Maradona37
Well-known member
Think it also depends on individual nations, both domestic league and national team. Would Ecuador fans at present say football is in decline? Not from their perspective.
PL is a lot better now than in the 90s but Serie A is a lot worse. That doesn't necessarily mean football got worse - just that the great players who went to Serie A in the 90s are now going to PL.
Also (and I am guilty of this myself), I think there really is an element of nostalgia. Us guys from 30s-50s are more likely to overlook all the mistakes players in the 80s and 90s made during games. Even though satellite TV was emerging, we also did not see all their games, so we didn't see every game they were anonymous like we do with players now. Plus there weren't stats for everything to within an inch of their lives.
The counterpoint to the previous paragraph though is that with the rise of the internet and social media and stats, there is so much hype and so much bombardment of players 24/7 that plenty of players that wouldn't have been thought much of in the 90s are now considered great players in this era. So it works both ways.
I think, overall, as with many things, you can spin things for whichever stance you take (football is better now, or has declined). It's like the league table argument - when a team is dominating a league its fans will say they are an amazing team, whereas fans of other clubs struggling will say it's because the league is weaker and there's too many poor teams in it. Equally, if a league is tight at the top, the fans of the team winning will say they're only not running away with it because the mid-table teams are stronger and there is more competition, even if that's true or not. This is very much like the debate between Man City and Man United fans when City talk about how their teams get far more points than Ferguson did in a season.
Ultimately, what I am saying is there's no factual answer to this and it cannot be proven. It's subjective whether people think players from the past are better or worse (I definitely think better but could be nostalgia as I said). What isn't really up for debate is what @Birdy says about the game being much more tactical now, players being fitter, and the game being faster. But I think previous players generally had more natural talent and if they played in this era would adapt to those factors.
PL is a lot better now than in the 90s but Serie A is a lot worse. That doesn't necessarily mean football got worse - just that the great players who went to Serie A in the 90s are now going to PL.
Also (and I am guilty of this myself), I think there really is an element of nostalgia. Us guys from 30s-50s are more likely to overlook all the mistakes players in the 80s and 90s made during games. Even though satellite TV was emerging, we also did not see all their games, so we didn't see every game they were anonymous like we do with players now. Plus there weren't stats for everything to within an inch of their lives.
The counterpoint to the previous paragraph though is that with the rise of the internet and social media and stats, there is so much hype and so much bombardment of players 24/7 that plenty of players that wouldn't have been thought much of in the 90s are now considered great players in this era. So it works both ways.
I think, overall, as with many things, you can spin things for whichever stance you take (football is better now, or has declined). It's like the league table argument - when a team is dominating a league its fans will say they are an amazing team, whereas fans of other clubs struggling will say it's because the league is weaker and there's too many poor teams in it. Equally, if a league is tight at the top, the fans of the team winning will say they're only not running away with it because the mid-table teams are stronger and there is more competition, even if that's true or not. This is very much like the debate between Man City and Man United fans when City talk about how their teams get far more points than Ferguson did in a season.
Ultimately, what I am saying is there's no factual answer to this and it cannot be proven. It's subjective whether people think players from the past are better or worse (I definitely think better but could be nostalgia as I said). What isn't really up for debate is what @Birdy says about the game being much more tactical now, players being fitter, and the game being faster. But I think previous players generally had more natural talent and if they played in this era would adapt to those factors.
Last edited:
