This thread is to be used by those in Group #2 (see the stickied thread for rosters if you're unsure of where you are). Any other posts in here will be flagged for spam and deleted. You have four days from the time this is posted to post (as in the time this is posted on Wednesday, which is approximately when the new topic will go up. Note that I mean 96 hours after MY initial post, not the lead off debater.) your arguments, rebuttals and anything else you want. Best overall debater in that time period receives 10 points, second receives 9, third receives 8, all others receive 7.
Hitting Lead-Off in this debate is newc868. He has 24 hours to reply and if he doesn't then it's open season.
Again: 4 days, best overall poster gets first place points.
Topic: Which event means more to the world: the Summer Olympics or the Soccer/Football World Cup?
Scores will be posted as soon as the three judges give their scores.
The Summer Olympics and the FIFA World Cup. By recognition they're the world's biggest International Sporting events. Countries seemingly fight for the right to host these major events, pumping billions into them, in an attempt to create a spectacle that the world will behold.
So which one of these events matters more to the near 7 billion human beings on earth? I'm debating that the Olympics matters more than the World Cup.
The Summer Olympics as a whole, unites the world together in showcasing those with the best athletic ability in a whole host of sports - not just one. In the case of the Olympics, there's more that makes you want to watch, more that makes you feel a part of it all.
How can I say this? Well at the 2008 Olympics 204 recognised National Olympic Committees (NOC) had sent an athlete to the Olympics. There are currently 205 total. Only one country didn't send an athlete to the most recent Olympics. Before that, in 2004, at the Athens Olympics - every single nation with a NOC sent an athlete to compete.
Compare this with 32 national teams you have competing at the FIFA World Cup finals, you can't seemingly compare the events inclusiveness because the Olympics massively outnumbers the World Cup. Although, if you look at the World Cup qualification stages and the amount of teams internationally recognised by FIFA, there are 3 more countries included under FIFA.
Football is arguably the world's biggest sport and with over 700 million watching the 2006 World Cup final where Italy defeated France - it really something that draws in the crowds but this is one match. One match out of 64 at the World Cup, needless to say it's the biggest single match in the sporting world, but it's just one match.
But it's the Olympics with it's inclusiveness, the Olympics that brings together entire nations to back single athletes in a series of heats to try and reach the finals, to grab a medal whether it's gold, silver or bronze - this brings together an entire nation. You look at nations like Jamaica who don't have the greatest footballing side but they do have some of the best sprinters in the world in Asafa Powell and Usain Bolt. Together these two have raised the bar of the sprinting event, especially Bolt, and have tackled the long held dominance have ushered in a new era for sprinting alone.
However, it's not just the sprints, it's the entire spectrum of the sports. Not one nation can win gold in everything, sure there a few nations that excel more than others at multitude of sports whether it's because of they have a larger pool of athletes to select from or better funding for equipment or sports science, they can't dominate the Olympics. Sure they can win a lot of medals but they won't win them all and that's where the inclusiveness of the Olympics trumps that of the World Cup.
One team gets to win the World Cup. One team gets to walk away victorious. At the Olympics there's a different feel because you as a nation, there's a better chance of getting a medal, some reward from it all. The runners-up and the 3rd places at the World Cup won't get the same treatment back home as someone whose won a bronze in the Decathlon.
As for the history of the Olympics - there are ties and links to the Olympics all the way back to Ancient Greece. By comparison, the World Cup was started in 1930 and is relatively infantile compared to the Olympics. This can even be seen in the size of the Olympics. The Olympics broadcasts 14 hours of sport for two weeks whereas the World Cup does 64 games over a period of 4 weeks. The Olympics dwarfs all competitors when it comes down to the size of it - something that shows that it means a lot more than any other sporting competition, not just the FIFA World Cup.
I will finish with two examples that go to show why the World Cup doesn't mean as much as the Olympics.
The response from Britain when we won the Olympic bid. There were thousands more people lining up in the streets of London to celebrate the successful bid on July 6th 2005 - a date that has gone down in history here because of it's effect on sports policy. When we were up for the recent 2022 World Cup bid, there weren't nearly as many there and maybe the media played an influence by suggesting we wouldn't get it but still - winning the Olympics was a lot better than winning the FIFA World Cup.
Finally, if people didn't think the Olympics mattered that much - just look at the Opening and Closing ceremony. China wanted to put on such a show that they admitted to faking certain things so it looked a lot more impressive - when has that ever been seen at the World Cup?
The Olympics is the greatest sporting event in the world, bar none. When put up against the FIFA World Cup, there is no contest. While there is no doubt that the World Cup is a great event, it pales in comparison to the Olympics. In breaking down the two events, I'll show why the Olympics mean more to the World then the World Cup.
National Exposure:
With all due respect to the World Cup, the Olympics are the true World Event. While only 32 nations take part in the World Cup, over 200 take part in the Summer Olympics alone. I understand the argument that one may make that these 32 nations are chosen through extensive qualifiers, and hence provide for strong competition. But in doing so, it also reduces the national exposure of the competition. Teams that do not qualify for the final 32 are essentially non-entities.
Because of this, the World Cup becomes just another event for most people. The rabid fans of those 32 countries are enticed, but it pales in comparison to the 200 nations that participate every four years in the Summer Olympics. Some countries, such as Australia, only began competing in the World Cup in 2002. In allowing so many nations to compete, the Summer Olympics keeps its universal appeal. Its nationalism is clear, symbolised by the five intertwining Olympic rings. This is a representation of the five parts of the world dedicated to the Olympic spirit of cooperation and healthy competition.
Greater Appeal:
Most likely, soccer is the most popular sport in the world, and the World Cup is the pinnacle of the sport. That being said, it's only one sport. What of those who have no interest whatsoever in soccer? From basketball, baseball, and volleyball to wrestling, judo, and archery, there's something for everyone, of all countries, in the Summer Olympics. If you are a soccer fan, you can see that at the Olympics too. The Summer Olympics provides a variety of sports that appeals to all, while the World Cup appeals to just one demographic, the soccer fan. That soccer fan can watch his sport at the Summer Olympics as well, so there's no real question that the Summer Olympics offer a greater universal appeal then the World Cup does. There's over 200 events at the Summer Olympics alone. The competition is there as well, as there are qualifiers and knockout rounds in the olympics, as well as team sports. For those who enjoy seeing individual achievements, there are plenty of those as well offerred in the forms of wrestling, boxing, cycling, and wrestling. The Olympics covers all its bases in terms of truly offerring "something for everyone." The World Cup does not.
Historical Roots and Diversity:
The Summer Olympics has ties that date back to ancient Greece. The modern Summer Olympics were founded in 1894 by Pierre de Coubetin, who was attempting to use sporting events to promote international understanding and bridge divides between nations. The World Cup, for all its greatness, was founded in 1930 simply for the sake of competition.
Even in doing that, of the nineteen times the Cup has been held, Brazil has won 8 times. In comparison, the only country to have won a gold medal at every Summer Olympic event has been Great Britain. This simply allows for a parity that the World Cup doesn't afford, which again shows that the event means more to the world then the World Cup does. The tradition and reasoning behind the games itself gives it a wider universal appeal then the World Cup does.
Size and Visability:
While the World Cup runs four weeks as compared to just three weeks for the Summer Olympics, the World Cup offers only 64 games over 4 weeks. This averages out to just over 2 games, per day. As for the Summer Olympics, they have over 15 hours a day of continuous coverage. It's easy to miss a World Cup game due to work or life. But in the 2008 Summer Olympics, there were 305 events that took place over it's 18 days, involving 10,500 athletes. It's hard to miss an event your country is involved in due to the massive coverage provided by the various media outlets that cover the Olympics. There's no question that the Olympics provide more comprehensive visability across the globe then the World Cup does as well.
Conclusion:
There's no question that the World Cup is a great event. Soccer is arguably the most popular sport in the World, so for those 32 countries who survive the rigorous qualifiers that are in place for the event, there's true national pride. But it's such a limited pool of exposure as compared to the Summer Olympics. With over 10,000 athletes, 300 events, and 200 countries represented, there's a far greater national appeal for the Summer Olympics then there is for the World Cup. The appeal of the Olympics is also far more obvious then the World Cup as well due to the diversity of the events that are offerred. The roots and diversity that the Summer Olympics offer truly provides more tradition and pride for the nations involved, and the size and visibility give it a greater global appeal as well. Because of these reasons, there's no questions that the Summer Olympics means more to the world on a global scale then the World Cup does.
Once again, great to see the incorrect choice from my opponents that get to choose before me. To me, there is no question that the World Cup is the much more meaningful event.
Let's start out by showing how some of young Bradley's points aren't as good as my points.
There may have been 200+ countries represented in the Olympics, but of those, 118 did not win a single medal and 75% of countries won no more than 2. Sure, a lot of countires may be represented, but most of them make no impact at all. I mean just because someone from Moldova wins a bronze in the discus does that really equate to something meaningful?
You also mention that soccer is arguably the world's biggest sport, which is false. There is no argument. It is the world's biggest sport without question. Having one of the best sport out there is far more meaningful than having a bench of sports that most people don't care about like rowing or synchronized swimming.
"But the Olympics has so much history!", some may say. Who cares? It really doesn't matter to me or anyone else that the Greeks started doing something hundreds or years ago while the World Cup is more recent. That'd be like arguing black and white TV is better than color because it's older. Just a silly argument.
Overall, while the World Cup may be defined by only 1 sport, it is the biggest and best. The event is so huge that many Americans, even those such as myself who are barely casual soccer fans, become glued to the action. Off the top of your head, who won the last 2 Olympics? I'm sure you don't know. What about the World Cup? Did it take you more than 2 seconds to think of Spain and Italy?
Bottomline, quality over quantity. There is much more quality (soccer announcer pun) in the World Cup.
Both the Summer Olympics and World Cup are the two biggest worldwide events that occur in the world of sports. Both also share some similarities:
-Played in the Summer (duh)
-Played every 4 years
-Many countries are involved
-Many never before seen athletes make their name
However, when looking at the question at hand, 'Which event means more to the world?' there's only one right answer. And it's not even close. The Summer Olympics, by far, mean more to the world. Why? Welll...
It includes many different sports, and isn't just focused on one sport. While the World Cup features the most popular sport nationally, not every country is soccer crazy. Some don't have enough athletes to support team sports like that, so they might not be as emotionally invested. Plus, the Olympics had a 16 team soccer tournament anyways to crown a medal winner. It's not like it's included out of the games.
Many countries can achieve some type of success. There's many events to achieve medals in, so that gives many smaller countries reason to watch the games. In the World Cup only 3 countries (out of 32 total) get rewarded with a medal. In the Olympics, there's 302 chances for Gold medals ALONE, not including Silver and Bronze. Sure, there's going to be some events that people don't remember, but if you see a fellow countrymen in an event, there's a higher chance that you're gonna be interested in watching it.
More countries are involved. If more countries are involved, there's a greater chance of people around the world caring for it. Here's a map of all of the countries involved in the 08 Olympics:
(Taken from 08 Olympics results)
Yeah, pretty much 99.9% of the entire world is involved in the Olympics in at least one sport. Which, in turns, provides more value and importance to the world since their country is represented.
(Taken from 2010 World Cup; Note: Blue = participated. Yellow = DNQ)
You look here, the World cup was heavily dominated by European and South American countries. Why should countries from Asia or anyone from Africa (except South Africa, who was only there because they were the host country) even bother to watch when their country isn't represented? Especially since they don't have a variety of sports to choose from. There's soccer, and that's it.
It's been around longer. The Olympics first started in 1896, giving them over 30 years of history on the World Cup, which started in 1930. It has more prestige, memorable moments, and relevance to the world because of the large amount of countries involved.
While people may argue that the 2010 World Cup had roughly 26 billion people viewing it to only 4.7 billion for the 08 Olympics, they should consider the fact that the coverage worldwide for the Olympics wasn't as easily accessible and that in the past two years technology has improved where watching matches on your phone/computer isn't as difficult as it once was, which = more viewers.
There may have been 200+ countries represented in the Olympics, but of those, 118 did not win a single medal and 75% of countries won no more than 2. Sure, a lot of countires may be represented, but most of them make no impact at all. I mean just because someone from Moldova wins a bronze in the discus does that really equate to something meaningful?
Actually, it does. Because to that country, they've never seen anything like that bronze before. The Olympics were started to allow said countries the chance to compete, something the World Cup simply doesn't provide. For most of those 200+ countries that you so casually dismiss, only 77 of them have ever played in the World Cup. So the Olympics allow them to take their talents to a bigger stage, something that the World Cup simply doesn't afford.
You also mention that soccer is arguably the world's biggest sport, which is false. There is no argument. It is the world's biggest sport without question. Having one of the best sport out there is far more meaningful than having a bench of sports that most people don't care about like rowing or synchronized swimming.
What you fail to mention here is that the Olympics offer the very same sport that the World Cup offers. So along with offerring said sport, they also offer sports that appeal to a vast array of individuals. In the same way that I don't care about soccer, there are people who care about the sports that you mentioned. The flaw in the argument you presented is that while those sports may not be popular, there are plenty of sports, on top of soccer, that are popular worldwide and in the Olympics. Just a few include basketball, baseball, and tennis, and wrestling.
"But the Olympics has so much history!", some may say. Who cares? It really doesn't matter to me or anyone else that the Greeks started doing something hundreds or years ago while the World Cup is more recent. That'd be like arguing black and white TV is better than color because it's older. Just a silly argument.
Again, another flawed argument. Because unlike the black and white TV, the Summer Olympics are still as popular as ever. The events within the Summer Olympics have either been maintained or re-invented over time, something that can't be said for the World Cup. While the number of teams included were changed in 1982 to 24 teams and 32 in 1998, that's hardly an all-inclusive format. Because those changes were just made recently, it furthers my argument that its tradition and worth pale in comparison to the history of the Summer Olympics to the vast majority across the world.
Overall, while the World Cup may be defined by only 1 sport, it is the biggest and best. The event is so huge that many Americans, even those such as myself who are barely casual soccer fans, become glued to the action. Off the top of your head, who won the last 2 Olympics? I'm sure you don't know. What about the World Cup? Did it take you more than 2 seconds to think of Spain and Italy?
It may be the biggest and best, but its still offerred within the Summer Olympics as well. Not to mention that only 8 teams in the history of the World Cup(dating to 1930) have won the tournament, with Brazil winning it five times. There's simply no parity involved within the World Cup, which lessens its relevance in comparison to the nations that have won gold, silver, and bronze at each and any Summer Olympics. 98 countries, total, medaled at the last Summer Olympics. Thats approximately half. And further, it took me no time at all to recall that the United States has won the last two Summer Olympics. Before you mentioned it, I had no idea whatsoever who won the last two World Cups.
The fact of the matter is, this isn't about which event provides more quality, per se, its about which is more meaningful to the world. And for those 200+ countries that get to participate while taking into consideration half of those medaled at the most recent event, it's easy to see why the Summer Olympics holds more worth to the World then the World Cup ever could.
Once again, great to see the incorrect choice from my opponents that get to choose before me. To me, there is no question that the World Cup is the much more meaningful event.
Let's start out by showing how some of young Bradley's points aren't as good as my points.
I look forward to it but I feel you're just playing devil's advocate here.
There may have been 200+ countries represented in the Olympics, but of those, 118 did not win a single medal and 75% of countries won no more than 2. Sure, a lot of countires may be represented, but most of them make no impact at all. I mean just because someone from Moldova wins a bronze in the discus does that really equate to something meaningful?
118 countries won a medal. 118 countries have someone they can look up to. 118 countries having a sporting hero from the Olympics. When will you see a team like Azerbaijan or Mongolia be able to achieve anything like winning the World Cup? Not likely to be anytime soon but the Olympics allow for the opportunity - hence why the Olympics means more to the world.
You also mention that soccer is arguably the world's biggest sport, which is false. There is no argument. It is the world's biggest sport without question. Having one of the best sport out there is far more meaningful than having a bench of sports that most people don't care about like rowing or synchronized swimming.
The world's biggest sport - yes. However, football is on offer at the Olympics, just in a more watered down version that bar a couple players, they have to be under-23. This is how football and FIFA try to make themselves bigger than the Olympics. If I'm right, FIFA aren't very welcoming towards the IOC because the footballing event at the Olympics encroaches upon the World Cup. It's fair to say that football at the Olympics clashes with contemporary football because you won't see a team like England in the Olympics because they compete under Great Britain - which is where some of FIFA's disdain comes into it.
"But the Olympics has so much history!", some may say. Who cares? It really doesn't matter to me or anyone else that the Greeks started doing something hundreds or years ago while the World Cup is more recent. That'd be like arguing black and white TV is better than color because it's older. Just a silly argument.
This said - the Olympics in it's current format only began in 1896 in Athens. 34 years difference which is almost insignificant in the overall predicted timeline of this planet.
Overall, while the World Cup may be defined by only 1 sport, it is the biggest and best. The event is so huge that many Americans, even those such as myself who are barely casual soccer fans, become glued to the action. Off the top of your head, who won the last 2 Olympics? I'm sure you don't know. What about the World Cup? Did it take you more than 2 seconds to think of Spain and Italy?
Bottomline, quality over quantity. There is much more quality (soccer announcer pun) in the World Cup.
The World Cup is a major event but it doesn't mean as much to the world as the Olympics does - and that's what the debate clearly outlines. What means more? And by far it has to be the Olympics otherwise you wouldn't see such furore over the amount of spending or in Britain's case cuts made to Olympic based spending.
The World Cup means more than the Olympics. Just because one involves more countries than the other, it doesn't mean it means more. With the World Cup, you have nations competing in a sport which most consider is the "world's sport" in soccer.
In all sports, the one thing a team wants the most is to win their respective championship to claim bragging rights. It happens in basketball, baseball, football, etc. Do you see countries bragging about who won the most medals? Fans fight and start deadly brawls at soccer games because they have pride for even league teams. Picture the pride they have for an entire country.
The Olympics is the greatest sporting event in the world, bar none. When put up against the FIFA World Cup, there is no contest. While there is no doubt that the World Cup is a great event, it pales in comparison to the Olympics. In breaking down the two events, I'll show why the Olympics mean more to the World then the World Cup.
National Exposure:
With all due respect to the World Cup, the Olympics are the true World Event. While only 32 nations take part in the World Cup, over 200 take part in the Summer Olympics alone. I understand the argument that one may make that these 32 nations are chosen through extensive qualifiers, and hence provide for strong competition. But in doing so, it also reduces the national exposure of the competition. Teams that do not qualify for the final 32 are essentially non-entities.
Because of this, the World Cup becomes just another event for most people. The rabid fans of those 32 countries are enticed, but it pales in comparison to the 200 nations that participate every four years in the Summer Olympics. Some countries, such as Australia, only began competing in the World Cup in 2002. In allowing so many nations to compete, the Summer Olympics keeps its universal appeal. Its nationalism is clear, symbolised by the five intertwining Olympic rings. This is a representation of the five parts of the world dedicated to the Olympic spirit of cooperation and healthy competition.
So because more nations participate in the Olympics in the World Cup, the Olympics mean more? That's like discounting the NFL playoffs because only 12 teams participate each year while the objective of 32 teams is to reach the Super Bowl? 205 teams had a chance to qualify for the World Cup so throughout the world, you had the smallest of countries fighting hard to get to the World Cup because it meant so much to them and their country.
Greater Appeal:
Most likely, soccer is the most popular sport in the world, and the World Cup is the pinnacle of the sport. That being said, it's only one sport. What of those who have no interest whatsoever in soccer? From basketball, baseball, and volleyball to wrestling, judo, and archery, there's something for everyone, of all countries, in the Summer Olympics. If you are a soccer fan, you can see that at the Olympics too. The Summer Olympics provides a variety of sports that appeals to all, while the World Cup appeals to just one demographic, the soccer fan. That soccer fan can watch his sport at the Summer Olympics as well, so there's no real question that the Summer Olympics offer a greater universal appeal then the World Cup does. There's over 200 events at the Summer Olympics alone. The competition is there as well, as there are qualifiers and knockout rounds in the olympics, as well as team sports. For those who enjoy seeing individual achievements, there are plenty of those as well offerred in the forms of wrestling, boxing, cycling, and wrestling. The Olympics covers all its bases in terms of truly offerring "something for everyone." The World Cup does not.
Soccer is the most popular in the world which means more people and more countries watch it than other sport. The Olympics may have more sports but can you name one individual sport that carries just as meaning around the world than soccer does?
Historical Roots and Diversity:
The Summer Olympics has ties that date back to ancient Greece. The modern Summer Olympics were founded in 1894 by Pierre de Coubetin, who was attempting to use sporting events to promote international understanding and bridge divides between nations. The World Cup, for all its greatness, was founded in 1930 simply for the sake of competition.
Even in doing that, of the nineteen times the Cup has been held, Brazil has won 8 times. In comparison, the only country to have won a gold medal at every Summer Olympic event has been Great Britain. This simply allows for a parity that the World Cup doesn't afford, which again shows that the event means more to the world then the World Cup does. The tradition and reasoning behind the games itself gives it a wider universal appeal then the World Cup does.
Parity is the biggest load of bullshit in sports today. The NBA was built off dynasties like the Celtics, Lakers, and Bulls. Same with MLB with the Yankees and the NFL with the Steelers, Cowboys, and 49ers. Those leagues were great because of dynasty and became better when teams became better to try to stop them.
And Brazil has won the World Cup only 5 times and only twice since 1970 so I don't see the lack of parity that you are claiming.
Size and Visability:
While the World Cup runs four weeks as compared to just three weeks for the Summer Olympics, the World Cup offers only 64 games over 4 weeks. This averages out to just over 2 games, per day. As for the Summer Olympics, they have over 15 hours a day of continuous coverage. It's easy to miss a World Cup game due to work or life. But in the 2008 Summer Olympics, there were 305 events that took place over it's 18 days, involving 10,500 athletes. It's hard to miss an event your country is involved in due to the massive coverage provided by the various media outlets that cover the Olympics. There's no question that the Olympics provide more comprehensive visability across the globe then the World Cup does as well.
So it's harder to miss the Olympics when it runs for 15 hours a day? I hope you're joking about that one. There's this invention called VCR and DVR or whatever you call it. I'm sure if you a rabid Olympic fan, you would know what event you want to watch and what country you want to watch. After all, they run coverage 15 hours a day.
Conclusion:
There's no question that the World Cup is a great event. Soccer is arguably the most popular sport in the World, so for those 32 countries who survive the rigorous qualifiers that are in place for the event, there's true national pride. But it's such a limited pool of exposure as compared to the Summer Olympics. With over 10,000 athletes, 300 events, and 200 countries represented, there's a far greater national appeal for the Summer Olympics then there is for the World Cup. The appeal of the Olympics is also far more obvious then the World Cup as well due to the diversity of the events that are offerred. The roots and diversity that the Summer Olympics offer truly provides more tradition and pride for the nations involved, and the size and visibility give it a greater global appeal as well. Because of these reasons, there's no questions that the Summer Olympics means more to the world on a global scale then the World Cup does.
There's true national pride in the countries they don't even make the World Cup. Soccer players get killed sometimes because their country didn't make the World Cup. There just as much as diversity in the World Cup as it is the Olympics. Who gets left out of the World Cup?
In all sports, the one thing a team wants the most is to win their respective championship to claim bragging rights. It happens in basketball, baseball, football, etc. Do you see countries bragging about who won the most medals? Fans fight and start deadly brawls at soccer games because they have pride for even league teams. Picture the pride they have for an entire country.
So because people decide to act uncivilized, that somehow equates to meaning and pride? Somethings awfully skewed if that's the case. And yes, you do see countries brag about who won the most medals, as well as about their individual athletes. Its a rediculous argument that because people act uncivilized that somehow this equates to pride and attaches some sort of meaning.
But to placate your argument, look no further then the incident between Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding. The attack took place during a practice session for the 1994 U.S. Figure Skating Championships in Detroit. Harding's ex-husband, Jeff Gillooly, hired a goon named Shane Stant to break Kerrigan's right leg so that she would be unable to skate. Stant followed Kerrigan to Detroit after failing to find her at her training rink in Massachusetts, and struck her on the thigh a few inches above the knee with a collapsible police baton. Kerrigan's leg was only bruised, not broken, but the injury forced her to withdraw from the national championship, and prevent her selection from the 1994 Olympic team. Again, does that attach more meaning or pride to the sport because of her actions? On the converse, its disgraceful. There's no pride in the fans that riot, loot, and assault during the World Cup either, nor does it bring more meaning to the event.
A more recent example is the 2008 Olympics, where despite the presence of 10,000 troops and riot police, riots abounded following a soccer match between Japan and China. The same occurred after the USA-Canada gold medal hockey game in Vancouver in 2010. But to argue that rioting, assault, and murder equates to patriotism and meaning is a ludicrous statement. When my Pittsburgh Penguins won the Stanley Cup in 2009, people rioted in the streets. People use sporting events to justify this, but really, the sporting event is just an excuse for people to act like immature idiots. People riot when their teams win AND lose.
So because more nations participate in the Olympics in the World Cup, the Olympics mean more? That's like discounting the NFL playoffs because only 12 teams participate each year while the objective of 32 teams is to reach the Super Bowl? 205 teams had a chance to qualify for the World Cup so throughout the world, you had the smallest of countries fighting hard to get to the World Cup because it meant so much to them and their country.
Your analogy holds little water here. All 32 of the NFL teams have an equal chance based upon the fact that they play, i dont know, 16 games a year? These NFL players are the best of the best. As for the World Cup, those 205 teams do indeed get the opportunity to fight for the chance to make the World Cup, but the playing field certainly isn't level. Can you say the same thing for a country, say Bhutam, that has to compete against a Brazil? Of course not. And for the record, only 31 countries get the opportunity to qualify, as the host country gets an automatic qualifier.
Soccer is the most popular in the world which means more people and more countries watch it than other sport. The Olympics may have more sports but can you name one individual sport that carries just as meaning around the world than soccer does?
And as I stated earlier, soccer is also one of the events at the Summer Olympics. And it is the most watched sport in the world, but a close 2nd and 3rd are basketball and baseball. Here's the top list as provided by Sportingo.com.
Source: Sportingo.com
1. Soccer
2. Basketball
3. Baseball
4. Cricket
5. Rugby Union
6. Field Hockey
7. Volleyball
8. Ice Hockey
9. Football
10. Rugby League
What do seven of those, including soccer, have in common? They're all featured sports at the Summer Olympics. So not only do you get the top sport, you get the top seven. Only the bottom three aren't Summer Olympic sports. The sum of these, especially considering one is the same sport played at the World Cup, makes the Summer Olympics far more important to the World then the World Cup.
Parity is the biggest load of bullshit in sports today. The NBA was built off dynasties like the Celtics, Lakers, and Bulls. Same with MLB with the Yankees and the NFL with the Steelers, Cowboys, and 49ers. Those leagues were great because of dynasty and became better when teams became better to try to stop them.
Spin it however you like, but let me use another Pittsburgh sports example.
PNC Park, the home of the Pittsburgh Pirates, opened in 2001. Great place, amazing atmosphere. But the place is half to three quarters empty for most games that don't involve Fireworks Night or Free Bobblehead Giveaways. Why? Because the team has had eighteen consecutive losing seasons. When there's no competition, people tend to stay away and tune out.
Senegal set the world ablaze in the 2002 World Cup with their enterprising play, and made it to the quarterfinals. Senegal quickly became everyone's second favorite team (or first if their team wasn't in the finals at all.) Senegal failed to qualify for the field this year, and noone noticed, except perhaps the population of Senegal. Why is this? Because noone cares about teams beyond the 32 nations that did qualify.
And Brazil has won the World Cup only 5 times and only twice since 1970 so I don't see the lack of parity that you are claiming.
I corrected this in my next post. While Brazil has won 5 times, only 8 teams have won the World Cup since it's inception in 1930. So of the 77 teams that have competed in the World Cup since it's inception, only 8 have won it. That's less then 10%. There's the lack of parity I'm claiming.
So it's harder to miss the Olympics when it runs for 15 hours a day? I hope you're joking about that one. There's this invention called VCR and DVR or whatever you call it. I'm sure if you a rabid Olympic fan, you would know what event you want to watch and what country you want to watch. After all, they run coverage 15 hours a day.
That wasn't my argument whatsoever. My argument was that the sheer size of the Olympics is evident in the amount of television coverage that it provides. With the Summer Olympics, there's something for the fan of individual accomplishments such as tennis, boxing and gymnastics, and for the fan of team sports such as basketball, baseball, softball, along with men's and women's soccer. There's far more events and participants for a country to feel prideful about in the Olympics then there is in the World Cup.
There's true national pride in the countries they don't even make the World Cup. Soccer players get killed sometimes because their country didn't make the World Cup. There just as much as diversity in the World Cup as it is the Olympics. Who gets left out of the World Cup?
Only 77 teams across the World have ever qualified for the World Cup. That's since it's inception in 1930. 200+ countries send over 14,000 athletes to compete in the Olympics every four years. Id say that far more people get left out of the World Cup then do the Olympics. Even if a country sends only one or two participants, that's preferrable to the country that doesn't participate whatsoever, which obviously is the case in the World Cup. And again, soccer players being killed does not equate to national pride or attach a source of meaning, it's lunacy and idiocy. And as Ive showed, it happens in relation to the Olympics as well as the World Cup.
Both the Olympic Games and the World Cup have tremendous appeal on a global scale. Unlike such sports as the NBA or the NFL, which are hugely popular in their respective areas, both the World Cup and the Summer Olympics are truly international events which capture the interest of the entire world unlike any other athletic endeavor.
If I had to choose between the two, though, my vote would go to the Summer Olympics. A lot of the reasons for my choice have already been stated by others. The 32 countries featured in the World Cup are passionate about the event. The participants in the tournament, as well as their nation's fans, bring such emotion and nationalism to the event, sometimes to the point of being out of control. Even soccer enthusiasts from other countries tune into the World Cup with energy and fire rarely seen in many other sporting events.
But the Olympics exceed the World Cup in terms of broad appeal and national unity. Over 200 countries are represented as opposed to 32, and while many of the 200+ countries will win few or even no medals, that isn't even the point. The opportunity to represent your country on the greatest international stage of them all, draped in your flag with your anthem playing, means as much to a smaller country in a less prominent sport as soccer would to a football powerhouse such as Italy or Brazil. It isn't only about winning the medal; that's the icing on the cake. It's about representing your country and having a nation watching you in pride while you represent your country in front of the world.
Soccer is a part of the Summer Olympics anyway. So participation in the Olympics gives you a chance to win and achieve international glory in soccer, totally devoid of the World Cup. Granted soccer is a small component of the total Olympic experience, but I would imagine it is still a source of national pride for any country to win an Olympic gold medal in football.
As popular as soccer is on a global scale, it isn't the only sporting event out there. While it goes without saying, and is not arguable as some of you have suggested, soccer is the most popular team sport in the world. I don't think can even be debated. But having said this, there are still millions of people out there who are not soccer fans, but who are passionate sports fans and are interested in seeing other sports being contested at the highest level by the world's premier athletes. Maybe this is my personal bias creeping in here again, but some of us enjoy sports whereby the end result of a 90+ minute contest is not a scoreless draw. The Olympics allows those who like to watch a game which may only feature a shot on goal every five or ten minutes to be satisfied, while still offering other sports to follow which are more exciting than watching paint dry.
Some countries will not be competitive in the World Cup. They either will not qualify in the first place, or if they do, they won't be a force once there. As a Canadian sports fan, I can relate to this. Canada will not win a FIFA World Cup in my lifetime, hell we're lucky if we even qualify to be in the tournament. So watching the World Cup will have less appeal for me because my country is not there. Maybe I would rather watch gymnastics or track and field, where we will be represented, rather than watching other countries battle it out for the ultimate prize. Even you Americans on here should be able to relate to this viewpoint. Sure, your nation is typically represented at the World Cup, but I wouldn't be holding my breath about winning it anytime soon. At least you can follow the Summer Olympics and see success from your country and enjoy a little national pride, something you aren't likely to see at the World Cup in our lifetimes.
Of course, this may be beyond the discussion here, but the Olympic Games have a Winter component as well. This introduces even more sports, even more countries, and even more appeal for even more people. Unlike the World Cup or the Summer Olympics, Canada ca n go to the Winter Olympics and expect to achieve a relative degree of success. This may be separate and distinct from the question at hand, but it still boils down to the prominence and perception of the Olympics in general as opposed to the World Cup.
And of course, at the Summer Olympics, we typically don't have to endure the incessant buzzing of those vuvuzelas
So because people decide to act uncivilized, that somehow equates to meaning and pride? Somethings awfully skewed if that's the case. And yes, you do see countries brag about who won the most medals, as well as about their individual athletes. Its a rediculous argument that because people act uncivilized that somehow this equates to pride and attaches some sort of meaning.
But to placate your argument, look no further then the incident between Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding. The attack took place during a practice session for the 1994 U.S. Figure Skating Championships in Detroit. Harding's ex-husband, Jeff Gillooly, hired a goon named Shane Stant to break Kerrigan's right leg so that she would be unable to skate. Stant followed Kerrigan to Detroit after failing to find her at her training rink in Massachusetts, and struck her on the thigh a few inches above the knee with a collapsible police baton. Kerrigan's leg was only bruised, not broken, but the injury forced her to withdraw from the national championship, and prevent her selection from the 1994 Olympic team. Again, does that attach more meaning or pride to the sport because of her actions? On the converse, its disgraceful. There's no pride in the fans that riot, loot, and assault during the World Cup either, nor does it bring more meaning to the event.
A more recent example is the 2008 Olympics, where despite the presence of 10,000 troops and riot police, riots abounded following a soccer match between Japan and China. The same occurred after the USA-Canada gold medal hockey game in Vancouver in 2010. But to argue that rioting, assault, and murder equates to patriotism and meaning is a ludicrous statement. When my Pittsburgh Penguins won the Stanley Cup in 2009, people rioted in the streets. People use sporting events to justify this, but really, the sporting event is just an excuse for people to act like immature idiots. People riot when their teams win AND lose.
I don't condone or glorify the actions of those people. I think it ridiculous to say that those actions don't come out of some sense and pride for their country. You know how one fan can get in America over one football team. It's a much different animal when you have thousands investing so much in their country.
That wasn't my argument whatsoever. My argument was that the sheer size of the Olympics is evident in the amount of television coverage that it provides. With the Summer Olympics, there's something for the fan of individual accomplishments such as tennis, boxing and gymnastics, and for the fan of team sports such as basketball, baseball, softball, along with men's and women's soccer. There's far more events and participants for a country to feel prideful about in the Olympics then there is in the World Cup.
While the World Cup runs four weeks as compared to just three weeks for the Summer Olympics, the World Cup offers only 64 games over 4 weeks. This averages out to just over 2 games, per day. As for the Summer Olympics, they have over 15 hours a day of continuous coverage. It's easy to miss a World Cup game due to work or life. But in the 2008 Summer Olympics, there were 305 events that took place over it's 18 days, involving 10,500 athletes. It's hard to miss an event your country is involved in due to the massive coverage provided by the various media outlets that cover the Olympics. There's no question that the Olympics provide more comprehensive visability across the globe then the World Cup does as well.
So essentially you're saying it's harder to miss an event that runs for 15 hours a day? In the World Cup, your country may not even advance past the group stage so it's much more important because if you miss a day, you may miss your country's exit from the World Cup.
I don't condone or glorify the actions of those people. I think it ridiculous to say that those actions don't come out of some sense and pride for their country. You know how one fan can get in America over one football team. It's a much different animal when you have thousands investing so much in their country. .
But that animal is contained to a small portion of the world. No matter how passionate a small sector, or country may be, it's a large leap to make to say that because one or two countries riot that it indicates some type of overall meaning. Again, the overall basis of this debate is which event is more important to the World. The Summer Olympics, as Ive stated before, is host to over 200 countries. The World Cup involves 32. How can an event be more important to the World when only 18% of the world is involved? The Olympics gives each and every country the opportunity to have something to feel pride in. The World Cup does not.
Ive already provided instances where riots and other attrocities have taken place outside and independent of the World Cup, so to say that the riots at the World Cup equate to "more pride" in one's country is a large stretch, at best.
So essentially you're saying it's harder to miss an event that runs for 15 hours a day? In the World Cup, your country may not even advance past the group stage so it's much more important because if you miss a day, you may miss your country's exit from the World Cup.
Essentially what Im saying is that the Olympics offer something for everyone, as Ive said before. The evidence for this is that it's broadcasted all day long. The same argument of missing a day could be applied for the diehard fans of one's baseball team in the Summer Olympics to someone's favorite wrestler.
Importance is subjective to the viewer, and it's easy to see that the Olympics provide far more sports that can be viewed as important then the World Cup does. Adding to that, the Summer Olympics provides the same sport that the World Cup does, and so much more. The World Cup is simply too one-dimensional and non-enclusive world-wide for it to allow the overall emotional investment that the all-inclusive Summer Olympics provides. Again, it's fairly obvious that the Summer Olympics provides much more value and importance to the World then the World Cup does.
Let me jump in real quick. Not going to go post by post at this point, but the whole quality vs. quantity argument seems to be the issue. The Olympics may have a ton of sports and countries, but many have no meaning. Even as an American, I don't give a shit about our archery team or anything like that. It just doesn't matter.
The best of the World Cup is better than the best of the Olympics (which I guess would be track? swimming maybe?) by far. It doens't matter if your country is not in the final, people still watch. Like it was stated earlier in this thread, 700 million watching the final match of the World Cup. 700 Million. Show me numbers similar to that pertaining to the Olympics.
Let me jump in real quick. Not going to go post by post at this point, but the whole quality vs. quantity argument seems to be the issue. The Olympics may have a ton of sports and countries, but many have no meaning. Even as an American, I don't give a shit about our archery team or anything like that. It just doesn't matter.
The big issue is which means more to the world. How is there a lack of quality within the Olympics when each nation sends the best of the best in each sport, and only the top three teams medal? So of the 100 that may compete in any given sport, only 3 medal. Id say that's providing a great deal of quality, regardless of the sport. Just because it's not your cup o' tea doesn't mean that it doesn't hold significance in other areas of the world, or even to your own countrymen.
The best of the World Cup is better than the best of the Olympics (which I guess would be track? swimming maybe?) by far. It doens't matter if your country is not in the final, people still watch. Like it was stated earlier in this thread, 700 million watching the final match of the World Cup. 700 Million. Show me numbers similar to that pertaining to the Olympics.
According to Nielsen Media Research, the number of people that watched the Olympics, in total, was 4.7 billion. 211 Million people alone watched the men's track and field final in and of itself. Again, this is an argument of the whole being greater then the sum of it's parts. The five sports that were watched most in the 2008 Summer Olympics were Track, Basketball, Swimming, Gymnastics, and Baseball, in that order, again according to Nielsen. Even if the World Cup numbers are more when totaled, the largest factor one has to consider is that the World Cup spread out across 31 days, while the Summer Olympic events only encompassed 17 days. That's a 14 day difference which could certainly affect viewership numbers by the whole.
What your breaking this down to is a popularity contest, and this debate is about what means more. While popularity is equated to something that is sought after or admired(or in the case of sports, watched) meaning is equated to significance. It's easy to make the mistake that something is more significant because it's popular, but that's simply not the case.
Popularity is only one factor that weighs into significance. In the case of the Summer Olympics, there's far more significance in a country being able to send representatives to participate in an event, as well as the nearly 44%(88 countries) of countries that medaled in them. There's the significance of knowing your country is participating, and pride when your country medals. There's far more worldwide significance to that then the 18% of the world that gets to send their best in one sport, as is the case with the World Cup. So in terms of the Summer Olympics, there's far more meaning and significance equated to the event then there is the World Cup.
I think without a doubt it has to be the football world cup. How can the worlds sport not be more important on an international scale then the summer olympics?
To counteract what seems to be the most common argument towards the olympics in this thread, the quantity of nations competing. Out of the over two hundred nations competing only 80 gained a medal, and out of those 80 only 50 managed gold medals. I highly doubt the olympics was of any significance to the 120+ countries that didn't achieve a medal. Also to people saying only 32 nations competed in the world cup, that isn't strictly true there were 205 teams who attempted to qualify which shows there is at least as much interest in competing in the world cup as there is going to the olympics.
Also the olympics are really only popular based on name value and the history behind it. Look at some of the sports that are at the Olympics, the two most popular are probably track events and swimming, outside of the olympics those aren't popular sports by a long shot it is only based off the fact it is the olympics that people actually care. Soccer on the other hand is a popular sport worldwide, the most popular sport actually it means a lot to people be it at the world cup or elsewhere, it is important to people. That can't be said for olympic sports, they are not popular sports and are no where near being so most people don't give a fuck about them but they watch purely based on the name value. of the olympics.
To counteract what seems to be the most common argument towards the olympics in this thread, the quantity of nations competing. Out of the over two hundred nations competing only 80 gained a medal, and out of those 80 only 50 managed gold medals. I highly doubt the olympics was of any significance to the 120+ countries that didn't achieve a medal. Also to people saying only 32 nations competed in the world cup, that isn't strictly true there were 205 teams who attempted to qualify which shows there is at least as much interest in competing in the world cup as there is going to the olympics.
The thing is, in the actual World Cup, only 32 teams get shown. It doesn't matter how many teams attempt to qualify since a great percentage of them aren't seen attempting on television. In the Olympics, medal or not, you WILL see a countrymen apart of some type of event. Thus, it meaning more to the World, because its not just 32 countries being seen on television, but instead over 200+ nations (which means a good chance you'll see at least one of your own athletes) who would be happy just to see a bronze medal for pride to their country.
Also the olympics are really only popular based on name value and the history behind it. Look at some of the sports that are at the Olympics, the two most popular are probably track events and swimming, outside of the olympics those aren't popular sports by a long shot it is only based off the fact it is the olympics that people actually care. Soccer on the other hand is a popular sport worldwide, the most popular sport actually it means a lot to people be it at the world cup or elsewhere, it is important to people. That can't be said for olympic sports, they are not popular sports and are no where near being so most people don't give a fuck about them but they watch purely based on the name value. of the olympics.
In basketball at the 08 olympics, there were only 3 of the countries (Iran, Greece, and Angola) that didn't feature at least one NBA talent. Basketball is quite popular over the world. People are watching that (at the Olympics) because of the talent featured, not because of it's name value. Soccer, as well, is featured at the Olympics, and is in the same boat as Basketball. Baseball was featured there and is a top 5 sport in popularity. There are many popular sports, you just are ignoring them.
Besides, who cares if people aren't watching track and field or swimming any other time? It's never shown consistently on television in the first place, but it does do quite well in the ratings for the Olympics because people want to see their country represented and see some good entertainment. That should be all that matters.
But that animal is contained to a small portion of the world. No matter how passionate a small sector, or country may be, it's a large leap to make to say that because one or two countries riot that it indicates some type of overall meaning. Again, the overall basis of this debate is which event is more important to the World. The Summer Olympics, as Ive stated before, is host to over 200 countries. The World Cup involves 32. How can an event be more important to the World when only 18% of the world is involved? The Olympics gives each and every country the opportunity to have something to feel pride in. The World Cup does not.
Ive already provided instances where riots and other attrocities have taken place outside and independent of the World Cup, so to say that the riots at the World Cup equate to "more pride" in one's country is a large stretch, at best.
There's pride in actually competing to get into the World Cup. You always want to see the best teams play and that's what you get with the field of 32.
Essentially what Im saying is that the Olympics offer something for everyone, as Ive said before. The evidence for this is that it's broadcasted all day long. The same argument of missing a day could be applied for the diehard fans of one's baseball team in the Summer Olympics to someone's favorite wrestler.
Importance is subjective to the viewer, and it's easy to see that the Olympics provide far more sports that can be viewed as important then the World Cup does. Adding to that, the Summer Olympics provides the same sport that the World Cup does, and so much more. The World Cup is simply too one-dimensional and non-enclusive world-wide for it to allow the overall emotional investment that the all-inclusive Summer Olympics provides. Again, it's fairly obvious that the Summer Olympics provides much more value and importance to the World then the World Cup does.
Summer Olympic soccer and World Cup soccer are two different things. For starters, Summer Olympic is soccer U-23 so 90-95% of the time, you're not even going to see the best players which you do at the World Cup. By that account, Olympic soccer is "one-dimensional and non-enclusive" as you so eloquently it. Nobody is excluded from the World Cup because they all have a chance to qualify and what other dimension do you want for the World Cup? Do you want to mix a little rugby in now?
The big issue is which means more to the world. How is there a lack of quality within the Olympics when each nation sends the best of the best in each sport, and only the top three teams medal? So of the 100 that may compete in any given sport, only 3 medal. Id say that's providing a great deal of quality, regardless of the sport. Just because it's not your cup o' tea doesn't mean that it doesn't hold significance in other areas of the world, or even to your own countrymen.
By quality I don't mean in talent, I mean in the quality of the product that's being shown. I'd rather watch 50 or so soccer matches that are all super important and give me almost 2 hours than entertainment then a bunch of mundane Olympics events in which the actually exciting and important parts may add up to 20 minutes for the entire 2 weeks.
According to Nielsen Media Research, the number of people that watched the Olympics, in total, was 4.7 billion. 211 Million people alone watched the men's track and field final in and of itself. Again, this is an argument of the whole being greater then the sum of it's parts. The five sports that were watched most in the 2008 Summer Olympics were Track, Basketball, Swimming, Gymnastics, and Baseball, in that order, again according to Nielsen. Even if the World Cup numbers are more when totaled, the largest factor one has to consider is that the World Cup spread out across 31 days, while the Summer Olympic events only encompassed 17 days. That's a 14 day difference which could certainly affect viewership numbers by the whole.
But I'm pretty sure the 711 million number was for the one match. That is almost 4 times as much as your measely little track and field final. And the fact that baseball makes the top 5 of the most viewed when none of the world's top players actually play in the Olympics is a testament to just how meaningless the Olympics have become.
What your breaking this down to is a popularity contest, and this debate is about what means more. While popularity is equated to something that is sought after or admired(or in the case of sports, watched) meaning is equated to significance. It's easy to make the mistake that something is more significant because it's popular, but that's simply not the case.
The World Cup is more popular because it's significant, my friend. You can tell from the fans and the atmosphere at all the World Cup matches that it is meaningful. What exactly is meaningful about about something like archery or weight lifting in the Olympics?
Originally Posted by Boy George Costanza:
There's pride in actually competing to get into the World Cup. You always want to see the best teams play and that's what you get with the field of 32.
This debate is about whether the World Cup or the Summer Olympic events in themselves mean more to the world. I understand what you're trying to say, but qualifiers are not part of the World Cup itself, which essentially renders this point irrelevant.
Nobody is excluded from the World Cup because they all have a chance to qualify. and what other dimension do you want for the World Cup? Do you want to mix a little rugby in now?
The stats of its history would say otherwise. Its quite the stretch to say that all have a real chance to qualify when only 77 countries in the 80 year history of the World Cup have ever participated in it. On the converse, 205 nations particpate in the Summer Olympics every 4 years. That's what I mean by saying that the Summer Olympics is much more inclusive then the World Cup.
The actual World Cup is a field of 32, which is what makes it exclusive by nature. Only 18% of the World every 4 years participates. Concetrate more on looking at the facts rather then making rediculous statements. The World Cup is fine the way it is, but that doesn't mean it holds more value or significance world-wide then the Summer Olympics does.
By quality I don't mean in talent, I mean in the quality of the product that's being shown. I'd rather watch 50 or so soccer matches that are all super important and give me almost 2 hours than entertainment then a bunch of mundane Olympics events in which the actually exciting and important parts may add up to 20 minutes for the entire 2 weeks.?
I agree here that we're arguing quality in terms of the quality of the product that's being shown. But this solely comes down to a matter of personal preference. Id rather tune in to watch Track and Field, Basketball, and Swimming because they're exciting events. mundane? Hardly. There's always the chance of a record being broken our your country's representative in said field winning a medal. All of those are incredibly important as well as they build to what is usually the climax of the event. I take incredible enjoyment in following an athlete or team from my country from the beginning of the event
to the end. It's called having pride in one's country, something the Olympics affords all nations to do.
But I'm pretty sure the 711 million number was for the one match. That is almost 4 times as much as your measely little track and field final. And the fact that baseball makes the top 5 of the most viewed when none of the world's top players actually play in the Olympics is a testament to just how meaningless the Olympics have become.
Its closer to three times, but that's more semantics then anything. What does that tell you that a track and field final, which isn't close to being a "top sport" is viewed by that many people? That people are enticed by the event due to the Olympics, and the pride they possess in their country as a result. And the fact that baseball is that popular despite the best players not being showcased is also due to the incredible significance that the event in itself holds. When millions are tuning in to see the top amateur players, that's quite meaningful.
The World Cup is more popular because it's significant, my friend. You can tell from the fans and the atmosphere at all the World Cup matches that it is meaningful. What exactly is meaningful about about something like archery or weight lifting in the Olympics?
We've gone over this before, and Im sure we're going to again. The significance and meaning attached to these sports is due to the fact that all nations around the world have the opportunity to compete in said sports, and bring individual meaning to their respective countries. In these sports you view as so meaningless, every country has a chance to have something to hang their hat on at the end of the day. That's something that never has, and never will be affored via the World Cup.
My firm position is that the Summer Olympics means more to the world as a whole then the World Cup. This isn't to deny to popularity of the World Cup, as that would be a silly argument to make. Soccer is the world's most popular sport, and the World Cup the pinacle event of said sport. The fans of said sport, for better or worse, may be the most rabid fans in the world.
But this debate isn't strictly a popularity contest. It's about which event holds more meaning to the World. And without a doubt, it's the Summer Olympics. The Summer Olympics is the event where all countries are represented. Over 200 nations can cheer their athletes in various sports and competitions. 200 nations that have the ability to watch their sport and feel proud to be a part of that country at that moment. Because the World Cup allows only 32 entrants into it's actual tournament, the same cannot be said for it. The overall national exposure is lessened due to this, and the nations that are not represented are reduced to primarily non-entities. Only 18% of the World's nations compete in the World Cup each year, and only 44% of the World has sent a representative over the course of it's 80 year history. A higher percentage of nations(46%) medaled at the 2006 Summer Olympics alone.
The Summer Olympics also caters to a more diverse body of interests then the World Cup does. Again, this is not a knock of the World Cup, as it's very successful at what it does provide. However, what it provides is only one sport. For those who have no interest in soccer whatsoever, the World Cup holds no interest. The Summer Olympics provides a much broader appeal in that it allows one to watch individual sports such as swimming, track and field, and boxing, or team sports such as basketball, volleyball, and baseball. If you're a soccer fan, you can catch that sport at the Summer Olympics as well. In all, the Summer Olympics in 2006 offered 28 sports and 304 events, giving it a far greater appeal then the World Cup offers.
While the modern day Summer Olympics were founded by Pierre de Couberttin of France in 1894, its historical roots can be traced back to the Ancient Greeks. The same Greeks whose influences on things such as education, philosophy, and art, amongst others, can be felt to this very day. The Summer Olympics is a celebration of those traditions, and when re-established in the late 19th century, it was done so to promote international understanding through sporting competition. This tradition, culture, and understanding can be tapped into by thousands of athletes from across the world every 4 years. The opening and closing ceremonies are examples of this tradition on display. I'd imagine the emotions of each athlete that medals is a tremendous amount of pride in knowing they've added their name to the rich history of the World's largest event that dates back thousands of years. The World Cup dates back to 1930, and only 8 nations to this day have ever won the trophy. It's far from a meaningless competition, as it's a celebration of the World's most popular sport. But with only 8 nations having won the Cup since it's inception, it's history pales in comparison to that of the Summer Olympics.
In summation, The World Cup simply doesn't provide many factors on a global scale that are provided by the Summer Olympics. While both events have qualifiers, there are over 200 nations that participate in the Summer Olympics, compared to 32 for the World Cup. The allowance of all these nations to compete in The Summer Olympics is indicative ofa global, world-wide appeal that simply can't be matched by the World Cup. There are far more events and overall sports available to capture a worldwide audience, including the same sport that is played in The World Cup. The rich historical roots of the Olympic games is something that can't be matched by the World Cup as well. And while both events are rooted deep in competition, it's the spirit of cooperation in the Olympics that once again sets it apart from the World Cup. Because of this, The Summer Olympics hold far more meaning and significance to the world then the World Cup does.
The Olympics is a great event and I will give it that, but it pales in comparison to the World Cup. The unbridled passion and determination is unmatched by any over event in the world including the Olympics. I've heard arguments about how the World Cup is exclusive and that it is one-dimesonal and lacks parity. Brazil may have won the most championships but they make up a small percentage. Olympics does host soccer but their qualifications are U-23 so you don't even get to see the best players. When the 2014 Olympics roll around, you won't see great players like Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo at the Olympics. You can see them play in the World Cup, the greatest spectacle there is.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
