Reports indicate FIFA says Brazil may host 2014

[Wolves_67]

Originally posted by maczebus
But United Statesians turn up in vast numbers for that damn WWE type thing, and tractor pullkng and motor cross.
Having huge numbers at matches doesn't automatically equate to a fantastic tournament.
Point in case - Japorea 2002. Massive stadia, relatively full - full of hired support. Full of people who knew bugger all about the sport apart from that it might be a good idea to bang one of those silly little drums they gave out, for 90 minutes.
Don't get sucked into the typical US sentiment of bigger necessarily being better.

As a tournament, France '98 pissed on this last one, and I'm betting the next one will be the same. They won't have stadia of the same hugeness, yet it will have everything this last one lacked.
No.. Bigger isn't always better but I'm answering the Eurosnobs who before WC 94 said that FIFA's decision was going to prove to be a disaster and that the stands would all be half empty if not worse and the WC would lose huge amounts of money.
The opposite proved true. And also remember, I believe by FIFA's numbers, there are more people playing soccer in organized leagues in the US than any other country on earth currently.

[tpmazembe]

Originally posted by maczebus

Having huge numbers at matches doesn't automatically equate to a fantastic tournament.
Point in case - Japorea 2002.

True.

But, help me understand how location helps to explain lackluster or exciting play on the field.

What was the reason for such dour play in Italy'94 (if not for the Cameroon story it would have been unremarkable) ?

[Wolves_67]

Originally posted by tpmazembe
True.

But, help me understand how location helps to explain lackluster or exciting play on the field.

What was the reason for such dour play in Italy'90 (if not for the Cameroon story it would have been unremarkable) ?
Fixed your typo though I'm sure everyone knew what you meant.

[RichardL]

The world cup in 94 was like an episode of Friends. Kind of pleasant and easy on the eye, but you'd be wary of anyone telling you it was great.

Italia 90 might have seen a few ugly games, but there was nothing at USA'94 that even came close to matching the passion of the big games at that tournament. Given the choice of watching a match in a stadium with 35,000 people who really care, of 75,000 people having a day out, I know what I'd choose.

My least favourite phrase used in this forum - "USA'94 was the best world cup ever as it was the most profitable" - that isn't what it's about.

2014 should be in Brazil.

[Maczebus]

Originally posted by RichardL
2014 should be in Brazil.

On that subject - and not wanting to take this thread off topic - I thought I heard Mr Bladder in one of his ramblings, say that even 2010 was a definite possibility (for South America). But everyone round here keeps mentioning 2014, have I missed something?
I'm only asking because it made the farce of the changing of WC allocations, seem a little less insane - in that at least South America would host it instead of the much publicised African proposal.

[fidlerre]

Originally posted by RichardL


My least favourite phrase used in this forum - "USA'94 was the best world cup ever as it was the most profitable" - that isn't what it's about.

it might be your least favorite phrase...

but FIFA loves to hear the cha, ching of cash registers...

that is why there will be a WC in the USA before it goes back to europe after germany 2006.

[El_Maestro]

Rank of my favorite World Cups by quality of playing in the last 20 years (the ones I've actually seen).

1. Mexico 86
2. Spain 82
3. USA 94
4. France 98
5. Kor/****** 2002
6. Italy 90

[Auriaprottu]

Originally posted by K.P.
If Brazil hosts they will win.

I fear you're wrong- if Brasil hosts, they will not win. The pressure might just be too great.

[El CHarro_NEgro....]

Originally posted by mr magoo
2006 Germany
2010 Brazil
2014 England

It should go Europe - South America - Europe - South America and so on and so forth.

The last time the world cup was held in North America it produced the worst Final of any tournament ever. Worthington cup finals are more entertaining than the ************ that was produced that day. The world cup as a whole in 1994 was a farce. This years world cup would of been the worst ever if it hadnt been for USA94.

2 Of the best World Cups ever were held in North America: Mexico 1970 and Mexico 1986.

[The Double]

I thought the 2006 Finals shouldve been hosted in South Africa.





As for the South America Bid, i think Argentina should host it. It would do wonders for the economy, which is at the state that if you bring 100 dollars/pounds, it will buy you a small chunk of the country, where you can set up shop, close off the borders, and call it the People's Republic of (Insert your name here)

[RichardL]

Originally posted by fidlerre
it might be your least favorite phrase...

but FIFA loves to hear the cha, ching of cash registers...

that is why there will be a WC in the USA before it goes back to europe after germany 2006.

I wouldn't be so sure. The world cup will make a fortune wherever it is held. Maybe they'll make more in ticket revenue in the States because of a high number of large stadiums, but ticket revenue is only a small part of the money to be made. The US wouldn't necessarily bring in a bigger TV deal or more sponsorship than one held elsewhere.

[Dr. Wankler]

Originally posted by RichardL
The US wouldn't necessarily bring in a bigger TV deal or more sponsorship than one held elsewhere.

Unless of course they get the NFL juggernaut to help them out.

[idi amin]

If people believe an african country cannot hold a world cup finals, why would argentina be capable of a bid to host. There are many African nations in better economic standing than argentina. Even Colombia should host it before argentina.

[Michael K.]

Originally posted by maczebus
But United Statesians turn up in vast numbers for that damn WWE type thing, and tractor pullkng and motor cross.


Eh. They fill 15,000 seat arenas in certain areas of the country for one-off events. I don't know anyone who's ever been to a tractor pull or motor cross myself (except for a Polish friend, who grew up loving motocross and never going out to soccer because it was too violent an environment for him), and pro wrestling, while on the wane here, does pretty well every time they decide to go put a show on at Earls Court or wherever they do it there.

[billf]

People can say what they'd like about not having another World Cup in the US, but it will happen. Hosting a cup here is CHEAP. There are virtually no infastructure costs, it's easy to get here from every place on the planet, and first class media facilities exist in every city capable of hosting matches. For Fifa and the organizers, a World Cup in the US is a license to print money.

As for atmosphere, it might not be "authentic" in the eyes of some of our friends across the pond, but we're talking 2014 or 2018 before it's in the US again. A lot can change in that time particularly if the US has a team capable of winning. One thing USA '94 did not have were fans for hire.

[Alex_1]

Why do people tip-toe around the US hosting the cup? The US should host the cup. It was successful before and it would be successful again - dare I say it would be infinitely more successful than 1994 was too with a growing league.

Brazil in 2014 sounds about right though. There is time to change things, to get stadia and etc. up to speed and standards. Who knows what will happen by 2014 though? IT is just too far away IMO to think seriouslyi about it.

[gosya]

Originally posted by maczebus
But United Statesians turn up in vast numbers for that damn WWE type thing, and tractor pullkng and motor cross.
Having huge numbers at matches doesn't automatically equate to a fantastic tournament.
Point in case - Japorea 2002. Massive stadia, relatively full - full of hired support. Full of people who knew bugger all about the sport apart from that it might be a good idea to bang one of those silly little drums they gave out, for 90 minutes.
Don't get sucked into the typical US sentiment of bigger necessarily being better.

As a tournament, France '98 pissed on this last one, and I'm betting the next one will be the same. They won't have stadia of the same hugeness, yet it will have everything this last one lacked.

And the Eurosnob of the Year award goes to...

First of all, "United Statesians" is classic, you "United Kingdomian."

No, full stadiums don't necessarily equal a great tournament. But, overall, a tournament that brings in a lot of cash is good for football. Those $ are enjoyed by the football community for years to come.

Secondly, if there's anyone who can bring in a big TV deal, that's U.S.

Thirdly, organizaitonally Japorea and US will kick a$$ vs. Europe, Brazil, Asia, etc.

No, the tournament will not be perfect. I'll give you that the stadiums in Europe/S.America will be full of people more knowledgeable about the sport. But, that doesn't mean that US and Japorea won't bring something that the other ones can't. Each tourney has potentially something to offer that another can't. That's why they introduced rotation.

[El CHarro_NEgro....]

The FMF proposed a co-host with USA/Mexico for 2010, Can it be real for 2018?

[RichardL]

Originally posted by gosya

Secondly, if there's anyone who can bring in a big TV deal, that's U.S.

Thirdly, organizaitonally Japorea and US will kick a$$ vs. Europe, Brazil, Asia, etc.


As for the TV deal, again not necessarily so. It's not about selling to the American market, it's about selling to the world market. The TV deal with Europe is worth far more than any deal with US TV is likely to be (hence kick off times to suit European TV schedules).

Was the organisation in 94 and 2002 better than in France? I saw little evidence of it being so. Japan & Korea actually made a total balls-up in their ticketing plans, resulting in huge chunks of empty seats at many games.

[desertfox2]

I see that many of you think that the 2010 World Cup is open for any country to host it when in fact it's not. FIFA has already decided that it WILL go to Africa. South Africa to me will get it.

As for the 2014 World Cup, it should go to South America, depending on the economic situation by 2008. Argentina was the last to host it and that was all the way back in 1978, so I think their due.