World Cups And Euro Championships In Disapointing Countries 4 Years To Come

No offense, but i think you need to get off your high horse.

 

With FIFA rotating the WC around the confederations (a great way to stop the confederations fighting with each other for hosting rights) supporters are just going to have to get used to travelling to see the games.

I can't see the 2010 WC going to any country except South Africa and I am sure that they will be ready for it. If you want to go the the 2010 WC then go. The cultures in Africa are very different to want you are used to and it is the best way to open your eyes to what other cultures have to offer.

I have read that a number of UEFA countries were not happy having the 2002 WC in Japan/Korea beause of the travelling time and time difference. Imagine what they will think when the OFC gets their turn to host the WC.

Crowdie.

 

How would you like to visit the USA in 2014?

 

1994 US
1998 France (Europe)
2002 Japan/Korea (Asia)
2006 Germany (Europe)
2010 Africa

It might be South America's turn

Crowdie.

 

Re: Have you noticed a pattern?

The rules changed after the 2006 WC because the WC is now being rotated between the confederations. The question, though, is will UEFA wait its turn (once every 24 years). Somehow I don't think they will.

Crowdie.

 

FIFA should give the World Cup to the best candidate country, the best country in the world that can host a World Cup. Obviously if say....Brazil was the best in the World to host it all the time, it shouldn't be given it every four years, more like every 20.

FIFA won't do this because they know that the World Cup will keep on coming back to Europe. The home of UEFA. FIFA hates the power that UEFA has. So they want other regions to catch up, they think they can help other regions catch up by letting the other regions host it.

Why host a world cup on a different continent with second class facilities, security etc. When you can host it on a continent that has the best?

 

Or they believe they they can promote soccer in the smaller confederations by having the WC in their countries.

Have you ever attended a game in say South Africa. The stadiums they are extremely impressive.

Crowdie.

 

Did S. Africa have a problem with the Rugby World Cup?

Is peru not a pretty enough Country?


It sounds to me like your problem is that you're too poor to travel to these places, which is also my problem.

Otherwise I think they're great spots for the WC.

Can't host all of them.

 

This is not about me complaining about travelling half way around the world to see a World Cup.

All I'm saying is that the best country to host a world up should be give the chance. Peru, South Africa.....maybe they can host a World Cup, but are they the best?

answer = no

 

That's where I'm going. (I'll be the one with the England shirt on

 

The risk you run of letting UEFA have every second WC is that the other confederations may stop looking at the WC as a world tournament and more a UEFA charity tournament (UEFA already has the Euro tournament). This would not be good for world soccer.

Crowdie.

 

England's history of football violence didn't help.

I haven't been to Portugal so I can't comment.

That's a big call seven years out from a World Cup.

Crowdie.

 

Because of the hooligan pr1cks at Euro 2000, of course the Germans and Turkish also had hooligans at the tournament, but they were overlooked as usual.

FIFA obviously didn't take notice of the huge success of Euro 96'. But then again, hosting Euro 96' had a bearing on it to.

I wouldn't say England have the best stadiums in the world, but overall definetely one of the best countries in the world to host a World Cup.

 

There are a large number of countries that don;t have any football violence at all. Why shouldn't these smaller nations be allowed to host the WC?

Crowdie.

 

Depending on your taste, England is hosting the women's Euro 2005 (and the atmosphere should be much better than for women's matches over here).