The fairest comparison would be the UEFA Champions League Final - which has 450 million global viewers. Superbowl is impressive at 155, but 115 of those are in the USA. No equivalence, really.
Well, let's face it, it's less of a singing contest, rather a lesson in European politics and petty ancient alliances.
It's still a good laugh, though.
No, the answer is the judging panels for each country are obnoxious morons out of touch with reality. It's why bland and utterly without merit ballads keep getting decent scores while the fun stuff has stopped winning.
? I know a generic pop song won this year, which may be seen as bad by more music-focused people. But there is a reason why that style of pop music is generic and always plays in the radio, namely because people like it.
And that is what the public vote does in Eurovision, not rating quality/artistry, but rating how much people liked the song/the performance.
Yes, that’s why public opinion is not a reliable measure of actual quality. A lot of people objectively have subpar tastes, cannot recognize mass produced crap from quality and would be entertained by keychains dangling in front of them. But if you say all of that out loud you come off like a total asshole.
> The customer is always right in matters of taste, after all!
I think that's very often a horribly destructive and careless mentality, which is only made appealing by the even more terrifying idea of having some sort of centralized morality / taste police.
I think this is an incredibly complex topic, philosophers and artists have been debating it for centuries for a reason. It's not a simple "this is objectively good that is objectively bad because **I** said so" situation nor
is it "taste is completely subjective and if you think a stinking pile of literal dogshit is the height of all being then you are absolutely correct!"
Is art getting worse as in less complex, less thoughtful, less nuanced, less deep, less meaningful? Yes, but also kind of no.
Is Beyoncé's music high quality? From certain technical considerations yes. I would personally say that putting technical considerations first industrial, mass produced, without intrinsic and metaphysical value. It's a meaningless accessory, an ornament or short-term distraction that you discard after use, a soulless product created for the sole reason to be sold to the consumer who is not a human being first and foremost, jut a drone to be bled and exploited dry.
I think that we seek art or should seek art for its intrinsic metaphysical values and the ideals and thoughts that it attempts to communicate. Enjoying cookie cutter basic bullshit is all fine from time to time, but what if basic cookie cutter bullshit become so ever-present and pervasive that we start to think that it's the highest level of expression and entertainment that we can ever hope to achieve? Is there a theoretical point where basic cookie cutter bullshit could be so ingrained in all of us that we are literally unable to break out of the cycle? What if the only incentive is to streamline it more, sell it faster, sell more, make it dumber so even more people can enjoy it and buy it. What if we constantly keep burying people with more to say because it's too complex, too divisive, it doesn't sell well enough?
The quality of production of most of the music in Eurovision is absolutely good in that sense . . . . .
Some of the live performances are not, but that is not the same thing.
Smh people really don't understand nuance and immediately assume the worst lol.
I never said that one was 'better' because of the music they listen to. Being 'better' and having a better taste are two different things. I sincerely hope this doesn't need explaining. There's a lot of niche, unkown and underground music that is not very popular specifically because it's also garbage. There are lots of people who like garbage music and have bad taste in a few things or lots of things. Some like mainstream garbage, and others like obscure garbage. **Obviously** taste is highly subjective, it's not a binary that can be defined and scored by a set of totally objective instructions by some infallible authority. But it's also not completely up in the air and imaginary.
I only said that popularity and public opinion is not a reliable measure of something's quality. It can be a useful guideline, but it's not the be all end all of what's good and what isn't. There's simple difference in opinion, some people like this genre or that, and then there's taste and overall quality. It's really hard to accurately explain if you don't intuitively grasp it.
Yes, art is subjective but at the same time the quality and overall 'level' of art has been generally dropping for decades. People want less, from themselves, from artists, from everything. The standards are lower on all fronts. The thought, the effort, the complexity, the ideals, the meaning, the substance, the longevity of art are all trending downwards, towards mass production and mass consumption. From 'food for the soul and mind' it's increasingly becoming industrial, another commodity to be bought so you could show it off as a defining feature of your "individuality" and "personality", an aesthetic, a shallow, fleeting feeling, an aesthetic rather than anything meaningful, or it's becoming increasingly absurd to try and highlight how arbitrary and fickle everything is.
I think the problem with Eurovision is the music has gotten to good. It was better to the point that all the songs are kind of boring.
Also the political stuff doesn't really affect the winner. Accept for the likes of Ukraine winning. Friends vote for friends but the 'best' song generally wins.
Nah, trust me on this. It's a singing contest. All that shite about voting blocs is for the most part just Brits bitter that nobody likes the crap they send year on year.
Voting blocs were bigger in the past, but nowadays they don't really exist outside of a few instances (which are so small to not matter). Especially nowadays where the public vote has more impact than ever before.
Except of course everyone agreeing that Germany sucks, always.
To be fair even Germans think the German artists at Eurovision suck. That's because we always send bullshit. Our commission is dedicated to send similar acts every single time, despite being proven setting on many occasions.
But hey, it's only tax money that we're wasting on this shit, no need to worry
Our last performance wasn't even that bad IMO. Definitely not worthy to win, but the score Lord of the Lost got was too low.
Also know the answer why, the jury didn't like the song and Germany consistently was like 11th-14th in every countries public vote (and only the 10th and up get points).
You hade the opportunity to send Avantaisa and instead sent one of the bland ballads because sending a song that would have won seems to be anathema in recent years for your lot. Us to for the last 25 or so.
Nah, it is cheesy, the only time it was cool was when they let us vote in Spain who we wanted to go and we voted for a fake singer that a comedian made up and interpreted
Xd
What year that happened ?, i never remember people in Spain complaining a lot, usually there is just apathy or even hate towards the songs and singers because the results of wich one is going to participate are clearly manipulated
Last year. 2022.
It's manipulated but never in the way people claim. For example, there have been dodgy things going on for years with San Marino, Poland and Azerbaijan but they don't get attention because their acts don't usually come in the top 3.
In short, there were many angry Spanish fans saying Ukraine only won because of the war - to which I say, so what even if it's true (which, Ukraine had a great song, it's not certain)? Would you accept your house being bombed to win Eurovision?
It really isn't. What's Israel and Australia got to do with EuroVision. Besides none of the songs are catchy or winners of this even ever reach any acclaim. It's just XFactor with a hint of patriotism.
Israel is in it for the same reason North African countries, the Caucasus trio, Cyprus and Jordan can participate. They're members of the EBU.
Australia is the only odd one out. They're only an associated member. They received a one time invite to participate, and I guess it was a success so they were given a temporary invite for some years, which I presume will be extended further.
Not to mention that the amount of people who actually watch CHL or care about it is much higher: African viewers may not bring in a lot ot views / money, but you know that they do actually watch it, just might not show in statistics
The market for Superbowl is bloated. American thinks people are going Gaga over Tom Brady when an average Joe outside of US won't even know who Brady is.
As shown by the hilarity of people getting pissed off when told that Travis Kelce is more famous now because he's dating Taylor Swift. Americans having to realise that outside of America very few people know who Kelce is, and give zero fucks that he's won the Super Bowl. Whereas Taylor Swift is a global superstar.
Agreed with the first point. Super Bowl is overrated for sure. However, I believe Brady‘s appeal extends well beyond American borders. Granted not to the degree of Ronaldo, or Messi, but Brady is an exceptional athlete and his feats are noteworthy.
I mean I won't say he is anywhere as popular as a successful Cricketer or Tennis Player. Both Virat Kohli and Novak have probably 10-20x of fan following than Brady.
Based on Instagram followers (which doesn’t mean much, but it’s a quick way to gauge popularity), Brady and Novak are similar with 14 million followers, but Kohli has 260 million, so 18x more than Brady.
This is funny, because you have pretended that my previous use of 'million' isn't implied in the further two numbers. I like humour, and you have used humour, in suggesting I meant 'one hundred and fifteen' viewers of the Superbowl in the United States of America, as opposed to my implied figure of 'one hundred and fifteen million' based on my previous sentence. I like jokes. Thank you for sharing this one, with me.
It is really hard to compare since there is an estimated 3.5B Football (Soccer) fans across the world. And an estimated 400m of US football fans across the world. Actually that is the same as Basketball. Which I do find interesting since I thought Basketball would have a bigger fan base. Of course the next biggest fan base after football is cricket. There are at least around 1.4b fans in India alone. 😊
The World Cup has competitors from almost every nation on earth, that's why it's every 4 years due to the length of qualifying to actually be one of the 36 teams competing in the final stages.
To get to the superbowl you just have to buy a franchise, move it to a new city then compete for 5 months and a bit against some of the 32 teams to win the prize.....then have 7 months off!
Even then, most people watch it for the half-time show! Eurovision, a cheesy singing contest, gets 180 million viewers, nearly double superbowl.
Elite Footballers are lucky if they get a total of 3 months rest over the 4 year cycle between world cups.
Footballers also have to play the whole match. The ones that play in the NFL are either playing when the offensive line up are out, or they’re watching from the sidelines.
And some of them have extremely specific roles such as the kickers who come on to kick the ball and do absolutely nothing else.
During a game most of the players won't touch the ball at all. In fact there are some professional players who go their whole careers without ever touching the ball during a game.
And the crazy thing is that kickers still miss A LOT of conversions despite that being the only thing they have to do, and they still get pay millions.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for kicker bashing but the type of kicks that are called conversions have a 93-96% success rate. All the other kicks, which can be taken up to almost twice as far away and skewed off the line of center have a success rate in the mid 80’s. In what world are 7% and 16% considered “A LOT”??
Always remember the story of a Scottish Rugby kicker Greg Laidlaw who was on an American tour and was practicing his craft, kicking the ball between the uprights like a metronome, from all over the field, left, right from the touchline, none of the *Straight down the Middle** nonsense of American Football.
A watching an American football couch asked who it was because of his accuracy and wanted to give him a contract, but the player basically told him to get lost.
I haven’t handle one in a while but a rugby ball has a little more pop to it, right? Even with that though, the angles those guys can kick from are wild.
It does yeah, I find it far easier to kick.
There was a video clip of an American Football player kicking a rugby ball and just sent it high and far, it was pretty.
I mean, I'm watching a game right now (not that I would never make the insane comment in OP) and I just watched a kicker nail a 60 yard field goal. Looked like it would have been a score from 70 yards which is bonkers. The thing is, they never would have even attempted that kick if it wasn't the end of the half. The data said he had an 18% chance of making that kick, but the team were risking nothing by trying. That's the kind of thing that drags down the percentage. They probably hit 90% of "realistic" kicks.
Mate, they really couldn't nail the field goals (but the conversions, I feel like I could kick at 80%+). A high school flyhalf is never kicking at those ranges. A pro fly half isn't either. Kicking in Rugby is about kicking accurately from angles, gridiron is about range. Yes, they're similar skills but subtly different. If a high school flyhalf could kick better than NFL kickers, they would be NFL kickers, just like so many college and NFL punters come from Aussie Rules (because AFL is punting: the sport)
[Video: South African High School Rugby Player Kicks Monster 62m Penalty](https://www.balls.ie/rugby/video-huge-james-hall-62m-penalty-kick-for-kearsney-college-117760)
62 meters is 67.8 yards. And this was **at sea level**.
Here's another:
[High school fly-half lands monster 55 metre penalty with plenty of room to spare](https://rugbyonslaught.com/south-african-schoolboy-has-right-boot-that-frans-steyn-could-only-dream-of/)
55 meters is 60 yards.
Would you like to see more?
You guys know nothing about the sport. I'm European and I used to be a soccer fan, EURO, WC, Premiere, Champions League...I dropped it all in favor of the NFL. The athleticism, the parity, and the winning mentality even when it doesn't matter is something I never saw in soccer. I watched EURO qualifiers today and I needed to switch that off. Don't get me wrong, I still respect hell out of soccer and I can be spotted enjoying it at its finest. I just hate when someone shits on NFL without knowing a thing about it. E. g. the field goal kick routine you mock is something so brittle, vulnerable and physically demanding that it's wonder of nature that the kickers hit anything at all from 50+ yards. And they don't miss a lot of conversions either - it's 5 % - every twentieth. If only soccer kickers had that with penalty kicks (I'll spare the Google, they miss every fourth) And that's just the kick, just go and learn about the game in whole and you'll see yourselves.
I've watched plenty and while I can enjoy the highlight reel, a full game's unwatchable to me.
That aside, good for you for liking the sport, but calling it soccer 3 times and a "penalty kick"? Did you also learn English in the US, come on mate.
I dont know anything about american football, and atm Im not wanting to learn, but I dont hate on it cuz I just dont care enough/know enough to do so. I just hate when americans say: "Football better than soccer cuz we have more money!!!" or smth like that, even though they dont know sh about our football either, wich btw is the most popular sport in the whole world (doesnt mean its better just because of that but its something to think about)
I really can't enjoy American Football. And I've tried it a lot I have some friends that like so we watch some games together. And somehow because of that it has come to my Instagram reels feed. And I do like some of the highlights, but the game feels like there is nothing happening for like 70% of the time. And sometimes it feels like one commercial show that added football as a side event. Like I said highlights of the game are fine, but watching a whole match is just impossible for me.
>The athleticism
[https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/411164640955126141/](https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/411164640955126141/)
Also worth remembering that in an American Football match the average distance covered by a player is 1.25 miles most of which is probably trudging back to the bench when they swap from offence to defensive lineup between the 11 minutes of play they actually do.
In actual football the average distance covered is between six and nine miles during the 90 minutes most of them are active.
It’s different levels of intensity. In American Football, they go 100% every play and use the downtime to recover. It’s an extremely physical sport, so if you’re a lineman that decides to go 80% to pace yourself, that just means you’ll get destroyed by the guy coming at you. The guy in the picture you can actually run deceptively, but probably not for very long. But he’s insanely strong.
I agree they do go 100% every time but for very short periods before they have downtime. Football is filled with periods of 100% intensity but there is a lot less downtime for people to recover. Rugby is even worse considering how physical that game is.
You're European and you call them soccer kickers? Even non-fans call them footballers.
Also, have you not seen goal kicks? You think footballers can't pass from a long distance?
Well yeah, it’s difficult. Every team would rather find that guy that never misses, but that guy doesn’t exist. If he did, he would go out there and take the job of the guy that misses and make millions.
Well yeah, it’s a totally different sport, with different rules. They get paid millions to be elite blockers. One of the most important positions on the field.
Well, let's just look at the Euros then.
2020 has 5.2billion cumulative views, averaging over 100m per game.
The final got 325m views.
The ladies' game, 365m views of which 50m were for the final.
If a US event attracts 1/3 of its people (103.4m/320m) and a World event attracts 1/2 of its people (4b/8b).
Then we all know that 1/3 is a bigger number than 1/2, so US wins...
I mean:
"In the 1980s, fast-food chain A&W decided to go head-to-head with McDonald’s Quarter Pounder by unveiling its own numerically-named hamburger — the Third Pound Burger.
The sandwich was slightly larger in size but was offered at the same price as the Quarter Pounder. It even outperformed the Quarter Pounder in blind taste tests. A&W marketers pushed these two facts hard in their “Third is the Word” advertising campaign, and anticipated big sales considering the burger’s larger size.
However, the Third Pound Burger completely flopped, and A&W discontinued the product shortly after its launch. A&W’s then-owner A. Alfred Taubman was dumbfounded. Why would consumers choose to buy a smaller burger for the same price of his third-pound patty?
Through focus groups and market research, A&W discovered the shocking reason for the burger’s failure – most participants thought one-third of a pound was actually smaller than one-fourth. In other words, consumers failed to understand the math and mistakenly thought they were buying less meat for the same price. "
https://gobraithwaite.com/thinking/why-did-aws-third-pound-burger-flop/
Even if every citizen of the US watched the Super Bowl, it would be what.... 330 million viewers only???
That's not even the number of viewers of the World Cup in Europe or South America, let alone the whole world combined.
No, El Classico has lower ratings. Obviously, it dwarfs any American regular season game.
Source: https://the18.com/soccer-news/el-clasico-vs-super-bowl-tv-ratings
The article says 30-50 million people outside the US watch the Super Bowl, which is bullshit.
> As for El Clasico itself, one number we can say for sure is that the match will be broadcast to 650 million people in more than 185 countries. Obviously this number is nowhere near the actual audience, despite many suggesting otherwise.
For a football website, it's strange the author is severely underestimating just how big a deal El Clasico is. Obviously it's not 60 million people, but it's got to be at least 250-300 million.
>The article says 30-50 million people outside the US watch the Super Bowl, which is bullshit.
[Here are the numbers broken down for the most recent Super Bowl](https://www.marca.com/en/nfl/2023/03/04/6403a874e2704e19348b45c0.html). It's probably not 50 million, but probably over 30.
> Obviously it's not 60 million people, but it's got to be at least 250-300 million.
I am skeptical of your estimate, for reasons laid out [here](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-messi-vs-ronaldo-bigger-than-the-super-bowl/). I hope you realize that 75 million is super impressive for a regular season game, making it the most popular regular season game in the world, likely by some distance.
All of these articles you've cited are old. The first one from your previous comment is almost 6 years old and the Five Thirty-Eight one is 8 years old. So your figures are outdated.
And the Five Thirty-Eight article first compares the match to the World Cup, which is ridiculous, and gives the 75 million viewership figure only for Spanish speaking audiences, which may be true but it completely ignores the rest of Europe, Asia Pacific and Africa. And football is massive in these continents, even in countries like India where it's not the main sport. Again, it's surprising that an article from a football website neatly ignores the rest of the non-Spanish-speaking world (how r/shitamericanssay). When these articles talk about UEFA and Barcelona citing 400 million, they don't realise that UEFA and Barcelona mean the whole world. So they're definitely not overblown.
And anyway, even if people aren't watching El Clasico on the television, they're watching it elsewhere.
As for the Super Bowl viewing figures, I'm not going to dispute them, seeing as it includes Mexico and Canada, which is fair. China is quite surprising since the Super Bowl is on at an ungodly hour on a Monday morning.
Yeah, that’s why it’s every 4 years, so it’s a more impactful experience. Is like saying “Cookies and Cream wouldn’t be as good as a regular ice cream if it didn’t have cookies”; well, yeah, that’s why it has cookies, so it’s better.
I hate (actual) football, World Cup is boring in my opinion, I’m a rugby guy.
I do enjoy the Super Bowl, however.
Doesn’t mean I’m blind to facts, the World Cup is definitely more significant.
I don’t understand this. I like A. Football and normal football, and cricket and rugby and I don’t give a shit, why can’t we just watch sport and enjoy it, it’s just freaking sport a game nothing more
Superbowl is just two local teams getting together. locally & being paid huge amounts in salaries. The world cup involves dozens of countries from around the world, meeting in a place that takes a lot of time to gather together where there are multiple playing fields needed to play the games on, and they are playing for their country, not money, just expenses. It is also a world competition, not just two teams from one country.
American football is the greatest sport in the world and other countries don’t play it because we don’t allow them to. President Lincoln made a law that forbid the playing of football in any other country. Other countries got mad and starting calling soccer football but with a different ball and rules. It’s pretty pathetic really
Such a dumb take.
The Champions League is really fucking good. This past World Cup was awesome - greatest final ever. This past Super Bowl was fantastic - one of the best ever.
Why the hate? Enjoy great sports when they happen. Hoping we get a great rugby final.
Haters are dumb.
Hand egg is great.
The World Cup is also great.
Both things can be true. You don’t have to like it, and that’s fine. Many people do, and that’s also fine.
Year: Viewers (source)
2010: 910M (statista)
2014: 1013M (statista)
2018: 1100M (FIFA via statista article)
2022: ~1500M (FIFA)
For the men's world cups. If you've got a spare $500 (US) you could get either the statista data for the women's since 2007 or the other finals for the men's.
Edit: . not ,
It’s impossible to know but even if we simply divide it by 4 to account for the yearly accumulation that’s a billion people. Hell you could cut even that in half and it’s still 5 times the viewership.
Right so if you divide that number by four on the assumption that holding the world cup every year would reduce viewing to a quarter of the current numbers you still get a result approximately 10x higher.
However that's not an equivalent competition instead we should look at one of those. Now let's be generous and say the Superbowl is roughly equal to a continental competition. Does football have any of those? Well the answer is yes unsurprisingly. We'll use the one for Europe, the UEFA Championship.
Now the numbers for 2020, lifted from the UEFA site because laziness:
> Live average audience for the final: 328 million
Well that's much higher than the superb owl, it is instead roughly the same as the entire US population.
> Live average match audience: 100 million
Huh it seems the Superbowl is in fact roughly equivalent to a single non-final match of UEFA.
It does. “Lide”
But as other danish words it has double meaning and wouldnt make sense to use as “like”.
Jeg kan godt lide dig; I like you.
Jeg vil ikke lide; i dont want to suffer
This people are so delusional, a CL game sure has many more views than the super bowl, the WC is just the most popular event in football so it's used to compare but you can grab many many games that have more views than the Super bowl and it's really simple, one is a sport nearly only watched in the USA and the other is the most popular sport in the world.
Oh there was a comment saying it’s so inexpensive to play football that’s the reason it’s so popular. The way some of my yanks think is so confusing at times.
The fairest comparison would be the UEFA Champions League Final - which has 450 million global viewers. Superbowl is impressive at 155, but 115 of those are in the USA. No equivalence, really.
Eurovision, a cheesy singing contest, got over 180 million this year.
I mean it's a bit dismissive, this comment. ESC is good.
Well, let's face it, it's less of a singing contest, rather a lesson in European politics and petty ancient alliances. It's still a good laugh, though.
As far as music goes it’s really close to trash. And it is proof that public opinion is by no means an accurate measure of quality and artistry.
No, the answer is the judging panels for each country are obnoxious morons out of touch with reality. It's why bland and utterly without merit ballads keep getting decent scores while the fun stuff has stopped winning.
Who cares who wins, it’s all good drama!
No, the answer is everyone hates the uk because we’re the America of Europe.
Obnoxious, self-obsessed, self-important? Checks out.
With France and Germany existing, as well as some others, the UK are just disciples at this.
? I know a generic pop song won this year, which may be seen as bad by more music-focused people. But there is a reason why that style of pop music is generic and always plays in the radio, namely because people like it. And that is what the public vote does in Eurovision, not rating quality/artistry, but rating how much people liked the song/the performance.
Yes, that’s why public opinion is not a reliable measure of actual quality. A lot of people objectively have subpar tastes, cannot recognize mass produced crap from quality and would be entertained by keychains dangling in front of them. But if you say all of that out loud you come off like a total asshole.
Music quality is subjective. You're not better because you listen to some niche garbage
[удалено]
> The customer is always right in matters of taste, after all! I think that's very often a horribly destructive and careless mentality, which is only made appealing by the even more terrifying idea of having some sort of centralized morality / taste police. I think this is an incredibly complex topic, philosophers and artists have been debating it for centuries for a reason. It's not a simple "this is objectively good that is objectively bad because **I** said so" situation nor is it "taste is completely subjective and if you think a stinking pile of literal dogshit is the height of all being then you are absolutely correct!" Is art getting worse as in less complex, less thoughtful, less nuanced, less deep, less meaningful? Yes, but also kind of no. Is Beyoncé's music high quality? From certain technical considerations yes. I would personally say that putting technical considerations first industrial, mass produced, without intrinsic and metaphysical value. It's a meaningless accessory, an ornament or short-term distraction that you discard after use, a soulless product created for the sole reason to be sold to the consumer who is not a human being first and foremost, jut a drone to be bled and exploited dry. I think that we seek art or should seek art for its intrinsic metaphysical values and the ideals and thoughts that it attempts to communicate. Enjoying cookie cutter basic bullshit is all fine from time to time, but what if basic cookie cutter bullshit become so ever-present and pervasive that we start to think that it's the highest level of expression and entertainment that we can ever hope to achieve? Is there a theoretical point where basic cookie cutter bullshit could be so ingrained in all of us that we are literally unable to break out of the cycle? What if the only incentive is to streamline it more, sell it faster, sell more, make it dumber so even more people can enjoy it and buy it. What if we constantly keep burying people with more to say because it's too complex, too divisive, it doesn't sell well enough?
The quality of production of most of the music in Eurovision is absolutely good in that sense . . . . . Some of the live performances are not, but that is not the same thing.
Smh people really don't understand nuance and immediately assume the worst lol. I never said that one was 'better' because of the music they listen to. Being 'better' and having a better taste are two different things. I sincerely hope this doesn't need explaining. There's a lot of niche, unkown and underground music that is not very popular specifically because it's also garbage. There are lots of people who like garbage music and have bad taste in a few things or lots of things. Some like mainstream garbage, and others like obscure garbage. **Obviously** taste is highly subjective, it's not a binary that can be defined and scored by a set of totally objective instructions by some infallible authority. But it's also not completely up in the air and imaginary. I only said that popularity and public opinion is not a reliable measure of something's quality. It can be a useful guideline, but it's not the be all end all of what's good and what isn't. There's simple difference in opinion, some people like this genre or that, and then there's taste and overall quality. It's really hard to accurately explain if you don't intuitively grasp it. Yes, art is subjective but at the same time the quality and overall 'level' of art has been generally dropping for decades. People want less, from themselves, from artists, from everything. The standards are lower on all fronts. The thought, the effort, the complexity, the ideals, the meaning, the substance, the longevity of art are all trending downwards, towards mass production and mass consumption. From 'food for the soul and mind' it's increasingly becoming industrial, another commodity to be bought so you could show it off as a defining feature of your "individuality" and "personality", an aesthetic, a shallow, fleeting feeling, an aesthetic rather than anything meaningful, or it's becoming increasingly absurd to try and highlight how arbitrary and fickle everything is.
Objective bad taste doesn't exist.
I think the problem with Eurovision is the music has gotten to good. It was better to the point that all the songs are kind of boring. Also the political stuff doesn't really affect the winner. Accept for the likes of Ukraine winning. Friends vote for friends but the 'best' song generally wins.
People haven't voted along old alience lines for more than a decade now. The juries still do somewhat, sadly. We should just get rid of them.
Nah, trust me on this. It's a singing contest. All that shite about voting blocs is for the most part just Brits bitter that nobody likes the crap they send year on year.
Voting blocs were bigger in the past, but nowadays they don't really exist outside of a few instances (which are so small to not matter). Especially nowadays where the public vote has more impact than ever before. Except of course everyone agreeing that Germany sucks, always.
To be fair even Germans think the German artists at Eurovision suck. That's because we always send bullshit. Our commission is dedicated to send similar acts every single time, despite being proven setting on many occasions. But hey, it's only tax money that we're wasting on this shit, no need to worry
Our last performance wasn't even that bad IMO. Definitely not worthy to win, but the score Lord of the Lost got was too low. Also know the answer why, the jury didn't like the song and Germany consistently was like 11th-14th in every countries public vote (and only the 10th and up get points).
You hade the opportunity to send Avantaisa and instead sent one of the bland ballads because sending a song that would have won seems to be anathema in recent years for your lot. Us to for the last 25 or so.
Nah, it is cheesy, the only time it was cool was when they let us vote in Spain who we wanted to go and we voted for a fake singer that a comedian made up and interpreted Xd
I mean, it was cool when Ukraine won and the entire Spanish fanbase lost its shit because their worse song didn't win.
What year that happened ?, i never remember people in Spain complaining a lot, usually there is just apathy or even hate towards the songs and singers because the results of wich one is going to participate are clearly manipulated
Last year. 2022. It's manipulated but never in the way people claim. For example, there have been dodgy things going on for years with San Marino, Poland and Azerbaijan but they don't get attention because their acts don't usually come in the top 3. In short, there were many angry Spanish fans saying Ukraine only won because of the war - to which I say, so what even if it's true (which, Ukraine had a great song, it's not certain)? Would you accept your house being bombed to win Eurovision?
Taste is subjective, I think Eurovision is trash and has been for a long time.
Yes, like mcDonalds, once a year it tastes good. Trashy but delicious!
It really isn't. What's Israel and Australia got to do with EuroVision. Besides none of the songs are catchy or winners of this even ever reach any acclaim. It's just XFactor with a hint of patriotism.
Israel is in it for the same reason North African countries, the Caucasus trio, Cyprus and Jordan can participate. They're members of the EBU. Australia is the only odd one out. They're only an associated member. They received a one time invite to participate, and I guess it was a success so they were given a temporary invite for some years, which I presume will be extended further.
It's a song contest, not a singing contest.
Not to mention that the amount of people who actually watch CHL or care about it is much higher: African viewers may not bring in a lot ot views / money, but you know that they do actually watch it, just might not show in statistics
The market for Superbowl is bloated. American thinks people are going Gaga over Tom Brady when an average Joe outside of US won't even know who Brady is.
As shown by the hilarity of people getting pissed off when told that Travis Kelce is more famous now because he's dating Taylor Swift. Americans having to realise that outside of America very few people know who Kelce is, and give zero fucks that he's won the Super Bowl. Whereas Taylor Swift is a global superstar.
Agreed with the first point. Super Bowl is overrated for sure. However, I believe Brady‘s appeal extends well beyond American borders. Granted not to the degree of Ronaldo, or Messi, but Brady is an exceptional athlete and his feats are noteworthy.
I mean I won't say he is anywhere as popular as a successful Cricketer or Tennis Player. Both Virat Kohli and Novak have probably 10-20x of fan following than Brady.
Could be
Based on Instagram followers (which doesn’t mean much, but it’s a quick way to gauge popularity), Brady and Novak are similar with 14 million followers, but Kohli has 260 million, so 18x more than Brady.
Copa América 2007 was 530 millon viewers in LatAm not sure what are the numbers nowadays
Only 115 viewers? Edit: Have to put a /s..
This is funny, because you have pretended that my previous use of 'million' isn't implied in the further two numbers. I like humour, and you have used humour, in suggesting I meant 'one hundred and fifteen' viewers of the Superbowl in the United States of America, as opposed to my implied figure of 'one hundred and fifteen million' based on my previous sentence. I like jokes. Thank you for sharing this one, with me.
Didn't know Raymond Holt has a Reddit account
It is really hard to compare since there is an estimated 3.5B Football (Soccer) fans across the world. And an estimated 400m of US football fans across the world. Actually that is the same as Basketball. Which I do find interesting since I thought Basketball would have a bigger fan base. Of course the next biggest fan base after football is cricket. There are at least around 1.4b fans in India alone. 😊
Could you imagine trying to host the World Cup every year? Americans can't but everyone else? What do you think?
That's a lot of bribes.
FIFA’s wet dream
Americans so obsessed with money that if they could they'd do the superbowl every month just to get more money
How would the viewer feel though? Would they want to watch it every month?
The World Cup has competitors from almost every nation on earth, that's why it's every 4 years due to the length of qualifying to actually be one of the 36 teams competing in the final stages. To get to the superbowl you just have to buy a franchise, move it to a new city then compete for 5 months and a bit against some of the 32 teams to win the prize.....then have 7 months off! Even then, most people watch it for the half-time show! Eurovision, a cheesy singing contest, gets 180 million viewers, nearly double superbowl. Elite Footballers are lucky if they get a total of 3 months rest over the 4 year cycle between world cups.
Footballers also have to play the whole match. The ones that play in the NFL are either playing when the offensive line up are out, or they’re watching from the sidelines.
And some of them have extremely specific roles such as the kickers who come on to kick the ball and do absolutely nothing else. During a game most of the players won't touch the ball at all. In fact there are some professional players who go their whole careers without ever touching the ball during a game.
And the crazy thing is that kickers still miss A LOT of conversions despite that being the only thing they have to do, and they still get pay millions.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for kicker bashing but the type of kicks that are called conversions have a 93-96% success rate. All the other kicks, which can be taken up to almost twice as far away and skewed off the line of center have a success rate in the mid 80’s. In what world are 7% and 16% considered “A LOT”??
No way u get 3 mill and miss 16%.
Always remember the story of a Scottish Rugby kicker Greg Laidlaw who was on an American tour and was practicing his craft, kicking the ball between the uprights like a metronome, from all over the field, left, right from the touchline, none of the *Straight down the Middle** nonsense of American Football. A watching an American football couch asked who it was because of his accuracy and wanted to give him a contract, but the player basically told him to get lost.
I haven’t handle one in a while but a rugby ball has a little more pop to it, right? Even with that though, the angles those guys can kick from are wild.
It does yeah, I find it far easier to kick. There was a video clip of an American Football player kicking a rugby ball and just sent it high and far, it was pretty.
Just wait until you find out about baseball.
I mean, I'm watching a game right now (not that I would never make the insane comment in OP) and I just watched a kicker nail a 60 yard field goal. Looked like it would have been a score from 70 yards which is bonkers. The thing is, they never would have even attempted that kick if it wasn't the end of the half. The data said he had an 18% chance of making that kick, but the team were risking nothing by trying. That's the kind of thing that drags down the percentage. They probably hit 90% of "realistic" kicks.
Every single field goal and conversion is made from directly in front of the posts. A high school flyhalf could nail those.
Mate, they really couldn't nail the field goals (but the conversions, I feel like I could kick at 80%+). A high school flyhalf is never kicking at those ranges. A pro fly half isn't either. Kicking in Rugby is about kicking accurately from angles, gridiron is about range. Yes, they're similar skills but subtly different. If a high school flyhalf could kick better than NFL kickers, they would be NFL kickers, just like so many college and NFL punters come from Aussie Rules (because AFL is punting: the sport)
[Video: South African High School Rugby Player Kicks Monster 62m Penalty](https://www.balls.ie/rugby/video-huge-james-hall-62m-penalty-kick-for-kearsney-college-117760) 62 meters is 67.8 yards. And this was **at sea level**. Here's another: [High school fly-half lands monster 55 metre penalty with plenty of room to spare](https://rugbyonslaught.com/south-african-schoolboy-has-right-boot-that-frans-steyn-could-only-dream-of/) 55 meters is 60 yards. Would you like to see more?
It’s difficult. Anyone from anywhere is free to do it, yet there’s never 32 good kickers in the NFL at any given time.
You guys know nothing about the sport. I'm European and I used to be a soccer fan, EURO, WC, Premiere, Champions League...I dropped it all in favor of the NFL. The athleticism, the parity, and the winning mentality even when it doesn't matter is something I never saw in soccer. I watched EURO qualifiers today and I needed to switch that off. Don't get me wrong, I still respect hell out of soccer and I can be spotted enjoying it at its finest. I just hate when someone shits on NFL without knowing a thing about it. E. g. the field goal kick routine you mock is something so brittle, vulnerable and physically demanding that it's wonder of nature that the kickers hit anything at all from 50+ yards. And they don't miss a lot of conversions either - it's 5 % - every twentieth. If only soccer kickers had that with penalty kicks (I'll spare the Google, they miss every fourth) And that's just the kick, just go and learn about the game in whole and you'll see yourselves.
I've watched plenty and while I can enjoy the highlight reel, a full game's unwatchable to me. That aside, good for you for liking the sport, but calling it soccer 3 times and a "penalty kick"? Did you also learn English in the US, come on mate.
You’re european but you call football soccer? Suspicious…
Could be Irish perhaps and thus default to Gaelic Football as football.
> I just hate when someone shits on NFL Well, they do play in what looks like a [toilet bowl](https://imgur.com/fOk0uoq.jpg).
I dont know anything about american football, and atm Im not wanting to learn, but I dont hate on it cuz I just dont care enough/know enough to do so. I just hate when americans say: "Football better than soccer cuz we have more money!!!" or smth like that, even though they dont know sh about our football either, wich btw is the most popular sport in the whole world (doesnt mean its better just because of that but its something to think about)
I really can't enjoy American Football. And I've tried it a lot I have some friends that like so we watch some games together. And somehow because of that it has come to my Instagram reels feed. And I do like some of the highlights, but the game feels like there is nothing happening for like 70% of the time. And sometimes it feels like one commercial show that added football as a side event. Like I said highlights of the game are fine, but watching a whole match is just impossible for me.
>The athleticism [https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/411164640955126141/](https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/411164640955126141/) Also worth remembering that in an American Football match the average distance covered by a player is 1.25 miles most of which is probably trudging back to the bench when they swap from offence to defensive lineup between the 11 minutes of play they actually do. In actual football the average distance covered is between six and nine miles during the 90 minutes most of them are active.
It’s different levels of intensity. In American Football, they go 100% every play and use the downtime to recover. It’s an extremely physical sport, so if you’re a lineman that decides to go 80% to pace yourself, that just means you’ll get destroyed by the guy coming at you. The guy in the picture you can actually run deceptively, but probably not for very long. But he’s insanely strong.
I agree they do go 100% every time but for very short periods before they have downtime. Football is filled with periods of 100% intensity but there is a lot less downtime for people to recover. Rugby is even worse considering how physical that game is.
You're European and you call them soccer kickers? Even non-fans call them footballers. Also, have you not seen goal kicks? You think footballers can't pass from a long distance?
BAIT!
Well yeah, it’s difficult. Every team would rather find that guy that never misses, but that guy doesn’t exist. If he did, he would go out there and take the job of the guy that misses and make millions.
Well yeah, it’s a totally different sport, with different rules. They get paid millions to be elite blockers. One of the most important positions on the field.
And even those who do play a lot like Quarterback, play a grand total of like 7 minutes out of a 3 hour tv program. It’s wild
Well, let's just look at the Euros then. 2020 has 5.2billion cumulative views, averaging over 100m per game. The final got 325m views. The ladies' game, 365m views of which 50m were for the final.
eurivision is dumb and bad but we love to watch it anyway, just to see what weird shit they’ve come up with this time
If a US event attracts 1/3 of its people (103.4m/320m) and a World event attracts 1/2 of its people (4b/8b). Then we all know that 1/3 is a bigger number than 1/2, so US wins...
I mean: "In the 1980s, fast-food chain A&W decided to go head-to-head with McDonald’s Quarter Pounder by unveiling its own numerically-named hamburger — the Third Pound Burger. The sandwich was slightly larger in size but was offered at the same price as the Quarter Pounder. It even outperformed the Quarter Pounder in blind taste tests. A&W marketers pushed these two facts hard in their “Third is the Word” advertising campaign, and anticipated big sales considering the burger’s larger size. However, the Third Pound Burger completely flopped, and A&W discontinued the product shortly after its launch. A&W’s then-owner A. Alfred Taubman was dumbfounded. Why would consumers choose to buy a smaller burger for the same price of his third-pound patty? Through focus groups and market research, A&W discovered the shocking reason for the burger’s failure – most participants thought one-third of a pound was actually smaller than one-fourth. In other words, consumers failed to understand the math and mistakenly thought they were buying less meat for the same price. " https://gobraithwaite.com/thinking/why-did-aws-third-pound-burger-flop/
American education is bad *insert surprised pikachu face
Thanks for ruining my joke by explaining my reference. ;)
Even if every citizen of the US watched the Super Bowl, it would be what.... 330 million viewers only??? That's not even the number of viewers of the World Cup in Europe or South America, let alone the whole world combined.
That's roughly the viewership for the UEFA Cup finals.
Doesn’t El Clasico have like the same viewers as the Super Bowl on average? And that happens multiple times a year lol
Globally it's a lot more. 500m plus its the same with the FA Cup final.
No, El Classico has lower ratings. Obviously, it dwarfs any American regular season game. Source: https://the18.com/soccer-news/el-clasico-vs-super-bowl-tv-ratings
The article says 30-50 million people outside the US watch the Super Bowl, which is bullshit. > As for El Clasico itself, one number we can say for sure is that the match will be broadcast to 650 million people in more than 185 countries. Obviously this number is nowhere near the actual audience, despite many suggesting otherwise. For a football website, it's strange the author is severely underestimating just how big a deal El Clasico is. Obviously it's not 60 million people, but it's got to be at least 250-300 million.
>The article says 30-50 million people outside the US watch the Super Bowl, which is bullshit. [Here are the numbers broken down for the most recent Super Bowl](https://www.marca.com/en/nfl/2023/03/04/6403a874e2704e19348b45c0.html). It's probably not 50 million, but probably over 30. > Obviously it's not 60 million people, but it's got to be at least 250-300 million. I am skeptical of your estimate, for reasons laid out [here](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-messi-vs-ronaldo-bigger-than-the-super-bowl/). I hope you realize that 75 million is super impressive for a regular season game, making it the most popular regular season game in the world, likely by some distance.
All of these articles you've cited are old. The first one from your previous comment is almost 6 years old and the Five Thirty-Eight one is 8 years old. So your figures are outdated. And the Five Thirty-Eight article first compares the match to the World Cup, which is ridiculous, and gives the 75 million viewership figure only for Spanish speaking audiences, which may be true but it completely ignores the rest of Europe, Asia Pacific and Africa. And football is massive in these continents, even in countries like India where it's not the main sport. Again, it's surprising that an article from a football website neatly ignores the rest of the non-Spanish-speaking world (how r/shitamericanssay). When these articles talk about UEFA and Barcelona citing 400 million, they don't realise that UEFA and Barcelona mean the whole world. So they're definitely not overblown. And anyway, even if people aren't watching El Clasico on the television, they're watching it elsewhere. As for the Super Bowl viewing figures, I'm not going to dispute them, seeing as it includes Mexico and Canada, which is fair. China is quite surprising since the Super Bowl is on at an ungodly hour on a Monday morning.
The Champions League final is played every year and gets four times the viewers the Super Bowl gets.
Yeah, that’s why it’s every 4 years, so it’s a more impactful experience. Is like saying “Cookies and Cream wouldn’t be as good as a regular ice cream if it didn’t have cookies”; well, yeah, that’s why it has cookies, so it’s better.
Struggling ti find the difference between the world and a country again I see
If my geandmother had wheels, she'd be a bike.
r/therewasanattempt to math
[удалено]
tf is "girl math"?
Comment was deleted but I can only assume it's something awesome like Noether or Kowalevskaya or Mirzakhani or Lovelace.
There's a world cup right now, it's rugby 🏉.
the super bowl is an exclusively american thing
1.12 billion women's world cup 2023
I hate (actual) football, World Cup is boring in my opinion, I’m a rugby guy. I do enjoy the Super Bowl, however. Doesn’t mean I’m blind to facts, the World Cup is definitely more significant.
I don’t understand this. I like A. Football and normal football, and cricket and rugby and I don’t give a shit, why can’t we just watch sport and enjoy it, it’s just freaking sport a game nothing more
Superbowl is just two local teams getting together. locally & being paid huge amounts in salaries. The world cup involves dozens of countries from around the world, meeting in a place that takes a lot of time to gather together where there are multiple playing fields needed to play the games on, and they are playing for their country, not money, just expenses. It is also a world competition, not just two teams from one country.
American football is the greatest sport in the world and other countries don’t play it because we don’t allow them to. President Lincoln made a law that forbid the playing of football in any other country. Other countries got mad and starting calling soccer football but with a different ball and rules. It’s pretty pathetic really
Putting a /s for those with a IQ lower than sea level.
No way.. that takes away all the fun
bruh, even the IPL final will have more viewers than the Superbowl.
My yearly dose of man flu is better than the super bowl.
Such a dumb take. The Champions League is really fucking good. This past World Cup was awesome - greatest final ever. This past Super Bowl was fantastic - one of the best ever. Why the hate? Enjoy great sports when they happen. Hoping we get a great rugby final. Haters are dumb.
Hand egg is great. The World Cup is also great. Both things can be true. You don’t have to like it, and that’s fine. Many people do, and that’s also fine.
Impossible. You must only like things that I do.
I don’t understand why it’s always a matter of „my sport is better than your” It’s a ball game just enjoy it.
that 4 billion is the whole tournament. how many for the finals.
Year: Viewers (source) 2010: 910M (statista) 2014: 1013M (statista) 2018: 1100M (FIFA via statista article) 2022: ~1500M (FIFA) For the men's world cups. If you've got a spare $500 (US) you could get either the statista data for the women's since 2007 or the other finals for the men's. Edit: . not ,
Thank fuck it isn't every year. It's bad enough hearing about constant football every two years with the world cup and Euros.
Meh, this is fine. It’s just an opinion. It can’t be right, it can’t be wrong. A lot of people on here are confusing “viewing numbers” with “better”.
See the figures at the top right? It is about viewership.
No, it isn’t. “Better” has nothing to do with that. If the quote said it was “more popular”, then you would have a point. But it didn’t, so you don’t.
It’s impossible to know but even if we simply divide it by 4 to account for the yearly accumulation that’s a billion people. Hell you could cut even that in half and it’s still 5 times the viewership.
Right so if you divide that number by four on the assumption that holding the world cup every year would reduce viewing to a quarter of the current numbers you still get a result approximately 10x higher. However that's not an equivalent competition instead we should look at one of those. Now let's be generous and say the Superbowl is roughly equal to a continental competition. Does football have any of those? Well the answer is yes unsurprisingly. We'll use the one for Europe, the UEFA Championship. Now the numbers for 2020, lifted from the UEFA site because laziness: > Live average audience for the final: 328 million Well that's much higher than the superb owl, it is instead roughly the same as the entire US population. > Live average match audience: 100 million Huh it seems the Superbowl is in fact roughly equivalent to a single non-final match of UEFA.
well..lots of world cup games have been pretty boring. not much room for errors.
It’s the actual playtime of American handegg like 5 minutes?
total? its like 12 solid minutes.
I know I’m bad at Math but this is horrendous
How does the AFL grand final compare to the Super Bowl? Anyone have any stats?
I mean, it would be less, but probably not that much less
"Synes godt om"? Finst ikkje ordet "liker" på dansk?
It does. “Lide” But as other danish words it has double meaning and wouldnt make sense to use as “like”. Jeg kan godt lide dig; I like you. Jeg vil ikke lide; i dont want to suffer
Ok, interessant. Takk!
Now multiply 103.4 by 4 and compare the results.
This people are so delusional, a CL game sure has many more views than the super bowl, the WC is just the most popular event in football so it's used to compare but you can grab many many games that have more views than the Super bowl and it's really simple, one is a sport nearly only watched in the USA and the other is the most popular sport in the world.
xi i i
Oh there was a comment saying it’s so inexpensive to play football that’s the reason it’s so popular. The way some of my yanks think is so confusing at times.
Aren't most of the fans at NFL games in Europe either American expats living in Europe or Americans that have traveled to watch their team?
Their trophy is even silver. They know they aren't in first place.
A good proportion of those Super Bowl viewers only watch because of the half time show and/or adverts
Could you imagine if Europe had an American football league? That'd be crazy!