Super Bowl vs World Cup, Viewership & Value

We are talking about the biggest sports event in the world, that automatically makes the world the target audience.

Plus, the 2006 WC final was played between Italy and France, they have a combined population of ~120 mio... no idea how many of them watched, but it's save to say that of the 600 mio watchers, at least 500 mio had no connection to one of the 2 sides. Definitely more than in the Super Bowl or India-Pakistan Cricket.

 

Yep, and only 9-11% of that target audience watched. Worse yet, only about 6-7% were confirmed. The world's biggest sports event?

Pathetic.

Wow, so the world's biggest sporting event only expect to draw audience in the two playing countries? What a concept!

Cricket estimated to draw 1 billion. Do you have any concept of "more than"? Do you think 600M is more than 1 billion?

 

India and Pakistan have a combined population of 1.32 billion. I would be very surprised if there were more than 600 to 700 mio people with access to a tv in both countries (and not everyone who owns a tv can be interested in cricket, not even in India or Pakistan!). So where do the 1 billion estimated viewers come from? It´s similiar to the estimated 3 billion viewers that are supposed to watch Olympia - just bollocks!

 

Read the earlier posts on this thread (just the previous page or two). Look where the 1 billion viewers come from.

And why are you surprised? One poster on your side claimed that when the World Cup (soccer) is on, the whole India was in a standstill. So if the whole India is in a standstill for a soccer game (a game not high on their pecking order), why can't it happen for its national passion and religion? especially against their most bitter rivals?

And even if your number is correct (600-700M), then it still crushed soccer's drawing power w.r.t. the target audience it tries to draw.

As far as bullocks are concerned, there can't be bigger bullocks than this "biggest sports event in the world" (World Cup Final) yet only watched by at most 11% (projection) of the world's population, and in reality, only about 4% of it was confirmed.

 

If it satisfies you: I don´t believe any of this estimated numbers, be it cricket, football or american football. They are inflated to better market the whole event. I also don´t care if football is the biggest sports event in the world. The only thing that this thread has made clear is that american football (or the world bowl) really isn´t this biggest thing.

 

American football may not be, but as far as attracting its TARGET audience is concerned, its climax game is still much bigger than soccer's.

100M/300M > 600M/6.5B, yes or no?

This so called "biggest event in the world" have 90% of the world's population shunning its climax game? It's nothing to write home about...

 

Seriously a lot of India and Pakistan doesn't have access to TV, not just a little, a lot. Whole swathes of scoeity, whole villages, etc simply don't have access to TV.

1 billion is probably as big if not bigger exaggeration than the Superbowl's claim of 1 billion viewers. It's simply not even a remotely realistic figure.

 

Whats the point of even arguing, Ranger00 is all knowing and never wrong.

 

And edits wiki pages.

 

No worse than the Orlando IP address who did this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...=historysubmit&diff=331036609&oldid=330898847

and change it back again on December 18, again from Orlando. Talking about inferiority complex...

In the heat of an argument about cricket vs soccer in a soccer forum, downgraded cricket's viewership from 1 billion to 100 million.

And I also change it back to "1 billion", so instead of arguing here, we can also engage another back-and-forth argument on Wiki, just see who can get the last say there. You change it, I'll change it, you change it, I'll change it...

Deal?

 

Exactly, as long as your camp is here to spout nonsense, like the whole India is in a standstill to watch the World Cup, yet when it come to cricket, we can't count the homeless who watch the game thru' a window....

Pathetic...

 

do you seriously think the super bowl only target americans? why have they tried to start leagues in europe? and trying to get canadians and mexicans fans to watch and host gridiron matches

 

Absolutely. Do you seriously think the NFL's propaganda of potential audience of 1 billion (those who have Eurosport, ESPN Latin America, ESPN PacRim, China's CCTV5, etc. in their cable lineup) have any validity?

Are you trying to start a silly "NFL is also a world's game. Look, it only draws 100M out of the world's 6.5B population" argument?

Easy, they need a minor league for the NFL.

Even if you add Canada's and Mexico's population (144M total), it still beat the hell out of the WC Final's pitiful 600M/6.5B.

 

I dont think the problem is your argument, we are all entitled to opinion. ( I actually agree with some of your points) but the way you come across is just rude. I think we can have a really constructive conversation as you are obviously knowledgeable on this topic, unlike me. I love reading this side of the forums because its really interesting where football is going as the media control where it will go.
I honestly think you can make your point with out coming across as an arse, and win some arguments that way. I hope you take this the right way because it not only goes to you but to all of us.

 

lol - how do you explain away the games in Wembley - and the 2 scheduled for next season? IIRC the target for those games was not just fans in London. It was at the least Western Europe.

 

Oh lord, 4 pages since and not a single individual has spotted the major flaw in this guy's math formula.

Yeah he's entitled to his opinion except he's trying to force it down our throats.

 

Except you have no choice. 9 out of 10 people in the world do not watch the WC Final. It's not an opinion...

What you have a choice is to keep changing the Wiki...

 

Easy, the same reason that AC Milan, Real Madrid, Juventus, etc. taking American tours during the summer: make a quick $ of novelty from a foreign crowd. You should have seen the idiotic arguments of using these capacity crowds as "there must be a big market in the US for European soccer; look at the capacity crowds in the summer tours" in the TV forum.

I have been using the same rebuttal again and again over there, and you sure have seen it since you are very active in that forum. If there are so much interests on La Liga/Serie A in America (witness the capacity crowds in the summer), then how come La Liga/Serie A only draw pathetic 5-figure audience in the TV broadcast in America week in week out?

U.S.A. is hardly on the radar screen for la Liga's/Seria A's target markets.

 

Well, is it more or less retarded than assuming that you need home electricity to watch the World cup final? Afterall, if people can claim that 90% of Brasil watch the final if Brasil plays in it, and the whole India is in a standstill during the World Cup, then why all in a sudden we have to factor out the uncivilized Amazon and the homeless Indians?

And worse yet, if the game is not that global because of lack of electricity, tough. Maybe soccer should not be called the global game, but the "developed/developing countries' game"? Are you willing to?

It's your opinion. I happen to think that it's mighty more pathetic for a game you folks CLAIMED as the globe's biggest sporting events.

Keep those electricity excuses coming. Your claims that 7 out of 10 people in the world in famine or 70% of the world population shunning civilizations are no longer innovative...

Oh, now it's not the pure audience size, but GDP? funny that you folks dare not talk about the $$$ value of the SB vs WCF, using the standard "who cares?" and "who gives a shit?". But now when the number isn't that impressive, you want to talk about GDP/per capita?

Using this pathetic no-electricity excuse is just as retarded, if not more retarded, and you know it.

 

And this so-called "major flaw" was answered 3 posts later, in post #185.

You wimped out, i.e. no response. Can't blame you for that. Bringing it up again 30 posts later is not going to help.

But you can always change a Wiki page to help your argument...

 

gee, yawn...pages after pages of the same crap that was posted when this thread started.
Do you people not develop and learn? filling the thread by copy and paste of the same arguments that have been posted ...how long ago..isnot a sign of having brains. It smack like stupidity.

 

No you know that you are being retarded.

you know that you are a moron.

you know that your posts and takes are idiotic.

you know that your a stupid dumbwitted american who couldnt make a coherent arguement if his life depended on it.

you should stick to your rah rah sports that only 400 pounded belly bulging tub of lards can play.

understanding soccer and its significance to the world actually need a brain.

 

with your vision of the world being uncivilized and in famine, your judgement of what's idiotic and what's retarded is the least of my concern.

You want to argue? Obviously you KNOW you can't.

See, this foreign soccer fans' hatred of America is exactly why soccer makes a bad name in America.

According to your idiotic logic, the world is in famine and without civilization. With that kind of condition, soccer has no significance to the world at all. A pathetic 600M audience out of 6.5B on its climax game asserted that...

 

shame on the humans, there is not a single sport in your planet who can draw more than 10% of the whole population in my planet our most popular sport gets like 98% of TV audience our sport is truly a global game

 

And which sport is it that get you a 98% of TV audience of the globe?

That's interesting...