Hey listen, leaving everything to the last minute is a Brasilian characteristic, dont blame Brasilians for behaving like Brasilians. They have an expression when they want something on time, `tempo Britannico`! Stupid tosser Valcke and the FIFA criminals should have taken this into account before asking Brasil to host the tournament, they are reaping what they sowed. They should be grateful Brasil offered to take on this Cup as no other South American country volunteered. They should be grateful and stop whining like pussies.
Mais uma vez, o Romário, incoerente, foi à público me responsabilizar por uma promessa que não é minha, mas da CBF. http://t.co/w9JwEs16vV— Claro Brasil (@ClaroBrasil) March 17, 2014 Minha opinião sobre a declaração do Ronaldo. Texto na íntegra aqui também: http://t.co/pzq5tyBthQ— Romário (@RomarioOnze) March 20, 2014 valeu, Peixe!
I know it's probably technically not Ronaldo's responsibility to make this happen. But he basically made the promise 3 years ago with Ricardo Teixeira. My guess is he is being hung out to dry by CBF on this one. That's not his fault. But instead of saying he is not responsible, he should stand with Romario on this one and demand this from CBF.
You reap what you sow. That's what Ronaldo gets for standing by pretty much everything that CBF and FIFA say.
I agree, he is benefiting from it. Take the consequences that come with it if you are going to blindly defend them.
Jiripoca, I understand that doing things at the last minute is a Brazilian trait, but is superstition one as well? And anyone else can answer as well, but is the reason why Brazil is opening on June 12 instead of the 13th is because Brazil is superstitious about playing on that date?
Can't understand why the final is on a Saturday and not Sunday? Maybe to use Sunday as a celebration/carnival day!
Ivo, The final is on a Sunday! !! July 13th. Normally the World Cup starts on a Friday and ends on a Sunday! ! That's why I was asking why Brazil was opening on Thursday the 12th rather than Friday the 13th? Was it because of superstition?
Hi Omajac, 13 is not a bad luck number in Brasil, only in the anglo saxon world, you know that menino!!! Brasil have no say in when the tournament starts or finishes, it is euro -owned FIFA. So the straight answer is no it is not superstition.
No it's strange because the World Cup usually always begins on a Friday and ends on a Sunday! Then there was a change because it used to be the defending champions used to open up the World Cup now its the host!
The change to the host opening the tournament was because the defending champion no longer qualifies automatically. As for opening on Thursday, I guess they wanted to spread out the opening matches a tiny bit more? It doesn't make a difference for those in groups G and H I think though.
I strongly disagree. Brazil should be grateful FIFA agreed to grant the competition to Brazil. The World Cup isn't ours nor any country's - it's FIFA's.
Brazil was selected as host in 2007; 1 year after the 2006 World Cup & 3 years before the last World Cup. Why are things so behind?
HaHa I have nothing to add to my previous post, why are you whinging several months later, have you been drinking and just woken up?
Dont be silly, look at all the riots and stuff do you think we should be grateful? Who are you anyway, Valckes speacial envoy?
Hosting an event of the magnitude like the FIFA World Cup is a complex operation, but it is also an honor. Many countries apply for each tournament (2014 was different). England for example, with its rich tradition and great venues, was denied a chance for 2018. Not all countries are qualified to host such a competition. Or do you think it's a coincidence that after 1978 (and before that, 1962), the World Cup was never hosted in South America? Colombia was frank and humble enough to relinquish its hosting of the 1986 tournament. The riots are not happening because of the World Cup tournament in and of itself but because of the corruption by the government authorities and the obscene use of public money while much basic infrastructure is precarious. I wasn't opposed to the tournament in Brazil but I thought we'd have public investment play a minor role. That hasn't happened. Additionally, some lower-income families have been dispossessed and forced to move. This is the kind of stuff that is motivating the protesters (their tactics, by the way, I do not always agree with; graffiti and the torching of others' property is criminal).
Lula and Ricardo Teixeira made things worse than they had to be. They, for whatever reason, bowed to domestic political pressure and... Valcke deixou claro que a decisão de estruturar a Copa da forma que ela vai ocorrer não foi ideia da Fifa. Segundo ele, foi o governo brasileiro, o ex-presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva e Ricardo Teixeira que fizeram questão de insistir com a Fifa de que a Copa teria de ocorrer em doze cidades e que as seleções não poderiam ficar em apenas uma região do País. A Fifa pede apenas oito sedes. "É verdade que você multiplica os riscos ao ter mais estádios. Mas tivemos uma situação em que tínhamos um governo e um presidente, que naquele momento era Lula, que te explicam que a Copa deve ser para todo o Brasil e não apenas para poucas cidades", disse. Valcke também deixou claro que o pedido para que a Copa se estruturasse dessa forma também veio de Ricardo Teixeira, ex-presidente da CBF. O dirigente da Fifa admite que o "lógico" seria dividir os 32 times em quatro grupos regionais, justamente para evitar que tivessem de sair de Manaus e jogar em Porto Alegre, de São Paulo à Recife. "Isso evitaria que eles tivessem de se mover para outras zonas do Brasil", declarou. Mas a Fifa acabou sendo obrigada a abandonar a ideia de dividir o País em quatro, justamente por causa da insistência da CBF e do governo de que a seleção brasileira iria percorrer o Brasil em seus jogos.
It's one of those things that sounds good on paper. It's poetic to say you're bringing football to the whole nation including Manaus, Cuiaba, etc ... but obviously it doesn't make sense from the financial aspect in a country like ours. It sounds like something Oil rich countries would do. Do something Grand for the population just to say they can.
In addition to that, just how seriously can professional soccer be taken in certain areas of the country? Soccer is Brazil’s national sport, but do Amazonas, Pará, Rio Grande do Norte, Mato Grosso really have the same tradition as areas like São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais, and Rio Grande do Sul? Arena Pantanal is beautiful, but who’s going to use it later? Mixto? Cuiabá Esporte Clube? CES plays in Série C. Mixto in Série D. Náutico will use Arena Pernambuco. OK – Náutico is a team with some tradition. It’s gone back and forth between Séries A and B since 2006. It has won several local titles and many state titles. But I do hope this stadium doesn’t turn into a white elephant. Arena das Dunas will be used by América and ABC, two Série B teams. Arena da Amazônia will be used in part by Nacional, a Série D team. Don’t get me wrong. These are beautiful venues. But as FIFA only demands 8 venues, having the tournament mostly in the southeastern part of Brazil would’ve made more logistical sense. Less travel, shorter flights. São Paulo had Morumbi and now has Itaquerão. Rio has Maracanã. Porto Alegre had Beira-Rio and the now refurbished Arena Grêmio. Mineirão has been already used many times. Arena da Baixada went through some problems, but it’s going to be done (hopefully). Mané Garrincha in Brasília may not play a large role in top-level competition, but I see the rationale for the country’s capital to be in the World Cup. And there was also the possibility of Fonte Nova and Castelão. Yes, it's "nice" to let Brazil play in other cities, but what about tourists who will have to fly what in other cases would effectively be international flights to see their teams play? For comparison: in 1994, Brazil played 2 games in Connecticut and one in Michigan.
More travel and FIFA can say "hey, that's more money input into the local economy". I think it has become a selling point because it make no sense. Obviously the fan is the one that suffers in terms of cost as you say. Following your team throughout the competition is a really expensive endeavor not to mention a logistical challenge. I really did prefer when teams had a home base for the group stage and travel was minimized. It is also good for the teams themselves.
In addition to that, I would venture to say (Brasileiros here who have visited the norte and nordeste cities, please add your input) that possibly, some of those areas may not have infrastructure and all for tourists in quantity and quality for the number of people who'll suddenly swarm in for the World Cup. There were cases of fans having to travel between the west and east US coasts in 1994, but even then, major US cities had the basics in place. And the US spent far less than Brazil did w/ its stadiums: existing venues, used for US league sports, were temporarily retrofitted for soccer.