Sports.

There was a TV commercial for a product which I could no longer recall, but the ad itself showed two Scottish friends (herdsmen?) walking along a forest/hill and making use of sticks as walking canes.  As they ambled up and down the hill, they would kick stones with their canes and in the process competed on who would be able to kick the stone first and farthest. To me that commercial was showing how the game of golf started.

Sports as a form of entertainment is huge money.  In developed countries, sports ranks as number one leisure activity followed by music.

To prove this, consider the following:  In the U.S. if it's Super Bowl Sunday, the crime rate is almost zero, meaning almost every American is watching the game.  Also, baseball players command millions of dollars per contract.  And this, if a baseball player gets so much as a finger injury, he would be on injury list.  But wait, football is the rough game, right?  Right.  But baseball is America's favorite past time because of its very nature - it can be played in any open field or backyard - no fancy gadgets, just a bat and a ball and a cap. 

Which leads me to this point?  What determines what becomes a national game or sport?

In the Philippines, although "sipa" is the declared national game, basketball seems to be the national sport.  The PBA (Philippine Basketball Association) games are widely televised and Pinoys follow the games crazily, much like the way Americans and Canadians fight over NBA teams. Plus basketball is being played in both Pinoy rich and rough neighbourhoods.

But in developed countries, almost any sport (including national game) commands  a wide fan base and is a money maker, both for the player and team owner.

Look at tennis, hockey, golf, baseball, football, soccer, swimming, skating, volleyball, wrestling, boxing, biking, cricket, pool, even the rarely-known game of curling, has a solid following in Canada. Their players get big bucks and owners rake in dough from TV rights, merchandise, etc.

In the Philippines, we seem to have gotten the American fever for basketball and boxing; these are considered the games of the masses.  Then there are the sports which are considered classy such as tennis, hockey, and skating.  These three latter sports require investment in costly equipment. Of course even in North America, these three games are considered upper men's sports; you rarely see African-Americans playing them because of the group's prohibitive means.

Manny Pacquiao excelled in boxing because even by his limited resources, it was his raw talent that was required of the sport.  So did Gabriel Flash Elorde.  In the pool game, or locally called billiard, raw talent is also the king, not the gadget.  So Pinoys the like of Efren "Bata" Reyes command respect and winnings.

Now, if we scan the sport scenario among developing or newer nations,  it would seem that each country's taste for its national or favorite game has been influenced or dictated by its "discoverer" or conqueror.

So if you scan Latin America, we see soccer as the number one sport, because most countries here had been occupied by the British, Spanish, Portuguese, French or by other European greats.

Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the other members of the British Commonwealth got their love for hockey and soccer from the Brits and for basketball, baseball and football from the Americans who are the Brits' Anglo- cousins. 

And of course, in P.I., we drool over basketball and boxing as mentioned earlier, as legacies from our American occupiers.

So, are Pinoys going to be big soccer, hockey or even, rugby fans?  Is there a basis for loving these sports which are roughly European-based.  Tennis had been quietly accepted, but then tennis is a big American game, and Pinoys are big American fans.

P.S.

Who will win in the NBA?  I'm rooting for Celtics, of course.  I'm a closet Irish - I love green and feel lucky.