Now , Frost said the most talked players in this forum is Minions. why so? Is it because they divide so much opinions (like Djokovic?) or because when they lose, there is lots to talk about? ChenYufei is WR1 and so is ChenQingChen but if they lost, probably people dont care or when they win , for that matter. Badminton needs character but the most famous players now are probably 'M'omota & 'Minions' . Even Momota has no considerable rivals that made MS a bit stale. Its only more exciting if he meets Ginting in Final but other than that, which players can oftenly put him to rubber games in Final? Then again way too many sectors. In tennis, its just all about Mens tennis. so all we know is Fed, Djo, Nadal but after these 3 pplayers retire, it might be see declining popularity in tennis as well.
cricket played in three different formats i.e test match -5days, one day match-50 overs per team,t20 -20 overs per team(1 over =6 balls)(11 members per team). only very skilled players play all the formats.there are specialists for each format in India getting into the national team is very difficult due to huge competition. once you get into a national team you will have many benefits .you will have allowances even after retirement but due IPL many young players become rich by playing even for a season
It's popular in countries like India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, England and some Carribean Islands. Australia are the most World Champions. England has been very instrumental in spreading the growth of cricket. Lately, countries like Japan, China, HK, Ireland, Netherlands have their cricket teams but it's still in developing stage there. Cricket WC happens every four years and I think 11-12 teams participate in WC if I'm not wrong. In India, competition is huge for cricket. Even making a state team is a great thing as that will ensure a govt. job and a good salary. IPL (started in 2008) revolutionised cricket throughout the world. It's mainly due to $$. You would be surprised to see the in how much amount the players were bought in 2008 itself. And since then prices of players is increasing at a rapid pace. IPL is played for 1.5 months. Below one is the article where you'll get to know everything how the league works and what's the brand quality of IPL ? https://www.theweek.co.uk/ipl/98605...s-unsold-players-england-india-premier-league Sixty players were sold at the 2019 Indian Premier League (IPL) Auction with the eight franchises spending £12m on new recruits. These are the most expensive buys: £940,000: Varun Chakravarthy (India) to Kings XI Punjab £940,000: Jaydev Unadkat (India) to Rajasthan Royals £800,000: Sam Curran (England) to Kings XI Punjab £715,000: Colin Ingram (South Africa) to Delhi Capitals £560,000: Carlos Brathwaite (West Indies) to Kolkata Knight Riders Opportunities to become pro in India is very tough because over 95 percent of people here know about cricket or have played at least once in their lives. The parents encourage their children to take up cricket (aside from usual studies, parents are very strict). Only a few make it to the top, however some talented players are given a miss due to politics in the selection committee. There are 11 players per team in cricket. I would say IPL has expanded cricket more in India (where it was already established) but failed to garner interest in other countries where cricket is not popular. Like in US, ex international cricket players of different countries played an exhibition match in a "baseball stadium" to make the game more popular among ethnic Americans. The stadium was jam-packed but the only ones who turned out were Indian Americans. IPL has made rich richer but failed to generate interest among other non cricket nations. If I talk about India, what generated interest among kids . That was the rise of Saina and the availability of telecast of badminton matches here. I myself was hooked to badminton when I first saw Saina win SS title back in 2009-10. Then I convinced my parents that I want to have training in badminton. Making badminton popular that's a difficult task owing to different cultures of different countries. Here in India ,F1 will not attract children though it has a lot of money. Here people follow pioneers of the sport like Saina, Sindhu and get influenced by them and start training. I think the governments have to come forward to spread the popularity of a particular sport. For example, Japanese football revolution started in 90s. They started to take steps around late 80s, brought in great World Cuppers like Zico to formulate a proper roadmat and structurise the football system there. Now, the results are there to see. Many examples are there- Belgium in hockey , present China govt's decision to revamp football there. It's an all round efforts by everyone that'll make the game popular. It will take time but surely we'll see more nations coming through.
Broadcasting in YouTube is a good strategy to be honest. When the sport garner more attention, they can then sell the rights to the broadcasting company in that country and of course geo block in that country. Case to point, geo blocking now exists in Singapore when it did not happen last year. This shows that the market in Singapore has been captured. The other thing is, I think paying subscription fees do work. Maybe we can start with say USD 1 for entire tournament. With part of the proceedings actuslly going towards the prize money. Of course viewers can also watch on you tube as well but then they will have to bear with advertisement every say 10 minutes. Badminton is definitely not going to be as popular as tennis due to the fact that tennis is widely accepted as a, western sport.
I don't see how shortening the game would improve anything. The Wimbledon men's singles final this lasted 4 hours and 57 minutes, all 5 matches of the WC in Basel 4 hours and 19 minutes. Three of the finals were in the 30-40 minute region. Imagine shortening that and having finals below 30 minutes. Where's the sense of occasion? In other words, you'd have shorter broadcasts, but a less attractive product. One could sell the rights to the top games to TV stations (or streaming services like DAZN) and continue to stream the other matches through BWF's own channel. Before cutting the games short, I'd also rather start the tournament one day early and have the doubles' finals on saturday and the singles on sunday.
as i stated earlier, it's only 4x a year during grand slams. not 37 times a year. badminton is not where tennis is regarding worldwide sports culture. once badminton get close to tennis it could revert to anything it wants to. tennis has proven itself to be a viable career, convinced people of its merits, earned the people's time, so now corporations throw money at it. the general public, worldwide, enjoys watching athletes compete for millions of dollars. it pretty much doesn't matter what the competition is. badminton has more worldwide participation and maybe even viewership than tennis, yet, are there more badminton parents telling their kids 'we would support you while you try to become a pro badminton player' than tennis parents? same with golf. way fewer participants but lucrative for a career. once you're embedded in sports culture major corporations will throw money at you. get the money first, do what you want later. every idea bc'rs post about growing the sport are fine, but every single one requires $ to support it. and for every reason we fans give for why the sport is the most exciting and best to watch and play none of it has translated into $ going towards growing the sport. how is bwf monetizing their youtube channel? anyone know? i have no idea how it helps the sport grow financially. recent usa badminton news: https://www.teamusa.org/USA-Badmint...S-AMBASSADOR-TO-THE-USA-BADMINTON-ASSOCIATION when i read this my immediate reaction was 'who cares?' if he doesn't give or raise a ton of money this news means nothing. as a big time hollywood director how much time does he actually have to devote to badminton causes anyhow? he has been training in southern california for awhile, yet he has never contributed a single dime, or minute of time, towards helping usa badminton, the u.s. open or the sport in general. so naturally i am cynical. same goes for all the new money tech millionaires/billionaires/corporate decision makers in silicon valley who loved badminton and being on their high school teams. back then it was 'why isn't badminton more popular? why are there no college scholarships for it? i wish i could make a living at it.' now that they're rich they won't contribute a dime, or minute of time, to help get it where they wished it was back then. guess what? the opportunities won't be there for your kids either cuz you new money folks refuse(?) to give back a dime. of course i WANT to be proven wrong, but i won't hold my breath. fun fact: zack snyder makes more $ from directing 1 hollywood movie than the entire wt 1000/750/500/300 prize pool for 2019 x 2. why isn't it a viable career in asia where the popularity and participation #'s are huge? can anyone tell me why those 2 things have not translated into $ for the sport? are badminton lovers that selfish?
You talk out of point and make no sense. I have already pointed out how bwf managed to make money from the YouTube route. By attracting attention to tournaments and then attracting broadcasting stations to buy their rights. That's why you get geo blocking in some countries. Well, if I were parents in Asia, I will understand that a career in tennis is not viable as well. How many kids can succeed in tennis is Asia. Well, there are a few options whereby badminton can still be a viable sport. The government can probably provide free university education to those who are in the sport with a more relaxed schedule. It's pretty possible due to the influx of online education. They can then decide at a later stage on whether they want to continue with their badminton career. Bwf can also help by increasing its income and thus increasing the prize money.
Wow the irony is cringey...whether naive or ignorant, more people like you are still needed for the future of the sport i guess. Anyway we are all getting offtopic and i recommend future posts be only be about media interviews on WTF participants or performances only.
This is not the right place to post this question But if you ask me, it is actually the amount of tournaments that are available but somehow forcing to much attention from both the players and the audience. The players easily get burn-out and the attractiveness of the sport becomes 'too often' that we can't really have any 'longing' for the games (or high quality games)
