Which League has the best overall quality?

[Brick_Tamland]

Being from the US I do not get to see many other leagues that often.
The EPL being the most frequent that I get to watch.

How is the quality of the leagues in France, Germany, Netherlands, Italy, Scotland, etc in
comparison? I have always been curious about what others who actually get to see these leagues think of them.

[thebluesigns]

The "big" leagues tend to have the reputation for best quality; England, Spain, Italy. But, in reality these leagues are closed shops to the top handful of teams and aren't actually that competitive. The German top flight is probably best for entertainment, whilst the French is pretty competitive too. The Dutch league in Holland is a fairly average league, and it only really takes a couple of genuine decent players to look great in the league, such as Ajax did this season in RL with Suarez.

[SCIAG]

Scotland is very low quality. The best teams there are about the level of average Championship sides, the worst are League 1 relegation fodder at very best.

All the major leagues and the majority of the minor ones are "closed shops", despite the clichés. Lyon won Ligue 1 eight or nine times in a row. Bayern Munich are the only German side to do anything worthwhile in Europe.

Overall, I think the PL is of the highest standard, followed by Spain, then Germany, Italy. France would be some way behind, with the Netherlands, Portugal and Turkey some way off them.

[darrylv2]

FC Sheriff in Moldova are 3-4x as good as anyone esle in there league .. There also have money .. Bit too easy through

[Jack Currie]

Scotland is very low quality. The best teams there are about the level of average Championship sides, the worst are League 1 relegation fodder at very best.

All the major leagues and the majority of the minor ones are "closed shops", despite the clichés. Lyon won Ligue 1 eight or nine times in a row. Bayern Munich are the only German side to do anything worthwhile in Europe.

Overall, I think the PL is of the highest standard, followed by Spain, then Germany, Italy. France would be some way behind, with the Netherlands, Portugal and Turkey some way off them.

to begin i bet your english and know absolutly nothing about scottish football secondly the standard can be good think of celtic beating man u, ac milan, juventus, barca in recent years so its actually pretty decent

[Maidel]

to begin i bet your english and know absolutly nothing about scottish football secondly the standard can be good think of celtic beating man u, ac milan, juventus, barca in recent years so its actually pretty decent

Scottish football is dire. Sorry. There are two clubs that are 50x better than all the rest - and even they are going down hill because they simply dont have the cash to compete anymore.

[kingjericho]

i'd say spain and germany. lower league teams still have some pretty good players

[Romulan]

Greek one

[DirtyACE]

I'd say English and Spanish leagues are about equal, though you do get more of a semi-monopoly on the title in Spain due to Barcelona and Real Madrid. Italy is the third strongest league, but it's just a little weaker than England and Spain. Germany is forth and is probably the most competitive league, where several clubs could be challenging for the title in any given year. The French league follows in 5th place and is pretty competitive as well. After that, the drop off in quality is somewhat considerable. The leagues in Holland, Portugal, Scotland, and the like are no where near the quality of the top 4 four leagues, and they're usually stepping stones for players to get into the top leagues. However, those league do contain some good, solid teams as well.

Yeah, the Scottish league is quite terrible. There are two teams (Rangers and Celtic) that are just head and shoulders above the rest of the league, but they themselves are not that good either. They're about the level of relegation candidates in the EPL. Maybe a little better. The rest of the teams are dreadful for the most part.

Celtic getting some good results from Milan, Man Utd, Juventus, Barca, etc., has more to do with those teams not playing well, than Celtic being good.

[Hibserpool]

Scottish football is dire. Sorry. There are two clubs that are 50x better than all the rest - and even they are going down hill because they simply dont have the cash to compete anymore.

How many teams have won the English Premier League in the last 15 years? Keep in mind there is ten more teams than the SPL. I believe the answer is 3 different teams in 15 years? Chelsea and Man Utd at the moment are head and shoulders above the rest.

[Deep Lying Playmaker]

How many teams have won the English Premier League in the last 15 years? Keep in mind there is ten more teams than the SPL. I believe the answer is 3 different teams in 15 years? Chelsea and Man Utd at the moment are head and shoulders above the rest.

Don't want to get picky or anything but if you open that question to 20 years you get the likes of Blackburn, Leeds and Liverpool winning the Prem. Not to mention the fact that often the Prem is won the odd point, not the twenty odd in the SPL. Also look at the prospect of other teams such as Man City joining the top teams in the coming years and you do get a league the equal of La Liga in quality, and second only to the Germans in competitiveness.

[Hibserpool]

Don't want to get picky or anything but if you open that question to 20 years you get the likes of Blackburn, Leeds and Liverpool winning the Prem. Not to mention the fact that often the Prem is won the odd point, not the twenty odd in the SPL. Also look at the prospect of other teams such as Man City joining the top teams in the coming years and you do get a league the equal of La Liga in quality, and second only to the Germans in competitiveness.

Completely agree with you but the reason i quoted the post i did, was because he was stating such dominence of the top teams made it a poor league. I just stated that the english league wasn't far behind in terms of dominence. Although in the last 20 years only Celtic and Rangers have won the league, we have also seen the likes of Hearts, Motherwell and Aberdeen finishing 2nd. Dundee United actually ran Celtic close this season and won the Scottish cup. IMO, 3 teams dominating a league with 20 teams is as bad as 2 teams dominating a league with 10 teams. In spain, Barca, Real Madrid and Valencia are the only teams to have won La Liga in the last 10 years and if you add Atletico Madrid, its only 4 teams in the last 26 years.

I would personally say the French and German are the most competitive and the EPL and La Liga have the best teams/players.

[Deep Lying Playmaker]

I would personally say the French and German are the most competitive.

Definitely have to disagree with France due to the dominance of Lyon for years.

Germany, absolutely.

[Hibserpool]

Definitely have to disagree with France due to the dominance of Lyon for years.

Germany, absolutely.

I would have agreed with you a few years ago, but Ligue 1 has had 3 different winners in the last 3 years with Lyon, Bordeaux last year and marseilles this year.

[Galo]

Ok, so everybody here is giving their opinion as to which league is better. Here are the official rankings from the International Federation of Football History & Statistics:

http://www.iffhs.de/?b6e28fa3002f715...f3702bb1c2bb11

They break down the ranking into a science, so this goes beyond just a group of people's opinions based on what they see on TV.

The top 5 in order are: England, Spain, Germany, Brazil, Italy.

Of those, the most competitive would be Brazil and then Germany. Much has been said about the closed shop style of the English and Spanish leagues, where 2 or 3 teams win everything year after year.

In Brazil, for example, each year no less than 11 out of the 20 top flight clubs have a realistic chance of winning. In the last 10 years 7 different Brazilian clubs have won-and that includes a brief domination by Sao Paulo who won 3 in a row between 2006-2008. Also keep in mind all those clubs won with world class players in their squads such as Robinho, Maicon, and others.

I have a friend who is English, and he has told me one of the most missed points over in the U.K. is the quality of the Brazilian league. For the English, it appears they view Brazil as simply a farm for wonderkids. Most are unaware of the quality and competitiveness of the Brazilian Serie A. Case and point: The league is ranked 4th in the world yet in this very thread no mention of it has been made. Yet we discussed over and over the following leagues: Scottish ( 26th place) Dutch (8th place) Italian ( 5th place) and French (6th place)

Maybe, just maybe one day the English will begin to take the Brazilian league seriously. Unfortunantly, I think that will happen on the same day that their national squad gets a world class GK

[Hibserpool]

Ok, so everybody here is giving their opinion as to which league is better. Here are the official rankings from the International Federation of Football History & Statistics:

http://www.iffhs.de/?b6e28fa3002f715...f3702bb1c2bb11

They break down the ranking into a science, so this goes beyond just a group of people's opinions based on what they see on TV.

The top 5 in order are: England, Spain, Germany, Brazil, Italy.

Of those, the most competitive would be Brazil and then Germany. Much has been said about the closed shop style of the English and Spanish leagues, where 2 or 3 teams win everything year after year.

In Brazil, for example, each year no less than 11 out of the 20 top flight clubs have a realistic chance of winning. In the last 10 years 7 different Brazilian clubs have won-and that includes a brief domination by Sao Paulo who won 3 in a row between 2006-2008. Also keep in mind all those clubs won with world class players in their squads such as Robinho, Maicon, and others.

I have a friend who is English, and he has told me one of the most missed points over in the U.K. is the quality of the Brazilian league. For the English, it appears they view Brazil as simply a farm for wonderkids. Most are unaware of the quality and competitiveness of the Brazilian Serie A. Case and point: The league is ranked 4th in the world yet in this very thread no mention of it has been made. Yet we discussed over and over the following leagues: Scottish ( 26th place) Dutch (8th place) Italian ( 5th place) and French (6th place)

Maybe, just maybe one day the English will begin to take the Brazilian league seriously. Unfortunantly, I think that will happen on the same day that their national squad gets a world class GK

To be honest i think it has to do with tv coverage. We get to see a lot more of the European Leagues on tv than South American leagues. Although it is common sense that Brazil will have Quality teams with the world class players that come through the Brazillian academys. Is the Argentinian league similar?

[ANDEHLSON]

Ok, so everybody here is giving their opinion as to which league is better. Here are the official rankings from the International Federation of Football History & Statistics:

http://www.iffhs.de/?b6e28fa3002f715...f3702bb1c2bb11

They break down the ranking into a science, so this goes beyond just a group of people's opinions based on what they see on TV.

The top 5 in order are: England, Spain, Germany, Brazil, Italy.

Of those, the most competitive would be Brazil and then Germany. Much has been said about the closed shop style of the English and Spanish leagues, where 2 or 3 teams win everything year after year.

In Brazil, for example, each year no less than 11 out of the 20 top flight clubs have a realistic chance of winning. In the last 10 years 7 different Brazilian clubs have won-and that includes a brief domination by Sao Paulo who won 3 in a row between 2006-2008. Also keep in mind all those clubs won with world class players in their squads such as Robinho, Maicon, and others.

I have a friend who is English, and he has told me one of the most missed points over in the U.K. is the quality of the Brazilian league. For the English, it appears they view Brazil as simply a farm for wonderkids. Most are unaware of the quality and competitiveness of the Brazilian Serie A. Case and point: The league is ranked 4th in the world yet in this very thread no mention of it has been made. Yet we discussed over and over the following leagues: Scottish ( 26th place) Dutch (8th place) Italian ( 5th place) and French (6th place)

What's this ranking based on? The fact that Romania is above Portugal, Greece and Belgium doesnt make it too credible.. (there are other oddities in there as well..)

Not that I'm saying that Brazil doesnt have quality. (although I definitely wouldn't place them above Italy)

[Sead Muratic]

Back on the first question,
In the last five years, there are more EPL teams won Champions League, more in the final, semifinals, or quarter finals than any other team.
In this world cup, the number of EPL players almost double those of either Bundesliga or La Liga, Serie A is way behind.
The amount of money involved in the league are by far the most. Teams in EPL earned and spent much more in average than teams in any other league. They also sink themselves in more debts, unfortunately.
Take out the big in every league, the quality of football in EPL too is honestly better than the rest. I don't think team in the lower half of Serie A are much stronger than the mid-table team in the Championship, while they are better in La Liga or Bundesliga, but still not as good.

However, I agree that there are leagues with better competitiveness than the EPL. But competitiveness has a little to do with overall quality anyway. We have a very competitive league here every year in Indonesia, the 18 teams in the top tier have almost equal chance of winning the league, different team win each year, all of them are of equal quality, which is about the quality of football in Regional Premier in England.

[joey6]

Best league is the German league, the Bundesliga is the best league in the World currently, plus the amount of teams in the lower leagues is immense.... cause the country is larger than most European countries like England

[edgar555]

to begin i bet your english and know absolutly nothing about scottish football secondly the standard can be good think of celtic beating man u, ac milan, juventus, barca in recent years so its actually pretty decent

Laughing so hard its hurting.
You know what SPL really stands for? Semi Professional League and thats being generous.
Your football is poor. One off wins against those teams, generally in matches that meant nothing to them, prove nada.

EPL and La Liga are the top leagues.

BTW, I'm still laughing at the scots!!

[scoot4nat]

Nice to see the usual knocking of the SPL.

Whilst it isn't whatr you would consider a "top league", in relation to the size and population of Scotland - it really isn;t that bad. Add to the fact that Rangers and Celtic have much more finanical clout than the others means that they dominate year in year out. Teams like Hearts and Dundee United have mounted a decent challenge in the past but tend to run out of steam and often have theur best players leave after a good season or two.

Bear in mind as well that Scotland is a relatively cheap market for talent to be plundered - many players leave for the lure of England and clubs cannot comepte with teams south of the border financially.

To pick up on a previous post though - in relation to Celtic beting some top teams in the past and saying the other teams played badly - you either did not watch these games, know nothing about football or are most likely your typical biased English Football Fan who likes to shout their mouth off about things they think they understand.

Now I am a Rangers fan, but I know for a fact that Celtic played very well to beat Man Utd, and going back a few more years, beating Juventus 4-3 at Parkhead and spanking Liverpool and Blackburn AT THEIR OWN GROUNDS during hteir UEFA Cup run. The sight of Blackburn fans streaming out of the ground after getting a hammering despite all their pre-match predictions (inclduing one Mr. Souness) put a big smile on my face.

No I'm not saying Celtic, Rangers or any team in Scotland is great - but at least show some respect when talking about them. No other league has been described as "terrible" in this thread.

And finally, it's not the English that makes the EPL the best league in Europe (which I believe it is).

[scoot4nat]

Laughing so hard its hurting.
You know what SPL really stands for? Semi Professional League and thats being generous.
Your football is poor. One off wins against those teams, generally in matches that meant nothing to them, prove nada.

EPL and La Liga are the top leagues.

BTW, I'm still laughing at the scots!!

I'm still laughing since Saturday mate - along with the rest of the footballing world.

[Hibserpool]

Laughing so hard its hurting.
You know what SPL really stands for? Semi Professional League and thats being generous.
Your football is poor. One off wins against those teams, generally in matches that meant nothing to them, prove nada.

EPL and La Liga are the top leagues.

BTW, I'm still laughing at the scots!!

This post absolutely reeks of arrogance.


BTW, don't forget, the best and most successful manager to have ever managed in the premier league is a scot

[Galo]

What's this ranking based on? The fact that Romania is above Portugal, Greece and Belgium doesnt make it too credible.. (there are other oddities in there as well..)

Not that I'm saying that Brazil doesnt have quality. (although I definitely wouldn't place them above Italy)

According to their website:

The classification of the best leagues of the world is made objectively without any outside influence of any sort. We follow the criteria that the level of performance of a league is reflected by the best classified teams of that league who in turn usually represent their country in international club competitions. If one looks at the football power-houses of the world, one notices that regularly 4 or 5 clubs of their leagues are always competing in continental competitions. By adding the points won in all competitions by the five best placed clubs of each league, we have the points for the country which in turn helps to establish a fair classification. It is important to note that only the yearly classification is representative, since all competitions move along the whole season and over twelve months, we have an objective view of the best. This system has been used since 1991, and it is recognized today as the most precise in rating the leagues of the world.

They have been the standards for world rankings for nearly 20 years now. Here are the best managers in the world rankings for 2009:

http://www.iffhs.de/?d443d0b45fdcc02...c70aeedb8a3d0c

They even rank the best referees in the world:

http://www.iffhs.de/?28e43c03f32b00f...02bb1c2bbb6e0b


Why is it so hard to believe Brazil can be ahead of Itlay? First of all they are ahead by a mere 21 points. Furthermore, the Italian league had been plagued as of late with various scandals and noticable drop in their overall quality. Not to say they are not still a top league, just that the Brazilian Serie A inches them out. Had we looked at this ranking back in the 90s things would have been different. Here are the rankings from back in 1995 for example:

http://www.iffhs.de/?b6e28fa3002f768...f3702bb1c2bb11


As you can see Italy is at the top, just as they should have been back in those days.

[FrazT]

Lets keep this on topic and cut out the personal comments please

[Brick_Tamland]

Sorry for spawning a bit of a disagreement.
I was just curious as to what others thought. What caused me to ask is I am running a Scotland LG using Hibernian and the quality of player attributes seem lower than some other leagues. 16 for an attribute seems to be a rare high for the scottish teams.

[scoot4nat]

Don't want to get picky or anything but if you open that question to 20 years you get the likes of Blackburn, Leeds and Liverpool winning the Prem. Not to mention the fact that often the Prem is won the odd point, not the twenty odd in the SPL. Also look at the prospect of other teams such as Man City joining the top teams in the coming years and you do get a league the equal of La Liga in quality, and second only to the Germans in competitiveness.

Again - more ignorance - when is the last time there has been a twenty point gap between forst and second in the SPL?

In the past 3 seasons I don't think there has been mroe than 5 points between Rangers and Celtic, and a few years ago it was decided by one goal of a difference - with a last minute penaty - none other than Mikel Arteta.

[Krald]

In the past 3 seasons I don't think there has been mroe than 5 points between Rangers and Celtic, and a few years ago it was decided by one goal of a difference - with a last minute penaty - none other than Mikel Arteta.

Maybe between those two, but there probably have been times where there was 20 odd point gap between 2nd and 3rd. It still is a two-horse race which occasionally looks like it might become a three-horse but then falls short of that.

That said, I love the scottish league in FM, it actually has all the ingredients you might need to chllenge for european dominance, see it's a perfect breeding ground, there's tougher teams, which is mostly just celtic in my game (rangers seem to be awfully managed and heading for relegation in 2021) to test players, and then there's easier teams where you can stick on some young players to get them some experience. I've now worked up like 20 odd home-grown players at my st mirren save because it's such a beautiful place to develop youth from. I barely get by money-wise, but wage demands seem to be lower, my star striker demanded 30k/week from me which gave him, and when I sold him he got 160k per week (pounds).

I've managed to build a squad that can challenge for european honours, and surprisingly, last champions league win was in a final against Celtic, AI-managed too.

http://img815.imageshack.us/img815/9...usualfinal.jpg <- for some proof (didn't img tag it as it stretched the thread)

So you can really get to the top in any of the "Higher" leagues, but you'd want one that's at least giving you instant qualification for group stage of the champions league if you win the title, which scotland does fine as it's a big money-earner, and even if you can't get out of the group, it's still a huge boost to the finances.

Anyway, I dont think scotland is one of the "top leagues" per-se, but in the year FM2010 is set, it's ranked I think 12th or so on the EU tables at least, which does have it in a good enough spot EU-qualification wise. Player-quality wise it seems most estimations are true that it varies from low-mid prem quality to championship and even the odd team that might struggle in the one below. Doesn't mean it can't be a good scrap, doesn't mean you cant build a team there.

[Jack Currie]

Laughing so hard its hurting.
You know what SPL really stands for? Semi Professional League and thats being generous.
Your football is poor. One off wins against those teams, generally in matches that meant nothing to them, prove nada.

EPL and La Liga are the top leagues.

BTW, I'm still laughing at the scots!!

the epl isn't really that good take away the money and you'd have nothing the population difference between scotland and england is huge, london alone has a bigger population ! the english national team is a shambles and before george burley which is under a year ago scottish football was really got e.g beating france HOME and AWAY

[Maidel]

the epl isn't really that good take away the money and you'd have nothing the population difference between scotland and england is huge, london alone has a bigger population ! the english national team is a shambles and before george burley which is under a year ago scottish football was really got e.g beating france HOME and AWAY

erm...

The money is why the EPL is good - I dont think anyone will disagree with that. And the scottish and english national teams have nothing to do with how good the leagues are.

To go back to a few comments further back:

How many teams have won the English Premier League in the last 15 years? Keep in mind there is ten more teams than the SPL. I believe the answer is 3 different teams in 15 years? Chelsea and Man Utd at the moment are head and shoulders above the rest.

It has nothing to do with who wins and who doesnt - its strength in depth. Look at fulham last year - 12th best team in the league, got to the final of the uefa cup and beat some pretty damn good teams along the way. Appart from last season I think all 4 teams in the champions league had gotten through to the knock out stages for about 5 or 6 years.


Its not all about 'negative' comments on scottish football, I couldnt care less - I support crystal palace (insert laughs here) and I can accept we are a dire championship team. Scottish football in general is probably on a par with the championship, with the exception of the top two who are just about premiership standard. HOWEVER, go back 5 years (and then even further) and celtic and rangers were as good as any teams in the premiership or europe, however in recent years the money simply is not there to support their ambition, even with their huge stadia and thus they have plummetted and will continue to do so unless they can get another revenue stream to compete.

Im not sure what the best league is. Based on the Champions league performances I think it goes EPL, spain, germany, italy. Based on overall quality I think it probably goes EPL and then germany, spain and italy all just behind. However, were the money to slow to the EPL, then one of the others would definately over take.

[scoot4nat]

Nioce to see some constructive posts - the two immediatley above this one.

Listen, I'm not saying the SPL is on par with Premiership - obviously it isn't for which there are may reasons. I just don;t like people making off the cuff remarks about the standard of a league that they don't even watch.

Just with rgards to Fulham - getting to the final was a great acheivement and I don't undervalue it - since the Old Firm have made it as well in recent history. However, although finished mid-table that is not an indication that the 11th best team in England is good enough to nearly win the Europa League. Fulham's domestic efforts suffered because of their participation i.e. - they're final league postion does not reflect their standing in that leagie. You would have to say that had they not been in Europe - they could easily have acheived a higher finish in the EPL - maybe 2,3 or even 4 places (I'm not sure of the total points difference). Fulham are probably one of the top 6 or 7 teams in England. Now obviously Rangers and Celtic didn't tumbled down the league during their respective UEFA Cup runs - simply down to the fact that they dominate the league. On both occaisons though, the team in the Final were initially odds on to win the league - and both times they manged not to win it!

[Maidel]

Nioce to see some constructive posts - the two immediatley above this one.

Listen, I'm not saying the SPL is on par with Premiership - obviously it isn't for which there are may reasons. I just don;t like people making off the cuff remarks about the standard of a league that they don't even watch.

Ahem... I regularly watch Scottish football.

Just thought that needed to be pointed out.

Fair enough about fulham, - so ill revise the statement. The 7th or 8th best team in England was good enough to get to the final of the Uefa cup and beat a set of very big european teams on the way.

[scoot4nat]

Ahem... I regularly watch Scottish football.

Just thought that needed to be pointed out.

Fair enough about fulham, - so ill revise the statement. The 7th or 8th best team in England was good enough to get to the final of the Uefa cup and beat a set of very big european teams on the way.

Ah...now I wasn't refering to yourself with regards to watching Scottish football.

Fair point with Fulham though - they did really well. Hope they hang onto Roy Hodgson - I can;t see why he would want to go to Liverpool with all their troubles.

[edgar555]

the epl isn't really that good take away the money and you'd have nothing the population difference between scotland and england is huge, london alone has a bigger population ! the english national team is a shambles and before george burley which is under a year ago scottish football was really got e.g beating france HOME and AWAY

Such a shambles that we made it to a world cup. Again. And you did when? Exactly. Anyway I already got a warning for that post so I'm sure you'll all be pleased about that.
Beating a team managed by that nutter Domenech means very little.
You lot can go on thinking that the SPL is the greatest thing since sliced bread if you want.
FYI Scoot my post wasn't arrogant, just speaking my mind.
You lot also need to remember that the last time scottish football was watchable was when Rangers had a team of Englishmen (Woods, Butcher, Gazza, Roberts etc).

[tdpatriots12]

This thread reminds me of global politics. An American does or says something, and before you know it civil war has ignited across tribal lines.

The UN needs to get this thread back on topic.

[dustygator]

Brazil is more competitive than Germany.
Corinthians won the league in 2005, relegated in 2007, promoted after 2008, placed 10th in 2009 and are leading the table this year. Although they did sign Il Fenomeno in 2009.
Gremio was relegated in 2005 and have since placed 3rd, 6th, 2nd and 8th.
Fluminense since 2005- 5th, 15th, 4th, 14th, 16th

[cool dude]

Italy is definitely the 2nd best after EPL, though I would argue quality of football is better in Italy myself, most disagree.. Its definitely more competitive than Spanish any day, and moreso than England too... it has been set back by Calciopoli though (mostly the reason for Inter's dominance in recent years) and there is various other reasons like TV and sponsorship deals, but its a league back on the up and could be the best league in the world again in the next decade i think

England will decline soon imho, because of high taxation to players salaries here (unless the tories end this, but i doubt it) and the fact less and less English players are playing in the premiership, as well as almost every club becoming foreign owned and badly managed... Germany are probably the best economically, and have great fans too but at the moment lack the star power atm - but like Italy, I can see Germany going on the rise too.. they also seem to be better equipped to deal with that than the Premiership has been

Spain I can't see the duopoly of barca and madrid changing and the supposedly 3rd best club, Valencia, is in financial ruins and have just lost their top player..

cant really comment on Brazillian league football much, but the few games ive seen in it the quality of football has been pretty poor.. but like i say, only a few games

[ANDEHLSON]

The classification of the best leagues of the world is made objectively without any outside influence of any sort. We follow the criteria that the level of performance of a league is reflected by the best classified teams of that league who in turn usually represent their country in international club competitions. If one looks at the football power-houses of the world, one notices that regularly 4 or 5 clubs of their leagues are always competing in continental competitions. By adding the points won in all competitions by the five best placed clubs of each league, we have the points for the country which in turn helps to establish a fair classification. It is important to note that only the yearly classification is representative, since all competitions move along the whole season and over twelve months, we have an objective view of the best. This system has been used since 1991, and it is recognized today as the most precise in rating the leagues of the world.

This and the FIFA rankings...

With Portugal being 3rd, ahead of Germany.. (who beat Portugal in WC 2006 and Euro 2008)

But there is something I don't get.. So the points = how many points the best 4/5 clubs in those countries achieved in their domestic league?
(like if Cluj won the romanian league with 80 points it would count more than Porto winning the PT league with 70?)

Because if it is that makes no sense lol.

There is just no way Romania can be ahead of Portugal. (same applies to Turkey and Ukraine tbh... especially Ukraine)

[Oypus]

I heard/read somewhere that the German league has been the most watched worldwide for 2 or 3 years now, so take that for what you will.

I still prefer the English and Italian leagues though.

[Galo]

This and the FIFA rankings...

With Portugal being 3rd, ahead of Germany.. (who beat Portugal in WC 2006 and Euro 2008)

But there is something I don't get.. So the points = how many points the best 4/5 clubs in those countries achieved in their domestic league?
(like if Cluj won the romanian league with 80 points it would count more than Porto winning the PT league with 70?)

Because if it is that makes no sense lol.

There is just no way Romania can be ahead of Portugal. (same applies to Turkey and Ukraine tbh... especially Ukraine)

I don't think so. The reason being is that in Continental competitions and Cups there are typically no points at any stage, certainly not after the group stages. So I doubt it is a raw measure of how many points a club scored in their domestic leagues. If that were the case we would see random leagues such as Australia near the top since they have nearly no rivals in the Oceanic competitions. Same for Japan & S. Korea in Asia.

Therefore how many points a club such as Cluj earned in the Romanian league vs how many Porto earned in the Portuguese league has no bearing on the rankings. It appears that points are earned for certain victories and draws in various different competitions. For example: Brazilian side Palmeiras finishing 3rd in the Brazilian league would earn 40 points and making it to the quarter finals of the Libertadores would earn them 34 points, and then making it to the semi finals of the Brazilian Cup would earn them 38. Do that for every club in every league in the world and total the points.

In either case, the rankings clearly put the Brazilian Serie A in 4th place and it is not undeserved. The Brazilian league, aside from being EXTREMLY competitive demonstrates quality football year after year. Remember that before any of the Brazilian heroes playing in Europe became known over there they were displaying their brilliance in Brazil. Not to mention the Brazilian Serie A attracts and retains more and more big name players each year.

[scoot4nat]

Such a shambles that we made it to a world cup. Again. And you did when? Exactly. Anyway I already got a warning for that post so I'm sure you'll all be pleased about that.
Beating a team managed by that nutter Domenech means very little.
You lot can go on thinking that the SPL is the greatest thing since sliced bread if you want.
FYI Scoot my post wasn't arrogant, just speaking my mind.
You lot also need to remember that the last time scottish football was watchable was when Rangers had a team of Englishmen (Woods, Butcher, Gazza, Roberts etc).

Listen mate - you're talking rubbbish.

1. Not once has anyone said the SPL is the greatest in the world.

2. You say the last time the SPL was watchable was when Rangers had lots of Englishmen...Gazza didn't play for Rangers when Woods and Butcher were there - Gazza was at Rangers when we the likes of McCoist, Albertz, Laudrup et al were in their prime - so you've shown there that you know nothing.

3. How many other English players played in the team with Woods and Butcher? Because yuo seem to imply that that the team was full of them.

4. You seek to downplay the results over France. Well maybe you didn;t know that they did reach the final of the last World Cup - and that team wasn't all that different to the one that Scotland beat home and away.

Don't worry too much about the warning - it's for your own good - save you making more of a fool of yourself.

[FrazT]

For the second and last time- keep this on topic and stop bickering.

[JGM]

I'm a proud Englishman but find the Scotland bashing in this thread very unfair.

If you compare the SPL and Scottish League as a whole to countries in Europe with similar populations (Slovakia, Norway, Denmark etc) they actually stack up very well, bearing in mind the population of Scotland is very centralised even more so. What would really improve the Scottish leagues for me would be a proper pyramid system down from the 3rd division to the Highlands league etc but thats another topic entirely.

As for the national team yea they dont have a great crop of players right now but they will have again as they did in the 90s when they qualified for major tournaments in 90, 92, 96, 98and very nearly in 2000. These things tend to go in cycles.

For the record no idea why anyone is laughing about Saturday (tho admitedly I was at Download Festival so didnt see it), I was happy to draw with the 2nd best team in the group who have beaten Spain and Italy in the last year, but then again I dont think we have any real chance of winning the tournament so maybe its just me.

Oh and stop the bickering. Were all so intermingled now the only difference between English and Scots is which side of a drawn up line you happen to be born on, no one is Celtic or anything else its a complete myth so lets see some love mmmkaayyy

[Hibserpool]

I'm a proud Englishman but find the Scotland bashing in this thread very unfair.

If you compare the SPL and Scottish League as a whole to countries in Europe with similar populations (Slovakia, Norway, Denmark etc) they actually stack up very well, bearing in mind the population of Scotland is very centralised even more so. What would really improve the Scottish leagues for me would be a proper pyramid system down from the 3rd division to the Highlands league etc but thats another topic entirely.

As for the national team yea they dont have a great crop of players right now but they will have again as they did in the 90s when they qualified for major tournaments in 90, 92, 96, 98and very nearly in 2000. These things tend to go in cycles.

For the record no idea why anyone is laughing about Saturday (tho admitedly I was at Download Festival so didnt see it), I was happy to draw with the 2nd best team in the group who have beaten Spain and Italy in the last year, but then again I dont think we have any real chance of winning the tournament so maybe its just me.

Oh and stop the bickering. Were all so intermingled now the only difference between English and Scots is which side of a drawn up line you happen to be born on, no one is Celtic or anything else its a complete myth so lets see some love mmmkaayyy

Top post sir, i salute you!

[Maidel]

I'm a proud Englishman but find the Scotland bashing in this thread very unfair.

If you compare the SPL and Scottish League as a whole to countries in Europe with similar populations (Slovakia, Norway, Denmark etc) they actually stack up very well, bearing in mind the population of Scotland is very centralised even more so. What would really improve the Scottish leagues for me would be a proper pyramid system down from the 3rd division to the Highlands league etc but thats another topic entirely.

But... erm - thats the point of this thread? (Well not the bashing aspect). The thread doesnt say 'if everying was equal and all nations had the same population and the same funding - which league would be best?'

The fact is that scotland has one of the 'weaker' leagues in europe. It has only two teams who have recently done anything in Europe (yes yes I know 20+ years ago aberdeen wasnt all that bad). And they have done so badly in european competitions that from next year they are dropping down to the 16th best league in europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_co...ue_coefficient - and that means in 2011/12 they will only have 1 team in the champions league - that will put them in the 'lower teir' of european countries with 1 champions league spot and 3 europa league spots (thats 16th place all the way down to 40th place).

Sure some people have been 'bashing' scotland - but its not unjustified - the stats dont lie and neither does the UEFA rankings.

[JGM]

But... erm - thats the point of this thread? (Well not the bashing aspect). The thread doesnt say 'if everying was equal and all nations had the same population and the same funding - which league would be best?'

The fact is that scotland has one of the 'weaker' leagues in europe. It has only two teams who have recently done anything in Europe (yes yes I know 20+ years ago aberdeen wasnt all that bad). And they have done so badly in european competitions that from next year they are dropping down to the 16th best league in europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_co...ue_coefficient - and that means in 2011/12 they will only have 1 team in the champions league - that will put them in the 'lower teir' of european countries with 1 champions league spot and 3 europa league spots (thats 16th place all the way down to 40th place).

Sure some people have been 'bashing' scotland - but its not unjustified - the stats dont lie and neither does the UEFA rankings.

Agreed. I wasnt disputing the fact its not a great league I was just trying to put the SPL into some sort of perspective, sorry it was rather off topic of me.

Back on topic personally I enjoy watching the EPL most, the English league as a whole has amazing strength in depth with over 100 professional teams now within the pyramid. I think La Liga is probally technically better, but seems much slower tempo wise and I dont think you can ever be as invested in watching football from another country.

[TheRealMagpies]

All the topflight leagues in all the nations have 2-4 major teams with the rest making up the midtable/relegation fodder.

However not all those 2-4 teams are equal, some are noticably better than the others.

I've managed teams in Scandanavia and Eastern Europe, and the best clubs (ingame) here range from strong midtable EPL down to ECL Promotion/Title chasing quality, when compared to English Clubs.

CSKA in Bulgaria are a good example, they have an excellent fanbase and a good team, with strong finances, but they do not have the players or finances to compete with teams like Barcelona, Man U, Liverpool etc. In Bulgaria, on my latest savegame, they totally dominate thier own league & have done for over 10 years, but they have never done well in any continental competition where they rarely beat any Major Western European team.

[GillsMan]

Off topic. Closed. England v Scotland arguments = tedium.