2016 Copa America Regarding Wealth And Population Amount

Here are the economic results for the tournament. This includes a list of countries and their estimated available population that can potentially contribute the sport of soccer (be it directly or indirectly). Available population is determined by number of people living on at least the equivalent of 10 USD per day and in between the ages of 15 and 64.

(MATCHES WON BY THE COUNTRY WITH MORE AVAILABLE POPULATION)
GROUP STAGE: 17/21 (81%)
KNOCKOUT STAGE: 4/8 (50%)
TOTAL: 21/29 (72% victories for countries with more available population)

COUNTRIES (16)
Brazil: 63.5 (1st)
Mexico: 38.6 (1st)
Argentina: 18.4 (1st)
United States: 13.1 (5th)
Colombia: 12.2 (1st)
Peru: 8.9 (1st)
Chile: 7.6 (1st)
Ecuador: 4.2 (1st)
Bolivia: 2.2 (1st)
Venezuela: 2.0 (3rd)
Paraguay: 1.9 (1st)
Costa Rica: 1.7 (1st)
Uruguay: 1.3 (1st)
Panama: 0.5 (2nd)
Jamaica: 0.4 (2nd)
Haiti: 0.2 (1st)
TOTAL: 176.7
AVERAGE: 11.0

 

Incorrect, you are forgetting about Brazil, they normally perform better which would reverse it back toward the populous nations. In almost every tournament there are a few anomalies, but on average bigger/richer countries win about 65% of the time (this includes a variety of men's team sports). This is an incredible statistic because it is only looking at major tournaments. If you just randomly selected big/rich and small/poor countries to play each other from the entire world it would be much higher than that (probably nearing 80% to 90% on average). To show that your theory is incomplete I will provide you with a link to other tournaments so you can see for your self that wealthier and bigger countries have an advantage on a regular basis as well as a video that goes into more depth on the subject.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B3wXt1wZ9kaFSFAtMUZXVUNBWXM

 

As I explained before, the studies are consistent through all tournaments combined in favor of larger richer countries. This is not debatable. Perhaps you could find a minority of tournaments, often small tournaments, where this isn't the case (I haven't seen it yet, but I'm sure it exists somewhere). This is called cherry picking data in order to fit your predisposition (this is a cardinal sin in mathematics). This is why the law of large numbers is so important Please take a look at all these tournaments that I posted before, and you will see the results are clearly in favor of larger and richer countries (more tournaments are aon the way): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qd0YqAFzF3uqXjY4Wpj-DRHBLnZW3r87ojBeuZc_9-0

And I'm afraid your prediction will be incorrect. Even if Uruguay won every single Copa America, the majority of the games will still be won by bigger richer countries. This is similar to New Zealand in Rugby Union. I don't think you are understanding the concept, but I'm trying to help. Another example: This year in the UEFA Euro there have been way more upsets than usual in favor of countries, but at the end of the day bigger and richer countries are still winning more matches in the tournament.

 

Again, you are also cherry picking data, haven't you read the previous posts? China would be much worse if they were smaller (example: 1/10th the size). I have this explained for you since you want to be sarcastic instead of taking 10 minutes to critically think for yourself, I know that is a really hard thing to do isn't it?

 

India has less available population than the state of Texas here in the USA my friend (in fact, only a little more than your country has despite having over 1 billion people). Soccer is also not their main sport which diminishes their potential in that sport even more. But make no mistake about it, they are still certainly underachieving even with this in mind. Available population does not determine results, it determines potential. This means smaller and poorer countries can still win, but they are fighting an uphill battle. It is easier for larger richer countries to make achievement in sports for the following reasons: nutrition, healthcare, sports infrastructure, leisure time, genetic pool, cultural trends, etc.

 

Well, you are understanding some points. And on the last you are way off. The first issue you present is a little complex. You say that most of these people are coming from the poor part, firstly you need to back this very general claim up. Secondly, this does not make my point fail, because even if it was the case they still have a rich infrastructure that is training them.

Leisure time: this is absolutely essential in sports. because it is required. If you are too busy trying to survive and can't play sports, that is in issue So anyone who is good at a team sport has enough leisure time to become good at the sport. I don't see how you could possibly argue this realistically. There are exceptions, like track, but that is not a team sport.

Cultural trends: You don't even understand what I meant by this. In your defense I didn't explain it. Against your defense you made an assumption. I am speaking of the cultural trends of a nation regarding what sports are being played. Examples: USA puts forth reasonable rugby, aussie rules football, and sepak takraw team because, even though they are not popular here, the trends in some sort of sporting community arrived here... be it through immigrants or underground interest. And this is more likely happen in bigger/richer countries.

Genetic pool: I can't even take your response seriously, this is not at all what I meant. A greater amount of population provides higher chances for receiving people who are athletically gifted genetically speaking. There were no racial implications in my statement, that is something you completely made up on your own.

Lastly, do you even know how I am defining wealth? Those living on at least the equivalent of $10 USD per day qualify in available population. This was all explained above which i'm doubting you read. Keep in mind, the fact that wealth and population contribute to sports is not something that can be defeated, it is a fact (wealth and population amount contribute to other things beside sports success also, not only is it common sense but there is too much data in its favor). I am simply teaching you at this point

 

Leisure Time Topic: I think maybe the misunderstanding here is how you are interpreting my words "leisure time" it may be better stated as "Free time" or "available time" You are talking about these guys training 7 days a week, if that is the case they have 7 days of free time, available time, leisure time, etc. do you see my point? People living on under the equivalent of $10USD a day generally do not have this sort of time for an extracurricular activity like sports. If they do it means someone else is supporting them, in which case you need to include the cost of that support into the amount of money they are living on per day. Again, someone must be financially supporting these "South American footballer that come from very poor environments." Who is feeding them, who is training them, who is providing them healthcare, who is making it so they can dedicate time to sport? These costs must be included into the equation. Also, you have not backed up your claim with any data, this is important for such a topic. Please refrain from cherry picking data also. Here in the states we have a lot of people living in the inner city who are considered poor, but they are not living in extreme poverty. Even if they don't work someone is still supporting them when they grow up even if it is the government, they are still part of a very expensive sports infrastructure... all these costs add up to well over $10USD per day. They could not do it without that. A lot of big basketball and gridiron football athletes come from this type of background. Lastly you talk about all those who never make it and you imply what a high percentage of it is of those who fail. Well this is my point exactly, with more wealth supporting them there would be much higher success rates in areas of extreme poverty. This is a pretty simple concept.

Cultural trends: The reason why there is more of a chance of underground sports scenes coming about in a non-popular sport in a country with large wealth is pretty simple. It's because more people are going to have time to learn about other sports. If an athlete here in the USA plays American football, but realizes that there is too much competition to play, he has the resources in many cases to play something like Rugby. In most countries this is not possible because of lack of resources (wealth). Another point is immigration. The USA Sepak Takraw team also plays at a decent level, this is because immigrants from Asia have built a Sepak Takraw community in several locations in the USA. They are more likely to do this here because they are less likely to move to a place like Zimbabwe or another poor country. They come here for the wealth.

Now you are just arguing common sense again. Of course there is a such thing as being athletically gifted. If there are 2 athletes who both work as hard with the same exact resources, the difference is going to be in the one who is more genetically gifted for the specific sport. Of course genetics is only 1 factor, which is why I have already listed several other factors that you are mentioning again. It is pointless to argue this and is just wasting time and space.