Plan B: 2010 in USA ?

[Bigdog]

http://football.guardian.co.uk/worldcup2006/story/0,,1818166,00.html

[texgator]

I'm waiting for the 2010th thread spawned by this same article before I officially comment......i think that would be neat. BTW, I think we are about halfway there.

[dcsundevil2002]

This has been beaten, killed, resurrected, beaten again, mutilated, run over, beaten some more, killed a second time, wash, rinse, repeat.

On most of the other US Team boards. :)

[Bigdog]

This has been beaten, killed, resurrected, beaten again, mutilated, run over, beaten some more, killed a second time, wash, rinse, repeat.

On most of the other US Team boards. :)

Agreed, but some US Fan's and Travel readers do not read US News if you can actually believe it or not : )

Also the issues with the subject on this board would certainly be different than the ones at News, No ?

[texgator]

Also the issues with the subject on this board would certainly be different than the ones at News, No ?
Possibly, but what are the odds that this conversation actually limits itself to travel issues alone? What are the odds that it becomes a complete duplication of the thread on USMNT News?

[Bigdog]

Possibly, but what are the odds that this conversation actually limits itself to travel issues alone? What are the odds that it becomes a complete duplication of the thread on USMNT News?

Im not a odd's maker, and would much rather watch the grass grow today than continue, but if you are, perhaps you can come up with something on that :rolleyes:

[texgator]

Im not a odd's maker, but if you are, perhaps you can come up with something on that :rolleyes:
Translation: I have no response for this posters very realistic points so I will take a snarky jab for his choice of words. :rolleyes:

[dcsundevil2002]

Ok, you want a response?

I have mixed emotions regarding the current rumor that seems to be picking up speed at every passing day; that South Africa will lose its hosting duties for the 2010 FIFA World Cup and FIFA will request that the United States or Australia step in and provide relief from the debacle that Sepp Blatter got FIFA into when he bought off the delegations of Africa and CONCACAF for his re-election.

On one hand, I hope that South Africa does not lose the World Cup. I think that it is high time that the finals be held in Africa and that if an African nation is to host the finals in the next 10 years, South Africa might be the best option to stage them. I understand from relatives that live there and a close friend who just moved there that the country itself is beautiful and breath taking and is very nice to visit. If the finals are there in 2010, I would be able to stay free of room and board with said friend and see all these beatuiful things in between matches.

On the other hand, I have worries based on other things that family and friends have mentioned regarding South Africa. Crime is really bad and the nations roads and infrastructure are going down hill and not being repaired. Money is being diverted elsewhere and signs are showing at negligence with travel. Also, to travel from the USA, a flight takes about 2 days and costs around $1,200 to fly to Jo'burg. Not the type of trip I want to take, and as I will most likely be married by 2010, $2400 to fly us there and back, before food, match tickets, USA jerseys and such, is a lot of money.

So, as I am semi-against (30%) South Africa hosting the 2010 World Cup, who do I wish to see pick up the hosting duties? Australia has been mentioned as a host, but the flights there from the East Coast of the USA are equally, if not longer and almost as expensive. The country itself is hard to travel across for mutipule matches, so I would have issues going to Australia for teh World Cup. I have been there before, Sydney and the Hunter Valley are absolutely wonderful places, but trying to follow your team across a country of that size, from a travel standpoint, would get expensive.

I carry this complaint over to the possible idea of the USA hosting again. Traveling from Washington DC to LA to watch one match, to only return to DC to then go to Miami or Chicago for matches 2 or 3 would get alot more expensive, due to the almost requirement of needing to fly to these places. If FIFA would allow for each Group to be staged in regions, like having Group A play their matches in NYC and Philly, that would cut down on travel costs for the fans, which would benefit the hosting in the USA. Australia would benefit from this idea as well.

So, if the 2010 FIFA World Cup is pulled from South Africa, I would honestly, from a travel standpoint, hope that the tournament is back in Europe and FIFA, based on sponsor support and a money standpoint, keeps all future World Cups in Europe. European nations, Western European nations have the best possible infrastructure for travel, lodging, sanitaion, food and such for hosting 3 million soccer crazed fans for a month. Flights from the USA are cheaper than flying to most other countries. Even with the Euro (or Pound if in England) are not exactly at the best exchange rate with the Dollar, the trip would cost less due to the initial flight expense for two not being astronomicle as South Africa or Asia or Australia.

So that is my suggestion. I am planning on going to the 2010 World Cup, regardless of where it is held, as long as the USA is taking part. :)

[uclacarlos]

Possibly, but what are the odds that this conversation actually limits itself to travel issues alone? What are the odds that it becomes a complete duplication of the thread on USMNT News?
Which is a duplication of the TWO threads in USMNT General. (The first was closed after 500 posts.)

Let me make an attempt to gear this to travel issues: fly into smaller, suburban airports. Car rentals may be better, flights cheaper and less... hub-bub...

carry on...

[Palermo10]

We need some gaddarn deregulation dadgammit!!!


he he he

[Thomas Flannigan]

My guess is that FIFA will maintain the illusion of having the World Cup in South Africa until after the election of FIFA President in May, 2007. Blatter ascended to the throne in the first place due to strong support from the African Federation, which has 52 votes for the President. That is why Africa has 5 spots in the World Cup, a free TV feed for the 2002 Cup, and other “emoluments”. When Blatter beat out Lennaert Johanssen to succeed Havelange, Johannsen was also hurt by public statements he made about black Africans, which were very derogatory. The Tomlinson book has a direct quote. I would not repeat it here. Another rival, Platini, has said that South Africa is so dangerous he would never let his wife and daughters go there for the World Cup. Blatter is probably secure as long as he keeps saying the “right” things and continues certain incentives.
I have said from day one that it was a mistake to put the World Cup in South Africa. I posted within an hour or two of the vote that FIFA would have to pull it like it did to Colombia in 1986. Between June and July, 2007, expect an extraordinary session of the Executive Committee, which has 24 votes, to pull it from South Africa. The stated reason will be failure to build stadiums and other infrastructure. The real reasons will include infrastructure but also fear of crime and a financial fiasco. FIFA has to make the move by 2007. They can’t take the risk of waiting until 2009. If Mandela dies then, Operation Vula kicks in and country devolves into chaos, it will be a little late in the game to find another lily pad to jump to. They can’t get cover for this either. Warren Buffett wrote insurance for the 2002 Cup to indemnify FIFA if another Tokyo earthquake forced cancellation or delay of the Cup. I don’t see anyone writing cover for a South African World Cup.
The fallout would be huge, but I think it can be managed. Jesse Jackson would get involved, but FIFA does not give a hoot what he says. African nations would boycott, like they have done in the past and threatened to do in the past. Africa may get 6 or even more qualification sports as salve for the wound, and Blatter may back Issa Hayatou to succeed him in 2011. Blatter got in with some help from Havelange so there is precedent for the FIFA president grooming his successor.

[dcsundevil2002]

My guess is that FIFA will maintain the illusion of having the World Cup in South Africa until after the election of FIFA President in May, 2007. Blatter ascended to the throne in the first place due to strong support from the African Federation, which has 52 votes for the President. That is why Africa has 5 spots in the World Cup, a free TV feed for the 2002 Cup, and other “emoluments”. When Blatter beat out Lennaert Johanssen to succeed Havelange, Johannsen was also hurt by public statements he made about black Africans, which were very derogatory. The Tomlinson book has a direct quote. I would not repeat it here. Another rival, Platini, has said that South Africa is so dangerous he would never let his wife and daughters go there for the World Cup. Blatter is probably secure as long as he keeps saying the “right” things and continues certain incentives.
I have said from day one that it was a mistake to put the World Cup in South Africa. I posted within an hour or two of the vote that FIFA would have to pull it like it did to Colombia in 1986. Between June and July, 2007, expect an extraordinary session of the Executive Committee, which has 24 votes, to pull it from South Africa. The stated reason will be failure to build stadiums and other infrastructure. The real reasons will include infrastructure but also fear of crime and a financial fiasco. FIFA has to make the move by 2007. They can’t take the risk of waiting until 2009. If Mandela dies then, Operation Vula kicks in and country devolves into chaos, it will be a little late in the game to find another lily pad to jump to. They can’t get cover for this either. Warren Buffett wrote insurance for the 2002 Cup to indemnify FIFA if another Tokyo earthquake forced cancellation or delay of the Cup. I don’t see anyone writing cover for a South African World Cup.
The fallout would be huge, but I think it can be managed. Jesse Jackson would get involved, but FIFA does not give a hoot what he says. African nations would boycott, like they have done in the past and threatened to do in the past. Africa may get 6 or even more qualification sports as salve for the wound, and Blatter may back Issa Hayatou to succeed him in 2011. Blatter got in with some help from Havelange so there is precedent for the FIFA president grooming his successor.

That about sums up what I was expecting. Very nice.

[michael greene]

Could some mod please merge the dozens of "2010 WC Moving" and hundreds of Adu threads to create this?:

http://www.wallpaperbase.com/wallpapers/movie/perfectstorm/perfect_storm_1.jpg

[Galaxian]

lol I had a dream last night I was reading the sports section of the newspaper and the final of the 2010 world cup was to be held in New york , but the rest of the tournament still in South Africa .

its crazy but it could happen....lol

[Thomas Flannigan]

I stand by my prediction FIFA will pull the cup from South Africa. If so, what is to be done for the traveling fan base? Let’s consider the alternatives:

AUSTRALIA: I have said for a long time that FIFA appeared to be grooming Australia for the 2018 World Cup. The Aussies could pull it off in 2010. The country has so much going for it. Australia has the infrastructure and stadiums and showed what it could do with the Olympics. The IOC and FIFA are essentially interlocking directorates with many of the same people in charge. Australia is perhaps the best country in the world to visit today. Games would not all sell out and that is a disadvantage. Don’t believe every press release you read, including the baloney about “1.5 million” foreign fans to South Africa. Korea and Japan had 150,000 foreign fans in 2002 and that included a big chunk of Chinese fans. Australia would have lots of empty stadiums. Australia’s ace in the hole may be its new FA chief. Frank Lowy is an incredibly powerful guy even though few people in the US have heard of him.
UNITED STATES: The best choice from a profit perspective but insane visa regulations are only the beginning of the problem. The US has gone from being a widely admired nation 10 years ago to the second most despised nation on the planet and that does not help. But every game would sell out.
MEXICO: Mexico could pull it off on its own or via joint hosting with the US. The problem FIFA has with all three is the result. Outsiders have never won the World Cup. Unlike every other major tournament in the world (UEFA tournament, March Madness, World Series) no major underdog has ever won the World Cup. Sure, you see Greece and Denmark coming out of nowhere to win UEFA but never, ever at the World Cup. The worst nightmare would be a quarterfinal game where the home team gets a Hugh Dallas or a Jorge Larionda. A disallowed goal and 2 red cards against the home team could touch off a gigantic riot with thousands of people killed. This is especially risky in Mexico. The Miss Universe Pageant in Mexico back in 1994 nearly ended in a riot after Miss Mexico did not make the semi-finals. You could imagine what would happen if El Tri got a “bad” ref at just the right time.
EUROPE AGAIN. This is the soft option. I think FIFA is not really an international federation anymore but evolving towards something like the Teutonic Knights. The announcements always seem to be made by someone with a name like Juergen or Helmut. Having the Cup in Europe again would be good for the short term, disastrous for the long term. Soccer could go into decline like baseball did in the US. Baseball executives decided to put almost all games at night because the MBAs told them they would make more money that night. They did, but they destroyed part of their fan base in the process. The Chicago Cubs became a cult money spinner in part because the day games allowed younger fans to catch the fever. One of the reasons soccer grew into a huge international mania is because people like Rouse saw the long term benefit of moving the Cup around to different parts of the world. Don’t’ be surprised if FIFA keeps the Cup in Europe. Don’t be surprised if soccer starts declining as more and more people think the World Cup it is not a true international event, but a Euro thing, with strange and unfair results.
Just my opinions.

[dcsundevil2002]

I stand by my prediction FIFA will pull the cup from South Africa. If so, what is to be done for the traveling fan base? Let’s consider the alternatives:

UNITED STATES: The best choice from a profit perspective but insane visa regulations are only the beginning of the problem. The US has gone from being a widely admired nation 10 years ago to the second most despised nation on the planet and that does not help. But every game would sell out.
Just my opinions.

Who is the most despised nation on the planet? Jeez, we can't even be #1 in that? Nolonger #1 in Baseball. Nolonger #1 in Basketball.

Strive to be #1!