2030 World Cup

Discussion in 'FIFA and Tournaments' started by Nico Limmat, Jun 4, 2017.

  1. Ofori

    Ofori Red Card

    Inter Milan
    Ghana
    May 9, 2020
    Yeah I have no problem honoring that but in 2034 then I say give it to the UK but 2030 then I would give it to Uruguay/Argentina/Paraguay
     
  2. Every Four Years

    May 16, 2015
    Miramar, Florida
    Nat'l Team:
    India
    Wait do you want it in South America or Spain/Portugal? :confused:
     
  3. Ofori

    Ofori Red Card

    Inter Milan
    Ghana
    May 9, 2020
    Thinking about it I want it in South America over Iberia for 2030 now because in a way it feels like you are honoring history especially where it all began in 1930
     
  4. PabloSanDiego

    PabloSanDiego Member+

    West Ham United
    United States
    Jan 18, 2014
    San Diego, CA
    Club:
    West Ham United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    so you ask "why would people much rather 'travel around Iberia' exactly". I'll give you my own PERSONAL reasons. By no means am I claiming this is the majority opinion of Americans, never mind the rest of the world's citizens. but I would MUCH rather have it in Iberia. I think both bids offer similar stadium experiences. Yes, the EPL stadiums are probably "nicer" and UK's infrastructure superior, but not so much so it makes a difference to me. My preference is driven by the other-than-football parts of attending a World Cup which are massively important to me. Note I've been to both countries many times.

    as a Yank, I find the UK boring. Yeah it's different from the US but obviously with the language and our heritage, it's way more similar than Spain/Portugal. It doesn't feel exotic. I would never go there for vacation/holiday.

    London is an amazing cosmopolitan city, but I find Madrid much more fun and vibrant. I've visited both the coasts of Portugal and Spain several times and it's amazing during the summer. I remember being blown away by the scene in Albufeira one summer. There is nothing like it in England. Europeans go in droves to Spain/Portugal in the summer. Do you ever hear of Euros taking their summer holiday in England?

    I've been to many of the other cities in England and they feel more or less the same to me, and not that interesting at all. Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham. OK throw in Wales, Scotland and N Ireland and it becomes a little more varied but still doesn't compare to the diversity of cities an Iberian bid would offer.

    Weather: hands down going to be better in Spain.

    Food: while there are many great restaurants in London, I find the food at smaller, inexpensive restaurants way better in Spain. This will apply even more so when considering cities outside of London and Madrid.

    I get it there are pluses to a joint UK bid. The stadiums are big and nice. It will be far easier to get around with the train system and closer cities. They know how to stage a big international tournament and will do a good job organizing. But I don't think the differences are that big between the bids.

    So bottom line...I'm at an age where I only have a handful of World Cups left. I want to go somewhere memorable where I'm going to have an amazing time in addition to the football. So for me that means Iberia >>> UK.
     
    r0adrunner repped this.
  5. PabloSanDiego

    PabloSanDiego Member+

    West Ham United
    United States
    Jan 18, 2014
    San Diego, CA
    Club:
    West Ham United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'll add on that to me (and I think to FIFA too), this reason is way down on the list. After a selection is made based on more important criteria (money being the biggest), if they select South America or the UK there will be some hype of these heritage factors, but they aren't going to drive the decision. And the South American 100 year anniversary reasoning is a lot stronger than the "birthplace of football" factor.
     
    r0adrunner and Ofori repped this.
  6. Ofori

    Ofori Red Card

    Inter Milan
    Ghana
    May 9, 2020
    Exactly what I tried to say but you more so beat me to the punch
     
    PabloSanDiego repped this.
  7. Ofori

    Ofori Red Card

    Inter Milan
    Ghana
    May 9, 2020
    Exactly what I tried to say. The World Cup being in South America in 2030 is only right considering 100 years ago in 1930 this whole tournament started and was played on South American soil. So shouldn't we honor that 100 years later in 2030 by having the World Cup hosted in South America? Yes I can understand homerism especially when it comes to wanting a World Cup in the UK but would rather it be in South America if anything mainly to honor the history of this tournament and just how it all began and how it has continued on for decades and still continues on.
     
    PabloSanDiego repped this.
  8. Ofori

    Ofori Red Card

    Inter Milan
    Ghana
    May 9, 2020
    But it is official as of now:

    Spain and Portugal have put together a joint bid for 2030...it has been speculated for quite some time but now as of last night, the bid is now an official bid. Portuguese president Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa and Spanish king King Felipe VI signed the agreement to support this bid.
     
  9. Crawleybus

    Crawleybus Member+

    Oct 18, 2013
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    But it IS about football though isn't it!! Obviously its only YOUR opinion too, personally I find Spain very dull (I have been there many times though because its 'cheap' for a holiday), Turkey is MUCH more exciting (for one example), London has more tourists than any other city on the planet (apart from perhaps Paris). But most importantly of all the FACT is Spain had the World Cup in 82 - its NOT their turn, cities in the UK are far more 'cosmopolitan' than in Spain, the facilities are better and as for weather?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2643743

    Temperatures around 23-26 degrees C, just about IDEAL for a Summer football tournament don't you think!? Once temperatures get close to 30 its too hot, the games become very slow and generally pretty dull.

    Or perhaps we should just hold the World Cup in the Maldives every year for the weather?
     
  10. bigsoccertst1

    bigsoccertst1 Member+

    United States
    Sep 22, 2017
    Would you mind explaining what do you mean by UEFA countries having a reserved turn at hosting the World Cup?

    Germany hosted it again after 32 years. Italy did after 56 years. While France did after 60 years.

    When FIFA wanted another UEFA host, it chose 1 out of 4 bids, as to maximize non-taxed revenue: Russia. Spain-Portugal got 2nd place in that vote, while England was dead last.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/9250585.stm

    Will the UK/England offer FIFA any kickbacks this time around?
     
    Ofori and Cosmin10 repped this.
  11. r0adrunner

    r0adrunner Member+

    Jun 4, 2011
    London, UK
    Club:
    AS Roma
    Nat'l Team:
    Italy
    By 2030 UEFA would not have had a WC for 12 years, so it is UEFA's turn.

    Plus a CONMEBOL WC - and I agree that as regards the centenary, the bid featuring Uruguay is far more compelling than the birthplace of association football argument the UK could advance - would mean two consecutive WCs in the Americas time zone and three of the last five. That is unfair.
     
    PabloSanDiego repped this.
  12. Crawleybus

    Crawleybus Member+

    Oct 18, 2013
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    I don't remember saying anything about a 'reserved' turn, but the fact is though Spain hosted in 82, Germany has hosted TWICE since the UK last hosted, even Mexico has hosted TWICE since the UK last hosted! It's undoubtedly the UK's 'turn'. If the decision is based on facilities there is NO WHERE on the planet that is, right now, in a better position to host. As for the 'tradition' argument well if it wasn't for the UK then NO c*** on this planet would be holding a World Cup in 2022, 2026 or 2030! As much as people hate the idea the fact is football is an English sport that the world has fallen in love with.
     
  13. PabloSanDiego

    PabloSanDiego Member+

    West Ham United
    United States
    Jan 18, 2014
    San Diego, CA
    Club:
    West Ham United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    no it's not only about football only. If that were true, the WC would only rotate between a few western European countries.

    And bringing up Maldives is stupid. I was comparing weather in Spain v England.

    If your opinion is that summertime in Spain is "very dull", well OK. I don't agree, I absolutely love it! And I don't think I'd be going out on a limb to say a lot of people prefer Spain and Portugal as a summer holiday destination over England.

    and tell you what, I would love to see an Eastern Europe WC with Turkey included. I doubt I'll live to see that, but I'd prefer that over the UK too.

    Going further, I live in the US, and I'm disappointed we're getting the 2026 WC. because I like experiencing WCs in new and interesting places. I absolutely loved the experience in Brazil and rated Russia in 2018 not far behind. Going to LA, Dallas and DC to me is even more boring than going to Manchester, Birmingham and Cardiff. I plan to spend a lot of time in 2026 in the 3 cities in Mexico.

    Others have addressed this thing about being any one country's turn. It's simply not how the process works, nor should it.
     
    Cosmin10 repped this.
  14. PabloSanDiego

    PabloSanDiego Member+

    West Ham United
    United States
    Jan 18, 2014
    San Diego, CA
    Club:
    West Ham United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    @Crawleybus just to point out, my original post was directly in response to your question: "why would people much rather 'travel around Iberia' exactly". So I gave my reasons which I know are shared by many others. You didn't ask, why would FIFA decide to put WC30 in Iberia. so who's "turn" it is is irrelevant, as is any notion that because the English invented the sport over a hundred years ago they somehow now have dibs over other countries. To me those factors are no more relevant to where I want WC30 than today's weather forecast for the Maldives.

    As far as facilities. I get why FIFA VIPs may prefer the super modern and nice stadiums in the UK, so they can eat their prawn sandwiches away from the unwashed masses. But having been to many stadiums in Brazil and Russia, I can say that for a regular fan it doesn't matter that much. I had no issues at all with any of the smaller stadiums as a normal fan.

    So yes, UK stadiums are more ready today. The larger ones in Spain and Portugal are ready too. The smaller ones might need more work, but they'll get there. If Brazil could make it happen then I'm sure Spain and Portugal will too. They will all meet FIFA WC standards which is more than OK for me.
     
  15. unclesox

    unclesox BigSoccer Supporter

    Mar 8, 2003
    209, California
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    England joined FIFA in 1904 but left in 1928, were still invited to the first two World Cups by the hosts and declined each time. (Unsure about 1938 invitation)
    Rejoined FIFA in 1946.
    England weren't interested then so make them wait some more. :p
     
  16. Ofori

    Ofori Red Card

    Inter Milan
    Ghana
    May 9, 2020
    Brings up good points
     
  17. Ofori

    Ofori Red Card

    Inter Milan
    Ghana
    May 9, 2020
    How do you figure?
     
  18. Ofori

    Ofori Red Card

    Inter Milan
    Ghana
    May 9, 2020
    Plan on watching World Cup games in Toronto, Montreal, Edmonton or in the Mexican cities especially if my country Ghana should qualify and play any of their games in 2026 in any of those cities
     
  19. Paul Calixte

    Paul Calixte Moderator
    Staff Member

    Orlando City SC
    Apr 30, 2009
    Miami, FL
    Club:
    Orlando City SC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Let's chill out, everyone - perfectly fine to have disagreements, so long as we don't resort to ad hominem attacks.
     
    Cosmin10 and PabloSanDiego repped this.
  20. Crawleybus

    Crawleybus Member+

    Oct 18, 2013
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    #545 Crawleybus, Jun 7, 2021
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2021
    OK fine, but basically I have come out with multiple reasons why the World Cup should be held in the UK, all of them valid but to be told otherwise because you don't like the country isn't really a counter-argument, it just comes across as a xenophobic rant, if that is not the case then I apologise.

    Before Covid 42 million people were visiting the UK for their holidays, enough I think to suggest there are enough people out there that can appreciate a country with an EXTREMELY rich cultural heritage, one of which IS football.

    The English football league is the oldest, biggest, and currently the most visited in the world, it may not always be the most visited but it will always be the oldest, so, like it or not as of right now English football IS going through a 'golden period'. Because of the Taylor Report all English stadiums had to comply to a world class standard, there are literally dozens of stadiums in the UK that, right now comply with World Cup stadium requirements. Because in the UK every weekend hundreds of thousands of fans are travelling to games the transportation for a World Cup is already in place, basically the UK deals with crowds akin to a World Cup every week. The UK is a VERY cosmopolitan place, even without 'overseas' travellers other national teams would basically sell out stadiums in support, whether Italian, French, Polish, Jamaican or whatever there are communities from those countries living in the UK. Despite your comment on the weather, the UK actually has very pleasant Summers with temperatures usually in the twenties (here is a report for the next couple of week for my hometown):-

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2652053

    As you can see temperatures range from 21 to 27 degrees C - ideal for Summer football, heck you can even sit on one of the 7,500+ miles of beaches if you want to!

    Also the English game was rife with hooliganism in the 1980's, certainly NOT a 'golden period' however, unlike 'some' other European countries now there is no hooliganism at games in the UK anymore, unlike 'some' other European countries at a World Cup in the UK you will NOT be faced with police with dogs and you WON'T be watching the game from behind a cage.

    The UK is actually a very small country, smaller than Spain, smaller than France, smaller than Germany, certainly a lot smaller than Brazil, unlike Brazil, Russia or the US teams can base themselves in any part of the country and not have to fly about between match day locations wherever they play, the same can be said of their supporters.

    And a very important reason why the UK deserves the World Cup right now - because unlike every other 'football' nation it hasn't held one for well over 50 years! Germany, Brazil, Mexico have all held it TWICE since the UK last did.
     
  21. PabloSanDiego

    PabloSanDiego Member+

    West Ham United
    United States
    Jan 18, 2014
    San Diego, CA
    Club:
    West Ham United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I actually agree with what you’ve said here as to why FIFA may choose the UK bid and I also think the UK bid is probably the current front runner. It definitely presents the low risk choice for FIFA, and I am sure it would be a very well run and well organized event. I even agree that the long wait since 1966 has validity. I don’t really think the birthplace of football reason carries much weight, but that’s my opinion - I don’t really know, I’m not a FIFA insider. A lot will happen between now and when the choice is made, including the formal bids, so it’s obviously very far from a done deal.

    What any of us fans prefer, including myself, is a completely different subject and has zero impact on what FIFA will decide. They are two separate discussions. But as we wait it’s an interesting topic at least to me.

    If somehow the 2022 bid could be pulled from Qatar and given to the UK I would be ecstatic, as to me there has never been a less interesting location bid than Qatar. But that's not going to happen.
     
  22. PabloSanDiego

    PabloSanDiego Member+

    West Ham United
    United States
    Jan 18, 2014
    San Diego, CA
    Club:
    West Ham United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I'll also comment on the hooligan/crime/danger aspect. In 2014, we got bombarded with all these dire predictions of how large numbers of us visitors were going to be victims of violent crime in Brazil. There were huge discussions right here on Big Soccer. So much so that I distinctly remember some fans who cancelled their plans to go there. While there was a noticeable police presence there, up to and including large armed squads in full riot gear, I never felt threatened and post tournament there were very few reports of fans being victims to violent crime.

    Then came 2018 and pre-World Cup we again got bombarded with reports of how Russian hooligans were just waiting to wreck havoc on visiting fans (and in particular the English) and that all us visitors were in extreme danger. I watched a few documentaries with masked Russian hooligans, including some really slick sensationalistic pieces from the BBC. And what happened? Pretty much nothing, certainly not to the level predicted by the sensationalists.

    It would not surprise me too if the UK gets selected that there will be sensationalist stories using footage from 1980s England and interviews with masked English youths vowing to violently attack incoming fans.

    My point is, I don't think the hooligan aspect is a big deal wherever the World Cup is held. The truly dangerous countries to visit aren't bidding anyway. If Brazil and Russia were safe after all the dire predictions, I think any country on the current 2030 bidders list will be fine. Especially by 2030 when surveillance and policing will be even more sophisticated.
     
  23. r0adrunner

    r0adrunner Member+

    Jun 4, 2011
    London, UK
    Club:
    AS Roma
    Nat'l Team:
    Italy
    Three WCs out of five outside the world's most populated time zone (Europe-Africa-West Asia) would be ridiculous.
     
    Ofori repped this.
  24. mfw13

    mfw13 Member+

    Jul 19, 2003
    Seattle
    Club:
    Newcastle United FC
    Not that logic has any place to play in FIFA decision-making, but at this point there are only two countries outside of Europe that have the capability of hosting a 48-team World Cup.....the USA and China.

    South Africa 2010 had no rail transportation and resulted in billions of dollars being wasted on "white elephant" stadiums.

    Brazil 2014 had no rail transportation and resulted in billions of dollars being wasted on "white elephant" stadiums.

    Russia 2018 and Qatar 2022 will both see billions of dollars being wasted on "white elephant" stadiums, not that their dictators care.

    Whereas European countries, the USA, China, and Japan/Korea have enough existing stadiums to host a 48-team tournament without spending much extra money.
     
  25. BocaFan

    BocaFan Member+

    Aug 18, 2003
    Queens, NY
    You use "UK" and "England" interchangeably, and some of the things you write are not true for UK in general (for e.g. your point on Albufeira).

    "Throwing in" Scotland, No Ireland and Wales doesn't make it a little more varied. It makes it a lot more varied. Adding Edinburg as a host city to a list that includes Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and London adds as much variance as adding Porto to a list of Spanish city hosts IMO.

    While that is largely true, I doubt it happened naturally. A shitload of work must have been done by the organizers in Russia ahead of the 2018 WC to ensure a smooth process in this regard. [This point can be added to @mfw13 's post just above mine about there being only 2 non-UEFA nations able to host a WC efficiently]
     

Share This Page