because of uber rich man Abramovich). So, for any set year that this discussion should start from, I'd say the year 1999, since that was the last year the Cup Winners Cup was awarded and all domestic cup winners would enter the Uefa Cup. If you think about it, the old Uefa cup merged with the Champions Cup to become the Champions League, and the Cup Winners Cup, which never had the quality teams of the other two competitions, reverted to the present Uefa Cup, as far as quality of the teams entering the competition. I'd set the 99-00 season to now to judge which club is truly the biggest underachiever in Europe. And for that...I couldnt agree more that Inter, with the amount of spending Moratti has done over the years, has to be THE "winner".