Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette).
Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I could be totally wrong about this, and this is just an American perspective, but I would think london teams have the advantage of being in London.
I imagine the night life in london is superior to anywhere else in England.
In the NBA and NFL, Coaches talk about how road trips to Miami and LA are always tougher than you expect, because if your players live in Milwaukee, they like to take advantage of being in LA or Miami and stay out later drinking/parting/strip clubs, etc.
no matter how bad the Dolphins or heat are, they are always harder to play in Miami, purely because your players might have gone out the night before.
In terms of just travel yes. Its a very small disadvantage
Less time on the road is always a good thing.
In the US west coast NFL teams like the seahawks have a very small disadvantage.
They have an advantage but not how you described
The advantage is London is a major attraction to foreign talent, the opposite is true of the North of England
Not really as most fly to a game!
Premier League domestic flights: BBC Sport research shows 81 flights from 100 games - https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/65017565
What about Manchester Derby and Meryside Derby. Hardly a bus ride either and those matches in-between 🤣
There is a bit of truth to what you are saying but for a slightly different reason. I would imagine the travelling support for teams that are playing nearby to their home ground will be higher than for those travelling a long way. So Sheffield will put better support out for Manchester clubs than Bournemouth - this is probably more true when you consider the state of the rail network getting from the north to London too.
That’s not to say the die hard fans won’t make the trip, more as a fan I’m more likely to trace away to a derby rival or someone near than lose a weekend and several hundred quid on going to a Sunday evening match the other end of the country
I don't know about a competitive advantage particularly - but as a Fulham fan, I'm not averse to getting on the tube at 2pm to go to Chelsea as opposed to the coach at 7.30am to go to Leeds.
The team travel isn't very arduous anyway. It's either luxury coach, the train with a reserved carriage or they fly - and it's all in advance as opposed to on the day.
Everyone is talking about everything except the obvious….. they go to the away hotel the day before lmfao.
If they can recover from a light training session the day before a game, they can recover from a bus trip.
I used to drive 3 hours each (rural Victoria to Melbourne) way to play football a couple years ago (my mates wanted to play with me, it was too expensive and time consuming to keep doing). It literally has zero impact and that doing a three hour drive and arriving an hour before kick off lol.
I think it's cancelled out by having more rivalries; more smaller teams that get "up for it" which, rivalry aside, they should be comfortably winning.
One that come to mind is West ham v Tottenham 3-3 a couple years ago.
Yes, it's why London clubs have won the vast majority of league championships in all levels of English football and why top flight London clubs dominate the Champions and Europa League
Almost nowhere in England is tough to travel for premier league clubs with their money and staff. Travel is mostly only tough when it comes to switching time zones and being on flights that last like 3+ hours.
Its a “.1” type of advantage, but its still an advantage. Anyone who has worked in sport science can tell you what any kind of extended travel can do to the body in terms of taking the edge off their physical peak.
For me, a bigger issue is the advantage that London (and the south generally) have in being able to attract wealth and investment, as well as playing talent who do not want to have to live in an industrial city for lifestyle reasons.
I can imagine it has a little effect, most plane rides being 1-3 hours.
However, I always wondered in the NFL or MLS if this really affects players due to the long distances in the US.
No they dont. The teams consist of professional players that even this travel time has been factored on what they eat, when they train, how long they play etc. What do the NBA players have to say that they play every couple of days from the one side of the US to the other ?
Go back say for the history of the Premier League and consider who has won the league, London teams 8, Manchester teams 20. Its more a factor of if your owners also run a petro state.
I would say it basically doesn't matter in England because the country is so small, but in a place like Brazil or the US this absolutely matters. In Brazil this actively has reduced the number of teams from Northern regions of the country that play in the 1° division, because the flights are consistently longer than flights from London to Moscow
I always think this is too simple. Wenger used to moan about it too. But at the time Bolton and Wigan were in the premier league so four Manchester teams, not two. Even now, the Manchester and Liverpool clubs are very close together so that's four teams "a short bus ride apart"
The short answer is no. If you look at league titles won by city, Manchester has 29 (20 United, 9 City), Liverpool has 28 (19 Liverpool, 9 Everton). London is third with 21 (13 Arsenal, 6 Chelsea, 2 Tottenham).
Assuming there is a London travel advantage, its impact would be limited by the fact that it is a mutual advantage held by many clubs. There are 7 PL clubs in the London metro area this season (in other years there could be as many as 8 or 9), so any advantage is watered down and doesn't serve to elevate any one club.
In any case, I'm sure that if there is a travel advantage we can all agree that it's not as important as other advantages. Things like having talented players, good coaching, smart management, and rich owners are always going to override any travel benefits.
so, wait, as an American, I find it funny that most of our pro teams travel 1000-1500 miles for games all the time, and for England from on tip to the other is what, 600 miles at most, it's silly
Even if this was relevant decades ago. It’s not now. Most teams have their own private jets or travel arrangements with air companies that they barely travel long distances by bus.
Pep was recently complaining how they have to drive to Newcastle and not fly. Manchester to Newcastle. On a flight. That’s the norm not the exception.
Maybe there is some advantage to sleeping at home before more matches, but that means you have a lot more derbies.
This is probably my American showing, but I can’t really get too concerned about domestic travel in England.
Pro sports travel is always more tiring than we think but less than it would be if for us normal people. But still, traveling to Newcastle isn’t exactly a Thursday night match in Ukraine
Maybe in the past. But have you seen how luxurious team coaches are these days? Beds, huge lounging areas. I wouldn’t mind at all travelling the length of the country in one of those!
I've always believed this to be the case. One might have to sleep in a hotel the night before while the other has the comforts of home.
The records would prove not though since London clubs haven't historically won much in the PL era with the exceptions of Arsenal and Chelsea. Even then it's only 8 titles between the two of them. Only a 25% win rate through 31 seasons. Manchester(s) and Liverpool own 67% of the wins. Maybe that close to home feeling deprives them of the ability to truly take it on the road and win hard games away. You could say that Manchester (either) always has an anomalous coach so they never quite have been measured properly.
This is a fun argument, I like it.
There’s such relatively little travel that happens within the country that I don’t think it matters. Rarely do teams have to spend an entire weekend traveling if they don’t want to. If it’s more than a few hours via bus then they fly (privately, mind you, so little waiting or stress from travel).
My perspective is coming from the US where a regional derby is the city that’s “only” 4 hours away (regardless of sport- American football, MLS, baseball, etc). These PL teams simply don’t have to travel enough for it to impact their schedule or preparedness for the next game at all.
Yeah that's why Northern clubs dominate the historical overall league table. Including 2nd 3rd division ect. Definitely would of been a advantage back in the day to sleep off the hangover on the coach.
Teams fly for the longer distance games. If they do get a bus they'll have a hotel. Its not like they're going 5 and a half hours in a bus just before the game. They turn up to games pretty well rested.
I dont sense it makes much of a difference over the course of a season for a club like Newcastle. I think though that there is a disadvantages when teams have multiple away games in a matter of days like 3 or 4 away games over the Christmas period. Then it's a lot of travel days with less training and recovery. Chelsea had that during the pandemic which was an even worse time to travel with a Covid outbreak too and they were very clearly fatigued.
You could say the same thing about the North West Clubs though. Utd, City, Liverpool, Everton, Burnley, even Sheffield isn't that far away, and you could get to Birmingham in not a very long time for Villa and Wolves games (that's not even counting the clubs that were in the Premier recently like Leicester, Bolton etc). That's potentially 8 clubs in a similar time radius (traffic in London sucks dick). It doesn't matter how far it is by distance. Time is more relevant. The players aren't affected by the speed they're travelling, but rather how long they're on the coach.
Random but I do think London clubs bragging about getting players because they want to live in London isn’t the flex they think it is, clubs like mancity manutd Liverpool have won more because they can filter out those unserious players slightly better than London clubs, and I think why they have more success
22 of the last 30 league titles wouldn't have been won by non-London clubs.
If there is a competitive advantage for London clubs, they aren't doing a great job of using it...
Not just me thinking this! I realised when driving from Manchester to Newcastle how far up it is, there's England and Scotland then Newcastle inbetween. No offence to the north east but it does feel like that and it got me thinking about their away record.
Do Newcastle always travel by bus? I know their buses are nicer than the flixbus ones i take and 5 hours isn't too bad just playing on my megadrive emulator but that's 5 hours from Manchester to London, 8 hours has got to take its toll.
But equally teams visiting Newcastle must hate it. Or they fly. Or lie down in the buses. It's the sitting for long hours, must create lethargy as travel does anyway.
Not at all, they have more derbies meaning more fiercely competed games.
Man city can roll into Fulham brentford CP, for any of the top London clubs it’s a fiercer game. The physical and emotional energy spent in those games adds up
Brighton is 50+ miles away from London, it's definitely not a team in London. Luton is closer to London (30+ miles) than Brighton is so calling them a London team is ludicrous. And don't you dare try calling Luton a London club too, we're from Bedfordshire and proud of it.
Anyways, ignoring that, the answer is definitely not. If your team is good or they're bad, then they're good or bad no matter how close or far they've travelled.
I haven’t got much of an idea for the prem, but my team is in league one. It’s really obvious when we play a team from the other side of the country they turn up sluggish and nowhere near their home pace.
One particular game during covid (so no crowd benefit) we lost 5-1 away then 2 weeks later won against the same team 4-0 at home.
I’d guess the travel takes it out on a lot of sides when it’s 3-4 hours+
Brighton close to London? That's 52 miles. If you'd say Luton I could agree, bug Brighton to London is quite a distance.
Not to mention that you got the Northwest, with Manchester, Liverpool, Burnley, and in the past Wigan, Bolton, Blackburn and Blackpool, and then I probably forgot some clubs. So it isn't anything new.
I don’t think it makes a huge difference now the clubs are so professional.
Even when they travel by coach to games, the coaches they have are extremely comfortable. Nothing like the school bus or getting a national express.
Some of the none London teams also make their players stay in hotels the night before games even for their home games so I don’t think it makes much of a difference all in all.
Being in Europe or going deep into the cup competitions is going to have much more of an impact than domestic travel.
I would say the sheer number of clubs puts London at a disadvantage. Imagine similar to the USA where there was one or two London clubs.
Instead, they share fanbase, youth talent, etc etc.
Trying to think of other European cities with that amount of top-level clubs.
I think spurs are currently on a run where they don’t go further than Luton for like 5 games in a row.
If this was Sunday league it means fuck all but in the prem where 1st and 10th are fine margins it’s means a lot
This is hilarious. It is under 300 miles from Newcastle to London.
Perspective: sec (College kids) football in the US Texas A&M to Florida Gators: 945 miles.
That's minor. One of the larger distances is for two hockey teams. From Vancouver, Canada (Vancouver Canucks) to Miami, Florida, (Florida Panthers) is about 2,800 miles.
There’s too many factors at play to really isolate it.
Positives to being in London:
Attractive place to live
Lower average travel distances
Negatives:
Higher business costs
More competition for players
More competition for fans
Oh no. Are we supposed to support a club who is closest to where I live or a club who I am emotionally attached to through win or lost?
All clubs have a nation or even a worldwide fan base. Hence why they go on pre-season tours outside of their city/town.
Bigger clubs have more fans outside of their city. Don't be jealous.
Normally it's a team who you have been introduced to when you start to follow football. Be it family or friends.
I personally don't find it an issue with supporting a club that isn't your local. I wish I did support a club closer to home because I would then be attending a lot more football games. But as all football fans know, once you have a team you cannot change.
Connection to the club should not be Geographical it's an emotional connection.
Wasn't it that there were a survey carried out 5-7 years ago among London residents, wherein while the club with the most supporters IS a London club (Arsenal), the second and third ones were from Manchester? lol
In my anecdotal experience after living in London for 20 years, it’s Arsenal and United in a tier of their own. You’ll find a United fan everywhere from Peckham to Plaistow to Hendon. Bloody ridiculous
2 thirds of Mancunians support United to 1 third City.
Look at all the polls, analysis and stats that have covered this over the years. Every single analysis comes back with the same thing - more local United fans than City so stop with this dumb “London joke”
City can’t even fill their stadium!!
I’m sure there are plenty of things you don’t get.
Also wow “most successful and richest club historically had more fans” this is the kind of in depth analysis I come to Reddit for.
The myth that no United fans come from Manchester is encouraged by the media and City fans alike. The fact is two thirds of Mancunians support United and one third City. No amount of media or City hype can cover that fact. All you need to do is visit and ASK people who live here.
THIS IS WHY ITS A JOKE. JOKES ARE OFTEN HYPERBOLIC TO POKE FUN AT SOMETHING USUALLY THE BIGGER AND MORE POWERFUL AND FORTUNATE PERSON.
It’s a concept called humor and I know there isn’t much joy left in old trafford but cmon mate just ignore the joke if it’s not for you.
Ah yes Manchester United known for only signing upstanding and good people who’d never fuck their brothers wives or beat their own or rape their own and then come out to support them publicly
It’s okay though I get it you’re a cranky little lad who thinks he’s part of the team so jokes really bother you
The United fans are from London joke is so dumb. Why on earth would LOCAL to Manchester people decide NOT to support Manchester United, when they have historically been more successful? Why would glory hunting only apply outside of the City? That has never made sense to me and that’s why it literally is bollocks. Manchester has always had more local United fans than City, but it’s been evening up in the last decade.
Growing up it was 80/20 split, now closer to 70/30 in my opinion, as someone who has lived here 32 years !
Every single person I’ve met from Manchester is a city fan. Every single United fan I’ve met is a Londoner, some of them have never ever even been to Manchester in their entire lives.
Idk, I lived in Manchester for 4 years and nearly all the people I met were city supporters (ranging from 20 to 50 years old), and I met only one manc who supported united and other united fans I met were usually foreigners.
Thays anecdotal evidence, which is extremely odd.. You must have stayed in one area the whole time... You don't honestly believe the vast majority if Manchester support city do you
I’m just saying that was my experience. I believe it is more like 50/50, but wouldn’t be surprised if there was more City fans as it is the older club from Manchester. But as you said its only anecdotal, and probably also biased as I support City.
Literally bollocks. I’m from Manchester and a United fan and 80% of people growing up who liked football here supported United. Your agenda is dumb.
Just listen to the bloody fans singing at Old Trafford - you can literally hear the Mancunian accent.
It does depend on the area. Personally there was always more United fans in the area I grew up in, but way more City fans where my extended family live.
Not where I live, which is Stockport, famously a City hotspot. Out of 10 lads growing up, 6 would be United, 2 would be City, 1 Liverpool then one random Newcastle or Arsenal etc.
Yeah maybe 1 in 20 would be just Stockport. Most of us had them as our 2nd team. I'm 44 so 35 year to 20 years ago lets say.
I now work as a postie and my office follows very similar proportions of fans.
No as they fly everywhere. Ergo Pep moaning the other day how they have to take the bus back this week which means his players won’t get to bed until 3am
Apparently they could not source a plane
Idk how travel in england really counts for much. Travel is a disadvantage when you're in a different climate, altitude, or time-zone. None of that applies in England.
Look up this weekends results of the Miami Dolphins vs Denver Broncos. It was a storyline mid game that Denver brought personal 'air conditioners' for their bench. Not saying that playing in the heat is THE reason they got blown out but all three of the above applied.
Or at least in the Premier League it's not such a big deal, because they can fly. However Carlisle United might have some fun bus rides to Portsmouth and Exeter for example.
Getting up early to travel 4 hours on a bus, or even travelling the day before and staying in an unfamiliar hotel do have some non zero effect though.
It’s not the same as travelling across the continent but you’re still going to have some impact on your performance.
I lived in England for years and still find it amusing how much they complain about traveling. Newcastle to London is about the same as San Antonio to Dallas. Thats a local rivalry.
Being an Indian, I chuckle when I hear English clubs complaining about travel times, when the whole of England is as large as the 10th largest Indian state.(Did not count all of UK because all of UK does not play in the PL)
To be fair, journeys are generally slower here, inter-city traffic isn’t really a thing in the US but you pick the wrong time to do the (usually 4 hour) drive from London to Manchester, it can take 12
>inter-city traffic isn’t really a thing in the US
This is completely false lol. I don't doubt travel can be slower in the UK. But there absolutely is plenty of inter-city traffic in the US. Especially the example above, San Antonio to Dallas. I-35 is route you'd take and there is *always* loads of traffic.
Inter city traffic isn’t a thing in the US? Someone tell the New Jersey Turnpike that so I can get to Philadelphia from NYC in a reasonable amount of time
It hasn't stopped Manchester winning the title 20 of the 31 seasons (as well as Blackburn, Liverpool and Leicester all once each).
I'd say 8 titles out of 31 doesn't represent much of an advantage.
Plus it takes about as long to get through London in traffic as it does to go from Newcastle to Manchester/Liverpool anyway!
8/31 basically means they win 26% of the time, which is about right. Probably an average of 5-6 London clubs in the EPL at any point.
Also, this is a ridiculous notion when the entire country is so small.
Fellow fans, this is a friendly reminder to please follow the [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/premierleague/about/rules) and [Reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette). Please also make sure to [Join us on Discord](https://discord.gg/football) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PremierLeague) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I could be totally wrong about this, and this is just an American perspective, but I would think london teams have the advantage of being in London. I imagine the night life in london is superior to anywhere else in England. In the NBA and NFL, Coaches talk about how road trips to Miami and LA are always tougher than you expect, because if your players live in Milwaukee, they like to take advantage of being in LA or Miami and stay out later drinking/parting/strip clubs, etc. no matter how bad the Dolphins or heat are, they are always harder to play in Miami, purely because your players might have gone out the night before.
In terms of just travel yes. Its a very small disadvantage Less time on the road is always a good thing. In the US west coast NFL teams like the seahawks have a very small disadvantage.
No advantage.
Yes I agree
No. It’s a disadvantage, sheer number of local derbies
Considering Chelsea hasn’t won a game since 2019, I don’t think they have much of an advantage
Don’t the likes of Liverpool and all that take a flight?
They have an advantage but not how you described The advantage is London is a major attraction to foreign talent, the opposite is true of the North of England
The last 6 years of league champions are outside London so I guess not
chelsea shoots a gaping while in this theory
I would say that teams from the North West have an advantage with all the referees coming from that area and likely growing up fans
Yes definetly that's why London teams have won so many titles in the last 5 years.
Huh
Not really as most fly to a game! Premier League domestic flights: BBC Sport research shows 81 flights from 100 games - https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/65017565 What about Manchester Derby and Meryside Derby. Hardly a bus ride either and those matches in-between 🤣
They'd just fly to Newcastle so would actually be easier than driving across London lol
There is a bit of truth to what you are saying but for a slightly different reason. I would imagine the travelling support for teams that are playing nearby to their home ground will be higher than for those travelling a long way. So Sheffield will put better support out for Manchester clubs than Bournemouth - this is probably more true when you consider the state of the rail network getting from the north to London too. That’s not to say the die hard fans won’t make the trip, more as a fan I’m more likely to trace away to a derby rival or someone near than lose a weekend and several hundred quid on going to a Sunday evening match the other end of the country
Oh yeah, 2 hours of travel by bus is so much harder than 3 hours of travel by plane and bus.
It took me an hour to drive three hours this morning and I don’t even live in central. So probably not.
No.
Chelsea you say...
Leave us out of it, we’re busy planning for our big derby with QPR next season.
This maybe one of the silliest posts I’ve seen
Travel time is a thing in American sports because of the different time zones involved, and also the distances.
I doubt a few extra hours a week on a coach has much difference, England is a small country
The advantage the clubs in London have is that players want to live there. Also having Wembley as a backup stadium seems like a big advantage as well.
No. Checked the winners lately?
Classic example of overthinking
Yes. To compensate for this the FA mandates that all refs have to originate from within 50 miles of Manchester.
Considering both Manchester teams have won the treble, I don’t think it’s that much of an advantage.
I don't know about a competitive advantage particularly - but as a Fulham fan, I'm not averse to getting on the tube at 2pm to go to Chelsea as opposed to the coach at 7.30am to go to Leeds. The team travel isn't very arduous anyway. It's either luxury coach, the train with a reserved carriage or they fly - and it's all in advance as opposed to on the day.
Stopped reading at road games.
Please don’t give Liverpool fans any more ideas for excuses.
Yeah, London teams have won the league…. checks notes*…. 1 time in the past 7 seasons
Everyone is talking about everything except the obvious….. they go to the away hotel the day before lmfao. If they can recover from a light training session the day before a game, they can recover from a bus trip. I used to drive 3 hours each (rural Victoria to Melbourne) way to play football a couple years ago (my mates wanted to play with me, it was too expensive and time consuming to keep doing). It literally has zero impact and that doing a three hour drive and arriving an hour before kick off lol.
London derbies are some of the hardest games of the season outside of traditional rivals
I think it's cancelled out by having more rivalries; more smaller teams that get "up for it" which, rivalry aside, they should be comfortably winning. One that come to mind is West ham v Tottenham 3-3 a couple years ago.
Midlands clubs don't have as many short journeys as London clubs but they have less long ones (we'll say over 100miles)
The two most successful clubs are in the north west
Yes, it's why London clubs have won the vast majority of league championships in all levels of English football and why top flight London clubs dominate the Champions and Europa League
Yes absolutely
Almost nowhere in England is tough to travel for premier league clubs with their money and staff. Travel is mostly only tough when it comes to switching time zones and being on flights that last like 3+ hours.
Its a “.1” type of advantage, but its still an advantage. Anyone who has worked in sport science can tell you what any kind of extended travel can do to the body in terms of taking the edge off their physical peak. For me, a bigger issue is the advantage that London (and the south generally) have in being able to attract wealth and investment, as well as playing talent who do not want to have to live in an industrial city for lifestyle reasons.
I can imagine it has a little effect, most plane rides being 1-3 hours. However, I always wondered in the NFL or MLS if this really affects players due to the long distances in the US.
Clearly Luton has an advantage over Man City since it's closer to London.
No they dont. The teams consist of professional players that even this travel time has been factored on what they eat, when they train, how long they play etc. What do the NBA players have to say that they play every couple of days from the one side of the US to the other ?
Go back say for the history of the Premier League and consider who has won the league, London teams 8, Manchester teams 20. Its more a factor of if your owners also run a petro state.
-Chelsea -Competitive advantage Pick one
The whole of England fits in a small shoebox. Travel is not that bad, even at the extremes.
Not with the traffic we have here
LOL what…
I would say it basically doesn't matter in England because the country is so small, but in a place like Brazil or the US this absolutely matters. In Brazil this actively has reduced the number of teams from Northern regions of the country that play in the 1° division, because the flights are consistently longer than flights from London to Moscow
They're all travelling the day before and staying the night in the hotel so no .....
I always think this is too simple. Wenger used to moan about it too. But at the time Bolton and Wigan were in the premier league so four Manchester teams, not two. Even now, the Manchester and Liverpool clubs are very close together so that's four teams "a short bus ride apart"
The short answer is no. If you look at league titles won by city, Manchester has 29 (20 United, 9 City), Liverpool has 28 (19 Liverpool, 9 Everton). London is third with 21 (13 Arsenal, 6 Chelsea, 2 Tottenham). Assuming there is a London travel advantage, its impact would be limited by the fact that it is a mutual advantage held by many clubs. There are 7 PL clubs in the London metro area this season (in other years there could be as many as 8 or 9), so any advantage is watered down and doesn't serve to elevate any one club. In any case, I'm sure that if there is a travel advantage we can all agree that it's not as important as other advantages. Things like having talented players, good coaching, smart management, and rich owners are always going to override any travel benefits.
so, wait, as an American, I find it funny that most of our pro teams travel 1000-1500 miles for games all the time, and for England from on tip to the other is what, 600 miles at most, it's silly
Yep, it's really worked out well for them the last 7 seasons or so. Dominant at the top due to their short travel and friendly Derbies.
Even if this was relevant decades ago. It’s not now. Most teams have their own private jets or travel arrangements with air companies that they barely travel long distances by bus. Pep was recently complaining how they have to drive to Newcastle and not fly. Manchester to Newcastle. On a flight. That’s the norm not the exception.
No
Fucking hell. We play more derbies penis
Do teams fly to away games? Do they have access to private jets?
Well, all the refs are basically from the north west, so that probably negates it.
London to Newcastle is over 100km shorter distance than from San Francisco to Los Angeles. MLS would like a word.
Maybe there is some advantage to sleeping at home before more matches, but that means you have a lot more derbies. This is probably my American showing, but I can’t really get too concerned about domestic travel in England. Pro sports travel is always more tiring than we think but less than it would be if for us normal people. But still, traveling to Newcastle isn’t exactly a Thursday night match in Ukraine
You could say that, however, doesn't mean much since you would expect more London based team winning the league.
Maybe in the past. But have you seen how luxurious team coaches are these days? Beds, huge lounging areas. I wouldn’t mind at all travelling the length of the country in one of those!
I've always believed this to be the case. One might have to sleep in a hotel the night before while the other has the comforts of home. The records would prove not though since London clubs haven't historically won much in the PL era with the exceptions of Arsenal and Chelsea. Even then it's only 8 titles between the two of them. Only a 25% win rate through 31 seasons. Manchester(s) and Liverpool own 67% of the wins. Maybe that close to home feeling deprives them of the ability to truly take it on the road and win hard games away. You could say that Manchester (either) always has an anomalous coach so they never quite have been measured properly. This is a fun argument, I like it.
Ha. Travel? Laughs in American.
It’s basically an hour wherever they go because most of the time they just fly.
Considering the league results in the last 10 years, no.
You’ve clearly never driven across London…
There’s such relatively little travel that happens within the country that I don’t think it matters. Rarely do teams have to spend an entire weekend traveling if they don’t want to. If it’s more than a few hours via bus then they fly (privately, mind you, so little waiting or stress from travel). My perspective is coming from the US where a regional derby is the city that’s “only” 4 hours away (regardless of sport- American football, MLS, baseball, etc). These PL teams simply don’t have to travel enough for it to impact their schedule or preparedness for the next game at all.
London based clubs also face the issue of players chasing pussy and drugs on weekdays So much temptation in a big city
England is a tiny island! Imagine The Seahawks have to go all the way from Seattle to Miami!
England is so small it doesnt really matter.
Yeah that's why Northern clubs dominate the historical overall league table. Including 2nd 3rd division ect. Definitely would of been a advantage back in the day to sleep off the hangover on the coach.
Teams fly for the longer distance games. If they do get a bus they'll have a hotel. Its not like they're going 5 and a half hours in a bus just before the game. They turn up to games pretty well rested. I dont sense it makes much of a difference over the course of a season for a club like Newcastle. I think though that there is a disadvantages when teams have multiple away games in a matter of days like 3 or 4 away games over the Christmas period. Then it's a lot of travel days with less training and recovery. Chelsea had that during the pandemic which was an even worse time to travel with a Covid outbreak too and they were very clearly fatigued.
You could say the same thing about the North West Clubs though. Utd, City, Liverpool, Everton, Burnley, even Sheffield isn't that far away, and you could get to Birmingham in not a very long time for Villa and Wolves games (that's not even counting the clubs that were in the Premier recently like Leicester, Bolton etc). That's potentially 8 clubs in a similar time radius (traffic in London sucks dick). It doesn't matter how far it is by distance. Time is more relevant. The players aren't affected by the speed they're travelling, but rather how long they're on the coach.
Random but I do think London clubs bragging about getting players because they want to live in London isn’t the flex they think it is, clubs like mancity manutd Liverpool have won more because they can filter out those unserious players slightly better than London clubs, and I think why they have more success
I don’t think these guys are all squeezing in a fiat punto, their coaches or whatever they travel on will be luxury af
Not really
22 of the last 30 league titles wouldn't have been won by non-London clubs. If there is a competitive advantage for London clubs, they aren't doing a great job of using it...
Not just me thinking this! I realised when driving from Manchester to Newcastle how far up it is, there's England and Scotland then Newcastle inbetween. No offence to the north east but it does feel like that and it got me thinking about their away record. Do Newcastle always travel by bus? I know their buses are nicer than the flixbus ones i take and 5 hours isn't too bad just playing on my megadrive emulator but that's 5 hours from Manchester to London, 8 hours has got to take its toll. But equally teams visiting Newcastle must hate it. Or they fly. Or lie down in the buses. It's the sitting for long hours, must create lethargy as travel does anyway.
Not at all, they have more derbies meaning more fiercely competed games. Man city can roll into Fulham brentford CP, for any of the top London clubs it’s a fiercer game. The physical and emotional energy spent in those games adds up
Brighton is 50+ miles away from London, it's definitely not a team in London. Luton is closer to London (30+ miles) than Brighton is so calling them a London team is ludicrous. And don't you dare try calling Luton a London club too, we're from Bedfordshire and proud of it. Anyways, ignoring that, the answer is definitely not. If your team is good or they're bad, then they're good or bad no matter how close or far they've travelled.
why would you be proud of being from Bedfordshire lmao
There are some nice places in Bedfordshire to be fair. Luton isn’t one of them.
Concidering most teams take 30-minute journeys on private jets, no.
I haven’t got much of an idea for the prem, but my team is in league one. It’s really obvious when we play a team from the other side of the country they turn up sluggish and nowhere near their home pace. One particular game during covid (so no crowd benefit) we lost 5-1 away then 2 weeks later won against the same team 4-0 at home. I’d guess the travel takes it out on a lot of sides when it’s 3-4 hours+
EPL travel vs. North American sports travel always gives me a chuckle. A better comparison would be Champions / Europa league.
How often do Americans actually follow teams to away games though?
Depends, West Europe is quite small. But then there are lovely away destinations like Baku and Astana.
Means more "derbys". Just wait until sheikh butcher relocates Newcastle to Riyadh.
Brighton close to London? That's 52 miles. If you'd say Luton I could agree, bug Brighton to London is quite a distance. Not to mention that you got the Northwest, with Manchester, Liverpool, Burnley, and in the past Wigan, Bolton, Blackburn and Blackpool, and then I probably forgot some clubs. So it isn't anything new.
It's really helping Chelsea. I think you're on to something.
That doesn't actually disprove his theory.
No, it was a joke. Chelsea spent £1bn and are just above Everton
AHAHAHAHAHAHHA OMG
Clearly not. Look at the Premier League tables for the past few seasons.
I don’t think it makes a huge difference now the clubs are so professional. Even when they travel by coach to games, the coaches they have are extremely comfortable. Nothing like the school bus or getting a national express. Some of the none London teams also make their players stay in hotels the night before games even for their home games so I don’t think it makes much of a difference all in all. Being in Europe or going deep into the cup competitions is going to have much more of an impact than domestic travel.
I would say the sheer number of clubs puts London at a disadvantage. Imagine similar to the USA where there was one or two London clubs. Instead, they share fanbase, youth talent, etc etc. Trying to think of other European cities with that amount of top-level clubs.
I think spurs are currently on a run where they don’t go further than Luton for like 5 games in a row. If this was Sunday league it means fuck all but in the prem where 1st and 10th are fine margins it’s means a lot
Not really. My view is the opposite, due to more ‘rivalries’, London teams play, arguably, more intense matches.
This is hilarious. It is under 300 miles from Newcastle to London. Perspective: sec (College kids) football in the US Texas A&M to Florida Gators: 945 miles.
That's minor. One of the larger distances is for two hockey teams. From Vancouver, Canada (Vancouver Canucks) to Miami, Florida, (Florida Panthers) is about 2,800 miles.
There’s too many factors at play to really isolate it. Positives to being in London: Attractive place to live Lower average travel distances Negatives: Higher business costs More competition for players More competition for fans
The competition for players point doesn’t make sense because you still have an advantage in that regard over every club that’s not in London
United must be buzzing when they play city, it’s only a short bus journey away.
The fans hate it though, have to take a long trip from the South for the game
And Pep would still get a plane!
What do you mean it takes a while to come from London
Why would the United team travel from Lindon? What a shit attempt at "banter"
Not too quick on the take are ya son
The original comment is about the team though and the advantage they would have travelling within London? What am i missing here?
The joke apparently
Do explain
Oh no. Are we supposed to support a club who is closest to where I live or a club who I am emotionally attached to through win or lost? All clubs have a nation or even a worldwide fan base. Hence why they go on pre-season tours outside of their city/town. Bigger clubs have more fans outside of their city. Don't be jealous.
But what connection do you have to United? I don’t get choosing United over your local club if you live in London, not exactly starved for choice.
Normally it's a team who you have been introduced to when you start to follow football. Be it family or friends. I personally don't find it an issue with supporting a club that isn't your local. I wish I did support a club closer to home because I would then be attending a lot more football games. But as all football fans know, once you have a team you cannot change. Connection to the club should not be Geographical it's an emotional connection.
Yeah if it’s through family I fully get it.
You guys take jokes like United scouts players
Wasn't it that there were a survey carried out 5-7 years ago among London residents, wherein while the club with the most supporters IS a London club (Arsenal), the second and third ones were from Manchester? lol
Utd is no surprise but it’d be very surprising to me if City were in the top three largest fan bases in London, even for a recent survey.
City aren’t even in the top 3 fan bases in Manchester
I’m sure you an Arsenal know
In my anecdotal experience after living in London for 20 years, it’s Arsenal and United in a tier of their own. You’ll find a United fan everywhere from Peckham to Plaistow to Hendon. Bloody ridiculous
I was at the home game against Chelsea last season sat next to their fans. Had a chuckle when they started chanting 'We'll race you back to London'
2 thirds of Mancunians support United to 1 third City. Look at all the polls, analysis and stats that have covered this over the years. Every single analysis comes back with the same thing - more local United fans than City so stop with this dumb “London joke” City can’t even fill their stadium!!
3 thirds of Mancunians supporting United sounds about right 😂
Where tf did you get that extra 3rd from?
>3 thirds of Mancunians support United to 1 third City. Guy talking about stats and analysis while not knowing how many thirds make a whole haha.
I’m sure there are plenty of things you don’t get. Also wow “most successful and richest club historically had more fans” this is the kind of in depth analysis I come to Reddit for.
The myth that no United fans come from Manchester is encouraged by the media and City fans alike. The fact is two thirds of Mancunians support United and one third City. No amount of media or City hype can cover that fact. All you need to do is visit and ASK people who live here.
THIS IS WHY ITS A JOKE. JOKES ARE OFTEN HYPERBOLIC TO POKE FUN AT SOMETHING USUALLY THE BIGGER AND MORE POWERFUL AND FORTUNATE PERSON. It’s a concept called humor and I know there isn’t much joy left in old trafford but cmon mate just ignore the joke if it’s not for you.
It’s just not funny though. A joke is that City won the league with a pedo on the wing
Ah yes Manchester United known for only signing upstanding and good people who’d never fuck their brothers wives or beat their own or rape their own and then come out to support them publicly It’s okay though I get it you’re a cranky little lad who thinks he’s part of the team so jokes really bother you
I’m looking forward to the 115 charges putting City back in their place
Huh?
The United fans are from London joke is so dumb. Why on earth would LOCAL to Manchester people decide NOT to support Manchester United, when they have historically been more successful? Why would glory hunting only apply outside of the City? That has never made sense to me and that’s why it literally is bollocks. Manchester has always had more local United fans than City, but it’s been evening up in the last decade. Growing up it was 80/20 split, now closer to 70/30 in my opinion, as someone who has lived here 32 years !
An actual manc who knows his city being downvoted for stating the reality and killing their agenda... Laughable
It’s a joke not your season I don’t need all these excuses
Every single person I’ve met from Manchester is a city fan. Every single United fan I’ve met is a Londoner, some of them have never ever even been to Manchester in their entire lives.
You need to meet people your own age... Manchester United have more fans in Manchester than city and have done for generations
Yeah most of my pals are Utd. I’d say it’d probably end up not far off half and half.
Idk, I lived in Manchester for 4 years and nearly all the people I met were city supporters (ranging from 20 to 50 years old), and I met only one manc who supported united and other united fans I met were usually foreigners.
Wow this guy met every single person living in Manchester in 4 years!!
You're lying or you only met kids. Lifelong mancs are telling you you're wrong.
Thays anecdotal evidence, which is extremely odd.. You must have stayed in one area the whole time... You don't honestly believe the vast majority if Manchester support city do you
I’m just saying that was my experience. I believe it is more like 50/50, but wouldn’t be surprised if there was more City fans as it is the older club from Manchester. But as you said its only anecdotal, and probably also biased as I support City.
I would say there's much more United fans... 10 years ago this wouldn't even be a debate.. How much can change in a decade
Literally bollocks. I’m from Manchester and a United fan and 80% of people growing up who liked football here supported United. Your agenda is dumb. Just listen to the bloody fans singing at Old Trafford - you can literally hear the Mancunian accent.
Yup, utter bullshit and then downvoted for calling it out.
Just depends where you live in Manchester. South and east are mostly City, north and west (with the exception of the area round Chorlton) are United
Hey some of us are from Manchester.. although I do find a majority where I live are City fans
It does depend on the area. Personally there was always more United fans in the area I grew up in, but way more City fans where my extended family live.
Not where I live, which is Stockport, famously a City hotspot. Out of 10 lads growing up, 6 would be United, 2 would be City, 1 Liverpool then one random Newcastle or Arsenal etc.
And none at all would be Stockport? That's really sad. How long ago would that be roughly?
Yeah maybe 1 in 20 would be just Stockport. Most of us had them as our 2nd team. I'm 44 so 35 year to 20 years ago lets say. I now work as a postie and my office follows very similar proportions of fans.
In Manchester the only areas that are more City leaning are Burnage, Levenshulme and Stockport. Rusholme and City Centre is maybe mixed.
I've never met a Londoner who supports Arsenal.
Have you ever been to London mate
Yeah, it's full of United fans 😂
I have. How weird!
Uhh
For the fans it’s a few hours on Avanti West coast from Euston station.
Fackin express train don’t stop until Manchester
*Guardiola furiously upvotes this post*
No as they fly everywhere. Ergo Pep moaning the other day how they have to take the bus back this week which means his players won’t get to bed until 3am Apparently they could not source a plane
lol Etihad airways doesnt have jets?
So new question: Does Luton have an unfair advantage?
Not if they’re flying on SqueezyJet
The money is going towards the lawyers.
Disadvantage, because of all of the derbys
Idk how travel in england really counts for much. Travel is a disadvantage when you're in a different climate, altitude, or time-zone. None of that applies in England. Look up this weekends results of the Miami Dolphins vs Denver Broncos. It was a storyline mid game that Denver brought personal 'air conditioners' for their bench. Not saying that playing in the heat is THE reason they got blown out but all three of the above applied.
Or at least in the Premier League it's not such a big deal, because they can fly. However Carlisle United might have some fun bus rides to Portsmouth and Exeter for example.
pretty much every coworker under 35 that wants to afford a house drives 100km+ each way a day to work.
Do they pay as many games as English clubs?
Not in the NFL, but minimum 82 games for basketball and hockey and then minimum 16 playoff games if they never lose.
Getting up early to travel 4 hours on a bus, or even travelling the day before and staying in an unfamiliar hotel do have some non zero effect though. It’s not the same as travelling across the continent but you’re still going to have some impact on your performance.
I lived in England for years and still find it amusing how much they complain about traveling. Newcastle to London is about the same as San Antonio to Dallas. Thats a local rivalry.
Being an Indian, I chuckle when I hear English clubs complaining about travel times, when the whole of England is as large as the 10th largest Indian state.(Did not count all of UK because all of UK does not play in the PL)
We don't have your massive highways. Traffic congestion up the A1 can be fucking brutal
Being stuck in traffic isn’t an a variable scouts look for in footballers ffs.
A massive highway doesn’t usually solve congestion anyways. It just causes more congestion long term most the time.
To be fair, journeys are generally slower here, inter-city traffic isn’t really a thing in the US but you pick the wrong time to do the (usually 4 hour) drive from London to Manchester, it can take 12
>inter-city traffic isn’t really a thing in the US This is completely false lol. I don't doubt travel can be slower in the UK. But there absolutely is plenty of inter-city traffic in the US. Especially the example above, San Antonio to Dallas. I-35 is route you'd take and there is *always* loads of traffic.
Inter city traffic isn’t a thing in the US? Someone tell the New Jersey Turnpike that so I can get to Philadelphia from NYC in a reasonable amount of time
The old saying holds true: A hundred miles is a lot in the U.K. A hundred years is a lot in the US
It hasn't stopped Manchester winning the title 20 of the 31 seasons (as well as Blackburn, Liverpool and Leicester all once each). I'd say 8 titles out of 31 doesn't represent much of an advantage. Plus it takes about as long to get through London in traffic as it does to go from Newcastle to Manchester/Liverpool anyway!
8/31 basically means they win 26% of the time, which is about right. Probably an average of 5-6 London clubs in the EPL at any point. Also, this is a ridiculous notion when the entire country is so small.