US favored to land 2003 Confed Cup and 2014 World Cup?!?!

Discussion in 'USA Men' started by Nermalthecat, Aug 7, 2002.

  1. Nermalthecat

    Nermalthecat Member

    Mar 1, 2001
    Avon, CT
    From today's New York Times:

    "Australia said last week that it wanted to play host to the 2014 World Cup, perhaps in conjunction with New Zealand. But it is believed that the United States has the inside track. It is also likely that the United States will play host to next summer's FIFA Confederations Cup."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/05/sports/soccer/06SOCCER.html

    (scroll down in column)

    Anyone with any confirm on this? This would be great.
     
  2. Various Styles

    Various Styles Member+

    Mar 1, 2000
    Los Angeles
    Club:
    CD Chivas de Guadalajara
    2014 World Cup?!?!

    Conmebol has allready agreed to back up the CBF so that Brazil can host the 2014 World Cup. There hasnt been a World Cup in South America since Argentina 78. Its due time that the Worldo Cup returned to South America..

    Also FIFA wants France to host the Confeds Cup because UEFA allready stated that their teams will not participate in said Tourney. Having the Cup in Europe can be some sort of Bargain to get their teams to participate. If the Cup is Hosted in the U.S i wonder if the UEFA National teams will play in it ???
     
  3. Davids26

    Davids26 Member

    May 31, 2000
    Wrong VS, UEFA said that they will send teams to the 2003 and 2005 tournaments, but won't participate after that.

    I think FIFA wants it in France to ensure that they play, despite the fact that UEFA said they will be a part of it, France might not want to play.
     
  4. jmeissen0

    jmeissen0 New Member

    Mar 31, 2001
    page 1078
    i am all for the world cup in 2014 being here

    where ever the US plays... i will be there

    no one can run it better than us... no one
     
  5. Money talks at FIFA kids. And nowhere can they make more of it than holding it in the USA. Mark my words. USA is gonna get it, no bones about it.
     
  6. Rocket

    Rocket Member

    Aug 29, 1999
    Chicago
    Club:
    Everton FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    A few bucks under the table to Blather and company certainly wouldn't hurt our chances.
     
  7. as the US showed in 94, they can even sellout 70,000 seat stadiums for saudi arabia vs. morroco. Nowhere else would that happen.
     
  8. Jerlon

    Jerlon Member

    Aug 29, 2001
    Western NY
    If it comes down to money, it will be held in the US. But, if we are talking about giving it to who deserves it it should go to South America. The US may have sold out games that wouldnt sell out anywhere else, but the fans were dead and didnt understand the game.

    For my sake, i hope it is held in the USA.
     
  9. photar74

    photar74 New Member

    Jun 25, 2002
    West Philly
    How are we defining "deserves" on this thread?

    Its a word that come sup over and over agin on bigsoccer--yet is rarely defined.

    From what I can tell, here it is used as follows:

    Deserves = Having Brazil and Argentina on your continent.

    Wow--that's a really bad definition.
     
  10. AngelN

    AngelN New Member

    Oct 14, 1999
    assuming MLS is still around in 2014.

    <gulp>
     
  11. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    VS...what is Brazil's stadium situation? Can they host a 32 team World Cup currently? If not (and I'm assuming not) how many venues will they have to build?

    My feeling is, if a nation like Japan and SoKo made a dumb economic decision to host 1/2 a World Cup, it's probably a dumb economic decision for Brazil. But they may have alot more suitable venues than I think.

    There's a saying about Brazil...it's the country of the future, and it always will be. (I heard that in grad school.) If they have to spend $3-4B for new places to play in order to get this, that's the sort of decision that makes this cliche true.

    Also, I would think Europe would be reluctant to play there. I've seen people say that FIFA handed Germany the World Cup by putting it there in 2006. Imagine what people would say about Brazil!!
     
  12. I don't know what games you went to in 94. But that was not my experience. The Italy-Ireland game was one of the most charged crowds I'd seen at a sporting event.
     
  13. Davids26

    Davids26 Member

    May 31, 2000
    I think when someone says a continent deserves to host a World Cup, they mean that South America hasn't hosted one since 1978 in Argentina.

    That is actually a pretty long time.
     
  14. ojsgillt

    ojsgillt Member

    Feb 27, 2001
    Lee's Summit MO
    Mexico just gave $30 Billion to Brazil for Economic Relief.
     
  15. GersMan

    GersMan Member

    May 11, 2000
    Indianapolis
    I doubt Brazil is in need of many, if any, new stadiums.
     
  16. Greywacke

    Greywacke New Member

    Jan 28, 2001
    Huntington Beach
    This is just a silly ploy by the Costa Rican FA to get themselves invited, as the US would be there as the hosts and CR would represent TFC/Concacaf as the 2nd place team from the last Gold Cup. I'm sure Dr. Bob is drinking some fine coffee now... :)
     
  17. BenReilly

    BenReilly New Member

    Apr 8, 2002
    This is the BIG LIE that would make even Hitler blush. The USA is the ONE and only place where every match will have passionate fans.
     
  18. Pirrip

    Pirrip New Member

    Jan 11, 2002
    Saskatchewan
    Re the "Money Angle"

    I constantly see the bit about FIFA and the US money angle. For the record, according to the head of the Japanese organizing committee, the local organizers get ticket revenues and some of the local sponsorship revenues. FIFA gets the TV revenues and the tournament sponsorship revenues. So, the only money advantage the US has, (Big Ticket revenue) is not something that benefits FIFA. Ergo, 65,000 fans in the stadium is something that benefits US soccer but is certainly not a bribe that will compel FIFA to give any World Cup to the US. Until ABC/NBC/CBS starts paying the same for the television rights to the World Cup as they do the Olympics, the US will not get any sort of preferential treatment.

    Of course, in 2014, Canada is highly unlikely to bid, Mexico wouldn't get a third and most of the South American countries would be hard pressed economically to host it, so the US will still have a good chance if FIFA is seroius about rotation. Unless some Brazilian politician decides that there is political benefit in hosting.
     
  19. MarioKempes

    MarioKempes Member+

    Real Madrid, DC United
    Aug 3, 2000
    Raleigh, NC
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    If they have $30 billion to spend, why don't they spend on their own poor people? Unbelievable.
     
  20. superdave

    superdave Member+

    Jul 14, 1999
    VB, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't think they did. I had the same reaction as you did when I read the original post, but that evening saw a blurb on the news about the bailout...Mexico may have been one of the nations in the consortium that coughed up $30B, but they didn't do it all themselves.

    Mario, check your pms.
     
  21. sidspaceman

    sidspaceman Moderator
    Staff Member

    Feb 20, 2002
    AMÉRICA DE CALI
    Club:
    America de Cali
    Nat'l Team:
    Colombia
    It was the International Monetary Fund that gave the money to Brazil.
     
  22. Re: Re the "Money Angle"

    the anti-americanism is rampant in this thread. Anyone who thinks a South American country is gonna get it over the USA doesn't even believe it themselves.
     
  23. soccerfan220

    soccerfan220 New Member

    Jun 24, 2002
    USA
    two weeks ago I posted the same thing as the title of this thread and NO ONE believed me
     
  24. Pirrip

    Pirrip New Member

    Jan 11, 2002
    Saskatchewan
    Re: Re: Re the "Money Angle"

    Anti-americanism? There was nothing anti-american in my post...I save that for the World rivalries board. All I was doing was responding to the fact that given that there is little to no financial incentive to give the US another World Cup. Plain and simple. So, without any advantage, the US is just another nation wanting to host and that puts you behind Brazil if Brazil finds the werewithal to bid...something I doubt.

    To put it in terms a you might understand:

    Brazil=NY Yankees
    US=Texas Rangers
     
  25. Re: Re: Re: Re the "Money Angle"

    Well that was easy. You prooved my point again. Thanks.
     

Share This Page