Africa WC 2010 Hey Superdave, Is there anything in the FIFA charter that says the World Cup HAS to be played in the best facilities in the world? I don't think so. Just because Egypt or Tunisia or South Africa might not have state of the art stadia doesn't mean that the world should tell them to f*** off. The point I'm trying to make is that we (FIFA included) need to get away from the idea that the World Cup has to be in the most state of art stadiums in nice, comfortable and rich nations. This is the world's game and its major showcase, the World Cup, should try to reflect that. Now, having said all of this, I know full well that it's all about money and FIFA doesn't care, etc., etc., etc. With this attitude Africa won't host the cup for a very long time so I guess this discussion is probably worthless.
Just remember Ken those are average temperatures. In actuality, the average high for Cairo is in the mid 90's from the middle of June through the end of August. check out this link http://goafrica.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://touregypt.net/climate.htm Though given Egypt's political volitility, I wouldn't hold my breath for their being awarded a world cup.
Re: Africa WC 2010 While it is mostly about money, it isn't necessarily about state of the art stadia. Its also about stadia which are going to fall down during the tournament. Its about having enough hotels and the infrastructure to support the fans from overseas. Its about having training facilities for the respective teams. Its about providing security for the teams and their fans. Bottom line is if you want the WC to have any degree of success, it needs to provide everyone one of the things, and probably more, I've mentioned above. Unfortunately for the poorer countries in the world, it just doesn't make economic sense to invest the billions it would take to pull off a WC. Rich countries have most of the requirements in place, so the up front cost is far less.
Africa 2010 hey "dcc134" excellent points and I agree with most of what you say but, do you really think that Egypt or South Africa couldn't have at least the basic infastructure by 2010? I doubt that it would be a real problem for either country to meet that goal. The major issue, of course--and you mentioned it--is the fact that most, if not all, African nations can't really afford to spend ANY money--no matter how small--on preperation for the WC. All of this having been said, I still wish that FIFA and soccer fans could make some concessions for Africa...sure it won't be as pretty as K-J 2002 or others but isn't it worth giving Africa a shot? Wouldn't it be good for the game? Wouldn't it be good for Africa?
Colombia was given the 1986 tournament, but had to throw in the towel because of financial problems. Mexico stepped in as a last minute solution to keep the WC in the Americas. They would never have hosted the tournament if they had applied for it.
And this is exactly what will happen if Africa gets the 2010 cup and the US steps in to save FIFAs bacon.
And then the potential African host nation would be really screwed. They would have spent -- for them-- enormous sums on infrastructure and half built stadia only to lose whatever revenue they were counting on.
Re: Africa 2010 Only if they can pull it off. But if there are a certain number of red flags at a certain point prior to the competition, it's a pretty good indicator that they're not going to get their stuff together. And this isn't the Conference USA basketball tournament, this is the biggest thing in soccer every four years. If they didn't pull it off, it would actually be counterproductive for the game and for Africa. And, yes, your showcase event does have to be in modern surroundings. Does the sport need the black eye of holding it in subpar stadia, or in a country with the potential to drop the ball? It's unfortunate that this utopian ideal of "Everyone's Game" has to take a back seat to simple economic and social reality, but that's the way of the world. And there's really no getting around it. You can put the World Youth Championships or something there as a gesture of good faith. When the numbers get as big as they do for the World Cup, nice gestures aren't even allowed on the bus.
I'm surprised in the debate of where else to hold the WC, Brazil hasn't come up even once. If it isn't in SA, I'd think Brazil can beat all comers. Europe's out, US had it in 94, Brazil will have gone 60 years without a Cup at home. Guinho
It would be great to see a WC in Brazil. But some of the same arguments agaisnt South Africa would arguably apply to Brazil like the quality of stadiums and the cost of upgrading them. I would love to see the national debate over whether the Final should be held in Rio or in SP (but that would be off subject)
Re: Re: Africa 2010 Slight correction. Otherwise, a point that everyone seems to be forgetting about.
Just because it's the WORLD Cup doesn't mean that it should be held everywhere in the world. Africa can't hold it. It is a risk, both from the finance stand-point as well as the security. Just like Segroves said, African stadiums are in bad shape and Fifa doesn't have the cash to spend when you have several countries that can do it. (See, I told you Segroves was smart!) Who cares if Europe gets it again? Who cares if South America gets it again?
I was told that they did, but if not, it's just adding to my point, would South Africa have the money? Don't kid yourself.
Everyone who's not European, apparently. Everyone who's not South American, apparently. And who cares if America gets it again? Apparently everyone who's English.
I actually don't care where it is, im just saying that there is no way Africa can hold it. I would go to a Cup anywhere else but I would never go to Africa.
Several countries can save FIFA's bacon if Africa fails, not only the US. England for instance, they haven't hosted since 1966. Brazil can probably pull it off too. South Africa already has six or seven +50.000 arenas. Africa will make the World Cup its top priority and make sure the project won't crash financially. No need to underestimate them. I'm pretty sure they don't overdo it like the Koreans and Japanese with 20 stadiums hosting like three games each. They are better equipped than Colombia 1986 to succeed for sure.
That was the political reason given by FIFA to save face. The real reason was there was a friendly played in El Campin in Bogota between Peru (if my memory serves me right) and Colombia. There was an incident during the game that led to a riot on the field. The police at the match stood by while the referee and his assistants were beaten and pummelled by the mob that stormed onto the field following the match. FIFA was shocked at the violence and within a few months of this incident a press conference was held stating that Colombia was not financially able to host the World Cup.
Brasil could not pull it off on short notice. And, since 2006 is in Germany, a non-European host might be FIFA's choice as last-minute substitute.
Pura paja. The tournament was expanded from 16 to 24 teams after Colombia had been selected (Colombia was chosen over Canada;imaginate). The Colombians rather intelligently realized that they were over their heads. Se acabó la vaina. The word on the street is that the Sierra Leone-Liberia joint bid is in trouble.