The_Rev Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Dunno. I'll ask my boss, my wife and my kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Europe has the biggest TV audience. you being serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Europe has the biggest TV audience. you being serious?It has the most lucrative TV audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted July 1, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted July 1, 2012 well if you looked at last page or 2 i was the first person to say that the world exists outside Europe but for European audiences probably FIFA biggest market then a World Cup in Qatar is better than a World Cup in Australia, South Korea or even USA To be fair, going by TV contracts (and also ticket sales, IIRC), the USA is the biggest individual country for FIFA. Spanish-language rights for the 2018/2022 WCs went to Telemundo for $600m and Fox is paying $400m for the English-language rights (which will probably make the USA the biggest English-language market for the World Cup by some distance as well). If we're breaking down TV revenue by timezones then it wouldn't surprise me if for 2022 the Americas (GMT-3 to GMT-8) passed GMT+5 to GMT (roughly EMEA). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRS-T Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Spain overtake France in the international football hierarchy. Spain - 1 World Cup & 3 European Championships France - 1 World Cup & 2 European Championships Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted July 2, 2012 Author Share Posted July 2, 2012 I agree. Spain can now place themselves 3rd in Europe. Still way behind Germany and Italy though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRS-T Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Well if you award 2 points for a World Cup win and 1 point for a European Championship win Germany - 9 points Italy - 9 points Spain - 5 points France - 4 points England - 2 points Holland - 1 point Denmark - 1 point Greece - 1 point Russia - 1 point Czech Republic - 1 point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 How many points to you get for being Oceania champions because Australia have racked up quite a few of those? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRS-T Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 How many points to you get for being Oceania champions because Australia have racked up quite a few of those? Lol 0 points. Europe only :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanishVillan Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 What about the Mickey Mouse of International football...The Confederations Cup. Thanks to decay, that should count as much as any trophy won more than 40 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 well if you looked at last page or 2 i was the first person to say that the world exists outside Europe but for European audiences probably FIFA biggest market then a World Cup in Qatar is better than a World Cup in Australia, South Korea or even USA To be fair, going by TV contracts (and also ticket sales, IIRC), the USA is the biggest individual country for FIFA. Spanish-language rights for the 2018/2022 WCs went to Telemundo for $600m and Fox is paying $400m for the English-language rights (which will probably make the USA the biggest English-language market for the World Cup by some distance as well). If we're breaking down TV revenue by timezones then it wouldn't surprise me if for 2022 the Americas (GMT-3 to GMT-8) passed GMT+5 to GMT (roughly EMEA). It's all built on soft foundations though, because keeping people from outside of UEFA interested in the sport is heavily dependent on keeping them watching European club football. That means Europe can stamp its feet very loudly if it wants to as it really is where the beating heart of football is. I accept that there are healthy leagues elsewhere in the world, Mexico, Brazil and the USA are all good examples but they cater to locals, ex pats and obsessives rather than a global audience on the scale of the major European leagues. I suspect lots of people from the other continents are attracted to International tournaments because they want to see the stars from their favourite clubs play and again, those stars are largely based in Europe. How much you can uncouple the revenue lost from hosting a tournament in parts of the world hugely inconvenient for European television audiences from the revenue gained from catering to elsewhere is something that will have to be tested multiple times. The Americas (North and South) are workable if games played on the west coast are early afternoon kick offs with the east coast getting the later games. Again, how you would balance that against putting the likes of the USA, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina on at a time more suitable for their television audiences. It is worth remembering that the 1994 World Cup Final was played in Los Angeles and featuring Brazil kicked off at 12:30 local time (16:30 in Brazil) so it could maximize European television revenue. I guess the question which still needs to be answered is how much have things changed since? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted July 2, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted July 2, 2012 I don't think they've changed that much. 12:30 local time is not an atypical start time in US sports, though (especially for a weekend). College football games typically start at noon unless there's a TV move. The bulk of NFL games kick off between 1pm and 1:25 local (East coast games, except those that get moved to get a national audience in the late slot, kick-off at 1pm; Pacific timezone games kick-off at 1:05 or 1:25 depending on a rotation between Fox and CBS; Mountain games end up at 2:05 or 2:25 while Central games typically get noon local starts). Baseball day games are typically 1pm-ish starts. The NCAA basketball tournament first Thursday/Friday games typically start between 12:20 and 2pm local. So American viewers are used to watching sport at lunchtime hours, and there's not such a time difference between Western Europe and South America that it's pretty easy to accomodate both. From a timing perspective, there's not really a difference between having the World Cup in the Americas and EMEA, and since that's becoming the dominant axis on which FIFA makes money, I think that World Cups in the Far East or Australia will be rarities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted September 10, 2012 Author Share Posted September 10, 2012 Denmark or Switzerland, who is the better footballing nation and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Denmark. They've both qualified for the same amount of Euros/World Cups but Denmark have advanced past the group stage more times and reached 3 semi finals in the Euros - going on to win the whole thing once. Switzerland have never got past the round after the group stages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Too tired to explain it, but Switzerland Will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 11, 2012 Moderator Share Posted September 11, 2012 Denmark. They've both qualified for the same amount of Euros/World Cups but Denmark have advanced past the group stage more times and reached 3 semi finals in the Euros - going on to win the whole thing once. Switzerland have never got past the round after the group stages. You can't count Denmark's European Championship, they didn't even qualify for the finals ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarpie Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 English team tends to be victims of rigid and/or negative tactics, the tournament where they fared the best was 1990 World Cup when they played probably most flowing game I've seen english national team play in the past 22 years. You have such a players like Ashley Young, Theo Walcott, Aaron Lennon etc. who are not maybe as creative and flairy as some spanish or south american players but they still could flourish at least somewhat if given more freedom. It's pretty frustating to watch your team managed by Roy Hodgson or Fabio Capello. English national team needs another player like Gazza but sadly that's not going to happen. Edit: When Roy Hodgson was manager of finnish national team it was incredibly boring to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted September 11, 2012 Author Share Posted September 11, 2012 Denmark. They've both qualified for the same amount of Euros/World Cups but Denmark have advanced past the group stage more times and reached 3 semi finals in the Euros - going on to win the whole thing once. Switzerland have never got past the round after the group stages. That is what I told my colleague, I also added in that most of the world cups that Switzerland qualified for were pre 1970s whereas Denmarks were all recent. I also pointed out that Denmark had produced many world class players like M Laudrup, B Laudrup, Schmeichel and Graveson. Switzerland haven't really produced that many world class players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Thomas Gravesen was world class? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted September 11, 2012 Author Share Posted September 11, 2012 Well borderline for a short while, thats why Real Mardid snapped him up at the time when they were signing Galacticos every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts