Should the World Cup be held in developing countries?

[mfw13]

With the 2010 World Cup being held in South Africa and 2014 likely headed to Brazil, I bring this question up because of infrastructure concerns. I've been to each of the last five World Cups, but I won't be going to the next two because it's going to be too difficult to get from one game to the next in both South Africa and Brazil due to their poor transportation networks.

There is also the issue of whether spending billions of dollars building stadia and hotels is the best use of resources in these countries, especially considering all the other issues they are dealing with. Korea, for example, is now stuck with several underutilized stadia left over from World Cup 2002 as well as quite a few empty hotels.

[Colorado_GAUCHO]

With the 2010 World Cup being held in South Africa and 2014 likely headed to Brazil, I bring this question up because of infrastructure concerns. I've been to each of the last five World Cups, but I won't be going to the next two because it's going to be too difficult to get from one game to the next in both South Africa and Brazil due to their poor transportation networks.

There is also the issue of whether spending billions of dollars building stadia and hotels is the best use of resources in these countries, especially considering all the other issues they are dealing with. Korea, for example, is now stuck with several underutilized stadia left over from World Cup 2002 as well as quite a few empty hotels.

I won't speak about South Africa since I'm not in the habit of talking about stuff I have no knowlegde about. Brasil won't have the Korea problem of underutilized stadiums for simple reasons. We have always had stadiums (plenty of it, my hometown has 2 that host over 50 thousand people each). Poor transportation network in Brasil? There's plenty of renewed airports ( my city has one that is better than many airports in the states and in the uk) and the airline industry is brand new with many new companies like "gol" and so forth. So I guess you have never been there or if you did you where there decades ago, or perhaps you are just guessing. Brasil's hotel industry was always there since the country always had plenty of tourism going. I guess the only problem you as a brit would find in Brasil is that we are not as nice people as the germans and if you try to pull your hooliganismo crap in Brasil you brits will end up getting beat up and arrested in a then not so nice Brasilian jail.

PENTA

btw ( we already had a cup and we did great)

[RichardL]

are you pc4th's sock?

[Excape Goat]

South Africa got poor public transportation between cities. Apart from that, I do not see a concern. The roads between cities are actually very nice. South Africa is a big tourist destination so I do not see any problem with building more new hotels (if they actually need to build more).

[Midorit]

South Africa got poor public transportation between cities. Apart from that, I do not see a concern. The roads between cities are actually very nice. South Africa is a big tourist destination so I do not see any problem with building more new hotels (if they actually need to build more).

I agree.

Also World Cup is a worldwide celebration of the game that is played and loved in different parts of the world(sorry about sounding so cheesy!).Going to the World Cup is not the same as going to a Sheraton resort complex or Club Med.

When so many ads for football gears are featuring kids in rather poor areas playing the game with no facility but a ball,it's laughable to hear some adults whining about "poor transportation".

[Auriaprottu]

With the 2010 World Cup being held in South Africa and 2014 likely headed to Brazil, I bring this question up because of infrastructure concerns. I've been to each of the last five World Cups, but I won't be going to the next two because it's going to be too difficult to get from one game to the next in both South Africa and Brazil due to their poor transportation networks.

One of those developing nations has experienced success in more Cups than any other nation. If you decide not to attend, it'll be your own streak that gets broken, and no one else's.

There is also the issue of whether spending billions of dollars building stadia and hotels is the best use of resources in these countries, especially considering all the other issues they are dealing with. Korea, for example, is now stuck with several underutilized stadia left over from World Cup 2002 as well as quite a few empty hotels.

That's for the host nation to consider, not the fans.

[stevethiel]

Wow you guys are rough. He's got at least half a point (I don't really see how the transport is worse than the US - long distances). Could the billions going towards the world cup in South Africa be put to better use? AIDS prevention, education, violence control, etc... Contrary to what most of us that post on bigsoccer think, there are more important things than our favorite sport in the world.

;)

On the other hand it's quite possible that the Cup could give S. Africa's govt enough extra income to put towards these concerns. I don't know enough about the situation there to say for sure.

[Midorit]

Wow you guys are rough. He's got at least half a point (I don't really see how the transport is worse than the US - long distances). Could the billions going towards the world cup in South Africa be put to better use? AIDS prevention, education, violence control, etc... Contrary to what most of us that post on bigsoccer think, there are more important things than our favorite sport in the world.

That's for each sovereign government to decide,I think.Just because South Africa is a developing country does not mean the citizens there have to be told what to do and what not to do with their money.South Africa is a democracy and their collective decision has to be respected.

Also South Africa's domestic problems you list can only be solved in a long term,not by pouring the money that they are spending on the WC now.Tokyo Olympics in 1964 was supposedly a great boost for our confidence as a nation that had spent the previous 20 years recovering from the damage cause by the war-not that I care about such a thing as national pride though.So here's hoping that the WC 2010 will work in the same way for South Africa.

[superdave]

btw ( we already had a cup and we did great)

Yeah, in 1950. It's a whole 'nother ballgame now.

I'm not saying Brazil couldn't/shouldn't host the Cup. I'm saying pointing to 1950 is pretty silly.

As of right now, IMO there are only 12 nations that could host a Cup on their own. Australia, Japan, Russia, France, Germany, England, Spain, Italy, the US, Mexico, China, and Brazil. MAYBE Canada and South Korea could do it. (Obviously some of the oil kingdoms, where money is no object, could build the stadia, but I doubt Saudi Arabia wants an influx of multicultural tourists, so I'm not counting them.) So, Brazil is always going to be in a strong position, as it is the only nation in CONMEBOL with the economic power to pull it off. Security might be a concern.

I think the "dark horse" for a Cup is Russia. They've never hosted. There are concerns about Putin's assault on democracy, but Putin won't live forever.

[mfw13]

Excape Goat....yes, South Africa has good roads, but it has NO high-speed rail network to speak of, and driving distances are huge. With the exception of the three stadia in and aroun J'Burg (Soccer City, Ellis Park, Rustenberg), all the other cities are at least 3-4 hours apart by car, and to be quite frank, the South African airline system does not have the capacity to move large numbers of people from city to city (think 20,000 people trying to get from Polokwane to Port Elizabeth in two days, for example, or from Nelspruit to Durban, perhaps) in a short period of time. The key element that has made the last three world cups so much fun is that France, Korea/Japan, and Germany have had excellent high-speed rail networks, and its been really easy to get from city to city. You've been able to base yourself in one or two cities and take the train to whatever match you're going to on the day of the match.

In South Africa, and likely Brazil, you will not be able to base yourself in one city, and will have to pack up and likely fly or drive from city to city between each match, which as anybody who has travelled extensively can tell you, becomes a major hassle, especially if you have a family.

Now people may argue that the USA is also a large country that you need to fly/drive around, but the truth is that because of the plethoria of large stadia combined with the density of the certain areas of the country, it's possible to structure the groups so that teams play all of their games in a small area. The Boston-New York-Philadelphia-Washington DC corridor has high-speed rail and could host two whole groups. You could have a Miami-Tampa Bay group, a Denver-Kansas City group, a Dallas-Houston group, a Chicago-Detroit group, a Los Angeles-San Diego or Los Angeles-San Francisco group. In fact you could probably organize the group stage so that every single fan could see all three of their teams matches without ever getting on a plane.

That's not possible in South Africa or Brazil, because the cities are too far apart. There's no density like in the northeastern part of the USA or Florida, Texas, and California (each of which have 2-3 World Cup ready stadia).

And as Stevethiel pointed out, South Africa and Brazil are both going to be spending billions of dollars building new stadia when they have far better uses for the money.

[M]

There is also the issue of whether spending billions of dollars building stadia and hotels is the best use of resources in these countries, especially considering all the other issues they are dealing with. Korea, for example, is now stuck with several underutilized stadia left over from World Cup 2002 as well as quite a few empty hotels.

This was more caused by overbuilding between joint hosts trying to outdo each other. WC '02 ended up using far more stadia than were needed and this is one of the reasons that FIFA don't want any more joint hosts.

[M]

Now people may argue that the USA is also a large country that you need to fly/drive around, but the truth is that because of the plethoria of large stadia combined with the density of the certain areas of the country, it's possible to structure the groups so that teams play all of their games in a small area. The Boston-New York-Philadelphia-Washington DC corridor has high-speed rail and could host two whole groups. You could have a Miami-Tampa Bay group, a Denver-Kansas City group, a Dallas-Houston group, a Chicago-Detroit group, a Los Angeles-San Diego or Los Angeles-San Francisco group. In fact you could probably organize the group stage so that every single fan could see all three of their teams matches without ever getting on a plane..

That's odd, I thought this thread was about WCs in developing countries :confused: Do you have an ulterior motive? :p

[The Mighty Frog]

To my mind WC can be held in developing countries. South Africa has previoulsly host the rugby WC in 1995 and it was a success.

[M]

To my mind WC can be held in developing countries. South Africa has previoulsly host the rugby WC in 1995 and it was a success.

It's also held the African Nations Cup (poorly attended, mind you) and the Cricket World Cup.

[Colorado_GAUCHO]

Excape Goat....yes, South Africa has good roads, but it has NO high-speed rail network to speak of, and driving distances are huge. With the exception of the three stadia in and aroun J'Burg (Soccer City, Ellis Park, Rustenberg), all the other cities are at least 3-4 hours apart by car, and to be quite frank, the South African airline system does not have the capacity to move large numbers of people from city to city (think 20,000 people trying to get from Polokwane to Port Elizabeth in two days, for example, or from Nelspruit to Durban, perhaps) in a short period of time. The key element that has made the last three world cups so much fun is that France, Korea/Japan, and Germany have had excellent high-speed rail networks, and its been really easy to get from city to city. You've been able to base yourself in one or two cities and take the train to whatever match you're going to on the day of the match.

In South Africa, and likely Brazil, you will not be able to base yourself in one city, and will have to pack up and likely fly or drive from city to city between each match, which as anybody who has travelled extensively can tell you, becomes a major hassle, especially if you have a family.

Now people may argue that the USA is also a large country that you need to fly/drive around, but the truth is that because of the plethoria of large stadia combined with the density of the certain areas of the country, it's possible to structure the groups so that teams play all of their games in a small area. The Boston-New York-Philadelphia-Washington DC corridor has high-speed rail and could host two whole groups. You could have a Miami-Tampa Bay group, a Denver-Kansas City group, a Dallas-Houston group, a Chicago-Detroit group, a Los Angeles-San Diego or Los Angeles-San Francisco group. In fact you could probably organize the group stage so that every single fan could see all three of their teams matches without ever getting on a plane.

That's not possible in South Africa or Brazil, because the cities are too far apart. There's no density like in the northeastern part of the USA or Florida, Texas, and California (each of which have 2-3 World Cup ready stadia).

And as Stevethiel pointed out, South Africa and Brazil are both going to be spending billions of dollars building new stadia when they have far better uses for the money.

You don't know what you're talking about. Brasil won't have to build any stadiums

We have Beira-rio, Olimpico, Maracana, Morumbi, Mineirao, arena da baixada and many others, that have already passed the FIFA standards... you talk a lot of bs and you don't even care to get your facts straight before you start debating what you don't know. You don't seem very smart.

[mfw13]

Umm....Colorado Gaucho....you might want to stay current with the news. President Lula himself said (and I quote)
"We don’t have any stadium which is in a condition to host World Cup games. We’re going to have to build at least 12 new stadiums in this country.”

You might want to read the Wikipedia article on the Brazil 2014 bid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_FIFA_World_Cup#Brazil_bid

[Jahaja]

Umm....Colorado Gaucho....you might want to stay current with the news. President Lula himself said (and I quote)
"We don’t have any stadium which is in a condition to host World Cup games. We’re going to have to build at least 12 new stadiums in this country.”

You might want to read the Wikipedia article on the Brazil 2014 bid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_FIFA_World_Cup#Brazil_bid

Gettign really tired of americans trying to offend footballfans by calling football a "third-world sport".

This thread just triggers that anger of for me. Americans promoting their own, not-so-football-loving-country, instead of on the major football countries Brazil (more or less a football culture!).

If you dont have enough passion to struggle a bit to get to the stadium then i'm glad to not have you there. Passion, atmosphere etc is for me more wanted then to have your own cab.

Also, all eyes will be on South-Africa, i'm sure they'll do everything to not screw it up. And as for brazil, don't really see any problem there.

[Colorado_GAUCHO]

Umm....Colorado Gaucho....you might want to stay current with the news. President Lula himself said (and I quote)
"We don’t have any stadium which is in a condition to host World Cup games. We’re going to have to build at least 12 new stadiums in this country.”

You might want to read the Wikipedia article on the Brazil 2014 bid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_FIFA_World_Cup#Brazil_bid

dude,

lula is the biggest dumba$$ to ever appear in Brasil, you're quoting Lula of all people??? OMG what's next? Chavez??

lord have mercy!

[Colorado_GAUCHO]

and the very reliable "wikipedia, who's updating the article? you?

gimme a break!

http://www.internacional.com.br/imagens/noticias/capa_080307.jpg
Diretor de segurança e estádios da Fifa, Walter Gagg, elogiou e aprovou o Beira-Rio no relatório enviado à Fifa


http://www.internacional.com.br/pagina.php?modulo=2&setor=18&codigo=5052
"Este Estádio de propriedade do clube Internacional – Campeão do Mundo de Clubes em 2006 no Japao - é uma beleza. Excelente sobre todos os pontos de vista.”

Com estas palavras o diretor de segurança e estádios da Fifa, Walter Gagg definiu o Estádio Beira-Rio em seu relatório à Fifa. O documento foi enviado ao Inter esta semana pela Confederação Brasileira de Futebol e diz respeito às apreciações de Gagg durante a vistoria que fez no dia 8 de março para as Eliminatórias da Copa do Mundo de 2014. O relatório de Gagg faz diversos elogios ao Estádio Beira-Rio. Qualifica-o como “estádio de excelente qualidade”. Afirma ainda que os serviços médicos, estacionamento, bombeiros, segurança, transporte e bilheteria estão dentro dos padrões da entidade máxima do futebol mundial. Além disso, elogia o aeroporto e a rede hoteleira de Porto Alegre. Com isso, o estádio colorado se qualifica cada vez mais para ser uma das sedes das eliminatórias e um dos escolhidos para a Copa do Mundo de 2014 no Brasil.

ahahahah

update your wikipedia article with this newest info son!

quoting lula... ahahahahah That's even worse than quoting your president

[Bandeirante_SPFC]

We have 2 stadiums with conditions to receive world cup games today.

Arena da Baixada and Engenhão who is in phase of finishing for the pan-american games.

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h237/vinicius777/2-50.jpg
Engenhão (can held 45,000 espectators and can be extended to held 60,000 espectators).

http://mavalem.sites.uol.com.br/pr/Arena2.jpg
Arena da Baixada (after finished will be able to held 40,000 espectators).


There are two other projects (from Internacional and Grêmio) to reform their stadium and to build a new arena respectively with money from private investitors only. Maracanã is in a good condition needing little to be able to take care of the FIFA obligations.

Maracanã. Can held 73.916 espectators.
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c290/bandeirante_spfc/maraca.jpg