The British Empire and the popularity of Football

Balmed Out · 26-06-2014 9:33pm #1

Can anyone explain to me what seems to me to be a correlation between countries that were part of the British empire and countries where soccer isn't the most popular sport.
There is obviously a massive exception - that of Africa but otherwise beyond China, Japan, Finland and one or two others most countries where soccer isnt the most popular sport were in the British Empire?

Am I seeing something in coincidences or what ?

Fratton Fred · 27-06-2014 1:26am

Balmed Out wrote: »

Can anyone explain to me what seems to me to be a correlation between countries that were part of the British empire and countries where soccer isn't the most popular sport.
There is obviously a massive exception - that of Africa but otherwise beyond China, Japan, Finland and one or two others most countries where soccer isnt the most popular sport were in the British Empire?

Am I seeing something in coincidences or what ?

A pure coincidence I'd say. In the Caribbean, Indian sub continent, south Africa, Australia and New Zealand, rugby and cricket, two other British empire games are the most popular. Although in countries such as Trinidad and Jamaica, football is incredibly popular, they just aren't good enough to feature on the world stage that often.

And Ireland, where does that fit in?

Manach · 27-06-2014 1:31am

Empires can be delimited by their actual and their influence limits. In the latter's case this can exceed the territorial boundaries. Case in point, South America for about 50 years was within the British Empire's economic realm. Given the influx of capital and workers into that area, then it would not come as a surprise that football followed trade.

Balmed Out · 27-06-2014 2:31pm

But still the only areas of south America that soccer isn't number one, trumped mainly by baseball seem the areas under British rule the longest.
Would soccer have been seen more as a working class sport with anyone wanting to move up in the world being more attracted to other sports?

ChicagoJoe · 27-06-2014 2:45pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A pure coincidence I'd say. In the Caribbean, Indian sub continent, south Africa, Australia and New Zealand, rugby and cricket, two other British empire games are the most popular. Although in countries such as Trinidad and Jamaica, football is incredibly popular, they just aren't good enough to feature on the world stage that often.

And Ireland, where does that fit in?

Often wondered why cricket is popular in Australia, NZ, India, Caribbean etc but hardly played very much in Ireland, Wales and Scotland who are right beside England and play soccer and rugby too ?

riffmongous · 27-06-2014 2:53pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Often wondered why cricket is popular in Australia, NZ, India, Caribbean etc but hardly played very much in Ireland, Wales and Scotland who are right beside England and play soccer and rugby too ?

Cricket used to be very popular in Ireland, particularly in Kilkenny and Tipp at the end of the 19th century, and then it slowly died out in the first half of the 20th.

http://www.historyireland.com/20th-century-contemporary-history/the-history-of-cricket-in-county-kilkenny-the-forgotten-game/

I can't tell you much about Scotland other than modern scottish cricket really struggles due to the poor weather with a lot of their big games being cancelled.

I don't know much about Wales either beyond Glamorgan cricket club and Wales being an integrated part of the english cricket board.

Regarding America and baseball, well baseball is very similar to cricket

Balmed Out · 27-06-2014 3:09pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A pure coincidence I'd say. In the Caribbean, Indian sub continent, south Africa, Australia and New Zealand, rugby and cricket, two other British empire games are the most popular. Although in countries such as Trinidad and Jamaica, football is incredibly popular, they just aren't good enough to feature on the world stage that often.

And Ireland, where does that fit in?

Its not an anti British empire thread im just wondering was there some sort of social stigma or something against soccer compared to other sports, football is incredibly popular in every country but it just seems to me that its dis-proportionally less so in countries that were within the British empire. Perhaps it is just coincidental.

I just wonder was it more the lower socio economic groups that played it thence the spread via trading while in countries directly controlled by Britain it was more popular to emulate ruling class sports.

Fratton Fred · 27-06-2014 4:56pm

Balmed Out wrote: »

Its not an anti British empire thread im just wondering was there some sort of social stigma or something against soccer compared to other sports, football is incredibly popular in every country but it just seems to me that its dis-proportionally less so in countries that were within the British empire. Perhaps it is just coincidental.

I just wonder was it more the lower socio economic groups that played it thence the spread via trading while in countries directly controlled by Britain it was more popular to emulate ruling class sports.

I didn't read it as being anti British empire at all.

I remember Kate Adie talking about a village in Bosnia or Kosovo which was under UN protection.

She commented on how she watched a British patrol turn up.

The first thing out of the personnel carrier was a stray dog they had adopted.

Then came a few squaddies with the obligatory football and within ten minutes all the kids in the village were playing football with them.

Apparently the British army don't go anywhere without a football and a kettle for making a brew.

Fratton Fred · 27-06-2014 5:04pm

ChicagoJoe wrote: »

Often wondered why cricket is popular in Australia, NZ, India, Caribbean etc but hardly played very much in Ireland, Wales and Scotland who are right beside England and play soccer and rugby too ?

The GAA killed off cricket in Ireland. It was massive and arguably the first "professional" sport here.

If someone was good at cricket, the local Lord or whoever would look after them, give them a job, time off to practice etc.The Lords would play against each other, or their village would play against another village, but both teams sponsored by a Lord.

Then the GAA managed to persuade the masses that not playing Gaelic sports was unpatriotic and banned everyong from playing foreign games, so cricket went in to massive decline. It's a shame the two couldn't coexist.

tac foley · 27-06-2014 6:19pm

riffmongous wrote: »

Regarding America and baseball, well baseball is very similar to cricket

You think?

:eek:

Do tell how.

tac

riffmongous · 27-06-2014 6:38pm

tac foley wrote: »

You think? :eek:

Do tell how.

tac

So it seemed to me the few times I played baseball (didn't like it though) after a few years playing cricket.

Both games use an innings format where they take turns batting and bowling. Each game is centred around a player with a bat having a ball thrown at him, which he must keep out of a certain area (wicket or strike zone) while hitting the ball far enough away from the other team to run a certain distance and score points. The other team has to get him out by hitting the target or catching the ball in the air or running the batsman out. The team with the most runs at the end wins.

Obvious major differences are the shape of the bat, playing area, no stumps, two batsmen in cricket. The bowling style is different, but both games share bowling tricks like swinging a ball

tac foley · 27-06-2014 6:41pm

riffmongous wrote: »

So it seemed to me the few times I played baseball (didn't like it though) after a few years playing cricket.

Both games use an innings format where they take turns batting and bowling. Each game is centred around a player with a bat having a ball thrown at him, which he must keep out of a certain area (wicket or strike zone) while hitting the ball far enough away from the other team to run a certain distance and score points. The other team has to get him out by hitting the target or catching the ball in the air or running the batsman out. The team with the most runs at the end wins.

Obvious major differences are the shape of the bat, playing area, no stumps, two batsmen in cricket. The bowling style is different, but both games share bowling tricks like swinging a ball

Ah, right. However, you sure can go to sleep watching a game of cricket, but I'd bet you wouldn't get much sleep at a baseball match.

tac

riffmongous · 27-06-2014 6:54pm

tac foley wrote: »

Ah, right. However, you sure can go to sleep watching a game of cricket, but I'd bet you wouldn't get much sleep at a baseball match.

tac

Well I was never at a proper baseball game yet, but watching it on tv has the opposite effect on me

Although in fairness I wouldnt bother watching a really one sided or boring game of cricket either (or any sport for that matter), but in most games there seems to me to be a lot more tactical and skill depth to cricket. Possibly a bias due to having played a good bit more of cricket, but the Times I tried baseball it felt like going from playing chess to checkers in what you could do as a batter.

Jawgap · 29-06-2014 11:40am

I think you have to define 'popular'

In the States, soccer does not enjoy the same profile as American Football, baseball and basketball, but at a community, school and college level participation rates are huge (my brother went to the States on a soccer scholarship).

A lot has to do how the society in question develops - in the cricket example mentioned above, the GAA didn't kill cricket off, it was more a case of the landed aristocracy adopting the 'new' sport of hurling over cricket as part of the Gaelic Revival. Also, when Cusack was codifying the rules of Gaelic Football, he corresponded with rugby and soccer administrators as he was looking to build a sport / game that embraced the best of both those codes with the addition of an ethos that reflected its "Irishness" - something he arguable achieved until the arrival of 'puke' football

It's possible that soccer was never going to succeed in places like India, Australia etc because you need pitches, and pitches need grass and grass needs water? Unlike other sports, soccer (in contrast to say, rugby) is one of those where you need a decent surface.

Whereas when it comes to cricket you need something resembling a bat, a ball and a couple of sticks for a wicket.

Jawgap · 29-06-2014 11:42am

tac foley wrote: »

Ah, right. However, you sure can go to sleep watching a game of cricket, but I'd bet you wouldn't get much sleep at a baseball match.

tac

riffmongous wrote: »

Well I was never at a proper baseball game yet, but watching it on tv has the opposite effect on me Although in fairness I wouldnt bother watching a really one sided or boring game of cricket either (or any sport for that matter), but in most games there seems to me to be a lot more tactical and skill depth to cricket. Possibly a bias due to having played a good bit more of cricket, but the Times I tried baseball it felt like going from playing chess to checkers in what you could do as a batter.

20:20 is bit like baseball - it's more about aggression and shot-making than plodding!

Test matches - any game that last five days and ends in a draw is deeply flawed :pac:

Heroditas · 29-06-2014 11:43am

Balmed Out wrote: »

Its not an anti British empire thread im just wondering was there some sort of social stigma or something against soccer compared to other sports, football is incredibly popular in every country but it just seems to me that its dis-proportionally less so in countries that were within the British empire. Perhaps it is just coincidental.

I just wonder was it more the lower socio economic groups that played it thence the spread via trading while in countries directly controlled by Britain it was more popular to emulate ruling class sports.

Well cricket is a summer sport and football, rugby etc are winter ones.
If you look at the likes of the West Indies, India etc the weather is a lot warmer than here, thus being more conducive to playing cricket.

tac foley · 29-06-2014 4:00pm

Jawgap wrote: »

20:20 is bit like baseball - it's more about aggression and shot-making than plodding!

20:20 is a sop to those 'sport-lovers' with a short attention span.

Since my only team game is hockey - watching [rarely] or playing [even rarer in this country where ice is something you have to buy], I'll stick to individual sport instead.

I shoot.

tac

Judgement Day · 29-06-2014 6:19pm

riffmongous wrote: »

So it seemed to me the few times I played baseball (didn't like it though) after a few years playing cricket.

Both games use an innings format where they take turns batting and bowling. Each game is centred around a player with a bat having a ball thrown at him, which he must keep out of a certain area (wicket or strike zone) while hitting the ball far enough away from the other team to run a certain distance and score points. The other team has to get him out by hitting the target or catching the ball in the air or running the batsman out. The team with the most runs at the end wins.

Obvious major differences are the shape of the bat, playing area, no stumps, two batsmen in cricket. The bowling style is different, but both games share bowling tricks like swinging a ball

Baseball is Rounders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounders - a game British youngsters play when cricket is unavailable. Takes the Yanks to make a big deal out of it

eire4 · 29-06-2014 11:52pm

Balmed Out wrote: »

Can anyone explain to me what seems to me to be a correlation between countries that were part of the British empire and countries where soccer isn't the most popular sport.
There is obviously a massive exception - that of Africa but otherwise beyond China, Japan, Finland and one or two others most countries where soccer isnt the most popular sport were in the British Empire?

Am I seeing something in coincidences or what ?

Total conincidence I would think especially given there are lots of examples of exceptions some of which you mentioned. Also as others have said there are countries where while football is very poular the country is not a big name on the football stage so it may look like football is not as popular as it actually is.

Jawgap · 30-06-2014 5:54am

Judgement Day wrote: »

Baseball is Rounders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounders - a game British youngsters play when cricket is unavailable. Takes the Yanks to make a big deal out of it

Well one of their teams seems to win the "World" Series every year, so it's only natural to make a big deal of something where you beat every other team in the world.......every year

riffmongous · 30-06-2014 5:59am

Judgement Day wrote: »

Baseball is Rounders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounders - a game British youngsters play when cricket is unavailable. Takes the Yanks to make a big deal out of it

Rounders comes under the remit of the GAA in Ireland too I think which I always found fascinating

Jawgap · 30-06-2014 6:04am

riffmongous wrote: »

Rounders comes under the remit of the GAA in Ireland too I think which I always found fascinating

So did cycling and athletics......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tM438D5h8w

You can slag off the GAA, but with their organisational abilities I reckon if they had been left to organise athletics and cycling we'd be winning bucket loads of medals at the Olympics and World Championships.

riffmongous · 30-06-2014 6:16am

Jawgap wrote: »

20:20 is bit like baseball - it's more about aggression and shot-making than plodding!

Test matches - any game that last five days and ends in a draw is deeply flawed :pac:

The draw is an essential part of a test game though!

Some of the most exciting games have been draws or almost draws, England lost a game last week on the second last ball of play after 5 days, without the ability to go for a draw that game would have been dead the day before.

Balmed Out · 30-06-2014 11:25pm

eire4 wrote: »

Total conincidence I would think especially given there are lots of examples of exceptions some of which you mentioned. Also as others have said there are countries where while football is very poular the country is not a big name on the football stage so it may look like football is not as popular as it actually is.

Im not so sure, if you were to exclude Africa there really aren't plenty of exceptions.
The whole weather reasoning with cricket etc doesnt add up as theres far too many exceptions in other countries. I still think there must have been some sort of social ladder climbing involved in the popularity of certain sports with soccer perhaps viewed as a poor mans game.

riffmongous · 01-07-2014 8:50am

Balmed Out wrote: »

Im not so sure, if you were to exclude Africa there really aren't plenty of exceptions.
The whole weather reasoning with cricket etc doesnt add up as theres far too many exceptions in other countries. I still think there must have been some sort of social ladder climbing involved in the popularity of certain sports with soccer perhaps viewed as a poor mans game.

What might be of interest is that some of the original foreign soccer clubs were started as dual cricket/football clubs, I think in Italy for example. And I would have thought that in any colonial region the most important thing is to simply not play the sport of the locals but a colonial sport?

Edit: AC Milan, Genoa and Torino

Balmed Out · 01-07-2014 9:25am

riffmongous wrote: »

What might be of interest is that some of the original foreign soccer clubs were started as dual cricket/football clubs, I think in Italy for example. And I would have thought that in any colonial region the most important thing is to simply not play the sport of the locals but a colonial sport?

Edit: AC Milan, Genoa and Torino

Yeah im aware of that along with other sports too, I think there are a few clubs in south america that started of as general sporting and athletics teams and even played hurling. One in particular a rugby club in Argentina is known as hurling.

tac foley · 01-07-2014 11:19am

There are indisputably sports where you need to be well-off - to say the least - to either participate or even watch with any degree of personal involvement.

The first two on my list of examples are -

Polo - you need at least six specialised ponies and all that goes with them.

Yacht-racing - this year's America Cup needs at least $80,000,000 per boat to compete.

Meanwhile, a bunch of kids and a ball can play football on an old bombsite - for nothing.

A few more, in my part of the world where there is a lot of solid water for a lot of the year, can play proper hockey for nothing.

A few can pick up a piece of wood and throw a ball at the guy holding it.

All cheap sports.

Native North Americans played football before the arrival of the white man.

Native Middle-Americans played ball games.

The vikings played ball games.

Games for the masses are nothing new. Games in which the members of the masses can either watch or participate are nothing new.

Based on that knowledge, I think that the basic premise of this post is flawed and in spite of protestations of innocence and well-meaning, I'm nevertheless convinced that it is aimed at displaying a so-called 'class struggle' that simply did not exist. You will note that the most powerful and prosperous nation on earth, the USA, only managed to 'transport' baseball to those parts of the planet over which THEY had influence for any prolonged period of time. The Phillipines and Japan are two such examples, but where else?

The answer is simple - at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth century, a quarter of the world was part of the British Empire. Wherever those 'wicked Brits' went, their games of football and cricket inevitably followed.

'Class struggle' be b*ggered.

tac

Balmed Out · 01-07-2014 11:34am

tac foley wrote: »

Based on that knowledge, I think that the basic premise of this post is flawed and in spite of protestations of innocence and well-meaning, I'm nevertheless convinced that it is aimed at displaying a so-called 'class struggle' that simply did not exist. You will note that the most powerful and prosperous nation on earth, the USA, only managed to 'transport' baseball to those parts of the planet over which THEY had influence for any prolonged period of time. The Phillipines and Japan are two such examples, but where else?

The answer is simple - at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth century, a quarter of the world was part of the British Empire. Wherever those 'wicked Brits' went, their games of football and cricket inevitably followed.

'Class struggle' be b*ggered.

tac

If I understand you correctly you're reading into my posts and getting me wrong.
I just find it interesting that soccer is the most popular game in Britain and most other countries. Among those that it isn't a proportionally large amount were once in the British empire. In fact in most countries to have been part of the British empire its not the most popular sport - with the exception of Africa

Why if football was the most popular at home were cricket and rugby more successfully transported around the empire while trade and the general worl influence of Britain seem to have exported soccer so successfully elsewhere.

tac foley · 01-07-2014 11:47am

'dunno. Perhaps whenever I read anything here about how them perfidious Brits did this or that, forcing the natives to adopt foreign mores and even games, I get leery about the motive behind it. I guess that some natives were of the opinion that it looked like a bunch of fun, and they could work out their aggression on a playing field, rather than on a battlefield, as any rugby match involving the All-Blacks would amply demonstrate. The old story about a fight in which a hockey match suddenly broke out comes to mind as well, and for sure I'm lacking a couple of teeth and certain areas of my outer tegument are definitely not 'as-issued' from MY time on the ice.

Perhaps some deeper reading into the history of international football vis-á-vis international cricket/rugby might be needed.

Not by me though.

I could care less if the World Cup was being played in my backyard - not that it's big enough for that.

Meanwhile, I'm off to play trains - another British invention that seems to be pretty widespread all over, with the exception of Iceland, that is.

Even the very poor can ride a train.

tac

Reekwind · 01-07-2014 1:07pm

The key is probably who was playing the games. In colonial areas organised sport would have been spread by military men and a small number of administrators, ie those who would have played cricket or rugby. Conversely, the gospel of football was spread throughout Europe (and beyond) by British traders and sailors.

But, to echo some posters above, there are plenty of exceptions. It's already been pointed out that much of Latin America was part of the British 'informal empire' throughout the 19th C. As an additional example, 'soccer' was one of the most popular sports in the US up to the late 1920s; its decline there had nothing to do with empire. Nor does it explain why rugby dominated in some countries yet was ignored in other.

Jawgap · 01-07-2014 2:16pm

tac foley wrote: »

.....

Based on that knowledge, I think that the basic premise of this post is flawed and in spite of protestations of innocence and well-meaning, I'm nevertheless convinced that it is aimed at displaying a so-called 'class struggle' that simply did not exist. You will note that the most powerful and prosperous nation on earth, the USA, only managed to 'transport' baseball to those parts of the planet over which THEY had influence for any prolonged period of time. The Phillipines and Japan are two such examples, but where else?

......

Cuba

Sports spread for different reasons - I don't think there was sporting imperialism going on.

In the case of rugby for example, the French (and to a lesser extent the Italians) adopted that sport in their militaries first as part of officer education.

I reckon some people probably just saw the Brits playing cricket, rugby, soccer or tennis and thought "Christ but they're sh1te - I reckon we could play that game a lot better than they can".......

.......and by and large they were right - except for rowing, because the British win the Boat Race every year.

The story of the Barley House Wolves Hurling Team is a reasonable case in point.....

"The Barely House Wolves, formed in 2006 by combat veterans from the New Hampshire Army National Guard, are N.H.’s first American-born hurling club. The New Hampshire club is credited with increasing national and international exposure of American hurling due to mainstream media coverage and social media interaction. In 2011, the Wolves were the subject of a Pentagon Channel documentary “Two Fields One Team,” broadcast to U.S. military networks around the world."

A group of Guardsmen on their way to Iraq via Shannon saw a game of hurling and one of their officers (when they got back) decided it would be a great way to keep the group together (apparently they wouldn't shut up about the sport while they were out there) - so they ordered some kit on the internet and started by watching Youtube videos - spent a couple of years getting trounced every week but I think they're now the intermediate champs in the US?

Jawgap · 01-07-2014 2:21pm

Reekwind wrote: »

..... Nor does it explain why rugby dominated in some countries yet was ignored in other.

Just a note but varsity rugby in the US is huge. It's every bit as vibrant and active as the club and university scene is here and in the UK.

Maybe the likes of rugby and soccer (and to a lesser extent the GAA sports) don't get the coverage they deserve in the US or the coverage that reflects participation levels because they are not TV-friendly enough - i.e. longish periods without breaks into which the ubiquitous commercials can slot.

tac foley · 01-07-2014 2:36pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Cuba

Sports spread for different reasons - I don't think there was sporting imperialism going on.

Thank you - I said as much.

In the case of rugby for example, the French (and to a lesser extent the Italians) adopted that sport in their militaries first as part of officer education.

Rugby was an English invention, as I'm certain you aready know.

I reckon some people probably just saw the Brits playing cricket, rugby, soccer or tennis and thought "Christ but they're sh1te - I reckon we could play that game a lot better than they can".......

.......and by and large they were right - except for rowing, because the British win the Boat Race every year.

Only the British actually run the Boat Race, albeit with oftimes participation of non-British rowers who are students at either of the two British universities. However, I have not noticed o'ermuch participation of anybody from Ireland in either cricket or tennis - or rowing, for that matter. The Ireland rugby team, on the other hand, is a bunch of gentleman players to be proud of.

tac

Jawgap · 01-07-2014 2:58pm

Only the British actually run the Boat Race, albeit with oftimes participation of non-British rowers who are students at either of the two British universities. However, I have not noticed o'ermuch participation of anybody from Ireland in either cricket or tennis - or rowing, for that matter. The Ireland rugby team, on the other hand, is a bunch of gentleman players to be proud of.

Whoa, hold on there! I know it's Canada Day and all that but don't be taking liberties:D

Ireland's cricket team (organised on an all-island basis) is ranked 12th in the ODI rankings and 9th in the 20:20 rankings (one behind England)

We let Enlgand borrow Ed Joyce (to sub in for one K. Pietersen) and Eoin Morgan and Boyd Rankin are currently doing a nice job 'over there.'

we may not be test material (yet) but we're doing ok.

Agree with you on the rugby and interestingly cricket and rugby are, unlike soccer, organised on an all-island basis.

riffmongous · 01-07-2014 3:18pm

Field hockey is also organised on an all-island basis, and I think would also be interesting to look at because of where it's played, Pakistan, India, Australia and the Netherlands spring to mind

Reekwind · 01-07-2014 4:01pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Sports spread for different reasons - I don't think there was sporting imperialism going on.

I think we have to be careful in our terminology here. For example, imperialism has certainly played a role in the spread of sports, in some form or other. On a base level it is unquestionably true that cricket would not be the national sport of India if it weren't for empire. Ditto with baseball in the Philippines. And certainly, football was co-opted by fin de sicile imperialists in Britain. So there is definitely a connection of sorts between sports and imperialism.

But this doesn't necessarily amount to 'sporting imperialism'. In the first place, no one (outside of PE) has ever been forced to play a sport. But then there's never been a need for that. The Victorians had such an impact on sport because they were the first to systematically organise it. Native past-times existed when the British landed in a country but they weren't organised into leagues, with codified laws. Pre-existing games (the GAA being a prime example) had to follow suit just to stay competitive.

Today, when the global sports market is so saturated, what governs a sport's popularity is very different.

Jawgap · 01-07-2014 5:06pm

What I was driving at was an imperial power arriving and forcing an indigenous population to give up it's sporting activities (or suppressing them) in favour of the imperial power's preferred activities - that's what I meant when I spoke about 'sporting imperialism.'

If anything, I think it might work the other way - imperial power arrives, sees the natives playing a game / sport (typically the military are the 'audience' because they're usually first in!) and thinks "that looks like fun" and before you know it they've started playing and codified the game in question- polo, badminton and lacrosse are probably good examples.

Sports going the other way may have been picked up by a form of 'cultural osmosis' where the locals decided to play because the game was fun or novel - or because it became fashionable through association with a local person of importance - or because they were trying to imitate the 'sahibs.'

tac foley · 01-07-2014 6:11pm

Anyone in Ireland play REAL hockey, y'know, on ice?

Not the girly game on that nice soft green stuff you have so much of over there.

tac

Jawgap · 01-07-2014 6:38pm

tac foley wrote: »

Anyone in Ireland play REAL hockey, y'know, on ice?

Not the girly game on that nice soft green stuff you have so much of over there.

tac

www.belfastgiants.com/

To be honest, once you've seen a decent game of hurling, other sports (even ice hockey) can seem a bit slow and small scale.

I mean, going to a game and seeing maybe only half-a-dozen scores? That's a bit pedestrian :pac:

normal.png?1360829911

as they say in parts hereabout "other sports are for people not good enough to play hurling......"

pedroeibar1 · 01-07-2014 11:11pm

It’s a pity really to attempt to gain a political point on the role of imperialism in sport. There is a connection, but other than in Ireland it is not one that features in most countries.

Cricket was very popular throughout Ireland until the foundation of the GAA, JK Bracken & others were keen players. All ‘Foreign games’ were killed by what was perceived as ‘Nationalism’. The GAA was imbued with Nationalism from the outset – the attempted (and successful until overturned by the Church) takeover by the IRB in 1887, the influence of the old Fenians in the subsequent management hierarchy, the aspirations of the ‘old brigade’ all had an impact and led to the ‘Ban’.

Pelota spread throughout the Spanish colonies/spheres of influence and while it once nearly died out (except for the Basques) it was revived in the late 19th c because people liked it.

The English left India more than 60 years ago yet cricket there has gone from strength to strength, because people like it.

‘True’ imperialist sports do have a military flavour because they are a means of training – shooting, riding, polo, pig-sticking, fencing, etc. They are ‘sports’ – the rest are just ‘games’.

Jawgap wrote: »

In the case of rugby for example, the French (and to a lesser extent the Italians) adopted that sport in their militaries first as part of officer education.

Rugby – I disagree with the comment on France – I know nothing about the Italians. In France rugby was a late arrival, and primarily at school (Lycee) level. Lycee Condorcet in Paris was I think the first c 1900. I never heard of it having a military tradition, and when I was a business student there a fellow student, a naval officer, always was amused by the fact that rugby was a ‘snob’ sport in Ireland when it was the opposite in France.

Harry Palmr · 01-07-2014 11:27pm

Manach wrote: »

Empires can be delimited by their actual and their influence limits. In the latter's case this can exceed the territorial boundaries. Case in point, South America for about 50 years was within the British Empire's economic realm. Given the influx of capital and workers into that area, then it would not come as a surprise that football followed trade.

In South America there are clubs who's history and influence is clear - in Argentina alone you have Newell's Old Boys (just won the Argentine title), Arsenal, Banfield, Douglas Haig. Uruguay has a Liverpool (fancy that!) Peru had several though I don't think any still operate.

Jawgap · 02-07-2014 5:49am

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

.....
Rugby – I disagree with the comment on France – I know nothing about the Italians. In France rugby was a late arrival, and primarily at school (Lycee) level. Lycee Condorcet in Paris was I think the first c 1900. I never heard of it having a military tradition, and when I was a business student there a fellow student, a naval officer, always was amused by the fact that rugby was a ‘snob’ sport in Ireland when it was the opposite in France.

The first recognisably rugby club in France was L'Havre founded in 1872. By 1888 there were three clubs in Paris. The game was well established by 1900 because the popularity of the game in the SW of the country is traced back to Stade Bordelais winning of the national championship - to where it was spread by English and Scottish wine merchants. Which is why they talk about rugby appearing from the wine cellars.

From there it's popularity spread through the SW and like New Zealand it became the game of farmers (and vineyard workers). It was also a way to protest against the Catholic Church who made it a sin at one point to play the game. The SW was regarded as quite secular. The reason it didn't spread in places like Brittany was because it was perceived as a Parisian sport and because the people were more loyal to the church.

In the wake of France's defeat in the Franco-Prussian War (1870) the military adopted the game as one way of helping to 'stiffen the backs' of prospective officers.

By the time WW2 rolled around, however, rugby union was on the wane. The national team had, at one point, been bounced from the then Five Nations for thuggery and was suffering from the arrival of League.

When the Germans arrived and the Vichy regime was established, some of the sport's senior administrators took advantage of their close relationship with the pro-Nazi, collaborationists to have League outlawed as a 'corrupter' of French youth.

Funds, stadiums and even kit belonging to League clubs were handed over to Union clubs. In 2002 the French government eventually recognised officially the damage that had been done to Rugby League.

pedroeibar1 · 02-07-2014 12:14pm

Jawgap wrote: »

...........The game was well established by 1900 because the popularity of the game in the SW of the country is traced back to Stade Bordelais winning of the national championship - to where it was spread by English and Scottish wine merchants. Which is why they talk about rugby appearing from the wine cellars.

In the wake of France's defeat in the Franco-Prussian War (1870) the military adopted the game as one way of helping to 'stiffen the backs' of prospective officers.

Thanks Jawgap, but I’m finding it hard to believe that. Other than the article here I cannot find any source that supports that claim. The links I post below tend to disagree with much of what has been written in that article. The St. Cyr site has rugby news but is bereft of its history at that institution. The vast majority of rugby clubs before 1900 were in schools (lycees) or colleges. The Union des Sociétés Françaises des Sports Athlétiques (USFSA), founded in 1889, admitted rugby the following year and 1906 saw the first French international match. There is no doubt that there was French military rugby before 1900, but if it had been promoted as you contend by and for the officer class surely there would have been more than 6 clubs 20 years after the F-P War?

Contrary to what you say about being ‘well established’ there were only 13 clubs in 1900 (almost double that added in the following 5 years.)

Nor am I so sure about the importance of the ‘wine trade’ connection – why then did the game not become popular in Portugal where British links with the wine/port/madeira trade are just as strong (or arguably stronger due to relative size/influence?) I’d suggest that the primary means of dispersal was by students returning to their home towns. Look at the background to the Toulouse club.

Any references to early French military rugby tend to be heavily influenced by the New Zealanders who fought in WWI - first mention of an inter-army match is - 19 April 1919 – France / Nouvelle-Zélande Match entre l’équipe de l’armée néo-zélandaise (qui compte 13 All Blacks) et l’équipe de France militaire. Victoire néo-zélandaise (20-3).

Interesting bit of multi-cultural colonialism, the French Army introduced rugby to Madagascar in +/- 1900

Good board/site with photos on Rugby internationals (players) in WW1 and here

Jawgap · 02-07-2014 2:00pm

French Rugby Football: A Cultural History by Philip Dine gives a well rounded explanation of how the game developed through France in the wake of the Franco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune.....and how it spread through the clubs (and the schools).......

Like the industrial and agrarian revolutions, modern sports came late to France, and it is only with the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 that the era of the new games can be said to have begun. Yet it will be argued that French rugby football draws for its vitality on much deeper roots, and particularly on the traditional social structures of the south and west.

A lot of the clubs were founded by old boys of the lycees, it's true so I'd imagine that when you finished your education you gravitated towards playing for your old boys' club rather than setting one up from new.

As early as 1892 English teams were crossing to tour in France and in 1893 French teams were heading the other way.

I don't think I said it was promoted by the military, I think I said it was spread by them. Plus, while it was a significant factor, it wasn't the only one. Dine also has an interesting discussion on the role railways played in spreading the game.

In respect of the wine trade he has this to say...

The presence in Bordeaux, the centre of France’s wine trade, of a large British colony was a major factor in the game’s rapid expansion, with new clubs being set up on a regular basis.

eire4 · 02-07-2014 3:35pm

Balmed Out wrote: »

Im not so sure, if you were to exclude Africa there really aren't plenty of exceptions.
The whole weather reasoning with cricket etc doesnt add up as theres far too many exceptions in other countries. I still think there must have been some sort of social ladder climbing involved in the popularity of certain sports with soccer perhaps viewed as a poor mans game.

But you cannot exclude Africa especially given how many countries in Africa were at one point victims of British imperialism. Then there is India another massive country.

tac foley · 02-07-2014 3:52pm

eire4 wrote: »

But you cannot exclude Africa especially given how many countries in Africa were at one point victims of British imperialism. Then there is India another massive country.

Yadder, yadder. Them bl**dy British imperialists again. :rolleyes:

You seem to have overlooked the French, Germans, Portuguese and the Belgians in Africa in your antipathy toward things British. Nearly forgot those nice Dutch folks, too, down at the bottom. AND the Arabs, of course, who until very recently plundered Africa for its people. Swahili is not a naturally-occurring language, y'know - it is the language invented by the Arabs to carry out the slave trade all over Africa.

Just be grateful that YOU weren't occupied by the Romans - by now you would have all killed each in gladiatorial games like we all have.

Hold on a minute, we actually haven't.....

You have already had your answer about India - AND Pakistan - AND Bangladesh.

Cricket thrives in all three countries.

Enough with bashing those 'British imperialists', eh? This thread is turning into yet another 'bloody Brits to blame' again diatribe of totally unnecessary antipathy.

tac

InTheTrees · 04-07-2014 4:41am

Jawgap wrote: »

In the States, soccer does not enjoy the same profile as American Football, baseball and basketball,

I believe Football or soccer (MLS) has now beaten Basketball (NBA) in attendance numbers which is great. Also beating the NHL which used to occupy fourth place.

We've had matches here in Seattle with a little over 60,000. Home matches usually sell out around 35,000.

So the MLS (Major league soccer) is growing Fast.

InTheTrees · 04-07-2014 5:47am

Jawgap wrote: »

Well one of their teams seems to win the "World" Series every year, so it's only natural to make a big deal of something where you beat every other team in the world.......every year

A little crazy. Considering Baseball is really popular in Japan and they dont participate in the "world" series.

But there's nothing new about that. America is isolationist. They dont like competing in any international competitions. In anything.

You should hear the right wingers ranting about the Olympics. You'd think its some kind of communist plot.

Jawgap · 04-07-2014 5:56am

InTheTrees wrote: »

A little crazy. Considering Baseball is really popular in Japan and they dont participate in the "world" series.

But there's nothing new about that. America is isolationist. They dont like competing in any international competitions. In anything.

You should hear the right wingers ranting about the Olympics. You'd think its some kind of communist plot.

I've in laws who are American (and are great people) but the their 'worldview' is indeed very narrow.

In fairness, some Canadian teams do play in the World Series.

It'll be interesting to see how much of a sustained lift MLS gets in the wake of the World Cup.

InTheTrees · 04-07-2014 6:05am

riffmongous wrote: »

Well I was never at a proper baseball game yet, but watching it on tv has the opposite effect on me Although in fairness I wouldnt bother watching a really one sided or boring game of cricket either (or any sport for that matter), but in most games there seems to me to be a lot more tactical and skill depth to cricket. Possibly a bias due to having played a good bit more of cricket, but the Times I tried baseball it felt like going from playing chess to checkers in what you could do as a batter.

I played a lot of cricket as a kid. Its fun to play.

I've also got into Baseball and been to many many games.

Baseball can be very very boring. A match can go on for 4 hours with little scoring. And when little happens in Baseball its not like little happening in Football.

The 20/20 and Baseball similarity is pretty accurate, its relaxed kind of affair that builds in excitement.

InTheTrees · 04-07-2014 6:21am

Jawgap wrote: »

I've in laws who are American (and are great people) but the their 'worldview' is indeed very narrow.

In fairness, some Canadian teams do play in the World Series.

It'll be interesting to see how much of a sustained lift MLS gets in the wake of the World Cup.

I'm not american so no need to be delicate!

Yes, there's the Toronto BlueJays And Montreal Expos. There's also the World Baseball Classic every four years which is like a world cup for Baseball so the US gets to compete against south american and japanese teams. The Dutch and Australians are always surprisingly good. Very little hype for it in the US though, the whole comcept of a "national" team is very alien to americans.

I read that ratings for this years world cup in the US are up 68% which is remarkable. It helps that its in the same time zone so the games are at reasonable times.

And the MLS is now beating basketball and hockey in attendance numbers so the tend is certainly up and this world cup will certainly help.

The British Empire and the popularity of Football

Comments