I’ll try to answer your question. There are a couple of reasons FIFA made the bad decision to put the 2010 Cup in South Africa. Blatter was able to beat out Lennaert Johannsen as head of FIFA with African support. It is one country-one vote when it comes to selecting a FIFA Sun King, to use Yallop’s terminology. Africa was promised all kinds of goodies so Blatter could get the votes to succeed Havelange. This is why Africa has 5 slots in the World Cup, far more than merit would indicate. Blatter started talking about continental rotations and giving Africa the World Cup. When it came time to choose the venue for 2006, South Africa seemed to be in good shape, with enough votes on the 24 nation Executive Committee to win. There were allegations of corruption when the New Zealand representative failed to vote for South Africa, handing a narrow victory to Germany, one of the most favored counties in the FIFA world. Africa was outraged, and Blatter immediately got out the ointment. All Africa countries were given a free TV feed for the 2002 World Cup, and Blatter stated that only African nations could bid for the 2010 Cup. Morocco was the best choice, being close to Europe and having come close with 2 prior bids. But Morocco is a Muslim nation and the western controlled media has a seeming endless mantra against the Muslim world. Libya and Tunisia had a joint bid, and Egypt had its hat in the ring. In the end, South Africa won, after Nelson Mandela made a dramatic flight to Trinidad to ask for Jack Warner’s support. Mandela’s personal stature may have been critical in getting the final votes, and he was sitting in the first row in Switzerland when Blatter made the announcement. Political correctness also played some role, as the western media never has much bad to say about South Africa now, after never having anything good to say about it in the seventies and eighties. As I have said all along, it was a disastrous decision and will be rectified next summer, as soon as Blatter collects enough African votes to stay in power. The US lead for 2010 seems to be slipping away. It now seems like Australia will get it. Australia is a good choice, but snubbing the US (like the IOC, FIFA’s alter ego) keeps doing, will have grave consequences for soccer in the US. Without the 2010 World Cup, we may have to confront all kinds of unpleasant realities including, possibly, the demise of MLS.
I was with you till this final part. Based on what is the US' "lead" slipping away? First off, what lead? I don't recall us actually having one. Second, what evidence is there that Australia is in the lead? Why, exactly, is MLS in danger if the US doesn't get the WC? It's not like the games would be played in MLS stadia, as they are all too small (save for the Patriots shared venue) and it's not like MLS is having trouble putting down roots. If anything, I would think the soccer specific stadia would make MLS less dependent on needing the WC here. Yeah, it would be a big boost for MLS to get the WC, but it would only be a temporary jolt of energy, like one of Frankie Hejduk's six-expresso mornings, that wears off pretty quickly. I've enjoyed all your info on this thread about Africa and traveling there. Very informative and appreciated and clearly show great knowledge and passion about the area on your part. But the above statements just seem like the ramblings of a delusional man.
Interesting analysis by Thomas Flannigan on the WC 2010 in SA. The most profitable WC ever, and best attended, was USA. Despite politics and corruption, it seems odd that FIFA has turned down dollars, and that other FIFA leaders would allow that. WC in the USA would be great, although clearly FIFA is reticent about dealing with us and all our corporate fat cats who would love to invest and have a say in the event. In the end, it would be great to go to Australia and probably significantly cheaper than SA. The time-zone thing would be a beat down for viewers though - less would watch at 4am. Morocco doesn't sound too bad, assuming rotating continents means anything (which it probably doesn't). I would go where the most money is - if not the US, then England (nothing needs to be built), France or Italy.
Sandon, I will explain my reasoning. I would be the first one to admit that I am not an insider and I am reading tea leaves when trying to predict the future of the soccer world. Two months ago, World Soccer reported that FIFA may well pull the 2010 Cup from Africa and give it to the US. The most recent World Soccer says that the word is Australia is going to get it. I did a quick search of Aussie media and there is a lot of buzz about Australia getting it. One media report even said that Frank Lowy had met with Blatter in Switzerland. Unfortunately, the article did not give a time frame, but it sounded like it was a recent meeting. If so, that is bad news for the US. You may recall that Frank Lowy is a guy I have written about in other threads. He is the head of the Australian FA, and an incredibly powerful guy. I could go on and on about Lowy but I would be even more boring than usual. I also ran into an Aussie friend living in Chicago and his parents, who were visiting from Sydney. The father said Australia is proceeding on the assumption that the Cup will be theirs in 2010. Hard evidence? No. But I have been accurate about predicting many soccer trends in the past and have been saying all along South Africa would have the Cup pulled. I think I am right about that too. Concerning MLS, look at it this way. So long as we have a shot at the World Cup, MLS is secure. The money AEG and SUM (the website has been under construction for 3 years) is losing on MLS will be made up many times over by hosting the 2010 Cup. But if Australia gets the Cup in 2007 and the “soccer specific” stadiums are either built or under construction, MLS way have outlived its usefulness in terms of getting concert venues built. We can agree to disagree about attendance in the new stadiums. In Dallas, in Chicago, Columbus and elsewhere, “soccer specific” stadiums have not brought out the fans. The attendance stinks. A 2010 World Cup in the US would keep MLS going. If we lose that, we may, to paraphrase Oedipus, fall all the way.
MLS is more successful now than it has ever been. Have you missed the recent large sponsorship deal from Adidas, several TV contracts, uniform sponsors on their way, new franchises with entrance fees, and stadium ground breaking for NYRB which had probably the worst rent deal. We'll never see acurate numbers just like we never do in other sports, but I firmly believe MLS is now profitable as a league.
I hope MLS optimists are right. But look at the facts. Dallas could not even sell out the opening day of Pizza Hut Park. The place is empty for most games. Almost as empty as Crew Stadium and Home Depot Center, a busy concert venue in the LA area. In Chicago, it is just as bad if not worse. I could go on. And they aren't fooling anybody by saying there are 13,700 people there when there are 1500. They can't even give the tickets away. Once the stadiums are built the soccer teams have outlived their purpose, at least in the view of some MBA types. Believe me, I hope I am wrong. But I saw the Chicago Mustangs fail, the Chicago Spurs fail, the Chicago Sting fail. Now I go to Fire games and Section 8 has 70 peope on a good day. We used to get 400-500. But a 2010 World Cup could be our deus ex machina. MLS could become profitable in its 15th or 16th year with the boost the Cup could give us. It could happen. But it looks like Australia is going to get the Cup. Stay tuned!
You're on your own on this one, the Galaxy regularly get 15k-20k+. Like was said earlier, you made some good points until you brought up the "demise of MLS" which is akin to Dick Cheney's "dirty bomb" and "WMD" babble.
Australia made a smash hit with the 2000 Olympics. Australia has been groomed for some time for the 2018 World Cup. FIFA can advance it a bit. Australia is better for TV times in Europe. The US would sell more tickets than Australia, but has so many liabilities after that. Try getting a visa to the US. It is easy to get a visa to Australia. As to tickets, sure, FIFA would like to sell all of them, but the World Cup is increasingly becoming a private part, with sponsors controlling things, and you have to know someone to get a crack an most of the tickets. They can deal with some unsold seats in Adelaide. Tickets "sold" to sponsors but with no one in the seat. Anyway, check out World Soccer and the Australian press and draw your own conclusions. I don't thik it has been decided yet. I know the Galaxy announces 13,000 or more for many games. Those are tickets "distributed" not people in the stadium. MLS attendance stinks.
is australia sufficiently large enough to host 32 nations....?? sounds like aussie land is better suited the share hosting with some one else, like the korea/japan model??
as someone said earlier ... MLS is as strong as ever ... both on and off the field ... attendance is not the best indicator of how a league is doing ... keep that in mind ...
I think if South Africa doesnt get all the preparations for the cup done , and the cup is taken from them , I would love it to be in Australia , because I think Australia would host a great tournament . I would love the US to have the tournament again , because there would be a lot of hype and maybe some more fans would be created , but I want to travel for the WC , and I would love to go to Africa or Australia . MLS is strong , the attendance may not be what it is in other countries , but you have to start somewhere and the league is doing well of not overexpanding . You can't compare the Chicago teams of the NASL to that of the Fire , just like you cant compare the NASL and the MLS , they are completely different .
Here's an article on travelling in and around Cape Town: http://travel.news.yahoo.com/b/rolf...n.OU80F;_ylu=X3oDMTBhdTdkN3BoBHNlYwNibHRyaXA- Interesting what is said about crime:
well yeah, but the point here is that it's usually not *mentioned* in travel guides to US, French, English etc. cities. just about every travel guide to south africa has some explicit mention of it's mind boggling crime rate. and since it's *violent crime* rate is also quite eye opening, any sensible person who's aware of south africa's crime problem will tend to be on the paranoid side when there. paranoia is definitely a killjoy and certainly doesn't add to a good world cup experience. i would love a successful SA world cup, but the cards do seem stacked against it at this point. yeah, i know, a lot can change in 4 years, but in this case, a lot will *have* to change.
I have spoken with 4 different friends, all expatriates from South Africa and they all expressed the same three points of view. 1. They sincerely doubt that the venues will be finished on time. 2. They are more concerned for people's safety as they travel between cities than at the venues themselves. 3. They themselves would not recommend going.
while i haven't been there myself, i know people who go regularly. and while they spend good chunks of time (weeks) there each time they go, they too have not experienced any of this crime in any fashion. i don't doubt that the vast majority of the people who visit SA do so without incident, and end up having a great time. but really, all this talk of SA crime from sources other than BS, who have nothing to do with FIFA or WC or SA, has to make you think. i went to wc2002 and wc2006 and never once thought of security. as of now i'm still planning to go to wc2010, but i'm watching things...
Here is an article about South Africa's plans to improve their transportation infrastructure: http://allafrica.com/stories/200610220054.html Lots of information in that article. They are set to spend some 3.7 billion Rand on roads and trains, which according to my calculations is about 490 million dollars. They are also spending 3.5 billion rand on recruiting traffic cops. It also mentions that public transportation will again be free for holders of match tickets on the day of games.
Based on what I read in a Belfast newspaper yesterday, the current cost estimate is 600% higher than the initial. 600%!!!
It seems a large part of that is due to the fact that the government decided to build a few new soccer stadia, rather than upgrade current rugby stadia. And also, estimates ALWAYS come in low.