The biggest RIVALRIES (Club Teams)

Greatest Club RIVALRIES

  • Barcelona -- Real Madrid (Spain)

    Votes: 23 26.7%

  • Internazionale -- AC Milan (Italy)

    Votes: 11 12.8%

  • Manchester Utd -- Arsenal (England)

    Votes: 9 10.5%

  • Celtic -- Rangers (Scotland)

    Votes: 23 26.7%

  • PSG -- Marseille (France)

    Votes: 5 5.8%

  • Boca Jrs -- River Plate (Argentina)

    Votes: 12 14.0%

  • Flamengo -- Fluminense (Brazil)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Ajax -- Feyenoord (Netherlands)

    Votes: 1 1.2%

  • AS Roma -- SS Lazio (Italy)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Guadalajara -- América (México)

    Votes: 2 2.3%
  • Total voters
    86
ooh_harry said:
has to be Celtic - Rangers.....12 year old kids are getting killed in the aftermath of these matches and for what???? little differences in the Christian faith...
Click to expand...

and also, they start a chain of events in northern ireland - not even scotland!! - which sees many hundreds of people on the streets rioting in towns and cities all over northern ireland, hijacking vehicles and buses and throwing petrol bombs and causing hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage!

even if you've missed the hype, you can always tell when there has been an old firm match, because the rioting it causes is always headline news here in northern ireland... BUT, i must add - it only ever seems to be when celtic get humped...

go on the 'gers! :)
 
Surely it has to be rivalry which extends football...I see three possibilities (but there could more).

Definitely first: Celtic-Rangers. Did you know that Rangers was funded as a reaction to Celtic (so for me it will always be Celtic that will be the genuine one). Rangers was funded as an act of bigotry against the Celtic sport club, the only one were catholic people could sport...it's about religion.

second: Real Madrid - Barcelona. The club of dictator Franco (Real) against the club of Catalunya, Franco's biggest opponents. Did you know that Real's best player ever, Di Stefano was ment to go to Barcelona, but Franco personally intervened...

third: Ferencvaros - MTK: strange choice. MTK was the theam of the jewish people in Hungary, they still are hated in Hungary for that reason, but the rivalry with Ferencvaros is the most fierce. Ferencvaros' fans are proud to be fascists...

Politics were important in the former Eastern Germany too: Dynamo Berlin was the team of the hated Stasi (secret police).
And then of course there is the story about Dynamo Kiev and the match against and SS team during WWII. Dynamo was leading at half time and then they were threatened by the SS. Dynamo still won and some players were executed (the story is not correct like i tell it here, but the truth is fairly similar...).
 
gerd said:
Rangers was funded as an act of bigotry against the Celtic sport club, the only one were catholic people could sport...it's about religion.
Click to expand...

That's a fucking lie!

Rangers were founded in 1873, Celtic in 1888. Celtic were founded for Glasgow's Irish population, 15 years after Rangers.

At least back up your ludicrous claims.
 
FC Barcelona fans will feel alright ending up third or fourth in La Liga as long as they beat Real Madrid.

When Real and Barça met in the UCL semis three years ago, most fans of both teams said that they would have preferred not to get to the semis and therefore not risking being kicked out by the other one. In the end it was Real who knocked out Barça, winning 0-2 in Barcelona, the very same day as Catalonia celebrates it's regional day (Sant Jordi)... so it was a hard punch. And Real were champions that year. What happened then? The coach was fired, their president lost the next election... It was a great crisis.

Plus, it is not true that most players have played both sides. I can remember (in the last twenty years) Schuster, Milla, Laudrup, Luis Enrique, Nando, Ronaldo, Alfonso and Figo. And every single one of them (except Ronaldo and Alfonso, who went abroad first) was much hated ever since in the other city. Laudrup received death-threats when he got back to Barcelona to play with Real. Figo... you all should remember the pork head and the J&B bottle he was thrown at during a game. 'Luis Enrique, tu padre es Amunike' (Luis Enrique, Amunike is your father) was what Bernabéu sang every time Barça came to Madrid.

Rivalry between Barcelona and Madrid is a rivalry between cities, not just sports. It extends to politics, society, religion... People from Catalonia are very 'special', and are not so well looked from the rest of Spain because their "feeling different" to the rest of Spaniards. I think there's a big rivalry there.
 
That thing about Franco being involved in Di Stefano's transfer is another BIG FCKING LIE!! How come you dare lie this way to so many foreigners that don't know Spanish history! They will believe it! I can see you also threw another lie before... Don't be silly, we're not stupid here.

First of all, it's a stupid thing to say that Real Madrid had any advantage because of Franco in any case. Franco was in Spain for over thirty years, and many teams (including Barcelona) grew very strong at that time. Guess who had their best years then? Athletic Bilbao, precisely. A Basque team. There you go.

Di Stefano signed a pre-contract with Barcelona, then another with Real Madrid. The Government of the moment decided that should the teams not reach an agreement, the player would not play in Spain. Real and Barça agreed to share the player: he'd play one year in Madrid, the next in Barcelona, for six years, then he'd be free.

What happened is that Di Stefano had a hard time getting accustomed to Spanish style, and after a very dissappointing first games, Barcelona decided to let go of the player and not have to pay a penny for him. What a bad decision that was, time told. But there was no Franco thing, do not go lying that way.

Plus, Catalonia is the proper way to write "Cataluña" in English. We don't see people writing "Londres" or "Mockba", they write "London" and "Moscow"... <_<
 
foxtrot said:
That's a fucking lie!

Rangers were founded in 1873, Celtic in 1888. Celtic were founded for Glasgow's Irish population, 15 years after Rangers.

At least back up your ludicrous claims.
Click to expand...

I couldn't believe it when I read it either foxtrot! He is partly right. however, but has got a bit mixed up. Celtic were founded after Rangers and only catholics supported them due to their affinity with the catholic church. Because of this protestants tended to support Rangers more and hence the divide. So, if anything the founding of celtic football club created the divide in football supporters.
 
My dear friend Foxtrot (what foul language for a mod)you are right.
I expressed myself wrong. Rangers was not funded against Celtic, but when it racked up wins against Celtic, Protestant Scotland imposed religious and political aspirations upon the club and gradually adopted it as its own.When i wrote this i was at work and i remembered this wrongly. It comes from the book "How Soccer explains the world" by Franklin Foer (Harper and Collins)(chapter about Glasgow rivalry: how soccer explains the pornography of sects page 35 - 64). The error was mine and it want to apologize for it... No need to take it that personal (which proves the rivalry and the sectarianism).

Gedtillo: same source (p 193 - 216) and also Barca: A people's passion by Jimmy Burns (you should read that last book Gedtillo) for the story about Di Stefano and this time i was right...and the animosity between the Castillians and Catalunya was not the same as those between the Castillians and Euskadi. Please stop giving me English lessons.

Both reactions are a litle bit too harsh IMHO. It's only football.

Gerd posting as Stan after having checked his sources.
 
Stan said:
My dear friend Foxtrot (what foul language for a mod)you are right.
I expressed myself wrong. Rangers was not funded against Celtic, but when it racked up wins against Celtic, Protestant Scotland imposed religious and political aspirations upon the club and gradually adopted it as its own.When i wrote this i was at work and i remembered this wrongly. It comes from the book "How Soccer explains the world" by Franklin Foer (Harper and Collins)(chapter about Glasgow rivalry: how soccer explains the pornography of sects page 35 - 64). The error was mine and it want to apologize for it... No need to take it that personal (which proves the rivalry and the sectarianism).

Gedtillo: same source (p 193 - 216) and also Barca: A people's passion by Jimmy Burns (you should read that last book Gedtillo) for the story about Di Stefano and this time i was right...and the animosity between the Castillians and Catalunya was not the same as those between the Castillians and Euskadi. Please stop giving me English lessons.

Both reactions are a litle bit too harsh IMHO. It's only football.

Gerd posting as Stan after having checked his sources.
Click to expand...
hey gerd, great book BTW!!! I read that, that guy is actually a writer for the local paper here, good read and great book... I think its boca vs river plate
 
truebluenose said:
I couldn't believe it when I read it either foxtrot! He is partly right. however, but has got a bit mixed up. Celtic were founded after Rangers and only catholics supported them due to their affinity with the catholic church. Because of this protestants tended to support Rangers more and hence the divide. So, if anything the founding of celtic football club created the divide in football supporters.
Click to expand...
Absolute bollocks.

Celtic was originally founded to help the Irish immigrant community in Scotland. At no time did Celtic ever ban other religions or cultures from playing, unlike Rangers who had an anti-catholic signing policy until the 1990's when they signed Mo Johnstone. Nineteen Nineties.

But don't let facts get in the way of bullshit eh? :roll:
 
Gedtillo, thanks for the information but I think you're a bit too hard on Gerd. He didn't mean to offend you. He was just misinformed I guess and i'm glad you've cleared it up now but your tone was a bit harsh in my opinion.

Anyways I see some good rivalries missing:

Panathinaikos vs. Olympiakos

Galatasaray vs. Fenerbahce

Partizan vs. Red star.

But if I had to personally pick 3, it'd be
Old Firm derby (Celtic vs. Rangers)

Real vs. Barcelona

and my pick if I had to pick ONLY one.

River vs. Boca
 
PLF, I have been hard on him because that information is not correct, he can quote as many books as he wants. I live in Madrid, I personally know many people that work inside the club, plus, that Di Stefano story is old news here: it was long ago stated clear, and only rises again when there are rows between fans. I'm so tired of reading and hearing how Real Madrid owes so much to Franco.

Plus, I'm not giving English lessons to anyone. I happen not to be a native, so I couldn't dare do so. But stating how a toponym should be mentioned is not giving English lessons, it's just common sense. "Catalunya" is not Spanish neither English: it is the catalan form for Catalonia, as Euskadi is the basque form for Basque Country. I was just stating that the proper way to quote them is with their English names, but hey, it was just a suggestion, he's free to do whatever he wants.

However, he's wrong again. There never was any animosity between Castilians and Catalans nor Basques. The dictator's regime almost completely forbid the use of their languages, and that made those regions especially active in the resistance against the dictatorship, but Catalans have always been more keen on dialog and quiet fight than the Basques.

Spain is a very complex country, lots of so-called "nationalities" inside (wether you agree or not is a whole different point), and cannot be abridged so easily. Quoting a book about football is not the best way to put an end to this debate. I'm Spanish, it takes dozens of years of living here to try to understand this country. ;) I myself don't get it at all, you see. :P
 
ClassicD said:
Absolute bollocks.

Celtic was originally founded to help the Irish immigrant community in Scotland. At no time did Celtic ever ban other religions or cultures from playing, unlike Rangers who had an anti-catholic signing policy until the 1990's when they signed Mo Johnstone. Nineteen Nineties.

But don't let facts get in the way of bullshit eh? :roll:
Click to expand...

He signed for Rangers in 1989. Nineteen Eighties. The first Catholic player to play for Rangers since World War 2.
Rangers have never had a rule saying 'No Catholics!'
It was only when shipyard workers came over from Belfast after World War 1 that all the sectarian stuff really kicked off.

"If you know your history..."

:roll:
 
That's like Real Sociedad in Spain: they only sign Basque and foreign players, never non-Basque Spaniards. I find that a stupid rule. I think they made an exception with a player from Navarra last year... but that is because Basque nationalism considers that Navarra belongs to the Basque Country.

Why would anyone put a limit to the origin of the players his team can sign? I don't see the point on doing that. "If you are blond you can't play here". Stupid. I don't know why they mix up politics and sports... :( So sad.
 
ClassicD said:
Absolute bollocks.

Celtic was originally founded to help the Irish immigrant community in Scotland. At no time did Celtic ever ban other religions or cultures from playing, unlike Rangers who had an anti-catholic signing policy until the 1990's when they signed Mo Johnstone. Nineteen Nineties.

But don't let facts get in the way of bullshit eh? :roll:
Click to expand...

Where in my post did I say Celtic only played catholics? I stated only catholics supported them, which was correct. I think you see what you want to see so you can get in more wee digs.
 
Gedtillo said:
Spain is a very complex country, lots of so-called "nationalities" inside (wether you agree or not is a whole different point), and cannot be abridged so easily. Quoting a book about football is not the best way to put an end to this debate. I'm Spanish, it takes dozens of years of living here to try to understand this country. ;) I myself don't get it at all, you see. :P
Click to expand...
I do agree.

I agree with everything you said actually. Most I knew already like the Basque stuff and Bilbao and Sociedad's tradition of buying only Basque players and some I didn't.

But I was making a point that although he gave wrong info. He never had an aggressive tone mate. He's a nice guy, I've known him for a while and just made a mistake as he was misinformed. I think you should've corrected him like you did but why be so aggressive and not friendly towards him. After all we're all here because of this game and should be nice to each other and friends unless someone does some bad shit behind someone else's back or something horrible.

Anyways Real Sociedad's policy is way better than Athletic's though. At least Sociedad had this policy of only signing Basque players and no SPANISH but they could still have a strikeforce consisting of Turkish and Serbian superstars, Nihat Kahveci and Darko Kovacevic.

But poor Bilbao ONLY wants Basque players. Meaning they never have the luxury that Sociedad has in bringing a foreign player into team when they don't have a real quality Basque player in that position. But Bilbao can't and so always has to produce good players from its own academy because either they have to be good enough or the small pool of players available from other teams like Sociedad, Osasuna and Eibar and few others in 2nd division.

So i have lot of respect for Bilbao and the fact that they are STILL a top team and often even challenging for a European spot even though when they sell players like Del Horno, Ezquerro they often can't even buy replcament cuz only ones they can sign are Basque ones and maybe at the time there is no other Basque left defender who's even 1/4th as good as Del Horno. So I give them mad props because then they lose a player, it's really tough to make sure someone with same quality comes through.

Thank god Yeste, Etxeberria, the legend Urzaiz are still there and Llorente looks like he'll become a top player and possibly replace Urzaiz at end of this season or next.

By the way Sociedad broke their tradition a few years ago when they signed Boris who is a Spanish defender/DM but not Basque. He was unsuccessful though and was loaned out and finally sold I think in this summer or last summer and they keep their tradition of having only Basque Spanish players plus foreginers which is way better than having only Basque.
 
Last edited:
Alright, seems fair to me. My apologies, I was too hard. I'm sorry. :)

Historically, although they only sign Basque players, Athletic Bilbao has a much greater history than Real Sociedad. Plus, I can understand that a team has a tradition of using native players. But what I don't get is having a team in which every single person can play... but those born in non-Basque Spain. So a Nigerian guy can, but I cannot? WHY? Am I not god enough for that? :) Shall my Spanish blood do bad to the team?

Imagine that Real Madrid rejected players born in Chile. Just like that. Wouldn't it be horrible and segregative? What if they said, "no black players can play here"? They'd be called racists, wouldn't they? That's more or less what I feel about the Real Sociedad thing, I find it a little offensive... but that's a personal view. :)
 
I already said that Boris was considered as Basque by them, as he is from Navarra, which they consider part of the Basque Country (though it is not and never has been). ;) That's why, no more no less. :) And I find it disgusting that they make such an exclusive distinction between people
 
It's funny, Barca and the Basque teams were all matey for years because they were allies against Franco - when Barca played Bilbao, whoever won both sets of fans would cheer. After Franco died, pretty soon they became like all other football fans everywhere, just more rivals. Nowadays the Barca fans will sing that the Basques are all backwards farmers, and the Basque fans will sing that the Catalans are all stuck-up ponces... it really makes me laugh the way the parts of Spain are all in competition against each other, even more than England or Italy. But there's good historical reasons for it at least, I suppose.

And the funniest thing about this thread is the way that even discussing the Old Firm rivalry almost causes a punch up...lol... up the Bhoys!

EDIT: Oh yeah, and the Basque teams were always seen as pretty cool in Britain, for only signing 'local' players - a lot of fans in Scotland, for instance, still go on about how when Celtic won the European Cup, all the team were born in Glasgow, and it's not the same when the players come from all over the world and maybe haven't even heard of Celtic. But nowadays, everyone's worked something out - where do they get all those Basque players, when their own youth team isn't good enough? They use their money to buy the best guys from all the smaller clubs in the region! So there are plenty of football fans even in Bilbao who don't feel like Atletico are their 'national team', the way most Catalans (except Espanyol fans) will support Barca, even if they support some other smaller team...

And another thing - Man Utd v Arsenal isn't historically the biggest rivalry in England, the clubs are too far away from each other... they only became big rivals in the last ten or fifteen years, and it was because of their competing success and the way their matches were always so hard and violent (it all started when they had a fight on the pitch in about 1989).

Biggest English rivalries, historically: Man Utd - Liverpool, Liverpool-Everton, Leeds - Man Utd, Birmingham City - Villa, Newcastle - Sunderland, Spurs - Arsenal, West Brom - Wolves, Sheffield United - Sheffield Wednesday.
 
Last edited:
CORINTHIANS X PALMEIRAS IS THE BIGGEST BRAZILIAN RIVALRY, AND CONSEQUENTLY, ONE OF THE BIGGESTS OF THE WORLD
 
ClassicD said:
Absolute bollocks.

Celtic was originally founded to help the Irish immigrant community in Scotland. At no time did Celtic ever ban other religions or cultures from playing, unlike Rangers who had an anti-catholic signing policy until the 1990's when they signed Mo Johnstone. Nineteen Nineties.

But don't let facts get in the way of bullshit eh? :roll:
Click to expand...

close cd - rangers died in 1989... the year they signed mo. although i remember fondly playing an under 17 cup match, then going back to the pub and watching the results coming in. mo pops up to score the winner in the 90th minute against celtic. you couldn't have made it up, but it happened. it was magnificent.


it was 1989. you guys are all the same. trying to get people to feel sorry for your pathetic asses... get over it...
 
truebluenose said:
Where in my post did I say Celtic only played catholics? I stated only catholics supported them, which was correct. I think you see what you want to see so you can get in more wee digs.
Click to expand...

correct. cd in a nutshell...
 
Yup Corinthians vs. Palmeiras is huge as well as Cruzeiro and Atletico Mineiro and many other big Brazilian derbies.

@Gedtillo, I didn't know the person you mentioend they got from Navarro region was Boris. But see talkign to you taught me a new thing about Boris ;)

Also glad that you can see you were a bit too harsh on Gerd and also yes I agree. I find it totally stupid that Sociedad will field a total foreigner from Middle-east, Africa or anywhere but not a SPANISH who isn't from the Basque region. :roll: who despite what they want to believe has much more closeness to Basque people than a Nigerian let's say in terms of ethnicty/culture at least.

This is why I like Bilbao much better because at least their policy makes more sense and also historically the club is more prestigious.

Take care, also was gonna say something about the fact that Arsenal vs. Man Utd isn't nowhere as near big as these other ones cuz like PEre said it's not even truly England's biggest rivalry. It's not. It's just a rivalry that's happened due to success of both in recent history.

And to be a contender for biggest rivalry not only do you need MANY MANY years of fighting each other for title and first place which Arsenal and Man Utd dont have but also other big reasons to hate each other other than being your main title contender for nearly a decade.

That's why to me,

Feyenoord vs. Ajax, Benfica vs. Sporting, (Not Porto), Old Firm derby and River vs. Boca along with many i'm forgetting are a bigger rivalry than the Man Utd vs. Arsenal one.
 
Last edited:
foxtrot said:
He signed for Rangers in 1989. Nineteen Eighties. The first Catholic player to play for Rangers since World War 2.
Rangers have never had a rule saying 'No Catholics!'
It was only when shipyard workers came over from Belfast after World War 1 that all the sectarian stuff really kicked off.

"If you know your history..."

:roll:
Click to expand...
1989-1990 season, close enough for fuck sake. Rangers operated a strict non-Catholic signing policy until they signed Johnstone, why else did they not sign one until not much over a decade ago? OOOOO we signed a Catholic one year earlier than this guy said, we're not bigots, honest! :roll:

truebluenose said:
Where in my post did I say Celtic only played catholics? I stated only catholics supported them, which was correct. I think you see what you want to see so you can get in more wee digs.
Click to expand...

It is not a "wee dig" to say that Rangers employed the policy I mentioned, it's fact - "seeing what you want to see" indeed.

vr6_highline said:
close cd - rangers died in 1989... the year they signed mo.
Click to expand...

Just so I'm not "seeing things I want to see", can you explain this statement?
 
Hahaha you completely missed my point as usual. I never stated "only catholics were allowed to play for Celtic." You said that I did. I stuck up for myself as I clearly didn't. Is that any clearer for you or do you want to avoid the point and argue somethin else, lets say rangers signin policy of which I never mentioned? See, when you're presented with something that you can't disprove you talk about something else. I think that quite clearly shows you as being wrong. (wrong in the case of me supposedly saying only catholics played for celtic ,just to clarify, as I have no doubt you'll come back with something completely irrelevant)

Toodaloo
 
truebluenose said:
Hahaha you completely missed my point as usual. I never stated "only catholics were allowed to play for Celtic." You said that I did.
Click to expand...

Where? :eh:

I brought up the bit regarding signing policy because you said that the creation of Celtic was what caused the current divide - I'm saying it's the policy of Rangers which did so and that Celtic never employed such a policy, I didn't say that's what you said, at any point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom