I'm a Canadian and I've followed soccer/footy since 1993. I remember seeing Dundee Utd knock off 'Gers in the Scottish Cup a while back, so I know there are rare exceptions to the Big 2 dominance). I guess my question is simple enough: Why are there only two big clubs in Scotland, and both in the same city? I understand Glasgow is the biggest city in Scotland, but Edinburgh is nearly as large (580000 to 450000 according to online sources) and also has two large clubs (Hearts and Hibs), but wikipedia puts their attendance at less than half that of the attendance at the Glasgow clubs matches. I just wonder why the support for Hearts and Hibs isn't proportionately comparable to the Glasgow clubs (so attendance in the 30000 range). In short, why isn't the Big 2 a big 4? Can someone give me a "SPL/Big 2 for dummies" explanation?
The national rugby stadium is in Edinburgh and the Scotland team can get very large crowds but I don't think rugby is anywhere near close enough to football in Edinburgh for that to be the reason. The only place in Scotland where rugby is roughly equal to football in popularity is the Borders. One thing, about Edinburgh specifically, is that it really is a city of migrants. Over 50% of the people who live in Edinburgh were not born there (this incudes Scots, other Brits and foreigners). It also has probably the highest percentage of non-Scottish Brits and foreigners in Scotland by a long way. Mostly though, because there's probably more old firm fans in Edinburgh than Hearts and Hibs fans due to religion and/or gloryhunting.
If history were changed and new teams were forming now in a vacuum, Edinburgh, Dundee, and Aberdeen would probably each support one good club. Aberdeen is the club, I think, if any that could have a renaissance. The proximity of Edinburgh to Glasgow also makes attending games in Glasgow easy. I think Hibs especially were hurt as a club by hooliganism in past years. While they've managed the club financially relatively well, they don't seem to have any real draw for new fans. In seasons like this, it's hard to blame them. I'm close to changing my mind in the annoying recurrent OF to England issue...just let em go and see if the rest can function like the small clubs they are in peace.
the rugby explanation was the one given to me on a recent trip to edinburgh; i found it wanting at the time as well. going from edinburgh to glasgow is indeed easy and cheap, and gloryhunting is rife everywhere (except on BS of course)... sectarianism they could get at home, no? doesn't the same dynamic govern hearts-hibs? a falkirk man i play with sundays says visiting hibs fans are by far the worst in his experience. beyong the out-and-out hooliganism of days past they simply never fail do everything they can to make themselves popular: deliberately gouging up youth fields in town, overturning everyone's bins, pissing in the stands, the streets, the pubs... anything's good for a lark. i'm only an impartial observer but if i were a scottish fan i would feel even more strongly that if the OF ever managed to hoodwink the EPL into letting them make good their "threat" it would be the happiest day of your lives. with them, it hardly matters if the SPL has 10, 12, 16 or 60 teams. without them a real 18 team league becomes a vibrant possibility. oh, the gloryhunters won't be lifting old big ears anytime soon. but real fans will have a much better experience. * big if
The point about OF fans from Edinburgh is a valid one. I'd also suggest that class could be a factor, with Edinburgh being far more affluent, and football being a traditionally working man's sport.
Hibs and Hearts get most of their support from north and south of the city--areas that aren't particularly affluent. The Edinburgh teams aren't very sectarian anymore. Hibs hooliganism I think was more about simple antisocial behavior and drug dealing.
it's a fact that the historical center of edinburgh presents a very rosy face, much more prosperous than any northern english town or even dublin, which 20 years of celtic tiggery was only able to half spruce up, but out in craigmillar it looks like life is vicious. but even there the following question struck me: in lyon, paris, london, milan or cologne you can't walk a block without seeing someone in a football jersey; why don't you see anyone wearing them in the streets in scotland? glasgow i may understand, there's even a display at the kelvingrove museum about it. but in two weeks this summer we only saw ONE... and it was Lens!
I dunno about you but I would not be seen dead walking about with a football top on. The only time I would wear one is when I am playing football. I reckon there is a bit of a stigma about wearing them in Glasgow. Not sure about else where.
oh i agree for myself. but me son just stopped wearing them to school this year (he's 16) and for the hoi polloi it's an extremely common item of apparel round these parts. for what it's worth, recently i've mostly worn a hoops shirt sundays, but mainly because it's long-sleeved. the last couple of weeks it was sub-zero though, for that i have an OL replica from 1964. it's heavy cotton and the one time i wore it in normal weather it weighed a ton at the end. players in those days were tough i can tell you.
This is true, but the fact remains that there are far, far more areas which could be considered "working class" in Glasgow and its surrounding areas (Paisley, Lanarkshire, etc) than there are in Edinburgh. I'm not saying class is the only reason but it's definitely a factor.
I don't think class is such a big deal in Glasgow. Most people do support football. Or at least have an opinion. Some of my mates are private school boys and they are big football fans with a real burning hatred of Rugby.
here in france rugby is the sport in the southwest and people there sometimes show some petty disdain for soccer, but in the rest of france even people who know nothing about rugby support the NT and think the sport in general is pretty cool... so imagine my surprise to discover the seething over-the-top hatred my brit friends here have for rugby union (league is OK for some of them). it's worse than the soccerhaters in the states!
I am not a fan of it. Seems a pretty stupid game to me. But I have friends that really really dislike it and the people associated with it.
American Football is pretty awesome. The biggest, strongest, fastest athletes in the world, hammering one another until something gives...what' not to like about that?
It's guys running into each other. There's no team sport that even compares to football. I get the impression a lot of rugby guys have a chip on their shoulder about football. A lot of them have a go at it over diving, cheating etc and act like rugby's a real tough guy's game, whereas in reality, most of them seem to like to get drunk, act like pricks and shove things up each other's arses.
For me, it's the lack of continuity of play. I like it alright, but I much prefer soccer, basketball, boxing, track and field, and other sports. Gridiron and college basketball are the only things that seem to have real passion behind them in the States though. I saw many jerseys when I was in Edinburgh, but times may have changed (and I lived in Leith). Again though, this is a factor I think relatable to the antisocial behavior of fans in the past. Glasgow being much larger, I think it is easier to fit in the general mix. Especially around the city center of Edinburgh, most people would assume you were a yob. And again, especially around the city center, it is unlikely people are actually from Edinburgh. Barack is right--the areas around Edinburgh aren't really very big. I wonder at the actual figures as what I've read has varied wildly, but Edinburgh really isn't a very big city especially if you only count locals. Ironically, the rugby players I encountered in Scotland often were among the most obnoxious. My coaches in high school were from either side of the border and were most certainly working class. Then again, half of our coaching was dedicated to getting away with high hits, gouging, and general thuggery.
worse: it's 12-14 minutes of guys running into each other spread over 3 hours of TV commercials, huddles, commentator blather, referees talking into mikes, pompon girl shots... i used to be a HUGE fan. now it bores me to tears. in france too... High and Mighty Inc.
agreed 100%. it's hard work sitting through 4 hours of american football anymore. i used to be able to watch the team i support and then the game after it. now i can barely make it through one game without being irritated.
things evolve. back in the leather helmet days four quarters plus halftime probably took under 90 minutes and the ball was in play half an hour. in the late 60's an AFL game took 2 hours air time, i have an old TV guide to prove it. the boggling paucity of actual playing time in today's NFL hit me when i first moved to france and followed what was still my second favorite sport (after baseball) on canal+. they could get in a full NFL game, every snap, with replays of all the important plays, highlights of all the other matches, plus pre and post-game "NFL for dummies" stuff, in FIFTY-FIVE MINUTES.
I have to say I also prefer baseball to NFL nowadays but I originally enjoyed american football more. Although, what with being a Raiders fan my enjoyment was somewhat tempered by how poor the team have been over the last decade and a half. Still, it has had a bit of a renaissance for me this year and I may follow it more closely next year but I'll still see more of the A's than I will of the Raiders.
NFL RedZone has completely changed how I watch the NFL. 7 hours, no commercials, every scoring play and every important play. Its painful to watch the nationally broadcasted games with all the commercials and such now.
Sky have justed starting showing NFL Redzone this year. We usually get an early game on the Sunday(full game) and then its Redzone. Whereas on a Sunday it used to be a double header.