BF2S Forums Why are american sports so shit?

What does the management do that you dont like in these sports?

JG1567JG wrote:

Not ment to flame anybody but those of you that pay attention to the world cup and soccer about how many players can you name from your team and other teams.  I could probably name at least 100 NFL players just off the top of my head but that is the sport that I like to follow.  I'm just curious as to weather it is the sport of soccer/football that you like or the national rivalry that goes on when two teams play.


Edit--->The commercials and timeouts give you time to check on the other games going on.

No it's the game of football I like.  Our main rivalries are our neighbours (n.i, wales, scots) and Germany (for obvious reasons) and although there is a hightened sense of excitement when we play these teams I ma just has happy watching us play Lithuania. 

JG1567JG here are some good examples of great play (there are goals too)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-bWsOK- … ronaldinho

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

3 out of six is half of the World, not quite all over the World.

I notice you declined to quote what I said about a majority of the world's population.  Anyway, you are splitting hairs.  The point is that it is very widely played outside of the US, and that really isn't debatable.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

whittsend wrote:

I interpreted this:

The Economist wrote:

The co-operative arrangements also make costs stable and predictable. Mr Vrooman reckons that even if another American sports league, or a big European football league, were to have similar cashflows to the NFL, the American league's teams would still be 50-60% more valuable because their business is so much less risky.

To be referring to European Soccer leagues.  This is a British journal, so Football=Soccer.  The clear implication of this statement is that the cashflow of the NFL is higher than other American sports and European Football leagues.  Seems simple to me.

It says if "A" European Football league were to compete, singular.  The Premiership, La Liga, Serie A and The Bundesliga combined would dwarf the NHL, and tha's not mentioning the rest of the other big non-European leagues and other smaller Euro leagues.

So what you are saying is that if you combined every Soccer league in the world they would make more money than the NFL?  Which means what?  That the rest of the world combined manages to just edge past one sports league in the US?  I'm sure that would tickle the NFL mightily.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

This just shows your ignorance to economics and maths.  The reason it costs more to advertise per second with the Superbowl is because it reaches a massive number of rich Americans whereas the World Cup has to cater for markets of many economic climates.  America is the richest country in the world remember!

Revenue generation is based making the most you can.  They can make a lot.  I don't see how that changes anything.  In any case, I'm sure you will find that most of the money the World Cup will generate comes from wealthy Europeans.  It really doesn't matter, the 'where's' of it aren't at issue.
Edit: What I wrote here was argumentative, so I changed it.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Secondly, you're wrong and I can prove it.  Read this article here and then it's time for a small maths test...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business … 39,00.html

Okay, so the world cup will generate 1 billion dollars in advertising revenue, the Superbowel gets $2 millions per 30 secs of advertising. So,

1,000,000,000 divided by 2,000,000 = 500...times 30 secs = 15,000 sec = 250mins = 4.2 hours.

So the Superbowl would have to sell 4.2 hours of advertising to generate the same amount as the Wotld Cup.  Somehow, I don't think so.......

Just out of curiosity, how many hours will it take the World Cup to generate what the Superbowl could generate in 4.2 hours?

The Observer wrote:

ZenithOptimedia says the amount spent by the world's leading companies on TV commercials, press advertisements and outdoor advertising will break the $1bn barrier for the first time....

The Olympics remains the world's biggest sporting event in terms of advertising spend, mainly because it attracts large television audiences in America. Despite global popularity, football is still a minority sport in the world's largest advertising market.

Now, $1Bn is a lot of money, and it might very well be that, over the whole month of the contest, the World Cup may generate more revenue than the Superbowl (I can't be sure, I haven't found bottom line figures for either one).  Nevertheless, there are a few important points one must to consider:  The whole $1Bn isn't all revenue for the world cup.  To be fair, neither is the $2M/30s all revenue for the NFL.  Even so, the World Cup is a month long contest with many games, while the Superbowl is one game.  Pro rate the income in any way you care to, and it is clear that the Superbowl is huge.  Given the amount of money it generates in ONE GAME I'd say it is still easily in the running for the biggest sport event.  That is, I concede, a matter of opinion at this point (we are never going to agree on how to measure it) but the fact that it is even in serious contention against an event consisting of, for all intents and purposes, the entire world, shows just how big it is.

I don't think you are taking the revenue generated by the NFL seriously.  This Time article is titled 'The American Cash Machine.'  And note that all the money they talk about is revenue which goes straight to the NFL.

http://www.time.com/time/insidebiz/article/0,9171,1009631-2,00.html  wrote:

The real winner, as it is every Sunday, is the National Football League. "We compete against each other for three hours a week," says Robert Kraft, owner of the defending-champion Patriots, speaking of his gridiron adversaries. "Otherwise we have aligned interests."

Exquisitely aligned, in fact. Call it the m formation, as in money. In a world of $100 million players, $1 billion franchises and $10 billion television contracts, the scale of the sports industry has grown dramatically in just the past decade. More than any other league, the NFL has been able to capture that rising value while profitably using technology like the Web to reach fans in new ways...

Last month the NFL renewed two network TV dealswith CBS, a division of Viacom, and with Fox, a division of News Corp.that will guarantee $8 billion for broadcast rights from 2006 to 2011. Another News Corp sibling, DirecTV, is paying $3.5 billion for satellite rights through 2010. There are still cable and Monday Night Football deals to be concluded. Finalizing them will mean that 52% of the league's revenues are in the bag. And that's just the television money. The league sells about 94% of its available seats, and many teams have waiting lists for season tickets. There are long-term naming rights to stadiums and signage and luxury-box deals. Merchandise? About $3 billion at retail annually.

If you extrapolate that out, assuming that the cable and Monday night deal is worth about $2.5B/yr combined, we are talking on the order of $9Bn in revenues ANNUALLY.  That's a hell of a lot of cash.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-06-02 11:38:27)

And to whoever -Karma'd me for this post:

whittsend wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Someone gave me -1 saying 'have I ever been to the US and played these sports..no..so stfu'

That is unfortunate...people shouldn't give - karma because they disagree with the opinions of others.  Having said that...what the hell did you expect?  You come in here spouting blatant anti-american opinions, and then you are surprised when someone gets pissed off?  Get real.

That's just lame.  The fact that you wouldn't even comment or identify yourself is even more lame.

You forgot bury the bone and pocket pool!!!!

and please do get started on American cars, keeping in mind that Mick's AC Cobra is actually an AC Ace given steroids by Aston-Martin's top driver, Carroll Shelby, an American. Racing is a sporting phenomena in the US. People do it legally on tracks in their spare time. Not to say I don't like those awesome Iceland uphill rockclimbing, and those Aussie Falcons (new and classic) are the Shizznit. You'll be hard pressed to find a car manufactured anywhere without an American influence in it's design, save a few like the Nissan Skyline or the TVR Cerbera. A small example of this is the fact that Ford owns; Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, MAZDA, VOLVO, JAGUAR, ASTON-MARTIN, AND ROVER.


can I borrow the cluebat?

Any car on the road has an American Influence since we invented the wheel.
That neanderthall man was American you know.    J/K

Last edited by JG1567JG (2006-06-02 11:34:28)

In addition to inventing air with which to combust the fuel.

JudgeDredd1824 wrote:

JG1567JG wrote:

Any car on the road has an American Influence since we invented the wheel.  J/K

And not forgetting "drive by shooting"...

Easy JudgeDredd thats for a different thread and I dont want to get started.

JudgeDredd1824 wrote:

JG1567JG wrote:

JudgeDredd1824 wrote:

And not forgetting "drive by shooting"...

Easy JudgeDredd thats for a different thread and I dont want to get started.

LOL........

Course you do know that drive-by's are only possible coz of the US's fascination with automatic transmissions (only one hand needed to drive). Us stone-age Brits prefer a "stick-shift" as you call 'em (need both hands hence no drive-by's).
Maybe we should introduce legislation to outlaw auto-trannies, might reduce the drive-by problems

So we play our own sports, what's it to you?

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Well, by at this point I think we all know that the OP based that post on opinion rather than fact.

RicardoBlanco wrote:

e.g american football, baseball, basketball (to a lesser extent).

They are played almost solely in the US and the rest of the world has very little interest. European sports on the other hand, e.g Football, Rugby, Cricket are played by million all over the world.

Is this proof that american sports are indeed SHIT or are we missing something?

*I'd like to amend the title of this topic to read 'Are american sports shit?'. The current one is a little too much of a statement and this was unfair. Unfortunately it won't let me.

Hey you stupid assclown, let me ask you a question........

What is the USA's FIFA world  ranking?  5th.......in the whole god damn world.  What is Englands?  10th....... I guess that means the we are better playing "your" sport than you are.  Its gotta hurt you to know that soccer is a distant 4th in popularity over here, but yet we still are pumping out quality players (does Casey Keller and Tim Howard ring a bell?), and have the MLS (although not the best quality soccer), and we can still grab a #5 ranking in the world. Go brush your teeth buddy.

I cant believe you would post this gibberish.  How much money, revenue wise, does cricket make worldwide versus NFL Football?  I would venture that the SuperBowl, which boasts being televised to over 700 million homes, makes quite a bit more than the "Limey Bloke Cricket Championships".  You wanna know why alot of countries play "your" sports?  Look in the history books at how many countries have been "colonized" by England over the last 400 years.  Do you think India would've ever played cricket if you didnt set up shop over there?  NO!!!!  How about South Africa????? NO!!!!  Carribean Islands??????  NO!!!!!!

How many places has the USA colonized?  Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands.  Thats why our sports isnt played in countries throughout the world.  We didnt Occupy lesser countries for 200-300 years and impose our sports on them.