And you think the WC Final doesn't fall into that category? Out of the 715M viewers, only 260M watched the games from start to finish in 90% of the key markets. In other words, the more educated guess was only around 6-7% of the world's population cared about the game. So forget about the Super Bowl. Even a conference championship game can blow out the World Cup final w.r.t. their target audience. Now, tell me, how many people gather around the water fountain to talk about "Geez, yesterday's Levi's commercial at halftime of Steelers/Ravens was really hot"?
Just to add some numbers: According to ARD (Working Pool of the Broadcasting Corporations of the Federal Republic of Germany), the World Bowl had 370.000 viewers in Germany. The World Cup semi-final in 06 had 29,66 million viewers. Thats nearly 90 times as high! I think the situation is more or less similar in most of the other european countries, american football is a niche sport, like curling or so.
Losing my cool because you're a troll? Lol, you really like to overestimate yourself. American football is only entertaining for discussion about how soccer is better in all aspects and american football sucks, deal with it.
You mean a troll that has to bring American football into the mix when responding to a post of cricket vs soccer? No, losing your cool because you can't deal with the issue here, that cricket audience in just two countries would blow out the WC Final's worldwide audience. See, still dare not address that cricket kicks soccer's ass. Can't blame you for that.
you cannot seriously compare the popularity of football and cricket, cricket is huge in south asian countries and some other countries but thats it, football is played in most countries and its got hundreds of pro leagues around the globe cricket is just like baseball is dying slowly and football is growing
Haha !!! And I bet at least 25% of people who actually watched the Super Bowl can't even name the 2 teams playing in it in the previous year. I wouldn't say it if I haven't seen it happen.
So now that we have clearly established the World Cup's viewership superiority over the Super Bowl, some bloke wants to bring Cricket in India into the mix.... WTF? Cristiano Ronaldo 30+ million views on Youtube...Sachin Tendulkar 6 million at best. Exactly, this rangers guy wants to talk math and the 100+ million that watched the super bowl also included viewers outside the US. Yes Cricket dominates in India, so what? Ratio huh? Nobody cares?
Football is played in most country but only 4% of the world's population are confirmed to watch the World Cup Final. Even inflated # by FIFA brought it up to 11% (715M). So this "played in most countries" and "hundreds of pro leagues around the globe" don't really mean jack. Just the India/Pakistan cricket TV audience blew that away.
I bet FIFA would rather have that percentage of the world's population watching the WC Final (and couldn't name the two countries playing), rather than totally shun the game, wouldn't you say? Say, 1/4 of 1/3 is about 8%. Add it to to the 11% at least get you to about 20% of the world's population watching the WC Final...
Define "superiority". Just simply taking into account its target audience, i.e. the world population for the World Cup Final and the US population for the Super Bowl, the world Cup final's viewership is clearly inferior. Maybe it's tough for you to accept facts. Viewers outside the US is minimal. Heck, your school claims that no one outside the US care about the game. Absolute number huh? you care or not? 1 billion vs 715 million Ratio huh? you care or not? 75% (cricket to its target audience) or 33% (American football to its target audience) vs 11% So, pick your poison. Soccer loses either way, i.e. clearly inferior. This 715 million are pathetic for the climax match of the global game. You may not like to admit it, but you get NO CHOICE.
Blah blah blah ... and I bet the NFL would love 1% of the rest of the world's population watching the Super Bowl.
By your analogy, a marble shooting competition in a remote village in Mexico is more popular than the World Cup and the Super Bowl put together. The entire population of the village comes to watch it live, in person. And since 300 million Americans don't go to watch the Super Bowl live in person, and 6 billion (the earth's entire population) are not going to South Africa to watch the finals live in person. So we can conclude, marble shooting in Mexican village beats the crap out the soccer in the world or football in USA. In fact the World Cup final and the Super Bowl are so inferior to mexican village marble shooting that its laughable. 100% versus 0.001% and 0.000000001% for mexican village marble shooting, World Cup final and Super Bowl respectively. And don't give me that excuse that the stadiums for the Super Bowl and the World Cup final couldn't hold 300 million and 6 billion people. You know that even if they could, that many people wouldn't come, since that many don't watch it either. Mexican village marble shooting 100% of target audience Super Bowl 33% of target audience Cricket 75% of target audience World Cup Final 11% of target audience. Glad we could have this intelligent discussion!
That first paragraph states... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_versus_Pakistan_cricket_rivalry ...so only 1/10th as popular as claimed, 7.5% of the target audience, not 75%. I wonder if wikipedia is going to remain the surprisingly reliable source it was a few days ago.
Since, we have already agreed that wikipedia is always accurate, then the fact that 3.6% of the world population do not have access to electricity should put a dent in your 6-billion denominator. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_electrification It is retarded to use the world's entire population as a denominator to compare soccer with football, cricket and village marble shooting. As the scope increases, it is impossible to maintain same target levels. Even if the figure is 11%, it is mighty more impressive than 33% limited to a developing country. If you have to make an intelligent analysis, why don't you normalize the figure with GDP / per Capita by PPP of the target audience, i.e, normalize the figures with socio economic variables like any intelligent analysis would entail. Using 6 billion as a denominator for soccer and 300 million for football is just retarded, and you know it.
atomicbloke scores a golazo from 45 meters out ...rangers couldnt even see the ball going in now that we have concluded that marble shooting in mexico is more popular than cricket in pakistan/india, am. football in the US and football in the world can we close this thread and give rangers a yoyo
And the first paragraph stated, as it was a few days ago, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_versus_Pakistan_cricket_rivalry "An India-Pakistan cricket match has been estimated to attract up to one billion television viewers" so it's 75% of the target audience, not 7.5%. See how easy it is have a source stay reliable for the sake of a bigsoccer argument?
Remarkable. That free-to-edit wiki page was updated just three minutes before your post, after saying 100 million previously. What an incredible coincidence that it changed just before you posted.
Yep, intelligent discussion. I couldn't care less about marble shooting being #1. As long as soccer is put into its own place (that's behind cricket and American football), that's good enough for me. Even if cricket is the 32th most popular sport, American football is the 40th most popular sport, as long as soccer is the 66th most popular, I'll take it. Now what? I mean, I've respond to this stunt many times before, in arguing which superstar is better. A has multiple rings, B doesn't. I argue that A > B. Yet some dope would come up with an argument for a bit player C who happens to have a lot of rings, and use the argument "if rings is what that counts, then C must be better than A". My response: I couldn't care less about C better than A. As long as A is better than B, that's good. So you can argue that C is #1, but as long as A is ranked higher than B, I'll take it. The other side usually gave up. Take an example of A, B, C. Let's take the NBA. A=Isiah Thomas, B=John Stockton, C=Steve Kerr. See, glad that you have this cheap stunt that I've seen 3903 times before. The reason I didn't tell you not to use this example of "Heck, if % if what that counts, my little boys playing basketball in the backyard is the most popular sport in the world, because my whole family will watch. It's 100% attraction. Conclusion: backyard basketball is the most popular sport in the world..." is because I know this stunt is a piece of cake for me...
I guess that the change was made with a Hong Kong IP address is pure coincidence too? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...ricket_rivalry&diff=331613879&oldid=331036609 IP address 219.77.18.135 http://whatismyipaddress.com/staticpages/index.php/lookup-results Of course, it is possible that I moved to Orlando to make the previous change, then waited two days before mentioning it.
Because he has his own little inferiority complex, I mean, he edits wiki pages to support his arguments. Thats just not right.
Can't have more inferiority complex than to claim a sport as "global" and its attraction "clearly superior" when its climax only draw about 6-7% of the global population, its target attraction. As for editing Wiki pages, you can check out this page comparison: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...=historysubmit&diff=331036609&oldid=330898847 Funny, huh?
Not at all, just that if someone can change it for the sake of a bigsoccer argument, someone can change it back. The "one billion" is changed to "one hundred million" just in the heat of an argument on cricket's popularity? Is it more or less coincidence?