RunoutalloverU said:Ironically in pointing out to me that im wrong, you came up with the perfect example. The NFL is exactly what im talking about. I can't think of any other sport that is more US centric than football, and yet we call it a world championship.
And I see your point, that there is no exact criteria for how many countries need be present to have a "true" world championship. Its not like there is a standard criteria that says,"ok well you only have 45 countries and you need 46 so sorry, its not a real world championship."
However, that isn't what I said. You don't need every country in the world to be there. Thats just stupid, one for bringing up that ridiculous idea, and two for acting like I was making that my point. Now, you have a point, what is my criteria for having a true world championship? I don't know. But what we have today, is sure a lot closer to one than in the 80s or 90s. 45 to 4 OR 5. I think ill take the former.
I have to disagree with both of you on this. For 40 years, it has been called the Superbowl and not a "world championship."
However, if any football team from anywhere in the world might wish to put up $20 million or so for a challenge match with the current Superbowl champion team, I think they would get 10 points on the wire without too much debate.
So, even though it isn't CALLED a World Championship...it IS a World Championship.
Regards,
Jim