This is not the case in Asia, and why?

First, most Asian countries have all kinds of fatal flaws in the development of football, but European and South American countries do not have these fatal flaws. All countries in Europe and South America, except for the pocket-sized countries with very small populations, have all the conditions for the development of football 'basically sufficient', so that European and South American football can make common progress in the process of 'you kill me once, I kill you once'.

European countries are equivalent to practicing their football skills completely, and then improving together in the struggle to kill and love each other. But Asia is different, Asian countries have not been able to practice their football skills, and the fatal flaw in the development of football in most Asian countries has limited the progress of most Asian countries, so even if the Japanese team hurts many national teams in Asia, those national teams don't know how to improve themselves, and then in turn to hurt the Japanese team.

Asian football has developed and developed, just a few national teams that can barely be called strong teams, and the number of times they can hurt each other is not as much as that between European national teams, let's just say that a national team has been hurt by the strong less times, he doesn't know how to improve himself, he doesn't know how the strong will make moves, because he doesn't have many opportunities to play with strong teams.

Second: Asia is nominally a continent, but in fact, Asia is a splicing of a number of 'continent-level regions', Asia is a splicing of a number of 'cultural circles', the development of football, first of all, the development of each 'cultural circle', and then the exchanges between different cultural circles, only in this way, a 'continental-level region', a 'cultural circle', its football, can be maximized.

For this 'second', the author will then put a lot of words into the argument.

Let's take a look at the word 'continent' first, the people of the earth have long been accustomed to 'seven continents and four oceans', not to mention the four oceans, just say 'seven continents', this 'continent', what is its division standard? I don't think the vast majority of people in the world have ever thought about it, because the vast majority of people in the world think it doesn't matter, even if the continents are not so reasonable.

The concept of "seven continents" was naturally put forward by modern Europeans and accepted by the whole world, because Europe can be called the core area of modern human history, therefore, all the ideas put forward by Europeans in modern times will be considered absolutely correct by the whole world, Europe calls itself Europe, this is no problem, and Europe is indeed the benchmark of "continent", how big should a continent be? How strong should it be geographically?

Europe is the standard answer to this question, the geographical strength of a continent should be as big as Europe, and of course, Turkey, Cyprus, the three countries of the Caucasus, Israel and Kazakhstan should still be excluded from the 'geographical Europe'.

If Europe is regarded as the benchmark of the continent, then Africa, North America and South America can barely be regarded as continents with reasonable geographical strength, or sub-Saharan Africa, the United States and Canada, Greenland, and Latin America, these three regions can be regarded as a standard 'continental region' and a standard 'large cultural sphere'. Oceania can barely be regarded as a qualified 'continent' and 'large cultural circle'.

As for Asia, it is naturally not a reasonable continent, in fact, Asia is a splicing of multiple 'continent-level regions', and it is also a splicing of multiple 'large cultural circles'. For example, East Asia is fully qualified to become a continent, both in terms of area and population, East Asia is more than Europe, and even if it is economically powerful, East Asia will surpass Europe in the future.

And the concept of 'continent', in China's Warring States Period, the famous Yin and Yang scholar Zou Yan has discussed, at that time Zou Yan thought that the largest range that the Chinese cultural circle can cover is a continent, of course, Zou Yan used the word 'state', Zou Yan believes that in addition to the maximum scope that the Chinese cultural circle can cover, there are 8 'states', and the whole ' Although Zou Yan's cognition does not match the geography of the earth, it also shows that more than 2,300 years ago, people have produced a very primitive and simple concept of "continent" and "cultural circle", and it is not much different from the current concept.

South Asia can also be called a continent and cultural circle, if South Asia is pulled out separately to be a continent, the population of this continent can still rank first in the world. Southeast Asia can also be seen as a continent, and of course, there are many who say that Vietnam should more accurately belong to the 'East Asian Confucian cultural circle'. As for Central and Western Asia, it is more suitable to be regarded as a continent and a cultural circle with North Africa. And North Asia can also be called a continent, just because North Asia has a small population, it cannot be despised as having the qualifications to become a continent, the Antarctic continent is only penguins in addition to scientific researchers, Antarctica can become a continent, why can't North Asia? Of course, culturally, North Asia can also be considered an extension of Europe

Readers may ask, what is the purpose of the author's verbosity in so many digressions? In fact, in the previous chapters, the author also said that football, the reason why it can be the world's first sport, is precisely because football is not only a sport, it is also a culture, if you want to develop football, you must start from the cultural aspect, and the most fundamental reason why Chinese football is getting weaker and weaker is precisely caused by the cultural factor of national inferiority, and the solution must also start from cultural factors.

East Asia and Europe are at the opposite ends of the Eurasian continent, and if Europe can become a continent, why can't East Asia become a continent? Just because the Europeans stipulated that East Asia is part of Asia, that East Asia must not be a continent?

Of course, the concept of Asia has long been deeply rooted in the hearts of the people and has involved the interests of many countries, so it is unlikely that the concept of Asia will disappear for a while, at least, in the political, economic, military, and diplomatic fields, the word Asia will continue to exist for many years.

However, in some sports, such as football and basketball, East Asia should be decoupled from the rest of Asia, and even if Japan, South Korea, North Korea, and Mongolia are not willing to decouple from the rest of Asia, China should also be decoupled from the rest of Asia, because China's own size is comparable to the whole of Europe, and in a way, Europe is 'decoupled from the rest of Eurasia', and we can think of Europe as 'part of Greater Asia', but this part is detached from 'Greater Asia', is there a problem with this understanding?

The answer is definitely no.