The SOlympic is bigger 5000 players, but host the FIFA Men WC is a better bussiness, 64 final games that really sell ticket to high price. Also is better to the spectactors, you go to or just see in tv the SOlympic and dont care/enjoy/understood half of what you see, or dont see what you really wanna see for scherule conflits, it is messy. In the FIFA WC you get what you really want; also if the FIFA WC is in a far away country you still have the qualification in your home country.
Aside from big countries that significantly invest in sports like China and Russia, more developed countries tend to provide better conditions in a wider variety of sports, instead of just focusing on football. That's why the nordic countries usually have some of the best results in the Olympics, proportionally to their size. I definitely prefer to watch the WC. Just think that in terms of relevance the Olympics are bigger.
The majority of the best Olympic athletes from the US come from poverty ridden areas and the ghetto. So to say the number of medals a country wins relates to the quality of their society is stupid to say the least. []__[]
I am not talking about the origin of the athletes, but about the sporting conditions they have. I don't believe the US would have so many great athletes without their sporting system, with Universities forming athletes. At least, not in many technical sports, such as swimming. I give you that some sports such as long distance in athletics are more about endurance and will power than great training conditions. And people from ghettos tend to have greater will power. That may explain what you said and why Quenians dominate the Marathon, for instance. However, to explain the number of medals per capita, I think we need to consider the investments made in sports. And I believe that the most developed countries tend to do it better, aside from some exceptions. I am talking about countries like UK, France, Sweden, Czech Republic, etc. You also have eastern countries like China and Russia, which have significant investments in sports and large populations, but these are the exceptions. Sure, you have countries like Jamaica that are very good in a particular sport, just like many countries are very good in football. But to have many medals in the Olympics you usually need something else. Portugal does not have a bad WC history, but its Olympic history is terrible compared to most European countries. The point is that the Olympics are a much better measure of how good a country is at forming athletes in general. Of course, if you value sports by their popularity, then football wins.
First of all what sporting conditions? In the US parents are the ones developing their kids most of the time. And a lot of times is the kids themselves playing football, basketball, baseball in the streets with friends. When they start getting good they join a team that probably doesnt even have the right equipment to train. Once that kid starts showing some talent that's when the universitites start getting interested in them. Universities in the US do not develop athletes, all they do is get athletes that have already shown some talent and try to use that talent in their benefit to win in college athletics. And once again your point that the amount gold medals is a correlation to the society those athletes come from is naive. The US is a country filled with poverty, crime, drugs, prostitution, slavery and other things and yet they are the all time winningest country in the world for gold medals. Cuba is a poor country with not many resources nor facilities for sports yet with a population of only 10 million people they are always in the top ten on the medal table. Sports has more to do with the culture of certain countries than it does about how good their society is. The US with all their money, population and facilities have tried for more than 20 years to be competitive in soccer. Yet with all the money spent they are still left with using german americans, mexican americans, colombian americans and other players that were raised and developed in other countries. Why? because there isnt a soccer culture in the US, kids grow up wanting to be Jordan, Peyton Manning, Derek Jeter. Then look at a country like Brasil where they put out world class players every minute and the soccer federation doesnt have to spend a dime. They just have to go to the nearest favela and they will find a bunch of talented kids that grow up playing the game because they love it. The same example you used with Jamaica, a poor and small country with limited resources is beating the heck out of the US and the rest of the world when it comes to sprint events in track and field. The US used to dominate but kids arent in to track anymore. []__[]
Then, we do not disagree. You seem to be implying that I am claiming that richer people, or people from more developed countries, are more talented than those that are not. That's completely false and I never said that. This is true for everything, including education in general. What I am referring to is the cultural aspect, which is related to the quality of the society. As I said, there are exceptions. It's curious that you mention Cuba. It's no coincidence that many communist countries or that were part of the Soviet Union (Bulgaria, Bielorussia, Ukraine, etc) are very strong in the Olympics. However, from the impression I have, there is a correlation between the level of development of a country and its performance in the Olympics. I made the mistake of mixing the two concepts in my first post. I don't consider the US to be the most developed country. That's why I specifically mentioned nordic countries, referring to countries from Northern Europe. It's not rocket science: if you invest in more infra-structures and develop a mentality oriented towards sports, then you get better athletes. More developed countries have access to better education, which tends to value sport. And they have more resources. Therefore, the Olympics are a better measurement of the quality of a country in terms of its sporting culture.
Tell me where in my original post did I say something different from your first reply, that it depends mostly on sporting culture. At least, tell me something to justify your immediate response of calling what I said stupid, and then repeating the ideas. You may have a case that the USA is not the best society, but they are still one of the most developed countries in the world. And I have the opinion that they have one of the best societies in many aspects.
My reply to you was directed to the previous quote where you say there is a clear correlation between medals and the quality of its society. You might be of the opinion that the US is the best country in the world and the best place to live but having lived there and having lived in europe and other countries throughout latin america. I can tell you that's not the case, maybe if you are a millionaire but a millionaire lives great in any country. For regular people like us who work for a living and dont have money growing on trees, I would not pick the US as number one as a society. Not saying its the worst either but the quality of sports and the society arent related []__[]
I am aware of the "elitist" culture of the USA, although I never felt it. I think they are great in terms of being the best at something, but the society is definitely imbalanced in some aspects. I think that culture is a necessary and sufficient condition for being good at a particular country. However, to be good at many sports, especially technical ones, you must have infra-structures. Some countries like Russia and China really invest in sports and they get many medals, despite their societies being terrible IMO. On the other hand, almost every developed country I know, including UK, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, etc, is good at multiple sports. I checked their medal record and they have some of the best relation between population size and number of medals. Cuba really seems to be an outlier.
depends on country in holland olympics aren't that important. firtst wc, ec and then olympics, tour de france, grand slam tennis etc
I'm digging this up, because I was reminded that Olympics took place this year, this is weird because I remember following them...This World Cup is already making people forget Sochi....
World Cup is a bigger event with more fans. Easier to follow too since most people are familiar with the players. Who follows 99% of olympic events outside of the olympic games? Almost nobody.
How familiar are the average European soccer fans with players from other confederations other than players like Neymar, Lionel Messi, Didier Drogba, and Yaya Toure who have played for elite European clubs? I'd expect some non-Europeans to have good recognition in the country there club is in but I don't know about the rest of Europe. I'd expect many English people to know Bryan Ruiz, Shinji Kagawa, and Peter Odemwingie, but how many Spanish or French people would know them?
Heard a good quote that summed up the difference between the two recently: "The Olympics are for the worlds games, the World Cup is for the World Game"
It all depends on how big of a stage a player has played on. For example I'd expect Kagawa would be better known than someone like Odemwingie. Playing for Man United and Borussia Dortmund gets you more continental exposure than West Brom and Lokomotiv Moscow ...
I think the World Cup is probably bigger, but it is sort of cool how in the Olympics you can have one athlete from a small country competing in one event, so you get a lot more nations involved where as with the World Cup you only get 32 national teams involved.
Football and Olympics both are bigger. No other game can match these two sports. You can read some very informational stuff on www.sportsdesk24x7.com
Got to be the World Cup, its culmination of a 4yr period in the most watched sport in the World were as the Olympics are popular for 2 weeks then very few people in a broad context then follow the sport after it
So true. 99% of the people watching don't give a damn about the sports they are watching and a lot of the sports have more prestige events (boxing, basketball, tennis, golf, soccer, baseball, triple crown, Rugby, etc).