[I am he]

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

 

[mdparker]

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...

 

[isaidso]

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.

 

[Dimethyltryptamine]

This isn't necessarily my opinion, but instead a biennial ranking compiled by SportBusiness International 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)

 

[isaidso]

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.

 

[mdparker]

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...

 

[isaidso]

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.

 

[mdparker]

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...

 

[isaidso]

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.

 

[Fitzrovian]

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.

 

[Rascar]

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.

 

[isaidso]

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.?

 

[Rascar]

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.

 

[megacity30]

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:

 

[the spliff fairy]

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

 

[Jonesy55]

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...

 

[isaidso]

Alright, I stand corrected.

 

[apinamies]

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

 

[Dimethyltryptamine]

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.

 

[krnboy1009]

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

New York has to be number one.