BTHarner Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 FIFA changed the kickoff times of several matches after the 2014 draw was completed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 It is still a big issue. November-December is the heart of the NFL season. Basketball and hockey are underway, college football and basketball. It is going to be interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatinXTC Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 It is still a big issue. November-December is the heart of the NFL season. Basketball and hockey are underway, college football and basketball. It is going to be interesting. It's only a big issue in the US, as college/nfl football is something almost no one cares about outside of the US, except maybe Canada. Same goes for the NBA league. One concern that I don't see mentioned is those players that will be involved in the MLS playoffs. Will they continue to play in the playoffs, or leave to go play in the world cup? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 I'd say Fox has a lot to worry about. Not that they can do much about the schedule though. This isn't like the Olympics where NBC has the authority to go to the sport federations and help them dictate start times. Fox has to deal with the hand they're dealt and at best, maybe they're swapping some start times. Best guess is that most the games are at 7am ET, 10am ET, and 1pm ET (that translates to 3pm-6pm-9pm in Qatar). And they have to work around NFL and college football games which may prove difficult if those schedules are set before the World Cup draw. So that may make a difference where the US is scheduled. If there's a game or 2 up against NFL or college games, that's a big problem. Well, then if the playtimes are in the am, ET; so how would that impact most of the NFL and College Games (except for weekends) which during the week play late PM or primetime. The WC Games are played whenever. And that's why there are Sports Bars and/or neighbors will probably have to pool their TV sets together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 FIFA changed the kickoff times of several matches after the 2014 draw was completed. That they did. I'm sure there will be some compromises made to Fox if needed, but that's still easier said than done, because there's probably only so much they can work around the schedule. But again, it could complicate matters if the draw is held after the NFL schedule is released since there's less flexibility at that point. It's only a big issue in the US, as college/nfl football is something almost no one cares about outside of the US, except maybe Canada. Same goes for the NBA league. One concern that I don't see mentioned is those players that will be involved in the MLS playoffs. Will they continue to play in the playoffs, or leave to go play in the world cup? It's not something that FIFA or the rest of the world outside North America will be concerned about, but it'll be a big concern here as far as Fox is concerned. Well, then if the playtimes are in the am, ET; so how would that impact most of the NFL and College Games (except for weekends) which during the week play late PM or primetime. The WC Games are played whenever. And that's why there are Sports Bars and/or neighbors will probably have to pool their TV sets together. That's part of the problem though. People who would normally spend day and night watching football.. now they have to add the World Cup on top of that? Particularly on the West coast where the start times are even earlier. NFL and college games probably won't lose much of their audience. But it makes for a tough sell if you're a network like Fox to get people to watchin the NFL and college football and to then add the World Cup onto that. Again, not like there's much they can do about it, but it makes it harder to promote the World Cup as a big event if it's merely an appetizer to Saturdays and Sundays full of football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulsa Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 It will be a problem in Europe too. Usually people like june/july for world cup because it's summer time, everybody meet up outside, but november/december it's winter time, people will stay at home... Usually it's a suitable economic moment but in November it won't be the same, it's Christmas time... I hope Fifa will choose another country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofan Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Won't we have a new NFL tv contract by 2022? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 It will be a problem in Europe too. Usually people like june/july for world cup because it's summer time, everybody meet up outside, but november/december it's winter time, people will stay at home... Usually it's a suitable economic moment but in November it won't be the same, it's Christmas time... I hope Fifa will choose another country. From a television standpoint, it's good when people are at home instead of outside. The advantage of June/July is that there's not much else going on, so an event like the World Cup has the spotlight all to itself. During November/December, not so much Won't we have a new NFL tv contract by 2022? The current NFL contracts run 2014 through 2022. That year will be the last year of the current deal. And that's actually a Super Bowl year for Fox as they have the 2023 game. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofan Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 Maybe we might see Fox Sports One and Two as well as FCS playing a big roll in 2022? Assuming those channels are even around by then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 Maybe we might see Fox Sports One and Two as well as FCS playing a big roll in 2022? Assuming those channels are even around by then. Why wouldn't they be around then? Yes, Fox Sports 1 will likely be the main cable outlet for the tournament. They'll probably need Fox Sports 2 for some games, although that will depend on what their distribution level is like come 2022 (or 2018, for that matter). That's where the big Iran vs. Bosnia-Herzegovina match can go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krow Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 Why wouldn't they be around then? You're thinking in terms of the current paradigm. The now. The future is ß·. In 9 years, more people may watch on demand using internet streaming or similar. I cannot predict the future (except so far as to say that Faster will say something clueless every day for the next 9 years), but I do know people decide to watch what they want to watch. They will find a way. Nobody weeps for Fox except shareholders and people on the internet trying to make "a point." I, however, have a rule to never make points. I make ß·. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 You're thinking in terms of the current paradigm. The now. The future is ß·. In 9 years, more people may watch on demand using internet streaming or similar. I cannot predict the future (except so far as to say that Faster will say something clueless every day for the next 9 years), but I do know people decide to watch what they want to watch. They will find a way. Nobody weeps for Fox except shareholders and people on the internet trying to make "a point." I, however, have a rule to never make points. I make ß·. Oh, but I am channeling my inner ß·. There is so much about human behavior that helps determine the course of history when it comes to media. You would be fascinated about it. You say "people decide to watch what they want to watch." Yea, that's not entirely an accurate statement. Certain people make thoughtful decisions that way. Others not so much. They are lemmings. Their behavior and their media habits are, to a large extent, somewhat predictable and therefore their preferences can be somewhat manipulated. We've heard for years how NBC has to be concerned about people going online and finding coverage of the Olympics from other countries if they continue to produce their Olympic coverage in the same old-fashioned manner. Yet, for the most part, that's exactly what they've continued to do, and NBC execs can't hear all the bitching and moaning over the sounds of the cha-chings from the money they're raking in. The idea that 10 years from now, cable/satellite television as we know it will be completely different, is not being true to how slow things are to change when it comes to mass media. Fox Sports One may cease to exist in 9 years? Not impossible, but that's a pretty crazy notion to think it won't be there. Not when it has a big parent corporation and some long-term contracts that depend on it being there. You're right.. no one gives a crap about Fox's bottom line anymore than I, the ultimate NBC apologist - or so I'm told - cares about NBC's bottom line (well, that's not entirely true, only because I care about the health and well-being of the Olympics in this country going forward). But the number of people watching the World Cup in 2018 and 2022 can and will be affected by the network(s) covering the event. If you don't believe that to be the case, you are clearly not as ß· as you're giving yourself credit for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krow Posted February 20, 2015 Report Share Posted February 20, 2015 Hey, I do not question your ß· anymore than I question the meadowlark's tune. Why? There just aren't very many meadowlarks where I live. I understand your point. I know the WC is dependent on the network covering it. I just do not undervalue the power of virality for making things popular when they need to be popular (I also do not underestimate peoples devotion to streaming stuff 9 years from now). Things are not as slow to change in mass media as you think. 9 years ago people were just discovering YouTube. And Twitter? I also know the WC gives us many viral moments. Team USA in the WC is a special occasion and Fox would do well to treat it as such. I find no cause for concern, for Fox or for viewership numbers. There is plenty of money for already-wealthy people to make. Everything will work itself out. Everything will ß·. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 I understand your point. I know the WC is dependent on the network covering it. I just do not undervalue the power of virality for making things popular when they need to be popular (I also do not underestimate peoples devotion to streaming stuff 9 years from now). Things are not as slow to change in mass media as you think. 9 years ago people were just discovering YouTube. And Twitter? I also know the WC gives us many viral moments. Team USA in the WC is a special occasion and Fox would do well to treat it as such. I find no cause for concern, for Fox or for viewership numbers. There is plenty of money for already-wealthy people to make. Everything will work itself out. Everything will ß·. Making an event popular is one thing. Driving people to their TV sets (or their online streams) is a different matter altogether. You are definitely right that soccer fans are a devoted group that will watch these games even if they're on in the middle of the night (which has been the case before). It's that group of less-than-devoted viewers that make a big difference though. Social media has certainly changed how the world takes in an event like the World Cup. That has evolved. But the idea that there will be masses of people relying on Internet streaming rather than good old fashioned cable.. that's what is slow to change, particular where you have big companies like Comcast and Disney who are heavily invested in the status quo. It's why they're signing rights deals that stretch 2 decades into the future, because they're confident in the future that sports will be a moneymaker. Just as we always hear with NBC and the Olympics, they have to evolve with the times, but until these big media companies figure out better ways to monetize social media and internet streaming, it's not going to be the primary objective. Specific to the World Cup.,. ratings and interest in the United States reached a critical mass this past year from Brazil. Games were on at viewer friendly time here in the U.S. for the first time in 2 decades. The United States team did well and perhaps exceeded expectations. And there were many memorable moments that brought the country together. I remember watching extra time of the US-Belgium game from a bar at my train station and there was a huge crowd there who were all transfixed on the game. I'm not sure I can ever remember such an event like that in sports where so much people dropped what they were doing to tune in. But that's not going to be repeated in 2018. You're going from a soccer-loving country that provided beautiful scenics of the beaches to one that probably won't look as exciting. The start times of matches will be much earlier and it'll be tough for a lot of people, especially on the West coast. And perhaps most important, the World Cup is going from ESPN and their big brand to Fox who is still trying to build their own brand and compete for attention. Fox Sports One is still a baby as television networks are concerned. Come 2018, they'll still be a toddler. I'm sure they'll have gained more presence then, but that's a big downgrade and I'm pretty sure the ratings will show it. Then come 2022, compound that with the potential calendar switch where the World Cup will be fighting the NFL for headlines and that's a battle they're not going to win. So again.. those who are truly interested in the World Cup will find their way to the matches. But from the standpoint of Fox, they very much need to be concerned about the viewership numbers. And that sucks for FIFA, because if they think there's going to be the same level of interest in the 2018 World Cup as there was for 2014, they're in for a rude awakening, as if Fox if they don't temper their expectations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stryker Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 http://www.gulf-times.com/sport/192/details/395975/qatar-the-right-choice-to-host-2022-fifa-world-cup:-arab-youth-survey I posted a while back that the biggest obstacle to removing the WC from Qatar was the fact it was an Arab country not to mention a Muslim country. Qatar has been marketing this as an Arab WC and the political fallout on FIFA would be devastating, no matter how damaging the evidence from the Garcia report (the head of Qatar 2022 recently launched accusations of racial bias over the Garcia report). It looks now like the Arab World, especially the GCC countries are lining up to support Qatar. There's no doubt based on comments from Garcia and the countless media reports that the bid for 2022 was a sham. FIFA knows it but they also view the fallout of taking away the WC even worse. With the impending move of the tournament, perhaps UEFA could draw the line in the sand against FIFA. Refuse to alter the schedules of the domestic leagues. When choosing the national teams to send to Qatar, choose a squad of "B team players" perhaps the Olympic teams. Blatter and his cronies would be able to do nothing. What would they do? Ban powerhouses like England and Germany from competition?! It's much easier to suspend a federation like Mynamar than it is a traditional power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 http://www.gulf-times.com/sport/192/details/395975/qatar-the-right-choice-to-host-2022-fifa-world-cup:-arab-youth-survey I posted a while back that the biggest obstacle to removing the WC from Qatar was the fact it was an Arab country not to mention a Muslim country. Qatar has been marketing this as an Arab WC and the political fallout on FIFA would be devastating, no matter how damaging the evidence from the Garcia report (the head of Qatar 2022 recently launched accusations of racial bias over the Garcia report). It looks now like the Arab World, especially the GCC countries are lining up to support Qatar. There's no doubt based on comments from Garcia and the countless media reports that the bid for 2022 was a sham. FIFA knows it but they also view the fallout of taking away the WC even worse. With the impending move of the tournament, perhaps UEFA could draw the line in the sand against FIFA. Refuse to alter the schedules of the domestic leagues. When choosing the national teams to send to Qatar, choose a squad of "B team players" perhaps the Olympic teams. Blatter and his cronies would be able to do nothing. What would they do? Ban powerhouses like England and Germany from competition?! It's much easier to suspend a federation like Mynamar than it is a traditional power. We've all said it for awhile now.. FIFA wouldn't dare take the World Cup away from Qatar. Not that they don't have cause to do so, but the political implications would be more than they're willing to deal with. So they're stuck at this point. It's interesting though that the other Arab countries seem to be supporting this. Wonder if they realize what a disaster this is shaping up to be? Wonder if they realize that it could be a long long time before another World Cup comes to an Arab nation when Qatar proves what an awful idea this was in the first place. Not sure if the big Euro and South American nations will do anything like you're suggesting. They only get this once in every 4 years chance to compete in the World Cup. The clubs might take issue with the schedule, but UEFA as a whole will probably want the biggest and best players competing in the tournament or else it might look bad on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatinXTC Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 Wonder if they realize that it could be a long long time before another World Cup comes to an Arab nation when Qatar proves what an awful idea this was in the first place. Yea but what other Arab nation is really fit to host the World Cub AND host it within the time frame that FIFA has been using for years??? Qatar having the games in November and December is definitely a complete fluke, and I don't envision them being hosted during that timeline again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted February 21, 2015 Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 We've all said it for awhile now.. FIFA wouldn't dare take the World Cup away from Qatar. Not that they don't have cause to do so, but the political implications would be more than they're willing to deal with. So they're stuck at this point. It's interesting though that the other Arab countries seem to be supporting this. Wonder if they realize what a disaster this is shaping up to be? Wonder if they realize that it could be a long long time before another World Cup comes to an Arab nation when Qatar proves what an awful idea this was in the first place. Not sure if the big Euro and South American nations will do anything like you're suggesting. They only get this once in every 4 years chance to compete in the World Cup. The clubs might take issue with the schedule, but UEFA as a whole will probably want the biggest and best players competing in the tournament or else it might look bad on them. I think the Confederations Cup the year before will determine the success/tenor/failure of 2022. What about that fire at the Torch Tower in Dubai -- in February no less?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOtherRob Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 FIFA will come under pressure on Tuesday to agree to a shortened World Cup in 2022 in compensation for moving the tournament in Qatar to the winter. FIFA will come under pressure on Tuesday to agree to a shortened World Cup in 2022 in compensation for moving the tournament in Qatar to the winter. The final meeting of the 2022 task force will be held in Doha on Tuesday when recommendations on the timing of the World Cup are expected to confirm a November/December tournament in order to avoid the searing heat of the summer. Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore is among those on the task force and at its last meeting argued forcefully for a shortened World Cup to minimise disruptions to the clubs and leagues, with a shorter preparation period beforehand and fewer international dates that season. One task force member, who wished to remain anonymous, told Press Association Sport: "It is almost certain that November/December will be agreed but the trade-offs will be for a cut in the length of the World Cup and the preparation period beforehand."The leagues have been forceful in arguing that you only need two weeks' preparation beforehand rather than the usual three or four, and that the tournament does not need to be as long as the 32 days it was in Brazil."The players from northern hemisphere clubs - which is the majority - will be fresher than usual and the logistics of Qatar mean it will be less than two hours' drive to every stadium so there will be no travel days for teams."For example you probably don't need five days between the semi-final and final - 72 hours should be long enough."More at http://sport.bt.com/sport-football/news/shortened-qatar-world-cup-mooted-S11363964093017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 I think the Confederations Cup the year before will determine the success/tenor/failure of 2022. What about that fire at the Torch Tower in Dubai -- in February no less?? What about the fire? What does that have to do with the World Cup? The Confederations Cup will certainly give us a glimpse into Qatar, but it's still not the full crush of people that will be descending upon the country a year later. I do agree though that it will probably help determine for a lot of people whether they attend the World Cup or not, so the Qataris would be wise to do everything in their power to be as warm and as welcoming as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plusbrilliantsexploits Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 FIFA will come under pressure on Tuesday to agree to a shortened World Cup in 2022 in compensation for moving the tournament in Qatar to the winter. FIFA will come under pressure on Tuesday to agree to a shortened World Cup in 2022 in compensation for moving the tournament in Qatar to the winter. The final meeting of the 2022 task force will be held in Doha on Tuesday when recommendations on the timing of the World Cup are expected to confirm a November/December tournament in order to avoid the searing heat of the summer. Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore is among those on the task force and at its last meeting argued forcefully for a shortened World Cup to minimise disruptions to the clubs and leagues, with a shorter preparation period beforehand and fewer international dates that season. One task force member, who wished to remain anonymous, told Press Association Sport: "It is almost certain that November/December will be agreed but the trade-offs will be for a cut in the length of the World Cup and the preparation period beforehand. "The leagues have been forceful in arguing that you only need two weeks' preparation beforehand rather than the usual three or four, and that the tournament does not need to be as long as the 32 days it was in Brazil. "The players from northern hemisphere clubs - which is the majority - will be fresher than usual and the logistics of Qatar mean it will be less than two hours' drive to every stadium so there will be no travel days for teams. "For example you probably don't need five days between the semi-final and final - 72 hours should be long enough." More at http://sport.bt.com/sport-football/news/shortened-qatar-world-cup-mooted-S11363964093017 Well, if that is indeed being considered, then it'd be the final straw - maybe not so much for the individual national associations, but the fans. First, we're asked to accept Qatar (a nation with no meaningful contribution to international football) as a host. Besides the fact that the winning bid may have ensured victory through more than doubtful means, Qatar's lack of any significant experience in hosting international events or even being a footballing powerhouse in the Middle East completely discredited the whole 2022 World Cup before it even gets started. Next, the World Cup is to be shifted to the darkest winter months: Apart from the fact that commitments in the national leagues (and the considerable commercial interests tied to those) will interfere with the World Cup, we may very well end up with a situation where some players will quite simply refuse to play - for fear of missing out on the commercial endorsements that come with continental (Champions League, Europa Cup) and national championships. This is only exacerbated by a mere two weeks of envisaged prep time - in light of this, players who want to head to Qatar may end up self-regulating their performances, clocking in the hours, but doing just enough to not get injured. The result? Lower-quality football matches in the national leagues and the Champions League, with players directly thrown into a conflict of interest between World Cup or a more sustained set of earnings that comes with a career with continent-wide success. Let's be honest, the number of players in each World Cup who "break out" in the public's imagination tends to be limited, so continental championships offer a more reliable source of endorsements etc. Finally, the proposed reduction in the actual World Cup itself may be the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. Why? Because every World Cup doesn't live off the matches themselves, but the atmosphere in the host cities AND the participating countries. World Cups tend to be slow burners which only take off with every match played in the group stage. It's the length and the many matches (especially in the group stage), as well as the tragedies, inspiring moments, sheer luck and little miracles that emanate from these matches that turn a mere tournament into a celebration of football. Shortening the World Cup's length will only lead to physical exhaustion on part of the players, as they have to play the same number of matches in a shorter span of time AND a soulless atmosphere, since the audience will register the results, but (due to the sheer multiplicity of matches in a shorter period) not really be able to develop the kind of attachment to a tournament that is needed to make it an emotional success. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TorchbearerSydney Posted February 23, 2015 Report Share Posted February 23, 2015 Atmosphere...... Australia just hosted the Asian Cup, and the atmosphere at every match was amazing, mainly due to the large expat populations. The Iran and Iraq match was the highlight, capacity crowd and amazing match. As were the Korean, Chinese, Japanese matches..... what could have been 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Well, if that is indeed being considered, then it'd be the final straw - maybe not so much for the individual national associations, but the fans. First, we're asked to accept Qatar (a nation with no meaningful contribution to international football) as a host. Besides the fact that the winning bid may have ensured victory through more than doubtful means, Qatar's lack of any significant experience in hosting international events or even being a footballing powerhouse in the Middle East completely discredited the whole 2022 World Cup before it even gets started. Next, the World Cup is to be shifted to the darkest winter months: Apart from the fact that commitments in the national leagues (and the considerable commercial interests tied to those) will interfere with the World Cup, we may very well end up with a situation where some players will quite simply refuse to play - for fear of missing out on the commercial endorsements that come with continental (Champions League, Europa Cup) and national championships. This is only exacerbated by a mere two weeks of envisaged prep time - in light of this, players who want to head to Qatar may end up self-regulating their performances, clocking in the hours, but doing just enough to not get injured. The result? Lower-quality football matches in the national leagues and the Champions League, with players directly thrown into a conflict of interest between World Cup or a more sustained set of earnings that comes with a career with continent-wide success. Let's be honest, the number of players in each World Cup who "break out" in the public's imagination tends to be limited, so continental championships offer a more reliable source of endorsements etc. Finally, the proposed reduction in the actual World Cup itself may be the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. Why? Because every World Cup doesn't live off the matches themselves, but the atmosphere in the host cities AND the participating countries. World Cups tend to be slow burners which only take off with every match played in the group stage. It's the length and the many matches (especially in the group stage), as well as the tragedies, inspiring moments, sheer luck and little miracles that emanate from these matches that turn a mere tournament into a celebration of football. Shortening the World Cup's length will only lead to physical exhaustion on part of the players, as they have to play the same number of matches in a shorter span of time AND a soulless atmosphere, since the audience will register the results, but (due to the sheer multiplicity of matches in a shorter period) not really be able to develop the kind of attachment to a tournament that is needed to make it an emotional success. No, actually the fans on-site will be the actual winners. Like if the period between semis and the finals will be just 72 hours, then the fans DON'T have to pay 5 days' hotel or travel to another country to wait for the finals. Instead, they just pay for 3 days' hotel. So the more compressed schedule will work out to the fans' advantage. Not that I'm making plans to go, but ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Finally, the proposed reduction in the actual World Cup itself may be the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. Why? Because every World Cup doesn't live off the matches themselves, but the atmosphere in the host cities AND the participating countries. World Cups tend to be slow burners which only take off with every match played in the group stage. It's the length and the many matches (especially in the group stage), as well as the tragedies, inspiring moments, sheer luck and little miracles that emanate from these matches that turn a mere tournament into a celebration of football. Shortening the World Cup's length will only lead to physical exhaustion on part of the players, as they have to play the same number of matches in a shorter span of time AND a soulless atmosphere, since the audience will register the results, but (due to the sheer multiplicity of matches in a shorter period) not really be able to develop the kind of attachment to a tournament that is needed to make it an emotional success. No, actually the fans on-site will be the actual winners. Like if the period between semis and the finals will be just 72 hours, then the fans DON'T have to pay 5 days' hotel or travel to another country to wait for the finals. Instead, they just pay for 3 days' hotel. So the more compressed schedule will work out to the fans' advantage. Not that I'm making plans to go, but ... I'm inclined to agree with baron on this one. There's a case to be made that the quality of the games will drop without the extra rest. But in terms of the fans, they'll be fine with this (well, as fine as they can be considering the tournament is in Qatar). There's a lot of downtime during the World Cup. The fans who are on site will probably be more than happy to have the games closer together. You're not going to lose the atmosphere because the games are condensed a little closer together. You honestly think fans won't be able to make an emotional attachment to the tournament if there are 4 games per day early in the tournament instead of 3? That's nonsense. The argument you'll somehow have a soulless atmosphere when there are MORE games per day doesn't hold any water IMO. They'll be fine. Or at least as fine as a tournament in Qatar can be. With all due respect to them, it's probably going to be the polar opposite of what we saw in Brazil. Maybe they'll come up with a way to surprise us all, but I'm not counting on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plusbrilliantsexploits Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 I'm inclined to agree with baron on this one. There's a case to be made that the quality of the games will drop without the extra rest. But in terms of the fans, they'll be fine with this (well, as fine as they can be considering the tournament is in Qatar). There's a lot of downtime during the World Cup. The fans who are on site will probably be more than happy to have the games closer together. You're not going to lose the atmosphere because the games are condensed a little closer together. You honestly think fans won't be able to make an emotional attachment to the tournament if there are 4 games per day early in the tournament instead of 3? That's nonsense. The argument you'll somehow have a soulless atmosphere when there are MORE games per day doesn't hold any water IMO. They'll be fine. Or at least as fine as a tournament in Qatar can be. With all due respect to them, it's probably going to be the polar opposite of what we saw in Brazil. Maybe they'll come up with a way to surprise us all, but I'm not counting on it. Valid arguments, no doubt - I just have a problem with Qatar as a Host Country. They may have the money, but they quite simply don't deserve it in terms of football. It's as if the NFL decided to have China, Mozambique or Chile host the Superbowl... Yes, the fans on-site will definitely be the winners - it's the fans off-site I'm more concerned about. As of this hour, it seems as if FIFA may go for 23 December as the date for the finals. That would interfere with the Africa Cup of Nations two weeks later AND the European league schedules...the last word on the dates, at the very least, hasn't been spoken yet. Finally, even for the fans on-site, discovering the country and host cities themselves is part of the World Cup experience. Brazil had much to offer, as did South Africa, Germany, Japan/South Korea, France, the United States and Italy when they hosted. Can anyone say the same thing about Qatar? What do they even have besides Doha? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.