I was just wondering what your opinions are for the best sporting cities in the world?
My list goes something like this:

1) London - (very close with Manchester in my opinion), has 3 of some of the world's biggest sports teams (Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham), Is the only city in the world to host the summer olympics 3 times, and has in my opinion the best venues for sport like Wembley (home of football), the new olympic stadium, the Emirates stadium, Wimbledon and unparralled transport...

2) Manchester, England - Manchester United is the world's biggest sports team by a considerable amount with 650 million fans worldwide, it is the world's largest sports team brand and the most valuble sports club in the world...Manchester City is one of the best teams in the world at the moment alongside United, and is one of the richest clubs in the world...Great venues such as Old Trafford, the Etihad etc.

3) New York - hub of American football, NY jets, and the Yankees, great venues like the yankee stadium, and the metlife (this is in New Jersey but oh well)

4) Either Berlin or Barcalona

5) Liverpool - Everton, LFC is one of the world's biggest clubs I say no more

Boston has to be right up there... Rabid support for their 4 professional teams, each one an almost yearly contender (The Celtics, Patriots, Bruins and Red Sox)... If I were a sports fan in the US, Beantown would be the city for me...

I gauge best by the degree to which sports are central to the culture. How many games people attend a year, whether sports are supported at all levels, passion, and participation in sports by the population. Having lots of pro teams holds some sway, but not much as most cities over 4 million have lots of pro teams. That's more a consequence of having a large population more than having sporting populations.

1. Melbourne: 9 well supported AFL clubs, but will get behind almost anything in large numbers.

2. Pittsburgh: massive support for all 4 of north America's big pro sports. I could have picked 20-30 other US cities to be honest.

3. London: Londoners support a huge variety of sports in large numbers and are very knowledgeable about most of them.

4. Berlin: Germans in general take sports very seriously from the recreational to the professional level. Once again, I could have chosen a number of German cities.

5. Chicago: I'll go with another US city. Despite having a huge amount of entertainment options, support for sport is just as intense and widespread as one might find in a city one tenth the size.

This isn't necessarily my opinion, but instead a biennial ranking compiled by SportBusiness International (http://www.sportbusiness.com/) based on numerous criteria.

The SportBusiness Ultimate Sport Cities Awards are the internationally recognised rankings of the world’s top sports hosts. Held every two years since 2006, the 2012 awards will be the fourth time the gong has been handed out. Cities are selected based on SportBusiness’ expert judging panel, all of whom have extensive knowledge of sports events and the destinations that host them.

As in the past, the shortlisted cities will be evaluated according to the size and volume of events they have hosted between 2008 and 2016 alongside a range of other criteria. To reflect the number of smaller cities aspiring to host major sports events, SportBusiness will once again use size bands enabling awards to be made to cities with populations of one million or below, between one million and 3.5 million, between 3.5 million and seven million and finally, seven million or above.

“There are some strong contenders to rival Melbourne this time around for title of Ultimate Sports City of 2012. By also including some ‘wild card’ entries this time around, we are thrilled to be able to give some smaller cities the chance to compete against the big boys in the major events marketplace.”

2012

1. London (491)
2. Melbourne (481)
3. Sydney (421)
4. New York (406)
5. Manchester (398)

Singapore (393)
Berlin (370)
Copenhagen (353)
Glasgow (344)
Paris (337)

Isn't Manchester hugely skewed towards 1 sport: soccer? I'd also give an edge to Melbourne over London. I don't think any city can touch Melbourne. It's in a class by itself. I'd also put about 100+ US cities ahead of NYC. New Yorkers have tons of other entertainment options and their attention is split. That's just not the case in most other US cities.

Good post Isaidso, though Pittsburgh doesn't have a professional basketball team (3 in total), it's a big-time sports-town for a mid-sized american city...

Good post Isaidso, though Pittsburgh doesn't have a professional basketball team (3 in total), it's a big-time sports-town for a mid-sized american city...

Thanks. They do massively support basketball at the high school and collegiate level though. To me that's even more impressive than support at the pro level as it means that their love of sport isn't dependent on the calibre of athlete.

In Canada, a good case could be made for people from Saskatchewan being the best. Regina? 30,000 to football in a city of 200,000! That's just amazing.

If Saskatoon were ever to get an NHL team, support would be similar I would think... Winnipeg is a very good Canadian sports town as well... Jets and Bombers sell out regularly...

If Saskatoon were ever to get an NHL team, support would be similar I would think... Winnipeg is a very good Canadian sports town as well... Jets and Bombers sell out regularly...

I agree with all of that. Winnipeg is a great sports town: they get good support for the Goldeyes too. In the east, I'd give the crown to Moncton. Both are great hotbeds of Canadian football.

Depends on how we measure it. If it's by sporting culture and fans' passion and support for the local teams that's one thing. If it's availability of top notch sports that's another. On the latter it's hard to compete with large American cities most of which have well supported teams in 5 different pro leagues, collegiate athletics and a bunch of miscellaneous events (golf, tennis, etc). The sheer amount of top class sports events on offer in a city like NYC is staggering... the 10 NYC area pro teams play a total of about 400 home games a year.

That said, I would agree that Melbourne has to be at the top of the list. So many AFL teams, cricket, rugby, soccer, Aussie Open, Formula One... For a city of just about 4 million, that's amazing. London and NYC would be next.

1) London - (very close with Manchester in my opinion), has 3 of some of the world's biggest sports teams (Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham), Is the only city in the world to host the summer olympics 3 times, and has in my opinion the best venues for sport like Wembley (home of football), the new olympic stadium, the Emirates stadium, Wimbledon and unparralled transport...

in addition to the most famous Test Cricket ground (+ one to spare)
the world's largest single purpose Rugby ground, a major marathon, multiple pro teams in each of football, rugby and cricket.
I think it is London by quite a distance, even trying to account for my national bias.

I think nominating either Manchester or Liverpool in the top 5 shows way too much cultural bias towards football however.

I think nominating either Manchester or Liverpool in the top 5 shows way too much cultural bias towards football however.

I agree. Being a great city for 1 sport is nowhere near good enough to qualify for a 'top city in the world for sports' list. How are Manchester and Liverpool for swimming, auto racing, cricket, rugby, athletics, tennis, etc.?

How are Manchester and Liverpool for swimming, auto racing, cricket, rugby, athletics, tennis, etc.?

Greater Manchester has a rugby league history, though not exactly in the city proper itself. Cricket has a long history there, but I wouldn't particularly associate the city with the sport.
Liverpool is probably the most monocultural city sports wise in the UK, along with Glasgow.

How about Buenos Aires? I don't know the city but Argentina is big in football, basketball, rugby, tennis and I would imagine activity is centered around the capital.

Good post Isaidso, though Pittsburgh doesn't have a professional basketball team (3 in total), it's a big-time sports-town for a mid-sized american city...
Pittsburgh is being called a mid-sized city in the US but Vancouver, that's the same size as Pittsburgh, is called a large city
:nuts:

London (the city contiguous, not the metro) has capacity for over 1 million spectators in its stadia, the large majority of them seated too.

I agree. Being a great city for 1 sport is nowhere near good enough to qualify for a 'top city in the world for sports' list. How are Manchester and Liverpool for swimming, auto racing, cricket, rugby, athletics, tennis, etc.?

Manchestert has an international cricket stadium which is also home to a top domestic team, has hosted European (and world?) swimming championships at the swimming centre, cycling championships at the velodrome, has top division rugby teams in both league and union. Horse and auto racing at tracks just outside the urban area though not at the top level...

Alright, I stand corrected.

It is funny how most posters in this thread thinks English speaking world = whole world. :nuts:

Post your list. I'll happily be shown up, but safe to say... most internationally recognised sports come from English speaking countries where they're most popular.

No other cities in the world can make EVERY sports teams profitable, except New York.

New York has to be number one.

No other cities in the world can make EVERY sports teams profitable, except New York.

New York has to be number one.

What the hell are you talking about?

I agree. Being a great city for 1 sport is nowhere near good enough to qualify for a 'top city in the world for sports' list. How are Manchester and Liverpool for swimming, auto racing, cricket, rugby, athletics, tennis, etc.?

The fact that Manchester has United massively puts it ahead...I'm sorry but these 'little' sports such as tennis, swimming etc are not in the league as football, Manchester united has 650 million fans - that's 10% of the world's population support Manchester united surely that puts M'cr up there?

No other cities in the world can make EVERY sports teams profitable, except New York.

New York has to be number one.

New York is definitely not number 1, It does not have a major football (soccer) team so it can not be number 1, as football is by far the worlds largest sport

Isn't Manchester hugely skewed towards 1 sport: soccer? I'd also give an edge to Melbourne over London. I don't think any city can touch Melbourne. It's in a class by itself. I'd also put about 100+ US cities ahead of NYC. New Yorkers have tons of other entertainment options and their attention is split. That's just not the case in most other US cities.

Yes, Manchester is hugely skewed towards soccer, but the huge presence is undeniable...Manchester utd is the biggest sports brand and team in the world, and M City is one of the best teams in the world at the moment...

How can you put Melbourne over London?? IMO London is absolutely untouchable, 3 of the world's largest soccer teams (Melbourne has no big soccer teams)
London olympics 3 times!? Wembley home of football, wimbledon etc I dont see how any city can match London.

Also people should not mention these small US cities that may seem sporty to them, but in reality don't make a dent on the world of sport.
US sports are only watched in the US, not worldwide and we are looking for the best worldwide cities

I agree. Being a great city for 1 sport is nowhere near good enough to qualify for a 'top city in the world for sports' list. How are Manchester and Liverpool for swimming, auto racing, cricket, rugby, athletics, tennis, etc.?

Who cares about those sports? The premier league has about 900 million viewers worldwde, that is probably 20x what those sports get together

The fact that Manchester has United massively puts it ahead...I'm sorry but these 'little' sports such as tennis, swimming etc are not in the league as football, Manchester united has 650 million fans - that's 10% of the world's population support Manchester united surely that puts M'cr up there?

And to cultures that have little interest in soccer, it does the complete opposite. Manchester barely registers when one thinks of sports on this side of the pond. What matters in ranking a city isn't the sport, but its devotion to sport. The thread did ask for good soccer cities.

If soccer's all a city has, you've just made an argument for it not being on the list. One thing remains a constant: the condescending arrogant nature of soccer people.

Manchestert has an international cricket stadium which is also home to a top domestic team, has hosted European (and world?) swimming championships at the swimming centre, cycling championships at the velodrome, has top division rugby teams in both league and union. Horse and auto racing at tracks just outside the urban area though not at the top level...

Is it Manchester or London at No.1?? I have seen many different unofficial rankings that place both Manchester and London at Number 1 so it's a close tie between the two cities.

And to cultures that have little interest in soccer, it does the complete opposite. Manchester barely registers when one thinks of sports on this side of the pond. What matters in ranking a city isn't the sport, but its devotion to sport.

You just made an argument for Manchester not being on the list.

Yes, but you are an exception, to the rest of the world Manchester is hugely significant...Just like all US cities are insignificant compared to the rest of the world, Manchester is not significant to a mere 300 million people...Manchester Utd has a bigger fanbase than double the population of the US, that is about 30x the amount of fans as the most popular US sports team

If soccer's all this city has, you've just made an argument for Manchester not being on the list. One thing remains a constant: the condescending arrogant nature of soccer people.

As pointed out earlier, soccer is not all M'cr has, and if we are talking about majorities of opinion here worldwide, then Manchester surely wins 1st place, however if we are talking about the best all round sports city then it is definitely London without a doubt

Well I went with Melbourne.

Well I went with Melbourne.

I'm asking for your reasons?? I really don't see how melbourne can touch London please explain?

well if it's just for football maybe buenos aires or sao paulo could be there, but i intrigue with singapore on the list

I'm asking for your reasons?? I really don't see how melbourne can touch London please explain?

No need to be so anglocentric or pissed off when people's opinions don't reflect your own.

I'm asking for your reasons?? I really don't see how melbourne can touch London please explain?

You sound like a clueless Brit who can't grasp that football is not the only massively followed sport in the world. Melbourne has 9 AFL teams that *average* roughly 40,000 per game (total average attendance of 200,000 a week). If thats not impressive enough for a city of less than 4 million, it is also home to 3 cricket teams, 2 rugby teams, 2 soccer teams, 1 basketball team, the AFL Grand Final, Aussie Open tennis, a Formula One race and Melbourne Cup. Here, read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne#Sport

Even for soccer, which I am guessing is only the 4th or 5th most popular sport in Australia, Melbourne turns out big crowds. Its top soccer team averages over 20,000 per game. Astonishing.

Does that answer your question?

well if it's just for football maybe buenos aires or sao paulo could be there, but i intrigue with singapore on the list

I agree, if we are gonna put such heavy emphasis on football Buenos Aires must be in the conversation. It's got as many football teams as London (if not more).

I'm guessing out of those alleged 600 million fans of Man U, outside of the UK 90% of them are bandwagon fans.

I would go London on this - the Heineken cup and other rugby teams like Saracens haven't even been mentioned, along with the Marathon, football and cricket, Wimbledon...it just ticks all the boxes.
I don't think though that just because football is the most popular sport in terms of numbers that it should determine which city is best for sport, but on the other hand, things like afl are of no interest to anyone except the locals, so that has to count for a lot less.

Some don't even deserve to be there what about Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, Mexico City? on of this cities must be the best one in Latin America probably Sao Paulo

Who cares about those sports? The premier league has about 900 million viewers worldwde, that is probably 20x what those sports get together

Well, many people care about those sports, and if you want to be an all-round sports city you need to cater for minority sports too imo, I think you are being a bit anglocentric.

I wouldn't say that Manchester is near the top globally though it does do well for a city of its size, it even used to have relatively well-supported ice hockey and basketball teams by UK standards where those are very minor sports.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Storm

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Giants

I'm asking for your reasons?? I really don't see how melbourne can touch London please explain?

Melbourne is a great sporting city, nothing wrong with choosing it at all...

400.000 people at the Berlin Fan Fest.
The largest outdoor football event on the globe.
Any questions ?

http://www.tagesspiegel.de/images/fanmeiledpa/6748814/2.jpg?format=format35
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/images/fanmeilereu2/6748826/2.jpg?format=format35
Copyright Tagesspiegel

http://dlisted.com/files/imagecache/photo-preview/files/galleries/wenn10166677.jpg

lol at that last photo

I would go London on this - the Heineken cup and other rugby teams like Saracens haven't even been mentioned, along with the Marathon, football and cricket, Wimbledon...it just ticks all the boxes.
I don't think though that just because football is the most popular sport in terms of numbers that it should determine which city is best for sport, but on the other hand, things like afl are of no interest to anyone except the locals, so that has to count for a lot less.

And yet the AFL averages bigger crowds than the English Premier League. Not bad for a country of 20 million people and a sport that nobody else cares about. What does that tell you about how sports obsessed Australia is?

And yet the AFL averages bigger crowds than the English Premier League. Not bad for a country of 20 million people and a sport that nobody else cares about. What does that tell you about how sports obsessed Australia is?

Premier league games are hosted in stadiums with a capacity of 50,000 usually, so it does not supprise me that there may be bigger crowds elsewhere, however, it is the worldwide prominance of the premier league that makes it the best, the AFL or NFL may have bigger crowds, but i'm sure the extra 800 million people who follow the EPL and watch it on TV more than make up for smaller crowds.

I agree, if we are gonna put such heavy emphasis on football Buenos Aires must be in the conversation. It's got as many football teams as London (if not more).

How many football teams is irrelevant, it is the size and popularity of the teams, any city could have hundreds of small teams that no one has heard of, the football teams in Buenos Aires are not close in size to the likes of Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham etc

If thats not impressive enough for a city of less than 4 million

Manchester's population is about 500,000 and it has the biggest sports team on the planet

How many football teams is irrelevant, it is the size and popularity of the teams, any city could have hundreds of small teams that no one has heard of, the football teams in Buenos Aires are not close in size to the likes of Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham etc

Yeah Buenos Aires has very small teams that no one has heard of... Boca Juniors (3 Intercontinental Cups), Independiente (2 Intercontinental Cups), River Plate (1 Intercontinental Cup), Estudiantes (1 Intercontinental Cup), Velez Sarsfield (1 Intercontinental Cup), Argentinos Juniors (of Maradona fame)... yeah small teams indeed.

How many Intercontinental Cups have the London teams won? (Let me know if you need help).

Again you are showing your ignorance.

Premier league games are hosted in stadiums with a capacity of 50,000 usually, so it does not supprise me that there may be bigger crowds elsewhere, however, it is the worldwide prominance of the premier league that makes it the best, the AFL or NFL may have bigger crowds, but i'm sure the extra 800 million people who follow the EPL and watch it on TV more than make up for smaller crowds.

So 20 years ago when no one gave a crap about English football its cities were sh*t for sports, but now that you have 500 million teenagers in Southeast Asia wearing ManUtd jerseys its got the best sports cities in the world.

Is that your logic?

Manchester's population is about 500,000 and it has the biggest sports team on the planet

But Greater Manchester is 2.5m and the metro area by US measurements probably more like 3.5m

If we are only counting the city itself then we can't count Man U as they are based in Trafford not Manchester ;)

Manchester's population is about 500,000 and it has the biggest sports team on the planet

Yes it does. But that doesn't make it the best or even one of the best sport cities in the world. It's about a lot more than having one successful team.

Yes it does. But that doesn't make it the best or even one of the best sport cities in the world. It's about a lot more than having one successful team.

Manchester does not have 1 sucessful team, it has 2! Manchester city is probably a better team than United!

So 20 years ago when no one gave a crap about English football its cities were sh*t for sports, but now that you have 500 million teenagers in Southeast Asia wearing ManUtd jerseys its got the best sports cities in the world.

Is that your logic?

English football has always been the no1 sport, even 20 years ago it had more fans and followers than any other league in the world, and it still does...Football is not my only argument! London is the worlds only city to host the olympic games 3 times, and it is a major Rugby city to (Twickenham)

Yeah Buenos Aires has very small teams that no one has heard of... Boca Juniors (3 Intercontinental Cups), Independiente (2 Intercontinental Cups), River Plate (1 Intercontinental Cup), Estudiantes (1 Intercontinental Cup), Velez Sarsfield (1 Intercontinental Cup), Argentinos Juniors (of Maradona fame)... yeah small teams indeed.

How many Intercontinental Cups have the London teams won? (Let me know if you need help).

Again you are showing your ignorance.

London teams don't compete for intercontinental cups...I'm sorry, for the hard of understanding I will explain this: The Champions league is the world's most prestigious soccer cup, and who won it this year? Chelsea?? Yeah, lets compare those Buenos Aires teams with London teams in terms of fans, money and ability of the players, I would bet my bottom dollar the London teams are considerably ahead, thus them being the biggest teams in the world with the exception of Manchester Utd

London or Melbourne for me, though in this Olympic year London edges it (and the SportBusiness awards agree I see).

To be frank though, that a city the size of Melbourne can compete with London is remarkable. Would love to see the next Aussie Olympics there!

Its very hard to distinguish the top 5 sports cities in the world as every country has different sports they love and hate.

My top 5 Sports Markets for the US with a brief description..

1) Los Angeles - Four of the most iconic brands in sports history with the Lakers, Dodgers, USC and UCLA. The flagship MLS team in the Galaxy, the Stanley Cup Champion LA Kings, and multiple other franchises that all have great attendance (other than Chivas and the Ducks, which are in the middle of the pack.) The birthplace of snowboarding, skating, and extreme sports. An environment that allows for sports to be played every day of the year. UCLA and USC are numbers 1 and 3 in terms of the number of NCAA championships won. UCLA has more by its self than almost every other conference. If Los Angeles was its own country, it would have the second most Olympic medals... only behind the USA. Pete Sampras and Tiger Woods are from the LA area... Hosted 2 profitable Olympics with the 84 Olympics pretty much saving the Olympics. More NBA, MLB and NFL players are from the LA area than any other area in the US. Iconic Venues such as the Colosseum, Rose Bowl, Dodger Stadium and Staples Center. Only city in the US with Champions in all of the following: NHL (2), MLB (7), NBA(16), NFL(2), MLS(3), WNBA(2), NCAAF(12), NCAAB(11)

2) Boston - As much as i hate Boston area teams, you cant dismiss the greatness that has come out of that city in regards to sports. The Celtics and Red Sox are ingrained in US Sports History with multiple championship and loads of great players, and the Patriots have been extremely successful this past decade. Also, the teams have been very successful in the recent past, with championships in all 4 of the major US Sports in the last 5 years. Add in the passion, historic venues such as Fenway, rabid support and you get a great sports city.

3) NYC - You have 10 pro teams to choose from, as well as several successful sports universities. The Yankees are a top 5 sports brand in all of the world and not to mention that they have more history than about 20 other MLB teams combined. The beauty of NYC sports is that the success has been spread around the city with all its teams enjoying success at one point. The city also hosts multiple NCAA basketball tournaments and championships, has plenty of players in the leagues from the city and most of the teams enjoy tremendous support. It also has a great mix of new and historic venues.

4) Philadelphia
5) Chicago

Honorable Mention - San Francisco

I'm asking for your reasons?? I really don't see how melbourne can touch London please explain?

London has 3 times the population of Melbourne. When London gets 27 top flight soccer teams, 3 Formula One races, and 3 Grand Slam tennis tournaments it will start getting to Melbourne's level, but still have a ways to go to rival it when it comes to sports.

To be frank though, that a city the size of Melbourne can compete with London is remarkable. Would love to see the next Aussie Olympics there!

A country the size of Canada getting the summer Olympics in 2024 would be unprecedented in the modern era according to you because we had them in 1976, but smaller Australia had it in 1956, 2000, and you're already itching for another one?

London teams don't compete for intercontinental cups...I'm sorry, for the hard of understanding I will explain this: The Champions league is the world's most prestigious soccer cup, and who won it this year? Chelsea?? Yeah, lets compare those Buenos Aires teams with London teams in terms of fans, money and ability of the players, I would bet my bottom dollar the London teams are considerably ahead, thus them being the biggest teams in the world with the exception of Manchester Utd

"intercontinental cups"? It's called the Intercontinental Cup. Do you know what it is? London teams don't compete for it because they have never been good enough to qualify for it as they've never won the Champions League (until this year). Whereas Buenos Aires teams have won the South American version of champions league almost 20 times. You can argue that European Champions League is more difficult to win, and that may be true, but that's not the point. The point is that "small teams" don't win competitions of that caliber and then go on to beat the best European teams.

All that is to say that you shouldn't be judging who is a small team and big team when you clearly know very little about sports outside your own shores.

London has 3 times the population of Melbourne. When London gets 27 top flight soccer teams, 3 Formula One races, and 3 Grand Slam tennis tournaments it will start getting to Melbourne's level, but still have a ways to go to rival it when it comes to sports.

Ha... Not to mention 9 cricket teams, 6 rugby teams, 3 basketball teams etc... all getting the kind of crowds that most English teams in any sport not called football can only dream about.

Nothing against London though. It is a terrific sports town and I would have no problem placing it 2 or 3 in the world. Melbourne is tough to beat though.

It is pretty hard for the US and Australian cities to compete in sports on a global scale as these regions don´t have any relations to the worlds most popular and most performed sport, that being football (soccer).

The US at least has one relevant team sport, basketball, which is globally important and where the league and the athletes are among the most talented. The other being ice hockey.

Australia can compete in annual events like Formula One and the Tennis Grand Slam in Melbourne.

Berlin has several unique characteristics as a sport city. It´s Olympic stadium was the venue for both, the Olympics and the World Cup final, the 2 most important sport events on an international level.

It frequently draws several hundredthousands, all in all millions of spectators to one place during Euro/ World Cup Championships. The largest sport related crowd gathering in history.

It is home to the fastest and one of the largest annual marathons. As the homebase for most of the German Olympic athletes it frequently collects gold medals. Professional teams of Europes most watched team sports (football, ice hockey, basketball, handball, volleyball) are based in Berlin.

"intercontinental cups"? It's called the Intercontinental Cup. Do you know what it is? London teams don't compete for it because they have never been good enough to qualify for it as they've never won the Champions League (until this year). Whereas Buenos Aires teams have won the South American version of champions league almost 20 times. You can argue that European Champions League is more difficult to win, and that may be true, but that's not the point. The point is that "small teams" don't win competitions of that caliber and then go on to beat the best European teams.

All that is to say that you shouldn't be judging who is a small team and big team when you clearly know very little about sports outside your own shores.

The London teams are the biggest in terms of popularity, that is my argument, these South American teams are not to popular.
Even more so, the Manchester teams are the best in the world, Look at any top 10 football list and either Barca or Man U is no one, followed by Chelsea somewhere in the top 5.

London has 3 times the population of Melbourne. When London gets 27 top flight soccer teams, 3 Formula One races, and 3 Grand Slam tennis tournaments it will start getting to Melbourne's level, but still have a ways to go to rival it when it comes to sports.

Population is irrelevant, I'm looking for best sporting cities, not best sporting cities per person etc...Melbourne is up there, but what I'm saying is what world class teams does Melbourne have that are recognised worldwide?
My main argument is size in terms of fans worldwide, in which you can not argue that London and Manchester are the top

Ha... Not to mention 9 cricket teams, 6 rugby teams, 3 basketball teams etc... all getting the kind of crowds that most English teams in any sport not called football can only dream about.

Nothing against London though. It is a terrific sports town and I would have no problem placing it 2 or 3 in the world. Melbourne is tough to beat though.

You seem to be obsessed with crowds, the crowd size is only the amount of people the stadium can hold! If you look at the statistics of amount of Tv viewers then it is undeniable that the EPL dominantes the next most popular sport 10 fold.

Your argument is that England is dominated by football, may I remind you that London is the only city to host the olympics 3 times, the English invented Rugby (named after the town rugby), Considering our size and population, we do pretty well in the Olympic games...

I know Melbourne is a great city for sports, and I don't want to sound ignorant, I am more curious, who does Melbourne have that rivals Chelsea, Tottenham, Arsenal etc? Not to mention London's history - Wembley is the home of football, if it wasn't for London soccer would not be the no1 sport today, it was the FA who made it what it is.

IMO London has the best venues, Wembley is the best football stadium in the world in terms of engineering and infrastructure, and Twickenham is the top venue for Rugby, Wimbledon is the top venue for Tennis etc, London seems to dominate for the majority of sports, Olympics included.

Not to mention as somebody posted earlier an official ranking places London as no1 with Melbourne second

an official ranking

Which has its base in ...guess what... London.

So a London based institute calls London to be on top. :lol:

Which has its base in ...guess what... London.

So a London based institute calls London to be on top. :lol:

I had no idea it was based in London:nuts:

I don't think the amount of fans United has is registering for some people..."So and so city has 27 teams that each have a few million fans each, 650 MILLION FANS, for 1 Manchester team, that's not to mention Manchester city that also has a good 50 million odd fans and is probably the strongest team in the world at the moment in terms of player ability (except for maybe Barca)

Might have something to do with the fact the number of fans around the world have nothing to do with the city?

Population is irrelevant, I'm looking for best sporting cities, not best sporting cities per person etc...Melbourne is up there, but what I'm saying is what world class teams does Melbourne have that are recognised worldwide?
My main argument is size in terms of fans worldwide, in which you can not argue that London and Manchester are the top

Your logic is completely flawed here. You're not even answering your own question, just bending the rules to make sure London comes out on top.

Heaven forbid London not be the biggest and the best. If you're going to start a thread simply looking for praise for London and Manchester, don't be surprised when people start giving you answers you don't like.

Obviously City vs City.