From today's New York Times: "Australia said last week that it wanted to play host to the 2014 World Cup, perhaps in conjunction with New Zealand. But it is believed that the United States has the inside track. It is also likely that the United States will play host to next summer's FIFA Confederations Cup." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/05/sports/soccer/06SOCCER.html (scroll down in column) Anyone with any confirm on this? This would be great.
2014 World Cup?!?! Conmebol has allready agreed to back up the CBF so that Brazil can host the 2014 World Cup. There hasnt been a World Cup in South America since Argentina 78. Its due time that the Worldo Cup returned to South America.. Also FIFA wants France to host the Confeds Cup because UEFA allready stated that their teams will not participate in said Tourney. Having the Cup in Europe can be some sort of Bargain to get their teams to participate. If the Cup is Hosted in the U.S i wonder if the UEFA National teams will play in it ???
Wrong VS, UEFA said that they will send teams to the 2003 and 2005 tournaments, but won't participate after that. I think FIFA wants it in France to ensure that they play, despite the fact that UEFA said they will be a part of it, France might not want to play.
i am all for the world cup in 2014 being here where ever the US plays... i will be there no one can run it better than us... no one
Money talks at FIFA kids. And nowhere can they make more of it than holding it in the USA. Mark my words. USA is gonna get it, no bones about it.
as the US showed in 94, they can even sellout 70,000 seat stadiums for saudi arabia vs. morroco. Nowhere else would that happen.
If it comes down to money, it will be held in the US. But, if we are talking about giving it to who deserves it it should go to South America. The US may have sold out games that wouldnt sell out anywhere else, but the fans were dead and didnt understand the game. For my sake, i hope it is held in the USA.
How are we defining "deserves" on this thread? Its a word that come sup over and over agin on bigsoccer--yet is rarely defined. From what I can tell, here it is used as follows: Deserves = Having Brazil and Argentina on your continent. Wow--that's a really bad definition.
VS...what is Brazil's stadium situation? Can they host a 32 team World Cup currently? If not (and I'm assuming not) how many venues will they have to build? My feeling is, if a nation like Japan and SoKo made a dumb economic decision to host 1/2 a World Cup, it's probably a dumb economic decision for Brazil. But they may have alot more suitable venues than I think. There's a saying about Brazil...it's the country of the future, and it always will be. (I heard that in grad school.) If they have to spend $3-4B for new places to play in order to get this, that's the sort of decision that makes this cliche true. Also, I would think Europe would be reluctant to play there. I've seen people say that FIFA handed Germany the World Cup by putting it there in 2006. Imagine what people would say about Brazil!!
I don't know what games you went to in 94. But that was not my experience. The Italy-Ireland game was one of the most charged crowds I'd seen at a sporting event.
I think when someone says a continent deserves to host a World Cup, they mean that South America hasn't hosted one since 1978 in Argentina. That is actually a pretty long time.
This is just a silly ploy by the Costa Rican FA to get themselves invited, as the US would be there as the hosts and CR would represent TFC/Concacaf as the 2nd place team from the last Gold Cup. I'm sure Dr. Bob is drinking some fine coffee now...
This is the BIG LIE that would make even Hitler blush. The USA is the ONE and only place where every match will have passionate fans.
Re the "Money Angle" I constantly see the bit about FIFA and the US money angle. For the record, according to the head of the Japanese organizing committee, the local organizers get ticket revenues and some of the local sponsorship revenues. FIFA gets the TV revenues and the tournament sponsorship revenues. So, the only money advantage the US has, (Big Ticket revenue) is not something that benefits FIFA. Ergo, 65,000 fans in the stadium is something that benefits US soccer but is certainly not a bribe that will compel FIFA to give any World Cup to the US. Until ABC/NBC/CBS starts paying the same for the television rights to the World Cup as they do the Olympics, the US will not get any sort of preferential treatment. Of course, in 2014, Canada is highly unlikely to bid, Mexico wouldn't get a third and most of the South American countries would be hard pressed economically to host it, so the US will still have a good chance if FIFA is seroius about rotation. Unless some Brazilian politician decides that there is political benefit in hosting.
I don't think they did. I had the same reaction as you did when I read the original post, but that evening saw a blurb on the news about the bailout...Mexico may have been one of the nations in the consortium that coughed up $30B, but they didn't do it all themselves. Mario, check your pms.
Re: Re the "Money Angle" the anti-americanism is rampant in this thread. Anyone who thinks a South American country is gonna get it over the USA doesn't even believe it themselves.
Re: Re: Re the "Money Angle" Anti-americanism? There was nothing anti-american in my post...I save that for the World rivalries board. All I was doing was responding to the fact that given that there is little to no financial incentive to give the US another World Cup. Plain and simple. So, without any advantage, the US is just another nation wanting to host and that puts you behind Brazil if Brazil finds the werewithal to bid...something I doubt. To put it in terms a you might understand: Brazil=NY Yankees US=Texas Rangers