Jump to content

World Cup Eclipses Olympics


Athensfan

Recommended Posts

First, let me openly acknowledge that I support Chicago. The purpose of this thread is to ask a sincere question about Rio's bid.

The issue of the World Cup has come up in multiple threads. Some have argued that hosting the WC in 2014 will exhaust too many of Rio's resources and will compromise potential Olympic preparations. I disagree. Although hosting two major events close together presents a huge challenge, there are positive considerations to balance out possible negative ones.

My concern is entirely different.

In multiple threads, Brazilians have acknowledged that the World Cup is FAR, FAR more important to the country than the Olympics. There is absolutely no question which event arouses more enthusiasm. For Brazil, the Olympics are a very distant runner-up.

I understand that Brazil is adamant that it be considered a major international player. But as far as I can tell, that is the primary driving force behind the bid. The passion is not so much for the Olympic Games, but for attention and recognition. This has been reinforced again and again and again by President Lula da Silva.

A symbolic evidence of Brazil's emphasis on football is the fact that the bid proposes to stage the ceremonies and the cauldron in Maracana -- the football stadium. For the first time ever, the ceremonies and torch would not burn in the athletics stadium. Scores of gold medals are awarded in the athletics stadium -- only one would be given at the athletics stadium. In the athletics stadium, multiple events were actually contested in ancient Olympia. Football was not.

I am most concerned by the symbolism of the choice. Football is clearly paramount. Olympic history and tradition are relegated to supporting roles. I am afraid that this is exactly what will happen if Rio wins the 2016 Games. The 2014 World Cup will be a huge celebration during which the entire country will be on fire with excitement. I fear that by contrast, the 2016 Olympic Games would seem a pleasant, if somewhat anti-climactic denoument.

Let me state again, I am not very worried about the logistical challenges posed by the 2014 World Cup. I am questioning whether the Olympic Games would really be treated as the pinnacle of sporting achievement. That is what I believe they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Very good post and one which highlights my biggest non-technical concern with Rio as well. I would, from a purely personal prespective, much rather this Olympics isn't in the shadow of a Brazilian world cup. I'd love to see Rio host one day, just not in 2016.

I still have an inkling that some IOC members may feel the same way - though of course I can't be certain of this fact. And, as you said, the bizarre ceremonies situation is almost symbolic of this problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sry but I have to answer you with a question..

And why should the WC come behind the olympics? In fact it takes more money to prepare a world cup and will be attracting I guess Alot more people. This Olympic vs world cup does not make sense. Different times, different feelings/emotions and different places throught out a country, unlike the Olympics which is held by a major city. I really don't expect a person from Sao Paulo or Curitiba prefere the olympics in first place when those cities are focused and excited for a WC. What I think really matters is : " do you support Rio2016? it's a Yes or NO" period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sry but I have to answer you with a question..

And why should the WC come behind the olympics? In fact it takes more money to prepare a world cup and will be attracting I guess Alot more people. This Olympic vs world cup does not make sense.

I am not saying that Brazil should agree with me. Everybody is entitled to their own preferences.

But why should the IOC award the Games to a country that VASTLY prefers football and is hosting the World Cup only two years earlier? Wouldn't it make more sense to offer the Games to a country that gives them first priority?

As I said in the previous post, it seems that Brazil's passion is not so much for the Olympic Games, but for attention and recognition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brazil has hosted a WC, since then the passion for soccer arised. Brazil has never hosted an olympics this feeling is unknown to them, but the passion for sports is there, soccer, beach games, volleyball, gymnastics speacially after the pan ams rio has had the chance to host world sport Events in the city. The country was so excited about having the biggest games of the Americas in the city Why wouldn't they be now passionate for havin the biggest multi sports event?

I do have a concern nd I dislike bout maracana opening the games nd I think that's a negative point, but I'm sure the brazilians want the games and it's all over the Brazilian and Latino tv news this past week, but here in the US I don't see anything at all, I watch CNN in the morning and nothing about it, it's just for chicagoans..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, let me openly acknowledge that I support Chicago. The purpose of this thread is to ask a sincere question about Rio's bid.

The issue of the World Cup has come up in multiple threads. Some have argued that hosting the WC in 2014 will exhaust too many of Rio's resources and will compromise potential Olympic preparations. I disagree. Although hosting two major events close together presents a huge challenge, there are positive considerations to balance out possible negative ones.

My concern is entirely different.

In multiple threads, Brazilians have acknowledged that the World Cup is FAR, FAR more important to the country than the Olympics. There is absolutely no question which event arouses more enthusiasm. For Brazil, the Olympics are a very distant runner-up.

I understand that Brazil is adamant that it be considered a major international player. But as far as I can tell, that is the primary driving force behind the bid. The passion is not so much for the Olympic Games, but for attention and recognition. This has been reinforced again and again and again by President Lula da Silva.

A symbolic evidence of Brazil's emphasis on football is the fact that the bid proposes to stage the ceremonies and the cauldron in Maracana -- the football stadium. For the first time ever, the ceremonies and torch would not burn in the athletics stadium. Scores of gold medals are awarded in the athletics stadium -- only one would be given at the athletics stadium. In the athletics stadium, multiple events were actually contested in ancient Olympia. Football was not.

I am most concerned by the symbolism of the choice. Football is clearly paramount. Olympic history and tradition are relegated to supporting roles. I am afraid that this is exactly what will happen if Rio wins the 2016 Games. The 2014 World Cup will be a huge celebration during which the entire country will be on fire with excitement. I fear that by contrast, the 2016 Olympic Games would seem a pleasant, if somewhat anti-climactic denoument.

Let me state again, I am not very worried about the logistical challenges posed by the 2014 World Cup. I am questioning whether the Olympic Games would really be treated as the pinnacle of sporting achievement. That is what I believe they are.

why didn't you posted that in the other thread?

Don't need to answer... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite all I said I must give you credit as well Athens guy, I made this observation:

some people post, protest, talk crap about Rios bid, and how brazil is not ready for the olympics, the money should be used for other stuff rather than this campaign. And when it comes to WC 2014: " yay!! Let's celebrate!!" I haven't heard neither read a single post opposing 2014 cup in brazil. And anyways, if the money is not to be used for these events there's a huge chance we won't see that precious money anymore.. U guys are aware how and where the money goes here? To the politicians pocket and they never come out once they get in..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite all I said I must give you credit as well Athens guy, I made this observation:

some people post, protest, talk crap about Rios bid, and how brazil is not ready for the olympics, the money should be used for other stuff rather than this campaign. And when it comes to WC 2014: " yay!! Let's celebrate!!" I haven't heard neither read a single post opposing 2014 cup in brazil. And anyways, if the money is not to be used for these events there's a huge chance we won't see that precious money anymore.. U guys are aware how and where the money goes here? To the politicians pocket and they never come out once they get in..

How the money goes there* ...w/e

Idk how to edit x(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the WC more important for Brazilians?

Yes. For two reasons:

1. Football is a more popular sport in Brazil. This argument would also kick Madrid out of the bid. I bet most Spaniards think they would rather have a new WC than a new SOG.

2. The WC will be staged in 12 cities, while the WC in only in Rio and other 4 for football matches.

Is the WC more important for Cariocas than the SOG?

Probably not. The WC will attract a lot of interest, but there are going to be few opportunities to watch it and the infrastructure improvements that will come from the SOG are far more important.

Well, but those are not the important questions. The question is what is better to the IOC. After all, this discussion is about entitlement and the real discussion of the bids is the new opportunities.

Should a country which is more interested in hosting a WC be denied to host the SOG?

No. The SOG and the WC are different events and countries where the Olympic sports are behind in popularity to football are important growth platforms for the Olympic Movement. In those countries lies the possibility to attract new athletes and spectators. Than the IOC should balance between an assured local audience against a prospective growing audience for the SOG.

This is a very cheap approach that the if the Chicago supporters try to use will backfire very badly. To make this point, the US would have to withdraw to the bid for 2018/22 WC, since the same approach should be applicable. Besides, if they try to use it officially in Copenhagen, they will bashed and some important FIFA officials will make sure that the Ameican bid for WC will be unsuccessful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the WC more important for Brazilians?

Yes. For two reasons:

1. Football is a more popular sport in Brazil. This argument would also kick Madrid out of the bid. I bet most Spaniards think they would rather have a new WC than a new SOG.

2. The WC will be staged in 12 cities, while the WC in only in Rio and other 4 for football matches.

Is the WC more important for Cariocas than the SOG?

Probably not. The WC will attract a lot of interest, but there are going to be few opportunities to watch it and the infrastructure improvements that will come from the SOG are far more important.

Well, but those are not the important questions. The question is what is better to the IOC. After all, this discussion is about entitlement and the real discussion of the bids is the new opportunities.

Should a country which is more interested in hosting a WC be denied to host the SOG?

No. The SOG and the WC are different events and countries where the Olympic sports are behind in popularity to football are important growth platforms for the Olympic Movement. In those countries lies the possibility to attract new athletes and spectators. Than the IOC should balance between an assured local audience against a prospective growing audience for the SOG.

This is a very cheap approach that the if the Chicago supporters try to use will backfire very badly. To make this point, the US would have to withdraw to the bid for 2018/22 WC, since the same approach should be applicable. Besides, if they try to use it officially in Copenhagen, they will bashed and some important FIFA officials will make sure that the Ameican bid for WC will be unsuccessful.

You've included all I wanted to say, damn u can elaborate very well..

I totally agree with Spain choosing WC over the SOG, and Iberia is bidding.

And why should the US be awarded a WC when soccer is not very popular as baseball or basketball? And so few teams in the league, and beautiful stadiums designed especially for football but also used for soccer like the Gillete stadium nd many others in the US. Where's the passion?

The US did it '94 and it can do it soon again, and funny how no one in the US besides brazilians and Italians knew that the US team played for the confederations cup final. Which doesn't mean the country don't deserve the games...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a very cheap approach that the if the Chicago supporters try to use will backfire very badly. To make this point, the US would have to withdraw to the bid for 2018/22 WC, since the same approach should be applicable. Besides, if they try to use it officially in Copenhagen, they will bashed and some important FIFA officials will make sure that the Ameican bid for WC will be unsuccessful.

You've entirely missed the point. This isn't about bids withdrawing or not being allowed to host two events close together. It's about the knock-on effect a world cup may (not should) have on the Olympics and whether that'll be in the minds of voting members. It's an entirely valid point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not making an argument for the U.S. hosting the World Cup. At this point, I don't think that would make much sense. I know FIFA would like to encourage the sport in the U.S., but so far the following isn't very strong. I attended WC semi-finals and finals the last time it was held in the U.S. and let me tell you, the enthusiasm just wasn't there. I've also been to two Olympics -- LA '84 and Athens '04. The comparison was like night and day. That's why I would not support another U.S. bid for the World Cup.

I am afraid that the exact same situation would occur in Rio.

Also, I would never suggest that Chicago 2016 should use this argument to lobby the IOC. I am simply writing about my own observations and concerns regarding statements that have been made in this forum. I think Chicago 2016 needs to refrain from making comments about its competitors and that is what I expect them to do.

The fact that Brazil is far more enthusiastic about the World Cup than the Olympics would be much less of an issue if they weren't trying to host the events ONLY TWO YEARS APART. That is the big problem. The proximity invites comparison. That comparison is not likely to reflect well on the Olympics. If there were a greater span of time, it would be much less troubling.

As for American enthusiasm about the Olympics, some have argued that U.S. respect for the Olympic Movement is overshadowed by American football, basketball, baseball, etc. Having attended those events as well as Olympic Games, I can tell you that this is simply untrue. The United States is a sporting nation. While it is certainly true that tickets on the 50 yard line of the Super Bowl would be a bigger draw than a gold medal badminton match, I think EVERY country could make an equivalent comparison. While it is true that the Games don't make much money for NBC, viewership is through the roof.

The Olympic Games are more than a badminton match. They are a two week international atheletics festival that washes over a city. Every time the Games have been hosted in the U.S. (with the admitted exception of St. Louis, but that's ancient history) the spirit surrounding the Olympics has been unparalleled. Far more energy than a World Series or a Super Bowl -- not for a badminton match alone, but for the whole sporting festival -- not just for one day, but for months leading up to the Games as well as the two weeks of competition. I have seen first hand how American spectators have great respect for the fact that elite atheletes from around the world have gathered to compete. Even at badminton matches, archery, kayaking this respect is palpable.

I do not want to make this thread about the U.S. I am glad to hear some Brazilian responses to my concerns. Although I do not agree with all of your points, I am encouraged to hear that at least some of you do regard the Olympic Games as the pinnacle of sporting achievement. It does seem clear, however, that football is king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've entirely missed the point. This isn't about bids withdrawing or not being allowed to host two events close together. It's about the knock-on effect a world cup may (not should) have on the Olympics and whether that'll be in the minds of voting members. It's an entirely valid point.

Well, if that's his view he should have stated this way. However, he chose to put the public preference of the country's population in check. Like, if the WC - more popular - will come 2 years earlier no one will care about the SOG. Putting the question on Brazilians also disguises the issue. After all, most Brazilians will not experience the SOG in the same way they will experience the WC, only Cariocas will have the same feel.

Another point that was not approached is the view of the Brazilian leadership and the IOC to which the SOG are being treated with more attention than the WC. For the WC, there was a feeling of entitlement since Brazil has given the world many of their best football player and the leader who made football a real worldwide sport. There was a feeling that FIFA should repay Brazil for what it has done to the sport.

On the SOG, there is the feeling that we want to transform our country in an Olympic superpower and one of the steps to do it is to attract more audience. The SOG will be key for that. That's the whole point about the "never in South America" argument. It's always linked to the remark about the amount of young people in the population.

So Brazil is putting much more effort, and the Federal Government is putting more money, in getting the SOG than the WC. A large part of the WC will be payed with local governments and private investors, as opposed to the SOG that will be mainly publicly funded. Developing Olympic sports in Brazil is seen as one of the alternatives to take more people out of poverty and to keep them is school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on Lula's recent comments, it seems to me like the focus is more on grabbing economic and political power. Respect for the Olympics doesn't come into the rhetoric. The general theme is "We deserve a seat at the table. We want to be considered a major player." Lula seems to be treating the Olympics primarily as a status symbol and that is disappointing. China treated the Games as a status symbol and it took away from the experience. Instead of a warm atmosphere of global fraternity, Beijing created an impressive, but intimidating sense of "Look out, world. We're gonna blow you away." Of course Brazil's version of this would be different...

It is this idea of USING the Olympics that I find objectionable. There's a lack of respect. Couple that lack of respect with the possibility of the WC showing up the Games and there is valid basis for concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real question is:

Why many threads against Rio's bid???

People are showing doubts about everything... EVERYTHING hurts Rio bid...

Any comment made by famous people, love of soccer, Lula wishes and speeches, favelas, money, color of the pathwork in Copacabana...

Many of these threads are made by Chicago-supporters in general threads. Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, Danny, this particular thread is a valid point of discussion and I would be interested in hearing your point of view.

Second, have you noticed how many tasteless anti-Chicago threads are out there? Dredging up obscure videos of Obama made a year ago? Arguing that all the Americans have going for them is money? Finding the most extreme anti-Chicago editorial possible and posting it as if it represents the majority of American opinion? Pretending to be Chicagoans (or residents of 3rd party countries) to sabotage Chicago and advance Rio's interests? Rio supporters are doing all these things.

Yes, I started a thread expressing concerns about Rio's bid. Yes, I support Chicago. I have been honest about all of this. I am trying to have a legitimate conversation. You are welcome to share your opinions. What I am doing is a far cry from the examples I listed above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all I am Greek and i support RIO 2016.

BUT... by making this statement, president Loula has made a big mistake. IOC members will not appreciate this.

Of course football is hugely popular worldwide (except for USA, Canada, Australia, Cuba and others...). But TV rates are not the only factor that makes a sporting event "the most important". The Olympic Games are not a sporting event only. There are historical, cultural, economical, political dimensions... Hosting the WC means organising a huge, exciting party. Hosting the SOG means making history.

P.S. I am still supporting RIO... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Athen if you were really concerned about this subject you would have continued to discuss it where it started. But you wanted to "show" to others (the ones that don't have accounts here) another negative view of RIO2016 bid.

Despite being from a "3rd world country" we aren't stupid. Please.

PS: i'm 100% against rio2016. Using intangible arguments to prove how rio shouldn't host the SOG is just shameless.

First of all I am Greek and i support RIO 2016.

BUT... by making this statement, president Loula has made a big mistake. IOC members will not appreciate this.

Of course football is hugely popular worldwide (except for USA, Canada, Australia, Cuba and others...). But TV rates are not the only factor that makes a sporting event "the most important". The Olympic Games are not a sporting event only. There are historical, cultural, economical, political dimensions... Hosting the WC means organising a huge, exciting party. Hosting the SOG means making history.

P.S. I am still supporting RIO... ;)

Hosting the WC means making history too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this, Athensfan. Excellent point you have here.

The 2014 WC is the primary reason why I am not supporting Rio's bid for the 2016 SOG. It seems that Brazil (I think that the city-versus-country argument does not apply in this case) wants too much in such a short span of time. The only success barometer we have are the 2007 PanAms, and that was essentially a flop. Sure, the organizing committee is different and is more focused according to Rio supporters here, but that doesn't lessen the risk.

I have spoken with some non-GamesBids Brazilians in my other online communities, and all of them think that Rio 2016 is too much for the country to handle. You're going to spend billions of dollars for what is really just a few days of festivities -- twice within a decade! They're all ecstatic about the WC, but when asked about the SOG they were all reluctant and critical.

Lula's arguments highlight the motives a lot of people here are critical about -- that Brazil just wants the SOG for the prestige and deserves to get it because of its new frontier status. Not that it's a bad thing, but this is the message that comes across to the rest of us. Keep in mind that no city/country can claim a SOG/WOG because it's their time or turn. That is one of the worst arguments any city and its supporters can push forward, especially in a community like GamesBids where many people know how it all really works.

World Cup in Brazil? Absolutely yes. The Olympics in Brazil/Rio? Why not? But not too soon. When Rio announced its bid, I thought they were just warming up for a 2020 or even a 2024 bid that can upset an anticipated it's-about-effing-time Paris bid.

I can hardly wait for this to be over. Was the pre-2012 vote period as noisy as this one? I get headaches every time I try to read the new responses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, Danny, this particular thread is a valid point of discussion and I would be interested in hearing your point of view.

Second, have you noticed how many tasteless anti-Chicago threads are out there? Dredging up obscure videos of Obama made a year ago? Arguing that all the Americans have going for them is money? Finding the most extreme anti-Chicago editorial possible and posting it as if it represents the majority of American opinion? Pretending to be Chicagoans (or residents of 3rd party countries) to sabotage Chicago and advance Rio's interests? Rio supporters are doing all these things.

Yes, I started a thread expressing concerns about Rio's bid. Yes, I support Chicago. I have been honest about all of this. I am trying to have a legitimate conversation. You are welcome to share your opinions. What I am doing is a far cry from the examples I listed above.

Let's discuss then

World Cup will be more popular than Olympic in about more-than-half-world and based on it of course it is in Brazil.

But Olympic Games always got Brazilians attention. If the Olympic Games are held in Asia, people get awake earlier or even doesn't sleep to watch matched and mainly Opening and Closing ceremonies. You can check how much money Brazilian TV payed for 2016 Olympic Games broadcasting.

People are concern just trying to point that putting Maracana as the venue to opening ceremony is the maximum example of Brazil prefers soccer than World Cup.

That's ridiculous.

People proposed Maracana because this stadium is an icon of Brazil. Believe me, nothing to do with soccer.

As Indianapolis 1987 PanAm Games held their Opening Ceremony in Indianapolis Motor Speedway... (At least soccer is part of olympism. Motorsports don't)

*PanAm Games are officially part of IOC calendary and PASO/ODEPA are part of IOC, indeed Olympic flag is rise during PanAm ceremonies and Olympic stuff are represented (the fire, cauldron, torch, olympic hymn...)

Was US try to say... Yeah, motorsports are more important than tradition.... Of course not! Indianapolis wanted to make a honour for it most know sports venus, as Rio wants to do the same with Maracana, if IOC allows it.

About Chicago threads. You know who are the Brazilians who joined and discussed in this forum for a long time...

There are, since couple of weeks, many idiots joining the forum to make mess... And they should be banned.

But you can't deny Rio have been attacked for at least a year...

Everything become a concern for Rio de Janeiro, but Rio was shortlistened, and then everything become a problem, IOC EC Evalutation report pointed only traffic and hotels as issues for Rio, but you guys are trying to find more and more and more problems... I'm really getting tired of attack Rio for everything...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, let me openly acknowledge that I support Chicago. The purpose of this thread is to ask a sincere question about Rio's bid.

The issue of the World Cup has come up in multiple threads. Some have argued that hosting the WC in 2014 will exhaust too many of Rio's resources and will compromise potential Olympic preparations. I disagree. Although hosting two major events close together presents a huge challenge, there are positive considerations to balance out possible negative ones.

My concern is entirely different.

In multiple threads, Brazilians have acknowledged that the World Cup is FAR, FAR more important to the country than the Olympics. There is absolutely no question which event arouses more enthusiasm. For Brazil, the Olympics are a very distant runner-up.

I understand that Brazil is adamant that it be considered a major international player. But as far as I can tell, that is the primary driving force behind the bid. The passion is not so much for the Olympic Games, but for attention and recognition. This has been reinforced again and again and again by President Lula da Silva.

A symbolic evidence of Brazil's emphasis on football is the fact that the bid proposes to stage the ceremonies and the cauldron in Maracana -- the football stadium. For the first time ever, the ceremonies and torch would not burn in the athletics stadium. Scores of gold medals are awarded in the athletics stadium -- only one would be given at the athletics stadium. In the athletics stadium, multiple events were actually contested in ancient Olympia. Football was not.

I am most concerned by the symbolism of the choice. Football is clearly paramount. Olympic history and tradition are relegated to supporting roles. I am afraid that this is exactly what will happen if Rio wins the 2016 Games. The 2014 World Cup will be a huge celebration during which the entire country will be on fire with excitement. I fear that by contrast, the 2016 Olympic Games would seem a pleasant, if somewhat anti-climactic denoument.

Let me state again, I am not very worried about the logistical challenges posed by the 2014 World Cup. I am questioning whether the Olympic Games would really be treated as the pinnacle of sporting achievement. That is what I believe they are.

I disagree. The ceremonies will be in maracana because 1- this stadium have the double capacity of João Havelange stadium, 2- maracana is closer from olympic vilage - maracana will be renovated for the world cup final and will be the best stadium of brazil. Brazil is the football country, but also the volleyball country, the basketball country... Because our stadiums and arenas are always full of passionate fans cheering for their athletes whether in court or in the pool or in the field or in the track. Our beaches are always full of people playng beach volleyball and beach tennis (frescobol like we call here). We cariocas are passionate about sport in general, not only about soccer. Were we find a brazilian guy carring our flag in his uniform, he will have crazy fans supporting him, no matter the sport. I'm proud to be brazilian when I heard the national anthem. With Guga Kuerten three times in Roland Garros, with Senna, Piquet, Massa and Barrichelo in formula 1, with the brazilian volleyball team, eight times world league champion. I'm proud of all 20 gold medals that Brazil win in the olympic games, none of them in football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth be told, Maracanã is not closer to the Olympic Village than João Havelange? Have you ever heard of Linha Amarela? Going from Barra to greater Tijuca would require taking Grajaú-Jacarepaguá. And, yes, we are passionate about almost a great variety of sports, but I do think think the sentimental value of Maracanã is his calling card to be the opening venue. I agree witth Dany on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth be told, Maracanã is not closer to the Olympic Village than João Havelange? Have you ever heard of Linha Amarela? Going from Barra to greater Tijuca would require taking Grajaú-Jacarepaguá. And, yes, we are passionate about almost a great variety of sports, but I do think think the sentimental value of Maracanã is his calling card to be the opening venue. I agree witth Dany on that.

It's not only a sentimental matter as it is not tradition that makes Maracana the sole option for the WC Final and the choice for the OCs. It's the SIZE!!! No stadium in Brazil except the gallantly old modernist concrete monument has seats for over 80.000 people. That's it! There is no point in increasing the capacity of Engenhao, even temporarily to host 80.000. We have a stadium to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only success barometer we have are the 2007 PanAms, and that was essentially a flop.

Oh dear... They keep insisting on that. Shall I repeat Vázquez Raña's words at the CC? "Rio 2007 was the best in history". The games weren't perfect but it's a bizarre exaggeration to call them a flop. BTW, that flop in 2007 is the main reason Rio 2016 was shortlisted and I believe cities like Toronto are following the steps of those Rio 2007 games in regards to build infrastructure and experience to larger events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...