valoren wrote: » It has to be the summer Olympics. It is the 'World Championship' of each sport condensed into a 2 week schedule, a festival of sport. The world cup is two weeks of sorting the wheat from the chaff until the final two weeks with the business end of the knock out stages where **** get's real, a festival of just one sport.
Hurrache wrote: » The World Cup obviously. It won't fit on most people's mantelpiece, whereas you just get a small medal, maybe some flowers, for the Olympics.
2smiggy wrote: » the Olympics, some thing great to watch every day. today at the world cup you have costa rica vs brazil, nigeria vs iceland and serbia vs switzerland. Most days just really crap fixtures. they want to increase it to 48 teams also. imagine how bad it will be then !
Putinbot wrote: » Olympics by a mile. Every country in the world will have at least one athlete representing them in some sport or other with a chance of winning a medal. In the world cup you only have 32 nations with an interest and realistically only about 4-6 of them with a genuine chance of winning the thing. Ditto for rugby. 20 teams with only 3-4 with a chance of winning.
rickis tache wrote: » Ploughing Championships.....
satguy wrote: » 1. World Cup 2. Olympics 3. Rugby World Cup 4. UEFA European Championship 5. ?
sabat wrote: » 211 countries entered this world cup, probably more than the Olympics...
Tom Mann Centuria wrote: » The World Cup, because once you've won your medal you keep it. The Olympics is all about finishing 4th and waiting by your phone for subsequent doping violations.
Billy86 wrote: » I'm a big rugby fan, but the RWC is light years behind the euros or CL for how big an overall event it is. NFL and NBA would also be a good deal ahead, if I'm correct the superbowl is typically the most watched sporting event in the world almost any year there isn't a world cup on.
CalamariFritti wrote: » World Cup is bigger. No doubt. Most people don’t give a sh1t about most of the disciplines in the Olympics. Same with rugby. It’s biggish in the Anglo sphere but outside that no one cares.
selwyn froggitt wrote: » The Tour de France is well up there with TV audiences. Not only that, it is also the best-attended annual sporting event on the planet.
shakeitoff wrote: » NFL is a niche interest. Nobody on mainland Europe gives a **** about it and only a few lads here feign interest every February. Tom Brady would walk down a street in Paris and nobody would have a clue who he was. Similar to every single rugby player. Although NFL is far bigger than rugby simply due to America culture being the most prominent world culture. Rugby will probably die out over the next few decades, in Australia its popularity is severely waning and when the full extent of the damage it incurs on the body that will be rugby's time over.
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » The figures I see for live viewership are 1) football WC = 1B 2) rugby WC = 120 B 3) NFL final = 111B (us) 4) Euro’s = 110B (Europe) I know the last two are limited to the US and Europe only but that’s what mr google told me. As for the NFL there may be some interest outside the US for the live transmission but not much. These are one off events. You can’t compare the Olympics because there’s no one event (100 metres aside) that attracts lots of viewers. If you are going to add up all the Olympic viewers across all the tournament then why not sum all the World Cup games. That’s apples and oranges.