Jump to content

Archived

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

Mercator

The World Cups to come.....

Recommended Posts

The WC of 1994 was a WC of consum, market and money but wasn't a good WC of real football like in Mexico'86 or Spain'82 (Italy was another disaster), and don't talk about Korea/Japan'02: Korea eliminated first Argentina, secondly Italy and later Spain with bad arbitrations all that for the money of the Asian market :rolleyes:  :glare:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Korea and Argentina never played each other, they were in different groups and then Argentina didn't make it into the round of 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baron is 100% correct on this matter.

There may be "25" countries in Europe but only 6 can host by themselves.... Italy, Spain, England, France, Germany & Russia.

The next North American cup WILL BE HOSTED BY THE UNITED STATES.

Mexico doesn't have the security or finance, Canada doesn't have the popularity of the game, and the lowly rated national team.

Football is growing in importance in America and their national team has made great progress in recent years. They deserve it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The WC of 1994 was a WC of consum, market and money but wasn't a good WC of real football like in Mexico'86 or Spain'82 (Italy was another disaster),

well, mikel, that wasn't the fault of the organizers.  Maybe all the teams were just equally good -- the way it should be.  And how do you know all the future WCs will not be as good or worse?  Besides, this good-bad quality thing is entirely subjective.  I'm sure if Spain won, you would've said it was a "Superlative" WC, wouldn't you?  

And thanks for your agreement, Eruedan.  The U.S. has the infrastructure in place the way Paris is touting its stadia, venues in place for 2012.   There is no need to build new stadia in the U.S; they are all there.  Picking a WC host shouldn't be an emotional choice as it is picking players.  You are dealing with billions of dollars, and logistically, is in many ways, more of a nightmare than staging an Olympics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Korea and Argentina never played each other, they were in different groups and then Argentina didn't make it into the round of 16

I remeber that day very well  :)

Oh! One of the happiest days in my life...

I remember calling to my mom to the work and shout her "Los ingleses le sacaron la cresta a los argentinos!!!!!!"  :P  :P

Argentina was eliminated because they have an awful presentation, the same for France.... but in the case of Italy or Spain, it was totally different... Korea didn't deserve the 4th place... and Japan won't won a match again until the WC will have 100 teams and they will be in a group with New Caledonia, East Timor and Guyana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Korea didn't deserve the 4th place... and Japan won't won a match again until the WC will have 100 teams and they will be in a group with New Caledonia, East Timor and Guyana.

I totally agree with you. Korea was 4th because of they was hosting the WC and the arbitrations was on their favour (See the matches against Italy and Spain), and don't talk about Japan.

ERUEDAN: Mexico has hosted to WC and is very capable of hosting another one, at least in 1970 and 1986 there was good footbal no like in 1994, and Baron: Spain didn't win the WC in 1970 and 1986 and I like them in good-football way. :upside:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
R u kidding, Kratk?  :rolleyes:  No wonder Chile can't even mount a credible Winter Games bid.  

I think WOG and Fifa world Cup are quite different events from each other... and I think the WOG would require (in the case of Chile) more investments than organizing the World Cup. Chile has a number of good football stadiums, chileans wouldn´t need to build a lot of many new stadiums, like Koreans and Japaneses did. The same would apply to Brazil and Argentina.

The passion for the sport is the background for this structure. The key to a successful World Cup in Chile would be reforms in its main stadiums. I believe that only three or maybe four new stadiums would have to be build.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will even quote the definitive paragraph:

"In terms of attendance, the event was a rousing success. The average attendance of nearly 69,000 shattered a record that had stood since 1950.

The 1950 Football World Cup is the only one which never had a single final match. ...      

So there is no passion there?  And the home team didn't even reach the semi-finals.  What if it did?

don´t forget the most of that audience was of tourists... and not Americans themselves....

most American media even didn´t noticed the WC, giving more attention to the NBA playoffs than to the FifaWorldCup

And... about the 1950 World Cup.. yes.. it had a final game, it was Brazil 1 x 2 Uruguay. Of couse, there were four teams in the final stage, but that was the last game and Brazil and Uruguay were the only teams left able to get the trophy...so.. it was a final....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will even quote the definitive paragraph:

"In terms of attendance, the event was a rousing success. The average attendance of nearly 69,000 shattered a record that had stood since 1950.

The 1950 Football World Cup is the only one which never had a single final match. ...      

So there is no passion there?  And the home team didn't even reach the semi-finals.  What if it did?

don´t forget the most of that audience was of tourists... and not Americans themselves....

most American media even didn´t noticed the WC, giving more attention to the NBA playoffs than to the FifaWorldCup

well, the point is...and the success of any event is how well attended it is -- you can't prove box office receipts wrong -- it SET a record which NONE of the other so-called home-grown WCs, even one hosted by 2 countries, can top.

Did I hear FIFA complain?  No, just you folks from the so-called traditional soccer powers are plain jealous that the U.S. was able to stage an EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL World Cup which you were surprised at and hoping it would not be.  You refuse to acknowledge that the US hosted a SUPERB tournament -- and why?  Just plain petty jealousy and insecurity.   :unclesam:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will even quote the definitive paragraph:

"In terms of attendance, the event was a rousing success. The average attendance of nearly 69,000 shattered a record that had stood since 1950.

The 1950 Football World Cup is the only one which never had a single final match. ...      

So there is no passion there?  And the home team didn't even reach the semi-finals.  What if it did?

don´t forget the most of that audience was of tourists... and not Americans themselves....

most American media even didn´t noticed the WC, giving more attention to the NBA playoffs than to the FifaWorldCup

well, the point is...and the success of any event is how well attended it is -- you can't prove box office receipts wrong -- it SET a record which NONE of the other so-called home-grown WCs, even one hosted by 2 countries, can top.

No, you folks from the so-called traditional soccer powers are just jealous that the U.S. was able to stage an EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL World Cup which you were surprised at and hoping it would not be.  You refuse to acknowledge that the US hosted a SUPERB tournament -- and why?  Just plain petty jealousy and insecurity.   :unclesam:

So, you have bigger stadiums than some other countries. Isn't this what this argument boils down to?

I still don't think the USA is a big enough footballing power to justify it getting the world cup on a regular/frequent basis as it does with the Olympics (which is perfectly justified IMHO).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will even quote the definitive paragraph:

"In terms of attendance, the event was a rousing success. The average attendance of nearly 69,000 shattered a record that had stood since 1950.

The 1950 Football World Cup is the only one which never had a single final match. ...      

So there is no passion there?  And the home team didn't even reach the semi-finals.  What if it did?

don´t forget the most of that audience was of tourists... and not Americans themselves....

most American media even didn´t noticed the WC, giving more attention to the NBA playoffs than to the FifaWorldCup

well, the point is...and the success of any event is how well attended it is -- you can't prove box office receipts wrong -- it SET a record which NONE of the other so-called home-grown WCs, even one hosted by 2 countries, can top.

No, you folks from the so-called traditional soccer powers are just jealous that the U.S. was able to stage an EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL World Cup which you were surprised at and hoping it would not be.  You refuse to acknowledge that the US hosted a SUPERB tournament -- and why?  Just plain petty jealousy and insecurity.   :unclesam:

Yes USA'94 was a wonderful World Cup of Market, Money and Tourism but: was it a World Football Cup like it had to be?? :D  :sleepy:

Prejudiced?  :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, you have bigger stadiums than some other countries. Isn't this what this argument boils down to?

I still don't think the USA is a big enough footballing power to justify it getting the world cup on a regular/frequent basis as it does with the Olympics (which is perfectly justified IMHO).

Did I even mention size?  (Altho size,of course, does matter.)

Well, Japan, Korea and South Africa aren't exactly in the top 6 either, are they?  Why did FIFA give the WC to them?  To spread it around, duh!  After all, it is called the WORLD Cup.  :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
R u kidding, Kratk?  :rolleyes:  No wonder Chile can't even mount a credible Winter Games bid.  

I think WOG and Fifa world Cup are quite different events from each other... and I think the WOG would require (in the case of Chile) more investments than organizing the World Cup. Chile has a number of good football stadiums, chileans wouldn´t need to build a lot of many new stadiums, like Koreans and Japaneses did. The same would apply to Brazil and Argentina.

The passion for the sport is the background for this structure. The key to a successful World Cup in Chile would be reforms in its main stadiums. I believe that only three or maybe four new stadiums would have to be build.

Rogerio ... let's be realistic. The current state of Chilean football stadia is such that a total rebuild would be required to host a world cup, and in no way could Chile host a 32 team competition by itself even after such an effort. The only possible option would be to co-host as a junior partner with Argentina, but I think that it is a long way down the list of priorities for the ANFP.

Realistically I see the sequence of World cups as:

2014 - Brazil

2018 - England

2022 - China (economics dictates) or possibly Australia

2026 - US (return to the Americas)

2030 - Russia (if they get their act together), if not than it could be Spain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I even mention size?  (Altho size,of course, does matter.)

"In terms of attendance, the event was a rousing success. The average attendance of nearly 69,000 shattered a record that had stood since 1950."

well, the point is...and the success of any event is how well attended it is -- you can't prove box office receipts wrong."

I think you may have done.

But before you get the wrong idea, I'm not denying the world cup in the USA was a success or that these attendence figures don't matter. USA '94 was a success especially after the scare stories regarding the size of the goal and shape of the ball being changed etc.

:)  :;):

The point I was arguing was to do with the rotation, that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the scare stories regarding the... shape of the ball being changed etc.

I never heard that one, RH.  But that's funny.  I'm surprised they didn't pick Roswell, NM, as a venue.  Now that would've been outta this world.   :alien:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
R u kidding, Kratk?  :rolleyes:  No wonder Chile can't even mount a credible Winter Games bid.  

I think WOG and Fifa world Cup are quite different events from each other... and I think the WOG would require (in the case of Chile) more investments than organizing the World Cup. Chile has a number of good football stadiums, chileans wouldn´t need to build a lot of many new stadiums, like Koreans and Japaneses did. The same would apply to Brazil and Argentina.

The passion for the sport is the background for this structure. The key to a successful World Cup in Chile would be reforms in its main stadiums. I believe that only three or maybe four new stadiums would have to be build.

Rogerio ... let's be realistic. The current state of Chilean football stadia is such that a total rebuild would be required to host a world cup, and in no way could Chile host a 32 team competition by itself even after such an effort. The only possible option would be to co-host as a junior partner with Argentina, but I think that it is a long way down the list of priorities for the ANFP.

And it's more than just state-of-the-art stadia.  Are there at least enough 2-star hotels in every hosting city?  Can the airports be certified by IATA?  Are the host nation's press facilities up to snuff?  Are there enough social facilitites to make the big sponsors happy?  Is the host nation's judicial system something FIFA can live with?  Does the host nation have the latest satellite feeds and transmissions?  Weather, food, etc., etc., etc... You should think about that, especially you, Mikel, who seems to think that it's only good Games that matter.  

FIFA will not pick a 2nd-class host nation because the world's press will just pick the 2nd-class facilities of that nation to pieces in-between Games; and we're going to have the whole 2004 Greek "the-world's-beating-down-on-us" game again.   :suspect:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHOA !!! What hateful hearts of yours !!!! Poor chileans... :D

Well.. being realistic, I have to tell that Chile isn´t that "2nd-class" nation baron said. Chile´s economy is growing at an average 5,5 % every year. Their national judicial system, as well its economic system is modern and in a few  years chileans will be experiencing a life pattern similar to countries like Portugal and Greece. Other points mentioned (weather, tv transmissions, accomodation - Chile has A LOT of hotels - and transportation) would not be a problem for chileans to cope.

I think you should visit Chile. You´ll be surprised how modern it´s getting !

As for the World Cup in USA, I´m not telling that it was a failure... of course, it was an astonishing success, and americans did a great job, adapting some "american football" stadiua to "football" or soccer, as they say. And the competition was very exciting too! I also didn´t said that USA shouldn´t host it again. If they did such good job, they may host it again in the future.....What I said is that the WC in USA was a success mainly due to the INTERNATIONAL interest in the WC, and not due to the american people/media interest. Again, I have to say, most of the attendants in those soccer games were TOURISTS, not Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The USA maybe in 2050... Firstly other countries want to repeat (like the USA does with the Games: repeat and repeat): England, Chile, Brazil, Spain, Argentina... And of course China and Australia want to make their debut so... :suspect:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know there are a lot of problems now to host a World Cup... most of the stadiums have to be reconstructed... but the problem isn't in the field or the heavy estructure, it is in the services (bathrooms, seats, parking, etcs)... We don't have to transform stadiums of other sports to football... we have them now.

Transportation? We have one of the best airport in the Southern Hemisphere. For the other cities, yes, it could be a problem, but no a difficult one. Anyway, the Government is thinking in a renovation to the principal airports... and if Chile host, at least I think there will be 2 venues in Santiago and 1 or 2 in Valparaiso/Viña at 1.5 hours of the city by car.

Hotels? This could be solved and I sure that at least Santiago and Viña del Mar have 5star hotels and possible 4stars in Arica, Iquique, Antofagasta, Calama, Concepción, Coquimbo, Valdivia, Puerto Montt and Punta Arenas...

If Chile get the WC it will be in 9 years... and Chile developed a lot in the last 10 years, so I think we can made it for a WC or a WOG. There will be a lot of work without any doubt, but we made the 62 WC when we had NOTHING, and the little things we made they were destroyed 2 years before... And if FIFA didn't believe that we can have a successful WC, they didn't begin to push Chile to make a bid as they do 2 years before and they do last days.

I know that US will host someday again... but I think there are other PRIORITIES, specially Brazil and England...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHOA !!! What hateful hearts of yours !!!! Poor chileans... :D

Well.. being realistic, I have to tell that Chile isn´t that "2nd-class" nation baron said. Chile´s economy is growing at an average 5,5 % every year. Their national judicial system, as well its economic system is modern and in a few  years chileans will be experiencing a life pattern similar to countries like Portugal and Greece. Other points mentioned (weather, tv transmissions, accomodation - Chile has A LOT of hotels - and transportation) would not be a problem for chileans to cope.

I think you should visit Chile. You´ll be surprised how modern it´s getting !

As for the World Cup in USA, I´m not telling that it was a failure... of course, it was an astonishing success, and americans did a great job, adapting some "american football" stadiua to "football" or soccer, as they say. And the competition was very exciting too! I also didn´t said that USA shouldn´t host it again. If they did such good job, they may host it again in the future.....What I said is that the WC in USA was a success mainly due to the INTERNATIONAL interest in the WC, and not due to the american people/media interest. Again, I have to say, most of the attendants in those soccer games were TOURISTS, not Americans.

Rogerio, I did not mean to imply that CHile is a 2nd-class nation.  Reading my post a 2nd time, I can see how that came across; but believe it was not my intention to class CHile as such.  I have no animosity towards Chile.

What I was stating was on a general basis.  So my apologies if you thought I was impugning Chile.  

Mikel, how old are you?  You really know nothing about how these things are picked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mexico doesn't have the security or finance, Canada doesn't have the popularity of the game, and the lowly rated national team.

You are wrong, im not going to discuss this, but you are saying something about you are not sure.

Mexico can host (im not saying that we are going to host), we have the money, and the infrestructure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...