Jump to content
arwebb

Qatar 2022

Recommended Posts

I still maintain that if 2022 is going to be moved the most logical choice is Korea. You keep the tournament in the same confederation, give it to a country that is more than likely going to qualify anyways and you keep the rotation order going. The Americans will likely get 2026 without the need for sloppy seconds and it would be politically troubling to move it to a Western nation from a Arab-Muslim nation. Korea would be a relatively safe pair of hands and one where there would be a lot less fallout compared to going to Western Europe or the USA.

I highly doubt that Russia will be stripped, even if it is revealed there was bribery afoot. And I mean its Russia, backhanders are the name of the game over there. Picking a probable replacement even as a hypothetical exercise is difficult. Germany and England are not the most liked in FIFA right now and I am not sure England would actually want it, and DOSB won't be too happy to sacrifice Olympic aspirations for another World Cup. Italy and Spain don't have the stadium quality, especially in stadiums 6 to 10. I doubt France would want to spend the money only 2 years after the European Championships. Brazil and South Africa won't do it again so soon and it really leaves the Americans.

Most reasonable idea floated for 2022 I've yet seen.

South Korea for 2022 makes a lot of sense. To top it off, they were actually candidates for 2022 who came third - but the highest inside Asia aside from Qatar (excluding the US for reasons you highlight)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reasonable Candidates for these Fifa World Cups are England and maybe Australia.

Let's see the Bidders:

England - Home of Football, hasn't Hosted in 48 Years (52 Years by 2018 and 56 Years by 2022). Democratic Country with Existing Facilities.

Australia - Democratic Country with Existing Facilities.

The other Bidders:

United States Of America - Hosted more recently then England, Hosted alot of Sporting Events, let someone else Host.

South Korea - Co-Hosted fairly recently.

Japan - Co-Hosted fairly recently.

Spain/Portugal - Fifa probably won't choose a Joint Bid.

Holland/Belgium - Fifa probably won't choose a Joint Bid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

United States Of America - Hosted more recently then England, Hosted alot of Sporting Events, let someone else Host.

Ok, I'm going to take the bait on this one. List one international sporting event that the US has hosted in the past 10 years? England, in a period of six or so years, will host the Olympics, World Athletics Championships and Rugby World Cup, and then the Euro Cup final in 2020. Honestly Tony, you have no idea what you are talking about, so it's best to not say anything and repeat the same England is the greatest bs. No country other than Russia will host more international events over the next few years than England.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Ok, I'm going to take the bait on this one. List one international sporting event that the US has hosted in the past 10 years?

2. England, in a period of six or so years, will host the Olympics, World Athletics Championships and Rugby World Cup, and then the Euro Cup final in 2020.

Honestly Tony, you have no idea what you are talking about, so it's best to not say anything and repeat the same England is the greatest bs. No country other than Russia will host more international events over the next few years than England.

1. Well, there are the World Figure Skating Championships (2009 in LA; 2016 in Boston) but none of the truly major ones where at least 100 countries participate in a major way.

2. You forgot the just concluded Commies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Well, there are the World Figure Skating Championships (2009 in LA; 2016 in Boston) but none of the truly major ones where at least 100 countries participate in a major way.

2. You forgot the just concluded Commies.

I would have included Glasgow, but Tony doesn't recognize that there are other parts to the UK besides England.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reasonable Candidates for these Fifa World Cups are England and maybe Australia.

Let's see the Bidders:

England - Home of Football, hasn't Hosted in 48 Years (52 Years by 2018 and 56 Years by 2022). Democratic Country with Existing Facilities.

Australia - Democratic Country with Existing Facilities.

The other Bidders:

United States Of America - Hosted more recently then England, Hosted alot of Sporting Events, let someone else Host.

South Korea - Co-Hosted fairly recently.

Japan - Co-Hosted fairly recently.

Spain/Portugal - Fifa probably won't choose a Joint Bid.

Holland/Belgium - Fifa probably won't choose a Joint Bid.

lol. Did you notice for 2018 both co-host bids got more votes then England for 2018?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know Tony's posts can be repetitive, but if we're going to suggest who is and isn't worthy hosts, counting the votes from a thoroughly discredited bidding process is hardly the way to do it is it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm going to take the bait on this one. List one international sporting event that the US has hosted in the past 10 years? England, in a period of six or so years, will host the Olympics, World Athletics Championships and Rugby World Cup, and then the Euro Cup final in 2020. Honestly Tony, you have no idea what you are talking about, so it's best to not say anything and repeat the same England is the greatest bs. No country other than Russia will host more international events over the next few years than England.

Let's count WORLDWIDE Events Hosting in the last 20 Years.

England - 1 Summer Olympics and Paralympics (London 2012), 0 Fifa World Cups, 1 IAAF World Athletics Championships (London 2017), 2 World Indoor Athletics Championships (Birmingham 2003 and Birmingham 2018).

United States Of America - 1 Summer Olympics and Paralympics (Atlanta 1996), 1 Fifa World Cup (1994), 1 Winter Olympics and Paralympics (Salt Lake City 2002), 1 World Indoor Athletics Championships (Portland 2016).

So America has Hosted 1 Fifa World Cup in the last 20 Years, England 0. That means England deserves to Host a Fifa World Cup more then America does. 1-0 to My point.

So America has Hosted 2 Olympic Games (1 Summer, 1 Winter), England 1. 2-0 to my Point.

Anyway, England wants a Fifa World Cup. Football is the most popular Sport here in England, we created Football. We deserve a Fifa World Cup.

Note: I only counted the Worldwide Competitions where every Country can compete, that's why I didn't include European Games, Pan American Games, European Football Championships, Commonwealth Games etc.

lol. Did you notice for 2018 both co-host bids got more votes then England for 2018?

Like Rob correctly pointed out, the whole Voting Process was corrupt.

The 2 Bids with the Best Bids and deserved to Host more then the others came last. It's corruption.

England would only have to Build 1 Brand New Stadium (New Nottingham Forest Stadium). Bristol can use their existing Stadium that's being Renovated, which could be Temporarily Expanded. Wembley Stadium, Emirates Stadium and Old Trafford would need no works done. Anfield is currently being expanded. All the others, would need Minor Renovations.

Australia also had a decent Bid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know Tony's posts can be repetitive, but if we're going to suggest who is and isn't worthy hosts, counting the votes from a thoroughly discredited bidding process is hardly the way to do it is it?

With my point being, a co-host proposal is not just going to be rejected because of two nations in the bid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is a waste of time but;

Tony, get something through your head. England will not be, nor will ever be the first choice as a replacement host. England cannot come up with 10 stadiums in short notice that meet all FIFA requirements. Japan, Korea, France, the USA, South Africa and Brazil can. FIFA is not going to settle for a lesser World Cup where they will have to sacrifice one or more of the requirements for; stadiums to city ratio, minimum capacity and minimum space near stadium to host sponsors tents and hospitality facilities. Especially when there are already 6 nations in the world that could provide FIFA with those things without the need for rushed renovations or new builds. England's formal bid did not meet the hospitality requirements as stated by FIFA's tender. FIFA will take the 60k average capacity of the Americans, the fully renovated and modern stadiums of France over games in the 30k Milton Keynes or having to have 3 stadiums in London and 2 in Manchester just to meet the minimum seating requirements.

Germany would also be a better replacement if not for being about 6k short of a 80k all-seater for the Final. Than again I bet FIFA would rather that, compared to having to go to Leicester, Middlesbrough or Milton Keynes.

Edited by Faster
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is a waste of time but;

Tony, get something through your head. England will not be, nor will ever be the first choice as a replacement host. England cannot come up with 10 stadiums in short notice that meet all FIFA requirements. Japan, Korea, France, the USA, South Africa and Brazil can. FIFA is not going to settle for a lesser World Cup where they will have to sacrifice one or more of the requirements for; stadiums to city ratio, minimum capacity and minimum space near stadium to host sponsors tents and hospitality facilities. Especially when there are already 6 nations in the world that could provide FIFA with those things without the need for rushed renovations or new builds. England's formal bid did not meet the hospitality requirements as stated by FIFA's tender. FIFA will take the 60k average capacity of the Americans, the fully renovated and modern stadiums of France over games in the 30k Milton Keynes or having to have 3 stadiums in London and 2 in Manchester just to meet the minimum seating requirements.

Germany would also be a better replacement if not for being about 6k short of a 80k all-seater for the Final. Than again I bet FIFA would rather that, compared to having to go to Leicester, Middlesbrough or Milton Keynes.

Rubbish. Who cares which Cities? As long as they can Host (Which they can), it's Good enough.

Leicester wouldn't Host Games. Milton Keynes can be expanded to 45,000 Seats. America is not better because they have bigger Stadiums. Bigger is not Better. Fifa is considering letting some of Russia's Stadiums Hosting inside 35,000 Seats. So Your point is just rubbish. England could Host the Fifa World Cup easily within 4 Years of Preparations. Fact. In fact, we would be ready in 2-3 Years. Cities/Stadiums:

London - Wembley Stadium (90,000 Seats) and Emirates Stadium (60,361 Seats). No works required.

Manchester - Old Trafford (76,000 Seats). No Works Required.

Liverpool - Anfield (58,000 Seats). Currently being Expanded.

Newcastle - St James' Park (53,000 Seats). Minor Renovations.

Sunderland - Stadium Of Light (49,000 Seats). Minor Renovations.

Nottingham - New Stadium (45,000 Seats). New Stadium.

Birmingham - Villa Park (50,000 Seats). Minor Renovations and Expansions.

Bristol - Ashton Gate (42,000 Seats). Temporarily Expanded.

Leeds - Elland Road (50,000 Seats). Minor Renovations and Expansions.

Milton Keynes - Stadium:MK (45,000 Seats). Expansion.

Plymouth - Home Park (46,000 Seats). Minor Renovations and Expansions.

Simple. No Lower Requirements needed, works would be completed in maximum 3 years. England can Host. England should Host. Your point is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, again this is probably a waste of time arguing with Tony, but there is so much wrong with what you're saying.

If you wanna look at the period of 1994-2020, that's fine. Let's do that. America's hosting of two Olympics was an anomaly, and they got lucky with two weak bidding fields. That will never happen again. Other than those two events, the World Cup, a couple figure skating world champs and Copa America, America has hosted and will host essentially nothing in that period. Britain on the other hand, has started a "golden decade of sport". If you haven't heard of it, look it up. It's a program set up by Britain to host as many world-class sporting events as possible in this decade. That includes an Olympics, Commonwealth Games, Euro Cup Final, Rugby World Cup and a number of World Championships. The World Cup was supposed to be the crowning jewel of that plan. It doesn't matter whether they are "worldwide" events like you stupidly decided to include as you made criteria up on the spot. The Commies are 50x larger and more expensive than some irrelevant world indoor athletics championship. They count towards Britain's hosting of major events. So, by this token, Britain has hosted far more events than the US this decade. In the past 20 years, sure the US has had a good share, but even if it is close to Britain's, it does not matter. Get it through your tiny brain that Britain is not the USA! The US can step in and will be relied upon more confidently as a replacement host because they are more than capable. I don't know where you got the crazy notion that Britain is even remotely close to USA on the world stage. This isn't 1940. When the US name is brought up in these type of affairs, they immediately become the number one candidate because they are the world's greatest economic and sporting superpower. Britain is like 6th on that list, and even lower down when there are more recent reliable hosts available, like Korea, Brazil and SA. Like faster said, FIFA would much rather go with games in NYC and LA, than throw together some shoddy bid composed of Milton Keynes and Leicester.

In summary, The world isn't fair, and it's reality that a country with less weight globally and whose only reason is "it's not fair, he got more cookies than me!" will take the back seat. "Fairness" and being the "home of football" loses over the world superpower with more than enough infrastructure to host under strange circumstances (Qatar 2022) 10 times out of 10. Tony, grow up and stop whining. FIFA doesn't give a damn about "fair" and what some immature kid has to say.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, again this is probably a waste of time arguing with Tony, but there is so much wrong with what you're saying.

If you wanna look at the period of 1994-2020, that's fine. Let's do that. America's hosting of two Olympics was an anomaly, and they got lucky with two weak bidding fields. That will never happen again. Other than those two events, the World Cup, a couple figure skating world champs and Copa America, America has hosted and will host essentially nothing in that period. Britain on the other hand, has started a "golden decade of sport". If you haven't heard of it, look it up. It's a program set up by Britain to host as many world-class sporting events as possible in this decade. That includes an Olympics, Commonwealth Games, Euro Cup Final, Rugby World Cup and a number of World Championships. The World Cup was supposed to be the crowning jewel of that plan. It doesn't matter whether they are "worldwide" events like you stupidly decided to include as you made criteria up on the spot. The Commies are 50x larger and more expensive than some irrelevant world indoor athletics championship. They count towards Britain's hosting of major events. So, by this token, Britain has hosted far more events than the US this decade. In the past 20 years, sure the US has had a good share, but even if it is close to Britain's, it does not matter. Get it through your tiny brain that Britain is not the USA! The US can step in and will be relied upon more confidently as a replacement host because they are more than capable. I don't know where you got the crazy notion that Britain is even remotely close to USA on the world stage. This isn't 1940. When the US name is brought up in these type of affairs, they immediately become the number one candidate because they are the world's greatest economic and sporting superpower. Britain is like 6th on that list, and even lower down when there are more recent reliable hosts available, like Korea, Brazil and SA. Like faster said, FIFA would much rather go with games in NYC and LA, than throw together some shoddy bid composed of Milton Keynes and Leicester.

In summary, The world isn't fair, and it's reality that a country with less weight globally and whose only reason is "it's not fair, he got more cookies than me!" will take the back seat. "Fairness" and being the "home of football" loses over the world superpower with more than enough infrastructure to host under strange circumstances (Qatar 2022) 10 times out of 10. Tony, grow up and stop whining. FIFA doesn't give a damn about "fair" and what some immature kid has to say.

Hush, it's not Britain, it's England.

And if we take Tony's criteria and limit it to 10 instead of 20 years, it would tell a very different story anyway, because the US would stand there pretty much naked, compared to glorious Bri England.

But as you and Faster already said, it's a waste of time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple. No Lower Requirements needed, works would be completed in maximum 3 years. England can Host. England should Host. Your point is incorrect.

2107513.png

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony, tony, tony.

You didn't address that England cannot provide the required hospitality and sponsors space that FIFA requires. You also fail to understand the nature of this argument. This is not a tender for a new tournament, but would be a tender for a replacement host. FIFA is not going to take any risks with proposed renovations and expansions when there are countries that could host with absolutely ZERO stadia that need any kind of work other than window dressing. Nor do you seem to understand that 2022 would not be replaced by a European host with 2018 in Russia. Even if it were, I would confidently say that FIFA would look to France with their new suite of stadia or sacrifice 6,000 seats for the Final to have 10 hosts in the 50k range that have the much more recent average build date, than to go to a country that is offering older stadiums that by your own admission need renovations to meet standards.

But I am just going insane here doing the same thin and expecting a different result.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a good point. Many of our grounds, even some new ones, are built quite tightly into their area. It preserves our football culture, & keeps our clubs grounded but doesn't leave much room for the tent city FIFA demand to entertain their oligarchs. Getting England ready for a World Cup would be a much bigger job than some think - I'm not saying we couldn't do it, of course we could, or that we don't deserve it - it is about time for our turn. But we'd need more than 5 years, & certainly more than 3. In the 2030s, provided there's change at the top of FIFA, should be England's turn.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FIFA one day will have to change its requirements, also for the sponsor needs.

But they're not going to do this now just to pick England out of all possible replacement hosts, given the mutual hate between them and the FA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some simple Facts:

Out of the Football Powerhouses (England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Brazil and Argentina), England has waited the longest to Host.

England 1966.

Argentina 1978.

Spain 1982.

Italy 1990.

France 1998.

Germany 2006.

Brazil 2014.

Anyone who says England doesn't deserve to Host a Fifa World Cup, obviously doesn't know what they are talking about. We have had to wait for decades, which is too long for the creators of Football, the Home of Football and a Football Crazy Country. United States Of America doesn't deserve a Fifa World Cup so soon. It should be:

England 2018/2022 (Depending if Russia loses Hosting Rights for 2018, if not, England 2022.

Australia 2022 (Depending if England gets 2018).

Canada 2026.

Uruguay 2030.

Spain 2034.

Sorry, there is no reason to deny England a Fifa World Cup. We can make space for the Sponsors and Corporates. We have proven that England is a reliable, Democratic Host. We can be ready to Host in 2-3 Years of Preparations.


We would Host one of the Best Fifa World Cups of all Time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some simple Facts:

Out of the Football Powerhouses (England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Brazil and Argentina), England has waited the longest to Host.

England 1966.

Argentina 1978.

Spain 1982.

Italy 1990.

France 1998.

Germany 2006.

Brazil 2014.

Anyone who says England doesn't deserve to Host a Fifa World Cup, obviously doesn't know what they are talking about. We have had to wait for decades, which is too long for the creators of Football, the Home of Football and a Football Crazy Country. United States Of America doesn't deserve a Fifa World Cup so soon. It should be:

England 2018/2022 (Depending if Russia loses Hosting Rights for 2018, if not, England 2022.

Australia 2022 (Depending if England gets 2018).

Canada 2026.

Uruguay 2030.

Spain 2034.

Sorry, there is no reason to deny England a Fifa World Cup. We can make space for the Sponsors and Corporates. We have proven that England is a reliable, Democratic Host. We can be ready to Host in 2-3 Years of Preparations.

We would Host one of the Best Fifa World Cups of all Time.

whine.jpg

Not 1 person here is saying England doesn't deserve to host a World Cup. If you took your head out of your ass to actually read what people are saying, you would know that. You say there's no reason to deny England a World Cup.. well, when they voted to decide the 2018 host, 20 of the 22 voters apparently had a reason. And I don't think you can chalk every single 1 of those votes up to corruption.

Life isn't fair, Tony. The sooner you get used to that, the better of a chance you have to succeed. At some point in your lifetime, England is going to host a World Cup. I am very confident of that fact. But stop with this nonsense that England needs to host the first available World Cup and what a blight against humanity that it is that England didn't get 2018 and won't get 2022. You come off like a petulant child throwing a temper tantrum when you try to make a case like this. How about 2030.. England gets the centennial World Cup. It's a celebration of the sport and of your country. Either way, get over it. Learn to cope with the fact that England is not hosting the 2018 World Cup or the 2022 World Cup, and maybe if they play their cards right, they'll get 2030.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

National team aside, certainly. And even the national team isn't that bad. I mean, we qualify for things most of the time! :D:o:(

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FA chief slams attacks made on blog set up by Qatar's PR

The head of the FA condemns Qatar's PR firm after a Channel 4 News investigation finds it is behind a sports blog and Twitter account that attacks critics of its World Cup bid.

Lobbyists for the state of Qatar set up a football blog that has attacked critics of the 2022 Qatar World Cup, including Greg Dyke, Gary Lineker, and journalists working for the Sunday Times.

A Channel 4 News investigation has found that the British public relations and lobbying firm Portland Communications set up the site without declaring any interest on the site or elsewhere.

As well as attacking critics, the site has sought to influence public opinion and whitewash the controversial decision to award Qatar the 2022 World Cup, with articles such as "Winter Wonderplan", which makes the case for the Qatar 2022 World Cup being held in winter.

The only named authors on the site are former Labour spin doctor Alastair Campbell and his son Rory, who have both written for The Pressing Game, a site that poses as a normal sports blog. Alastair Campbell sat on Portland Communications' strategic council until recently.

The Pressing Game

The Pressing Game blog describes itself on its Twitter profile as "Taking a stand against hypocrisy in football" and on the site's About page it says "We cut through the bulls*** and try to shine a spotlight on what's really going on behind the scenes of the beautiful game."

But the majority of the blog and Twitter content when it launched focused on attacking critics of the controversy over Qatar's winning bid to host the 2022 World Cup.

In the last few weeks the blog has attacked Greg Dyke's judgment, his grasp of reality, and has previously suggested England's 2018 World Cup bid may have been trying to influence Fifa officials.

The use of a blog that masks the organisation which set up or runs the site is a practice known as "Astroturfing", where companies will try to create a false of a sense of a grass-roots movement.

Portland is a member of the Public Relations Consultants Association, which has a professional charter that seems to forbid such practices.

It states that members "have a duty to ensure that the actual interest of any organisation with which they may be professionally concerned is adequately declared."

Hidden creation

Portland Communication's role in setting up the site was deleted when the lobbying firm removed its name from the website's registration details the day after the site was set up.

Mark Flanagan, a partner at Portland who leads the firm's digital strategy unit, was the first person to tweet a link to a story by The Pressing Game. He recently deleted the tweet.

The website's registration details now use privacy protection, which means the creator of the site is hidden.

And on a test page on the site is a map which is itself hosted on a domain named "Produced-by-Portland.com".

Alastair Campbell wrote a post about pundits always getting predictions wrong. Campbell is the most prolific tweeter of the links to the blog, sharing articles from the site and talking to Gary Lineker, Robbie Savage, Joey Barton and Piers Morgan about his article on pundits. Alastair Campbell's son Rory is billed as the site's data analyst.

Attacks on critics

Three out of the first five blog posts on the site attack either the Sunday Times, Fifa sponsors such as Adidas and Visa, or say what a good job Qatar is doing in seeking to head off the crisis. And three of first four tweets from the site's Twitter feed are about Qatar 2022.

One post on the site attacks Fifa's corporate World Cup sponsors who came out to demand action over allegations in the Sunday Times of corruption in the bidding process for the 2022 World Cup.

The post written anonymously reads: "The 'Golden Boot' of pomposity goes to Adidas" and continues "The 'ooh get her' award for macho language tied to nothing goes to Visa's Antonio Lucio."

In a post about the Sunday Times, an anonymous author writes: "Is there another agenda at play here? ... less like a legitimate investigation and more like a witch hunt."

Another post questions the ethics of the England World Cup bid team, saying: "These latest allegations appear to fit a pattern of behaviour by an English bid team that infamously sought to curry favour with Jack Warner."

'Derogatory' Lineker

When Gary Lineker came out against the bid, some posted: "Would Lineker have been so derogatory about his employers a few years ago, when he still had the gig? Very unlikely. But then he hasn't always displayed a great deal of sensitivity."

The blog's second post was largely composed of a copy of Qatar's official response to the Sunday Times investigation.

It also last week tweeted a picture of Greg Dyke captioned with the words "I have no idea what I'm doing" and tweeted: "How can someone as out of touch with reality as Greg Dyke be trusted to improve the English game?"

qatar%20pic_LRG.jpg

http://www.channel4.com/news/fa-chief-condemns-online-dirty-tricks-by-qatar-s-pr-firm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

England, a football powerhouse? Lol.

Countries who have Won the Fifa World Cup:

ENGLAND.

Spain.

Germany.

France.

Italy.

Brazil.

Uruguay.

Argentina.

England has qualified for 14 out of the 20 Fifa World Cups that have been played. England is 1 of only 8 Countries to have Won the Fifa World Cup. England created Football. Wembley is the Home of Football. The FA is a powerhouse of Football. England as a Country loves Football. England has Qualified for 8 out of the 14 UEFA European Football Championships that have been played, by looks of it, it looks like we will be Qualifying for UEFA Euro 2016 aswell. England is a safe pair of hands, a Democratic Country and the Home of Football. So Yes, England is a Powerhouse of Football. England also has the Best Football League in the World (Barclays Premier League). Most pundits have said this.

Alright, again this is probably a waste of time arguing with Tony, but there is so much wrong with what you're saying.

If you wanna look at the period of 1994-2020, that's fine. Let's do that. America's hosting of two Olympics was an anomaly, and they got lucky with two weak bidding fields. That will never happen again. Other than those two events, the World Cup, a couple figure skating world champs and Copa America, America has hosted and will host essentially nothing in that period. Britain on the other hand, has started a "golden decade of sport". If you haven't heard of it, look it up. It's a program set up by Britain to host as many world-class sporting events as possible in this decade. That includes an Olympics, Commonwealth Games, Euro Cup Final, Rugby World Cup and a number of World Championships. The World Cup was supposed to be the crowning jewel of that plan. It doesn't matter whether they are "worldwide" events like you stupidly decided to include as you made criteria up on the spot. The Commies are 50x larger and more expensive than some irrelevant world indoor athletics championship. They count towards Britain's hosting of major events. So, by this token, Britain has hosted far more events than the US this decade. In the past 20 years, sure the US has had a good share, but even if it is close to Britain's, it does not matter. Get it through your tiny brain that Britain is not the USA! The US can step in and will be relied upon more confidently as a replacement host because they are more than capable. I don't know where you got the crazy notion that Britain is even remotely close to USA on the world stage. This isn't 1940. When the US name is brought up in these type of affairs, they immediately become the number one candidate because they are the world's greatest economic and sporting superpower. Britain is like 6th on that list, and even lower down when there are more recent reliable hosts available, like Korea, Brazil and SA. Like faster said, FIFA would much rather go with games in NYC and LA, than throw together some shoddy bid composed of Milton Keynes and Leicester.

In summary, The world isn't fair, and it's reality that a country with less weight globally and whose only reason is "it's not fair, he got more cookies than me!" will take the back seat. "Fairness" and being the "home of football" loses over the world superpower with more than enough infrastructure to host under strange circumstances (Qatar 2022) 10 times out of 10. Tony, grow up and stop whining. FIFA doesn't give a damn about "fair" and what some immature kid has to say.

England is a Powerhouse. End of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Countries who have Won the Fifa World Cup:

ENGLAND.

Spain.

Germany.

France.

Italy.

Brazil.

Uruguay.

Argentina.

England has qualified for 14 out of the 20 Fifa World Cups that have been played. England is 1 of only 8 Countries to have Won the Fifa World Cup. England created Football. Wembley is the Home of Football. The FA is a powerhouse of Football. England as a Country loves Football. England has Qualified for 8 out of the 14 UEFA European Football Championships that have been played, by looks of it, it looks like we will be Qualifying for UEFA Euro 2016 aswell. England is a safe pair of hands, a Democratic Country and the Home of Football. So Yes, England is a Powerhouse of Football. England also has the Best Football League in the World (Barclays Premier League). Most pundits have said this.

England is a Powerhouse. End of.

I don't give a damn about your OCD, You're an imbecile. Edited by ofan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...