Actually, the Australian media are reporting it -- as evidenced in this report in today's Herald Sun -- but it also mentions the USA quite prominently as well. Straight from Blatter's mouth, in fact.
He actually does, depending on what media release you're referring to, but trust me, the Saffers aren't capable. Australia probably is, but the US definitely is. In Australia we have too many other things to consider (sports and timing related). I'd rather the US get the nod if the Sefricorns don't.
In The Sun, he apparently said England are far and way first choice, what, with not being full of foreigners. He's also, apparently, topless.
(Mentions other countries instead) Are you serious? How weird is that? When does the international press ever get something like that right? That's almost diabolical to mention different countries (for potential hosts) to different press outfits. Certainly unethical (oops, I forgot I'm talking FIFA here)
I think these possibilities all came from the same comments. The press just chooses which to report, or some are inadvertently left out, or edited. Shocking, I know.
Absolute, flat 0% chance the WC Finals would be moved to Asia or Australia. The mention of Japan and Australia are just smoke and mirrors to help make it seem like a more broad-reaching search than it really is-- England and the USA are the only serious candidates for a last-minute replacement (since Germany is also out of the question).
I found that sentence quite strange, as well. I actually think it sounds a little bit like that was plan B in 2006, but obviously we know that couldn't have been the case. Probably just Sepp's mildly limited mastery of the English language.
I wasn't aware there was a mention of Japan and Australia, only Australia, and like I said, we're not in a position at this time. Unless someone is prepared to come up with the funds to displace an entire AFL season, which I doubt
Didn't read the above, but the Soccernet article I read mentioned Australia. Oddly contradicting reports. Anyway, Plans A and B are South Africa. We are not likely to see a move.
Agreed. 2002 was a bitter pill for a lot of European teams. I don't think FIFA is going to Japan anytime soon. Which leaves, realistically, England, the USA, and Mexico. The trick here is that UEFA just hosted a World Cup. So the USA and Mexico are in. And when you remember the amount of cash that USA 94 brought in, well.... Either way, if Mexico is the backup plan, not bad. A little roadtrip is in order.
please explain.....IF S.Africa is unable to host 2010 then its down to a toss up between the USA and England.....Mexico has no chance. for the reason I mentioned.
I was refering to the elimination of England by the post above yours do to their confederation just hosting.. Hence the "logical" process of elimination.. Italia '90, France '98, Germany '06..... England 2010? Greedy Euros.. That's a hop, skip and a jump for Europeans..
fair enough. Chances are the USA will get it then....if the South Africans drop the ball. although, chances are, of all the countries in the world capable of REALLY holding the world cup half of them are in europe.
you just need pitches... the bourgeois ammenities are for the rich and famous.... who cares about them... real soccer fans care about the game on the pitch, not the luxury in the stands or the hotels or the trains.... about time the real world gets a piece of the action, meaning south africa
Okay, I'm biased, because I've had nothing but great experiences in SAf, but even so finding it tough to believe the FBs at FIFA share your view. I think the modern world cup is 99 percent about money, and 1 percent about money for the next cup. and there's some footie.
true, money dribves everything, but the vast majority comes from tv and advertising... the fans in the seats account for a relatively lesser share... i do wonder what ticket prices are to be in south africa... don't forget there's a fairly affluent class in south africa who can afford tickets... i think many on bs want the cup here simply because usa will do better here...
I agree, that country should pour all its resources into making stadiums so real soccer fans can enjoy some soccer for a month, then go home and never come back. It's about time the "real world, meaning South Africa" got some soccer matches and not some real needed change to their country. I'm glad the focus for them is on providing plain good soccer matches to real soccer fans. And what soccer fan cares about trains? I mean you could always walk from city to city.
There are huge reasons SAf wants to pull this off, and the cost of staging the tourney is small compared to convincing the world they're a legit player, that it's time they were invited to the adult table. the cup brings in a little investment, but holding it well brings in a lot of investment. Failure sends a very, very bad message. The cup means a lot more to SAf than it does to most places.
Does anyone think the recent World Cricket Championships in the Caribbean will force Blatter's hand sooner than he wants? For those that don't know, only 35,000 tourists showed up for the tourney when they were expecting at least 100,000 and some were saying upwards of 200,000 would show and very few of the locals went to the matches since tickets were so expensive. Jamaica and other countries are now saying they'll sue the ICC to recoup some of the money they put up. A lot of the same concerns with South Africa were present there which can't be a good sign....and yes I know football trumps cricket.
Plan A and B in South Africa. I guess Blatter is hinting they can postpone the World Cup at a later date. They should be given more time if they are not totally ready.