Re: South Africa 2010 I think everyone knows this isn't going to fly. If FIFA really truly ooly tries to enforce this (amazingly stupid) rule, you're gonna see UEFA break away. Bottom line is, FIFA needs to choose between going back to 24 teams in the World Cup (and we all know THAT won't happen,) restricting the thing to about 6 nations, or having poorly run Cups with poor infrastructure. My guess is they're gonna take a little from #2 and #3.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Must Disagree Which would also be the case for S. Africa, the larger stadiums are rugby stadiums.
South Africa could host it but I don't want them right away. First African Country should be Morocco or Egypt. South Africa needs to spend that money elsewhere. That is the same reason why the U.S. shouldn't host it too. Also we just had it in 94. A new continent people. I think Australia would be a good choice. Have the stadiums. For now have the staple governemt and economy. I say that because remember Argentina 78 and Chile 62. Anyway, it should go to Morocco or Egypt. Or maybe Gaddafi will open up Libya and tons of money will pour into the country will very little resources and with his love of soccer he will convince Fifa to have the world cup there.
With some suggestions that the WC might be here in the US in '10 or '14 I've been wondering whether the US govt. might be more hesitant to host such a massive event with all these terrorism jitters. Not that the US govt. can outright prevent such a thing from taking place, but nevertheless some pressure could be applied in the right places to prevent the US from hosting the WC. Who knows whether the threat of terrorism by then will be less or more than it is now, but it is worth factoring that into the equation, I think.
Didn't stop us from going ahead with the Winter Olympics, which, I realize, are a smaller deal than the World Cup, and were already too close to really turn away from at the time of September 11. So when does Antarctica get their Cup? They're a continent, too, you know.
time zones and tv rights, plus the rest The other thing that may need to be factored in is the time zone the WC will be played in and what effect (if any) that will have on the value of the TV broadcast rights. My impression (meaning I don't know the facts, these are just educated guesses) is that Europe is the most valuable TV market and that having the WC in a time zone way off from Europe hurt the value of the rights. This "factor" would for example weigh against Australia, but might favor an African country (how do the African time zones compare to Europe?). As for FIFA's "decision" to rotate the WC between confeds, my guess is that that was just a ploy by Blatter to try and get back African re-election votes after the 2006 WC was awarded to Germany. After Africa moved against Blatter in the election, I expect Blatter to try and screw them back. Just my take on it. You can take it for whatever you think it is worth. As for South Africa, I think it would be a wonderful thing if they could and did host the WC. Wonderful both for the country and for the continent. As for stadia and infrastructure, I have to admit I don't know much about South African stadia or infrastructure. But I will add this: weren't many of the stadia in France in the 30,000 seat range? Or is my memory playing tricks on me? Maybe after the empty seats in K/J, FIFA will not push so hard for every stadia to be huge. While I do not know much about South African stadia, I have read quite a bit about the high rate of crime (especially rape) in South Africa and about the AIDS pandemic in Africa (including South Africa). The crime stories and statistics scare me a bit. I might be willing to go, but I don't know if I would take a wife or children. Maybe that's not being fair to South Africa, but it is my honest opinion. The AIDS problem is even scarier although in a less personal way. The sheer numbers of infected persons and what that has the potential to do to the continent in terms a destabilization is really scary. It's something that should be getting a lot more world-wide attention and the fact that it isn't is shameful. OK, I got up on a soap box a bit there. In conclusion, I really would love it if South Africa could and did host the WC even if it meant we couldn't hold one here in the US (where I could attend), but I have serious doubts about it happening (alhtough I recognize that my doubts stem from less than complete knowledge). Professor B [edit for typos]
It ain't yo cash I'm sure the UEFA breakaway or the restricting the WC to 6 nations would suit Europe just fine since they think the footballing world revolves around them anyways. As far as I'm concerned, give an African country ONE World Cup before you exclude the tournament from the continent. You don't know it's going to fail anymore than I know it's going to succeed. It's not your money that's on the line, it's FIFA's. So why this vehement objection? Because it's a little more expensive to travel to Pretoria than Berlin? Because J'burg is a bit less glamorous than Paris or London? It's a football tournament. Nothing prevents you from visiting Europe on your vacation. If FIFA wants to send the WC to Africa ONE SINGLE TIME, it's their prerogative. If they actually believe in their motto For the Good of the Game (larf!), then they're right to consider football fans outside Europe and the Americas. You may dismiss it as "politically correct nonsense", but it's not your money so why the vehemence.
Re: time zones and tv rights, plus the rest South Africa's time zone is the same as central Europe during the northern hemisphere summer. It's one of the areas that you would rate on the plus side re: their bid.
S. Africa has most of the infrastructure, but the very society itself is crumbling. Sooner (2006) would've been better and more likely than later (2010). Morocco would be great IF they can get the stadia built. That way, at least Europeans could get down easily enough to see their teams play. The South African stadia will be empty, as very few down there can afford the ticket price (it's not the "white" sport down there, so they're out), and very few from the rest of the world can afford (or would want) to fly down there. Egypt simply has too many political problems right now. If they could somehow cordon Morocco off, security-wise, and build the stadia, then hold the games at night to avoid the oppressive heat, it would be ideal. Lack of security from terrorism may sink the Moroccan bid, rampant crime and societal collapse may sink the S. African bid. I vote for giving it to Morocco--it could be a seminal moment in their history, while I don't really see S. Africa coming back from its long, slow slide into oblivion.
Is it significantly more expensive to fly "down there" than it was to Asia? I heard someone say they were going to spend $1200 on a flight to Seoul, which is a lot of money to me. I don't fly internationally a lot, so I don't know if it costs significantly more than that to fly to South Africa. I wouldn't imagine that with a country the size of South Africa, you'd be expecting the locals to be the bulk of your ticket buyers and pull off a successful Cup. In a country the size of the US, even if tons of people didn't come from all over the world (the English didn't, remember ), as they did, do and will because we still make it fairly easy, you could still stage a very successful Cup with the number of people to draw from who already live here (the women proved that, though not on the same scale leading up to their final).
hey you guys seem to be very down on south africa, it's not a bad place like most here seem to think, it has a GDP of 400 billion dollars or 2/3 of canada's, giving SA a GDP per capita of 8,500( all funds US), which i think is similar to isreal and south korea, and higher than eastern europe. SA is has the best educated, strongest and most industrialize economy in africa, way ahead of the north africans( morroco). SA has the best telecommunications, tranportion system, and a very stable government, with a moderate ecomonic growth of 3%. sure SA has it's porblems, ( ie 10% infcted with aids rate), but the contry is still a great place to live, and has very beautiful cities, and country side. check the web for more info about SA if you want, i got my info from http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sf.html
CANADA should get it it's a great place to live too and they can afford it w/out too many problems, the crime rate ain't bad either
When I was visiting my wife's family in Kenya, there was an article in the paper criticizing Kenya for its maldistribution of wealth. They said only South Africa had worse income disparity. My point being, in the case of South Africa, I'd be less interested in the average than the median. I think you'd find a pretty shocking difference between the two figures.
Re: It ain't yo cash What I'm vehement about is the stupid rotation policy. The implication is that there are as many nations capable of hosting the thing in Oceania as Europe, which is beyond stupid on its face. WRT South Africa, I'm better described as highly dubious than vehement.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Must Disagree You obviously don't what you are talking about. Every stadium in Japan execpt one had a track. Australia has plently of stadiums to host the World Cup. Sydney and Melbourne have at least 3 capable. Olympic soccer was also played in Brisbane and Canberra. Adelaide and Perth also have multiple stadia to chose from. Also, if Australia would bid it would be likely that is would co-host with NZ who also have plently of stadiums to chose from. I don't know the governments take at this point, but with its support, WC is a definte possibility. All the infrastructure is there. It is just a matter or will. A far better option than SA. PS. In South Africa, the whites still control most of the money, but they aren't into soccer at all. Its cricket and rubgy. The black population is into soccer, but unforuntately the vast majority is below the poverty level. Hardly the local support required to fill stadia for those "meaningless" matches. The WC is far to big for a country with little infrastructure, poor security, and no hotels to host. A WC in SA would look like MLS games with half empty stadia. What about training facilities for the teams? Ain't gonna happen.
My 2 cents on this is that althought SA has a lot of problems, I still believe they could pull it off. I mean this is the country that have transformed from the oppresive aparthied gov't to a multi-cultural without a bloody revolution. They may end up losing money on host the WC, but if given a chance, SA would pull out all the stops to show the world they can do it.
Have people actually listened to themselves? Morocco to host the WC??? Egypt??? Maybe Libya? Nowhere in Africa is a suitable location for the WC. The only place with the potential for it to happen is South Africa and that (as some posters on here have said) is a road strewn with obstacles. I would prefer it to go to Australia than anywhere in Africa, and I really don't want it to go to Australia. But at least they have proved they can host something of this magnitude (but that's their only plus point).
There is a key question being left out of this debate: What do the sponsors want? According to a report on Futbol Mundial several weeks ago, many of the longtime sponsors(unnamed) are threatening to pull out of the tournament if it is held anywhere in Africa. They don't want to pay for a tournament that has a good chance of turning into a fiasco and tranishing their "good" names.
At our Saturday morning kick-around, some dude was insisting that Sierra Leone and Liberia were going to launch a joint bid. Maybe he was talking bollocks.
Fare from LAX to Johannesburg on United Airlines: 5178.92 USD per person O'hare and JFK don't have flights to anywhere in SA.
Africa will get WC2010 Reasons why Africa will get WC2010: 1. It was promised 2. South Africa was 1 vote away from getting 2006 which means they have the potential to host it. 3. Africa is the only continent to not have hosted a world cup before. 4. They have (6) 50,000+ capacity seat stadiums. Yes there are issues that have to be sorted out such as the times of the games around the world, and the ability to fill these stadiums during the tournament, but those are always issues. Some of the stadiums may have to be renovated but they will not start rebuilded the stadiums unless they are awarded the wc otherwise they will be wasting money.