Jump to content

England still going for 2018 WC?!


Recommended Posts

the 2003 world cup was hold in the USA because of the SARS outbreak in China, the 2007 world cup will be held in china, the the 2011 will be in Austalia, Canada or France

I know that!  The point is why didn't FIFA go with Australia or Russia or Japan or wherever?  Because the US is a GREAT PLACE to hold any tournament when push comes to shove.  If it can put together a major tournament in 6 months and have excellent results, what more given the normal 6 year lead?  

2018 will head to the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I think England has a stronger case because, as my list shows, even the English 1st Division (i.e. league below the Premiership) has more fans than the top league in the USA. Even the Scottish league is bigger than the MLS!

England, a country with a fifth of the population of the USA has three times as many people going to matches on a weekly basis. I'm talking week-in, week-out. Not for one tournament. People in England watch football in huge numbers every-week, second only to Germany, and not just when the footballing circus comes to town.

One could even say that despite having hosted the World Cup with the highest attendance ever, the American public, as a whole have not embraced football as FIFA would have wanted. Women's football is a very different kettle of fish becuase this is a big sport in the US, so I wouldn't begrudge the US hosting their world cup frequently.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the USA wouldn't host a good world cup. However, I really, really, really don't think it should be in the USA so soon after 1994 when there are countries who have football embedded deep within their culture who haven't hosted for over 50 years, and, when there are other potentially huge markets, such as China to exploit.

If this rotation system is fixed, then I'll be supporting a Canadian or Mexican bid for 2018. If it isn't I'd like England to bid. If we don't, however, I'll support either a European country such as Spain, or a country who haven't had the chance to host before like China.

My preference...

1. England

2. Other European footballing power

3. New frontier country

4. USA

An interesting diagram for your eyes to see:

The League pyramid for England

Link to post
Share on other sites

The "English Game"?  The Danes just whooped your ass*s.

BTW...as terrible as our defeat to Denmark was, there are two things you should bear in mind before you take the biscuit.

1. An England second-string team beat the USA 2-1 recently. Denmark would have beaten you by about 7 goals if you had an off-day like us.

2. Had the USA lost to a team they really should have beaten in what was, after-all only a friendly, I doubt there would have been the national outrage and embarrassment, several pages taken up in every newspaper about the defeat, and people in work places talking about little else the next day, as there was over here. Your p*ss take has only served to strengthen my argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree.  Here's the correct poll:

The RIGHT and PROPER POLL for 2018

Well, ya know the US beat the UK in was it the famous 1950 World Cup game?   The point is: WHY should it go back to Europe again?  It was just there in 1998 and 2006.  2010 - South Africa; 2014 - probably Brazil; so it only makes sense that it move up to No. America in 2018.    It is CALLED the WORLD CUP - NOT the EUropean Cup.  Disagree with all your analyses.  I believe 2018 will go to the U.S.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is: WHY should it go back to Europe again?  It was just there in 1998 and 2006.  2010 - South Africa; 2014 - probably Brazil; so it only makes sense that it move up to No. America in 2018.    It is CALLED the WORLD CUP - NOT the EUropean Cup.  Disagree with all your analyses.  I believe 2018 will go to the U.S.

Like you say: it's a Football WORLD Cup, not a Football American Cup, so... 1994-2018? Then again in 2042, 2066, 2080... And the USA isn't lonely in North America: Mexico could host perfectly in 2018 as well (or better) than the USA: because the World Cup in 1994 was pure rubbish talking about FOOTBALL (that is the matter of the FOOTBALL WC, no?), but if you talk about merchandising, T-shirts, boots, and rubbish, then: YES, the WC in the USA was the best :rolleyes:  :angry:  :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

because the World Cup in 1994 was pure rubbish talking about FOOTBALL

To be fair, you can't really blame the hosts for the quality of the fooball being played. However, I agree with the sentiments in the rest of your post (though whether Mexico could host a better world cup than the USA is debatable!)

Link to post
Share on other sites
because the World Cup in 1994 was pure rubbish talking about FOOTBALL

To be fair, you can't really blame the hosts for the quality of the fooball being played. However, I agree with the sentiments in the rest of your post (though whether Mexico could host a better world cup than the USA is debatable!)

Mexico is one of the four countries (with Italy, France and Germany) that have hosted twice...  and at least the WC of 1986 was the best talking about good/real/pure football :upside:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, no, I believe you are all wrong.  2018 will most likely go to the U.S.  Why should it go back to Europe?  And I will argue my point with anyone until the cows come home.

Exactly. So there is no point disucssing this with you. You are unable to see any other point of view... This "im right, youre wrong" mentality seems to be your trademark.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree.  Here's the correct poll:

The RIGHT and PROPER POLL for 2018

Well, ya know the US beat the UK in was it the famous 1950 World Cup game?   The point is: WHY should it go back to Europe again?  It was just there in 1998 and 2006.  2010 - South Africa; 2014 - probably Brazil; so it only makes sense that it move up to No. America in 2018.    It is CALLED the WORLD CUP - NOT the EUropean Cup.  Disagree with all your analyses.  I believe 2018 will go to the U.S.

You believed the 2012 Olympic Games would go to New York or Paris.

Proved wrong on both accounts. It take more for you to believe dear Baron.

Link to post
Share on other sites
the 2003 world cup was hold in the USA because of the SARS outbreak in China, the 2007 world cup will be held in china, the the 2011 will be in Austalia, Canada or France

I know that!  The point is why didn't FIFA go with Australia or Russia or Japan or wherever?  Because the US is a GREAT PLACE to hold any tournament when push comes to shove.  If it can put together a major tournament in 6 months and have excellent results, what more given the normal 6 year lead?  

2018 will head to the US.

i believe the USA was the only place to bid, Canada stepped down under the impression that the US would allow group D to play in Edmonton, which didn't happen

Link to post
Share on other sites
Disagree.  Here's the correct poll:

The RIGHT and PROPER POLL for 2018

Well, ya know the US beat the UK in was it the famous 1950 World Cup game?   The point is: WHY should it go back to Europe again?  It was just there in 1998 and 2006.  2010 - South Africa; 2014 - probably Brazil; so it only makes sense that it move up to No. America in 2018.    It is CALLED the WORLD CUP - NOT the EUropean Cup.  Disagree with all your analyses.  I believe 2018 will go to the U.S.

You believed the 2012 Olympic Games would go to New York or Paris.

Proved wrong on both accounts. It take more for you to believe dear Baron.

So what?  Had Blair -- and I'm not saying it was wrong or illegal -- and other leaders not intervened personally (i.e, no high-level politicking), and the voting was just left to itself, Paris would've won.  But the 2012 Olympics in London just doesn't excite me.  

As far as World Cup 2018, until the selection is made, I have every right to believe in my choice.   Stick to yours, I couldn't care less.   :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
Disagree.  Here's the correct poll:

The RIGHT and PROPER POLL for 2018

Well, ya know the US beat the UK in was it the famous 1950 World Cup game?   The point is: WHY should it go back to Europe again?  It was just there in 1998 and 2006.  2010 - South Africa; 2014 - probably Brazil; so it only makes sense that it move up to No. America in 2018.    It is CALLED the WORLD CUP - NOT the EUropean Cup.  Disagree with all your analyses.  I believe 2018 will go to the U.S.

You believed the 2012 Olympic Games would go to New York or Paris.

Proved wrong on both accounts. It take more for you to believe dear Baron.

So what?  Had Blair -- and I'm not saying it was wrong or illegal -- and other leaders not intervened personally (i.e, no high-level politicking), and the voting was just left to itself, Paris would've won.  But the 2012 Olympics in London just doesn't excite me.  

As far as World Cup 2018, until the selection is made, I have every right to believe in my choice.   Stick to yours, I couldn't care less.   :P

Just as the 2018 World Cup wouldn't excite me if staged in the United States.

Of course you have every right to believe in your choice, but for some reason, you seem unable to accept other peoples point of view. And when they question your reasoning, you go on the offensive.

Be mature.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just as the 2018 World Cup wouldn't excite me if staged in the United States.

Exactly  :sleepy:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you have every right to believe in your choice, but for some reason, you seem unable to accept other peoples point of view. And when they question your reasoning, you go on the offensive.

Who are u to tell me how to act?  Why don't you take care of yourself first before telling others?

I don't accept their opinions because I think they are wrong.  

So sue me, Michelle.

Butt out, Mikel - who asked you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Butt out, Mikel - who asked you?

And you 'gilipollas'? Who asked you? Don't you see that all the forum is against you? Don't you see that all the forum think that the USA won't host before China, Australia and England and Spain host again?  :angry:  :sleepy:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Butt out, Mikel - who asked you?

And you 'gilipollas'? Who asked you? Don't you see that all the forum is against you? Don't you see that all the forum think that the USA won't host before China, Australia and England and Spain host again?  :angry:  :sleepy:

"Gilipollas"?  Is that Gallipoli?  If you're trying to insult me, that didn't work because I don't know what that means.  You don't WANT to go there.  

So what if the forum thinks otherwise?  I don't.  That doesn't mean the rest of you are right.  

THe Brits speak of a strong soccer following, etc.  That doesn't exist in CHina or Australia -- so I don't buy that whole 'new frontiers' argument over a return tournament to the U.S.

As I said, I'll argue this until 2011 or the cows come home -- whichever comes first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

THe Brits speak of a strong soccer following, etc.  That doesn't exist in CHina or Australia -- so I don't buy that whole 'new frontiers' argument over a return tournament to the U.S.

You've missed my point entirely....

The USA was a "new frontier" country in 1994. At that time, unlike Australia and China, it didn't even have a professional league. It was given a chance just like other new frontier nations should be.

Since then however, the USA has not grown as a footballing nation to the extent that they should be awarded the World Cup every 20 odd years - which is what you're advocating by supporting FIFA's ludicrous rotation system.

No country, especially not the USA, should be awarded the world cup this often. The footballing powers of Europe would be lucky to see a world cup in their nation once a century with the current system whilst the USA will have a strong chance of winning a bid every 20 years!

So, in conclusion, 2018 should be awarded either to a big footballing power who haven't hosted for a while, or a country that hasn't hosted at all with the potential of becoming a huge footballing power. It should not be given to a mediocre footballing nation which has hosted relatively recently - a description which matches the US perfectly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mediocre?  Excuse me.  We are #6 in FIFA's rankings -- regardless of what you fools believe or not.  Who should one believe you or FIFA?  I would go with the official organization, not some amateur armchair handicappers.

Anyway, Rob, wrong logic.  Disagree.  It's a matter of rotating it equally and fairly between the continents.  

Before the advent of TV, yes, the WC alternated between Europe and So. America -- so there was some sort of rotation.  1994 was the first time they brought it out of that rotation -- and they had wildly successful results, not only int terms of TV ratings around the world; but live attendance at the WC games themselves; and the blossoming of the women's game in the US.  What more could they hope for?

China?  It was just Korea-Japan 3 years ago; it would be too soon to return to Asia.

Australia?

1.  There will have been 2 southern hemisphere WCs before it's Australia's turn.

2.  Soccer-wise, Australia is barely a blip on the FIFA screen.  As a matter of fact, did it not get absorbed into the Asian grouping?

Sorry, Rob, you arguments really don't add up for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite on what I have been reading here, it seems that the World Cup is heading toward what the Olympic Games is experiencing in part: only a handful of countries get the chance to host one. I, for one, am not liking that. It is starting to look like a big version of the G8: only participating countries "rotate" amongst themselves to host the biggest events.

Going back to the World Cup scenario here, will we see the likes of "small" countries like Sweden be able to host a World Cup again by itself, with the way it is going? Look what it took South Africa to get to host one: "major bid rule changes." Does FIFA going to have to accomodate every little detail to each interested country, so that those nations get the chance to sip the cup of hosting the event?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mediocre?  Excuse me.  We are #6 in FIFA's rankings -- regardless of what you fools believe or not.  Who should one believe you or FIFA?  I would go with the official organization, not some amateur armchair handicappers.
Your national team are 11 top athletes who have excelled in their sport and are certainly in the top 10 in the world. However, is it just a coincidence that many of them ply their trade in the English leagues?

Across the board, the US is a mediocre footballing nation, or, at the very least, not within the top group of footballing nations which include the European footballing powers and Brazil and Argentina. You can't claim otherwise - the attendance figures for domestic football and the amount of coverage given to football in our national press bears this out. How many of your colleagues talk about football (or "soccer") at work Baron? The pre-season match between AC Milan and Chelsea in the USA, two of the biggest clubs in Europe, drew tiny crowds and both clubs commented on their dissapointment at the lack of interest. In any country that is genuinly intersted in football, that match would have sold out. Why then, does this country specifically (and I'm not talking about North America in general) deserve another world cup so soon after 1994?

Anyway, Rob, wrong logic.  Disagree.  It's a matter of rotating it equally and fairly between the continents.  

Before the advent of TV, yes, the WC alternated between Europe and So. America -- so there was some sort of rotation.  1994 was the first time they brought it out of that rotation -- and they had wildly successful results, not only int terms of TV ratings around the world; but live attendance at the WC games themselves; and the blossoming of the women's game in the US.  What more could they hope for?

You make it sound like live football on TV was invented in 1994! There have been some success stories following 1994 in the US. Despite these, the US is still not a big enough footballing nation to justify a world cup that often. The sport is outside the top three sports in the US (I'd imagaine basketball, baseball and American football are all much bigger).

China?  It was just Korea-Japan 3 years ago; it would be too soon to return to Asia.

Australia?

1.  There will have been 2 southern hemisphere WCs before it's Australia's turn.

2.  Soccer-wise, Australia is barely a blip on the FIFA screen.  As a matter of fact, did it not get absorbed into the Asian grouping?

Sorry, Rob, you arguments really don't add up for me.

As I've said before, I'd understand your defence of FIFA's rotation policy so much more if you supported a Canadian or Mexian bid (though I'd still disagree with it). But you don't. You'd like the World Cup to come to the good ol' US of A every 24 years and that is hardly rotation is it?

btw, before 1994 the USA was barely a blip on the footballing screen! And, unlike Australia, it didn't even have a professional league!! Australia was 'absorbed into Asia' precisly because they are much more than a mere blip these days. Their federation wanted more competitive matches and that's what they'll get in Asia. Australia have just hired Guss Hiddink, the former coach of South Korea, who is a very well respected person in the world of football. I doubt he'd be willing to go to a country that was merely a blip that didn't have the potential to be any more than that.

I was using China and Australia as examples. I'd be equally happy for a European or North American nation that hadn't hosted before to host before the US got the tournament again. However, 2018 would be a good time to return the tournament to a country that isn't a new frontier nation and has a big passion for football, simply becuase the two world cups prior to that one will have been hosted in countries that had never hosted before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree Rob. Best post I've ever seen on here.

If I put GB aside, I'd love to see the WC given to a football-mad country like Argentina, Brazil, Netherlands, France etc. Another USA WC would be terrible for most football fans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mediocre?  Excuse me.  We are #6 in FIFA's rankings -- regardless of what you fools believe or not.  Who should one believe you or FIFA?  I would go with the official organization, not some amateur armchair handicappers.

Your national team are 11 top athletes who have excelled in their sport and are certainly in the top 10 in the world. However, is it just a coincidence that many of them ply their trade in the English leagues?

Across the board, the US is a mediocre footballing nation, or, at the very least, not within the top group of footballing nations which include the European footballing powers and Brazil and Argentina. You can't claim otherwise - the attendance figures for domestic football and the amount of coverage given to football in our national press bears this out. How many of your colleagues talk about football (or "soccer") at work Baron? The pre-season match between AC Milan and Chelsea in the USA, two of the biggest clubs in Europe, drew tiny crowds and both clubs commented on their dissapointment at the lack of interest. In any country that is genuinly intersted in football, that match would have sold out. Why then, does this country specifically (and I'm not talking about North America in general) deserve another world cup so soon after 1994?

Anyway, Rob, wrong logic.  Disagree.  It's a matter of rotating it equally and fairly between the continents.  

Before the advent of TV, yes, the WC alternated between Europe and So. America -- so there was some sort of rotation.  1994 was the first time they brought it out of that rotation -- and they had wildly successful results, not only int terms of TV ratings around the world; but live attendance at the WC games themselves; and the blossoming of the women's game in the US.  What more could they hope for?

You make it sound like live football on TV was invented in 1994! There have been some success stories following 1994 in the US. Despite these, the US is still not a big enough footballing nation to justify a world cup that often. The sport is outside the top three sports in the US (I'd imagaine basketball, baseball and American football are all much bigger).
China?  It was just Korea-Japan 3 years ago; it would be too soon to return to Asia.

Australia?

1.  There will have been 2 southern hemisphere WCs before it's Australia's turn.

2.  Soccer-wise, Australia is barely a blip on the FIFA screen.  As a matter of fact, did it not get absorbed into the Asian grouping?

Sorry, Rob, you arguments really don't add up for me.

As I've said before, I'd understand your defence of FIFA's rotation policy so much more if you supported a Canadian or Mexian bid (though I'd still disagree with it). But you don't. You'd like the World Cup to come to the good ol' US of A every 24 years and that is hardly rotation is it?

btw, before 1994 the USA was barely a blip on the footballing screen! And, unlike Australia, it didn't even have a professional league!! Australia was 'absorbed into Asia' precisly because they are much more than a mere blip these days. Their federation wanted more competitive matches and that's what they'll get in Asia. Australia have just hired Guss Hiddink, the former coach of South Korea, who is a very well respected person in the world of football. I doubt he'd be willing to go to a country that was merely a blip that didn't have the potential to be any more than that.

I was using China and Australia as examples. I'd be equally happy for a European or North American nation that hadn't hosted before to host before the US got the tournament again. However, 2018 would be a good time to return the tournament to a country that isn't a new frontier nation and has a big passion for football, simply becuase the two world cups prior to that one will have been hosted in countries that had never hosted before.

I agree with you in all you have said.

You can't compare the football tradition in South America and Europe with the "tradition" in the USA. All the leagues of Europe and South America are famous, the best players of the world play in Europe and South America.

And baron, let me tell you that: IN EUROPE THERE IS ALSO TV!!!! :D Yes, although you arrogant American people think Europe is worst than you, we have TV, we have money and we have stadiums, so... and of course, people to see GOOD MATCHES OF FOOTBAL, NOT ONLY MERCHANDISING!!! And if 2018 has to go to North America, then Mexico would be a good host :upside:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see 2018 being played in Boston, Chicago, New York/NJ, Philadelphia, the DC area, Columbus, Dallas, Miami or Tampa, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

The finals will either be at the Rose Bowl again (nearly 93,000) or the new 80,000 Giants stadium in the Meadowlands, NJ.  

Attendance will top the the RECORD-BREAKING 1994 attendance of 3,577,000+ - still unbroken by any succeeding World Cup!

:unclesam:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...