http://sports.yahoo.com/m/sow/news/ap/20030106/ap-worldcup-africa.html Nigeria, Tunisia, South Africa, Morocco, Libya and Egypt put in initial bids to host the 2010 World Cup. Thanks to Mr. Blatter's genius continent rotation system, only African nations can put in bids. I have a bad feeling about this. I doubt Nigeria and Libya would get it because of political instability. Tunisia is stable now, but only by a thin thread. Of course, one has to be concerned about proximity of these nations to such a political hot spots. And stadium safety issue, particularly in South Africa, has yet to be addressed. Oh well. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
I hardly ever agree with you but I do agree about the continent rotation format being pure crap. Brazil and England deserve it more. All these African countries have major risks how bout Australia their bid would be free of major obstacles.
Can't we have a try to discuss the African nations here? I mean, we all expressed that other countries and continents would be better and possible, but as long as Blatter doesn't realise that he's doing crap, we'll have to accept that these six nations are the only possibilities. I agree with Skipshady on Nigeria and Lybia, they won't have a real chance because of that. With Tunisia I got some problems. One or two years ago we had this terrorist attack with many dead tourists at a mosque in Djerba, Tunisia. While all secret services and very openly even the states have no doubt that this was an El-Qaida attack, the Tunisian government still insists that this was an accident to not get into further trouble. But this gives me some doubts about the needed necessary open-mindedness of the nation. Egypt still has enough security problems within the own country. In South Africa even the league boss admitted that the security measures are a catastrophe and that they even have massive trouble with holding simple league games. Only remaining candidate is Morocco - would be my choice of the sixth, but this time it's really a pick of the category "which is the best of six weak bids?".
What are the negatives to Egypt hosting besides terrorism ? Of all the arab countries that have terrorsim problems they'd seem to be one of the ones that has the best security. They seem to have the money and facilities. I'd give it to them South Africa would be my second choice. They hosted the cricket world cup before they can host big international events. Tunusia and Morroco I feel are too small to hold such a massive event. Nigeria and Libya no way that'd be the worst. Why's Cameroon not one of the 6 finalists.
Nigeria/ECOWAS Bid http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=253980&cc=5901 "Cameroon, Ghana, Benin Republic and Togo are our West African neighbors and we have got them involved in this grand-scale plan," Odegbami told Reuters. "We have spoken to their football ambassadors and we are getting their governments to back it. The Nigerian government is supporting this." ------------ ...so the Nigerian bid gets more interesting. Unlike the J/K experience and the Scandinavian proposal for Euro 2008, and ECOWAS co-hosted could be a solution for an African bid, since no single country is likely to have the wherewithal to pull off a modern Mundial. I tried to imagine a logical joint bid involving sub-Saharan Africa, and couldn't do it. South Africa and Nigeria? Not feasible. Just Cameroon and Nigeria? Too much bad blood, not enough venues, and more. If, as the article mentions, a common currency and airlines develops, then two of the biggest problems associated with joint hosting disappear. Also, the distances involved are not (comparatively) large, so that could be overcome. Each country's national stadium could be brought up to standards and they would not need to fall into the building frenzy associated with J/K. Obviously lots of negatives persist. But I see a glimmer of potential for the first time, where to my mind none existed before. Incidentally, only three African countries have hosted FIFA tourneys: Nigeria and the WYC in 1999, Egypt and the U-17 tourny in 1997, and Tunisia and the first WYC in 1977.
Egypt is bidding to host the 2004 Futsal World Cup. Although it's comparatively tiny I'm sure they would try to boost their chances and advertise plenty during that tournament. IMHO it will be between SA, Egypt and Morroco.
I can't see any country other than South Africa getting it. Of the six nations they are the most advanced country and the controversial 2006 WC vote alone should get them the votes they need. The only other country that I think has a shot is Morocco because of how close they are to Europe geographically. A joint bid could work as well, but it would need to be thought out and planned very well. However, expect to be going to South Africa when the summer of 2010 rolls around.
Yes, I agree with desertfox2 that South Africa will win, already because of the last missed chance. Nevertheless the facts remain that there were major riots and clashes with the police in South African league games this year, also causing several dead people IIRC. And what their league officials think about the bid can be seen in my prior post.
I've got a feeling 2006 was South Africa'a chance. Of this group I'd bet on Morocco getting it. Access to Europe, lower crime rate vis a vis South Africa and better infrastructure than most of the competition.
I most sincerely protest your statement regarding our glorious desert nation. Although I might not be stable, have no fears that the political situation in Libya is very stable and has been for many years. Sincerely, Qaddafi P.S. I am a very modest man. Have you ever heard me refer to myself as General? No, Colonel is sufficient. P.S.S Go Juventus!
No way Nigeria will get it. Look at the Miss World (or Miss Universe?) Pageant that was abandoned and held in England. Any country outside of Africa that wants to host the WC should hope Nigeria initially gets the WC. That way, when FIFA takes it away from Nigeria in 2008, all the other big countries (e.g., England, USA, Brazil, etc.) can step in and offer to host the tournament for FIFA on short notice. I agree with most of the comments here that South Africa and Morocco have the best shot at getting the tournament. South Africa almost won it for 2006, so they just need to update their bid. Morocco seems stable and with a wealthy monarch who can throw money around and build some white elephants to host the matches.
Having said this millions of time on Bigsoccer, I had actually been to South Africa and Morocco. My take: South Africa Pro -- World class infrastructure. You can spend two weeks in South Africa, you will think that you are in California. I am speaking as someone who lived in the Bay Area for two years. There is no doubt on my mind South Africa is ready on that aspect. -- Tourists will stay away from the bad areas. -- Successfully organized the Rugby World Cup. -- Everyone can speak English. Cons -- Extremely High crime rate. -- The Black township during the apartheid were in bad condition. The tourists will stay away during the World Cup. But would it be better to spend money on the township? -- the soccer stadium are in poor condition. Their rugby stadium is well liked the modern ones in England. Morocco Pros -- Close to Europe. Easier access to fans. -- Stable government. Cons -- Infrastructure: They had some world class hotels. That's about it. We need another Marshall plan before they can be up to South Africa's standard. Morocco is not ready. -- Lack of big cities. I skipped Rabat. -------------------------------------- My final assessment.... South Africa is ready to host it now. Morocco can host it if the actual tournament is held in Spain.
I was going to reply to this, but the Colonel has taken care of it for me. My take: You may not like his politics, but Libya has had the same ruler for more than 30 years. I'd have to call that pretty stable. I've also heard that, because of the oil income to population ratio, everyone gets a free college education. Women included. The good colonel is building a massive water project, an underground pipeline to bring aquifer water from southern Libya to the populated north, so he can certainly afford to build a half dozen world-class stadiums in Tripoli and Benghazi. The two biggest hurdles I see are 1) political; and 2) the Libyan national team sucks. If Libya did host, the 8-0 drubbing the Germans gave the Saudis would be mild in comparison. I'm afraid that, on that reason alone, there's no way Libya will get the bid. But having spent my childhood there, I'd be up for going just to see how much its changed.
Re: Nigeria/ECOWAS Bid So, if this bid happens and gets accepted, I guess Africa will get 6 to 8 spots in 2010. With 5 hosts, surely FIFA wouldn't limit those 5 to the tournament -- they'd have to give at least 1 and probably more likely 2 or 3 more slots for qualification. Someone mentioned how bad Libya's NT is -- where do Benin Rep and Togo stand?
Being a co-host wouldn't guarantee a spot. The Scandanavian bid for UEFA 08 only called for two host slots (probably Sweden and Norway or Denmark). I think the other two would have to qualify to play.
Re: Re: Nigeria/ECOWAS Bid I thought FIFA announced that 2004 was the last time a host nation would get an automatic spot? If I wasn't halucinating that would take care of the crap national team problem. Scumby
South Africa is difficult Yes South Africa probably looks like the best choice up front. One can imagine that between Johannesburg, Sun City, Cape Town, and maybe some smaller locales along the Garden Route they could host this thing. But I have serious concerns about [1] Extremely high crime rate (probably applies more for Johannesburg) [2] More importantly ... the HIV epidemic ... and it's social/economic impacts 7-1/2 years from now. Regarding my 2nd point, I think SA may be a totally different place 7-1/2 years from now then what it is today (or infact what it was 5 years ago when they were bidding for '06). Think of a future land where (maybe) 50% of the entire population is sick or dying. It will be like the Mad Max movies of the early 80s. Anarchy, complete social breakdown, unstaffed schools, overflowing and helpless hospitals, social services, everything. Maybe I am making a bigger deal out of this than it should be (like the Y2K bug), but it really is concerning. In that light, maybe the Morocco or Egypt may be more suitable. Both already get millions of tourists a year from all over the developed world (especially Egypt which has been a tourist hot-spot for the last 40 years) so they definitely have the hospitality-infrastructure to host it. It will all depend on whether they can dish out the extra bucks to build new stadiums. Otherwise socially I am betting they will be more stable than SA in 7-1/2 years if not already.
I agree with you on this position, but be aware. There are some thought police who have shut down threads on this same subject down when these types of critiques have been raised regarding South Africa, which is somewhat of an icon of left-wing political philosophy due to the construction of its post-Apartheid republic. There are many posters who are curiously watching to see what happens in the upcoming Cricket World Cup, which is probably only 1/10 the size of the Copa Mondial, but will give a decent test to the capacity of South Africa to police and host big events. You might have heard of some of the contraversies surrounding this event (some teams including England are considering boycotting some of the tests being held in Zimbabwe [for symbolic reasons] where President Mugabe is basically starving his enemies to death and running white landowners off of their farms). I really think the AIDS thing could be a big deal. I am afraid even the best hospitals in South Africa are very close to being compromised by the vast numbers of AIDS patients and even health care workers. There are bound to be muggings, run over pedestrians, etc at any big event (well-policed or not) - but it would be a scandal if a couple hundred people get exposed to/contract AIDS while they are visiting South Africa to attend the World Cup. Not that it isn't tragic that so many South Africans are having to struggle against the disease and all, but I think you know what I mean . . .
Re: South Africa is difficult Add Durbin and Pretoria to the list.... But I do agree the HIV epidemic and high crime rates will be a prime concern.
South Africa deserves this world cup or at least another African country. They were obviously screwed for the 2006 cup. All of you who dont think that Africa can host 2010 should just come out and say the real reason why you dont feel that they should host it. You dont want the continent of Africa making a lot of profit off a big event like the world cup. Of course, every country has terrorists, and muggings and murders. But most of you act like this is uncommon. There are security risks in any country trying to host a major event. Yeah South Africa is the crime capital or the world, but the same risks can be spoken of if the tournament were held in England (just look at all the hooliganism that goes on there) and Brazil as well. Africa has never hosted the world cup and is the only continent in the world that has not yet and that is why they deserve 2010 so much. So everyone should stop talking about the continent's inability to host a good tournament. Because it is only a very sad excuse for them not to host it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Nigeria/ECOWAS Bid You are correct. The host will continue to receive an automatic bid. It doesn't make any sense to have a W/C without the local interest generated by the host nation's participation. Of course, it's kind of weird for even the defending champion to have to qualify again, but that's a bit of tradition that can be disposed of.
I have a problem with the notion that a country deserves to host the Cup. It should be based on the merit of the bid and the benefit/drawback to FIFA and the game of soccer, period. Not really. Blatter tried to hand the bid to South Africa on a plate and Oceania decided not to play in the game. The screwing went both ways. You might want to lose the paranoia. If most people are like me, they want to see the sport grow in Africa. But very few countries, African or otherwise, can handle an event of the World Cup's magnitude. Um, if the crime rate in South Africa is significantly higher than the rest of the world, how is the risk same? It is not. I've already stated my opinon on 'deserving' to host. Africa hosting the event before it's ready would do more harm than good to the continent and the sport. How is the inability host a good tournament a very sad excuse? It seems like a perfectly valid reason.