Supposed to get it? That's crap. The WC should be something a country earns. It shouldn't be dependent simply on the continent or sympathy votes. South Africa is a bad choice in terms of transportation costs. Can you get any further away from the fans that actually spend money to travel to the games? South Africa does have the advantage of having a lot more money to spend on an event like this than any other African country. But what will they spend? Can many of the rugby stadiums be used? I don't think anyone's too worried about Morocco's venture into Western Sahara, let alone the low key disputes over Spain holding onto territory on the African continent. I'd rather see Brazil, Australia, or Mexico get the 2010 WC.
"fans that actually spend money to travel to the games"? What fans DONT spend money to travel to games exactly? If you cant afford to travel there or cant be bothered to go that far away, tough luck. Theres plenty of others who will, you're not a priority or even a factor. South Africa isnt far away from African fans, South American or Asian, and you can bet your arse it costs them alot more to travel than it does for Americans. Of course rugby stadiums can be used, they're already used for football anyway. And considering the USA have used American football stadiums for both WWC's they've hosted (without even bothering to fully remove lines on occasion) and USA 94, then i find it funny you even bother to ask this. You'd rather see Brazil, Australia or Mexico? Australia is even further away than South Africa. And when did Brazil, Australia and Mexico join Africa? Have you only just come out from behind your rock? 2010 is Africa, 2014 South America. Deal with it.
Re: Re: eagle winged = s africa's biggest fan boy Oh deary me, don't start on that one. Yes, it's for a reason (then again maybe I'm even wrong on that) - but it's not the one you're thinking of. World, meaning the World can participate, and does so through the myriad of qualifying systems. It's NOT called the World cup because every tin-pot country should be able to host it - of that I am sure.. The rotation system is a farce and smacks faaar too much of football being forced to the four corners of the earth - but then FIFA surely wouldn't have anything to gain from that - would they?? And don't, inresponse to this say something silly like it's because it wouldn't be on my doorstep every 8 years. I've never been to a WC match, ans I've been around for the '82, '90, '98 European WCs. Hell, I didn't even go to a Euro '96 match when it was here. It's just a bad idea overall. The reasons have been gone over relentlessly previously on BS, so I won't indulge.
Re: Re: Re: eagle winged = s africa's biggest fan boy *Yaaawwwwnnnnnnnn* No tin pot country is hosting it, or will ever host it. When a tin pot country hosts it, you'll have a valid argument. And yes, it should be forced around the four corners of the globe. Not repeatedly forced in the same regions.
Re: Re: Re: Re: eagle winged = s africa's biggest fan boy Such a mature way to start your reply. Still, shows we've found your level. Why? Because we football loving people know better than those who prefer baseball, Aussie Rules etc? If people want the sport, they'll let people know. You can't force it to happen in regions where it's massively accepted already.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: eagle winged = s africa's biggest fan boy I'm tired and bored of the same old repetitive crap from those who are bitter and refuse to accept the inevitable. The fact that countries will bid, and most of the people in said contries will support the bid, kinda implies its wanted. Name one country which has bid for a WC where the game isnt massively accepted already. Name one country you think will bid for future world cups, where it isnt accepted already. Football is the most popular sport in the world, and football is alot more accepted in South Africa, Morocco, or infact any African country than it is in America for a start. Why are you under the illusion that countries who bid wont be a footballing nation?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: eagle winged = s africa's biggest fan boy I'm not bitter at all. Like I said it has no personal bearing on me whatsoever, as to where any future WCs are held. It's inevitable is it? Well, we'll see. And the repitition is from both sides, does the phrase "It's called the World Cup for a reason" rign any bells. If I've heard that once I've heard it a hundred times on these boards. Usually from people who have little grasp of reality as to what it takes to host the largest single sporting event in the World. Countries will bid because whilst it costs an immense amount of money to host - the benefits are seen as desirable. Bidding for the WC has absolutely nothing to do with what the general populace thinks of the sport (however it really, really ought to). You think the general populace of the US wanted the WC in 1994? I'll tell you the answer....no. One country who has bid for a WC where the game isn't accepted? Hmmmm, toughy.... USA. One country that will bid for a future WC where it isn't accepted? Hmmmmm, again, tricky....The USA (again) and I'll raise you an Australia. I have no idea why this is supposed to mean anything to me. And besides, as I'll say later, it's not about just who likes the damn sport. Though that is part of the equation. Because it's the damn rotation system. Oceania gets a go if I'm not mistaken. You all in favour of that?? That football loving nation of Australia must be rubbing their hands at the prospect. Or maybe New Zealand...Papua NewGuinea?? And besides, you really think that liking the sport is enough to host the WC? You're sorely mistaken if that's the case. Estonia like it too, as do Paraguay, and Iceland - the list goes on. It's about the rest of it. The Olympics can only feasibly be held in a very select number of countries. Why on earth do people consider the WC to be so much smaller an event that countries with their own struggling economies and lack of decent infrastructure could capably host the thing. The truth of the matter is that the WC is massive and almost on a par with the Olympics, and decisions as to where to host should encompass this fact alongside other obvious arguments. I suggest you stop being so biassed about your country having the opportunity to host the WC, and see why others (many, many, many others) might see it as a bad idea for the foreseeable future. For example, spend some of the billions which would be required to host, on helping alleviate some of the problems all too obvious to the outside world which exist in South Africa. And frankly I think it's disgusting that in a country where there are plenty of problems - they would sanction the spending of billions of dollars/pounds/rands whatever, on such a frivolous event. Which let's face it, the WC is. For what it's worth, and in an attempt to sound reasonable to your blinkered ears (?) - I've nothing against South Africa per se. Merely against them hosting the WC. They did a great job of hosting the Rugby WC a few years back. Football WC is a different entitiy altogether.
The thing that should be noted is that South Africa went alone in hosting the '95 RWC. They didn't ask for help from other countires for hosting games. The security situation in South Africa was far worse in '95 than it is now. Conserding how they ran everything despite the problems, South Africa gets my nod as the clear favorite.
FIFA's rotation of the World Cup is aimed at growing the game in the slightly or hugely less football-crazy regions of the world. USA 94 shot American soccer years ahead and MLS was borne of it. Boosting the strength of soccer in Asia was the reason for Korea-Japan. While Africa has more football following than the previous two regions, it is not Europe or South America. Clearly the goal of an African World Cup is to solidify soccer participation and support there by bringing the greatest tournament and the attention of world football. While FIFA has that noble goal in mind, it must face the issues of the day- profitability as a product of global TV audience stadium size, and transport infrastructure, and safety-like terrorism, all-seater stadiums, and local police force. South Africa is, or is at least percieved to be, miles ahead in every category. The only negative factor is the distance from Europe. If the UEFA contingent succeeds in getting it to Morocco, the stories of supporters missing games because of transportation failures and not being able to get tickets because of fewer available seats will be almost as numerous as those about the games.
Can anyone recall whether or not it was South Africa or the International Cricket Council that forced matches from the recent Cricket World Cup to be played in Zimbabwe out of "respect" for its past association with SA? I think it was the cricket federation, but if I remember correctly, the South African government certainly didn't stand up for England's objections. whoever made it made an awful decision. I would hate to see the same thing happen if a World Cup was assigned to South Africa. Especially on late notice the way the cricket decision was. I don't think that vicious dictators like Mugabe should be legitimized by respected sporting bodies. These types of political conflicts seem to be synonomous with South Africa, which has replaced the odious Apartheid regime with perhaps the world's most politically correct regime. As far as crime and the like, look at some of these capsules from BBC (prepared for the Cricket World Cup) about leading South African cities: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport3/cwc2003/spl/venues_guide/html/johannesburg.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport3/cwc2003/spl/venues_guide/html/bloemfontein.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport3/cwc2003/spl/venues_guide/html/cape_town.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport3/cwc2003/spl/venues_guide/html/port_elizabeth.stm The British Foreign Office Travel Advisory is an eyeopener as well: http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front...7029390590&a=KCountryAdvice&aid=1013618386433 Personally, I would love to visit South Africa. My South African friends have traveled nearly everywhere in the world, but rarely find places that they consider more attractive than their home country. But at the same time, I think it is wrong for sporting decisions (such as the awarding of the world cup) to be made based on political correctness. Though Rugby World Cups and Cricket World Cups have successfully been hosted, these tournaments have been on a much smaller scale than a Soccer World Cup. Also, I can forsee some pretty ugly situations if you have millions of poor South Africans angry about finally having their nation host a World Cup they care about (since the township communities are not as interested on the whole in Rugby and Cricket) and not being able to afford prices to attend the matches. The World Cup should be awarded to the nation that puts together the best, most appealing package, period. If FIFA does put the World Cup in South Africa it will be difficult for the tournament to generate the revenues that the Japan/Korea, France, US or Germany tournaments generated. This will put even more pressure on the tournament to succeed from the sporting standpoint. If indeed the South African tournament is a superior one and there are no major crime incidents, great. But the risks are very large. If the tournament is largely a failure, it will only make it harder for other "borderline" countries (Argentina/Mexico/Brazil due to a mixture of economic and social reasons - not suggesting the countries are not deserving of the tournament for footballing or infrastructural reasons) to get successful bids in the future. Also HIV/AIDS infection rates: http://www.hivdent.org/publicp/inter/ppinsahrc032001.htm http://www.aegis.com/news/afp/2002/AF020640.html Hope you don't have to go to the hospital in South Africa and crime rates: http://www.iss.co.za/Pubs/ASR/9No4/Schonteich.html http://members.easyspace.com/football/2006/crime2ld.html 20x the murder rate of UK, 5 times the murder rate of US. Property crimes and sexual assaults are similarly very high. The good news is that it seems like South Africa's crime rates are trending in the right direction. By 2010, it is possible that they will be more in line with US and Europe. http://www.safrica.info/what_happening/news/crime-statistics_220903.htm Plus, as assaults/muggings are growing more commonplace in Europe (esp England), maybe South Africa won't be much worse in 2010. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/12/01/ncrime01.xml
Definitely. It's basically on the edge of the populated earth. But one poster on this board mentioned it's not too far from South America. Conmebol and UEFA clearly have the most pull, and I took that earlier post to mean conmebol fans wouldn't care either way. I said distance from Europe because another poster mentioned that UEFA would lobby to have it closer to them. I think that's very likely.