Favourite football team (soccer for some)

Remove all ads!

I still wonder how Berlusc... err.. I mean, Milan got so little punishment and their competitors got so much...

Anyway, River Plate (Argentina) fan here; when I was a kid, Dad and Daddy wanted me to support Boca Jr but I didn't like their colors, when I saw River's shirt, I started to support them, so I was the black sheep of the family being the only one supporting River Plate (1 out of 6)

But I never was a total football fan, so that's why that here at Spain, I cheer for the little team (Villareal, Espanyol, etc) fighting against the big teams (Barçs, Real Madrid, etc.).

 

Association Football: All Whites
Rugby Union Football: All Blacks
Rugby League Football: Kiwis
Australian Rules Football: St Kilda
American Football: Kansas City Chiefs

 

Because that's what they call the team that wins the Super Bowl every year. While I will concede the point that they don't play other teams from around the world, and will further concede that the NFL does not host any international competition, I do feel the moniker is appropriate, as there are very few other nations that have professional American football leagues. The few nations that do have rosters that consists of players that weren't good enough to make it in the NFL (the pro league in the U.S.). Truth be told, there isn't another pro football league in existance that can compete with the talent level in the NFL. I think the NFL Europe teams would get beat by the better Division I-A football universities in the U.S.

Now, I will agree that the team that wins the World Series probably shouldn't be referred to as the World Champions, as there are many quality pro baseball leagues in other countries. Just because many of the foreign players come to play in the U.S. does not take away the fact that many other countries produce a whole lot of good baseball players. It's just that in the football world, it's an entirely home-grown product. 99% of the pro football players are from the U.S., and we produce such a surplus of quality football players that we export them to pro leagues in other countries.

 

It's mostly only played in America. So how you can say 'World Champions' is appropiate?

How could you take it upon yourselves to say 'World Champions' when the game is only seriously played on one continent? What's up with just 'Superbowl Champions'?

 

Perhaps not extravagant enough with "World Champions"?

Funny enough I always enjoyed watching WBA matches on the TV, perhaps their colours reminds me of Juventus shirts - whom I like too.

 

Look, I wasn't the one who decided to call whoever happens to win the Super Bowl "World Champions" (as it concerns American Football - it's not like they are applying their skills to other sports). I think I explained this already, but I'll try again.

Because the few other nations that play American rules football have teams that are filled with players that weren't good enough to play in the U.S. If they were good enough, they wouldn't go to NFL Europe to play, because they pay much more money here in the states. It's the exact opposite of what the best American soccer players do - they go to play in Europe where they can make more money.

So if the best players in a certain sport all play in the same league, then it logically follows that the best team from that league is also the best team in the world. You don't need to play every other team in the world to be the best in the world. This year at the WC, Italy was the best team in the world, because the competition gathered together all the best soccer talent the world over, and Italy won. It should be noted that Italy didn't have to play every team in the WC in order to prove it was the best. Your arguement is like saying, "We can't be sure that Italy was the best, because Mongolia didn't send a team to the WC, so Mongolia might be better."

I think that only strengthens my statement. If England was the only country in the world that played soccer, would it not logically follow that the best team in England would also be the best team in the world?

 

Of course, but that wouldn't make us the world champions . Only the best in theory. Only in a tournament with ALL the worlds international teams could the winner call themselves the world champions . That's where the discussion ends - all other chat is waffle .

 

WARNING: EXTENDED RANT TO FOLLOW

All of the world's international football teams come from the same pool of American colleges and universities. The best ones play in the NFL. The ones that are pretty good, but not great play in NFL Europe or other similar second-rate professional leagues. The ones that aren't particularly good go on to careers in whatever they happened to be majoring in while at college or university.

To be considered the best team in the world in any particular sport, you have to compete against the best talent in the world in that particular sport. And the NFL meets that criteria. All of the talent in American football the world over is located in the NFL. It's not like NFL Europe is one step below the NFL. They are miles apart (and I'm speaking more metaphorically than geographically). The rosters of NFL Europe consist 90% of has-been's or wanna-be's that have no chance of making an NFL roster. The remaining 10% of the league are prospects, because the NFL uses NFL Europe as a kind of developmental league. These players have a chance to prove themselves on the NFL Europe stage, and can one day hope to earn a back-up spot on an NFL roster or be included in an NFL practice squad. It's not like the NFL Europe is developing starter-quality talent for NFL teams.

I can't believe I have to defend this position, as to me it seems blatantly obvious, and can only be confused by people who don't a lick about American football. It's not like I'm claiming the best pro soccer team in the U.S. is the best in the world.

I have already acknowledged that it's not right if, for example, the NBA (that's the U.S. professional basketball league) declares it's champ to be the best in the world, because it's been proven repeatedly over the last few years that there are several other South American and European teams that can assemble a team that is better than the U.S. team. The NBA champ cannot claim to be the best in the world because they have not played against the best talent and competition in the world while winning the NBA Championship.

The same things goes for MLB (the pro baseball league in the U.S.). There are many other countries, most of which are located in Central America and east Asia, that have very good professional baseball leagues. Here again, the MLB champ has not played the best of the world, and therefore cannot claim to be the best in the world.

This is getting frustrating and repetitive, but I'll try once again to put it in terms that any Englishman can understand - by relating it to soccer and cricket:

Why does the WC not allow all 200-something countries in the world to send a team to compete in the WC? It would truly be an international competition, and get rid of all that hand-wringing that goes on in the qualifying rounds. The obvious answer to that is the qualifying rounds are a winnowing process to separate out the chaff. The WC wants to feature the best talent in the world, and if you are not among the best talent in the wrold, you are not invited, because the competition is to determine who the best is, and clearly, you are not part of that group.

I have no idea if there is a world championship of cricket, but I imagine if there is that the U.S. has never won it, and probably doesn't even get invited to it with any regularity. Why? Because we suck at cricket. We're not among the best in the world, and because of that a competition to determine who the best in the world is loses nothing if we don't happen to be there.

The NFL is the only pro league to my knowledge where the best talent in that sport is all located in one nation, in one league. The other international leagues don't possess a fraction of the football talent that is contained in the NFL. The NFL champ will start playing the champ in other leagues as soon as they possess a talent level that approaches anything remotely resembling the best in the world. However, I don't see that ever happening, because if they had talent that was among the world's best, they'd already be playing in the NFL.

I'll tell you what - as soon as one NFL player forfeits his draft status in the NFL to go play in NFL Europe, I'll take your arguement seriously. And it doesn't even have to be a top college player. I don't care if the guy was selected 200th overall in the draft. But that doesn't happen, because no one is going to sacrifice an NFL paycheck to go play for some B-league overseas for a fraction of the compensation he would receive in the NFL.

 

That's got absolutely NOTHING to do with anything regarding World ANYTHING. You're talking about NFL (NATIONAL football league). It's totally different to any world tournament. As such, it's wrong to say that a team is the best in the world when they win a NATIONAL competition, completely irrespective of whether that league is the best one around, or not.

Nobody's arguing about you claiming anything. The title is called the World Championship (or something along those lines) when it's clearly not a world championship. Even the name is a contradiction: The WORLD Championship of the NATIONAL football league.

Every nation who has a football team cometes the World Cup at some point or other. The qualification rounds are part of the World Cup proper. Whether they compete in the early qualifying, the group qualifying or the finals themselves are decided by how well they perform. But they do compete.

It doesn't matter how good the league is . What are you having trouble grasping? Or are we on cross purposes a bit here? The quality of the league is completely irrelevant. The winner of the Super Bowl are called the World Champions, even though they only played other American teams from the NFL. It doesn't matter if the NFL would crush all other teams world wide. That doesn't matter at all. You can't call a team the WORLDS BEST based purely on a NATIONAL league. Even if the NFL teams will crush teams from other places, they shoukd still have to play. It's like England turning around and saying 'We're too good for all these small teams because we say so, so we're not going to play you'.

It doesn't matter what league they play in, or how good the players are! Why can't it just be called the Super Bowl and thw winners calledt he Super Bowl Winners? Simple as that. No need to falsely bring world into it anywhere.

Dear o' dear, I'm struggling here. I give up .

 

Evidently so. I think a world champion is defined by being the best in the world. You think it is defined by number of participants.

 

No, you define 'best in the world' by opinion, I define 'best in the world' by actually beating everyone else in the world and proving it. As opposed to saying 'we think we're miles better than all you other guys, so you don't even get a go, tough luck'.

 

Not entirely true. The first ever international cricket match was between USA and Canada and president John Adams was a noted cricket fan. USA plays in the ICC Intercontinental Cup, but usually doesn't make it to the World Cup (usually because Canada is better than them and makes it ahead of USA). This year they lost to Canada but beat Bermuda by 114 runs, including a century by USA batsman Steve Massiah.

 

Although with cricket it's a different situation altogether. It would be impractical to the extreme to have a world cup in the Test form of cricket (each game usually takes 4-5 days to reach a conclusion). But there is a WC for ODI (One Day cricket) as it is easier to organize etc.

Many consider Test cricket to be the... 'main' cricket, if you like, the most important form of cricket. Because of this the cricket WC isn't given the same level of excitement and importance as WC's are in other sports.

I mean you'll not see England get anywhere near the World Cup in a few months time, we'll bomb out straight away. We're garbage at one day cricket. But we're probably the 2nd best team in the world at Test cricket, so we're not all that fussed.

And I've absolutely no idea why I've just explained that either . I must be bored.

 

This is so off-topic, it's not funny!

 

I still think it's a bit silly, if not arrogant, to declare the winner of a national league automatically worldchampions. The NBA and MLB do the same. I have no problems with Miami Heat calling themselves worldchampions IF they are also capable of beating the top from Europe, Asia, and South America, and the same goes for the MLB. The last few appearances in international tournaments have made it more than clear that the US is no longer the single dominant power in said sports.

 

AND

So you're saying the quality of the league has nothing to do with being the best in the world? That's counterintuitive to say the least. I would say that having the highest quality talent would be a requirement. That would be like holding a WC, but telling Germany, Italy, France and Brazil, "You can't come this year." It would still be a "world competition" but you wouldn't have the best talent competing.

I understand that you say that it isn't a "world tournament" so therefore how do you know if you're the best in the world if you haven't played anyone else in the world? And that's a valid point, if there was any competing league that fielded a national team. So I see what you're saying, but I think you're overstating your case. About the closest thing would be Canadian football, but even there, they have a totally different set of rules than the American version. My point is that in this particular instance, for a game that is largely played on only one continent, that the best team on that continent is also the best in the world, because no one else happens to be playing it. I tried to make that point when I said if England was the only nation that played soccer, then naturally the best team in England would be the best team in the world.

Also, it's not like the NFL champ is reluctant to play the NFL Europe champ. Organizing such a match would be easy as NFL Europe is operated by the same people who run the NFL. NFL Europe is kind of like a subsidiary, or a franchise of the original league. That's why it's acted as a kind of minor league training program over the years. The talent isn't that good, but because there is no other professional football orginization, and no college or university football being played in Europe, if you want to see a football game your options are limited to seeing inferior talent, or flying across the Atlantic Ocean.

And what do you do when you try and organize an international evenat, and you don't get any takers? There is no American Football World Cup, mostly due to lack of interest. American Football has been nominated to be included as a sport in the Summer Olympics, but again, there isn't enough interest in the sport among the rest of the world for the nomination to pass. It isn't like we've been exactly shying away from playing any one else, but no one else wants to step on the field.

You see, it's with comments like this that you overstate your case. There is no one else in the world to prove it against. So your demand can only result in a theoretical discussion. If there was some other nation or group of nations that fielded an actual league and produced their own champion, then your arguement would be entirely valid, but there isn't. So you are demanding something that doesn't even exist.

Finally, in one sense, it IS and international competition. If you live somewhere besides the U.S. and have a talent for playing American football, chances are you'll try to attend a U.S. college or university, and from there make it to the pros. There's nothing stopping people from coming to U.S. to play football. I can only attribute it to lack of interest, because it's not like we don't have foreign born players playing on American baseball and basketball teams. It's especially true in baseball where foreign born players probably make up 1/3 of the league.

It should also be noted that I'm only making this arguement for football. As I've previously stated, and others have pointed out, there's lots of other nations that play baseball and basketball, so the national champ of those leagues would have a hard time convincing anyone that they are the best in the world without playing the competition. Football, baseball, and basketball are the three most popular sports in the U.S. in that order. All three sports started in the U.S. and all three sports were originally only played in the U.S. I have no idea why the 2nd and 3rd most popular sports were successfully exported to other countries, while the most popular sport was not.

 

Great argument mate. Why not go the whole hog and say that the winner of the Super Bowl are the Champions of the Galaxy? Hell, why not the UNIVERSE? After all, no-one else plays the sport there either so by default the Super Bowl winners mmust be the best team in the whole universe!

Don't hold water mate. The name is wrong and inaccurate now throw your cards in .

You should see what Pac Man said as well he made good points .

 

I like Ajax Amsterdam

That's still the topic right

 

So that's what you're going to say, huh? Never mind that there is no competition, you'll just keep saying the same thing over and over again until I give up. If that was your plan, you have succeeded.

I did see what Pac man said, and I agreed with him - there are many nations that have baseball and basketball leagues. You're obviously not going to be convinced by whatever it is I say. Please keep in mind that no matter what you say to me, I don't have the pull with the NFL to tell them to stop calling their champ the World Champions. You can try writing to their office. Or send them an e-mail. The link to their support is at the bottom of the page. I would do it myself, but as you can see, I obviously don't have a problem with what they decide to call their champion.

I will now bow out of this discussion.

You know definitively that no one plays football anywhere else in the universe?

[ September 20, 2006, 18:55: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

You're missing an important aspect of team sports -- mainly the team. A bunch of stars (and in reality not even the best of the NBA or MLB) gathered together and practise for a a month or two CANNOT compete on the same level as a championship team. If the Heat would have represented the US there would have been NO competition capable of defeating them in international play. The same holds true for baseball. There are a few standout foreign players in MLB -- but these are the superstars of their home nation. You could not field an entire team from any of these other countries that could compete against an MLB team (except perhaps Tampa Bay, but they sold off all their talent and are basically playing with AAA players).

If you are the best in any sport then you are a world champion. I don't care if it's football, baseball, soccer, hockey, cricket, rugby or basketball. If there is no team better in that sport -- you're world champions. It really doesn't matter who does or doesn't play the sport. Some sports have a more international following than others, but that doesn't negate that you're the best.