Fabulous Four's Redistribution of Wealth
- Thread starter OddJack
- Start date
li0scc0
Hall of Fame
Consider this. In a football game, the games takes roughly 210 minutes from kickoff to the final play in both D1 college and the NFL. The actual time of the action of the game is approximately 8 minutes.
I go to college soccer matches all the time. The match is 90 minutes long. In that 90 minutes, the players are running and playing for about 80 minutes. The 90 minute match takes 110 minutes (20 minutes at half).
The NFL is popular in the USA because the media and corporations WANT it to be popular. A lot more time for advertising.
Soccer is not as popular in the USA because the media and corporations do NOT want it to be popular. Less time for advertising.
li0scc0
Hall of Fame
If this was a corporation that was doing this, i.e. giving the $50,000 employees a 20% raise ($10,000 per employee) while giving the $2,000,000 execs a 4.5% raise ($90,000 per exec) Occupy would be picketing them.
Yet here we are, in tennis, congratulating those who are comparable to the execs.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Yea, a typical soccer match is 80 minutes of running and hardly any scoring, which equals boring!
As far as your sponsors hypothesis; you may be right that the timing of Football adds to the overall comercial success of the game, but I don't necessarily consider that a negative.
Also, the American consumer is more discerning than you think.
Semi-Pro
Hall of Fame
this is a good poast my friend,,,
li0scc0
Hall of Fame
You don't consider 8 minutes of action out of 210 minutes of your time invested in watching a sport to be a negative? Think what you could be doing with the other 202 minutes of your life.
Watch 3 games a week, that is 606 minutes of wasted time. 10 hours of commercials and broadcaster nonsense.
Read a book. Or go play soccer. Imagine your conditioning if you did that!
DjokovicForTheWin
Banned
It's funny, you'd think someone who has their head shoved so far up Nadal's asss would prefer a boring non-scoring (i.e. boring long rallies) sport to a scoring (i.e. hitting exciting winners) one.
li0scc0
Hall of Fame
I think he meant his feelings instead of facts. He's an anti-data dog
In the modern mindset, feelings = facts. We can self-identify, you know. What we want becomes what 'is'.
li0scc0
Hall of Fame
There is very little wedgie-picking in soccer. Perhaps that is the difference?
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Naive and illogical statement!
Even if you're 8 minute action assesment of football is correct, which I highly doubt, a big part of sports is entertainment. Football is way more entertaining than soccer -- certainly judging by yearly revenue the NFL >>> any soccer league.
And any spectator of any sport is passively watching, thats the definition of being a spectator in an audience! I don't care how aerobic the actual sport is; so your time wasted analogy is ludicris and literally a waste of time!
In soccer and cricket, one or 2 guys are actually doing something with the ball, and a dozen others just following them. In soccer and (American) football, it is just a matter of time when one guy assaults another, leading to a foul or a penalty or whatever. The game is played in the short intervals when players are not violating the rules - a sick way to play a sport. The entire sport is based on an odds calculation of how to violate the rules and yet minimize the punishment. And we still glorify sports and call it a character-building activity.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
You and the Dunceforthewin are barking up the wrong tree here. Nadal is a huge fan of soccer and most likely would have been a soccer player if it were not for tennis (where I'm sure he would be better than Federer if both were soccer players).
So there is little necessary corelation between a Nadal fan and a soccer fan...
Clarky21
Banned
It is a football made in America
namelessone
Legend
Here are your beloved links:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/06/us-superbowl-tv-idUSTRE8151Q020120206
Which says that the Superbowl average audience was 111.3 million viewers.
http://articles.economictimes.india...442_1_peak-rating-highest-rating-star-cricket
About the 135 million figure in India alone in Cricket World Cup final.
http://www1.uefa.com/MultimediaFile...ns/MediaServices/73/54/33/735433_DOWNLOAD.pdf
About the Euro 2008 viewing figures of 155 million viewers per each live match.
http://www.initiative.com/sites/default/files/ViewerTrack_2010.pdf
About the Champions League final stats. And I was wrong about the year, these were the ones from the 2009 CL final, not 2011 as I said before. You can bet your ass that the 2011 ones were even higher in viewership.
See what Gorecki said. Plus, I don't get what revenue has to do with this. We were discussing sport popularity, not which one makes more money,comparing a sport born in the States with one born in Europe(England). One has remained in the States as far as popularity goes, the other has become a worldwide phenomenon.
Dominating what? World Cup? Yes, the Brazilians have done that.
However, in my viewing comparison, I was strictly discussing EUROPEAN championships(think World Cup, but reserved to Euro countries), European domestic leagues and the Champions League(again, only Euro football clubs). And guess what, they beat the Superbowl in viewers.
It's true that there are a lot of talented southamericans in Euro clubs but that wouldn't warrant a high viewership of Euro championships from South America, which has its very own crazy ass football madness, see the domestic leagues of Brazil and Argentina(the best guys from here going to Europe after a few years), not to mention the Copa Libertadores(South America's Champions League).
Point is, if you were Southamerican, your own football leagues and Copa Libertadores would interest you more than the European ones.
Plus, the difference in time zones between South America and Europe doesn't make for pleasant viewing of one another's football leagues. I live in Eastern Europe and I got matches from Argentina at pretty late hours.
Yes, of course, once your national sport is beat in popularity by the stats(not opinions) all you have left is "you euros just hate us".
You shouldn't talk about insecurites when you can't accept the fact that more Euros watch their own football than Americans watch their own Superbowl. Not to mention that the world wants to watch the European version of football(association football), not other types(American,Australian etc.)
Yeah man, boring as hell.
Here's how boring it is to the world:
3.5 billion people watch it.
250 million people play it.
Last edited:
namelessone
Legend
You judge how entertaining a sport is by how much money it makes?
Ok, you have to be trolling, you can't seriously be this dense.
Obviously, how much you enjoy a sport is subjective but when one sport is enjoyed by 200 million people in the North American continent and the other by 3.5 billion people around the World, there can be no discussion about which is more entertaining for most.
jwjh
Legend
It must have global relevance then.
hard2explain
Rookie
Tennis FTW though.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Here are your beloved links:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/06/us-superbowl-tv-idUSTRE8151Q020120206
Which says that the Superbowl average audience was 111.3 million viewers.
http://articles.economictimes.india...442_1_peak-rating-highest-rating-star-cricket
About the 135 million figure in India alone in Cricket World Cup final.
http://www1.uefa.com/MultimediaFile...ns/MediaServices/73/54/33/735433_DOWNLOAD.pdf
About the Euro 2008 viewing figures of 155 million viewers per each live match.
http://www.initiative.com/sites/default/files/ViewerTrack_2010.pdf
About the Champions League final stats. And I was wrong about the year, these were the ones from the 2009 CL final, not 2011 as I said before. You can bet your ass that the 2011 ones were even higher in viewership.
See what Gorecki said. Plus, I don't get what revenue has to do with this. We were discussing sport popularity, not which one makes more money,comparing a sport born in the States with one born in Europe(England). One has remained in the States as far as popularity goes, the other has become a worldwide phenomenon.
Dominating what? World Cup? Yes, the Brazilians have done that.
However, in my viewing comparison, I was strictly discussing EUROPEAN championships(think World Cup, but reserved to Euro countries), European domestic leagues and the Champions League(again, only Euro football clubs). And guess what, they beat the Superbowl in viewers.
It's true that there are a lot of talented southamericans in Euro clubs but that wouldn't warrant a high viewership of Euro championships from South America, which has its very own crazy ass football madness, see the domestic leagues of Brazil and Argentina(the best guys from here going to Europe after a few years), not to mention the Copa Libertadores(South America's Champions League).
Point is, if you were Southamerican, your own football leagues and Copa Libertadores would interest you more than the European ones.
Plus, the difference in time zones between South America and Europe doesn't make for pleasant viewing of one another's football leagues. I live in Eastern Europe and I got matches from Argentina at pretty late hours.
Yes, of course, once your national sport is beat in popularity by the stats(not opinions) all you have left is "you euros just hate us".
You shouldn't talk about insecurites when you can't accept the fact that more Euros watch their own football than Americans watch their own Superbowl. Not to mention that the world wants to watch the European version of football(association football), not other types(American,Australian etc.)
Yeah man, boring as hell.
Here's how boring it is to the world:
3.5 billion people watch it.
250 million people play it.
Just goes to show there no accounting for taste!
And no we were not talking strictly popularity! You (or some other European) were the one who disperaged American Football for no apparent reason in a thread that has nothing to do with either football (the old antiquated one or the newer, hipper, more exciting, makes more money one). Showing your Euro insecurity!
Point is, no European soccer league can compete with the NFL in terms of revenue or year over year attendance or viewership (at least the kind that counts). Funny how Europeans disregard revenue when it belies their point. Guess you all would lose all your arguments vs America if you didn't...
Last edited:
DjokovicForTheWin
Banned
Do you have any friends?
li0scc0
Hall of Fame
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Well then stop insecurely seeking adoration from Dunceforthewin and seeming to agree with him when he made the ridiculous analogy!
li0scc0
Hall of Fame
IF I am paying to go watch an event, in football I am paying for 8 minutes of action, 52 minutes of the clock winding down, and 150 minutes of dead time. 210 minutes of investment for 8 minutes of action.
If I am paying to watch a soccer match, I am paying for 80 minutes of action, 10 minutes of the clock winding down, and 20 minutes of dead time. 110 minutes of investment for 80 minutes of action.
The spectator is, as you say, passive. I would prefer the athletes I watch not be passive for over 96% of the time, as they are in football, as well!
Finally I don't really care about revenue. Does Lady Gag(a) have a better voice than Kathleen Battle? According to you she does, because Lady Gaga takes in more money. And clearly Lil' Wayne is far more talented than Bryn Terfel based on your standards.
li0scc0
Hall of Fame
Correct. In the NCAA it is 15 minutes regular season, 20 for the tournament. With a 15 minute halftime, my time investment is 105 minutes for 80 minutes of action.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
I wouldn't call 80 minutes of a couple of guys running and others following -- with hopefully one or two goals made at best; action! But to each his own...
Also, the ability to take in money or to be popular and entertaining enough to get consumers to pay to see or hear you with their hard earned money is a talent! Do I think theres a 100% corelation between popularity and quality? No I don't, however revenue generation overall is an accurate, aggregate asessment of effective appeal (the best we have to go on) -- particularly when comparing sports or other criteria that has relatively little to do with one another (like the Football vs futbol; or Lady Gaga vs Kathleen Battle (whoever she is).
namelessone
Legend
This reminds me of the "they hate us for our freedom" BS some jingoistic americans like to put forward.
No one disparaged American football, just proved your notions false through stats. And showed that the sport is ONLY popular in the States while the "old antiquated one" is loved throughout the World. Funny you should say old and antiquated when Gridiron itself is a game whose roots lie in the mid 19th century, just like football(when the modern rules were invented).
Europeans don't have anything against American football, they just think it's a crappy sport, a inferior version of Rugby as Mustard said. And going by how few people play or watch Gridiron in the non US world, the rest of the world seems to agree .If Euros had something against Americans or American sports, they wouldn't play so much basketball, which is pretty damn big here.
The difference is that basketball is an fast paced game with little breaks in between play. That's why Euros(and not only) love it. I'll never understand why Americans flock more towards NFL than towards the NBA.
Actually the CL final(only Euro football clubs) and European Championship(only 16 European national teams) beats the Superbowl in viewership on a pretty regular basis, look it up.
And you shouldn't talk about few arguments, the only argument you have in this football-american football debate, is a hilarious one when discussing about the significance of these sports, revenue generated. I guess it doesn't matter that this national sport is hosted by one of the world's superpowers, where the average man/woman can spend more than most european countries(especially the poorer eastern ones), nor does it matter that the biggest advertisers have their homes there. Or the fact that this is a national sport with a huge market, over 300 million people.
Making more revenue(though I've not seen any stats from you) reflects on the US's powerful economy, not the inherent quality of the game being played or its popularity.
In every other argument, worldwide spread, popularity, viewing figures, american football loses to football. Actually, scratch that, all sports lose when judging against the popularity of football.
And what exactly is the charm of this excessive commercialism you praise when it comes to NFL's Superbowl? Do you enjoy the game or do you enjoy how much money the guys in the background make out of it? Excessive commercialism goes against the spirit of sport, ANY SPORT. Sure, everybody wants to make money out of it but the NFL is the only sport whose premier event brags how many millions are payed for a 30 sec commercial.
Man, I love these boards, you learn something new every day.
A sport shouldn't be judged by entertainment value(how many people watch/play it) but by how much money advertisers can make of it.
namelessone
Legend
Here's the thing, people that like football like the journey of getting to a goal, picking off the defence, pressing on offence, making sure you aren't surprised by a counter-attack. It's a constant back and forth by the end of which, hopefully you will have scored more goals than the opponent. There are tons of variables in football, that's what makes the game great.
I've seen 3-2 games that were actually really boring overall(because there were like 5-6 ocassions on goal in 90 minutes and nearly all were scored but the rest of the match was lackluster) and 1-1 draws that were amazing due to the way they were played(attacking football, many ocassions throughout the 90 minutes but missing too much, lots of counterattacks). As I said, it's the journey, not necessarily the end point.
The best we have to go on? LOL.
So it's not about the inherent nature of the sport, it's about how much money it can make. Get it through your head, it's about how many people you can draw to your sport, not how many people you can bleed dry from it.
When a kid gets drawn to American football, it's because he likes the way the sport is played, not because Nike pays more for Superbowl commercials each year. Similar for a European kid that takes to football, he has his footballing heroes that he looks up to and likes the game, not the fact that Heineken, MasterCard, Sony have renewed their sponsorship for Champions League.
NFL can make 200 more times revenue than any other sport, at the end of the day it's still the 9th/10th sport in overall popularity and that's due to the inherent nature of the game(with a ton of breaks) which puts many people off.
Last edited:
DRII
G.O.A.T.
You're wrong on so many counts.
First off, I did not bring up any stats on Football until it was disparaged by Europeans. On a thread that had absolutely nothing to do with Football. Football is not even my favorite sport, but I will not sit back and let Euro sneers go unchallenged!
And no, none of your Euro soccer club matches beat the Super Bowl in viewership. The Super Bowl is the most watched single sporting event; you look it up!
Also, while you deride commercialism, no surprise there considering the U.S. economically eclipses Europe on so many comparative levels (I bet your typing from your Iphone or Ipad), truth is revenue generation is probably the best way to compare such things (not perfect but the best).
And I would pick over abundant commercialism (which Euro soccer is certainly guilty of as well) over nationalistic fervor (with its many undesirable side effects) that often accompanies soccer competitions!
TheCanadian
Semi-Pro
It's a scandal and an outrage that those outside of the top 50 make a relatively small living.
namelessone
Legend
No it's not.
For sporting events in general, Olympics beats all, more than half of the planet tunes in.
World Cup comes second, the last world cup(2010) had a total audience of 715 million people, 400 million watching live.
http://www.goal.com/en/news/1863/wo...iewing-figures-prove-that-this-really-is-the-
If we are talking about yearly events, like Superbowl, we have the Champions league:
2009- 206 million watched at least in part,109 watched the whole match.
2010 - roughly the same number, with 145 watching the whole broadcast.
2011 - UEFA estimates around 300 million viewers worldwide.
Again, this is euro versus euro, in theory it should interest no one outside of Europe.
And it manages to bring in these viewers with a "boring" game, without premiering commercials from the biggest brands out there, without bringing in mega stars to perform at showtime. This is another reason why it's ridiculous to compare viewership, Champions League focuses on the sport at hand, Superbowl on the advertising it can get away with.
Which I never denied. But I only picked on EXCESSIVE commercialism, not commercialism itself.
I'm not, the only phone I've had for years is a Nokia E70 and it serves me well to this day.
Euro football is guilty of abundant commercialism(a trend they picked up from the US, didn't use to be that way in my teens) but it can't hold a candle to what the Superbowl does, I know of no other event that boasts how much it makes on a 30 sec commercial.
While Heineken,MasterCard,Sony shove their products in our face before the match and in halftime, the people watching the match live and at home couldn't care less about it(most change channel during the halftime commercials because they find them so tedious), they just wanna enjoy the match and the football rivalry going on. In contrast, many people that watch the Superbowl do so for the commercials, for the half time show and cause it's a tradition, not because they are actually fans of the sport. When you need so much glitter to prop up the premier event of your sport, then that sport has a problem.
Last edited:
sdont
Legend
Source: wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_watched_television_broadcasts
"The 2006 FIFA World Cup Final was watched by 715 million people, as estimated by FIFA.[10] IPG independent media agency Initiative Worldwide estimated an average of 260 million, with 600 million who tuned for some part of the game.[11] The independent firm Initiative Futures Sport + Entertainment estimate a reach of 638 million and an average of 322 million viewers."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Champions_League
"The UEFA Champions League (English pronunciation: /juːˈeɪfə ˈtʃæmpiənz ˈliːg/) known simply as the Champions League and originally known as the European Champion Clubs' Cup or European Cup, is an annual international club football competition organised by the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) since 1955 for the top football clubs in Europe.[1] It is one of the most prestigious tournaments in the world and the most prestigious club competition in European football. The final of the competition is the most watched annual sporting event worldwide, drawing over 178 million television viewers.[2]"
Compare to:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl
"A frequently misquoted figure from NFL press releases has led to the common perception that the Super Bowl has an annual global audience of around one billion people.[11][12] In reality, the NFL states one billion as the game's potential worldwide audience, or the number of people able to watch the game.[13] The New York-based media research firm Initiative measured the global audience for the 2005 Super Bowl at 93 million people, with 98 percent of that figure being viewers in North America, which meant roughly 2 million people outside North America watched the Super Bowl.[11]"
Last edited:
Clarky21
Banned
I'm inside the USA,and couldn't care less about the NFL. It's an obnoxious sport with even more obnoxious fans.
sdont
Legend
I wouldn't generalize about Americans.
But I do see the cuteness in DRII being owned repeatedly.
Djokovic earned alittle over $1.1 million when he won the Aussie Open this year. Do you know how much Sam Querrey earned when he won a Challenger event in Florida last Sunday? $14,400. These are both professional tennis tournaments.
To get back to the original point of this thread, let's redistribute the wealth!
To get back to the original point of this thread, let's redistribute the wealth!
Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
So, that must be why Gillette put all that money into hiring a golfer, a tennis player and a footballer...
silly buggers, if they had only grabbed one of the Mannings the world would have beat a path to their door..
disclaimer. while not being american and being under no illusion that anyone outside the states cares, I have become a bit of a Pats fan...
Rui
Semi-Pro
That's the thing. There was no outcry. No threats of boycott. Namely because nobody wants to hear how badly the NFL, NBA, MLB, or professional tennis players have it. The players would not look good asking publicly for more millions.
The muscling need to be done behind closed doors.
Last edited:
it's not new. search the thread comparing the global popularity of tiger woods vs Federer.
Timbo's hopeless slice
Hall of Fame
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It isn't about the top 20, it's about the top 300 being able to stay in the game long enough to have a fair chance of making the top 20. At the moment, unless players have external financial support, it is near impossible to make a living outside the top 100. The average age of the top 20 is actually increasing, young players need maturity to compete withthese guys. If they can't afford to stay on the tour they won't ever reach the top level. Players like Nadal are the exception, most of teh top 20 have been on the tour 4 - 5 years before reaching these heights.
Just a better distribution of the available pool is all that is needed, take a little off the top and make playing a challenger more rewarding.
otherwise the future of the tour is very much in doubt.
oh, and forget about the comparisons to team sports, golf is a much better choice.
It isn't about the top 20, it's about the top 300 being able to stay in the game long enough to have a fair chance of making the top 20. At the moment, unless players have external financial support, it is near impossible to make a living outside the top 100. The average age of the top 20 is actually increasing, young players need maturity to compete withthese guys. If they can't afford to stay on the tour they won't ever reach the top level. Players like Nadal are the exception, most of teh top 20 have been on the tour 4 - 5 years before reaching these heights.
Just a better distribution of the available pool is all that is needed, take a little off the top and make playing a challenger more rewarding.
otherwise the future of the tour is very much in doubt.
oh, and forget about the comparisons to team sports, golf is a much better choice.
there is a kind of viewership that counts?? wow, this moron is taking it to a whole new level
DjokovicForTheWin
Banned
Yeah, but it's comical how stupid some people can be.
li0scc0
Hall of Fame
Wait, why are you here? Tennis is a European centric sport. Look at the top players, all European.
Perhaps you should stick with the NFL and the PBA.
TopFH
Hall of Fame
I'm neither European nor from the USA (please remember that America is a continent, not a single country), so I guess I have a neutral view. Last Saturday's Clásico (Real Madrid vs Barcelona for you ignorants
) had an estimated 450 million TV viewers, while the Super Bowl had about 120 million viewers. Go figure.