That is easy though, there is no way they could have failed that. I am not sure what they could have done where this wouldn't have happened.
Are PSG a failed project?
- Thread starter Nani Nana
- Start date
If we take out 'title points' which is nothing to do with recent performance, it does squeeze the table up. PSG move ahead of Liverpool and Chelsea into 7th, and would only be 9 points behind Barcelona.
It does emphasise that the more recent Galactico-heavy strategy has been less successful than the other designs of the team over the last decade.
I think what’s funny is that at no time they had a squad that was even close to featuring players complimenting each other in every position. They just overspent on offence and brought in defenders and midfielders as water carriers. All their teams have been incredibly uneven.
As much as it pains me to admit, you compare them to City and the success that they've had based on similar takeovers and funding, I don't think you can call it anything short of a failure.
They've won Ligue 1 multiple times obviously but outside of that (definitely not the best league in Europe) and they've not exactly been top competitors given the talent in that squad. Hell, one of our very average teams booted them out of the CL a few years ago.
They've won Ligue 1 multiple times obviously but outside of that (definitely not the best league in Europe) and they've not exactly been top competitors given the talent in that squad. Hell, one of our very average teams booted them out of the CL a few years ago.
Before Neymar-Mbappe, it was pretty solid. 2015-2016 team :
Trapp
Aurier - Thiago Silva - David Luiz - Maxwell
Verratti - Motta - Matuidi
Di Maria - Ibrahimovic - Cavani
2 league titles, 9 podium appearances besides, 1 win in C2 (and appearing in the final the year after, semi the year before), 1 CL semi in 94/95. Arguably the second most successful French club on the European level behind OM and its CL win (+ C3 final). Though France always underperformed historically there.
Second most popular club in France still before QSI's arrival (behind OM again), Lyon being the only team entering that conversation in the 2000s.
I think the choice of France was driven by larger considerations, Gulf monarchies were less common as public facing actors as they seem to have been in the UK (for colonial and post-colonial reasons). Talk among PSG fans back during the transition from Colony to QSI speculated a lot about the real estate in and around the stadium. The Parc des Princes is sitting in one of the wealthiest districts of the city (much to the annoyance of locals), nearby Roland-Garros.
Paris is also obviously a lot more lucrative, glamourous, visible, marketable and central (besides sitting at the heart of one of Europe's most important countries) than most cities. More importantly it could be captured, football-wise & unlike London, just through PSG.
I think Paris, besides specifically targeting France on a charm offensive for massive increased economic exchanges, offered the most returns with the most guarantees. The French top league sits in a weird space where it should be part of a top 5 by virtue of the funds and size but -as been noted- is competing performance wise with Portugal and the Netherlands at the club level (and European legacy, where you could add Belgium as a contender).
Yes, in hindsight, being a whale in a pond may be holding them back. The price to compete with them long term in Ligue 1 would be now so prohibitive it's doubtful it will happen. Marseille and Monaco are the two places that could be attractive to billionaires but OM has its own shares of systemic issues.
I do think however there were sensible, genuine arguments to choose the path of least resistance over the Premier League. Avoiding direct competition with other Gulf states which may have been too overtly political and interfered with the sportwashing aspect. Too crowded with competition in general and rife with potential failure... QSI was not entering the game to be another Fulham, Everton or Leicester. I think being a perennial Champion's League contender is more valuable to QSI than struggling for or below the British top 6.
It also boiled down to timing and opportunity : Colony Capital bought PSG in 2008 ostensibly to flip it at a profit. Not sure there was a comparable, suitable PL club available in that period.
Last edited:
No they aren't a failure. Unless failure means "have not won the CL", in which case they have plenty of company across Europe (in terms of resources spent).
I wouldn't say failed but they are not a success either.
I thought they were really good in the Blanc and Ancelotti days. While they didn't win the CL it at least seemed like the players there cared for the shirt. Yes they were being pumped with loads of money for playing there but back then you felt like Ibrahimovic, Cavani, Silva, Motta, Matuidi, Marquinhos all represented PSG as if they cared about it. They played beautiful football too.
Since Neymar has been there that's when I feel like the culture of mercenaries and spoilt brat behaviour has taken over PSG. I think they've failed since the Neymar era purely because the return on all the huge investment has been poor and the emotional ties with the fans has deteriorated.
The pre Neymar era players might have been mercenaries too but they gave a feck and you wouldn't have known by how they played on the pitch.
I thought they were really good in the Blanc and Ancelotti days. While they didn't win the CL it at least seemed like the players there cared for the shirt. Yes they were being pumped with loads of money for playing there but back then you felt like Ibrahimovic, Cavani, Silva, Motta, Matuidi, Marquinhos all represented PSG as if they cared about it. They played beautiful football too.
Since Neymar has been there that's when I feel like the culture of mercenaries and spoilt brat behaviour has taken over PSG. I think they've failed since the Neymar era purely because the return on all the huge investment has been poor and the emotional ties with the fans has deteriorated.
The pre Neymar era players might have been mercenaries too but they gave a feck and you wouldn't have known by how they played on the pitch.
Don’t agree. Trapp is too bad. Aurier is also too bad. Luiz is too bad. The midfield lacks diversity and Cavani doesn’t belong wide. Uneven team.
City's CL record was worse than PSG until three years ago but I don't think the consensus was that their project was a failure; just that they needed to improve in the CL.
It wasn't the consensus but there was a sizeable group who held that opinion until May this year.
Yes
I think they made a mistake in not allowing players to leave when they wanted to. Neymar, Verratti, Mbappe.
I think this never works out in the long run.
Hard for any team outside Big 4 (England, Spain, Italy amg Germany) to win the CL nowadays. In past 25 years, only Mou's Porto has done it.
The league quality is an important factor, but the Gakacticos-lite transfer style coupled with ego-pleasing laissez faire management style only encourages failure.
The league quality is an important factor, but the Gakacticos-lite transfer style coupled with ego-pleasing laissez faire management style only encourages failure.
I think it's been so publically known for such a long time that the goal is to win the Champions League. As such in the most direct terms yes it has failed to this point.
They have become somewhat culturally significant though and so they have served some purpose to the softening view in the west regarding their ownership.
Mixed bag really.
They have become somewhat culturally significant though and so they have served some purpose to the softening view in the west regarding their ownership.
Mixed bag really.
I think it was widely recognized that lack of CL success diminished the extent of City's overall success, and also winning Premier League was obviously deemed as a much more meaningful feat than winning Ligue 1.
The last bit is kind of hard to consider as an achievement when comparing both, as PSG can't win the Premier League and City can't win the Ligue 1.
With only the CL as an indicator and considering similar timeframes (as City 's project is 3 years older than PSG), there is no big difference between them. Of course, City's last season treble blew everyone out of the water. But if we move 3 years before that, the one that had succeeded in getting to the final was PSG.
Last edited:
Yes and no. They certainly failed to reach the goals they were aiming for, like winning the CL.
But there have been other ambitious owners and projects at PSG before and they all failed miserably, and Paris was a laughing stock in french football for the first 40 years of its existence until Qatar arrived. So turning the club into the biggest club in France is still a win.
Most importantly, as someone who lives in Paris for over 20years, there has been a huge change with how people look at the club. Before Qatar, you'd never see a PSG jersey while walking the streets of Paris, the only ones who used to wear ones were kids in the suburbians ghettos. You'd be mocked if you wore one, you'd mostly see OM jerseys, even Nantes jerseys were more common than PSG's. Now most of the kids and a lot of adults around here wear PSG stuff and supporting PSG is not seen as something negative anymore.
But there have been other ambitious owners and projects at PSG before and they all failed miserably, and Paris was a laughing stock in french football for the first 40 years of its existence until Qatar arrived. So turning the club into the biggest club in France is still a win.
Most importantly, as someone who lives in Paris for over 20years, there has been a huge change with how people look at the club. Before Qatar, you'd never see a PSG jersey while walking the streets of Paris, the only ones who used to wear ones were kids in the suburbians ghettos. You'd be mocked if you wore one, you'd mostly see OM jerseys, even Nantes jerseys were more common than PSG's. Now most of the kids and a lot of adults around here wear PSG stuff and supporting PSG is not seen as something negative anymore.
Failed project, nah, they are fine.
The takeover was shady, the operations are shady. I think the shady objectives have been met.
They've succeeded in that.
They've succeeded in that.
The very definition of successful sportswashing.
A failed project? How? They produced the best reaction meme of all time! Money well spent.
Last edited:
Neither
Clearly not a failed project as they have gone from an average French team to perennial champions and global sporting brand - business wise they have invested big money but would recoup it all if they chose to sell so its been a good deal on that perspective too. On the geopolitical side, Qatar are surely happy with what they have got from their investment.
They probably need a better boardroom to get to the very top and I hope they never do, but even a CL Final is a success of sorts for a club that historically didnt even expect to be in it - Man City are the obvious comparison and they only just won the CL eventhough they are few years ahead in development.
BTW Luis Enrique is hardly an underwhelming name
Ran out of posts yesterday 
I'm not saying that, but those factors do provide important context about the extent of that achievement on a purely sporting basis.
Bayern Munich's dominance of the Bundesliga is a more impressive feat than PSG's dominance of Ligue 1. But you'll also find that Bayern's own fans aren't particularly happy with their performance in the Champions League over recent seasons.
I wasnt really talking about the sportswashing part of the project, but since you bring it up and that was the initial Qatari goal when they bought the club, it has failed in that regard, I dont think PSG has helped enhance or improve Qatar's reputation in any way, if anything it probably decreased it because of their european failure compared to their investments. Last year World Cup, despite all the previous criticism, probably helped them hundred times more when it comes to that.
Not at all. They're a luxury sports brand now. Football success is in many ways, secondary. Not to mention it's helped the profile of the gulf states tremendously.
Since the takeover they've won Ligue 1 nine times, and Coupe de France and Coupe de la Ligue six times each. They're the most successful French club in terms of domestic trophies, and are basically the only French club that do anything in the Champions League.
I imagine they'll have expected at least one CL by now, but I don't think anyone considered City a failed project before last season's successes, and until then their European record wasn't too dissimilar to PSG's.
I'd have thought the main objectives have been achieved. There are kids all over the place wearing PSG shirts now and they're considered among the European elite nowadays, particularly among younger fans of the sport.
I imagine they'll have expected at least one CL by now, but I don't think anyone considered City a failed project before last season's successes, and until then their European record wasn't too dissimilar to PSG's.
I'd have thought the main objectives have been achieved. There are kids all over the place wearing PSG shirts now and they're considered among the European elite nowadays, particularly among younger fans of the sport.
How is PSG gaining more fans in France, sportswashing?
They failed their A-Levels but passed their GCSEs. So not a complete failure.
I would slightly deviate from some of the details of your account but will not disagree with the wider point.
I don't think PSG was that unpopular in Paris proper, there always were a certain number of celebrity fans ever since the founding in 1970. It's fair to say that it was contained to a bubble of football enthusiasts that didn't penetrate very far into the wider public.
Certainly PSG had an erratic history of results and a perennial wealthy loser label stuck to it, with the "Autumn crisis" becoming a regular yearly fixture for punditry. The club was associated with violence from ultras and had a bad image especially in the 90/00.
While I feel PSG was disproportionately targeted by debates over this matter and the issue piggybacked by certain politicians (Sarkozy, notably)... There's no denying a number of tragic incidents including some fatalities and racist clashes happened around the Parc and needed addressing.
The most tangible policy of the short Colony Capital ownership was neutering ultras, the kops and gentrify the stadium attendance. Cleaning up the product for Qatar in a way.
The historic fans didn't like it but in the long run, after a period of many years, the Parc went back to being a loud crowd. It's much, much more "family friendly" and inviting to affluent inner city casuals. The people living at Porte d'Auteuil probably still hate it though
QSI completely shed the loser image and made PSG a very effective marketing vehicle, with players wearing the colours being used to sell hotel all inclusive formulas, car rentals or body spray on national TV. Probably wouldn't have happened 12 years ago.
This is a question I ask myself. Hypothetically speaking, if QSI had acquired a club of the history of a Manchester United, of if Jassim wins it, will they acknowledge that United can do the marketing side of exposure for themselves? Will they see that United just needs help with facilities and modernising the infrastructure.
Yes the possible new owners will contribute to the business aspects, but the club needs to be strong on the pitch in a very competitive division. When I think of this perspective, it does place my mind in the position of the Glazers. Joel and Avram,are perhaps aware of this and therefore believe that they can get an offer of £6 billion plus.
From a legacy perspective, PSG needed to win the Champions League before the 2022 World Cup. I think the Qatari's are aware that the World Cup has now been and gone and supporters have short memories. In order to stay relevant (particularly against Saudi Arabia) they need a club that is competing at the highest level against other teams that represent fierce competition.
The problem is they do not want to be seen overpaying. They have apparently been ripped off with other business and property deals, and as it has already been mentioned players like Sergio Ramos have taken them to the cleaners.
I honestly believe they will acquire a club if United does materialise and I believe that will club will be Spurs.
PSG is not a failure. They have had some good team's and of course some great individual players. They have played in some memorable matches. They probably reach a final if they had not blown it against Real Madrid the season before last. The problem is that Lique 1 does not offer a strong platform for a continuing "project'.
Good moments this, bad moments that, ulterior motives and, oh my God, how difficult life is when you're a big fish in a small pond, blah-blah...
They have spent more than a billion Euros to buy the status they lack, and all they have managed thus far is to turn from a middling club that aspires to become a big club to a circus pretending to be a big club.
They reside in a region blessed with football talent, and their best products leave to make their careers elsewhere in Europe. When you try to find signs of success, you look for things that have substance. If Qatar left tomorrow, without proper planning, PSG would return to the midtable positions in a blink of an eye. That's what all this money has bought them.
They have spent more than a billion Euros to buy the status they lack, and all they have managed thus far is to turn from a middling club that aspires to become a big club to a circus pretending to be a big club.
They reside in a region blessed with football talent, and their best products leave to make their careers elsewhere in Europe. When you try to find signs of success, you look for things that have substance. If Qatar left tomorrow, without proper planning, PSG would return to the midtable positions in a blink of an eye. That's what all this money has bought them.
Unironically, me and my cousin used to call PSG "the club where Ronaldinho played" when playing the old Winning Eleven in PlayStation like 20 years ago, as we didn't know much about PSG back then except that they were a french club. Plus we didn't have internet at home yet to just Google the history of football clubs as most people do nowadays when they want to know about football clubs from around the world.
PSG indeed was a massive success in marketing the club worldwide, I see PSG t-shirts everywhere, both replica and original.
Yes, because there was more in for us during that period and it often were the "small" things we lacked or circumstances like injuries of key players influenced that. There was a lot more in for us than just this two titles since 2010.
What I do not like is the arguments sometimes? It is like - if PSG loses it is the lack of competition in the league - and if they win it is that they can rest at the weekends because that lack of competition... People turn it the way they want it to be.
Don't they have more money than God. If so, then yeah its a failed project.
Definitely don't think their teams from first half of the 90s were a laughing stock. Look at the back to back results in Europe: Uefa cup, Cup-winners cup and Champions League semi-finalists; then cup winners cup winners and finalists. They put Real Madrid out twice. Beat Bayern home and away , then Barca and were only undone in a tight semi-final when Savicevic had one of his unplayable days. Only one league title, but a few second places where they were competing with Tapie's Marseille, who were at the time one of the big spending, very elite European teams; easily able to slug it out with Milan.
I think you could argue they were far closer to being one of the better teams in Europe during that time than a badly performing joke side. Some top players in there that would have held/fought for places in the Qatari teams like Ricardo Gomes, Valdo, Rai, Weah, Ginola, Djorkaeff, Lama
I'm just glad they didn't get their hands on United. It would have been dreadful watching us be run in the same manner as PSG, a real clown show.
Not to diminish the quality of those teams but at the time the club was owned and bankrolled by broadcaster Canal+ who was using football as a major argument for subscriptions, I believe they had exclusive rights to the league already and shared rights for the CL. They largely contributed to building the PSG-OM game as a big event.
It's several scales of magnitude below what QSI is doing. The favouritism, if any, was fairly mild especially by today's standard. They never crushed the league financially. Just saying that to enlighten that PSG is both a young club and was, for large parts of his history, what people call "plastic". The historical jersey pattern, adopted in the mid-70s, was designed by haute couture creature (and then PSG president) Daniel Hechter : Being an insufferable, hip, rich club residing in one of the prosperous cities of the world is the DNA.
Not in the slightest. It took each of Chelsea and City, teams trying to win their first UCL 8-11 years win the first one. I don't get why folks are so insistant on holding PSG to a different standard yet they are even trying that task from a far harder surrounding to pull it off from. A none top 4 league. They are literally kings on the domestic front, bayern style, so the failure tag is laughably disingenous