Reports indicate FIFA says Brazil may host 2014

[gabe]

i agree on Argentina for just 3 reasons:
*overall ALL the stadiums are awesome and are capable
*economy there would flourish
*Argentina might win

but i think that NO= Argentina is not a good host just yet because of the estate people are in over there... idk if you heard but Honduras goalie Milton Flores was shot and killed over a STUPID club game, and now you're talking about a world event of 32 nations (maybe more by '14) where people are really over the last brink? i'm not a racist i am a Hispanic myself, call me crazy but Mexico should get it (even they already hosted 2)

[Achtung]

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.

Hahaha... funny man. Because you must be joking. I always thought it was called World Cup, not Europe and South America Cup. You say only teams from Europe and South America have won? That'll be over once the US takes it home in 2010.

USA 1994 was in many respects arguably the best World Cup. Most profitable, most filled stadiums, most teams having their fans there to see the games, fewest acts of violence, and many incredible games. But I guess you'll have to take my word for it seeing as how you didn't make it to the party.

[Maczebus]

Originally posted by gosya
And the Eurosnob of the Year award goes to...

Who? who? who?
I also have an award to hand out.
Tit who totally misses the point of a post of the year award - and believe me, there's plenty of competition round here.

Originally posted by gosya

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

Sadly not mine to call my own.
Shamelessly plagarised from some other laconic wit.


Originally posted by gosya

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.

Well you see here we differ. And most likely your point differs from anyone that hasn't just picked up the game in the last five minutes (figuratively speaking of course). It can be said, arguably, that it was when huge amounts of money got involved in the game that it lost some of it's charm and passion inherent in the game.
Who can forget Roy Keane's 'prawn sandwich' outburst?
I'll let you in on a secret - football doesn't need a tournament that brings in huge wads of cash for it to survive. It is the greed of FIFA that requires profits to be made religiously on the premise that the game will disappear without them. This "a tournament that brings in a lot of cash is good for football" feeling might be accurate in the US where the game might disappear from general public view if it doesn't reach a certain turnover per annum - however this certainly isn't the case the world over.
Football will continue to thrive as a game without huge amounts of money being ploughed into the sport.
Care to explain Brazilian dominance of the sport for the last 50-odd years? Was it due to the massive sums of money that was either made by the WCs of those eras or by the huge sums of money invested by the Brazilian authorities? No it wasn't.
The only people that think the game needs money to survive are those that will profit from these thoughts or those that don't really know the game at all. For it is not the footballing community that will profit from such events.
Countless FIFA executives; ticketmaster; TV companies and countless executives there all stand to get money from massively profitable tournaments. Not the grass roots of the game which is infact where the money is required.


Originally posted by gosya

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

Any bigger than in Europe where the sport is actually popular?
Anywhere the WC is held it will get massive TV coverage and TV deals, it's a foregone conclusion, it matters not where it is held with regard to that point.

Originally posted by gosya

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

Obviously this is pure conjecture on your part but what exactly were you smoking or drinking when you came up with this gem? Or maybe just heed the label on the pills when it says 'do not drink alcohol with this medication'.
Of course in your mind Europe is some third world back water who haven't got an asphalted road between themselves and where Japan and Korea aren't in Asia.
Can't really comment too much more on that one.


Originally posted by gosya

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.

Well thank you for agreeing with me.
What did this last WC give us that the other ones didn't?
Oh I know, a load of hired help.
A plethora of stadia filled with happy little Koreans or Japanese waving paper Danish flags and banging hellishly annoying crappy little drums that were given to them when they were bussed in to fill the void that was created by holding the WC as far away from the traditional hotbeds of football (SAmerica and Europe - and consequently far away from anyone who would have been willing to go but hadn't been saving up since the last WC) as was actually possible.
It is actually a proper question - what did this last WC give us that others haven't? Apart from Argentina crying when they got knocked out in the first round.

And another little snippet - the reason behind rotation wasn't so that all members of this glorious race we call 'human' could experience different cultures through both the mediums of football and the cathode ray tube (or plasma screens for those that like to flaunt their wealth).
It begins and ends with profit. And unfortunately, that profit will never even approach those that could actually do with couple of quid.

[Maczebus]

Originally posted by Achtung
Hahaha... funny man. Because you must be joking. I always thought it was called World Cup, not Europe and South America Cup.

It's called the World Cup because it is meant to involve the best teams from around the world and not just regionalised, such as the European Championship. The title doesn't mean that it ought to include everyone because they are in the world - it's meant to be the best teams in the world.
This same argument is given by the Oceania bunch when arguing their case. Yes it's the World Cup, it's just a title - not a template as to what it should actually be.

Originally posted by Achtung

You say only teams from Europe and South America have won?.

What? You didn't already know that?
Well I guess that explains this next statement....

Originally posted by Achtung
That'll be over once the US takes it home in 2010.

You'll be able to have a beer by then - whilst watching that glorious moment maybe?


Originally posted by Achtung

USA 1994 was in many respects arguably the best World Cup. Most profitable, most filled stadiums, most teams having their fans there to see the games, fewest acts of violence, and many incredible games.

Indeed arguable in many respects. Watch another few before jumping to that conclusion.

And odd that despite giving a creditable list as to why USA '94 was good, you head your list with the amount of profit made.
With sensiblities like that it's no wonder why FIFA loves the US.

Originally posted by Achtung
But I guess you'll have to take my word for it seeing as how you didn't make it to the party.
And indeed we don't have TVs here either, 'twas truly a nightmare.

Guess you'll have to take my word for the fact that the multitudinous WCs the US never staggered to (most prior to 1990) were great for the very reason that the most recent ones were not.

[O'Dubhghaill Rules!]

Originally posted by 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.
Exactly.

The 2010 World Cup has pretty much been guarunteed to Africa which in turn means that it's been given to South Africa. They barely lost out to Germany for the '06 Cup and they're the only bidding country that can realistically, in my opinion, stage the event. The only way I see a non-African 2010 World Cup is if something drastic happens and the South African bid falls through.

I think that whether or not South America or North America or where ever else should get the 2014 World Cup all depends on the situation of these countries in 2008, not now.

[kasai]

I think this is the order that FIFA is looking at for future WCs.

2006 Germany (for sure)
2010 Africa (South Africa)... If no African country can host, look for a shift to the USA.
2014 South America (Brazil)
2018 OFC (Australia)
2022 North America (USA)
2026 AFC (China)

[O'Dubhghaill Rules!]

Originally posted by maczebus
It's called the World Cup because it is meant to involve the best teams from around the world and not just regionalised, such as the European Championship. The title doesn't mean that it ought to include everyone because they are in the world - it's meant to be the best teams in the world.
This same argument is given by the Oceania bunch when arguing their case. Yes it's the World Cup, it's just a title - not a template as to what it should actually be.
The World Cup is meant to be the best teams from every region of the World. That's why it's the World Cup and that's why teams from all the continents (now including Oceania) participate. The title does mean that it ought to include everyone, because it already does. It gives all the countries a chance, that's why they have qualifying, to pick out the best teams in the world. So it's not just a title, it literally means that it's a tournament involving the best teams in the World, which it is. Therefore the title "World Cup" already is a "template" which means that it involves the world.

[boydreilly]

Originally posted by RichardL

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.

Their ticket plan went "balls-up" when it was handed to a British company, Bryom.

[Maczebus]

Originally posted by O'Dubhghaill Rules!
The World Cup is meant to be the best teams from every region of the World. That's why it's the World Cup and that's why teams from all the continents (now including Oceania) participate. The title does mean that it ought to include everyone, because it already does. It gives all the countries a chance, that's why they have qualifying, to pick out the best teams in the world. So it's not just a title, it literally means that it's a tournament involving the best teams in the World, which it is. Therefore the title "World Cup" already is a "template" which means that it involves the world.

You keep mentioning that it ought to include the best teams in the world - which is exactly what I suggest.
What I don't agree with is the fact that it being called the World cup gives everyone the impression that because they are members of the world that they deserve to be at the FINALS stage.
That's wrong. I know it'll never come round to my way of thinking but that's what I think.
The FINALS stage does not involve the best teams in the world.
Would you seriously say that either the Czech Republic or Holland were substandard to China or Saudi Arabia?
No doubt that in the next WC, there will be a good name team not there. It stands to reason that it'll happen. Will they be that much worse than what Oceania have to offer? Not on your nelly.
The FINALS should involve the BEST teams in the World for it to be the World cup proper and not simply the best from individual confederations.
Like I said for a WC to evlove to my standard, it would mean that everyone would have to play each other which is totally beyond the boundaries of possibility.
But to claim that it being the World Cup should mean the finals should involve pretty much everyone from every corner of the world simply because of it's title and not because of their ability is desperate.

[DoyleG]

Brazil has three things that are working against it:

1)Poor stadium resources
2)Lack of proper infastructure in the country
3)Economy in a severe slump

They will need to really change things around if they even have a chance for 2014. If FIFA felt Brazil deserved another World Cup, they would have already done so. Same for the US.

The only way theAmericans will get close to a World Cup is through a Canadian bid.

[roarksown1]

Originally posted by El CHarro_NEgro....
The FMF proposed a co-host with USA/Mexico for 2010, Can it be real for 2018?

This is just Mexico's way of tagging along for the ride and trying to get something out of this. When the WC comes back to North America, Mexico knows they have NO shot at hosting it since A) they've already hosted it twice to our once and B) the USA was so successful and profitable that it would make no sense going back to a Mexico that would have to make massive changes to their infrastructure to host it.

Give Mexico the Italy (boot).

[El CHarro_NEgro....]

Originally posted by roarksown1
This is just Mexico's way of tagging along for the ride and trying to get something out of this. When the WC comes back to North America, Mexico knows they have NO shot at hosting it since A) they've already hosted it twice to our once and B) the USA was so successful and profitable that it would make no sense going back to a Mexico that would have to make massive changes to their infrastructure to host it.

Give Mexico the Italy (boot).

We have hosted 2 of the best world cup ever. Monterrey is searching of an Olympics games. Why u say we can't host it? Mexico economy is bigger than Spain's. Im sure that México has better infrastructure to host it now than any African or Southamerican country,

[O'Dubhghaill Rules!]

Originally posted by DoyleG
If FIFA felt Brazil deserved another World Cup, they would have already done so. Same for the US.

The only way theAmericans will get close to a World Cup is through a Canadian bid.
HA.

So if FIFA felt the the U.S. deserved another World Cup they would have already given them another just 3 World Cup's and 12 years later?



Also, I think that Mexico, with the right organization, could just as easily host the Cup as South Africa.