Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'FIFA and Tournaments' started by Goforthekill, May 12, 2012.
Sure. But Latin America is anti American as it is. And Europe if anyone would make a stand.
Soldier Field has already been replaced in my opinion. That thing they plopped down on top of Soldier Field is not Soldier field.
where do you get such a foolish idea ?
We latin americans are very proud to be american.
Miami's stadium is not old anymore. It is a new State of the art facility after renovations this past summer (which is why the Copa America Centenario could not take place there.)
Soldier Field was not on the cut list of the 2022 bid. Indianapolis was.
I can't speak to the Latin American people's feeling about the USA (although I imagine it's varied and complicated), but the FA's through their representatives vote, not the people. If a USA World Cup delivers more cash, or promises better luxury suites in the hotels and stadiums, that will be a strong factor.
That's interesting, I hear Indianapolis is a nice town, but Chicago is much bigger. Shows how the people who chose these things are looking much more at the stadium eminites that they will be in than concern for plebiscite.
I read after the redo they pitched a corporate name for Soldeir Field, but there was enough push back that they decided not to abandon the veterans that the stadium was named in honor.
A bit off-topic, but I often wonder why corporations push for comprehensive renames of stadiums rather than simply adding their name to the beginning of the stadium's original name and getting what they want while still preserving the stadiums intrinsic integrity. It makes no sense. Noone can even keep up with stadium names these days, but if you simply call something, say... Standard and Poor's Soldier Field, then fans at least still have something to latch onto while the corporation still get's it's advert. Doing it the way that they do often results in a situation such as the old Candlestick where after multiple renames ppl were still calling it simply "Candlestick". Noone even remembers who's sponsoring it. Look at FNB in South Africa, everyone just calls it Soccer City, whereas if they'd added their name to the established one, they might get people to identify their brand with the known identifier rather than feeling compelled to have to choose between the two.
2026 World Cup bids: Morocco to join with Spain and Portugal?
"Morocco is reportedly considering a new strategy to challenge north America for the 2026 World Cup ... teaming up with Spain and Portugal who lost out in the race for 2018 ... could present a serious challenge since it would have the backing of Africa, much of the Arab world and Europe, representing a huge chunk of the FIFA membership ... Morocco lost bids to host the World Cup in 1994, 1998, 2006, and 2010, losing out to the United States, France, Germany, and South Africa respectively. No other nation has launched as many bids without ever gaining hosting rights."
Warning from Infantino
From CONCACAF President
Why do I get the feeling FIFA is setting up to screw North America out of yet another world cup?
I wonder if the USA decides not to bid for the 2026 World Cup, Canada will be able to host this tournament alone.
A citizen thinks Canada will do it.
Not, North America.
Only the United States.
Both Canada and Mexico, don't have silly migratory rules, so this warning set by Infantino, doesn't affect them.
I'd classify it as bargaining.
<*shrug*> Meh. Just more posturing. It's meaningless beyond Infantino cozying up to some much needed third world support. Trump is unlikely to be in office in 2026. Qatar and Russia probably have their own visa issues. In the end, its always convenient for the host to open the gates during a WC and there is little to worry about.
Trump certainly won't be in office in 2026. Even if reelected, he'd be out by January 2025. But he will be in office when they decide where to put the World Cup.
Difference between visa requirements and all-out travel bans.
LOL, you are welcome to have any opinion you like. What Russia and Trump (not the US as a whole) have done is reprehensible. You can categorize each one as worse or better how you like. However take a look at the following.
Putin had a travel ban with Egypt and Turkey in effect for a full year in 2015-16. This only months after the Crimea annexation. Censure from UEFA. No censure from FIFA that I can find.
Trump had one with Iran and a handful of countries who will never go to a World Cup. It was struck down by courts in a matter of days. He's trying once more but already it's being challenged in court. Censure from FIFA.
Like I said. Posturing and politics. Infantino knows that he has the backing of UEFA and the US. They will not pull support from him easily as long as he keeps a minimum of decorum. Because of this the rest of the football world views him with suspicion. He needs to give this impression of being a supporter of the smaller countries but I think there is no bite behind this bark against the US.
A couple of things:
1. America often gets held to a double standard. Our central role in international policy breeds a lot of resentment.
2. I would like to think that if bidding were held now Russia wouldn't be selected. Not only for FIFA reasons, but also because Russia's actions on the international stage have been quite deplorable lately.
The actions Russia took that you talk about took place after they were awarded hosting rights in 2009. It's one thing for FIFA to say a nation's actions might harm its chances to be awarded World Cup hosting rights. It's another thing for FIFA to say a nation's actions go far enough to have already awarded hosting rights be revoked.
With the World Cup a little over a year away, FIFA is probably trying to salvage what they can out of the Russia World Cup, and criticizing Russia's actions will only result in more bad publicity. I think they'd rather ignore Russia's bad actions and hope that fans and sponsors do as well. Cynical politics, sure, but understandable.
The bare minimum requirement for a host nation must be to let in a team's players and delegation. This applies if Israel qualifies to Qatar 2022. This applies if Iran qualifies to a US-hosted World Cup. Without this much flexibility the sporting integrity of the competition is at stake.
Travelling fans are a different matter altogether. It is unreasonable to expect a country to override its political stance in order to host a sports event. There will always be political conflicts that seep into sports and that can not be prevented. Unless a country has a highly unreasonable stance towards a large number of nations when it comes to travel this can not be a main consideration when awarding the World Cup.
Agreed and I think going forward we will see more proxy politics with the FIFA Congress choosing the host. So if a country isn't seen favorably on an international level forget about hosting.
It all depends on the extent of the backlash. If Trump is just a four year blip then it may not be an issue. But what if the ban is here to stay post-2020/2024?
I don't think it is unreasonable at all to expect that.If country can't suspend its antipathy for other countries during the month or whatever they host the World Cup, then they have no business being the host. Are you seriously suggesting Qatar should be free to bar Israeli fans from coming to Qatar and supporting their team in 2022? Or the U.S. to bar Iranian fans from coming in 2026?
You can't ask a nation to override its security protocol in order to host a sports event. And often a political stance is masked as exactly that - homeland security. In the Iranian example, even without Trump's ban it would be difficult for someone in Iran to successfully apply for a US visa. You can't ask a country to change its visa process every time it hosts a competition. Some nations will always be given preferred access over others. Let's not be naive. Sometimes the visa hurdles are so high it might as well be a quasi-ban. Obviously a country like Saudi Arabia that doesn't even issue general tourist visas should not be given a World Cup but an existing travel ban for one or two of the participants is not a deal-breaker in my book. And with the looming expansion to 48 teams expect even more political conflicts to bubble to the surface.
Like I said earlier, no country will ever provide "fair access" to all World Cup tourists. Therefore it's important to move it around so that hopefully everybody gets an opportunity to attend. Qatar, in spite of the Iran-GCC conflict in the Gulf, is probably still more accessible for Irani fans than a US hosted World Cup.
I don't believe it will be. For one thing, the ban is designed to be temporary. For another, even Republicans aren't exactly lining up to support it. They'll defend the President for political reasons but most in power do not care for this policy. I cannot see the next President after Trump, even if it's a Republican heck even if it's Pence, supporting this policy long term.
So I don't believe it will be an issue during the 2026 World Cup. But it and other Trump policies may be issues during bidding for the 2026 World Cup, which will be much sooner.
The ban, as it currently is, is not enforceable under American law. Nor is it currently in force at this moment.
To be fair those migratory rules, even if they stand legal scrutiny, only last 90 days if I'm not mistaken. That is unless the oversized Oompa Loompa extends them.