Big Gay Soccer Thread
-
This should give soccer fans something to cheer about......I guess. Current top soccer players make a fortune the average ones, eh. NFL, MLB, NBA are better on the averages. Our LeBron does ok for not going to college, oh yeah.
2017 season - For the fourth straight year, Real Madrid's Ronaldo is the world’s highest-paid soccer player. The $93 million he banked in the last year also bests the earnings of every active professional athlete worldwide.
Of that, the reigning FIFA Player of the Year made $58 million from salary and bonus (before taxes) in the past year as he led his club in goal scoring on the way to a Spanish league title and back-to-back UEFA Championship wins. For perspective, his playing wages alone would rank him No. 3 on our list of soccer’s highest-paid. In comparison, LeBron James, the highest paid NBA player and oft-compared modern day Michael Jordan, made $31 million playing for the Cleveland Cavaliers this season. (Combined with his endorsements, he took home $86 million.)Average Salaries in the MLS.....some older numbers for the world comparison:
The average annual salary for soccer players in the MLS for the 2013 season is $148,693.26. This average varies by player position. Goalkeepers earn an average of $85,296.48; defenders $109,119.61; midfielders $129,573.88; and forwards $251,805.21. League regulations, such as the designated player rule, affect overall averages. Designated players can make more than salary caps, making their salaries much higher than other players in the team. For example, the highest paid player in the MLS, Clint Dempsey, earns $4,913,004 per year, but the lowest salary in the league earns $31,125.
Professional soccer player salaries depend on league and country regulations, among other things. Learn more about the average soccer player's salary here.
Average Salaries in the NWSL
The National Women’s Soccer League manages women's professional soccer in the U.S. This league only started in 2013 and, as yet, does not have average salary figures. Women's soccer in the United States follows the worldwide trend in terms of earnings -- female players do not typically have the earning capacity of male players. Salaries in the NWSL range from $6,000 to $30,000 per year.
Professional soccer player salaries depend on league and country regulations, among other things. Learn more about the average soccer player's salary here.
Average Soccer Salaries Outside the U.S.
Soccer is a much bigger sport in other countries around the world, and players in foreign leagues have the potential to make a lot more money. For example, the average annual salary for top English Premier League players in 2012 was the equivalent of around $2,509,572 per year, although players in lower leagues earn far less. Individual salary rules set by clubs also affect league averages -- some pay far more than others. For example, players at Manchester City earned an average salary of $7,403,754 in the 2011/2012 season, and players at West Bromwich Albion made an average of $1,650,305 per year.
Professional soccer player salaries depend on league and country regulations, among other things. Learn more about the average soccer player's salary here.
Bonuses, Endorsements and Sponsorship
Professional soccer players don't just make a basic salary, and many earn extra through bonuses, sponsorship deals and endorsements. The amount that players can make is typically dependent on how good or well-known they are, and world-class players may make more money from these deals than they earn in salary. For example, David Beckham's salary when he played for Los Angeles Galaxy was $6,500,000 per year. According to a report in Forbes, his total earnings from his five years in the MLS came to $255 million.
-
Yeah Tom, the new model isn't Joe six pack, it's the guys with money. The NFL will survive with it's current business model, but I don't expect it to retain it's dominance forever.
Futball- the soccer kind IS the dominant world sport, the USA was a little slow in recognizing it. Crap, Pele was a curiosity back then. Now? You have more kids in youth soccer than any other sport. Just a matter of time until the US produces a world class super-duper star on the order of Maradona or Reynaldo. We have guys like Altidore and a few others that are stars on the international level, just not enough yet to make us a serious World Cup contender. I said way back, it would take a generation of the kids playing soccer until they moved up to the coaching ranks for us to turn the corner- dead on.
I admit- soccer is boring as hell to those that aren't interested in the game. But for one who played competitive hockey, if you think of soccer as a slow motion version of that- you appreciate it. The strategy and rules are similar.
So get with the program- you wouldn't see premier league, and major league US soccer on TV if no one was watching. Gip was trying to argue with me- but he has his head up his a$$, the World Cup final is the most watched sporting event- period. World wide viewership makes our NFL Super Bowl minor league by comparison.
Yeah but who can really watch a sport where little pansies go down holding their knees all the time as slow-mo catches the non-contact. Then the trainer gives a "miracle cure" and off they sprint to the next "collision". I'd rather go outside on a hike and watch the biannual Monarch Butterfly migrations through my part of the world.? ?
?
Yeah but who can really watch a sport where little pansies go down holding their knees all the time as slow-mo catches the non-contact. Then the trainer gives a "miracle cure" and off they sprint to the next "collision". I'd rather go outside on a hike and watch the biannual Monarch Butterfly migrations through my part of the world.? ?
?
Ha, until they changed the rules, the same could be said for pro basketball. Led by the King of the floppers, Bill Laimbeer.
There's more action in the first five minutes of a soccer match than an entire baseball game- no wonder a lot of people consider baseball utterly boring, second only to golf. Regarding golf- we hashed this out years ago, and guys are entrenched in their opinions- but personally- I don't consider golf to be a sport- it's a skill.
Thanks to MJP's article, US major league soccer has a long way to go to catch up in average salary to the European version- (looks like the equivalent of Class A baseball) probably why most of the top US soccer players play on European teams. We'd need to start filling up 60,000 seat stadiums and get major air time to catch up.
Regarding FS' comments about top athletes, completely different skill set as opposed to playing football. Basketball may be close. Top Marathon runners would gas any NFL player in the first mile or two. Regarding football, I'm always fond of recalling Chris Collinsworth's story about the Bengal's soccer match. The Bengals were in a bar, and called the local semi-pro soccer team a bunch of wusses. Got challenged to a soccer match- the soccer guys were up 10-0 when the Bengals quit. So much for the "superior athletes".
-
Horse Sheet. Soccer players are a bunch of fags. Move to Shmucking Europe. Sure, they can run. But can they take contact? F u c k no. Rugby is the real sport, which I played for several years in Okinawa.
-
The FIFA boring soccer update today of the three key games the scores were 1-0, 1-0 and 1-1.
Are you kidding who could watch this snoozefest? Zzzzzzzzoooooooo.
GO BUCKEYES, BROWNS, INDIANS, CAVS, YSU, NAVY and yes I like ND! -
American futbol players are thumb suckers who could afford the camps, coaches, travel etc, not exactly the most gifted athletes.
In other nations some of their most gifted athletes (regardless of economic status)) are playing futbol.
For these reasons, expect continued underachieving in soccer
Maybe, maybe not. If you're good enough, top soccer players make as much as anyone. FWIW, I don't consider golfers top athletes, and you can make millions playing golf.
-
Larry, you just never learn, do you? You and I had the very same debate circa 1996 when it was announced that the new franchise would require the purchasing of PSL's. Our friend Kathy challenged my statement that " if the NFL is smart they will stop fukcking around worrying about what the die-hard fan wants, and instead focus on what the casual fan, the more affluent, less knowledgeable but BIG MONEY fan. THe NFL was right to focus on the non die-hard then, and they are 100% CORRECTAMNUDO to continue their behavior now.
Like it or not, we will support the Browns no matter how pizzed we are. As much as you claimed PSL's were an abomination and would kill the game.............you yourself bought PSLs.
So too, is it today. The TRADITIONAL NF fn has dwindled, but the old model of a town supporting a team no longer applies. There are many ways to herd sheep and build new dollars for the NFL. Trust me, they will be fine.
Baseball is only exceeded in boring-ness by soccer. MLB blows. They too, will have to reinent their form of entertainment.
Yeah Tom, the new model isn't Joe six pack, it's the guys with money. The NFL will survive with it's current business model, but I don't expect it to retain it's dominance forever.
Futball- the soccer kind IS the dominant world sport, the USA was a little slow in recognizing it. Crap, Pele was a curiosity back then. Now? You have more kids in youth soccer than any other sport. Just a matter of time until the US produces a world class super-duper star on the order of Maradona or Reynaldo. We have guys like Altidore and a few others that are stars on the international level, just not enough yet to make us a serious World Cup contender. I said way back, it would take a generation of the kids playing soccer until they moved up to the coaching ranks for us to turn the corner- dead on.
I admit- soccer is boring as hell to those that aren't interested in the game. But for one who played competitive hockey, if you think of soccer as a slow motion version of that- you appreciate it. The strategy and rules are similar.
So get with the program- you wouldn't see premier league, and major league US soccer on TV if no one was watching. Gip was trying to argue with me- but he has his head up his a$$, the World Cup final is the most watched sporting event- period. World wide viewership makes our NFL Super Bowl minor league by comparison.
Yeah Tom, the new model isn't Joe six pack, it's the guys with money. The NFL will survive with it's current business model, but I don't expect it to retain it's dominance forever.
Futball- the soccer kind IS the dominant world sport, the USA was a little slow in recognizing it. Crap, Pele was a curiosity back then. Now? You have more kids in youth soccer than any other sport. Just a matter of time until the US produces a world class super-duper star on the order of Maradona or Reynaldo. We have guys like Altidore and a few others that are stars on the international level, just not enough yet to make us a serious World Cup contender. I said way back, it would take a generation of the kids playing soccer until they moved up to the coaching ranks for us to turn the corner- dead on.
I admit- soccer is boring as hell to those that aren't interested in the game. But for one who played competitive hockey, if you think of soccer as a slow motion version of that- you appreciate it. The strategy and rules are similar.
So get with the program- you wouldn't see premier league, and major league US soccer on TV if no one was watching. Gip was trying to argue with me- but he has his head up his a$$, the World Cup final is the most watched sporting event- period. World wide viewership makes our NFL Super Bowl minor league by comparison.
What does Suck-er have to do with anything? Homosexuals actually think it is normal to consummate their "marriage" by putting their penis into the rectum of the guy they call their husband. That is popular too, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The NFL won't die in our lifetime nor in that of our kids.
Soccer is a **Mask** sport, for fukcing morons. Idiots follow soccer. Since there are so many idiots in the world, of course, soccer will remain a big sport. HOWEVER...........the problem soccer has, in addition to the homosexual infestation, is that there are too many teams, too many divisions, and..............it is a boring game. These penis puffers aren't going to flock to sports bars like NFL fans do. Also, since it doesn't take a huge skill set to play soccer, anyone can make the soccer team. This commonality will eventually stagnate this boring non-sport. It will eventually collapse under it's own weight.
Meanwhile, the NFL is indeed changing. It is not a matter of better, or worse, it is a matter of going here the money is, and not catering to the element that will support it no matter what.
-
The FIFA boring soccer update today of the three key games the scores were 1-0, 1-0 and 1-1.
Are you kidding who could watch this snoozefest? Zzzzzzzzoooooooo.
The FIFA boring soccer update today of the three key games the scores were 1-0, 1-0 and 1-1.
Are you kidding who could watch this snoozefest? Zzzzzzzzoooooooo.
Three key games? There were only three games played.
There were many attempts in at least two of them (the other one was Serbia-Costa Rica and I know anything about it).
It is all about perspective. If you ONLY value goals, then you have a point, but goals are more scarce in soccer thus making them more exciting. I love american football but I tell you that I celebrate 10 times more a goal than a touchdown due to this condition.
Following that kind of perspective, the sport this board is about could be a bit lame because you are given 4 DOWNS TO ADVANCE 10 YARDS. And in baseball IIRC very few batters reach even 0.500, meaning that more than half of the time there's absolutely nothing happening.
EDIT. Both american football and baseball games average more than 3 hours of time. You have (in football's case) 1h of game clock. Real playing time? 10-12 minutes of REAL ACTION.
Soccer: a match lasts 1h 45min, many times more than that because of extra time. Let's say 2h. You have a 1h 30min (90min) game clock, with 40mins of REAL ACTION.
12/180 = 6.67 per cent of real action time per overall time.
40/120 = 33.33 per cent of real action time per overall time in soccer.
See that I've been generous towards american sports and there's 5 times more action in soccer.
-
The FIFA boring soccer update today of the three key games the scores were 1-0, 1-0 and 1-1.
Are you kidding who could watch this snoozefest? Zzzzzzzzoooooooo.
The FIFA boring soccer update today of the three key games the scores were 1-0, 1-0 and 1-1.
Are you kidding who could watch this snoozefest? Zzzzzzzzoooooooo.
I did, Mexico - Germany. You guys must hate hockey too, where there isn't much scoring.
-
While I absolutely loathe soccer, I am thoroughly enjoying the Blowhard's thread being hijacked by it.
-
Larry, you just never learn, do you? You and I had the very same debate circa 1996 when it was announced that the new franchise would require the purchasing of PSL's. Our friend Kathy challenged my statement that " if the NFL is smart they will stop fukcking around worrying about what the die-hard fan wants, and instead focus on what the casual fan, the more affluent, less knowledgeable but BIG MONEY fan. THe NFL was right to focus on the non die-hard then, and they are 100% CORRECTAMNUDO to continue their behavior now.
Like it or not, we will support the Browns no matter how pizzed we are. As much as you claimed PSL's were an abomination and would kill the game.............you yourself bought PSLs.
So too, is it today. The TRADITIONAL NF fn has dwindled, but the old model of a town supporting a team no longer applies. There are many ways to herd sheep and build new dollars for the NFL. Trust me, they will be fine.
Baseball is only exceeded in boring-ness by soccer. MLB blows. They too, will have to reinent their form of entertainment.
Yeah Tom, the new model isn't Joe six pack, it's the guys with money. The NFL will survive with it's current business model, but I don't expect it to retain it's dominance forever.
Futball- the soccer kind IS the dominant world sport, the USA was a little slow in recognizing it. Crap, Pele was a curiosity back then. Now? You have more kids in youth soccer than any other sport. Just a matter of time until the US produces a world class super-duper star on the order of Maradona or Reynaldo. We have guys like Altidore and a few others that are stars on the international level, just not enough yet to make us a serious World Cup contender. I said way back, it would take a generation of the kids playing soccer until they moved up to the coaching ranks for us to turn the corner- dead on.
I admit- soccer is boring as hell to those that aren't interested in the game. But for one who played competitive hockey, if you think of soccer as a slow motion version of that- you appreciate it. The strategy and rules are similar.
So get with the program- you wouldn't see premier league, and major league US soccer on TV if no one was watching. Gip was trying to argue with me- but he has his head up his a$$, the World Cup final is the most watched sporting event- period. World wide viewership makes our NFL Super Bowl minor league by comparison.
Yeah Tom, the new model isn't Joe six pack, it's the guys with money. The NFL will survive with it's current business model, but I don't expect it to retain it's dominance forever.
Futball- the soccer kind IS the dominant world sport, the USA was a little slow in recognizing it. Crap, Pele was a curiosity back then. Now? You have more kids in youth soccer than any other sport. Just a matter of time until the US produces a world class super-duper star on the order of Maradona or Reynaldo. We have guys like Altidore and a few others that are stars on the international level, just not enough yet to make us a serious World Cup contender. I said way back, it would take a generation of the kids playing soccer until they moved up to the coaching ranks for us to turn the corner- dead on.
I admit- soccer is boring as hell to those that aren't interested in the game. But for one who played competitive hockey, if you think of soccer as a slow motion version of that- you appreciate it. The strategy and rules are similar.
So get with the program- you wouldn't see premier league, and major league US soccer on TV if no one was watching. Gip was trying to argue with me- but he has his head up his a$$, the World Cup final is the most watched sporting event- period. World wide viewership makes our NFL Super Bowl minor league by comparison.
You are misrepresenting what I said......I have no doubt that more people watch the World Cup than watch the Super Bowl. After all....it is an event that is held over like a month and a half with like 100 games played and is shown to like 200 nations in the world. How can not more people watch it?
But, I would bet you that for a single game event....with viewership in a single country....the Super Bowl gets higher ratings.
Maybe, just maybe.....the countries that are participating in the WC final may get ratings in those countries that might come close to matching those of the Super Bowl. Maybe...like in Germany or Argentina for the 2014 WC final.....but you will have to prove that to me. (I could not find the figures for those countries)
Here is this:
Sunday’s 2014 FIFA World Cup Final on ABC – a 1-0 victory in extra time over Argentina to secure Germany’s fourth World Cup title and first since 1990 – ranks as the most-watched Men’s World Cup Final match ever among viewers. Based on Nielsen fast nationals, the ABC telecast averaged 17,324,000 viewers and a 9.1 US HH rating for the game window (3-5:44 p.m. ET). It also ranks as the third most-viewed World Cup game – men’s or women’s – in the United States behind ESPN’s coverage of this year’s USA vs. Portugal match ever (18,220,000 viewers) and the 1999 FIFA Women’s World Cup Final on ABC (USA vs. China with 17,975,000 viewers).
So, here in the USA....that got 17 million viewers. The most watched soccer game in US history got a bit over 18 million.
The Super Bowl gets like 120 million viewers.
-
Yeah but who can really watch a sport where little pansies go down holding their knees all the time as slow-mo catches the non-contact. Then the trainer gives a "miracle cure" and off they sprint to the next "collision". I'd rather go outside on a hike and watch the biannual Monarch Butterfly migrations through my part of the world.? ?
?
Ha, until they changed the rules, the same could be said for pro basketball. Led by the King of the floppers, Bill Laimbeer.
There's more action in the first five minutes of a soccer match than an entire baseball game- no wonder a lot of people consider baseball utterly boring, second only to golf. Regarding golf- we hashed this out years ago, and guys are entrenched in their opinions- but personally- I don't consider golf to be a sport- it's a skill.
Thanks to MJP's article, US major league soccer has a long way to go to catch up in average salary to the European version- (looks like the equivalent of Class A baseball) probably why most of the top US soccer players play on European teams. We'd need to start filling up 60,000 seat stadiums and get major air time to catch up.
Regarding FS' comments about top athletes, completely different skill set as opposed to playing football. Basketball may be close. Top Marathon runners would gas any NFL player in the first mile or two. Regarding football, I'm always fond of recalling Chris Collinsworth's story about the Bengal's soccer match. The Bengals were in a bar, and called the local semi-pro soccer team a bunch of wusses. Got challenged to a soccer match- the soccer guys were up 10-0 when the Bengals quit. So much for the "superior athletes".
Ha, until they changed the rules, the same could be said for pro basketball. Led by the King of the floppers, Bill Laimbeer.
There's more action in the first five minutes of a soccer match than an entire baseball game-
That is just a stupid comment.
no wonder a lot of people consider baseball utterly boring, second only to golf. Regarding golf- we hashed this out years ago, and guys are entrenched in their opinions- but personally- I don't consider golf to be a sport- it's a skill.
Thanks to MJP's article, US major league soccer has a long way to go to catch up in average salary to the European version- (looks like the equivalent of Class A baseball) probably why most of the top US soccer players play on European teams. We'd need to start filling up 60,000 seat stadiums and get major air time to catch up.
Regarding FS' comments about top athletes, completely different skill set as opposed to playing football. Basketball may be close. Top Marathon runners would gas any NFL player in the first mile or two. Regarding football, I'm always fond of recalling Chris Collinsworth's story about the Bengal's soccer match. The Bengals were in a bar, and called the local semi-pro soccer team a bunch of wusses. Got challenged to a soccer match- the soccer guys were up 10-0 when the Bengals quit. So much for the "superior athletes".
What do you think would happen if the soccer team took on the Bengals in football? It would be 150-0 after the first quarter.
-
I did, Mexico - Germany. You guys must hate hockey too, where there isn't much scoring.
Well hockey is 5 guys on the ice with razor sharp skates carrying clubs and bashing each other against the boards and thank goodness most all important games don't end up 1-0 or in a tie, sometimes 0-0 or 1-1. Zzzzzzzzoooooooo.
My definition - soccer, recess for big kids.
-
The FIFA boring soccer update today of the three key games the scores were 1-0, 1-0 and 1-1.
Are you kidding who could watch this snoozefest? Zzzzzzzzoooooooo.
Three key games? There were only three games played.
There were many attempts in at least two of them (the other one was Serbia-Costa Rica and I know anything about it).
It is all about perspective. If you ONLY value goals, then you have a point, but goals are more scarce in soccer thus making them more exciting. I love american football but I tell you that I celebrate 10 times more a goal than a touchdown due to this condition.
Following that kind of perspective, the sport this board is about could be a bit lame because you are given 4 DOWNS TO ADVANCE 10 YARDS. And in baseball IIRC very few batters reach even 0.500, meaning that more than half of the time there's absolutely nothing happening.
EDIT. Both american football and baseball games average more than 3 hours of time. You have (in football's case) 1h of game clock. Real playing time? 10-12 minutes of REAL ACTION.
Soccer: a match lasts 1h 45min, many times more than that because of extra time. Let's say 2h. You have a 1h 30min (90min) game clock, with 40mins of REAL ACTION.
12/180 = 6.67 per cent of real action time per overall time.
40/120 = 33.33 per cent of real action time per overall time in soccer.
See that I've been generous towards american sports and there's 5 times more action in soccer.
Three key games? There were only three games played.
There were many attempts in at least two of them (the other one was Serbia-Costa Rica and I know anything about it).
It is all about perspective. If you ONLY value goals, then you have a point, but goals are more scarce in soccer thus making them more exciting. I love american football but I tell you that I celebrate 10 times more a goal than a touchdown due to this condition.
Following that kind of perspective, the sport this board is about could be a bit lame because you are given 4 DOWNS TO ADVANCE 10 YARDS. And in baseball IIRC very few batters reach even 0.500, meaning that more than half of the time there's absolutely nothing happening.
EDIT. Both american football and baseball games average more than 3 hours of time. You have (in football's case) 1h of game clock. Real playing time? 10-12 minutes of REAL ACTION.
Soccer: a match lasts 1h 45min, many times more than that because of extra time. Let's say 2h. You have a 1h 30min (90min) game clock, with 40mins of REAL ACTION.
12/180 = 6.67 per cent of real action time per overall time.
40/120 = 33.33 per cent of real action time per overall time in soccer.
See that I've been generous towards american sports and there's 5 times more action in soccer.
Just because people are out there running around and kicking the ball to each other in the midfield does not mean that there is any action at all in soccer. They probably spend less time of REAL ACTION actually attacking the goal than the 10-12 minutes of action you say is involved in football. This may not be something you are familiar with, but in College basketball at one time there was no such thing as a shot clock. A team could hold the ball as long as they wanted. Coach Dean Smith of North Carolina developed what he called his Four Corners offense. Essentially he would just have his players dribble the ball or pass the ball...or hold the ball for minutes at a time around the perimeter before even attempting to shoot the ball. That is what most soccer matches seem like to me. Are the players out there moving and is the clock moving? Sure...but NOTHING is happening at all.
-
Yeah Tom, the new model isn't Joe six pack, it's the guys with money. The NFL will survive with it's current business model, but I don't expect it to retain it's dominance forever.
Futball- the soccer kind IS the dominant world sport, the USA was a little slow in recognizing it. Crap, Pele was a curiosity back then. Now? You have more kids in youth soccer than any other sport. Just a matter of time until the US produces a world class super-duper star on the order of Maradona or Reynaldo. We have guys like Altidore and a few others that are stars on the international level, just not enough yet to make us a serious World Cup contender. I said way back, it would take a generation of the kids playing soccer until they moved up to the coaching ranks for us to turn the corner- dead on.
I admit- soccer is boring as hell to those that aren't interested in the game. But for one who played competitive hockey, if you think of soccer as a slow motion version of that- you appreciate it. The strategy and rules are similar.
So get with the program- you wouldn't see premier league, and major league US soccer on TV if no one was watching. Gip was trying to argue with me- but he has his head up his a$$, the World Cup final is the most watched sporting event- period. World wide viewership makes our NFL Super Bowl minor league by comparison.
You are misrepresenting what I said......I have no doubt that more people watch the World Cup than watch the Super Bowl. After all....it is an event that is held over like a month and a half with like 100 games played and is shown to like 200 nations in the world. How can not more people watch it?
But, I would bet you that for a single game event....with viewership in a single country....the Super Bowl gets higher ratings.
Maybe, just maybe.....the countries that are participating in the WC final may get ratings in those countries that might come close to matching those of the Super Bowl. Maybe...like in Germany or Argentina for the 2014 WC final.....but you will have to prove that to me. (I could not find the figures for those countries)
Here is this:
Sunday’s 2014 FIFA World Cup Final on ABC – a 1-0 victory in extra time over Argentina to secure Germany’s fourth World Cup title and first since 1990 – ranks as the most-watched Men’s World Cup Final match ever among viewers. Based on Nielsen fast nationals, the ABC telecast averaged 17,324,000 viewers and a 9.1 US HH rating for the game window (3-5:44 p.m. ET). It also ranks as the third most-viewed World Cup game – men’s or women’s – in the United States behind ESPN’s coverage of this year’s USA vs. Portugal match ever (18,220,000 viewers) and the 1999 FIFA Women’s World Cup Final on ABC (USA vs. China with 17,975,000 viewers).
So, here in the USA....that got 17 million viewers. The most watched soccer game in US history got a bit over 18 million.
The Super Bowl gets like 120 million viewers.
You are misrepresenting what I said......I have no doubt that more people watch the World Cup than watch the Super Bowl. After all....it is an event that is held over like a month and a half with like 100 games played and is shown to like 200 nations in the world. How can not more people watch it?
But, I would bet you that for a single game event....with viewership in a single country....the Super Bowl gets higher ratings.
Maybe, just maybe.....the countries that are participating in the WC final may get ratings in those countries that might come close to matching those of the Super Bowl. Maybe...like in Germany or Argentina for the 2014 WC final.....but you will have to prove that to me. (I could not find the figures for those countries)
Here is this:
Sunday’s 2014 FIFA World Cup Final on ABC – a 1-0 victory in extra time over Argentina to secure Germany’s fourth World Cup title and first since 1990 – ranks as the most-watched Men’s World Cup Final match ever among viewers. Based on Nielsen fast nationals, the ABC telecast averaged 17,324,000 viewers and a 9.1 US HH rating for the game window (3-5:44 p.m. ET). It also ranks as the third most-viewed World Cup game – men’s or women’s – in the United States behind ESPN’s coverage of this year’s USA vs. Portugal match ever (18,220,000 viewers) and the 1999 FIFA Women’s World Cup Final on ABC (USA vs. China with 17,975,000 viewers).
So, here in the USA....that got 17 million viewers. The most watched soccer game in US history got a bit over 18 million.
The Super Bowl gets like 120 million viewers.
I would hazard a guess the % of televisions tuned into the WC final in the participating countries would far exceed the % of US televisions tuned into the Super Bowl. Or are you going to try and tell me a significant percentage of people in the USA don't give a rat about American football?
48% rating for SB LII, and 103 million viewers, (meaning 52%- the majority- of the TVs weren't watching the Super Bowl). I don't have the world wide rankings. Yawn. But I'll bet you a double magnum of 1982 Chateau Latour (value $13,000) that pales in comparison to the World Cup final EDIT: Don't bother- I looked it up.
Last year's Super Bowl was watched by an estimated 160 million viewers worldwide, the bulk of which were in the United States. By comparison, the 2014 World Cup final between Germany and Argentina had a global audience of about 1 billion.
2014 FIFA World Cup reached 3.2 billion viewers. More than one billion fans tuned in to watch the final of the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil, with the competition reaching a global in-home television audience of 3.2 billion people, according to final figures from FIFA and Kantar Media
I'll also say- and bet you a cheap bottle of wine. The US will beat that 18 million viewers for this years WC final. It's like the tide rolling in Gip- as us old fuddy duddies kick off, soccer will become more and more popular here- it's already happening.
-
You are misrepresenting what I said......I have no doubt that more people watch the World Cup than watch the Super Bowl. After all....it is an event that is held over like a month and a half with like 100 games played and is shown to like 200 nations in the world. How can not more people watch it?
But, I would bet you that for a single game event....with viewership in a single country....the Super Bowl gets higher ratings.
Maybe, just maybe.....the countries that are participating in the WC final may get ratings in those countries that might come close to matching those of the Super Bowl. Maybe...like in Germany or Argentina for the 2014 WC final.....but you will have to prove that to me. (I could not find the figures for those countries)
Here is this:
Sunday’s 2014 FIFA World Cup Final on ABC – a 1-0 victory in extra time over Argentina to secure Germany’s fourth World Cup title and first since 1990 – ranks as the most-watched Men’s World Cup Final match ever among viewers. Based on Nielsen fast nationals, the ABC telecast averaged 17,324,000 viewers and a 9.1 US HH rating for the game window (3-5:44 p.m. ET). It also ranks as the third most-viewed World Cup game – men’s or women’s – in the United States behind ESPN’s coverage of this year’s USA vs. Portugal match ever (18,220,000 viewers) and the 1999 FIFA Women’s World Cup Final on ABC (USA vs. China with 17,975,000 viewers).
So, here in the USA....that got 17 million viewers. The most watched soccer game in US history got a bit over 18 million.
The Super Bowl gets like 120 million viewers.
I would hazard a guess the % of televisions tuned into the WC final in the participating countries would far exceed the % of US televisions tuned into the Super Bowl. Or are you going to try and tell me a significant percentage of people in the USA don't give a rat about American football?
48% rating for SB LII, and 103 million viewers, (meaning 52%- the majority- of the TVs weren't watching the Super Bowl). I don't have the world wide rankings. Yawn. But I'll bet you a double magnum of 1982 Chateau Latour (value $13,000) that pales in comparison to the World Cup final EDIT: Don't bother- I looked it up.
Last year's Super Bowl was watched by an estimated 160 million viewers worldwide, the bulk of which were in the United States. By comparison, the 2014 World Cup final between Germany and Argentina had a global audience of about 1 billion.
2014 FIFA World Cup reached 3.2 billion viewers. More than one billion fans tuned in to watch the final of the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil, with the competition reaching a global in-home television audience of 3.2 billion people, according to final figures from FIFA and Kantar Media
I'll also say- and bet you a cheap bottle of wine. The US will beat that 18 million viewers for this years WC final. It's like the tide rolling in Gip- as us old fuddy duddies kick off, soccer will become more and more popular here- it's already happening.
I would hazard a guess the % of televisions tuned into the WC final in the participating countries would far exceed the % of US televisions tuned into the Super Bowl. Or are you going to try and tell me a significant percentage of people in the USA don't give a rat about American football?
48% rating for SB LII, and 103 million viewers, (meaning 52%- the majority- of the TVs weren't watching the Super Bowl). I don't have the world wide rankings. Yawn. But I'll bet you a double magnum of 1982 Chateau Latour (value $13,000) that pales in comparison to the World Cup final EDIT: Don't bother- I looked it up.
Well, then...you have proved nothing. Until you can come up with the ratings figures for the WC Final for Argentina and Germany...and compare them to the Super Bowl....we have nothing to compare.
Last year's Super Bowl was watched by an estimated 160 million viewers worldwide, the bulk of which were in the United States. By comparison, the 2014 World Cup final between Germany and Argentina had a global audience of about 1 billion.
2014 FIFA World Cup reached 3.2 billion viewers. More than one billion fans tuned in to watch the final of the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil, with the competition reaching a global in-home television audience of 3.2 billion people, according to final figures from FIFA and Kantar Media
Again.....3.2 bill watched 64 WC games. (I looked it up and that is the number) Given that they were broadcast to 200 countries, not that impressed overall....considering that some of that 3.2 bill. may have been the same person counted 64 times. I mean.....besides the SB...how many people overall watched all of the NFL playoffs? And 1 Billion for the WC Final...divided amongst 200 countries. I mean, the USA has only 4% of the world population. But the Super Bowl...per your figures got 16% of the viewership of the WC. One country with 4% gets 16% of what the WC gets.
I'll also say- and bet you a cheap bottle of wine. The US will beat that 18 million viewers for this years WC final. It's like the tide rolling in Gip- as us old fuddy duddies kick off, soccer will become more and more popular here- it's already happening.
I will take that bet. And I will get you a decent Finger Lakes region wine when I visit my son, if I lose. The WC Final will NOT get 18 million viewers. As for soccer "taking over"...that is what the soccer fags have been saying for 40 years.
Good old American Basketball has taken over more of the World comparatively than soccer has in a similar time frame.
-
Three key games? There were only three games played.
There were many attempts in at least two of them (the other one was Serbia-Costa Rica and I know anything about it).
It is all about perspective. If you ONLY value goals, then you have a point, but goals are more scarce in soccer thus making them more exciting. I love american football but I tell you that I celebrate 10 times more a goal than a touchdown due to this condition.
Following that kind of perspective, the sport this board is about could be a bit lame because you are given 4 DOWNS TO ADVANCE 10 YARDS. And in baseball IIRC very few batters reach even 0.500, meaning that more than half of the time there's absolutely nothing happening.
EDIT. Both american football and baseball games average more than 3 hours of time. You have (in football's case) 1h of game clock. Real playing time? 10-12 minutes of REAL ACTION.
Soccer: a match lasts 1h 45min, many times more than that because of extra time. Let's say 2h. You have a 1h 30min (90min) game clock, with 40mins of REAL ACTION.
12/180 = 6.67 per cent of real action time per overall time.
40/120 = 33.33 per cent of real action time per overall time in soccer.
See that I've been generous towards american sports and there's 5 times more action in soccer.
Just because people are out there running around and kicking the ball to each other in the midfield does not mean that there is any action at all in soccer. They probably spend less time of REAL ACTION actually attacking the goal than the 10-12 minutes of action you say is involved in football. This may not be something you are familiar with, but in College basketball at one time there was no such thing as a shot clock. A team could hold the ball as long as they wanted. Coach Dean Smith of North Carolina developed what he called his Four Corners offense. Essentially he would just have his players dribble the ball or pass the ball...or hold the ball for minutes at a time around the perimeter before even attempting to shoot the ball. That is what most soccer matches seem like to me. Are the players out there moving and is the clock moving? Sure...but NOTHING is happening at all.
Just because people are out there running around and kicking the ball to each other in the midfield does not mean that there is any action at all in soccer. They probably spend less time of REAL ACTION actually attacking the goal than the 10-12 minutes of action you say is involved in football. This may not be something you are familiar with, but in College basketball at one time there was no such thing as a shot clock. A team could hold the ball as long as they wanted. Coach Dean Smith of North Carolina developed what he called his Four Corners offense. Essentially he would just have his players dribble the ball or pass the ball...or hold the ball for minutes at a time around the perimeter before even attempting to shoot the ball. That is what most soccer matches seem like to me. Are the players out there moving and is the clock moving? Sure...but NOTHING is happening at all.
Well, what I'm talking about is that ''NOTHING'' works every way. Any soccer fan I introduce to american football, I have to explain the importance of a guy running for 2 yards and being stopped, and then another time when a QB misses a pass, and then a punt.
In soccer you have more real action time, and a way bigger percentage for the overall match time. But in American Football, you have way less playing time, but I'm not going to be the one saying it is action packed and more intense.
The point I'm trying to get across is that, to put it simply:
-Soccer fans enjoy a sport where most of the time the ball is moving, with the tactic consisting on playing both at the same time defense and attack, thus making it a more easy paced sport that never stops.
-American Football fans enjoy a sport where most of the time the ball is dead, with the tactic consisting on trying to solve the position that is given any given time by the rival, and with short time spans of action, thus making it a sport of top speed, and phisicallity.
So, the same ''rarara nothing happens in soccer, it's boring blablabla'' can be said to American Football too.
Furthermore, now that I'm thinking of it, I'm going to say that if there was NO TV (no replays, no different angles, etc.), I would probably enjoy more soccer than american football.
-
And here is a number: Overall this past season, the NFL playoffs, of which only 11 games were played, were watched by 408 million people. (This includes the 103 mill for the SB)
So....11 games in one country get 408 mill viewers......while 3.2 bill watch the 64 WC games in 200 countries.
To break it down:
The NFL playoffs were watched by an average 37.09 million per game....in the USA (with 4% of the population)
The WC games were watched by about 50 million per game....in 200 countries.
-
Just because people are out there running around and kicking the ball to each other in the midfield does not mean that there is any action at all in soccer. They probably spend less time of REAL ACTION actually attacking the goal than the 10-12 minutes of action you say is involved in football. This may not be something you are familiar with, but in College basketball at one time there was no such thing as a shot clock. A team could hold the ball as long as they wanted. Coach Dean Smith of North Carolina developed what he called his Four Corners offense. Essentially he would just have his players dribble the ball or pass the ball...or hold the ball for minutes at a time around the perimeter before even attempting to shoot the ball. That is what most soccer matches seem like to me. Are the players out there moving and is the clock moving? Sure...but NOTHING is happening at all.
Well, what I'm talking about is that ''NOTHING'' works every way. Any soccer fan I introduce to american football, I have to explain the importance of a guy running for 2 yards and being stopped, and then another time when a QB misses a pass, and then a punt.
In soccer you have more real action time, and a way bigger percentage for the overall match time. But in American Football, you have way less playing time, but I'm not going to be the one saying it is action packed and more intense.
The point I'm trying to get across is that, to put it simply:
-Soccer fans enjoy a sport where most of the time the ball is moving, with the tactic consisting on playing both at the same time defense and attack, thus making it a more easy paced sport that never stops.
-American Football fans enjoy a sport where most of the time the ball is dead, with the tactic consisting on trying to solve the position that is given any given time by the rival, and with short time spans of action, thus making it a sport of top speed, and phisicallity.
So, the same ''rarara nothing happens in soccer, it's boring blablabla'' can be said to American Football too.
Furthermore, now that I'm thinking of it, I'm going to say that if there was NO TV (no replays, no different angles, etc.), I would probably enjoy more soccer than american football.
Well, what I'm talking about is that ''NOTHING'' works every way. Any soccer fan I introduce to american football, I have to explain the importance of a guy running for 2 yards and being stopped, and then another time when a QB misses a pass, and then a punt.
In soccer you have more real action time, and a way bigger percentage for the overall match time. But in American Football, you have way less playing time, but I'm not going to be the one saying it is action packed and more intense.
Well...that is just wrong. again, just because people are moving does not mean that there is meaningful action. See my 4 corners example
The point I'm trying to get across is that, to put it simply:
-Soccer fans enjoy a sport where most of the time the ball is moving, with the tactic consisting on playing both at the same time defense and attack, thus making it a more easy paced sport that never stops.
Some can say that it rarely ever starts.
-American Football fans enjoy a sport where most of the time the ball is dead, with the tactic consisting on trying to solve the position that is given any given time by the rival, and with short time spans of action, thus making it a sport of top speed, and phisicallity.
So, the same ''rarara nothing happens in soccer, it's boring blablabla'' can be said to American Football too.
Furthermore, now that I'm thinking of it, I'm going to say that if there was NO TV (no replays, no different angles, etc.), I would probably enjoy more soccer than american football.
The thing is....there is more action and intensity in the few seconds of a single football game than there are in like 10 minutes of a soccer game.
That is just the nature of each sport.
But...you can fix soccer....just by eliminating the offside rule.
-
And here is a number: Overall this past season, the NFL playoffs, of which only 11 games were played, were watched by 408 million people. (This includes the 103 mill for the SB)
So....11 games in one country get 408 mill viewers......while 3.2 bill watch the 64 WC games in 200 countries.
To break it down:
The NFL playoffs were watched by an average 37.09 million per game....in the USA (with 4% of the population)
The WC games were watched by about 50 million per game....in 200 countries.
And here is a number: Overall this past season, the NFL playoffs, of which only 11 games were played, were watched by 408 million people. (This includes the 103 mill for the SB)
So....11 games in one country get 408 mill viewers......while 3.2 bill watch the 64 WC games in 200 countries.
To break it down:
The NFL playoffs were watched by an average 37.09 million per game....in the USA (with 4% of the population)
The WC games were watched by about 50 million per game....in 200 countries.
Gip, no one is arguing that the NFL isn't the #1 major domo sport in the United States. As I pointed out, more than half of the TVs in the USA weren't even tuned into the SB. Just get your head out of your a$$ and admit world wide, interest in the NFL pales in comparison to soccer. Or you forget they folded NFL Europe?
Yawn, so in those 200 countries- make that around 100 because the majority of the world doesn't give a $hit about the NFL, the Super Bowl was out viewed by a ratio of around 10-1 as opposed to the World Cup Final.
-
Well, what I'm talking about is that ''NOTHING'' works every way. Any soccer fan I introduce to american football, I have to explain the importance of a guy running for 2 yards and being stopped, and then another time when a QB misses a pass, and then a punt.
In soccer you have more real action time, and a way bigger percentage for the overall match time. But in American Football, you have way less playing time, but I'm not going to be the one saying it is action packed and more intense.
Well...that is just wrong. again, just because people are moving does not mean that there is meaningful action. See my 4 corners example
The point I'm trying to get across is that, to put it simply:
-Soccer fans enjoy a sport where most of the time the ball is moving, with the tactic consisting on playing both at the same time defense and attack, thus making it a more easy paced sport that never stops.
Some can say that it rarely ever starts.
-American Football fans enjoy a sport where most of the time the ball is dead, with the tactic consisting on trying to solve the position that is given any given time by the rival, and with short time spans of action, thus making it a sport of top speed, and phisicallity.
So, the same ''rarara nothing happens in soccer, it's boring blablabla'' can be said to American Football too.
Furthermore, now that I'm thinking of it, I'm going to say that if there was NO TV (no replays, no different angles, etc.), I would probably enjoy more soccer than american football.
The thing is....there is more action and intensity in the few seconds of a single football game than there are in like 10 minutes of a soccer game.
That is just the nature of each sport.
But...you can fix soccer....just by eliminating the offside rule.
The thing is....there is more action and intensity in the few seconds of a single football game than there are in like 10 minutes of a soccer game.
That is just the nature of each sport.
But...you can fix soccer....just by eliminating the offside rule.
Well if you want to increase the scoring by orders of magnitude- sure. It's the same reason why there's offsides in hockey- and I played the sport Gip. You'd just have a bunch of guys hanging around the goal waiting for (in the case of soccer) a 50 yard pass, or in hockey- why bother to defend, if the object is to score as many goals as quickly as possible? Want to change it to a score-a-thon? They could make MLB a lot more interesting just by changing it to underhand slow pitch- have 50-40 games. It would change the nature of the game, and that's why it will never happen.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login