How can the New Orleans Saints genuinely call themselves world champions?

[ChefChiTown]

That’s like Manchester United, the current premier league champions,
calling themselves world champions when they haven't played against
any team outside England to win the title. The world football champions
will be crowned in the few months time in South Africa where teams from
all over the world will play each for the right to genuinely call themselves
the world Champions.

Is it just me or do some Americans think planet earth starts and ends in America? :dunno:

Why can Olympic gold medalists call themselves World Champions? I mean, not every single country is represented, so they're obviously not World Champions. Plus, they haven't competed against every single athlete in their respective sport, so there's no way to know if they are World Champions or not until they do so.

What a stupid query.

 

[Philbert]

Why can Olympic gold medalists call themselves World Champions? I mean, not every single country is represented, so they're obviously not World Champions. Plus, they haven't competed against every single athlete in their respective sport, so there's no way to know if they are World Champions or not until they do so.

What a stupid query.

I don't drink, normally, but that deserves a :glugglug:!

Why worry about World Hunger and the GF's missed period...the NFL calls the Superbowl Champions WORLD CHAMPS!!!:eek:
How dare they?:rofl:

 

[Lungzyn]

Why can Olympic gold medalists call themselves World Champions?

They do that? Most Olympic events have a separate world championship event as far as I know, and recognise them as being separate.

I mean, not every single country is represented, so they're obviously not World Champions. Plus, they haven't competed against every single athlete in their respective sport, so there's no way to know if they are World Champions or not until they do so.

What a stupid query.

I dont think the problem is that they havent beaten every single person from every single other country in the world, or else there would be no true world champion in anything.
Its just with the Superbowl, there is one country, and one country only, being represented.
Something similar I can think of is Australian Rules football. Australia is far and away the best country at that game, and all others are amateur by comparison, but I dont think they call the winners of the AFL final world champions. I could be wrong though :dunno:
They are the best team in the world, but doesnt world champion imply that at least more than one country competed in it? It just sounds weird to me.

 

[316sherm]

Saints are Superbowl champs and that's all that matters! HELL DONE FROZE OVER!!!

 

[Johan]

Did the Saints won a competition called World Championship or World Cup ?
No, they won Superbowl, they are NFL Champs. NFL means National Football League.
So the only title they can claim is US Champion.

If the Saint want the title of World Champion, they just have to ask The NFL and the EFAF (European Federation of American Football) to organise a World Championship.
Europe has its Champion : Tyrol Raiders, an austrian team, winner of the EuroBowl XXIII (2009).

That could be interesting for the NFL. Imagine :
The Saint coming in some big european city to play in a big stadium (such as Wembley, for example) against the European champion.
Some promotion made by the Saint around the event, a big show. And for the very 1st time, Europeans could watch a Football game on TV, without getting out of their beds at 2 or 3.AM.
Off coure the game itself would be way too easy for the Saints but remeber what happened with the Basketbal Drea-Team in 1992 : they were out of their class comparec to every other team in the competition, they made it spectacular and, starting from this, NBA became popular in Europe, kis started to wear Bulls or Lakers Jerseys, etc.
Maybe the coming of the Saints in Europe could do the same, maybe it could open the european market to the NFL...

 

[Philbert]

Saints are Superbowl champs and that's all that matters! HELL DONE FROZE OVER!!!

Yeah, you right!!!:thumbsup:

 

[habo9]

edit

 

[habo9]

Did the Saints won a competition called World Championship or World Cup ?
No, they won Superbowl, they are NFL Champs. NFL means National Football League.
So the only title they can claim is US Champion.

If the Saint want the title of World Champion, they just have to ask The NFL and the EFAF (European Federation of American Football) to organise a World Championship.
Europe has its Champion : Tyrol Raiders, an austrian team, winner of the EuroBowl XXIII (2009).

That could be interesting for the NFL. Imagine :
The Saint coming in some big european city to play in a big stadium (such as Wembley, for example) against the European champion.
Some promotion made by the Saint around the event, a big show. And for the very 1st time, Europeans could watch a Football game on TV, without getting out of their beds at 2 or 3.AM.
Off coure the game itself would be way too easy for the Saints but remeber what happened with the Basketbal Drea-Team in 1992 : they were out of their class comparec to every other team in the competition, they made it spectacular and, starting from this, NBA became popular in Europe, kis started to wear Bulls or Lakers Jerseys, etc.
Maybe the coming of the Saints in Europe could do the same, maybe it could open the european market to the NFL...

Thank you :bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:

Id rep you again but I cant and the latter of that post is a good point as well

 

[ChefChiTown]

They do that? Most Olympic events have a separate world championship event as far as I know, and recognise them as being separate.

That's even worse, because the Olympics contains far more countries (being represented) than any other "World Championship" event on the face of the earth. They mostly have the same competitors, but the Olympics has far more people and countries represented.

I dont think the problem is that they havent beaten every single person from every single other country in the world, or else there would be no true world champion in anything.
Its just with the Superbowl, there is one country, and one country only, being represented.
Something similar I can think of is Australian Rules football. Australia is far and away the best country at that game, and all others are amateur by comparison, but I dont think they call the winners of the AFL final world champions. I could be wrong though :dunno:
They are the best team in the world, but doesnt world champion imply that at least more than one country competed in it? It just sounds weird to me.

Then what about the World Series? Two countries are represented (USA, Canada), not just one. So, since it's more than one country, are they allowed to call themselves World Champions? Or, is that still not enough? If not, what's the minimum number of countries that has to be represented in order for the term "World Champions" to be an acceptable title for the victors?

:dunno:

And, to all of the people that seem to be claiming that referring to the New Orleans Saints as "World Champions" is nothing more than another example of arrogance that is being demonstrated by the US, I have a suggestion for you...

If you don't like it, then why don't you put together a football team in your own country, challenge the Saints to a game and let's settle this. I'm willing to bet that American football teams would murder most foreign opponents. And, if we would dominate all foreign opponents (which we would) then we would be more than correct to call ourselves "WORLD CHAMPIONS". If you're the best in the world, you're the best in the world. And, since no one has challenged American football teams to a game, then whoever wins the Super Bowl is the BEST...IN...THE...WORLD.

 

[GregCentauro]

That's even worse, because the Olympics contains far more countries (being represented) than any other "World Championship" event on the face of the earth. They mostly have the same competitors, but the Olympics has far more people and countries represented.

FIFA World Cup 2010: 205 participating nations
Summer Olympics 2008: 204 nations
IAAF World Championships 2009: 202 nations

 

[ChefChiTown]

FIFA World Cup 2010: 205 participating nations
Summer Olympics 2008: 204 nations
IAAF World Championships 2009: 202 nations

Ok, soccer (the most popular sport in the world) had more participating countries than the Olympics. What about the other hundreds and hundreds of sports that exist?

 

[GregCentauro]

Ok, soccer (the most popular sport in the world) had more participating countries than the Olympics. What about the other hundreds and hundreds of sports that exist?

Every sport has about the same number of participating countries for the Olympics and their respective world championships. 169 nations competed at the last swimming world championships. Around the same number of countries participated in the swimming events at Beijing 2008. The numbers are the same for cycling, judo, you name it.

In many sports qualifying criteria for the Olympics include participation in world cup or world championship events. For example, some tennis players had to play fourth tier Davis Cup or Fed Cup matches representing their countries to qualify for Beijing.

 

[L3ggy]

The game American(key word is American) Football, not World(key word is World) Football thus they cannot be called World Champions, only U.S Champions.

Fuck this, I'm going to bed

 

[Lungzyn]

That's even worse, because the Olympics contains far more countries (being represented) than any other "World Champtionship" event on the face of the earth. They mostly have the same competitors, but the Olympics has far more people and countries represented.

Yup. :hatsoff:
My point was that Olympic champions dont go around calling themselves world champions as far as I know. (even though it may be appropriate. The Olympics are way more prestigious than most of the other events, besides stuff like tennis and soccer)

Then what about the World Series? Two countries are represented (USA, Canada), not just one. So, since it's more than one country, are they allowed to call themselves World Champions? Or, is that still not enough? If not, what's the minimum number of countries that has to be represented in order for the term "World Champions" to be an acceptable title for the victors?

:dunno:

Its still extremely lopsided, what with there only being one Canadian team in the MLB now. Nevertheless, you have a point. (I forgot about Toronto before and thought there were none after the departure of Montreal :o)
My main question is : Where is the line for declaring yourself the world champion of a sport by winning a domestic competition since other countries teams/leagues arent as good?
Johans idea seem good I think. The Saints could go over to Europe, win 93-0, and that would help to legitimise their world champion tag. I think that would clear up this kind of argument, if they ever bothered to do it. The European players are professionals too :dunno:
Otherwise they won a national competition, thats all. Even if they are way better than everyone else, they havent technically proven themselves to be world champions, and shouldnt be called that by default.

 

[titsrock]

The only reason they call them self world champs is because no-one outside America gives a shit really

QFT :o Our national pastime, Professional American Football, is basically a game for only us to enjoy. There are semi-pro leagues in Mexico and Japan (and NFL Europe?) but they aren't really at a high level.

There's always truth in satire :o


The 1980 "Miracle on Ice" win by the U.S. is not the same as a team of the World's Best players taking on America's best players in American Football. No foreign team of players could field a quality side to offer up a competitive game. The U.S. hockey players were going to be playing in the NHL (most of them anyway) and the NHL is on par with the old Soviet Pro League (where Dynamo played). It was a miracle because the Soviet pros were supposed to be far superior than American college players.

American Pro football is a multi-billion dollar enterprise. Foreign nations who field semi-pro teams/leagues might spend $10000 max. It's not on the same fucking planet.

In World Football--Brazil is (usually) the World's best team. The last time Brazil and the U.S. played on a neutral site--it wasn't exactly a Brazil thrashing was it? The U.S. beating Brazil in the World Cup might be seen by the World as a Miracle on Ice type outcome, but not to American soccer fans it wouldn't be :thefinger

 

[ThatRedWing]

The game American(key word is American) Football, not World(key word is World) Football thus they cannot be called World Champions, only U.S Champions.

Fuck this, I'm going to bed

So then basically, this is all about the fact that a football team is called a world champion. Nothing about the NBA calling their champions "World Champions"? The Saints are the best professional football team in the world for this season. End of discussion. Hence World Champions.:hatsoff:

 

[Lungzyn]

So then basically, this is all about the fact that a football team is called a world champion. Nothing about the NBA calling their champions "World Champions"?

The NBA winner being called the world champions makes no sense since there is already an official Basketball World Championship competition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiba_world_championship
Who is the most recent winner of that competition? Spain.
The last time the USA won was in 1994. Granted, they dominate the olympic winners records.
I guess they dont care about the world championship as much :dunno: Olympic gold is often more coveted than a WC title.
Anyway, the NBA decides the best team in North America, not the world. The US doesnt crush the top international teams in Basketball anymore.
At least nowhere near the level an NFL team would beat an international team.

 

[PlasmaTwa2]

^ Can't there be a club world champion and a country world champion? :dunno:

 

[D-rock]

As for the general question I can only state what others have stated. Unlike soccer (or regular football for everybody else) there is no other major American football league in the world at all to compete against let alone one around they same quality of competition. Hence, why they can legitimately claim to be "world champions."

Well, Greg already pointed this out, but that's what they were saying about the Soviets in 1980. :tongue:

There is a reason that is considered the greatest sports upset of all time. I would say that's the ultimate example of the "exception proving the rule".

 

[Lungzyn]

^ Can't there be a club world champion and a country world champion? :dunno:

Sure, but shouldnt it include teams from the European leagues at least too? :dunno: