By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sports Discussion - Why football failed to catch on in certain countries

DonFerrari said:

Since the 90's São Paulo FC won 3 titles.

A league that will rarely have a team that isn't one of the big 3 win can't be said to be competitive (it can be said to be strong), I guess you mixed the info.

Also a big reason for UEFA team winning more of the recent titles have to do with these teams completely sucking dry a lot of players from all around the world and them CONMEBOL teams got weaker.

Still I'll find it hard to believe that Arsenal, A.C. Milan and Barcelona went with intention to lose to SPFC.

Yes, players moving to European teams from everywhere in the world, including South America, is why the European teams are stronger. Acknowledge that doesn't suddenly make the European teams not stronger.

Also, I'm not too knowledgeable on São Paulo's club world cup victories, but I'm pretty sure they won one over a team you didn't even mention. You're also calling the Champions League "EuroCup", so yeah, not a lot of reliability there.

Edit: and no, no team goes to a club world cup with the intent to lose, but it is undeniable fact that south american teams are usually far more hungry to win. As a (sort of) Brazilian who supports an English club, I know how people feel about it here, and it's quite obvious how they feel about it there. Here, when a team wins the Libertadores, everyone's thoughts seem to be divided on celebrating the trophy and celebrating the qualification for the club world cup. It's kind of a sad sight really, because the Libertadores is a much better and more relevant competition, but that's how it is. For European teams, winning the Champions League is the end-all be-all. When a team wins it, everyone involved celebrates only the trophy, no one even remotely thinks about the club world cup. Furthermore, they have even less reason to give a crap about the club world cup because it takes place midway through their season, which means they have a couple of extra matches and a hell of a long trip halfway through the season to worry about when they're usually just trying to get league games done - this is especially true for English teams, because besides not having a winter break, winter itself is usually the busiest period of the season, so by adding the club world cup in there it makes their whole schedule a mess.

Last edited by mZuzek - on 24 July 2018

Around the Network
mZuzek said:
pokoko said:

This idea that people who don't enjoy watching Football are somehow incapable of understanding the nuances of a sport is ridiculous.  All sports have nuances and the sports fan who understands the nuances of something like Baseball or Basketball can certainly understand the nuances of Football.  That's a very weak excuse.

Also, I'm puzzled by the "Football doesn't have breaks" thing.  That's simply not true.  There are stoppage breaks quite often--and, no, actual stoppage time is usually twice as much as the really confusing "official" stoppage time.  More than that, it's one of the games where it's pretty much safe to go into the kitchen and make a sandwich without anything much happening.  Most World Cup scores came from set pieces.

But you really shouldn't be judging the quality of the game based on a competition made up of 32 quickly put together teams with no cohesion or strategy. Seriously, while the World Cup might be exciting and it's obviously the biggest event, it's nowhere near as good as the top club competitions.

That's true, and it's what most people forget. Besides, I heard Russian fields had a mixture of grass and synthetic grass that made it harder to score from open play. You always get these small stuff that could make worldcup only watchers think the sport is like that, like 2010's ball that flew very strangely making it harder for keepers to predict trajectory. 



mZuzek said:
DonFerrari said:

Since the 90's São Paulo FC won 3 titles.

A league that will rarely have a team that isn't one of the big 3 win can't be said to be competitive (it can be said to be strong), I guess you mixed the info.

Also a big reason for UEFA team winning more of the recent titles have to do with these teams completely sucking dry a lot of players from all around the world and them CONMEBOL teams got weaker.

Still I'll find it hard to believe that Arsenal, A.C. Milan and Barcelona went with intention to lose to SPFC.

Yes, players moving to European teams from everywhere in the world, including South America, is why the European teams are stronger. Acknowledge that doesn't suddenly make the European teams not stronger.

Also, I'm not too knowledgeable on São Paulo's club world cup victories, but I'm pretty sure they won one over a team you didn't even mention. You're also calling the Champions League "EuroCup", so yeah, not a lot of reliability there.

Edit: and no, no team goes to a club world cup with the intent to lose, but it is undeniable fact that south american teams are usually far more hungry to win. As a (sort of) Brazilian who supports an English club, I know how people feel about it here, and it's quite obvious how they feel about it there. Here, when a team wins the Libertadores, everyone's thoughts seem to be divided on celebrating the trophy and celebrating the qualification for the club world cup. It's kind of a sad sight really, because the Libertadores is a much better and more relevant competition, but that's how it is. For European teams, winning the Champions League is the end-all be-all. When a team wins it, everyone involved celebrates only the trophy, no one even remotely thinks about the club world cup. Furthermore, they have even less reason to give a crap about the club world cup because it takes place midway through their season, which means they have a couple of extra matches and a hell of a long trip halfway through the season to worry about when they're usually just trying to get league games done - this is especially true for English teams, because besides not having a winter break, winter itself is usually the busiest period of the season, so by adding the club world cup in there it makes their whole schedule a mess.

Yeah, the club world cup (and intercontinental cup before that) really isn't prestigious at all here in Europe. It's no different from any other super cup to us (does Brazil have a super cup?). Winning is preferred obviously, but win or lose it really doesn't matter that much and every game in the rest of the season is more important.



mZuzek said:
DonFerrari said:

Since the 90's São Paulo FC won 3 titles.

A league that will rarely have a team that isn't one of the big 3 win can't be said to be competitive (it can be said to be strong), I guess you mixed the info.

Also a big reason for UEFA team winning more of the recent titles have to do with these teams completely sucking dry a lot of players from all around the world and them CONMEBOL teams got weaker.

Still I'll find it hard to believe that Arsenal, A.C. Milan and Barcelona went with intention to lose to SPFC.

Yes, players moving to European teams from everywhere in the world, including South America, is why the European teams are stronger. Acknowledge that doesn't suddenly make the European teams not stronger.

Also, I'm not too knowledgeable on São Paulo's club world cup victories, but I'm pretty sure they won one over a team you didn't even mention. You're also calling the Champions League "EuroCup", so yeah, not a lot of reliability there.

Edit: and no, no team goes to a club world cup with the intent to lose, but it is undeniable fact that south american teams are usually far more hungry to win. As a (sort of) Brazilian who supports an English club, I know how people feel about it here, and it's quite obvious how they feel about it there. Here, when a team wins the Libertadores, everyone's thoughts seem to be divided on celebrating the trophy and celebrating the qualification for the club world cup. It's kind of a sad sight really, because the Libertadores is a much better and more relevant competition, but that's how it is. For European teams, winning the Champions League is the end-all be-all. When a team wins it, everyone involved celebrates only the trophy, no one even remotely thinks about the club world cup. Furthermore, they have even less reason to give a crap about the club world cup because it takes place midway through their season, which means they have a couple of extra matches and a hell of a long trip halfway through the season to worry about when they're usually just trying to get league games done - this is especially true for English teams, because besides not having a winter break, winter itself is usually the busiest period of the season, so by adding the club world cup in there it makes their whole schedule a mess.

It's true. But I'd also say Brazilian and Argentinian championships are not that far behind european leagues. Certainly La Liga, Premier, Serie A, Bundesliga and Ligue 1 are better, but after that you could argue Brasileirao is better than Portuguese league or Edervise. 



mZuzek said:
DonFerrari said:

Since the 90's São Paulo FC won 3 titles.

A league that will rarely have a team that isn't one of the big 3 win can't be said to be competitive (it can be said to be strong), I guess you mixed the info.

Also a big reason for UEFA team winning more of the recent titles have to do with these teams completely sucking dry a lot of players from all around the world and them CONMEBOL teams got weaker.

Still I'll find it hard to believe that Arsenal, A.C. Milan and Barcelona went with intention to lose to SPFC.

Yes, players moving to European teams from everywhere in the world, including South America, is why the European teams are stronger. Acknowledge that doesn't suddenly make the European teams not stronger.

Also, I'm not too knowledgeable on São Paulo's club world cup victories, but I'm pretty sure they won one over a team you didn't even mention. You're also calling the Champions League "EuroCup", so yeah, not a lot of reliability there.

Edit: and no, no team goes to a club world cup with the intent to lose, but it is undeniable fact that south american teams are usually far more hungry to win. As a (sort of) Brazilian who supports an English club, I know how people feel about it here, and it's quite obvious how they feel about it there. Here, when a team wins the Libertadores, everyone's thoughts seem to be divided on celebrating the trophy and celebrating the qualification for the club world cup. It's kind of a sad sight really, because the Libertadores is a much better and more relevant competition, but that's how it is. For European teams, winning the Champions League is the end-all be-all. When a team wins it, everyone involved celebrates only the trophy, no one even remotely thinks about the club world cup. Furthermore, they have even less reason to give a crap about the club world cup because it takes place midway through their season, which means they have a couple of extra matches and a hell of a long trip halfway through the season to worry about when they're usually just trying to get league games done - this is especially true for English teams, because besides not having a winter break, winter itself is usually the busiest period of the season, so by adding the club world cup in there it makes their whole schedule a mess.

Doesn't make the teams stronger... but how many times have I said the championship is more competitive instead of stronger? And again when you go for a national league where a single or 3 teams dominate the level of the games also suffer because they are facing teams severely weaker than them/

Which of Arsenal, AC Milan or Barcelona doesn't exist? But yes I flipped the name of Arsenal instead of Liverpool (I have a friend that is fanatic for Arsenal and I got it mixed being both from England). But you could easily check the amount of titles won.

I wasn't naming UEFA as EuroCup. I was talking about the teams playing in a Euro Cup that anyone can reasonably understand is talking about the european championship for clubs. Yes it led to confusion, but you are streaching it.

You may be quite young or just forgetfull as well. But before 90's Brazilian teams and supporters also didn't care much about Libertadores and even the Intercontinental Cup. So using it to excuse European teams of winning the championship is silly. You already accepted they don't go to lose, if they did Barcelona wouldn't have won 6 times and they could simply forfeit the match. You can surely put the preparation being jeopardized because of the time of the match.

Ka-pi96 said:
mZuzek said:

Yes, players moving to European teams from everywhere in the world, including South America, is why the European teams are stronger. Acknowledge that doesn't suddenly make the European teams not stronger.

Also, I'm not too knowledgeable on São Paulo's club world cup victories, but I'm pretty sure they won one over a team you didn't even mention. You're also calling the Champions League "EuroCup", so yeah, not a lot of reliability there.

Edit: and no, no team goes to a club world cup with the intent to lose, but it is undeniable fact that south american teams are usually far more hungry to win. As a (sort of) Brazilian who supports an English club, I know how people feel about it here, and it's quite obvious how they feel about it there. Here, when a team wins the Libertadores, everyone's thoughts seem to be divided on celebrating the trophy and celebrating the qualification for the club world cup. It's kind of a sad sight really, because the Libertadores is a much better and more relevant competition, but that's how it is. For European teams, winning the Champions League is the end-all be-all. When a team wins it, everyone involved celebrates only the trophy, no one even remotely thinks about the club world cup. Furthermore, they have even less reason to give a crap about the club world cup because it takes place midway through their season, which means they have a couple of extra matches and a hell of a long trip halfway through the season to worry about when they're usually just trying to get league games done - this is especially true for English teams, because besides not having a winter break, winter itself is usually the busiest period of the season, so by adding the club world cup in there it makes their whole schedule a mess.

Yeah, the club world cup (and intercontinental cup before that) really isn't prestigious at all here in Europe. It's no different from any other super cup to us (does Brazil have a super cup?). Winning is preferred obviously, but win or lose it really doesn't matter that much and every game in the rest of the season is more important.

Intercontinental Cup and even the Libertadores (our equivalent to UEFA) weren't much prestigious here until the 90's. A lot of clubs gave more importance to the state cups (even smaller than the National championship in scale) to those. But Brazilian like to win, so if your team were participating you would cheer and try to win.

pastro243 said:
mZuzek said:

Yes, players moving to European teams from everywhere in the world, including South America, is why the European teams are stronger. Acknowledge that doesn't suddenly make the European teams not stronger.

Also, I'm not too knowledgeable on São Paulo's club world cup victories, but I'm pretty sure they won one over a team you didn't even mention. You're also calling the Champions League "EuroCup", so yeah, not a lot of reliability there.

Edit: and no, no team goes to a club world cup with the intent to lose, but it is undeniable fact that south american teams are usually far more hungry to win. As a (sort of) Brazilian who supports an English club, I know how people feel about it here, and it's quite obvious how they feel about it there. Here, when a team wins the Libertadores, everyone's thoughts seem to be divided on celebrating the trophy and celebrating the qualification for the club world cup. It's kind of a sad sight really, because the Libertadores is a much better and more relevant competition, but that's how it is. For European teams, winning the Champions League is the end-all be-all. When a team wins it, everyone involved celebrates only the trophy, no one even remotely thinks about the club world cup. Furthermore, they have even less reason to give a crap about the club world cup because it takes place midway through their season, which means they have a couple of extra matches and a hell of a long trip halfway through the season to worry about when they're usually just trying to get league games done - this is especially true for English teams, because besides not having a winter break, winter itself is usually the busiest period of the season, so by adding the club world cup in there it makes their whole schedule a mess.

It's true. But I'd also say Brazilian and Argentinian championships are not that far behind european leagues. Certainly La Liga, Premier, Serie A, Bundesliga and Ligue 1 are better, but after that you could argue Brasileirao is better than Portuguese league or Edervise. 

That guy is totally not understanding the point. I didn't say Brasileirão is better or stronger, I said it is much more competitive because of the amount of teams that have real chance to the title and because of that you'll have more good games since watching Real Madrid destroying half of the teams in it's league isn't that high level, and the matches between the weak teams also wouldn't be that strong.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:

Yeah, the club world cup (and intercontinental cup before that) really isn't prestigious at all here in Europe. It's no different from any other super cup to us (does Brazil have a super cup?)

Not as far as I know, the calendar is probably too full for that given every team plays state tournaments at the start of the year, and most first division teams play continental football too. For those teams, they're guaranteed at least 60 or 70 matches yearly if I'm not mistaken, so, yeah. State tournaments are a load of bullshit too, ideally they should only be played at lower divisions with the higher divisions being all national (as is the case in any decent country), but unfortunately it's rooted in Brazilian football tradition and it's hard to change people's minds on it.

pastro243 said:

It's true. But I'd also say Brazilian and Argentinian championships are not that far behind european leagues. Certainly La Liga, Premier, Serie A, Bundesliga and Ligue 1 are better, but after that you could argue Brasileirao is better than Portuguese league or Edervise. 

Argentine football is a complete mess, I'm not sure I would say that. Brazilian football is alright, probably better than the Eredivisie at the moment (given how bad it is), and possibly Portuguese league too, but it's no match for the top 5.



mZuzek said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Yeah, the club world cup (and intercontinental cup before that) really isn't prestigious at all here in Europe. It's no different from any other super cup to us (does Brazil have a super cup?)

Not as far as I know, the calendar is probably too full for that given every team plays state tournaments at the start of the year, and most first division teams play continental football too. For those teams, they're guaranteed at least 60 or 70 matches yearly if I'm not mistaken, so, yeah. State tournaments are a load of bullshit too, ideally they should only be played at lower divisions with the higher divisions being all national (as is the case in any decent country), but unfortunately it's rooted in Brazilian football tradition and it's hard to change people's minds on it.

I actually think the state tournaments are a pretty cool idea. My knowledge of them is limited to what I know from Football Manager, but still.

Wouldn't mind them in Europe actually. Although aside from there already being a load of games to play, European regions aren't really big enough for a regional competition to be worthwhile. It would even make sense in some countries, like a Catalan championship for Spain, but that would effectively just be giving Barcelona a free trophy every year so there's no point to actually doing it.



DonFerrari said:

That guy is totally not understanding the point. I didn't say Brasileirão is better or stronger, I said it is much more competitive because of the amount of teams that have real chance to the title and because of that you'll have more good games since watching Real Madrid destroying half of the teams in it's league isn't that high level, and the matches between the weak teams also wouldn't be that strong.

For all your insistence on Real Madrid, you'd find it hard to believe they finished 3rd place in Spain last season.

Yes, I get your point, but it doesn't mean watching a league is more interesting just because it's more competitive. To put it in crude terms, it's like trying to decide which out of 20 piles of shit smells better, versus trying to decide between 18 piles of shit and 2 flowers - yeah, the first one sure is harder to decide, but the second one at least offers some pleasure. I say crude terms because I'm not trying to say Brazilian football is a pile of shit, but, you get my point.

Regardless, the Spanish league isn't as one-sided as it's made out to be. Yes, the title itself will go to either Barcelona or Real Madrid 90% of the time, but there are many other good teams that can put up a fight too, if not for the title, at least for continental qualification, and occasionally (such as this year) finish ahead of one of those two. Of course, Atlético Madrid has been doing it consistently in recent years, but we've had other teams show up such as Valencia, Villareal, Málaga (UCL quarter-finalists a few years ago), and even Sevilla who won the Europa League 3 times in a row.

Of course, the English league isn't one-sided at all either. Besides Leicester City of all things winning the title a couple years ago, it is true there's been only 3 teams winning it in recent memory (Chelsea, Manchester United and City), but again, the title isn't everything. You can still appreciate the competitive football even if the stakes aren't the title itself (though for teams like Tottenham and Liverpool it often is), such as Champions League qualification (Arsenal), Europa League qualification (the likes of Southampton, Everton, Leicester, Watford, and more... these change quite often), top half of the table or avoiding relegation. The Premier League is usually filled with close battles throughout the table, so it's crazy to say it isn't very competitive. Yes, the Brazilian league is even crazier and more unpredictable, but it is so at the expense of high quality football, this has always been my point.

As for the other three big leagues, well, yeah. They're Bayern-land, Juventus-land and PSG-land respectively. No excusing those.



Ka-pi96 said:
mZuzek said:

Not as far as I know, the calendar is probably too full for that given every team plays state tournaments at the start of the year, and most first division teams play continental football too. For those teams, they're guaranteed at least 60 or 70 matches yearly if I'm not mistaken, so, yeah. State tournaments are a load of bullshit too, ideally they should only be played at lower divisions with the higher divisions being all national (as is the case in any decent country), but unfortunately it's rooted in Brazilian football tradition and it's hard to change people's minds on it.

I actually think the state tournaments are a pretty cool idea. My knowledge of them is limited to what I know from Football Manager, but still.

Wouldn't mind them in Europe actually. Although aside from there already being a load of games to play, European regions aren't really big enough for a regional competition to be worthwhile. It would even make sense in some countries, like a Catalan championship for Spain, but that would effectively just be giving Barcelona a free trophy every year so there's no point to actually doing it.

State championships give opportunity to teams from about 20-22 states to have a leveled play field.. because on the national level championship only teams from the states of São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro have good representation, then you have 2 from Minas Gerais, 2 from Rio Grande do Sul, 1 Paraná and 1 Santa Catarina...

mZuzek said:
DonFerrari said:

That guy is totally not understanding the point. I didn't say Brasileirão is better or stronger, I said it is much more competitive because of the amount of teams that have real chance to the title and because of that you'll have more good games since watching Real Madrid destroying half of the teams in it's league isn't that high level, and the matches between the weak teams also wouldn't be that strong.

For all your insistence on Real Madrid, you'd find it hard to believe they finished 3rd place in Spain last season.

Yes, I get your point, but it doesn't mean watching a league is more interesting just because it's more competitive. To put it in crude terms, it's like trying to decide which out of 20 piles of shit smells better, versus trying to decide between 18 piles of shit and 2 flowers - yeah, the first one sure is harder to decide, but the second one at least offers some pleasure. I say crude terms because I'm not trying to say Brazilian football is a pile of shit, but, you get my point.

Regardless, the Spanish league isn't as one-sided as it's made out to be. Yes, the title itself will go to either Barcelona or Real Madrid 90% of the time, but there are many other good teams that can put up a fight too, if not for the title, at least for continental qualification, and occasionally (such as this year) finish ahead of one of those two. Of course, Atlético Madrid has been doing it consistently in recent years, but we've had other teams show up such as Valencia, Villareal, Málaga (UCL quarter-finalists a few years ago), and even Sevilla who won the Europa League 3 times in a row.

Of course, the English league isn't one-sided at all either. Besides Leicester City of all things winning the title a couple years ago, it is true there's been only 3 teams winning it in recent memory (Chelsea, Manchester United and City), but again, the title isn't everything. You can still appreciate the competitive football even if the stakes aren't the title itself (though for teams like Tottenham and Liverpool it often is), such as Champions League qualification (Arsenal), Europa League qualification (the likes of Southampton, Everton, Leicester, Watford, and more... these change quite often), top half of the table or avoiding relegation. The Premier League is usually filled with close battles throughout the table, so it's crazy to say it isn't very competitive. Yes, the Brazilian league is even crazier and more unpredictable, but it is so at the expense of high quality football, this has always been my point.

As for the other three big leagues, well, yeah. They're Bayern-land, Juventus-land and PSG-land respectively. No excusing those.

No I don't find that hard to believe, Spain have usually 2 or 3 teams with chance to win a championship. Brazil championship it is easy to not know which among 10-15 teams at the start of a season will win the championship.

I get your point, but that was if the teams were bad. They aren't. The best 5 teams on the season have a good play among CONMEBOL and several times they can also win the world. So it isn't really 20 shitties in one example versus 18 shitty and 2 pretty flowers... would be more like 10 thurds, 5 grass and 5 flowers versus 17 shitty and 3 very pretty flowers.

Well I wouldn't say that one should watch for the mid-level championship competitiviness forgeting only 3 teams will likely get a chance to win, but if that is how you appreciate soccer I have no problem with it =]

I wouldn't say we don't have high quality soccer in Brazil league, but I can surely conceed that the best team in europe would be very high level compared to our high level. But my point in that was that you wouldn't see very high level when a very strong team like Barcelona plays a very weak team.

And from what I know I started this trend in the thread saying to the guy asking which league he should watch and pointing Brazilian would give him a lot of fun because of the competition =]

Brazilian nowadays are focussed a lot on Spanish, British and Italian leagues. And UEFA is making a lot of success over here as well.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

HomokHarcos said:

I find a brain for breakfast and he explained why football failed to catch in some countries.

Interestingly, many countries where it's not the most popular sport were formerly part of the British Empire:  United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India.

I'll summarize them.

Ireland: Due to Anglophobia, native sports such as curling and Gaelic football were promoted by Irish nationalists.
Canada: The cold climate lead to ice hockey becoming the dominant sport.
United States: Baseball was the first major professional sport, American football became the dominant sport and basketball became the urban sport of participation.
India: Cricket became popular in India due to consistent competition with commonwealth countries such as England and Australia from their test nation status.
Australia: Due to Australia's physical isolation, the native sport of Australian rules became popular. Cricket remained popular due to a similar reason as India.

I know he didn't explain Japan in the video, but baseball became the dominant sport there because Americans brought the sport there and baseball became the main game at university campuses.

I have to challenge the Cricket assumption from Australia's stand point cricket did not become popular because of commonwealth nations  and their test status  since pre ww2  International cricket was dominated by Australia v England Ashes tests  , modern  Ashes tests evolved from these 19th century English v Australia matches all the tours where private enterprises in that time with each player receiving money from the enterprise.  

Cricket in 19th  century Australia was popular enough for private parties to form Tours with the knowledge that they would redeem the tours costs and still make large profit's, these early  tests with England losing at home  lead to the burning of the bails and England v Australian tests becoming the Ashes  shows that the popularity predated International Test cricket that we know today and it comes back to down to  colonisers introducing and popularising games they brought with them.

My take on AFL is the foundation clubs are among  the oldest if not the oldest football clubs in the world predating association football.

Last edited by mjk45 - on 24 July 2018