Tunisia 2010? No one else had mentioned this, so I thought I would bring it up: Tunisia bids to host 2010 World Cup I'm sure most UEFA nations would prefer either Morocco or Tunisia for obvious logisitcal reasons. Sachin
Brazil and England deserve it more from a football perspective. Africa deserves it more from spreading the game around the world perspective. I'm more interested in giving it to the places where football has a rich history who havent had it in ages rather than looking for how much money I can make by giving it to a new place.
Historical reasons don't matter. I see security, infrastructure, financial and stadium problems for all African states. If they can prove the opposite, then fine, let them host the games. I rather fear that 2010 Africa is mainly for Blatter reaching something monumental at the end of his presiding term, cost what it takes (as Samaranch with the Olympics in Peking). I don't hope it, but games in Africa might lead to a disaster.
I understand your fears, but perhaps a World Cup in North Africa would be easier to manage for all concerned. Certainly travel to the venues would be easier, if only on the basis of proximity. Sachin
Maybe moroco could have a joint bid wih spain. i still think it would be best for all concernd if it went South america Europe South america Europe England Or the winner of the last world cup could get first refusal on whever they want to host the tournament.
Throw in Egypt too Egypt also enters the fray for 2010. This article and the articles on Tunisia's bid mentions a couple of important points: 1) Tunisia may well enter into a joint bid with Morocco. 2) Egypt thinks that South Africa will get the bid anyway. Everyone can now go back to rationalizing how Africa shouldn't get the bid, they don't "deserve" it, it's too scary, that there will be a disaster, that Spain and Morocco will have a joint bid (what a laugh,, that one), that North Africa should get the bid as it's nearer to Europe, the Africa stadiums suck, etc.
In recent years, there's become a large difference in FIFA between the politics and what happens on the field. Saying that England and Brazil should host World Cups because of their role in the history of the game doesn't carry a lot of weight any more because of the way the organization is politically structured. Politically, it was very important for Blatter to reach out to Africa because that's a block that has 50 votes in the FIFA Presidential Elections. Even with an African candidate running against him in the 2002 elections, I believe he held a majority of votes from Africa, which went a long way towards his re-election. Because of the numbers game, I expect South America to get the short end of the stick in a lot of FIFA decisions. For that same reason, I'm kind of surprised about the Oceania decision on a full spot. Blatter's GOAL Project is an example of what it will take to be politically viable in this structure of FIFA - paying attention to the little guy. Taking away automatic entry for the champion is also a way of catering to the little guys. The traditional powers on the field don't have a lot of pull in the board rooms because there are so few of them and they don't work effectively as a block in a lot of ways. For these reasons, it's not really a surprise that Jack Warner is able to make himself a strong figure in FIFA politics - he carries a block with a significant number of votes, the Caribbean. That really helped Warner secure the extra half-spot for CONCACAF. I agree that there are tons of logistical reasons for Africa not to get the World Cup yet. However, I'm open-minded to it a lot more now than I was in 2000 when it looked like 2006 would go to South Africa. I think it may have been difficult for them to pull things off in 2006, but 2010 is still roughly 7 1/2 years away. That's a fair amount of time to get things in order in a handful of cities. I expect the African nation that wins the bidding to be one that has tremendous support from a stable government, though in Africa, what constitutes a stable government may vary from what the Western definition of "stable" is. I also expect 2010 to reverse the trend of having many stadia involved in hosting the World Cup. Germany has, I believe, a dozen stadia involved. I can't imagine most of the countries being discussed for 2010 being able to pull off that many. I think it'll be a return to the 1994 World Cup model, expanded just slightly in consideration of the increase from 24 to 32 in the field. What we won't see is something as large as the 2002 model, with 20 host venues.