Jump to content

USA 2024


Recommended Posts

Without being bias, I remember posting an article from Inside the Games and London, England was named Sports Capital of the World. I can't find the article now. New York City was second though. Melbourne was given Medium sized Sports Capital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also I think it's rather smart what Rio did in having the opening and closing ceremony in a separate area than the track and field event. That is something that the US should consider doing, because we don't need a track and field stadium with Olympic stadium capacity after the games are gone. MLS teams have been focusing on getting their own soccer specific stadiums, and a track and field stadium is just not a great suit for that.

The smartness of having separate venues would depend on city to city, country to country. The IOC tends to bend the rules for new frontiers, so the viability of doing the same for the US is not certain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I said LA was the "Entertainment and Sports Capital", I was not claiming it, only passing along the slogan. I personally wouldn't say LA is the "Sports Capital", but it would certainly be a nice backdrop to hosing sports. I think the slogan didn't mean the terms "Entertainment" and "Sports" to be used separately. I think it was claiming LA possesses both of the qualities/titles. Sure, other cities may be just as sports crazy as LA, but do they also house the "Big 6"? Each city is unique and if LA is known as an entertainment powerhouse, as well as a passionate sports fan/personality, then so be it. London is the only English capital (as of today), but it can also be the sports capital, so that's unique. England and Sports. Same with Rio de Janero (minus the capital) and NYC (capital of the world in terms of UN) There isn't simply one unique city, there are many, but only some have the right traits and ownership that can pull of an Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say for the umpteenth time I don't think there should be a "Sports Capital of the World" because I don't think such a thing exists.

It is true that I cannot think of another city that fits the bill better than LA. However, I can think of several that can make similar claims. Similar is not better. The fact that several cities can make strong similar claims is the reason why none should be crowned "Sports Capital of the World."

You explained at length why NYC is more of a sports town than LA and then you stated very clearly that you thought Melbourne was the most sporting city in the world.

I played along with you and offered an argument in favor of LA -- not because I think it's important that LA claim that title, but because you were selling them short as the home of nothing but "beach volleyball and muscle beach." I wanted to balance the perspective.

I'm totally over this inane conversation.

For the record, I don't think your pro-NYC responses to the particulars of my argument hold water either, but its a waste of time to debate them.

Which is why I offered up a case for New York. If I really wanted to have this discussion, I could easily go much more in depth on both cities because if you think all I associate LA with in terms of sports is beach volleyball and muscle beach, I'd be more than happy to tell you about my past trips to see the Lakers, the Clippers, the Dodgers, the Angels, a USC-UCLA basketball game, and I'm sure I could think of some more. Not to mention dozens of other cities I've been to and/or attended sporting events in. So with all due respect, as someone who has questioned my life experience, forgive me when I look at your "I cannot think of another city that fits the bill better" argument for your city and want to offer up my city.

Again, there's no way for this to not come off as a New Yorker versus a Los Angelino, so it would be difficult for anyone else to take our arguments at face value. And for the record, to make an argument about how sports-crazed LA is and offer me up the Santa Monica Track Club and not the Lakers or the Rose Bowl or USC football.. yea, this isn't worth debating because clearly you and I have a vastly different view on what sports culture is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without being bias, I remember posting an article from Inside the Games and London, England was named Sports Capital of the World. I can't find the article now. New York City was second though. Melbourne was given Medium sized Sports Capital.

England can't be the sports capital of the world. They don't have an NFL team

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without being bias, I remember posting an article from Inside the Games and London, England was named Sports Capital of the World. I can't find the article now. New York City was second though. Melbourne was given Medium sized Sports Capital.

That's nice Tony :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

England can't be the sports capital of the world. They don't have an NFL team

I thought the NFL is only restricted to teams in the USA. An IFAF team would make more sense

You don't need a NFL team to be the sport capital. But I disagree that England is the sports capital of the world.

Well, if you're going to be the sports capital, you should have a variety of sports teams that call home to your city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USOC and IOC didn't let them use it for 2012. Have rules bent all of a sudden? It would be pretty dishonest to call the center of the Games SF when you'll be seeing patrol cars saying "City of Santa Clara."

Super-Bowl-50-Logo-Unveiled.jpg

Yeah but that's because the game really isn't in SF hence using SF Bay Area

Without being bias, I remember posting an article from Inside the Games and London, England was named Sports Capital of the World. I can't find the article now. New York City was second though. Melbourne was given Medium sized Sports Capital.

Hell Naw maybe for Best Soccer/Football League/Teams/Players but not for everything else

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Sports Capital of the World" because I don't think such a thing exists.

Well, to open up the can of worms again, there actually is a (fairly well regarded) ranking, Sportsbusiness International magazines' bi-annual Ultimate Sports City rankings. It's been done since 2006 and has been argued (and debated fiercely) here in the past: Sports Capital of the World. It's as spurious and debateable as any list, but it IS relevant to here at least (or at least more relevant than global city rankings)

It ranks cities based on large events (such as the OIympics, Commies, Asiads etc) hosted recently, annual events hosted, venues in place, spectator numbers and support for local teams, number of local professional league teams based in the city, accommodation, etc.

This year's was unveiled at the SportsAccord conference in April:

Without being bias, I remember posting an article from Inside the Games and London, England was named Sports Capital of the World. I can't find the article now. New York City was second though. Melbourne was given Medium sized Sports Capital.

And, to give kudos to Tony, he's right. London topped this year's list:

London retains Ultimate Sport City title
Date:
10 APRIL 2014

London has retained the title of SportBusiness International’s Ultimate Sport City for 2014 and picked up three other category awards in the biennial rankings.

As well as winning the top prize, the 2012 Olympic Games host city also received titles in hosting, public sports interest and marketing and branding categories at a ceremony at the SportAccord International Convention in Belek, Turkey. The award was collected by Iain Edmondson, head of major events at London & Partners.

The mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said: “Whether it is the Wimbledon tennis championships, the FA Cup final, test match cricket at Lord's or any of the mind-boggling variety of major events that take place here, there can be no doubt that London is the greatest city on the planet for sport. Fresh from the success of a sell-out Olympic and Paralympic Games, we are now looking forward to a series of thrilling sporting fixtures in the years ahead, many which will be hosted in our stunning 2012 venues.

"As well as bringing economic dividends, attracting the world’s best sport to our city is motivating even more Londoners to get active and nurturing the stars of the future. I am delighted that our status as a world beater has been recognised through this latest accolade.”

The SportBusiness International Ultimate Sports Cities Awards are the internationally recognised and longest established rankings of the world’s top sports hosts. They have been held every two years since 2006.

Auckland was the other top performing city from the final list, winning four awards. The New Zealand city picked up best medium sized sport's city, best legacy, best security and best homegrown event for the Auckland NRL Nines rugby league competition.

The full list of this morning's winners is below:

Ultimate Sports City (overall winner) - LONDON

Best Sports City (extra large population) – NEW YORK

Best Sports City (large population) - MELBOURNE

Best Sports City (medium population) - AUCKLAND

Best Sports City (small population) - CALGARY

Best Hosting - LONDON

Best Venues - MELBOURNE

Best Transportation - BERLIN

Best Accommodation - ISTANBUL

Best Event Strategy - MELBOURNE

Best Legacy - AUCKLAND

Best Quality of Life - VANCOUVER

Best Public Sports Interest - LONDON

Best Security - AUCKLAND

Best Marketing and Branding - LONDON

Best Home-Grown Event - AUCKLAND NRL NINES

Sports Business International

Melbourne was the overall winner in 2006, 2008 and 2010. London's topped the last two.

Edited by Sir Rols
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tiddliwinks Capital of the World - Tulsa.

(Yeah, Jose, this is one of my 'irrelevant, jocular' posts...to JACK up my score! :rolleyes: It's called "Lightening the mood" or bringing a little levity to an otherwise snippety board. I'm sure you've heard of "The Unbearable Lightness of Being"...) <_<

/\/\ Good 2 see you post, Rols...despite someone's brazen presence here.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, to open up the can of worms again, there actually is a (fairly well regarded) ranking, Sportsbusiness International magazines' bi-annual Ultimate Sports City rankings. It's been done since 2006 and has been argued (and debated fiercely) here in the past: Sports Capital of the World. It's as spurious and debateable as any list, but it IS relevant to here at least (or at least more relevant than global city rankings)

It ranks cities based on large events (such as the OIympics, Commies, Asiads etc) hosted recently, annual events hosted, venues in place, spectator numbers and support for local teams, number of local professional league teams based in the city, accommodation, etc.

This year's was unveiled at the SportsAccord conference in April:

And, to give kudos to Tony, he's right. London topped this year's list:

Melbourne was the overall winner in 2006, 2008 and 2010. London's topped the last two.

Just to emphasize how silly these rankings are, please note that the evaluation classified London as an "extra large city" and New York as merely a "large city." As near as I can tell, London's population is roughly 8.4 million and New York's is 8.3 million. Fishy, no?

I'd be leery of anyone who changed ranks of "sporting cities" on an annual basis anyway. The overall character of global cities develops over centuries. A year seems an artificially small sample size that can only make comparisons in numbers of events -- not overall character or bigger trends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to emphasize how silly these rankings are, please note that the evaluation classified London as an "extra large city" and New York as merely a "large city." As near as I can tell, London's population is roughly 8.4 million and New York's is 8.3 million. Fishy, no?

Not, they did have it the right way around:

Ultimate Sports City (overall winner) - LONDON

Best Sports City (extra large population) – NEW YORK

Here's their criteria:

To reflect the number of smaller cities aspiring to host major sports events, SportBusiness will once again use size bands enabling awards to be made to cities with populations of 1.2m or below, between 1.2m and 3m, between 3m and 7m and finally, 7m

And overall methodology:

About the Awards

The cities featuring in the latest shortlist include the top 15 ranking cities from the 2012 edition of Ultimate Sports Cities followed by the 10 top ranking cities based on events held between 2010 and 2018 (that did not appear in the top 15 already selected) as well as five ‘wildcard’ entrants voted for by a panel of SportBusiness judges.

As in the past, the shortlisted cities will be evaluated according to the size and volume of events they have hosted between an eight year time period (which has moved on two years to 2010 and 2018 since the last rankings) alongside a range of other criteria including:

• venues

• transport and infrastructure

• accommodation

• event strategy

• government and public support

• legacy

• quality of life

• security

• marketing/promotional ability/branding.

Within the events strategy section, two new areas will be judged by the panel – cultural events and homegrown events – reflecting the increasing cohesiveness of major events strategies across all genres as well as the desire to build events that reflect a city’s capability and brand respectively.

To reflect the number of smaller cities aspiring to host major sports events, SportBusiness will once again use size bands enabling awards to be made to cities with populations of 1.2m or below, between 1.2m and 3m, between 3m and 7m and finally, 7m or above.

The final results will be announced at the SportAccord Convention in Antalya, Turkey in April and the prize of Ultimate Sports City 2014 will be presented to the winning city alongside awards for individual winners across the scoring categories.

I actually do think it's a reasonable enough attempt at ranking. As valid as any others like top entertainment cities, or fashion capitals or whatever. And any such lists or rankings are open to (and are usually designed to encourage) click bait and debate.
Where I'd guess individual US cities fall down in the SportsBusiness rankings is the fact that the domestic showpiece events like the Superbowl or World Series, are moveable feasts. And the likes of London and Melbourne, even apart from their recent big hostings and annual showpieces, get boosted by the multiple and large number of Premier League and AFL teams they respectively host - and which are fanatically followed. I suspect, as others have mentioned, LA may be hampered for example by lack of an NFL team.
I don't want to get into a pissing contest, but I will say I'm not surprised at Melbourne's high rankings in this or general other opinions mentioned here. Apart from their really delicious annual calendar of events - from the Australian Open to the Grand Prix to the domestic footy finals to the Spring Racing Carnival and Melbourne Cup to the Boxing Day International Cricket Test - as a Sydneysider I have to admit bemusement and not a bit of envy at their fanatical obsession with sport, support of their teams and wealth of facilities. Melburnians say they'd pack out a tiddly winks final - we say it's because there's nothing better to do there.
Edited by Sir Rols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...