I can understand why people wouldn't like the "best 3rd place teams advancing" system. I, too, think it's stupid and kinda cruel to force 3rd placed teams to remain in the tournament without knowing if they're gonna pass or not. Even though my country clearly benefited from that rule.

Many people disliked the Euro 2016 also because the team they didn't want to win won it. And that also brings me back to the first point. Portugal passed the group stage with 3 draws/3 points and also got a couple of theoretically easy opponents in the knock-out stage: Poland and Wales. Just like many people disliked Euro 2004 because Greece, a not so exciting team in the traditional sense won it. People wanted a Portugal vs. Czech Republic final.

A non-favourite winning doesn't mean the whole tournament was bad. In 2010 Spain, one of the favourites, won it and that WC was dreadful. In 2002 South Korea, one of the hosts, reached the semis(they got help from the refs against Italy and especially Spain) and it was a bad tournament overall.

This is another symptom of "modern football" imo. People will complain that it's always the same ones winning but then bitch whenever a not so "strong" side goes far in the competition, assuming they only did it because of luck and because the stronger sides were not at the top of their game. Well no shit, if you refused to watch Portugal vs. France you'll probably assume Portugal only had one shot and that one happened to get in. I guess those same people also will look at the list of previous Champions League winners and wonder how a team from Hungary called Videoton reached a UEFA Cup final in the 80s against Real Madrid, and how come a team from Romania Steaua Bucharest has won the European Champions Cup. They probably assume it was a very weak edition of the competition.

Names are what draw people in, especially in this day and age of heavy marketing, but that's all relative. Nemanja Matic's name wasn't as valuable when he was at Benfica and then he went on to Chelsea and suddenly he was a big name in everyone's minds.

As for the quality of the previous Euro, well it wasn't the best Euro I've seen. That was Euro 2000, imo. But it was certainly better than 2008. Now that Euro was boring. My favourite part was Russia's run. They had a good tournament. And speaking of that, Zenit won the UEFA Cup in 2008 and also the Supercup against Manchester United in August that year. That Zenit was actually more exciting and didn't spend as much cash as it would later on. Back to Euros, 2012 wasn't that great either, albeit better than 2008. So I don't buy this "Euro 2016 is the worst Euro ever!" argument. I also remember people in 2014 saying that was the worst World Cup ever when 2002 and 2010 had been worse.

As for India, well football isn't that big in India unlike China where it is quite popular and they've been investing heavily in it lately, but I could see it gaining popularity pretty fast if India managed to qualify, yes. What makes football so special is how fast it spreads. Look how quickly the Japanese became football fans(Captain Tsubasa helped with that hehehe). It's pretty much as popular as baseball(which has been played there since the 19th century or something) is. Look at USA, as niche as it still is, you'll find many Americans liking football nowadays, while in Europe not many people like American football or baseball. At most we'll like basketball and ice hockey in some countries, but that's not because USA play those sports. People follow their domestic leagues heavily.

And before anyone says, no I don't think cheapness is the biggest factor why football is the number 1 sport. It does help, but that's not the secret of its success, imo. Cricket is huge in India and Pakistan and I doubt everyone can afford the equipment there. Same for Ice Hockey in Russia. It's not like you can easily pick up and play ice hockey. What makes football so popular imo, is that there's a place for everyone on the pitch. If you're not tall enough you can play winger. If you're a bit "large" you can just play as goalkeeper or as a holding mid-fielder when you play outside with friends. In basketball being short will make it very hard for you. In rugby you can't exactly be scrawny. The rules are also fairly simple as compared to other sports. The most complicated rule in football is the offside rule, which really isn't that complicated to understand. Also, the scores being low in football make each goal more special and dramatic, especially winning goals. Luís Figo once said "a goal is like having an orgasm". As vulgar as it sounds I think that's a pretty good analogy.

And speaking of that, I hate this modern trend of people complaining if a game is 0-0 at half-time, implying that if not a single goal is scored it must be a terrible game. American influence... I personally love good defending. Sadly nowadays there's a bit of a shortage of great defenders. Just 6-7 years ago or so, it wasn't that common for there to be landslide wins in the top competitions. But nowadays, if a side loses 4-0 or 5-0 people instead of being too embarrassed to go outside for about a month they will basically think "ouch, heavy, but let's move o. It happens". Even teams like Bayern, RM and Barcelona losing 4-0 isn't that much of a shock nowadays.

I agree that not "all of the worst" Euro Cup football was in 2016. And I agree that every tournament is a mixed bag of quality.

I'm talking the average quality. In my view the average quality of Euro 2016 was worse than that of the Euros I've watched before, which are 2000 and later.

Also, with more teams it would just mean that the bar for what counts as a surprising representation in the tournament changes place. If in some recent World Cups it's been surprising to see teams like Honduras, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, North Korea, etc. Those types of teams would be much more common (read: less of an exciting surprise/upset) if the number of teams are higher, meaning that the criteria for what counts as a surprise teams simply change to include those of even less quality than those already achieving upsets. It waters down the surprise/upset, as well as the quality and status of the average game both in the main tournament and the qualification.

I'm all for upsets and small teams succeeding. But it should be by performance and not by the format changing to include alot more of those performing less good. For the same reason, I'm not against games having alot of goals, but it should not be because they change the size of the goals or something like that, which others have advocated throughout the years.

I agree. If qualifying for the Euros and the WCs gets easier then some teams will just get lazier and be happy as long as they qualify. Whilst an Euro with 16 teams only will motivate smaller teams to give it their all and earn their spot. We had Bulgaria and Latvia in Euro 2004. Latvia managed a draw out of Germany(who didn't pass the group stage). Bulgaria, however, was pretty weak and lost all games iirc.

Yes, I'd say there are already a decent amount of upsets and lots of smaller (football) countries as it is. Just think of the last six World Cups:

1994: Sweden wins the bronze and Bulgaria being fourth. The group stage included teams like Bolivia.
1998: Croatia wins the bronze, Denmark reaches quarter-final. Spain being eliminated in the group-stage. Group stage includes teams like Jamaica, Scotland.
2002: Turkey wins the bronze, South Korea being fourth, Senegal reaching quarter-final, Sweden winning their group over England, Argentina (eliminated already there) and Nigeria. France being eliminated in the group stage as reigning champions. Group stage including teams like China, Slovenia.
2006: Not much except for Ukraine reaching quarter-final. Group stage including teams like Trinidad and Tobago, Angola, Togo.
2010: Ghana and Paraguay reaching quarter-final (Ghana being extremely close to reaching semi-final as first African country ever). Slovakia going past the group stage, which included Italy that finished last as reigning champions. Group stage included teams like New Zealand, North Korea, Honduras, Slovenia.
2014: Costa Rica and Colombia reaching quarter-final. Spain being eliminated in the group stage as reigning champions, Portugal, Italy and England also eliminated in the group stage. Group stage including teams like Bosnia and Herzegovina, Honduras.

And also think of all the countries that are often or every now and then in the WC but rarely achieves much of an impact. Countries like Tunisia, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Paraguay, Nigeria, Cameroon, Switzerland, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Turkey, Poland, Czech Republic, USA, Mexico, Morocco, Ghana, the Ivory Coast, Ecuador, Colombia, Costa Rica, Iran, Slovenia, Greece, South Africa...

So with all these upsets already taking place, and with many more cases of non-upsets from teams whose achievements would have been an upset had they made them, then I don't see much reason for including more teams in the WC. Sure, there may be a tiny amount of more upsets with an increase of teams, but also many more added to the lesser teams that don't make an Iceland-type impact.

Interesting list, considering the 1994 ones aren't that big surprises, and 1998 was when it was expanded to 32 teams...

Having both Sweden and Bulgaria in the bronze game of a WC is not that big of a surprise? I'd imagine if there was a time machine to a bookmaker in 1994 before the WC, he'd disagree...

And like I've been saying: if you are to consider the heightened amount of upsets after an increase of teams (which no-one have denied would happen in such a case), then also consider the amount of less good teams that don't make an impact. Hence the long list of countries often or sometimes in the WC but which you very well know have not come close to an Iceland-type achievement. Hence the Iceland-based reason for even more teams being quite ahistorical and not taking into account the negative effects brought up in other posts on this.

Portugal missing the 1998 WC was a huge letdown. Players like Figo and Rui Costa were in their prime at the time. Since Euro 1996, the 1998 WC has been the only major tournament Portugal has missed thus far.

We didn't make it past the 2002 group stage either... in a group with Poland, USA and South Korea. All of this after a pretty good Euro 2000. Bah

Ukraine reaching the QFs in 2006 wasn't much of a surprise, honestly. Remember they knocked-out Switzerland in the Last 16 round. I'd say Australia making it past the group stage was a bigger one. People expected Croatia or even Japan to go through alongside Brazil.

Costa Rica was a pretty nice 2014 surprise, yes.

Well, the thing is, Asia isn't a very competitive continent overall. So Saudi Arabia and Iran going to every other World Cup isn't much of a feat. They never do anything noteworthy there. Japan and Korea occasionally get past the group stage, at least.

In the CONCACAF it's even worse. Mexico and USA pretty much have a guaranteed spot each and every world cup. USA missed more WCs than you think but they've been to more WCs than, let's say, Portugal or Greece.

Since you covered WCs let me do something similar for Euros.

2000: Portugal in the semis. OK we had the golden generation, but we missed the 98 WC and fell in the 1996 QFs against Poborsky's Czech Republic. We still had something to prove. And let's nto forget we were in a group with Germany, Romania and England... and won all of the 3 games. 3-0 against Germany with subs and a hat-trick by Sérgio Conceição of all people! And I'll never forget that game against England until I die.

2004: Well huh...Greece. Sadly. Also Denmark and Sweden passing the group stage when they had Italy in their group.

2008: Russia's run. And I guess Turkey reaching the semis also.

2012: Ireland making it to the main tournament. Can't think of anything else.

2016: Iceland reaching the QFs. Wales reaching the semis. Portugal winning it after an embarrassing World Cup two years previously with a gola by Éder of all people in the final against the host itself.


I didn't follow that WC. Was only 3 years old, but yes it's not a usual thing to happen. But I did see a bronze game between Turkey and South Korean(an Asian team in a bronze game!) in 2002.

IMHO the last EC had a lot of teams that were not near top fitness but WC 2014 was great because the teams were near top fitness than most during cups.

The Euros are now too big. In my opinion 16 teams was ideal - four groups with the top two going through to the quarter finals. I don't agree with third placed teams going through and I think Portugal are the least deserving winners of any tournament ever. There are currently 53 members of UEFA, so if you ignore the complete minnows like Gibraltar, Andorra, San Marino, Scotland etc you're left with about 46 nations meaning that over half the continent qualifies for what is supposed to be an elite tournament. It also means that dross like England are guaranteed to qualify.

Let's keep both tournaments as they are.

As I said, I strongly favour the expansion. All past expansions have done the tournaments better. The reason it is an issue now is because of the FIFA corruption scandal, which puts everything they do under scrutiny, making it a big issue for people now, when all past expansions have been an issue for no one.

The issue I do have, and I thank Festivus for reminding me of that point, is that the organisation of the 24 team Euro was terrible, and the plan for the organisation for the 48 team World Cup is also terrible. Pretty much everyone in third place advancing in the Euro made the group stage meaningless, and the idea for the 48 team World Cup to have three team groups will also make the group stage meaningless. Obviously the group stage needs to have a meaning, otherwise why have it? Ironically, the Euro idea of having the four best in third place advance would world perfectly at the 48 team World Cup, because at the Euro it meant four teams advancing, two teams dropping (meaningless), while at the World Cup it would mean four teams advancing, eight teams dropping, which would be fine and fair and promote proper performance and no one advancing without winning a single game like Portugal did.

Performance overall does not suffer from the expansion, because the expansion simply keeps up with the expansion of football around the world. Football is getting bigger in more and more countries, and you have good football in a lot more countries today than you did 20 years ago. Iceland at a Euro Cup would have been unthinkable 20 years ago even if 36 teams were able to qualify, but the sport had a strong growth there. There are many countries around the world where it went from fringe sport to major pastime. The USA are moving slowly but steadily to becoming a major player in 1-2 decades, China's football is growing fast, Japan and South Korea are getting stronger each year, football is gaining ground in Australia and New Zealand, Southeast Asians are beginning to develop an interest in football, countries in the Middle East are investing massively to develop the sport, etc etc.

If so, you're ignoring the several reasons put forth here that has nothing to do with corruption. I'm not going to repeat them since they are clearly stated earlier. But I don't see how you can say that corruption is "the reason" when so many other reasons have been mentioned.



It's obvious if you let more teams in that would not have qualified in a current/earlier system, the average quality will be lower than it otherwise would have been. Since teams with a lower amount of points in the long run that is a qualification stage, are being qualified. Why do they have a lower amount of points in the long run if not because of a lower quality? So clearly the average quality is lowered with more teams. It's the most simple logic.

You keep bringing up Iceland and keep ignoring all the teams mentioned above that have been outsiders and not come close to such a performance. It strongly seems like cherry-picking.

You did not put forth any sort of sensible argument, just nonsensical rambling. The corruption scandal is indeed the reason it is an issue, and your borderline-hysterical posts prove that quite easily.

Also, your second response show you do not even read (or comprehend) anything I write when you respond, so it's pointless to try to talk to you at all.

I, too, am not a fan of 3 teams going through, but that hardly makes one an undeserving winner when they end up knocking out every team after it.

I don't deny we weren't exactly exciting and got lucky in avoiding stronger sides like Germany and Italy in the knock-out stage, but we knocked-out Croatia in the last 16 and won the final against France, the host. Anyone who wins a final against a tournament host is a well-deserving winner. Luck or not, that's not against the rules. Undeserving is winning by cheating. I doubt you're old enough to have watched every European and World Cup ever, but I'm sure when you read on wikipedia the list of previous winners you're not going to wonder "Hmm, I wonder if Uruguay truly deserved those two WCs they won?"

And before anyone asks, Greece were fair winners. Sucks to say but they were. Just because a team doesn't play overtly exciting football doesn't mean they don't deserve winning. Accuracy is awesome. I really loved how pragmatic Portugal was this Euro. Something we've always lacked. We'd make interesting runs... but eventually would lose. Kinda like the Netherlands who always seem to play exciting football but then always end up going home. We're not longer the Arsenal of national teams.

Football is this, too. I'm sure many sides got lucky throughout history. Not always the one people want or the one who plays the most exciting football wins. I saw Portugal lose at home against Greece and it was painful, but such is life. And that's one of the things that make football so special, in my opinion. If Portugal wins another Euro or wins a WC playing like this, I'd be glad to see it. I like to see my teams win. Not play well and then go home crying.


The worst truly is the next Euro being in 13 different cities in 13 different countries. That's just ludicrous. OK, getting people to watch a game in Azerbaijan is good, but what about the travelling fans? Instead of them staying for a whole tournament they'll mostly only travel to one city and that's it.

Yes, like I've said, I also don't like the idea of over half the teams in one group advancing to the knock-out rounds. Btw, I believe Italy once passed a WC group stage with 3 draws. But I might be mistaken.

The reasons are:
- lowered average quality, due to teams with lower amount of points being qualified
- watering down of the importance of the individual game in the main tournament, due to the higher amount of games (compare for example the NHL with 82 rounds before the play-offs with something like the PL with 38 games and no play-off).
- watering down of the importance of the individual game in the qualification, due to it taking less to qualify for the main tournament. The better teams may get qualified very early on and then go on half-speed in the rest. And the lesser good teams don't have to achieve as much to qualify as they otherwise had to.
- watering down of the status of reaching the main tournament, since, as Conan Troutman pointed out, a bigger chunk of the teams in the qualification will reach the tournament and making it less of an elite event.

Read those rather obvious and clear reasons and explain:
1. what's "nonsensical rambling"
2. what's "borderline-hysterical"
3. what they have to do with corruption

Preferably with specific quotes as examples, if you want any level of credibility and not make yourself seem like a cherry-picking person who sticks his head in the sand rather than facing arguments counter to your view.

The fact that you do that and decide not to take into account all the reasons mentioned that has nothing to do with corruption, and then claims corruption is the reason it's an issue, shows that you're the one not reading/comprehending what others are saying.

It was a somewhat to the point discussion until now when you went ad hominem with accusations of "borderline-hysterical" and calling views counter to yours "nonsensical rambling". Good job.

Tbh, a lot of people probably complained when the WC went from 16 teams to 24. And then to 32. I've seen some older people say "1986 was the last truly good World Cup".

And let's not forget the Euro originally consisted of solely 4 teams.

Perhaps I was unfair on Portugal saying they were the least deserving winners ever, but you were very uninspiring and I really can't say you won the tournament on merit. However, you didn't break any rules. A team could draw every game 0-0, finish third in the group and win every game on penalties. They could do this totally with the rules but it would not make them deserving winners in my eyes.

You make a fair point regarding the cheating. The first country who spring to my mind for winning a tournament by cheating is Argentina in 1986, but they were also the best team in it and had the best player in the world. The fat little shit.

In short , I am against a team finishing third out of four advancing to the next stage of a tournament.

I also think (as I alluded to in my previous post) that too much expansion does water down the quality. The nature of qualification can also water down the quality due to the allocation to each Federation. That's why you end up with garbage like New Zealand, Saudi Arabia and Zaire in the World Cup, Northern Ireland in the Euros and in England in everything they enter.

I would hate to get to a stage where we are seeing New Zealand and someone like Jordan playing in the second round of the World Cup.

Oh well, I can't say I complain we won Euro 2016 even by not being so inspiring hehehe. Besides, historically speaking we tend to perform better when we're not exactly favourites, or when no one expects much from us.

Well Australia moving to the AFC has made it easier for New Zealand to have higher odds of qualifying to WCs, I guess.

The record books will show you won the 2016 European Championship and when you are watching your players lift the trophy nothing else really matters. Red Star Belgrade won the 1991 European Cup. 25 years later the fact that it was the worst final ever is almost forgotten.

On the topic of international tournaments, what are your feelings towards your own national side?

I used to be a proud England supporter but I turned my back on them during the 2010 World Cup and now I cannot stand them. The current manager is a joke and shouldn't even be managing at under 16 level never mind international level. However, the main problem is the players. They're shit. The performances against Iceland and Slovenia this year are the two most inept I have ever seen. I just can't get behind a team that has such talentless players like Henderson and Wilshere. How depressing that they are supposedly the best England can offer.

Yeah, I don't feel ashamed about our win at all. I'd only be if we had cheated.

I'm too young to have watched that final, being a baby at the time, but Red Star had a hell of a team. So even if their final against Marseille wasn't that good, I'm sure their performance in the rest of the tournament was better. And like I've said earlier in this thread, I bet some people when looking at the list of previous ECC/CL winners, they'll assume that Steaua Bucharest win was either lucky or in a pretty bad ECC edition, when in fact most people who were watching football back in the day say Steaua played a very spectacular football.

No idea if it was the worst final ever or not. Do you mean ECC/CL finals or European finals in general? Because the 11/12 EL final was quite bad, imo. Atlético de Madrid just thrashed Athletic Bilbao. Porto vs. Braga in 10/11 was bad too. It's like both teams were afraid of losing, with only Falcão having balls of steel. As was the Porto vs. Monaco final in 03/04. Early in the game one of Monaco's stars gets injured and then 3-0. Boring.

As for international football, Spain vs. Italy in 2012 was boring. 4-0 in a final isn't exactly interesting. What ever happened to Italy that night, I wonder. And now that I think about it the CL final in 2012 between Bayern and Chelsea wasn't very exciting either. At least in my opinion. It seems 2012 was the year of the boring finals.

The first ever CL final I remember was Man Utd vs. Bayern Munich. I don't remember the whole game, but I didn't liek the final twist. No idea if the game itself was boring or not.

That Milan vs. Juventus final in 2002/2003 was quite a snooze fest as well. It had a couple of highlights but I was abit bored throughout the whole match. I usually don't like finals among clubs from the same country anyway. The only one I did to this day was Bayern vs. Dortmund in 2013.

Now as for favourite finals, well Milan vs. Liverpool in 2005 is probably my favourite CL final ever. That one is unforgettable even for a neutral fan. also liked the Inter vs. Bayern final in 2010, which is probably an unpopular opinion, but I really like Mourinho's Inter. Barcelona vs. Man Utd in 2011 was fun too, with Utd giving Barça a run for their money, as was Barcelona vs. Juventus a couple of years of ago. And like I've said, Bayern vs. Dortmund was a good one as well.

As for international football, I don't recall a final that left me in awe, tbh. I loved 2016 for obvious reasons but other than that, meh. I guess France thrashing Brazil in 1998 was fun.

The weirdest case in football's history is probably Nottingham Forest. They had a quick sudden rise and then just as quickly fell off the map. A club with so little domestic success having two ECCs and one European Supercup is crazy. I also tend to forget that Aston Villa have been European Champions before.


I didn't like the way our team was going after 2008. It's like players get a bit too cocky and the people in the federation weren't really taking their job seriously. Our poor performances in 2010 and 2014 truly showed this. But it seems we've learnt our lesson and managed to win Euro 2016.

Let's see how Portugal's NT behaves from now on. Regardless of what I personally feel about some players or not, they're representing the country, so that's what really matters in the end. Although I'm more of a Benfica fan above all else. Portugal losing a Euro or WC game doesn't really make me lose my sleep at night.

I think it's mostly casuals who get more into NT games.

I'm an Inter Milan fan since 2006. (as much as it pains me)

I'm also a supporter of my local team, Rapid Bucharest, but it went bankrupt this year and there are two teams in the lower leagues that claim to be the successor...

Brian Clough and Peter Taylor. What they did at Forest is in my book the most remarkable achievement in all of club football. Forest did stick around on the map until the mid 90s though, and won a couple of domestic cups in that time.

Also, Euro 2008 was a great tournament. That had some crazy games, tremendously entertaining moments and I liked the Germany team a lot.

I know Clough. He was most likely one of the greatest football coaches of all time, yes.

I guess when you look at a list of previous winners Forrest 2 ECCs look impressive as does Blackburn's EPL win in the early 90s. But I believe Blackburn actually was fairly wealthy at the time, wasn't it?


I don't agree. I did like Russia's run, but the rest meh. I didn't like NT football between 2008 and 2011 much.

Blackburn's title win was impressive as they managed to out-do Ferguson's United machine, but yeah they did have a sizeable cash injection to do that thanks to Jack Walker. TBH though Walker was the last of his kind - a hometown boy made good who returned and put his money into the club he'd supported all his life. It was a very Victorian/Edwardian way of doing things and Walker as far as I know was the last example of that particular method of building a title winning side before the arrival of Abramovich etc.

I didn't like EPL so much from 2006 or so on when United won it 5 times in 7 seasons with only Chelsea and City winning the league once in between Untied league wins.

Hell, I'm not an English football fan in general. Too many oil owned clubs and such. You have exceptions like Everton and Norwich. But a earn like Newcastle who is owned by a loaded guy who can't run a football club to save his life? They deserve to crash and burn, imo. That and Americans who own NFL and MLB teams acquiring English clubs just to look for a quick buck without knowing much a bout the game is something I'm not fond of either.

If only Bayern wasn't so above everyone else in the Bundesliga historically and financially speaking... it probably would be the most competitive league in the world. Ligue 1 was also quite competitive until PSG got oil money, except for that period where Lyon won 7 champions in a row or something. Always wodnered what their secret was. hard to beleive that AC Saint-Étienne is the most domestically successful french club lol. I wonder why France has never been that good in European club competitions. Portuguese and Dutch clubs have more ECCs/CLs and European trophies as a whole than French ones do. At least Germany has Dortmund and HSV with an ECC/CL each in their museums asides from Bayern which has won countless European trophies.

Btw, a pretty cool image containing the clubs that have been European champions before:

The Red Star v Marseille final is the worst EC/CL that I can recall. There are probably other poor finals but that one stands out to me. I can't remember what Red Star were like during the earlier rounds but apparently they knocked out Grasshoppers, Rangers, Dinamo Dresden and Bayern Munich along the way, winning in the Olympic Stadium.

Being English I don't consider the situation with Nottingham Forest to be that strange. They were at worst a top ten side, went downhill after Clough, finished third in 1994-5 Premiership and have been crap since about 1996. Due to the strength in depth of our league, clubs moving up and down the pyramid is not that unusual.

What I think is stranger is the 1981 ECWC - Carl Zeiss Jena and Dinamo Tbilisi!! Carl Zeiss will never play in Europe again although I might have imagined Dinamo Tbilisi making it to the Europa League group stages recently.

Never say never. Red Bull won't be the last billionaires buying up a shit club. In fact even in Germany they weren't, considering Hamburg is now essentially a billionaire's private plaything.

(Red Bull is rumoured to be eyeing West Ham United by the way.)

1981? I believe that was the Cup Winner's Cup Edition where Benfica fell in the semi-finals against Carl Zeiss Jena. Wasn't that an Eastern Germany team, anyway? I don't know how big they were back then, but I guess it's hard for Eastern German sides to impose themselves in the Bundesliga. Leipzig had to be acquired by Red Bull to become competitive. And Dynamo Berlin, the former East germany giant, is a lower league team in Germany nowadays. It's a shame since the most well-known Berlin team, Hertha are quite meh.

Man, Germany probably has the worst capital city representative ever when it comes to football. Can only think of Norway as having a worse one(Valerenga), but Norwegian football isn't particularly strong anyway.

Lisbon: Benfica and also Sporting
Madrid: Real and Atlético
Paris. PSG
Rome: Roma and Lazio, which despite not bein as strong as the Milan teams and Juventus, are respected and well-known enough in Europe.
London: Arsenal, Chelsea and even Spurs
Amsterdam: Ajax
Brussels: Anderlecht
Berlin: ...Hertha Berlin. If it wasn't for the 50+1 rule I bet some oil billionaire would have gotten their hands on Hertha by now.

True. If I wanted a "hobby" club in Germany I'd probably go for someone like Rot-Weiss Essen. Iwoukd imagine they would be quite cheap to acquire but they must have potential due to the size of the place. Dynamo Dresden or maybe someone like Hansa Rostock might be quite appealing.

Due to being cash rich and having bled dry the tax payers of Britain, I would imagine West Ham would be quite expensive.

Hansa Rostock? Doesn't that club have some quite problematic supporters?

There has been foreign investment in some smaller clubs in Portugal. Olhanense is owned by Italians I think. And Beira-Mar were owned by a shady Iranian who also owned FC Servette from Switzerland and was responsible for bankrupting it. Boavista was supposed to be acquired a few years ago but the supporters did not let that happen.

Do you think there is any club in Portugal - with the right investment - who have the potential to break up the big three. As an outsider it seems to me they are so much bigger than the rest that it would be an impossible task.

Honestly? Not really.

Boavista had some good season in the 90s and in the early 2000s. They were the only side alongside Belenenses outside of the big 3 to win Primeira Liga. The thing is Boavista won it in 2001 and Belenenses won it already in the 40s. SO I guess I witnessed history with Boavista's championship win. Also keep in mind that Belenenses are from Lisbon(just like Benfica and Sporting) and Boavista is from Oporto(just like FC Porto)... the two most populous Portuguese cities. In recent years Braga have been the biggest outsider, and in fact fought against us until the very last fixture for the 2009/2010 championship(Jorge Jesus' first season at Benfica), but we won it in the end.

Like I've said, over 95% of football supporters in Portugal support one of the big 3. You'll see TONS of cases of, let's say, a marítimo or a Gil Vicente supporter also supporting one of the big 3, and a lot of times picking their big 3 preference over their local side in a match.

We only have 10M people, with about half of the population living in either Lisbon's metro area or Oporto's.

Vitória de Guimarães, a team from a city called Guimarães which lies in brag'as metro area, has lots of local support and is a rare case where most of its supporters only care about their local team. I dunno why this happens, probably because the city is the birth of our nation and they're proud of that is my guess. But the city itself only has about 50 thousand inhabitants. Even if let's say 15-20 thousand people in the city like their local club a lot they cannot compete with the big 3 in terms of merchandise sales and tv and sponsorship deals.

So yeah I don't think it's possible for a smaller side to suddenly become a force here. Maybe in the next 20-30 years a club like Braga, Marítimo or Guimarães might win a league in a season where the big 3 aren't doing that well, but not a cycle that goes on for a decade or anything like that.

For the record, I don't think even the big 3 would attract many ambitious foreign investors. Here in Portugal the fans vote for their president/chairmen, and Benfica's been there for nearly two decades and Porto's has been at their club since the early 1980s or so. He's gonna die in the throne. FC Porto is clearly an empire slowly collapsing and their chairman is already in his 80s and getting more senile everyday. Not even the referees quake in fear of him or run away from Porto players like they did in the 90s.

Also, our market is not as big as other countries. Not many people would want to watch Benfica walk over every opponent in the league like Rosenborg did in Norway for 13 seasons in a row. Even if people from out former colonies such as Angola and Mozambique follow our league, it's just not enough. We simply don't have a world following as big as EPL and La Liga clubs do, and sponsorship deals and tv rights are really what gives many mid table clubs form those countries turn a lot of profit.

From all I've seen in the Europa League I'd invest in Estoril.

Hertha is currently in third place by the way and will stay in the top ranks till the end of the season. Last season they made some significant changes that marked the beginning of a more sustainable development. Köln did the same. They are the first two clubs in Germany to re-pioneer the "do something and stick with it"-philosophy that completely does away with all elements of the long-popular "fire four coaches and two managers per season"-philosophy.

And why's that? What did you see in them? Those smaller Portuguese clubs due to lack of experience and pretty low budgets can never manage to get more than a couple of poitns in the Europa League.

Estoril had a couple of good seasons a few years ago due to a slightly bigger investment and their coach Marco Silva which played attractive offensive football instead of parking the bus like smaller Portuguese clubs do.

Estoril is part of Lisbon's metro area... but its fanbase is pretty much non-existent. It's basically near a high class suburb of Lisbon's metro area. People who live there don't care for a small poor club like that. They'll either want to play golf, surf and/or support one of the big 3.

For the record the historical Portuguese clubs, the ones who've won trophies, outside of the big 3 are:

Vitória Setúbal
Braga
Vit. Guimarães
Belenenses
Boavista
Beira-Mar
Académica
Marítimo

I'd rather invest in one of these before Estoril. Estoril hasn't won the Portuguese Cup or the League Cup even, and their fanbase, if they have one, consists of like... 40 people? Not much potential in them...

EDIT: btw, Nacional once knocked-out Zenit St Petersburg in a play-off round. Zenit which had won the UEFA Cup two seasons prior. Quite a feat! I also remember Leiria beating Leverkusen in a UEFA Cup group stage 3-1 some years ago.

When I saw them in the Europa League they were said to be a club that is based on getting nobodies, training them into somebodies, selling at a profit. That's the kind of philosophy I wouldn't touch with a ten feet pole as a football fan, but as a billionaire or energy drink imperium manager it'd definitely get my attention.

Well that might have been the case at the time. They went through a project like that for a few years and had loaned Benfica and Sporting players in their squad if I recall, so it was probably that. MJarco Silva, their coach, then went on to coach Sporting(remember their CL games against Schalke a couple of seasons ago? He was their coach and Olympiacos. No idea where he is nowadays, though.

But Estoril only played in Europe for a couple of seasons. Now they're back to being a lower table side. I credit their Europa League qualifications mostly on Marco Silva.

I'm surprised Braga still manage to do OK in Europe. I an see their bitter rivals, Vitória de Guimarães, if they're smart and put their potential to good use, pulling a Braga/Boavista someday. They've been labelled as "the Portuguese club with the highest growth potential" for several years now due to to being a rare case of a smaller club where most of its fans don't support one of the big 3 alongside it. their fans are quite nasty at times, though. They've had games in the UEFA Cup/Europa League that have ended up in fights between foreign team supporters. As passionate as they are and as important they are to our league I don't think they'd be very nice representatives of our country as far a supporter behaviour goes.

Back to German football, it's funny how Leverkusen are more well-known outside of Germany than their rival Köln. Many people outside of Germany believe Leverkusen actually is a fairly big club. That 2002 CL final is still fresh in many people's minds.

What are clubs with abig supporting base and history like Schalke and HSV doing with their lives?

Doesn't any European club with a substantial amount of supporters?


Well, Leverkusen are also quite often in the CL. Köln don't have nearly the same presence in European competitions.

I guess, but Rostock isn't a very well supported club as far as I know, so I guess their reckless fans stand out more significantly than let's say violent Arsenal supporters.


Köln also seem to get relegated once in a while. When was the last time Leverkusen didn't play in the Bundesliga? Probably before the 80s, I'm guessing.

We live in an age where playing in the CL is considered more important than winning domestic trophies, since a team like Arsenal can just go there every season while finishing 3rd or 4th in their league.

Leverkusen has faced Portuguese sides several times. This game is fucking legendary:



They also faced Sporting in the mid-90s I believe. And faced us in the 12/13 Europa League right after we fell from the Cl group stage, and were in our 14/15 CL group. Only time they got the best of us.

German sides always bring loads of supporters. When Benfica faced Nürnberg in 07/08 UEFA Cup I saw tons of Germans in the metro. Frankfurt fans also invaded Oporto when they faced Porto in the 13/14 Europa League. I don't recall seeing many Leverkusen fans here in Lisbon, though.

Russian, Polish and Turkish fans seem to love plastering their stickers all over the city. I still see a sticker or two in a metro station occasionally from Zenit or Legia ultras from a few years ago.

Btw, what are your favourite rivalries, guys?

The two corporation-owned clubs ("Werkself" = "factory eleven") Leverkusen and Wolfsburg traditionally never had many fans. Leverkusen fares a little better because of their much longer history (as you can see by their name, they were formed even before there was a rule against company names in the club name), even though VW puts three times as much money into Wolfsburg than Bayer does into Leverkusen.