The best league in the world. What does that mean? How do you define that? How can you define that?

This question has been lurking in many of the discussions we've had on this forum recently, so we may as well bring it into the open. I recognize in advance that this topic rises the blood of many (not sure why), so do try to keep it civil in your responses.

Let's have facts and reason prevail over hot-headedness please.

That being said, let's begin.

How do you define "best league in the world?

There are many different ways to do this. Some common ones are:

1) The league that has the best players in the world
2) The league that has the most money in the world
3) The league that has the most competition in the world
4) The league that has the most competition for the title in the world
5) The league that has the most success in European competitions
6) The league that has the most demanding physical requirements
7) The league that is the most fun to watch/follow

I have no doubt you will use these and other methods to attempt to prove your respective league is the best, and then argue over which reason is most valid. To me, this is idiotic, so I will compare and contrast each league based off of every single above definition. Let's start small.

The argument for Serie A as the best league in the world

We have to start somewhere.

In definition 1, the best players in the world are referred too. So how does Serie A fit in there? If we use the FIFA 40-man shortlist (a terrible metric I know, but it works for this discussion) Serie A had 6 players on this list. However, they were all from a single club, Juventus. This somewhat limits the impact of this point, and while plenty of other very good players play in Serie A (Higuain, Pogba, Pjanic, Miranda, Hamsik, etc) they are all basically limited to Juventus and Napoli. Roma, the usual second team in the league for the past couple seasons, doesn't have a single player who it is possible to say is world-class. In addition, no Serie A player has won the Ballon d'or since Kaka in 2007.

Serie A fails by definition 1.

Definition 2 is not up for debate, simply fact. Serie A makes a nice chunk of money, and its owners are well-off, they have decent TV deals, but they are not on the level of Spain and England.

Serie A fails by definition 2.

Definition 3, most competition, don't make me laugh. Although there is a slight possibly Juventus won't win the league this year, they still probably will, and that will make it 5 straight league titles. In addition, the difference in points from first place to last place in Serie A is almost always the largest in all of Europe. Awful.

Serie A fails by definition 3.

Definition 4, competition for the title, just went over that.

Serie A fails by definition 4.

Definition 5, the most success in Europe, is an interesting one. The simple fact that Italy does not have 4 champions league spots, speaks volumes. In addition, because Lazio lost to Bayer in the playoff, only two teams, Juventus and Roma, made it to the CL this season. Of course, last season, Juventus were runners-up, and this season, both teams have made it to the round of 16. However, neither may see the quarter-finals, after getting drawn against Bayern and Real Madrid. Clearly, there is a long way to go for Serie A in Europe, although that is no fault of Juventus.

Serie A fails by definition 5.

Definition 6, the league that has the most demanding physical requirements, is interesting as well. England likes to talk about how physical their league is, but it is not ever close to Serie A, who have more red and yellow cards than any other European league. These are not soft cards either. Diving as it happens in England and Spain in particular is often shunned in Italy, whose national team and overall character is that of a defensive powerhouse. Much of this is opinion, but I'll give Serie A this ahead of the BPL.

Serie A meets the requirement of definition 6.

Definition 7, regarding how enjoyable it is to follow the league, I cannot speak for directly, as I do not watch Serie A. However, boring title challenges are boring. I had hope for it this season, but it now looks like Juventus again. In addition, Serie A has a reputation for being defensively focused and boring, but Shpalman did a convincing argument on that here:
http://footyroom.com/forum/football-talk/serie-a-the-most-boring-league-in-europe-think-again-69980?p=69980
However, the usual lack of a title challenge, coupled with most of the league consisting of lower quality players, means that I can't say Serie A is the best in the world for entertainment value.

Serie A fails by definition 7.

Total points for Serie A 1/7.

The argument for the Bundesliga as the best league in the world

No disrespect to Serie A, but this is where it beings to get interesting, as all the remaining leagues I will be looking at have all of their European spots.

Definition 1, regarding the best players in the world, meets an interesting case in the Bundesliga. On the FIFA 40-man shortlist, the Bundesliga has eight players, (nine technically, if you count De Bruyne). Six of those players are Bayern players, which is fair enough. Other players who come to mind that weren't on the list are Reus, Aubameyang, Hummels, Naldo, Draxler, Chicharito, Robben, Ribery,Douglas Costa, etc. Another aspect to think about is the German national team, who won the world cup primarily with Bundesliga players, with a couple non-major exceptions (remember Kroos did play for Bayern at the time). It certainly gives the Bundesliga a good argument for this definition. I will give them a half point for this, and elaborate why in the conclusion.

Bundesliga partially succeeds the requirements of definition 1.

Definition 2, or the most money, clearly is not won by the Bundesliga. Bayern has lots of money, and Wolfsburg splash around a bit, but I'm fairly certain they spend less than Italy (although I can't find the number to prove that).

The Bundesliga fails by definition 2.

Definition 3, or the most competition, is an interesting one. Really what is being examined here is the overall level of teams in the division. It is hard to directly compare the level of one leagues 10th place team to another leagues 10th place team, so I'll work with the metrics I have, with the help of one tiki-taka:

a team like wolfsburg has actually a top 4 Epl level, that means that if they get smashed often by Bayern it means that if Bayern would be playing in England the league would be a one horse league.
Dortmund or wolfsburg arent to blame if they play in the same league as Bayern (Originally posted on March 1st in the Pep thread)

I think that this is a very convincing point. Bayern is MILES ahead of the rest of the Bundesliga, so it is unfair to use Bayern as the measuring stick for the rest of the league, who have proven their worth when they play other leagues. Good example of that this season is Bayer (4th in the league) knocking Lazio (3rd in Serie A) out of the CL qualifying, or Wolfsburg (2nd) preventing Manchester United (4th) from advancing to the CL knockouts, or Dortmund (7th) smacking around Porto. With the exception of Bayern, the rest of the league is more competitive than any other league.

The Bundesliga succeeds in meeting definition 3.

Competition for a title? Find another league.

The Bundesliga horribly fails to meet the requirements of definition 4.

Definition 5, or the European success, has a case. In 2013, the CL was decided between Bayern and Dortmund. The Bundesliga has been represented in every semi-final since. However, with 2013 being a solitary exception, Bundesliga has played second fiddle to La Liga in both the CL and EL.

The Bundesliga fails by definition 5.

Definition 6, or physical requirements, the Bundesliga is pretty good. A nice winter break, coupled by solid officiating, and a desire to play good-looking football makes Bundesliga tough, but not near the level of Serie A.

The Bundesliga fails by definition 6.

Definition 7, as I've said already, is a matter of opinion. What is fun to watch/follow can vary from person to person. I do watch many Bundesliga games, and I can't say it's ever been depressing. That being said, like Serie A, the lack of a real title race kills the overall vibe of the league. If Bayern weakens, or a challenger to their dominance arises, this conversation could be very different.

The Bundesliga fails by definition 7.

Total points for the Bundesliga: 1 1/2

The argument for La Liga as the best league in the world

Here we go.

Definition 1, the best players in the world, I gave half a point to the Bundesliga because I feel that across their entire league, they have the best players. However, in terms of the best players in the world regardless of team distribution, this is not something that is up for debate. Led by Ronaldo and Messi, the squads of Barcelona and Real Madrid are full of the best players that the world has to offer. Other strong squads such as Ath Madrid, Valencia, and Sevilla also contain world-class players. I don't need to name them, you already know.

La Liga succeeds in meeting the requirements of definition 1.

Definition 2, or the most money in the world, I am going to divvy up. Barcelona and Real Madrid throw around so much money, not only in huge transfer fees (Neymar, Bale), but also stupid ones (Danilo), but it has the biggest wages that the world sees. Although watch out, China is coming for your wages.

La Liga partially meets the requirements of definition 2. The spread of wealth does not exist, but Barca and Madrid make up for that.

Definition 3, or the most competition in the world, is hardly worthy of a spot when it comes to La Liga at first glance. The domination of Barca and Real (10-2 anyone) really hurts any illusion that competition is happening. But much like the Bundesliga, I think that the elites need to be ignored for once. How do the rest of the teams stack up? It's still pretty meh. Sevilla and Valencia get results, with Athletico hanging in there, but the rest of the league has no money, and when they do, they don't spend it wisely. I do think that some of the TV deals need to cut out Barca and Madrid for the rest of the league to get better, but who sees that happening?

La Liga fails by definition 3.

Definition 4, or the title competition, again has a case. The competition between Barca and Madrid is exactly what the Bundesliga lacks. Athletico winning the title recently makes this a very good conversation. La Liga would win this definition, if it wasn't for the crazy title challenges in the BPL.

La Liga fails by definition 4.

Definition 5, or the most success in European competitions is the easiest point in this thread. Who won the CL and EL last year? Barcelona and Sevilla. Who played the CL final the year before? Both Madrids. RIP non-Spainish teams in European competition.

La Liga blatantly struts to win definition 5.

Definition 6, or physical requirements, well....yeah. La Liga players playing in Serie A with that diving would be the love-child between WWE and American football. I'd watch it. With popcorn.

La Liga fails by definition 6.

Definition 7, or the league that is most fun to watch/follow...is again a matter of opinion. I can only speak for myself here. I really enjoy watching the best players in the world, that La Liga has. Watching the Barca-Madrid game is just a rule. However, watching Barca/Madrid play anyone else is 95% likely to be super boring. 10 goals in a game just shouldn't be allowed.

I'll give La Liga a half point for this, because I understand that many people like watching the best players in the world.

Total La Liga points: 3/7

The argument for the BPL as the best league in the world

Definition 1, or best players in the world. On the FIFA 40-man shortlist, there are 4 BPL players, Hart, Aguero, Hazard, and Sanchez. Of those players, only Aguero would walk into any team's starting 11. That speaks volumes for me. I would rather have any of the Bayern/Barca/Madrid squads than a squad composed of any BPL players I wanted.

The BPL fails by definition 1.

Definition 2, or most money. Yes, the BPL has the most money. Actually, they probably don't, it's probably China. Or will be soon. Who knows. What I do know, is that the BPL is completely retarded when it comes to spending its money. United, Liverpool, and Chelsea spend metric fucktons and still won't make the CL. City's oil money can't get them titles ahead of Leicester. Arsenal refuses to spend theirs. What's the point of having money if you can't use it properly?

The BPL doesn't get a full point because of its incompetence. Still, they have tons of money, so they get a half point.

Definition 3, or most competition in the world, I already gave to the Bundesliga. I will, again, elaborate more about this in my conclusion, as it will no doubt tick off BPL fans.

The BPL fails by definition 3.

Definition 4, competition at the top. Look, when we're this far into the season and Leicester are on top, followed by a team that hasn't won in my lifetime, followed by a team that hasn't won in over a decade, followed by a team that's only won the thing twice ever, yeah, this is not even an argument.

The BPL succeeds by definition 4. Seriously, what happened at the top this year?

Definition 5, or the success in Europe...well...let's just say when City is your best chance to win something in Europe, your league probably sucks. I know Chelsea won awhile ago, but that entire team is basically gone. I mean, Terry and Ivanovic are still there, so that a plus (or minus) right? Seriously, Terry/Ivanovic/Cahill/Mikel are the only players left from that team. So don't give me that.

The BPL fails by definition 5.

Definition 6, or demanding physical requirements, is something that is usually trumpeted by BPL supporters. I would've been behind you guys for this point, but the BPL had to let law 18 in. More on that here:
http://footyroom.com/forum/football-talk/understanding-law-18-73953
Look, the LVG falling down in front of the forth official to protest Arsenal's diving was funny and all, but to me it reflected that you can actually get away with that the BPL now. Italy is way more physical, and it's not even close.

The BPL fails by definition 6.

Definition 7, or the league that is the most fun to watch/follow. I am fully behind the BPL on this one. You can watch any game, ANY game, and have no idea how it's going to end. Bornemouth beat United. Last year's dumpster fire will probably be this years champions. Norwich beat United. The game of the season involved Everton. Sunderland beat United. Last year's champions won't qualify for the CL, probably. Southampton beat United. You get the idea. (United beat Arsenal. Had to stick that last one in).

The BPL runs away with definition 7.

Total points for BPL: 2 1/2/7

Final standings:

La Liga: 3
BPL: 2 1/2
Bundesliga: 1 1/2
Serie A: 1

To conclude, I can already see some of the arguments, so let's touch on them before they even happen.

Why did you give the Bundesliga props ahead of the BPL for most competitive?

It's a pretty simple path of logic. The MLS is super competitive, but no one cares because the quality is so low. Therefore it can be concluded that competition only matters when it is going on at a high enough level. The level of play in the Bundesliga is simply higher than the BPL. Bayern miles better than any other BPL or Bundesliga side, but once you get past them, overall, the Wolfsburgs, Bayers, Dortmunds, Gladbachs, and Berlins of the world are simply better than the Liverpools, Uniteds, Arsenals, and Chelsea's of the world. This means that not only does competition happen in the Bundesliga, it happens at a higher level than in England.

Before I hear any of the "Liverpool isn't as good as Gladbach are you nuts!" arguments, keep in mind I've been hearing them for years. And when German teams play British teams, or Italian teams, or Portuguese teams, or anyone except the top level of Spain, really, they win. And since Europe (and international play) is the only metric I have, and it's logical to use it, the facts say Germany's upper table and mid-table clubs are simply better than Britain's. I can't compare the lower ones, obviously, but if Newcastle were to play Hannover, I don't think they'd win. That, of course, is my opinion, unlike the middle and upper tables.

I value X definition over X definition so this whole thread is worthless

Fine, go ahead. I just took all the arguments and lumped them together to create a conclusion. If you want to cherry-pick what I'm saying, whatever makes you happy.

So you think La Liga is the best league in the world right now?

Yes, I do. And I think the BPL needs to watch its back, because the Bundesliga is probably better as well. Having money to spend on players doesn't mean that your team is better than theirs. It should help, but it's not, because the people who are bringing in players for far more than they are worth are idiots.

I'm kind of intrigued to know how the community will receive this. And I swear, read the whole thing before you comment.

@tiki

Done ! Tell your president to donate all the profits to other la liga clubs since your club wins trophies on passion ))

Hate to be that guy, but you're a Chelsea fan Marcus...it's a bit ironic.

Seriously though, the BPL could do so much better with the money it has. How come Bayern/Barca/Madrid spend money and it pays off big time, yet Milan/Inter/United/Chelsea/City/Liverpool spend money and get so little return?

Doesn't make logical sense.

^ Bit naive comment from me, but I think Real & Barca pay even more tbf. Bale+C.Ronaldo= 200m basically, Suarez + Neymar = 150m basically. When in PL 2 most expensive players are Özil+Sanchez =90m, Hazard+Costa= 70m, Aguero+De Bruyne= 90m etc etc.

Bit naive as mentioned, because it really isn't the only reason. And those sums are just indicative, I did not bother to look exactly what they cost.

@sunflash

What is the irony here ? I am so confused you need to follow the conversation . tiki constantly makes point that money is not the factor in success but yet club he supports forced deals on La Liga that unevenly distributes TV rights money then spends on World Class players .

I want Bale and Ronaldo in EPL , I want Suarez stay here . I want Modric back . I want Hazard to stay even though he is trying so hard to be c*nt .

If we want old times when Belgrade Star used to reach champions league final or Nottingham Forest winning it , we need to figure out this unfair football monetary system . I want fairness . If Chelsea never had money invested they would not ever break into top 5 european clubs .

Here is Irony though . Manchester United who used to say that money destroys football is strongly supporting European Super League because your owners are American and all they care about is to make more money ! Because your club is on stock market and stability is more than important for your club !

Saying that I am not denying that Chelsea owner has the same mind set and board has the same mind set . I don't like it and don't support it .

@sun it was a long time since Chelsea spent any real money. Have broke even or gone with profits on players for a few years now. The same cannot be said of Bayern, Real or Barca. Although, united have spent ridiculous amounts on bad player transfers the past 2-3 years..

And also I'm confused how you can ask how come it pays of big time for teams like Bayern, Real and Barca? Do you realize the gap in revenue between those teams and the rest of their respectable league? The same cannot be said about premier league teams.

When it comes to Europe, obviously Bayern, barca, Real (YES, I have to mention it again because it doesn't seem to stick with some people in this thread) are much better than any of their other opponents. The other teams in their leagues? Not doing well. What happened to Sevilla and Valencia in CL etc? got their arses handed to them. They had no chance.

Btw, the same Sevilla and Valencia that users of the likes of tiki the hypocrite claims would have won the premier league a year back.

Finally, I need to say that we're comparing LEAGUES, not specific teams, so I don't understand why everyone paints themselves into a corner with discussions about this. Yes, barca, real and bayern are the best. Get it?

This discussion is almost a bit PC...

Oh ffs. If we're going by spending money, yes, Madrid/Barca/Bayern spend lots. So do many other clubs. But let's not pretend they don't sell people either. Looking at Madrid alone the last two years, you have Di Maria, Mortata, Illaramendi, Casillas, Xabi Alonso, etc that they sold on. On terms of money alone, United/Chelsea/City spend just as much if not more from overall transfer revenue and still have worse teams. If we're talking about money spent/received from transfer alone, the EPL is MILES worse than anywhere else in the world. Having money doesn't mean you know what to do with it.

"It was a long time since Chelsea spent any money" Really. Last season: Costa/Fabregas/Cudrado/Luis/Remy. That's only about 100 million pounds. Two of those buys were even good, so I have to give credit.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but on the topic of big sums, would I rather spend 200 million on Ronaldo+Bale like Madrid did, or spend even more than they so United can fall 2 places in the table and still be crap? Hell yeah I would. Irrelevant of what you think of leagues, teams, or any of it, the way the BPL spends its money is completely retarded. Look at Newcastle if you want a different example. One of those teams that makes the BPL sooooo hard because its players are sooooo good. They've spent 75 MILLION POUNDS of players and STILL might be relegated.

You're not good because you have or spend money, United and Newcastle are proof of that. The entire EPL is proof of that.

I guess what makes me the most annoyed is that I want the EPL do to well. I don't have problems with spending money. But the entire league is falling lower and lower in terms of talent, and yet every EPL fan says "there isn't a problem, there isn't a problem." There is a problem, irrelevant if you want to address it or not. And the first step to fixing a problem is admitting that it is there.

/endrant

Hahaha so Epl teams lack money to compete, are you sure thats your excuse ? When you pay 74 M for Sterling, 50m + bonus for martial or 35m for lallana, or 50 mil for firminho... And all those players signed from small clubs without any success guarantee. I d rather sign Suarez if you know what I mean, and at the end the bet spent of Barca Madrid lately is less than 20 mil each market. So brilliant management ? Or Bpl management sucks ? Or both ? I let you the choice guys...

The BPL teams are forced to spend on different players than 100M on a world class. Many games force the managers of clubs to rotate quite a lot to keep their squad fresh, at least that is what I believe about the current situation.

@sun Chelsea also sold Lukaku, KDB, Schurrle, Mata and others. Obviously we're talking net transfers because all football clubs spend money. You get this right? RM net spent the last few years: -£52m this year. -£14m last year, -£55m the year before etc..

For barca.. -£2m this year, -£65m last year, -£55m the year before, -£25m the year before that and so on..

You see the trend? Now, do the same thing for Chelsea, as you seem to be laughing at.

A higher revenue int he league just attracts better player to the otherwise average teams, while the unequal distribution of money in let's say La Liga makes the top teams receive all the best players. Because they can afford it. Not as the negative net spent in transfers affect them in any way.

I'll end by saying that some fans are just made to support Barca.

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/chelsea/english-football-teams/chelsea-transfers

Knock yourself out. If it wasn't for David Luiz, whose transfer number is as stupid then as it is now, your numbers would be just as bad for the last two years as they've been in all the years prior to 2014 where Chelsea was -50mil only about every year.

I don't even care about that, my problem is when English teams can do that and still not compete in Europe.

What most of you are saying is BPL is the is the strongest balanced league, while Liga and Bundesliga have stronger team but are not as balanced and there not as much competition for the title (because the strong team are too strong for the weaker one so they nearly alway win), did I get that right?

(Sorry if this doesn't concern the most recent post I didn't realize there was a fourth page on the topic.)

Lets just agree that there are different markets to which any given team aim for when looking to buy new players. The top tire players only go to top tire teams so the market in which those clubs compete has a different inflation and demand as any other. This is just an introduction to explain why many clubs seem to spend the same amount of money but get different kinds of players and results in the end. Being Barcelona you can buy a top player like Suarez for 80m while other teams in EPL or Bundesliga have to bid similar amounts for players not nearly as good.

You might call EPL teams stupid for biding ridiculous amounts of money for average players but there is really no other way to get players for them. Not all teams compete in the same market when buying players as Barcelona, RM, Bayern and PSG have the world class players monopoly and all the other teams need to settle for what is left. When was the last time you saw a rummored player "deciding" between one of these top clubs and any other club finally signing for the smaller club? When any of these teams set their minds on a certain player that player can only be pretended by non other them. Why? Well, mainly because money, not only the amount being offered for the player but the wage involved; possibility of success; fame (signing for a big historic club). These three factors combined make players decide where to go.

Top tire teams have an advantage when buying. They know any player wants to sign for them so they can get the most out of the deal while only having to wait for the remaining 4 teams make their call. With no competition from other teams the prices are harshly negotiated ending in a greater deal than any being negotiated in the lower league teams market. That is the main reason as to why players' prices are never to be compared between leagues/markets. If RM decided to buy Martial before United Im 100% sure the final deal wold have been significantly lower. The same goes for many other cases. EPL wont get top class players in a while despite having the economical capability to buy them all.

This is not exactly an excuse, its just a reason as to why things happen. 2 out of the 3 factors I mentioned before that place certain teams above the rest are a merit of excellence and history while the other one just comes inherently. Different markets, different sorts of players and different end results for football. Having restrictions as Marcus suggested is quite socialist and a bit utopian for the football fans as this is all a business and regulations don't go well in modern society.

Strictly @Emobot

If I had to explain it to a kid (as simple as possible):

If you had to grade a league you would give points for both quality and competitiveness. With quality you would give a grade to all the 20 individual teams in the league (quality wise) and the league with the highest combined score would be the one with the highest overall quality. Then with competitiveness you would only need to evaluate how much do positions vary within the league from year to year.

Those two thing clearly only favor one league. But fans are still debating on the first (quality) factor.

Simple enough?...

@Tuanis So first off, thank for explaining it to me like a kid even though you know I'm not one and second, this actually a pretty good way to explain the point of everyone who favour the BPL, I don't understand why nobody explained it like that earlier. At the end of the day though, it really is a question of how you see thing, propably nobody are going to change their point of view because of this thread, but it still a pretty good place to give your advice.

NP. And exactly my point. It is a matter of what people like. Is not like we say EPL is better because we support an EPL team, it is the other way around, we support an EPL team probably because it is the league we like most, and this applies for any other league as well.

I like Pogba and Dyabala , do you think EPL has chance of getting them if lets say City and United bid on them and Real and Barcelona also bid on them too.. same amount .. perhaps 80 million each player with 250 k a week for each . Who wins this transfer market battle ?

"and this applies for any other league as well." Doubtful, if that's the case for la Liga. If i would support Barca it would not be because of the fun and competitive league. I would support them because of how extremely good they are as a team and because of the el classico rivalry. For example, Barca is playing Getafe next. Now predict the game. 4-0? 5-0?. Is that because Getafe are bad or because Barca is great? I say both.

I'll also say that La Liga fan boys are incredibly much more one sided in their arguments. They want it all. The best league, the best top teams, the most technical, the funniest football, the best talents, the best nation. While I agree they got the best top3 teams, the rest is simply not true, and I'm getting sick of hearing it is.

@KTBFFHSWE It is simple nowadays people call it ''superiority complex'' and when it fades their mouths will shut.

Each league has its golden years, it is up to people to enjoy it or try to enforce their opinion to others with bullcrap.

Dybala vietto griezmann mkhytarian Aubameyang all were available players, not sure they would had the same progression elsewhere bit their teams made them what they are today. Teams make players but some teams wait for players to make them.

@KTB I just realize something cause of your post, it remind me no one seem to care about the human side of a league and how its player react toward its public and reach out to them, for me, its important that the player show that they care about the fan and take the time to thank them for their support.