The Battle for Control of US Soccer

[DCUPopeAndLillyFan]

Originally posted by kenntomasch
You think they'd consider a split-season for MLS in 2010 if the US hosted the Cup?

Nah, they'll probably schedule as many matches as possible with WC matches to boost attendance figures. :p

[todda74]

A couple of things.

1) if and when we get another WC MLS will have to play a split season. There is no possible way they would be able to play, unless they have a MLS/WC double header every game? that would be cool.
2) traditionalists would be upset with that? Don't most of the European leagues take a 3-4 week break over Christmass and New Year's?
3) who ever said that common sense enters into any of FIFA's decisions? Africa will get the next bid because Sepp will want to score points or pay back favors.
4) but after the South Africa situation starts imploding and everyone realizes that the games will end up being played on dirt parking lots they will move the Cup to the US.

[Benedict XVI]

Originally posted by WorldSoccerWeekly
Andy,

There was real trauma when Germany got the 2006 bid.

For alot of political reasons within FIFA, 2010 will be in Africa.

But I suppose we'll have to wait a while find out for sure.

I'd love to see another WC here but it's going to take a while.

Nick

South Africa's one chance was 2006.

There is no African country that can host a world cup. There won't be for some time. There's probably only 4 or 5 countries in Europe that can host it, maybe 2-3 in Concacaf (Canada might be able to if the political will were behind it), perhaps 2 in CONMEBOL. I don't think we'll see one in Asia again for some time.

I will be surprised if we don't get 2010 or 2014. The World Cup has simply become too big an event for the vast majority of countries to host.

[Mel Brennan]

"Doctor Bob" is a creature of the Youth Soccer power base that has dominated US Soccer for some time now, working to ensure that youth, and youth only (i.e., not professional endeavours sanctioned by USSF, like MLS) get any $$$...trust me, the Youth Soccer leadership at a national and regional level are a nasty bunch who believe that everything US Soccer does ought revolve around them, and fail to see the integrative nature that successful national programs MUST have...

With that as background, know that I've been in Dr. Bob's presence when he's said two things that tell you all you need to know about him...

"The only elections worth fighting are always fought dirty," referring to his own political behavior.

"So this, uh, FC Golden Cup is played every two years?," referring to his own absolute ignorance regarding the larger, international aspects of the game.

The man is a slavering beast of a leader, put in place by the Youth Soccer movement, and needs to go, precisely because he can provide no vision; however, back to Rothenberg is not what's needed either, as all he really cares about, in the end, is Chuck Blazer's seat on the FIFA Exco, and not - any longer - what happens at "lower halls of power" like USSF...

When a leader steps forward to provide a vision that draws upon, respects, and supports all the tributaries of American soccer (and formulates a plan that helps gets SSS built, which helps all of US soccer, not just MLS), then I will be glad to support her or him. But until that mystical, magical, majestic day, I simply hope that Dr. Bob or Alan don't ************ it up too bad...

[todda74]

Originally posted by Vicar


I will be surprised if we don't get 2010 or 2014. The World Cup has simply become too big an event for the vast majority of countries to host.

just a philosophical thought I guess, but is this a good thing that only the highly developed countries can now host the World Cup?

[PaulGascoigne]

Originally posted by todda74
.after the South Africa situation starts imploding and everyone realizes that the games will end up being played on dirt parking lots they will move the Cup to the US.

I was going to write this exact thought. They can be PC and give one to S. Africa only to have it whisked away to the US with about a year to go when they realize it ain't even coming remotely close to happening, or they can give it to somewhere that can handle it. Just because we all philosophically WANT to have the cup in Africa because their fans and teams are as important and valid as anyone else's doesn't mean they have the infrastructure to do it (my Dad was born in Africa and I love Nigerians, but they will NEVER, EVER be able to host a WC in my lifetime).

Todda, no, it's not a good thing, but S. Africa and all of Africa have a hell of a lot worse worries than not hosting a cup.

[Benedict XVI]

Originally posted by todda74


just a philosophical thought I guess, but is this a good thing that only the highly developed countries can now host the World Cup?

in some ways, yes, in some ways, no. is it a good thing that the NFL doesn't have franchises in Canton, Ohio, and Rock Island and Decatur, Illinois?

sometimes things just outgrow where they come from.


South Africa needs to worry about ending the pandemic of HIV and making its streets reasonably safe before they go around building soccer stadia.

[ne plus ultra]

Theories about the number of nations of sufficient size to host the WC have to be thrown out after the success of the shared hosting in K-J. While there were problems, they weren't related to shared hosting.

I'd look for something along those lines to happen again -- perhaps Chile-Argentina or Belgium-Holland. South Africa have some difficulties, since they're the only reasonably-sized economy in sub-Saharan Africa. They have been courting Nigeria politically since the democratic transition there, and if the latter country remains democratic, it could stabilize. But history suggests the degree of optimism required to predict that will happen. Here's hoping.

We'd do well to add Canada to any bid we submit. Hell, what about a Nafta cup, with games in Mexico City, Guadalajara, Toronto, Montreal, Chicago, DC, NY, and LA? The flights wouldn't be any longer to Mexico than to LA.

[Tea Men Tom]

Who in their right mind would attend a World Cup tournament in Africa? I would think it would be disasterous to hold it there? It's too difficult to get to, there's the political climate to consider, I just don't see it happening.

The bottom line is money talks and bringing the WC here means making money. Plus soccer's got some nice momentum going right now and I think getting the 2010 WC would give a huge boost to MLS and US Soccer in general.

That 5 year window that was set last year would automatically be extended to 2010. It might even signal the arrival of the US as a major player in international soccer.

Just an opinion, but I think it's more likely we get the WC in 2010 than not.

[insomniac]

The biggest problem with any African nation hosting a World Cup (IMHO) is September 11th and it's legacy.

You can't host a major event (WC, Olympics) in a developing country these days because of the threat of terrorism.

Does anyone feel really comfortable with these next Olympics in Athens?

I would be extremely surprised in the 2010 World Cup ends up in Africa, despite promises made after Germany got the '06 Cup.

[pugetsoundmls]

So I guess there's not a 3rd option beyond the Bob or Al Shows? Please don't say Chuck Blazer. What wonderful leadership we have...:(

[GersMan]

Originally posted by insomniac
The biggest problem with any African nation hosting a World Cup (IMHO) is September 11th and it's legacy.

You can't host a major event (WC, Olympics) in a developing country these days because of the threat of terrorism.

Does anyone feel really comfortable with these next Olympics in Athens?

I would be extremely surprised in the 2010 World Cup ends up in Africa, despite promises made after Germany got the '06 Cup.

Umm, Greece isn't a developing nation.

Re the Cup not being held in Africa. You are acting on the rational actor premise, assuming those making decisions will make them rationally. You shouldn't assume this.

If it is "whisked away' from Africa after the award, wouldn't it more likely to go to Mexico or Brazil? Why would the U.S. get the Cup before either of those states?

[Schapes]

Both countries (Brazil and Mexico) have major economic issues. I doubt whether they would be able to stage a World Cup. Same goes with most of Africa. It sounds like a great idea to bring the tournament to a continent where it hasn't been before. But, realistically, with all of their issues in terms of economic woes and social problems. How successfull would it be?

The United States in 1994 had the largest attendance and was the most profitable of any World Cup.

I say the U.S. should go for it in 2010!

[conquerant]

Originally posted by GersMan


Umm, Greece isn't a developing nation.



No, but they've had problems with terrorism.

As far as having a World Cup in Africa goes, don't forget the main driving force in world soccer today: money. How much in gate reciepts would an African World Cup take in? I don't think there's many people in South Africa who could pony up $200 for a ticket.

[Andy_B]

I think people forget just how different it is from holding a cup in the 2000's vs holding one even as recently as the 80's.

It is complete night and day in terms of infrastructure needed to support the massive undertaking.

Andy

[kenntomasch]

Greece is not a developing nation, but they have a crap infrastructure that has made the logistics of the next Olympics a 24-hour-a-day nightmare for the IOC and promise to make it a challenge at best for anyone who goes.

Nice folks, and all, historic, the original Olympics, sentimentalism, that's fine. Same with Africa and the World Cup, nice gesture, yadda yadda, throw 'em a bone.

Only this is 2002 (and that will be 2010) and you kind of have to have your act together to host an event of this magnitude. If you can't guarantee people's safety or that you can effectively manage the people and communication needs and all that, then you shouldn't host a World Cup.

[total_football]

Well, they have hosted the RFU WC and are slated to host the 2003 ICC WC, so they do have the stadia and faciltities to host major tournaments.

[insomniac]

Originally posted by GersMan


If it is "whisked away' from Africa after the award, wouldn't it more likely to go to Mexico or Brazil? Why would the U.S. get the Cup before either of those states?

Not saying it would go to the U.S., basically just saying that it's hard to imagine making a rational decision to give the Cup to an African Nation.

But as others have pointed out, with FIFA, who knows?

[GersMan]

Originally posted by conquerant


No, but they've had problems with terrorism.

As far as having a World Cup in Africa goes, don't forget the main driving force in world soccer today: money. How much in gate reciepts would an African World Cup take in? I don't think there's many people in South Africa who could pony up $200 for a ticket.

And the U.S. hasn't had problems with terrorism????

Gosh - I hope I don't have to pay $200 for a ticket the next time the Cup is here.

[Ismitje]

Originally posted by total_football
Well, they have hosted the RFU WC and are slated to host the 2003 ICC WC, so they do have the stadia and faciltities to host major tournaments.

Point well made. They could have also hosted WC06, but the projected impact of the HIV pandemic and unlikelihood of the cash infusion necessary to pump out the infrastructure for a soccer as opposed to rugby and cricket championships change the equasion for WC10. Cricket stadia are as appropriate for soccer as, well, that horse track or whatever the Colorado Foxes played at.