It's been reported on Yahoo! soccer that 70,000 construction workers who were helping build soccer stadiums in South Africa have went on strike. South Africa must have the stadiums ready for the December 2009 dead line. This could derail Africa's first World Cup. I would like to saying having the World Cup in Africa was a mistake by FIFA, my questions to you guys are, do you think FIFA has a back up plan? If the World Cup is moved do you think the United States will get it. We have stadiums ready at will and I think it would be a flawless World Cup. Any other countries FIFA might consider if it does get moved?
I disagree that it was a mistake. This is a great opportunity for South Africa to show off its culture to the world and get a great economic boost, at the same time. While I'm sure the workers do need a wage increase (considered how much money will be rolling in), they're using the timing to extort it. I'd highly prefer the US be awarded another World Cup, with all of the buildup and excitement that goes with it. That said, if things go awry in South Africa, we could handle it wonderfully.
England, Germany and the US are probably the only countries that would be able to put on a great World Cup in 2010 with a half a year's notice.
It is and was a huge mistake, and I've held this opinion for the better part of this decade (even before they picked the nation, but were hell-bent on the continent). Politics are trumping common sense here; Blatter really wanted to give Africa this World Cup but the place simply doesn't have the safety or the wealth (which go hand in hand) to pull this off. That said, for the same reasons the Cup was awarded to RSA, it will stay there no matter what. FIFA is going full steam ahead with this thing and I don't think they'll even entertain the idea of moving it to another location this late in the process. The impending disaster (plus Brazil's issues) will have everyone begging for the First World to host WCs for some time, which should have us in good shape for 2018 or 2022.
Kenny, I agree about the politics and safety issues, but how else will African countries ever get a chance at the wealth if the world excludes them from big global events like the World Cup? The clubs sure don't mind cherry picking the best African players as soon as they're of legal age; I feel FIFA should stay the course and make this a world-class event. If it means sinking some profits into hiring additional security forces beyond what RSA is capable of, then so be it.
I found this article from exactly one year ago: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/africa/7499541.stm I would imagine Blatter's been making a few calls today... If it's true that the replacement country would need a year to prepare, FIFA can't really wait until December to find out about S.A.
there have been warnings that SA might not be ready for WC 2010 since the beginning of 08, it wasn't a bad choice, SA just didn't prepare well enough, COnfederations Cup was ok but stadiums didn't look nice nor were the games filled up, in 05 at germany every game was a sellout and germany was more than ready!
A nation doesn't need to host a World Cup or the Olympics to become wealthy. The World Cup is not going to pull the African continent out of its economic and political problems. The people of a nation do that, by demanding and securing a safe, free, democratic union with capitalist principles that can allow the nation to prosper. RSA has some of these things, and they have done better than most African nations since the fall of apartheid on this front. But they are still far, far away from being able to pull off an event of this magnitude. If anything, this World Cup is making a poor nation completely overextend itself to build a bunch of expensive venues it will have little practical use for thereafter. In any event, the fate of South Africa or Africa with or without the World Cup should not be, in a geopolitical sense, relevant to whether or not a nation hosts the World Cup. The factors considered should be things such as whether or not the country can provide an excellent and safe experience for the fans of the world's game, grow soccer across the world, etc. I just don't see RSA being able to deliver.
Seriously? The only continent that might have been a worse choice is Antarctica. At least there wouldn't be political issues there and the crowds might be better, plenty of penguins to fill the seats.
I'm sticking with what I said earlier in choosing RSA was a huge mistake on FIFA's part. They don't have good trans systems and people's safety is a huge concern. FIFA's number one concern should be the fan's safety and I don't think with added security fans will be "safer". I think FIFA now realizes it was a mistake to give RSA the w.c. but don't want to man up and say it was. But if nothing happens by Dec 2009 they will have to. I'm sure Sepp Blatter is on the phone with those three countries he choose last year and he's saying be ready. I would be crazy not to think that one of those three countries is the United States. We could be ready in 6 months time everything is already in place.
Just reported today that workers on strike threw stones at cars and people passing by. Also the workers who are helping build better trans system are on strike. FIFA must be shaking their head and wondering why did they give the world cup to South Africa, terrible mistake on their part.
I'm sure security at the events won't be a problem. The problem is when all the traveling fans disperse from the stadium back to their hotels, and also when they decide to explore the country a bit between games. This is where FIFA can do absolutely nothing to ensure fan safety, and where RSA needs to step up to bat and really deliver. FIFA is a football organizational body, not the U.N. BTW I agree with what you're saying about cherry-picking Africa's talent. But I think some concerns about rushing a WC into Africa when it isn't ready is a bit foolhardy. I guess time will prove those concerns right, or hopefully wrong.
I'm sure there are 'Plan-B' countries for every World Cup. Common sense would say that countries that recently hosted would be in that small pool. The stadiums would still be there and be relatively new, and it would probably be easier for a country that had recently hosted to host again, rather than give a 'new' country one year to suddenly prepare for a massive event.
It's called "short sighted" political correctness. It's where the idea sounds great, the heart is in the right place, it sounds like it can be a great help and triumph, but in reality it just makes things worse. I always remember that poor guy from New Zealand (died a few years back) who "smartly and correctly" voted for Germany in 2006. Such outrage! Racist! Fiend! That was courage and he made a great choice. From what I can gather much was ignored/glossed over by FIFA at the CC, and much during the last two years, hoping/praying things would just work out. Doesn't work like that. Doing that with prospects/players is one thing. Hope for the best, see the potential, even though it's not going like you had hoped/hyped. There will be nowhere to run in an event this large. The problems were there for all to see. The infrastructure/stadium/transportation issues. The crime is legendary. Those don't go away just because you throw some money at a one time even tin a few years. I'll be shocked if a tourist isn't killed next year. I say that with a heavy sad heart praying it does not happen. The cold pragamtist who knows a bit about th ecountry and it's current issues tells me different. Just because I want it to be different won't make it different.
Zoidberg I do think along the same lines with you, I hope they no soccer fan is killed but I don't think it will happen. In Germany 2006 I'm sure a fan could feel comfortable exploring the country and all it has to offer, I don't feel the same way about South Africa, to me the whole country seems like the south side of Chicago. Crime ridden and very risky, FIFA should have thought of this before they choose them to host, the World Cup isn't going to make crime stop. FIFA's number one concern should be the fan's well being and I think putting it in South Africa puts a fan's well being at risk. I would be fine with FIFA moving the World Cup to Germany for protection of the fans. So what if Africa has never had a World Cup, the most important thing should be the fans and players well being and putting it in South Africa has put both at risk.
i would say you and many of the others on this thread are ridiculous. yes, a fan may get killed. at least one US fan was killed at the olympics in beijing. hell, at least one tourist/fan was killed when the olympics were in atlanta - in the USA! crime happens. it happens everywhere. there are parts in every major city in the US that you wouldnt want to walk around at night. the entire country seems like the south side of chicago? have you ever been to SA? it is a common tourist destination with over 9 million visiting yearly, and that is without the world cup. and yes, i often enjoy visiting the game parks, wild mountains, and rugged ocean coastlines of south chicago - no, the lake michigan coastline is not quite the same. ive got my passort, ive got tickets, i cant wait to go and my wife cant wait to go back. hopefully the stadiums are completed.
I hope you have a great time there and I hope the USA does great. But wouldn't it be really, really cool if we didn't have to "hope" that there are ****ing stadiums in which to play the WORLD CUP?