Maybe I phrased it incorrectly.
I don't think Liverpool are as big or as attractive as Manchester United, the two Spanish giants, and arguably not even Bayern too. And they're only more attractive than the Italian big 3, because of the significant financial superiority. And let's be honest, both Arsenal and Chelsea can beat them to a signing most times, even if the two London clubs aren't going through a successful period at the time. But on paper, they should be at least a top 5 biggest club, with a lot of players even outside the British Isles dreaming to play for them, because of the 6 CL titles and all the domestic honours.
However, what many people might not consider important, but it's crucial IMO , is that they won 80% of their major trophies just before football become a global phenomenon in the 90s, and it has been growing ever since. In this era of the last ~35 years, they only had 1 really good era, which lasted around 5 years: from 2017 until 2022. And even in those years, their "pull" was massively boosted by Klopp as undoubtedly one of the best managers in the world, who most players would love to work with.
Coincidentally, United became ultra-successful exactly in that period, and started a 21 year long era of dominance at the perfect time. That's why the club that knocked Liverpool off their perch, but has fewer CL titles, has a bigger worldwide fanbase, generates more clicks, plays in a bigger stadium, has more money, is able to maintain a larger wage bill if they want to (we've trimmed it quite a bit in the last 24 months, but usually ours is way higher, and I think that will be the case before too long again).
But I don't want to derail this thread to be a United vs Liverpool size comparison discussion, and one of the helping circumstances I just mentioned for Liverpool, actually also applies to United and all the clubs in the league: financial superiority being basically one of the only things making them more attractive than the Italian big three, because the PL has been the de facto Super League for a long time now. I just gave one example where a club in my opinion is the bigger club despite less European trophies, because of how much more successful they've been in the last 35 years, whereas with Liverpool it's the opposite. Also, does anyone think Liverpool would've been able to attain names like Di María, Pogba, Ibrahimovic, Mourinho, Casemiro, Falcao, Schweinsteiger, without CL football? I don't think so, even if it's not their MO anyways. And yes, I know they didn't work out, but that's not the point here. De Ligt is another example. Also some big names with CL football, that I don't believe Liverpool would've had a shot at: Varane, Sancho, Ronaldo, Maguire vs City, Sánchez vs City, Mount vs other English clubs. And funnily enough, Yoro, but that was mostly just a question of finances, however I do think we would've still got him if Liverpool matched our offer.
But what I've just said is obviously also true for many other clubs:
-Barcelona wouldn't be the second biggest club in the world (at least in my opinion) without the golden era of 2006-2015, where they had the greatest player of all time, and a few other all-timer players as well, most of them coming from their own academy, 4 CLs in 9 years, the greatest tactical pioneer of the least 40 years in Pep, etc. so their modern era peak is also crucial for their reputation today.
-Madrid wouldn't objectively be considered as far and away the biggest club in world football, if their CL drought didn't end in 2014, or they only would've won 1 or 2 in the last 11 years instead of 6, and if the Ronaldo era didn't happen, or was much less successful.
-The same goes for Bayern, they got their shit together around 2008/2009 after some bad years, and have been part of the European elite basically every season since than. If that didn't happen, or was a much less successful period, they wouldn't be the giant they are today.
-Atletico wouldn't be where they are either, if they didn't manage to build themselves up to a much bigger club status under Simeone in the last 13-14 years.
-Milan have 3 CL titles and had dozens of legends play for them, forming legendary teams from between the early 90s until the early 2010s. Juventus also really needed the decade of dominance in the 2010s and being the only real Italian threat in Europe. Chelsea being a London club and the 2000s team with Mourinho, Arsenal's late 1990s and early 2000s teams + Wenger, etc.
I only listed these examples to prove that it's not necessarily just my United bias conveniently creating a timeline where Liverpool's most successful era is not that important, whereas the inception of our most successful era is conveniently the period from where achievements start mattering more. All of these clubs needed the modern era success to become what they are today, not just United. And I feel like Liverpool's 1 PL and 1 CL title in 5 years was not enough to elevate them into a top 3/5 club in the world, despite having an all-timer manager and a few all-timer players at the club. If City weren't around, it would've been obviously different, as the post-SAF era in England would've been all about Liverpool and Klopp basically, or at least most of it.
Overall, Slot has a difficult job on his hand because I do believe most Liverpool fans believe they are a bigger club than they are in reality, and the finances aren't there either to compete with United, City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Madrid, Bayern, PSG, and maybe Barca eventually as well.
Sorry for the long post, it basically just agrees with yours and expands on it a little bit
Damn, bro. That's some serious effort in response to my lazy shitting on Liverpool. Respect.
