Cricket Games And Licensing

[Chief]

pity I was really hoping for a nice debate too instead all I get is an excuse =/
not trying to be rude but I don't think you can come up with 5. sports more major then cricket excluding soccer ...

I can just think the other sport that comes close and can be debated with is Tennis ...

But most stats and charts I've seen Its Soccer (no debate) first place

and most of the times cricket is number 2 or 3 ...

All hinges on how you define "first place". Are we talking participants? Spectators? Global financial value?

 

[ryandobermann]

All hinges on how you define "first place". Are we talking participants? Spectators? Global financial value?

Simply talking about major sports around the world...

first place football ... known as the world game , played by all the counties in the world ...


this argument basically started because that other dude reckons cricket isn't a major sport =p n I had to disagree ...

 

[Chief]

Simply talking about major sports around the world...

first place football ... known as the world game , played by all the counties in the world ...


this argument basically started because that other dude reckons cricket isn't a major sport =p n I had to disagree ...

I'd say it's a major sport on a list of about 10. But I think if you're going to get more specific, you're going to set some criteria.

 

[asprin]

first place football ... known as the world game , played by all the counties in the world ....

That is exactly what I pointed out earlier and the main reason behind why I don't consider it a major sport. If you're trying to support your theory simply by looking at the number of viewers of the sport then I think you're basing it wrong. As I've also pointed out earlier, a majority of that figure comes from the sub continent.

Short version: It isn't a major sport because hardly 15 countries around the world play it. Compare that with other sports and you'll get the answer to the question that you have been repeatedly asking. I rest my case here.

If you think otherwise, be my guest. You haven't made a compelling argument yet to make me change my point of view.

 

[ryandobermann]

That is exactly what I pointed out earlier and the main reason behind why I don't consider it a major sport. If you're trying to support your theory simply by looking at the number of viewers of the sport then I think you're basing it wrong. As I've also pointed out earlier, a majority of that figure comes from the sub continent.

Short version: It isn't a major sport because hardly 15 countries around the world play it. Compare that with other sports and you'll get the answer to the question that you have been repeatedly asking. I rest my case here.

If you think otherwise, be my guest. You haven't made a compelling argument yet to make me change my point of view.

Firstly Popularity count would be done by the number of people that likes the sport ...
I get what your saying only 15 countries around the world play it but those 15 countries and people from there helps make this sport popular ...
When you take a vote count you look at the number of votes , not the country that is voting =p so viewers do make it popular and major ...

You still haven't given me 1st , 2nd , 3rd yet =p so I don't have much to go on ... excluding football please name me three sports u consider major =p and then I can explain to you ...

Yes you pointed out sub-continent but that's cause they are part of the common wealth nation ... anyways give me ur sport u still keep avoiding this question lol

----------

That is exactly what I pointed out earlier and the main reason behind why I don't consider it a major sport. If you're trying to support your theory simply by looking at the number of viewers of the sport then I think you're basing it wrong. As I've also pointed out earlier, a majority of that figure comes from the sub continent.

Short version: It isn't a major sport because hardly 15 countries around the world play it. Compare that with other sports and you'll get the answer to the question that you have been repeatedly asking. I rest my case here.

If you think otherwise, be my guest. You haven't made a compelling argument yet to make me change my point of view.

One more thing ... A sport popularity isn't determined just by the number of nations that play it, it's the number of people and they have to enjoy it and watch it to make it a major sport...
You mentioned only 15 countries play cricket , well your actually wrong ...
Yes test playing nation ain't that much however there are national cricket teams in Europe ... Germany,Netherlands,Italy,France,Israel,Switzerland,Austria,Spain ....
You didn't know this ???
check this out ...

https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=3EOsU7jCHKSN8QeFv4CICg&gws_rd=ssl#q=european+cricket+teams

 

[Chief]

Do you know I (and most of the cricket fans) will be more interested in playing in a game with Lasith Malinga's action (or Sunil Narine or Jhonson...etc), than their face, commentary name or any of their kit.

I know CA can't make such specific bowling actions, but can the purchased licence do it ?
The answer is No.

Thank you very much...

Interesting thing being brought up in the Lindsey Lohan vs GTA case currently going through early stages. From a ruling in a New York court:

?any recognizable likeness, not just an actual photograph, may qualify as a portrait or picture.?

So would Malinga's action, being totally completely recognisable as his in the context of cricket, be subject to a license? Would MSD be claiming royalties for anyone using the helicopter action?