Dont look to the title of the video, this may look offensive to fellow Madridistas but the video has nothing to do with the title, finally found a video in English so I had to share.

Not sure if worldwide Barca fans know their club History, most of them became fans while watching them play, but here is why Barca natives are so passionate specially elder people, started supporting them in 2000 when my family went living in the French cataluna ( cataluna is a nation divided between France and Spain ) at time i was 12 yo, my favorite player was Rivaldo and the actual coach was LVG. Madrid were on their Galactico period so it was a hard moment to be Barca fan, then Barca signed Etoo and Ronaldinho in 2003-2004 and here we are :)

This vid made me wanna cry. THANKS SO MUCH FOR SHARING.

The title indeed has very less thing to do with it except the Di Stefano case and that started the Madrid domination... But there are much more. Barca even admitted the feeling of victimization held them back too...

And HUGE HUGE RESPECT for Gamber!!! (not a Catalan, he's from Switzerland). How come we have never heard or seen Barca celebrates his legacy??? Or may be it hasn't been big enough to catch attention???

Watching these vid we understand more how Figo becomes the biggest traitor in football history... and why Catalan hates him so much...

Very good video, even with that title.

I am well aware that this may be an unpopular opinion, and rub some people the wrong way, but I find the nationalistic politics behind the Real/Barca rivalry very discouraging. Blaming modern-day Madrid for what happened sixty years ago is the logical equivalent of blaming modern-day Germany for the holocaust. Barcelona has always retained its Catalan roots as far as I'm aware, which makes it "more" than a football club, it makes it a political tool, and I can't say I'm a fan of that. For me, sports are about sports, not a political statements. How many people affiliated with Barcelona were hurt by their political ties? Same with Real, or even vice versa, who wrongly benefited from political ties? For me, sports are an entertainment industry that should be entertaining, not promoting one political statement over another. Nothing productive usually comes out of it, just increased anger, pain, and hardship. It's a very North American attitude that I know is often lost in the context of European clubs, but whatever.

@SunFlash: yep! Sport should be just sport.

I think the rivalry between Barca and Real now is quite healthy, despite always being intense, and obviously political influenced.

I dont think in the vid they blame Real's modern day, they felt victimized and humiliated during Di Stefano's time... that was in the past.

Given the history, I can also understand why the rivalry is not just football... it's in their blood. But I guess they will keep it under control

Barca organize every year the Johan gamper cup, last frienfdly against sampdoria was, 2 Johan gamper's street at Barcelona centrum, every 6 yo Barcelona native knows who is Gamper.
Yw glad you' est watched it guys.

And guys Catalans from Spain still want independance, French side do not want it for obviously one simple reason, north of Spain works much more than south. Taxes in the north are higher And They feel They are carrying the south, Basc Country in Spain feels the same. In France its the opposite, Basc And catalans are less taxed than the north because They work less, it has to be related to the sun pr weather :) without talking about the hate of Madrid the capital And the government place wich is hated from father to son. But thats Spain, you cant blame Spanish for knowing their History, but I dont think youngsters or worldwide fans hate Madrid for Franco, Mourinho played a role lately to make classico heated. Aside from that every sport has à political value, Football was promoted that way because its an opium for popular classes, just like NBA is US, if you think sport has no relation with politics you are just fooling yourself.

@Tiki For sure, in spain, between Barca and other team (Real Madrid in particular), there is a lot of politic involved. What about you Tiki, would you like it that Catalan manage to get their independance? Then again, I don't think it will happen anytime soon. :(

I understand that the way many clubs were founded in Europe affects politics, you having nationalist clubs, ethnic clubs, working class clubs, Jewish clubs, etc, but in tradition with capitalist America, nearly every club here was founded for the purpose of making money, with several minor exceptions (see: Green Bay Packers, owner wanted a team in his state). Because of that, no club here has a political point at all. The closest we come is in the blue moon a Canadian hockey team wins the Stanley Cup, all the Canadians laugh at Americans for a year, but in traditional Canadian anything, there's nothing malicious in it. unless Vancouver or Montreal is involved, but even then they keep in between themselves

NBA in the USA falls into an interesting category, but not really a political one. Much like the rap music style, it has a certain origin and appeal in the inner cities of metropolis America. But no one franchise really represents anything other than the city itself, and occasionally the state. Usually, the biggest conflicts in terms of rivalries come in the college game, where alumni identify with their specific university. Even then, with 95,000 drunk college kids in a stadium, nothing political or violent ever happens.

Fan atmosphere, and even "rivalries" are incredibly different in North America and North American sports, to the point I was surprised not only by the intensity of fans overseas, but also the role they played. In NBA/NFL/NHL/MLB fans are observers, NOT active participants. There are exceptions, for example the Seattle Seahawks fans make themselves so loud that basic communication is impossible:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFRPJKwqHo0

But even this is purpose driven to prevent the communication/coordination of the other team. It's not done for the purposes of fan atmosphere. Crowd/player violence is non-existent. The worst incident the NFL has had in the last decade is this:

December 21, 2008 – During a game between the Seattle Seahawks and the New York Jets in Seattle, the Jets' Shaun Ellis threw a large chunk of snow at Seahawks fans. Two days later, after the NFL fined Ellis $10,000 for his actions, Ellis claimed that it was "all in good fun."

Not actually kidding. That shouldn't even count as violence. Yet in soccer/football, there is an incident every other week. The only thing even close to a riot we've had in the last 50 years was the Vancouver "riot" in 2011, when Vancouver got mad their hockey team lost the Stanley Cup and roughly 500 people, 300 who were later charged, burned a few cars and marched for a few hours before dispersing. No political message, just angry that their team lost. The next morning 15,000 volunteers came and cleaned up the mess.

Of course, if we go back really far, there are violent protest marches, mostly race related, such as when Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier, but since then there's been absolutely nothing, and even then, it wasn't the club that stood for something, it was the league itself that invited him in.

My Dad traveled all over the world for business reasons, and in North America he's known as a very outgoing, easygoing, emotional person. Basically everywhere else in the world he said that people thought he was cold, emotionless, and indifferent. The standards of temperament are different everywhere on Earth, and in North America they happen to be very low. That reflects itself in sports.

I Hear you, but again Sports And politics are linked sorry to insist, since Romans politics understood that the poor needs to be entertained, that lower the chances of mass rébellion And the frustration. Gladiator Arenas were made on that purpose.
Clubs in US were made on money purpose, but then the vision is more complex because the poor is invested on it And give him something to enjoy in Life wich let the inequity system be tolerated without a problem...

I agree that clubs in US have no revendications or something to defend, but the sport itself is political tool, very useful for people who control the masses.

Will watch this and share my comment later when I have enough internet to watch videos on my phone.

@tiki

The way you're talking about America is very amusing. There's a saying about Americans, none of them see themselves as poor or disfranchised, just temporarily embarrassed millionaires. American dream at its finest. Government doesn't control sports because sports in America are 100% independent of government. The way the American constitution was designed, government intervention in everything is minimal or non-existent save for military and social programs (and they still don't have government healthcare, basically the only developed nation on Earth to not have it) due to their attitude towards government interference.

yeah I wasn't talking only about US but in general, now companies are owned by different owners from different nations. It's more about classes than nations.
Why would they do any expensive healthcare for the mass, mass aren't able to protest in US, in France health is for free but you pay 180 euros per year, school is for free, universities... But it's the biggest depenses of the country, God knows how upper class wants a system Amerinication" but these laws people fought for it till death in the past, they weren't given for free.

There are plenty of Americans that don't like the lack of certain aspects that bigger government would bring, such as socialized medicine, but the fact of the matter is that the standard of living and the "we can do anything" attitude means that Americans are pretty content, to content to stand up and march on Washington. Even now, with Donald Trump, most people are letting their perspective votes do the talking as opposed to protests, marches, boycotts, etc

Not saying that other nations don't do that, just the ideal of, we already fought for these rights, and our lives are pretty good, so there is no reason to fight for new ones is very prevalent in America, the Founding Fathers are practically viewed as gods. The internet shows the 1-5% of the loudest members on either side of the totem pole, but about 300 million of the 330 million people in America are perfectly happy with their lives and don't like any potential government change that would threaten that.

Even the way classes are viewed is different, John Oliver did a great segment on that a year or so ago:

Agree with this at 100% we call it here in France " the American nightmare ". I cant imagine myself paying 40k$ à year for studies, or get a bank Loan before I even earn my first salary.
When Slavery was abolished, I guess They have found a far better way to make people slaves but with their agreement And then They called it the American dream.
The problem is individualism, once you only start to think about your own interest, the class war is lost because upper classes doesnt need to meet to fight for the ideology that suits them.

First time I talk to an American who has this criticism on the brutal capitalist model. And the number of 19% for the 1% wealthiest is false, They own at least 35%.

You have 1 chance over 2 to be poor in USA, I dont believe that 300m are happy to earn 8 dollars per hour. And im shocked to see the number of people in prison, How is that possible for the richest country in the world to have over 4m prisoneers, we even dont have 40k here in France while immigration is as high. People's mind in US are owned, for me its the only reason this could be possible, I cant believe They are that stupid I prefer to say They are manipulated. Black people must be living a nightmare :(
I may be harsh but They are actually trying to implement the same system in Europe by creating the federal EU, we're waiting for a Frexit soon against all the media and government propaganda. ( we went too far off topic here ;) )

I think that one thing that America shows more than anything else that to all of those who say, "government is too involved in everything" much like many of the complaints of the EU - just because government isn't involved doesn't mean you won't get screwed over. In America, corporations essentially run the country. Government is forced to cater to them because the argument of "help us out or we export these 200k jobs" is a pretty damn convincing argument and if a politician were to go against that, they'd never be re-elected. Regardless of public (government) or private (corporation), neither of them have the people's best interests in mind. Corps are interested in making money, and politicians are interested in getting re-elected. And doing what is good for the country isn't always popular.

To be perfectly honest, I enjoy the ideal of what the EU is. It's basically the globalization of Europe. That in and of itself is not a bad thing, particularly if the EU has to hold itself responsible to the people it represents, and the major reason for brexit, aside from factually incorrect arguments, is that they don't. The fact that representatives of the EU are not elected is a major concern in regards to responsibility to citizens, and by a greater extent, to democracy.

Whether we like it or not, the next major conflict in humanity's future is going to be globalization. We see the seeds of that conflict being sowed already. There are of course, answers to the problems of globalization, such as don't pay what are essentially corporate child labor slaves 5 cents an hour in China to put cell phones together, pay them an actual living wage, so that exporting jobs is no longer profitable for corporations. That ideal, in the current world model however, is realistically impossible.

Going back to America specifically, one of the easiest ways to understand why America is the way it is today is to learn about the American Civil War. The official reason war broke out was because the people of the American South (the slaveholders) felt that the majority of the population (and therefore elected representatives) were from the North, so as a result the Southern way of life was being chipped away at with no respect to their tradition and culture. Slavery was just the tipping point on what had been a bone of contention for more than half a century. The concern was that America was simply too big for a single government to represent it all, and that majority was favored over minority, and so on and so forth.

One of the best quotes about the Civil War is as follows, "Americans slaughtered each other in great numbers if only to make for themselves the kind of country where they would wonder how that was possible."

Obviously, once the war was over, literally within 5-10 years, America was more united than it had ever been before, and has remained so to this day. The overriding point of the Civil War that got taken out of it was that small differences don't matter, because we are American, and that is more important than anything else. I firmly believe that that point will oneday in the future be, "whatever small differences between us don't matter because we are human, and that is more important than anything else." It's only a matter of time really, and whatever major conflict that takes us to that inevitable conclusion will be highly unfortunate.

I know most of this isn't soccer/football related, but whatever. I'm having a good talk, you're having a good talk, no one is getting butthurt, I think we're good.