Come on Paul, EVERYONE knows that playoffs/tournaments are a poor way to decide a champion. A proper champion plays a balanced schedule against every team in the competition home and away...... *relax, this is sarcasm.....
What? Did you read my post? I said literally the opposite. I said that baseball players would absolutely risk their careers to win something but the World Baseball Classic was not an important enough competition to justify throwing off their pre-season routine, let alone risk long term, or career ending injury. To try, for even a second, to compare the WBC to the World Cup shows a complete ignorance of baseball. Which is fine you're dutch, you clearly didn't grow up watching baseball (although the Netherlands usually has a team in the WBC, primarily made up of players from Curacao). So don't try and use it as an example, the same way I won't bring in Field Hockey or Speed skating (although I do watch some cycling so I could use that). The point is using the WBC to show anything about Baseball would be like trying to prove a point around the International Champions Cup and trying to say it's important and relevant in world football. Also a players willingness to play for their national side does not in itself tell a story of how international a sport is. Lots of players admit, usually after their careers are done, that playing for their national side very much felt like a chore and we see quite a few using any excuse to avoid a call up. This is for a variety of reasons, physiologically, economic and political, both national and internal FA. So yeah just because a player isn't available for their national team doesn't mean a sport isn't international. Finally if your whole point was just that football is more popular than baseball worldwide? Well yeah of course everyone knows that, let me use a local Southern California expression, DUHHHH.
So these are the debates that happen when sports are canceled f*** I need my sports. Maybe we could finish the Premier League in Antartica? Maybe St. Helena? Falklands? But since "I got nothing else to do" but sit in my house I'll jump in. Anyways football/Soccer is the biggest sport in the world and the only team sport that is truly worldwide. In terms of being relevant, and considered "local" in pretty much every place in the world. As for #2 who the F*** knows but since "I got nothing else to do" i'll give it a go. For the record there is a huge gap between football and everyone else. My list would be #2 Rugby Union, primarily on the back of the robust amateur club culture that is worldwide. International competition at club and national team level that features the best players in the world, including a World Cup where at least 5 nations could win any tournament. #3 Cricket, because of the massive popularity of the final espcially when India are involved. Also has international test series that feature the best players in the world. The spread of the game and vagaries means that pretty much any of 6/7 countries could win/ small divide to #4 Basketball, a simple game that is played all over the world but is currently lacking a robust international competition on club or National Team level. If the US sends it's best players it's a 90% certainty Then there's a huge divide to #5 Baseball, quite popular in the Spanish Caribbean and Northern Latin America, as well as parts of Eastern Asia. Very little international competition at National Team, basically none at club. Basically non existent outside of areas with a big US influence. Everyone else Feel free to disagree
Some suggested amendments in bold. For many years rugby union was played in Argentina and Uruguay by Welsh miners. Italy is a work in progress. It's popularity in Japan is a bit strange.
Mmmm, 22 chunky blokes on a pitch trying to work the opponent to the ground.....could be like a brawl between two sumo dojo's.
Same British connection exists for football, of course, so it's a bit odd to call it out for those other sports.
Well he started it. But soccer is played in a lot of countries that have no association with Britain. 30 chunky blokes in the inferior code of the sport.
Sure, but it gained its foothold around the world either by a direction connection - the British Empire - or through British people living and working abroad. There's a reason why its AC Milan, not AC Milano and Genoa Cricket and Football Club, not Genova... etc etc.
I'll put it another way. All the major cricket nations were part of the British Empire. All the major rugby nations were part of the British Empire except France (Argentina and Italy may slowly get there). No former British colony has won the World Cup, although England have of course. Only England and the USA got as far as the semi-finals.
Association football wasn't spread around the world via British government efforts such as the Empire the way that cricket and rugby were. However, it was spread by the British, through civilian ventures such as shipping and railroad building in South America and through the movement of British immigrants such as the Lancashire and Scottish textile workers who came to the United States in the 19th century.
Essentially it boils down to: association football being spread by contact with the British working class (if not immigrants then sailors), and other British sports being spread by contact with aristocratic colonial administrators.
Well you compared Angel Di Maria's desire to play in the world to Baseball players desire, or lack of, to play in the world baseball classic. Sounds like a comparison to me. If you weren't then what were you doing?
Well you guys did control 1/4 of the planet And for the record I live the US, but not in a former British Colony. Was a Spanish colony, and a Mexican Administrative District, but never a British Colony, in spite of Drake's best efforts. So do we really count as a former British Colony?
Attitude in regard to national team playing, which is an indication to the world status of a sport. National team play for soccer is the highest honour you can receive and playing for the national team on a tournement is for every soccer player the ultimate thing. Even with no chance to win it at all. It is the ultimate stage. If it isnot seen like that it means the sport is a fundamentally local sport with no global appeal.
I donot know the attitude of cricket or rugby players in that regard, but I have a feeling they have the same as soccer players. Memphis Depay had a terrible knee injury, but worked his ass off to be able to play the Euro 2020, which I wouldnot want as that return would be months too early and I want him to play more than that EC2020. So the postponement of the EC in that regard is a blessing.
If your definition is at least 5 teams over 2 continents, then baseball counts. Japan, the Dominican Republic, the US, South Korea, Cuba and the Netherlands have all won a major international baseball tournament (Baseball world cup, WBSC Primier12, World Baseball Classic or Olympic gold medal) in the last 20 years.
Actually, you only need the Olympics and World Baseball Classic to get to 5 champions since 2000. Only the Netherlands (read Curacao) has won a Baseball world cup or WBSC Premier12 (the Premier12 replaced the Baseball World Cup in 2015) without winning a World Baseball Classic or Olympic Gold Medal. In addition to Japan, DR, US, South Korea and Cuba winning, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, Canada, Australia and the Netherlands have finished top 4 in an Olympics or WBC since 2000, with Mexico, Taiwan, Panama, Nicaragua, Colombia and Italy having top 4 finishes in earlier Baseball world cups or Olympics.