Jump to content

How Fifa Became Suspicious Of Joint Bids


Guest Jensen1981

Recommended Posts

Guest Jensen1981
Background

In 1986, FIFA's former President, João Havelange, proposed a plan of holding a World Cup either in Asia or Africa. China had been the first choice for a World Cup in Asia. But the idea was dropped after logistical and human rights concerns presented themselves.

Havelange then threw his support behind Japan. The Japan Football Association, eager to increase the popularity of the sport in the country, agreed to submit a bid and organised a preparatory committee in 1989.

Korea, also aiming to be the first Asian country to host a World Cup, announced its intention in 1993 after the successful organization of the 1988 Summer Olympics held in Seoul and organised a committee the following year. Europe's football governing body, UEFA, resenting Havelange's power, decided to back the Korean bid.

In February 1995, the two countries officially announced their candidacies, with no other countries running campaigns to host the tournament.

With Japan lobbying FIFA and Korea lobbying UEFA, the soccer world was split badly. Japan pushed its modern infrastructure, wealth, and technology as key points. Korea, which had a longer professional soccer tradition, believed it was more deserving.

Bidding

The lobbying by both sides was fierce and extravagantly funded, though no one knows exactly how much the two countries spent during their seven-year battle. Japan may have budgeted close to $50 million for the bid, and for building or upgrading stadiums and hotels in 15 cities around the country. Korea planned to construct 11 new stadiums and renovate five others at a cost of approximately $1.3 billion. They criticized Japan's bid as merely "commercial," describing the development of that country's new professional football league, the J. League, as a crass lobbying tool.

The Koreans believed they deserved the right to host the World Cup. The Japanese professional football league came into existence only in 1993 and football had only just started to get popular in Japan. In contrast, Korea had established the first professional football league in Asia a decade earlier and the sport had been widely popular for a long time.

In games between the two countries, the Koreans had won 52 and lost 12, with 15 drawn. Korea was the region's dominant power and had reached four World Cup finals (more than any other Asian country). Japan had not even qualified for one at that time (Japan later qualified for the World Cup 1998 held in France). Korean officials tried to play on this last point, but with little success. Japanese officials responded that the 1994 tournament was awarded to the United States, whose national team at the time had not won a single World Cup game since 1950.

Many groups in Korea lobbied for the World Cup - the Korean President Kim Young Sam donned a "World Cup 2002" t-shirt and cap during his morning jogs, Buddhist monks in a temple in Seoul prayed for FIFA to smile on their country's bid, flags with the slogan "Dream For All, 2002 World Cup Korea" were displayed in front of Gimpo International Airport, and the world's largest football — diameter 3.60 meters — sat in the entrance of the building that houses the offices of the Korean bidding committee.

Big business also joined the Korean campaign in full force. Korea's 2002 World Cup bid committee was headed by Ku Puǒng-hoe, an LG executive. The Hyundai Group also demonstrated keen interest in the project.

Chung Mong Joon, who headed the South Korean Football Association, even suggested that the tournament might help bring peace to the Korean peninsula, with North Korea participating in the event. FIFA officials were attracted by the notion that the World Cup could be more than just a sporting event, but also "a catalyst for world peace".

The Japanese lobbied hard as well. Two Japanese ex-ministers visited the Middle East to tip the balance in favor of Tokyo. Japan emphasized its success in hosting a football tournament called the Toyota Cup as well as its safety, economic power, stable government, and democratic tradition. Japanese officials also indicated that the hosting of the Cup in South Korea would probably attract the danger of a North Korean terrorist attack. The Koreans replied that international visitors to Japan would be under threat of an earthquake or even a gas attack by a fanatical sect like Aum Shinrikyo. "It is increasingly obvious that the fear of losing the tournament has become more important than the desire to win," commented one European member of FIFA. "It is clear that the nation which loses the bid will suffer a devastating blow." The contest between Japan and South Korea to host Asia's first World Cup became increasingly bitter in nature.

The Decision

On May 31, 1996, FIFA made the announcement that Korea and Japan would co-host the 2002 tournament. The decision, unprecedented in World Cup history, was considered by many observers as a cop-out.

On November 6, 1996, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), meeting in Zurich, Switzerland, announced its decision for Korea and Japan to co-host the event.

Three or four months after the decision, Korea and Japan had a meeting to decide how to call the tournament and which to hold the big events such as the opening, the ending, and the final match. FIFA at the first suggested calling it "Japan-Korea" in the English alphabetical order, but Korea insisted on adopting the French alphabetical order "Corée" and "Japon" (since the name "FIFA" is in French) and calling it "Korea-Japan".

The final FIFA provisions can be outlined as follows:

1. The event's official name will be the 2002 FIFA WORLD CUP Korea Japan.

2. A total of 32 participating teams will play 64 games. During the first round of competition, each country will host 4 groups composed of 4 teams each.

3. Each country is to provide a minimum of 6 and a maximum of 10 stadiums in which to hold the events.

4. The opening match will be hosted by Korea and the final match will take place in Japan.

5. The drawing to select teams for the elimination matches will be held in Japan, and the drawing to determine which teams meet in the finals will be held in Korea.

6. Both countries will have the right to field national teams in the competition.

"The World Cup plays an important psychological role in economic recovery and in helping to regain confidence about the future of our country," Chung said. "More importantly, the experience of co-hosting the 2002 World Cup can bring Korea and Japan together and bring Koreans together by resolving all regional and social difference within Korea."

Disputes

On January 5, 2001, Yasuhiko Endo, secretary general of the Japanese organizing committee, informed the Koreans that it planned to reverse the name order on tickets to be sold in Japan. Insisting that it had been agreed that it was left to their own discretion how to write the name of the tournament in their own language, the Japanese called it World Cup "日本・韓国 (Japan/Korea)". The Korea Football Association claimed that alternating the order of the countries' names would damage the co-hosting spirit and violate the existing agreement between them. FIFA accepted this claim and ordered Japan to stop reversing the naming order. The Japanese then decided to eliminate the country names entirely, simply calling it the "2002 World Cup". In English, the order "Korea/Japan" was kept.

The two sides even fought over what to name the tournament's trio of official mascots. The Koreans considered their names--Ato, Nik, and Kaz--too Japanese. Kaz, for instance, is close to the name of a Japanese football player and pronunciation of the "z" sound does not exist in the Korean language. The Japanese found the entire discussion annoying, since they said FIFA devised the characters and their names.

Emperor Akihito and Crown Prince Naruhito declined a long-standing invitation from Korea to attend the World Cup's opening ceremony in Seoul. Instead, Japan's Prince Takamado and Princess Takamado made a six-day visit to Korea and attended the opening gala event. It was the first official visit to Korea by a member of the Japanese royal family since 1945.

Traditionally, the head of state of the host nation attends the opening match. Although Japan does not officially have a head of state, the emperor is often considered the country's head of state (the Japanese Constitution defines him as "the symbol of the State and the unity of the people"). The emperor's decision not to attend the opening ceremony was attributed to lingering animosity towards Japan. Many Koreans were disappointed, however, when it was confirmed that he would not come.

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi was present at the opening ceremonies and the emperor, the prime minister, and South Korean President Kim Dae Jung all attended the final match held in Yokohama.

Despite the conflict between the two countries, about 74.6% of Japanese and 60.9% of Koreans polled thought the World Cup would improve international relations between the two countries.

It should be quite clear why the FIFA, and especially Mr Sepp Blatter, were disappointed about this first ever World Cup hosted by two countries. The disputes before and after the draw and before and after the World Cup made Mr Blatter eventually say "No joint bids again!". Also the fact that eventually a grand total of 20 stadiums were used during the World Cup did not attribute to a more positive view of a joint bid. Because logistically and infrastructurally the 2002 World Cup was certainly not good.

But given the fact how Korea and Japan joined forces just months before the actual draw, it should not be the major issue for future joint bids. The joint bid of Korea and Japan 2002 was merely a political compromise, whereas current joint bids should only be accepted if it concerns smaller countries that are not able to host a World Cup on its own.

For that reason I regret the last-minute decision of Spain to ask Portugal to join the bid. Holland and Belgium form a political entity called the Benelux. I would advise FIFA, and especially Mr Blatter, to take that in mind. Joint bids can be succesful in my opinion. And allthough Holland and Belgium have never organized a WC together, its smaller brother, the European Cup, set the standard for all other joint bids.

I do not ask if FIFA can be convinced of the above arguments. But do you think FIFA should at least be convinced by the Holland&Belgium bidding committee to take our attempt serious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jensen, I am sure FIFA will NOT brush aside the joint bids so quickly...but PUT yourself in their shoes...if you were faced with a couple of very good one-nation bids: Australia, China, England/GB, Russia, USA (for only 2 slots) and then 2 smaller-nation joint bids...(the Benelux, Spain-Portugal)...which one would you go with....considering as you quoted in the ABOVE artile, FIFA's past experience with a co-hosted Cup?

I think you know the answer. Would you deal with just one nation/one Org Committee per Cup or have to deal with 3 or more?

In joint bids, FIFA, as I've said before, would always have to play Solomon in settling the petty rivalries between the so-called 'partners' PLUS there would always be the issue of sovereign, jurisdictional rights which could get touchy and contentious; possibly get the fans caught in the middle of territorial disputes; and get in the way of running a smooth tournament. All of which you wouldn't have if one country hosted the tourney.

Would you risk that...regardless of whether you're in the Euro zone or not? Think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make a good point. The Korea-Japan was a compromise not a long standing arrangement to bid together. However Baron also makes a very good point. I think if they do go for a joint bid it won't be the Benelux one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jensen1981
You make a good point. The Korea-Japan was a compromise not a long standing arrangement to bid together. However Baron also makes a very good point. I think if they do go for a joint bid it won't be the Benelux one.

For me one of the most important arguments to vote for a particular bid has to do with.....legacy. It is a subject that we haven't discussed before. It is constantly about the materialistic issues like infrastructure.

But, allthough you should not compare joint bids together, they have one advantage: They always will bring two countries closer together. With a single bid it is always more about 'showing the greatness of a particular country'. It is exactly this kind of arrogance that bids sometimes fail to impress. Shall I remind you of the bid for the World Cup 2006? England also did a bid way back then. Their slogan was quite arrogant if I may say so: "Football is coming home again".

The England World Cup bid 2006 turned out to be one big failure. Favourites were Germany and South-Africa. Germany narrowly won the 24-member vote by only one vote from South-Africa. Both Germany and South-Africa higely campaigned on legacy. South-Africa's bid was very clear: Bring football to poorer nations in the world. Football should be a game for everyone, not just for the European few. Germany was offering a similar kind of legacy, by giving Germany a chance to show their unity (In 1999 Germany was a joint country for only 9 years).

Also, 4 years later in 2004 the World Cup was awarded to South-Africa, while at that stage almost NO stadiums were ready. Even at this stage South-Africa is still building on their stadiums.

So I know the big advantage the England-bid has. But I want to know what their legacy is! And I just don't see it so much. Their slogan now is: "England United. The World Invited!". And I can't help to say that -again- I hear a little greatness and arrogance in that slogan. Why focussing on the greatness of England?? And why uniting England? England was never divided :unsure: . As far as I'm concerned a joined United Kingdom-bid would sound better to my ears.

For that reason I believe more in the Holland&Belgium bid. Their slogan "Small together! Great Goals Forever" shows some humility. Its legacy is much clearer: How small countries can work together by not thinking in terms of national greatness, but by focussing on great sportive achievements and a lasting legacy for all football nations in the world: big and small.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I know the big advantage the England-bid has. But I want to know what their legacy is! And I just don't see it so much. Their slogan now is: "England United. The World Invited!". And I can't help to say that -again- I hear a little greatness and arrogance in that slogan. Why focussing on the greatness of England?? And why uniting England? England was never divided :unsure: . As far as I'm concerned a joined United Kingdom-bid would sound better to my ears.

I'll just deal with this one point...and not because I am a supporter of the England bid. But if that's the way they want to sell themselves, that's their business. Don't get caught up in the other parties' bids. You have no control over that any more than they will have control OVER YOURS. ANd maybe your slogan/branding may also strike them as 'arrogant.' etc. Concentrate on your own strengths and don't waste our energy on how the rivals position themselves.

Of course...do as I say...not as I do. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jensen1981
I'll just deal with this one point...and not because I am a supporter of the England bid. But if that's the way they want to sell themselves, that's their business. Don't get caught up in the other parties' bids. You have no control over that any more than they will have control OVER YOURS. ANd maybe your slogan/branding may also strike them as 'arrogant.' etc. Concentrate on your own strengths and don't waste our energy on how the rivals position themselves.

Of course...do as I say...not as I do. :lol:

Perhaps you don't know how lobbying works :). Moreover, marketing is not only about summing up internal strengths and weaknesses, but also about external opportunities and threats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't? Well, funny that you decry that England and Australia were probably using the same company. (See other posts.)

But if you are the expert...or say that you are...then we must defer to the self-proclaimed experts in the field.

Do you have to open so many posts about the same subject?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jensen1981
I don't? Well, funny that you decry that England and Australia were probably using the same company. (See other posts.)

But if you are the expert...or say that you are...then we must defer to the self-proclaimed experts in the field.

Do you have to open so many posts about the same subject?

I think it is necessary yes. Concerning the way people talk about joined bids, I feel a strong urge to proof otherwise. Therefore I am presenting you facts and arguments. It is up to you if you want to discuss about it :). Ooowh and yes, I am backing the Holland&Belgium bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you don't know how lobbying works :). Moreover, marketing is not only about summing up internal strengths and weaknesses, but also about external opportunities and threats.

Though when it comes to sport lobbying, you should also be aware that directly attacking competing bids is a BIG no-no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jensen1981
Though when it comes to sport lobbying, you should also be aware that directly attacking competing bids is a BIG no-no.

It was not my intention to attack anyone in here. Allthough I must say that the tone and style towards a Holland&Belgium bid was rather disrespectful at times. No matter how small and insignificant, reactions like "small countries should accept their position and bow out!" are so NO-NO as well. For an inhabitant of a smaller country it feels like an attack, especially when others are deliberately not summing up the positives of a joint Holland&Belgium bid. Also, it is a big YES-YES to have an honest bidding process. And I am merely stating facts, not rumours to start attacking!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jensen1981
Talk about clutching at straws!

:rolleyes:

The England 2006 bidding committee said the same back in 1999 to the competing South-Africa 2006 bid and Germany 2006 bid. But later it turned out that England was clutching at straws :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, don't be so thin-skinned. If you'd followed the board over past years, especially talk about upcoming FIFA WC finals, you'd have also seen strong attacks against the English bid, the US bid (especially - not many outside the US seem to like the idea of them bidding), Spain, Russia etc. It's not like Holland-Belgium is being singled out for special victimisation.

I'm always in favour of sports events going to new hosts. I wouldn't mind Holland-Belgium winning. But just like when joint-bids have been discussed in relation to Olympic campaigns: Sure, there's no hard and fast rule against them, but like it or not, why would any organisation like FIFA or the IOC go for them when they have any7 other sold single country or city bids to choose from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The England 2006 bidding committee said the same back in 1999 to the competing South-Africa 2006 bid and Germany 2006 bid. But later it turned out that England was clutching at straws :).

That quote you replied to was from a different thread. But if you wanna bring the topic here, then: So what? They use similar or the same fonts. Big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jensen1981
Oh, don't be so thin-skinned. If you'd followed the board over past years, especially talk about upcoming FIFA WC finals, you'd have also seen strong attacks against the English bid, the US bid (especially - not many outside the US seem to like the idea of them bidding), Spain, Russia etc. It's not like Holland-Belgium is being singled out for special victimisation.

I'm always in favour of sports events going to new hosts. I wouldn't mind Holland-Belgium winning. But just like when joint-bids have been discussed in relation to Olympic campaigns: Sure, there's no hard and fast rule against them, but like it or not, why would any organisation like FIFA or the IOC go for them when they have any7 other sold single country or city bids to choose from?

Thanks for this comment Sir Roltel. I can get a bit passionate at times ;). Sorry for that. I just....desperately want a World Cup being staged in Holland and Belgium. And if that passion drives you, just like with the Dutch/Belgian bidding committee, you are doing everything in your power to enhance the chances of actually getting the 2018 World Cup.

To be honest? If Holland & Belgium wins the bid, you can be sure of a tight scheduled World Cup in which every stadium will be finished well before the kick-off of th first World Cup match. It is nice to hear that you don't mind Holland & Belgium winning the bid. The FIFA is already doing continents like South America and Africa a big favour. Do you think smaller nations could receive the same kind of favour?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me one of the most important arguments to vote for a particular bid has to do with.....legacy. It is a subject that we haven't discussed before. It is constantly about the materialistic issues like infrastructure.

But, allthough you should not compare joint bids together, they have one advantage: They always will bring two countries closer together.

Do the Netherlands and Belgium plan to unit? Never heard of that. And you know the tension in Belgium. Who gives FIFA the guarantee, that Belgium will still be one nation in 2018 or 2022?

With a single bid it is always more about 'showing the greatness of a particular country'. It is exactly this kind of arrogance that bids sometimes fail to impress. Shall I remind you of the bid for the World Cup 2006? England also did a bid way back then. Their slogan was quite arrogant if I may say so: "Football is coming home again".

Was it arrogant? Well, i never felt it that way. England just hosted the EURO 96. It was a successful tournament and after that, they wanted more and the World Cup. Here in Germany England is seen as the "motherland" of football and i think the slogan had to be seen like this ;)

The England World Cup bid 2006 turned out to be one big failure. Favourites were Germany and South-Africa. Germany narrowly won the 24-member vote by only one vote from South-Africa. Both Germany and South-Africa higely campaigned on legacy. South-Africa's bid was very clear: Bring football to poorer nations in the world. Football should be a game for everyone, not just for the European few. Germany was offering a similar kind of legacy, by giving Germany a chance to show their unity (In 1999 Germany was a joint country for only 9 years).

Germany didnt win 2006 because of the legacy. No one cares about the German reunification. Germany won it because of the so called "gentleman-agreement". That meant, that Germany has all support from the UEFA members. Germanys advantage and Englands death (and not the slogan :blink: ). Second important point was the full support from Asia after hard lobbying from Beckenbauer. Three weeks ago, the German team played friendlies in China and the UAE and there were many complainants. Although not officially confirmed, is was known that these matches are a give-back for the 2006 support.

The other reason, why the Asians supported the Germans, was Blatter. He was in favour of RSA right from the beginning. They wanted to weaken his presidency for an Asian successor. There was no space for the "German legacy".

Also, 4 years later in 2004 the World Cup was awarded to South-Africa, while at that stage almost NO stadiums were ready. Even at this stage South-Africa is still building on their stadiums.

So I know the big advantage the England-bid has. But I want to know what their legacy is! And I just don't see it so much. Their slogan now is: "England United. The World Invited!". And I can't help to say that -again- I hear a little greatness and arrogance in that slogan. Why focussing on the greatness of England?? And why uniting England? England was never divided :unsure: . As far as I'm concerned a joined United Kingdom-bid would sound better to my ears.

United can also mean, that the whole nation stands behind the bid. Simply as that. Unlike Belgium.

For that reason I believe more in the Holland&Belgium bid. Their slogan "Small together! Great Goals Forever" shows some humility. Its legacy is much clearer: How small countries can work together by not thinking in terms of national greatness, but by focussing on great sportive achievements and a lasting legacy for all football nations in the world: big and small.

A personal note: Jensen, you are still quite new here. My English isnt very good. The others got used to it and i hope you understand my arguments nevertheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think smaller nations could receive the same kind of favour?

Let's say there are a dozen 'big' countries. So that means there are like 185 OTHER smaller countries, as you put it.

So why should Holland-Belgium be set aside as 'special' from the other 183 smaller countries? Because you need the stadia? Well, probably so do 100 other nations. Your arguments are NOT unique to Holland-Belgium (and I have nothing personally against your 2 countries)...but there is only ONE World Cup to go around every 4 years. FIFA has what? over 200 FAs to work and live with. You've GOT to have STRONGER arguments than... "(you)...need them..." or "legacy..." The former doesn't really convince anyone; the latter argument can apply to ALMOST anyone bidding.

Now, if you said, a Holland-Belgium WC would provide FREE HOUSING and ACCOMMODATION for everyone...then you WOULD HAVE a very UNIQUE platform. But short of that, Holland-Belgium might... do better to go for the Women's World Cup. (And I mean that seriously.) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jensen1981
Do the Netherlands and Belgium plan to unit? Never heard of that. And you know the tension in Belgium. Who gives FIFA the guarantee, that Belgium will still be one nation in 2018 or 2022?

Was it arrogant? Well, i never felt it that way. England just hosted the EURO 96. It was a successful tournament and after that, they wanted more and the World Cup. Here in Germany England is seen as the "motherland" of football and i think the slogan had to be seen like this ;)

Germany didnt win 2006 because of the legacy. No one cares about the German reunification. Germany won it because of the so called "gentleman-agreement". That meant, that Germany has all support from the UEFA members. Germanys advantage and Englands death (and not the slogan :blink: ). Second important point was the full support from Asia after hard lobbying from Beckenbauer. Three weeks ago, the German team played friendlies in China and the UAE and there were many complainants. Although not officially confirmed, is was known that these matches are a give-back for the 2006 support.

The other reason, why the Asians supported the Germans, was Blatter. He was in favour of RSA right from the beginning. They wanted to weaken his presidency for an Asian successor. There was no space for the "German legacy".

United can also mean, that the whole nation stands behind the bid. Simply as that. Unlike Belgium.

A personal note: Jensen, you are still quite new here. My English isnt very good. The others got used to it and i hope you understand my arguments nevertheless.

Thanks for your remark Goethe. Having said that, what would you advise the Holland&Belgium bid to become more succesful? From what I've heard from the Holland/Belgium bid is that they want to put forward Johan Cruijf as the bid's most important lobbying side kick. Not to mention other big names as Guus Hiddink, Justine Henin and Marco van Basten.

Concerning the legacy: If you want it or not, from a Dutch point of view I SAW that legacy. It was heartwarming to see Germans waving their national flags and singing their national anthem again. For many years your country did not feel it appropriate to do so. For me WC 2006 made the Germans more outspoken and proud again. And they deserve it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their slogan now is: "England United. The World Invited!". And I can't help to say that -again- I hear a little greatness and arrogance in that slogan. Why focussing on the greatness of England?? And why uniting England? England was never divided :unsure: .

Was Manchester ever divided? Or Newcastle? Or West Ham?

The "United" refers to unity of purpouse and is a pun on many of our most famous teams' names. That seems fairly obvious though perhaps I'll excuse you as English is probably your second language.

I don't see arrogance in it, as there was to some extent with our "Football's coming home" slogan. Although there was nothing untruthful about that slogan, and it was meant to invoke memories of Euro '96 and the Lightning Seeds song that became the soundtrack to that tournament - although the self-depricatotion in the song was maybe lost in translation when used as a bid slogan!

You ask why focus on the greatness of England. Why not focus on the greatness of England? It's a bloody great country with some of the best footballing traditions in the world! I'll say this to you now: if Holland/Belgium is going to show nothing but humility, they'll be overlooked by brasher bids who aren't afraid to be a little arrogant.

3546404469_65420f34a2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is what it is. The FIFA World Cup is a gargantuan undertaking that would drive most nations bankrupt. There are enough large nations willing to support FIFA's (and the IOC's) megalomaniac dream(s). Why are you trying to force the issue?

Why are you asking people here how to improve the H-B bid? Don't you think we/they have our own candidates? Why should we try to improve the competing bids? How would that serve us? :blink:

There are smaller events...like the Women's World Cup, the Euros...that smaller nations can handle.

If you are quite unrealistic and can't accept some realities, then you're not going to find much rapport here...or elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your remark Goethe. Having said that, what would you advise the Holland&Belgium bid to become more succesful? From what I've heard from the Holland/Belgium bid is that they want to put forward Johan Cruijf as the bid's most important lobbying side kick. Not to mention other big names as Guus Hiddink, Justine Henin and Marco van Basten.

Cruyff is probably the best known Dutch footballer. No doubt. Beckenbauer was not alone. He had a good team. Like Munichs bid for the 2018 Olympic Games, the bid for 2006 was financed by private companies. There was no money of taxpayers involved. But of course also the German embassies helped.

At the end only 24 (more or less) independent persons decide. So you must have a good stance within FIFA.

Concerning the legacy: If you want it or not, from a Dutch point of view I SAW that legacy. It was heartwarming to see Germans waving their national flags and singing their national anthem again. For many years your country did not feel it appropriate to do so. For me WC 2006 made the Germans more outspoken and proud again. And they deserve it.

I know, that many observers tend to agree with you. But this kind of legacy was not the plan and the aim. Nobody would have supported the bid, if the DFB said, that the goal of the bid is, to make the Germans proud again. :unsure:

For the last time: Forgive me, but i dont support your bid. There are several reasons:

First and most important: BELGIUM! Belgium is no football-powerhouse. It does not deserve a place in the World Cup. It does not need the stadia and we dont know, whether Belguim falls apart or not.

Also the Netherlands have obstacles. Like i wrote in the different thread, i think (and not FIFA), that some of the proposed cities are to small. They dont have the capacity to cope with thousand of fans.

I like the Dutch. Those one i met, have always kind and friendly. I also see the problem that you have only two neighbors. One is not capable (in my eyes) of hosting a World Cup and the other one is able to do it alone, without your help. I dont see any solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jensen1981
Cruyff is probably the best known Dutch footballer. No doubt. Beckenbauer was not alone. He had a good team. Like Munichs bid for the 2018 Olympic Games, the bid for 2006 was financed by private companies. There was no money of taxpayers involved. But of course also the German embassies helped.

At the end only 24 (more or less) independent persons decide. So you must have a good stance within FIFA.

I know, that many observers tend to agree with you. But this kind of legacy was not the plan and the aim. Nobody would have supported the bid, if the DFB said, that the goal of the bid is, to make the Germans proud again. :unsure:

For the last time: Forgive me, but i dont support your bid. There are several reasons:

First and most important: BELGIUM! Belgium is no football-powerhouse. It does not deserve a place in the World Cup. It does not need the stadia and we dont know, whether Belguim falls apart or not.

Also the Netherlands have obstacles. Like i wrote in the different thread, i think (and not FIFA), that some of the proposed cities are to small. They dont have the capacity to cope with thousand of fans.

I like the Dutch. Those one i met, have always kind and friendly. I also see the problem that you have only two neighbors. One is not capable (in my eyes) of hosting a World Cup and the other one is able to do it alone, without your help. I dont see any solution.

My reason to support the Holland&Belgium bid are therefore to make both Belgium and The Netherlands football powerhouses again. We do not bid just to win a World Cup. We need the stadiums to enhance our national football leagues, both financially, technically and infrastructurally (Though distances between each city are no problem).

Basically you are right off course, but indirectly you say that you don't want to see an improvement of smaller football leagues. You want that the big ones stay big and the smaller ones stay small. I understand that you don't support our bid, but I hope you can at least respect it :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

I see Netherlands/Belgium as very different to Korea/Japan:

- Common language (for the most part, anyway)

- Shared history

- Common currency

- Land border

- More open border

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's the same case, in Korea/Japan there were severe differences between both countries, even during the World Cup in 2002 those differences were felt, in Korea nobody was talking about Japan and in Japan nobody was talking about Korea, they were shooting each other by talking rubbish about the other one, so I guess it was the hardest decision in FIFA World Cup bid's history.

Spain/Portugal and Belgium/Netherlands is another show, from the beginning they took a mutual decision to co-host a World Cup and they got the advantage of being bordering countries and not divided by the sea as Korea/Japan, so I guess this should be easier for any of both bids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't compare Belgium/Netherlands with Korea/Japan... and if there is a possible joint bid that could be executed almost perfectly, I would think in the Bel/Neth case. The problem is not about the "joint" bid... it's about the "bid", and the others' bid. Even if Belgium and the Netherlands were just one country, you can't expect them to defeat bids from the United States, England, Australia, Russia or Spain.

Don't get me wrong... I would love to see the World Cup being played in the Netherlands (and even its team winning it). But you have to be real... this is probably the hardest race in the history of the WC bids and you are not the favourites. Maybe it could have worked in any other moment... but not now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...