Sturridge's latest comments obviously opened up the debate yet again and certainly gave ammunition for those that love to have a dig at Chelsea and question chelsea's history etc...I have never thought Chelsea are the biggest despite all our recent success...it will take decades for us to overhaul utd/liverpool...however, we're not this micky mouse outfit either...

 

Talksport released a league table the other day which incorporates every result since the start of professional league and it showed we're in sixth place all-time (now above Sp*rs)...even though we have been a real force over past decade, we must have been doing reasonably well the previous 100 years or so to still be so high....especially as we also come into existence after a lot of clubs

 

anyway, the beeb have taken the debate on further, with some interesting analysis and stats...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20974695

Interesting to see they have us having the 2nd highest worldwide fan base, that wont go down well with the scousers. Its a very liverpoolcentric piece, no surprise given the author I suppose. But its fairly obvious that man utd are the biggest club in England by quite some distance.

Also interesting that they blame Liverpool's lower attendances on the size of their stadium - surely the same applies to us?

Because they have never won the premier league, I would say that Liverpool WERE one of the biggest clubs. Now they're just the laughing stock of the league.

 

Plus, when you fail to acknowledge how big they are/were the dippers become infuriated, which is hilarious. 

I always thought Arsenal had a bigger worldwide fan base than us. Nice to see that isn't the case.

our progress over last decade inc. champions league, pre-season tours of usa and south east asia, plus presence of key africans like didier and essien means we have caught and then passed the gooners

I always thought Arsenal had a bigger worldwide fan base than us. Nice to see that isn't the case.

 

 

Worldwise yes, but id say they are still a bigger supported club than us in the UK (and most definitley in London)

 

Suspect that wont go down too well.

Also interesting that they blame Liverpool's lower attendances on the size of their stadium - surely the same applies to us?

 

 

Of course it does though it wont apply as its us of course. Liverpool, are a bigger club than us overall though. It cant be argued.

 

Again, im sure it wont be a popular post!! (im on fire!)

Edited January 11, 201313 yr by bjd

If we took it to the wider region and included Scotland, wouldn't Rangers and celtic be the biggest clubs in the country?

Of course it does though it wont apply as its us of course. Liverpool, are a bigger club than us overall though. It cant be argued.

 

Again, im sure it wont be a popular post!! (im on fire!)

No-one should complain about what you wrote about arse or liverpool...you're right...despite our rivalry and liverpool fans in particular being deluded tossers, we are still playing catch up....I think it's a bit of a childish debate anyway...what matters is the present and the future and that should give us more cause for concern at the moment than where we are ranked in the country..as I said, the best thing about these stats is we're not this johnny come lately outfit that many ignorant fans from elsewhere like to portray us as

Edited January 11, 201313 yr by The Brit

They both are certainly bigger than us, though the gap has definitely narrowed a lot in recent years and will probably continue to narrow as kids from our successful era grow up, which is pretty much how all clubs get the majority of their fans.

I like Chelsea being thought of as a small club. The small club that wins, or the biggest small club in the world.

I love the thought but i cant believe we are second worldwide

Arsenal are helped by the fact they used to be based in South London - a few towns away from me which means in my part of London you either support Charlton or Arsenal... If you're North London you either support Arsenal or Spuds... May be different otherwise. May not... But perhaps the gulf wouldn't be so big.

Interesting to see they have us having the 2nd highest worldwide fan base, that wont go down well with the scousers. Its a very liverpoolcentric piece, no surprise given the author I suppose. But its fairly obvious that man utd are the biggest club in England by quite some distance.

To put it mildly.This part, especially - he really doesn't want to give offence to any deluded Dippers:

 

Liverpool - only according to this set of figures, it should be stressed - were in seventh place with an estimated 71 million global supporters.

This will come as a surprise to those of us who have accompanied Liverpool to foreign parts and witnessed first-hand the sheer scale of worldwide support - and fanatical devotion - inspired by the Merseyside club.

Social media can also be used to check the scale of a club's size  in the modern age, although Manchester United's lack of an official Twitter feed rules them out of that particular calculation.

Barcelona have almost 7.8 million Twitter followers while Read Madrid clock in at 6.5 million. Arsenal have more than two million, a little over 200,000 more than Chelsea.

Liverpool have 1.4 million followers on their official Twitter feed but this figure is somewhat deceptive as they are now illustrating their worldwide appeal by having separate feeds for Indonesia, Thailand, India, France Spain - as well as in Arabic.

And those win percentage figures by decade show Chelsea (and Manure) to be more dominant in recent years than The Scousers ever were in their heyday.

We might not be the biggest club in the country, we might not even be the biggest in London. But we're Champions of Europe (at least until May), something the supposedly "bigger" Arsenal have never achieved.

To be fair to Sturridge he is clearly just saying that as its all Liverpool can brag about at the moment. They're currently a mid-table/Europa sort of team who will take about 4 or 5 years to get to title winning contention.

 

They have a better history than us, but we're the ones making history. 

in hong kong/china/asia the most popular is manure due to their players and the colour red! we are competing with the likes of real and barca due to the popularity of the EPL and the exploits of the drog and lamps. no other team come anywhere near to our status! loserpool can thank god that their shirt colour is red otherwise they can join villa! when i was last back in the homeland there was a load of manure shirts with giggs and rooney! i am proud to say there was also a lot of shirts with lamps and drog and surprisingly torres!! loserpool had gerrard! barca had messi and real had ronaldo!

I live in Australia and the majority of people over here support United, Liverpool or Arsenal, very few people support Chelsea, City, Spurs or a club from another European league. I suspect United have a massive fan base in Asia, and we've caught up slightly in recent years thanks to, as someone above mentioned, our African stars.

 

Drogba/Kalou/Essien/Mikel/Moses would definitely have raised our profile around Africa.

I live in Australia and the majority of people over here support United, Liverpool or Arsenal, very few people support Chelsea, City, Spurs or a club from another European league. I suspect United have a massive fan base in Asia, and we've caught up slightly in recent years thanks to, as someone above mentioned, our African stars.

 

Drogba/Kalou/Essien/Mikel/Moses would definitely have raised our profile around Africa.

You're totally right about that. I remember the days when I wanted to buy a Chelsea jersey in Australia and they never had them in stock. I even remember Leeds being more popular than Chelsea in Australia at one stage.

You're totally right about that. I remember the days when I wanted to buy a Chelsea jersey in Australia and they never had them in stock. I even remember Leeds being more popular than Chelsea in Australia at one stage.

So having Dave Mitchell in the side didn't shift many shirts,then?

 

For those of you who don't remember him, he was an 80's version of the Torres we signed (as opposed to the Torres Liverpool signed).

Dave mitchell put chelsea/australian relationships back years. Did he even make double figures In appearances for us?

He only played 7 league games for the club.

In Africa, Chelsea is the biggest supported club, due to African players we have had or still have. Followed closely by Man U. Arsenal and Liverpool fans are becoming less compared to a decade ago.

Dave Mitchell was a dead ringer for Jeremy Beadle.....but without the little, warped hand of course.

 

What is everyone's view on the London hierachy? (in size terms...)

 

I'd say Arsenal were top but then have trouble seperating Chelsea and Spurs in 2nd/3rd.  I still consider them pretty big support wise.....possibly still eclipsing Chelsea (in London at least).  West Ham in 4th.

 

That said, a friend of mine from Manchester said he never really regarded Spurs as that big.  That he thought West Ham were bigger.