Aronious Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 On first arriving in this forum i forced Melbourne as being the almighty sports capital of the world. I was beaten down and told it doesnt even compare to cities such as Los Angeles and London. I think this is proof it is under-rated!. News Melbourne named world’s top sports city 12 November 2006 Melbourne has been named the world’s top city for sports events in a new study. The study, by London consulting and research firm ArkSports, compared 20 top sporting cities that were selected based on their history of hosting events. It measured factors such as events list from 2002 – 2010, attendances and media coverage, the city’s quality of life, facilities, transport and accommodation, government support, weather and tourism. As well as being overall winner, with 341.5 points – 29 points ahead of Paris and Sydney - Melbourne was tops for level of public interest in events, facilities, number of major events won and level of government support. The study said Melbourne had an “unparalleled track record reputation” for its sporting events while industry heads praised its “versatility, stadia, city atmosphere and local passion for all sports”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 Well bugger me, my time machine actually works!! http://www.gamesbids.com/forums/index.php?...c=4789&st=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 The result is basically accurate by naming Melbourne, London and Paris at the top. However, the process of getting there is absolute bollocks. What on earth has Quality of Life got to do with the Sports Capital of the World. It should be judged on(and in this order): 1.Public Support for Sport 2.Facilities 3.Events Staged Quality of Life could be Zero, but how could you not put a city in the list if it also hosts lots of the biggest sporting events, has superb public passion for sport and the best facilities. Oops, you're not making the list cos it rains too much and your train always gets delayed. Not to mention the price of a big Mac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafa Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 glad u stumble across this aaron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 The result is basically accurate by naming Melbourne, London and Paris at the top. However, the process of getting there is absolute bollocks. What on earth has Quality of Life got to do with the Sports Capital of the World. It should be judged on(and in this order):1.Public Support for Sport 2.Facilities 3.Events Staged Quality of Life could be Zero, but how could you not put a city in the list if it also hosts lots of the biggest sporting events, has superb public passion for sport and the best facilities. Oops, you're not making the list cos it rains too much and your train always gets delayed. Not to mention the price of a big Mac. Just like those kind of other lists, if you know what I mean. I just really turn off here, when I read such "credible surveys." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aronious Posted December 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 "Contributing factors included the list of events, attendance, media coverage, transport, accommodation, government support, weather and tourism." I dont think quality of life really came into anything. London would probably rate higher should events (like British F1) were acctually staged in the city, rather then miles out in the countryside. Many world-class facilities, reliable (and extensive) transport, great support for a number of sports, great media coverage and all within a central location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.