World Cup 2010 Thread

[DFF]

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.

The Aussies would be a fantastic choice, in my opinion. They did an immense job wit the Olympics (considered one of, if not 'the' best ran Olympics). I think it'd be great. Only bitching point would be from a personal point of the games being on the wrong side of the 24 hour clock! Haha!

[Blue Rosler]

If the Superbowl would be held in London, then it'd be exactly the same as other NFL matches held here. The rich fans of the two teams travel from the States, the NFL fans in the UK come to see it, and the rest just to enjoy the spectacle. I've been to two NFL games, fucked if I know what went on.

The South African attendance figures were low for a simple reason - most people wouldn't want to see say Greece vs Nigeria. The cheapest tickets were sold-out, and most South Africans were reluctant to pay £25+ to see a match that probably would be dire. Had these games been held in a first world country, then undoubtedly these stadiums would have been bursting through the roof.

Although, can we stop saying that England has the transport links? Rush hour on the trains is fucked as it is, and the motorways get jammed already, with an added couple of million descending on the country then it's going to get fucking mental. Can you imagine fans having to race up to Manchester to see the Second Round legs? Queues at Stansted would be a nightmare, East Midland Trains down for maintenance, Megabus is just shit as it is.

[TCO]

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.

It's NOTHING like that. First of all football isn't 'England's' game it may have been created by them but that was a long time ago and it doesn't give them a god given right to host a World Cup. If American Football did become a worldwide sport and it came into a position where a World Cup was possible, I'm sure the US wouldn't mind not hosting it, because they have the NFL which would be a higher standard anyway and they're even expanding that to foreign grounds, so I doubt it'd bother them that much. Oh and what history do England have associated with the World Cup? One hosted win 40 years ago when Brazil had an off year followed by a lot of overhyped disappointment? Please.

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.

Again just because they created it doesn't mean they deserve to host it and all of that can also be said of Spain who are also the reigning World Champions which has got ot help their case.

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?

Also, why shouldn't the USA or Spain host it a second time? I personally want England to get one of them because it means I could go to one but this bullshit about them 'deserving one' annoys me when Spain and USA are just, if not more capable at hosting it than them and the host should be selected on capabilities, not 'history' and the amount of sports the country likes.

[Blue Rosler]

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.

It's NOTHING like that. First of all football isn't 'England's' game it may have been created by them but that was a long time ago and it doesn't give them a god given right to host a World Cup. If American Football did become a worldwide sport and it came into a position where a World Cup was possible, I'm sure the US wouldn't mind not hosting it, because they have the NFL which would be a higher standard anyway and they're even expanding that to foreign grounds, so I doubt it'd bother them that much. Oh and what history do England have associated with the World Cup? One hosted win 40 years ago when Brazil had an off year followed by a lot of overhyped disappointment? Please.

The US wouldn't mind not hosting it?

If they didn't host it, they'd go to whatever country and just chant U-S-A at every single game.

And it's like saying England wouldn't mind not having the World Cup, as we've got the Premier League...

[Kaney]

I'm not too fussed either way but personally I think the history does have a lot to do with it. Like metalman said a lot of it is just sentimentality, but there is a certain amount of romance to it, like choosing South Africa was hardly about making as much money as fast as possible.

[TCO]

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.

It's NOTHING like that. First of all football isn't 'England's' game it may have been created by them but that was a long time ago and it doesn't give them a god given right to host a World Cup. If American Football did become a worldwide sport and it came into a position where a World Cup was possible, I'm sure the US wouldn't mind not hosting it, because they have the NFL which would be a higher standard anyway and they're even expanding that to foreign grounds, so I doubt it'd bother them that much. Oh and what history do England have associated with the World Cup? One hosted win 40 years ago when Brazil had an off year followed by a lot of overhyped disappointment? Please.

The US wouldn't mind not hosting it?

If they didn't host it, they'd go to whatever country and just chant U-S-A at every single game.

And it's like saying England wouldn't mind not having the World Cup, as we've got the Premier League...

But the Premier League would never be bigger than the World Cup, while if there were to be a World Cup in American Football, the Superbowl would still mean more to people anyway beacause it's just that big. I highly doubt they'd kick up a fuss about not hosting this methaphorical World Cup, because as I said a global expansion is what the NFL are aiming for and if they're OK bringing NFL games abroad, a massive tournament abroad would be perfect for them.

[Colly]

Yes, but thats only because only 1 country actually play American Football to a high standard so obviously the NFL will be of a higher quality. 'Soccer' is played worldwide with a bare minimum of 7 or 8 teams who can make the final every World Cup (I predicted 1 of the 4 semi finalists, yay me!) with another 7 or 8 including the likes of England, Ivory Coast and even the USA who could hit a golden generation and make an impact on the knockouts. If the rest of the world actually took on American Football in the same way eventually the standard would catch up with the NFL and your point would be rubbish.

Lest we forget it'd be 52 years since the last one if we got 2018, and the world has changed an awful lot since, imagine 52 years of building US football without having one in America, would the Superbowl still be bigger? Maybe, but thats a long period to hypothesise.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Colly

[stokeriño]

What I read was that 2018 is virtually guaranteed to be a 'cash cow' World Cup. That is, one in a country which has all the infrastructure already there, an existing massive fanbase to milk, and basically everything designed for maximum FIFA profit. See for example: Italia 90, France 98, Germany 06, Brazil 14. This is as opposed to a 'pioneering' World Cup, which is designed to expand markets but not necessarily generate as much cash, e.g. Korea/Japan 02, South Africa 10. 2022 is supposedly going to be one of these, like maybe Qatar.

With that said, I don't really know which of those the USA would fall under these days.

[Blue Rosler]

[TCO]

Yes, but thats only because only 1 country actually play American Football to a high standard so obviously the NFL will be of a higher quality. 'Soccer' is played worldwide with a bare minimum of 7 or 8 teams who can make the final every World Cup (I predicted 1 of the 4 semi finalists, yay me!) with another 7 or 8 including the likes of England, Ivory Coast and even the USA who could hit a golden generation and make an impact on the knockouts. If the rest of the world actually took on American Football in the same way eventually the standard would catch up with the NFL and your point would be rubbish.

Lest we forget it'd be 52 years since the last one if we got 2018, and the world has changed an awful lot since, imagine 52 years of building US football without having one in America, would the Superbowl still be bigger? Maybe, but thats a long period to hypothesise.

I wasn't the person who brought the comparison up to begin with and even if the standard caught up, I'd still think the Superbowl would be bigger, it's just that big a deal. Just like an NBA Championsip ring means more than a World Championsip title. Yes they're completely different sports and yes the initial comparison was terrible, but the entirety of that guy's point was.

[EddieG]

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.

Blatter's already changed his opinion on that, hence both Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium putting in bids which were received positively.

[stokeriño]

Speaking of split bids, is Poland/Ukraine 2012 still utterly fucked for infrastructure or have they got their act together?

[Blue Rosler]

They're fucked for stewards at the matches. They're all here either working as waitresses or builders.

[stokeriño]

Last I heard, Ukraine were all "whoops, we haven't got round to building any roads or hotels yet"... >_>

[sahyder1]

If the Superbowl would be held in London, then it'd be exactly the same as other NFL matches held here. The rich fans of the two teams travel from the States, the NFL fans in the UK come to see it, and the rest just to enjoy the spectacle. I've been to two NFL games, fucked if I know what went on.

The South African attendance figures were low for a simple reason - most people wouldn't want to see say Greece vs Nigeria. The cheapest tickets were sold-out, and most South Africans were reluctant to pay £25+ to see a match that probably would be dire. Had these games been held in a first world country, then undoubtedly these stadiums would have been bursting through the roof.

Although, can we stop saying that England has the transport links? Rush hour on the trains is fucked as it is, and the motorways get jammed already, with an added couple of million descending on the country then it's going to get fucking mental. Can you imagine fans having to race up to Manchester to see the Second Round legs? Queues at Stansted would be a nightmare, East Midland Trains down for maintenance, Megabus is just shit as it is.

Attendance figures in South Africa ended up being just fine. Going into the semi finals it was 3rd all-time behind US '94 and Germany '06. I haven't looked into what the tickets cost and what kind of revenue FIFA ended up generating but the people were there.

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?

They deserve it because they created is a pretty pathetic point of view. England is not the only place that has stadiums, transport links, fans or passion. So try again. Ok, England has some of the best players in the World but....so what? How exactly is that relevant? What exactly has that led them to? I must have missed the part where England was dominating soccer worldwide by winning World Cups and Euro Championships left and right.

[SeanDMan]

Yes, but thats only because only 1 country actually play American Football to a high standard so obviously the NFL will be of a higher quality.

Canada is still a seperate country.

[MDK]

England deserve it not because it is the home of football, but more importantly it is the home of me and it means I might get to go to a world cup.

Also, bugger 'merica and the downunderverse getting it, I don't want to have to be up at stupid o' clock to watch a game.

[Guest Mr. Potato Head]

Yes, but thats only because only 1 country actually play American Football to a high standard so obviously the NFL will be of a higher quality.

Canada is still a seperate country.

Yeah but we play Canadian Football. :/

[HailtotheYo]

So putting the organization to it means that England "created the game" ?

[Blue Rosler]

Yes, sahyder, attendance figures ended up fine. But even if the Semi Finals were held in Baghdad, there'd be enough interest to pack out 100k capicity stadiums easily. But as a neutral spectator for games such as Algeria vs Slovenia and Greece vs Nigeria, there'd be little attraction to cause a South African citizen to spend £25 on a ticket. Whilst in the US, that kind of money can be earnt in a couple of hours even at minimum wage labour, it's a bit expenditure to a South African. It's just an important factor to take into account when pulling out the statistics that WC '94 has the biggest overall attendance, when the neutral spectators have the disposable income to do so.

93,000 went to see Cameroon vs Sweden, 54,000 went to see Korea Republic vs Bolivia.

I'm not too knowledgeable on the strengths of these teams in '94, but judging by today, I'm presuming a lot of those were neutral spectators.

EDIT: Turns out Sweden came third, so it's understandable, but still ... attendances were bigger due to disposable income.