World Cup 2010 Thread

[sahyder1]

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.

Cameroon was pretty good too at the time from what I remember.

By the way, isn't all this economic talk helping make my point?

The event will be a big success in the US (like it is everywhere) and that is the reason why it will be back here sooner rather then later. Anyone claiming otherwise is an idiot.

[Blue Rosler]

Yes, it will be back there. But it shouldn't be back there just because US citizens are rich enough to go to games. The main argument here is why it should be other venues before the US.

[Lowerdeck]

Toss a coin: heads England, tails United States...

Shall we just resort to that?

[Meacon Keaton]

If that fails, we could always let FIFA decide.

[sahyder1]

Yes, it will be back there. But it shouldn't be back there just because US citizens are rich enough to go to games. The main argument here is why it should be other venues before the US.

But it's not like the people in England are poor....since this did start as a US/England thing. People can choose to be all sentimental about it but that is the nature of sports everywhere. Not everyone can go to the games. I've lived in the US for 10 already and have never come close to getting an opportunity to attend a Super Bowl. I would love to sit front row at Yankee Stadium but there is no way I can afford $2,600 per seat per game for those seats. We can choose to bee all sentimental about it and fill every sporting event with kids from poor families but guess what...it'll never happen. As much as someone of us might not like it...sports are a business. So yes, this "US citizens are rich" argument is stupid because it's not like everyone in England, Australia, France, Italy, Spain and Germany is poor either.

Marcos and others can keep crying over stupid "our game" mentality but heck, England wasn't even one of the original FIFA members. Like I said before the whole "our sport vs your sport" logic is ridiculous in this era when all the sports are becoming global sports.

[Pesci]

It should go to England because we last had in in 1966. I mean fuck me.

[The Kraig]

I back Russia for the one after Brazil, and I back Qatar for the one after that (check out their stadium proposals, they are astounding!).

England have already hosted it and I'd prefer to see countries that aren't guaranteed a shot at qualifying to host tournaments. South Africa was excellent, except for the vuvuzelas. It's going to massively boost football in South Africa, and hopefully Southern Africa as well.

Everyone says England is the home of football, oddly forgetting that it was documented as being first played in it's basic modern form in Scotland. The first international football match? Scotland vs England. In Scotland. The (English) Football League? Founded by a Scotsman. I really don't see that as being an argument for holding the tournament in England. They'll never allow it, but the UK hosting it would be amazing. Hampden Park, the Millenium Stadium, Ibrox Stadium, Celtic Park as well as the obvious English stadiums would be ideal. Windsor Park in Belfast could even feature if they bothered doing it up a bit.

Still, I'd love a tournament to be held in England, since it would be so close. It might actually make the Scotland players work harder to get to the finals.

[Marcos]

Yes, it will be back there. But it shouldn't be back there just because US citizens are rich enough to go to games. The main argument here is why it should be other venues before the US.

But it's not like the people in England are poor....since this did start as a US/England thing. People can choose to be all sentimental about it but that is the nature of sports everywhere. Not everyone can go to the games. I've lived in the US for 10 already and have never come close to getting an opportunity to attend a Super Bowl. I would love to sit front row at Yankee Stadium but there is no way I can afford $2,600 per seat per game for those seats. We can choose to bee all sentimental about it and fill every sporting event with kids from poor families but guess what...it'll never happen. As much as someone of us might not like it...sports are a business. So yes, this "US citizens are rich" argument is stupid because it's not like everyone in England, Australia, France, Italy, Spain and Germany is poor either.

Marcos and others can keep crying over stupid "our game" mentality but heck, England wasn't even one of the original FIFA members. Like I said before the whole "our sport vs your sport" logic is ridiculous in this era when all the sports are becoming global sports.

I know that sports are becoming a global, what I am trying to say though is that there is some feeling of history in going back to play in the country where the sport was made. And allowing the people of Britain to go and watch the sport that there ancestors created on the biggest stage of them all would hold a lot of sentimental value. People who want to go and watch the best players in the world, in some of the most famous stadiums in the world will be able to in a matter of hours travelling, which you probably wouldn't get in the US.

What I don't get though is this "we shall bring it to the US to continue to evolve the game in the country". Let me ask you this, why should you, a country who holds American Football, Baseball, Hockey and Basketball in higher regard than "Soccer ",get given the greatest footballing show in the world for the second time in your generation, when most Brits have never witnessed it in theirs? I pay upwards of £500 a year to go and watch my football team. I go and watch my team get beat 4-0 in the pissing rain in the middle of some shitty wee town in the middle of nowhere. I go alongside a bunch of people on a three hundred mile round trip to Inverness, on a winters day, with the heavy snow and the freezing air. I go and support my team, even though they don't have the greatest players in the world. MLS fans don't know how lucky they are with their league, when I compare it to the SPL. They see world class players (maybe past their prime) playing week in, week out. I don't, I see a bunch of youngsters, a bunch of unskillful, hard tackling battlers.

Watching football like I do, and most Scottish and lower league English fans, should be a crime. Yet we still pay the money, we still watch the games. Why? Because we love our teams, and we love the sport. Yet these fans should not be allowed to see the World Cup, the most skillful players of that generation, playing in their country, because some other country wants to host it for the second time in 24 years, to help them develop the game. When that most of the people in that country would still rather go and watch NFL, NBA, MBL and the NHL than the MLS.

[sahyder1]

Yes, it will be back there. But it shouldn't be back there just because US citizens are rich enough to go to games. The main argument here is why it should be other venues before the US.

But it's not like the people in England are poor....since this did start as a US/England thing. People can choose to be all sentimental about it but that is the nature of sports everywhere. Not everyone can go to the games. I've lived in the US for 10 already and have never come close to getting an opportunity to attend a Super Bowl. I would love to sit front row at Yankee Stadium but there is no way I can afford $2,600 per seat per game for those seats. We can choose to bee all sentimental about it and fill every sporting event with kids from poor families but guess what...it'll never happen. As much as someone of us might not like it...sports are a business. So yes, this "US citizens are rich" argument is stupid because it's not like everyone in England, Australia, France, Italy, Spain and Germany is poor either.

Marcos and others can keep crying over stupid "our game" mentality but heck, England wasn't even one of the original FIFA members. Like I said before the whole "our sport vs your sport" logic is ridiculous in this era when all the sports are becoming global sports.

I know that sports are becoming a global, what I am trying to say though is that there is some feeling of history in going back to play in the country where the sport was made. And allowing the people of Britain to go and watch the sport that there ancestors created on the biggest stage of them all would hold a lot of sentimental value. People who want to go and watch the best players in the world, in some of the most famous stadiums in the world will be able to in a matter of hours travelling, which you probably wouldn't get in the US.

What I don't get though is this "we shall bring it to the US to continue to evolve the game in the country". Let me ask you this, why should you, a country who holds American Football, Baseball, Hockey and Basketball in higher regard than "Soccer ",get given the greatest footballing show in the world for the second time in your generation, when most Brits have never witnessed it in theirs? I pay upwards of £500 a year to go and watch my football team. I go and watch my team get beat 4-0 in the pissing rain in the middle of some shitty wee town in the middle of nowhere. I go alongside a bunch of people on a three hundred mile round trip to Inverness, on a winters day, with the heavy snow and the freezing air. I go and support my team, even though they don't have the greatest players in the world. MLS fans don't know how lucky they are with their league, when I compare it to the SPL. They see world class players (maybe past their prime) playing week in, week out. I don't, I see a bunch of youngsters, a bunch of unskillful, hard tackling battlers.

Watching football like I do, and most Scottish and lower league English fans, should be a crime. Yet we still pay the money, we still watch the games. Why? Because we love our teams, and we love the sport. Yet these fans should not be allowed to see the World Cup, the most skillful players of that generation, playing in their country, because some other country wants to host it for the second time in 24 years, to help them develop the game. When that most of the people in that country would still rather go and watch NFL, NBA, MBL and the NHL than the MLS.

They could hold World Cup matches at a street corner somewhere and people would go watch. The "historic" stadium thing really doesn't add as much for something as big as the World Cup...at least not for me. You make it sound like people in the US don't' pay to go watch soccer. I don't understand why you keep going back to the "Americans watch other sports" bit. So what? Why is that a bad thing? It's not like there aren't soccer fans in England who don't also watch cricket. It's not like there aren't soccer fans in Australia who don't also watch cricket, field hockey or Swimming. The sports calendar is built perfectly in the US/Canadian sports. There is one day in the entire year (and it was this week) where one of MLB, NHL, NBA or the NFL aren't playing games. That's not even beginning to count college basketball, college football, MLS, Tennis, Golf, etc. How exactly is that a bad thing? I want more sports on my TV. I want more sports that I can go to in person. Just because Americans watch other sports doesn't mean that they don't get fired up for the World Cup. Read my blog post on the matter. People pay money to watch soccer here too. People pay extra to get on soccer on their TVs. People pay to put their kids in soccer leagues.

The biggest reason the World Cup needs to come back here is despite how much soccer has grown here in the last 20 years it is still a largely untapped market for FIFA. They are going to make a killing off of the next TV contract. Over 24 million people watched the final here. Heck, that's more then what Game 7 of the NBA Finals got just a couple of weeks earlier and that game was on in Prime Time. Soccer merchandise sells like crazy here and I'm not just talking about Team USA merchandise either. I've worked for a couple of different sporting goods stores here and merchandise for teams like Mexico, Brazil, France, Argentina moves like crazy here too because of the large immigrant population.

You can keep mocking the term "soccer" but it was the damn British who started to refer to the sport as such in the first place. (Y)

[Asuka's Gonna Kill You]

I'd love to see both us and the USA eventually host it over the next few. Don't really see the problem with the USA hosting it either. The only thing that will annoy me about that is the huge time difference which has already been mentioned, that'll be a complete pain in the ass. All in all though, I'd love to see either of us hosting it. We should without a doubt be sooner than the USA, with them only holding it 16 years ago, but hopefully it just works out for both countries.

[Blue Rosler]

Italy are in contention too? >_>

[Asuka's Gonna Kill You]

They are? Even more joy

[Pesci]

I don't have any issues with the USA hosting it, and I'd rather them than Australia (fuck crazy time differences) and Russia. But if we don't win the 2018 bid there's something crazy going on. There are certain "core countries" for football and we're one of them, so if the others like France, Italy and Germany get a couple in a few decades then so should we. And Spain as well, but fuck it, we've waited longer.

[GoN_]

And Spain is not alone!

[EddieG]

Hey, Holland's been waiting forever. ¬_¬

[Pesci]

But Holland's a shithole

Okay so I've never been there. You got to hold Euro 2000 anyway, I know it's not a World Cup but it's the next best thing.

[EddieG]

So you got to hold Euro 96

[Pesci]

True, I completely forgot about that

So Spain are the most deserving. But fuck them.

[Crybaby Bunting]

USA could always host the next Euros after Poland/Ukraine

[Pesci]

No they couldn't, they're in a different confederation. Jesus :/ [/no-sell]