Can Africa actually host in 2010?

[Alberto]

Originally posted by DoyleG


Wake up!!! They can host a major event and they can sure as hell host the World Cup. The sports in South Africa still has racist tendencies, but they are integrated. As for the incident at Ellis Park, that was dues to too many tickets being sold, not fan violence. But I guess you and the other Americans don't see it that way. If you had been watching Tri-Nations matches on TV, you would have seen the mix of South African audiences.


I never had an argument regarding the fact that sports in the RSA are integrated. I merely pointed out that unlike the USA, support of soccer and rugby really breakdown on a percentage basis along racial lines. It is not 50/50 or 60/40.

Gee wasn't that my point on the other thread? That it was a major security breach that lead to the deaths at Ellis Park.


It's become obvious to you that South Africa does have the stadia. You forgot to add venues in Bloemfontein and Pietersburg. Port Elizabeth could also be considered. You seem to forget that USA 94 was hosted with less stadia than what was needed.


Where did I say that there was ever an issue with the quality or quantity of stadia? Also, USA 94 was 24 teams not 32.



Since when do stadiums need a canopy. The Citrus Bowl didn't have a canopy. Neither did the Rose Bowl, Stanford Stadium, or Soldier Field. The South African stadiums are better prepared than US stadiums. Your points are really pathetic.

Since FIFA started insisting in their guidelines for stadia that all stadiums be all seaters, have a specific seating capacity 40,000 and recommended the installation of canopies over the seating areas. Look at the stadia used in both Japan and Korea. All stadia had canopies of varying sizes and coverage. So much for it being a pathetic point.

Here's a link to FIFA's recommendations for new and modernizing stadia

http://www.fifa2.com/scripts/runisa.dll?M2:gp::67173+stadia/reg/index+E


I take one look at the US and see no difference.


What seem to upset you is that a country you consider to be AIDS-infested and uncivilized is going to get the Cup before your little USA. You and the other Americans on the thread who are acting like idiots are nothing but a bunch of bastards.

The difference is the USA has larger stadia, and they are spread out geographically throughout the entire country.

Where did I argue about AIDS? I noted the economic statistics. Just so that you are aware the concern regarding AIDS isn't that one would be infected. It has to do with what the impact of the disease to the economy of the country as well as the pychological impact to the people and I came to debate not be insulted.

[monster]

OK, this has been a good discussion, but has moved beyond the boundries of Business and Media. I'll leave a rediect in this forum, but, after consulting with a FIFA mod, this is their kind of discussion.

[superdave]

DoyleG, you better start being nice, or the "little USA" is going to have a 51st state, Canada.

[trobinson]

Wow. I am seriously blown away with the ignorance in this thread. If people dont think South Africa shouldn't host the WC because they shouldn't waste their money, they are forgetting the biggest aspect of the WC- the money it brings. Its an investment not a waste of money. If SA needed more money to rectify some of its bigger problems holding a WC would be a good idea. First, the construction industry would boom by getting goverment contracts to make the country fit to host such a big event. Retail and sales would boom from the excess of tourists in the area. Its just like the Olympics. Everyone wants it becasue it brings in millions of dollars, not for the event itself. Plus, SA is ranked the most beautiful place on EARTH! Thats an added bonus.

[superdave]

trobinson, if SAfrica spends a billion dollars to host the WC, and it gets revenues of $500 million, would you still consider it a good idea?

You see what I'm getting at? You're blithely assuming that the money SAfrica would have to spend to meet FIFA's requirements are less than the money they'll make. And that's a questionable assumption, to say the least.

[FunGuy]

As DoyleG has noted SA doesn't have to spend nearly as much as SK, Japan did for there world cup in which like 18 new stadiums were built. SA already has the stadiums, and only needs to spent to retofit some for fifa rules. I don't know how much USA 94 had to spend, but i am sure it's wasn't that much, which would be the same for SA. I am just talking a wild guess here, but i think SA would only have to spend around 200 million US, remember labour and construction cost are much cheaper there.

[DoyleG]

Originally posted by superdave
DoyleG, you better start being nice, or the "little USA" is going to have a 51st state, Canada.

Hey Superdave!

Did Fuji run you over with his car again?

[trobinson]

Originally posted by superdave
trobinson, if SAfrica spends a billion dollars to host the WC, and it gets revenues of $500 million, would you still consider it a good idea?

You see what I'm getting at? You're blithely assuming that the money SAfrica would have to spend to meet FIFA's requirements are less than the money they'll make. And that's a questionable assumption, to say the least.

I think a billion dollars is a bit high! They already have about everything in place, especially infrastructure wise. They just need to expand and fit everything to FIFA regulations. I don't think they will lose money in the deal by any means. Plus the money SA would spend would be given to local contractors and builders further helping the economy and its construction industry..and the pay off could be or would be very big.

[kenntomasch]

Originally posted by BenReilly
Anchorage, Alaska has hosted three LIttle League World Series, so I propose that the next three World Cups are hosted there.


When did that happen? Sure it wasn't NABC?

[superdave]

trobinson, let me narrow it down for ya.
Originally posted by superdave
You're blithely assuming that the money SAfrica would have to spend to meet FIFA's requirements are less than the money they'll make. And that's a questionable assumption, to say the least.

[DoyleG]

Originally posted by Alberto
[B]
Here's a link to FIFA's recommendations for new and modernizing stadia

http://www.fifa2.com/scripts/runisa.dll?M2:gp::67173+stadia/reg/index+E

[B]

The guidelines are reccomendations and not concrete. They can be changed by FIFA if they wish to.

[blueslacker]

Nigeria to bid for World cup 2010 and olympics in 2012


http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/africa/2207674.stm

[puma182]

South Africa's "2nd world" socio/economic stats are a snapshot from the late 1990s right around when things started to slide into despair (even though data may be postmarked 2000, 2001 etc. some of these data is inherently accumilative).

A GDP of $8000 from late 90s doesn't sound so bad, but a current HIV infection rate of 40% ?!?! Make that infection rate 55% by the time 2010 rolls around (unless they find a cure).

Wait until people start dying in droves in the middle of this decade. Policemen, teachers, doctors, workers, farmers, politicians, falling one by one.

The streets of Johannesburg circa 2008 may resemble the streets of London during the bubonic plague in the 18th century.

I don't think this one is going to fly.

[puma182]

How about a UAE/Kuwait joint bid? Each of the United Arab Emirates shiekdoms (Dubai, Sharja etc.) have pretty fancy statiums (one WC class stadia each) built with oil wealth. If they come up short they can always build 2-3 more between them. It would be called Gulf2010.

I would involve the Saudi's in this too, but I think it will have the same political/terrorism turmoil that Egypt/Morocco will have.

Kuwait/UAE on the other hand are HongKong/Singapore like little city-states that run a tight ship both economically and socially.

It may not be Africa, but it's close.

[Maczebus]

You do know what temperature it gets to out there.

Summer temperatures can reach 46°C (115°F) along the coast, and coastal humidity is significantly lighter than it is during the winter. Temperatures can reach 49°C (120°F) in the desert. The khamsin frequently blows in from the south and causes sandstorms.

http://www.scherp.com/uae.htm

[DoyleG]

Originally posted by puma182
How about a UAE/Kuwait joint bid? Each of the United Arab Emirates shiekdoms (Dubai, Sharja etc.) have pretty fancy statiums (one WC class stadia each) built with oil wealth. If they come up short they can always build 2-3 more between them. It would be called Gulf2010.

I would involve the Saudi's in this too, but I think it will have the same political/terrorism turmoil that Egypt/Morocco will have.

Kuwait/UAE on the other hand are HongKong/Singapore like little city-states that run a tight ship but economically and socially.

It may not be Africa, but it's close.

Too many restrictions in the region. Alcohol is a big thing at World Cup's. The Saudi have sever bans while the UAE and Kuwait have severe restrictions on consumption. To get into these countries will require a visa, even to attend a couple of games.

The weather isn't the only concern.

[puma182]

I have been to Saudi about 15 years ago, and I know how hot it can be (even at night).

But don't think it won't be any worse temperature wise than Mexico City 1986. Humidity is another matter though and it can probably make things twice as bad.

But they do have stadiums there, and I assume people do play. As part of AFC qualifying northern teams like Japan, Korea, China regularly visit these countries and play in the heat. I don't think anyone has died from it yet.

On a different note, the climate may virtually guarantee an African country (if not Colombia or Brazil) to be the world champions that year!

;-)

[Maczebus]

It's the worst idea I've heard in a while, it even tops the idea of giving it to Morocco.

There's just far, far too many reasons why it won't happen.

So FIFA are going to give this idea the thumbs up and give 2 valuable seeding spots to UAE and Kuwait. Two teams that aren't seemingly worth a place at a WC let alone a seeding spot.

As an idea, it was dead before it even got near the water.

[puma182]

DoyleG, you are right. I had not thought about the alcohol restrictions perspective.

But that being said, I'll take that over worrying over personal security and health concerns in SA which is going to be a lot more restrictive regarding people going to / returning from games, and spilling into the streets at night. I can just imagine hapless drunk celebrating supporters being harmed in drowes and dozens at gunpoint every night all over the major cities. (unless they are in Cape Town or the Garden Route area which is indistinguishable from the french riveara).

[DoyleG]

Originally posted by puma182
I have been to Saudi about 15 years ago, and I know how hot it can be (even at night).

But don't think it won't be any worse temperature wise than Mexico City 1986. Humidity is another matter though and it can probably make things twice as bad.

But they do have stadiums there, and I assume people do play. As part of AFC qualifying northern teams like Japan, Korea, China regularly visit these countries and play in the heat. I don't think anyone has died from it yet.

On a different note, the climate may virtually guarantee an African country (if not Colombia or Brazil) to be the world champions that year!

;-)

The tournament then would have to be played a couple of moths before or after the usual time. The qualifying matches were played late summer/early fall. Giventhe conditions, it would make more sense to play in Africa in 2010.

It's harder to get to the Middle East than either Korea or Japan.

It's easier to get into South Africa.