Why do American sports fans call their champion teams "World Champions"?

[Acsenray]

@Revenant_Threshold

Under what global jurisdiction do you make this appeal to law?

There is no global jurisdiction. So what? What global jurisdiction do you appeal to for your personal definition of “world champion”?

Merely because people recognise such terms as puffery, doesn’t mean that they still aren’t wrong. Nor does something having one generally accepted meaning necessarily mean that it does not have other meanings.

If you are admitting that one of the definitions applies, then what exactly are you disputing?

A literal reading of of the terms you cite suggest to me the best in the world,

And who are you to decide that every use of the term by someone else must reflect the particular (literal) definition that appeals to you?

and indeed there are competitions which do use those terms which do make a claim to be globally representative, and which are used by the public to refer to such winners.

So what?

If nothing else, if I claim that I am the “Best Football Player Ever”, you would be incapable of declaring that I am wrong?

I wouldn’t care what you called yourself. I certainly would get into an international tizzy over it or label it a cultural defect on your part.

More importantly, it would be relevant whether you made this claim as a literal fact or because you were using this term as puffery to promote your goods or services. If the former, I could just figure out for myself what I thought the literal meaning of “best football player ever” was and decide that you were wrong, if I even cared to give it that much thought. If you were using it in the manner of commercial puffery, I’d have no motivation at all to even consider the literal meaning of the term and wish you luck in promoting your product.

I’d like a cite that it does not have specific meaning by general understanding.

And demanding this cite is supposed to prove what? There are millions of terms used in commerce in the world and the vast majority of them have not been subjected to judicial or academic scrutiny. That’s a fact of law, a fact of law, and a fact of language. You think you can send me on a wild goose chase to try to find some kind of authority when none is likely to exist?

Even if I were to come up with an actual court opinion specifically stating that the term “world champion” is mere commercial puffery or an academic study stating that this term is understood to have non-literal meanings among the consuming public, would you actually be so willing to change your position?

The mere fact that the concept of commercial puffery exists somewhere in the world plus the example of the use of the term by a variety of individuals and entities should be enough to satisfy you that this is the case.

In fact, if you are arguing with any sincerity at all, the mere fact that at least two persons — that is, you and I and other people in this thread — disagree over the implications of the term should be enough to satisfy you that there is no general understanding that this term as used in commerce is meant literally. Professional sports leagues and clubs and individuals have been making claims to being world’s champions going back at least to the 19th century. That’s evidence enough.

[RickJay]

@amanset

Apparently enough people in Boston that Gregg Popovich felt compelled to publicly comment on it a massive year and a half ago:

You seme to be mixed up here; Popovich is referring to the term “World Champions,” not the term you used, “NBA World Championship.” I thought your point was that “NBA World Championship” was especially crazy for conflating “National” with “World”? Which it is, but nobody uses it anymore. The Celtics’ championship banners say “World Champions,” not “NBA World Champions.”

Popovich’s point that “World Champions” is incorrect is quite valid, but at least it’s not as contradictory as “NBA World Champions,” which certainly would be really stupid.

Of course, at the rate things are going, the NBA won’t have any champions at all soon.

[amanset]

@RickJay

You seme to be mixed up here; Popovich is referring to the term “World Champions,” not the term you used, “NBA World Championship.” I thought your point was that “NBA World Championship” was especially crazy for conflating “National” with “World”? Which it is, but nobody uses it anymore. The Celtics’ championship banners say “World Champions,” not “NBA World Champions.”

The final sentence I added, regarding the craziness of having a “National World Championship”, was additional information to highlight how ridiculous it is to refer to them as World Champions when the league itself has “National” in the name. It was never the main point.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Acsenray

There is no global jurisdiction. So what? What global jurisdiction do you appeal to for your personal definition of “world champion”?

The literal meaning of words, by and large. I’m not sure whether that has precedence over the American judicial system.

If you are admitting that one of the definitions applies, then what exactly are you disputing?

I have no issue as such with the definition. My issue is just with applying the rule non-uniformly.

And who are you to decide that every use of the term by someone else must reflect the particular (literal) definition that appeals to you?

Just someone interested in accuracy.

So what?

So why not not use it, when there’s already usage of the term which is more exact? The whole point, I would imagine, is that it sounds better. “North American Champions” is less impressive than “World Champions” because - well, “World Champions” implies you’re the best in the world. As you say, it’s puffery, because it makes it sound better - there’d be no reason to use “World Champions” if “North American Champions” was considered an equal term. If “World Champions” doesn’t mean the best in the world - why did people start to use it instead of the other?

I wouldn’t care what you called yourself. I certainly would get into an international tizzy over it or label it a cultural defect on your part.

With respect, I didn’t do either of those things either.

More importantly, it would be relevant whether you made this claim as a literal fact or because you were using this term as puffery to promote your goods or services. If the former, I could just figure out for myself what I thought the literal meaning of “best football player ever” was and decide that you were wrong, if I even cared to give it that much thought. If you were using it in the manner of commercial puffery, I’d have no motivation at all to even consider the literal meaning of the term and wish you luck in promoting your product.

On what basis would you decide whether I met the literal meaning of “best football player ever”? I’m unaware of any legal rulings on the subject. I wouldn’t be surprised if some towns or even states had declared some favoured son the best ever, though.

And demanding this cite is supposed to prove what? There are millions of terms used in commerce in the world and the vast majority of them have not been subjected to judicial or academic scrutiny. That’s a fact of law, a fact of law, and a fact of language. You think you can send me on a wild goose chase to try to find some kind of authority when none is likely to exist?

Not at all, given that you’ve correctly pointed out there is no such authority. Seems rather odd to appeal to one, in such circumstances.

Even if I were to come up with an actual court opinion specifically stating that the term “world champion” is mere commercial puffery or an academic study stating that this term is understood to have non-literal meanings among the consuming public, would you actually be so willing to change your position?

Yes, in terms of an academic study or survey or the like. I wouldn’t consider a court opinion to be necessarily reflective of a general understanding.

The mere fact that the concept of commercial puffery exists somewhere in the world plus the example of the use of the term by a variety of individuals and entities should be enough to satisfy you that this is the case.

Not really, no. The term still has meaning; even when it is applied as a matter of puffery, that means that it is being used wrongly.

In fact, if you are arguing with any sincerity at all, the mere fact that at least two persons — that is, you and I and other people in this thread — disagree over the implications of the term should be enough to satisfy you that there is no general understanding that this term as used in commerce is meant literally. Professional sports leagues and clubs and individuals have been making claims to being world’s champions going back at least to the 19th century. That’s evidence enough.

Of course it isn’t meant literally. But it is meant to, in a sense, “cash in” on the literal meaning. It’s dependent on the literal meaning. And, moreover, it’s dependent on the literal meaning being widespread and accepted among the population you’re selling to. Using “World’s Champions” as puffery is reliant on the general understanding that being the champion of the world is better than being the champion of a single nation.

I’m not entirely sure what i’ve done to earn your emnity, though. “If you’re arguing with any sincerity?” I apologise for giving you the impression that i’m arguing in bad faith. Clearly we disagree on this, and certainly I don’t believe your arguments work, but I don’t think i’d accuse you so quickly of intellectual dishonesty.

[Revenant_Threshold]

You know what, i’ve thought about it, and you have a good point. Fair enough, i’ll retract.

[Acsenray]

Now that we agree on that … I believe we Americans do actually have an annoying and often destructive and self-destructive national arrogance, myopia, self-obsession, self-entitlement, and self-importance. I just don’t think that the puffery of commercial athletics is part of it.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Acsenray

You’re missing the point. It’s a product, an entertainment product. They can call it the greatest whatever they want with no objective justification whatsoever. The fact that you think that this is some kind of fact that must be proven or that it illustrates some kind if national character defect just illustrates a lack of perspective.

No, it illustrates a better grasp of the situation. If the NFL or the Green Bay Packers refer to the Packers as “world champions”, then sure, you can argue that it’s marketing hype.

If the fans or media refer to the NFL champions as “world champions”, it doesn’t make much sense to dismiss it as “puffery”.

[Dave_Hartwick]

I’m not entirely sure this is relevant, as it’s not a single nation thing, but there is an Australian Football World Cup. Australian teams don’t compete, because they’d dominate. Is that arrogant?

There’s also an American Football World Championship (ooo, that’s gotta be arrogant). US teams have competed twice and won both times (pretty sure that’s arrogant).

There’s the Rugby World Cup, a much bigger deal than the AFL and gridiron cups, but only a minority of countries play, and if I’m reading the chart right, only teams from four countries have ever been champs. Why, that’s only two more countries than baseball’s World Series! C’mon, say it with me: Arrow-gant. The nerve to call it a World Cup when China, India, and, uh, about a hundred fifty other countries have never played in it.

So, there we have it. It’s not Americans that are arrogant, it’s sports.

[JessMagic]

@amanset

Yet in 1987 we won the FA Cup, we were the champions of football’s oldest competition, one that involves teams from the grass roots levels all the way up to the top tier (indeed, two seasons later we were knocked out by Sutton United, an amateur team several divisions below us). Yet, due to the nature of the competition, Coventry CIty could easily be described as the English champions.

I can’t let this one slide. The winners of the FA Cup are never described as the champions of England. The champions in 1987, and in every other year, are the team that wins the league. Everton finished top of Division One in season 1986/87. They were the champions.

[Jackmannii]

There is a compilation album now out called “The Most Relaxing Classical Music In The Universe”.

The Alpha Centaurians are going to be mightily pissed, I tell you.

[amanset]

@JessMagic

I can’t let this one slide. The winners of the FA Cup are never described as the champions of England. The champions in 1987, and in every other year, are the team that wins the league. Everton finished top of Division One in season 1986/87. They were the champions.

I said they “could be”, as the competition involves all levels of English football all the way from the amateurs up to the huge Premiership teams. It is the only competition that does so.

I didn’t, however, say that they are referred to as the “Champions of England”. Which was kind of my point, they were the FA Cup Champions as the FA Cup was the competition they won.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Acsenray

Now that we agree on that … I believe we Americans do actually have an annoying and often destructive and self-destructive national arrogance, myopia, self-obsession, self-entitlement, and self-importance. I just don’t think that the puffery of commercial athletics is part of it.

To be fair, it wasn’t me accusing Americans of that in the first place.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@amanset

I said they “could be”, as the competition involves all levels of English football all the way from the amateurs up to the huge Premiership teams. It is the only competition that does so.

The FA’s football league system also involves all (meaningful) levels of English football. Everyone has a chance to compete for the Premiership title; they just can’t all do it every year.

The fact that most teams do not qualify for the World Cup finals doesn’t mean that they’re not involved.

[amanset]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

The FA’s football league system also involves all (meaningful) levels of English football. Everyone has a chance to compete for the Premiership title; they just can’t all do it every year.

The fact that most teams do not qualify for the World Cup finals doesn’t mean that they’re not involved.

I know. Hence them being called the “World Cup Finals”. My point is that the FA Cup is a competition that in one season involves all levels of the game in England. Again, that could be a good argument for someone claiming that they are the “Champions of England” but they don’t. They claim they are the FA Cup Champions, because the FA Cup is the championship they won.

Again, I didn’t actually claim that the FA Cup winners are the “Champions of England”, just that they “could easily be described as the English champions”. Again, the point was that they are not despite having a reasonable claim to it.

[amanset]

Missed the edit window:

English football league system

Apparently there are eleven levels to the league system that qualify a team to compete for the FA Cup. To go from the bottom level to the top, assuming that you are promoted every year and fulfill stadium requirements, would take a decade. How many teams are even remotely similar after a decade? Sorry, I see the FA Cup, with its single season focus, being far closer to a “Champions of England” than the league system as a whole as with the FA Cup it is theoretically possible for any team to end up playing any other one in that same season, rather than ten years apart. That, however, is a completely different thread.

[RaftPeople]

At what point do you think it would be ok to use the term “World Champion”?

Does every single country need to be represented in the competition?

How many teams from each country? If you only allow 1 then you have immediately skewed the results - the team that wasn’t allowed or couldn’t afford to travel may have really been the best team.
I don’t think you could come up with a practical definition that would accurately encompass all of the talent in the world, which means, if you are consistent with your position, that nobody should ever use that term.

[astorian]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

N
If the fans or media refer to the NFL champions as “world champions”, it doesn’t make much sense to dismiss it as “puffery”.

Tell you what- name me a SINGLE American-style football team in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, South America, or ANYWHERE else in the world that MIGHT be as good as the worst team in the NFL, and I’ll reconsider.

As it is, the Green Bay Packers ARE the best team in the world in their particular sport.

Americans generally find that impressive. Outsiders generally couldn’t care less. Outsiders, therefore, are entitled to say, “We don’t give a damn that the Packers are the best American-style football team in the world. We think they play a stupid, boring sport.” They’re NOT entitled to argue that the Packers AREN’T the best American-style football team in the world.

[Bosstrain]

@Molesworth_2

Why do American sports fans call their champion teams “World Champions”?

Why do the citizens of the United States of America refer to their country as just America? As if there is only one country on either North or South American continents…

The answer to both questions are the same…extreme arrogance, on a level that has never before been seen on the face of this planet. The only other civilization that was even close to this level of arrogance would be the Roman Empire, yet the USA has managed to surpass it with ease.

Does that answer the question?

[amanset]

@astorian

As it is, the Green Bay Packers ARE the best team in the world in their particular sport.

And that’s where we disagree. Merely believing a team to be the best in the world isn’t good enough to be declared “World Champions” and refer to yourself as such. You need to win that title by playing against the rest of the World, not just a very small region.

You may well be right that there is no team to compare, but unless other teams get the opportunity to compete then we’ll never know and that title will not rightfully be earned.

[RaftPeople]

@amanset

And that’s where we disagree. Merely believing a team to be the best in the world isn’t good enough to be declared “World Champions” and refer to yourself as such. You need to win that title by playing against the rest of the World, not just a very small region.

Is there any sport in which the world is fairly represented? (don’t say soccer, it may be closer than others but it’s a far cry from actually involving all of the talented athletes in the world).