Super Bowl vs. Soccer World Cup

  • 64 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Fizzman
Fizzman

9895

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#52 Fizzman
Member since 2003 • 9895 Posts

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

World Cup is a global sport with probably a billion fans vs NFL which is only popular in the US. What do you think?

monkeytoes61

More people watching =/= better event.

I was refering to revenue generated. Its a simple numbers game. More fans = more money. Lets be VERY generous and say that there are 300 million NFL fans total, it would probably still not even cover half of the total soccer fans worldwide. Its just not fair since soccer is a global sport whereas football is exclusive to one country.

The World cup final (1 game)has more viewers then the superbowl.

Avatar image for X360PS3AMD05
X360PS3AMD05

36320

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#53 X360PS3AMD05
Member since 2005 • 36320 Posts
"This one is more popular hence it's better" that talk has been done to death, can we get a lock now.

The World Cup...I mean, the Super Bowl is just a championship game for a league. The World Cup is the championship game for the WORLD

Los9090
The best players come to the USA in other sports to play for a championship

[QUOTE="-Halftime-"]Yeah, but you're missing the little tidbit that no one cares about Canada or ever hasoajlu

of course, poor and uneducated american dont care. lol they only care about who's Justin Biebier's new girlfriend or is Brad Pitt going to dovice with Angelina Jolie

rich american in wall street and politicans care about oil sands. U.S. is run by those ppl except few months before election.

And soccer hooligans are just bandwagons who like to beat up people who don't agree with them and start riots...............i c what u did there
Avatar image for No_Hablo_Ingles
No_Hablo_Ingles

8448

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#54 No_Hablo_Ingles
Member since 2009 • 8448 Posts
More fans = more money.Fizzman
Not true. Many of the Soccer countries are developing and quite poor.
Avatar image for Fizzman
Fizzman

9895

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#55 Fizzman
Member since 2003 • 9895 Posts

[QUOTE="Fizzman"] More fans = more money.No_Hablo_Ingles
Not true. Many of the Soccer countries are developing and quite poor.

That's true, but the disparity is too huge for it to matter. NFL = America only. Soccer = world. Also its not like the majority of American NFL fans are wealthy.

Avatar image for No_Hablo_Ingles
No_Hablo_Ingles

8448

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#56 No_Hablo_Ingles
Member since 2009 • 8448 Posts

[QUOTE="No_Hablo_Ingles"][QUOTE="Fizzman"] More fans = more money.Fizzman

Not true. Many of the Soccer countries are developing and quite poor.

That's true, but the disparity is too huge for it to matter. NFL = America only. Soccer = world. Also its not like the majority of American NFL fans are wealthy.

My disagreement was with that comment that's all. To answer this question (which produces more money 4 SB or 1 WC), I believe it depends... the WC has a much larger effect on the host city then the SB, but I'm not sure which produces more money for their respective leagues...
Avatar image for Xtasy26
Xtasy26

5593

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 53

User Lists: 0

#57 Xtasy26
Member since 2008 • 5593 Posts

China (1st in population and 2nd in economics): Many sports, but definately not soccer

oajlu

You really don't what you are talking about do you? Soccer is one of the biggest sports in China. All their main sports channels like CCTV1 and Shanghai GSPorts show soccer every weekend from the premier league in England, I know, because I use their streams to watch. Not to mentin the Champions League. They certainly don't show NFL. LOL

Canada (2nd in land size): Hockey

oajlu

Lol, you put Canada up there and not Germany, France, UK, which easily beats Canada in terms of GDP. And the whole of EU GPD > USA GDP.

Dont you guys see world cup's problem is? it lacks of worldmajor powers' support, thats why world cup looks quite rubbish...no instant review, no half time show, no fancy commerical, no real competition (nothing is more fun when it involves with political hatres between 2 big countries), and too little drama in it.

You cant find U.S. vs. China, China vs. Japan, India vs. Pakistan, Russia vs. U.S. in world cup...

oajlu

What are you talking about? There's plenty of drama. Argentina vs England, France vs Italy, Brazil vs Argentina, South Korea vs Japan, England vs France, I could go on and on. And France, Germany, Russia, UK are not world powers, LOL? Three of these countries are permanent members of the Security Council, Canada is not even a permanent member. Even in the other countries you mentioned where Soccer is not the most popular it easily is the second most popular in places like India, it's certainly not American Football.

If you go to South America, Africa, Europe, Asia they all know who Christiano Ronaldo is and they don't have a clue who Tom Brady is. Everybody in the world knows who Pele and Mardona is but if you ask the World, outside the US who is Joe Montana, the would be like Joe who?

The World Cup is light years ahead of the Super Bowl in term of popularity and ratings. Super Bowl can't even beat the Champions League Final ratings.

Avatar image for DJ_Magneto
DJ_Magneto

4675

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#58 DJ_Magneto
Member since 2008 • 4675 Posts
I don't really understand where this thread has gone. First it was asked which event makes more money and which is more exciting and popular. It has sort of morphed into a "which one is better" debate. If you want to figure out which event generates more revenue I'm sure you can probably look that up somewhere on the internets. I don't understand why that should really matter or what that proves considering you're comparing a single game vs. a complete several week long tournament. Those are just hard numbers. But when you talk about which is more exciting and popular, it all depends on where you're from. Like I posted before, in the U.S. the NFL is king. There's no debate about that. It's bigger than the NBA, MLB. Soccer is not hugely popular here. That's just a fact. Interest in the sport kicked up when the US hosted the World Cup and with the emergence of the MLS, but Soccer as a spectator sport in the US will never surpass the big three (NFL, MLB, NBA) as far as popularity. It just won't. That's the culture here in the U.S. And the fact that the U.S. is not really competitive on the international level as far as actually winning the Cup, the nation will have a hard time really getting behind the sport. The die-hards will always be there, but for your average American sports fan, the sport as a whole will never crack their top three favorite sports to follow. Hell, NCAA Football and Basketball are more popular in the US than soccer.
Avatar image for TehOverkill
TehOverkill

754

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#59 TehOverkill
Member since 2011 • 754 Posts
Any decent football cup trumps the Super Bowl, for me. Not that I don't like American Football, but I just love football. That, and you're comparing an event that has more than 1/3rd of the planet's population watching to one that has a few hundred million. Of course the WC is larger than the SB.
Avatar image for percech
percech

5237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#60 percech
Member since 2011 • 5237 Posts

I love to watch futbul with a ball kicked around an enormous field for a couple hours with almost no scoring as much as the next guy, but I'd rather watch American football.

Major_Snake
Short attention span? A big problem for American viewers. Which is why the Super Bowl has a break after EVERY play.
Avatar image for CMFreezy
CMFreezy

656

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#61 CMFreezy
Member since 2011 • 656 Posts
I say the Superbowl is better because I find it to be more entertaining to me.
Avatar image for TheGrat1
TheGrat1

4330

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#62 TheGrat1
Member since 2008 • 4330 Posts
[QUOTE="percech"][QUOTE="Major_Snake"]

I love to watch futbul with a ball kicked around an enormous field for a couple hours with almost no scoring as much as the next guy, but I'd rather watch American football.

Short attention span? A big problem for American viewers. Which is why the Super Bowl has a break after EVERY play.

Its not a break. You have 25 seconds to strategize before you have to snap the ball. This leads to actual, coordinated teamwork. You know, what should be the point of every team sport. And how can you say someone has a short attention span when they can watch a sport with several commercials and "breaks" over a sport with constant "stimulation". Seem like it would take more focus to watch the former imo.
Avatar image for monkeytoes61
monkeytoes61

8399

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 76

User Lists: 0

#63 monkeytoes61
Member since 2005 • 8399 Posts
[QUOTE="TheGrat1"][QUOTE="percech"][QUOTE="Major_Snake"]

I love to watch futbul with a ball kicked around an enormous field for a couple hours with almost no scoring as much as the next guy, but I'd rather watch American football.

Short attention span? A big problem for American viewers. Which is why the Super Bowl has a break after EVERY play.

Its not a break. You have 25 seconds to strategize before you have to snap the ball. This leads to actual, coordinated teamwork. You know, what should be the point of every team sport. And how can you say someone has a short attention span when they can watch a sport with several commercials and "breaks" over a sport with constant "stimulation". Seem like it would take more focus to watch the former imo.

I agree. There is more strategy in between two plays in a football game than in 10 minutes of constant play in a soccer match.
Avatar image for percech
percech

5237

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#64 percech
Member since 2011 • 5237 Posts
[QUOTE="TheGrat1"][QUOTE="percech"][QUOTE="Major_Snake"]

I love to watch futbul with a ball kicked around an enormous field for a couple hours with almost no scoring as much as the next guy, but I'd rather watch American football.

Short attention span? A big problem for American viewers. Which is why the Super Bowl has a break after EVERY play.

Its not a break. You have 25 seconds to strategize before you have to snap the ball. This leads to actual, coordinated teamwork. You know, what should be the point of every team sport. And how can you say someone has a short attention span when they can watch a sport with several commercials and "breaks" over a sport with constant "stimulation". Seem like it would take more focus to watch the former imo.

Considering the fact that the highlight of the Super Bowl is the event itself/commercials rather then the actual game? American football is about plays but it still doesn't change the fact that there's a stoppage of the game half the time which is just ridiculous to me.
Avatar image for TehOverkill
TehOverkill

754

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#65 TehOverkill
Member since 2011 • 754 Posts

[QUOTE="TheGrat1"][QUOTE="percech"] Short attention span? A big problem for American viewers. Which is why the Super Bowl has a break after EVERY play.monkeytoes61
Its not a break. You have 25 seconds to strategize before you have to snap the ball. This leads to actual, coordinated teamwork. You know, what should be the point of every team sport. And how can you say someone has a short attention span when they can watch a sport with several commercials and "breaks" over a sport with constant "stimulation". Seem like it would take more focus to watch the former imo.

I agree. There is more strategy in between two plays in a football game than in 10 minutes of constant play in a soccer match.

I disagree. Football requires much more tactical analysis than American Football from the simple fact that you have to manage your team's plays for fourty five minutes, twice, and not every couple of minutes. That, and you're also limited to only three field changes that can actually promote a change at the pace of the game, so you really have to ponder what to do.

Football also has a considerably larger amount of tactical praise given from the team as a whole: you don't have a single mind (in the field, disgregarding the coach) defining how something will play out -- it's a seamless interaction between the player's capacities and the game itself, where players have to decide on-the-fly which approach is most likely to succeed against the way they're oponent is playing. Proof of this is the relative lack of defined "plays" or "moves" in Football -- it depends on your adversary and on your team --, something very much present in A. Football.

Avatar image for Darth_Revan_666
Darth_Revan_666

2801

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#66 Darth_Revan_666
Member since 2005 • 2801 Posts

You get to choose a new play (tactic) every 40 seconds between each plays that happens in 8 secs on average.

Avatar image for monkeytoes61
monkeytoes61

8399

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 76

User Lists: 0

#67 monkeytoes61
Member since 2005 • 8399 Posts
We should ban the use of the word "football" when describing soccer. It is makes navigating the conversations quite difficult.