The Battle for Control of US Soccer

Discussion in 'Business and Media' started by Andy_B, Aug 7, 2002.

  1. PaulGascoigne

    PaulGascoigne Member+

    Feb 5, 2001
    Aotearoa/NZ
    I was going to write this exact thought. They can be PC and give one to S. Africa only to have it whisked away to the US with about a year to go when they realize it ain't even coming remotely close to happening, or they can give it to somewhere that can handle it. Just because we all philosophically WANT to have the cup in Africa because their fans and teams are as important and valid as anyone else's doesn't mean they have the infrastructure to do it (my Dad was born in Africa and I love Nigerians, but they will NEVER, EVER be able to host a WC in my lifetime).

    Todda, no, it's not a good thing, but S. Africa and all of Africa have a hell of a lot worse worries than not hosting a cup.
     
  2. Benedict XVI

    Benedict XVI Member

    Nov 22, 1999
    Ciudad del Encanto
    Club:
    Lisburn Distillery FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: Re: Re: Must Disagree

    in some ways, yes, in some ways, no. is it a good thing that the NFL doesn't have franchises in Canton, Ohio, and Rock Island and Decatur, Illinois?

    sometimes things just outgrow where they come from.


    South Africa needs to worry about ending the pandemic of HIV and making its streets reasonably safe before they go around building soccer stadia.
     
  3. ne plus ultra

    ne plus ultra Member

    Jul 9, 2000
    Theories about the number of nations of sufficient size to host the WC have to be thrown out after the success of the shared hosting in K-J. While there were problems, they weren't related to shared hosting.

    I'd look for something along those lines to happen again -- perhaps Chile-Argentina or Belgium-Holland. South Africa have some difficulties, since they're the only reasonably-sized economy in sub-Saharan Africa. They have been courting Nigeria politically since the democratic transition there, and if the latter country remains democratic, it could stabilize. But history suggests the degree of optimism required to predict that will happen. Here's hoping.

    We'd do well to add Canada to any bid we submit. Hell, what about a Nafta cup, with games in Mexico City, Guadalajara, Toronto, Montreal, Chicago, DC, NY, and LA? The flights wouldn't be any longer to Mexico than to LA.
     
  4. Tea Men Tom

    Tea Men Tom Member

    Feb 14, 2001
    Who would go?

    Who in their right mind would attend a World Cup tournament in Africa? I would think it would be disasterous to hold it there? It's too difficult to get to, there's the political climate to consider, I just don't see it happening.

    The bottom line is money talks and bringing the WC here means making money. Plus soccer's got some nice momentum going right now and I think getting the 2010 WC would give a huge boost to MLS and US Soccer in general.

    That 5 year window that was set last year would automatically be extended to 2010. It might even signal the arrival of the US as a major player in international soccer.

    Just an opinion, but I think it's more likely we get the WC in 2010 than not.
     
  5. insomniac

    insomniac New Member

    Jun 18, 2002
    LA
    The biggest problem with any African nation hosting a World Cup (IMHO) is September 11th and it's legacy.

    You can't host a major event (WC, Olympics) in a developing country these days because of the threat of terrorism.

    Does anyone feel really comfortable with these next Olympics in Athens?

    I would be extremely surprised in the 2010 World Cup ends up in Africa, despite promises made after Germany got the '06 Cup.
     
  6. pugetsoundmls

    pugetsoundmls New Member

    Oct 6, 2000
    Seattle
    So I guess there's not a 3rd option beyond the Bob or Al Shows? Please don't say Chuck Blazer. What wonderful leadership we have...:(
     
  7. GersMan

    GersMan Member

    May 11, 2000
    Indianapolis
    Umm, Greece isn't a developing nation.

    Re the Cup not being held in Africa. You are acting on the rational actor premise, assuming those making decisions will make them rationally. You shouldn't assume this.

    If it is "whisked away' from Africa after the award, wouldn't it more likely to go to Mexico or Brazil? Why would the U.S. get the Cup before either of those states?
     
  8. Schapes

    Schapes Member

    Aug 20, 2001
    World Cup

    Both countries (Brazil and Mexico) have major economic issues. I doubt whether they would be able to stage a World Cup. Same goes with most of Africa. It sounds like a great idea to bring the tournament to a continent where it hasn't been before. But, realistically, with all of their issues in terms of economic woes and social problems. How successfull would it be?

    The United States in 1994 had the largest attendance and was the most profitable of any World Cup.

    I say the U.S. should go for it in 2010!
     
  9. conquerant

    conquerant New Member

    Sep 22, 2000
    Boston
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No, but they've had problems with terrorism.

    As far as having a World Cup in Africa goes, don't forget the main driving force in world soccer today: money. How much in gate reciepts would an African World Cup take in? I don't think there's many people in South Africa who could pony up $200 for a ticket.
     
  10. Andy_B

    Andy_B Member+

    Feb 2, 1999
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think people forget just how different it is from holding a cup in the 2000's vs holding one even as recently as the 80's.

    It is complete night and day in terms of infrastructure needed to support the massive undertaking.

    Andy
     
  11. kenntomasch

    kenntomasch Member+

    Sep 2, 1999
    Out West
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Greece is not a developing nation, but they have a crap infrastructure that has made the logistics of the next Olympics a 24-hour-a-day nightmare for the IOC and promise to make it a challenge at best for anyone who goes.

    Nice folks, and all, historic, the original Olympics, sentimentalism, that's fine. Same with Africa and the World Cup, nice gesture, yadda yadda, throw 'em a bone.

    Only this is 2002 (and that will be 2010) and you kind of have to have your act together to host an event of this magnitude. If you can't guarantee people's safety or that you can effectively manage the people and communication needs and all that, then you shouldn't host a World Cup.
     
  12. total_football

    total_football Member+

    Apr 2, 2002
    Chicago
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    South Africa

    Well, they have hosted the RFU WC and are slated to host the 2003 ICC WC, so they do have the stadia and faciltities to host major tournaments.
     
  13. insomniac

    insomniac New Member

    Jun 18, 2002
    LA
    Not saying it would go to the U.S., basically just saying that it's hard to imagine making a rational decision to give the Cup to an African Nation.

    But as others have pointed out, with FIFA, who knows?
     
  14. GersMan

    GersMan Member

    May 11, 2000
    Indianapolis
    And the U.S. hasn't had problems with terrorism????

    Gosh - I hope I don't have to pay $200 for a ticket the next time the Cup is here.
     
  15. Ismitje

    Ismitje Super Moderator

    Dec 30, 2000
    The Palouse
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Re: South Africa

    Point well made. They could have also hosted WC06, but the projected impact of the HIV pandemic and unlikelihood of the cash infusion necessary to pump out the infrastructure for a soccer as opposed to rugby and cricket championships change the equasion for WC10. Cricket stadia are as appropriate for soccer as, well, that horse track or whatever the Colorado Foxes played at.
     
  16. slacker

    slacker Member

    Nov 20, 2001
    Chicago
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    South America next?

    This thread is really becoming more about US getting another World Cup, than leadership of US Soccer - but who cares?

    While the US does look to be the best bet to host another Cup soon from the $$ and logistics standpoint, why wouldn't Argentina, or Brazil or some combination of South American countries also have a real legitimate shot?

    While the economies of Brazil and Argentina are in the crapper right now, how strong were they when they hosted previous Cups?

    And even though the standards and expectations are higher now for World Cups, surely Brazil or Argentina has enough large stadiums and hotels to handle it. They have plenty of fans to fill the seats, and would only really need to improve some transportation infrastructure. Granted that's a big issue in itself, but why would Brazil or Argentina not be able to use existing large capacity stadiums and just re-furbish them a bit? France did this for many of its venues didn't it?

    Also, no one should have been at all surprised about Japan's ability to co-host the Cup (it has had winter Olympics and is a major developed industrial country), the story really was Korea pulling it off - and they spent a fortune to do it!!!
     
  17. kenntomasch

    kenntomasch Member+

    Sep 2, 1999
    Out West
    Club:
    FC Tampa Bay Rowdies
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    And I wonder if, in the end, it was worth it for Korea, from a strictly dollars-and-cents (or whatever their currency is) standpoint. That was a serious investment, and it's much easier for a country like America to pull it off (we build stadia all the time anyway, and wouldn't have to build new ones for the Cup) and not worry about mortgaging our future (like Montreal did with Olympic Stadium, and by extension, the 76 Games).
     
  18. todda74

    todda74 New Member

    Nov 4, 2001
    Annapolis
    Korea will end up losing money on their stadiums because they did it the ass backwards way. Some of the 10 WC stadiums were built just to hold 3 or 4 World Cup games. They don't have a full time tenant.
    Combined J/K used 20 stadiums. That is pretty excessive.

    I hadn't thought about it until after I had posted but those who have questioned the fan support at an African hosted WC are correct. There is no way I will be going. Right now i'm planning on going to Germany but won't be going to Africa in the next decade.

    With Brazil and Argentina, 2010 is 8 years away and their economies will have recovered by then. I know it's more than just a temporary drop right now but I don't expect their recessions to last a whole decade.
     
  19. JeffGMc

    JeffGMc Member

    Oct 14, 2000
    New York City
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    I like the idea of this, but I think FIFA is going to be wary of a double-hosting again. If Canada agrees to go by the dollar, then it might happen. :)
     
  20. todda74

    todda74 New Member

    Nov 4, 2001
    Annapolis
    they already do, the Canadian dollar.

    question, has the Canadian team ever reached the World Cup? I remember before Italia '90 some countries wanted the 1994 Cup pulled from the US if we didn't make it to Italy. Could the same be said for Canada? If they have never been able to reach the tournament should the be able to host it? Me personally I think it would be great for Canada to get it.
     
  21. Americano e Orgulho

    Americano e Orgulho New Member

    Jun 5, 2002
    Earlier someone asked "who would want to go to a world cup in Africa?". Well, you can add myself to that list. But I love 3rd world countries.
     
  22. tcmahoney

    tcmahoney New Member

    Feb 14, 1999
    Metronatural
    1986. Lost 1-0 to France, then by 2-0 scores to Hungary and the USSR, respectively.
     
  23. todda74

    todda74 New Member

    Nov 4, 2001
    Annapolis
    thanks tcmahoney.
     
  24. AndyMead

    AndyMead Homo Sapien

    Nov 2, 1999
    Seat 12A
    Club:
    Sporting Kansas City
    Nothing to do with controlling US Soccer, but....

    I feel that 2018 is the realistic date for the next Men's World Cup to be played in the United States. WWC '07 or '11 should be here.
     
  25. Andy_B

    Andy_B Member+

    Feb 2, 1999
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I disagree.

    The next realistic date for the next Men's WC to be here in the US will be when ever the US puts forth a formal bid.

    I don't think people understand just how bad off FIFA is financially. A blown WC in Africa (which is all that can occur right now in South Africa with the infrastructure), could put FIFA out of business for good.

    My guess is that FIFA has already dropped the hint for the US to submit a bid earlier than we probably intended.

    Andy
     

Share This Page