So many statements thrown around. Everyone got an opinion. But what do we base them on? Tiki speaks with emotions, Sun is the PC principal in southpark, myself base it on subjective preferences. Others have entirely different definitions on how to make a comparison of let's say La Liga and EPL.

So hear me out. Bottom-up. That's the way everything should be govern, and the way we start this analysis.

The revenue in EPL for 2014-15 is 4070m euros in comparison to La Ligas 2053m euros. The average club income is £155m for EPL in comparison to £77.5m for La Liga. And we all know which teams generate and receive most of that money. Luckily enough at least the tv rights will change with a new legislation that was passed at the end of April which will come into play start from 2016 season where La Liga will sell its TV rights collectively for all clubs and the income will be shared equally between clubs. Unlike the current system where clubs sell their rights independently causing massive difference income of top 2 and the rest of the clubs in spanish top flight.

However, In comparison EPL are miles ahead in this game with over £5 billion just from domestic rights sale and premier league are expecting another £3 billion from oversees rights which means starting from 2016-17 season bottom premier league club will earn around £100 million in tv rights money and thats way more than champions of the top leagues around europe.

So, that's the money part. But we all know that EPL clubs pay way more than most other clubs for similar talents right? Okay. Let's check the VALUE of the clubs i.e. the collected perceived value of the clubs and not the transfer sums. Beginning from the bottom up (according to transfermarkt - the most reliable source for this measure).

See a pattern? Obviously excluding the odd ones. Because money does not explain everything (Chelsea last season - Valencia this..), but the pattern is clear as day. The richer the clubs are the better players they can attract. In fact EPL pays higher wages than La Liga and Serie A combined with a weekly average of £43,717 to La Liga's £23,327 a week.

That's only money you say? Nopp. It's value, incentives AND money.

Now, to an older thread I created (and didn't finish before the transfer deadline) about the netto transfers. Is EPL a team that buys players or sells players? And the same for La Liga etc. You be the judge.

EPL

Arsenal In: 37.5 Out: 0 Net: -37.5
Bournemouth: In: 27.5 Out: 17.9 Net: -9.6
Burnely: In: 2.5 Out: 0 Net: -2.5
Chelsea: In: 65 Out: 12 net: -53
Crystal Palace: In: 23 Out: 9 net: -14
Everton: In 7.2 Out: 48 Net: + 40.8
Hull: In 4.5 Out: 0 Net: -4.5
Leicester: In: 35.1 Out: 39.5 Net: +4.4
Liverpool: In: 63.9 Out: 36 Net: -27.9
United: In: 123.2 Out: 0 Net; -123.2
City: In: 118 Out: 4.1 Net: -113.9
Middlesbrough: In: 18.8 Out: 0 Net: -18.8
Southampton: In: 22.8 Out: 56.7 Net: +33.9
Stoke: In: 18 Out: 0 Net -18
Sunderland: In: 8 Out: 0.7 Net -7.3
Swansea: In 2 Out: 27.9 Net: + 25.9
Spurs: In 29.5 Out: 8 Net: -21.5
Watford: In: 16.2 Out: 8.5 Net: -7.7
West B: In: 6 Out: 0 Net: -6
West Ham: In: 22.4 Out: 10 Net: -12.4

Total Net:-372.8m pounds Total revenue: 929,4m pounds

1.17 conversion rate to euros. Total Net: -436.2m€ Total revenue: 1087,4m€

**La Liga***

Alaves: In 0.55 Out: 0 Net: -0.55
Atletico: In: 79.5 Out: 9 Net: -70.5
Bilbao In: 0 Out: 0 Net: 0
Barcelona: In: 83.3 Out: 13.6 Net: -69.7
Celta: In: 7 Out: 13.5 Net: +6.5
Deportivo: In: 5.6 Out: 0 Net: -5.6
Eibar: In: 3.1 Out: 5 Net: +1.9
Espanyol: In: 9 Out: 0 Net: -9
Granada: In: 0 Out: 25.2 Net: +25.2
Las Palmas: In: 1.8 Out: 0 Net: +1.8
Leganes: In: 1 Out: 0 Net: -1
Malaga: In: 10.3 Out: 0 Net: -10.3
Osasuna: In: 0 Out: 3.8 Net: -3.8
Real Madrid: In: 27 Out: 37.5 Net: +10.5
Real Sociedad: In: 10.7 Out: 9.6 Net: -1.1
Real Betis: In: 15 Out: 8 Net: -7
Sevilla: In: 47.5 Out: 71 Net: +22.5
Sporting: In: 0.6 Out: 0 Net: -0.6
Valencia: In: 10 Out: 41.5 Net: +31.5
Villareal: In: 42 Out: 12.3 Net: -29.7

Total net: -108.95m€ Total revenue: 603,95m€

Now please compare the transfers for teams at the bottom side of the table in EPL and La Liga.

So, for your statements to be true, La Liga must have endlessly better scouts, youth systems and academies given that their resources are not nearly as big as EPL's. And I don't think they are. However, I do believe that Spain produce much better domestically products because of a better football climate and because of the corrupt FA. EPL has 66.4% foreign players while La Liga has 41.6%. I hold it for true that EPL buy a lot of good Spanish players. That's not what this is about though.

Do you need any other proof that EPL bottom teams are better than La Ligas? Just look at a game between them and a top team in the league. Look how they week in and out beat the top teams. Look how none of the matches in EPL are certain in advance. Where you surprised that Pool got beat the other day? I certainly wasn't. And before you watch the game have a look on the odds given from the pundits. Any 1.06 odds in EPL? Nopp.

Sources:
http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/
http://www.totalsportek.com/money/tottenham-player-salaries/
https://www.rt.com/sport/345182-premier-league-wages-report/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/european-big-four-leagues-goals-3513388
https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/study-reveals-premier-league-highest-155522255.html

Because people uses phrases like "utter bullshit" and don't back up their claims = Subjevtive thoughts on the matter - And try to change a subjective thought - impossible.

Now I put a lot of work into analyzing this. Therefore I ask of anyone that participate in this thread to contribute to the best of your abilities. Base your statements on something. Meet arguments with arguments. Then I'm sure this thread can be one of the better ones on FR.

Try at least @everyone.

Then we got others that only compare the recent CL results between the La Liga giants and their opponents, ignoring basically everything we've already said in this thread, while also failing to reply to one single question put to them in the thread = It becomes less of a discussion and more of a rant. And then posting a full interview from Nasri where he praises La Liga which he went to (This happens everywhere 99% of the time) as some kind of proof.

But, alright, let's calm this down a little and keep this a great thread.

Barca in 2004 had Valencia budget, value increases depending on pitch results and sportive rise not the opposite. I don't think you believe in this because it's scary....
City has unlimited budget and the most spender of Europe every transfer market, Atletico Madrid has Southampton budget, let that sink in.

Fine. Value increases by pitch results. What does that mean for 50% of the La Liga teams that have a value below 50m pounds?

Yes, City has unlimited budget, and maybe Atletico has Southampton budget, I don't know. Again, it has got NOTHING to do with value. Atletico is valued to 3 times as much as Southampton and they're obviously a much better team. Barca is valued to 50% more than City and they too are obviously a much better team. It's getting annoying having to explain this again and again. No one has said otherwise.

But, I'll give you that value increases from pitch result. Leicester more than doubled their value last year. Maybe you can use that to base your point on instead? While players like Kante and Mahrez undoubtedly deserve their valuation, the team is not doing good this year even though their value increase. Keep in mind though that's in the short run. If they keep this value in the squad in the long run they most certainly will climb the table ladder. Same goes for United.

Here are the question asked to you:
-But do you mean bottom teams of EPL or La Liga or both? In that case, what does that mean for a comparison?
-Why would they beat English teams consistently? What do you base this on?
-So tactical awareness is a game changer? Sounds reasonable. Do La Liga teams have more tactical awareness you reckon?

You should reply on them for a better discussion!

For you when Barca are consistently first of their league, its a league problem but being 10 times in a row first of their CL group since 2006 is irrelevant, don't you see what I'm implying here ?

It's irrelevant because it's Barcelona and we've already established how good they are. I'm sorry, but why do you keep bringing it up? It's a combination of them both. At this time Barcelona valued at 650m pounds competes with 80% of teams valued 50-75m pounds. They're valued to 10 times as much!

I'll take an example here for you: Atletico are valued to 430m while Sevilla is valued at 186m. Which team is usually the better? Or compare Atletico Bilbao valued to 122m with Eibar valued at 44m? Which team is usually better? Or Espanyol and Malaga? They're quite even aren't they?

Just some info for those who like to use the Head-To-Head argument, and think it would be useful to this debate if we could get head-to-head data:

If we look at the Champions League results, it's not as though these stats apply to the whole 'top half of the table', or even a Top 6. They apply, generally, to only a handful of teams. To take the data that JozeMourinho provided on Page 1, we can look back to, say, the 2004/05 season. From (and including) that season to the present there have been precisely 77 encounters between English teams and Spanish teams. Let's take a look at a breakdown of their outcomes.

As we can see almost instantly, the vast bulk of the work here for Spain has been done by one club: FC Barcelona.

Barcelona represent over a third of all Spanish appearances in this whole period -- more than both Madrids combined! -- and account for a whopping 58% of the La Liga victories. If you add Real Madrid's wins in there also, that accounts for 81% of all Spanish victories.

Oh, and just for context, two of those three wins for Villareal were against Everton, in a qualifying game. Take those two Everton wins out of the equation, and the rest of the Spanish teams look rather poor, all of a sudden. Atletico Madrid and Sevilla have only registered one single win against English teams in the CL, and Valencia have never managed to win at all.

This is not an argument which represents the 'top half of the table', or even the Spanish Top 6. This is an argument which represents essentially 2 teams. The ETERNAL Big Two that will always rule Spanish football, and which do not represent the quality level of the rest of the league, and whose combined win rate is still only 51% against English teams.

By contrast, the PL is much more varied in its contribution to these stats, and City are held back a little bit by the fact that they (and Arsenal) seem to ALWAYS lose to Barcelona (or Bayern), every year. So, if someone wants to tell me that Barcelona have been better than City this whole time, then I entirely agree, and not until this current season did City manage to win a single game against them.

Also, this analysis goes back to 2005, so a more recent sample size (say, 2011 onwards) would look MUCH more favorable to Spanish teams, since the rise of Atletico as a true heavyweight. But hopefully this illustrates the inefficiency of at 'head-to-head' approach to comparing league quality. If it were not for Barcelona being so amazing all this time, then the head-to-head stats would look much, MUCH better for English teams.

It's not a good way to judge the Top 6, or the top half of the table, so it really doesn't matter too much that we can't see head-to-head info for the bottom table teams; it wouldn't give us a clear or useful picture anyway. In conclusion: KTBFFHSWE's method of comparing squad valuations is a much better barometer of quality.

Congrats for EL qualification mate, CSKA scoring first scared me.

Barcelona may be carrying La Liga these past 10 years, but the fact remains that when Real Madrid, Deportivo, Valencia, and Atletico have played English teams throughout the Champions League era, they've won. They all have positive records against the English teams, which isn't the case in the opposite direction.

I genuinely don't see why there is still an argument here. It may be a Top 2 in Spain, but those Top 2 (+ Bayern) regularly stomp every team in the world. They're so much better than any other team it's quite frightening. Manipulating data to just show stats since the mid-2000's is conveniently choosing the prime of the English Premier League and the beginning of Barcelona's dominance.

Go back further to the 90's and the early 00's, and you'll find that La Liga was performing extremely well in Europe, especially compared to English teams.

Deportivo?
2000-01 - eliminated by Leeds United in quarter finals
2001-02 - beat Arsenal & United in group stage, but got eliminated by United in quarter finals
2002-03 - beat and lost to United in group stage, finishing last
2003-04 - didn't meet english side
2004-05 - draw and lost to Liverpool in group stage, finishing last

So, I wouldn't say that they've won.

Why I think EPL's Bottom teams are better than La Liga's Bottom teams was what the forum was about

I think i do agree. Even though I don't really know the bottom teams if La liga, but when I do watch the la liga (Barcelona vs Osasuna) some teams seem to do extremely well and lose 5 1 ( Leganus) and you get Osasuna who are saved by their goalkeeper and only lose 3 0

Bottom EPL teams are more consistent. If you pick and match I think EPL would win

Bottom teams are not consistent. That's why they're at the bottom.

Ok, so if Osasuna vs Sunderland were to happen, I without a doubt would bet on Sunderland

Before the Swansea loss, they had won 3 in 4, including the 2015-16 champions. Now excuse me on these teams, I don't always watch them, but even Osasuna, they got battered 5 2 to Real Madrid, which they were shocking in too. Sunderland have some great players, and when they played Arsenal they DID play like a bottom sided team, but they still got a goal. Against Barcelona, Osasuna basically had 1 player called A.Lopez (gk). They seem to not have much passion. Same could be said for Sporting Gijon. Maybe Valencia too. With the exception of Hull, and possibly Burnley away, I don't think these teams would win.

This was only one example.

In reply to Dynastian and Sunflash below (comment limit):
Dynastian, I thought they were poor. Benzema when he came on also missed 2 big chances. The ref might had been unfair at times, but I no doubt think Real would have got 3 points. They even missed their penalty

Sunflash- Money does play a bit of a role though. Unless your Newcastle of course

Also, EPL teams can be challenging. Reasons why people say EPL is the most unpredictable league in the world is because you can win a game 5 0 and then lose 0 4 or something like that.

For example, no one expected Bournemouth to bag three points against Liverpool. No one expected Hull to win Leicester.

You could say no one expected Barcelona expected to lose to Alaves, but I could say they were resting players.

As competitive as La liga is, I acknowledge it is difficult, but I think EPL is more difficult.

Also, Leicester won the league after 38 games with 81 points. Atletico Madrid came third after 38 games with 88 points.

The only reason Real beat Osasuna 5-2 is because of referee favoritism. I remember speaking with fellow Madridistas that we were bloody luck to win that one. If the result was fair, we would have tied 2-2. They played terrific that game.

With that being said, Osasuna are fcing awful. So are Sunderland. Both seem like a group of headless chickens running around. Reminds me a bit of the MLS, actually. I have no doubt that almost any team in the EPL would beat this season's Osasuna over a two-legged tie. Not reflective of other teams though. Madrid barely* managed to beat Sporting, and Valencia almost managed to snap a win against Barca too if not for a late goal. Don't scrape off the bottom feeders in La Liga. Madrid and Barca have to be at 100% if they want a solid chance of beating these teams.

Bottom teams are not consistent. That's why they're at the bottom.

Another thing we've generally been overlooking is the turnover of teams at the bottom. The teams at the bottom of the EPL now (and the ones who will be there next season) are really just good Championship teams. Sometimes a Leicester will stay up for awhile, Southampton and West Ham are good examples, but I don't think the difference between the top of the Championship and bottom of the EPL isn't that different - and that's because they're basically the same teams.

I don't pay as much attention (and by that I mean no attention) to the Spanish second league, so I don't know if that experiences as much turnover.

@KTBFFH You picked up that phrase and ignore the next paragraph which is the explaination.

Your entire late post toward me just: EPL other than in CL lost because Guardian said they keep feilding a 2nd team., that what I stress utter bullshit. And give one reason of how Sunderland failed out of that category. Thats just one example. Ok, Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont,

Im all for EPL but the one reason ehy all EPL team failed so hard recently and the national team screw up big time is because we think we are better than the rest. Delusional at its best (im saying in general based on result)

And why people are more saying toward recent years, its because those are more relevant.

Btw, i watch enough of those games, but I dont have those data and neither I think much journalists nor coach would keep digging into: ohhohhh we field the best team but we lost. They use subs from time to time thats for sure, and if a team fail miserably they will try to find an excuse.

Lets end it here and agree that we disagree. Lets join in other's discussion

Another thing we've generally been overlooking is the turnover of
teams at the bottom. The teams at the bottom of the EPL now (and the
ones who will be there next season) are really just good Championship
teams. Sometimes a Leicester will stay up for awhile, Southampton and
West Ham are good examples, but I don't think the difference between
the top of the Championship and bottom of the EPL isn't that different

• and that's because they're basically the same teams.

Not sure I agree mate. Most teams that gets promoted gets relegated the same year but every now and then newly promoted teams manage to stay in the EPL. Especially lately.. Almost all of the promoted teams go on a shopping spree before joining the EPL, Because they know that their cash flow is going to increase dramatically. So don't know if you can say they're almost the same teams. So here we have teams that won the championship and since strengthens their squads. And most of them are bottom feeders in the EPL still.

But, on the other hand, the top teams in championship are pretty damn good and can definitively beat the bottom teams of EPL, although the EPL teams would still be favorites in my book.

@tuan Sounds good!

There's no way the bottom EPL teams would not be favorites against top Championship teams. You just said it yourself: when teams get promoted, they splash the cash because they know they're going to get compensated at the end of the season regardless of what position they finish in. They automatically have considerably better players than Championship teams, and on top of that they are regularly competing against the EPL big boys. Budget may not necessarily be a factor for teams from different nations beating one another, but it definitely plays a part in teams from the same country beating each other. You're giving too much credit to the English leagues.

I feel like the media has brainwashed a lot of people here. All this "England's the best!" bullcrap when it comes to football has convinced many people that the English league is by and far the best, which is not true. To be frank, the Italian, Spanish, English, and German leagues are fairly level. Whatever differences exist are quite minor (except for the budget of the English teams). The French league has been experiencing a steady incline over the past 5-6 years as well.

English people like to hype themselves up a lot. That nationalist mindset is very strong in them, and it applies to football too. They regularly believe their national team to be world-beaters, when in truth they are nothing but a mediocre team that gets thrown out of competitions in among the earliest of stages. The same does not apply to the English league, because no one doubts that the EPL is among the very best world football has to offer. But the EPL is not head-and-shoulders above the rest, as is what the Englishmen like to believe.

The one thing about the EPL is that the competition is very high. Whether this is due to the top teams not being good enough, or the bottom teams being better and the top teams not being good enough, we don't know for certain (although we all know that the top teams in England are a notch below standards when it comes to comparisons with La Liga). Regardless of this fact, practically the same teams have been finishing in the Top 3 for the past 15 years. From the 2000-01 season to the 2014-15 season, the only teams to finish in the Top 3 are United, Arsenal, Liverpool, City, and Chelsea. The "Big 5", so to speak.

As an NBA fan, I see a 'competitive' league as a league where anyone has a chance to win. What the EPL has been going at is essentially the exact same thing as La Liga. Five teams have been consistently scrapping it away, with three of them usually living up to standards each season, and La Liga has three teams scrapping away (who are visibly better than their English counterparts, and thus rack up more points a season). Not very different in terms on competitiveness, huh? Just the media get some extra spice on their hands when one of those teams don't live up to standard in a season. Then, when they come back soaring next season after splashing the bank money, the media hypes them up again. "Chelsea are back! The league is now even more competitive because now there are FIVE contenders". No, there aren't. Ultimately, the EPL has proven to be a league where only two or three teams scrap away for the title. And those two or three will always be the same teams (one of the five I mentioned earlier) because they're the ones with the most money. Just like La Liga (except La Liga has had the same three teams scrapping away for the past few season but, once again, these three are visibly better than any English team). If RM, Barca, and Atletico were the same skill level as Chelsea, City, and Arsenal, La Liga would be the exact same as the EPL.

I genuinely think that the EPL and La Liga are identical in quality from positions 4-20. The only difference is the Top 3, where La Liga > EPL. That's pretty much all I have left to say in this thread.

The NBA is a bad example, because of salary caps (which I think is the only way for parity to occur in sport and therefore European soccer is unfair as fuck, but that's a different argument).

Other than that I agree with everything you just said.

Yeahh, the NBA example is not really a relevant example. But other than that: Completely agree.

I've missed this debate completely and I guess it's too late to join anymore ;-(

@tiki You said that He was not their main CB Joze, If you knew a little about Villareal XI you will know it. And I threw an example from 100 ones, you buy a player from a supposed weak team/league by your logic 40 mil.

When did I personally praise him? You mentioned him. Did I called La Liga weak? I just said that BPL teams focus more to keep their high finish spot rather than advance to EL.

You are aggresive yes tiki, and I might be new to La Liga because recently I started watching it more often but still. You really bother to bring up Sunderland into an argument? They are below BPL quality for years it is just their last fixtures Arsenal draws and Newcastle that saved them all those years. See? You are miss-informed as much as I am in La Liga,

Problem with you tiki is that when a discussion happens you throw your own examples and arguments and most are irrelevant to the thread, despite worth reading. Your passion to downgrade BPL and praise La Liga destroys every motivation inside me to discuss with you like your recent comments in highlights.

I doubt you will even bother to read this part but again I will tell you that I would love to go into a discussion with you to analyze our opinions in a respectful way, because you know a lot about football but you are clearly biased and it is pointless. You will not hear or accept anything rather than your own truth. You can claim the same for me but I did not bothered to type a wall of text that is COMPLETELY out of topic.

Read the title. I mean really who the fuck cares about a money diva like Nasri? Let him and his kind of footballers fuck off with their money and party attitude. I couldn't care less about that guy or any other wasted talent.

bump for some christmas arguments.

Budget may not necessarily be a factor for teams from different nations beating one another, but it definitely plays a part in teams from the same country beating each other. You're giving too much credit to the English leagues.

Budget does not, but value does.

As an NBA fan, I see a 'competitive' league as a league where anyone has a chance to win. What the EPL has been going at is essentially the exact same thing as La Liga. Five teams have been consistently scrapping it away, with three of them usually living up to standards each season, and La Liga has three teams scrapping away (who are visibly better than their English counterparts, and thus rack up more points a season). Not very different in terms on competitiveness, huh?

Just what? Not very different you say? Hm. Disagree.

the only teams to finish in the Top 3 are United, Arsenal, Liverpool, City, and Chelsea. The "Big 5"

So having 5 teams competing for the title is the same as having 2 (and a half)? The difference is we never know which order they'll finish. Remember the predictions before the season start?

I still think Sunderland would beat Osasuna with ease.