Was He The Most Famous Person On Earth?

[mj_frenzy]

Sorry but that's not real evidence to me. Just because Muslims say that Jesus exited doesn't mean that he actually did exist.

From a historic perspective they admit the existence of Jesus.

 

[HIStory]

From a historic perspective they admit the existence of Jesus.

What does this even mean? Islam is a religion that was formed in the 7th century and is largely based on Jewish and Christian scriptures. So "from a historical perspective" they simply embrace some Christian stories and teachings (mostly with a twist) while they do not embrace others. It's not a matter of "admitting" anything. It's a matter of belief.

And while we are at it, so which version of Jesus is famous then? The Christian or the Muslim version or the real person that might have existed? Because all those versions are very different from each other. That's why it's problematic when we bring the "fame" of religious figures in the equation because much of that "fame" is mythical.

 

[mj_frenzy]

And while we are at it, so which version of Jesus is famous then? The Christian or the Muslim version or the real person that might have existed? Because all those versions are very different from each other. That's why it's problematic when we bring the "fame" of religious figures in the equation because much of that "fame" is mythical.

The existence of Jesus cannot be denied by the most contemporary historians irrespective of their religious beliefs.

 

[HIStory]

The existence of Jesus cannot be denied by the most contemporary historians irrespective of their religious beliefs.

Who talked about the existence of Jesus? But whether one believes there was a real actual person in the core of the myth, the mythical Jesus of the Bible is most certainly very far away from that person. For one, most historians also acknowledge that the gospels in the New Testament were written decades after the supposed life of Jesus, none of them was written by an eye-witness but they were written based on hearsay, they are full of religious agenda and cannot be considered credible accounts (they also copied each other). They also acknowledge that there have been a lot of later additions and modifications to the Jesus story. So the Jesus that people have in their minds these days is most certainly mythology regardless of whether there was an actual real religious leader in early 1st century Palestina resemling the Jesus figure that we know now, or not. And BTW, there is no actual physical evidence of the existence of Jesus. No contemporary records (contemporary here meaning contemporary to Jesus' times), not any material evidence. None. Nada. Zero. Historians think he existed basically because they think "there had to be someone" on whom this whole thing is based on. That's it. But it's not like there is some hard cold evidence of it. I personally think probably there was some early religious figure (or more such figures) on whom the story is based, but I do not think it's crazy to be sceptical about that because it is a fact that there is no real unquestionable evidence.


ETA: And one more thing. You have to realize that most historians studying New Testament history are Christians themselves and thus biased. For example that Wikipedia says in that article earlier referenced here by ChrisC:

According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain.[SUP][54][/SUP] He states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical 'facts' they are obvious starting points for an attempt to clarify the what and why of Jesus' mission."[SUP][54][/SUP] John P. Meier views the crucifixion of Jesus as historical fact and states that based on the criterion of embarrassment Christians would not have invented the painful death of their leader.[SUP][74][/SUP] The criterion of embarrassment is also used to argue in favor of the historicity of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist as it is a story which the early Christian Church would have never wanted to invent. [SUP][75][/SUP][SUP][76][/SUP][77

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Things like "criterion of embarrassment" (ie. "the early church would not have invented it because it's embarrassing") - this is the type of "evidence" mainly used in support of the historicity of Jesus and his life events. Not hard cold evidence. If you look it up James Dunn is a Methodist preacher and John P. Meier is a Catholic priest, so it's not like they don't have a dog in this race.

I know some of Bart Ehrman's works, which I have read (and I think they are very good), and he is an atheist/agnostic and he thinks Jesus did exist (although he also adds that much of what you read in the New Testament is not a historically accurate account of his life), but again he bases that opinion on basically "there had to be someone", not some hard cold evidence.


I did not want to go into religious debates here, but you just do not want this Jesus stuff let go, so I had to address it. I personally think religious figures should be kept out of this discussion because at the very least it's difficult to draw the line between fact and fiction in their case.

 

[mj_frenzy]

Who talked about the existence of Jesus? But whether one believes there was a real actual person in the core of the myth, the mythical Jesus of the Bible is most certainly very far away from that person. For one, most historians also acknowledge that the gospels in the New Testament were written decades after the supposed life of Jesus, none of them was written by an eye-witness but they were written based on hearsay, they are full of religious agenda and cannot be considered credible accounts (they also copied each other). They also acknowledge that there have been a lot of later additions and modifications to the Jesus story. So the Jesus that people have in their minds these days is most certainly mythology regardless of whether there was an actual real religious leader in early 1st century Palestina resemling the Jesus figure that we know now, or not. And BTW, there is no actual physical evidence of the existence of Jesus. No contemporary records (contemporary here meaning contemporary to Jesus' times), not any material evidence. None. Nada. Zero. Historians think he existed basically because they think "there had to be someone" on whom this whole thing is based on. That's it. But it's not like there is some hard cold evidence of it. I personally think probably there was some early religious figure (or more such figures) on whom the story is based, but I do not think it's crazy to be sceptical about that because it is a fact that there is no real unquestionable evidence.


ETA: And one more thing. You have to realize that most historians studying New Testament history are Christians themselves and thus biased. For example that Wikipedia says in that article earlier referenced here by ChrisC:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Things like "criterion of embarrassment" (ie. "the early church would not have invented it because it's embarrassing") - this is the type of "evidence" mainly used in support of the historicity of Jesus and his life events. Not hard cold evidence. If you look it up James Dunn is a Methodist preacher and John P. Meier is a Catholic priest, so it's not like they don't have a dog in this race.

I know some of Bart Ehrman's works, which I have read (and I think they are very good), and he is an atheist/agnostic and he thinks Jesus did exist (although he also adds that much of what you read in the New Testament is not a historically accurate account of his life), but again he bases that opinion on basically "there had to be someone", not some hard cold evidence.


I did not want to go into religious debates here, but you just do not want this Jesus stuff let go, so I had to address it.

I will give only two examples (because I am afraid this thread is starting to violate the community rules):

The Siege of Jerusalem by Titus (70 AD) explains possibly the lack of much physical evidence (not to mention the eyewitnesses who were killed during that invasion).

Also, it is common practice for people who (probably) deny the existence of Jesus to ignore, mostly on purpose, the Gospels (which depict actual events, hence they are regarded as reliable, written resources by the most historians - Christians or not -).

 

[HIStory]

The Siege of Jerusalem by Titus (70 AD) explains possibly the lack of much physical evidence (not to mention the eyewitnesses who were killed during that invasion).

"Possibly"... The fact of the matter is that there is no credible, factual evidence of the existence of Jesus. You can find ways to try to explain that lack of evidence, but neverheless the fact remains and those are just that: attempts to explain lack of evidence. That will not turn into an evidence for Jesus.

Also, it is common practice for people who (probably) deny the existence of Jesus to ignore, mostly on purpose, the Gospels (which depict actual events, hence they are regarded as reliable, written resources by the most historians - Christians or not -).

You are wrong again. The gospels are NOT considered reliable historical accounts by most historians (unless they are religiously biased), but I see you do not even read what I write, because I already addressed that point.

 

[Doggone]

Jesus... When did this thread turn in to a jesus thread? Back to on-topic guys!

I'll start

Michael was the most famous person on earth for sure! Some weeks ago a member posted a thread about jungle people in Chile talking about Michael. This shows that Michael was known everywhere...

 

[HIStory]

@Mj_frenzy, for the sake of this thread: if you want to continue this debate then please visit the atheist thread ( http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/77284-Athesit-Thread-(For-non-believers-only)/page23 ) or create a new one for this discussion in the general discussions forum if that feels more comfortable to you. We can continue there if you want to keep discussing the historicity of Jesus, reliability of the gospels etc. However here in this thread let's get back on topic.

 

[mj_frenzy]

@Mj_frenzy, for the sake of this thread: if you want to continue this debate then please visit the atheist thread ( http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/77284-Athesit-Thread-(For-non-believers-only)/page23 ) or create a new one for this discussion in the general discussions forum if that feels more comfortable to you. We can continue there if you want to keep discussing the historicity of Jesus, reliability of the gospels etc. However here in this thread let's get back on topic.

I do not belong to that category, so the option of the “atheist/non-believers” thread (http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/th...only)/page23 ) has to be excluded.

On the other hand, the creation of a new thread in the general discussion forum sounds more realistic (although I am not really sure if religious matters are allowed).

 

[Electro]

I do not belong to that category, so the option of the “atheist/non-believers” thread (http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/th...only)/page23 ) has to be excluded.

On the other hand, the creation of a new thread in the general discussion forum sounds more realistic (although I am not really sure if religious matters are allowed).

Don't worry so much about what is allowed. This is not a virtual police state.

edit: ok, it is.

 

[LindavG]

No.

Every human being has a personality that consists of both positive & negative traits. Regarding these extremely renowned people I am pretty sure that their global achievements can be surely attributed to their (good or bad) personality traits.

Names, on the other hand, determine (lifeless) objects as well.

That’s why, I said personalities (instead of names).

What I meant by that is that most people have heard of their names but are not really familiar with their work. I doubt many people around the world are able to recite a Shakespeare play, explain Einstein's contributions to science or describe a Picasso painting. On the other hand, the people who have heard of Michael will almost certainly know about his music and his public image. Therefore, I consider Michael to be more famous but this is of course just one definition of fame.

 

[SoCav]

Not even close.

That surprises me. There's no doubt in my mind that at his peak Michael Jordan had much higher recognizability than David Beckham worldwide.

Elvis never toured outside the United States (and yes, Hawaii is a part of the United States. . . . LOL). Michael was known for his WORLD tours. He had a forty year career, and his music is heard pretty much -- everywhere.

Exactly. I think people underestimate the importance of touring, especially in the 70s and 80s.

They lived in the same age, Thriller was released 5 years after Elvis died. OTW two years. What's the big invention that made things more possible for Michael that Elvis couldn't do?

Unfair comparison as the two peaks in Elvis' career were the late 50s and the late 60s.

Had they peaked at the same time I don't doubt that Michael would have been bigger anyway because he appealed to a wider audience than Elvis and was much more versatile. At the same time, I also think it is unrealistic to think that Michael would have gotten as big as he was had he risen to superstar status in the 70s instead of the 80s.

 

[HIStory]

At the same time, I also think it is unrealistic to think that Michael would have gotten as big as he was had he risen to superstar status in the 70s instead of the 80s.

The 70s is the decade of blockbuster albums. Many of the biggest selling albums of all times were released in the 70s. So I think the 70s favoured turning big as a superstar. On the other hand those albums and stars were typically rock stars, so the 70s might still have been hard on black artists.

 

[Autumn II]

How about this? Imagine showing a photo of Michael to an array of people from every country and every culture, and see if they know who that is? Then do the same with a sports star, and Elvis, and so on? Michael's music is still all around us (even in elevators and shopping malls.)

As far as Jesus is concerned, I'm sure that's a topic for another thread. I'll just affirm what Respect said, that there is not ONE item of material evidence that Jesus existed as a real person. That does not mean he didn't exist; it means we do not KNOW. That he was written about in the Gospels is not a proof of anything. Greek Gods have also been written about in books, and there are fairy-tales, and so on. Whether or not Jesus existed is a question of BELIEF, not fact that can be proven or disproven. People certainly have a right to their beliefs. . . . . .but. . . . . we don't KNOW, for certain, one way or another.

Moving right along.

 

[dewey]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

MJJC Forum Rules state the following:

In order to protect and respect our members beliefs, we do not allow religious/faith related debates on MJJCommunity.

Please discuss if Michael was the most famous person on earth, not the existence (or not) of Jesus.

Further religious debates will result in deleting of posts or the thread entirely.

 

[LindavG]

That surprises me. There's no doubt in my mind that at his peak Michael Jordan had much higher recognizability than David Beckham worldwide.

You must be American then.

Read this: Beckham the worldwide brand

England captain Beckham is one of the world's most famous sportsmen – a walking trademark and a member of that elite band whose name is as instantly recognisable as that of multinational companies like Coca-Cola and IBM.


His £116,000-a-week pay packet at Real Madrid is small change compared to the £17m-plus he earns every year from the likes of mobile phone giant Vodafone and Gillette whose products he promotes. Beckham, who was named by Time magazine as one of its Top 100 most influential global icons, says: 'I get many offers for commercial associations, but I only ever consider the ones that I feel are right.'


We have become so used to Beckham's fame that it may seem odd to question why he has been so successful. He is certainly a world-class sportsman, but so are many others. The answer is simply that Beckham is the complete package – a true Boy's Own hero on the field of play who is envied and admired by men and women around the world for his good looks and lifestyle off it.


Some commentators have scoffed behind his back that he is no intellectual, but he has demonstrated that he is nothing less than brilliant at manipulating the media to bolster his name and fame.


'David Beckham is a sports marketer's dream - talented, photogenic and with a pop-star wife. He is the England captain, arguably England's most gifted player and almost certainly the world's most famous footballer.' So says Alex Chapman, a partner at Briffa, a London firm of solicitors that specialises in intellectual property, media and entertainment law.

(...)

Colin Gordon, one of the founders of Key Sports Management, which acts for Walcott, says: 'It is a fact of life that today's footballers are more recognisable than rock stars. Major brands are constantly trying to associate themselves with footballers. It gets a bit crazy at times, but football is a huge, huge global phenomenon.'

 

[LindavG]

If we're going to include fictional characters, I nominate Santa Claus. Very popular guy too.

 

[Autumn II]

Americans don't necessarily know much about nor follow Beckham. Our "football" is very different! I do think that Michael's music gives him a form of immortality, and it remains current in global cultures --and is very recognizable, as is his image.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

Re football being far more popular than music could ever be - I don't think this is factual.

It's not like "sports are watched by hundreds of millions of people around the world at the same time" is the only factor that counts and that's why it is more popular than music. Music is part of our day to day life and it's not possible to measure how many people are listening to the radio (or a CD they own) at any given time, so how can you possibly prove football has more audience? Not to mention music is part of other industries while football is not - music is part of movies and tv shows, it's part of theatre and even sports. I'm pretty sure every person who attends to\watches soccer also listens to music but I don't think it's the same vice versa.

It was said before athletes do become part of pop culture (for different reasons) and yes they're VERY famous but their fame mostly applies to their time and they're mostly forgotten some time after they quit. Michael Jordan is an excellent example I'm not sure why his fame was dismissed here compared to Backham, probably for the reason I just wrote. He's not as relevant anymore.





Just for the sake of comparison and I'm no way saying google is the only way to measure FAME:

Google results for "Michael Jackson" = 107 million (without quotation marks 395m)
"David Beckham" 57m (no quotation marks 102m)
"Michael Jordan" 40m (no quotation marks 305m)
"Elvis Presley" 44m (no quotation marks 48m)

 

[SoCav]

The 70s is the decade of blockbuster albums. Many of the biggest selling albums of all times were released in the 70s. So I think the 70s favoured turning big as a superstar. On the other hand those albums and stars were typically rock stars, so the 70s might still have been hard on black artists.

The 70s was the decade of the blockbuster albums, but the 80s were the decade of the superstar. I don't think MJ would have become as famous as he did without the increased use of multimedia technology and globalization that occured in the 80s. Now, I think he was at the forefront of many of these developments (e.g., music videos would not have become as big if it was not for Thriller, MJ contributed greatly to the success of MTV which in turn led to increased exposure, etc), but he also benefited from them of course.

You must be American then.

Read this: Beckham the worldwide brand

I'm not American. I agree that Beckham is a huge star, I just think Jordan at his peak was more famous. Jordan basically became synonymous with his sport. Although football is of course a bigger sport worldwide than basketball, no single star has ever become the symbol of football to the degree that MJ was the face of basketball. And as you said yourself in your earlier post, Beckham became famous not so much because of his success as a football player, but for things that went beyond football like his marriage to a Spice Girl and as a symbol of the 'metrosexual male'. Although these were things that increased his fame in the western world, I doubt it had as much of an impact elsewhere in the world. Things like winning the biggest sporting event in the world like the World Cup would have, but England never performed particularly well during Beckham's tenure. Players like Zidane and Ronaldo (the Brazilian) made much more of an impact sports-wise.

What you posted about Beckham above has to do with marketability, which I think is related, but does not necessarily correspond with fame. Even so, according to Forbes Jordan earned more than Beckham last year (mainly through his Air Jordan brand). Take into account that Jordan has been retired for 12 years.

David Beckham reached unprecedented levels of fame and fortune during his 20-year soccer career. He played for two of the biggest clubs, Real Madrid and Manchester United, in the world’s most popular sport. Beckham was the top-paid player in soccer, including endorsements, for most of the last dozen years of his career. But in his first full year of retirement, Beckham posted the highest earnings of his career with $75 million in 2014 (his previous high was $51 million in 2012). He ranks second behind Michael Jordan in Forbes’ look at the highest-paid retired athletes.

 

[InvincibleMJ]

Unfair comparison as the two peaks in Elvis' career were the late 50s and the late 60s.

Had they peaked at the same time I don't doubt that Michael would have been bigger anyway because he appealed to a wider audience than Elvis and was much more versatile. At the same time, I also think it is unrealistic to think that Michael would have gotten as big as he was had he risen to superstar status in the 70s instead of the 80s.

I never said it's a legit comparison and I never said Elvis is Michael's competition fame wise, quite contrary (read my previous posts). What's really unfair is saying Michael was more for famous than Elvis due to technicality (such as technology? money? accessibility?) when in fact it isn't so. I agree with the bolded part and that's exactly what I was saying.

The 70s is the decade of blockbuster albums. Many of the biggest selling albums of all times were released in the 70s. So I think the 70s favoured turning big as a superstar. On the other hand those albums and stars were typically rock stars, so the 70s might still have been hard on black artists.

I agree. Especially with the last part.

 

[HIStory]

Regarding sport stars I agree with Electro's and InvincibleTal's comments earlier in this thread: some sport stars may rise to contemporary superstardom even to a level that rivals rock stars (eg. Beckham, Cristiano Ronaldo, Michael Jordan). But the fame and popularity of a sport star is much more difficult to sustain on a long term. A legendary musician's fame will always be sustained through his or her body of work, the fact that people will always listen to music - including older music. But people do not really sit down and watch old football matches (except for the maybe some sports geeks). Eg. while Cristiano Ronaldo has some 100 million followers on Facebook today, I cannot imagine him still having that level of popularity in 10-20 years after he retired. While Michael has some 80 million followers, but it's more than 40 years into his career and almost 6 years after his death.

 

[analogue]

Michael Jordan was in Space Jam. Check mate David Beckham!

 

[Smooth72]

I would say that Michael Jackson is the most famous person ever to walk this earth. Believe it. It's a really a shame that he was not helped out of the troubles he dealt with. If given a proper chance and platform he could have changed this troubled world more than he already did. His power and effect on people was unmatched. R.I.P King Michael.

 

[LindavG]

Re football being far more popular than music could ever be - I don't think this is factual.

It's not like "sports are watched by hundreds of millions of people around the world at the same time" is the only factor that counts and that's why it is more popular than music. Music is part of our day to day life and it's not possible to measure how many people are listening to the radio (or a CD they own) at any given time, so how can you possibly prove football has more audience? Not to mention music is part of other industries while football is not - music is part of movies and tv shows, it's part of theatre and even sports. I'm pretty sure every person who attends to\watches soccer also listens to music but I don't think it's the same vice versa.

I'm not talking about music in general. Yes, everyone listens to music but the type of music we listen to depends very much on our culture, language and location. Michael was one of the very few who managed to break those barriers. Football on the other hand is the same game wherever it is played. That's why you'll find kids in a small town in Africa walking around in Manchester United jerseys although they probably could not point out Manchester on a map if their life depended on it. That is what I meant by "football is more global and popular than music".

It was said before athletes do become part of pop culture (for different reasons) and yes they're VERY famous but their fame mostly applies to their time and they're mostly forgotten some time after they quit. Michael Jordan is an excellent example I'm not sure why his fame was dismissed here compared to Backham, probably for the reason I just wrote. He's not as relevant anymore.

I did not dismiss Michael Jordan, I just don't agree that his global fame was anywhere near Beckham's. He's probably the most famous American athlete of all time and that's what people in the rest of the world know him for but he never reached that "celebrity" status away from his sport that Beckham did and people did not relate to him the same way because they were (for the most part) not invested in his performance as an athlete.

Anyway, I'm not saying DB was more famous than Michael but he sure is a better candidate than some of the options that were mentioned here.

 

[SoCav]

I did not dismiss Michael Jordan, I just don't agree that his global fame was anywhere near Beckham's. He's probably the most famous American athlete of all time and that's what people in the rest of the world know him for but he never reached that "celebrity" status away from his sport that Beckham did and people did not relate to him the same way because they were (for the most part) not invested in his performance as an athlete.

Wow, I think you are greatly underestimating how big of an impact Jordan had. Maybe basketball is not a popular sport in your country, but millions of people around the world are invested in it. And Michael Jordan was the biggest name in basketball in the 90s. People were very invested in his performance as an athlete because he led his team to 6 titles. He was more or less the perfect player, a symbol of success. Every kid throwing a basketball on a rundown court in the world dreamed of being Michael Jordan. He also had very successful endorsements (mainly with Nike) that, as I posted above, result in him being the biggest earning retired athlete to this day (and he starred in Space Jam, as analogue said :beee::lol. With regards to the bolded part, I don't quite understand why you say that, because you said yourself that a big part of Beckham's fame had to do with him being known for things outside of his performance on the pitch. So if anything, people were not as invested in his athletic performance, right?

You're absolutely right that football is huge and that you'll see kids in the most remote villages in Africa wear football jerseys. But I think these kids relate more to the player's performances, rather than the celebrity gossip that dominates the tabloid press here. I don't doubt that many of them know Beckham, but that would be for his performances as a player, not because he married 'Posh Spice'. And there are many players who had more success on the pitch than Beckham. Beckham is obviously a massive star, but we are talking about worldwide fame here, and I have serious doubts about his cultural impact in the non-western world. I also think that, because he was not the most successful football player there is and because his fame has to do with a lot of external factors, his longevity now that he has retired will be a lot shorter than Michael Jordan's, who remains relevant because he is still seen as the greatest basketball player of all time.

Well anyway, at least we agree on one thing: that neither of these guys are more famous than MJ. Sorry for straying offtopic.

As for the most famous American athlete, Jordan is a good candidate. Muhammad Ali would be another.

 

[Snow White luvs Peter Pan]

Michael Jordan's fame is/was 100% merited to his atlethic achievements (probably his endorsement from Nike too), something Beckham lacks in comparison to Michael. Beckham's fame has been mainly because he's handsome and the endorsements he has had from different brands.

 

[LindavG]

Wow, I think you are greatly underestimating how big of an impact Jordan had. Maybe basketball is not a popular sport in your country, but millions of people around the world are invested in it. And Michael Jordan was the biggest name in basketball in the 90s. People were very invested in his performance as an athlete because he led his team to 6 titles. He was more or less the perfect player, a symbol of success. Every kid throwing a basketball on a rundown court in the world dreamed of being Michael Jordan. He also had very successful endorsements (mainly with Nike) that, as I posted above, result in him being the biggest earning retired athlete to this day (and he starred in Space Jam, as analogue said :beee::lol.

True, but I'm comparing him to a player who played for the most popular teams of the most popular sport in the world and competed in three World Cups. It's only logical that more people around the world were invested in his performance as an athlete. Basketball is not even a televised sport in most places.

With regards to the bolded part, I don't quite understand why you say that, because you said yourself that a big part of Beckham's fame had to do with him being known for things outside of his performance on the pitch. So if anything, people were not as invested in his athletic performance, right?

As I said before, Beckham transcended his fame as a football player so that even people who couldn't care less about the sport knew who he was and were interested in him. But the mere popularity of football and the major teams he played for (in five different countries) meant that a lot of people were invested in his performance as an athlete as well.

You're absolutely right that football is huge and that you'll see kids in the most remote villages in Africa wear football jerseys. But I think these kids relate more to the player's performances, rather than the celebrity gossip that dominates the tabloid press here. I don't doubt that many of them know Beckham, but that would be for his performances as a player, not because he married 'Posh Spice'. And there are many players who had more success on the pitch than Beckham.

So if there are many players who had more success on the pitch than Beckham, why do you think those kids in Africa still walk around with his jersey? Clearly it's not just about skill.

Beckham is obviously a massive star, but we are talking about worldwide fame here, and I have serious doubts about his cultural impact in the non-western world. I also think that, because he was not the most successful football player there is and because his fame has to do with a lot of external factors, his longevity now that he has retired will be a lot shorter than Michael Jordan's, who remains relevant because he is still seen as the greatest basketball player of all time.

I beg to differ. People are even more obsessed with football in the Middle East, South America and parts of Africa and they practically worship (former) football players even when Europeans have already moved on to the next big thing.

As for international fame, the fact that so many global brands endorse him (Adidas, H&M, Pepsi, Armani, Samsung, Burger King, Walt Disney, just to name a few) says it all really. He may not go down in history as the greatest player of all time but he will certainly be remembered as the first athlete to really cross over from sports to entertainment.

Well anyway, at least we agree on one thing: that neither of these guys are more famous than MJ. Sorry for straying offtopic.

Yep. I never thought I'd be defending David Beckham's status in the world, I don't even care about the guy that much, LOL.

 

[TinnyandOdd]

I know who Michael Jackson is. I know who Michael Jordan is. The only reason I know who David Beckham is is because he's married to Posh Spice. I don't follow sports, and I'm just one person, so don't take my head off for saying that

 

[barbee0715]

The answer is YES, Michael was/is the most famous person on earth. Period.