Can Africa actually host in 2010?

[Alberto]

Originally posted by astar24
Reasons why Africa will get WC2010:
1. It was promised
2. South Africa was 1 vote away from getting 2006
which means they have the potential to host it.
3. Africa is the only continent to not have hosted a world cup before.
4. They have (6) 50,000+ capacity seat stadiums.

Yes there are issues that have to be sorted out such as the times of the games around the world, and the ability to fill these stadiums during the tournament, but those are always issues.

Some of the stadiums may have to be renovated but they will not start rebuilded the stadiums unless they are awarded the wc otherwise they will be wasting money.

Did you take the time to read this thread at all?

You have given very simplistic reasons for South Africa to host the World Cup. Please go back and see why your points 2 and 4 were refuted with objective counterpoints.

[Alberto]

Originally posted by kenntomasch


How'd your bid for 2006 go, there, sir?

How's that new Wembley coming along?

Your country going to pull off a more successful World Cup than we Yanks (who, as everyone knows, shouldn't be playing football in the first place (http://www.kenn.com/play/wanker.html)) anytime soon?

You may have to take our word for it that the 1994 World Cup was very successful, seeing as how you guys didn't get to experience it firsthand. :)

Have a nice day. And have your Mighty Titan ready.

I'm looking forward to his gem of a reply. His post was Eurosnobbery at it's worst. Tis a pity people can't recognize the good without letting their bias get in the way. England has a lot of problems with their national stadium. last I read the new Wembley was projected at almost $1.5 billion dollars and last I looked on their webcam, the Spires of old Wembley looked remarkably undemolished. :D

[gfhh]

You know despite the ongoing civil war in their country Sierra Leone was able to put together a national team that even beat Nigeria during one of it's qualifying matches for WC 2002. I'm happy to see that things are better there now, although they certainly won't host a World Cup, particularly not with Liberia, which is full of trouble.

I think Africa HAS to host 2010 and I think Egypt is probably the best choice, or perhaps Tunisia. Anyone who claims that airfare from the US is too expensive is more than a little bit off base...come on guys, do you really think tens of thousands of people from the US would even bother to go see the WC in person??? A North African country would offer Europeans an fairly easy trip. The time zones would work well for most of the rest of the world. Certainly the stadia and infrastructure is a major problem but it can be overcome in time and, let's face it, not every host nation(s) are going to be the same...that's why they call it the WORLD cup and frankly that's what makes it so damned interesting.

The world doesn't pay enough attention to Africa as it is. Hosting a WC--even in North African and not in sub-Saharan Africa--and even with some difficulty and discomfort, could make a huge difference in the worldwide attention that the continent gets. Over ONE THIRD of the population of Botswana has the HIV virus...Now that's sad!!! The more people that know about this--perhaps attention gained through WC 2010--the better off Africa will be in the future.

[DennisM]

I have to agree. Who cares about the price of the plane ride? People spend their life fortunes for this event. I agree that it will be good for Africa to host the World Cup. I just want things to bouce back first especially in South Africa. Tunisia and Morocco are the best choices. Anyway, the country with the stadiums now, the infrastructure and the money and hasn't hosted before is Canada. I would say them before any other European country. I mean unless they go to a smaller European country which would be great. I say Switzerland or Austria. It's not good to play in such hot places in the Summer. Go to the fresh air places. Anyway, the only thing I could say that Canada has against it is the distance between sites(Say Vancouver, Victoria, Toronto, Montreal and Calgary as five choices) and possibly size of stadiums. I don't think they have the biggest stadia. I think at least 50,000 for each stadium is a requirement or something. I may be wrong.

[superdave]

Originally posted by gfhh
I think Africa HAS to host 2010 and I think Egypt is probably the best choice, or perhaps Tunisia.
What is the normal temperature in July in these two nations? How many venues of 50K or more does each nation have? After the complaints about '02 being more a test of fitness than soccer, I don't think there's much chance of Egypt getting a World Cup. There are 3 games a day early in the WC, which means one game in midafternoon, and one in early evening. Maybe I'm wrong about Egypt's and Tunisia's temperatures, but I question whether that will work in July.

I know Egypt has a pretty substantial population, but I thought Tunisia is a tiny country. What is its population?

[superdave]

First this:
Originally posted by DennisM
Tunisia and Morocco are the best choices.
Then this:
It's not good to play in such hot places in the Summer.
Did you read your own post?

[GoHawks4]

I'm thinking maybe Congo can host it.

[lynesjc]

It would be a nice gesture to hold the WC in S. Africa, but I just don't think it is possible. I think the comment that they would be better off hosting it sooner rather than later is spot on.

The situation in S. Africa is getting worse, not better, and is not likely to change.

Check out:

http://www.economist.com/countries/SouthAfrica/

[gfhh]

Sure North Africa is hot in July but that's why they call it the WORLD Cup. Let's face it folks, part of the beauty of football--at least for me--is that it is a worldwide sport. This is the great strength of the sport. It's played EVERYWHERE, from the largest and strongest nations to the smallest, poorest nations. I really believe that the WC should reflect this, at least to some extent. So it's hot in Egypt or Tunisia in July...that's just something everyone will have to deal with! So they may not have the best stadia...again, it's part of the game. It reflects the state of the game worldwide not just in the countries with money. People might be surprised at how well Egypt, Tunisia, South Africa or some other fairly stable African nation might do as host.

[DennisM]

Yes, I read my own posts. But the thing is that because of a Eurocentric schedule the World Cup has to be played in the summer. However, on that basis alone you could play in South Africa or Australia in July. I think Australia would also be a good choice. But if we ignore weather for a moment then we could play in North Africa. Problem for the players especially European ones was more the long season as well as the humidity. I say if we have it North Africa then we have in April or September. Think of it Premiership matches in June. It would be better than to play in Newcastle in December. But the problem is that we have to play in the middle of summer. That's why I say Canada, Switzerland, South Africa or Australia. But I really think that they should switch it to another time of year. After all, several leagues took this past June off to play in the World Cup.

[kenntomasch]

Originally posted by DennisM
But I really think that they should switch it to another time of year. After all, several leagues took this past June off to play in the World Cup.

Yes, because you know how much FIFA will listen to the US and Finland, or whoever the heck Scandinavian country it was that also took June off.

[superdave]

Originally posted by gfhh
Sure North Africa is hot in July but that's why they call it the WORLD Cup.
I honestly have no idea, I'm just asking...what is the season for the Egyptian league? Do they play in the summer?

So they may not have the best stadia
I'm speechless in the face of this, but just wanted to highlight it.

[superdave]

Originally posted by DennisM
That's why I say Canada, Switzerland, South Africa or Australia.
Switzerland?!?!?! Could they handle a Euro championship?

Geez, why stop there. I still think Vatican City has been unfairly overlooked.

[dcc134]

How about Yugoslavia, they held a successful winter olympics not too long ago.

[kenntomasch]

Apparently Egypt goes September through June.

I didn't think there'd be much temperature variance in Egypt, but apparently there is (http://www.camacdonald.com/birding/africaegypt.htm). I'll bet their "dry season" is hell, though.

[kenntomasch]

Originally posted by dcc134
How about Yugoslavia, they held a successful winter olympics not too long ago.

1984. I'd think you'd wait until things were a little less volatile there.

[gfhh]

Hey Superdave,

Is there anything in the FIFA charter that says the World Cup HAS to be played in the best facilities in the world? I don't think so. Just because Egypt or Tunisia or South Africa might not have state of the art stadia doesn't mean that the world should tell them to f*** off.

The point I'm trying to make is that we (FIFA included) need to get away from the idea that the World Cup has to be in the most state of art stadiums in nice, comfortable and rich nations. This is the world's game and its major showcase, the World Cup, should try to reflect that.

Now, having said all of this, I know full well that it's all about money and FIFA doesn't care, etc., etc., etc. With this attitude Africa won't host the cup for a very long time so I guess this discussion is probably worthless.

[dcc134]

Originally posted by kenntomasch


1984. I'd think you'd wait until things were a little less volatile there.

Ever hear of sarcasm. I guess I forgot the ;)

[Alberto]

Originally posted by kenntomasch
Apparently Egypt goes September through June.

I didn't think there'd be much temperature variance in Egypt, but apparently there is (http://www.camacdonald.com/birding/africaegypt.htm). I'll bet their "dry season" is hell, though.

Just remember Ken those are average temperatures. In actuality, the average high for Cairo is in the mid 90's from the middle of June through the end of August.

check out this link http://goafrica.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://touregypt.net/climate.htm

Though given Egypt's political volitility, I wouldn't hold my breath for their being awarded a world cup.

[dcc134]

Originally posted by gfhh
Hey Superdave,

Is there anything in the FIFA charter that says the World Cup HAS to be played in the best facilities in the world? I don't think so. Just because Egypt or Tunisia or South Africa might not have state of the art stadia doesn't mean that the world should tell them to f*** off.

The point I'm trying to make is that we (FIFA included) need to get away from the idea that the World Cup has to be in the most state of art stadiums in nice, comfortable and rich nations. This is the world's game and its major showcase, the World Cup, should try to reflect that.

Now, having said all of this, I know full well that it's all about money and FIFA doesn't care, etc., etc., etc. With this attitude Africa won't host the cup for a very long time so I guess this discussion is probably worthless.


While it is mostly about money, it isn't necessarily about state of the art stadia. Its also about stadia which are going to fall down during the tournament. Its about having enough hotels and the infrastructure to support the fans from overseas. Its about having training facilities for the respective teams. Its about providing security for the teams and their fans.

Bottom line is if you want the WC to have any degree of success, it needs to provide everyone one of the things, and probably more, I've mentioned above. Unfortunately for the poorer countries in the world, it just doesn't make economic sense to invest the billions it would take to pull off a WC. Rich countries have most of the requirements in place, so the up front cost is far less.