What do you all think about the World Cup rotation? Is Conmebol getting screwed? Conmebol has won 9 out of the 16 World Cups. In 48 years Conmebol held the World Cup 4 times. Conmebol has to wait until at 2014 to hold it again (32 year wait, I believe that's when we get it). Looks like we are the ones that are getting f***d I can't believe that Europe held it in 1974,1982,1990,1998 and is going to have it on 2006. And they want to start the rotation in 2010, in few words, they want to *#*#*#*#*#*# everybody else and maybe hold it again in 2018. Concacaf held it in 1986, 1994 and they want to hold it again as soon as possible because the US have money. They act like if they are getting screwed. Asia held it in 2002, and they also want to hold it as again as soon as possible. They also act like if they are getting screwed. Oceania hasn't made it to the World Cup since 1974. That says it all. They should join the asian conference. They really want to screw Conmebol, I don't know if the rotation is already set, but I hope that is fair for everybody.
What do you want? We're only ten countries and of those ten only three maybe four have any real size and infrastructure. Finally, even given that, political and social problems are sure to make it difficult for at least half the countries. So that makes two countries versus about ten World Cup ready European nations.
It's all about money!!!!! Fifa is trying to keep being profitable. For that reason only countries with strong economies will get to host the WC. Lets put it this way: Besides Mexico and USA wich other Concacaf country would have the money or the logistics to run WC? None. In Europe you will have close to 10 candidates, maybe 3 or 4 in Asia, 2 in Oceania, 5 or 6 that are running for Africa's tournament and right now, I think only Brasil in South America. So the decision was not only about "globalizing" the game, is about going where the money is. Besides I don't think FIFA will grant a world cup to a country where social turmoil or violence are too heavy or too crispy (say Venezuela, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Argentina) or where simply they won't have the money to build stadiums and hotels (Paraguay, Ecuador) or too small to create enough revenue (Ecuador, Uruguay). Conmebol lonely candidate? Brazil. Besides we didn't help ourselves when Colombia renounced to their bid in 1986. Let Argentina and Brazil keep winning and FIFA making money, there is not a lot you can do right now...
I still think that there should be a fair rotation except for the case of Oceania (or whatever is called). I don't think that a country has to be filthy rich to be able to host a World Cup. I really think that about half of the countries in Conmebol can host a successful World Cup. They gave the World Cup to Japan/Korea and there were a lot of reasons to not do it. They have money (great) but that's a LONG TRIP for most soccer fans. I flew from the USA and it took a total of about 16 hours. Just imagine for how long Europeans fans had to fly. Other reason to not give it to them was the language, who the hell speaks korean or japanese? compare that to spanish and portuguese. In South America we have political problems, but it can't be compared to most countries in Africa, and they are going to host the World Cup. If they are only going to give it to the 5-10 countries that have the most money, then just go ahead and get rid of the World Cup and have a World Cup of soccer clubs.
OK. Lets see a list of countries hosting the WWC: Argentina 78 Chile 62 Uruguay 30 Brazil 50 Mexico 70-86 USA 94 *In The Americas, only Mexico got to host it twice* Spain 82 Germany 74, 06 France 38, 98 Italy 34, 90 Sweden 58 England 66 *In Europe, 3 countries get it twice* I think CONMEBOL would not get screwed over by UEFA all the time if they joined with CONCACAF and created one big confederation. But that will never happen. FIFA is more interested in getting ASIA and AFRICA countries on their side by offering them to host WWCs. Japan and Korea lost money in 2002. Africa will be much worse.
In a perfect world maybe... First of all...it's all about the money. You think that sponsors or advertisers or ticketmaster or ESPN do something for free? They need a country that is safe and prosperous so they have no problems sending people there and they do not end up covering terrorist attacks or murders. What about asian fans? Last time I checked there are close to 3 billions, half the population of earth. What about them flying to South America or Europe for 20 or more hours? See? It can be reversed. Besides J@panish, Koreans and other asians now have as much money as Europeans and Americans and more than sothamericans, to pay for the trip. And if your argument is language, China (1.5 billion), India (1 billion), United States, England, Australia and 20 other countries (500+ million of english speakers) have good arguments about it. Between spanish and portuguese we barely reach those 500 million people. And of course 40 out of 50 countries in Africa have problems, those are the ones that are not aplying for WC2010 or that will lose. For me it will be between South Africa and Marruecos. In South America there is only one country capable of hosting a WC and that is Brasil. If you ask G-14 and UEFA, probably they want to remove all national competitions outside of Europe, but still national pride moves much more money than UEFA clubs and gets involved almost all 6 billion people on the planet. The more people paying for transmissions, balls, shirts and souvenirs, the better for FIFA and its partners
I agree somehow Concacaf is a weak confederation. Their only two real contenders and profitable countries are the US an Mexico, and the US does not have such a strong fan base. The main reason for Conmebol to keep apart from Concacaf is that no matter the way they joined it will be a losing business for South America countries (think about it, They will have to subsidize and play the likes of Trinidad, Barbuda, Belize, Panama, etc.) no wonder Mexico tries so hard to play with Conmebol, except for the WC qualifyers that gives them an almost automatical spot to WC. And Fifa is not a one country one vote organism. Money rules and europeans, specially G-14 clubs have lots of it. And even if they "lose" money most of the loss goes to the host country (Fifa and sponsors do OK, thank you), that pays for hotels, stadiums, etc, but at the same time they're willing to take it to put some blood in their economy. Right now there are no countries in south America willing to do that.
Related to the other "America" thread, it is funny how we are considered America, one great continent, when it suits their needs, no? Hey, America hosted one in 1994, and nobody really claims Mexico, so those two don't count either. That is three in Concacaf alone. Don't include them into Conmebol to suit your needs. The key factor will be FIFA's unwillingness to do another joint venture like Japorea. If co-national bids are not allowed, then Conmebol will be required to wait for Brasil or Argentina to host another.
Yup, that's what happened in 86, Colombia was supposed to host it, but they dropped out cause of their Political woes. Kidnappers would have a field day, people from all over the world...
Brasil 2014?? Maybe... Lets take a look at world cups by confederation, since that is Fifa's view of the world. UEFA: 1934, 1938, 1954, 1958, 1966, 1974, 1982, 1990, 1998 and 2006 Conmebol: 1930, 1950, 1962, 1978 (it's been 25 years!!!!) CONCACAF: 1970, 1986, 1994 Asia: 2002 Africa: 2010 I agree with you that unless FIFA allows SouthAmerican countries to bid together, we'll have to wait for Brasil to host a WC, and I do not see it happening for 2014. Maybe 2018?
Let's not forget the politics involved. Wasn't Germany and England going for 2006? They worked the other nations and who knows what was promised under the table. South America's lost bid for 1986 should count in the rotation, of there really is a set rotation. It's not FIFA's fault if Colombia and CONMEBOL in general couldn't get their act together. If I were at FIFA, I would have come right back to Colombia or Conmebol as a show of class, but let's not lie here, South America has not improved much since. Look what happened in the last Copa America. Yes, Colombia did a nice job and there was general security, but if an Argentina decides not to show up, then what would nations outside the region think when Conmebol asks for a host bid? Then, if Argentina decides to make a run at another bid, don't you all think Colombia would work to make that NOT happen? Payback is a female dog.
I have to disagree with you. Colombia was for at least 10 years in a row the most dangerous country for journalists in the whole world (and still might be). During the last elections, Colombia's president was attacked with bombs at least 3 times (I wouldn't be amazed if its a lot more than that) Colombia has have what some people consider a civil war for more than 35 years. I've talked to people from Colombia and they tell me "It's ok to go to Colombia, but if you are going to go from one city to another one take a plane because guerrillas kidnap people in the country" Sounds to me like good reasons to be afraid of going to Colombia I don't think that Colombia would do anything to keep Argentina from hosting a WC because a WC in South America would benefit all the countries. Besides, even though the host for 2010 hasn't been selected, all the members of Conmebol decided that Brazil should host the WC in 2014
president Belisario Betancur, cancelled the funding and ask the fedederation to resign With FIFA exces the reason: economic situation, not a safety problem 1985/1986 mafia money was all over but the fighting was not at full speed.....the last 10 years are the consecunces of the down fall of the drug lords (Now is no cartel, but 20,000 heads with lots of money funding arms for the dog machine) The arm grps are so organized and rich that some say the govermnet will not win that war even if they launch full open attacks on them. dog machine= vigilantes bastards on the jungle labs and the airfields that supply USA and spain with drugs. 45 yrs ago we had guerrilla fights 35 yrs ago they were there, confined to the Jungle side Now they mingle with the towns and society that accepted drug lords 15 yrs ago! BTW, do not confuse that dog with garcia female dog.
My beautiful Locombia... 1st - our president is from Medellín, "Metrallo" as its know, 3 gas rocket bombs ain't gonna scare him, he's truly the Terminator, short but tough none the less. 2nd - Colombia dangerous? nah, what are you on? you just have to get used to it, people dont get gunned down on every corner, its more like every other corner. 3rd - Guerrillas? holy crap, again too much Hollywood, they are more like barefooted Montañeros who roam the countryside with outdated pea-shooters and steal chickens from poor farmers, again man you just have to get used to it. Once you have your first encounter with them, you'll get over your fear. 4 - Argentina not showing up for Copa America 2001? they're just mad cause Carlos Gardel was really born in Medellín and not Buenos Aires, so you see, Tango is really another beautiful music style from Colombia, like the Cumbia, el Porro, la Macarena, and La Lambada. They are also mad cause we wont buy their beef, gives you mad cow disease, or in Spanish, "Crazy Cow." 5 - I'm just poking fun of our situation, but hey if you ever go to Colombia for rea, go to "El Eje cafetero," beautiful countryside, old fashion people, beautiful women, relatively safe (as long as you keep your hands inside the car at all times) and of course make sure you go to the heart of it all, Medellín, most beautiful city in the world accordnig to an Argentinian "Mostaza" Merlo. Make sure to watch him on Copa Libertadores 2004 on FSE....
I just want to make sure that you all know that I don't have anything against Colombia, expect for the fact that you have a better league and national team than Venezuela (I really mean that one). We are "brothas" (not brothel) nations.
no secret.... Indeed but the narrow minded ones out there blame other things on the actual problems. Is an old problem fueled by USA dollars and Now days by spain Euros! Mafiosos 1986 was rejected by President Belisario, for economic reasons not safety! CLEAR?
You think I don't know that it was cancelled for Economic problems? and yes as long as theres demand there will always be supply, simple economics, if people didn't want to drive cars, car makers wouldn't be in the business. NYC could be compare with any Colombian city in terms of crime, no wonder Colombians go to NYC, it feels like home.
Now that I'm talking with you all, I had never heard the word "veneco" until I came to the US. Is that supposed to be a bad word, nickname or what? As you can imagine, it doesn't insult me, because I'm not even sure of what it's supposed to mean.
"Veneco" i guess its a short form of saying "Venezolano" ? insult? I guess it depends on how its used and by whom. Its like "Tico" = "Costarisence"
The word veneco is in the same category as Nica, manito, che, ticos and paraguas. It's a short term for a national, because sometimes the full word is toooooo long. Sometimes people use it as an insult, but i think most of the time is just short for Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, Mexican, Argentinian, Costarricense, Paraguayan. Luckyly colombians are only called colombians, or drug dealers. I do not take it personally, most people do not know me and they only Know what they see in the news.
I was talking to my mother-in-law last night about our trip to Peru in June. I have asked and asked to visit her home town, a village really deep in the Peruvian mountainside. She told me that the Terucos are back in action in the general area. She doesn't want me to go because she doesn't want to have to explain to her family if I get kidnapped or killed. Who said moms-in-laws are all bad? Otherwise, she would be buying me my ticket. I plan to fly from Lima to the nearest city/region called Andahualyas, stay there and visit the various family members in their little pueblos from there.
terucos = sendero Luminoso? con tal que no se unan a los narco-guerrillos que tenemos en el Putumayo frontera con peru...... No se porque pero creo que necesitamos un foro para hablar *#*#*#*#*#*#aa y Politica de los latinos.... quien me apoya, a crear eso en español claro esta, por que o si no nos mandan para esa chigadera que es ricalries and stuff......I found it boring and lazy.