It is, but the definition of modern isn't. Anyone can therefore create their own definition of "modern" and give their reasons. That's fine if the discussion is about what constitutes modern football, but not if trying to discuss when football became "modern".
But that's precisely what the OP deals with! ... Sure, it doesn't give you a definition but proposes several criteria to define it. And that's what - modesty aside - makes the thread worthwhile. So?... If it happens that those are sound reasons, why not?... Looks like you're pre-establishing that there is a notion of 'modern football' everybody agrees with. And that's not true: the thread itself (reflected by the poll results) shows that all those notions are highly arguable. I intend to have given good reasons as to why in my conception the 1950-70 period is vital for its formation (even if it sounds biased). At least I backed them as much as I could. What is reinforced btw by the great voting the period got in the poll. What of course pleased me: most of those voters are at the most 30-year-old & maybe I'm not that biased.
yet you mocked when someone said it started with the creation of the premiership Some people once famously really didn't like the answer "42" for much the same reason.
I'd mock as well if someone said it started in 71 with the creation of the Brasileirão. Not enough 'to say': gotta back up your ideas. Mind quoting it?...
That comparison simply doesn't work, and you should know that. The Premier League has revolutionized the way football is viewed across the globe, I can't understand why you'd mock someone for suggesting it has a connection with the birth of 'modern football'. Even if it does perhaps seem like a slightly shortsighted answer, it's an interesting point and one that certainly deserves to be debated.
A 'connection' maybe. And still if we limit ourselves to the boundaries of Euro football. Not world, definitely. And the other Euro leagues (Serie A, La Liga, Bundesliga)? Such affirmation is disrespectful to them. PS: And yes: it's absolutely ridiculous envisaging the EPL as the start of 'modern football'.
Why? Money has always talked, but it could easily be argued that the premiership was a huge driver in it starting to shout. It just gets back to that question of what modern football is. Clearly the tipping of the financial balance - when it really became business and good coaching was no longer enough - isn't your definition of modern football, but it would be to other people. You talk of people limiting themselves to euro football rather than world football, but your definition is unsurprisingly centred around Brazil.
Again, I see no reason for you to so vehmently deny this when all the facts are plain to see. Since the 1990s, football fandom around the world has risen to a whole new level, and the Premier League was undoubtedly a huge catalyst in this process. One need only travel to Asia, or Africa, or even your beloved South America, to see the influence the Premier League has had on the footballing world, with millions of fans all around the world donning their replica kits of teams they've seen on the tv, as a result of the monopolization of Sky and Premier League. Why, just last year I travelled to Bagé (my sister-in-law is Brazilian) and Florianopolis and even there the amount of Premier League shirts on sale, as well as being worn by children and adults alike, was truely overwhelming. Now, I'm not at all saying the birth of the Premier League signalled the start of modern football, but to deny that it's had an impact on the global game, both the fandom and the money side, and to an extent perhaps the playing side also, is grossly ignoring reality. It's not at all a eurocentric concept, it's simply how the game's aura and lifeblood has evolved over the years. Now, if you want to restrict your definition to simply the playing side of the game then that's fine, but the concept of 'modern football' today is generally associated with the glitz and glamour that's typical of the way the Premier League comes packaged. The money and marketing side of the game is truely a more important component then it's ever been.
After months of thinking that I didn't really have an answer to the question posed in this poll (I voted, but I can't remember what voted for), I've realized that the answer seems obvious, at least to me. Modern football started with the creation of the European Champions Cup in 1955. The advent of this competition, and the Copa Libertadores that it inspired in South America, transformed the club version of the sport, whose outlook previously had been usually confined to national pockets isolated from each other. The World Cup had already begun this process at the national-team level, but the start of the European Champions Cup was a huge step in building international interest in the sport. Of course, the fact that this event took place at roughly the same time as the arrival of Pele in Santos didn't hurt any.
And all those facts belong to the 50's. Conceptual & symbolically I'd agree that we could locate in 1955* the start of all. Even if ICONICALLY the same decade (1950) had already reserved to us the first vision of modern football: Maracanã, the 1st of the megastadiums era (b. 1950) Didi? Pelé? Garrincha?... They were no more than the offspring of a big stadium. *PS: By the way 1955 was the year of the crystalization of the seminal & unstoppable team of Flamengo (RJ's trichampionship, 53/54/55) as the structural basis for the legendary 1958 WC Brz NT. From mid on: Moacir, Evaristo/Joel, Henrique, Dida & Zagallo. (the 4 in bold were the starters for the 1958 WC Brazilian NT) One of the 1st full & typical 4-2-4 formations in history: in short the beginning modern football.
1955 could be the one but it still was selfcontained within Europe, not worldwide, so for me the real modren games started in 1960 +/- 2 1960-2 WC58, the KING was born to show the world how a player shall play 1960+2: the KINg proved in Europe that his Santos team was also the BEST and how Football shall play
??? And Argentina, Uruguay & Brazil of the early 50's? They don't count? ... 'Was born'?... In 58 he was already 17 (quite grown-up, wasn't he)?... The world already knew it since 58 (Santos & the best Brz clubs would yearly tour Europe immediately after the Cup) & we already knew it since 57. Nut much later than 55 BTW (practically) the same Flamengo that was RJ tri-champion in that year & was the basis of the Brz NT in 58 would humble Pelé's Santos 5 x 1 at their house en route to the 1961 Rio-São Paulo tournament title. C.R. Flamengo 5 x 1 Santos (SP) Torneio Rio-São Paulo 19/04/1961 - Estádio: Pacaembu - São Paulo Time: Ari, Joubert (Hilton), Bolero, Jordan, Jadir, Carlinhos (Hugo), Joel, Gerson, Henrique, Dida (Norival) e Germano. Gols: Gerson(3) e Dida(2). http://www.flaestatistica.com/t1961.htm 1955 is a mark in the history of world football: modern soccer was being born not just in Europe but also in Rio & São Paulo pitches. Pelé was just a product of the football environment of those years. He didn't simply come from nothing.
Nut, I was talking about the WORLD - yes 200 nations Even Sao Paulo and Riio could not represent one Brazil nation ... nut
World? 200 nations?... The biggest federation, UEFA - nowadays - has 51 affiliates (in the 50's way less), CONMEBOL has 10. You're flatly wrong. From the 1920's to the 1960's São Paulo & Rio did represent Brazil as a nation.