Jump to content

blur2005

Members
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About blur2005

  • Rank
    Participant

Profile Information

  • Location
    United States
  • Interests
    Sports
  1. Once again... Why should Northamerica (with only 2 important teams and potential hosters) have the same importance than Southamerica or Europe? US hosted in 1994... England hosted in 1966 The best place of the US was 3rd in 1930 and 8th in 2002... nothing more. The best place of England was the 1st. England deserves the WC! And US or Australia for 2022 Exactly, and I prefer Mexico than the USA, DO YOU PLAY FOOTBALL IN YOUR COUNTRY ALL THE YEAR LIKE IN SOUTHAMERICA OR EUROPE??? NO!!! THEN YOU HAVEN'T GOT THE SAME IMPORTANCE!!!! :alien: But what we do have is this: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
  2. I say USA in 2018. If they are going to rotate fairly, it would go Asia-2002, Europe-2006, Africa-2010, South America-2014, North America-2018, then back to Asia. And trust me, with the growth of soccer's popularity here, the sooner the World Cup returns, the greater the impact.
  3. Well, I know we're talking about England's possible bid, but if you're going to talk about having plenty of stadiums with at least 40,000 seats...the United States has 93 stadiums in reasonable locations (an unreasonable location would be south dakota or something like that), with soccer-appropriate surfaces that hold at least 40,000 fans. Now, some of those wouldn't be used, but I'd say it's safe to say that there are nineteen stadiums alone of the NFL that can be used for soccer, and many are for the MLS. That doeesn't count the others, such as the Rose Bowl, LA Colisseum, Michigan Stadium
  4. If London receives the Olympic Bid for 2012, then I doubt they'd go for a World Cup bid in 2018. Then again I could be wrong.
×
×
  • Create New...