This from Sky Sports http://msn.skysports.com/skysports/article/0,,1860-1092879,00.html Just wondering what you thought. FIFA has wanted an African WC. I'd say South Africa is the one that is going to get it. Thoughts?
South Africa's got it. Although personally I would like to see it held in Morocco. Morocco is practically in europe. It would make it easier for everyone, because of the distances if it were held there. And besides, Morocco is kind of exotic. That would give the WC more "flavor" than South Afica.
I really don`t think the "US likings" play any role in the minds of Fifa where the World Cup will be. My favourites are Egypt, Morooco and South-Africa. Anyway, I think its a fantastic idea to hold a World Cup in Africa. Lets hope they get it done.
South Africa, that is a given. It's the only stable african country that can provide the infrastructure and security needed to host such tournament.
South Africa does not "got it". While it is the only African country that could host it RIGHT NOW by 2010 AIDS will have taken a very severe toll on the infrastructure of that country. My feeling is that South Africa will be selected initially but as time goes on a non-African nation will have to be found(and yes there is only one that could do it in such a short period of time). I think Africa deserves a shot at hosting but I am afraid it will be impossible.
Do I understand you correct, that you think that the US will get the 2010 World Cup? The Fifa will not select South Africa and 2 years later Aids will be such a big problem that South Africa couldn`t handle it anymore. Fifa will put all aspects of the bidding naions into account! And if they won`t choose South Africa they still could choose Egypt for example.
I think you do understand him correctly, and it's not that far-fetched of a scenario... If 2010 stays in Africa, then I'd have to believe the US is a very, very strong candidate to get 2014 as a quid pro quo for MLS/SUM/AEG bailing FIFA out on the Women's World Cup...
It is far fetched. 2014 is already decided to be in South-America. And South-America has decided to host "his" World-Cup in Brazil. So the 2010 will be in Africa, the 2014 in Brazil. And 2018 its going back to Europe, I guess.
...and the 2003 Women's World Cup was supposed to be in China... Nothing with FIFA is ever written in stone - I mean, here we are less than 9 months before qualifying for Germany is to start and FIFA apparently still can't make up it's mind on how many teams are going to qualify... ...and if FIFA finds itself in a jam in 2008 because South Africa (as an example) suddenly turns out to be an unviable host, they're hardly going to move the World Cup to Egypt... Ah, the US...FIFA's economic safety valve... Seriously...they'd move it here...the dollar signs flashing before their eyes would be too much to resist... Bottom line...I wouldn't want to bet my mortgage on adherance to any schedule that FIFA was involved with...
I'm not sure you understand how this rotation thing works. It means that Europe does not get every other WC as in the past. 2018 will be in North America or Oceania if they hold to the rotation system. That said, it remains to be seen if UEFA can stomach all this equality among confederations. To be fair they are clearly not equal in quality but FIFA is making an effort to share the WC wealth and UEFA may not be able to take that.
In 2018 the world cup will go to OCEANIA who will be the only confederation not to host the world event. Obviously the ONLY suitable candidate would be Australia because of the facilities, security, health and financial securities. This is if it is only one nation hosting. If 2 nations host then New Zealand would also host a lot of games as they are only a reasonable "paddle" away from Australia. 2018 will go to OCEANIA not EUROPE
Do you know how many countries are here in Europe? If you rotate it from continent to continent then when should Spain, England, Italy, Russia get a World Cup? In hundred years? No, Europe has to have an outstanding role in this rotating system.
You don`t get the point. Think about the rotating system and about countries per continent. (countries/continent)
Europe doesn't have that many more countries. UEFA has 52 members. The CAF also has 52 members! So by your logic, Africa should host the WC as often as Europe does. I'm thinking "about the rotating system and about countries per continent." Maybe I just still don't get your point.
The rotation system won't work anyway. European nations will complain if they don't get a better position than others, and other nations will complain if Europe gets this better position. In some years they'll agree on a World Cup every two years to satisfy the interests of the nations. And 2010... nobody will have to wonder if the WC is given to Africa but never played there. The idea is nice on the paper, but realisation is something entirely different.
No, you get it. Look at the number of nations which are able to host World Cup. Europe stands out by far. If someday the African countries would all be able to host a World Cup they should get the same chances. Of course. In America: US, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina. In Asia: Korea, Japan, China. In Africa: Egypt, South-Africa, Nigeria In Oceania: Australia In Europe: England, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Netherlands-Belgium, Scandinavia, Turkey... You see?
The women's world cup could have gone anywhere, it's just that the US is one of the few places in the world where people would bother to cross the road to watch a women's match. What I always find curious about posters calling for the world cup to go to the US rather than europe or south america is that by doing so it somehow equates to "the rest of the world" being given a chance to host, when clearly all posters appear to want (with their dismissing of African, Asian & Oceanic bids) is the cup to rotate between South America, Europe and the United States. Mexico can clearly host, and given the chance Canada probably could too, yet if North American world cups were to rotate amongst those three and FIFA's rotation system was in place, then the US would only host every 72 years. Still think it's a reasonable system? Or don't the same rules apply to the US, because a US world cup would make money (and the one in Germany won't? ). Perhaps you can appreciate why European countries, who under strict rotation in the same vein, would only host once every 150 years or so, are less than thrilled by it.
I personally think that it should go to Europe every three times,South America every 4 or 5 times depending if they clash with Europes rotation,and with everyone one else sprinkled in between. 2006 Europe 2010 Africa 2014 South America 2018 Europe 2022 North America(Mexico,USA) 2026 Oceania 2030 Europe 2034 South America 2038 Asia ----------------Repeat entire process 2042 Europe 2046 Africa 2050 South America 2054 Europe 2058 North America 2062 Oceania 2066 Europe 2070 South America 2074 Asia I hate to make sense at a time like this.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the WC returned to the USA fairly soon. After all, the 1994 WC crushed all previous attendance records, and FIFA knows as well as anybody else that money talks. A country that can fill a dozen 60,000+ seat stadiums for a tournament is going to get lots of attention.
If South Africa isn't good enough, no one on the content is good enough. THey're the only country that have a rats chance in heck of scrounging up all the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ that it's going to take to host the event.
In 2010, how about a joint host in Morocco and Spain. Wouldn't that make Africa and Europe both shut up?
The US world cup was the first that went for the block booking approach that got a lot of people to stump up cash for tickets before they knew what games were being played. Prior to that all group matches were played in two venues per group, with the lesser venue getting the less attractive games and subsequently lower crowds. Both world cups since have used the 1994 ticketing approach with similar results. Germany will sell-out also. Ticket sales are not FIFA's main concern however, TV revenue is. A world cup in Europe (or a similar time zone, such as Africa) will be worth more in TV cash and sponsorship. With the poor US TV figures for soccer, even the world cup, the US in terms of TV and sponsorship money is probably a smaller concern than Denmark, which is possibly one reason why the world cup in France in 1998, despite much higher expenditure, actually made a larger profit than the world cup in the US did.