PDA

View Full Version : U.S. to host WC in 2010???

Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
CarlosE
16 Jul 2006, 04:02 PM
Doubt over South Africa 2010

Snippet from the Guardian article:

"Fifa executives have voiced "serious" doubts about whether South Africa will be able to host the next World Cup in 2010 and have discussed a radical contingency plan that would see the United States stage the tournament instead, it was reported in Germany yesterday."

http://football.guardian.co.uk/worldcup2006/story/0,,1818166,00.html
Adam Zebrowski
17 Jul 2006, 03:43 PM
south africa handled the rugby world cup a few years back....

this is a big event, NOT soccer big, but after wc and olympics, the next biggest...

lack of infrastructure or government collapse would be the factors leading to NOT hosting it...

brasil is being mentioned for 2014....

brasil has more problems than south africa hosting it...

still a good idea to have a back-up plan, just in case....but with the host automatically qualifying, what happens if it gets shifted in 2009 after the confed cup in south africa reveals problem s...

usa wou;d be in the middle of wcq, and would get the automatic bid...what would occur to the rest of the matches usa would play??
roadkit
17 Jul 2006, 03:48 PM
brasil is being mentioned for 2014....

Great - I hope the convict gangs do a better job with tickets than FIFA...:D
appoo
17 Jul 2006, 03:51 PM
south africa handled the rugby world cup a few years back....

this is a big event, NOT soccer big, but after wc and olympics, the next biggest...

lack of infrastructure or government collapse would be the factors leading to NOT hosting it...

brasil is being mentioned for 2014....

brasil has more problems than south africa hosting it...

still a good idea to have a back-up plan, just in case....but with the host automatically qualifying, what happens if it gets shifted in 2009 after the confed cup in south africa reveals problem s...

usa wou;d be in the middle of wcq, and would get the automatic bid...what would occur to the rest of the matches usa would play??

are you referring to the Cricket World Cup?
Jeff L
17 Jul 2006, 03:56 PM
Having just come back from Germany I heard this rumour there too.
"Unofficially" the following countries have been put on standby to take over from South Africa should they not be ready, and I believe it to be in this order.
1. USA. 2. Germany 3. Brazil

The "thinking" behind this is that the USA can always "put on a show" and it would have been 16 years from their last hosting.
Germany; as they have everything in place from this World Cup and could take over at a moments notice. Brazil, as a chance for it to return to South America.
Personally, I would be happy with choice 1 and reverse the other 2. Germany did a great job, but 2 consecutive I feel would be unfair, and would also deflect a little from the great job they did this time.
RSwenson
17 Jul 2006, 04:07 PM
No way Brazil could pull it off... they have no stadiums (not a one) that wouldn't have to be completely rebuilt...

The longer it goes before making a decision, the more lkely it would be US or Germany (and I don't think that is likely that it would go back to Europe for the third time in four)... This is unless there is a HUGE investment in South Africa that starts yesterday... or unless FIFA are willing to take a monumental gamble with their one sustaining "brand name"... I don't think they are and I don't see the investment happening... IMO the drop dead date would be 2 years before... and the face-saving maneuver would be to say that SA gets it when they can get their act together (of course, it never went to Colombia since they had to pull out in '86)...

Also, FWIW, the Rugby WC was in 1995 and the infrastructure has done nothing but deteriorate since then (including stadiums)... also, it is like the difference between hosting the Olympics and the Pan Am games in size...

rand
Adam Zebrowski
17 Jul 2006, 04:13 PM
1995...that long...

could get interesting then...
JoseP
17 Jul 2006, 04:16 PM
still a good idea to have a back-up plan, just in case....but with the host automatically qualifying, what happens if it gets shifted in 2009 after the confed cup in south africa reveals problem s...

usa wou;d be in the middle of wcq, and would get the automatic bid...what would occur to the rest of the matches usa would play??

I don't believe any of this going to happen. However, should it happen I think SA would get the automatic slot since they wouldn't have even been in qualifying.
dirtskier
17 Jul 2006, 04:16 PM
well WWC 03 was planned on only a few months notice and it went off pretty well. There were some empty stadiums for non-USA matches, but otherwise, the USSF put on a pretty good show. I think if anything, that event put the USA as the first choice in case of emergency...
Adam Zebrowski
17 Jul 2006, 04:19 PM
the 2003 wwc had a major attendance drop-off from 1999...

even the uswnt had a significant drop-off...

and, IT"S the WWC...

any comparison with the male version needs to taken into account ...
dirtskier
17 Jul 2006, 04:20 PM
I don't believe any of this going to happen. However, should it happen I think SA would get the automatic slot since they wouldn't have even been in qualifying.

unfortunately, the USA IIRC was already guaranteed a spot as defending champion for USA 2003, so we really dont know what FIFA would have done... China still got to keep thier qualifying spot, but obviously, it was a little late in the process by then.
dirtskier
17 Jul 2006, 04:24 PM
the 2003 wwc had a major attendance drop-off from 1999...

even the uswnt had a significant drop-off...

and, IT"S the WWC...

any comparison with the male version needs to taken into account ...

well don't forget that there's basically no way that FIFA switches this on us with the same short time frame as the WWC, unless something REALLY extreme happens. I'd estimate that FIFA gives a go/no go for South Africa no later than the summer of 08. It's hard to see them not filling most of the stadiums with 2 years to market this thing... uness they put Guppy in charge or something.
History Horn
17 Jul 2006, 04:53 PM
The US hosting the WC would be a smashing success even with just two years notice.

All of the infrastructure and stadia are in place. The US is an easy place to get to with respect to flights from around the world. And the US usually does well with big international sporting events. The Atlanta Olympics might be considered a bit of a stumble here, but all of the others have got to pretty much fall into the success to smashing success columns.

My only concern would be whether the time for Homeland Security and the rest of the local authorities to get their planning together would be sufficient. I think it could be pulled off from that standpoint, but that would have to be my biggest concern for a short notice WC bid.
Shaster
17 Jul 2006, 04:56 PM
US has enough people to pack the stadiums for any single qualified team. It will be a smash-a$$ financial success.
FirstStar
17 Jul 2006, 05:01 PM
All of the infrastructure and stadia are in place. The US is an easy place to get to with respect to flights from around the world. And the US usually does well with big international sporting events. The Atlanta Olympics might be considered a bit of a stumble here, but all of the others have got to pretty much fall into the success to smashing success columns.


Oddly enough, the Atlanta olympics were the most profitable ever at that time (may have been surpassed since, I don't know). That's the reason the IOC loves the US-- they make money here.

Everyone is overlooking the fact that England could also pull off a late-notice bid, since they have a ready supply of soccer stadia that are not in use in the summer, good transportation infrastructure, hotels, etc. Still, there's no doubt that FIFA would like to see the event in the US again-- we are a major cash cow that they (rightly) feel that they are not tapping into enough.

As for qualifying, we play it out. FIFA appears magnanimous by allowing RSA to keep its automatic bid and they take the (relatively safe) bet that the US will qualify without trouble. If we have trouble, they could yank two Federations' .5 slots and give them to us. Doubt that there would be any need, though.
Sandon Mibut
17 Jul 2006, 05:02 PM
US has enough people to pack the stadiums for any single qualified team. It will be a smash-a$$ financial success.Yeah, but FIFA doesn't care about money.
galaxyfan03
17 Jul 2006, 05:02 PM
Sounds like GREAT news but I'll wait until FIFA makes an "official announcement" to celebrate!!

It would be AWESOME to have the Cup back in the States after 16 years & since I missed the 1994 version, when I lived in NYC, there's NO WAY I'll miss 2010!!
NASL Fan
17 Jul 2006, 06:17 PM
For one thing, it would definitely be easier to get tickets. I went to 10 games in 1994, including the final. Haven't been to one since.

It's a hard task for any country, especially now that it's 32 teams. You need at least a 12 world class venues. With all the football construction that's gone on the last few years, you've got a lot of new stadia you can add to the list:

That beautiful stadium in Seattle, the new Soldier field, that one in Philly. All 100 % ready to go.

How soon would they have to decide? It would be the second time that happened, if it did. IIRC, that's what we got the 94 cup: cause Colombia couldn't handle it. Right?

(No, sorry, I'm wrong: it was the 1986 World Cup which was scheduled for Colombia: that one went to Mexico, of course.)
Jabinho
17 Jul 2006, 06:22 PM
South Africa just awarded some stadium design work to Germany...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/africa/5187738.stm
NASL Fan
17 Jul 2006, 06:29 PM
South Africa just awarded some stadium design work to Germany...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/africa/5187738.stm

Four years to go and they're just getting around to DESIGNING them...? They'll be right up against the deadline, no?