It shouldn't be considered superior. It's just 2 different strategies. There's nothing wrong with a club being rich and buying players for a lot of money. However a club who builds a team with players who are cheap do deserve credit.

I consider it superior, and I will give you my reasons:

1. Clubs who have a lot of money to spend either rely on very rich owners (PSG, Manchester City, Chelsea) or on a very large fan base / marketing potential (Real Madrid, Barcelona - who actually are big spenders, regardless of the La Masia strategy, Manchester United, Bayern Munchen or even Juventus and AC Milan back in the glory days). As a result, they usually go after proven talent and can design Championship Manager/FIFA teams if they set their mind to do that (see the Galacticos, Manchester City's current team etc.). They really don't have a lot of work to do, since scouting isn't so important when you have the money to buy any player you desire.

2. Clus who buy cheap / grow their own talent have a lot more work to do. This work involves scouting, youth team development, and, most importantly, a manager who can actually make those players play 200 % and can thus build a team. Recent examples: Borussia Dortmund, Arsenal (their 2006 CL final qualification was similar, in my opinion, to Dortmund's current feat), Athletic Bilbao (2012 EL final), FC Porto or Udinese spring to my mind.

3. Clubs who spend big on players nowadays have a difficult time actually building a team, which makes them harder to digest by fans. They are a bunch of great individuals who often do not manage to work as a team and can be easily exposed tactically by lesser teams. Manchester City, Chelsea post-Mourinho or Anzhi come to my mind, but you can also argue this about Real Madrid under Pellegrini or even in Mourinho's first year.

4. It is easier to get attached to a club with a clear philosophy involving youth development, as that club can define its identity more easily. On the other hand, clubs who spend a lot tend to ignore this need to build an identity - see Manchester City, Chelsea or PSG.

So, to sum up, I think it is generally considered superior to raise your own talent etc because:
- there is greater work involved
- the tactics and manager make a bigger difference
- you build a team, you don't just have a set of brilliant individuals
- clubs who raise their own talent develop a stronger identity

Having more work to do doesn't really make the 'buy cheap' strategy superior. The reason it isn't superior is because scouting can be a lengthy process and being lengthy doesn't make it superior. If you can achieve something in a short period of time, what's wrong with that?

In terms of tactics, I agree big players can be individuals and may not work as a team, however a good manager can make them play as a team. Man City won the EPL last year, Real Madrid won La Liga last year and pretty much most teams who are rich usually win things.

Clubs who develop youths probably do have a stronger identity, however I don't think that makes it superior to a team who doesn't develop youths. Clubs who don't develop youths are still capable of having a strong identity.

because the club who invest on youngsters have a positive effect on football but the rich/transfer oriented does not . consumer and producer kinda situation

Hawky wrote:- there is greater work involved

Plus the work benefits the whole league and usually the NT, too.

Hawky wrote:- the tactics and manager make a bigger difference
- you build a team, you don't just have a set of brilliant individuals

Here I might want to differ - the manager is as important in a big money team as there he has the big difficulty to juggle big egos. Looks at Jupp Heynckes who actually made the Bayern team work properly despite divas like Arjen Robben and Franck Ribéry on board. Only a highly professional man manager can actually make them understand that the team is above the individual and still keep them more or less happy with it. (Incidentally you might notice that the Bayern kits have the team's name on top over the number and the players' names below the number, also reflecting the idea that the team is above the player).

Hawky wrote:- clubs who raise their own talent develop a stronger identity

IMO that is the biggest plus, especially when they not only scout lots of cheap talent from elsewhere, but also raise a lot of local talent to become first team players. On the minus side, then one of these local boys (Manuel Neuer, Nuri Sahin, even Mario Götze even though he wasn't born in Dortmund, but spent most of his life there...) leaving is much more painful than when some non-local player would leave. Some of the players actually belonged to the local fan scene before becoming players of their teams (Manuel Neuer, Kevin Großkreutz, Julian Draxler...)

For me it's just more impressive due to the smaller margin for error, that's why Newcastle were so impressive last year. However, the key is being able to do really well with that model over many seasons and not just be a one season wonder. Sorry Mole.

Simple. More efficient and better allocation of limited resources #jibconomics

Same reason why raising a child from age day 1 till age 18 years is superior to just adopting an 18 year old #R'logic'G

Motogp69 wrote:For me it's just more impressive due to the smaller margin for error, that's why Newcastle were so impressive last year. However, the key is being able to do really well with that model over many seasons and not just be a one season wonder. Sorry Mole.

Lol no worries, you can't sustain things like this with a bad coach.

RealGunner wrote:Same reason why raising a child from age day 1 till age 18 years is superior to just adopting an 18 year old #R'logic'G

made me lol.

OP: IMO, i think fans become more sentimental about players who grow up and develop before the fans eyes more so than when a club buys a more finished product.

I think people also see it as rich clubs taking an 'easy' way out when they buy a more finished product opposed to developing one itself which is never looked highly upon.

Common sense?

Its just harder, it takes real work.

On top of that, if your talking about a club who are heavily based on their own players they bring through their youth system, said players tend to have a greater understanding about the club as a whole, which involves many things which change from club to club.

You want players who are fans, they care more.

Not to say guys from the outside cant, for example I feel like Dani Alves cares at least as much as Pique...but im talking generally.

Shouldn't say superior. Likeable is a better word. If you have to ask why, you're being deliberately dense.

Because less money spent to achieve the same goal equals greater efficiency, and efficiency is a good thing.

By 'building a cheap team' I meant someone like Dortmund. Didn't really mean youths. However youths I guess would be a good topic to discuss as well, since they're kind of related.

VivaStPauli wrote:Because less money spent to achieve the same goal equals greater efficiency, and efficiency is a good thing.

It is a good thing, however some clubs don't have a problem spending money.

gnrfan wrote:Shouldn't say superior. Likeable is a better word. If you have to ask why, you're being deliberately dense.

He is right. "Likeable" is the real word.
I would never consider a cheap (cheap as in "less-spending", not literally "cheap") team superior.
Rich teams spend money because they have it. Money is for spending after all.
Its the cheap team's mistake for not being rich.

Yohan Modric wrote:It is a good thing, however some clubs don't have a problem spending money.

But if Dortmunds scouts got to tell you where to spend Real Madrids money, Real would have had La Decima in the bag 5 years ago.

Personally I can never give as much credit to a club for getting success as opposed to a club to achieves nearly as much with comparatively little funds.

It's like giving somebody equal credit for winning the lottery compared to a man who started out with nothing and ended up becoming a successful businessman.

If a club becomes rich because they make a healthy profit from scouting players then selling them off then that's fine. But it baffles me how much respect the likes of PsG get because they're winning games.

They didn't earn the money, they are simply getting bankrolled from a very rich man. I don't blame them for spending the money but how people can tell me they deserve tonnes of respect for getting far in the CL makes me mad.

They have near unlimited funds, funds which the club get because they have a billionnaire owner. And More money = the ability to buy players who have shown greater ability. And when you stack a team with great ability it's going to vastly improve your chances of success so long as your management isn't shit.

Because building a team on cheap is more challenging,let me elaborate:

You have to be really shrewd in the transfer market and out do others.
You would have difficulty convincing players to sign on lower wages.
There will always be others who can pluck your target from you right before you get him or after he has a great season or two.
It would be even more difficult to get a squad as who would want to be paid less,wait more for success(Since you cannot instantly sign top players to fix faults in the team) as well as bid his time for a starting place.

Now if you have all the money in the world:

With no skill,the football directors can build Galacticos 1,2 and so on..

Then there is the examples of CHelsea and Man City also PSG.

Requiring none of the skills stated above,use increasing wages as a bait and the money which would bring further top players and hence success in a very short time.

At the end of the day, Football is a business. You want to do everything as Cheaply as possible, to maximise profits. At least in theory. Not many clubs actually profit.

Kick wrote:At the end of the day, Football is a business. You want to do everything as Cheaply as possible, to maximise profits. At least in theory. Not many clubs actually profit.

Well, that depends on the requirements set for them. With the Bundesliga model, clubs are forced to work at least on balanced finances, and in the season 2011/12, 14 of the 18 BL clubs registered a profit.

The Bundesliga increased the revenues generated for the 2011-12 season once again and broke the 2 billion euro mark (2.08 b) for the first time (another 7.2 per cent over last season). The league produced a post-taxes profit of 55 million euros with 14 of the 18 clubs registering profits. On the spending front, the overall wages/revenue ratio for players and coaches sunk 37.8 per cent. The DFL Deutsche Fußball Liga announced the earnings at the presentation of the Bundesliga Report 2013 in Frankfurt am Main.

Source: http://www.bundesliga.com/en/medien/report/

That is very impressive! Still, on the whole, not many clubs profit. The BL seems to be a nice exception though.

A wise man once said: its not about where you end up, its how you get there, afterall, does the ends justify the means?

Kick wrote:That is very impressive! Still, on the whole, not many clubs profit. The BL seems to be a nice exception though.

Well, I think there is a reason that Dortmund is the club that mixes little spending with maximum result at the moment.

As things stand, next season Eintracht Frankfurt will play in the EL, and Frankfurt is a team that was just promoted to the BL from the 2nd division in this season.

SC Freiburg who currently fight with Schalke for the CL qualification spot (will be decided next week), made a net transfer profit of 6.85 mio Euros over the last 4 years they belong to the BL; that is, they usually bought players for less money than they sold them and still they are in the contention for a top 4 spot this season.

It's called being more efficient. Performing a similar result while spending less money. That's why it's considered superior.

It comes down to the fact that it's simply more skillful to do it with a constrained budget rather than by an injection of money from new owners. Mind you it still requires skill to take that team to success and I think sometimes new rich teams are not given enough credit for it. Additionally I don't it's quite as bad as people make it out to be, I see it as evening the playing field, and it's not worse than the clubs that spend the same amounts due to their superior business practices.