ICC vs FIFA

[Patroclus]

What do you think that football has but cricket does not have ?

According to me the list is :

1.More of Beautiful and Artistic stadiums

(cricket has only 19 stadiums with over 40,000 capacity. 12 in India, 4 in Australia...

Football has 259 of over 40,000 and theres a new stadium being built daily)

2.Lack of popular domestic competitons

(only IPL runs in full stadiums)

3.Lack of smart & stable organization by ICC

( FIFA vs ICC )

4.Lack of smart and innovative marketing

( FIFA World Cup vs ICC World Cup )

5.Lack of more popular tournaments in cricket

( Football has at least 10 tourneys which run in packed stadiums & get high TRPs eg.Euro,Confd Cup, UEFA Champions League etc )

6.Lack of competetive nations in World Cricket

( Football has at least 50 counries who can beat each other but in cricket its 12 we have to take it to atleast 25-30 to consider world cricket a success )

7.Uneven distribution of money between boards

( BCCI has as much money as 6 other boards put together and BCCI never helps the associate nations)

8.Lack of a stable format

(50 over is too long and T20 is slam bam and no World Test Championship)

9.Lack of regional level tourneys

(No Euro or African Cup of Nations)

10.Lack of ambitious , innovative , revolutionary & active fans who would help the ICC by giving them ideas even though ICC is not interactive.

Honestly, its basically two countries. You take out India and Pakistan, and Cricket is barely watched by anyone. You can take out like 10 nations from Football and still get a couple of billion viewers.

Just take a look at these soccer stadiums :

Allianz Arena

Santiago Bernabeau

Anfield Road (Its atmosphere)

The Wembley

Nou Camp(100000 supporters not one seat empty)

Soccer City RSA

Rome Olympic Stadium

Louis II Monte Carlo

Azteca Mexico

Yokohoma Stadium


The FIFA World Cup is underway tomorrow so its the best time to compare the two sports.

 

[Somerset]

Football's a truely global game and would thrive with or without the FIFA body IMO. I won't dispute that the ICC's copped deserved criticism at times for their decisions in developing and promoting the game but for a sport with as many intricacies as cricket, it'll never overtake football in my view. And if you don't have the numbers you certainly don't need 259 stadiums to host the games - in fact I don't think theres close to 259 official international cricket venues worldwide, let alone those with a 40,000+ spectator capacity. I think some of your comments are also a little unfair, taking aside India and Pakistan obviously dilutes the spectator base, though the support in England, Australia, Sri Lanka, etc. is still plentiful. As I said earlier though, for a sport with as much intracacy and history as cricket, I guess its nature dictates its demand and in some respects (IMO) its not a great exercise to compare the two.

 

[superkingdave]

FIFA is one of the most corrupt organisations in existance, i think it comfortably has the ICC covered in that respect.

 

[robbinhood]

FIFA is a global game and would out the FIFA body IMO. I would not dispute that the ICC's have not good at times for their situation in developing the game but for a sport with as many Fans as cricket, it will never overtake football in my view.Now a day have Fifa do not improve any thing because 259 stadiums to host the game . there are 259 international cricket place sat all over the world . So I think both are good at there places .

 

[_Ed_]

1.More of Beautiful and Artistic stadiums

(cricket has only 19 stadiums with over 40,000 capacity. 12 in India, 4 in Australia...

Football has 259 of over 40,000 and theres a new stadium being built daily)

A large capacity doesn't make a stadium beautiful or artistic.

And I think you'll find there are more than 3 stadiums with more than 40,000 seats if you look at countries like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, NZ and South Africa. I know of 3 in NZ alone.

 

[superkingdave]

A large capacity doesn't make a stadium beautiful or artistic.

And I think you'll find there are more than 3 stadiums with more than 40,000 seats if you look at countries like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, NZ and South Africa. I know of 3 in NZ alone.

Eden Park and?

 

[_Ed_]

Wellington and Christchurch (when the new stand is finished).

EDIT: Actually, I see Wellington's only 36,000. My mistake.

 

[Kensashi]

9.Lack of regional level tourneys

(No Euro or African Cup of Nations)

ICC does have regional tournaments for europe, the americas, africa and east asia pacific.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Somewhat different stances on in-game technology, albeit ICC were slow to develop their enthusiasm.

 

[PhoenixFire]

A large capacity doesn't make a stadium beautiful or artistic.

And I think you'll find there are more than 3 stadiums with more than 40,000 seats if you look at countries like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, NZ and South Africa. I know of 3 in NZ alone.

Jeez, just goes to show how dire English grounds are capacity wise. Pretty ridiculous that Lord's has the highest capacity and that's only 28,000... No disrespect to NZ, but we really should have grounds with a higher capacity than you.

Makes it even more crazy that the extensions would easily pay for themselves, as I reckon English Test matches are potentially the best attended in the world.

 

[GIMH]

Aren't the NZ grounds multi-purpose?

We have heaps of grounds holding that many, they just aren't used for cricket

 

[Matt79]

Worst thread ever really.

 

[Patroclus]

Worst thread ever really.

why???

and which is the best thread ever???

 

[Matt79]

It's kinda like saying "kangaroos vs tigers - which is the better animal". They're completely different beast in completely different environments that have gone down completely different evolutionary paths, while it is possible to compare different aspects of their physicality and behaviour, it is impossible to make any sensible comparisons in regards to which is the 'better'.

 

[Patroclus]

It's kinda like saying "kangaroos vs tigers - which is the better animal". They're completely different beast in completely different environments that have gone down completely different evolutionary paths, while it is possible to compare different aspects of their physicality and behaviour, it is impossible to make any sensible comparisons in regards to which is the 'better'.

who is more organised & popular kangaroo or tiger ??

 

[Matt79]

who is more organised & popular kangaroo or tiger ??

Going in my sig tbh

 

[Sir Alex]

He/she is comparing two world sports organisations. There is that similarity atleast. Although I won't necessarily agree with the parametres in his OP.

 

[benchmark00]

It's kinda like saying "kangaroos vs tigers - which is the better animal". They're completely different beast in completely different environments that have gone down completely different evolutionary paths, while it is possible to compare different aspects of their physicality and behaviour, it is impossible to make any sensible comparisons in regards to which is the 'better'.

Clearly North Melbourne is superior to Richmond. Silly question.

Please remain on topic.

 

[Jono]

 

[benchmark00]