The relative strength of the Premier League

[Iker Quesadillas]

To be clear: I think the PL is currently the strongest league. I just think people exaggerate the strength of the league and the gap between the PL and other leagues, and exaggerate the outcomes of that strength.

I don't need to go far to find examples. Here is one from page 100 of the thread:

Then West Ham beat bloody Sevilla who is 4th in the league whilst West ham is our conference league team

This comment was made in May. It is now January and both West Ham and Sevilla are in the relegation zone. Does that mean La Liga and the PL are now more evenly matched? Probably not.

 

[ThierryHenry14]

To be clear: I think the PL is currently the strongest league.

The issue is money talks.

Clubs prefer to sell their best players to EPL because they can sell for more money, except Real/Barca/PSG/Bayern.

Agents prefer to offer their clients to EPL clubs because they can receive higher agent fee, except Real/Barca/PSG/Bayern.

Players prefer to play in EPL because of higher salary (3x more compared with la Liga) except Real/Barca/PSG/Bayern.

Real/Barca/PSG/Bayern total only has 44 starting spots.

It will get more worse if the financial gap keep getting wider.

 

[Zehner]

The issue is money talks.

Clubs prefer to sell their best players to EPL because they can sell for more money, except Real/Barca/PSG/Bayern.

Agents prefer to offer their clients to EPL clubs because they can receive higher agent fee, except Real/Barca/PSG/Bayern.

Players prefer to play in EPL because of higher salary (3x more compared with la Liga) except Real/Barca/PSG/Bayern.

Real/Barca/PSG/Bayern total only has 44 starting spots.

It will get more worse if the financial gap keep getting wider.

I think what it comes down to is the pareto principle. Just because you spend thrice the money doesn'tean you're thrice as good.

But yeah, it will only get worse. And that's due to the system. It was always going to end this way.

 

[cyberman]

The issue is money talks.

Clubs prefer to sell their best players to EPL because they can sell for more money, except Real/Barca/PSG/Bayern.

Agents prefer to offer their clients to EPL clubs because they can receive higher agent fee, except Real/Barca/PSG/Bayern.

Players prefer to play in EPL because of higher salary (3x more compared with la Liga) except Real/Barca/PSG/Bayern.

Real/Barca/PSG/Bayern total only has 44 starting spots.

It will get more worse if the financial gap keep getting wider.

Why big players are those clubs signing these days?

 

[cyberman]

Except it’s not how it started…

The good results of the last five years are the result of the increased investment in the PL, not the other way around... In 2010/2013 the tv rights of the PL were worth (2,5B domestic and 2,2Bs international)… In January 2016 these figures had jumped to 6,6B and 5,1B… About 60% increase. Only justified by what I explained earlier: A strong desire from those investors (Abu Dhabi, Murdoch..) to make the PL a super league… And it is working.

Between 2013 and 2016, the period that saw the biggest TV rights increase (+60%), English club were pretty poor in Europe… City won the league but was more likely to exit in group stage than get far and the UEFA coefficient showed it clearly. The EPL was far behind the Spanish league in that period. And not much better than Serie A/BL. The main reason Rodgers’ Pool could fight for it in and Ranieri’s Leicester could win the PL in 2016 was the pretty average level of the league back then (plus the absence of a Juve/PSG/Bayern— I believe Atletico might have won that PL 4 times in a row if they’d played in it...).

You put too much stock in CL football, European football as a whole. There’s a reason why CL is getting re imagined and it’s not because it’s a true test of league quality that the fans want to see. Even then you weirdly choose 2013 as the starting point when Chelsea won it in 2012!

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

The issue is money talks.

Clubs prefer to sell their best players to EPL because they can sell for more money, except Real/Barca/PSG/Bayern.

Clubs prefer to sell any of their players to the highest bidder regardless of their quality. The EPL still has to choose the right players, and the player still has to agree to the move.

Players prefer to play in EPL because of higher salary (3x more compared with la Liga) except Real/Barca/PSG/Bayern.

Sevilla won the Europa League in 19/20. Only one player from the starting lineup moved to the PL, Sergio Reguilón (who was never actually a Sevilla player, he was owned by Real Madrid). He's back in La Liga now with Atletico. Villareal won the Europa League in 20/21. Most of the starters from that final are still there, except Carlos Bacca who moved back to Colombia and Geronimo Rulli who moved to Ajax.

Looking at it in more detail:

Villareal sold no player to the PL in 22/23 (but might sell one in a few days), 1 player to the PL in 21/22 (Pervis Estupiñan). They sold no players to the PL in 20/21 or 19/20, 1 player in 18/19 (Pablo Fornals), and no players in 17/18. Sevilla sold 1 player to the PL in 22/23 (Diego Carlos), 1 player in 20/21 (Bryan Gil), none in 19/20 or 18/19, one in 17/18 (Vicente Iborra). Real Sociedad sold 1 player to the PL in 22/23 (Isak), none in 21/22, 1 in 20/21 (Diego Llorente), none in 19/20, 18/19, or 17/18. Bilbao have sold 2 players to the PL in the last 5 years or so: Kepa and Laporte. These clubs have done well in domestic competition (generally placing in the top 6, Sociedad and Bilbao reached cup finals), or in European competition (Sevilla and Villareal winning the EL). The players they sold to the PL weren't even necessarily their best players. So clearly things are more complicated than "players prefer playing in the PL because more money."

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

I think what it comes down to is the pareto principle. Just because you spend thrice the money doesn'tean you're thrice as good.

The assumption that the money is well-spent makes up too much of the argument.

I am looking at an extreme example, which is Athletic Bilbao. According to transfermarkt, Athletic almost never sell anyone. Most of their departures are free transfers. In the last 10 years, they have only sold 3 players for money: Kepa, Herrera, and Laporte, all to PL clubs.

It is not obvious at all that these transfers have been a net negative for Athletic and a net positive for the PL. Kepa for 80m was a laughable waste of money and Athletic's current goalkeeper is the starter for Spain. Herrera was not one of the better midfielders of his generation. Laporte was the best one of them, but it's not like he's going to win them a league title.

 

[Hansi Fick]

The assumption that the money is well-spent makes up too much of the argument.

I am looking at an extreme example, which is Athletic Bilbao. According to transfermarkt, Athletic almost never sell anyone. Most of their departures are free transfers. In the last 10 years, they have only sold 3 players for money: Kepa, Herrera, and Laporte, all to PL clubs.

It is not obvious at all that these transfers have been a net negative for Athletic and a net positive for the PL. Kepa for 80m was a laughable waste of money and Athletic's current goalkeeper is the starter for Spain. Herrera was not one of the better midfielders of his generation. Laporte was the best one of them, but it's not like he's going to win them a league title.

They have not sold any player, they never do. Clubs always have to pay the release clause.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

An obvious reason why the PL is stronger now relative to La Liga and Serie A is that Spanish and Italian players are worse now than they used to be. The Spanish generation that came after the WC win was of lower quality than the previous one. Real Madrid has almost no Spanish players now and Barcelona have an entire generation missing from their starting lineup (10+ year gap between Busquets/Alba and Pedri/Gavi/Fati). The Italian generation after WC win wasn't great either.

The amount of money the PL has relative to La Liga and Serie A might have something to do with that, but the capacity of foreign money to influence player development from a young age is more limited. Broader factors like random variation and the economic conditions of the countries (hello Spanish financial crisis) probably have more to do with it.

 

[Lee565]

Budget wise the premier league is obviously tops but man do most teams use that money poorly compared to other leagues and I wouldn't even call it the most exciting league either, in the past few seasons that has been serie a

 

[Zehner]

An obvious reason why the PL is stronger now relative to La Liga and Serie A is that Spanish and Italian players are worse now than they used to be. The Spanish generation that came after the WC win was of lower quality than the previous one. Real Madrid has almost no Spanish players now and Barcelona have an entire generation missing from their starting lineup (10+ year gap between Busquets/Alba and Pedri/Gavi/Fati). The Italian generation after WC win wasn't great either.

The amount of money the PL has relative to La Liga and Serie A might have something to do with that, but the capacity of foreign money to influence player development from a young age is more limited. Broader factors like random variation and the economic conditions of the countries (hello Spanish financial crisis) probably have more to do with it.

I think this gets underestimated a lot. Spain, Germany, Italy and France are countries with huge population and economies and a deeply ingrained football culture. Let's assume there are around 400 players in a first division, 50% of that are foreign players and maybe 50 domestic players play in other countries. Then you still have to be one of the 250 best players or so out of over a million people desiring to become professional footballers in your country to make it into the first division and probably the top 100 to become a starter. That's already an incredibly elite selection. And the cost of quality grows exponentially. If you'd rate every player on a scale from 0 to 100, then a 100/100 player would probably cost you what a whole squad of 80/100 players costs. So a midtable EPL club could maybe maintain a 85 rated squad while a midtable La Liga club could afford an 80 rated one or so. That's obviously a difference but not as big as many EPL followers seem to think.

 

[FrankFoot]

You put too much stock in CL football, European football as a whole. There’s a reason why CL is getting re imagined and it’s not because it’s a true test of league quality that the fans want to see. Even then you weirdly choose 2013 as the starting point when Chelsea won it in 2012!

European football is the only test we have to measure league quality, the only objective one.

The rest would be completely subjective stuff that will be 100% personal opinions and preferences.

I believe EPL is the best now cause they are putting more clubs in final instances of UCL than other leagues, not because americans or asians prefer to watch EPL.
Americans and asians already preferred to watch EPL over other leagues in 2013-2017 when EPL clubs were a joke in Europe.
Asians already watched EPL the most in the 90s, when EPL was the 5th-6th league in Europe.

 

[FrankFoot]

Why big players are those clubs signing these days?

Big players get developed too, they are not just immediately signed as stars.

Modric,Casemiro, and Benzema when signed for Real Madrid were not considered big stars yet, Real made them stats.

Cristiano is one of the few players Real signed that were considered stars before the move, and before that Zidane and Figo, but that was too many years ago.

 

[Zehner]

Big players get developed too, they are not just immediately signed as stars.

Modric,Casemiro, and Benzema when signed for Real Madrid were not considered big stars yet, Real made them stats.

Cristiano is one of the few players Real signed that were considered stars before the move, and before that Zidane and Figo, but that was too many years ago.

I mean, it depends what you define as stars but regardless of your definition, there are few clubs which signs more of them than Madrid:

Rüdiger (UCL winner)
Alaba (UCL winner)
Hazard
Courtois
Kroos (WC + UCL winner)
Bale
Modric
Cristiano Ronaldo (UCL winner + Ballon d'Or)
Kaká (UCL winner + Ballon d'Or)
Benzema
Xabi Alonso (UCL winner)
Robben
Cannavaro (WC winner + Ballon d'Or)
van Nistelroy
Beckham (UCL winner)
Ronaldo (WC winner + Ballon d'Or)
Zidane (WC winner + Ballon d'Or)
Figo (Ballon d'Or)

That's in the last 20 or so years alone. I believe most of them had already won either the UCL or the Ballon d'Or when Madrid signed them. And the rest are some of the most wanted players at the time of their moves: Hazard, Bale, Robben, van Nistelroy, ... Sure, they also develop their own players but they buy in lots of quality as well.

 

[ThierryHenry14]

If people want to believe money and number of viewership internationally have no impact to the quality of the league, that is fine. Nothing will change and the trend will continue.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles...omments-on-new-premier-league-television-deal
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2023/jan/16/javier-tebas-premier-league-spending-la-liga

Last summer Premier League clubs spent a combined £1.92bn on transfers – about the same as the other big five European leagues combined.

 

[FrankFoot]

If people want to believe money and number of viewership internationally have no impact to the quality of the league, that is fine. Nothing will change and the trend will continue.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles...omments-on-new-premier-league-television-deal
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2023/jan/16/javier-tebas-premier-league-spending-la-liga

Last summer Premier League clubs spent a combined £1.92bn on transfers – about the same as the other big five European leagues combined.

The argument is fine, it impacts the quality. But transfers are inflated, so it's not an exact science.

Are Jack Grealish and Darwin Nuñez worth 100 millions?
Is Kepa a 100m goalkeeper? Is Lukaku a 100m striker?

EPL is the best, but not for the reasons many are mentioning like higher fees than anybody else, as cheap players can also be great, as a matter of fact there are some great player in EPL that were cheap.

 

[ThierryHenry14]

The argument is fine, it impacts the quality. But transfers are inflated, so it's not an exact science.

Are Jack Grealish and Darwin Nuñez worth 100 millions?
Is Kepa a 100m goalkeeper? Is Lukaku a 100m striker?

EPL is the best, but not for the reasons many are mentioning like higher fees than anybody else, as cheap players can also be great, as a matter of fact there are some great player in EPL that were cheap.

People tend to work for employers that offer the best money. Same for every industry. Whether the employer hire the best people for the money is another story.

Unless other leagues can reduce the financial gap, nothing will change. That's why Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus do not give up on Super League.

Money talks.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

People tend to work for employers that offer the best money. Same for every industry. Money talks.

There must not be any good engineers in Spain since Germany pays better salaries.

 

[ThierryHenry14]

There must not be any good engineers in Spain since Germany pays better salaries.

No disrespect to other leagues, if MLS offers the most salary in the industry it will become the best soccer league in the world as well, just like NBA and NHL.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

No disrespect to other leagues, if MLS offers the most salary in the industry it will become the best soccer league in the world as well, just like NBA and NHL.

It is doing no such thing.

 

[FrankFoot]

No disrespect to other leagues, if MLS offers the most salary in the industry it will become the best soccer league in the world as well, just like NBA and NHL.

Most world class basketball players in NBA are americans, it's not like NBA is full of foreign players that are massively boosting the competition in comparison to the nationals.

 

[do.ob]

No disrespect to other leagues, if MLS offers the most salary in the industry it will become the best soccer league in the world as well, just like NBA and NHL.

You do realize that reality is actually showing the opposite, right? All those clubs and leagues with loads of money outside of Europe, usually only get players, who have given up on their careers. E.g. Ronaldo offering himself to anyone in the CL, even Frankfurt, before taking up some absurd offer from the Saudis. To a lesser degree the same applies to PL money: if you're some (top) team from the continent and a player tells them "yeah, CL football is nice, but West Ham and Everton pay me more" - is that really a player you want to have in your squad? Or do you say "good riddance" and go for someone, who is more ambitious with his career.

 

[Iker Quesadillas]

I think this gets underestimated a lot. Spain, Germany, Italy and France are countries with huge population and economies and a deeply ingrained football culture. Let's assume there are around 400 players in a first division, 50% of that are foreign players and maybe 50 domestic players play in other countries. Then you still have to be one of the 250 best players or so out of over a million people desiring to become professional footballers in your country to make it into the first division and probably the top 100 to become a starter. That's already an incredibly elite selection. And the cost of quality grows exponentially. If you'd rate every player on a scale from 0 to 100, then a 100/100 player would probably cost you what a whole squad of 80/100 players costs. So a midtable EPL club could maybe maintain a 85 rated squad while a midtable La Liga club could afford an 80 rated one or so. That's obviously a difference but not as big as many EPL followers seem to think.

To add some actual numbers to this (from FBREF)

In 14/15, the percentage of PL players from the British isles was 48%. In 22/23 it has gone down to 44%. A small percentage change overall (and the number of actual players from the British isles is the same, what has changed is the total number of players). If we add the players from Spain, Germany, France, Portugal, Italy, Brazil, Argentina, and the Netherlands (the 'best' footballing nations), the percentage has changed from 70% to 71%, basically nothing.

It is hard to believe that the PL is attracting "all the best talent" and yet the distribution of British players and 'top nation' players has not shifted all that much in the last 8 years.

 

[es-muellert]

I think Premier League will need 6 champions league spots.

 

[giorno]

Most world class basketball players in NBA are americans, it's not like NBA is full of foreign players that are massively boosting the competition in comparison to the nationals.

The current 3 best players in the NBA are all europeans

 

[Zehner]

The current 3 best players in the NBA are all europeans

Who are those by the way? Doncic, Giannis and Jokic?

 

[GatoLoco]

Who are those by the way? Doncic, Giannis and Jokic?

Yes.

 

[kouroux]

Who are those by the way? Doncic, Giannis and Jokic?

Yes.

Embiid is also French

 

[giorno]

Embiid is also French

Stop stealing African players

 

[kouroux]

Stop stealing African players

He made the decision himself

 

[Lessthanjake]

I think it’s undeniably true that money talks and the EPL has more money and this affects the league’s quality. But I also think two other things may be true:

1. No EPL team is as attractive for the very top players as Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Bayern Munich are. Those teams can pay as much as top EPL teams, are always *really* good teams competing for big titles, and are storied clubs. There’s no EPL team that matches that. Manchester United is storied and can pay, but their lack of recent titles makes them less attractive in recent years, I think. Man City has the money and recent success but isn’t a storied club. Liverpool sort of ticks all the boxes, but is just not quite there in all three areas. Same with Chelsea. What this means is that we’d still expect a lot of the *very* top players in the world to end up not in the EPL, because there’s a few teams that are generally even more attractive destinations than any EPL team is.

2. Leaving aside very top players that go to RM/Barcelona/Bayern, the EPL’s money will allow many of their teams to largely get the pick of the litter otherwise. However, it may be true that the pick of the litter isn’t necessarily meaningfully better than the players who are left out of EPL money—especially when we take into account that teams picking transfer targets don’t know exactly how good someone will be in the future. For instance, to use a simplistic model, let’s say an EPL team can use their money to pick a set of players that people think are an 8.5/10 in quality. And let’s say a La Liga team can’t get those players because they can’t pay EPL money, but maybe what they *can* get instead are still players that people think are an 8.0/10 in quality. That’s not a huge difference, and it becomes even less meaningful when those 8.5 and 8.0 numbers are just projections—the 8.5/10 EPL team could end up being a 7.5/10 team in reality, while the 8.0/10 La Liga team could end up being a 9.0/10 team in reality. So IMO what the EPL gets are basically players that are *projected* to be *a bit* better than the players other leagues end up with instead. On average, that’ll pan out into a stronger league (since players projected to be better will, on average, end up at least a little bit better), but it won’t necessarily be *a lot* stronger.

If you combine these two things, you get a league that is still likely the strongest, but maybe not way stronger (despite having way more money), and with top teams that still may not be as good as the very top teams in other leagues.

 

[stefan92]

I think it’s undeniably true that money talks and the EPL has more money and this affects the league’s quality. But I also think two other things may be true:

1. No EPL team is as attractive for the very top players as Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Bayern Munich are. Those teams can pay as much as top EPL teams, are always *really* good teams competing for big titles, and are storied clubs. There’s no EPL team that matches that. Manchester United is storied and can pay, but their lack of recent titles makes them less attractive in recent years, I think. Man City has the money and recent success but isn’t a storied club. Liverpool sort of ticks all the boxes, but is just not quite there in all three areas. Same with Chelsea. What this means is that we’d still expect a lot of the *very* top players in the world to end up not in the EPL, because there’s a few teams that are generally even more attractive destinations than any EPL team is.

2. Leaving aside very top players that go to RM/Barcelona/Bayern, the EPL’s money will allow many of their teams to largely get the pick of the litter otherwise. However, it may be true that the pick of the litter isn’t necessarily meaningfully better than the players who are left out of EPL money—especially when we take into account that teams picking transfer targets don’t know exactly how good someone will be in the future. For instance, to use a simplistic model, let’s say an EPL team can use their money to pick a set of players that people think are an 8.5/10 in quality. And let’s say a La Liga team can’t get those players because they can’t pay EPL money, but maybe what they *can* get instead are still players that people think are an 8.0/10 in quality. That’s not a huge difference, and it becomes even less meaningful when those 8.5 and 8.0 numbers are just projections—the 8.5/10 EPL team could end up being a 7.5/10 team in reality, while the 8.0/10 La Liga team could end up being a 9.0/10 team in reality. So IMO what the EPL gets are basically players that are *projected* to be *a bit* better than the players other leagues end up with instead. On average, that’ll pan out into a stronger league (since players projected to be better will, on average, end up at least a little bit better), but it won’t necessarily be *a lot* stronger.

If you combine these two things, you get a league that is still likely the strongest, but maybe not way stronger (despite having way more money), and with top teams that still may not be as good as the very top teams in other leagues.

Good theory, and I think if you look at how many PL teams reach late CL stages, and yet how many CL titles actually have been won by other teams one can see that you give a great explanation for that.

 

[jm99]

I think it’s undeniably true that money talks and the EPL has more money and this affects the league’s quality. But I also think two other things may be true:

1. No EPL team is as attractive for the very top players as Real Madrid, Barcelona, and Bayern Munich are. Those teams can pay as much as top EPL teams, are always *really* good teams competing for big titles, and are storied clubs. There’s no EPL team that matches that. Manchester United is storied and can pay, but their lack of recent titles makes them less attractive in recent years, I think. Man City has the money and recent success but isn’t a storied club. Liverpool sort of ticks all the boxes, but is just not quite there in all three areas. Same with Chelsea. What this means is that we’d still expect a lot of the *very* top players in the world to end up not in the EPL, because there’s a few teams that are generally even more attractive destinations than any EPL team is.

2. Leaving aside very top players that go to RM/Barcelona/Bayern, the EPL’s money will allow many of their teams to largely get the pick of the litter otherwise. However, it may be true that the pick of the litter isn’t necessarily meaningfully better than the players who are left out of EPL money—especially when we take into account that teams picking transfer targets don’t know exactly how good someone will be in the future. For instance, to use a simplistic model, let’s say an EPL team can use their money to pick a set of players that people think are an 8.5/10 in quality. And let’s say a La Liga team can’t get those players because they can’t pay EPL money, but maybe what they *can* get instead are still players that people think are an 8.0/10 in quality. That’s not a huge difference, and it becomes even less meaningful when those 8.5 and 8.0 numbers are just projections—the 8.5/10 EPL team could end up being a 7.5/10 team in reality, while the 8.0/10 La Liga team could end up being a 9.0/10 team in reality. So IMO what the EPL gets are basically players that are *projected* to be *a bit* better than the players other leagues end up with instead. On average, that’ll pan out into a stronger league (since players projected to be better will, on average, end up at least a little bit better), but it won’t necessarily be *a lot* stronger.

If you combine these two things, you get a league that is still likely the strongest, but maybe not way stronger (despite having way more money), and with top teams that still may not be as good as the very top teams in other leagues.

I don't know about including bayern alongside real and Barca, bayern always seem to have a strong side, but outside of the teams in Germany and German players, it's fairly rare to see them poach a player from city or psg or real or Barca. Real and Barca are quite clearly a tier above, and I think we would be as well once we're back to winning titles, but bayern don't pay massive fees, won't break the wage structure and play in a weaker domestic league. I wouldn't say they have the same pull.

 

[Zehner]

I think in terms of pulling power, it is pretty hard to ignore PSG. Mbappe, Neymar and Messi are arguably the three biggest transfer since Cristiano Ronaldo to Madrid and all were done by Paris. Right at the moment, they're probably on par or even ahead of Madrid when you define pulling power as "most likely to get the player they want".

 

[Dave Smith]

The best way of describing thr PL is that is has a lot higher floor but a lower ceiling/same celing as the top clubs in Europe.

The PL's strength is it's competivness. An example of this is someone like Zaha. Sure he didn't pull up trees at Utd when he way young, however he went back to Palace and put in consistently good performances, that in another league would've meant that he would've got a move to that leagues' top 3-6. However, in the PL, Palace, probably best described as a 9-15th team, where able to give him enough money to sign contracts and not succumb to bids from their richer rivals in order to assure their PL status, which is worth way more than say £50m and a potential relegation.

This is what I think gets lost by people that focus on European records. Sure, the top PL teams are not that much better than their rivals elsewhere; particularly Real/Barca/Bayern and PSG. The first three due to their stature and ties to South American/Latin European/Central European players and the former due to their wealth.

However, the PL clubs that people would rank as say 8th-16th have vast resources to fight off the big clubs in their own leagues to avoid situations, as seen in other European leagues, where the top 1-4 clubs can wack them on the head with £10m's to secure their best players.

That for me is the principle reason the PL draws so much attention. It isn't because the top teams don't win the league consistently or because the teams from the league that qualify for Europe are so much better. It is mostly due to the lower ranking teams having enough fight in them to keep games 'honest' in that the top teams cannot raid the lower teams when the get a good player/have to keep a high level every week to ensure good results.

That just isn't really seen in other leagues. Thus, the top PL clubs aren't vastly superior to their European rivals, but the PL's mid to lower ranking sides can remain a lot more competitive.

 

[Red in STL]

I think in terms of pulling power, it is pretty hard to ignore PSG. Mbappe, Neymar and Messi are arguably the three biggest transfer since Cristiano Ronaldo to Madrid and all were done by Paris. Right at the moment, they're probably on par or even ahead of Madrid when you define pulling power as "most likely to get the player they want".

PSG have no real history or pedigree, even City have more than they do, it's money and nothing else

 

[Zehner]

PSG have no real history or pedigree, even City have more than they do, it's money and nothing else

Doesn't really matter when the result is the same, does it?

They also have a great City to offer by the way. That's probably more important to most than the past deeds of the club. Even if the player would prefer the traditional club, there's also their families and when your wife hates the bad weather, I doubt she'll be convinced by a history lesson. Footballers don't think or decide as fans (say) they would.

 

[Red in STL]

Doesn't really matter when the result is the same, does it?

They also have a great City to offer by the way. That's probably more important to most than the past deeds of the club. Even if the player would prefer the traditional club, there's also their families and when your wife hates the bad weather, I doubt she'll be convinced by a history lesson. Footballers don't think or decide as fans (say) they would.

I guess not

Have you ever been to Paris?

It's a bigger crap hole than London and you don't go to Paris for the weather either!

 

[FrankFoot]

I guess not

Have you ever been to Paris?

It's a bigger crap hole than London and you don't go to Paris for the weather either!

French weather is still better than UK weather, even parisian weather btw, let alone southern France.

Yes, Paris is overrated, still better than London though, and PSG players don't live in banlieus located in the suburbs...must say I'd chose neither overall, rather Prague or Budapest if we are talking about european capitals.

 

[Red in STL]

French weather is still better than UK weather, even parisian weather btw, let alone southern France.

Yes, Paris is overrated, still better than London though, and PSG players don't live in banlieus located in the suburbs...must say I'd chose neither overall, rather Prague or Budapest if we are talking about european capitals.

Well it pissed it down last time i was there!

Better than London is debatable and top players live in Surrey and Hertfordshire anyway, never been to those 2, Amsterdam is much nicer then Paris or London, so is Zurcih though not capital,s Copenhagen isn't bad either.