Franz calls England "only serious candidate" Normally, a Euro blowing on a radio show in the country he's blowing about doesn't mean much, but since he's on the FIFA Executive Board that will decide, Beckenbauer probably actually has some pull on this. I just find it so amusing how much FIFA claims to want to grow the sport globally, yet they're already demanding the World Cup back to Europe, a year after the World Cup was in Europe... So, I guess we need to gear up for a World Cup 2022 run...or wait for 2010 to fall into our laps...
I think that 2014 is more likely to fall into our laps than 2010. Brazil is in pretty bad shape with no signs of improving. They'd probably rather let us have that one and say that "The Americas" only deserves one with cup per rotation. I hate FIFA.
While I feel pretty certain that the 2010 World Cup is going to suck for the fans in attendance and there will be a lot of issues that maybe aren't as publicized during the event, FIFA has their stubborn heads set on Africa hosting a WC. If they can do that, then they can say that at least 5 continents have hosted, and the other two are islands (if you will permit) that can't really count in the rotation scheme. There was a good article about 2014 on soccernet last week, I believe, about how the Brazil infrastructure is a nightmare, the facilities with a rare exception are crumbling, that there are problems with violence and security amongst the populace, that people wouldn't be able to travel easily from venue to venue, that the recent air safety record in Brazil is very troubling (the 200 dead crash hasn't been the only one recently), etc. etc. The Pan American games is sort of a mini-test to see if just one city alone is capable of hosting a self-contained event of if even that will show serious issues. As much as people complain about Europe always getting the nod and clamoring for more Cup hostings, I think there is some legitimacy to it when you look at the infrastructure readily in place and compare that to places outside of Europe, USA/Canada, and Japan.
There are two reasons why Europe should get the World Cup most of the time: 1) It's where all the money is 2) It's where the infrastructure is Sepp Blatter awarded a WC to Asia and has backed this one in Africa because the representatives of those countries, which hold most of the votes but which contribute almost none of the money, keep Blatter in power. Someone needs to explain to me why Zimbabwe's vot counts as much as Germany's. Asia was geographically ridiculous and South Africa is a nightmare in a million ways (not the least of which is that, aside from an impossible transportation and communications problem which simply will not be solved, period, they will not be able to guarantee visitor's personal safety. The streets are controlled by criminal gangs and most of the country can be a very dangerous place. Leaving your hotel can mean your life. If they do attempt to go ahead and hold the WC there, which I very much doubt, it will be a disaster of monumental poportions. South Koreahad a similar - but much smaller - probelm which they solved with a massive, overwhelming paramilitary police presence. Look corsseyed at a foreigner, get the crap kicked out of you in the back of a police van on the way to prison. Very simple. SA has no capacity for hat sort of thing, and in any case the problem is 10000 times worse. Trying to hold a World Cup in a crumbling, rat infested third world shithole is ridiculous.
Sounds kinda familiar... Like the 2010 WC. Plus I saw this documentary about American tourist to Brazil. They were taken to this place in the jungle to have their organs removed and sold on the black market. Wait.. maybe that wasn't a documentary. I'll bet the US gets either 2010 or 2014. I think England is a logical next host, especially if its 2018. France and Germany recently hosted. If you're going to complain about Englands "hooligans" Italy is just as bad/worse. And with their recent scandals do you want to award them the WC? Who else is there really? FIFA did decide to stop rotating between the continents after 2010 right?
I think Spain is another Euro country that could host, maybe even someplace like Sweden (not sure of their stadium sizes). I also wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the next 20 years countries of the former Eastern Bloc (Poland and Ukraine might be the best bet from a size standpoint, not sure Czech could do it) come into the conversation to help share the wealth around, if you will.
Spain is the obvious alternative to England in Europe. Just saying I don't see Italy getting it due to their current scandals. Was going to mention that their (Italy's) stadiums didn't seem up to par of England, or Spain, for that matter. Didn't mention stadiums because that is so far away time-wise. Suppose the Netherlands could probably put in a competative and realistic bid. If, say the U.S. gets the 2010 WC on an emergency basis and Brazil can't go in 2014. It's going to be down to Spain and England probably. Then where would they go in 2018? They'd try and find something probably before the other got it in 2022 (at which point Italy may re-enter the discussion) Not sure about the quality of stadia and such for Mexico, Argentina, or maybe even Chile. They may or may not be realistic options, not sure. Would have put Brazil in there but apparantly, not so much. But I was focusing on Europe since that's the cash cow of soccer and you know it will be there every third, if not every other, WC at least for the time being. I think the next alternatives are a Poland, Russia, Australia, or Turkey (again if we're talking 2018 we're already looking 10 years ahead). While I don't think any of these are feasible now, they may be in 15-20 years or more.
Though you may be correct about South Africa, I think you are way off regarding South Korea. I lived there for a couple of years, and was there during the WC. I have never felt safer any place else on earth (before, during, or after the WC). It isn't heaven on earth, but dangerous, it is not. South Korea is extremely safe, with a very, very low crime rate and an even lower violent crime rate. The police presence was most likely from their fear of hooliganism from European fans. They also wanted to look good to other countries. To imply that it is run by gangs or that foreigners would have had a different experience without the police presence is wrong, IMHO. The paramilitary police presence you speak of can also be seen on any given Saturday in Seoul. They use it for protests (usually related to some labor or political issue), which are usually peaceful but get a huge police presence anyway. It also isn't an island, which was implied by KK (unless you were talking about Japan and England as the islands). Anyway, sorry for the interruption . . . back to the thread.
You mean when KK said this? I think he meant that 5 of 7 continents would have been represented recently. The only two not being represented being islands in Australia and Antartica.
Survey Says.............. *ding*! You got it! The idea is that Blatter could stick a feather in his cap and say "Look! We've brought the tournament to the far reaches of the world! We're totally about including you inferior nations!" (that isn't directed at Japan or SK, who I think are much better than SA, in regards to their team's ability, more at the minnow voters). The next time either Africa or Asia host it will be a long time away, and the closest you'll get is Australia hosting while maybe still being in the Asian federation instead of Oceanianic or whatever. I have a hard time seeing the WC going back to Africa anytime soon unless something drastically changes.
I'd think England is unlikely in 2014 due to the Olympics being in London in 2012. Given the politics of international sport, most countries would probably vote to send the WC somewhere else.
Apparently Brazil has put it's name in the hat. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/soccer/07/31/bc.soc.wcup2014.brazil.ap/index.html Also says they are the only current bid since Columbia withdrew its bid. Artical seems to be saying that 2014 is Brazil's as long as they pass FIFA inspection this fall. I had thought that FIFA decided against the continent rotation thing after SA2010. Are other countries non submitting bids out of deferrance or is the rotation still in effect? If non-S. American countries are able to bid, I wonder if the fact that the U.S. has not made one means anything regarding S. Africa's ability to host in 2010.
The rotation is still in effect until the 2014 has been picked. So Brazil is the only bid because it's contained to S. America. It seems like people are saying it will be tough, perhaps, for Brazil to pass the inspections. That's why the date (~Oct. 20th) will be to make an announcement if the Brazil bid has been accepted. This could also be the date when they say that it isn't and will open up the bids again to N. American countries. So no US bid at this time doesn't mean anything, because it would be a bad political move for them to try and take it out of S. America at this time, but that could change in <3months time when FIFA asks for alternatives (if they go that route).
The leader of the inspection team is apparently an American. My guess is that this will make them more likely than not to pass Brazil for fear of looking rigged. Assuming they don't want the appearance of impropriety, which is maybe an assumption that shouldn't be made knowing FIFA. I'm not saying Brazil shouldn't be able to host. I have no idea. In fact that would be a fun trip to think about.
Mmmmmm, no. 1968 Olympics in Mexico, 1970 WC in Mexico; 1972 Olympics in Germany, 1974 WC in Germany. The games and the WC have become too expensive for most countries to afford taking one after the other like this.