I wouldn't say that, Cardiff & Swansea play in front of much bigger crowds than any rugby club, of course Rugby Union is also very popular in Wales (not so much Rugby League) but there again Rugby Union (and league) is also pretty popular in England too, the Republic of Ireland is not a 'home nation' its not part of the UK at all.
The UK was formed not by the ascension of James I (VI) to the English throne but the Act of Union in 1707 (over 100 years later). Scotland joined up not because of a common monarch but because the country was basically broke after the failure of the Darien Scheme and England agreed to assume a large portion of the debt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707
No shared king no 'act of parliament' it doesn't change the fact that it was a king of Scotland that took the English throne and created the UK, UK stands for 'United Kingdom'.
English migration to Australia peaked between 1851 and 1860 when the various forms of what is now association football were very close to what Aussie rules is today. For instance players were allowed to use their hands, push and tackle opponents and players could make a fair catch to win a free kick. Melbourne Football Club is officially the oldest football club in the world, a year older than Sheffield FC. The first documented soccer team in the northeast United States played the Boston game, which was picked up by Harvard and morphed into gridiron. I think American soccer and gridiron trace their roots back to the same match. The game that spread into Europe and South America in the late 1800s was very different, so I think it's a matter of timing as much as anything. As for India, there was no working-class immigration from the UK and about 98% of the British Indian Army were locals.
Climate was also a factor in India (and, presumably, the West Indies). No rugby and no football tradition in those places - just can't imagine those British Indian Army guys playing rugby in India's climate. Cricket would have been a much more natural fit.
There seem to be three categories of British influence on local sporting cultures. Direct colonization and early independence/autonomy. These places tend to have developed their own football codes (Canada, Australia, Ireland) as direct British government influence ended in the infancy of football codes. New Zealand is a distinct exception. The US could be placed in the same category even though independence was long before any codified football game because of the close ties between the US and Canada. American football evolved directly from Canadian football. Direct colonization lasting beyond WWI. Most rugby/cricket countries fall into this category. By the time the British relinquished control, all the major football codes were well developed and rugby tended to be adopted as the preferred football code. Commercial contacts only: Most of the British influence on sports came from the working class.
I think it had more to do with the lack of immigration. About half a million Brits per decade were emigrating to the US and Australia in the mid-nineteenth century, while no-one was headed to India.
UK stands for 'United Kingdom' it was a 'United Kingdom' when King James took the English throne - he united the kingdom, it became a 'United Kingdom', the fact that the kingdom became united ultimately led to (more than one) acts of parliament that has ultimately created the 'Great Britain' we have today, apart from the far north east of the Island Ireland is not British (in fact I don't think N.Ireland is even officially part of Great Britain).
It's the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Meanwhile... From Prime Minister's question time today: Labour’s Lilian Greenwood says Notts County, the world’s oldest professional football club, is facing extinction. Will May urge the FA, the Football League and the national league to see if they can help. May says the government is not complacent. It will hold the football authorities to account. Inquiries should be made into the suitability of owners, she says.
That is not completely correct. 1603 - James VI of Scotland becomes King James I of England and Wales and Lord of Ireland. There was a personal union of the kingdoms meaning that the same person was ruler of all of them but they were still separate states. 1707 - The Acts of Union merged England (and Wales) and Scotland. It was described as "United into One Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain". Some people started calling it the United Kingdom at that point but the official name was the Kingdom of Great Britain. 1800 - Acts of Union merged Ireland with the Kingdom of Great Britain with the new name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. 1922 - The Irish Free State gains independence and becomes the Republic of Ireland. The UK becomes the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. From a geographic view point: British Isles - Includes Great Britain, Ireland, the Isle of Man and some other islands mostly to the west and north of Great Britain. The Channel Islands are sometimes included in this but often are not as they are very close to the European mainland. Great Britain - the island with England, Scotland, and Wales British as a demonym or adjective can be variously be applied to the people of Great Britain, the United Kingdom including Northern Ireland, and even to the remnants of the British Empire. That usage has some cultural issues and its use can be disputed in various places.
With all due respect you pay no attention to what is put into replies to you. The entirety of my comparison of Villa/Everton to Tottenham is about the big picture. I even stated that the last decade of Tottenham's play had apparently rose tinted your view of them seeing as how the 30 years before that didn't equal the top end finishes the last decade has. The bigger picture is the part where I compared them to them to the other clubs that have been in the PL every year of its existence and showed Tottenham only being above Everton overall but much closer to them than any of the teams ahead of them. That was in COMBINATION WITH the the OVERALL major honors won. In both metrics they fall behind the ACTUAL ELITE. They compare VERY WELL with the perennial 'step down' but usually a step above the rest Everton. I'm not failing to see anything. I looked at the entirety to make the comparisons I did and pose the questions to you.
True when you are talking about the Club game, when you are talking about the national sides it's not even close. Remember one specific experience in a little town on the Northwest coast where I walked into a pub to get out of the rain. Wales was playing and the place was packed and not a word of English was being spoken. Well other than English curse words. Since Wales were losing there were a lot of those. Never saw that with the football side. At best it was on a TV in the corner while the English game was getting all the attention. Even from the Welsh who were much more interested in winding up the English students than they were in watching their own national side because honestly number cared. Even in San Diego I see more Welsh Fans in the pub watching Wales - Italy six nations than I did watching the Euro's in 2016. And I specifically went to a football pub to watch a Wales game. Just look at the two national stadiums, oh yeah the FAW doesn't have one. As for Ireland and "Home Nations", I know it's not now but the entire Island was during the period that these sports were being developed and exported, and I know the reasons why association football didn't take off in Ireland. Which leads me back to my original point. That the countries* with the closest ties to England while Association Football was developing went with other codes. Meaning that even if history were different and the US had maintained a longer official relationship with Britain with a more amicable dissolution^, our sports culture might not be any different. American football and our version of rounders would still probably be king. *yes I know Wales is a principality not a country. Just wouldn't point that out too loudly with an English accent at the "Y Glob" pub on the Ffriddeodd Rd. in Bangor. ^I think we can all agree the relationship between the American Colonies and the UK would have ended eventually.
Wales is a country. Remember football in the early and mid-nineteenth century was unrecognizable from today and that was the sport we exported to the Empire, Ireland and the USA.
To quote the great Ted Lasso: "Wales, is that a country?" "Yes and no." "How many countries are in this country?" www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KeG_i8CWE8
I see we’ve dived into British history since the conversation surrounding the implementation of an outdated and unnecessary league structure gimmick that would kill the progress soccer has made in this country doesn’t really exist. Thankfully our superior sporting structure will continue to win out and the conversation surrounding kicking teams out of leagues for one bad year will be reserved for Great Paxford Tincastle FC and Upper Burlingtonshire. God bless America & Canada
Literally nothing stopping San Diego from having a MLS team or a D1 team other than investment. Just like there's nothing stopping Toad In The Hole FC from winning the EPL other than a huge infusion of investment so they can purchase all the merit they need to be successful. Relegating NFL teams wouldn't have stopped the Chargers from moving and frankly San Diego is better off without a team that was trying to hold the city hostage.
Not quite. Gridiron did not evolve from the Boston rules. Its direct ancestor was the more rugby-like game played in Canada. In 1874, Harvard played two games against McGill University, one using the more soccer-like Boston rules and one using the Canadian rules, and decided afterward to adopt the Canadian version of football. Harvard introduced the Canadian rules to US collegiate football in a game against Tufts in 1875, and the official rules for collegiate football adopted in 1876 were much closer to the Canadian game than the Boston game.
Call it cross-pollination. Modern Canadian football adopted many rule changes from the US game. The idea of breaking football into discrete plays and requiring a team to advance the ball a certain number of yards in a limited number of "downs" in order to keep possession, which I think is the single most distinctive thing about American football, originated in the US and was later adopted in Canada. What Canadian influence is responsible for is replacing a soccer-like game with a rugby-like game early in the development of American football.
You're so stupid in your closed shop bias you really donot get the difference to buy your spot in a closed shop and to invest in a team, that still has to perform to get at the next level and you have to keep the level at the right height, otherwise you drop out again. Closed shops are for people that want to invest once and keep cashing in from that one time investment, using the fans as cash cows...milking..milking..keep on milking.
Er...it "There is evidence that a version of lacrosse originated in what is now Canada as early as the 17th century." - Wikipedia