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

[NoLogo]

I'd say NBA is up there with the number of games played. Other than that the rest of the sports seems to only be a few times a year at best.

I meant more like player wise, how many players are actually playing football competitively around the world? 5m or something like that? Because the articles seems to make the argument that footballers are so good because of the immense amounts of competition they have to get past to be among the best players, so I would have to know if this is even true first before I'm willing to follow this assumption.

 

[Tarrou]

while I agree that football probably has the most number of players worldwide playing at all levels I don’t buy the notion the ones that do make it pro are the best.

honestly there’s a ton of footballers playing at the very highest level that have absolutely no right to be there.

making it as a professional is complete luck.

this is not relevant to the debate if I'm understanding it right

it just means there are lots more pros because there is more money to support that, so the skill-level at the lower end is not as high (as some sports)

but the debate is about the skill-level at the higher end

 

[Classical Mechanic]

It is all about discipline and dedication to your sport. I don't care if you are swimmer, hockeyplayer, footballer or boxer. Whatever the sport is, you must put down the hard work regardless how many there are around you in that sport. Even if you do there are no guarantees. You take Adam as example. He is that good because he clearly has been working hard. It is not because lack of competition.

And people can look the other way around. How many chances can a footballer get to be in top flight looking at amount of the clubs being given to them? How many chances can (for example) american football player get looking at amount of clubs.

I'm still curious how he has come up with that argument that footballers are better.

It's not about demeaning Peaty or any other athlete in more niche sports. Obviously he's hugely talented and dedicated but I find it hard to argue against the idea that if a lot more people participated in his sport then it would be likely that you would find more swimmers of a level similar or greater than him.

 

[Sky1981]

I meant more like player wise, how many players are actually playing football competitively around the world? 5m or something like that? Because the articles seems to make the argument that footballers are so good because of the immense amounts of competition they have to get past to be among the best players, so I would have to know if this is even true first before I'm willing to follow this assumption.

Par for course. Football have the most number of clubs hence more players.

For weight lifting for example. You'd only need 3-5 at most for Olympics. While a league division of football offers 200 spots at least.

It's easier all things considered to become a footballer than a weight lifter. There's casual semi pro league all the way to sunday football but there's nothing equivalent for weight lifting.

You can be mediocre at football but if you follow the path (academy since young) and you put effort and not completely useless chances are you'll find some club in lower division willing to employ you. The fast and ready infrastructure of football means the pool of international club is available as well.

 

[Dante]

Yes.

Messi is one in a billion.

Every other top athlete is one in some order of millions. Sometimes even less.

 

[90 + 5min]

It's not about demeaning Peaty or any other athlete in more niche sports. Obviously he's hugely talented and dedicated but I find it hard to argue against the idea that if a lot more people participated in his sport then it would be likely that you would find more swimmers of a level similar or greater than him.

You are not wrong but thats is still a maybe and something we will not know. We can just guess.

 

[90 + 5min]

Par for course. Football have the most number of clubs hence more players.

For weight lifting for example. You'd only need 3-5 at most for Olympics. While a league division of football offers 200 spots at least.

It's easier all things considered to become a footballer than a weight lifter. There's casual semi pro league all the way to sunday football but there's nothing equivalent for weight lifting.

You can be mediocre at football but if you follow the path (academy since young) and you put effort and not completely useless chances are you'll find some club in lower division willing to employ you. The fast and ready infrastructure of football means the pool of international club is available as well.

Correct

 

[NasirTimothy]

I'd say gymnast are of a higher level. First it's an individual sport secondly the actual physical ability they showcase is far higher than footballers and the level required to be that good is training intensely everyday.

In fact the more I think about it the more it's clear that a gymnast at that level is alot higher than a top footballer.

People also forget that football has many positions and skillets. In gymnastics there is 1 skill set and you have to be great at.

Been watching a bit of the gymnastics at the Olympics and have been duly reminded that what they do is absolutely insane.

If you watch Soccer Aid, yes the non-footballers look crap, but they’d look a hell of a lot worse if they were competing in ‘Gymnastics Aid’

Basically, Michael Cox has made a dumb argument and there’s no actual way of comparing across disciplines. There are clearly sports with much better athletes than football though.

 

[Deery]

It’s hard to say a lot of the best athletes will try to be good at football but not all the best athletes will be good at football.

For example Usain Bolt tried his hand at football but was well useless but he was an amazing athlete.

 

[Skills]

Sprinters I think are the best athletes in the world

 

[Peyroteo]

Of course. The amount of competition in football is significantly higher than any other sport. It’s not even comparable to any other sport if you look at the numbers of people playing the sport in the entire world.

There’s also more room to be successful though. If you’re the 200th best football player in the world you’ll make ridiculous amount of money and have plenty of fame, if you’re the 200th best swimmer or the 200th best tennis player not so much.

 

[markhughes]

It's pretty simple really, the more people take part in a sport globally the better you have to be to stand out, football is the biggest sport in the world and so you have to be exceptional to make it big.

There are other talents out there though that also transcend their sports, MJ and Tiger are a couple that spring to mind.

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

I think it’s impossible to quantify honestly. Certainly not athletically, but in a relative sense yes football is near the top. Although I also think it’s stupid to just use Messi as an example when he’s possibly the greatest to ever play the sport.

 

[giorno]

On the one hand, sure, it's by far the most played sport in the world so of course it has the biggest competition

On the other hand, top flight football is kind of a broad term...there's a lot of top flight leagues worldwide....even if you limit it to the top 5 leagues, that's 98 teams, with squads that range between ~23-30 players....take an average of 25 players per team and that's a total of 2450 "top flight" players...

I don't care how large the competition pool is, 2450 top flight players means you really don't have to be that much better than your competition...

 

[NoLogo]

Par for course. Football have the most number of clubs hence more players.

For weight lifting for example. You'd only need 3-5 at most for Olympics. While a league division of football offers 200 spots at least.

It's easier all things considered to become a footballer than a weight lifter. There's casual semi pro league all the way to sunday football but there's nothing equivalent for weight lifting.

You can be mediocre at football but if you follow the path (academy since young) and you put effort and not completely useless chances are you'll find some club in lower division willing to employ you. The fast and ready infrastructure of football means the pool of international club is available as well.

Again, I totally get the argument, but there are no numbers to be found anywhere here in this thread. Like for example I only recently saw a graphic displaying the popularity of different sports over the years from 1970 to 2020 and was a bit surprised that Cricket and field hockey were constantly among the top 3 and in the early 70s even ahead in popularity of football, which well surprised me because those are both very niche sports in my home country Germany. By now football is the most popular sport by quite a margin, but again, I'm not even sure if popularity also equates to most played.

Google doesn't seem to provide a definitive answer either and most statistics simply list Football as the most popular, which yes is probably an indicator for it also being the most played sport in the world, but I have a feeling in a scientific paper that wouldn't be a statistic with which you could prove the actual hypothesis that it's also the sport in the world with the highest amount of competition due to the amount of people playing.

 

[SirReginald]

I don’t know, do they compare to triathletes?

 

[NasirTimothy]

while I agree that football probably has the most number of players worldwide playing at all levels I don’t buy the notion the ones that do make it pro are the best.

honestly there’s a ton of footballers playing at the very highest level that have absolutely no right to be there.

making it as a professional is complete luck.

I wouldn’t say it’s complete luck but I think you make a fair point in the sense that you can’t just say ‘billions of people play football and the few hundred that make it to the absolute top level are without doubt the best of those billions’. It’s not quite that simple. Many other factors come into play.

 

[Pexbo]

They're weak mentally in my eyes compared to olympians who only have 1 slim window to perform every few years.

Some footballers cough.. martial can have purple patches for months. Some can't even kick penalties without ballooning it wide, considering that's what they do every day it's abit embarrassing if they miss from 12 yards.

The amount of defensive lapse or striker missing out a sitter is alarming level for so called top best athletes of all sport. Even snooker requires higher consistency rate.

Olympians dont have room for this kinds of error. Most of them trains for years for that one moment of glory. Hell top level chess is more demanding mentally

By that logic, only 1 Olympian in a given field is mentally strong and the rest choke.

 

[redrobed]

Football, soccer and darts for me.

 

[NasirTimothy]

I think it’s impossible to quantify honestly. Certainly not athletically, but in a relative sense yes football is near the top. Although I also think it’s stupid to just use Messi as an example when he’s possibly the greatest to ever play the sport.

I’ve seen Cox arguing in the replies that Messi is better at football than Novak, Jordan, Brady, Tiger, Bolt, Dan Carter etc. are at their sports. And his only argument is that more people play football. Seems a bit reductive to me.

 

[SirScholes]

Yes. Considering how many games they play, the training sessions. Yes, comfortably so.

Do they play that many more games ? Seems like that is a very low bar to judge by

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Been watching a bit of the gymnastics at the Olympics and have been duly reminded that what they do is absolutely insane.

If you watch Soccer Aid, yes the non-footballers look crap, but they’d look a hell of a lot worse if they were competing in ‘Gymnastics Aid’

Basically, Michael Cox has made a dumb argument and there’s no actual way of comparing across disciplines. There are clearly sports with much better athletes than football though.

The question is if gymnastics had the participation levels of football would you find more elite level gymnasts which would being up the average level of competition? Although I do agree that gymnastics is a very remarkable sport and the one that I most marvel at when the Olympics comes around. There was a study that found in purely physical terms that gymnasts were the best athletes when you consider all aspects of athleticism.

 

[SirScholes]

Yes.

Messi is one in a billion.

Every other top athlete is one in some order of millions. Sometimes even less.

why does that matter?
Why does the number of participants make any difference in Messi’s ability?

and also, messi is the peak, does it not say ”football” There are so many clubs around the world that it’s probably easier to become a footballer than any other sport

 

[giorno]

I’ve seen Cox arguing in the replies that Messi is better at football than Novak, Jordan, Brady, Tiger, Bolt, Dan Carter etc. are at their sports. And his only argument is that more people play football. Seems a bit reductive to me.

Think that's the only point he makes that might be valid actually

 

[NasirTimothy]

The question is if gymnastics had the participation levels of football would you find more elite level gymnasts which would being up the average level of competition? Although I do agree that gymnastics is a very remarkable sport and the one that I most marvel at when the Olympics comes around. There was a study that found in purely physical terms that gymnasts were the best athletes when you consider all aspects of athleticism.

That makes sense but we have to factor in the point that a difficult sport is not going to have the same level of participation as something that is relatively easy to get involved with, like football. You’re never going to get billions of people doing gymnastics.

We also have to take account of the fact that it is not always the best player who makes it to the top in football. Making it to the elite level requires a combination of circumstances and ability/talent is just a part of that (and many of the factors involved are completely opposed to talent, like nepotism for example).

Cesc Fabregas and Robbie Fowler are two players I specifically remember talking about the fact that there were players around in the younger levels at their clubs that were better than them but didn’t make it.

 

[Deery]

Think that's the only point he makes that might be valid actually

Not really when you consider the whole world nearly is capable of running.

 

[giorno]

Not really when you consider the whole world nearly is capable of running.

But very few do so competitively

 

[SirScholes]

On the one hand, sure, it's by far the most played sport in the world so of course it has the biggest competition

On the other hand, top flight football is kind of a broad term...there's a lot of top flight leagues worldwide....even if you limit it to the top 5 leagues, that's 98 teams, with squads that range between ~23-30 players....take an average of 25 players per team and that's a total of 2450 "top flight" players...

I don't care how large the competition pool is, 2450 top flight players means you really don't have to be that much better than your competition...

100% behind this

there is an unfair amount of extra funding being pumped into it
One of pals finished 2nd in the country for swimming, 2nd! Only 1st place was given the funding to move on
Where as you get players in league 2 on thousands a week, most of us will never know their names.
for me the sport is diluted, where as in other sports you have to be so dam good to make a living, therefore no footballers are not the best

 

[SirScholes]

Sprinters I think are the best athletes in the world

Negative
They are only good in a handful of fitness components, they aren’t tested in anything but power

 

[Deery]

But very few do so competitively

Lots do so competitively only the same as football not a lot make it to elite level.

 

[SungSam7]

Certain sports right now cant really claim to have the equivalent of Messi or Ronaldo. Maybe Lebron can be conpared to Ronaldo in terms of longevity and his overall effect he has on a team. Without going into the whole Lebron vs MJ, I would say if MJ and Messi were in the same era, you could say they were neck and neck in terms of skill.

 

[lysglimt]

It's a stupid comparison - how can you compare Usain Bolt to Messi ?

 

[NasirTimothy]

It's a stupid comparison - how can you compare Usain Bolt to Messi ?

You can’t really. That’s why I think Cox is silly for being so definite about it. But he’s got what he wanted which is a few clicks.

 

[lysglimt]

of course it's true, it's just basic logic

think of it this way, to be one of the top 10 footballers in the world you need to be better than x number of professionals

to be in the top 10 of any other pro sport in the world the number is (usually way) less than x

With that logic - Volleyball-players should be the best - there are many more volleyball-players than footballplayers.-

 

[giorno]

Lots do so competitively only the same as football not a lot make it to elite level.

Not even close to comparable. 5% of the world's total population plays football at youth-to-professional level

 

[Deery]

Not even close to comparable. 5% of the world's total population plays football at youth-to-professional level

Where did you get this stat from seems a bit far fetched that 5% are playing in organised football?

 

[NasirTimothy]

of course it's true, it's just basic logic

think of it this way, to be one of the top 10 footballers in the world you need to be better than x number of professionals

to be in the top 10 of any other pro sport in the world the number is (usually way) less than x

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?

 

[Classical Mechanic]

That makes sense but we have to factor in the point that a difficult sport is not going to have the same level of participation as something that is relatively easy to get involved with, like football. You’re never going to get billions of people doing gymnastics.

We also have to take account of the fact that it is not always the best player who makes it to the top in football. Making it to the elite level requires a combination of circumstances and ability/talent is just a part of that (and many of the factors involved are completely opposed to talent, like nepotism for example).

Cesc Fabregas and Robbie Fowler are two players I specifically remember talking about the fact that there were players around in the younger levels at their clubs that were better than them but didn’t make it.

What you're talking about on your second point is mentality and/or other external factors that may influence outcomes. 'Talent' is is only one aspect of what makes a top athlete. We tend to view it in a linear way in that it only relates to technical ability in the sport. I think that the psychological aspect is at least as important although often completely overlooked. Compare Gary Neville to Ravel Morrison, the latter was much more talented but the former had a career that overshadows the latter by several orders of magnitude. OK You can point to the external factors around Ravel's life as something that derailed him but for whatever reason Neville had the kind of character that was able to zero in on maximising the talents that he had whilst Ravel quite the opposite.

All that said, the crux of the argument is that if you have a high level of participation in any given sport then you are more likely to find more players like Gary Neville, more players like Ravel Morrison, more players like Leo Messi or more athletes like Simone Biles.

Certain sports right now cant really claim to have the equivalent of Messi or Ronaldo. Maybe Lebron can be conpared to Ronaldo in terms of longevity and his overall effect he has on a team. Without going into the whole Lebron vs MJ, I would say if MJ and Messi were in the same era, you could say they were neck and neck in terms of skill.

MJ might be the equivalent of Messi but lets imagine that everyone in the world was of the physical stature generally required to prevail in basketball and globally participation was as high as it is in football, would you then be more likely to find players to at least challenge the level of MJ?

 

[Sky1981]

By that logic, only 1 Olympian in a given field is mentally strong and the rest choke.

Not choke. Just bested.

Sometimes you just lose to someone better.

 

[giorno]

Where did you get this stat from seems a bit far fetched that 5% are playing in organised football?

FIFA estimation