• Participation within this 'World Football' is only available to members who have had 5+ posts approved elsewhere.

The biggest club in the premier league

WHO IS IT?

  • Man United

  • Chelsea

  • Liverpool

  • Man City

  • Arsenal

  • Newcastle


Results are only viewable after voting.

There's no way Chelsea are bigger than Liverpool worldwide. It's Liverpool and United probably tied for the two most popular teams in the world imo, sadly. They have tens of millions of fans from all walks of life across all continents, but mostly Asia.
They are a safer bet when it comes to gambling on first penalty awarded or goal ruled out for opposition by VAR.
 

Spurs had a bigger fanbase than Chelsea for 90% of their history, and more trophies.

I still come across a lot more Spurs fans in London than I do Chelsea but there is probably a generational bias to that. I think they are still the second biggest club in London in terms of local fans but worldwide (and maybe nationwide) it's no contest between the two.
Spurs are, historically, miles bigger than Chelsea.

Up to the late 1990s, people need to remember that Chelsea's domestic honours list comprised a single league title, a single FA Cup, and a single League Cup. Yes, they won the 1971 Cup Winners' Cup with their glamourous side from that era - but they were outliers. Spurs, never a great league side themselves, were far more famous and far more significant historically, with two league titles, eight FA Cups, three League Cups, the Cup Winners' Cup, and a UEFA Cup.

The balance of power only started to swing Chelsea's way with Gullit, Vialli, Zola, and Matthew Harding.

Chelsea have, since, gone into a different league - but much of that was tainted Oligarch-powered spivvery.

United are the "biggest" club - the Munich air disaster had a positive upside in that it gave that club incredible sympathy that they were able to convert into support, and they did that by producing their great 1968 side within the decade. Liverpool are, by some distance now, the most successful. Arsenal, long our direct analogues, surpassed us from Wenger onwards. We had more titles than both United and Arsenal at the end of the 1980s. Then Bill Kenwright joined the board...

I can't see us as lower than fourth, despite the dirty money success of City and Chelsea. We are, historically, bigger than both of those clubs, and could reinforce that point under ambitious leadership in the decades to come. Aston Villa are a similar club to us - except their success was largely concentrated in the late 19th and early 20th century. They were never as consistently relevant as us.

Newcastle, West Ham, Leeds, and the rest don't compare historically, though all are fine clubs with some fine past sides.

Sunderland are another big club, but have been irrelevant for longer than Jordan Pickford's arms.
 
Spurs are, historically, miles bigger than Chelsea.

Up to the late 1990s, people need to remember that Chelsea's domestic honours list comprised a single league title, a single FA Cup, and a single League Cup. Yes, they won the 1971 Cup Winners' Cup with their glamourous side from that era - but they were outliers. Spurs, never a great league side themselves, were far more famous and far more significant historically, with two league titles, eight FA Cups, three League Cups, the Cup Winners' Cup, and a UEFA Cup.

The balance of power only started to swing Chelsea's way with Gullit, Vialli, Zola, and Matthew Harding.

Chelsea have, since, gone into a different league - but much of that was tainted Oligarch-powered spivvery.

United are the "biggest" club - the Munich air disaster had a positive upside in that it gave that club incredible sympathy that they were able to convert into support, and they did that by producing their great 1968 side within the decade. Liverpool are, by some distance now, the most successful. Arsenal, long our direct analogues, surpassed us from Wenger onwards. We had more titles than both United and Arsenal at the end of the 1980s. Then Bill Kenwright joined the board...

I can't see us as lower than fourth, despite the dirty money success of City and Chelsea. We are, historically, bigger than both of those clubs, and could reinforce that point under ambitious leadership in the decades to come. Aston Villa are a similar club to us - except their success was largely concentrated in the late 19th and early 20th century. They were never as consistently relevant as us.

Newcastle, West Ham, Leeds, and the rest don't compare historically, though all are fine clubs with some fine past sides.

Sunderland are another big club, but have been irrelevant for longer than Jordan Pickford's arms.
 

Leeds and Sunderland are bigger clubs then, City or Chelsea to my mind.

Neither of the new clubs can buy, history or sporting integrity.

Honestly think almost any club who had to go through the same circumstances as us for the past four years goes down.

We’re too big to go down, even at our consistent lowest and worst.
 
For what it’s worth, I grew up in South London in the 70s/80s and barely knew of any Spurs fans. Arsenal, absolutely and quite a few QPR, but no Spurs. I can’t speak for the rest of London though and I recognise that, historically, Spurs were a much bigger entity than CFC until the last 3 decades. Sadly the common denominator then was Liverpool. Probably 2/3 kids at my schools if asked would say they ‘supported’ them.
 
For what it’s worth, I grew up in South London in the 70s/80s and barely knew of any Spurs fans. Arsenal, absolutely and quite a few QPR, but no Spurs. I can’t speak for the rest of London though and I recognise that, historically, Spurs were a much bigger entity than CFC until the last 3 decades. Sadly the common denominator then was Liverpool. Probably 2/3 kids at my schools if asked would say they ‘supported’ them.
I can remember Man U also being a well-supported club down south in the 80s before they got good again
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Shop

Back
Top