RealGM

basketball is a fairly popular sport all thinghs considered but in most of the world it simply doesnt hold a candle to soccer/popular regional sport (rugby,cricket, baseball, handball) in reach

is it just what it is or are there thinghs peeventing the gane from truly exploding worldwide?

is it lack of simplicity/accesibility (unlikely since is a relatively cheap sport to play)?

or is the lack of popular nationals teams competition driving popularity?

or a perception that is a game for giants and hyper athletes and "normal" people are not cut for it?

what stopped the game from gaining a bigger presence in non usa countries (besides Lituania, philipines, china and maybe some other i am forgetting)?

Because of football and because of bias for taller men.

To be fair though, basketball is extremely popular sport. Arguably 2nd most popular team sport in the world.

70sFan wrote:Because of football and because of bias for taller men.

To be fair though, basketball is extremely popular sport. Arguably 2nd most popular team sport in the world.

.what i find interesting are the odd cases

philippines is a short country that loves basketball the most even though their genetic pool is as basketball unfriendly as it gets

canada has the same conditions as northern usa where basketball became popular as a winter indoors sport but it had fairly limited popularity for the most part

the báltics love for the game instead of soccer/fútbol as all their neighbours is also interesting

I'd argue of US/North America "invented" team sports (including modified sports from rugby, rounders, hockey) basketball has done the best globally.

US probably didn't have the imperialistic opportunity to seed games like cricket or Rugby (mainly Union code) got from Britain.

But I think it's generally 2nd to football/soccer/calcio despite mostly being behind other sports in the US because it's easy to access (dribbling is possible with just a ball, passing with a friend or even a wall though a makeshift hoop is tougher to do well than football goal) and simple to understand.

I don't think the US generally exported sports well and maybe didn't try to (and some calling champs "World Champions" probably didn't help, though whether this is cause or effect could be argued) but since home video and enough status in the US to generate interest elsewhere basketball seems (without looking it up) to have boomed internationally.

soccer is generally more skill-based than basketball imo. not that soccer players aren't often unbelievably fast & athletic with ideal frames and what not, but spending your youth honing their skills in camps and academies is often a big part of their success. the massive relevance of height in basketball is hard to ignore. however the rise in shooting and "flashiness" i think will contribute to increased global popularity

but yeah basketball is still super popular worldwide. compare it to (american) football - by far the most popular sport in the USA but outside of it? pretty irrelevant lol.

soccer has the smallest barrier to play of any sport (you just need a ball lol). i think basketball isn't particularly difficult to play either, and i know the NBA has projects to build courts across africa and stuff like that, so that should help as well

i think it would help if other countries had a basketball star in the US. i hope to see more asians make it big, especially south asians (dont think there has been a successful south asian player) but AFAIK that's also the shortest region on the planet so..

How sports became attractive in the first play is interesting? Sometimes it is easy to answer. Canada is really cold. Hockey took the place of soccer. Other times it is a product of international politics. Baseball is popular in Japan/Korea/DR because of US foreign policy. Soccer's global spread is heavily due to European imperialism.

But I think most of popularity is path dependence. For whatever reason a sport became established and that is that.

And basketball is extremely successful all things considered. It only seems like an outlier in comparison to soccer which is far more popular than any sport in the world

Cause football is the better sport of the two.

Jaivl wrote:Cause football is the better sport of the two.

respectfully disagree good sir , and i am from a futbol country too

Jaivl wrote:Cause football is the better sport of the two.

Ice Hockey is the improved version.

Basketball's global popularity is primarily the result of the neoliberalism and globalization of the 80s and 90s. It's done pretty well considering it's a relatively new sport and how much competition there is from other worldwide sports with more established histories and cultural footprints. Why hasn't it done better? Well inter-capitalist competition is always going to exist as long as capitalism, and more specifically imperialism, exists. Read Lenin if you're really interested.

Jaivl wrote:Cause football is the better sport of the two.

These two are decent, but rugby is the ultimate team sport (even if I don't have half the knowledge compared to basketball, it's so amazing).

fjd0913 wrote:Basketball's global popularity is primarily the result of the neoliberalism and globalization of the 80s and 90s. It's done pretty well considering it's a relatively new sport and how much competition there is from other worldwide sports with more established histories and cultural footprints. Why hasn't it done better? Well inter-capitalist competition is always going to exist as long as capitalism, and more specifically imperialism, exists. Read Lenin if you're really interested.

Any particular Lenin writing you think apply to basketball?

Not a fan of Marxist critiques of sports generally; they seem to try to shoehorn facts into a set of preconceived results rather than going where the information points but always interested to try something different.

Basketball is relatively young, with sports like soccer and cricket already having generational roots by the time it had a chance to be popular.

70sFan wrote:

Jaivl wrote:Cause football is the better sport of the two.

These two are decent, but rugby is the ultimate team sport (even if I don't have half the knowledge compared to basketball, it's so amazing).

did american/gridiron football evolve from rugby? or are the similitudes coincidental?

as far as í understand they are similar but rugby has less protections so players are less agressive tackling for safety reasons

It's doing about as well it can do. I think basketall is a clear second in team sports around the world, NBA players have a good showing on most well-paid athletes lists as well as most social media followers (and NBA players would probably get a big boost if you consider a big portion of China's population is on its own social media)

I think it’s massively popular around the globe and you can thank stern and MJ who really pushed the sport globally.

penbeast0 wrote:

fjd0913 wrote:Basketball's global popularity is primarily the result of the neoliberalism and globalization of the 80s and 90s. It's done pretty well considering it's a relatively new sport and how much competition there is from other worldwide sports with more established histories and cultural footprints. Why hasn't it done better? Well inter-capitalist competition is always going to exist as long as capitalism, and more specifically imperialism, exists. Read Lenin if you're really interested.

Any particular Lenin writing you think apply to basketball?

Not a fan of Marxist critiques of sports generally; they seem to try to shoehorn facts into a set of preconceived results rather than going where the information points but always interested to try something different.

"Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism" to understand the NBA as a business. Marx's writings on religion and ideology to understand basketball, and sports more generally, as a cultural phenomenon under capitalism. Adorno and the Frankfurt School are good for the latter as well.

Because by the time people tried bringing basketball to worldwide markets there were already entrenched competitors

falcolombardi wrote:

70sFan wrote:

Jaivl wrote:Cause football is the better sport of the two.

These two are decent, but rugby is the ultimate team sport (even if I don't have half the knowledge compared to basketball, it's so amazing).

did american/gridiron football evolve from rugby? or are the similitudes coincidental?

as far as í understand they are similar but rugby has less protections so players are less agressive tackling for safety reasons

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: That would also be yes. I've played both sports. Love them both. American football put me through college while my oldest daughter played rugby for four years in college. The training is somewhat similar. Both sports require body-types for certain positions that are not common in the gene pool, so that similarity is shared with basketball.

SkyHookFTW wrote:

falcolombardi wrote:

70sFan wrote:These two are decent, but rugby is the ultimate team sport (even if I don't have half the knowledge compared to basketball, it's so amazing).

did american/gridiron football evolve from rugby? or are the similitudes coincidental?

as far as í understand they are similar but rugby has less protections so players are less agressive tackling for safety reasons

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: That would also be yes. I've played both sports. Love them both. American football put me through college while my oldest daughter played rugby for four years in college. The training is somewhat similar. Both sports require body-types for certain positions that are not common in the gene pool, so that similarity is shared with basketball.

Wide and muscular? i suppose ir depends in positions right (i have heard that polinesyan people body types are uniquelt suited for rugby/football)

basketball/volleyball (really tall and long people with great hops)

football/rugby (wide and explosive speed people)

gymnastics (short and somewhat thin but strong people)

swimming (long torso, tall, long limbs)

are there other sports thsy benefits from very specific bodies?