i say club, cos when your scottish you dont have much to hope for. however, we have improved vastly, so it may change one day.
I support the United States...we don't have much to hope for either but that doesn't stop me. Simply winning a reasonably tough match in the WC group stages would keep me happy for months. (beating a certain team who wear green shirts and red socks has the same effect...)
i love my country as well. i was trying to show that by semprejuve's conclusion of picking the one that can win the biggest tournament then i wouldn't have much choice between celtic and scotland. celtic are always going to win trophies while scotland, unfortunately, are not. i still love my country dearly but my club comes first as i tried to show by my analogy in my last post.
celtic are always going to win trophies while scotland, unfortunately, are not. i still love my country dearly but my club comes first as i tried to show by my analogy in my last post.[/quote] fair enough i see your point. for me it is hard to decide to cant we say both?
To add to the confusion, let us consider the cases of clubs that are de facto semi-official national teams as well... Just look at Bilbao, unless you are basque you will never play for them and the support they recieve from separatist is well known. When you pay a membership fee to Barcelona it actually reaches the Catalan assemby first, they send it to the club later. Until recently any major club in former Yugoslavia was in this category as well..Just ask anyone from the area. I´m sure we can find more examples but that´s hardly the point, what I was trying to say was that for many people there is no distinction between your club and your "country"...
I have to say Country because its my country but I follow MLS and EPL alot more than I do International play. But if USA played DC United,Arsenal or any other club,I would pull for USA all they way.
Club, by far. It is very difficult to support the USA. During WC years I pick a "black horse" and follow that country. For the last few years I have been supporting Cote de Ivorie. This is also because 2 of their stars play on my club team-Arsenal.
Sven's strong management of City shows that England is really a poisoned chalice. So the choice is clear. Hopefully, Capello can change Gorton Blue's point of view.
I would definitely say country, although this above quote is probably the best way to put it. When you support a club, especially a European one that might play 50+ meaningful games for 10 straight months (July-May), that is your focus as a football fan week in and week out. For example, since July 2005, Celtic FC has played 125 games (SPL, Champions League, Scottish Cup, CIS Cup), while Scotland has played 16 games in Euro/WC qualifying, an average of 50 games per year for Celtic and 6 for Scotland. But, as many have mentioned, supporting the national team is a great way for those in small towns and those supporting small teams (or none at all) to have some "premier" games. I also love how it can bring a country together (i.e. Celtic and Rangers supporters rooting for the same team). One thing that is really nice is that in European leagues (at least the big ones), they take the week off when there are Euro/WC qualifying games so as a supporter you really don't have to pick - you can support both without issue. And when the national teams have their big competitions, they always happen in the summer when the clubs are in their vacation period (well, except for the January African Cup of Nations ...). Bottom line, there is nothing that gets into my soul more than watching the U.S. play a big game (especially against Mexico!), and I don't think that will ever change.
i said club only reason is that ur on ur club team then get to play for your country. But if is was not for that I would say Country
As far as football is concerned, there ain't how to separate clubs and countries. Clubs are the cells, country is the body - period. Football with its almost medieval origins had its first games based on disputes of feuds against feuds and was played on the vast fields that separated them. The team that first conduced the ball to the opponents final reduct won - i.e., conquered its territory. Football is a feudal concept that survived in modern world. Clubs are the armies of those feuds, in which either the castle warriors encastrinated themselves in order to protect the 'prince' (defense), or from which they departed to take the adversary's home (attack). Leather balls substituted the cannons' heavy and round lead bullets. Most of the warriors were peasants commanded by knights following a strategy dictated by the prince. To our days there remain terms like 'ponta-de-lança', 'guarda-valas', of purely medieval inspiration. The conquest of a feud, and another and another, transformed them in kingdoms, now with burgs, villages and finally whole state-cities, which further on would form the nations as we know them today. The 'escudos', jerseys, banners, anthems, flags of modern clubs are reminiscent of those times. Many armies contracted mercenaries to 'fight' for them, and that never worked entirely well historically. Generally 'feuds' with a bigger quantity of faithful and original warriors had more success in spite of the best knowledge of the adversaries in the war skills. The latter were good warriors but spoke different languages and generally got entangled in confusing tactics (complicated even more by scarce genuine motivation). On the other side the spectators of those wars btw feuds (their 'populations') which at first rooted for their particular feud without a real distinction btw them ended up rooting for whole nations. World Cups (the word 'cup' itself has a medieval connotation - the Crusades, The Holy Graal) became the modern feudal wars, now on an international level. 'Rooter' itself is a word that has an undeniable agricultural origin, and let's always remember the ball was made out of bovine leather... So when we talk about a rooter, we are talking about the person who is firmly seeded in a particular piece of land... That's why we should always suspect of the billions of 'rooters' MU, Milan, Real have 'in Asia' or 'around the world'... Those are not real rooters: they just want to buy jerseys (just you wear a costume in Carnival) and in front of TV from their couches witness see the 'circus' to get fire... Those millions & billions do root for their 'feuds', though, the weakest they can be, and that's why the inclusion of their clubs and nations in modern 'wars' (World Cup, WCC etc) is essential for the development of football around the world...
That's my biggest gripe with international football. The fact that the league takes a week off for some dreadfully boring qualifying game... As for the poll: Club, definitely.... I've seen some of the 'country' voters mention that they are emotionally connected to their fellow countrymen and therefore put their homeland over their club. It's really not that different for many european 'club' voters, except that it happens on a different scale: for us the club is a way to identify ourselves with our city/region of birth, with people who think/talk/live like you do. For us it's like a country inside the country Add to that the fact that club football is there 90% of the time as opposed to international football, and there you have your explanation. It's only during the actual tournaments that the club temporarily takes a back seat.
Nothing gives me butterflies in my stomach like watching the U.S. in an important match. (especially the World Cup) Since WC 94 they've been the only team I really care about. I only watch European clubs if a yank abroad is involved. I really couldn't care less about the Champions League or anything like that. I guess it's because I have an emotional connection with the National Team,something I don't have with any European club. (or MLS team for that matter) How can some Americans care more about Chelsea or Arsenal etc. than our own NT?
HC, You represent a new and an innumerable legion of football rooters with which Europeans didn't count on. For them only their national leagues, the CL and the Euro Cup counted as worthwhile competitions (sometimes even more than the WCs): they always twisted their nose to everything that's not European... That's why is so sweet for us South Americans (specially Brzs) having established in the last 80 years a considerable superiority over them either at club or NT level (26 x 22 WCCs// Brz 5 x 4 Italy WCs), even with them being way richer. During this whole period, they had to swallow us one Cup in one Cup out, and see Brz & Argie players acclaimed as the best of the planet. US, although having a participation since the 30's/50s, only now is serously awaking to the sport. And you are 350 millions. The same for Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Africans, and they are billions. Your (their) clubs and NTs are starting to matter to you more than the old Euriopean legends whom in the past you had sympathies for. Europeans gotta wake up for a new world ...
Country all the way. The people who play for your country are like family, and, they may even be your family.