|
|
Post by Ryan N on May 20, 2009 19:51:48 GMT 10
Is that why the socceroos sell out every game they play at home against reasonable quality opposition? Dan, soccer is huge worldwide because of its simplicity, not because of any sinister underlyings. Its huge in Aus, it may never overtake RL but you cannot deny its huge. Top Aussie players play in every European league, the A league has huge backers that could put the NRL to shame. How many home games do we get? Not many. So I think think that may contribute. Also, who cares, it doesn't really have media support. That's what makes sport in this decade. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan N on May 20, 2009 19:56:56 GMT 10
Plus soccer players are softcocks. If all systems of government disappeared, and we had to fend for ourselves, all the soccer players would become extinct.  |
|
|
|
Post by supersteve on May 21, 2009 18:49:48 GMT 10
Soccer will never make it big in Australia. The only team doing well for itslef consistnatly is the Melbourne Victory. Since our last World Cup success the A-League has gone backwards in a big way. Brisbane Roar are flat broke, the FFA had to buy 51% of the club to keep it afloat, Perth arent doing much better.
Soccer will not dominate in every country its played in. Even in the USA, try as they did during the mid to late 1900's, importing some of the biggest names in soccer at the time it could not overtake their other major sports.
Soccer is the most widely played and watched sport in the world, but there are pletny of countries where it is not number one. India has Cricket, China has table tennis, USA has NFL and Baseball, Canada has Ice Hockey and Australia has Rugby League and AFL. That is only six countries ive listed, but with India and China well over two billion in population combined, it is a fairly big chunk of the worlds population.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on May 21, 2009 21:39:24 GMT 10
How many home games do we get? Not many. So I think think that may contribute. . The same as every other nations in the relevant competitions. Also, who cares, it doesn't really have media support. That's what makes sport in this decade. No course it doesnt, Fox arent showing the Asian Champions cup, they arent showing week old repeats of UK games at the moment.  Obviously there isnt news about A-League clubs in every Aus paper despite it being off-season and there certainly isnt any news about the European game in those papers |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on May 21, 2009 22:00:05 GMT 10
Soccer will never make it big in Australia. The only team doing well for itslef consistnatly is the Melbourne Victory. Since our last World Cup success the A-League has gone backwards in a big way. Brisbane Roar are flat broke, the FFA had to buy 51% of the club to keep it afloat, Perth arent doing much better. Im not surprised the Roars Roster reads like a whos who of average overpaid ex-european league players  Moore, Tiatto Serge Van Djk, Charlie Miller. As for Perth AFAIK now they are privatley owned again they are doing OK, they are also one of the oldest clubs in the Aussie game AND in a prime UK expat community in place. Soccer will not dominate in every country its played in. Even in the USA, try as they did during the mid to late 1900's, importing some of the biggest names in soccer at the time it could not overtake their other major sports. Soccer is the most widely played and watched sport in the world, but there are pletny of countries where it is not number one. India has Cricket, China has table tennis, USA has NFL and Baseball, Canada has Ice Hockey and Australia has Rugby League and AFL. That is only six countries ive listed, but with India and China well over two billion in population combined, it is a fairly big chunk of the worlds population. Your missing the point, It doesnt have to be Number 1. Soccer and FIFA just want a chunk of every country in the world, and they have that WC's in the far east and North America have ensured that things in those continents are not replicants of Europe or South America but they still have a good market share, which is what business is about. When big Soccer clubs come to the USA and the East they make BIG money, the game does not have to be number one ofr them to accheive that. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan N on May 21, 2009 23:02:19 GMT 10
Shit Marv. I understand ya more now [in regards to the soccer shit ya said]. I thought you were saying it will overtake League but I missed a word. Eh probs off my face at the time.
Yeah, have to agree with all your points otherwise It's [soccer is] well managed. It would have to be the most influencial sport and best sport worldwide in administration and popularity. I mean, every country knows David Beckham, Ronaldo etc. We always hear something about them in Sport and News shows.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on May 22, 2009 2:37:12 GMT 10
Eh probs off my face at the time. Nothing wrong with that Yeah, have to agree with all your points otherwise It's [soccer is] well managed. It would have to be the most influencial sport and best sport worldwide in administration and popularity. I mean, every country knows David Beckham, Ronaldo etc. We always hear something about them in Sport and News shows. Yeah I suppose you do see them, and thats not always a good thing though, like druzik says too much of something gives it saturation and those like yourself who arent fans dig their heels in more. |
|
|
|
Post by England 3 Lions on May 22, 2009 13:28:47 GMT 10
Is that why the socceroos sell out every game they play at home against reasonable quality opposition? The mentality of Australians is to support their country's national sporting teams. When their national sporting teams aren't guaranteed victory over their opposition, the support increases exponentially. I think the support for the Wallabies and Socceroos is largely derived from the aforementioned mentality. My belief is supported by the fact that the rest of the rugby union/football clubs in Australia struggle to gain the public's attention. Dan, soccer is huge worldwide because of its simplicity, not because of any sinister underlyings. The popularity of football is mostly limited to two regions of world: the world's third-world countries and, the rich countries from the Old World (IE. UK, France, Germany. The game struggles in the wealthiest nations of the New World. The simplicity and safeness of association football -- along with the fact it was the first code of football to establish itself as a professional sport -- is the key behind its success in the aforementioned nations. Its huge in Aus, it may never overtake RL but you cannot deny its huge. Only at the junior level. The sport's success at the junior level is probably derived from society's emphasis to feminise boys and discourage them from acting manly. A lot of Australian women shield their sons from playing the more physical codes of football because they're afraid of them being bullied and/or hurt. According to the ASB, around 84% of Australian children do not live with their fathers on a full-time basis. What this says to me is the majority of Australian boys lack the fatherly influence that is required to forge masculine interests and act like boys. Many of them are raised by single mothers. Few single mothers have the time and inclination to involve their sons in rugby league, Australian football and rugby union. Of the children whose parents are separated and/or divorced, many of them are shifted from one house to the other. Many of the fathers need to work two or three jobs so they can pay maintenance to their ex-wives and children. Many of them would lack the time and money required to take their sons to the NRL and/or involve them in junior rugby league teams. Regardless of the reason behind 84% of Australia's children not living permanently with their fathers, the end result is the same: sons lack the fatherly figures that are required to entice them to play manly sports such as rugby league. Boys need a father figure who can guide them into rugby league and encourage them along the way. Of all the children who are raised by single mothers, I reckon the ones who are big, bad bullies and/or raised by rough women are most likely to play rugby league. Top Aussie players play in every European league, the A league has huge backers that could put the NRL to shame. The Queensland Roar almost folded. The FFA had to buy a 51% share of the club so it could make ends meet. The Adelaide Reds' owner has bailed out on them. Their future looks bleak. Sydney FC is run by a movie star who has less drawing power than the Rabbitoh's owner, Russell Crowe. The bloke who is behind the Gold Coast franchise is a twit. There's only enough room on the Gold Coast for the Titans and the CG Blaze basketball team. |
|
|
|
Post by muffdiver on May 23, 2009 1:57:16 GMT 10
Woo hoo - so in 30 years time we'll be regularly spanking the collective Aussie arse at rl then!  |
|
|
|
Post by Druzik on May 23, 2009 2:17:06 GMT 10
Woo hoo - so in 30 years time we'll be regularly spanking the collective Aussie arse at rl then! Yes but the soceroos will be regularly spanking englands areses in soccer |
|
|
|
Post by England 3 Lions on May 23, 2009 18:55:23 GMT 10
Woo hoo - so in 30 years time we'll be regularly spanking the collective Aussie arse at rl then! Thankfully for Australia, many of the young fellas who play football take up rugby league, rugby union and Australian rules football when they enter adolescence. |
|
|
|
Post by Marv on May 23, 2009 19:30:58 GMT 10
The mentality of Australians is to support their country's national sporting teams. When their national sporting teams aren't guaranteed victory over their opposition, the support increases exponentially. I think the support for the Wallabies and Socceroos is largely derived from the aforementioned mentality. My belief is supported by the fact that the rest of the rugby union/football clubs in Australia struggle to gain the public's attention. Well some of the A leagues attendances in RL areas bar QLD fare comparably so I dont really see that mate. as for RU the club game worldwide is poorly supported whereas they seem to get good crowds for International games. The game struggles in the wealthiest nations of the New World. Such as where? The Indian and Chinese leagues are growing faster than any other Asian league. The winners of the Asian Champions League get enough to play the wages of an NRL team for a year from the final alone. These are both competitions that are in their infancy compared to the established sports in those countries, the players in those nations are also very well paid, hence the export of many european players. I also know Australia faught tooth and nail to be allowed in this comp. To suggest struggle in these nations is laughable, in the I-league and Chinese super league the clubs are pinned by the large corperations operating in those countries, the same corperations that are bringing unpercedented wealth to these nations. The simplicity and safeness of association football -- along with the fact it was the first code of football to establish itself as a professional sport -- is the key behind its success in the aforementioned nations. I have seen many freinds badly injured playing Football, on a saturday and Sunday in the parks around the UK you would not suggest the game is particuarly safe, its not the same as watching the EPL. I would also suggest the Soccer marketing juggernaught has something to do with its continued popualrity. Only at the junior level. The sport's success at the junior level is probably derived from society's emphasis to feminise boys and discourage them from acting manly. A lot of Australian women shield their sons from playing the more physical codes of football because they're afraid of them being bullied and/or hurt. According to the ASB, around 84% of Australian children do not live with their fathers on a full-time basis. What this says to me is the majority of Australian boys lack the fatherly influence that is required to forge masculine interests and act like boys. Many of them are raised by single mothers. Few single mothers have the time and inclination to involve their sons in rugby league, Australian football and rugby union. Of the children whose parents are separated and/or divorced, many of them are shifted from one house to the other. Many of the fathers need to work two or three jobs so they can pay maintenance to their ex-wives and children. Many of them would lack the time and money required to take their sons to the NRL and/or involve them in junior rugby league teams. Regardless of the reason behind 84% of Australia's children not living permanently with their fathers, the end result is the same: sons lack the fatherly figures that are required to entice them to play manly sports such as rugby league. Boys need a father figure who can guide them into rugby league and encourage them along the way. Of all the children who are raised by single mothers, I reckon the ones who are big, bad bullies and/or raised by rough women are most likely to play rugby league. Thats your opinion, and TBH I wouldnt know as I havent seen those figures. Personally I think thats the biggest load of Bollocks I have heard, Lots of kids in the UK grow up without a father, many people I know who play RL here come from broken homes, Im sure there are more than enough pros from similar backgrounds here too. Many single parent Childern look to other male role models in their life, for example a teacher or Older brother/freind. The Queensland Roar almost folded. The FFA had to buy a 51% share of the club so it could make ends meet. And Im sure no RL team has ever gone close to the wall in Australia, its business sometimes that happens. Sydney FC is run by a movie star who has less drawing power than the Rabbitoh's owner, Russell Crowe. LaPaglia is pertty small time in comparison to Crowe, I dont really see your point here though? |
|
|
|
Post by England 3 Lions on May 23, 2009 20:53:12 GMT 10
The mentality of Australians is to support their country's national sporting teams. When their national sporting teams aren't guaranteed victory over their opposition, the support increases exponentially. I think the support for the Wallabies and Socceroos is largely derived from the aforementioned mentality. My belief is supported by the fact that the rest of the rugby union/football clubs in Australia struggle to gain the public's attention. Well some of the A leagues attendances in RL areas bar QLD fare comparably so I dont really see that mate. as for RU the club game worldwide is poorly supported whereas they seem to get good crowds for International games. Sydney FC represents an 4,500,000 people, yet it fails to draw large crowds to its matches. If there was just one NRL team in Sydney, then it would probably draw 50,000 or more fans to its home matches. Melbourne FC are faring well, but only because they're the only Victorian club in the competition. When there were numberous NSL teams from Sydney and Melbourne, the crowds were tiny. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Finland and USA. In Canada, the number one code of football is Canadian football. The CFL is easily the country's most attended football competition. Ice hockey is number one in Finland and Canada. In Finland, a baseball-like sport holds a larger standing than football. Football is mostly played at the recreational level in Australia. The A-League's season is held during the summer months because it cannot compete with rugby league, rugby union and Australian rules football. In the USA, the majority of people think football (soccer) is boring. No matter which part of the US you go to, you'll find that American football is the number one code of football. A lot of kids play the game, but it has never caught on at the elite level. The introduction of Pele (spelling?) during the 60's and/or 70's failed to win over the people. The 94 world cup failed to win over the people. Beckham failed to win over the people. No matter how hard you look at the situation, you can only conclude that football (soccer) has failed miserably in the USA. The Indian and Chinese leagues are growing faster than any other Asian league. The winners of the Asian Champions League get enough to play the wages of an NRL team for a year from the final alone. These are both competitions that are in their infancy compared to the established sports in those countries, the players in those nations are also very well paid, hence the export of many european players. Football will never be anything more than India's 2nd or 3rd most popular sport. Cricket will always be number one in India. If you walk down any Indian village then you'll see kids playing cricket, advertising signs featuring cricketers and structured cricket matches taking place. Some of the Indian kids who were killed by the 2004 tsunami were playing cricket at the time. I never heard of any children playing football. If the small crowd at the China vs Australia match from a few years ago is anything to go by, then the sport has a long way to go before it can overtake ping pong as the country's number one sport. A China vs Australia basketball match would have drawn a capacity attendance. I also know Australia faught tooth and nail to be allowed in this comp. The FFA fought for inclusion in Asia because Oceania is unproductive. The lack of quality opposition in Oceania meant that the Australian team rarely played in meaningful competitions, thus leading to them drawing less money from sponsors. Plus, it was believed that it would be easier to qualify for the World Cup by defeating the fairly weak Asian nations, than it was to defeat the 5th placed South American team, which is what the number one country from Oceania was required to do, in a two leg play-off, for many years. To suggest struggle in these nations is laughable, in the I-league and Chinese super league the clubs are pinned by the large corperations operating in those countries, the same corperations that are bringing unpercedented wealth to these nations. I don't think I said anything about either nation. All I said is the game's strength lies in South America and the Old World nations from Europe. The Muslims are quite keen on it too, but I think that'll change once they've gained more exposure to rugby league. I have seen many freinds badly injured playing Football, on a saturday and Sunday in the parks around the UK you would not suggest the game is particuarly safe, its not the same as watching the EPL. Maybe so, but this is not the general consensus held by Australia's soccer mums. They believe it's a safe sport. I would also suggest the Soccer marketing juggernaught has something to do with its continued popualrity. Agreed. Thats your opinion, and TBH I wouldnt know as I havent seen those figures. Personally I think thats the biggest load of Bollocks I have heard, Lots of kids in the UK grow up without a father, many people I know who play RL here come from broken homes, Im sure there are more than enough pros from similar backgrounds here too. You're talking about English families. The situation in England is much different, thus having a different affect on single fathers. In England, young women drop out of school and fall pregnant so they can obtain a council estate and welfare. The situation isn't as bad in Australia. The cost of living in England is different too. In Australia, especially in the southern states, the cost of living is very expensive. I never realised it until my sister moved to England. I was dumbfounded when I learned that it was cheaper to order in a rugby league/cricket jersey from England than it was to buy one from an Australian store. In Australia, they routinely cost $150. You can buy them in England for around £45. When you convert that to Australian dollars, it works out much cheaper. In general, the cost of clothes, pay TV, furniture and electronic goods is overpriced in Australia. Yes, some children from broken families go on to play rugby league. However, I doubt it's the norm. There's always going to be a few exceptions to a general rule. Many single parent Childern look to other male role models in their life, for example a teacher or Older brother/freind. Unfortunately, many of them end up looking up to the wrong sort of men. A lot of them go on to idolise gangsters. And Im sure no RL team has ever gone close to the wall in Australia, its business sometimes that happens. I cannot recall a rugby league team needing the NRL to buy 51% of its share so it could stay afloat. Sydney FC is run by a movie star who has less drawing power than the Rabbitoh's owner, Russell Crowe. LaPaglia is pertty small time in comparison to Crowe, I dont really see your point here though? You were speaking about the high profile men who run the A-League clubs. I just let you know that some high profile men are involved in the NRL, too. |
|
|
|
Post by muffdiver on May 24, 2009 4:42:33 GMT 10
If several rl boards are to be believed Cronulla are about to go to the wall. Also what about Newtown?
|
|
|
|
Post by Druzik on May 24, 2009 6:08:49 GMT 10
If several rl boards are to be believed Cronulla are about to go to the wall. Also what about Newtown? Whats happening to cronulla is a lynching... if cronulla goes no NRL team is safe... but they will survive. One of the largest junior bases the NRL will not let that go. The tactics are typical of what went on whe they tried to kick souths out. Newtown were unlucky, they spent about 3 million dollars to buy a premiership in the face of manly an it didnt happen and they went bust naturally. |
|
Moore, Tiatto Serge Van Djk, Charlie Miller.
