Gold Medalist Questions the NBA Champs Being Deemed "World" Champs

[JonFromVA]

The NBA plays in the US and Canada, but it is truly a world league consisting of the best players from around the world. Until this changes, I see nothing wrong with random 3rd parties using this term. As far as I know the NBA itself does not.

The FIBA/Olympic championships are just an exhibition meant to help popularize the sport wrapped around each nation's flag to fool people in to caring about it. If all we had were national teams and they played together full time and got their salary from the competitions, it would be something else, but it's not.

What the f*** did I just read here? Olympic games just an exibition ment to help popularize the sport wrapped around each nation's flag. Your view here is extremely skewered and indicates a lack of knowledge of the Olympics in general. Almost all nations in the World ( barring political issues) attempt to qualify for the Olympic games in any sport. Almost every athlete in the world dreams of winning a gold medal in the Olympics.
What about the values of the Olympics and the philosophy and views they promote. I guess you are not too familiar with the history of the Olympics and the ideals they promote to word your argument in the manner of " fooling people into caring by using national flags". Once again, I am truly surprised by this view

I was only speaking of how the NBA views these games and why their athletes are allowed to compete. The "ideals" the Olympics promote were ill-conceived and corrupted a long-long time ago.

[Nuntius]

I was referring to the league itself in it's official documentation (aka nba.com), what teams feel like doing is apparently up to them, their owners, their marketing department and varies.

Sure but the way that the NBA is set up (teams are franchises and the NBA commissioner answers to the owners) the teams and the league aren't really independent. They are co-dependent.

Still, nothing wrong with it until there's some other competition or league with a more legit claim.

There's nothing wrong with it indeed. It's just not really accurate is all.

The NBA Champion IS the best basketball club in the world for that year, that is absolutely true and no one is denying that.

That doesn't really mean that they are the World Champion, though. To be the World Champion, you need to participate in a World Championship and win this.

NBA teams would definitely win this kind of championship if it existed for high-level teams (LuDux1 did point out that such a championship does exist but NBA and EuroLeague teams do not participate in it due to their animosity with FIBA so it's a moot point) but it simply doesn't exist.

None of that means that the NBA Champion isn't the best basketball club in the world for that given year. They absolutely are.

[Quattro]

I don’t know how the NBA can be so presumtuous as to call themselves world champs when a guy like Rondae Hollis Jefferson doesn’t even play in the league!

[Slot Machine]

Soccer Clubs like Barcelona & Real Madrid assemble the best talent in the world and are usually better than any other club in the world, but don’t call themselves world champions when they win.

It’s an American center of the universe way of thinking

If the Champions League winner called themselves world champions, that would definitely be accurate. Or would you consider that inaccurate since they haven’t played the MLS champs?

[Nuntius]

Soccer Clubs like Barcelona & Real Madrid assemble the best talent in the world and are usually better than any other club in the world, but don’t call themselves world champions when they win.

It’s an American center of the universe way of thinking

If the Champions League winner called themselves world champions, that would definitely be accurate. Or would you consider that inaccurate since they haven’t played the MLS champs?

The Champions League winner calling themselves world champions would be as inaccurate as the NBA Champions calling themselves world champions. In another words, it wouldn't be accurate at all.

You know who could call themselves the world champion in association football at the club level? The winner of the FIFA Club World Club. That is a club competition where the respective winner of each continental competition competes against one another. It is a world championship. The winner of that cup can indeed call themselves the world champion.

[JonFromVA]

I was referring to the league itself in it's official documentation (aka nba.com), what teams feel like doing is apparently up to them, their owners, their marketing department and varies.

Sure but the way that the NBA is set up (teams are franchises and the NBA commissioner answers to the owners) the teams and the league aren't really independent. They are co-dependent.

Still, nothing wrong with it until there's some other competition or league with a more legit claim.

There's nothing wrong with it indeed. It's just not really accurate is all.

The NBA Champion IS the best basketball club in the world for that year, that is absolutely true and no one is denying that.

That doesn't really mean that they are the World Champion, though. To be the World Champion, you need to participate in a World Championship and win this.

NBA teams would definitely win this kind of championship if it existed for high-level teams (LuDux1 did point out that such a championship does exist but NBA and EuroLeague teams do not participate in it due to their animosity with FIBA so it's a moot point) but it simply doesn't exist.

None of that means that the NBA Champion isn't the best basketball club in the world for that given year. They absolutely are.

The NBA championship meets the minimum requirements for a world championship because it involves the best basketball players from around the world.

FIBA comes up short here.

If you want to say such a championship should only include teams made up of players from a single nation, well FIBA comes up short there too.

Simply holding a supposed championship is not sufficient.

When we talk about an NBA Champion, we know they survive a regular season, a playoff, and a 7 game finals .vs. another top team. When we talk about a FIBA or Oympic Champion we know they survived a FIBA tournament and won a single game in an final elimination.

Everything else is only meaningful if we respect what the winner achieved. We didn't necessarily discover the best basketball team, but hey, let's pretend we did because it's fun.

[Nuntius]

You can keep saying that "most" people...which is an arbitrary term. But you can neither back that opinion up nor would it really mean much. If you could argue that an overwhelming majority, 90% plus, then sure. But I think you'd have a really hard time making a case that the NBA champion is not the world champ to the majority of people on this planet. Now, I'm also guessing, but I'd be willing to bet more people in the world know about the NBA than the FIBA world basketball tournament. Mind you...if you want a majority of people, you really are just saying "we need a majority of china and india..."

My friend, you are the one who is using your own personal definition here. You are quite literally making it up as you go. I am just using the definition that everyone else (including pretty much every sporting federation around the world across a multitude of different sports) uses.

Just like someone does not need to prove that the sky is blue, I do not need to use that a World Championship actually needs to contain teams from all around the world. It's self-evident.

You have every right to disagree with everyone else and use your own personal definition but you're trying to force it on others here and, well, that's just not how it goes.

PS: And for the umpteenth team, you seem to be thinking that world champion just means "best team in the world". It doesn't. They are two different things. The NBA champion IS the best team in the world. No one is ever saying otherwise. But they aren't the world champion because simply they have not participated in a world championship.

[Evenacus]

The NBA plays in the US and Canada, but it is truly a world league consisting of the best players from around the world. Until this changes, I see nothing wrong with random 3rd parties using this term. As far as I know the NBA itself does not.

The FIBA/Olympic championships are just an exhibition meant to help popularize the sport wrapped around each nation's flag to fool people in to caring about it. If all we had were national teams and they played together full time and got their salary from the competitions, it would be something else, but it's not.

What the f*** did I just read here? Olympic games just an exibition ment to help popularize the sport wrapped around each nation's flag. Your view here is extremely skewered and indicates a lack of knowledge of the Olympics in general. Almost all nations in the World ( barring political issues) attempt to qualify for the Olympic games in any sport. Almost every athlete in the world dreams of winning a gold medal in the Olympics.
What about the values of the Olympics and the philosophy and views they promote. I guess you are not too familiar with the history of the Olympics and the ideals they promote to word your argument in the manner of " fooling people into caring by using national flags". Once again, I am truly surprised by this view

I was only speaking of how the NBA views these games and why their athletes are allowed to compete. The "ideals" the Olympics promote were ill-conceived and corrupted a long-long time ago.

USA basketball association values Olympics greatly, at least they rate it higher then World Cup. NBA is run on profit and entertainment, so their views of the Olympics are invalid per se.
Care to elaborate about those "ill concieved" and "corrupted" ideals? Why is that so? What is wrong in having a global competition between different athletes once every four years. Old Greeks were really corupted when they started them and that French guy Coubertain looked to revive something corrupted and ill concieved because it is such a bad idea?
People are corrupt, ideals are not, I am talking ideals, 5 rings, importance of participation and giving the best of yourself, push yourself beyond what was/ is thought possible.

[Nuntius]

I was referring to the league itself in it's official documentation (aka nba.com), what teams feel like doing is apparently up to them, their owners, their marketing department and varies.

Sure but the way that the NBA is set up (teams are franchises and the NBA commissioner answers to the owners) the teams and the league aren't really independent. They are co-dependent.

Still, nothing wrong with it until there's some other competition or league with a more legit claim.

There's nothing wrong with it indeed. It's just not really accurate is all.

The NBA Champion IS the best basketball club in the world for that year, that is absolutely true and no one is denying that.

That doesn't really mean that they are the World Champion, though. To be the World Champion, you need to participate in a World Championship and win this.

NBA teams would definitely win this kind of championship if it existed for high-level teams (LuDux1 did point out that such a championship does exist but NBA and EuroLeague teams do not participate in it due to their animosity with FIBA so it's a moot point) but it simply doesn't exist.

None of that means that the NBA Champion isn't the best basketball club in the world for that given year. They absolutely are.

The NBA championship meets the minimum requirements for a world championship because it involves the best basketball players from around the world.

FIBA comes up short here.

If you want to say such a championship should only include teams made up of players from a single nation, well FIBA comes up short there too.

Simply holding a supposed championship is not sufficient.

When we talk about an NBA Champion, we know they survive a regular season, a playoff, and a 7 game finals .vs. another top team. When we talk about a FIBA or Oympic Champion we know they survived a FIBA tournament and won a single game in an final elimination.

Everything else is only meaningful if we respect what the winner achieved. We didn't necessarily discover the best basketball team, but hey, let's pretend we did because it's fun.

No, the NBA doesn't meet the minimum requirements for a world championship.

The minimum requirement for a world championship in a team sport is that it includes teams from every continent. The NBA doesn't. It only includes teams from two nations and a single continent. The NBA is a continental championship, not a world championship.

That doesn't mean that the NBA Champion isn't the best basketball club in the world, of course. They absolutely are. And if a world championship for high-level club basketball existed, NBA teams would 100% dominate that championship and win 98% of the time. It's only because such a championship doesn't exist that the NBA Champion cannot accurately be called a World Champion.

No one is disputing that the NBA is the best basketball league in the world. It quite simply isn't the whole world on its own. No single country or continent is the whole world on its own.

[JonFromVA]

Soccer Clubs like Barcelona & Real Madrid assemble the best talent in the world and are usually better than any other club in the world, but don’t call themselves world champions when they win.

It’s an American center of the universe way of thinking

If the Champions League winner called themselves world champions, that would definitely be accurate. Or would you consider that inaccurate since they haven’t played the MLS champs?

I'd say no need to consider the MLS unless there was a reasonable chance a team from the MLS might win it all.

Heck, apparently boxing is up to 4 different sanctioning bodies all declaring their own champions of the world. In some weight classes there are literally 4 different champions.

[Frank Dux]

A lot of people may not like what Lyles said, but track and field needs this. Since Bolt retired, their hasn’t been a superstar sprinter on the men’s side who can draw viewers and headlines.

Lyles is the real deal, he actually has a shot at Bolt’s 200m record. I’m happy to see him stir the pot, and bring attention towards his sport.

[JonFromVA]

Sure but the way that the NBA is set up (teams are franchises and the NBA commissioner answers to the owners) the teams and the league aren't really independent. They are co-dependent.



There's nothing wrong with it indeed. It's just not really accurate is all.

The NBA Champion IS the best basketball club in the world for that year, that is absolutely true and no one is denying that.

That doesn't really mean that they are the World Champion, though. To be the World Champion, you need to participate in a World Championship and win this.

NBA teams would definitely win this kind of championship if it existed for high-level teams (LuDux1 did point out that such a championship does exist but NBA and EuroLeague teams do not participate in it due to their animosity with FIBA so it's a moot point) but it simply doesn't exist.

None of that means that the NBA Champion isn't the best basketball club in the world for that given year. They absolutely are.

The NBA championship meets the minimum requirements for a world championship because it involves the best basketball players from around the world.

FIBA comes up short here.

If you want to say such a championship should only include teams made up of players from a single nation, well FIBA comes up short there too.

Simply holding a supposed championship is not sufficient.

When we talk about an NBA Champion, we know they survive a regular season, a playoff, and a 7 game finals .vs. another top team. When we talk about a FIBA or Oympic Champion we know they survived a FIBA tournament and won a single game in an final elimination.

Everything else is only meaningful if we respect what the winner achieved. We didn't necessarily discover the best basketball team, but hey, let's pretend we did because it's fun.

No, the NBA doesn't meet the minimum requirements for a world championship.

The minimum requirement for a world championship in a team sport is that it includes teams from every continent. The NBA doesn't. It only includes teams from two nations and a single continent. The NBA is a continental championship, not a world championship.

That doesn't mean that the NBA Champion isn't the best basketball club in the world, of course. They absolutely are. And if a world championship for high-level club basketball existed, NBA teams would 100% dominate that championship and win 98% of the time. It's only because such a championship doesn't exist that the NBA Champion cannot accurately be called a World Champion.

No one is disputing that the NBA is the best basketball league in the world. It quite simply isn't the whole world on its own. No single country or continent is the whole world on its own.

You're welcome to express your own opinion based on whichever definition you prefer, but yours is not the only definition.

[Mirotic12]

To borrow soccer terms, it's not crazy to call the NBA champion the World Club champion by default, even if there isn't an official competition. The NBA may only have teams in North America but it's got the best players from around the world. Why compare with national teams when that's something else altogether?

The problem is that there actually IS an official world club championship though.

There was an actual world club championship as early as the 1960s, called FIBA World Club Championship / FIBA Intercontinental Cup. That was the officially recognized world club championship of basketball. The NBA never wanted to play in it.

But the NBA wanted to continue to have their league champions be called "world champions". That's when they started the McDonald's Open championship. And eventually, it turned into a full world championship, with champion teams form leagues on different continents. So the team that won that was officially considered the world cub champion.

However, after the NBA had several near losses in that tournament, they ended it. So as that ended, there was no longer a world club champion. Then FIBA brought back the FIBA Intercontinental Cup, which crowns an actual official world club champion. But the NBA refuses to take part in it, and instead sends the G-League champions as the NBA representative. So therefore, because they refuse to take part in it, the NBA champions cannot officially be considered the world club champion, as the actual official world club champion is the team that wins the Intercontinental Cup.

The Intercontinental Cup has the champions from Africa, Latin America, and Asia, and supposedly will soon be adding the champions from Oceania. They currently ban the champions from Europe, the EuroLeague champions, because of the FIBA - EuroLeague dispute. But supposedly, that is finally coming to an end soon, and so the EuroLeague teams would be back in it. For now, the FIBA Basketball Champions League winners represent Europe. So a champion from a second tier European league.

On the other hand, North America's representative, the NBA, refuses to send the NBA champions, and instead sends the G-League champions to represent them. Therefore, they forfeit the right to a claim of being the official club world champions.

Interestingly enough, the G-League teams, have lost every single game they have played at the world tournament, except for they once beat a team from Africa. They have lost every single game to teams from the second tier European league, and to teams from Latin America. And all of the losses were pretty much blowout losses.

If the NBA wants to be able to claim its league winners are the world club champions, then they HAVE to play at the FIBA Intercontinental Cup and win it. Otherwise, no, they are not at all considered the world club champions. Regardless of some NBA players apparently getting their feelings hurt about that.

The NBA is purposely refusing to play at the official world club championship, therefore they forfeit the right to claim their league's winners to be the club world champions.

So the argument that the NBA winners can claim they are world club champions, because no world club tournament exists isn't correct. There is an official world club championship, and the NBA is bound to it by FIBA, as the rep for North America. The NBA refuses to send the NBA champs to it, and send the G-League champs instead. It's the NBA that is refusing to take part in it, and that is dodging it. It's not that a world championship for clubs does not exist, it's that the NBA refuses to acknowledge it. And it's actually really embarrassing for the G-League teams, because the teams from the secondary European league and Latin America just destroy the G-league teams at the tournament.

[Nuntius]

The NBA championship meets the minimum requirements for a world championship because it involves the best basketball players from around the world.

FIBA comes up short here.

If you want to say such a championship should only include teams made up of players from a single nation, well FIBA comes up short there too.

Simply holding a supposed championship is not sufficient.

When we talk about an NBA Champion, we know they survive a regular season, a playoff, and a 7 game finals .vs. another top team. When we talk about a FIBA or Oympic Champion we know they survived a FIBA tournament and won a single game in an final elimination.

Everything else is only meaningful if we respect what the winner achieved. We didn't necessarily discover the best basketball team, but hey, let's pretend we did because it's fun.

No, the NBA doesn't meet the minimum requirements for a world championship.

The minimum requirement for a world championship in a team sport is that it includes teams from every continent. The NBA doesn't. It only includes teams from two nations and a single continent. The NBA is a continental championship, not a world championship.

That doesn't mean that the NBA Champion isn't the best basketball club in the world, of course. They absolutely are. And if a world championship for high-level club basketball existed, NBA teams would 100% dominate that championship and win 98% of the time. It's only because such a championship doesn't exist that the NBA Champion cannot accurately be called a World Champion.

No one is disputing that the NBA is the best basketball league in the world. It quite simply isn't the whole world on its own. No single country or continent is the whole world on its own.

You're welcome to express your own opinion based on whichever definition you prefer, but yours is not the only definition.

I'm just using the definition that sports federations around the world use. Nothing more, nothing less. You are free to use your own personal definitions.

[NZB2323]

Were the NBA champions called World Champions while the ABA was around?

[dhsilv2]

You can keep saying that "most" people...which is an arbitrary term. But you can neither back that opinion up nor would it really mean much. If you could argue that an overwhelming majority, 90% plus, then sure. But I think you'd have a really hard time making a case that the NBA champion is not the world champ to the majority of people on this planet. Now, I'm also guessing, but I'd be willing to bet more people in the world know about the NBA than the FIBA world basketball tournament. Mind you...if you want a majority of people, you really are just saying "we need a majority of china and india..."

My friend, you are the one who is using your own personal definition here. You are quite literally making it up as you go. I am just using the definition that everyone else (including pretty much every sporting federation around the world across a multitude of different sports) uses.

Just like someone does not need to prove that the sky is blue, I do not need to use that a World Championship actually needs to contain teams from all around the world. It's self-evident.

You have every right to disagree with everyone else and use your own personal definition but you're trying to force it on others here and, well, that's just not how it goes.

PS: And for the umpteenth team, you seem to be thinking that world champion just means "best team in the world". It doesn't. They are two different things. The NBA champion IS the best team in the world. No one is ever saying otherwise. But they aren't the world champion because simply they have not participated in a world championship.

The NBA champ has been known as the world champ as long as nearly anyone here has been alive! You can keep trying to change these meanings. It won't change that.

And yes the world champion is the best in the world. That is what the term means. Think about that...the world champion 200 mete sprinter gets interviewed.

"So where do you think in terms of best 200 meter runners in the world?"

"oh as world champ, I'm like the 50th best"

And you think I'M changing? Now world champion isn't even the best team. Talk about bragging rights and changing the meaning of words.

[Mickey8]

To borrow soccer terms, it's not crazy to call the NBA champion the World Club champion by default, even if there isn't an official competition. The NBA may only have teams in North America but it's got the best players from around the world. Why compare with national teams when that's something else altogether?

The problem is that there actually IS an official world club championship though.

There was an actual world club championship as early as the 1960s, called FIBA World Club Championship / FIBA Intercontinental Cup. That was the legaly recognized world club championship of basketball. The NBA never wanted to play in it.

But the NBA wanted to continue to have their league champions be called "world champions". That's when they started the McDonald's Open championship. And eventually, it turned into a full world championship, with champion teams form leagues on different continents. So the team that won that was legally considered the world cub champion.

However, after the NBA had several near losses in that tournament, they ended it. So as that ended, there was no longer a world club champion. Then FIBA brought back the FIBA Intercontinental Cup, which crowns an actual world club champion. But the NBA refuses to take part in it, and instead sends the G-League champions as the NBA representative. So therefore, because they refuse to take part in it, the NBA champions cannot legally be considered the world club champion, as the actual legal world club champion is the team that wins the Intercontinental Cup.

The Intercontinental Cup has the champions from Africa, Latin America, and Asia, and supposedly will soon be adding the champions from Oceania. They currently ban the champions from Europe, the EuroLeague champions, because of the FIBA - EuroLeague dispute. But supposedly, that is finally coming to an end soon, and so the EuroLeague teams would be back in it. For now, the FIBA Basketball Champions League winners represent Europe. So a champion from a second tier European league,

On the other hand, North America's representative, the NBA, refuses to send the NBA champions, and instead sends the G-League champions to represent them. Therefore, they forfeit the right to a legal claim of being club world champions.

Interestingly enough, the G-League teams, have lost every single game they have played at the world tournament, except for they once beat a team from Africa. They have lost every single game to teams from the second tier European league, and to teams from Latin America. And all of the losses were pretty much blowout losses.

If the NBA wants to be able to claim its league winners are the world club champions, then they HAVE to play at the FIBA Intercontinental Cup and win it. Otherwise, no, they are not at all considered the world club champions. Regardless of some NBA players apparently getting their feelings hurt about that. The hilarious thing about it is that since FIBA has been banning EuroLeague teams from the FIBA Intercontinental Cup, the NBA teams would have nothing to worry about at the tournament.

But by not playing at it, time is going to go by, the EuroLeague teams will be allowed back in it, the teams from Australia's league will join, and then yeah, the NBA will have a way harder time to actually tin it, if they played in it. Because the EuroLeague champion teams are way, way, better than teams from the FIBA BCL and the FIBA BCL Americas, and those teams are always blowing out the G-League teams. And those are total scrub teams compared to good EuroLeague clubs.

The NBA is purposely refusing to play at the official world club championship, therefore they forfeit the right to claim their league's winners to be the club world champions.

So the argument that the NBA winners can claim they are world club champions, because no world club tournament exists isn't correct. There is an official world club championship, and the NBA is bound to it by FIBA, as the rep for North America. The NBA refuses to send the NBA champs. to it, and send the G-League champs instead. It's the NBA that is refusing to take part in it, and that is dodging it. It's not that a world championship for clubs does not exist, it's that the NBA refuses to acknowledge it. And it's actually really embarrassing for the G-League teams, because the teams from Europe and Latin America just destroy the G-league tams at the tournament.

There used to be Mcdonald's tournament in the 90"s. Where NBA champions would play European club champions and some other clubs.

[DaddyCool19]

Can the Champions League winner call themselves World Champions?

But what about the World Cup then?

[dhsilv2]

A lot of people may not like what Lyles said, but track and field needs this. Since Bolt retired, their hasn’t been a superstar sprinter on the men’s side who can draw viewers and headlines.

Lyles is the real deal, he actually has a shot at Bolt’s 200m record. I’m happy to see him stir the pot, and bring attention towards his sport.

I'll give him credit, I'd never heard of him before today. I doubt I'll remember him after this, but at least I've heard his name now! So good clickbait.

[Mickey8]

Can the Champions League winner call themselves World Champions?

But what about the World Cup then?

There is the tournament for the clubs, South american champions,European champions etc. playing against each others and the world club champions are determined that way.