Reply With Quote
What a ridiculously painful game that was.
Dumbass, the graph only has the EPL listed when the 2 highest paid athletes in the WORLD (& the top 3 futbol players) play in La Liga.Who cares? When you combine the total dollar amount of contracts of the all soccer players and baseball players in the top 100, baseball players make more in total.
Povertyball is behind US college sports
The highest paying athletic team in the world is FC Barcelona and has an average salary of $8,680,569 a year, with each player earning about $166,934 a WEEK! Second in line is AC Milan, from Italian professional league Serie A. It’s interesting to note that the New York Yankees and AC Milan have nearly identical payrolls, but the AC Milan players have higher individual salaries than the Yankees players. The #3 spot on our list of highest paid teams is Manchester City, who just won the Premiership (EPL Championship) for the first time since 1968, thanks to the ability to pay for extraordinary talent.
Last edited by Kawhitstorm; 07-01-2016 at 10:40 PM.
So you post a graph that just further proves my point?Dumbass, the graph only has the EPL listed when the 2 highest paid athletes in the WORLD (& the top 3 futbol players) play in La Liga.
Check this graph. 4 American leagues are worth than all the povertyball leagues combined
Thus my and CN's point. What good is a billion strong audience if you can't profit from it? And why can't they profit from it like they should? Because 90% of viewership comes from the 3rd world
Last edited by midnightpulp; 07-01-2016 at 10:54 PM.
That's why baseball is, in my mind, the best designed major sport on the planet. They keep playing until there's a definitive winner and don't out with dumbass minigames.
And out of the major sports, ref/ump influence is minimal. We just need homeplate umps linked to pitchtrax or something and it'll be perfect.
Notice how it ended with a winner. Not a 0-0 tie like poorball.
For me there's a limit to that, like when the last two innings are being pitched by your infield. And the umpire sure as was influencing that game with his schizophrenic strike zone. An umpire calling a wide/narrow strike zone can basically kill a game for your team.
I could care less for this argument as I watch soccer and baseball, and I find the debate silly (besides for trolling purposes). I grew up watching baseball, but find myself hard pressed to sit through an entire (non-live) game of baseball. The 'boring' argument for a sport will forever be subjective. Money also has little to do with popularity, as the world isn't clamoring to make NASCAR leagues.
I'm not a big fan of penalty shootouts, but I can see why it's used as an alternative to endless sudden death. But trolling shootouts and trolling ties in soccer to me...doesn't make sense.
Polo and jousting, which was popular in the Middle Ages. The peasants played games on foot, pretty much any code of modern football and more while the elite and royals played games on horseback as well as more sophisticated games, such as chess.Their enlightened European minds can't comprehend the fact that all of those sports are called "football" because they are ball sports played on foot (as opposed to polo on horseback). It's not a reference to kicking.
"But, but, muh handegg! I'm so clever! Wake up, people, it's the current year!"
Most valuable sporting events:
College basketball is worth more than the UEFA Champions League.And the World Cup has terrible value for being an event that draws BILLIONS over its span. On a per game basis, the World Series is actually more valuable than the World Cup, since the World Cup will have many more matches.
Dumbass, MLB brings more revenue than the NBA b/c they have MORE GAMES. Meanwhile, the EPL brings more money than the NBA b/c it's more popular.So you post a graph that just further proves my point?
Check this graph. 4 American leagues are worth than all the povertyball leagues combined
Thus my and CN's point. What good is a billion strong audience if you can't profit from it? And why can't they profit from it like they should? Because 90% of viewership comes from the 3rd world
NFL/CFB brings a ton of money b/c they play in giant stadiums thus have huge gate revenues. The games are also scheduled either in prime time or on weekends to maximize TV viewership which equates to a fat TV rights contract. On the other hand, it's difficult to even follow the major futbol leagues in Europe b/c of time zone differences.
Dumbass, ever heard of this things called COMMERCIALS aka why people even watch the SB!Most valuable sporting events:
College basketball is worth more than the UEFA Champions League.
North American leagues have "TV" timeouts.
This is how you advertise in Futbol: #cellphone
Last edited by Kawhitstorm; 07-01-2016 at 11:19 PM.
The primary reason baseball is perceived as boring is because of the length of the regular season that makes individual games seem "meaningless" (they really aren't, but perception is reality). I've always been of the firm belief that context has more influence on the entertainment factor of a sport than the actual sport itself. Ex. No one cares about swimming, but put in the context of the Olympics with Michael Phelps going for record golds, and suddenly everyone is a swimming fan. Put baseball in a meaningful post-season situation, and suddenly every pitch is a tension filled event, unlike a July game against the Twins or something.
This is what the NFL has a monopoly on, and even soccer. The shorter seasons in those respective sports turn every game into event worth watching, unlike basketball, baseball, hockey.
And as a sports fan of the sport, it irritates me. People are tuning into watch "events" and "story-lines" rather than the sport itself. Baseball will indeed suffer some in the coming decades, since it's poor at drawing in casual fans who need storylines or star power to stay interested. I also see the NBA and NHL suffering (the NBA can't ride the Lebron gravy train forever. Just look at the ratings when the Spurs and the Pistons were playing each other), and even with Lebron's star power and an NBA Finals anchored by the most compelling story line since the '04 Boston Red Sox, the NBA Finals basically averaged Sunday Night Football ratings (about 18 million).
I also think the US is re edly obsessed with football (I love the sport [hate GoodellBall, though], but I think it's affecting the popularity of other domestic sports, since the event nature of an NFL game conditioned sports fans over the years to want every game in every sport to be an "event."), but that's another argument.
More games also means diminishing returns on a per game basis. A lot of MLB games are played in the afternoon during a weekday. Bad argument.Dumbass, MLB brings more revenue than the NBA b/c they have MORE GAMES. Meanwhile, the EPL brings more money than the NBA b/c it's more popular.
NFL/CFB brings a ton of money b/c they play in giant stadiums thus have huge gate revenues. The games are also scheduled either in prime time or on weekends to maximize TV viewership which equates to a fat TV rights contract. On the other hand, it's difficult to even follow the major futbol leagues in Europe b/c of time zone differences.
Of course the EPL is more popular, and it's pathetic they could barely out draw the NBA despite a worldwide audience for regular season games. Meanwhile, NBA regular season games draw about 2 million on average. This further proves the point that the a huge chunk viewerbase are 3rd worlders who aren't worth marketing to for advertisers.
Another terrible counterargument. The Superbowl draws TWICE as much revenue than the ENTIRE World Cup event, from group games to knockout matches. In total, the World Cup will actually have more broadcast time that can be used for commercials. The Superbowl will have 50 commercials during the game. If a soccer match averages just 2 commercials per half-time, then it will have many more commercials than a single Super Bowl game. The World Cup has 63 total matches. I don't recall how many commercials there are during half-time for a soccer match, but I'd be willing to bet it's more than 2. So conceivably, the World Cup can have 200 commercials total.Dumbass, ever heard of this things called COMMERCIALS aka why people even watch the SB!
North American leagues have "TV" timeouts.
This is how you advertise in Futbol: #cellphone
And yet, they draw 50% less revenue
Once again proving the point that the majority of fans are 3rd Worlders. Nothing wrong with being poor, but the povertyball name is apt
Wealthy yanks refuse to invest in the MLS b/c North American sports leagues make a majority of their money by selling ads to obese couch potatoes via "commercial breaks".
Bruh, halftime is when I take a break just like folks in the stadium. Are you seriously trying to compare the viewership of a 15 minute halftime break to 2 minute commercial break?
Indians vs Blow Jobs ended 2-1 after SIX HOURS AND THIRTEEN MINUTES, the equivalent of more than 4 football matches
Nationals vs Reds ended 3-2 after FOUR HOURS AND THIRTY MINUTES, the equivalent of 3 football matches
And that's just tonight, 1/162. Who the would sit through an entire game like these?
Answer: nobody
Povertyball uses a pay-per-view model:Wealthy yanks refuse to invest in the MLS b/c North American sports leagues make a majority of their money by selling ads to obese couch potatoes via "commercial breaks".
http://sports.stackexchange.com/ques...sts-make-moneyBest leagues in Europe are almost always on pay channels, which end up cashing in serious sums of money from fans, especially from pubs and cafés that show the game to their guests.
No one here is going to pay 9.99 per month or whatever to watch the ty MLS. Majority of Americans wouldn't even pay for the NBA, MLB, NHL. The NFL would probably be the exception, though.
Broadcasters are going always want their slice, whether via pay-per-view or commercials.
I'd rather watch commercials than pay for it, especially considering I would be only following one team. League Pass bends you over the barrel here. The total package is 199.99. The Spurs package was 119. Trust me, I'd rather put up with watching a few commercials if it meant I could get Spurs games here in Cali on a regular channel.
There's also pre-match time to show commercials.Bruh, halftime is when I take a break just like folks in the stadium. Are you seriously trying to compare the viewership of a 15 minute halftime break to 2 minute commercial break?
And not everyone will take a break during half-time. There's still massive revenue potential there.
That's like me saying, "Bruh, I flip the channel during commercials." Which I do, and many people do, but that doesn't reduce their value.
And unlike povertyball, those games didn't end in a meaningless tie, nor were they decided by a stupid minigame
American sports are about definitively deciding a winner, regardless of the time it takes. Povertyball is about chanting or something and being in and out in 2 hours.
Don't forget singing showtunes in the stands like a bunch of gotsAnd unlike povertyball, those games didn't end in a meaningless tie, nor were they decided by a stupid minigame
American sports are about definitively deciding a winner, regardless of the time it takes. Povertyball is about chanting or something and being in and out in 2 hours.
My theory is that povertyball fans came up with chanting to keep themselves entertained while enduring yet another 0-0 tie.Don't forget singing showtunes in the stands like a bunch of gots
Last I checked every sports league has a pre-game show so it's a wash, a good chunk of the audience also doesn't watch it.
Channel flipping is mostly prevalent among folks who watch games by themselves, nobody is flipping channels at a sports bar.And not everyone will take a break during half-time. There's still massive revenue potential there.
That's like me saying, "Bruh, I flip the channel during commercials." Which I do, and many people do, but that doesn't reduce their value.
They have to chant in order to keep themselves awake, tbh.
So you don't count hockey as an "American" sport. Got it.And unlike povertyball, those games didn't end in a meaningless tie, nor were they decided by a stupid minigame
American sports are about definitively deciding a winner, regardless of the time it takes. Povertyball is about chanting or something and being in and out in 2 hours.
The fact that a single game out of 162, can last for more than SIX ING HOURS
And yes, a known start and end time to a game is an attribute, not a detriment. My life doesn't revolve around sports.
Exactly. And many soccer fans watch games in that environment. When you're at a sportsbar, you usually chat with friends during the commercials/half-time, but the television is still in your general awareness. Advertisers know this and thus try to make commercials "attention grabbing."Last I checked every sports league has a pre-game show so it's a wash, a good chunk of the audience also doesn't watch it.
Channel flipping is mostly prevalent among folks who watch games by themselves, nobody is flipping channels at a sports bar.
And half-time soccer commercials for big events are exactly that. They're slick and high budgeted, meaning advertisers see them as worth investing in. The market just isn't a lucrative as the American market, because, as I said, the majority of those adverts are being seen by 3rd worlders huddled around a black-and-white TV :tol
Again, nothing wrong with being poor. But ^^^ if that is my primary audience and I'm the President of Advertising at Mercedes, I ain't giving jack for ad time.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
