World Games:The U.S. Tries To Colonize Sport

[pc4th]

http://www.arc.org/C_Lines/CLArchive/story3_2_05.html

A very interesting read.
Takes issue with the claim that sports are “America’s most successful export to the world.”

others articles: http://www.wsu.edu/~amerstu/pop/sports.html

[NEKSoccer]

http://www.arc.org/C_Lines/CLArchive/story3_2_05.html

A very interesting read.
Takes issue with the claim that sports are “America’s most successful export to the world.”

others articles: http://www.wsu.edu/~amerstu/pop/sports.html

I agree with much of what he says, but I would not write off college sports as being totally corrupt as I'm sure there are many legitimate student-athletes. Also, we compete with the world in several sports like tennis, boxing, golf, and like the author mentions, swimming and track & field. He is right about Michael Jordan's fame, IMHO. He never mentions the fact that 4 of the 6 NFL Europe teams are based in Germany - no more Barcelona Dragons and London/England Monarchs.

As far as "global" sports are concerned, I do have to say that even though I truly like cricket and both codes of rugby (and am a big fan of those games) -their popularity is limited mostly to British Commonwealth nations. Even so, their appeal is pretty widespread, considering. But I do believe that basketball is actually more global than most other team sports (save for soccer, of course). But there is not as much parity in world basketball (where there are few truly dominant nations) as there is in world soccer (where any one of several teams could win the World Cup).

As far as the "World Series" goes, I think that we are stuck with the name, no matter if it is a misnomer. When the term was coined, I don't know if the powers that be one day expected to see baseball become global and named it the "World Series". But I do object to the winners of that competition (and also the NBA Champs) being called "World Champions". I love my country, but the world does not consist of 50 states, not to mention Canada when there's a hockey game on!

This is not to say that people in other countries should pay no attention to our games. For me, all sports are important. I care about what happens in Gaelic football as well the NBA, Aussie Rules Football, the NHL, the English Premiership, Bundesliga, etc. But as long as we promote our sports abroad, nobody can tell soccer to stop promoting itself here.

Odd was it not that in 1994 Canadians rooted for Dream Team at the World Championships rather than their own country? Anyway, that's another story.

But the author is right in declaring that the Newsweek piece was off the mark and the fact that it was very myopic. Heck, I'd like to see ESPN Classic produce "Sport Century" shows featuring Maradona, Beckenbauer, Lev Yashin, Bobby Charlton, and athletes from other international sports like Donald Bradman and Garfield Sobers (both cricket), et al.

[Renegade of Funk]

But the author is right in declaring that the Newsweek piece was off the mark and the fact that it was very myopic.

I'd actually argue that the premise of the Newsweek article would have had to have been moronic, rather than myopic. It takes a special level of ignorance to be ignorant of non-American sport and its influence.

If anything, I say that the advent of the Internet has eroded the dominance of American sports in America, mirroring the relationship between big media companies and their control over the modes of entertainment distribution generally.

Since the article was published in 1999, 5 years into broad, commercial adoption of the Web and sufficiently near in time to the present to have knowledge of coming technologies, it's even more striking and lends credence to the adage, "Ya can't believe everything you read!"

Thank you.

[saabrian]

As far as "global" sports are concerned, I do have to say that even though I truly like cricket and both codes of rugby (and am a big fan of those games) -their popularity is limited mostly to British Commonwealth nations.

And even then, only former British colonies that had large white settler populations: ANZ, South Asia, parts of Southern Africa, Kenya.

There's basically zero interest in those sports in West Africa, which had comparatively few colonial settlements. I know that in West Africa, basketball is the second most popular sport. A VERY distant second. It's somewhat further behind soccer than MLS is behind the NFL here.

[DoyleG]

As far as "global" sports are concerned, I do have to say that even though I truly like cricket and both codes of rugby (and am a big fan of those games) -their popularity is limited mostly to British Commonwealth nations. Even so, their appeal is pretty widespread, considering. But I do believe that basketball is actually more global than most other team sports (save for soccer, of course). But there is not as much parity in world basketball (where there are few truly dominant nations) as there is in world soccer (where any one of several teams could win the World Cup).

Cricket lives in Canada largely due to the immigrant communities from Cricket hotbeds (ie. England, South Asia, and the West Indies). Rugby is more of a high school and university sport here. The best in either sport usually have to leave the country to be successful.


Odd was it not that in 1994 Canadians rooted for Dream Team at the World Championships rather than their own country? Anyway, that's another story.


The Greeks and Croats got much better support than either Canada or the Dream team.

[Devilish Red]

And even then, only former British colonies that had large white settler populations: ANZ, South Asia, parts of Southern Africa, Kenya.

There's basically zero interest in those sports in West Africa, which had comparatively few colonial settlements. I know that in West Africa, basketball is the second most popular sport. A VERY distant second. It's somewhat further behind soccer than MLS is behind the NFL here.

Actually Rugby Union has over 100 countries with national teams. Rugby League has 23 (mostly the same ones as Union, with Lebanon and Papua New Guineau being the only exceptions that spring to my mind) The recent Rugby World Cup (in Australia) actually beat the Sydney Olympics viewing figures. The matches were attended by 1,870,000 people. Thats 42,500 per game. Not FIFA WC levels admittedly, but not too far off. You're right that it's mostly played in former UK colonies but of the top 10 I'd say Argentina, Samoa, Italy and Fiji are all significantly stronger than they were 10 years ago. France have always been strong.

*Current Rankings*

1 New Zealand
2 England
3 Australia
4 France
5 Ireland
6 South Africa
7 Argentina
8 Wales
9 Samoa
10 Scotland
11 Fiji
12 Italy
13 Romania
14 Portugal
15 Morocco


Cricket for that matter has more players in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh than the rest of the world combined so it's unfair to suggest it's a 'white' sport. Hell, the two greatest batsmen these days are Brian Lara (WI) and Sachin Tendulkar(IND).

The ICC currently enrols 89 nations - 10 full, Test-playing members, 27 associates and 52 affiliate members.


I've seen figures of the number of players 'globally' and Cricket is second only to football. Rugby Union is 3rd closely followed by volleyball. I don't think basketball even makes the top 10.