Are top flight footballers better than equivalent athletes from other sports?

Leftback99 said:
If everyone in the world had training and then a trial at Formula one, then how many of those 20 would still have a seat?
Click to expand...
It's not like everyone plays football either. From a quick search it seems like badminton is the second most played sport in the world, just after football. I also imagine there are many less spots at its equivalent "top flight" than in football.
 
Football is the most played and deepest sport in terms of participants, but no sport really come close to being a true reflection of world talent.

even football is largely stagnant and dominated by the same few countries for decade upon decade as the rest are in too poor an overall condition to fully compete, or simply don't care enough.
 
bosnian_red said:
You'll have some others hit similar peaks probably but by pure virtue of the pool of footballers to pick from, being such a global sport, then of course yes it's true. If you have 2 billion people in the world play football and 500 million around the world play American football (numbers out of my ass, just an example), you have to beat a lot more competition comparatively to rise to a professional level let alone the top level, and it's competing with people all around the world compared to just mainly one country for many other sports.

So using simple stats, you'd assume the average top level is much higher, and to have someone reach a top top level in another sport similar to the very best footballers like Messi, it is much lower odds (but still possible and happens). That's why someone like LeBron is so dominant for so long, or Federer. You have similar level greats probably, but much fewer competition.
Click to expand...

I don't think the average top level is higher in football. Since this is the most popular sport you will need many footballers and if you don't make it at Manchester United you most likely still earn a living from football in another team. You can have an inappropriate lifestyle (e.g. Rooney) and still broke records. It is relatively comfortable and safe environment so you might not give your all. You can have bad form for an extended period of time, you can have injuries and still taken care of. In other sports you have less competition, because it is much harder to compete. It's all about money - a young footballer will already earn a decent living, but a young swimmer will get nothing. It's pure dedication.

I would also add that individual sports are much harder mentally. You are alone. If you are not on top of your game, you will lose. There won't be another top flight footballer who save you. You have to perform, that's the only option.
 
The more popular the sport, the more you have to differentiate yourself to reach the top. That is just patently obvious. It doesn't matter whether you have to be physically stronger in X sport, or whether you pick any individual quality that people perceive to be important in sports to argue to the contrary, it is a simple numbers game. If a sport is popular and extremely well developed then you have be better than somebody in judo, or curling.

So within football, the specific fitness requirements applicable to football, and most of all the technical skill levels have to be ridiculously high. You can have a simplistic argument about a boxer being tougher, but it really doesn't matter, it's about how difficult it is to rise to the top of football within the requirements that football says is important that matters.

Also, yes there are a large number of teams but there's also a vast pyramid of football of average to good players. Nobody would claim that every single one of them qualifies as a top flight footballer. It's also possible to narrow this down more precisely and within that particular group the argument becomes even stronger.

I would imagine things like NFL are going to be comparable too for similar reasons.
 
André Dominguez said:
We had some football pros coming to our Judo and BJJ club make a training: they were dead by exaustion at the end of the warm up, and during combat training they defaulted after 2 minutes.

So, no, not really that impressive.
Click to expand...
Yeah, coming from a Folkstyle & Freestyle wrestling background, I always chuckle at comments like the ones made by Mr. Cox in this article here.
 
Harry190 said:
Yes. Considering how many games they play, the training sessions. Yes, comfortably so.
Click to expand...

That's Rubbish.

A professional Hockey player (NHL) plays upto 82 league games plus post season also.

They can play 2 or 3 games in a row compared to a footballer who plays on average 2 games a week.

The physical tests involved alone for the pre draft players are second to none compared to football (Soccer players).
 
choccy77 said:
That's Rubbish.

A professional Hockey player (NHL) plays upto 82 league games plus post season also.

They can play 2 or 3 games in a row compared to a footballer who plays on average 2 games a week.

The physical tests involved alone for the pre draft players are second to none compared to football (Soccer players).
Click to expand...
im pretty sure the average time a forward is on the rink per game is about 20 mins though to be fair. On a smaller field
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
No. The opposite is true. You have to be close to perfect to make money in many sports. You can be one of the top few million to earn money as a footballer. Football dulls the blade, not sharpen it. We don’t even have adequate systems in place to capture footballers.
Click to expand...

I was talking about top flight footballers and the elite footballers, not all professional footballers. The top players have to be very talented to stand out as there are so many participants worldwide.
 
ChaddyP said:
im pretty sure the average time a forward is on the rink per game is about 20 mins though to be fair. On a smaller field
Click to expand...

The high intensity in those 20 minutes, is by far more high exertion than a footballer puts in strolling around a pitch with the occasional faster runs.

As a former hockey player, my fitness levels were sky high, the training levels were sky high.
 
ChaddyP said:
im pretty sure the average time a forward is on the rink per game is about 20 mins though to be fair. On a smaller field
Click to expand...
The intensity is also a lot higher than in football.

In the end I think the takeaway is that it is pointless trying to compare and claim that one sport is better than another.
 
Michael Phelps is better than Messi, Maradona and Pele. Elton John is better than Crynaldo
 
It’s obviously true.

it’s like a guy who I went school with went to the Olympics a few years ago as a rower. Give a shit about rowing. I haven’t ever had access to a boat and thousands to invest in it.
 
I don't think Michael Cox watches or understands other sports. I've noticed this in some football journalists. They almost get annoyed when people care about other sports. It's incredibly arrogant coming from people who aren't that good at the very sport they're bragging about.

The assumption that because there's more footballers, they must therefore be better would be more plausible if the best national teams were always the most populated countries. Didn't Belgium beat Brazil? How does New Zealand beat England at Rugby?

He has no evidence and is just assuming a viewpoint he likes to think is true actually is true.
 
Is football a more intensive sport or tennis? The men's grand slams sometimes last 4-5 hours and its full of high intensity short bursts similar to football.
Add to that I think tennis requires more concentration and mental fortitude and more stamina.
 
Ole's screen said:
Is football a more intensive sport or tennis? The men's grand slams sometimes last 4-5 hours and its full of high intensity short bursts similar to football.
Add to that I think tennis requires more concentration and mental fortitude and more stamina.
Click to expand...
Have you ever seen a tennis player get scythed down by the opposition, track runs of 2 different players at the same time, make dummy runs to open up space, get wrestled, contend for a header?
 
Not a chance, no. Try standing on a skateboard and completing one of the simplest tricks. Try playing a pickup basketball game against mediocre amateurs. Try skating and shooting a puck in stride. Football is already easier as the ball is on the ground at your feet and there is no other equipment involved. Furthermore, most any height can be an advantage depending on position being played where some sports require you to be a physical freak to compete at the top level.
 
NasirTimothy said:
Ok, let’s try and follow this through. Forget Messi cos he is clearly an all time great.

Let’s take Matthias Sammer. He won the Ballon D’Or in 1996 and was therefore at that time clearly one of the top footballers in the world. Michael Jordan won the NBA MVP in the same year. Is Sammer better at football than Michael Jordan is at basketball because Sammer had to be better than x number of professionals to get to the top and Michael Jordan only had to be better than <x number of professionals?
Click to expand...

That isn't following this concept through. We can't compare two individuals greatness across different sports and extrapolate any relevant conclusions from it.

Take a look at it from a different angle as a thought experiment;

It's in general harder to become the best professional footballer in England than it is to become the best professional footballer in Wales.

We know this is true because the England team have almost always had the better squad and almost always had the better player too. Because there are like 20x more people living there. But has it always been the case? Probably not. We can cherry pick an outlier to show it isn't always so.

Bale was arguably the best player in England and Wales at one point. But this doesn't change the fact that in general, it is harder to become the best player in England than the best player in Wales. Or in the top ten best players, and so forth.
 
Last edited:
Not at all, there are quite a lot of sports that are more physical demanding and challenging than football. The thing with football is that is very accessible so that contributes to having a really big pool of talent but overall they're not better athletes compared to other sports.
 
Mental strength needed isn’t nearly as great as individual sports like Tennis or Golf imo.
 
It would make sense, it's by far the most popular sport, so to even make it as a professional, you don't just have to be very talented, but also mentally strong, disciplined, and lucky. Let's take the NBA for example, if you're born really tall, like seven footer+, you have a high chance of making it to the NBA if you're remotely athletic. There's only around 400 spots in the NBA, and maybe now height is not quite as important as it once was, but you'd have some really low-skilled players who were in the NBA mainly due to their size. You won't find that in football, no one makes it simply because of a physical advantage without having skills behind it. I can't speak on other sports as much as those two, but it's also silly to say Messi is greater than all the top athletes combined or to think someone like Michael Jordan is in any way in Messi (or name your GOAT)'s shadow in terms of overall athletic dominance, skills, etc, just because it's 'easier' to get in the NBA than it is to become a professional footballer (very debatable actually, since there's less jobs available than there are in football).
 
UnrelatedPsuedo said:
It’s an equipment sport. But the suggestion they’re among the fittest sportsmen is daft. They’re not even athletes.
Click to expand...

Don't call a suggestion daft, if you're uninformed in a matter and haven't done at least some research into it.
When driving into top speeds F1 drivers experience up to 6G (gravitational force), which translates to around 50Kg of force on the head alone, it requires an amazing level of muscle fitness to be able to drive for two hours under 4-6G force. Also, they experience heartbeat of 170-180 when driving, that is akin to a marathon runner.

For further context, Jenson Button has successfully competed in triathlon, coming 4th out of 500 contestants in London 2010 Triathlon competition,and for some further anecdotal evidence, you might remember Michael Schumacher playing in friendly charity foorball games with the likes of Beckham, Figo, Zidane etc and actually being really good.

So instead of pulling things out of your ass, why don't you check what specialists have to say on the subject?
 
Tarrou said:
That isn't following this concept through. We can't compare two individuals greatness across different sports and extrapolate any relevant conclusions from it.

Take a look at it from a different angle as a thought experiment;

It's in general harder to become the best professional footballer in England than it is to become the best professional footballer in Wales.

We know this is true because the England team have almost always had the better squad and almost always had the better player too. Because there are like 20x more people living there. But has it always been the case? Probably not. We can cherry pick an outlier to show it isn't always so.

Bale was arguably the best player in England and Wales at one point. But this doesn't change the fact that in general, it is harder to become the best player in England than the best player in Wales. Or in the top ten best players, and so forth.
Click to expand...

I’m afraid that is following the concept through. Part of what Michael Cox explicitly stated is that the top footballers are better at their sport than Bolt/Jordan/Dan Carter etc are at theirs. And his reasoning for that is that more people play football, so it is harder to get to the top. But if you follow that logic to its natural conclusion, any Ballon D’Or winner (for example) should be better than any basketball MVP or heavyweight champion or whatever because millions more people play football than do those other sports. Hence my Sammer v Jordan example. It’s just not that simple.

Saying that it’s harder to get to the top in English football than Welsh football is not relevant because it’s the same sport with similar structures and similar things you have to do to get to the top, with England just having more people and more resources, so even the best Welsh footballers (who can often be better than the best English footballers) move to England.

Comparing it across sport like Cox did is totally different because the obstacles are different and the amount and type of work is different in each case. What you have to do in a team sport is totally different from an individual sport as well.

It’s like comparing a race against 10 other people where all you have to do is run vs a race against only 5 people but you have to swim, fight off alligators and climb mountains. Just because you’re racing against less people, it doesn’t automatically make it easier.

Moreover, football is not an exact meritocracy, the people at the top are not always the best people. It’s probably more of a meritocracy than your average profession for example but there‘s still connections, nepotism, networks etc that influence who ‘makes it’ to the top level and who doesn’t.
 
Tyrion said:
I don't think Michael Cox watches or understands other sports. I've noticed this in some football journalists. They almost get annoyed when people care about other sports. It's incredibly arrogant coming from people who aren't that good at the very sport they're bragging about.

The assumption that because there's more footballers, they must therefore be better would be more plausible if the best national teams were always the most populated countries. Didn't Belgium beat Brazil? How does New Zealand beat England at Rugby?

He has no evidence and is just assuming a viewpoint he likes to think is true actually is true.
Click to expand...

Fair point
 
NasirTimothy said:
I’m afraid that is following the concept through. Part of what Michael Cox explicitly stated is that the top footballers are better at their sport than Bolt/Jordan/Dan Carter etc are at theirs. And his reasoning for that is that more people play football, so it is harder to get to the top. But if you follow that logic to its natural conclusion, any Ballon D’Or winner (for example) should be better than any basketball MVP or heavyweight champion or whatever because millions more people play football than do those other sports. Hence my Sammer v Jordan example. It’s just not that simple.

Saying that it’s harder to get to the top in English football than Welsh football is not relevant because it’s the same sport with similar structures and similar things you have to do to get to the top, with England just having more people and more resources, so even the best Welsh footballers (who can often be better than the best English footballers) move to England.

Comparing it across sport like Cox did is totally different because the obstacles are different and the amount and type of work is different in each case. It’s like comparing a race against 10 other people where all you have to do is run vs a race against only 5 people but you have to swim, fight off alligators and climb mountains. Just because you’re racing against less people, it doesn’t automatically make it easier.

Moreover, football is not an exact meritocracy, the people at the top are not always the best people. It’s probably more of a meritocracy than your average profession for example but there‘s still connections, nepotism, networks etc that influence who ‘makes it’ to the top level and who doesn’t.
Click to expand...

Okay let's use your example but apply the logic correctly.

Instead of 10 people in the first race there are 1 billion people. Instead of 5 people in the second race there are 1 million.

Which race is it easier to finish in the first 25 people?
 
Norris said:
Better in what sense? Physically, mentally?. You cannot really compare can you, the prep work done for each sport, be it individual or team-based are totally different and depends on the demands on the game and something which has been conditioned in them from a very young age.
Click to expand...
I think maybe he means in terms of share numbers of amateur and professional footballers.

From a FIFA report, there are 3,903 professional clubs world wide, and 128,983 professional players worldwide Ref (https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/a59132e138824c1c/original/jlr5corccbsef4n4brde.pdf)

Now these are just clubs and players that meet FIFA’s definition of “professional” now imagine all the full time clubs that fifa ignored or the part time and amateur clubs that still make up the football pyramid.

So while I don’t know if it’s true, I do know that the players at the elite level must have beaten tens of millions world wide. I don’t think there’s the same level of competition in other sports.
 
It’s harder to dominate in football, but easier to steal a living.
 
Well I hear the argument and respect it. I give a nod to most footballers due to the competition.
 
Tarrou said:
Okay let's use your example but apply the logic correctly.

Instead of 10 people in the first race there are 1 billion people. Instead of 5 people in the second race there are 1 million.

Which race is it easier to finish in the first 25 people?
Click to expand...

You dont have to best the whole world. You mostly have to be the worst 18 in your squad to make it.

Most division 2 bellow arent exactly prime athlete comparable to semi pro figure skater.

Messi off course it's an outlier. He's goat category and as such should be compared to bolt, MJ, nadal, and the rest of the best.

Footballer training routines are quite meh compared to average semi pro boxer. Tiger woods put 1000times a day and that's just to hone his finishing touch. A snooker player trains hours on daily basis doing trick shots that requires milimeter perfection to pull.

Football are piss easy anyone can pick them and play. Not so much other sport.

Put it this way. If 2 similar built 10 years old given 7 years to train in 2 different sports I'd wager he'd more likely to make it in football better than the other sport.
 
JustAGuest said:
It's not like everyone plays football either. From a quick search it seems like badminton is the second most played sport in the world, just after football. I also imagine there are many less spots at its equivalent "top flight" than in football.
Click to expand...

Badminton? My guess it's something to do with indoensian tampering with wikipedia.

That's a dying breed even in the holyland of badminton. Football is numero uno here.

China may have contributed alot to badminton but i doubt it's the number 1 sport there.
 
Sky1981 said:
You dont have to best the whole world. You mostly have to be the worst 18 in your squad to make it.

Most division 2 bellow arent exactly prime athlete comparable to semi pro figure skater.

Messi off course it's an outlier. He's goat category and as such should be compared to bolt, MJ, nadal, and the rest of the best.

Footballer training routines are quite meh compared to average semi pro boxer. Tiger woods put 1000times a day and that's just to hone his finishing touch. A snooker player trains hours on daily basis doing trick shots that requires milimeter perfection to pull.

Football are piss easy anyone can pick them and play. Not so much other sport.

Put it this way. If 2 similar built 10 years old given 7 years to train in 2 different sports I'd wager he'd more likely to make it in football better than the other sport.
Click to expand...

this discussion has nothing to do with how difficult it is to become a professional in any sport, its related to the top end not the bottom

that is dependent on an entirely different set of complex variables
 
My family is not much of a football team lover except italian baggio era.

They dislike the ego of footballers and the fans and the fighting like was seen in the final for example.

They say its not a gentleman's sport.

I personally don't care.
 
I think the question should be - If you replace a tier 1 player/athelete with a tier 2/3 player in their respective sport, how much of a difference would it make?

But even then, it's not a fair comparison. Totally apples to oranges. Most sports require you to be a great 'athlete' regardless.
 
Isn’t it that in every study, the bigger the sample size the more representative the study is to the population?

the best at Javelin is better than 5000 people who are training for javelin world wide.

the best at football is better than 250 million who are playing footballers.

the argument then is having bested 5000 people in a population of 7.8 billion, can you really call yourself the best? I believe not.
 
I’m pretty sure there was a study on this recently where it was determined as an all round athlete football players were the best all rounders. I’m sure there are sports Like AmerIcan football or gymnastics where there are much more powerful players but do they combine that with endurance. Then marathon runners can they lift or be as fast as footballers over such a short distance.

I think that study was also before the rise of Crossfit so not sure if really that’s even classed as a sport. So physically footballers have A much broader spectrum of athletic ability.
 
charlenefan said:
Good thread, I'd say Messi or Ronaldo for example are comfortably better at football than Federer or Djokovic are at Tenis for example however I'm fairly sure studies show Tenis is more physically exerting but then something like Boxing is going to be the most physically exerting of all so I guess that has to be factored in
Click to expand...

Yeah no. All three Federer, Nadal and especially Novak are practically Gods of Tennis at this point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.