Manchester United: who, what, where, when, why?

[Kyelo]

This is no troll and I am not a Manchester United fanboy or hater, genuine questions for those who know.

Since they won their 20th title, they have been all over the news and it got me thinking. I am 25(born '87)so United have always been the dominant domestic club to me. I always see about how they have refs and the FA, even the beeb, in their pockets(I've read stuff for and against, personally think they are no different to any other big team), how they have been 'buying' domestic titles for years etc but where does the domination and cynicism come from?

Before the EPL were they always the richest, most supported club? Has their EPL domination been luck, conspiracy or skill? Is it jealousy from less succesful clubs or is there some actual bias in their favour?

[MrZigster]

They sold their soul to the devil.

The clue is in their nickname.

[kaosmark2]

Fergie time is more extreme than other big clubs:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20464371

There's various articles around on a statistical penalty advantage as well, this one is Howard Webb specific:

http://basstunedtored.com/2012/10/03/howard-webb-penalties-and-manchester-united/

A lot of it comes from Ferguson. He bullies people. He bullies journalists, trying to get them banned, he refused to talk to the beeb for ages due to an accurate report about his son taking bungs. He bullies other managers into cracking (Keegan, Benitez). He makes disparaging, hypocritical remarks about other managers and clubs.

Success is a part of it. Cheap tactics that don't work irk people, but when it ties into great achievement people call foul that much more. We can't know how much of an impact the cheap tactics have, I'm sure without them Man U would still be hugely successful, but probably not as successful. I'm willing to bet that without the Fergie bullying, mind-games, reffing advantages, Man U would not have overtaken Liverpool's title count yet.

Ferguson's job is to make Man U as successful as possible, and he's done that well, but he has used cheap tactics, and they have had statistically meaningful advantages in terms of decisions.

Man U have always been a big club, but not necessarily THE biggest. It's only in the EPL era that worldwide fanbase has been a meaningful thing, and Man U were quick to exploit that with marketing in Asia and the US, helped by their big trophy haul during that period. However, all that adds to the whole concept that Man U have a lot of 'armchair supporters'. It's VERY common to see Man U shirts anywhere in the country, often for people who have no link to the club. They're the go-to team for casual football fans to support, people who don't really follow the game, but occasionally watch one and want to talk about someone they support. That's not to say Man U don't have fans who are as passionate as ones for other clubs, but a 'typical' Man U fan will know a lot less about football than a fan of another club.

Another factor is that they get described as "United". This doesn't bother everyone, but traditionally that was used in each area to distinguish between the two clubs in the same city (Sheffield being another example). There's lots of other clubs with "United" in the name, and it's really irksome that one club in particular has managed to claim it.

And they've often failed to entertain. Mourinho's Chelsea, the current Man U, the German national team, the big Italian clubs, all of these have gained a greater resentment from supporters of other teams due to the fact that not only are they winning, but they're doing so methodically, consistently, and with little tension or excitement. The Ronaldo/Tevez/Rooney era, when they were scintillating and exciting to watch? Less resentment. City have 'bought success', but last year they were an exciting, flamboyant team, and one that hadn't won late. Chelsea under Ranieri - a charismatic, honest manager playing attacking football - were a popular team.

So yeah, speaking as someone of similar age, there's a large bunch of reasons I can list as to where the hatred comes from. I think their success is predominantly from skill, but a significant amount of that skill is in cheap tactics. They've been lucky, and the statistics imply their luck is significant enough to be more than coincidence. I wouldn't go to the lengths of conspiracy though.

[t8yman]

When I were a lad, it was Liverpool who were "the team", they dominated everything, had the best players, all the kids supported them.

Obviously I saw all of this through the eyes of a 10 year old, but I'm guessing its pretty similar but with Man U now.

[the_hedge]

They have been dominant because they have a manager who drives the highest standards.

When do you see a Man United team 'not put it in' ?

They have poor games but they always give everything. Can you say that about City this season or Arsenal and Chelsea?

They are dominant because they have the best manager and a very good side (sometimes but not always the best side).

[thetime]

I dont see the hatred towards man utd like it was before chelsea and city got all there money. Its not a new thing though as like t8yman says it was the same with liverpool. I grew up with liverpool winning everything and despised them(and still do), they had the same hatred but at a different level because it was not so exposed due to media in the last 15-20 years.

Where I live now theres loads more liverpool shirts on 35yo+ age group and more united shirts for the under 35yo, you dont need to do some in depth research to understand why.

Man utd have always had big crowds even in the shit of the 70s and 80s, even when we were winning fuck all united had fans all over the worls especially in scandanavia.

Conspiracy? Only by opposition fans.

[TheGayTent]

They've been dominant for many reasons, including having a superb manager and superb players.

The main reason though for their dominance is the financial advantage they have had over the vast majority of clubs in the last 20 years.

Have a look at the dates when Man Utd were first floated on the London Stock Exchange and their first league victory since the 60s.

Remember they haven't had it all their own way since their first league victory in the 90s. What allowed Blackburn, Chelsea, Man City etc to challenge (and beat) them...?

[lharris92]

Remember they haven't had it all their own way since their first league victory in the 90s. What allowed Blackburn, Chelsea, Man City etc to challenge (and beat) them...?

[thetime]

Remember they haven't had it all their own way since their first league victory in the 90s. What allowed Blackburn, Chelsea, Man City etc to challenge (and beat) them...?

[The Nal]

Conspiracy theories aside, Utd have had a "glamour" appeal through having players at the right time. Specifically Best in the 60s when in coincided with more footie being televised and him being the 5th Beatle. And then in the first year of the Premiership with Cantona, TV exposure etc.

Fergie obviously the main reason. And the focus on youth - which brings stability. Same reason Barca have been so successful over the last 6-7 years. And the same reason why Barca need to shake things up again now.

[lost]

I`d put it 90% down to having probably the best manager who ever lived during the period all the money came in following the switch from the old first division... Though before that I'd say they had proportionally a larger share of supporters vs their successes, alot of people from my fathers generation support them due to the Munich air disaster.

[The Nal]

I`d put it 90% down to having probably the best manager who ever lived during the period all the money came in following the switch from the old first division... Though before that I'd say they had proportionally a larger share of supporters vs their successes, alot of people from my fathers generation support them due to the Munich air disaster.

[TheGayTent]

Its more than money though isnt it? Theres plenty of teams that have spent big money, what about liverpool and newcastle?

Of course it would be naive of anyone to think your going to win the league in modern football with little money.

[kaosmark2]

They have been dominant because they have a manager who drives the highest standards.

When do you see a Man United team 'not put it in' ?

They have poor games but they always give everything. Can you say that about City this season or Arsenal and Chelsea?

They are dominant because they have the best manager and a very good side (sometimes but not always the best side).

[Wooderson]

- Luck. Perfectly timed combination of deterioration of rivals, huge influx of superb young players and entry to modern commerical era of club football.

- Alex Furguson. Uncanny ability to build team after team yet bully everyone else.

- Huge chequebook when needed, before it was commonplace.

- Globe-straddling, drooglike arsehole fanbase. Present company excepted.

[5co77ie]

They've been a dominating force because at the start of the Premier League I was responsible* for doing all the kids' football magazines about them (Well until their own Football mag - Red Devils came along) on the Nations magazine shelves (as opposed to Fanzines sold at the ground - in the days before the interweb), making poster stars, and playground names out of the 'class of '92' and making football attractive to kids back then - during the Eighties Shoot had waned, and 442 was for older folk. That was until in the early Noughties the Premier League wised up restricting image rights, photo access, and making it almost impossible to publish magazines for kids about football independently, without licences .

The young 'you'll never win anything with kids' team based around Scholes, Nevilles, Giggs, Beckham, and Sharpe - were just a step above everyone else, and hugely self motivated, and the fact they had that belief so strongly after their first title showed. The first to be completely adopted by Fergie's ethos of how players behaved (although Lee Sharpe broke the rules and was shown the door, and perhaps that instilled it in them even more).

Add them to a team of a massive defence in Schmeichel, Bruce, Pallister, and Keane - and you have probably one of the greatest teams in modern football (unfortunately). The fact they were so young meant 3 teams could be built around their legacy (and money spent to bring in accomplished footballers with huge self belief too like Rooney, Skippy, Persie) in the 20 years since. With only now the careers of Neville, and Giggs coming to an end, that era is ending.

However, you just can't buy belief in the fact you'll win, and a long term achieving manager, in any sport, and that's what makes champions champions for long periods of their careers. It always comes down to belief in yourself, and the coaches that put you there. Once Fergie goes it could rapidly fall apart.

You have to remember before Fergie footballers would go drinking, smoke, and clubbing (think England Gazza et al all the way to George Best), and not focus completely on diet and fitness - Fergie was one of the first of a new breed of managers, that ushered in fitness trainers, spas and stock market portfolios over a night down the boozer.

*probably not just me, but I take all the credit - I thank you

Edited April 24, 2013 by 5co77ie

[pink_triangle]

The main factor for Man Utds success is clearly financial. You swap Fergie for a solid premiership manager like Martin jol and send Fergie to Fulham, Man Utd would still finish comfortably above Fulham every year. There are only 2 sides in the league (city and Chelsea) who are financially competitive with Man U, clearly to separate these 3 teams there are other factors in play. Chelsea have spent heavily in recent years but have been nowhere near as consistent. To me the main factor has to be stability, the revolving door of managers and regular overhaul of team philosophy is not a record for success. The fact is that no major European side wins their domestic title every season, so firing a manager every time he doesn't come first is madness. At the same time clubs like everton and arsenal have seen stability result in consistency, although a financial disadvantage compared to man utd means that consistency is at a lower level. I think looking at factors that contribute to the relative success of the 2 Manchester clubs is premature because city only have had 2 seasons really competing for the league title. This season may be a blip and they may use their financial advantage to finish above man u for the next 10 years, we simply don't know.

There is no doubt having a great manager has helped and Fergie has shown an ability to move with the times where many other experienced British managers look to have been stuck in the past. To me the team lack a bit of flair but at a domestic level is is very effective. I personally wont get into the best manager of the era argument. While I don't think Mourinio could have had such sustained success at any 1 team. I also have my doubts that Fergie could have had such success at different top European clubs. I think different managers are just suited to being at different clubs for different periods of times. Also you cant discount the element of luck and the manager being at the right place at the right time.

[pink_triangle]

.The young 'you'll never win anything with kids' team based around Scholes, Nevilles, Giggs, Beckham, and Sharpe - were just a step above everyone else, and hugely self motivated, and the fact they had that belief so strongly after their first title showed. The first to be completely adopted by Fergie's ethos of how players behaved (although Lee Sharpe broke the rules and was shown the door, and perhaps that instilled it in them even more).

You have to remember before Fergie footballers would go drinking, smoke, and clubbing (think England Gazza et al all the way to George Best), and not focus completely on diet and fitness - Fergie was one of the first of a new breed of managers, that ushered in fitness trainers, spas and stock market portfolios over a night down the boozer.

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

I beleive one of the big things here is that Manchester United were the first club to really become a brand, this was mixed in with all the off field commercial activities.

[lharris92]

Every game in Europe last season, culminating in that woeful Athletic Bilbao performance.

Many individuals have failed to as well, Rooney this season comes to mind.

I don't think Man U's standards of effort are consistently higher than every other team. Maybe this season, but not over the last 20 years. High, but not unfailingly.

I think it's actually a level of racism to suggest that the only reason they buy Asian players is to increase revenue. Kagawa is a serious talent and they were able to buy him. Sure, they'll have been aware of that factor, but they won't have gone "oh, we need to break into the South Korean market, what players can we get?". Park is a bit more of an edge case but I still reckon he was bought on footballing merit. I think their marketing strategy in Asia went beyond buying players of certain nationalities.

Their proportional revenue in TV/CL isn't actually that much higher than Arsenal or Liverpool. The difference they've got there is shirt sales and other merchandising, inc. as you said, armchair fans who only care when they're winning but wear the shirt in those times.

[pehaw]

This is quite interesting...

http://transferleague.co.uk/

especially the '92 - now table

[kaosmark2]

no racism is or ever will be intended in what i meant, its just out of the top clubs they are the only one who have actively taken part in reaching out to their fans in the far east and brought top quality players in from the region. for example, they are touring to Thailand, Hong Kong and Japan this summer. I think its great that they do it because it generates interest in the EPL. plus it gives the fans over in Japan or Korea pride in the sense that a player from their country is good enough to play for Man Utd - Park and Kagawa had and have proven that they could perform at the highest club level (I never said they hadn't).

and of course it goes beyond just buying players, they tour places in pre season which gives those fans a chance to see the team they follow without having to travel thousands of miles like they would in the season and that will bring in revenue itself.

the way i put the point across probably didn't help as I have never been good at essay writing and whatnot.

[thetime]

This is quite interesting...

http://transferleague.co.uk/

especially the '92 - now table

[TheGayTent]

Careful you might show people up for talking a load of nonsense. The same when they say harry spent to much at spurs, even though he sold for more than he spent.

Edited April 25, 2013 by TheGayTent

[pink_triangle]

Careful you might show people up for talking a load of nonsense. The same when they say harry spent to much at spurs, even though he sold for more than he spent.