I have to explain my notion of a global sport. A global sport is a sport in which at least 5 countries on different continents are more or less on par. So not the number of players somewhere or even the number of countries playing it count in my definition. To be a global sport there must be competition between countries and the outcome should not be predictable in advance. So basketball doesnot fit in as the USA, when they deploy their best in their national team simply has a free run to the final. Do the maths for the other sports. Soccer is a true global sport as, apart from lulls national teams can have, there's not one national team that dominates so much it doesnot matter who they play.
Hold up. How many countries have won the world cup? Oh that's right...8 countries from TWO continents...... Who from North America, Asia, Africa and Oceania is on Par with Spain, Argentina, Germany, Brazil, & France? Spain won the last FIBA world Championship in 2019....Since NBA players began playing for Team USA in 1992, the USA has failed to medal twice, and won the gold three times....hell, they failed to medal in 2002, when the championships were played in the USA!!!
Nasty. Nottingham Forest’s 2018/19 financial results covered the second season under the ownership of Evangelos Marinakis (80%) and Sokratis Kominakis (20%), when they finished 9th in the Championship, their highest position since 2012/13. Some thoughts follow #NFFC— Swiss Ramble (@SwissRamble) March 31, 2020
#NFFC loss widened from £6m to £25m, despite revenue increasing by £2.7m (12%) to £25.3m and profit on player sales rising £0.5m to £10.6m, as expenses shot up £18m and there was no repeat of prior year’s £5m loan write-off. pic.twitter.com/YHZLmLHSKb— Swiss Ramble (@SwissRamble) March 31, 2020 However, investment in the squad led to the #NFFC wage bill increasing £8.5m (31%) to £36.3m and player amortisation rising £4.9m (152%) to £8.1m. Other expenses also grew £3.6m (33%) to £14.7m, while interest payable was up from £0.3m to £1.2m.— Swiss Ramble (@SwissRamble) March 31, 2020 Almost all clubs lose money in the ultra-competitive Championship, but #NFFC £25m loss is the third largest of the clubs that have reported to date in 2018/19. This was only surpassed by #AVFC £69m and #NCFC £39m, who both booked hefty promotion-related bonuses. pic.twitter.com/yI08P40HG8— Swiss Ramble (@SwissRamble) March 31, 2020 #NFFC have only reported a profit once since 2005 – and that was entirely due to a £40m loan write-off in 2017. Otherwise, the club has consistently lost money, amounting to just under £100m in the last decade. pic.twitter.com/FofR9qWt0i— Swiss Ramble (@SwissRamble) March 31, 2020
#NFFC losses would have been much higher without owners writing-off £63m of loans: 2016 £18m, 2017 £40m and £2018 £5m. The largest write-off came in 2017 when Greek owner Evangelos Marinakis bought the club from Fawaz Al Hasawi. pic.twitter.com/ISz8tZJnVm— Swiss Ramble (@SwissRamble) March 31, 2020 #NFFC underlying profitability is poor, as shown by their EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Depreciation and Amortisation), which strips out profit on player sales and exceptional items. This has been consistently negative, further falling in 2018/19 from £(16)m to £(26)m. pic.twitter.com/PGF5hS8o0i— Swiss Ramble (@SwissRamble) March 31, 2020 #NFFC revenue has grown by two-thirds (£10.0m) from £15.4m to £25.3m in the 5 years since 2014, though £3.9m of that is from bringing back in-house retail operations and catering. Another £4.1m is from broadcasting, mostly due to increase in PL solidarity payments. pic.twitter.com/3JwtlZYJPj— Swiss Ramble (@SwissRamble) March 31, 2020 Despite the growth, #NFFC £25m revenue is mid-table in the Championship, significantly below clubs benefiting from parachute payments following relegation from the Premier League, such as Stoke City £71m, Swansea City £68m, Middlesbrough £56m, Aston Villa £54m and Hull City £48m. pic.twitter.com/YwzMTLcXIB— Swiss Ramble (@SwissRamble) March 31, 2020 #NFFC wage bill rose 31% (£8.5m) from £27.7m to £36.3m, a club record, as the number of playing staff increased by 9 to 74. This followed two successive years when wages had fallen. pic.twitter.com/K2OGqF9D5T— Swiss Ramble (@SwissRamble) March 31, 2020
That's three more than my requirement. However I didnot mention winning it, but being able to face each other on equal footing. That's alot more countries and Africa has national teams that are capable to play as equals to the Euro and SA powers.
Nope. You know it's right. You can argue about the numbers but the premise is as solid as a rock. Give away of it...the word global.
The opponent from the other continent has to beat you by cheating like Suarez did with Uruguay vs Ghana if it doesnot go by normal play. Equal in the sense a win isnot a given for either team. Ivory Coast, Ghana and Nigeria were teams that could look the top Euro teams in the eyes and make an encounter a competitive one.
Dude... just stop. Stop trying to say that everything American is terrible compared to the rest of the world because you're not convincing people of the merits of pro/rel, which is what this thread is supposed to be about. The USA doesn't dominate the world in basketball because it's "not a gloabal sport." It is one. The USA dominates for the exact same reason they DON'T in soccer: their attention and their priorities are on that one sport. If all the European nations abolished soccer tomorrow and basketball became their national obsession, I bet the gap between the USA and the rest of the world would significantly narrow. You've got yourself convinced that "global" means parity of results, but 3 nations have won 13 of the 21 World Cups. That's a lot closer to a cartel. (Oooh, am I mixing metaphors?)
Nope. That were jaykos3 his words, not mine. And those countries that won couldnot buy it like the cartel clubs. They still had to fight their way to the top. That's the beauty of national teams, you have to do it with the material you've been given. Unless of course you pick up players with a dual nationality. Edit: I think you're losing the plot.
Germany won in 1974 the final, while not being the best team in the tournement. The same applies to Argentina in 1978. In the end someone has to move to the next round or lift the trophy, even if that teams is equal or worse.
In 1978 Cruijff decided to stay home. In 1994 Gullit decided to pick a fight with the coach about tactics and stayed home. Results depend on many things.
In 1990 the top players of the Orange team (1988 winners of the EC) decided to pick a fight with Michels about his choice for Beenhakkers instead of Cruijff as a coach and as a result were a mess, while that tournement fielded the worst national teams of the power houses.
We do well, but arenot rewarded for it. That's the difference. Except for the 1990 debacle. There we had all the figurative stars aligned for a great result, sucking great soccer nations, our squad full of superstars in their prime. So the only ones that could ruin it was us self...and we did.
Cricket has major powers on five continents. The ratings of the top eight Test nations are all relatively close, with the gap between #1 (India) and #8 (West Indies) only slightly larger than the gap between #8 and #9 (Bangladesh). The top eight cover five continents. Football does not have major powers on five continents. Outside of Europe and South America, only Mexico consistently makes it to the knockout stage of the World Cup, and only Mexico, the United States, and Japan have managed it in at least three of the six 32-team World Cups. So even if you were to extend major power status to every country that gets to the knockout stage half of the time, that's still only four continents.
Rugby Union has had teams from five continents in the RWC QFs over the course of the last two editions. I wouldn't call Argentina and Japan "major powers" though but they are both very respectable teams.
Just using our Dutch friend's definition as he stated it. Teams like the US and Japan that get to the knockout stages 50% of the time are not "more or less on par" with the main contenders for the World Cup trophy, but you have to dig that far down to get even four continents represented. The top eight cricket teams actually are more or less on par, and they are on five continents.