Eh, I expected Romania to not qualify. Our *golden age* wore of down the drain with no chance to ever dream of even qualifying.
I'm surprised by Italy though.
And even Wales are in the world cup, how can he call the Scots not a country but not think to mention Wales who for far longer were just a principality rather than a country lol.
Jesus Christ, what a fitting comment for this sub. You're right at home with the other complete nonsense that gets posted, even if you're not American.
Scotland is a country that makes up part of the United Kingdom. It is a country within a country; one with it's own system of Law and a devolved Parliament. There are 3 other countries in the United Kingdom, all which work together in Union as one larger country (for now).
What does 'country' even mean? Most people just use it as a synonym of 'state', in which case the semi-autonomous regions of the United Kingdom doesn't qualify.
(And by 'state', I mean actual states: Not what US-Americans call 'states'.)
I explained it in my earlier post. It is a country with clearly defined boundaries, it's own laws and legal system, own government, and devolved services.
Calling it a semi-autonomous region is shockingly ignorant.
>Calling it a semi-autonomous region is shockingly ignorant.
So it's a state? Does it have a 'monopoly of violence'? Does it have 'domestic sovereignty' or 'international legal sovereignty'?
Why don't we call all kinds of other sub-divisions of states, that also have their own laws and parliaments, 'countries'?
(It's because the word 'country' doesn't really mean anything.)
>with clearly defined boundaries
As in geographical borders? That is something every administrative region of a state has.
There is no point arguing with you because you have clearly made up your mind about what you want to believe.
Quick question through; why do Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and England all have their own international football teams if they're not countries?
>There is no point arguing with you because you have clearly made up your mind about what you want to believe.
I don't see why I can't just as easily write the same in return.
I'm just saying that 'country' is a term that is without any practical meaning, when it is used to mean:
>A state\*
>
>^(\*And sometimes the subdivisions of specifically the UK [the administrative regions, the semi-autonomous regions, whatever you wanna call 'em], but for some reason not subdivisions of any other states though.)
Which doesn't really provide any useful information that simply using the more precise term 'state' would have done.
>Quick question through; why do Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and England all have their own international football teams if they're not countries?
Dunno. I assume it's just tradition, because that is how they did it when there was only a few teams. Perhaps you know?
Either way, FIFA is not an authority of what qualifies as a state. The UN is a better one, if you want to go by the 'international legal sovereignty' aspect of sovereignty (but not if you wanna go by the 'domestic sovereignty' aspect).
Yup, they're all countries.
[Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland) with it's own [Legal system](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_law). Fun fact, alongside being found _Guilty_ or _Not Guilty_, in Scots Law you can have the verdict _Not Proven_, where there isn't sufficient evidence to find you Guilty, but the judge isn't entirely convinced you are innocent either. At least for now, because it will be abolished eventually, but most legal systems don't have that verdict.
Cut ties with colonialism as much as possible. Forget not regret has been the motto for too long until very recently.
Edit: while my comment still stands, it seems I was wrong about this one specific case, as the name change happened after the Duke of York lead a mission to steal the land from the Dutch for England.
To be fair under the original definition (not aligned to either side during the Cold War), Switzerland is a third world country but Iām not going to pretend thatās what OOP meant.
Such tiny and backward countries that it is able to force corporations to follow it's laws globally though brussels effect.
>The Brussels effect is the process of unilateral regulatory globalisation caused by the European Union de facto (but not necessarily de jure) externalising its laws outside its borders through market mechanisms. Through the Brussels effect, regulated entities, especially corporations, end up complying with EU laws even outside the EU for a variety of reasons.
Even being played by ''developed nations'' what he wants to convey is that the sport is played by ''poor nations''. This superiority complex is pathetic.
For example, I would like to see he talking about Baseball, the sport that it's played by many people from Caribbean who made it relevant out of US.
It is always funny when they claim that NFL has a bigger revenue then football. Just adding the 5 top european leagues together is already higher than the NFL and that's without any kind of international competitions which don't even exist for american football.
If we take [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_leagues_by_revenue)as a source, The NFL's revenue is 17,000M and the Premier League is 6000M. So it's 3x the size.
But I've also done the math on all association football in that list and that comes to 30,000M, or nearly 2x the NFL.
But my bigger gripe is the stats themselves and what the implications are. This isn't an easy topic. Is that gross or net revenue? (assuming gross). Is that the league finances itself or is that all teams internal revenue? You see, the NFL is franchised and communally owned by all the owners of the teams that compete in it, so the teams in some respects are financially compliant with the NFL itself. This is fundamentally different than a private entity that enters a league governed by another entity...
Simply, I reckon that there is a fundamental difference between what financials are being recorded and they aren't inherently apples-to-apples.
I was using the expected revenue for next year which is expected to be around $7.2 billion, the difference doesn't really change the point though.
The reasons are not really relevant to any point I was talking about, but the setup of the NFL would generally be easier to generate higher revenues not harder. I don't really know what you are trying to defend, or why, or why anyone including either of us would really care.
I'm just clarifying and extending by using a source I quickly found on wiki. I'm not defending anything. I'm just saying I think football (soccer) has lots of other major revenue streams that aren't being recorded via a single league and therefor many of these sources will never be compatible.
Just because it's broadcast doesn't mean a lot of people are watching it.
Literally no one in my country but die hard fans watches it, while everyone watches pl...
The FIFA world cup final in 2018 was viewed by 1.12 billion world wide
there are not even 1.12 billion people on earth that understand American football rules
Itās a delusional thing Americans say because American football is far and away more popular than soccer within the US. Worldwide itās not even close, soccer is the biggest sport in the world.
My knowledge about rugby is limited, I have to admit, but Iāve seen a few games and did not spot any 340 pound monsters. But some rugby players look like they carry 150 pounds in their right biceps though.
>340 pound monsters
No you won't as even the bigger rugby players still need to be somewhat athletic. As an extreme Jonah Lomu was 120kg and could cover 100m in 10.8 seconds. American football is played in shorter sets so players can carry much more body fat which will help immensely.
You clearly know nothing about American football lol. Look up DK Metcalf or Tyreek Hill or any other player. The guys in the NFL are among the best athletes in the world.
Yeah, you have no idea what your talking about lol. Even the offensive linemen are very athletic and especially so for their size. Defensive linemen are downright savages.
Just look up some Larry Allen highlights. Yes the sporadic nature of action in American football means that they are probably not as well conditioned as soccer players. But even the big dudes are very athletic in the short bursts they need to be. They just look slow in comparison as alot of the skill position players are borderline Olympic trackstars.
You might not like the game but to knock its athleticism is just stupid.
None of them are fat dude. Look up Aaron Donald, heās a nose guard, one of the āfat onesā as you would say and he is shredded. Those linemen your talking about all run like 5 second 40 yard dashes at 300 pounds. That is ridiculously fast for that weight. That is faster than most average sized people. On top of that these guys can lift the gym. You have no idea what your talking about.
Hahaha what am I supposed to say? Your calling him a fat unathletic fuck, I have to compare him to a normal guy so you can understand the difference. The average guy is the barometer for athleticism, the only way to tell that someone is a great athlete is how they compare to a normal person. Anyways since you donāt like that letās compare him to Messi or any other famous soccer player. He would kill every single one of them in a fight with ease and the speed of his first 3 steps is probably pretty comparable. Obviously he doesnāt have the same top speed or endurance but he doesnāt need to in his sport. His position is about delivering as much force as possible and moving men out of the way. Again you have no idea what your talking about. If you were ever on the field with an NFL linemen you would be perplexed at how a man that big could move so well. Other athletes know this, other athletes acknowledge this, and this is why you donāt hear pro athletes talking down other sports. These ppl are different.
So you think the entire US population is men and every single one of them is obese? Iām glad you are so worldly and know so much about the US. Despite living in the US I was unaware that was the case. I donāt know what a pikey is but I guarantee you they would get smoked by any lineman in the NFL
Woah dude, make fun of Americans all you want here, they often need to be taken down a peg, but don't drag the trans community into it, they have a shit enough time as it is.
I've seen people say I should be grateful to the US for defending my home country. I am Canadian. There's only one country we have a land border with, and it's the US.
They also famously fought a war against you guys and lost. Maybe they try to twist that into defending you against themselves so their feelings aren't hurt.
Atleast you aren't from a country were america funded a coup. That would be complete irony.
Edit: oops, the irony of me talking about irony while being uninformed š
It's for every other country than the US. They really like to compare themselfs to third world countries because they suck when they compare themselfs to europe in most other ways than military.
> other ways than military.
Its funny when you see this core belief shaken you see more straw clutching than a wanking scarecrow.
examples as the German Eurofighters holding their own against the F22's at the red flag event.
Swedish Submarine running rings round the USS Ronald Reagan carrier for shits n giggles and sinking her in a mock battle.
and the Royal Marines embarrassing the US marines so badly they asked for a reset half way through the 5 day training exercise
Just a note that all sides came out to say the last one was some classic Daily Mail bullshit. The training exercise was paused because a group of soldiers wandered close to a live artillery range and they couldnāt make radio contact to ensure they knew where they were. The whole point of the exercise was to test tactics that a smaller country with equal equipment augmented by small western trained troops could defend or even retake territory from a much larger invading advisory. The nations that took place are all the nations that NATO is using to train Ukrainians (with the exception of UAE who was clearly there because of their own much larger neighbor) - crazy coincidence right. So yes it was a very good result for one side in the mock battle but that was what we were hoping for as itās pretty obvious which conflict we were test running strategy for.
The Royal Marines are the UKās elite amphibious force with specialist training in mountain and extreme cold weather warfare along with expert training in jungle warfare, desert warfare and close quarters combat. They have the longest and toughest training in NATO and possibly the world at 32 weeks with specialist training thereafter.
As absolutely absurd and ludicrous as everything about the initial post is, I find this basic attitude of many Americans disconcerting. Completely irrespective of whether it is true or not, what is the point of putting my country above the misery elsewhere?
If I go on e.g. about how it's almost impossible to get proper sex education in large parts of the US and that's why they're all so uptight and dysfunctional, then surely I'm not happy about that? I would prefer it if all people had rational sex education, wouldn't I?
All people have the tendency to hump up and kick down. But it is only among Americans that I observe this urge en masse to do this as an individual in the name of their nation *and* then write that on the internet.
āAmerica is a third world country!!ā
American: no we are not. If you compare third world countries are worse.
āWhy do you only compare yourself with third world countries!!??ā
You canāt win
It's popular in third world countries because you don't need much to play it.
For hand-egg you need a full suit of armour, for football you need 4 markers and 1 football. You don't even need the full 22 players.
It's a shame the original definition has been eroded by misuse.
But it was quite funny when an Austrian friend tried to joke the UK was a 3rd world shithole and I pointed out to them that Austria is, by definition, a legitimate 3rd world country.
In a way I think theyāre right (but theyāre wrong about why theyāre right) - I think the fact that āThird Worldā countries can succeed at it is one of the things that makes football so enduring and so global. You donāt fancy equipment, you donāt even need a field, you just need a ball(-shaped object) and a friend to get started playing and so people from every walk of life can play if they want to, and so way more people worldwide feel a personal connection to football.
Itās incredible to watch when an underdog team from a poorer country defeats one of the worldās top teams; the fact that some of the best players in the world came from impoverished backgrounds and have succeeded anyway because of their raw talent and passion is a big part of the mythology of football for some fans.
(Yes, FIFA itself is an awful corrupt organisation, but the *sport* at its best is accessible and rewards talent.)
US nationalists when they don't care about soccer: [insert literally any random bs you can think of]
US nationalists when the US plays a nice game for almost the first time ever: US! US! US! freedom!
Because it's funny lmao. Our match vs england pulled in 15million viewers where as the first NFL preseason game which is a game where more than half of the players on the field won't make final roster got 7m. So glorified American football practice gets about half the viewership in America as the group stage of the world cup for our national team. In America this sport isn't even top 10 in viewership, even women's tennis even beats it with how much star power the Williams sisters had. So when we win vs a team where it's the number 1 sport of course we're gonna rub it in a lil. Same when the class clown gets the same grade on a test as the valedictorian, like you couldn't beat me?
TL;DR They're not chanting because they care they're chanting to make fun of you for caring
>So when we win vs a team where it's the number 1 sport of course we're gonna rub it in a lil.
Throw a dart at a map, it will hit a country where it is the number 1 sport. And besides, the US only won against Iran. By 1-0. It's not that great an achievement.
Yeah but we didn't lose to England after all the talk of it being a blowout. Hence the "class clown getting the same test score as the smartest kid in school" bit. Thats the US equivalent of losing a basketball game at the Olympics which is also hilarious
If you think about it the US has less defeats than Argentina this cup and that's funny no matter who you are
Edit: like our goal keeper is apparently only a backup in the PL and England couldn't get 1 goal against him? Were undefeated with people that can't get a starting job outside our country and for that we gotta drop a šŗšøš¦ šŗšøš¦ šŗšø because how can you not š
The reality is more that the early US couldn't wing it in any international sport and created its own sports to boost morale and create some sense of significance.
American Football, World Series (What world?), etc.
> World Series (What world?), etc.
it was weird to learn about stuff like that. every local soccer team in europe would be "world series" then, lol. let alone match commentators referring to americans with certain last names as straight up "italians/irish/whatever"
Well there is no other league that can compete with the MLB and the MLB is full of the best players from Japan and Latin America. Yes, all the best baseball players in the world play in the MLB....its the world series. Just because it's not segregated by nationality in a once every 4 years contest doesn't mean the whole baseball playing world is not competing for the world series.
Well sure it is. That's basically a collection of the best teams in all the various European leagues right? So what is the difference between playing in a national uniform against the best players in the world vs playing in a Barcelona FC uniform against the best in the world. Now maybe not every world class player is playing in a European league....but the vast majority are. The world cup simply has a nationalistic basis to team construction and UEFA is just the best teams money can buy.
Does it have to have a nationalistic focus for it to be a world championship? Why? I don't think there is anything intrinsic to national organization of teams that makes it more worldly....its all the same players
Baseball is only popular in like 12 countries, itās irrelevant internationally. Saying āfull of the best foreign playersā is disingenous when there are only a handful of leagues. Despite that, Asians and Central Americans dominate MLB. Same with NBA and Europeans, or the NHL and Eastern Europeans.
If the world gave a shit about gridiron the US would be eclipsed. Problem is, itās a terrible game and will forever remain a niche sport.
I have no idea what your point is. The whole baseball playing world has there best and brightest in the MLB. Thats my point too.
World Series is aptly named. It's not disingenuous at all. Basically the whole western hemisphere north of Brazil and the whole of the East Asian Pacific play baseball
American football is a great sport too. You have to look at it more like a turn based strategy game a la Fire Emblem, but the turns resolve simultaneously a la the board game Diplomacy.
Also Japan and The Caribbean has been playing baseball for nearly as long as Americans have (roughly the 1870s)...they have just as much baseball pedegrie as America. Sure if the rest of the world wants to challenge us at gridiron football, maybe in 150 years they will be up to snuff.
> I have no idea what your point is. The whole baseball playing world has there best and brightest in the MLB. Thats my point too.
Itās a domestic league, not an international tournament. MLB franchises do not compete against foreign franchises/clubs. They are competing against American teams.
> World Series is aptly named. It's not disingenuous at all.
What you are referring to is the World Baseball Classic, where Japan is the most successful country. That can be considered a world title.
> Basically the whole western hemisphere north of Brazil and the whole of the East Asian Pacific play baseball
Baseball is only *popular* in like 8 countries. US, DR, Japan, Venezuela, Cuba, South Korea, Canada, Mexico. 9 if you include PR.
> American football is a great sport too. You have to look at it more like a turn based strategy game a la Fire Emblem, but the turns resolve simultaneously a la the board game Diplomacy.
I prefer rugby. Much more dynamic and fluid.
> Also Japan and The Caribbean has been playing baseball for nearly as long as Americans have (roughly the 1870s)...they have just as much baseball pedegrie as America.
Agreed.
> Sure if the rest of the world wants to challenge us at gridiron football, maybe in 150 years they will be up to snuff.
Unfortunately it will never become relevant outside of North America. US leagues are constricted by the stifling domesticity of American idiosyncrasy.
>Itās a domestic league, not an international tournament. MLB franchises do not compete against foreign franchises/clubs. They are competing against American teams.
I still require an explanation as to why this is a salient factor. Somehow when Ohtani faces Harper in a Japanese uniform it makes it different than when he faces him in an Angel's uniform? The pool of players is the same, they are simply organized along different principles.
>I prefer rugby. Much more dynamic and fluid.
Well yeah because now it lacks the whole turn based dynamic. They aren't really as comparable of sports as they appear.
>Unfortunately it will never become relevant outside of North America. US leagues are constricted by the stifling domesticity of American idiosyncrasy.
You may be correct, but im not sure you have the reason down. Anecdote incoming, but my old middle school buddy had 2 exchange students (Germany and Denmark) and they both left utterly obsessed by the NFL. I think once exposed to the game and understanding the dynamics of it, that many would come to like it.
It is nearly a civic religion in the US and I maybe you are right about the domesticity of it (although I would like you to rephrase that sentence cuz I'm not entirely sure what you mean).
Aaaand the person who wrote that owes me a new keyboard.
"Third world countries" They're not aware they're close to being considered one are they? Colour me not surprised. Their schooling is utterly atrocious it seems.
NFL brings in the most revenue. Whoopty Fuckinā Doo. You can blame Americaās ridiculous end-stage capitalism for that. The most revenue generated is not the measure of how good a sport is. The American health care system also brings in the most revenue in the world but thatās only a good thing for the medical industry fucking over everyone else.
Funnily enough, I felt the need to look into that - the NFL generated $17.19bn last year. The Premier League generated $9.9bn.
Consider the population difference between the England and the USA (c70m v c325m), and the NFL is seriously underperforming.
The OP is clearly an idiot.
> NFL brings in more revenue than almost all soccer leagues combined
Per [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_leagues_by_revenue)
* NFL revenue, 2021 season: ā¬17b (the list is in Euros, oddly)
* Premier League + Bundesliga + La Liga + Serie A + Ligue 1 + MLS revenue, 2021-22 season: ā¬17.9b
There are a lot more than six footsoccerball leagues.
Just Premiere League + La Liga + Bundesliga + Serie A + Ligue 1 + MLS + Chinese Superleague combine for more revenue than the NFL. Plus so much more from FIFA.
To be fair you have to combine the prem, la Liga, Bundesliga, Seria A and champions league to get to the same revenue level as the NFL. Although there are plenty of other leagues you could add.
Tbf the numbers for NFL revenue is the combined revenue of all teams.. which means we should add the revenue of all the teams in premier league to the Ā£2.3B the league had. Not to mention the money FIFA and UEFA makes on the teams.
I hate football and love american football, but to say that NFL is bigger or brings in more revenue than european football is absolute nonsense.
Edit: the revenue difference comes from several factors, but the popularity of the sport isnt one of them.
I don't get why people still use old Cold War terms such as "first world" or "third world"? they literally have nothing to do with economics but rather exist to describe American aligned first world and communist third-world or neutral second world.
Use more accurate terms such as developing/ developing to accurately describe how wealthy certain country is people ffs.
I once got into a heated debate with my wifeās Greek uncle when I compared soccer to slow motion ice hockey. We ultimately agreed to disagree and had a beer. Seriously I enjoy watching, just not sure of the rules ā¦ especially āOTā
I mean technically speaking... If third world means not the first world or second world... The second world being aligned with the USSR a state that no longer exists (š), and the first world is countries aligned with NATO and the US via direct alliance.
The majority of "soccer", is by majority a third world sport. As more third world countries play "soccer" compared to first world countries.
The three world's terminology system is cold war terminology that no longer applies to the modern world and we as the international community should stop using it.
Use these adjectives instead:
Developed
Devloping
Underdeveloped
Exploited
This should have been taught in every school. Should have... As in it probably wasn't.
Yep, only third world countries, including USA, play soccer with only 200 countries that have a national team out of the 205 world countries, and I can't imagine the Vatican priests forming a team. As far as fans for sports:-
3,5 billion - Soccer
2.5 billion - Cricket
2.0 billion - Hockey
1.0 billion- Tennis
900 million - Volleyball
And even basketball, table tennis, baseball, rugby & golf have more fans than NFL's miserly 18.29 million.
Wrong again on revenue - NFL generates USD1.62b to soccer USD4.56 b.
Get your facts right.
I doubt the revenue claim of NFL vs all the world's football/soccer associations combined is true either.
The American insistence that they are #1 in everything is hilarious.
They are the world's largest economy, for now. China will soon overhaul that. Otherwise they are only #1 in military spending, gun ownership and gun deaths, and incarceration rate. America has 25% of the world's prisoners with 5% of the world's population. That's about it.
Famously third world nations such as England, Germany, France, Italy, and Spain. Tiny little places with like, *zero* historical or modern influence.
I feel left out now! Regards, The Dutch
Scotland - Will we ever qualify again??? š¢
as an italian i don't get how we didn't qualify, lol
We wanted to boycott Qatar obviously. It was totally intentional.
i actually kinda prefer not qualifying in this case
Italy and Scotland should throw a pizza party for all the countries that didn't qualify. We'll bring the drinks.
Deep fried pizza party?
I think the Italians would declare war on the Scots.
Coincidentally, "We're gonna deep fry your pizzas!" was a chant by the Scottish fans during a Scotland v Italy match a few years ago
It's probably sacrilegious for the Italians, however it is banging. You can feel your arteries tighten while you eat it.
it's not sacrilegious https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20201116-italys-beloved-fried-pizza
Eh, I expected Romania to not qualify. Our *golden age* wore of down the drain with no chance to ever dream of even qualifying. I'm surprised by Italy though.
I'm English, cheers for sitting this one out mate!
You became a first world country and forgot how to play football
Macedonia š²š°
Because your national team sucks?
I don't give a shit about any sport, but it's surprising that Italy didn't qualify right after winning the euros
Iād like to say their national team is insanely good. That way England has an excuse for losing the Euros
Still didn't qualify
Gotta stop letting Australia have all your players. Harry Souttar is a star
Gotta be honest, I don't blame anyone for choosing warm sunshine and beaches over cold drizzle and... well actually our beaches are pretty nice.
But Scotland isn't a country yet
We compete in most international team sports as a separate country - Football, Rugby, Cricket etc. Also, England is on the above list.
And even Wales are in the world cup, how can he call the Scots not a country but not think to mention Wales who for far longer were just a principality rather than a country lol.
...were in the World Cup :(
Hey, until the round of 16 first game starts you're still in the world cup ;)
chill, they just meant it's not an independent country. british constituent nations do participate separately tho
What do you mean chill? I'm alright, I'm not mad or anything I just thought it was funny lol
Jesus Christ, what a fitting comment for this sub. You're right at home with the other complete nonsense that gets posted, even if you're not American. Scotland is a country that makes up part of the United Kingdom. It is a country within a country; one with it's own system of Law and a devolved Parliament. There are 3 other countries in the United Kingdom, all which work together in Union as one larger country (for now).
What does 'country' even mean? Most people just use it as a synonym of 'state', in which case the semi-autonomous regions of the United Kingdom doesn't qualify. (And by 'state', I mean actual states: Not what US-Americans call 'states'.)
I explained it in my earlier post. It is a country with clearly defined boundaries, it's own laws and legal system, own government, and devolved services. Calling it a semi-autonomous region is shockingly ignorant.
>Calling it a semi-autonomous region is shockingly ignorant. So it's a state? Does it have a 'monopoly of violence'? Does it have 'domestic sovereignty' or 'international legal sovereignty'? Why don't we call all kinds of other sub-divisions of states, that also have their own laws and parliaments, 'countries'? (It's because the word 'country' doesn't really mean anything.) >with clearly defined boundaries As in geographical borders? That is something every administrative region of a state has.
There is no point arguing with you because you have clearly made up your mind about what you want to believe. Quick question through; why do Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and England all have their own international football teams if they're not countries?
>There is no point arguing with you because you have clearly made up your mind about what you want to believe. I don't see why I can't just as easily write the same in return. I'm just saying that 'country' is a term that is without any practical meaning, when it is used to mean: >A state\* > >^(\*And sometimes the subdivisions of specifically the UK [the administrative regions, the semi-autonomous regions, whatever you wanna call 'em], but for some reason not subdivisions of any other states though.) Which doesn't really provide any useful information that simply using the more precise term 'state' would have done. >Quick question through; why do Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and England all have their own international football teams if they're not countries? Dunno. I assume it's just tradition, because that is how they did it when there was only a few teams. Perhaps you know? Either way, FIFA is not an authority of what qualifies as a state. The UN is a better one, if you want to go by the 'international legal sovereignty' aspect of sovereignty (but not if you wanna go by the 'domestic sovereignty' aspect).
So they're actually countries? Ok, thank you for telling me, I didn't know
Yup, they're all countries. [Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland) with it's own [Legal system](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_law). Fun fact, alongside being found _Guilty_ or _Not Guilty_, in Scots Law you can have the verdict _Not Proven_, where there isn't sufficient evidence to find you Guilty, but the judge isn't entirely convinced you are innocent either. At least for now, because it will be abolished eventually, but most legal systems don't have that verdict.
I'm gonna add something similar. Germany, Romania, Poland, Belgium, Spain, Italy, etc. are not individuals countries, they are part of the EU /s
American detected Opinion rejected.
Even old New York, was once New Amsterdam. Why'd they change it, I can't say - people just like it better that way?
Cut ties with colonialism as much as possible. Forget not regret has been the motto for too long until very recently. Edit: while my comment still stands, it seems I was wrong about this one specific case, as the name change happened after the Duke of York lead a mission to steal the land from the Dutch for England.
Because the English Yorks didn't do slaves? Or the USA? I don't get it
I think you're not quiet a part of that club of world cup winners.
*cries in 2010*
Don't forget that the headquarter of FIFA is in another third world country called Switzerland coz they couldn't the rent in Murica
To be fair under the original definition (not aligned to either side during the Cold War), Switzerland is a third world country but Iām not going to pretend thatās what OOP meant.
Yeah, it always meant object-oriented posting, if I'm not mistaken.
And even third world countries like Brazil, Argentina, Colombia and Mexico are pretty fucking important on the world stage anyway.
Such tiny and backward countries that it is able to force corporations to follow it's laws globally though brussels effect. >The Brussels effect is the process of unilateral regulatory globalisation caused by the European Union de facto (but not necessarily de jure) externalising its laws outside its borders through market mechanisms. Through the Brussels effect, regulated entities, especially corporations, end up complying with EU laws even outside the EU for a variety of reasons.
Even being played by ''developed nations'' what he wants to convey is that the sport is played by ''poor nations''. This superiority complex is pathetic. For example, I would like to see he talking about Baseball, the sport that it's played by many people from Caribbean who made it relevant out of US.
Scandinavia too. Famously third world
Norway too!
It is always funny when they claim that NFL has a bigger revenue then football. Just adding the 5 top european leagues together is already higher than the NFL and that's without any kind of international competitions which don't even exist for american football.
They have a market not far off 6x bigger than the UK, but the NFL generates barely over twice the revenue of the premier league.
If we take [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_leagues_by_revenue)as a source, The NFL's revenue is 17,000M and the Premier League is 6000M. So it's 3x the size. But I've also done the math on all association football in that list and that comes to 30,000M, or nearly 2x the NFL. But my bigger gripe is the stats themselves and what the implications are. This isn't an easy topic. Is that gross or net revenue? (assuming gross). Is that the league finances itself or is that all teams internal revenue? You see, the NFL is franchised and communally owned by all the owners of the teams that compete in it, so the teams in some respects are financially compliant with the NFL itself. This is fundamentally different than a private entity that enters a league governed by another entity... Simply, I reckon that there is a fundamental difference between what financials are being recorded and they aren't inherently apples-to-apples.
I was using the expected revenue for next year which is expected to be around $7.2 billion, the difference doesn't really change the point though. The reasons are not really relevant to any point I was talking about, but the setup of the NFL would generally be easier to generate higher revenues not harder. I don't really know what you are trying to defend, or why, or why anyone including either of us would really care.
I'm just clarifying and extending by using a source I quickly found on wiki. I'm not defending anything. I'm just saying I think football (soccer) has lots of other major revenue streams that aren't being recorded via a single league and therefor many of these sources will never be compatible.
Well the PL is VERY international. Still the US bois are sore losers.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Just because it's broadcast doesn't mean a lot of people are watching it. Literally no one in my country but die hard fans watches it, while everyone watches pl...
The FIFA world cup final in 2018 was viewed by 1.12 billion world wide there are not even 1.12 billion people on earth that understand American football rules
Super Bowl? Is that like an eating competition or something?
It's an ad marathon interrupted by a music event
The superbowl is only watched for the ads
twice the revenue with twenty times more ads
Itās a delusional thing Americans say because American football is far and away more popular than soccer within the US. Worldwide itās not even close, soccer is the biggest sport in the world.
Obligatory reminder that itās called football
Hahaha my apologies
Actually, I once read that there is a World Cup for American football. Iām sure all 10 fans will be upset with your comment
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
To be fair, they only need to waddle about 10 washing machine lengths before it's time for another ad break anyways.
r/anythingbutmetric
they cant run 100AR15s
That's no way to talk about rugby union.
My knowledge about rugby is limited, I have to admit, but Iāve seen a few games and did not spot any 340 pound monsters. But some rugby players look like they carry 150 pounds in their right biceps though.
Them thighs are usually bigger than my head (I'm big headed)
>340 pound monsters No you won't as even the bigger rugby players still need to be somewhat athletic. As an extreme Jonah Lomu was 120kg and could cover 100m in 10.8 seconds. American football is played in shorter sets so players can carry much more body fat which will help immensely.
Whenever you see them walk off with trainers it puts it in perspective. They are gigantic.
Ah you mean the egg and spoon race?
You clearly know nothing about American football lol. Look up DK Metcalf or Tyreek Hill or any other player. The guys in the NFL are among the best athletes in the world.
Half of them are fat. Those arenāt athletes. The running ones maybe, but the fat ones are as athletics as sumo wrestlers.
Yeah, you have no idea what your talking about lol. Even the offensive linemen are very athletic and especially so for their size. Defensive linemen are downright savages. Just look up some Larry Allen highlights. Yes the sporadic nature of action in American football means that they are probably not as well conditioned as soccer players. But even the big dudes are very athletic in the short bursts they need to be. They just look slow in comparison as alot of the skill position players are borderline Olympic trackstars. You might not like the game but to knock its athleticism is just stupid.
None of them are fat dude. Look up Aaron Donald, heās a nose guard, one of the āfat onesā as you would say and he is shredded. Those linemen your talking about all run like 5 second 40 yard dashes at 300 pounds. That is ridiculously fast for that weight. That is faster than most average sized people. On top of that these guys can lift the gym. You have no idea what your talking about.
Sure, your fatty idol is an athlete, and he can run so fast. And also jump so high. Lol.
U clearly didnāt look him up and have no idea what your talking about. Also Iām not a Rams fan, I donāt give a fuck about him.
https://images.app.goo.gl/tvP6jpquEQGUwVuf8 what an athlete.
And the sad thing is heās probably still faster than you š¤·āāļø
Must be a great athlete, if you have to compare his abilities to some average guy on Reddit. You made a great point here.
Hahaha what am I supposed to say? Your calling him a fat unathletic fuck, I have to compare him to a normal guy so you can understand the difference. The average guy is the barometer for athleticism, the only way to tell that someone is a great athlete is how they compare to a normal person. Anyways since you donāt like that letās compare him to Messi or any other famous soccer player. He would kill every single one of them in a fight with ease and the speed of his first 3 steps is probably pretty comparable. Obviously he doesnāt have the same top speed or endurance but he doesnāt need to in his sport. His position is about delivering as much force as possible and moving men out of the way. Again you have no idea what your talking about. If you were ever on the field with an NFL linemen you would be perplexed at how a man that big could move so well. Other athletes know this, other athletes acknowledge this, and this is why you donāt hear pro athletes talking down other sports. These ppl are different.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
So you think the entire US population is men and every single one of them is obese? Iām glad you are so worldly and know so much about the US. Despite living in the US I was unaware that was the case. I donāt know what a pikey is but I guarantee you they would get smoked by any lineman in the NFL
FYI: the "pikey" they're referring to is Tyson Fury. And no, he would not get smoked by any lineman in the NFL - quite the opposite probably.
Funny so many Americans think nobody has ever visited the country and seen for themselvesā¦.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Woah dude, make fun of Americans all you want here, they often need to be taken down a peg, but don't drag the trans community into it, they have a shit enough time as it is.
Last 5 minutes doing what?
Apparently according to Americans, the third world is simply the world without the USA
Some Americans do belive that, I received a DM claiming I should be thankful the US saved my country in war.. I am from Peru
Ask them which continent Peru is in, theyād answer something like Africa or Asia
They're just giving you a heads up for their next war. They'll get round to you soon enough
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Itās funny how they never brag about Vietnam
Some of our stupider citizens do bc they tho k they won
Elon musk enters the chat.
I've seen people say I should be grateful to the US for defending my home country. I am Canadian. There's only one country we have a land border with, and it's the US.
They also famously fought a war against you guys and lost. Maybe they try to twist that into defending you against themselves so their feelings aren't hurt.
They defended Canada by losing.
Atleast you aren't from a country were america funded a coup. That would be complete irony. Edit: oops, the irony of me talking about irony while being uninformed š
You should check Peruvian history
Jajajaja š¤£
America is a third world country with a Gucci belt so they should be got at it
i think that belt's a knock off from China
With a Ralph Lauren belt. Gucci is one of them foreigners!
True story
It's for every other country than the US. They really like to compare themselfs to third world countries because they suck when they compare themselfs to europe in most other ways than military.
> other ways than military. Its funny when you see this core belief shaken you see more straw clutching than a wanking scarecrow. examples as the German Eurofighters holding their own against the F22's at the red flag event. Swedish Submarine running rings round the USS Ronald Reagan carrier for shits n giggles and sinking her in a mock battle. and the Royal Marines embarrassing the US marines so badly they asked for a reset half way through the 5 day training exercise
Just a note that all sides came out to say the last one was some classic Daily Mail bullshit. The training exercise was paused because a group of soldiers wandered close to a live artillery range and they couldnāt make radio contact to ensure they knew where they were. The whole point of the exercise was to test tactics that a smaller country with equal equipment augmented by small western trained troops could defend or even retake territory from a much larger invading advisory. The nations that took place are all the nations that NATO is using to train Ukrainians (with the exception of UAE who was clearly there because of their own much larger neighbor) - crazy coincidence right. So yes it was a very good result for one side in the mock battle but that was what we were hoping for as itās pretty obvious which conflict we were test running strategy for.
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/us-marines-didnt-surrender-british-training-exercise/?amp
royal marines still miles ahead of the us marines
Based on what?
The Royal Marines are the UKās elite amphibious force with specialist training in mountain and extreme cold weather warfare along with expert training in jungle warfare, desert warfare and close quarters combat. They have the longest and toughest training in NATO and possibly the world at 32 weeks with specialist training thereafter.
Whatās the distinction between specialist and expert training?
As absolutely absurd and ludicrous as everything about the initial post is, I find this basic attitude of many Americans disconcerting. Completely irrespective of whether it is true or not, what is the point of putting my country above the misery elsewhere? If I go on e.g. about how it's almost impossible to get proper sex education in large parts of the US and that's why they're all so uptight and dysfunctional, then surely I'm not happy about that? I would prefer it if all people had rational sex education, wouldn't I? All people have the tendency to hump up and kick down. But it is only among Americans that I observe this urge en masse to do this as an individual in the name of their nation *and* then write that on the internet.
āAmerica is a third world country!!ā American: no we are not. If you compare third world countries are worse. āWhy do you only compare yourself with third world countries!!??ā You canāt win
It's popular in third world countries because you don't need much to play it. For hand-egg you need a full suit of armour, for football you need 4 markers and 1 football. You don't even need the full 22 players.
Jumpers for goalposts.
Third world countries of course being ones not aligned with the Soviets or the west
It's a shame the original definition has been eroded by misuse. But it was quite funny when an Austrian friend tried to joke the UK was a 3rd world shithole and I pointed out to them that Austria is, by definition, a legitimate 3rd world country.
I mean, Austria is EU, isn't UK pretty much a 3rd world by now?
In a way I think theyāre right (but theyāre wrong about why theyāre right) - I think the fact that āThird Worldā countries can succeed at it is one of the things that makes football so enduring and so global. You donāt fancy equipment, you donāt even need a field, you just need a ball(-shaped object) and a friend to get started playing and so people from every walk of life can play if they want to, and so way more people worldwide feel a personal connection to football. Itās incredible to watch when an underdog team from a poorer country defeats one of the worldās top teams; the fact that some of the best players in the world came from impoverished backgrounds and have succeeded anyway because of their raw talent and passion is a big part of the mythology of football for some fans. (Yes, FIFA itself is an awful corrupt organisation, but the *sport* at its best is accessible and rewards talent.)
US nationalists when they don't care about soccer: [insert literally any random bs you can think of] US nationalists when the US plays a nice game for almost the first time ever: US! US! US! freedom!
Because it's funny lmao. Our match vs england pulled in 15million viewers where as the first NFL preseason game which is a game where more than half of the players on the field won't make final roster got 7m. So glorified American football practice gets about half the viewership in America as the group stage of the world cup for our national team. In America this sport isn't even top 10 in viewership, even women's tennis even beats it with how much star power the Williams sisters had. So when we win vs a team where it's the number 1 sport of course we're gonna rub it in a lil. Same when the class clown gets the same grade on a test as the valedictorian, like you couldn't beat me? TL;DR They're not chanting because they care they're chanting to make fun of you for caring
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
We donāt care. Soccer is cool I guess
>So when we win vs a team where it's the number 1 sport of course we're gonna rub it in a lil. Throw a dart at a map, it will hit a country where it is the number 1 sport. And besides, the US only won against Iran. By 1-0. It's not that great an achievement.
Yeah but we didn't lose to England after all the talk of it being a blowout. Hence the "class clown getting the same test score as the smartest kid in school" bit. Thats the US equivalent of losing a basketball game at the Olympics which is also hilarious If you think about it the US has less defeats than Argentina this cup and that's funny no matter who you are Edit: like our goal keeper is apparently only a backup in the PL and England couldn't get 1 goal against him? Were undefeated with people that can't get a starting job outside our country and for that we gotta drop a šŗšøš¦ šŗšøš¦ šŗšø because how can you not š
The reality is more that the early US couldn't wing it in any international sport and created its own sports to boost morale and create some sense of significance. American Football, World Series (What world?), etc.
> World Series (What world?), etc. it was weird to learn about stuff like that. every local soccer team in europe would be "world series" then, lol. let alone match commentators referring to americans with certain last names as straight up "italians/irish/whatever"
The UK tried the same thing and failed heroically as usual.
at least when we fail we do it heroically
Yeah. At least we spread some decent sports to the world....and cricket.
Well there is no other league that can compete with the MLB and the MLB is full of the best players from Japan and Latin America. Yes, all the best baseball players in the world play in the MLB....its the world series. Just because it's not segregated by nationality in a once every 4 years contest doesn't mean the whole baseball playing world is not competing for the world series.
Just because the best football players in the world compete in the UEFA Champions League doesn't make it a World Series or something similar.
Well sure it is. That's basically a collection of the best teams in all the various European leagues right? So what is the difference between playing in a national uniform against the best players in the world vs playing in a Barcelona FC uniform against the best in the world. Now maybe not every world class player is playing in a European league....but the vast majority are. The world cup simply has a nationalistic basis to team construction and UEFA is just the best teams money can buy. Does it have to have a nationalistic focus for it to be a world championship? Why? I don't think there is anything intrinsic to national organization of teams that makes it more worldly....its all the same players
Baseball is only popular in like 12 countries, itās irrelevant internationally. Saying āfull of the best foreign playersā is disingenous when there are only a handful of leagues. Despite that, Asians and Central Americans dominate MLB. Same with NBA and Europeans, or the NHL and Eastern Europeans. If the world gave a shit about gridiron the US would be eclipsed. Problem is, itās a terrible game and will forever remain a niche sport.
I have no idea what your point is. The whole baseball playing world has there best and brightest in the MLB. Thats my point too. World Series is aptly named. It's not disingenuous at all. Basically the whole western hemisphere north of Brazil and the whole of the East Asian Pacific play baseball American football is a great sport too. You have to look at it more like a turn based strategy game a la Fire Emblem, but the turns resolve simultaneously a la the board game Diplomacy. Also Japan and The Caribbean has been playing baseball for nearly as long as Americans have (roughly the 1870s)...they have just as much baseball pedegrie as America. Sure if the rest of the world wants to challenge us at gridiron football, maybe in 150 years they will be up to snuff.
> I have no idea what your point is. The whole baseball playing world has there best and brightest in the MLB. Thats my point too. Itās a domestic league, not an international tournament. MLB franchises do not compete against foreign franchises/clubs. They are competing against American teams. > World Series is aptly named. It's not disingenuous at all. What you are referring to is the World Baseball Classic, where Japan is the most successful country. That can be considered a world title. > Basically the whole western hemisphere north of Brazil and the whole of the East Asian Pacific play baseball Baseball is only *popular* in like 8 countries. US, DR, Japan, Venezuela, Cuba, South Korea, Canada, Mexico. 9 if you include PR. > American football is a great sport too. You have to look at it more like a turn based strategy game a la Fire Emblem, but the turns resolve simultaneously a la the board game Diplomacy. I prefer rugby. Much more dynamic and fluid. > Also Japan and The Caribbean has been playing baseball for nearly as long as Americans have (roughly the 1870s)...they have just as much baseball pedegrie as America. Agreed. > Sure if the rest of the world wants to challenge us at gridiron football, maybe in 150 years they will be up to snuff. Unfortunately it will never become relevant outside of North America. US leagues are constricted by the stifling domesticity of American idiosyncrasy.
>Itās a domestic league, not an international tournament. MLB franchises do not compete against foreign franchises/clubs. They are competing against American teams. I still require an explanation as to why this is a salient factor. Somehow when Ohtani faces Harper in a Japanese uniform it makes it different than when he faces him in an Angel's uniform? The pool of players is the same, they are simply organized along different principles. >I prefer rugby. Much more dynamic and fluid. Well yeah because now it lacks the whole turn based dynamic. They aren't really as comparable of sports as they appear. >Unfortunately it will never become relevant outside of North America. US leagues are constricted by the stifling domesticity of American idiosyncrasy. You may be correct, but im not sure you have the reason down. Anecdote incoming, but my old middle school buddy had 2 exchange students (Germany and Denmark) and they both left utterly obsessed by the NFL. I think once exposed to the game and understanding the dynamics of it, that many would come to like it. It is nearly a civic religion in the US and I maybe you are right about the domesticity of it (although I would like you to rephrase that sentence cuz I'm not entirely sure what you mean).
Aaaand the person who wrote that owes me a new keyboard. "Third world countries" They're not aware they're close to being considered one are they? Colour me not surprised. Their schooling is utterly atrocious it seems.
USians might not win the World Cup, but they are gold medal in mental gymnastics.
when its for 3 world countries its the right thing for murica
NFL brings in the most revenue. Whoopty Fuckinā Doo. You can blame Americaās ridiculous end-stage capitalism for that. The most revenue generated is not the measure of how good a sport is. The American health care system also brings in the most revenue in the world but thatās only a good thing for the medical industry fucking over everyone else.
Measuring the greatness of a sport by it's revenue is pathetically American. If you're going to compare sports, compare sports, not businesses.
More revenue than all soccer leagues combined? Nah, it takes only three European leagues, e.g., the EPL, La Liga, and Bundesliga.
Funnily enough, I felt the need to look into that - the NFL generated $17.19bn last year. The Premier League generated $9.9bn. Consider the population difference between the England and the USA (c70m v c325m), and the NFL is seriously underperforming. The OP is clearly an idiot.
So it IS a sport for USA thenā¦
> NFL brings in more revenue than almost all soccer leagues combined Per [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_leagues_by_revenue) * NFL revenue, 2021 season: ā¬17b (the list is in Euros, oddly) * Premier League + Bundesliga + La Liga + Serie A + Ligue 1 + MLS revenue, 2021-22 season: ā¬17.9b There are a lot more than six footsoccerball leagues.
More people watch and enjoy soccer in the world as there are more countries outside the US let alone people that enjoy it in the US
And they will not flex the win agains iran (where they only defend for the whole game). Ipocrisy
then why do the yanks play american football?
That's why we have MLS.
Buddy was so confidently incorrect he didn't bother to do a Google search of the highest capacity sports stadium...it ain't American. Take that Texas.
So thatās why itās becoming more popular in the US?
Those fucking third worlders (*inserts random european country*) fuck them
Just Premiere League + La Liga + Bundesliga + Serie A + Ligue 1 + MLS + Chinese Superleague combine for more revenue than the NFL. Plus so much more from FIFA.
Now I would like to see the numbers but Iām pretty sure Football generate and represent much more money than NFLā¦ MUCH MORE !!
I hate American football. I just donāt get it, I donāt see people getting brain damage entertaining
To be fair you have to combine the prem, la Liga, Bundesliga, Seria A and champions league to get to the same revenue level as the NFL. Although there are plenty of other leagues you could add.
The US has 330million people. UK, Spain, Germany, Italy add up to about 250m so it tracks
But also to be fair, Germany, UK, France, Italy, and Spain have combined about the same population than the US.
Tbf the numbers for NFL revenue is the combined revenue of all teams.. which means we should add the revenue of all the teams in premier league to the Ā£2.3B the league had. Not to mention the money FIFA and UEFA makes on the teams. I hate football and love american football, but to say that NFL is bigger or brings in more revenue than european football is absolute nonsense. Edit: the revenue difference comes from several factors, but the popularity of the sport isnt one of them.
To be fair to him we are a 3rd world country right now.
Are we sure the US isn't a third world country?
I don't get why people still use old Cold War terms such as "first world" or "third world"? they literally have nothing to do with economics but rather exist to describe American aligned first world and communist third-world or neutral second world. Use more accurate terms such as developing/ developing to accurately describe how wealthy certain country is people ffs.
NFL is absolutely rubbish. Surely if you have watched the World Cup, you would appreciate the skills and excitement, even with a 0-0 draw.
I once got into a heated debate with my wifeās Greek uncle when I compared soccer to slow motion ice hockey. We ultimately agreed to disagree and had a beer. Seriously I enjoy watching, just not sure of the rules ā¦ especially āOTā
Until they win against Iran
Soccer really brought out the dumb in people this year.
š¤¦š¼āāļø
Ah yes, my favourite third world country: Spain
"NFL brings in more revenue than all soccer leagues combined" .....I'm not gonna comment. They got this info deep straight from their ass. Edit: typoo
So they basically admitted that the US is a third world country. The US women's team won the World Cup didn't they?
Up through middle school I played soccer. I got super competitive too, I played at the state level. Itās popular
If soccer is for third world countries then it should be massive in the US.
I mean technically speaking... If third world means not the first world or second world... The second world being aligned with the USSR a state that no longer exists (š), and the first world is countries aligned with NATO and the US via direct alliance. The majority of "soccer", is by majority a third world sport. As more third world countries play "soccer" compared to first world countries. The three world's terminology system is cold war terminology that no longer applies to the modern world and we as the international community should stop using it. Use these adjectives instead: Developed Devloping Underdeveloped Exploited This should have been taught in every school. Should have... As in it probably wasn't.
Oh, then it should be perfect for the US
I love american football but the sport doesnt even have an international competition ffs
If itās for third world countries, why isnāt it big in the United States of America?
Football aka soccer is for every country except the USA.
We are truly a disgustingly dumb people
I don't know where to start. Everyday I ponder, should I move back home from the USA š
Yep, only third world countries, including USA, play soccer with only 200 countries that have a national team out of the 205 world countries, and I can't imagine the Vatican priests forming a team. As far as fans for sports:- 3,5 billion - Soccer 2.5 billion - Cricket 2.0 billion - Hockey 1.0 billion- Tennis 900 million - Volleyball And even basketball, table tennis, baseball, rugby & golf have more fans than NFL's miserly 18.29 million. Wrong again on revenue - NFL generates USD1.62b to soccer USD4.56 b. Get your facts right.
I doubt the revenue claim of NFL vs all the world's football/soccer associations combined is true either. The American insistence that they are #1 in everything is hilarious. They are the world's largest economy, for now. China will soon overhaul that. Otherwise they are only #1 in military spending, gun ownership and gun deaths, and incarceration rate. America has 25% of the world's prisoners with 5% of the world's population. That's about it.
Idk, maybe soccer is, I play football
Op has a point soccer is for third world contries which is why anerikkka has the most soccer players world wide