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

What would you suggest instead. Under the old system UEFA threathened sanctions against small countries and confederations if they voted against their countries. This could not be allowed to continue.

Crowdie

 

Which is first and foremost the top priority. Nothing left to say. You guys over there got a bazillion tournaments every year. Share the love, pretty please.

 

amen, Roehl....

for many of this countries (what you guys called "third world" countires.... and yes, i am originally from those countries) who is ambitious to host WC or any other major sports event, it is their very precious opportunity and a springboard to come out of that sort of stifle economic situation (which exactly why they are called "third world" countries). it attracts investments from throughout the world, which boost anything that has to do with economics in that country. ( and we know how important that is in this world nowadays.) If FIFA keeps the tournament at places only where it is "safe and convenient", it will just remain status quo....

i mean i absolutely agree the leagues in european countries are far more superior than anywhere in the world, but look at their rosters! the asian players are very newbies in EPL, bundesliga, la liga, series A and so forth, but, how many african players are playing just in EPL? and they have been the fixtures there for quite a while now! (don't even make me mention african players in Frenach League!) i still think South Africa should have gotten WC2006, but what's done is done and i won't moan about it. but now, it is a time that someone from africa fully deserve to host WC2010.

Using your (Blackpool FC and many others) logics, Olympic was born in greece, so shouldn't they host Olympics every 12 years or so...no? but, that is not the case, isn't it? when was last time they host Olympics? actually i don't even know!

fortunately or unfortunately, depends on your view, the reality is WC nowadays has become a lot more than the number and quality of stadia in the country, FIFA ranking of your team or the quality of your domestic league...

 

They're hosting it next year.

And don't agree with Roehl thingy...it just encourages him.

 

They're hosting it next year.

And don't agree with Roehl thingy...it just encourages him.

 

Is 2006 a World Cup in a disapoiting country?

Blackpool should think about this again!

 

That people agree with me frightens you so much, you had to say it twice.

Oh, look! There's an entire sporting community outside of Europe! Crazy!

 

Only in that almost half of the WC field is populated by European teams. Only in that UEFA's chance of a member nation winning a World Cup is better than one in three. Only in that the World Cup validates only European and South American success, while all other successes are generally considered flukey.

There are other cookie jars in which you can put your hand besides that of hosting rights. As I said, share the love.

 

Yeah, I feel that strongly about it.

Yes there's a sporting community oputside Europe and South America but it's much, much smaller and much of it has very little ability to do what Europe and South America would and could do at the drop of a hat.

 

You're right, so it should be in the USA.

 

That is either arrogance or ignorance talking, I can't discern which.

What's that you say? They call it the Euro Championships? There's a Champions League? I never knew there was a UEFA Cup!

You guys can afford to have the game played somewhere off the continent five out of six World Cups. Unless you have some other worthy vehicle for us to advance the game over here, which I sincerely doubt.

 

Well, I'm an eclectic kind of chap - so let's just say, a little of both.

You have the Gold Cup, stop complaining. And is it everyone else's fault that your neck of the woods houses a small handful of teams, certainly not enough to hold any kind of decent tournament?
Having a World Cup wouldn't remedy this.

What the hell has that got to do with it? And in relation to whom? Me personally? The clubs, other fans? Who? At £5000 for a trip to Japorea last year, not many Europeans made the trip - odd considering half the teams there were European.

Sod off. Don't use the WC as a tool to try and give football to various nations who obviously haven't wanted the game. Europe and South America (and other sundry places who've accepted the game on a large scale) didn't use large scale championships to lure the populace into liking the sport. They didn't need to - and no-one ought to need it. If you like the game, you like it - don't use the WC. It's not the sole property of the US, to use as they see fit.

I'll tell you how to advance the game over there. Get some people together and go to a match. It's that which will advance the game not some quadrennial tournament. Besides, the US has already 'just' had one - maybe they should get one every three occasions just to top up the waining interest of the population.

Once again, for the record - the rotation system will never happen. FIFA placates people on a regular basis with things they don't mean. Remember Oceania being promised an automatic WC spot? Well they didn't think that was such a good idea.
Well, and they also wouldn't want to annoy UEFA too much. As comme says, I've no real problem with the WC going to somewhere different but the rotation sytem is beyond silly and without seemingly any reasoned logic behind it.

 

The World Cup IS rotating already and has been doing that for 45 odd years. Switzerland 54' and Sweden 58' was the last time one continent hosted two tournaments in a row.

 

i know...
what i meant was when was last time they did before 2004?...1896, the very first one!

my point is not to say England should wait 100 years to host another WC. i am just saying the logic about england being the origin of the game is very weak. anyway, france hosted 1998 and germany 2006! that's two out of last three! what's the complain here?

by the way...if you want to host the game, that country has to submit a bid and has to sell that bid to FIFA. before blaming FIFA for everything, maybe you should question your own FA and the government's willingness to host WC. winning the bid is not based on the country's assets and capabilities at that moment: you win the bid by passion, willingness and the vision of future. you win the bid and then you start building and prepare whatever is necessary, because that's when the ever-more-important money start coming in.

like i said before africa definitely deserve to host WC2010, just based on african football's importance and their influence all over the world, especially in europe.

look!...2014 will go to south america, i can't see 2018 going to oceania or america (unless USA own FIFA by then), they will probably come to europe: FIFA didn't talk about rotation system 15 years ago, maybe they will rethink about it 15 years from now, no? but by then, we might not be around, so let's just enjoy one WC at a time...

huh? you serious about this?

i don't think the game needs anymore spreading. where would we create new fans? in mars?

other federation hosting WC is more about globalization, not about introducing football to kids in nepal: they already can name the whole squad of france 98 WC winning team "at the drop of hat"

i know you would say USA, but if americans get obsessed with football (soccer) like the rest of the world, we wouldn't have anyone left to laugh at and make fun of....

 

There's no complaint at all as it stands but the way people round here talk, it won't be standing like this for a long time. It's the future that's providing some cause for concern.

I don't care about it being held in this country - in fact I'm sure I don't want it in this country. It takes over everything (even if it's not held here) and places huge amounts of pressure on the hosting team.
Hell, I don't even care if it's not on this continent. I just want it to be hosted by a truly appropriate country. Ideally one that truly appreciates the sport and has the financial means to do it. Ideally both, but at the moment people are searching for just one of the 2 options. The US, rich as hell, but the general public are ignorant of football in general. Japorea, not quite so clueless on a national level, but rich. South Africa - the black (and majority) population eat and drink the game, but the country is relatively poor considering the vast, vast amount needed to be spent there to make it a viable option. Personally I find it a bit distasteful that a country can spend billions on a football tournament whilst much of the country is disappearing into AIDS awfulness (amongst other problems). As I've said, I've nothing against South Africa hosting it per se - it's just my conscience isn't quite as robust as others who seem to be able to overlook how the rest of the country as a whole is shaping up.
If South Africa turns things around for the WC, then well done - but as it stands I'm sure the money could be better spent.

Bull-spit.
FIFA wants to extend it's tendrils around the world - that way they make money. Something very close to FIFA's heart. In 1994 they targeted the US. Much like Man Utd did this last summer - they like money too.
In 2002 Japorea was the target - much like Real Madrid made it a target this summer. Money again.

Please refer to my answer involving squandering a nation's money on partially frivolous subjects.

And again I refer you to their relative ability to host the WC, and how much effort and money they should expend on it, whilst there remains massive problems of a more important nature in the given country.

Yes, it was about football. So tell me where I'm wrong.
There's precious few places outside Europe and South America that could host a WC. You either need money (USA, Japorea) or you need the existing football infrastructure (and as I said before, preferably both). Europe has both (at least Western Europe does) whilst South America is a little short of cash of late, they've got the infrastructure to a degree. Sure there's tweaks that need to be made here and there, but a hell of a lot fewer than with many, many other places.

 

maczebus, i wholeheartdly agree with you a lot of things you are saying...just a little bit of my background - f you can kindly put up with me a bit - i live in new york but i am from korea (south, that is..) over 20 years ago when korea was just one of many struggling "third world" nations but trying very hard to grow up economically because that seems to be the only way to be relevant in this gloal world. and they hosted 1988 olympics and it was the turning point that they are looking for the country to become where they are now. heck, i am pretty sure there were numerous social and economic problems that they should've solved with the billions that they "wasted" to prepare for olympics, but my point is hosting this kind of event could turn the nation around and the money they have to spend does not necessarily comes form their national asset (well, they don't have enough to take care of these ills and poverties to begin with): it will be the money and the investment from outside. the whole world is being run by few global corporation, when they see the opportunities to make money, they WILL come. of course, that means SA being exploited by them, but in return, SA could exploit the opportunities to make these corps to pump in the money into their stagnated market. AND of course, the rich in that country will get way more richer than the rest of the population benefitting from it, but it WILL make the difference. BBC TV images of poor kids dying of AIDS would not move the conscience of the global corpsto fork out money.
i hate to admit it but it is how it is...IMO

football is not pure and ideal any more as people running it is not and as this world is not...

but i am too weak and old to fight against it and once again, i will probably hide from the reality and try to forget, behind "that black thing called pint" and the footie on tv...



Bull-spit.
FIFA wants to extend it's tendrils around the world - that way they make money. Something very close to FIFA's heart. In 1994 they targeted the US. Much like Man Utd did this last summer - they like money too.
In 2002 Japorea was the target - much like Real Madrid made it a target this summer. Money again.

yes, it is...sad, but true


but i mean you can also use the system...when i mention "passion, willingness and the vision of future", i meant when you don't have money, that's all you have to show for, so that the power that be will notice you and give you a chance. of course, they are using yoiu to make money for themselves, but you are using them to get out of slum and trying to make something out of it....isn't that the background of numerous football players all over the world? (i mean it happens so often, it has almost become a cliche). i don't just mean africa, brazil, etc. but even in a lot of english/scotland/irish players can say the same thing

yes, you are absolutely right when it comes to football...i just don't want US to use this excuse to host another WC, yet again try to sell football to majority of apathetic and cluless population, not because they (organizer) have undying passion for the game but to stuff their pocket again in less than 20 years


i think i said too much...thanks for indulging me

 

Interesting. I could tolerate arrogance, but not ignorance.

Your opinion means nothing to me now.

 

many MLS games are still playing soccer game on football gridiron field with yardage marks still on it and the security needed for WC is a lot more complex than just checking your bags for weapons and bombs at the stadia gates

 

So again, how should the WC hosting country be decided?

Crowdie.

PS. The US has the WC in 1994 so it is other country's turn before the US should get it again.

 

On individual merits.

Arbitrarily stating that each confederation should host a WC is daft.
At the extreme, we only have to consider Oceania to get some gist of what I mean.

 

What changes, if any, would you make from the old system of deciding who the World Cup host is?

How often do you believe that Oceania should be able to host the World Cup?

Crowdie.

 

1) Obviously the old system did need adjusting in some ways. 'Gentle persuasion' was certainly the order of the day. However if this is remedied (or as close as it can be, given that we are all human) by whatever means necessary, then a judging system is IMO the way to go, rather than taking it out of the equation by giving it to a pre-determined confederation.
I can't delve any deeper than that as I'm not too au fait with the set-up, however I do prefer reasoned thinking with regards to potential hosts rather than the other options.

2) How often? Well, when it should get it really. And that's sort of the crux of what I'm saying. Football isn't the number one sport there, and certainly in Australia (where it's most likely to be held) it isn't even 2nd or 3rd on the list. So why send it there? Plus with Oceania we have the added problems of location and odd time differences for vast amounts of the right type of television viewers - plus the costs to the massive majority of the rest of the world who want to travel there.
Just a few extra points there - but my point remains that countries should get it on merits, with an element of rotation added.
Infact, pretty much like it was (and I suspect will continue to be).