How many Twitter followers does your club have?

Leave a reply

8 years ago I decided to do a little analysis on how many Twitter followers every club has.

At the time, Arsenal led the way with 3,005,680.

Twitter was still something clubs were getting used too and not all clubs were taking it as seriously as others.

Manchester United for example had just 1,296,966 followers.

4 years on I revisited the analysis and the changes were interesting.

Manchester United were now the most followed club – with a 1264% increase. Arsenal were still the 2nd most followed.

With all the furore over the European Super League, a friend stuck the likes of the Greedy Six apology message into our WhatsApp Group with the tag line “they really are a small club”.

This was talking about Tottenham’s tweet getting just one third of the likes of Arsenal and Liverpool, less than half of Manchester City and ¼ of Manchester United.

It made me think about the analysis I did and luckily I was able to find the figures. They make interesting reading once more…

The first thing that jumps out is just how growth has stalled.

Manchester United’s growth from 2013 to 2017 was 1264%. Now it is just 53%.

This is due to two factors:

  • Twitter’s own growth over the last 4 years has been slow
  • Football’s global growth has stalled

The second thing that jumps out is how little Arsenal have grown in comparison to other “top 6” club – just 37% growth. This would be due to the way the club is so often portrayed negatively both on social media and in the press leading the club to gain less new followers in comparison.

Compare Arsenal to Tottenham in the last 7 years – Tottenham’s growth has been 125% (the most of the big 6). Arsenal have won trophies, Tottenham have not.

But if you look online you would think that Tottenham had been the successful team over the last 4 years. Perception is everything.

The third interesting point to note is the growth of Liverpool from 2017 to 2021.

At 83%, they have grown quicker than Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Manchester City. This shows how many people “jump on the bandwagon” when a team begins winning trophies.

Liverpool and Manchester City are the “newer” successful fans, so are gaining followers that they would not have gained during the 00s when both won very little.

In the 00s, these fans would have begun following Arsenal, Chelsea or Manchester United.

It really shows the importance of being a successful club, and winning the biggest trophies.

As for Tottenham, their growth has been huge but they were also coming from the lowest base point. Their percentage growth might the highest, but the volume of new followers is lowest; just 3.2million new followers in comparison to Arsenal who gained 4.7m.

The last point is how not being in the Premier League can impact your followers.

Leeds United returned to the Premier League for the first time in 16 years last summer.

When they were relegated back in 2004, you would have said they were in a group including Newcastle, Everton, Aston Villa and Tottenham. Sides who had a decent following but not much recent success.

They are now behind the likes of Crystal Palace and WBA. It is hard to grow a global fan base when you are not in the Premier League and not on the TV of people around the world every weekend.

Likewise you can see the benefit of Leicester City winning the league in 2016. They now have the 8th largest Twitter following and have continued to grow at quicker rates in comparison to the likes of West Ham and Wolves.

You can really see the impact on followings on the teams who have dropped out of the Premier League:

In 2017, the likes of Stoke City and Swansea were fairly stable Premier League clubs and had gained over 1million followers each.

Both were relegated in 2018 – a year after the previous study – and their growth since has been below 20%.

Likewise Cardiff City – who were in the Premier League in 2013 – have grown their following by just 5% since 2017. They have spent the majority of the time since 2013 in the Championship.

So in summary?

  • Growth is slowing
  • Being in the Premier League is important for all clubs to increase their following
  • Winning the Premier League / Champions League is the most important factor in growth
  • Negative perception sees to lower growth

Keenos

The ESL has collapsed but the CL still needs reform

1 Reply

One of the reasons why the European Super League reared its very ugly head once more was because the Champions League and Europa League are tournaments in decline.

Champions League viewing figures and crowds were dwindling before the Covid19 outbreak. The competition was in urgent need of reform.

It had become a predictable tournament. With the same group of teams constantly qualifying, the same making it through to the knock out stages and the same making the semi’s and finals.

Back in the 90s and 00s, European football was magic.

Part of that magic was that you would rarely play the same teams.

Arsenal’s first meeting with Bayern Munich in a competitive came was the 2000/01 Champions League. They would only be drawn together once more in the next 12 seasons – in 2005.

They would then be drawn against each other 4 times in the next 5 seasons from 2013 – 2017.

Before facing each other in the 2006 Champions League Final Arsenal and Barcelona had been drawn together once in Europe – 1999 when Arsenal played at Wembley.

From 2010 – 2016 Arsenal would be drawn together 3 times in 7 seasons.

And it is not just the big ties – Arsenal have been drawn against Olympiakos 6 times in 11 years.

The problem with European football is two fold.

Firstly over the last decade there has been less of a turnover of different teams making the tournament.

With England, Spain and Germany all getting 4 slots, Italy and France 3, we continually get the same teams qualifying.

Such is the weaknesses in depth in Spain, France, Italy and Germany; the likes of Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich, PSG and Juventus will always be in the draw.

And then the draw itself is designed to keep teams apart, which as a result pushes other teams together.

UEFA created such a complex criteria that you will always end up with the same teams facing each other if the same teams continually qualify.

We have their coefficient seeding which is designed to keep the best teams apart to ensure their qualification. Then we can not have two teams from the same country in the same group.

On top of that you can not have more than two teams from the same country play on the same night (or two teams from the same country if only 2 qualify).

And the Last 16 knock out, similar rules apply.

Group winners are seeded against group runners up and teams from the same association can not face each other. It is only in the last 8 do we get a true random draw.

A European tie is no longer the magical experience it was.

The competition needs reform. UEFA knows it and the clubs know it. And that is what led to the split.

The clubs want a smaller competition, with guaranteed spots and more games against the “big clubs”. Whilst UEFA wanted to expand the competition. Make it bigger.

Both of their plans were awful, and this should not be forgotten about throughout all of this.

UEFA is not the “better of two evils”. They are equally as evil as the European Super League. And their plan is probably actually worse.

So how should UEFA reform European football? The most basic answer is probably the best:

Scrap the Europa League: Have one single tournament. The European Cup. All teams who meet the criteria of entry play in it.

Make it a knockout tournament: Make the competition a 128 team tournament. Have a pre-qualifying round or two if needed to get to that number like in the FA Cup. And then make it a two-legged knock out tournament all the way to the final. Teams would play 13 games to win the tournament. The same as the current format.

Make the draw random:  To increase unpredictability and to make the biggest games a rarer event, make the draw random. No seeding. So Manchester United face Barcelona in the 1st Round. One will be knocked out. So what? That means one was not good enough.

And allow same associations to face each other from Round One: Alongside the unseeded draw, allow clubs from the same association to face each other. None of this keeping them apart to maximise TV coverage.

If UEFA stripped back the tournament, simplified it and expanded it, it would resolve the problems.

As it stands UEFA’s aim is to ensure the “biggest” teams get the most games and progress. It is all about TV money. Not the excitement of the tournament.

Fans enjoyment has been secondary to them ensuring those big clubs get their pay out. And that is why their competitions are dying.

Keenos

The European Super League – Trying to make sense of why Arsenal led the way

Leave a reply

First of all let me preface this piece by saying I’m not “in favour” of the proposed European Super League. In principle I’m fully against the idea. However, I’m about to try and make sense of Arsenal’s position in the middle of it all and why it’s possibly the “right” (bear with me) thing to do. I’ve also laid out some stark warning signs for us at the bottom of this piece.

Let’s just cover off one of the important things here – every other Premier League club would have signed-up to this if given the opportunity. Leeds United’s cheap PR trick with their t-shirts trying to embarrass Liverpool Football Club last night was crass, coming as it did from a club which spent 16 years outside the top division, and bankrupted themselves, having tried to crack the Premier League and Europe by spending money they didn’t have – by which I mean they were a prime example of the greed and spending that has put football in this position in the first place. Sky and the other broadcasters can do one too as their opposition is purely based on the potential loss of their own cash-cows knowing Amazon and the clubs would blow them out of the water when the TV rights are franchised.

So what about Arsenal? Why should they be in this? The fact is, in my view, that Arsenal needed to be part of this in order to try and dine at the top table from here on. We are way behind the 8-ball when compared to Chelsea, Man City, Barcelona and Real Madrid (and PSG) because our billionaire owner (or the King of Spain in certain cases) does not bankroll us. Some supporters lament that fact and some take it as a badge of honour that Arsenal try to compete without “buying” success outright. Strategically, Arsenal’s position in the middle of this whole thing has to be a “good” move to secure our position. If it all goes up in smoke we’re not really any worse off, and we’re also well placed to do well out of any compromise that might be reached. On the other hand, if it does go ahead, it’s far more important to be inside this particular tent than looking on enviously.

Is that “fair” on other clubs? Is that “good for football” in general? I’d say it’s not, but football is big business which makes it a cutthroat industry, whether we supporters like it or not, and if Arsenal are to remain relevant (by which I mean not being a West Ham or an Everton, for example) they have to be involved at the very start of things. 

Of course the big losers all across the piece will be supporters. It opens up the new league to games being played all round the world for a genuinely global audience. The term “legacy fan” has started to be used. What an insult that is. Where do these “legacy” supporters fit in? The fact is we don’t, because our clubs are literally owned by individuals, most of them geographically (never mind philosophically) distanced from the entity over which they preside. They are not custodians, they are investors – certainly in the case of the Kroenke family. Investors want to make money, not spend it. The “legacy fans” do not necessarily spend a fortune in the online shop, or buy expensive PPV TV subscriptions. The new worldwide fanbases do.

This is a massive crossroads moment for football, where the chance exists to reform or remove UEFA and FIFA (something I consider to be a pretty decent option, incidentally, especially if it means ending the farcical “international level” of the game) but at the cost perhaps of something quite fundamental to the game and the people who follow it. 

It’s also a massive crossroads moment for Arsenal and Stan Kroenke. While I think we’re better off in this small and unpopular group at the moment, the problem for us is what does Stan do if it goes pear-shaped? We know he’s not putting his money into Arsenal either way. But will he just sell up for a profit, and who would that be to? Or will he punish those who will have derailed his investment by running Arsenal into the ground, selling off the assets as he goes? 

If you think the European Super League is a scary proposition, just imagine Arsenal once it had been asset-stripped by an owner who holds no affiliation to us whatsoever. This is the hand we have found ourselves dealt, so for the moment I’m going to sit and wait and see how this pans out. If I was a betting man I’d say there’ll be a compromise that mostly suits the 12 clubs first and foremost. One thing for certain is that UEFA, the Premier League, Sky, BBC, BT Sport etc, need the clubs more than the owners of the clubs need those organisations.

Note: This blog was written prior to last nights announcement that all 6 English teams had pulled out

Dover Marksman