World Cup 2010 Thread

[Rich]

Frankly I think the brilliant "Home Depot Center" is the only option seeing as it has the best name this side of "Sportsdirect.com@St James' Park"

[Dynamite]

I thought it was already widely agreed 2018 would be in Europe with 2022 elsewhere?

[gunnar hendershow]

Out of curiosity, where would the US have the final?

I know it was in the Rose Bowl in '94 but there are better facilities nowadays with Cowboys Stadium and New Meadowlands to name 2.

Cowboys Stadium, the new stadium being built out in LA (when an NFL franchise moves there), and FedEx Field I would pick as the three likeliest given their size. Rose Bowl is still huge, and then the college stadiums like Beaver Stadium, Neyland, and the Big House fit close to 110,000 people. However, they aren't probably up to par with a lot of FIFA standards.

[sahyder1]

Out of curiosity, where would the US have the final?

I know it was in the Rose Bowl in '94 but there are better facilities nowadays with Cowboys Stadium and New Meadowlands to name 2.

Nothing wrong with doing it at the Rose Bowl again but I would bet in the new Meadowlands Stadium. With the Xanadu project being done by that time (I believe it will be the largest mall in the country) it will be a big tourist spot nearby.

[britneyspearsisgod]

I thought it was already widely agreed 2018 would be in Europe with 2022 elsewhere?

I don't think it's 100% confirmed, but it's widely accepted to probably be the case.

[Lowerdeck]

and then the college stadiums like Beaver Stadium, Neyland, and the Big House fit close to 110,000 people. However, they aren't probably up to par with a lot of FIFA standards.

Sure they're big. But really... a World Cup final in State College, Pennsylvania of all places? Ann Arbor? Knoxville?

The only rational places I could see: New Meadowlands, FedEx Field, somewhere in/near LA third, and maybe Cowboys as a longshot.

[EddieG]

Doesn't Platini want it to be in the UK as he basically faps all over us?

Platini is only president of UEFA though, so it's not really up to him is it? :/

[Rich]

Because being the president of one of the most influential regional, international associations which is home to the best team in the World has absolutely no influence at all? None?

Stop being myopic about it Eddie.

[METALMAN]

I would quite like it to be in the USA. Although that's mainly because my first memories of watching the world cup is USA 94 so there's a bit of nostalgia there. I think the USA would be able to put on a really good tournament but as a host it doesn't carry much of a "wow" factor. If you know what I mean.

Like 1994 - first time with the USA - was a big deal

2010 - first time in Africa - was a MASSIVE deal, as was Japan/Korea 2002.

France 98, a long awaited return to the best country in the world - was an absolutely inconceivably titanic fucking deal.

I even begrudgingly admit that a return to England, with it being the home of football, in 2018 would be a big deal.

But the USA? meh. A tournament where the host is a non event and nobody gives a fuck about them. And big stadiums won't change that. Germany 2006 was perhaps the nadir of this.

[sahyder1]

But the USA? meh. A tournament where the host is a non event and nobody gives a fuck about them. And big stadiums won't change that. Germany 2006 was perhaps the nadir of this.

Yeah, it's not like the 1994 didn't set attendance records for a World Cup that still stand or anything like that.

Soccer is not in the same league as the NFL here but lets stop being ignorant about it. Every match will be sold out. 3.59 million people went to the 64 games in 1994.....that number will be higher in 2018.

[METALMAN]

You obviously missed my reference to USA 94.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ROLLEYES ROLLEYES ROLLEYES

[sahyder1]

You obviously missed my reference to USA 94.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ROLLEYES ROLLEYES ROLLEYES

But you go on to act like it won't be a big deal the 2nd time around which obviously isn't true.

[METALMAN]

for the world as a whole, not a big deal. I've already said I would be happy for the USA to host but it seems far more special when the host country is staging the tournament for the first time. The importance of Japan/Korea hosting in 2002 and South Africa hosting in 2010 will exceed that of anything that happened on the pitch. I can't see USA 2018 having the same effect. Not right now at least.

[sahyder1]

for the world as a whole, not a big deal. I've already said I would be happy for the USA to host but it seems far more special when the host country is staging the tournament for the first time. The importance of Japan/Korea hosting in 2002 and South Africa hosting in 2010 will exceed that of anything that happened on the pitch. I can't see USA 2018 having the same effect. Not right now at least.

Fair enough but 1)Japan/Korea was a mess and FIFA already said they will never do a split World Cup because of how messed up that one was 2)A US World Cup will be a big money maker for FIFA. 3.6 million went to games last time around the facilities this time around will be bigger. Heck, take Dallas for example where the stadium Capacity went from 60 something thousands to 105K. US TV rights are up for renewal and FIFA will love a bidding war between Fox Soccer Channel and ESPN for a World Cup where they will air games in the US during Prime Time. That's why I've considered the US a lock all along for 2018 or 2022. Financially it makes too much sense.

[METALMAN]

Oh I've got no argument on the financial side of things. It will undoubtedly rake in billions. But it just won't feel special. Admittedly my reasons for this are based on nothing but sentimentality but sentimentality is a big thing in football.

There was a certain romance in finally holding the World Cup in Africa after so long, just as there was in USA 94. However, it's rarely as special the second time. Nobody really got behind Germany as host in World Cup 2006. An obvious exception to this is Brazil 2014. The Brazilians love football like no other nation. Despite winning five times, the tournament they all still talk about is 1950, where they were defeated on their own soil. For Brazil to finally win in 2014, after mourning their 1950 defeat for so long - I can see some romance in that. A World Cup in the United States would be much like that in 1994 - the nation is still largely indifferent to football but it would clean up financially.

A World Cup in the United States is for those that think with their head, whereas Brazil 2014 is for those that think with their heart. A World Cup in the United States is for those that love money, whereas Brazil 2014 is for those that love football.

[Guest Mr. Potato Head]

My main gripe against a World Cup in the US is that yes, people will care in and around the stadium on game night (mostly soccer tourists, though that's the case at any WC), but it will barely make a dent once you get a couple miles away from the stadium in any direction. That doesn't seem right to me.

[Marcos]

The US should not be anywhere near hosting the next two world cups. 2026 is fine with me, unless Australia isn't counted as Asia, in which case I would be delighted to see it go England, Australia and then Qatar. I agree totally with everything metalman says. Brazil is a footballing nation, England is a footballing nation, South Africa is a 75% footballing nation, Germany is a footbaling nation, Japan/South Korea are mainly footballing nations, France is a footballing nation. Yet we should give the World Cup to the States, because it would help them develop the sport? Screw that.

Don't give it to England in 2018, don't give it to the country with the history. It would be like if American Football became a worldwide sport, could you imagine the response from the Americans if we kept the competition outside its homeland for more than 50 years, to help other countries develop it. There would be an uproar! Why should FIFA help it out by giving you the world cup, when you are still promoting the NFL, NBA and MBL above the MLS? When all your young college students are pushed towards they three sports rather than football. Football is only the fourth biggest sport in America (if that, I don't know where hockey features).

England deserves 2018, they created the game, they come up with the rules, they have the stadiums, they have the transport links, they have the fans, they have the passion, they have some of the best football teams in the world and some of the best players in the world. It's not usual for me to be on England's side, but if countries like Italy, Mexico, Germany, Brazil and France are allowed to hold it twice then why shouldn't England?

2022 is a bit more cloudy though. Which means the US might have a chance Australia should host it. USA have had their world cup to develop the sport in their country, let the Aussies have the same chance. And to be honest I believe the Aussies would be a great host. They don't have many major enemies (excluding Italy and Croatia probably), and everybody loves meeting an Aussie in the pub! Although that shouldn't involve itself in the arguement. If the US got '94 to help them develop the sport in their country, then the Aussies should get '22 for the same reasons.

[Guest Mr. Potato Head]

I can't see it going England in 2018 then Australia then US for the simple reason that I doubt they'd want three English-speaking countries in a row. Or am I making too big a deal of that?

[METALMAN]

They had three Spanish speaking countries in a row in 78, 82 and 86.

[sahyder1]

My main gripe against a World Cup in the US is that yes, people will care in and around the stadium on game night (mostly soccer tourists, though that's the case at any WC), but it will barely make a dent once you get a couple miles away from the stadium in any direction. That doesn't seem right to me.

Honestly have you been into the US during a World Cup.....ever? Sports bars gets filled up for games. Merchandise is available at all big sporting good chains. Dicks, Sports Authority, Champs Sports all load up and actually do quiet while with sales for not just US merchandise but also Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and depending on the area Italy, France and Germany. ESPN gives it big coverage on all of its platforms. What more do you want?

The US should not be anywhere near hosting the next two world cups. 2026 is fine with me, unless Australia isn't counted as Asia, in which case I would be delighted to see it go England, Australia and then Qatar. I agree totally with everything metalman says. Brazil is a footballing nation, England is a footballing nation, South Africa is a 75% footballing nation, Germany is a footbaling nation, Japan/South Korea are mainly footballing nations, France is a footballing nation. Yet we should give the World Cup to the States, because it would help them develop the sport? Screw that.

Don't give it to England in 2018, don't give it to the country with the history. It would be like if American Football became a worldwide sport, could you imagine the response from the Americans if we kept the competition outside its homeland for more than 50 years, to help other countries develop it. There would be an uproar! Why should FIFA help it out by giving you the world cup, when you are still promoting the NFL, NBA and MBL above the MLS? When all your young college students are pushed towards they three sports rather than football. Football is only the fourth biggest sport in America (if that, I don't know where hockey features).

Spoken like someone who has no clue what he's talking about. Yes, % wise US doesn't have as many soccer fans as those countries but this is a country of 300 million people. Yes, they are going to be people who like other sports. It is in FIFA's interest to grow the sport (and it has) because of money. As much as people want to pretend like money doesn't matter....it does. It's 2010, quit with the myopic view of the world. All the major sport are expanding globally, whether it is cricket, soccer, golf, basketball, baseball, hockey or football. The whole "our sport" attitude is more pathetic then the people who take an anti soccer attitude because it is "their sport."

FIBA, World Basketball Championships are held on average every 4 years since 1950. The event has been held in the US once and that was in 2002. There is a ton of talk of holding a Super Bowl in London and the support for that is growing every year. MLB has been having discussions with cricketing venues around England (including Lord's) about bringing baseball games there.

There are thousands of High School teams in the country which are feeding 204 Mens College teams (this is only including teams that played teams from Division 1) and 321 Womens College teams. College Sports are split into Division 1,2 and 3 in the US with Division 1 being the toughest level of competition. I didn't pull up how many teams play exclusively in Division 2 and 3. You go into the suburbs and there are soccer leagues for kids as young as 5.

Yes, there are other sports here but as a sports fan that is a good thing....not a bad thing. I'm a fanatical cricket fan but I love that I have year round sports options that I follow on a regular basis.

I can't see it going England in 2018 then Australia then US for the simple reason that I doubt they'd want three English-speaking countries in a row. Or am I making too big a deal of that?

You're making way too big of a deal out of that.