daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Stadiums and Sport Arenas

Stadiums and Sport Arenas » Completed | Under Construction | Proposed | Demolished



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Which bid should host the FIFA World Cup 2018 / 2022?
Australia - 2018 255 12.32%
Belgium / Netherlands - 2018 247 11.94%
England - 2018 538 26.00%
Indonesia - 2018 68 3.29%
Japan - 2018 35 1.69%
Mexico - 2018 105 5.07%
Qatar - 2018 78 3.77%
Russia - 2018 279 13.48%
South Korea - 2018 16 0.77%
Spain / Portugal - 2018 267 12.90%
USA - 2018 116 5.61%
Australia - 2022 378 18.27%
Belgium / Netherlands - 2022 111 5.36%
England - 2022 114 5.51%
Indonesia - 2022 122 5.90%
Japan - 2022 37 1.79%
Mexico - 2022 149 7.20%
Qatar - 2022 153 7.39%
Russia - 2022 148 7.15%
South Korea - 2022 23 1.11%
Spain / Portugal - 2022 184 8.89%
USA - 2022 249 12.03%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 2069. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools
Old December 22nd, 2009, 02:52 PM   #5461
woozoo
Registered User
 
woozoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
Likes (Received): 185

Quote:
Originally Posted by kerouac1848 View Post
Ah come on! You're not comparing like with like and you have to factor in the important non-footballing issues before making statement's like that.

Asia is a vastly wealthier continent than Africa. If you are just talking about the Eastern countries (which appears to be the case) this is even more apparent. There is no Japan or South Korea in Africa. GDP per capita in nations such as Nigeria, Ghana and the Ivory Coast is about $2600, $1200 and $1500 respectively. About a fifth of African countries have a GDP per capita of less than a $1000. Compare this to Singapore ($50,000), Malaysia ($13,400) and Thailand ($8,000). I chose these countries because I believe they are all places where football is passionately followed (apologies if that is not the case!)
Well your comparing the wealthiest Asian countries with the poorest African ones. Indonesia and Vietnam have a GDP of about US$3,900 and US$2,700 respectively.
You have countries in Africa like Botswana, Angola and Namibia with pcGDPS of US$14,000, $6,000, $6,000. You cant just ignore South Africa like some outlier. Both South Africa and Angola have significant populations and comparable per capita GDP to South East Asian countries (which bigbossman was focusing on), yet have very poorly attended football leagues.

Vietnam and Indonesia both have leagues which average about 10,000 per game. The inhabitants are not significantly wealthier than Nigerians but turn out to matches. I would say that many Indonesians and Vietnamese live in similar conditions to those living in much of West and Southern Africa. It seems the Thai league averages around 4-5,000.

Viet and Indo league attendance (sorry hard to read):
Quote:
V-League 2009 attendance summary, datas from VFF official site
update to May 17 round 13,
Total 959,500, Season Average 10,656, average attendance rate 53.04%


Code:
Club Avg att Capacity att rate
XM Hai Phong 25,333 30,000 84.44%
SHB Da Nang 22,429 30,000 74.76%
Becamex Binh Duong 18,000 20,000 90.00%
TĐCS Dong Thap 14,000 20,000 70.00%
---------------------------------------Average 10,656
Dong Tam Long An 10,286 15,000 68.57%
SLNA 10,000 12,000 83.33%
Khatoco Khanh Hoa 9,500 25,000 38.00%
The Cong 8,417 22,000 38.26%
GM Mikado Nam Dinh 7,333 30,000 24.44%
XMCT Thanh Hoa 7,167 14,000 50.98%
TP HCM 5,917 25,000 23.67%
T&T Ha Noi 5,286 22,500 23.49%
Military Zone 4 4,857 12,000 40.48%
HAGL 4,813 15,000 32.09%IPL-PGC 2008/2009 sttendance summary
Total: 2,803,000 Average: 9,160 Average attendance rate: 34.89%


Code:
Club Avg att Capacity att rate
Perspolis TEH 38,294 90,000 42.55%
Esteghlal TEH 36,176 90,000 40.20%
------------------------------------------------Average 9,160
Bargh SHZ 7,647 20,000 38.24%
Foolad KHU 7,588 30,000 25.29%
Mes KRM 7,235 15,000 48.23%
Payam KHO 6,941 35,000 19.83%
Malavan ANZ 6,824 20,000 34.12%
Sepahan ESF 6,235 75,000 8.31%
Moghavemat SHZ 5,941 20,000 29.71%
Abumoslem MSH 5,588 35,000 15.97%
Esteghlal AHV 5,529 30,000 18.43%
Saba QOM 5,250 15,000 35.00%
Saipa KRJ 5,235 15,000 34.90%
Rahahan RAY 4,941 15,000 32.94%
Zobahan ESF 4,824 25,000 19.30%
Paykan GHZ 4,188 5,000 83.76%
Pegah RST 4,063 15,000 27.09%
Paas HMD 3,706 5,000 74.12%
Now its pretty much impossible to find attendance at sub Sahara African leagues, but I would challenge anyone to argue that any country from that region has attendance equal or higher to better performing South East Asian leagues. Lets not consider South Korea or Japan as they are wealthy so not comparable. Ive seen lists of leagues with attendance of 5,000 or higher, and Sub Saharan leagus do not feature on the list apart from South Africa.
If someone (MoRush maybe) could post reliable figures for South African league attendance I would much appreciate. The figures Ive found vary wildly, from 2,000 to 10,000. Looking at youtube videos the only game that seems to get any sort of crowd is Kaizer chiefs vs Orland Pirates - a good crowd might I add.

Quote:
But this doesn't really tell the whole picture. South Africa is Sub-Saharan Africa's most developed country (using a wide measurement of development). It is on the same level as somewhere like Brazil in terms of economic and social development. However, wealth is concentrated in the hands of the relatively few which skews its statistics. The reason why the most popular sport (football) gets less crowds than Rugby (by and large) is because football is followed by the masses who are mainly poor. How can you expect people who live in Townships to go and regularly watch live games? It’s not just money in many cases people don't have the time! It is not a surprise that the best supported leagues in Asia belong to Japan, China, South Korea and Australia; the wealthiest and most developed nations in the region (although Argentina, Mexico and Egypt [Africa!] all boast higher figures). Similarly, Egypt and South Africa are the only nations that I can find which have decent average attendances for their football leagues, again countries which are at the higher end of their region’s development table.
I wasn't talking about North African attendances, which are a different kettle of fish. North Africans generally aren't as passionate EPL supprters either.



Quote:
As such it is silly to expect (most) African leagues to be on the same level as (most) East Asian leagues. The latter should look at Latin American countries that are on a similarly level of development. Despite having their best players taken from their countries at a young age, the Brazilian, Argentine and Mexican leagues boost respectable average attendances for their leagues. No Asian country on a similar socio-economic development level compares.
When Liverpool played the Thai national team in a friendly last summer in Thailand, I read that more people in the stadium were supporting Liverpool than their own national team! There was even an end that was meant to resemble the Kop. If this is actually true it tells me that something is wrong with the game in some parts of Asia. I don’t think you would ever get that anywhere in Africa.
Its a bit hard to compare Asian countries with South American ones in terms of football. South America has had a long history regarding football, where as its a relatively new phenomenon in Asia. Most of the professional leagues were started as recently as the 80s. Latin American teams have had a century or at least decades to develop a fanbase.

I went to a Australia vs ManUTD friendly match at Melbourne some years ago. I think most of the people were wearing ManUTD scarves, ******y devil horns or carrying red tridents. Does that mean they dont support their national team? No. It was a friendly match and there was a certain amount of nevelty of watching a team you like that you will most likely never see again.
woozoo está en línea ahora  

Sponsored Links
Old December 22nd, 2009, 04:25 PM   #5462
woozoo
Registered User
 
woozoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
Likes (Received): 185

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
well why did you get all ancy because I only "picked" on asians"2 then!
Im ancy about what seems like your double standards regarding Asian and African fans.

Quote:
Yeah because Asian fans (ones from the South East particular) contribute more unnecessary money into the English game than African fans, doy!
I agree the money is unnecessary. So is Australian American, Chinese, Korean, Japanese and middle East money. Wouldn't it make more sense to voice your displeasure at those fans?
Either way, what your gonna stop people in those countries watching the league? Theres obviously massive demand why should they miss out?


Quote:
generally better attended have you got evidence to back that up? Thought not...
Nope. Refer to my post above. What are the best supported Sub Saharan African leagues you know of? Your family is from Western Africa is it not, what are the attendances there, as far as you know anecdotally?

Quote:
This isn't globalisation though is it, or not positive globalisation. It's sporting imperialism, Europe stealing the wealth and resources (football players) of the rest of the world, like the 19th century?
I guess some say the same about globalisation

I agree with you on this to a degree.
So what do you do? Put in place bans/limits/quotas on foreing players? Maybe that is the answer. I wouldn't necessarily be against that, but dont quote me on that one.
It seems very restrictive and somewhat unnatural though.
One negative of this would be the inhibitian of development of players from smaller countries. Right now if your a quality player you can play in the EPL and develop into a true star. Would Eusebio ever develop into the player he was if he stayed in Mozambique?

Quote:
You can argue that the rest of the world get to watch the best players on television in return, but I hope that you know that Football (like most sports) is best witnessed in the flesh thus you are giving people something inferior for their money and secondly football isn't about dream teams as it creates something ugly, elitest and pompous.

You can call me an idealist but there are a lot of us!
Oh I agree watching football live is superior to watching it on TV. However, what would you rather see, Barca v Real Madrid on TV or Norwich City vs Gillingham at the ground. Wouldnt it be nice if you could see both!


Quote:
Not really... it's only natural for insecure people to be drawn to that, hence why Manchester United have so many fans!

I support Arsenal because everyone (well the majority) in my class did (aged 7), including my teacher who used to rock up to school in a big Arsenal jacket!
I don't think that is the case. Watch how attendance at Middlesborough has fallen now that they dropped a division. People naturally want to see whats best.

Quote:


What are you talking about, are you deliberately being dumb to prove a point?

Firstly River Plate don't play in La Boca, that would be Boca Juniors, they moved out some time ago and now play in Belgrano!

Secondly, i'm unaware that Argentina was a different country to buenos Aires... and that Penoral was an indepent republic enclave surrounded entirely by the city of Montevideo... thanks for clearing that up..
Sorry, I was gonna write about River Plate, but decided to write about Boca, who have more support. I forgot to delete River and replace it with Boca. My bad.

Point is that a large portion of people in Argntina support one of the most successful clubs, not because it is their community team, but because it is successful.

Quote:
Anyway let me give you a little story, before the war Cambridge had two teams Cambridge Town and Abbey united, in 1951 the queen bestowed city status on the Town of Cambridge and both clubs applied to the FA to change their name to Cambridge city. Because Cambridge Town's application was received first they won the right, however Abbey united became Cambridge united and within 20 years were in the football league and had over taken their rivals...

Now you may be wondering what is the relevance of this story. Abbey United may have played in the abbey district of Cambridge but they didn't consider themselves the club of Abbey but a club representing Cambridge, just like River Plate do for Buenos Aires and Penarol do for Montevideo they just didn't feel the need to change their names to prove it
Ok. But people still support the bigger, more successful clubs, for the most part.

Quote:
Not either one, very much more likely to be Juventus... then again another weak point
Hence why I mentioned Juve first. But there will also be AC and Inter supporters, will there not? (and dont lie).

After your spill about football being about community and such and such, I have to ask, what community connection do people in Palermo or some small village in Calabria have with Juventus? Those in Palermo choose to support their local team, as well as the bigger, more successful team from the north.


Quote:
See you're getting worse now, you're trying make as if Southern Italy and say South East Asia or Austalia are one in the same in relation to Turin or Milan. But I think you know that's laughable.

If you live in Sicily you've grown up in Italy, with the Italian media, the Italian league and the wider Italian culture. If you grow up in Australia you grew up with the Aussie media, the aussie league and the wider Australian culture which gives you an outside view of the Italian media, the Italian league and the wider Italian Culture. TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
I said it was on a different scale.
There is a similar lack of "community" connection. For the most part fans can only watch the team on TV. They dont get to see the players, watch them train, bump into them on the street or have them come down to their school (very often).
In Australia, a good portion of football fans have traditionaly been either Italian, Greek, British or some other European. This has changed in the last generation or so but traditionaly it has been the Europeans who supported the game. In a country of immigrants, everyone supported a team back home.
Now, an Italian is likely to support whatever his family supported, and an Englishman is likely to support what his family supported.
The bigger clubs became more popular amongst football fans, and this support has been passed on to kids today.

I grew up in New Zealand, where the only football on TV the English premier league and the world cup every four years. New Zealand never made it into the world cup so 90% of people went for... the biggest and the best... Brazil. England was alos popular due to historical roots.
Apart from world cup years, you could only watch the EPL. Everyone supported a team; those who had an English connection supported whatever that connection was, others supported ManU or Newcastle, because they made the headlines.
As for media, the goals in the highlights reels were of English clubs.
With the advent of the internet media has become global. I jump on BBC football or soccernet and read the latest news. I jump on a blog site and read comments from however many countries. I watch live streaming from any game I want. I buy "world soccer" magazine which is printed in however many countries.
What you "local" meida airs doesnt matter anymore, because I can choose which media I want to be informed by.

The big reason why the EPL is so popular in Asia, USA and Aus/NZ is that the sport is relatively new in the regions. Domestic clubs havent established themselves but football fans are exposed to superior, foreign football daily. Personally I dont mind foreign league support as long as the domestic league is supported as well.

Quote:
You're are unbelievable, you think because you've written a whole bullshit trying to prove how Bangkok is "the same" as Manchester that now you can prove that because I'm from South East London that i'm somehow the same as Barry Barstool... unfortunately for you WRONG.

anyway I went through this with your River Plate/Penarol argument

Arsenal are a London club not a Islington club or a North London club, they play in the London Borough of Islington in the inner North of the city but represent London, nationally and Internationally. In fact the reason why they chose to move to Higbury in the first place is so they could be more accesible to more people by public transport (Gillespie Road underground station was right outside the ground), which they weren't in Plumstead (ironically where I grew up).

Aston Villa play in North Birmingham, does it mean people in South Birmingham should support Birmingham City only, of course it ******* doesn't. Everton don't bare the name Liverpool does it mean if you don't live close to the Everton district you should support Liverpool FC... NOT AT ALL

Maybe you'd feel better if London was like Moscow and we had London Gunners, London Hotspur, London Park Rangers, London United, London Palace etc, a club doesn't have to take the name of that city to represent that city.

To conclude, you Woozoo seem to think that if you don't support a club geographically closest to you then that puts you in the same boat as everyone no matter how far. There is no difference between a United fan in Bangkok and one in London, well yes there is. As morally deplorable as Cockney Reds are at least they have sort of cultural connection to Manchester and Manchester United and that is all I ask.

This is an ideological debate, it's not gonna happen and it's not gonna change anything but it's a debate about what is morally right!
I was pointing out that the bigger clubs naturally get more support. You feel a sense of connection to Arsenal for whatever reason, and thats fine, but is it not true that the bigger clubs are going to get more fans who feel that sense of connection?
woozoo está en línea ahora  
Old December 23rd, 2009, 08:45 PM   #5463
kerouac1848
Registered User
 
kerouac1848's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NW London
Posts: 3,640
Likes (Received): 1536

Quote:
Well your comparing the wealthiest Asian countries with the poorest African ones. Indonesia and Vietnam have a GDP of about US$3,900 and US$2,700 respectively.
You have countries in Africa like Botswana, Angola and Namibia with pcGDPS of US$14,000, $6,000, $6,000. You cant just ignore South Africa like some outlier. Both South Africa and Angola have significant populations and comparable per capita GDP to South East Asian countries (which bigbossman was focusing on), yet have very poorly attended football leagues.

Vietnam and Indonesia both have leagues which average about 10,000 per game. The inhabitants are not significantly wealthier than Nigerians but turn out to matches. I would say that many Indonesians and Vietnamese live in similar conditions to those living in much of West and Southern Africa. It seems the Thai league averages around 4-5,000.
Those countries I picked (with the exception of Singapore and which i shouldn't have used because it is a small city state and quite unique) were not the wealthiest Asian ones; that would be Japan or S. Korea or Australia. Those African countries weren't the poorest either; there are firmly in the middle with there being about 15 wealthier nations than Ghana and 17 or so poorer than Nigeria. For their region they are middle income (although poor globally)

I already focused on South Africa, which you completely ignored in your reply, showing that typical feature of being selective in your arguments. In it I explained that despite more people following football than rugby, it is the latter sport which boost better attendance figures due to the complex socio-economic makeup of the country (i.e. it is a country of massive inequality and it is the poorer masses or follow football and the wealthier minority that follow rugby. There are a lot of Saffa's in London and this is the reason they give me so I have no reason not to believe them.)

Tbh GDP isn't really a great indicator of how the average citizens of a nation live since it doesn't factor in levels of equality and is also just a measurement of a country's economic output; it needs to be used in conjunction with other measurements (equality measurements and HDI) Hence why oil producing nations often have such high levels of gdp (is Norway really twice as wealthy as Sweden?). This explains Angola having a massive jump in gdp per capita yet many of its people living in similar conditions to other African countries with level low gdp levels. Look at the Gini coeffiecient which measures inequality. Africa and Latin America are home to the world's most unequal societies. No where in Asia where data is given does a country have a coefficent of .55 or greater; only one country has a measurement of .50. Nation's such as Indonesia and Vietham have the same levels of inequality (using this measurement) as some Western European countries. Thus, not only are their wealthier, but that wealth seems to be more equally distributed which is argubly more important (once you reach a certain level).

You also have to consider other factors as well. Angola had a civil war for decades which only finished recently and are having to rebuild the country's infrastructure. Ditto a number of nations in central and Eastern africa. Many 'nations' on the continent aren't really worth the name (Rwanda arguably) because they are artificial creations by European powers. Most of East Asia have societies and borders which pre-date European imperialism (not saying that hasn't been an effect, for there clearly has). There is the huge HIV/AIDS epidemic also (60% of carriers are based in Africa). I'm not saying East/SE Asia hasn't had its problems, but in the past 20 years or so they haven't been as bad as large swaths of Africa, no where has (individual countries perhaps, but not whole regions).

Another point, which I forgot to add, is the involvement of African players in European leagues. There are far more African’s In Europe’s top leagues, especially at top clubs where with literally a few examples Asian players are completely absent. For a Ghanaian, Senegalese or Nigerian, the bulk of their national team players play in European Leagues, esp. the England and France. This isn't the case with any SE Asian nation. Only Australia i believe can be used as a comparison.

Quote:
I wasn't talking about North African attendances, which are a different kettle of fish. North Africans generally aren't as passionate EPL supprters either.
Well i didn't see you saying that so... and tbf, I'd argue that North Africans follow European football generally just as much as Asian fans follow the PL.

Quote:
Its a bit hard to compare Asian countries with South American ones in terms of football. South America has had a long history regarding football, where as its a relatively new phenomenon in Asia. Most of the professional leagues were started as recently as the 80s. Latin American teams have had a century or at least decades to develop a fanbase.

I went to a Australia vs ManUTD friendly match at Melbourne some years ago. I think most of the people were wearing ManUTD scarves, ******y devil horns or carrying red tridents. Does that mean they dont support their national team? No. It was a friendly match and there was a certain amount of nevelty of watching a team you like that you will most likely never see again.
Yeah, you're right it is unfair, although I don't think you need a 100 years of football for it to penetrate. That being said, I still maintain that for the bulk of Africa it is unfair to compare with Asia for the reasons outlined above

I still don't think you would see that situation in most of Africa. My feeling is that it would be the same in Malayisa or Indonesia, or wherever in SE Asia and it isn't healthy.
kerouac1848 no está en línea  
Old December 23rd, 2009, 11:12 PM   #5464
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by woozoo View Post
Im ancy about what seems like your double standards regarding Asian and African fans.
I wouldn't call it double standards I just don't see them as a threat to the game. Until Nigeria turns it's vast natural resources into wealth for it's people they will never be able to pay stupid money for Televised football.

Quote:
I agree the money is unnecessary. So is Australian American, Chinese, Korean, Japanese and middle East money. Wouldn't it make more sense to voice your displeasure at those fans?
Trust me I have beef with Americans getting involved with the game, I fear that they will force the game to be even more money orientated

Australians not so much, China haven't really showed much. Japan is building a very nice league.

Quote:
Either way, what your gonna stop people in those countries watching the league? Theres obviously massive demand why should they miss out?
I never said we should stop them, we just need to give them incentives to watch their domestic leagues as much if not more. 20 years ago the simplest way would've been set an average the league has to reach if not they can't televise foreign games, now that is impossible with streaming!

I believe the european leagues have an obligation not to pander to these new markets, but they won't because the leagues and the clubs are competing off the pitch as well as on it. The leagues/clubs should be working together off the pitch and if they did there would be no reason to aggressively try and find new revenue streams.

The other obvious way to do it is for FIFA to intervene, probably the best way to make football truly global is all money football makes is pooled by FIFA then FIFA distributes the money based on how well your national team does. Tbf as nice as that may sound, I wouldn't really want to see it that way

Quote:
Nope. Refer to my post above. What are the best supported Sub Saharan African leagues you know of?
I'd assume hearts of oak in Accra Ghana, I remember reading that they get massive crowds. One of the south African leagues, but I don't remember you limiting it to sub-Saharan Africa...

Quote:
Your family is from Western Africa is it not, what are the attendances there, as far as you know anecdotally?
I haven't got a clue, my mum said she used to watch football in Sierra Leone in the 1960s but I haven't a clue really most my family came to England when they were young, more or less all my family has been in England since the 60s/70s

Quote:
I guess some say the same about globalisation
Well replace Europe with America and i'd agree...

Quote:
I agree with you on this to a degree.
So what do you do? Put in place bans/limits/quotas on foreing players? Maybe that is the answer. I wouldn't necessarily be against that, but dont quote me on that one.
Well i'm more for regional youth quotas over national quotas, because national quotas still mean you can buy titles, although it would be considerably harder as Manchester United's 26 years without a league proved.

What I'd propose is that Manchester united have to have a certain amount of real youth products in their squad who grew up within a certain radius of Old trafford. Squads would be 22 man (over 18). The new premier league rules of 25 man (over 21) are ridiculous as it changes nothing, Arsenal have enough over 21s and about 10,000 under 21s. A lot of these kids get released at 22-23 and have no experience and disappear having wasted their lives. Making the cut of point earlier would mean they test themselves earlier.

I have no beef with foreigners but of course I'd rather they stayed in their domestic leagues, I just would love to see how well Wenger would really do if he had to play some of our academy talent or Fergie could do with just Mancs (no Beckham). It would also mean the teams go back to being representative of their areas.

Slightly more extreme I'd also ban signing players from your own league until a certain age. I hate clubs signing players so their rivals can't have them or build a team. I also would modify the loan system to only be for players under a certain age and for youth products only. I hate clubs signing players cheap early then loaning them back to the club until they are ready. They should sign the player when he is ready for his market value.

Quote:
It seems very restrictive and somewhat unnatural though.
well it used do be done that way when it was less risky. Now bringing through youth is not an option for anyone (But Barcelona) it seems, that's the problem too much money has meant that there is no time for talent to grow at clubs now it's bought in ready no matter how young.

Arsenal won the league in 1989 and 1991 with a squad built near entirely of youth products from London (with a few Irishmen).

I believe football is a test of Scouting and development. You develop your own talent from your local area, and you plug in the gaps through scouting ready made talent from other clubs and signing them.

Quote:
One negative of this would be the inhibitian of development of players from smaller countries.
That's why I am for regionalised leagues... and by that I mean the whole league systems not just the top divisions. Then there would be no small countries per se...

Quote:
Right now if your a quality player you can play in the EPL and develop into a true star.
That's marketing though. You can be a class player in any league, as Arshavin proves he hasn't improved at Arsenal. he took a pay-cut to come to Arsenal to make more money through marketing and exposure, that's one of the problems of modern football.

But like I said Europe should be carved up into 10-11 sizeable regional leagues so all the big countries can have the media market and population pool to create wealth and the relevant level of exposure.

Quote:
Would Eusebio ever develop into the player he was if he stayed in Mozambique?
Eusebio was developed in the Portuguese system though, when Mozambique's football probably had the resources far beyond what it had now, he only joined Benfica at 19 after a few years playing professional.

The reason why it would harder to develop in a country in Africa is because of quality concentration or the lack there of. A west African league say would be a perfect breeding ground for talented west Africans, as it would concentrate the talent pools of Ivory coast, Nigeria, Cameroon and Ghana into one league benefiting all these countries. Because as it stands these haven't got great teams, even the revered Ivory Coast is full of a lot of average players.

Then if these guys came to Europe after they established themselves in West Africa it would be better.

Quote:
Oh I agree watching football live is superior to watching it on TV. However, what would you rather see, Barca v Real Madrid on TV or Norwich City vs Gillingham at the ground. Wouldnt it be nice if you could see both!
Games like Barca vs Real aren't the games I want off TV though, it's games like Real madrid vs Getafe (although it was a corker last season) or Manchester United vs Wigan (rarely on telly in England unless it's near the end of the season).

I'm not saying you should only be able to watch your local team, I'm saying you should only have uninhibited access to your local team. If you want to watch Real Madrid fine but you either have to go to every game in the flesh or get what you are given on TV.

How many of these people would still support Man U religiously if they could only watch 25 league games a season like we can in England? And man U are shown the most.

Quote:
I don't think that is the case. Watch how attendance at Middlesborough has fallen now that they dropped a division. People naturally want to see whats best.
That happens at more or less every club, only really big clubs do attendances tend to go up when they go down. I know they did at man u and Tottenham in the 1970s and Atletico Madrid in the early part of this decade. It seems to revitalise the fans with a winning season.

But yeah everyone has their level they'd be prepared to watch their team down to, but make no mistake they'll turn up when the going is good. I remember Plymouth Argyle bottomed out in the 1990s crowds under 10,000 then in the middle part of this decade they had a renaissance and they had 18,500 turning up for 4th tier matches, same at hull.

It also depends on size of your ground, like Norwich their league 1 crowds look great but if they had a bigger stadium they would've gone down because right now that 23,000 represents (it seems) their hardcore, so even in times of success their is no room for hangers on. They'd probably get 40-50,000 in the Prem if they could nowadays, they are huge.

But Middlesbrough weren't a winning club, they usually finished lower mid table. Fans weren't turning up because they were playing champaign football. The point is premier league games mean more to people. Beating Manchester united generally means more than beating Blackpool, so people will turn up to watch Boro play Man United but would be indifferent to a Blackpool game unless it had a real baring on their season.

Quote:
Sorry, I was gonna write about River Plate, but decided to write about Boca, who have more support. I forgot to delete River and replace it with Boca. My bad.
fair enough

Quote:
Point is that a large portion of people in Argntina support one of the most successful clubs, not because it is their community team, but because it is successful.
Yeah that's Argentina though, most clubs still have a sizeable local fan base because of this. Remember the fact that Buenos Aires region dominates the country in terms of population, around 40% live in the province of Buenos Aires alone. As far as I am aware they aren't the most supported in the provincial cities around the nations.

Quote:
Ok. But people still support the bigger, more successful clubs, for the most part.
I'd say they support clubs that they are more aware of. Hence why people in Cheshire would support and Manchester or Liverpool club.

That's why you see when teams get promoted the hype and awareness in their local area increases. The point is the higher up you are the more aware people are of you, especially in this day an age.

You don't find many Everton fans in London or Yidos in Newcastle despite past success.

Quote:
Hence why I mentioned Juve first. But there will also be AC and Inter supporters, will there not? (and dont lie).
Of course like there are probably Roma or Napoli fans, but Juve have a weird rep of being this club with more support in the south than the north.

Quote:
After your spill about football being about community and such and such, I have to ask, what community connection do people in Palermo or some small village in Calabria have with Juventus?
Turin grew off of the back of immigrants from the south, I'd assume as Turin has shrank a lot of people have returned... add to that family ties and the fact that for most of the last half century southern clubs go from success to bankruptcy in the blink of an eye it's no wonder.



Quote:
Those in Palermo choose to support their local team, as well as the bigger, more successful team from the north.
That happens all over southern Italy, what it seems is that you support Juventus unless your city/region team is in Serie A. it is noticeable that when clubs from the south get promoted their fanbase goes up massively.

Just look at messina they've disappeared again, first season in serie A 30,000+ fans every week, soon as they get relegated those fans disappear and get back to following Juve.

In many ways that happens in England too, when Charlton got in the prem in 1998 thousands of Charlton fans appeared from nowhere (in my area) lots of them ditching Man United.

Quote:
I said it was on a different scale.
There is a similar lack of "community" connection. For the most part fans can only watch the team on TV.
Not at all, for example Manchester United's stands in the 80s were swelled by thousands of cockney reds travelling on "football specials" [sic] trains, and I'm aware that Italy had/has a similar set up which allowed fans to travel to games easily. Hence why Italy has a tradition of huge travelling support just like England.

The whole only being able to watch on TV is a modern phenomena born out of the fact that tickets are at premium now in England, and in Italy games are on TV for them to watch cheaper than travelling up north and paying to get into some cold ground where you abuse from the locals because of your accent.

Quote:
They dont get to see the players, watch them train, bump into them on the street or have them come down to their school (very often).
Nor do I in London, I've seen three professional footballers on the street, Franco Zola was next to the bus I was on in south west London at the lights and he waved to everyone on the bus from his convertible, nice chap, and I saw Jermaine Jenas and Titus Bramble on Oxford street (when they were at Newcastle), and I shouted out to my mates, it was surreal because we were the only people that seemed to notice.

No players ever came to my school primary or secondary. Charlton did some workshops in the local area though.

I'm leaning towards local media rather than seeing the guys come to their school

Quote:
In Australia, a good portion of football fans have traditionaly been either Italian, Greek, British or some other European. This has changed in the last generation or so but traditionaly it has been the Europeans who supported the game. In a country of immigrants, everyone supported a team back home.

Now, an Italian is likely to support whatever his family supported, and an Englishman is likely to support what his family supported.
The bigger clubs became more popular amongst football fans, and this support has been passed on to kids today.
There is nothing wrong with that, I said that also. If you have a connection by all means.

The one thing you notice in England is Manchester United fans always claim they were either born in Manchester or their dad is from there. They never fail.

Quote:
I grew up in New Zealand, where the only football on TV the English premier league and the world cup every four years. New Zealand never made it into the world cup so 90% of people went for... the biggest and the best... Brazil. England was alos popular due to historical roots.
Apart from world cup years, you could only watch the EPL. Everyone supported a team; those who had an English connection supported whatever that connection was, others supported ManU or Newcastle, because they made the headlines.
That's what I don't get, I can watch other leagues and not support a team... When I watch German football all I want is a Bayern loss and/or a good game. In Italian football I now want Inter to lose previously it was Juve.

What I mean is why not just watch English football and support New Zealand football?

My beef isn't really with people watching it's with people supporting teams. It's just weird.

Quote:
As for media, the goals in the highlights reels were of English clubs.
With the advent of the internet media has become global. I jump on BBC football or soccernet and read the latest news. I jump on a blog site and read comments from however many countries. I watch live streaming from any game I want. I buy "world soccer" magazine which is printed in however many countries.
This can't be helped of course, I just want people to support their own leagues first, simple as.

I used to read world soccer before it became out of date and information light. It's of it's time unfortunately for it.

Quote:
What you "local" meida airs doesnt matter anymore, because I can choose which media I want to be informed by.
I disagree, we are still heavily influenced (in the uk at least) by local media. People in London read the Metro in the morning and the Evening standard on the way home which covers London area teams and watch London news. We banter about London football and we goad man U fans about their disloyalty. It's how it is.

But you are talking about your country, maybe in Oz. How is it for Aussie Rules or Rugby league in Oz are people supporting Super league teams over NRL teams?

Quote:
The big reason why the EPL is so popular in Asia, USA and Aus/NZ is that the sport is relatively new in the regions. Domestic clubs havent established themselves but football fans are exposed to superior, foreign football daily. Personally I dont mind foreign league support as long as the domestic league is supported as well.
Milton keynes proves why you can create a football culture from nothing. They had no fans and were hated, now they have 10,000 fans every week for lower league football (probably the same quality of these asian leagues). Those fans could just sit and watch Man U or Arsenal but they don't. So considering Aus, USA etc had a head start on MK (2004) why is that MK already has a sizeable fanbase? You could argue they are already in a football culture and 10,000 people of 250,000 isn't a lot. Then maybe the league will grow with quality, or maybe it won't.

I think leagues should be taxed. For example the premier league should be taxed 60% of all non domestic TV rights (by FIFA) and that 60% returned to each country they took it from for their own football. So for example however much the premier league makes from Australian TV they have to pay 60% to the A league.

Quote:
I was pointing out that the bigger clubs naturally get more support. You feel a sense of connection to Arsenal for whatever reason, and thats fine, but is it not true that the bigger clubs are going to get more fans who feel that sense of connection?
Yeah but if you look the bigger clubs all come from bigger metropolitan areas. That's the main reason they have more fans!
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old December 25th, 2009, 04:52 PM   #5465
Balaputradewa
Sumsel Gemilang
 
Balaputradewa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PADANG
Posts: 7,845
Likes (Received): 1294



Quote:
Originally Posted by novian View Post





Undercontruction





Proposed


__________________
Sabbesatta Bhavantu Sukhitata: Semoga Semua Makhluk Hidup Berbahagia !!

Let's find Balaputradewa on new instagram account:
@balaputradewa_skyscrapercity
Balaputradewa está en línea ahora  
Old December 25th, 2009, 05:29 PM   #5466
Balaputradewa
Sumsel Gemilang
 
Balaputradewa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: PADANG
Posts: 7,845
Likes (Received): 1294

Indonesia Ready to World Cup 2022

__________________
Sabbesatta Bhavantu Sukhitata: Semoga Semua Makhluk Hidup Berbahagia !!

Let's find Balaputradewa on new instagram account:
@balaputradewa_skyscrapercity
Balaputradewa está en línea ahora  
Old December 25th, 2009, 09:39 PM   #5467
Fizmo1337
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bruges
Posts: 931
Likes (Received): 61

Mhm, all of the stadiums in Indonesia are with an athletic track. I've nothing against 1 or 2 with athletic track but all of them? No please. I understand it because the infrastructure isn't in place yet so they have to built a stadium for both football and athletics and other sports but you shouldn't put yourself as a candidate (yet) if this is the case. Only countries who can build & afford stadiums without athetlic tracks should be taken into considerations.

It's a bit of a shame really because football is very popular in Indonesia (and I would love to give them a WC) but for their own good it's better to wait. It would take way too much money away which could be used to increase the standard of living for the people.

Allthough I would love to have a WC in my country together with NL I have to say England probably deserve it more in 2018. For 2022 I would say Australia because they got a nice & good league already without having had the benefit of a WC (+ great country, good infrastructure, a real sport country) and so certainly gets my vote if they can get the stadiums into place (I'm sure they will).

Last edited by Fizmo1337; December 25th, 2009 at 09:45 PM.
Fizmo1337 no está en línea  
Old January 11th, 2010, 09:23 AM   #5468
Matthew Lowry
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cape Town South Africa
Posts: 499
Likes (Received): 4

2018 Australia
2022 USA
2026 Japan
2030 England
Matthew Lowry no está en línea  
Old January 11th, 2010, 10:02 AM   #5469
Kuvvaci
Strange User
 
Kuvvaci's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 19,708
Likes (Received): 64

After Afriaca and America I believe 2018 will be in Europe and England is already perpared for this organization. They have huge modern stadiums. New Wembley deserve a world cup final. I say England for 2018.

Qatar or Australia will be for 2022 that both didn't host WC before. I think after a major football nation, it is nice to see the wC in a new football nation.
Kuvvaci no está en línea  
Old January 11th, 2010, 10:53 AM   #5470
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,766
Likes (Received): 10315

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Lowry View Post
2018 Australia
2022 USA
2026 Japan
2030 England
Of all your predictions in this forum that has to be the silliest list!

Europe won't wait 24 years between world cups! They'll certainly get either 2018 or 2022, with many believing 2018 is almost certainly heading to Europe.
RobH no está en línea  
Old January 11th, 2010, 11:10 AM   #5471
Kuvvaci
Strange User
 
Kuvvaci's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 19,708
Likes (Received): 64

It is turn of europe and Endland or Spain will get it but England look the strongest bid and I think they deserve even now. Wembley must host a WC final as soon as possible.
Kuvvaci no está en línea  
Old January 11th, 2010, 03:29 PM   #5472
r0w84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 32
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balaputradewa View Post
Nice....whats this for?, the 'Athletics World Cup'
r0w84 no está en línea  
Old January 11th, 2010, 03:50 PM   #5473
PaulFCB
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,747
Likes (Received): 262

Well, I think FIFA should change that stupid rule with once every 3 tournaments and Europe should get 2018 and 2026...and 2030 for Uruguary & Argentina with a Centenary final on Centenario!

2018 England
2022 USA
2026 Spain maybe alone or with Portugal
2030 Uruguary & Argentina
PaulFCB no está en línea  
Old January 11th, 2010, 04:05 PM   #5474
Chimbanha
Registered User
 
Chimbanha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Brasília
Posts: 1,667
Likes (Received): 1965

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulFCB View Post
Well, I think FIFA should change that stupid rule with once every 3 tournaments and Europe should get 2018 and 2026...and 2030 for Uruguary & Argentina with a Centenary final on Centenario!

2018 England
2022 USA
2026 Spain maybe alone or with Portugal
2030 Uruguary & Argentina
If FIFA wants Europe in 2026, they'll change the rules, they have already done it twice this decade. Otherwise, whoever loses 2022 (U.S. or Australia) gets 2026.

We've been having the Uruguay x Argentina discussion in another forum, they can't do it. Specially if FIFA does not change the rules and 2030 may go to Europe. Argentina would have to evolve A LOT in one decade in order to be able to defeat the European bids and be elected hosts. And Uruguay is a country of 3 million, they would probably have only one host city (Montevideu), and they would have to turn Centenário into a world-class 80,000 seater. They'd have more than a full plate with just that much.

In my opinion, joint bids should always be balanced. Poland and Ukraine? Great. Colombia and Peru? Good. Argentina and Uruguay? No way. I don't have an argument for this though, it's just that it's weird
Chimbanha no está en línea  
Old January 11th, 2010, 05:28 PM   #5475
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimbanha View Post
If FIFA wants Europe in 2026, they'll change the rules, they have already done it twice this decade.
two rule changes in 11 days, they move fast
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old January 11th, 2010, 05:55 PM   #5476
Chimbanha
Registered User
 
Chimbanha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Brasília
Posts: 1,667
Likes (Received): 1965



yeah, you got it
Chimbanha no está en línea  
Old January 11th, 2010, 06:05 PM   #5477
rus
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 202
Likes (Received): 6

2018 Russia
2022 Australia
2026 England
2030 Argentina
rus no está en línea  
Old January 11th, 2010, 06:11 PM   #5478
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,766
Likes (Received): 10315

Unless the rules are changed, if Russia wins 2018 England can't win 2026.
RobH no está en línea  
Old January 11th, 2010, 10:12 PM   #5479
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
Unless the rules are changed, if Russia wins 2018 England can't win 2026.
When FIFA said that a continent must wait three World Cups to host again, I thought they said it specifically to no African bids in 2018 and no South American bids for 2018 and 2022. I don't remembering it being a permanent rule, but just to this bidding process. Either way, I can't believe FIFA wouldn't change it for Europe.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old January 12th, 2010, 04:31 PM   #5480
~MELVINDONESIA~
INDONESIA
 
~MELVINDONESIA~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bandung
Posts: 1,253
Likes (Received): 26

2018 England
2022 INDONESIA!!!! Hope it!
2026 USA
~MELVINDONESIA~ no está en línea  


Closed Thread

Tags
australia, united states of america, world cup

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu