2016 Copa America Regarding Wealth And Population Amount

Discussion in 'Copa América Centenario 2016' started by Abram Jones, Jun 27, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Abram Jones

    Abram Jones Member

    Jun 18, 2016
    Wisconsin (WI)
    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

     
  2. Pipiolo

    Pipiolo Member+

    Jul 19, 2008
    Country:
    Argentina
    Uruguay and Paraguay didn't do well this time around, otherwise the numbers would not be so skewed towards the populous nations.
     
  3. Abram Jones

    Abram Jones Member

    Jun 18, 2016
    Wisconsin (WI)
    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

     
  4. Pipiolo

    Pipiolo Member+

    Jul 19, 2008
    Country:
    Argentina
    Brazil is one nation, Uruguay and Paraguay are two. When the whole sample size is ten, that makes a difference.

    This time Uruguay didn't do well, do an analysis since 2000 and the advantage won't be anywhere near as significant. And I was only discussing South America due to Uruguay's dominance.
     
  5. Abram Jones

    Abram Jones Member

    Jun 18, 2016
    Wisconsin (WI)
    #5 Abram Jones, Jul 2, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2016
    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.
     
  6. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Country:
    Chile
    That's why China must be the worlds top footballing nation
    :rolleyes:
     
  7. Abram Jones

    Abram Jones Member

    Jun 18, 2016
    Wisconsin (WI)
    #7 Abram Jones, Jul 2, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2016
    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? :)

     
  8. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Country:
    Chile
    Ok, how about India ?
     
  9. Abram Jones

    Abram Jones Member

    Jun 18, 2016
    Wisconsin (WI)
    #9 Abram Jones, Jul 2, 2016
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2016
    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.
     
  10. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Country:
    Chile
    Well, then the point over which you fail horribly, specially if you use as example the results in Copa America-Centenario, is that most footballers from South America (and I believe from Central America as well), come from the lowest and most poorer part of the population of their countries, and its them whom make those countries be succesful in football.
    Rich people in these countries, don't make pro football players. And that's a fact.

    About the 3 first issues, yes
    richer and larger countries may have them, and helps.

    But from there on, you are in a big mistake.

    Leisure time, doesn't make anyone good at anything, and in competitive sports is really what makes you worse.
    It's mostly practice, which makes the master. And practice requires lots of dedication time (which is the complete opposite to leisure time).

    On regards to cultural trends, you don't need to be rich, to have a an excellent background related to culture.
    It's not money what makes culture to be rich. It's more about traditions, than money.

    At last,
    Genetic pool ?
    :rolleyes:

    Are white folks from rich countries better ?, is this what you are trying to say ?.

    To me, that's more about racism than any other thing.

    And even if you want to go on that road, in football, to be succesfull, it is proven fact that anyone can reach the highest levels of success.
     
  11. Abram Jones

    Abram Jones Member

    Jun 18, 2016
    Wisconsin (WI)
    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 :)
     
  12. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Country:
    Chile
    Here we disagree completely.
    For you, to be competitive in sports, is when you dedicate only part of time to sports, among all the other things a normal person does. For this type of people sports is like a hobby, something you do on your spare time and you don't need to really dedicate time to it. In this case, these people aren't going exactly to be the ones whom will be eventually participating in high level competition, and of course they aren't going to be the ones achieving sports success for their country, as well.

    To me, to be succesful in sports, you need to dedicate to it, almost all of your time to it. In this case the practice of sports, is their 7 days a week, full time, no vacations, job. And this becomes more important in team sports, as for the team to have success it depends on all of its parts (or players) to excell in order that the team also achieves success.
    For the case, these are the people whom are going to be the ones whom actually will put the name of their country at the top positions of any sport round the world.

    To the bolded part :

    Why, so ?

    I don't see why it would be diferent one to the other. And if there is a diference, I don't believe size or money of countries, would make much diference, neither.

    Sure,

    But, do you know yourself, how much money those outstanding south american player's families, which are the ones that make their teams achieve better success, make for a living long before they even started earning the big amounts of money that their careers have allowed them to reach, after over 10 years of constant sacrifice and full time of work ? (oh, and lets not forget that these players are only the "point of the iceberg", as there are lots more whom never reach the level of excellence, that allows them to pay for anything, through out their whole "professional" career as a footballer)

    Many of them also don't enter in your definition of wealth, as many of them, earn lots less than that amount. So they don't enter in your definition of available population, but it is them whom makes it all happen, for their teams.

    I'm also trying to teach you a few things, you might not be much aware of.
    Most of the best South American footballlers, come from very poor environments in their countries.
     
  13. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Country:
    Chile
    OK, I accept your point of not being about racism.

    But, there is no such thing as being "athletically gifted genetically speaking", as it is not genes which determinates whom will be an outstanding athlete or whom will not.

    About the possibilities of a bigger population of having an athletically gifted individual, proportionally are the same as it is for a smaller population, but on total numbers, of course it will be bigger. But as we are talking about football/soccer, being athletically gifted is the least of the issues important for the game.

    What is most important in football/soccer, it's the skills any player must learn and dominate, to make the best of it, what counts the most. And these skills, aren't born with the player. They are acquired after birth.
     
  14. Abram Jones

    Abram Jones Member

    Jun 18, 2016
    Wisconsin (WI)
    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.
     
  15. Rickdog

    Rickdog Member+

    Jun 16, 2010
    Santiago, Chile
    Club:
    CD Colo Colo
    Country:
    Chile
    Most football players in south america don't need such a big infrastructure to play football.
    All it is required to play, is a dirt pitch, 1 ball and a group of individuals with the desire to play the game.
    back here, football is probably the cheapest sport available for the masses (this is our reality, and also the one from where most of our stars of the game, comes from)

    And don't change the issue here, when refering yourself to cultural trends and athletic gifted players, as if we are talking of any sport, when we aren't really doing so. You started posting here taking in account what happened at Copa America-Centenario, so the only sport which concerns us here, is football. So restrict yourself to football.

    For the case, if you want to talk about other sports or even other realities diferent from the ones of the America's, then we don't have anything here, to argue or debate over, and more so you should ask a moderator to take this thread to some other forum (any not soccer related, comes to my mind), because this one is specifically about Copa America-Centenario, and of course about Football/soccer).

    Nope.
    The one which will be more succesfull, specifically refered to football, will likely be the most skilled one. A good athletic condition may help, but definitively, skills are lots more important than them.

    In football practice, as it is a "team" sports, no individual player will achieve anything on its own, so being athletically gifted, means peanuts.
     
  16. sidspaceman

    sidspaceman Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 20, 2002
    AMÉRICA DE CALI
    Club:
    America de Cali
    Country:
    Colombia
    Good point thread closed.
     

Share This Page