Can Africa actually host in 2010?

[GoHawks4]

Rape every 23 seconds. Rape of minors distturbingly commonplace. Would you bring your wife there? Your kids? Go to Germany, but sit your ass on the couch for '10.

[snorklefish]

According to the British Home Office: Research and Statistics Directorate [see CIAC, SAPS. The Incidence of Serious Crime : January to June 1998, CIAC, Pretoria. September 1998] a homicide rate of 69.34 per 100 000 of the population was obtained for Washington, D.C.

The 1999 homicide rate for Johannesburg was 136.3.

http://www.saps.org.za/8_crimeinfo/200112/report.htm

[Ronaldo13]

Africa can't afford the WC....they don't have the stadiums and they don't have the money to build them....i think 2010 will go to the US....

[calcioplaya]

what about egypt? maybe one of most well of nations in Africa?

[kenntomasch]

Well, there you have it. Don't book your flights now.

[SoFla Metro]

Originally posted by saabrian


I guess you must be more informed than the FIFA Executive committee what are the odds?

[superdave]

Originally posted by saabrian
FIFA has already decided that the World Cups will be rotated by continents starting with 2010,
I think everyone knows this isn't going to fly. If FIFA really truly ooly tries to enforce this (amazingly stupid) rule, you're gonna see UEFA break away.

Bottom line is, FIFA needs to choose between going back to 24 teams in the World Cup (and we all know THAT won't happen,) restricting the thing to about 6 nations, or having poorly run Cups with poor infrastructure.

My guess is they're gonna take a little from #2 and #3.

[snowfx2]

Originally posted by owendylan


This will not happen. The Aussie federation has no money and playing games in Aussie Rules stadiums won't fly with FIFA.

Which would also be the case for S. Africa, the larger stadiums are rugby stadiums.

[DennisM]

South Africa could host it but I don't want them right away. First African Country should be Morocco or Egypt. South Africa needs to spend that money elsewhere. That is the same reason why the U.S. shouldn't host it too. Also we just had it in 94. A new continent people. I think Australia would be a good choice. Have the stadiums. For now have the staple governemt and economy. I say that because remember Argentina 78 and Chile 62. Anyway, it should go to Morocco or Egypt. Or maybe Gaddafi will open up Libya and tons of money will pour into the country will very little resources and with his love of soccer he will convince Fifa to have the world cup there.

[neilgrossman]

Originally posted by calcioplaya
what about egypt? maybe one of most well of nations in Africa?

I thought Egypt was having economic problems. Any one know?

[sebakoole]

With some suggestions that the WC might be here in the US in '10 or '14 I've been wondering whether the US govt. might be more hesitant to host such a massive event with all these terrorism jitters. Not that the US govt. can outright prevent such a thing from taking place, but nevertheless some pressure could be applied in the right places to prevent the US from hosting the WC. Who knows whether the threat of terrorism by then will be less or more than it is now, but it is worth factoring that into the equation, I think.

[kenntomasch]

Didn't stop us from going ahead with the Winter Olympics, which, I realize, are a smaller deal than the World Cup, and were already too close to really turn away from at the time of September 11.

So when does Antarctica get their Cup? They're a continent, too, you know. ;)

[Professor B]

The other thing that may need to be factored in is the time zone the WC will be played in and what effect (if any) that will have on the value of the TV broadcast rights.

My impression (meaning I don't know the facts, these are just educated guesses) is that Europe is the most valuable TV market and that having the WC in a time zone way off from Europe hurt the value of the rights. This "factor" would for example weigh against Australia, but might favor an African country (how do the African time zones compare to Europe?).

As for FIFA's "decision" to rotate the WC between confeds, my guess is that that was just a ploy by Blatter to try and get back African re-election votes after the 2006 WC was awarded to Germany. After Africa moved against Blatter in the election, I expect Blatter to try and screw them back. Just my take on it. You can take it for whatever you think it is worth.

As for South Africa, I think it would be a wonderful thing if they could and did host the WC. Wonderful both for the country and for the continent.

As for stadia and infrastructure, I have to admit I don't know much about South African stadia or infrastructure. But I will add this: weren't many of the stadia in France in the 30,000 seat range? Or is my memory playing tricks on me? Maybe after the empty seats in K/J, FIFA will not push so hard for every stadia to be huge.

While I do not know much about South African stadia, I have read quite a bit about the high rate of crime (especially rape) in South Africa and about the AIDS pandemic in Africa (including South Africa). The crime stories and statistics scare me a bit. I might be willing to go, but I don't know if I would take a wife or children. Maybe that's not being fair to South Africa, but it is my honest opinion.

The AIDS problem is even scarier although in a less personal way. The sheer numbers of infected persons and what that has the potential to do to the continent in terms a destabilization is really scary. It's something that should be getting a lot more world-wide attention and the fact that it isn't is shameful.

OK, I got up on a soap box a bit there.

In conclusion, I really would love it if South Africa could and did host the WC even if it meant we couldn't hold one here in the US (where I could attend), but I have serious doubts about it happening (alhtough I recognize that my doubts stem from less than complete knowledge).

Professor B

[edit for typos]

[saabrian]

Originally posted by superdave

I think everyone knows this isn't going to fly. If FIFA really truly ooly tries to enforce this (amazingly stupid) rule, you're gonna see UEFA break away.

Bottom line is, FIFA needs to choose between going back to 24 teams in the World Cup (and we all know THAT won't happen,) restricting the thing to about 6 nations, or having poorly run Cups with poor infrastructure.

My guess is they're gonna take a little from #2 and #3.

I'm sure the UEFA breakaway or the restricting the WC to 6 nations would suit Europe just fine since they think the footballing world revolves around them anyways.

As far as I'm concerned, give an African country ONE World Cup before you exclude the tournament from the continent. You don't know it's going to fail anymore than I know it's going to succeed.

It's not your money that's on the line, it's FIFA's. So why this vehement objection? Because it's a little more expensive to travel to Pretoria than Berlin? Because J'burg is a bit less glamorous than Paris or London? It's a football tournament. Nothing prevents you from visiting Europe on your vacation. If FIFA wants to send the WC to Africa ONE SINGLE TIME, it's their prerogative. If they actually believe in their motto For the Good of the Game (larf!), then they're right to consider football fans outside Europe and the Americas. You may dismiss it as "politically correct nonsense", but it's not your money so why the vehemence.

[Real Ray]

Originally posted by Professor B
The other thing that may need to be factored in is the time zone the WC will be played in and what effect (if any) that will have on the value of the TV broadcast rights.

My impression (meaning I don't know the facts, these are just educated guesses) is that Europe is the most valuable TV market and that having the WC in a time zone way off from Europe hurt the value of the rights. This "factor" would for example weigh against Australia, but might favor an African country (how do the African time zones compare to Europe?).
South Africa's time zone is the same as central Europe during the northern hemisphere summer. It's one of the areas that you would rate on the plus side re: their bid.

[Autogolazo]

S. Africa has most of the infrastructure, but the very society itself is crumbling. Sooner (2006) would've been better and more likely than later (2010).

Morocco would be great IF they can get the stadia built. That way, at least Europeans could get down easily enough to see their teams play.

The South African stadia will be empty, as very few down there can afford the ticket price (it's not the "white" sport down there, so they're out), and very few from the rest of the world can afford (or would want) to fly down there.

Egypt simply has too many political problems right now.

If they could somehow cordon Morocco off, security-wise, and build the stadia, then hold the games at night to avoid the oppressive heat, it would be ideal.

Lack of security from terrorism may sink the Moroccan bid, rampant crime and societal collapse may sink the S. African bid.

I vote for giving it to Morocco--it could be a seminal moment in their history, while I don't really see S. Africa coming back from its long, slow slide into oblivion.

[Real Ray]

Originally posted by Autogolazo
The South African stadia will be empty, as very few down there can afford the ticket price (it's not the "white" sport down there, so they're out), and very few from the rest of the world can afford (or would want) to fly down there.

Here is the part of the article I posted on this subject:Jordaan, who earned a reputation as a top soccer administrator after leading the SA bid to host the 2006 World Cup with aplomb, said his main concern was the ticket pricing.

"At the moment, the cheapest ticket is about R1 250 which is way beyond the means of our people.

"The challenge is how are we going to fill the stadiums under such circumstances?" asked the former parliamentarian.

However, Jordaan stressed government and the corporate sector will need to lend their helping hand.

He said: "I have a few ideas on how to cross that bridge. We want to make sure everyone enjoys the World Cup."

[kenntomasch]

Originally posted by Autogolazo
The South African stadia will be empty, as very few down there can afford the ticket price (it's not the "white" sport down there, so they're out), and very few from the rest of the world can afford (or would want) to fly down there.

Is it significantly more expensive to fly "down there" than it was to Asia? I heard someone say they were going to spend $1200 on a flight to Seoul, which is a lot of money to me. I don't fly internationally a lot, so I don't know if it costs significantly more than that to fly to South Africa.

I wouldn't imagine that with a country the size of South Africa, you'd be expecting the locals to be the bulk of your ticket buyers and pull off a successful Cup. In a country the size of the US, even if tons of people didn't come from all over the world (the English didn't, remember ;) ), as they did, do and will because we still make it fairly easy, you could still stage a very successful Cup with the number of people to draw from who already live here (the women proved that, though not on the same scale leading up to their final).

[FunGuy]

hey you guys seem to be very down on south africa, it's not a bad place like most here seem to think, it has a GDP of 400 billion dollars or 2/3 of canada's, giving SA a GDP per capita of 8,500( all funds US), which i think is similar to isreal and south korea, and higher than eastern europe. SA is has the best educated, strongest and most industrialize economy in africa, way ahead of the north africans( morroco). SA has the best telecommunications, tranportion system, and a very stable government, with a moderate ecomonic growth of 3%. sure SA has it's porblems, ( ie 10% infcted with aids rate), but the contry is still a great place to live, and has very beautiful cities, and country side.

check the web for more info about SA if you want, i got my info from http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sf.html

[drnlm]

CANADA should get it :D
it's a great place to live too and they can afford it w/out too many problems, the crime rate ain't bad either