So hear me out, the current top 10 clubs in the Premier League should be considered a “big 10”. So the general rule for a club to be considered a part of “big x” they have to be:

  1. Big club - a big fanbase and history
  2. Financial strength - ability to spend a lot to buy playera
  3. Pull factor - playera wanting to join the club just becuse of the club name
  4. Consistent success

Now there is no doubt why the “big 6” is part of this “big 10”.

Now Aston Villa, Newcastle are big clubs, spend a lot, pull players from big clubs from other leagues and have had consistent good results in last 2 season.

West Ham is a big club, with consistent results (apart from last season). However, they have less pull factor and less financial strength from clubs listed above. But, I believe that their ability is in these categories is still better than bottom 10 clubs so that’s why they should still be considered part of “big 10”.

Brighton is the only highly questionable. They have results and relative financial strength. However, they have almost no pull factor and aren’t a big club. But if their results continue to be good they will start to become a big club and gain a pull factor.

That’s why I believe Arsenal, Liverpool, City, Tottenham, Spurs, United, Newcastle, Aston Villa, Brighton and West Ham are part of “Big 10”. What do you think?

  • PJBuzz@alien.topBEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    Just look at the revenue and value of sponsorships of the clubs and you will understand why people make the determination.

    West Ham are, I think, the closest in revenue to the “big 6”, but still £100m short of Arsenal. NUFC are closer in sponsorship values, but still £15m a season short of Spurs.

    People get distracted by performances and conflate it with the general standing of the club. There is still a huge gap for clubs to bridge.