World Cup Bids (Announced: 2018-RUSSIA, 2022-QATAR)

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by nik-

That's ignoring some pretty significant economic factors is it not?

Which economic factors? Brazil's economy has grown steadily over the last few years.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by P-Rugby

i would like to see countrysides that are true football nations get the world cup. none of this USA nonsense. personally i would like to see England and Australia. host the world cup.

I'm not sure how you got the idea that Australia was a football nation, unless by football you meant Aussie Rules/League/Union, because soccer is most certainly a distant second/third to those games.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Which economic factors? Brazil's economy has grown steadily over the last few years.

Are you serious? The fact that 26% of Brazil's population still resides in favelas renders any modest economic improvement irrelevant. In addition, your argument is based on the presumption that match attendance is the best or most appropriate way to determine football's popularity or the extent of a nation's footballitis. Even if your assumption is correct, is your analysis thorough?

For instance, you state that the MLS has an average attendance of 18,000 while the Brazilian Série A only has an average of 15,000. Ignoring the fact that you have your numbers backwards according to Wikipedia, your statistical analysis is incomplete. The largest city with an MLS franchise, New York City, has a metro population of 18.9 million and only one professional club while the largest city with a Série A club, São Paulo, has a similar metro population of 19.7 million but one that supports 3 professional clubs in the Série A alone. This fact that Brazilian cities can support more than one football club speaks about the importance of the game to the population and is a factor, which affects average attendance figures, that you neglected to consider in your analysis.

I'm sorry but your argument holds very little water my friend.

[GirlySports]

There are other factors too, such as youth enrollment, college soccer or non-professional soccer and 2nd/3rd divisions.

I know this is probably a losing argument on my side but if I took the time to put a term paper together, the gap is closer than most people think. Soccer is very strong in the US.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Addick

Are you serious? The fact that 26% of Brazil's population still resides in favelas renders any modest economic improvement irrelevant. In addition, your argument is based on the presumption that match attendance is the best or most appropriate way to determine football's popularity or the extent of a nation's footballitis. Even if your assumption is correct, is your analysis thorough?

For instance, you state that the MLS has an average attendance of 18,000 while the Brazilian Série A only has an average of 15,000. Ignoring the fact that you have your numbers backwards according to Wikipedia, your statistical analysis is incomplete. The largest city with an MLS franchise, New York City, has a metro population of 18.9 million and only one professional club while the largest city with a Série A club, São Paulo, has a similar metro population of 19.7 million but one that supports 3 professional clubs in the Série A alone. This fact that Brazilian cities can support more than one football club speaks about the importance of the game to the population and is a factor, which affects average attendance figures, that you neglected to consider in your analysis.

I'm sorry but your argument holds very little water my friend.

That's great, but I can argue that you're failing to consider the fact that more US markets are supporting teams than those in Brazil. Sao Paulo is home to 15% of the teams in the first division, the MLS has teams spread out all across the country with successful attendance numbers. The fact that more US cities can support football clubs speaks about the importance of the game to the population as well.

I'm not sure that the US would rank ahead of Brazil in my books, but your arguments are springing some pretty serious leaks as well.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I know this is probably a losing argument on my side but if I took the time to put a term paper together, the gap is closer than most people think. Soccer is very strong in the US.

Even if it's getting stronger, it does not mean that it is a footballing nation or even becoming one. It is not even close to becoming the country's primary sport and this is after years of massive growth and participation figures that are starting to dwarf those found in the country's primary sports. As such, it is almost pointless to argue that it is as much of a footballing nations as one of the World's footballing powers.

Originally Posted by valo403

That's great, but I can argue that you're failing to consider the fact that more US markets are supporting teams than those in Brazil. Sao Paulo is home to 15% of the teams in the first division, the MLS has teams spread out all across the country with successful attendance numbers. The fact that more US cities can support football clubs speaks about the importance of the game to the population as well.

Really?

The MLS has one tier while the Campeonato Brasileiro has four. Unlike the MLS, São Paulo having multiple clubs does not stop other cities from having professional clubs. As far as I know, there are more professional football clubs in Brazil with even smaller centres having multiple teams, something non-existent in almost all of the largest American markets.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Addick

Really?

The MLS has one tier while the Campeonato Brasileiro has four. Unlike the MLS, São Paulo having multiple clubs does not stop other cities from having professional clubs. As far as I know, there are more professional football clubs in Brazil with even smaller centres having multiple teams, something non-existent in almost all of the largest American markets.

I would argue that the lower levels of the US game are on relatively on par in terms of "professionalism" as those in Brazil. They may not be technically pro leagues, but something like NCAA soccer has all of, if not more, of the characteristics of a professional league than the lower levels in a country like Brazil. And how would NYC having 3 MLS teams prevent other cities from having teams in the MLS? There's already a push for a second team in the market, does that mean Kansas City doesn't have one anymore?

The point is that the argument you dismissed so quickly isn't as cut and dry as you want to make it out to be.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by valo403

The point is that the argument you dismissed so quickly isn't as cut and dry as you want to make it out to be.

As I think it is, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[bizaro86]

What percentage of pro sports dollars are spent on soccer in the US?

What percentage of pro sports dollars are spent on soccer in Brazil?

The US is still the richest country in the world, so even a niche market in the US can be equivalent in absolute dollars to the most popular market in the another country.

[d_phaneuf]

it's a crying shame the world cup wasn't awarded by Fifa to their 4th!!! best team in the world in their new rankings

The Top 50

1. Spain
2. Netherlands
3. Germany
4. England
5. Brazil
6. Italy
7. Portugal
8. Croatia
9. Mexico
10. Argentina
11. Norway
12. Greece
13. Japan
14. Ivory Coast
15. France
16. Montenegro
17. Russia
18. Uruguay
19. Sweden
20. Denmark
21. Slovenia
22. Australia
23. Turkey
24. United States
25. Serbia
26. Korea Republic
27. Chile
28. Slovakia
29. Switzerland
30. Israel
31. Ireland
32. Paraguay
33. Ghana
34. Egypt
35. Belgium
36. Czech Republic
37. Burkina
38. Jamaica
39. Bosnia-Herzegovina
40. Belarus
41. Nigeria
42. Ukraine
43. Senegal
44. Honduras
45. Hungary
46. Bulgaria
47. South Africa
48. Cameroon
49. Peru
50. Iran

get in!

but really these rankings actually aren't that bad for the first time in forever for fifa, Brazil should obviously be above Engerland but I can't really argue with the top 10 being the actual top 10

the only teams that are way too low for me is Chile, they should be in the 10-15 range, and Ireland are a top 20 side

[GirlySports]

How the heck is Norway 11th? When was the last time Norway qualified for anything?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Holy crap the Czechs are 36th?

Weren't they ranked in the top 10 like 5 years ago?

[Muta]

How the hell is Burkina-Faso ranked #37?

Also, what the hell is Montenegro doing so high there? I didn't realize they were a soccer power.

[GirlySports]

Did a bit of research, Burkina Faso are 12 wins, 3 losses and 2 draws in their last 17 competitive matches (African nations 2010, World cup qualifying 2010 and African nations qualifying 2012). Their only losses are 2 to Ivory Coast and 1 to Ghana so they've made alot of points in the ranking system.

[d_phaneuf]

the ELO rankings are a lot better for anyone who doesn't know about them

[Lee of Red]

Originally Posted by Muta

Also, what the hell is Montenegro doing so high there? I didn't realize they were a soccer power.

They've only been playing truly competitive games since late 2008 so they don't have a lot of bad performances to weigh them down. They were artificially low and achieved good results against much higher ranked teams which accelerates their rise up the ranks. Now it's artificially high. They'll hit a bad patch at some point and go back down but it'll be a good couple of years before they achieve their true rank.

Short version... the rankings are flawed