Yes, it was. Of course, the fact that the MLS has been going strong since 1996 after many predicted it wouldn't last 5 years, much less ten. Furthermore, I am not sure Devil_78 is looking at "Pure History". Fact is, the US has qualified for every tournament since 1990. Now, the US is the undisputed best team in CONCACAF. The development of the game has been significant since the hosting of the World Cup, in fact, I believe only South Korea have had a development in the game on a similar skill curve since 1994.
Not once did I talk about qualification. That is a whole different kettle of fish. What I looked at, was history as a host nation. Out of the current bidding nations, Japan and Korea hosted it the latest, with the US next. Japan and Korea only have to wait 16 years since last hosting, the US 24 years, Spain 36, Mexico 32, and England 54. Out of the list of nations previously hosting, then England gets it, hands down. There are, of course, plenty of other factors involved in a bid. But ignoring the other first time applicants, and going on how long since last hosting, its Englands.
I'm bias, but I think the US does deserves it. I was still too young to appreciate 94' fully and I don't think I'm the only one in my generation. I'm 26 now. The US team is going to be a very good team come 2018 or 2022. Soccer isn't mainstream yet and with another decade under the belt,the US might have a stronger following than you'd expect come those WC's. This country has a lot diverse backgrounds that do appreciate soccer and the atmosphere will be amazing, not to mention the boat loads of big ass stadiums we have that will make it easier for people to get to go to the games. It would be stupid not to have atleast one of them here.
Last time England hosted it, I was not even born! At least you have a world cup during your lifetime! Having a big stadium does not make it easy to go to. Nor does it make a bid worthwhile.
I don't think anyone is questioning that England deserves to host 2018, and they will likely get it. The only way they don't is if FIFA cuts a back room deal with Russia, which would be a travesty considering the political situation there right now and their horrible infrastructure. The U.S. has to be looking good for 2022 along with Australia, and as an American I hope we win. Plus the problem with Australia is its already tomorrow over there and that will create an unfair advantage for the gamblers there.
Am I wrong in thinking the best nation for the job should get to host it. This positive discrimination (in general society mainly) discusts me.
No you're not wrong. But in certain instances the best bid may not be better for the future prospects of the growth of the game. FIFA will choose someone based on several things and having the best bid may not guarantee a World Cup even if you bid. It is a disgusting trait in society that in many cases people don't get a job or get into a school based on other things other than qualification. That's the world we live in. If there was not a name attached to any of these bids and they were done blindly with no names in front of venues, cities, and countries and everything was based of the quality of the bid. I think you'd find out the vote would turn out a lot differently than how it will. But politics and awarding a bid not completely based on merit will be around forever.
FIFA's 1st concern should be promoting the sport and based on that the CUP should be played in the US until "mission accomplished." Isn't that the reason we got the 94 Cup.
It is certainly a reason the US got the cup - a chance to give the sport a boost, but there are several other places where the sport could also do with a boost. And while helping the sport in the US certainly was a goal of FIFA, there's very little to suggest it should be FIFA's No.1 concern.
Those diverse backgrounds become americanized and lose their homeland identity along with soccer and in terms of atmosphere, a US WC would be a commercial event, not a nation wide celebration. But i have nothing against the US bid, infrastructure and security guarantees a good bid, a financially successful world cup.
I have nothing against the bid for the above reasons. The US World Cup was a commercial success, well presented etc. ... but to be honest it was a bit sterile. I hope the US gets the competition again, and have no doubt it will, but not ahead of the more established nations, who have not hosted the competition since '94. Unless FIFA want to sell out to commercial pressures ... so you'll probably get it at the next opportunity
I love the British sense of humour. You mean like Craven Cottage at 26k, or Fratton Park at 20k. I admit I am using Wikipedia, but there are only three Premiership stadiums that hold over 50k, plus Wembley.
They could use Twickenham Stadium, nation rugby stadium, as well. It holds 82,000. I don't quite know about how many venues can be used in one city though.
It is obviously inevitable that stadium expansions will be a major factor for the English bid and that isn't even including the stadiums currently on the waiting list to being built. And why does it have to be 50k?40k the minimum.
And why does it have to be 50k?40k the minimum.[/quote] You know if you post this it isn't even worth discussing. Do you actually think FIFA wants to hold a WC game in a 35k stadium
OF course not. There are plenty of stadiums with a capacity of over 40k, or did you not know that Would also like to know if you have ever heard the word "expansion" Almost 30 stadiums in England have been looked at for possible stadium expansion. Dunno if you have heard or not, but Some clubs are also building NEW stadiums. Again, just incase you didn't know Sure, a couple craven cottages here and there, but then again, the world cup is being held in 2018 NOT 2009.
I was talking about the quality of the stadiums rather than the capacity. If the transport links, local pubs, seating, food stalls and toilets are good enough for the Premier League than it is good enough for the world cup. There is no need for any upgrades to any stadiums, unless it is to increase capacity. I will happiliy admit that Craven Cottage is too small for the World Cup.
FIFA announced that The US has moved up to the 20 spot in world rankings. The best position we have been in since January of last year. I guess the match with Mexico turned some heads. So not only are we moving up in the world in terms of respect, but we also have so many different locations to hold games. The Us a great place to have the Cup again.
Considering that you were as high as 5th two and a half years ago, you cannot really give much respect to the FIFA rankings. You are certainly improving yet, but don't get ahead of yourselves.
Yeah ok, tell that to the thousands of spanish, portuguese, and brazilians that flood the streets of Newark, NJ when their national teams play, and tell that to the Italian-Americans in my northern NJ suburb, many that are now 3rd and 4th generation American citizens, who started an impromptu parade down our main street after the '06 final. Another WC here would be yet another nationwide celebration of our melting-pot of cultures, oh and yeah a pretty successful commercial event too. Contrary to popular belief the blue blood New Englander turned pretend blue-collar Texan that occupied our oval office for the last eight years does not represent what our beautiful country is all about.
It was the other way round. Starting a league was a condition of the USA being allowed to host. It's not like the USSF were in any position to dictate terms and conditions to FIFA. FIFA rankings have nothing to do with "respect". They are purely the result of a mathematical formula. They do a reasonable job of indicating how well a team has been playing in recent history when ranked within their own continent, but do a less good one of ranking across continents.
I know, I was merely offering anecdotal evidence to refute his claim that our diverse cultures lose their connection with soccer.
LOL WUT? Giuseppe Rossi? Tom Al-Madon? Brede Hangeland? Edgar Castillo? Oh well....I don't think you can convince the world of that argument.