Canada deserves the 2014 World Cup

[MLS Detroit]

If FIFA rotates the World Cup amongst federations, the 2010 event should most surely go to Africa, or perhaps Oceania, which would leave North America next in line for 2014. As much as I would love to see another World Cup in the U.S., I truly believe that Canada would be most deserving if FIFA awarded the tournament to North America. Mexico hosted in '70 and in '86 and they have a firm football infrastructure in place. Although the U.S. lacks soccer-specific stadiums, they are on the right track with seven years of MLS behind them, riding the successful heels of the '94 tourney. Central American nations will never be considered for the event which makes Canada the most worthy choice.

FIFA agreed to the '94 Cup in order to help establish MLS. Canada is in the same situation in 2002 that the U.S. was in the late eighties; no division one league after the collapse of their division one professional league and national team players scattered around the globe trying to hone their skills. Canada is a developing soccer nation, just like the U.S. was, and an opportunity to host a World Cup would provide the needed momentum and economic kickbacks to establish a new, and permanent, division one professional league.

Because of the CFL, Canada already has approximately 10 stadiums between 20,000 and 40,000 seating capacity and four stadiums with over 60,000 seating capacity. Renovations and upgrades would be necessary to meet FIFA regulations in a few of them, but, overall, Canada has all of the infrastructure in place to host the event.

U.S. fans would also have to admit that having a World Cup in Canada would be the next best thing to being in the U.S. again, because of the ease in which the country can be reached. Our time to host will come again, but lets be fair and support a Canadian bid for 2014.


Mike

[photar74]

Deserves has got nothing to do with it.

That's something many people on this board have a difficult time understanding.

[vflkirwan]

If I was a member of FIFA delegates, I would vote for the cup in Canada.

[Dandal]

Originally posted by Michael A. Polonski
If FIFA rotates the World Cup amongst federations, the 2010 event should most surely go to Africa, or perhaps Oceania, which would leave North America next in line for 2014.
If, and that definitely is a BIG if, there would be a scheduled rotation of the hosting of the World Cup, then North America certainly is not next in line for 2014. Africa and Oceania has never hosted, South America, the most successfull part of the world in this game, hasn't hosted since 1978 (or 86 if you count the failed colombian attempt).

[Clan]

Originally posted by photar74
Deserves has got nothing to do with it.

That's something many people on this board have a difficult time understanding.

But is that not the argument the US used to get the '94 cup?

[elephantstone]

I think it would be a bad idea, because visiting fans would not want to have to stay in igloos instead of hotels like the US has.

[CSheard]

Originally posted by elephantstone
I think it would be a bad idea, because visiting fans would not want to have to stay in igloos instead of hotels like the US has. Yeah, who'd want to stay in hotels like these:
http://www.fairmont.com/FA/en/CDA/Home/Images/LCF/CDHotelHomePage_LCF_1.jpg
http://www.fairmont.com/FA/en/CDA/Home/Images/ALG/CDHotelHomePage_ALG_1.jpg

My question is whether Canada has the stadium capacity. If I recall, some of the WC qualifiers were played in rather small venues. What size stadiums do the Canadian Football League use? That was part of the profitability of the '94 Cup - minimal investment in infrastructure was needed, as we simply used existing football stadiums that already had high seating capacity.

[eric515]

Originally posted by Michael A. Polonski

Because of the CFL, Canada already has approximately 10 stadiums between 20,000 and 40,000 seating capacity and four stadiums with over 60,000 seating capacity. Renovations and upgrades would be necessary to meet FIFA regulations in a few of them, but, overall, Canada has all of the infrastructure in place to host the event.

This is the one reason the CFL is better for soccer than the NFL. With their huge fields, it would be an easy transition into a soccer facility. There won't be nearly as many worries about "narrow" or "short" fields.

Canada would not be a bad choice, but they need the financial backing and the commitment of many to achieve it. It hasn't hosted an event of this magnitude since the 1988 Olympics.

I think that is the biggest thing in the US' favor, the fact that we are known for being able to easily stage events of this size.

[SoccerScout]

Canada deserves? Cmon. If their is one country that DESERVES a world cup...especially its fans, its BRAZIL. They have won the WC 5 times since the last WC was held there in 1950 . 5 TITLES and not once has the WC been there since before they started winning them.

Brazil and its fans deserves a WC so bad its insulting to say that Canada deserves it.

[Pirrip]

Originally posted by CSheard
Yeah, who'd want to stay in hotels like these:
http://www.fairmont.com/FA/en/CDA/Home/Images/LCF/CDHotelHomePage_LCF_1.jpg
http://www.fairmont.com/FA/en/CDA/Home/Images/ALG/CDHotelHomePage_ALG_1.jpg

My question is whether Canada has the stadium capacity. If I recall, some of the WC qualifiers were played in rather small venues. What size stadiums do the Canadian Football League use? That was part of the profitability of the '94 Cup - minimal investment in infrastructure was needed, as we simply used existing football stadiums that already had high seating capacity.

Check this link if you are interested. It is a 2010 feasibility study.

http://www.canadasoccer.com/eng/index.asp

Could it be done...certainly. Will it? Unlikley. I, and many other Canadian soccer fans doubt the will of the various parties required to participate.

[CUS]

Proper infrastructure does not JUST mean sufficient stadia. It extends to enough hotel space for the supporters, media and officials convenient to each venue. Sufficient transportation infrastructure not only for the people involved, but also food, potable water and other such necessaries. Massive amounts of communication equipment at each site. Properly trained and deployed security both at the venue and around each hosting city. Easy, reliable transportation to and from the country, and within the country for ravel to and from each hosting city, as well as transport to and from lodging to each venue.

And also, the US has at least 15 stadiums that hold between 60,000 and 120,000 people. True these are primarily pointyball stadiums, but each has been designed to be able to host a soccer match as well. The 1994 WC was 98% SOLD OUT with stadiums this size. An attendance record that is yet to be surpassed. The US will have to build exactly 0 stadiums to host another WC. It’s all already here and ready.

‘Giving’ the 2010 to Africa because ‘they deserve it’ will be a joke. SA is crime and strife ridden. Nigeria is worse. Egypt and Morocco will be as hard a sell as Canada. My guess is if the US decides to bid on 2010, they’ll get it (WAY TOO much money to be made). If FIFA gives it to Africa, the US will end up hosting anyway ala Mexico in ’86.

[Pirrip]

Originally posted by CUS
Proper infrastructure does not JUST mean sufficient stadia. It extends to enough hotel space for the supporters, media and officials convenient to each venue. Sufficient transportation infrastructure not only for the people involved, but also food, potable water and other such necessaries. Massive amounts of communication equipment at each site. Properly trained and deployed security both at the venue and around each hosting city. Easy, reliable transportation to and from the country, and within the country for ravel to and from each hosting city, as well as transport to and from lodging to each venue.

Yes all of things, especially potable water are in short supply in Canada. We were hoping that you wouldn't notice.


Originally posted by CUS
And also, the US has at least 15 stadiums that hold between 60,000 and 120,000 people. True these are primarily pointyball stadiums, but each has been designed to be able to host a soccer match as well. The 1994 WC was 98% SOLD OUT with stadiums this size. An attendance record that is yet to be surpassed. The US will have to build exactly 0 stadiums to host another WC. It’s all already here and ready.

‘Giving’ the 2010 to Africa because ‘they deserve it’ will be a joke. SA is crime and strife ridden. Nigeria is worse. Egypt and Morocco will be as hard a sell as Canada. My guess is if the US decides to bid on 2010, they’ll get it (WAY TOO much money to be made). If FIFA gives it to Africa, the US will end up hosting anyway ala Mexico in ’86.

Again correct, the US is crime free and one of the safest countries in the world. And of course it is attendence where FIFA makes its money not Television rights. Nobody else but the United States is ready has the infrastructure to pick up a "dropped" African bid, certainly not Spain, Italy, Germany or England with their small time leagues. And everybody knows nobody would attend a World Cup match there.

Listen folks, like the Olympics, the money is made on TV rights. Unlike the Olympics, where the US pays many times what anyopne else does, the US is simply not that big of a fish. If money is driving FIFA, then it will be going to Europe. You got 1994 as a gift because FIFA was interested in the market, just as Korea Japan was an economic venture. The TV money is in Europe not the US and unless ABC starts bidding a whole lot more money for the rights to 2006 and 2010, the notion that the US can "buy" the Worlk Cup is nonsensical.

[highgarden]

Originally posted by CUS
Proper infrastructure does not JUST mean sufficient stadia. It extends to enough hotel space for the supporters, media and officials convenient to each venue. Sufficient transportation infrastructure not only for the people involved, but also food, potable water and other such necessaries. Massive amounts of communication equipment at each site. Properly trained and deployed security both at the venue and around each hosting city. Easy, reliable transportation to and from the country, and within the country for ravel to and from each hosting city, as well as transport to and from lodging to each venue.

And also, the US has at least 15 stadiums that hold between 60,000 and 120,000 people. True these are primarily pointyball stadiums, but each has been designed to be able to host a soccer match as well. The 1994 WC was 98% SOLD OUT with stadiums this size. An attendance record that is yet to be surpassed. The US will have to build exactly 0 stadiums to host another WC. It’s all already here and ready.


It's not like Canada is an undeveloped country. They are just as capable of hosting a World Cup as any European nation. They are part of the G7 afterall. A good thing about a World Cup in Canada would be the weather. Summers up there are great and the Euro countries would not be able to whine about adjusting to the climate. What stadium in the US seats 120K? Other than that you are actually underestimating our stadium infrastructure. We have over 200 stadiums that seat at least 50K. I'd rather the US get another cup around 2022, by then we should be a soccer power.

[jlo]

How many of the CFL stadiums (or stadia, if you prefer) have natural grass?

[Pirrip]

Originally posted by jlo
How many of the CFL stadiums (or stadia, if you prefer) have natural grass?

Right now...only Edmonton's Commonwealth Stadium.

[nicodemus]

Originally posted by Michael A. Polonski
U.S. fans would also have to admit that having a World Cup in Canada would be the next best thing to being in the U.S. again, because of the ease in which the country can be reached. Our time to host will come again, but lets be fair and support a Canadian bid for 2014.


You are just saying all this because you live in Detroit, right next to Canada, for those of us in other parts of the country, it is actually closer and cheaper to go to Mexico. I would rather go to Canada than Mexico, but remember Canada is not very close for a lot of the United States.

[MLS Detroit]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by nicodemus
[B]

You are just saying all this because you live in Detroit, right next to Canada]


You are right, but I was also thinking of reasonably cheap air fare.

[timmy409]

uh they'd get beaten first round 10-0 and then nobody woudl go the any of the games cause THEY SUCK

[TopDogg]

Originally posted by elephantstone
I think it would be a bad idea, because visiting fans would not want to have to stay in igloos instead of hotels like the US has.

Idiot.

[TopDogg]

Originally posted by highgarden
A good thing about a World Cup in Canada would be the weather. Summers up there are great and the Euro countries would not be able to whine about adjusting to the climate.

While this may be true for the Western half of Canada, the East (Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa) have summer temperatures that are far more severe than most European countries.

I think in the past two months we've only had 2 or 3 days where the high was below the mid-30s Celsius (90's Fahrenheit) plus humidity.