Not sure I want to delve into religion and politics here, I can't help but wonder what Benny Feilhaber and Jonathan Bornstein think about the awarding of their sport's premier event to Qatar, a nation that doesn't acknowledge the existence of Israel and denies entry to Israeli citizens. (Like many Americans, those two come from diverse ancestry, including Jewish heritage, and both in fact have represented the US in the Maccabiah Games held in Israel.) I know it's usually a no-no to combine politics and soccer on here, but in the end FIFA have provoked a discussion by this decision. I understand Qatari bid officials have stated that all nations will be welcome at the event, but I can't really see politics going by the wayside. It's going to be interesting to see how everything plays out...
When did "mature" come to mean pretending corruption doesn't exist in a corrupt organization? That's how an 11-year-old looks at the world.
This is complete rubbish- if we are taking national histories and human rights into account, there's really no modern country that passes your test. Germany and Japan would be never be able to host anything based on their actions in the 20th century. You are either intellectually dishonest or a pretty ignorant guy. Something that I haven't seen anyone mentioned is the condition of the Qatari team itself. It will undoubtedly be one if, if not the, worst team to ever play in a world cup based on the competition it will face. They will lose every game by multiple goals. I don't know if fifa considered this, but i think there should be a baseline quality requirement in the actual team of the host country. Assuming they don't field 18 naturalized brazillians in 2022, there's no chance that Qatar will put a decent product out on the field. This alone should have kept them from hosting the game. Also, you haven't taken into account Fifa's utterly inconsistent statements its made in the past re: size of host country. Many times countries like holland and portugal have been told they were too small to host the WC. People would of course be upset if the US lost to any country, but losing to a country like Qatar is so obviously unreasonable + smelling of corruption, people have a right to be upset.
If anyone knew tiny Qatar had a decent chance to win the hosting rights, I wish someone would have convinced Holland to ditch Belgium and strike the joint-host stigma off of their bid. Why were there two joint-host bids when FIFA has made it clear they're against them? Changing the direction of this thread slightly while sort of staying on topic, wtf is there to do in Qatar for 2-3 weeks? I looked at wikitravel and it looks like the biggest attractions are an Islamic art museum and a spiffy shopping mall with canals and gondolas. Great, what should I do with the other 1 3/4 weeks I'm there? In South Africa, our travels were so packed with sight seeing we barely had time to watch any of the other games going on.
They should have no trouble qualifying from their special FIFA-arranged group of England, Germany, Russia, Turkey, and the Faroe Islands. And the FIFA justification will be something totally defensible, such as "You see, a UEFA group may have multiple teams from Pot 1 if their capitals lie in different time zones."
On merit, South Africa didn't deserve the Cup and one has doubts about Brazil, Russia and certainly, of the past marks, the crime ridden Colombia that had to bow out of the 1986 WC. Likewise, as has been mentioned, UEFA's decision to award Ukraine and Poland the 2012 Euros seems to fit the "broader social experiment" angle. Now, add in the various U-17/20 events ...
Good post, repped. The only point I find myself disagreeing with is the bolded part. They have 12 years to assemble a reasonable national team, doing what the Saudis and gulf nations already do---import from wherever. This has been in the past "from anywhere in the Islamic world", and the Saudis have on occasion had a pretty good team from this sort of manufacture...with their money focussed in that direction Qatar should be able to do the same. There may well be a Brazilian import or two, or other Latin Americans, and some from Africa or Europe, but most will be from the heart of the Ummah and all will be, on paper, when the games start, Muslim. And don't forget, it is a one shot deal, just 23 men--no need to worry about youth development or a meaningful league. Sure, they may at most aspire to the level of a Tunisia or Algiers....but that may be enough, with all the "advantages" Qatar has flaunted, to see them be but a Mali ref away from the round of 16 or even the QF. Unlikely, but more possible than we may like to admit.
Whether they are importing from the broader Islmic world, South America, or Mars, I think we are agreeing. They will be forced to "assemble" a team that is not Qatari, and whether those parts come from the greater Muslim world or the greater Milky Way makes no difference to me; it will be a farce. ridiculious. There's virtually no chance they can field a decent team that is predominately "Qatari." And my prediction is whatever middling journeymen players they actually convince to represent their little city state will not be enough to win them any points, let alone put them within a generous PK call of advancing to the group stage. The Quarterfinals, really? I'd bet my family's life they don't make it that far. The only thing that I'm looking forward to 2022 is seeing them trounced.
That Guardian Human Rights Abuses report is from 1999 and it equates 1999 USA with 1999 Russia, which merits a snicker. Most of the low ranking for the US comes from the fact that we have the death penalty. (We weren't even blowing up villagers with drones when that report came out!)
Here's a fair method of rotating the host: Restrict nominees to countries that have qualified for the world cup finals and which have more than 40 million people. By my count, that's 19 countries, 4 Asian, 3 African, 2 North American, 3 South American, and 7 European. (I think the clock should be reset on Indonesia and Zaire.) If we cycled through these countries, each would get the cup every 76 years, once in a lifetime. Rotate as follows: Europe every 12 years, North America or South America every 12 years, Asia every 24 years, Africa every 24 years. Put countries that haven't had it in front of countries that have. Put countries with larger populations in front of countries with smaller ones. Put countries that had it last behind countries that had it earlier. After 2022, this system would give: Colombia, Nigeria, Turkey (counting Turkey as European), Argentina, China, England, Mexico, Egypt, Spain, USA. So, by my calculations, the US is due for another World Cup in 2062. China 1,341,020,000 Iran 74,829,000 Japan 127,390,000 South Korea 49,773,145 Nigeria 158,259,000 Egypt 79,420,000 South Africa 49,991,300 Colombia 45,745,000 Argentina 40,518,951 Mexico 112,322,757 United States 310,858,000 Brazil 190,732,694 Russia 141,927,297 Turkey 72,561,312 England 51,446,000 Spain 46,122,169 Italy 60,464,146 France 65,447,374 Germany 81,802,000
Ha! We all know it's going to be Mexico trouncing Qatar in the first round, with 49-year-old Blanco scoring a few pens.
Great point. Alot of the defenders of Qatar 2022 are a) making the Middle East into a unitary entity while b) being from places like Ohio. My wife is Kenyan, and let me tell you, whenever we see on the news some doofus from the US talking about African this and African that, we roll our eyes. Yeah, Kenyans feel some small measure of racial pride that a predominantly black nation hosted a more-or-less successful World Cup (the organization was apparently good, the attendance was not). But "Africa" isn't some unitary entity. A good example of this kind of sloppy thinking is Kwanzaa. The vast majority of black Americans are descended from West Africans, but all the stuff in Kwanzaa is Swahili words, and Swahili is an East African language closely related to Arabic. That right there highlights the artificiality of Kwanzaa. 1. Not in the South, we didn't. St. Louis and LA, sure. 2. The reality is that the world has evolved on the issue of racism since that time. I'm not a fan of using one era's morality to judge another era. If you check out the politics board, you'll see that I'm definitely a liberal. SFS and I probably have very few agreements, politically. However. The USSR didn't lose 3,000 civilians as a precursor to invading A-stan. That comparison is profoundly stupid. It's not the tanks being there, it's WHY the tanks are there.
Ok, instead of population, the second tie-breaker can be capacity to host, and no country that can't do a minimally good job or doesn't bid will host. Also, I think I've screwed up. Since 2014, 18, 22 goes America, Europe, Asia, 26, 30, 34 should go Colombia, Turkey, Nigeria/Egypt. If one of the first two can't host, Argentina for Colombia, England for Turkey.
At this point I'm over it. Would have been cool to have a World Cup in my own backyard the year I turn 40, but it ain't gonna be there. Oh well. The World Cup is not always given to the most logical nation with the best practical bid. Just look down through the years. Many nations that have given so much to soccer will probably not host a World Cup for decades. Might not even host for a generation. Think you're depressed now? Imagine you're Dutch.... Hell, at least we've hosted a WC and probably will again within the next 20 or so years. It doesn't mean you don't try to qualify for 2022 and it doesn't mean soccer/MLS/etc. are dead in the US. We'll try to get to Qatar, and if we couldn't win the thing in December 2010 we'll try to win it in the summer of 2022.
Adding to the mature discussion of FIFA, Qatar, and WC hosting, today Sepp Blatter attribted the blowback from the Qatar and Russia awards to "western, Christian arrogance." He somehow didnt address the whole pay-to-play issue though, so there you have it.
Here's an article with Blatter's quote. Interesting reference to Christians, as though only they are disappointed with the decision. http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=850557&sec=global&cc=5901
Of course, Blatter could have told the "English speaking Christians" just not to bid on the WC beforehand.
But that would have cut into the freebies and junkets. Aristocracy needs its perks, after all. He's not saying that English Speaking Christians have no uses, he's just saying that their uses involve a royal rogering, now and then, as FIFA chooses to rise to the occasion.