|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tampabulls
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I renew my Lightning season tickets every year. I stuck with them through the good times and the bad times. I also remember the Tampa Bay Mutiny of the MLS. Good times. NASCAR sucks.
Also, isn't Formula 1 MASSIVE in Europe? Michael Schumacher is right behind Tiger Woods in terms of highest paid athletes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jimskins
Joined: 07 Nov 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Got this from wikianswers, though ithe figures are obviously estimates, its still quite interesting:
"Most Popular Sports
What are the most popular sports worldwide? Football (soccer) ranks at the top of a majority of the credible lists published.
Additional opinions from WikiAnswers sports fans:
"Most popular" could mean "most watched," "most played," or "most revenue-generating." Based on the variable definition of "most popular" the following observations apply:
The most played sport in the world is football.
Based on the number and size of stadiums around the world, the number of people who wear football merchandise, number of people who are aware of football, and the number of leagues/tournaments worldwide (The WORLD CUP, UEFA CHAMPIONS LEAGUE, THE SOUTH AMERICAN CUP, THE AMERICAN CUP, THE ASIAN CUP, 70 English league teams, 40 Italian league teams, 40 Spanish league teams) football ranks at the top of the list regardless the definition of "most popular."
Rugby is very popular in many former English colonies (with the notable exception of the US) and has a large following. However, participation rates fall below that of football.
Most Frequently Cited Ranked Lists
1) Football: 3.3-3.5 billion fans (Europe, Africa, Asia, Americas, etc.)
2) Cricket: 2-3 billion fans (India, UK, Pakistan, Asia, Australia, etc.)
3) Field hockey: 2-2.2 billion fans (Asia, Europe, Africa, Australia)
4) Tennis: Around 1 billion fans (Europe, Americas, Asia)
5) Volleyball: Around 900 million fans (Asia, Europe, Americas, Australia)
6) Table tennis: Around 900 million fans (Asia, Europe, Africa, Americas)
7) Baseball: Around 500 million fans (US, Japan, Cuba, Dominican Republic)
 Golf: Around 400 million fans (US, Canada, Europe)
9) Gridiron (American football): 390-410 million fans (US mainly)
10) Basketball: Not more than 400 million fans (US, Canada mainly) " |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Murakano
Joined: 10 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kurtz wrote: |
Anyone know about the state of the pitches of SA? I guess they are using cricket grounds.
. |
I would assume S.A have built new stadiums in preparation for the world cup and not use cricket grounds? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mayorgc
Joined: 19 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To many N. Americans, Soccer is a dreadful sport to watch on TV. Most North Americans did not grow up with the game. We grew up with either hockey, baseball, or Football (nfl/cfl). We understand the nuance and little details that go into it.
When somebody watches Soccer on TV for the first time, it's easy to get discouraged by it since it's basically one guy kicking the ball half way down the pitch and then the other team kicks it back, half way down the pitch and repeat for an hour. It's obviously much more complicated and there's tons of skill and talent that gets displayed out there, but to many North americans, they don't recognize it (yet). I sure as heck won't watch too many Soccer/Futball games on tv, but I know that if you watch it live, it can be quite entertaining.
But, World Cup football transcends sport. It's definitely exciting watching on TV. The talent assembled is most likely the top of its class and the fact that literally, the entire world is watching at the same time makes for an excellent spectacle, live or on TV. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mayorgc
Joined: 19 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Regarding Hockey: Why is it not popular all over the U.S?
Mainly due to weather. Kids living in cold snowy areas obviously are more inclined to pick up skates and play hockey. when it's -5 outside, you're obviously not gonna play baseball or football outside.
It's the king in Canada, but definitely not even close in the U.S. The only U.S cities with strong hockey markets are Chicago, Detroit, New York, Boston, Minnesota, Philly, Pittsburgh and Buffalo. Those markets have stuck with their teams through good times and bad times, they have grass roots programs in place and it's almost gauranteed that 90% of US born players are from one of those cities or it's suburbs. All those areas mentioned above have cold winters. There are a handful of stable secondary markets, like Seattle, North Dakota, San Jose and St. Louis, but outside of all the previously mentioned cities, Hockey is barely even a blip on the Radar. Basically, Hockey is a very regional sport in The U.S. It's followers are concentrated almost entirely in the North East, Some in the Pacific North West and a couple of cities in very non traditional hockey markets. Hockey will never be big in the south unless the kids there now embrace it. The adults living in Atlanta, Tampa, Sunrise Florida will only show up when the team wins and they'll forget about hockey when they leave the parking lot or when the team starts to lose. So basically, Hockey in the U.S is either a Top 4 sort or a Top 6 sport depending on where you're at.
And the Original 6 moniker is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with being first. They were the only teams that remained standing after all the men went to war. The original NHL consisted of montreal, Toronto, Hamilton and I think quebec. American teams didn't even exist till the 20s. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kurtz
Joined: 05 Jan 2007
Location: ples bilong me
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Murakano wrote: |
| Kurtz wrote: |
Anyone know about the state of the pitches of SA? I guess they are using cricket grounds.
. |
I would assume S.A have built new stadiums in preparation for the world cup and not use cricket grounds? |
I forgot there is this thing called google http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/destination/stadiums/index.html
A mix of rugby stadiums and some sexy new ones. One is a beast at nearly 100,000 capacity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Murakano
Joined: 10 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kurtz wrote: |
| Murakano wrote: |
| Kurtz wrote: |
Anyone know about the state of the pitches of SA? I guess they are using cricket grounds.
. |
I would assume S.A have built new stadiums in preparation for the world cup and not use cricket grounds? |
A mix of rugby stadiums and some sexy new ones. One is a beast at nearly 100,000 capacity. |
100,000........hopefully those vuvuzela's will be banned by that time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tampabulls
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The adults living in Atlanta, Tampa, Sunrise Florida will only show up when the team wins and they'll forget about hockey when they leave the parking lot or when the team starts to lose. |
Riiiiight.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yaya
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmuns wrote: |
| Yaya wrote: |
One big problem with soccer is that the powers that be refuse to improve the game all in the name of "tradition." FIFA introduced the golden goal in 1994 then scrapped it ten years later despite the rule producing some of the most exciting finishes in the sport (Euro 1996 and 2000 are examples).
The Thierry Henry handball is yet another example of FIFA's stubborness, and don't even get me started on how Chelsea was robbed by a retarded ref in last year's Champions League semifinals. The results cannot be overturned yet FIFA will probably do nothing about it either, though adding refs or using video replay to an extent has been rightfully suggested.
Plus Americans like scoring, not the snooze fests of Man City (seven straight ties) and the 1-0, 0-0, 1-1 games in Serie A. At least American sports experiment with rule changes to make sports more exciting, and well, American teams are also better managed seeing that so many European clubs are neck-deep in debt. |
this americans like scoring argument is flawed as well. when we watch football and a team wins 14-7 we like it. but in reality the game was actually 2-1, would you not agree. and i don't know if we manage our teams any better, there are nfl teams that are not doing so well and can't even get a game to air on local tv due to blackout restrictions. |
I cannot disagree there but at least the NFL is always looking to improve the game via rule changes or modifications. Don't forget, football was primarily a rushing game until rules were changed to encourage the pass, like narrowing the distance between hash marks, the implementation of pass interference rules and the like.
There are NFL teams that aren't doing so well but they're not in the same financial trouble as many European soccer teams. The Euro leagues have no salary cap so the disparity between the haves and have nots are extreme. In the English Premiership, just four teams have won the league title in the last 12 or 13 years, and all of them are the rich teams.
I don't see FIFA wising up until it gets rid of that idiot Frenchman Michel Platini from its technical committee. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
morrisonhotel
Joined: 18 Jul 2009
Location: Gyeonggi-do
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yaya wrote: |
| In the English Premiership, just four teams have won the league title in the last 12 or 13 years, and all of them are the rich teams. |
I'd hardly describe Blackburn as rich. At the time of winning the league they were in amongst the richer teams but since then they've been on a downward spiral financially. You're right on everything else, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scotty12347
Joined: 16 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yaya wrote: |
| In the English Premiership, just four teams have won the league title in the last 12 or 13 years, and all of them are the rich teams. |
Chelsea and Manchester United share a debt of 1.5bn, by your standards, i am a trillionaire.
Some football teams are rich, some are not, whats your point? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yaya
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scotty12347 wrote: |
| Yaya wrote: |
| In the English Premiership, just four teams have won the league title in the last 12 or 13 years, and all of them are the rich teams. |
Chelsea and Manchester United share a debt of 1.5bn, by your standards, i am a trillionaire.
Some football teams are rich, some are not, whats your point? |
My point is that there is no parity in the Premiership. Yeah, they have big debt but calls are growing for better financial management by the clubs (and not just in England, either).
In the NFL, a team in a smaller city like Green Bay was able to make Brett Favre the highest-paid player in the league because of revenue sharing. The worst team in the league also gets the first pick in the NFL draft after the season.
Eight different teams have also won the Super Bowl in the last ten years, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scotty12347
Joined: 16 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yaya wrote: |
| scotty12347 wrote: |
| Yaya wrote: |
| In the English Premiership, just four teams have won the league title in the last 12 or 13 years, and all of them are the rich teams. |
Chelsea and Manchester United share a debt of 1.5bn, by your standards, i am a trillionaire.
Some football teams are rich, some are not, whats your point? |
My point is that there is no parity in the Premiership. Yeah, they have big debt but calls are growing for better financial management by the clubs (and not just in England, either).
In the NFL, a team in a smaller city like Green Bay was able to make Brett Favre the highest-paid player in the league because of revenue sharing. The worst team in the league also gets the first pick in the NFL draft after the season.
Eight different teams have also won the Super Bowl in the last ten years, too. |
Of course theres parity, any team can beat any other team on any day. a few hours ago manchester united lost to aston villa, and in the same game week chelsea only managed a draw against everton.
The best team over the course of the league inevitably wins.
The superbowl is a mixture of league/cup.
If you want cup matches you can watch the FA cup, Carling cup in the English leagues, either of which could be won by any team as they employ the somewhat limited cup format.
You dont like football, we get the point, theres no need to slag the sport off. If you dont agree with it then why are you in a thread about the world cup. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yaya
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| scotty12347 wrote: |
| Yaya wrote: |
| scotty12347 wrote: |
| Yaya wrote: |
| In the English Premiership, just four teams have won the league title in the last 12 or 13 years, and all of them are the rich teams. |
Chelsea and Manchester United share a debt of 1.5bn, by your standards, i am a trillionaire.
Some football teams are rich, some are not, whats your point? |
My point is that there is no parity in the Premiership. Yeah, they have big debt but calls are growing for better financial management by the clubs (and not just in England, either).
In the NFL, a team in a smaller city like Green Bay was able to make Brett Favre the highest-paid player in the league because of revenue sharing. The worst team in the league also gets the first pick in the NFL draft after the season.
Eight different teams have also won the Super Bowl in the last ten years, too. |
Of course theres parity, any team can beat any other team on any day. a few hours ago manchester united lost to aston villa, and in the same game week chelsea only managed a draw against everton.
The best team over the course of the league inevitably wins.
The superbowl is a mixture of league/cup.
If you want cup matches you can watch the FA cup, Carling cup in the English leagues, either of which could be won by any team as they employ the somewhat limited cup format.
You dont like football, we get the point, theres no need to slag the sport off. If you dont agree with it then why are you in a thread about the world cup. |
Who says I don't like soccer? It's grown on me but the sport seriously needs improvement.
The Carling Cup should be called the couldn't care less cup. What team really dreams of winning it as opposed to the league title? It seems like a meaningless tournament.
About any team beating a giant, that happens in the NFL but what about championships? You missed the point, son.
And well, I personally like the format in the U.S. in which there is but ONE tournament to determine a champion and it's called the playoffs. Having the best record in the regular season doesn't mean crap when you play in a knockout format. The former NBA team Seattle SuperSonics would finish with the best record in the 1990s yet everyone knew that they'd stand no chance against the Michael Jordan-led Chicago Bulls.
I'm thinking that if the English league had a similar playoff system, Liverpool probably would have a few more league titles by now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scotty12347
Joined: 16 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 12, 2009 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yaya wrote: |
| scotty12347 wrote: |
| Yaya wrote: |
| scotty12347 wrote: |
| Yaya wrote: |
| In the English Premiership, just four teams have won the league title in the last 12 or 13 years, and all of them are the rich teams. |
Chelsea and Manchester United share a debt of 1.5bn, by your standards, i am a trillionaire.
Some football teams are rich, some are not, whats your point? |
My point is that there is no parity in the Premiership. Yeah, they have big debt but calls are growing for better financial management by the clubs (and not just in England, either).
In the NFL, a team in a smaller city like Green Bay was able to make Brett Favre the highest-paid player in the league because of revenue sharing. The worst team in the league also gets the first pick in the NFL draft after the season.
Eight different teams have also won the Super Bowl in the last ten years, too. |
Of course theres parity, any team can beat any other team on any day. a few hours ago manchester united lost to aston villa, and in the same game week chelsea only managed a draw against everton.
The best team over the course of the league inevitably wins.
The superbowl is a mixture of league/cup.
If you want cup matches you can watch the FA cup, Carling cup in the English leagues, either of which could be won by any team as they employ the somewhat limited cup format.
You dont like football, we get the point, theres no need to slag the sport off. If you dont agree with it then why are you in a thread about the world cup. |
the sport seriously needs improvement.
Thats fair enough, i think American football seriously needs improvement, but im not going to go wading into an NFL thread and call people stubborn for not changing the rules of the game to suit me.
The Carling Cup should be called the couldn't care less cup. What team really dreams of winning it as opposed to the league title? It seems like a meaningless tournament.
The carling cup isnt valued much, but it is growing in importance, this season you'll see City fielding teams valued at about 200million in order to clinch it.
It will always be the little cup though, people want the FA cup for the main action, so watch that instead if the importance of the cup is your problem.
About any team beating a giant, that happens in the NFL but what about championships? You missed the point, son.
I didnt miss the point at all, each team has a fair chance of winning the league and results can go in favour of any team as shown this weekend, its up to the teams to produce consistent results. If its the same clubs that tend to do this, wheres the problem?
And well, I personally like the format in the U.S. in which there is but ONE tournament to determine a champion and it's called the playoffs. Having the best record in the regular season doesn't mean crap when you play in a knockout format. The former NBA team Seattle SuperSonics would finish with the best record in the 1990s yet everyone knew that they'd stand no chance against the Michael Jordan-led Chicago Bulls.
This is the exact reason why cups arent as valued in Europe (apart from the european cup of course). In Europe we have more respect for a team that can play well over the course of a season, getting the most out of their players every week, and showing heart to win go to an away ground and win on a cold, windy and rainy Monday night in the middle of nowhere, rather than fluking a few good games and winning something.
I'm thinking that if the English league had a similar playoff system, Liverpool probably would have a few more league titles by now.
What has this got to do with anything? If the English league had a system of awarding Bolton 10 points for every draw they would have won a few more league titles by now?
See the aforementioned FA cup if you want an NFL-like system |
Last edited by scotty12347 on Sat Dec 12, 2009 5:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
