• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2016 Copa America Regarding Population And Wealth Amount

Abram Jones

New member
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
Location
Wisconsin (WI)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Here are the economic results for the tournament. This includes a list of countries and their estimated available population that can potentially contribute the sport of soccer (be it directly or indirectly). Available population is determined by number of people living on at least the equivalent of 10 USD per day and in between the ages of 15 and 64.

(MATCHES WON BY THE COUNTRY WITH MORE AVAILABLE POPULATION)
GROUP STAGE: 17/21 (81%)
KNOCKOUT STAGE: 4/8 (50%)
TOTAL: 21/29 (72% victories for countries with more available population)

COUNTRIES (16)
Brazil: 63.5 (1st)
Mexico: 38.6 (1st)
Argentina: 18.4 (1st)
United States: 13.1 (5th)
Colombia: 12.2 (1st)
Peru: 8.9 (1st)
Chile: 7.6 (1st)
Ecuador: 4.2 (1st)
Bolivia: 2.2 (1st)
Venezuela: 2.0 (3rd)
Paraguay: 1.9 (1st)
Costa Rica: 1.7 (1st)
Uruguay: 1.3 (1st)
Panama: 0.5 (2nd)
Jamaica: 0.4 (2nd)
Haiti: 0.2 (1st)
TOTAL: 176.7
AVERAGE: 11.0

 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,100
Reaction score
12,353
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Here are the economic results for the tournament. This includes a list of countries and their estimated available population that can potentially contribute the sport of soccer (be it directly or indirectly). Available population is determined by number of people living on at least the equivalent of 10 USD per day and in between the ages of 15 and 64.

(MATCHES WON BY THE COUNTRY WITH MORE AVAILABLE POPULATION)
GROUP STAGE: 17/21 (81%)
KNOCKOUT STAGE: 4/8 (50%)
TOTAL: 21/29 (72% victories for countries with more available population)

COUNTRIES (16)
Brazil: 63.5 (1st)
Mexico: 38.6 (1st)
Argentina: 18.4 (1st)
United States: 13.1 (5th)
Colombia: 12.2 (1st)
Peru: 8.9 (1st)
Chile: 7.6 (1st)
Ecuador: 4.2 (1st)
Bolivia: 2.2 (1st)
Venezuela: 2.0 (3rd)
Paraguay: 1.9 (1st)
Costa Rica: 1.7 (1st)
Uruguay: 1.3 (1st)
Panama: 0.5 (2nd)
Jamaica: 0.4 (2nd)
Haiti: 0.2 (1st)
TOTAL: 176.7
AVERAGE: 11.0

And what's this meant to tell us. Weird thread. Haiti has a population of 10.6 million btw, and you're saying that only 200,000 are of footballing age?
 

Abram Jones

New member
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
Location
Wisconsin (WI)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
And what's this meant to tell us. Weird thread. Haiti has a population of 10.6 million btw, and you're saying that only 200,000 are of footballing age?

This is meant to tell you that wealth and population amount are large factors in international sport. Not because of this one tournament alone, but because these results are a regular occurrence: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B3wXt1wZ9kaFSFAtMUZXVUNBWXM

As mentioned in my initial post, we are not dealing with total population in these studies, we are dealing with available population (defined above). Most of Haiti's population lives in extreme poverty (not normal poverty as we know here in the west), this reduces their ability to contribute to sports infrastructure immensely. This is also not dealing with people of football age.
 
Top Bottom