Can Africa actually host in 2010?

[kasai]

People are forgetting that South Africa lost out on the 2006 WC by one vote. FIFA will not be able to award the cup to any other confederation IMHO. Africa will have WC2010, and South Africa is the logical choice.

What wouldn't surprise me is if by 2007 or 2008 it is determined that South Africa cannot host the cup and it is moved to another country. Then maybe the U.S. is a good choice.





MOD NOTE: This was split from the Future of U.S. Soccer thread

[saabrian]

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

You'd have to not play during that timeframe (mid-June to mid-July), but it'd be strange to just have a month disappear out of the heart of your season. A split-season, while it would obviously draw the ire of most traditionalists (but what doesn't?) might be at least one workable solution to what's sure to be a sticky wicket.

Africa will host the 2010 World Cup. Most likely South Africa. The next opportunity for the US would be 2014.

[voros]

Originally posted by Vicar


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.

You're forgetting Australia in the discussion. They could probably do it without too much trouble (with Sydney 2000 as a blueprint).

[kenntomasch]

Originally posted by saabrian
Africa will host the 2010 World Cup. Most likely South Africa. The next opportunity for the US would be 2014.

Well, there you have it. Book your flights now.

[geordienation]

Originally posted by saabrian


Africa will host the 2010 World Cup. Most likely South Africa. The next opportunity for the US would be 2014.

Give me 8 stadia that could host it in South Africa.

OOPS. They don't have 8 WC-Quality stadia.

And unlike Korea and Japan, who actually have working economies, they don't have the money to build them.

[saabrian]

Originally posted by geordienation


Give me 8 stadia that could host it in South Africa.

OOPS. They don't have 8 WC-Quality stadia.

And unlike Korea and Japan, who actually have working economies, they don't have the money to build them.

I guess you must be more informed than the FIFA Executive committee of which a 50% - 1 voted for South Africa's 2006 bid and in which SA missed a majority only because of Oceania's rep abstained even though the confederation told him to vote for SA

[kenntomasch]

http://www.worldstadiums.com/africa/countries/south_africa.shtml

They have several large stadia in South Africa, but I have no idea if they're in good shape or not. Ditto with their infrastructure or economy, I have no idea.

[geordienation]

Originally posted by saabrian


I guess you must be more informed than the FIFA Executive committee of which a 50% - 1 voted for South Africa's 2006 bid and in which SA missed a majority only because of Oceania's rep abstained even though the confederation told him to vote for SA

Look, I don't want to get into a pissing match. Africa has deep, deep problems which have only gotten worse since that vote was taken. South Africa had huge stadia issues even at the time of the vote and would have required an influx of cash to stage the WC. They have also been counting on foreign investment to create more accomodation infrastructure, but that's dried up as well. If the same vote were taken today, it wouldn't be nearly as close.

As a rule of thumb, look at losers in the Olympic bidding process. Often times, runners up will drop out and not re-submit (Beijing being a notable exception). When South Africa re-submits their bid and there are no credible alternatives from more developed parts of the world, then they'll the be front-runner.

[geordienation]

OK, I split the threads. Africa discussion here and U.S. Soccer Federation talk over there.

[superdave]

Originally posted by geordienation
South Africa had huge stadia issues even at the time of the vote and would have required an influx of cash to stage the WC.
With the cash crunch at FIFA, caused by the bankruptcy of Sepp's TV pals, this isn't going to fly too well.

Plus, Africa was one of the leading confeds trying to oust Blatter this spring.

[ursula]

Originally posted by geordienation


Give me 8 stadia that could host it in South Africa.

OOPS. They don't have 8 WC-Quality stadia.

And unlike Korea and Japan, who actually have working economies, they don't have the money to build them.


Funny, this looks like the start of a pissing contest to me.

geordie, you need to be more upfront with your facts and less arrogant if you want to show any credibility here to anyone who has a real understanding of South Africa. From the above post, and the other one, and the post you made on the US bid for 2010, you look like a a man who can site some facts but has absolutely no idea of the actual situation.

[Real Ray]

Originally posted by geordienation
As a rule of thumb, look at losers in the Olympic bidding process. Often times, runners up will drop out and not re-submit (Beijing being a notable exception). When South Africa re-submits their bid and there are no credible alternatives from more developed parts of the world, then they'll the be front-runner.


Danny Jordaan at the WC already said he would bid for the Confederations Cup "If we win the bid , we will use it as a warm-up ahead of the World Cup in 2010 because it will give us an idea of where we need to improve in the future," said Jordaan.

Asked about what he has learnt from the Koreans and Japanese as one of the directors of the World Cup currently taking place in the Far East, Jordaan listed some of the factors he attributed to the success of the tourney.

"There are a lot of things that the co-hosts got right to make sure the tournament ran smoothly but one of the most important was the infrastructure.

"The two countries jointly spent about R30 billion to build world-class stadiums in preparation of the World Cup.

"Even though we have limited financial resources, we can still improve the stadiums we have.

"Public transport is also one of the biggest challenges we face.

"We need to have the capacity to transport about two million soccer supporters between different cities and that is a challenge. The bullet trains came in handy here because they have high capacity, are safe and fast," Jordaan said.

At the end of the day, it comes down not to S.A. stadia or some of the other issues people love to throw up, but the will of both the west and Fifa to see that it works. Also, I don't think most Americans understand the scar that the sactions left on S.A., and the how important it would be for the country to stage this event-the idea that South Africans won't...what, "behave?"

It would be nice to see west step-up and see this event take place in S.A., but I aint holding my breath.

[owendylan]

Originally posted by voros


You're forgetting Australia in the discussion. They could probably do it without too much trouble (with Sydney 2000 as a blueprint).

This will not happen. The Aussie federation has no money and playing games in Aussie Rules stadiums won't fly with FIFA. hey don't have enough quality stadiums or the money to build new ones. Also the government has come out against submitting a bid. This one will go nowhere quickly.

[neilgrossman]

As I see it, there are two ways that we can get the 2010 games.

1) FIFA decides that Africa can't handle it or the economics are so much better here that they award it to the US instead.

2) The games are awarded to an African country. FIFA monitors their progress building stadiums, etc. and realizes it will never be ready in time. They look for another country as a replacement and realize the US is by far the best choice. Without any construction, the US had 3 dozen huge stadium to pick from. The US is also used to handeling big events, so they won't need much time to get ready.

I think #2 is more likely than #1 for the 2010 games. If that doesn't happen, I think we'll get 2014.

[Claymore]

Assuming a 50K seat stadium as a minimum for hosting WC matches, South Africa has six:

FNB Stadium, Johannesburg 90K capacity
Ellis Park, Johannesburg 63K capacity
Odi Stadium, Pretoria 60K capacity
ABSA Stadium, Durban 55K capacity (built 1957)
Loftus Versfeld, Pretoria 52K capacity (built 1924)
Newlands, Capetown 50K capacity


Just an FYI to move the discussion along

[Red Star]

Morocco is in Africa.

I think Morocco will get it.
They have consistently bid on it and I believe they came very close in 1994. Close to Europe. Stable. The government has publicly committed to the anticipated infrastructure expenses in the past. They have players in Europe.

My Candidate for 2010, Morocco.

[Golazo]

One factor that I don't think has been mentioned is the ability of the host nation to fill the stadia. Crowds at some of the more obscure games (cue my wife "You're getting up at 2:00 a.m. to watch who? against what?") at KJ02 were looking a little sparse, and there was much talk about the embarrassment this caused. Clearly the ticket distribution contributed, but was not the whole story.

I am not sure that S. Africa or Morocco could fill the stadia at the prices that FIFA or an organizing committee would likely charge.

[Real Ray]

Originally posted by Golazo
One factor that I don't think has been mentioned is the ability of the host nation to fill the stadia. Crowds at some of the more obscure games (cue my wife "You're getting up at 2:00 a.m. to watch who? against what?") at KJ02 were looking a little sparse, and there was much talk about the embarrassment this caused. Clearly the ticket distribution contributed, but was not the whole story.

I am not sure that S. Africa or Morocco could fill the stadia at the prices that FIFA or an organizing committee would likely charge.

Yes, this is true, and in the article that posted, Danny Jordaan noted that this was a problem they would have to deal with.

[snorklefish]

From the CIA world fact book: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

Per capita GDP: $8,500 (2000 est.)
50% of South Africans are at or below the poverty line. (2000)
Unemployment rate is 30% (2000)
Life expectancy at birth is 48 years. (2001)
20% of the population has AIDS/HIV. (1999)

For comparison, in South Korea:

Per capita GDP: $16,100 (2000 est.)
Unemployment rate is 4.1% (2000)
Life expectancy at birth is 74.65 years
0.01% of the population has AIDS/HIV. (1999)

[saabrian]

Listen, I understand what you're saying and you make some valid points. Africa does have deep problems, but it's not Africa who is going to host the World Cup. It's going to be South Africa (or Morrocco or whatever).

FIFA has already decided that the World Cups will be rotated by continents starting with 2010, which will be somewhere in Africa. So when South Africa re-submits its bid, they won't be credible alternatives from more developed parts of the world, because FIFA has already said so. Now, FIFA may change its mind, but for now, I'm operating on the assumption they won't.

One other poster mentioned 6 stadia in South Africa which have at least 50,000 places (and didn't a few SK/Japan stadia have fewer than that?).

I suspect locals will be able to fill the stadia. South Africa is a far more football mad country than USA was in '94 or even SK and Japan were before '02. The only real question is if the ticket prices will be exorbitant or not.

South Africa hosted a very successful African Nations Cup in '96. Now, the CAN is NOT the World Cup, particularly in terms of media infrastructure required, especially since the explosion of the Internet that has occurred since then. But upgrading is hardly as inconceivable as some people here have convinced themselves.

I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand, at least not with pan-African generalizations (Africa this, Africa that). At least come up with stuff specific to the South Africa.