View Full Version : Reports indicate FIFA says Brazil may host 2014
SoccerScout
22 Dec 2002, 12:43 PM
http://www.cnn.com.br/2002/esportes/12/21/copa.2014/index.html
The article above from CNN states that FIFA considers Brazil a strong possible host for 2014...ITS ABOUT TIME!
The article says that Brazil would have preference over Argentina and that in case Brasil didnt host a united Arg/Uruguay effort or Arg/Chile could happen.
FIFAs rotation as indicated by FIFA should be Germany, Africa, South America. So if Africa fails to host in 2010 Brazil could even step in as early as 2010.
Sachin
22 Dec 2002, 12:57 PM
Why would Argentina need to co-host?
Don't they have a ton of 40,000+ all-seaters already?
Sachin
K.P.
22 Dec 2002, 01:28 PM
If Brazil hosts they will win.
Ombak
22 Dec 2002, 01:43 PM
I guess we can do what we did in 1950 then and print the papers before the game. Já ganhou.
Wolves_67
22 Dec 2002, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by K.P.
If Brazil hosts they will win.
But 2014 is the USSF's target year for the US's first cup title.. Hold the presses!
Besides, a home Brazilian crowd just isn't very intimidating like an Argentine crowd. The samba beat just never scared me that much. I've seen their fans in action in person and they just have a lot of fun and are great hosts for everyone.. (okay.. time to lay it on me!)
Ombak
22 Dec 2002, 02:09 PM
What you said makes sense. But applies to Argentines too. It's different if the tickets are cheap and hard-core fans can come to the games.
I doubt World Cup tickets will be cheap enough that the hard-core Corinthians and Flamengo fan groups could go. But if they are, watch out.
Wolves_67
22 Dec 2002, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Ombak
What you said makes sense. But applies to Argentines too. It's different if the tickets are cheap and hard-core fans can come to the games.
I doubt World Cup tickets will be cheap enough that the hard-core Corinthians and Flamengo fan groups could go. But if they are, watch out.
Okay.. Thanks.. When I was in Argentina it was club matches that impressed me. I never attended club matches in Brazil and have only seen them play in internationals so your statement makes perfect sense and clairifies things.
SoccerScout
22 Dec 2002, 02:48 PM
>>If Brazil hosts they will win.>>>
If Brazil doesnt host they still win 30% of the time. The one time they DID host, they lost! You never know.
lond2345
22 Dec 2002, 03:01 PM
brazil should defenitely host the cup, its time to replace those dumps (i mean stadiums)
sidspaceman
22 Dec 2002, 03:06 PM
So does this mean that North America will get the cup in 2018?
Wolves_67
22 Dec 2002, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by sidspaceman
So does this mean that North America will get the cup in 2018?
Yes, since FIFA will need to make some money to make up for all the loses from the previous years..
Luther_Gabriel
22 Dec 2002, 03:33 PM
There is no way in hell that Africa is qualified to host the World Cup.
Sao Taffarel
22 Dec 2002, 03:50 PM
Looking into my crystal ball: "Ronaldo, at 37, captains Brazil to their 8th World Cup triumph."
mr magoo
22 Dec 2002, 03:58 PM
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.
Bauser
22 Dec 2002, 04:01 PM
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.
:rolleyes:
Apparantly you never watched any games from WC 94. It was a very good tournament in general.
tpmazembe
22 Dec 2002, 04:19 PM
QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE]
How boring, and provincial.
How did the location of the event contribute to your perceived negative play of the teams?
Italy '90 was one of the more tactically restrictive cups ever IMO.
Other than the final game, USA 94 wasn't bad...ARGxNIG, ITAxNIG, ROMxARG, ITAxSPN, BRAxHOL, BULXGER off the top of my mind were all entertaining games.
Location may influence the crowd atmosphere, but I fail to see how it influences the overall play.
Wolves_67
22 Dec 2002, 04:33 PM
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.
So you blame the USA for a final match that was not up to standards?
Perhaps maybe the fact that England wasn't there is coloring your opinion.
It was the best attended Cup ever, by far.
Saying one country should never host again because of how a final looked to you is hardly going to be a serious consideration.
It's the World Cup and thank goodness FIFA will ignore the Eurosnobs when making the decisions.
SoccerScout
22 Dec 2002, 04:36 PM
>>The world cup as a whole in 1994 was a farce.>>
What?! Are you trolling? It was the most sucessful WC ever. 68ooo average attendence. If the 0-0 final didnt satisfy you thats not the fault of the location of the game, but the teams.
WC94 was a total success!
Oscar
22 Dec 2002, 04:39 PM
I liked WC94
Maczebus
22 Dec 2002, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Wolves_67
It was the best attended Cup ever, by far.
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.