No thank you. I like males with clothes on them. And ZN doesn't get enough screening time because no live streaming for all early rounds matches. I am female but I agree with more presentable female players. Though I think skirts look stupid maybe longer hair or not too baggy jerseys?
lol Salty? No. Annoyed? Yes. I watch badminton for the amazing athleticism, sportsmanship, respect and the occasional drama. Perhaps badminton isn't the right sport for you, maybe stick to tennis? Plenty of skirts and girls all dolled up to satisfy your male brain.
yep longer hair n not-too-baggy jerseys seem to be good idea..... i said skirts coz i have no.idea.really just wanted to say female badminton players should try be more like tennis appearance minus the williams sisters`muscles
ahhaha truth is i`ve been playing badminton for more than 25years..... other than.the occasional pingpong n swimming.....badminton is my no.1...it`s literally the only sport i watch n follow intensely as to why i compare a lot to tennis...is becoz tennis marketing really works...me who.didn`t know.anything bout.tennis could sometimes read news.about tennis....watch some tennis.match.on.tv n youtube.....why.....coz it`s insane prize money...pretty girls...it`s continually on the news....it just works....though i couldn`t stand to watch tennis full.match gawd it`s so goddamn boring even with pretties playing.... bwf just really need.to.learn from tennis
Don't tease me, please provide the whole list of all the SF and F matches. Thanks. Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
I like that badminton is not so commercialised as football or tennis, only because of money they do not give a **** even about olympics :/ which should be pinnacle for all athletes, so there is fine line when sport becomes just business and not something you love doing. And actually you do not have to be player in top 30 to live from badminton, there are many other roles as well (you can live very well by coaching amateurs like me ). so would really like that badminton would find own way, and not mimic nor football nor tennis, really like what BWF is doing on youtube they could even expand and create their own tv online with better reviews, replays and insights, I so would not mind paying subscription fee for such TV in order to be able to view good translation even from junior and international challenge events.
true, but tv wouldn't be covering them if there wasn't big money involved, and at stake, in tennis. given the choice are you going to broadcast, or watch, 2 'sexy' females playing for $1,000,000 or $36,300? (the avg singles winners check for all wt 1000/750/500/300 tournaments incl. wtf) sexism aside, if those same 'sexy' women played badminton it won't make a difference. what worldwide/important tv network is gonna broadcast it to the masses? none, because there's no return on their investment. 1) who are they gonna sell 30 second commercial time to? and 2) who is going to buy 30 second commercial time from them to sell their product to 'badminton' viewers? i'm sure you can think of a lot of companies... so then, what would you charge them? if you were buying commercial time how much would you be willing to pay? sex is not the answer. name 1 worldwide high paying sport that has succeeded without tv money? a sport kids will dream of pursuing as a career because they would/could make millions? name 1 badminton player that could retire on their prize money winnings alone. not so fun fact: badminton has more worldwide participants than any sport except futbol, yet the athletes earn less than an average american bank teller during an equal # of years. no name/unknown athletes in all the other major sports make more in a year than the highest career earnings of lee chong-wei's $1,850,000... for the 1,000th time: it's comes down to tv money. make badminton fit inside a 3 to 3.5 hour broadcast. do what ever it takes. shorten the game if you must. fans will hate it in the beginning but athletes won't mind if it means making more money, which means fans will keep watching and playing, which means tv will keep broadcasting, and so on...
i like it's accessibility and more personal feel at tournaments also. but, the sport cannot grow w/out $. fewer and fewer people will see it as a career option due to the low earning power. the game quality will suffer and slowly regress. it doesn't need to get to nfl or futbol level, but at least to a point in making it a viable career choice. so, what is that annual number to make it viable for people to undertake? $100k/yr, $200k/yr? $300k/yr? you also need to consider what it costs to be a world class athlete: training/coaching/physio costs, travel costs, injury insurance costs... well, better double those $'s i listed. without the growth in money athletes will never be able to afford to be independent, to make their own career choices. the current oppressive team system will remain... which is ironic due to the fact badminton is an individual sport like tennis and golf. what do you think an avg club coach makes? can you raise a family on that? to be a highly sought after ex-top athlete coach think about what it cost and the years it took to make it to that point. frankly, i hate it. it does nothing to support a badminton athlete's career financially, which should be priority one for any sports governing body. it would be fine as long as they were doing other things to benefit the current athletes. really? how much would you be willing to pay? be honest... not.so.fun facts: (aka. sad facts) career earnings of current #1's : approximate # of 'professional' years : avg annual $ momota - $1,100,339.00 : 6 (susp. not incl.) : $183,390 tai tzu ying - $1,367,455.00 : 10 : $136,746 minions - $782,520 ea : 5 : $156,504 cqc/jyf - $445,871 ea : 4 : $111,468 zsw/hyq - $745,591 : 4 : $186,398 * lee chong-wei - $1,855,958 : 18 : $103,109... granted there was less prize $ during his career. however, badminton has not kept pace with prize money/earnings growth in other sports. hmmm... i must be in a year-end ranting mood. i love and hate everything about this sport.
i really hate reading this fit badminton into 3-3.5 hour window so that.tv station broadcasts it... in my opinion it`s just sore lame excuse by tv station what the hell about tennis that can have 5 hours for 1 match? i always thought this is just bwf inept.lobbying.of tv station....correct me if.i`m wrong i`m pretty sure it all come down to money n if martynas said money not important LoL money is one of the most important key to make.badminton more popular than it is right now ppl don`t wanna make.badminton more sexy.....fine.....scratch that off the list....bwf can`t enforce sexy clothes anyway but.money is there never is enough money bigger badminton tourneys prize is better if player don`t like it coz it will look like they do it for the money then don`t be a professional athlete.....be an amateur player .....go play at badminton club or league or be.a coach once you become pro then prize money is the way to make more ppl play badminton and yes as samkool said.tv is most effective marketing if.bwf can`t nail the.tv part then.... n for the.record my own family member was invited.to singapore national team back when the country was busy swooping foreign talent left n right...parents rejected.it coz unless he become top player one can`t live off badminton.... money is everything in professional.sports.....even.bwf.is.having difficulty implementinf hawkeye on all courts....due.to.money...and the way to more money is through more exposure of the sport....go figure....
yes, i agree it is. but, since they have the power they can call the shots. because tennis grand slams are now ingrained into worldwide sports culture. they don't do 5 hour broadcasts every week though. only 4x a year. the return on investment is high. nfl keeps their weekly games to 3-3.5 hours per game. if they game runs long they've covered their ass with their local affiliates post-game show time slot. same for mlb & nba. all-day super bowl & world series & nba finals coverage is warranted because they have grown the game into sports culture. futbol & hockey are the perfect $ makers. easiest to predict length of time because extra time & shootouts don't add significant time.
cricket is famous despite long duration.duration of test matches is five days and one-day matches are approximately is 10 hours.length doesn't affect if it holds tension
Do you feel that the game quality regressed since say the sport was introduced to the Olympics? Or in the last 10 years? I personally think it improved.
It will regress sooner or later. Because the potential talents will not even be exploited at all because circumstances are not allowing. Parents don't agree, financial difficulties, other more tempting career path that have more secured monthly income, etc. When I was a teen, I expressed my interest to become a professional badminton player. But my parents wouldn't hear anything about it, my father told me if I wanted to be a professional athlete, be a tennis player because it offered more prize money and then he would allow it.
On a positive note regarding the development of the sport, Air Badminton is a great initiative. I know some will say it doesnt give credibility to the "real" badminton played indoor and for Americans for example it's just another way to reinforce how amateurish and "garden-like" is the sport but in other countries it can help the sports take off and grow its fanbase. In places where indoor courts are scarce or nonexistent it will get people to play, too initiate with the sport and may be watch on TV the real deal and eventually play indoor or not but on the long term, it can grow the badminton worldwide fanbase more than increasing the prize money imo. I really think Air Badminton is a great move from the BWF. And I know a lot of you will disagree. I don't believe increasing the price money = more parents will push their kids to try to become pro. I think it has to come from the kids wanting to become like their idol.
don`t forget a kid wanting to become pro badminton player doesn`t necessarily mean he/she does it coz he/she wants to be like his/her badminton idol.....it could simply just becoz he/she enjoys playing it so much or feel that he/she is very good at it and just want to be a world-beater now if the parents already refuse it n won`t support since the early stage just becoz of the relatively small potential rewards in the future then who`s to blame? the parents? either way the way for badminton.to move forward is.through money however you try to justify the.bad.side.effect of.it....to become truly global sports you need players everywhere not just asians n that no matter how.you slice it it will still requires money.... might be time for bwf to get some creative director for.marketing n a good financial officer
IMHO, to popularise badminton as a global sport, much more should be done for the wider community of amateur, recreational and casual players in as many countries as possible, including regions where badminton is generally neglected, such as the Americas, Oceania, and even Africa, instead of focusing too much on the small pool of professional players for whom the size of the prize money and sponsorship are paramount. In short, the small pool of professional players has to be strongly supported by a much wider base of amateurs and enthusiasts, for how else can the sport attract more and bigger sponsors, as well as state funding? And only then will the talent pool grow proportionately according to the economic conditions of each country and from which more serious athletes will be willing to consider turning professional. Therefore, I'm of the opinion that BWF's introduction of AirBadminton (it should be spelled as one word) is a step in the right direction as it can be played outdoors in parks, gardens, streets, playgrounds, and beaches under windy conditions, thus obviating the need for the relatively much more expensive, even prohibitive, indoor badminton courts, halls, and stadiums as far as the cost of building one or renting one is concerned. Just as well the new outdoor shuttlecock, the AirShuttle, is comparatively much more affordable as it is more lasting and supposedly reusable several times (if you are not too particular about its condition), thus the cost-saving is attractively high, an important consideration for anyone thinking of taking up the sport as recreation. Correct me if I'm wrong on this assumption
Some good points. I guess there is also a culture gap/difference between countries and continents sometimes when it comes to the way young players start a sport and why they pursue it and if the parents have a say in this decision. In France for example which is my birth country and probably not a good example when it comes to badminton success, parents usually let kids choose the sport they want regardless if it is going to be rewarding enough financially if the kid goes pro.
the quality of play has progressed, which is normal for sports. the quality, depth and # of participants of well 'established' badminton power teams/countries are declining due to badminton not being regarded as a smart career choice. that's a warning signal if there ever was one. having 1 or 2 top players/pairs isn't enough for the long term. historically speaking do you think china, indonesia, korea and malaysia are better all around teams than they used to be? to me they obviously lack the depth across all categories like they used to have. india is still considered a developing nation. badminton is rising slowly but we all see their organizational problems. that could lead to worse than current results, which leads to less money given by outsiders & gov't. they are at a critical point in badminton development. enough people can see it as a career relative to their other possible income earning options.
i am very curious about cricket. in how many countries is it popular? what are the participation #'s? a) how much can someone expect to make at cricket? ... b) how many opportunities are there for someone to make it as a pro? (how many teams, how many players per team)
