EMEA COME | VLR.gg

#229

Astroman77

Frags

–

No, you haven't presented any decent arguments in any of your posts, just read what you type, there's no enlightening or new information, no foundation, nothing but "I think this, so it must be this". The best football players playing in Europe doesn't refute "my claim that Brazilian clubs are stronger", because the only way we can know the strength of Brazilian football compared to European football is by putting the respective best teams from each region in competition. This already happens, as you should know. Brazil has won the Club World Cup 10 times against several European giants, only behind Spain, which has 12 and carries European football in this regard. If you want to know the strongest league, which is also the Brazilian league, just search for a research and statistics institute that does the work for you and eliminates any and all guesswork and fallacies. And the IFFHS, recognized by FIFA, is the ideal name. Having the best players is different from being the best team. You are confusing the two.

One of the links I sent is a SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH based on NUMBERS that proves how Europe benefits from hiring talented foreigners, since the crop of national players wouldn't be enough to compete with teams that constantly hire talents from other continents. Not only that, in addition to increasing the team's level and increasing the competitiveness of the league in general, they also gain more audience and fans, which generates higher income with broadcasting rights (with new viewers joining), guarantee a always full stadium (due to the greater appreciation and prestige gained), making the "home of the club" self-sustainable, not to mention the increase in revenue from the increase in shirt sales. Among several other things. It was just a matter of reading instead of saying "it didn't refute me" - when that's exactly what happened. The profit is used within the league itself, not to "challenge the status quo" - you clearly don't understand the subject. CLEARLY. The Brazilian League is the most valuable among 45 European leagues and the strongest in the world. The Brazilian League is managed by CBF (the highest entity), which in turn has 5 World Cups. The money is very well invested. The 5 strongest leagues in the world have money to hire the best, and that's why they get the spotlight, which doesn't necessarily mean they have the strongest league or team.

Even if Indians played cricket in England, it wouldn't mean anything other than "England has money to buy the best Indian cricket players." Exporting/importing players is not a parameter to measure the strength of a league, team, or sport within a region/country. Even if you manage to gather the best players, it's not a guarantee that you will have the best team. Strength is determined by a series of factors. A motivated average player is much better for your team than a theoretically better, unmotivated player. "shows how countries with population and a wealth divide have defeated and overcome countries with higher overall sports budgets" - Yes, that's why Brazil is the biggest football country and the only one with 5 World Cups. Again talking about "challenging the status quo," as if that were the goal of any league or country. Brazil doesn't need to do anything other than "maintain its own status quo" and continue to be the protagonist of world football. Here you show again that you didn't understand a simple question: "what is it like to support a team with 5 foreign players?". It's a matter of interpretation that is not necessary when we mention the EU. "EUROPE" implies all its countries. A team with 5 foreigners implies only teams with 5 foreigners (my god, isn't that obvious?). You cannot say that you were only referring to rich clubs when referring to Europe because it's a generic statement, my statement is SPECIFIC -> "what is it like to support a team with 5 foreign players?".

You just repeated a refuted argument from the previous post. All you're saying is basically, "laws are universal, it wasn't a law in the past, there are states that do the opposite," and I already responded to all of that. I'll try to be as didactic as possible so you can realize that you're wrong: You follow the laws, right? I hope so. Each country has its own legislation. In each region, what is normal/abnormal will be defined through its culture and customs and is reflected in laws (which are not universal and that's why we'll talk about your country). Do you feel special for not stealing? I hope not because the state says that this is a crime (not being a criminal is expected. Presumption of innocence). Is discrimination punishable or not? Well, if you live in the USA, it is a punishable crime. There you go. We already have one of several limits created by the state, in fact, 2 (theft and discrimination) that society has established an exception, an unnatural path that you should not follow. If you step out of line from what is expected, you will be arrested. You mention a club as an example, but the company is not punished, no company is punished, only the person, so your example is horrible. Loud will not be penalized for discriminating against Frod or Saadhak because it is a company. The individual who committed the crime in the name of the company is held responsible if something happens. The state can discriminate as much as it wants, but it cannot punish a state - only those who act on its behalf. I thought you knew these basic concepts.

I actually said: Brazil is not completely protectionist, just go back to the post where I first mentioned it and you'll see. And that implies that Brazil is not completely protectionist, obviously. There's nothing wrong with me defending myself when you say that I said "Brazil is not a protectionist country". Those are different phrases that evoke different meanings. "Not completely" is different from "not". You can use terminology freely, but you can't change the meaning according to what you want to believe. You can't use something generic and expect it to mean something specific.

#231

kskm

Frags

–

first 3 books - wrong - doesnt refute anything especially the fact that the BEST in BR go to play in BEST in EU when it comes to football but the BEST in EU go to play in the BEST in INDIA when it comes to Cricket. Confuses the concept of national teams and leagues to somehow drive an absurd point. You saying something has been refuted by pasting a few definitions doesnt refute anything at all.

book 4 - wrong - provides stupid examples of stealing and murdering and completely misses the entire point of how BEST EU clubs can and will discriminate on the basis of nationality, race, religion if they wish to and there is nobody who can hold them accountable - already provided enough examples of how this has happened throughout the history, happens in DEMOCRATIC countries in the present, and infact continues to happen quite noticeably in smaller EU football clubs to this date. There is no law protecting the victims here - a better (although foolish because u are incapable of understanding nuanced arguments ) example would be if in Brazil it was easy to shoplift and not be caught and it was only ur integrity which would be questioned - how many people would get away with it? Similarly cases of discrimination are not obvious like murdering people or even stealing/looting in the daylight - those examples dont justify how DIFFERENT laws and enforced DIFFERENTLY in DIFFERENT countries - some states ACTIVELY discriminate people on various grounds. SO not discriminating people is NOT bound by LAW - and it is appreciable if people are inclusive. If this doesnt get inside ur thick skull please get an adult to reread so that u can understand,

yeah yeah yeah as i said everything u say has implicit meaning which carries clear meaning... u built a whole fucking book saying how BR is not "completely" protectionist thats why u enjoy several options to buy several goods and services which is not correct at all. if u just google u will find 10000 links of how BR is protectionist and it is indeed the lack of local options which makes a country open up to international trade - again this is not something which is wrong but natural in the interconnected world we live in and being jingoistic about it is just foolish.

#232

Astroman77

Frags

–

First 3 books - Not wrong - Again: The fact that the best players from Brazil play for the best teams in Europe means nothing more than "they have enough money and do their best to have the best players from Brazil and the world." That is the only concrete conclusion you can reach with that premise. THE ONLY ONE. If you could conclude that because of this "they have the strongest team," it would not be necessary to have the Club World Cup every year. The trophy would go directly to some European team - the one that won the Champions League, without a world championship competition. Which doesn't happen. There is a competition precisely to give us an idea of which continent currently has the strongest team. Comparing football to cricket in terms of exports/imports is completely unrealistic. Cricket would have to be as famous as football and watched enough in Europe for the hiring of Indians to be profitable and yield positive results. The media appeal of cricket is much lower than football, there is no comparison. And this directly impacts the transfer market.

Book 4 - Not wrong - Again, you confuse company/institution/club with individual. Companies can discriminate and will not be punished, it's impossible to apply a 2-year prison sentence to a COMPANY/CLUB!!! The Brazilian football could take an action and fire all foreigners and absolutely nothing would happen, as the club/company/federal state does not respond to the Penal Code! In order for a person to be considered prejudiced, it's necessary to prove the prejudiced character of the attitude and then conclude that they actually discriminated. If proven, this person will be held accountable in States where this is prohibited. It's simple. And if it's prohibited, it's because it's expected that you don't engage in such behavior and act normally, respecting what's expected of anyone who lives in the same country as you. The fact that cases are not obvious does not change the fact that not acting like a criminal (what is a criminal? Someone who commits a crime. What is a crime? An attitude or action prohibited by law) is expected of anyone and no one deserves credit for that. In Rio de Janeiro, not stealing is not a virtue, it's just what's expected of a civilized person who obeys the laws of their State. Everyone should be treated as innocent, being innocent is not a virtue. It's what's expected. SO not discriminating people is NOT bound by LAW - Not discriminating is entirely linked to the law. From the moment it is established that discrimination is wrong, when you don't discriminate, you are complying with the law and acting as expected. In the past, slavery was considered normal and accepted in society, but nowadays it is not. When you don't enslave someone - something that people used to do in the past, you are simply acting within what is expected of any person where slavery is prohibited. You are not virtuous or deserving of applause for this. Keeping up with societal changes is not a virtue, it is expected.

Having a thousand examples of how Brazil is protectionist does not make my initial statement of "Brazil is not completely protectionist" wrong. On the contrary, it supports what I said. If it's not completely protectionist, then it means that it adopts both protectionist and non-protectionist measures. It's a matter of interpretation. The lack of local options is not what makes a country open up to international trade. That's wrong. Countries do that to boost their economy, promote development, and attract foreign investment.

#233

kskm

Frags

–

No rebuttals or refutals have been provided again proving I am right and you are not. Considering no new information but useless definitions, baseless and unresearched links, shifting of goalposts and inaccurate conclusions to drive a false narrative are all you have without directly refuting anything I've mentioned. I will respond for the last time - let it be known just because I am not continuously responding it does not mean you have refuted anything. If you wish to continue on this path you can just copy past the below arguments for the rest of the thread and reply to it yourself.

#235

Astroman77

Frags

–

The only one not presenting any new information is you, and the only one in this discussion not providing any justification to support your conclusions is yourself. Everything is based on assumptions and personal opinions, and that does not serve as a parameter in any minimally intelligent debate. No data, no research, no links, just empty words and arguments that ANYONE in this forum could give. I will respond as many times as necessary. What you think about refuting or not refuting does not change the reality of the facts. Assumptions and fallacies within a discussion, without any concrete basis to support the truth of the information, have the same weight as a feather. You are only right in one place -> in your mind. Only in it can you think that you can counter-argue without presenting any scientifically proven facts.

Fisrt 3 books - Not wrong - As previously mentioned, the fact that the best players from Brazil play in Europe is not useful information to support any argument. It only leads us to one conclusion: "Europe has enough money to convince the world's best players to play in their leagues." Anything beyond that, derived from this argument, is pure fallacy and speculation. The fact that the best players from Europe go to play in India also only leads us to one conclusion: "India has enough money to convince the best cricket players to play in their leagues."

Book 4 - Not wrong - This copy and paste of yours has been properly clarified and refuted in the previous post, it's just that you are not being lazy and read the counterargument. Again, you confuse company/institution/club with individual. Companies can discriminate and will not be punished, it's impossible to apply a 2-year prison sentence to a COMPANY/CLUB!!! The Brazilian football could take an action and fire all foreigners and absolutely nothing would happen, as the club/company/federal state does not respond to the Penal Code! In order for a person to be considered prejudiced, it's necessary to prove the prejudiced character of the attitude and then conclude that they actually discriminated. If proven, this person will be held accountable in States where this is prohibited. It's simple. And if it's prohibited, it's because it's expected that you don't engage in such behavior and act normally, respecting what's expected of anyone who lives in the same country as you. The fact that cases are not obvious does not change the fact that not acting like a criminal (what is a criminal? Someone who commits a crime. What is a crime? An attitude or action prohibited by law) is expected of anyone and no one deserves credit for that. In Rio de Janeiro, not stealing is not a virtue, it's just what's expected of a civilized person who obeys the laws of their State. Everyone should be treated as innocent, being innocent is not a virtue. It's what's expected. SO not discriminating people is NOT bound by LAW - Not discriminating is entirely linked to the law. From the moment it is established that discrimination is wrong, when you don't discriminate, you are complying with the law and acting as expected. In the past, slavery was considered normal and accepted in society, but nowadays it is not. When you don't enslave someone - something that people used to do in the past, you are simply acting within what is expected of any person where slavery is prohibited. You are not virtuous or deserving of applause for this. Keeping up with societal changes is not a virtue, it is expected. It takes no less than 1 minute to read and understand why you are wrong about this thought.

You are just demonstrating to be lazy by not reading my refutation. I attacked the main points, and all you do is copy and paste as if I hadn't already responded to these ideas based on opinions and fallacies. Again: Having a thousand examples of how Brazil is protectionist does not make my initial statement of "Brazil is not completely protectionist" wrong. On the contrary, it supports what I said. If it's not completely protectionist, then it means that it adopts both protectionist and non-protectionist measures. It's a matter of interpretation. The lack of local options is not what makes a country open up to international trade. That's wrong. Countries do that to boost their economy, promote development, and attract foreign investment.