Youth Recruitment Network

[Taunton]

Since 1991? Beckham, Rooney and Owen in their primes probably compete for space on that list. Obviously not quite top of it (Xavi, Zidane, Messi), but up there. Then you've got the likes of Wilshere and McEachran who could get there. And the slightly lower, but still top 100 players in the world since 1991: Scholes, Terry, Ferdinand, Lampard and Gerrard. So, no, I disagree that English youth systems don't produce top top players.

Of course they produce top players, and I think the players that comes through now will be even better, but I meant in relevance to the league importance. It has been the most important league for some years now, but still I think there could be more english talent coming through when you look at it's resources. But most clubs have bought foreigners, and just recently started to work hard on their recruitment. Man Utd and West Ham I think has been the clubs who have done most for english talent during the years.

So I wasn't slating great english players, I was just saying that it doesn't have to be a link between a great league an great youth players.

But it could also be the other way round, a not so significant league can produce lots of great youth.

[Taunton]

Scandinavians are huge on their motor racing and handball

Are we??

I thought winter sports were our favourite. But even so, football is the most popular, even in Norway and Iceland, were we have at times a tough climate.

[pentagrammer]

Greeks are crazy about some of the Olympic sports like Javalin and shot put.

Not true mate, we're only crazy about football and basketball

Even then we're not the best example in this topic, cause football here got backwards for other reasons (corruption and all that)

And about Poland you probably mean volleyball!

I don't remember the game importance of these countries in FM, just correcting a few things if you don't mind

[Scab]

like? I've asked for examples.

Finland, motor sport and ice hockey.

Belarus, ice hockey.

Latvia, ice hockey.

Lithuania, basketball.

This is off the top of my head from countries near mine. Football is big everywhere but not always the biggest. I think having this value in the game makes sense, but it should ideally be dynamic.

[milnerpoint]

And about Poland you probably mean volleyball!

I don't remember the game importance of these countries in FM, just correcting a few things if you don't mind

Sorry your right!! As Scab says its Lithuania who are huge on their basketball Poland as you say is Volleyball.

I dont mind at all please do

[Quads]

Lithuania and Latvia aren't playable countries. Football is definitely more popular in Poland than volleyball, their fans are mental. I may agree about Finland, but only Finns can tell.

[JackInDerBox]

Having just read the Soccernomics book it would appear that Norway are probably the keenest Footballing nation in the world!

[BiggusD]

Having just read the Soccernomics book it would appear that Norway are probably the keenest Footballing nation in the world!

How's that?

[r0x0r]

How's that?

It's based on mathematical analysis. They looked at which countries fans watched the most football at stadiums, on tv and actually played football. 8.5% of the Norwegian population are registered with clubs and regularly play organised football. Norwegians not only tend to watch their own league, but also tend to follow the English and German leagues closely. They are, empirically, the most football mad nation in the world.

edit: They also host the 2nd largest youth football tournament in the world every year, the Norway Cup. The biggest is the Gothia Cup next door in Sweden.

[Taunton]

It's based on mathematical analysis. They looked at which countries fans watched the most football at stadiums, on tv and actually played football. 8.5% of the Norwegian population are registered with clubs and regularly play organised football. Norwegians not only tend to watch their own league, but also tend to follow the English and German leagues closely. They are, empirically, the most football mad nation in the world.

It's true. We are crazy about football.

[Deisler26]

Coming at it from a different angle, surely the youth recruitment network should be upgradable in the same way as the youth/training facilites?

Imagine your basic recruitment is just putting an ad in the paper saying that there will be trials held. Then, as you upgrade, you attend schools tournaments and local schools. Upgrade again, and you have someone watching the U-16 leagues on a Saturday morning. The top echelon should be having someone at U-11 games and all the rest put together.

I'm not saying that the quality of the regens should improve, I'm saying that there should be scope to improve YOUR recruitment network. Perhaps have, say, a Head of Youth Scouting? Same as a Youth Coach, if he has JPP/JPA 20 and Working With Youngsters 20, you should get a more targetted level of intake.

[MSCCG]

I don't have any numbers, but I have heard that even though in New Zealand the popularity of football is much less than rugby, it is our most popular team sport among youth. Given New Zealand's tendency to punch above our weight in terms of sports, I think it would really only take a spark to set it off here. The world cup did just that, and there was a big jump in popularity since last year.

[Some Guy!]

I don't have any numbers, but I have heard that even though in New Zealand the popularity of football is much less than rugby, it is our most popular team sport among youth. Given New Zealand's tendency to punch above our weight in terms of sports, I think it would really only take a spark to set it off here. The world cup did just that, and there was a big jump in popularity since last year.

Hahahaha! Punch above their weight...

Kidding aside the Kiwis haven't really taken to the sport at all. They don't even have their own fully professional league, they even have their best team in the Australian League.

Also, the Kiwis hardly "punch above their weight". Okay, they did well in the World Cup and they did manage to win the League World Cup in 2008, but over all they are generally the opposite. Let's just think about it:

Above their weight:

2010 World Cup - 3 draws, hardly world beaters but hey, they did well.

2008 Rugby League World Cup - Well, they were second favourites, and whilst Australia were heavy favourites it was hardly like they were outsiders

Below their weight:

2007 Rugby World Cup

2003 Rugby World Cup

1999 Rugby World Cup

1995... etc.

1996 Oceania Nations Cup - They finished below Tahiti!

Recent Olympics (on medal tally):

25th

24th

46th

So nothing overly impressive. Though to the world of football they seem to have punched above their weight at the World Cup, they are seen in their own corner as perennial chokers (especially in Rugby Union), though they are becoming far better these days at Rugby League. I can see where the idea that they are punching above their weight comes from, but it is not something inherent to New Zealand. There is a much larger argument for Australia to be "punching above their weight", but even Australia have a tendency to choke in recent times (2009-10 Ashes, 2008 League World Cup etc.). It's always interesting to hear what people think about our little corner of the World though from a far.

Here are some numbers by the way about the Kiwis:

The Super Rugby (Australia, South Africa and New Zealand competition) overall gets about ~20,000 per match. However the Kiwi teams usually get more than this. I don't know the average exactly for their football league, but it's of the order of ~500 per game with 3500 for the final last season. Their side in the A-league average about ~8,000 a game, which is a lot better. Their Rugby League side that plays in the Australian competition gets around ~13-16,000 (our sports competitions are very mixed, then again they were nearly a state of Australia, strangely enough they signed on to federation before Western Australia, but backed out before federation). Hopefully that's a good feel for it.

[silverboot81]

Coming at it from a different angle, surely the youth recruitment network should be upgradable in the same way as the youth/training facilites?

Imagine your basic recruitment is just putting an ad in the paper saying that there will be trials held. Then, as you upgrade, you attend schools tournaments and local schools. Upgrade again, and you have someone watching the U-16 leagues on a Saturday morning. The top echelon should be having someone at U-11 games and all the rest put together.

I'm not saying that the quality of the regens should improve, I'm saying that there should be scope to improve YOUR recruitment network. Perhaps have, say, a Head of Youth Scouting? Same as a Youth Coach, if he has JPP/JPA 20 and Working With Youngsters 20, you should get a more targetted level of intake.

I like this idea.

What's really bothering me is that the whole recruiting system is too simplified and invisible to the gamers. Currently all we see and know is that our team have certain level recruiting network (no explanation what it includes, how does it works etc.) and BUM once a year couple of youngsters just appears behind stadium gates.

[Some Guy!]

I like this idea.

What's really bothering me is that the whole recruiting system is too simplified and invisible to the gamers. Currently all we see and know is that our team have certain level recruiting network (no explanation what it includes, how does it works etc.) and BUM once a year couple of youngsters just appears behind stadium gates.

Hey, it's like how my school kitchen got its meat!

Though my all time favourite meal was one night where we had "chicken". Now, the school's ovals turned into essentially bogs during winter and were all year round covered in ducks. That night there wasn't a single duck in sight...

[MSCCG]

Hahahaha! Punch above their weight...

Kidding aside the Kiwis haven't really taken to the sport at all. They don't even have their own fully professional league, they even have their best team in the Australian League.

Also, the Kiwis hardly "punch above their weight". Okay, they did well in the World Cup and they did manage to win the League World Cup in 2008, but over all they are generally the opposite. Let's just think about it:

Above their weight:

2010 World Cup - 3 draws, hardly world beaters but hey, they did well.

2008 Rugby League World Cup - Well, they were second favourites, and whilst Australia were heavy favourites it was hardly like they were outsiders

Below their weight:

2007 Rugby World Cup

2003 Rugby World Cup

1999 Rugby World Cup

1995... etc.

1996 Oceania Nations Cup - They finished below Tahiti!

Recent Olympics (on medal tally):

25th

24th

46th

So nothing overly impressive. Though to the world of football they seem to have punched above their weight at the World Cup, they are seen in their own corner as perennial chokers (especially in Rugby Union), though they are becoming far better these days at Rugby League. I can see where the idea that they are punching above their weight comes from, but it is not something inherent to New Zealand. There is a much larger argument for Australia to be "punching above their weight", but even Australia have a tendency to choke in recent times (2009-10 Ashes, 2008 League World Cup etc.). It's always interesting to hear what people think about our little corner of the World though from a far.

Here are some numbers by the way about the Kiwis:

The Super Rugby (Australia, South Africa and New Zealand competition) overall gets about ~20,000 per match. However the Kiwi teams usually get more than this. I don't know the average exactly for their football league, but it's of the order of ~500 per game with 3500 for the final last season. Their side in the A-league average about ~8,000 a game, which is a lot better. Their Rugby League side that plays in the Australian competition gets around ~13-16,000 (our sports competitions are very mixed, then again they were nearly a state of Australia, strangely enough they signed on to federation before Western Australia, but backed out before federation). Hopefully that's a good feel for it.

I think the fact that we are favourites for anything shows that we pretty much always punch above our weight. The country has a pretty big landmass (202 ranked in population density), but we have a population of just under 4.5 million people. That's less than the population of Sydney, making us the 123rd most populated country in the world. Not having our own professional league and whatnot is an economic (not enough people to form a financially profitable fan base) and infrastructural (the country is spread apart too far, and we have two islands) rather than us being inherently bad at anything... So by weight, I was more meaning something closer to literal weight (in kg) rather than the predicted outcome or whatever which is based on how good the team should be, and I was trying to say that we're really good despite our low population.

The NZ breakers are currently champions of the NBL, and the Wellington Phoenix have qualified for the A-League finals for the last two seasons. These, including your examples, (apart from the OFC Nations Cup - though we only had one less win than Australia in the competition before they left the OFC) if you look at it with a blank slate, are all overachievements!

As for the Olympics, over 180 of our athletes qualified for the tournament, there were only 16 other countries that sent more competitors than we did. Coming 25th was also an overachievement. I don't have an accurate number, but adjusted by population, we were in the top 10 in medal haul definitely, and maybe even the top 5.

Australia do overachieve as well, but if you consider the raw number of people involved in the individual sports, and sporting as a whole, I really can't see many, if any nations that can match up to New Zealand's overall excellence (performance, influence and development) in every aspect of sport.

Coming back to the topic, I have been reading this thread and I'm confused. Is the problem just with countries or is it a problem with teams as well. Let's say I was promoted from amateur level in Germany and became the best team in the world, will my youth recruitment improve or would it be the same level?

[Some Guy!]

I think the fact that we are favourites for anything shows that we pretty much always punch above our weight. The country has a pretty big landmass (202 ranked in population density), but we have a population of just under 4.5 million people. That's less than the population of Sydney, making us the 123rd most populated country in the world. Not having our own professional league and whatnot is an economic (not enough people to form a financially profitable fan base) and infrastructural (the country is spread apart too far, and we have two islands) rather than us being inherently bad at anything... So by weight, I was more meaning something closer to literal weight (in kg) rather than the predicted outcome or whatever which is based on how good the team should be, and I was trying to say that we're really good despite our low population.

The NZ breakers are currently champions of the NBL, and the Wellington Phoenix have qualified for the A-League finals for the last two seasons. These, including your examples, (apart from the OFC Nations Cup - though we only had one less win than Australia in the competition before they left the OFC) if you look at it with a blank slate, are all overachievements!

As for the Olympics, over 180 of our athletes qualified for the tournament, there were only 16 other countries that sent more competitors than we did. Coming 25th was also an overachievement. I don't have an accurate number, but adjusted by population, we were in the top 10 in medal haul definitely, and maybe even the top 5.

Australia do overachieve as well, but if you consider the raw number of people involved in the individual sports, and sporting as a whole, I really can't see many, if any nations that can match up to New Zealand's overall excellence (performance, influence and development) in every aspect of sport.

Coming back to the topic, I have been reading this thread and I'm confused. Is the problem just with countries or is it a problem with teams as well. Let's say I was promoted from amateur level in Germany and became the best team in the world, will my youth recruitment improve or would it be the same level?

You need to physically ask for it to be improved, and in Germany if you became the best team in the World could definitely make it the best youth set up in the World if you played long enough. The point is that in some countries that is physically impossible as it stands because of the "importance" value.

Back to the Kiwis though, let's play some stat games between Australia and the Kiwis for a quick comparison:

Population Density: New Zealand: 16/km^2 (202nd), Australia: 3/km^2 (235th), so New Zealand is 5 times more densely populated than Australia.

The lowest for a sovereign nation is Namibia with 2.6/km^2 (236th).

Outright population: New Zealand: 4,315,800, Australia: 22,822,528, so New Zealand is in fact ~a fifth of the population of Australia.

To the point about Wellington being in the A-league finals for the last 2 years. Brisbane Roar were Champions whilst Gold Coast finished higher than Wellington, that is two Queensland teams did better than the singular Kiwi team. Not to mention the third Queensland team (who no longer exist). That is Queensland, who are roughly the same in terms of population (and are actually on average less densely populated than Australia at 2.6/km^2, that is less than a fifth of the Kiwi density) managed to support 3 teams, two of which were far better than Wellington this season. So that's hardly an achievement.

As for the Basketball, Australia have 16 gold medals to the Kiwi's 3 in Oceania. Corrected for population (that is, Australia has 5 times the population) the Kiwis would have 15. So maybe that's about the same.

In terms of Olympic medals Australia has 432 whilst the Kiwis have 86 (and we have 11 together). Again correcting for the population the Kiwis would have 430, again very close.

As for Rugby Union, in terms of World Cups Australia has 2 to the Kiwis 1 despite it being the sport which they are best at. In terms of Tri nations however the Kiwis are 10-2 against Australia... So hey.

For Rugby League however the World Cup record is 10 to Australia, 1 to New Zealand and the tri-nations record is 2-1 in it's 4 iterations.

In terms of ODI Cricket Australia have 4 World Cups to the Kiwis 0.

Test Cricket between the two sides has Australia at 26 wins to the Kiwi's 7 with 17 draws.

The reason that I don't compare the population here as well is because Australia are extremely stretched in terms of team sports in population. Whilst the Kiwis essentially play only Rugby Union with a side of League, Cricket and a very small amount of football and extremely small amounts of Basket and a few others, Australia has a major league for AFL (a strange Australian sport which makes little to no sense), Rugby League, Football and has more minor leagues for State Cricket and Basketball (which the Kiwis have a team in) as well as participating in Super Rugby.

Overall both "punch above their weight" in terms of population and especially Australia in terms of the amount of travel required for a nation league, however as mentioned before in recent times both have been rather poor in sports they are supposed to be good at. Australia and New Zealand at recent Rugby World cups, Australia in Cricket recently etc. In terms of overall excellence though all round in sport you can't look much past Australia. Despite being ranked around 50th in the World in terms of population and being population wise a speck in comparison to the likes of the USA, China, the UK and most of the big European countries Australia is a top 10 and at times a top 5 country in the Olympics, one of the biggest sides in football in Asia, one of the biggest side in recent times in the Cricket and Rugby League, one of the biggest sides in Rugby Union and a big side in many more "minor" sports such as Basketball, Hockey and the like despite all these sports being secondary the nations main sport of AFL (which makes absolutely no sense). The Kiwis on the other hand have had one okay showing at a World Cup and whilst they haven't had a chance to shine at the same level as Australia (say in Asia) they are hardly on the same level. In terms of other sports they are a major player in Rugby League, one of the major players in Rugby Union, however in sports like Cricket they are hardly a major side. Both nations are "major players though.

Good fun!

What's really funny though is that England, who are much bigger than both Australia and New Zealand combined rarely can take them on at any sport except football, and they are failing at that too in truth. The funniest part of all is that Australia beat England the last time they played.

Also, a brief description of AFL or "Australian Rules Football" for those lucky enough to have no come across it. It's played on a cricket oval (every single stadium is a different shape and side) with an oval ball. Ball may pass the ball by kicking it or punching it and it you kick a ball more than 15 metres and it is caught it is called "a mark" and you get a freekick. Scoring comes in two forms, goal and behinds, or in pre season competitions there are also something called a super goal which is a goal scored from 50 metres or more. A goal is worth 6 points and is where you score between the two big posts, a behind is if you score between the two smaller further out posts and is one point. A super goal is 9 points. Essentially it's goals with pity points if you miss. Of course its traditional to have a mullet and ware very short shorts.

[Hammered Pizza]

What's really funny though is that England, who are much bigger than both Australia and New Zealand combined rarely can take them on at any sport except football, and they are failing at that too in truth. The funniest part of all is that Australia beat England the last time they played.

We beat Australia in the Ashes last time we played, and we're currently half way towards being the best test side in the world. We've won 3 of the last 4 series. We also won the T20 World Cup in 2010, beating Australia in the final.

When England were beaten by Australia it was a B-team. Francis Jeffers played ffs.

England have done better than Australia and New Zealand in the last 2 rugby world cups, beating Australia in both.

Great Britain finished higher in the medal table than both Australia and New Zealand.

So yeah, we can rarely do well against you in any sporting encounter.

[Some Guy!]

Actually, in that match it was quite a strong squad, especially in the first half. It was also Wayne Rooney's debut in the second half.

Yeah, but Australia still have more trophies overall.

As I mentioned Australia haven't been so great in the last few years, but hey things like this happen. Give it a few years and Australia will be well and truly on top.

As for the Olympics, it was a minor (a couple of medals) and actually the first time in 20 years that Great Britain had finished above Australia. The commonwealth games tells the story though:

2010: Australia 74 gold (177 overall), England 37 gold (142 overall)

2006: Australia 84 gold (222 overall), England 36 gold (110 overall)

2002: Australia 82 gold (207 overall), England 54 gold (156 overall)

This is quite remarkable considering that Australia has a population of only 22,669,391 against the UK's 62,262,000. This is especially concerning for England in other sports considering that Australia generally performs better in all sports but football, in which Australia are becoming better.

Rugby Union - Australia are historically better, but have had a poor time of it in the last 2 world cups. Australia still have 2 World Cups though to England's 1.

Rugby League - Australia have what... 10 to Great Britain's 3 odd World Cups?

Cricket - Overall Ashes record: 123 wins for Australia, 100 wins for England and 87 draws. In terms of ODIs Australia have 4 World Cups to England's 0.

Football - England have it over Australia here by far, but until the last 10 years the sport wasn't even really thought about in Australia. Give it time

Olympics and Commonwealth games - Australia generally finish higher than Great Britain with Australia only finishing below them once in 20 years. As for Commonwealth games the last time that the English finished about Australia on the medal tally was what? 1986 from memory?

I don't know, if I were English I'd not even bother to bring up any of that record. Maybe brag here and there about the fact that England actually won something, it's currently one of those rare blips in the Cricket and Olympics, but really, as only England in Commonwealth games you pale in comparison to the Australians.

Also, this:

[Hammered Pizza]

The picture: I didn't design the logo

And there's no point going by past glories. I can't say Liverpool have won the Champions League the third most times, does that mean they are the third best team in Europe? I can't exactly say that they're the second best in England either...

No-one really cares about Rugby League...

Olympics and Commonwealth games - yes, but we are improving. Fast.

Although we have the population, we lack the infrastructure to harvest the talent that comes our way. With sports like cricket where that is actually beginning to happen, well, the results speak for themselves...

[x42bn6]

About the Ashes - the current Australian squad is miles behind its recent past. Warne, McGrath and Langer, for example, have retired, whilst England's current cricket squads are hitting their peaks. Much like football, it comes around in cycles - England a few years back could barely touch Australia in cricket!

Australians are brilliant at sport and I suspect it's much more integrated over there. Look at their swimmers, too - dominant. In fact, Australia are probably better in any beach-based or water-based sport in general, for fairly obvious reasons. It's a recurring issue here in the UK where sport is increasingly taking a back seat, whilst Australia's climate and sports-hungry nation mean that sports are adopted more readily by children.

Of course, there are some sports, like football, where Australians don't flock to as much, but then again, every nation doesn't flock to every single sport available to man. Australia and New Zealand are very good in the sports they enjoy (both Rugby codes, Australian Rules Football, swimming and cricket).

[kccircle]

The better your facilities the more options you should have.

Imagine having top facilities giving you access to 100 youths where you could watch in friendlies with the end result being that you could sign up 16 of them for the season. All the 100 youths would have masked stats that would meaning you have to base your decisions on what happens on the field of play

I'd like that anyway

[Some Guy!]

The picture: I didn't design the logo

And there's no point going by past glories. I can't say Liverpool have won the Champions League the third most times, does that mean they are the third best team in Europe? I can't exactly say that they're the second best in England either...

No-one really cares about Rugby League...

Olympics and Commonwealth games - yes, but we are improving. Fast.

Although we have the population, we lack the infrastructure to harvest the talent that comes our way. With sports like cricket where that is actually beginning to happen, well, the results speak for themselves...

Are you sure you're not American with that kind of attitude?

[Hammered Pizza]

Nope, I'm English. As far as I know, Papua New Guinea have Rugby League as their national sport.

For other countries it is an after thought. Less fun to play (and watch) than Union.

[Some Guy!]

Closet American then...

[Stampler]

Well, my Honvéd side has now completely dominated Europe, Hungary is in the top 3 leagues and we have the best part of a billion pounds just sitting in the bank and has done made it there by developing young players...

Could you please post a screenie of the Top Leauges screen in your game

[r0x0r]

Ultimately, there needs to be a cap. Even if you are the biggest team in the world, if the kids in your country would rather watch Wrestling, Angling and Stilt-racing, you aren't going to have a great youth network. There just aren't enough local kids kicking an inflated pigs bladder to build one around.

You could have a great international network, but this would be represented with scouts and your scouting instructions.

[Some Guy!]

Could you please post a screenie of the Top Leauges screen in your game

World Competitions

European Competitions

UEFA Coefficients

[charlo116]

Thing the main problem with this is that the money rewarded for winning the league doesn't increase even if the league reputation has increased.

It should, SI said that all prize money was dynamic as well so it could change as the rep of the league changes.

[MSCCG]

Ultimately, there needs to be a cap. Even if you are the biggest team in the world, if the kids in your country would rather watch Wrestling, Angling and Stilt-racing, you aren't going to have a great youth network. There just aren't enough local kids kicking an inflated pigs bladder to build one around.

You could have a great international network, but this would be represented with scouts and your scouting instructions.

But surely popularity of a sport in a country is dynamic, and this is why organizers try so hard to promote their sport in other countries?

Thinking of the way Japanese football's upward momentum since 1993 when the J-league was formed and even small successes like almost reaching the world cup, but for the tragedy of Doha... etc. contributed to the popularity of the sport soaring. Currently, the Japanese national team is the highest ranked Asian team in the FIFA rankings and Japanese talent are plying their trade in some of the best leagues in the world.

This is probably a lesson that organisation and success can inspire an entire country even though there are already established sports that run deep within the society. I can also see this happening for Australia in the next decade or two, and China as well maybe. Football is an amazing sport.

[r0x0r]

But surely popularity of a sport in a country is dynamic, and this is why organizers try so hard to promote their sport in other countries?

Thinking of the way Japanese football's upward momentum since 1993 when the J-league was formed and even small successes like almost reaching the world cup, but for the tragedy of Doha... etc. contributed to the popularity of the sport soaring. Currently, the Japanese national team is the highest ranked Asian team in the FIFA rankings and Japanese talent are plying their trade in some of the best leagues in the world.

This is probably a lesson that organisation and success can inspire an entire country even though there are already established sports that run deep within the society. I can also see this happening for Australia in the next decade or two, and China as well maybe. Football is an amazing sport.

Football's popularity may be dynamic, but changes occur over a long period of time, and are absolutely out of the hands of the individual teams and managers. Raising the game's profile in a country is a political exercise. Other than a random increase or decrease every few decades there would be no way to model it in game.

I mean, look at the fight to make football relevant in the USA! Anywhere with a long established sporting history is going to have a real tough time convincing fans to watch football rather than the established sports.

edit: Countries where football has risen in popularity tend to have lacked exposure to it in the past, and don't usually have hugely followed team sports for it to compete with. At this point it's probably reaching global saturation anyway. Globalisation is reaching the point where you have to ask "Where next?"

[Stampler]

World Competitions

European Competitions

UEFA Coefficients

Thanks mate! This is indeed amazing. Never saw this before

[Some Guy!]

Football's popularity may be dynamic, but changes occur over a long period of time, and are absolutely out of the hands of the individual teams and managers. Raising the game's profile in a country is a political exercise. Other than a random increase or decrease every few decades there would be no way to model it in game.

I mean, look at the fight to make football relevant in the USA! Anywhere with a long established sporting history is going to have a real tough time convincing fans to watch football rather than the established sports.

edit: Countries where football has risen in popularity tend to have lacked exposure to it in the past, and don't usually have hugely followed team sports for it to compete with. At this point it's probably reaching global saturation anyway. Globalisation is reaching the point where you have to ask "Where next?"

At the end of the day though, in the case where the league suddenly becomes filled with Super stars and the national team is battling it out with the best then a nation would get behind the sides.

[r0x0r]

At the end of the day though, in the case where the league suddenly becomes filled with Super stars and the national team is battling it out with the best then a nation would get behind the sides.

If they didnt care about football, why would suddenly being good make them care?

Did having Best, Pele and co playing in America make it the #1 sport there? Nope. there isn't some magical formula that makes a sport popular in a country. In fact, in a country with a developed sporting identity of it's own it's really tough for a new sport to make any inroads.

[Some Guy!]

If they didnt care about football, why would suddenly being good make them care?

Did having Best, Pele and co playing in America make it the #1 sport there? Nope. there isn't some magical formula that makes a sport popular in a country. In fact, in a country with a developed sporting identity of it's own it's really tough for a new sport to make any inroads.

No, but at the end of the day its not as though America suddenly won the World Cup or LA Galaxy or the like became the best side in the World. Having some over the hill player is hardly going to get people who don't care to games, however winning major tournaments sure does. The transformation in Australia within that year following the 2006 world cup was immense, and we only made it to the round of 16 (*dive*). Success gets attention, especially in nations like Australia and America. One gold medal last time around got people's attention in the winter olympics.

To have it be completely static is just completely ridiculous.

[Quads]

So, Some Guy, were you able to upgrade youth recruitment network atleast one time?

[Some Guy!]

So, Some Guy, were you able to upgrade youth recruitment network atleast one time?

I have upgraded it, but it's still only "above average". That produces maybe a player capable of making it in a top European division once every 4-5 years at best. That's 11/12 out of 20 if I remember correctly from my tinkering. I think I may just chuck up Hungary's "importance" at the end of the season... To important for now and up to very important after something yet to be determined. Don't know yet though.

[pikeal]

What about Wales? Does that have important structure?

[T-IceMan]

What the..... the reputation of Hungarian lower leagues is through the roof? Top 15 leagues has 4 Hungarian ones... (so 3 lower leagues)... Looks a bit odd to me

[JackJCFC]

What about Wales? Does that have important structure?

Wales is Important, although its still very hard to get upgrades.

[Quads]

Wales is Important, although its still very hard to get upgrades.

now that's stupid, football isn't even number one sport in Wales

[JackJCFC]

now that's stupid, football isn't even number one sport in Wales

Well very important is the highest setting so i think thats about right. To have it at unimportant would mean that there would never be any decent players appearing when in real life they do come along, just very rarely.

[Lenzar]

One club becoming a European force would not be enough to increase interest in football. My personal interest, for example, has gone way down because of the monopolising ******* in the EPL.

[Quads]

Well very important is the highest setting so i think thats about right. To have it at unimportant would mean that there would never be any decent players appearing when in real life they do come along, just very rarely.

then why Hungary is unimportant? Hungary has produced number of great players.

[JackJCFC]

then why Hungary is unimportant? Hungary has produced number of great players.

Not for a while now though.

[JackInDerBox]

Finally after 10 Seasons at Aberdeen I have managed to upgrade Youth Recruitment Network to established which I believe is around 15 out of 20. Decent regens are starting to appear all over Scotland which is nice but a bit frustrating considering I am the only team doing well in Scotland.

[r0x0r]

then why Hungary is unimportant? Hungary has produced number of great players.

Because Football is still an important sport in Wales, that the vast majority of the population follow in one manner or another. It just has to compete with Rugby for the #1 spot.

However in Hungary, football isn't a major sport. It's not being talked about in every playground. So it isn't important.

[dafuge]

What the..... the reputation of Hungarian lower leagues is through the roof? Top 15 leagues has 4 Hungarian ones... (so 3 lower leagues)... Looks a bit odd to me

I didn't spot that at first, but it does look very odd.

The Hungarian cup becoming equal to the Bundelisga in just 13 years is weird, the fact the Hungarian lower leagues seem to have leapfrogged Serie B and the Championship is even weirder.

[Some Guy!]

I'm actually fairly puzzled by that as well in truth. I think its because of my B team Kispest, who most years make at least the quarter finals of the Hungarian Cup. They've actually made in that time 5 semi finals and 2 finals. The Hungarian Cup would be because of the success of the other Hungarian sides. I'm not entire sure of the inner workings of the DLR, but that's my best guess based on what's happened.

[dafuge]

It is the timeframe that I think is the biggest shocker, I was expecting stuff like this to take a lot longer than 13 years, maybe 50.