I think Loud can hold Aspas...
| Flag: | Brazil |
| Registered: | April 5, 2023 |
| Last post: | September 11, 2023 at 12:59 PM |
| Posts: | 795 |
What happened to this guy? Did he get banned? To me, he was the only one who could literally extract 100% of Raze, Sage, and Jett. I changed my opinion only about Jett. But no one even comes close to doing what he did with Raze...
ChatGPT cannot even say what I just said because it actually advocates for the opposite, you idiot.
The level of alienation that the 21st century media has caused in people (especially progressives and leftists) is simply unbelievable. In the past, it was normal for black and white people to make fun of each other. Although racism exists, there are certain types of jokes involving skin color that are meant to be funny, not to diminish others. Just like jokes about overweight people, gays, whites, thin, blond, brunettes, redheads, etc. Those who feel hatred and discriminate based on skin color, ethnicity, beliefs, are not making jokes, they are spewing hate and prejudice. Relax, man, sometimes it's just a harmless joke with no intention of belittling anyone. But it seems like the brainwashing has already been completed and this is no longer possible.
As I said, C9 is performing above their usual level while NRG is performing below. As time goes by, things will adjust and you'll realize that NRG is the best team in NA...
C9 is having an above-average performance, while NRG was having a below-average performance. Time will tell and put each team in its proper place. NRG > C9.
Nah, NRG is playing well, they are regaining the place that is expected of them. They are the top 1 team in NA and top 2 in the Americas.
NRG is like: "you win, FURIA," and FURIA responds: "no, I don't want to win, you win, NRG..."
This is the Furia that everyone knows. Nothing is more FURIA than that - it's in the DNA of this organization to choke in crucial moments.
Cheering for teams with players from the same country creates a sense of community and identity among fans, which makes the experience exciting in itself. People come together around a common goal, which can increase the sense of belonging and unity. It's fun to cheer for a team that represents your culture and traditions, with players that you can identify with and share values through the same language. There is a sense of responsibility and pride, which may not exist in other cases (such as the one mentioned in my question). There's nothing wrong with these feelings and experiences described above. It has nothing to do with nationalism, which is a political ideology. It's a feeling that we can, perhaps, correlate with patriotism. Brazil is a multiracial country, just like the origin of the players who represent Loud/FURIA/Mibr, which is already a clear evidence that Brazilian fans rooting for Brazilian teams has nothing to do with race/ethnicity, as you suggested. My point is: rooting for teams with players who have no connection to you (as a fan) MAY (that's why I asked) make the experience less engaging and exciting because there is no social identity relationship that can be observed in teams with opposite characteristics, making everything much less thrilling. You have confused nationalism (an ideology) with nationality (the condition or status of belonging to a certain region). You can have Brazilian nationality because you were born in Brazil and not be a nationalist - someone who values and promotes national identity, as well as the sovereignty and independence of the State in relation to other countries.
Ironically, NRG is stronger than C9.
Only one of them can form a team of players in common without having to resort to several countries from the same continent. Nothing against it. Just facts.
NRG 2-1 FURIA
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.
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.
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.
Yes, but they need to win the first map, which is always Loud's weak point.
If Loud wins the first map, it's better for 100T not even to come back to play the second one. Loud's weak point is the first map, they always come in unfocused!
If you were right and I was wrong, I wouldn't have any problem admitting it. But in all your arguments, you didn't present any decent foundation, it was all based on "I think this, so it must be true". Fallacies, guesses, and heuristics. And I made a point of exposing, point by point, that you were wrong - through statistical data, studies, and links, where you could access them yourself and draw your own conclusions about whether what I was saying made sense or not.
Book 1 - Not wrong - If I wanted to know the opinion of people who support APAC teams, I would simply include them and say "EMEA and APAC COME". So no, your statement makes no sense. The intention of the post is not relevant and was never questioned in the debate, this is just your attempt to deflect the focus since you don't have many alternatives left and, I believe, everything was properly clarified. Not to mention that the content of "book 1" had nothing about my intention in creating the post, you just made that up now to build a line of reasoning completely outside of what we are arguing, what was refuted, etc. This shows that you are completely lost in your own opinions and in the heart of the matter.
I have no intention whatsoever of knowing about your personal life. When you're arguing, try not to give irrelevant and useless opinions, like the ones you gave about "being drunk" - literally no one cares, especially not a stranger on a Valorant forum. I'm not interested in your desires, as long as you continue to give opinions that have already been refuted and are clearly out of touch with reality, I will continue to show why you're wrong.
Book 2 - Not wrong - Yes, I read exactly what you wrote and your argument is based on a single premise: "laws are not universal, therefore, a behavior considered normal (prejudice, for example) in one place may not be in another." And for you, that is enough to conclude that not being prejudiced is praiseworthy because it is not universal. You are wrong because: We all live within the borders of some federal state. The absence of universal laws is exactly what makes you follow the laws OF YOUR COUNTRY. Your behavior is governed by these laws (do you see how it narrows down?). We arrive at the individual - you. Everything you do, WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE LEGISLATION OF YOUR COUNTRY, is considered normal, as long as it does not violate any law. You may have some judgment about these laws, but that does not change the fact that obeying them is expected by your family, friends, mayor, ruler, and president of your country. Therefore, it makes no sense for you to be applauded or for it to be considered an admirable attitude to not be prejudiced (a crime), because to act like that is to act outside of normality, to act in an unexpected way, and you will be punished. What determines what is normal or not are the laws OF YOUR COUNTRY, not others.
Book 3 - Not wrong - 1. If you're arguing, it's up to you to bring the data and foundation. Empty words are not concrete evidence of anything. "oh, it's on Google" - then search and show me. I want to see, read, and be convinced that you're right - which hasn't happened yet since we started debating. Again - EMEA is used in games and EU in football, and that's obvious. Have you ever seen someone trying to include a European football team in a matter related to EMEA? When we talk about Valorant, we mention EMEA, when it's not related to Valorant or any game - EU. There's nothing ambiguous about this point. A continent is richer and more developed than a country? Don't tell me! I'm surprised! When you want to make a comparison like this, cite country x country, state x state, city x city, continent x continent and not continent x country, which are two completely different things. There are European countries with a smaller GDP than the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo. You can pick a European country to prove your point and I'll pick another European country to prove mine. A discussion in this sense will not lead anywhere. Regarding football leagues, it has already been said that more than half of European leagues are bad and weak. You could have accessed the links and seen with your own eyes. 100% of Brazilian football players will not play in these leagues of countries with weak and non-traditional football leagues - which are the majority. Only 5 are chosen, a rarity among 50 countries.
The person who feels the need to keep saying that they refuted and were not refuted is you. So it's important for you to know that this won't make your arguments valid just because you want them to be or because you think they are. And I say this because everything indicates exactly the opposite: unfounded opinions, assumptions, fallacies, no data, no links, just empty words with no guarantee of truthfulness. I didn't say you were a defendant, it was a figure of speech and apparently you didn't understand: you are constantly trying to convince yourself and others that you are right, even though all the signals around you are sending an alert of "they know that what I'm saying is purely unfounded and possibly a lie". Just like in a trial. Figure of speech.
Book 1 - Not wrong - Everything you're saying here has been addressed in the previous post and if you use your brain even a little bit, you'll understand it perfectly well. You copied and pasted something that has already been countered. In short, it's clearly for any sport, or else I wouldn't have mentioned CS as an example and KR - the biggest power in LoL. I don't care about APAC, the question was for the EMEA region. Basically, everyone who commented on the post understood the question except for you. Yes, when I say "EMEA COME" and follow it up with the question "how do you feel about having to cheer for 5 foreigners" - I expect only those who fit this criterion to respond. That's why I mentioned a few countries as exceptions. The association that a German, for example, shouldn't answer my question because they have teams with national representation, is made automatically by the German who thinks: "okay, this question isn't for me, even though he said 'EMEA COME.' I have teams within the EMEA to cheer for, such as BIG. I'll let others respond."
Book 2 - Not wrong - As I said, expected behaviors vary from country to country. If you ask someone with better interpretation skills, they will help you understand. In Iran, a certain type of social behavior is expected, in accordance with their laws and culture. In the US, a different type of behavior is expected, in accordance with their laws and culture. In China, yet another type of behavior is expected, also in accordance with their laws and customs. The laws govern and dictate how society behaves. The fact that laws are not universal does not prevent classifying a behavior as normal/natural in YOUR COUNTRY, just because it is unnatural in another. In Middle Eastern countries where women are not allowed to go out in public without a headscarf/veil, it is expected that they comply with the law. It is natural for them, despite being unnatural for Western countries. A clear example. Nobody is proud of following a law, as it is nothing less than expected and natural for any human living in society. In fact, many women are protesting against this outdated and antiquated law, taking to the streets with their hair uncovered as a form of indignation against the government. Not following a certain law, then, can be considered an act of pride and something deserving of credit, but it is rare and depends on the context. Following laws? Expected, normal, and definitely not a quality. I want to point out that it is very easy and comfortable to be on this side of the argument, defending the obvious, as it aligns with a rational and observable thought process. True. Trying to refute this is like trying to stop a train going 200km/h with your hand.
Not wrong - India and China were initially cited by you as examples of populous countries that can have some kind of success in sports. Don't you remember what you wrote? It's no fun, it seems like I'm debating with someone who gets lost in their own arguments and has amnesia. India with ...... 1.4 billion inhabitants!! and China with ...... 1.4 billion inhabitants! Coincidence that the two most populous countries in the world are here in this line of reasoning? No, we were specifically discussing that. Population capacity and its relationship to success in sports. There's nothing about "THEY SUPPORT and PLAY". You mentioned only 2 countries because they are definitely exceptions. Moreover, you can't say "look, this country is very good at this because it is very populous." Cricket itself is an exception in something that India is good at because there are countless other sports in which they are not good. Besides, India is an exception that only works for ONE specific sport. China is an exception as a COUNTRY. And yet, it is surpassed by less populous countries. Nonetheless, your argument is flawed because there is NO SCIENTIFIC STUDY that categorically proves that populous countries have greater guarantees of success. But there are scientific studies that prove what is necessary to succeed in sports, such as proper nutrition, adopted routine, training, good professionals working alongside the athlete, among others.
Narrating what you think is happening in this debate won't make that thought true. Saying "I refuted" - when you only give opinions that are immediately rebutted in the next post, doesn't change reality or make an argument valid. Literally, the majority of your responses were based on opinions, while I grounded mine with data, links, and articles. It's a fact. Just look at the beginning of the discussion. We're not even talking about topics that have already been properly clarified. Saying that "none of your opinions were personal" or saying that "I bring false arguments" doesn't have the power to alter reality, it just serves as a mental comfort for you to think you're right. But I understand you, it's like a defendant trying to prove in court that he didn't commit a crime (that he did), trying to deceive the jury with false arguments. He vainly tries to deceive himself, while everyone around him looks at him with that face of "dude, it doesn't matter what you say, we had witnesses at the scene, concrete evidence, and even security cameras."
Book 1 - Not wrong - I mentioned 2 teams as exceptions ("oh my god there are others!!!"), but it becomes clear when interpreting the question that it is directly addressed to EMEA teams that do not fit the exception. "What is it like to cheer for teams with 5 foreigners?" - This excludes teams like the ones mentioned and all others that have at least 3 representatives from the same country. Clearly, I just wanted to make it clear that there are exceptions by mentioning Sweden and Denmark, leaving it free for the reader to automatically associate other teams that come to mind that also do not fit my question. There is a clear and defined target of people to be targeted, and it does not include people who do not cheer for a very diverse team. This is very obvious, by the way.
There is no other way to refer to people from countries without competitive teams with national representatives other than EMEA - when I refer to the EMEA region. It doesn't make sense for me to research country by country and then address the question to: "hey you from Greece, Romania, Azerbaijan, Lithuania, Netherlands, Vatican, etc, etc, etc, etc". It's all implied in the message. I wanted to ask the question specifically to people from this region. For obvious reasons: it is the most diverse of all the others.
Book 2 - Not wrong - You saying that I didn't refute doesn't make your previous argument, which was refuted, not refuted. You basically say: "It is praiseworthy and admirable when a person respects a law, such as not discriminating, because in other countries it is not a law. Therefore, it is not a universal norm for people to act in such a way," when respect and obedience of a law ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD is not something to be proud of. That's the point. Each nation has its own legislation based on the history and culture of the country. If it's prohibited to be prejudiced in Europe and you respect a European law, you're just doing what's expected of any citizen who doesn't want to be punished and acts according to society's desires. It's a natural movement. You won't be applauded for not being a murderer, harasser, rapist, thief, prejudiced, or racist because that's what's expected of European citizens! In other places, other things are expected. That's the point, and there's no refutation because it's based on a perceptible reality. It's not like you can say, "No, it's different here. We applaud people for not committing crimes because everyone is expected to be a criminal."
Not wrong - You don't even know what you're talking about anymore. You cited India and China to prove your weak argument that population quantity can be used as a parameter to measure a country's success in sports. It has nothing to do with supporting/playing/investing. You basically say, "look, India is the best in the world in cricket, a country with 1.4 billion inhabitants achieves such a feat, so my narrative that population equals success makes some sense" - no, it doesn't. As I said: it's an exception. Cricket. There are countless sports in which they are bad. Jamaica with 4 million inhabitants is more successful, sports-wise, than India. "oh but what about China, they are really good in the Olympics with a population of 1.4 billion, my narrative still stands!" - no, it doesn't. China, as a country, is an exception. And despite being good in the Olympics, they can barely qualify for the football World Cup.
You provided no structured and substantiated argument, no statistical data, no scientific research, no genuinely useful and relevant information to support your reasoning. It was all based on "I think this, so it must be true." Something that any layperson without any study on the topics discussed could do. The most you did was use a research that I had already sent, from the IFFHS - an institute that you probably had never heard of - proving in my favor that currently the Brazilian league is the strongest in the world. Your only attempt to contribute minimally to the debate by sending some data, link, or whatever, was to self-refute. My question was directed to people from the EMEA. There is no way to know the sincerity/lack of sincerity of words typed on a forum, it's speculation on your part to say that I was trying to mock, you don't even know what my intention was. If they voted negatively, then it's a sign that it bothers them, nothing more than that. You know what else bothers? The truth.
Book 1 - Not wrong - 1 -> My question was clear and applies to any team in any e-sports game in the EMEA region. In summary: "How do you feel about not having national representatives to cheer for, with the EXCEPTION OF... and having to root for 5 foreigners?" In the post itself, 2 Poles responded to me citing VP and I agreed that I had not mentioned all the teams and didn't need to, because the question was DIRECTLY FOR THOSE WHO CHEER FOR 5 FOREIGNERS. "Oh, but there are several EMEA teams in other games with a lineup of at least 3 players from the same country" - So what? Those teams are not the focus of the debate. KC is not the focus, FUT is not the focus, BBL is not the focus. After all, it doesn't make sense for me to ask, "Hey Turks, how does it feel to cheer for a team with national representatives?" or "Hey Germans, how does it feel?" because THEY have already celebrated in the past and currently have a developed e-sports scene in their countries, so I wouldn't ask something I already know. I'm referring to Greeks, Armenians, British, Dutch and many others that I don't need to cite meticulously, country by country. THESE are the ones who don't have national representatives with a lineup of at least 3 players and cheer for teams like fnatic, NaVi, Liquid, FaZe, among others. It's basic interpretation. What's difficult to understand about that? Am I not speaking clear English?
2 -> I only mention EMEA when I'm talking about Valorant (e-sports in general) and I mention EU when I'm talking about football, I didn't think it needed to be explained! Again: Europe is composed of over 60% weak leagues and countries without tradition in football. If you don't want the bad part to be included in a debate about EUROPE, then don't mention "EUROPE" - because that includes the entire continent. You're doing mental gymnastics just to think you're right, even though you know you're wrong. What needed to be refuted here has already been refuted. You're just repeating the same thing.
Book 2 - Not wrong - The definition of "abnormal" behavior is given by society, in agreement with the State that regulates such behavior through laws. If you live in a country where being prejudiced is a crime, then it doesn't matter if this is a universal law or not - obviously, every region has its own legislation. By disregarding the laws, a person is acting contrary to the values and norms that govern life in society, which can cause harm to oneself and others. No sane human being seeks or takes actions to be harmed and punished, therefore, acting in disagreement with what is established by the State is acting in an unnatural and abnormal way. It is expected that you OBEY the law like any other fellow citizen. You are not expected to be a criminal. Again - you are considered innocent until proven otherwise. Even if you are accused of something, the word of another is not enough evidence, as the principle of innocence is a global right guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. From the moment a pattern/attitude is framed as something to be avoided and punishable, in a particular country, you will obey the will of the majority (the laws of your country are created through a democratic process). Disobedience implies not acting in the way that society/State expects. In Iran, it is abnormal to be gay. This "abnormality" is punished by law. In Europe, it is expected that people are not prejudiced, otherwise, they are acting outside the normality that is expected and are punished. The law imposes limits, you can do everything that is not prohibited. Acting within the limits of the constitution and the civil/criminal code is not something to be proud of. You just don't want to be punished or arrested for acting differently than what is expected of you. I don't know why you're coming back to this point again. You only thought of something to try and refute me, saying that "laws are not universal," when it doesn't change anything about the central point that led to this debate - it is not a virtue to obey laws, you are not applauded for not committing crimes! It is easier for you to receive credits for disobeying some outdated and authoritarian law than for obeying something that is already expected.
Not wrong - You talked and talked but didn't refute the point of "you cite exceptions while you have to deal with me alongside common and observable events." You use India and China to validate a line of reasoning based on EXCEPTION. "Oh, it could be like this." Okay - but most of the time it isn't. Population size doesn't influence anything. Factors such as sports culture, infrastructure, funding, quality of coaches and players, among others, are much more determinative of success than mere population size. And that's very obvious in practice.
????????????????? - I didn't understand what you meant here and which argument you were refuting. If you could edit and formulate a better response, I would appreciate it and will come back with an edited response on the same point.
karmine corp watch parties >>>>>>> any other watch party >>>>>>>> abyss >>>>>> tarik watchparty
Have companies already accepted that they cannot compete with individual streamers' views and are therefore opening their doors and ceding their broadcasting rights to avoid falling behind in audience to streamers from other games? If this is true, Gaules and Tarik are the pioneers and this will become more common from now on? I think over time, the views of the main broadcasts will tend to plummet... What do you guys think about this?
First 3: Not wrong - 1.1 I don't need to include the weaker EU countries in the discussion for the OBVIOUS FACT: THEY ARE ALREADY INCLUDED the moment we mention Europe. It's simple to understand. A continent is not only made up of top-tier countries, wanting to exclude everything that's bad is trying to convince oneself of a half-truth just to feed a false narrative. It's like talking about Rio de Janeiro and only mentioning the beautiful beaches, women, tourist attractions, nightclubs, and forgetting the dark side of the state.
1.2 When I say "EMEA COME," I'm referring to European teams formed by 5 foreigners - just read the content of the post - and there's no need to mention BBL because exceptions were clearly stated such as: Sweden (CS GO) and Denmark (CS GO) in their respective victorious eras, with their respective teams. The purpose of the thread is to know the feeling of Europeans who root for this specific type of team, made up of players with no cultural, national, and linguistic connection. Not those who have a national team because I already know how they feel, of course! Few were able to respond rationally, and the anger that a simple question caused in people is a sign that there's something unresolved about this topic. So I will continue to promote more and more debate on this subject in the forum.
1.3 The fact that Brazilians migrate to Europe is already a debated topic, and it's not enough to say that one region is better than the other because the second-largest population of foreigners in Brazil is Japanese - I can't say that Brazil is better than Japan (in whatever it may be) just by using the migration of Japanese as a argumentative foundation. There are several factors that must be taken into consideration. And speaking of football leagues: several foreigners play in Brazilian leagues, as I mentioned earlier, and this definitely doesn't lead us to the conclusion that "look, we have several foreigners here, which means that their league is weak, and ours is stronger" - wrong for 3 reasons: 1. As you well know, we currently have the strongest league in the world. 2. Europe is the region that imports the most foreign football players in the world; if it were Brazil, we couldn't say that Brazil is better for importing more. 3. They pay enough to convince any player to play in their leagues. These are the conclusions we can draw based on your statements, and in none of them can we say: "see? Europe is better!" Europe earns more than Brazil with football, considering only the 5 strongest leagues. On average - which obviously includes all European countries, it's leveled. The Brazilian championship is the 6th most profitable and valuable in the world, if you clicked on the link I sent, you know this. Everything beyond that is purely speculation and opinion.
1.4 Here you demonstrate not knowing the basics of mathematics. I told you that there are at least 30 European countries with horrible leagues - considering only the first division, in 30 weak leagues we have 600 teams! Europe is composed of 50 countries and some territories. The top 50 is made up of teams from the 5 strongest leagues. The 5 strongest leagues are made up of 100 teams. I left out 15 countries from this calculation, that is, 300 first division teams. In total (600+300+100) we have 1,000 teams, and ONLY 50 of them are in the top 50. That is to say: 50 of these teams earn more than the other 950! This is CLEARLY being above average. And it's no use saying "you didn't refute me" as if that were an argument. It's purely basic math.
Not wrong - "the fact we have anti-discriminatory laws says that it is not expected of people to act in a decent way" (?????????????) The main role of the law is to regulate human behavior. It justly punishes that which is not expected - the abnormal. It is not expected that someone would act outside of normalcy and steal, harass, kill, abuse, or rape someone, but if this happens (an EXCEPTION), the law will punish them for acting in an unnatural way, outside of what is expected of a normal and capable human being to live in society. We cannot expect everyone to have good faith and be good people, which is why there are laws. You are innocent until proven guilty, not "you are considered a suspect until proven otherwise" (my goodness, look where you're going to try to prove you're right!).
"there is a reason why FIFA keeps shouting say no to racism. this only proves my point that acting in a non-discriminatory manner is appreciable" - The reason why FIFA says "say no to racism" is purely PREVENTIVE, which is one of the functions of the law - to prevent and discourage possible future crimes. Many bars have some type of warning on the wall: "the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under 18 years of age is prohibited" - precisely to fulfill this aforementioned function, seeking to discourage the sale of alcohol to minors and reduce the risks associated with early consumption of this substance. The preventive character of laws is essential for the safety and well-being of society as a whole, as it helps to avoid harmful behaviors, those considered abnormal and that deviate from the norm of what is expected! Traffic signs are other types of warnings that serve to prevent us from committing crimes. Acting to the contrary is to disrespect the laws - it is to act like someone who does not know the limits established by society/the State. No one is applauded for following laws. And that will never be a quality. It is just an empirical testimony of human evolution over time.
Not wrong - 1.1 You mentioned that population is a parameter that we can take into consideration when mentioning the success of a team, citing India (cricket) and China (Olympics). I responded by saying that it is not a parameter and cited India itself in other sports, based on Olympic medals, and Brazil. India being the best in cricket is something very specific. European, North American, and South American countries being better than India in any other sport, despite having a much smaller population, is something common and easily observable. Brazil not being the richest in football only proves that population does not interfere at all and India is an exception in a very specific area. You base your argumentation on exceptions and I base mine on what is more common and observable.
1.2 In an increasingly globalized world, individuals tend to follow the masses. People from different countries are increasingly following sports that the vast majority likes/watches and consuming more and more common content. The media has a fundamental role in this process, broadcasting sporting events and cultural programs worldwide, allowing people in different countries to engage and be influenced by the same tastes and trends. Expecting the vast majority not to play football, being the most watched, practiced, and shared sport in the world, through the internet, media, apps, companies, among others, is just braindead.
Not wrong - Here you completely lose your reasoning because I can mention Germany, Spain, UK, Italy, Norway, or any other EMEA team that does not have a lineup of at least 3 people from the same country. Did you expect me to mention all the other 48 European countries just to exemplify my point? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! For a team to have national representation, it is enough for only THREE members to have the same nationality. In the case of Loud, they could still have one more foreign player and still have a Brazilian core lineup. My argument is perfectly understandable, there should be no difficulties regarding that. You can be from the EMEA and support the EMEA, but it's not like you have a choice. Most of the time there won't be a team with national representation within the EU, specifically in Valorant.
Not wrong - I was the one who sent the website with statistical data, you just reused what I had already sent. And you tried to belittle it by saying "there are others that say the opposite", without even mentioning which other research institutes those are. IFFHS is the only one I know of that has recognition and approval from FIFA. The burden of proof is on the accuser. You used a lie, "it clearly says that Brazil won it for the first time in the history of IFFHS", to try to counter-argue, without even looking at the publication date to which the research was linked (a very amateur mistake). EU dominance for years does not change the fact that we currently have the strongest league in the world - THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS in the context. My argument in linking the website was simply to prove that. That we have the strongest league in the world. FACT. "Oh, and what about the other years?" - Read the first post again where I sent this link, it was used only to support a CURRENT fact. It's not a false narrative. It's conclusive proof that we currently have the strongest league in the world.
Not wrong - When anyone refers to Europe, it encompasses ALL European countries. It doesn't matter if I referred to Germany, France, Spain or any other country individually - which I don't remember doing. It doesn't change the fact that even the Vatican is part of the continent. And when we mention European leagues, we talk more about bad leagues than good ones. When you say EU, are you including the Vatican, or is it not part of Europe? There is no context in which it is not part of Europe. NONE. The USA was mentioned as a benchmark only twice - to show how pathetic the investment in football is compared to Brazil, and another to show that investing in sports that the vast majority of the world doesn't practice isn't very smart. An example not to be followed. People's opinions are just opinions, they are not absolute truths, it doesn't change anything at all.
Not wrong - Aston Villa is an ABOVE AVERAGE club in the European leagues. Do you even know how many European clubs there are? Research it. With a basic and quick calculation - with only 5 countries with weak leagues, we have at least 100 first division teams. None of them come close to that top 50. Now multiply that - there are at least THIRTY countries with weak European leagues. 30x20 = 600. Of these 600 first division clubs, none of them are in the top 50. 20 is the number of teams that make up the first division of any league, I imagine you know that. If we take the strongest leagues, which are: English, German, French, Spanish, and Italian -> 5x20 = 100. Of the top 50, only 3 clubs are not from the 5 strongest leagues in Europe. So, definitely Aston Villa and Flamengo, for example, are well above the European average. Not to mention that the Brazilian championship is the 6th most valuable in the world, second only to those 5 leagues mentioned above. (https://www.lance.com.br/lancebiz/as-20-ligas-nacionais-mais-valiosas-do-mundo-veja-levantamento-exclusivo-do-l.html)
Not wrong - In the past, cannibalism was also normal and acceptable among various indigenous peoples, marriage was arranged through families, and harassment was normalized. It was normal for women to not have the right to vote and many other things that nowadays are unimaginable. However, this does not change the fact that humans and society evolve and have evolved over time. Following evolution itself is not something that deserves praise and it is not even a quality, as it is a natural and continuous process of our history. The pursuit of progress and development is something that has driven us throughout the centuries. Therefore, not being prejudiced is something that is expected of a normal human being born in the 21st century.
Not wrong - If Europeans are racist and xenophobic, they will be punished for it, as these practices are not acceptable in a modern and developed society. It's like suggesting that if the US were anti-Semitic, they wouldn't support Israel. Or if Brazil were xenophobic, Frod wouldn't be on Loud's team. This is the minimum expected of any normal person - to not have prejudices and accept diversity. It's not an attitude to be praised and applauded. "Oh, you're so benevolent, thank you for accepting Saadhak and FroD, what an incredible virtue." This makes no sense in today's world. Having laws to prevent such practices is just a desire of society in agreement with the state. Stealing is punishable, not stealing is not something that deserves praise - it's expected. The rest of the premises are false because they are based on the false assertion that "not being prejudiced is commendable."
Not wrong - Success in sports is determined by a series of factors, and none of these factors include population size. Although a large population may increase the probability of having sporting talent, it is by no means a guarantee of success. India is a country with a population of 1.4 billion people and yet has fewer Olympic medals than many much less populous countries. This argument is completely unsustainable. You know that. You can even cite Brazil as an example - 220 million inhabitants and losing to several European countries in various sports. Having 2 foreigners doesn't make me not support the team. That's not even the point, which shows your inability to interpret and understand. I've already explained that.
Not wrong - Here you are arguing against a phantom. I didn't say it wasn't normal to have players from different nationalities on a team. I refuted your mistaken argument of wanting to compare a region of 750 million people with Brazil and saying, "look, there are countries with 50 and 80 million people, and Brazil with 200 million can't even compete, that's crazy." You're confusing the whole (Europe) with its parts (countries). It's not that Germany and Spain "don't need to find players to form a Valorant team," it's simply that there aren't 5 good enough German/Spanish talents to form a competitive team. Unlike in CS:GO, where there are BIG (German) and Movistar Riders (Spanish). The fact that EMEA teams are mostly made up of people from various countries isn't a choice like, "hmm, I want a diverse team without repeating nationalities," it's simply a natural process of gathering the best players in the European market, resulting in the teams we know. Perhaps in the future, there will be 5 good enough British players to form a competitive Valorant team and they'll beat an American team 13-0. Nowadays, there aren't. Here again you talk about "supporting" foreign products, as if anyone thinks about that when making a purchase (oh my god!), or worse, as if there's any correlation with rooting for players. This is one of the most stupid comparisons I've ever seen.
Interesting, I have the same impression when watching EMEA games. It seems like all the teams are terrible and only Fnatic behaves like a professional team.
I LITERALLY refuted almost 99% of your misguided claims and your defense is: you didn't refute me! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. And once again you lose the argument because the first time Brazil won as the strongest league in the world was in 2021. THE DATA FROM THE LINK YOU SENT IS FROM..... 2021! (oh my god!) It's outdated. We're in 2023. For the second consecutive year, we are considered the strongest league in the world. Here's the current (https://www.iffhs.com/posts/2483). (No, I didn't refute you again).
"It doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand that I have been referring to wealthier western European leagues and not Eastern European countries that hardly qualify for the WC" - When you mention EUROPE, you automatically refer to ALL European countries. Without exception. You can't just select the good leagues and forget that there are horrible leagues just to reinforce some kind of argument. "Oh, but I didn't mean to refer to the bad leagues." Then don't use "Europe" as an example. You accuse me of doing what you yourself do - selecting what favors you. (No, I didn't refute you again).
"My comment on Aston Villa was in response to how you said big clubs like Real Madrid are an outlier to rest of the Europe -- Aston Villa stands nowhere near RM in terms of wages or trophies won but they spend as much as Flamengo says everything." - As I have mentioned before, Real Madrid is a giant club even by European club standards and averages. No other club is as big as Real Madrid, not even any other European giant. But still, Aston Villa is bigger than the average European club. That's the point. Flamengo earning just a little more than a Premier League club like Aston Villa really says it all. (Again, I didn't refute you.)
"What is there not to understand - 3 BR clubs in top 50 - that was the article I was referring to say BR spends nothing in comparison to other big EU leagues. They profit off the selling of their players but hardly invest anything to develop their own leagues." - Brazil doesn't spend anything compared to the big European leagues - correct. Brazil spends more than the average of all European leagues, including the bad ones - correct. The big European leagues don't represent the TRUE overall quality of football played in Europe. What we see on TV is just the good part of a few European countries, which don't even add up to 60% of all of Europe. The Brazilian league is currently the most competitive in the world, there is heavy investment, and that's why we're the country that exports the most football players, with a LARGE advantage over the others. The league is developed enough for a foreign scout to sign a Brazilian player and have no doubts about their quality. (I did not refute you again.)
"Well obviously football is not famous in USA, most people here dont care for the sport or the MLS - it is personal preference and if anything is a joke it is the fact that football is almost a religion in Brazil and yet they lose 7-1 in their home to a country with not even half their population." - It was indeed a shame for Brazil to lose 7-1, but currently, no one cares much about it. Especially because we are the best in the sport that is the most played in the world. If I had to choose between a) having the best team/selection in a sport that is only played in my country, with no global appeal and visibility compared to other sports, and b) having the best team/selection in the most watched and played sport in the world, even if it means suffering some embarrassment - I would obviously go with the second option. If population meant anything, China and India would dominate every sport they played, your argument of "the bigger the population, the higher the chances of the country succeeding in something" is ridiculous, and I can cite thousands of examples to refute this nonsense. You yourself know it's a weak argument.
"Not being xenophobic is definitely a quality" - No, it's not a quality. It's a law. Being prejudiced can get you in jail. Just like not being a murderer is not a quality. Not committing adultery is not a quality. Not stealing is not a quality. Acting like a minimally normal person is not a quality, it's something expected from everyone. You don't go around laughing at people with disabilities - without legs, without hearing, without sight - and not being prejudiced against these people is DEFINITELY not a quality. You're not going to applaud or praise someone who wasn't racist, because that's what's expected. It's not a quality. Your concepts about certain things are visibly wrong. (Another one for the list of 'you didn't refute me')
"You think oh my BR brothers are so talented that they cannot be ignored - that is not true" - Yes, it's true. And I sent a scientific study in the previous post that precisely proves this: the search of European clubs for foreign talents with the aim of surpassing their European rivals - since using only national players means not being competitive enough to aim for big titles. It's IMPOSSIBLE for a Brazilian talent not to be sought after by the biggest clubs in the world. You give opinions based on personal beliefs and completely evade reality. The funny thing is that most of these statements apply to the USA, where a possible American individual talent could be rejected because it is a country with a completely weak competitive league, questioning the true quality of the athlete in question.
"BR population - 200 million population and most of the populated european countries fall around 50-80M - none of them even half of yours yet they dominate in every sport/esport you play is just crazy." - Here you use the population parameter again, but you forget that Europe dominates e-sports using players from all European countries, without any exception regarding this. That is, you should take the population of Europe as an example, which is 746 million people. Very surprising that dozens of countries can surpass Brazil, right? If you want to compare countries with 50 or 80 million inhabitants, mention the COUNTRY in question and not the CONTINENT. Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and Turkey, for example, are countries that fit the example, but none of them individually can surpass Brazil in sports or e-sports. They can't even put together a team with only players from their own country.
"You comparing cities with whole countries shows another failed attempt to cherry pick and create false narrative."
- No, it's just an example of how it's possible to build competitive teams without having to resort to an entire region of almost 800 million inhabitants. Just as Brazil doesn't resort to its 200 million inhabitants - it's a comparison that apparently you were unable to understand. Kru and Leviatan are examples of how population doesn't influence the issue - having national teams to root for in a certain region/continent. Chile has 20 million inhabitants, which is smaller than the population of several European countries. And yet they managed to gather 2 good teams in LATAM, without resorting to the 450 million inhabitants of SA.
"My point is simple - you wont have local talent or local companies to support through your hard earned money or over the top cheering in every department." - No one buys products from a particular company with the intention of supporting it. Such thinking is that of a shareholder or investor, which has nothing to do with the subject. We buy out of necessity or to satisfy a desire. Absolutely no ordinary person spends their hard-earned money thinking about buying an item to "support the company." In a buyer/seller relationship, both benefit, both the entrepreneur (monetarily) and the consumer (acquiring a product/service). Your attempt to link this to SUPPORTING a team is so out of touch with reality that I don't even need to explain why.
The truth about EMEA: They root for a continent, not by choice, but due to the lack of a competitive national team to represent them. Kru and Leviatan are teams from LATAM, but their composition is mostly made up of Chilean players. It shouldn't be so difficult to do this. Chile has only 20 million inhabitants. Germany, for example, has 84 million.
For the thousandth time: I have nothing against it. People can root for a continent. My issue is: they do it more because it's a forced movement, rather than a choice between rooting for an EMEA team full of foreigners or rooting for an EMEA team only with players from my country, for example - The lack of options reinforces the initial thought that makes them defend the idea of "diversity and unity." It's not wrong, for the thousand and first time.
Estou me divertindo, olha minhas últimas respostas. Isso pra mim é parque de diversões, gosto de ler e escrever... Kkkkkkkkkkkkkk
There is no alternative. It is understandable to want to defend that it's okay to root for the continent when it's your only option.
Answering the last paragraph: I didn't say that Brazil wasn't protectionist, I think you have problems with comprehension. I said that it wasn't completely protectionist, as it happens in dictatorial and communist regimes, for example, where citizens are truly forced to use only domestic products due to lack of options, and the international industry has no space for growth and development. And that is enough to refute your previous, very poor argument - where you made an irrelevant and out of context comparison about being "forced" to buy products from other countries. No, there are alternatives. Levying taxes and duties is a protectionist measure, but that doesn't make Brazil a 100% protectionist country (I'm being redundant but I think it's necessary). It is a natural measure adopted by several countries to foster national commerce. Here, you wasted a lot of characters just to say something that I already know, you didn't add absolutely anything to the debate.
"You are forced to support a variety of FOREIGN services like Valve, Riot Games, Apple, Google, Microsoft and 100000s of other areas because you DONT have a LOCAL OPTION" - This made me smile, you use the word "support" - as if USING a foreign service is the same thing (or something similar) as truly supporting and rooting for it, trying to link, in a desperate attempt to win the argument, to the fact that European fans SUPPORT teams with foreign players. hahahahahaha. The initial premise is flawed, so the argument could not hold up.
"Having 5X the population of single EU states and only 5-6 more serious valorant players than them is not even something to be proud of" - You finish (oh, I'm surprised!) with a false statement. We don't have 5x the population of European countries. But since this is unfair to you, compare Germany (85 million inhabitants) with São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro (18 million) - most professional players come from these 2 metropolises.
I refuted several of your arguments with data and sources so that you can seek knowledge and leave ignorance behind. You only use fallacies that anyone without even the slightest knowledge of football could use. Your entire thinking is based on ideas and concepts rooted in mistaken beliefs. You saying that "there are other organizations that classify BR clubs as less competitive than those in the EU" is a desperate attempt on your part to find something that fits your narrative (which you accuse me of doing). The fact is: IFFHS is an entity recognized by FIFA that operates in world football by collecting data and presenting statistics since 1984, with headquarters in Germany. Yes, headquartered in Europe! (https://www.iffhs.com/aboutIffhs) You saying that "there are others" doesn't refute a single statistical number presented. Nor does it discredit the entire work of a serious company that has been operating in football for decades. Arguments like "Europe pays more," "Brazilians benefit," "no one would leave the EU to play in Brazil" are half-truths based on heuristics. Scarecrows that are very easy to refute: "Europe pays more" - Europe is a continent that encompasses various countries, some of which have no tradition in football and have very weak leagues, much worse (MUCH) than those in Brazil. Example: the leagues of Armenia, Belarus, Lithuania, Finland, Latvia, Kosovo, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, etc. And in almost all of these weak and average leagues in Europe, no Brazilian would consider playing - low competitiveness, salaries that are not worth it, and little visibility. When you say "Europe pays more," you are referring to the most relevant and well-known leagues in the European continent, which do not encompass even 50% of all the others. The correct thing would be for you to state: On average, the European continent pays less and has low football competitiveness, but in the big and well-known leagues, which are an exception (such as the French, English and Spanish), you can have a higher salary. (https://www.uefa.com/nationalassociations/uefarankings/country/#/yr/2023) "Brazilians benefit" - Fallacy + half-truth. Both benefit in the same proportion. Without Brazilian players, European teams would not have a strong league. They NEED to import talent to ensure good audience ($$$$$), competitiveness, and visibility. Not to mention that names like Messi and Neymar, bring more profits to the club with shirt sales than expenses in salaries - as the president of PSG himself has stated. Brazilians can survive perfectly well without having to play in Europe, as they already do - earning millionaire salaries. There is a scientific study (which I know you will not read) explaining how Europe benefits from foreign players (most of them Brazilians) in its strongest leagues. (https://jhk.termedia.pl/pdf-158746-85005?filename=Evaluation%20of%20the%20Playing.pdf) "No one would leave the EU to play in Brazil" - It is a false syllogism. Obviously, you must know that this happens, and I don't even need to prove otherwise (or do I?). Flamengo's own team has former players from Arsenal, Barcelona, Wolfsburg, Chelsea... The premise that no one would leave a strong league that pays a lot to go to a strong league that pays less is partly true. But that cannot make you reach the conclusion that "no one would leave the EU to play in Brazil," especially since, as you have already learned, the European continent is mostly composed of countries with weak football leagues - which makes it completely viable for an Armenian, for example, without space in strong European clubs, to seek visibility in Brazil.
"Also funny how u even mention Flamengo is 18th as if that makes any sense - there are other things in that article that u could've picked up like "Flamengo spends 1 mil more than Aston Villa" "There are only 3 BR clubs in top 50" "BR has 5x population of every EU country but they dont have money to spend in the sport they are crazy about" - Aston Villa is one of the most successful clubs in the history of English football (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aston_Villa_F.C.). You saying that "Flamengo spends 1 million more than Aston Villa" could be an argument in my favor simply because Aston Villa is MUCH larger than the average of the 1,500 professional European clubs. Saying that "there are only 3 Brazilian clubs in the top 50" is another argument in my favor - it shows that we have at least 3 clubs above the European average - the Brazilian Serie A has 20 clubs. 3 clubs represent 15% of our league. Brazil does not have 5 times the population of all European countries. Another false statement, as usual. Germany, France, the UK, Turkey, and Italy are quite populous countries. What would it mean to have money to spend on football? I don't understand. We have good stadiums, we have hosted World Cups and Olympics, we are the biggest winners, and we have great players playing in the national championship. I think the money was well spent, you must have mixed feelings with rationality once again. Qatar, Russia, and Brazil were the countries that invested the most in World Cups, including (https://www.suno.com.br/noticias/copa-do-mundo-catar-2022-mais-cara-da-historia/#:~:text=Segundo%20dados%20da%20Front%20Office,US%24%2015%20bilh%C3%B5es%2C%20respectivamente.). The USA were the smallest investors, maybe that's what's missing for you. If you invested more in the MLS by looking to hire good players, and less in sports that nobody plays around the world, like the NFL, you would be more relevant in football. At the very least, you would stop being treated as a joke.
"Again the only reason EU clubs reach out to them is because they are not xenophobic and wish to nurture, train and THEN use the talent available - worldwide. These are facts not opinions." - Another unfounded statement based on beliefs that are not sustainable. It is definitively PROVEN through studies that the talent of foreigners in European clubs increases the performance of the league and that without them, the competitiveness would not be the same (https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29446/w29446.pdf). Not being xenophobic is not a quality at all, it is the duty of every human being capable of using their cognitive functions correctly. Individual talent is the only reason that drives a European scout to cross the Atlantic and seek some signings for the club they work for. It's not like they think, "I'm not xenophobic, now we can move on to part 2." Hahahahahaha. And as you have already learned: Individual talents generate audience and competitiveness, which generate money, which generate visibility and make the league self-sustainable.
"It reeks of some sort of self-congratulatory message to urself and fellow BR for producing 5 players compared to 2 or 3 by Spain or Germany when u have 5x their population." - Brazil does not have 5 times the population of Spain or Germany, it is another false claim (I have lost count of how many fake news you have said). And once again, you use "nationalism" (incorrectly), when you should mention "patriotism" (although there is also no clear correlation) to try to justify why Brazilians prefer to support a team composed mostly of Brazilians. You use some true premises to arrive at a false conclusion. Firstly, if Brazil were a continent and its states were countries, São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro would have 12 million and 6 million inhabitants, respectively. Spain alone has 48 million inhabitants. Fact: Mibr, FURIA, and Loud mostly have players born in the "countries" Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. Germany has 84 million inhabitants and cannot gather individual talents to compete with states with a total population of 18 million. I have nothing against it, as I have already said before. The problem is that EMEA fans are forced to treat EU as if it were a country due to the lack of national teams to support.
You're right, but the decisions that led him to be in this situation were bad. He abandoned the C9 project too quickly. I would like to see him on NRG someday
Yay is a guy who could have a much bigger career in Valorant if he knew how to make the right choices. There is no plausible justification for you to prefer playing on tier 2/3 teams when you could be on a tier 1 team
I'd rather believe that you're answering "fnatic" just to win the argument. But I bet that if it actually happened, your heart would beat stronger for the BIG team...
Discord