Jump to content

Judgment Day for FIFA?


Soaring

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Hypothetically, could England step in at this late stage as 2018 host?

I already kind of mentioned this that yes, just like the US they are fully capable of hosting in a short amount of time since they have a sufficient amount of stadiums to host the games, even better if they do a joint bid with Scotland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scotland would make nice co-hosts with its ready-made stadiums. But surely England is more than capable on its own

The fact that many of the members indicted come from the CONCACAF region--damn glad that rotten Jack Warner is one of those indicted and hope gets his much deserved long prison sentence--is surely an indicator just how deep and embarassing this whole longtime saga is. About time. I'm very sure that UEFA, AFC, CAF, and OFC all have their own members that have their own fingerprints on this. This is becoming like "All The President's Men" with what, how much and how long they all knew and are corrupted along with what we all now know. No doubt this crisis is far from over; there will be other shoes that will certainly drop. Makes you wonder what if Sweden's Lennart Johansson was elected instead of Blatter back in 1998 on the promise of badly-needed transparency and reform. Would a different tune be sung now and a crisis be averted? If you read the likes of World Soccer magazine like I do, you would know the pot was beginning to boil for years.

The brilliant Jeremy Schaap presents an excellent ESPN E:60 report on Sepp Blatter and FIFA's corruption:

http://www.espnfc.us/fifa-world-cup/4/blog/post/2448567/sepp-blatter-and-fifa-e60-reports-with-jeremy-schaap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

France and Germany could host 2018 world cup, maybe Spain/Portugal too

The answer is either Yes or No.

Would England even need to joint bid with Scotland? Their 2018 plan seems like it could be activated within 2 years.

True but is there not a rule that you cannot use more than one stadium per city for the World Cup? Or would this rule have been waivered just for England? This is the reason why I brought up Scotland since they have pretty healthy size stadiums themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would England even need to joint bid with Scotland? Their 2018 plan seems like it could be activated within 2 years.

Of course England could host if that became feasible, but we're an awfully long way from that. Also, bear in mind that at least three of the proposed venues in the England bid (Nottingham, Bristol and Plymouth) required either new stadia or substantially re-developed stadia. All of those plans were shelved following the failure of the bid and Bristol City have since begun the process of re-developing their existing stadium. Furthermore, the Olympic Stadium will be of a far smaller capacity than envisaged when the bid was first made, so all of that could well mean compromises would be needed if we ever got to that stage. I can't see that we ever will.

That said, however, nobody should doubt the significance of today's events. A colleague of mine in the academic sphere speculated via Twitter earlier whether this may prove to be the kind of watershed for FIFA that the Salt Lake City scandal was for the IOC. There's a long way to go until we get to that stage, but it now feels as though we are, at last, making some sort of progress. I just hope and pray the authorities nail every last one of the bastards, right up to Blatter himself.

True but is there not a rule that you cannot use more than one stadium per city for the World Cup? Or would this rule have been waivered just for England? This is the reason why I brought up Scotland since they have pretty healthy size stadiums themselves.

As I understand it, the rule is you can have one city with two venues (which in England's case would obviously be London). Bring Scotland into the mix and you're only adding Murrayfield and one of the three large Glasgow venues, most likely Hampden Park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, the rule is you can have one city with two venues (which in England's case would obviously be London). Bring Scotland into the mix and you're only adding Murrayfield and one of the three large Glasgow venues, most likely Hampden Park.

Looking at the Wiki page, they would have used 3 stadiums in London (Wembley, Emirates, and the 2012 Olympic stadium) and had a choice of 2 stadiums in Liverpool. The thing is since the games are only 3 years away and a possibility of relocating the 2018 WC could take up to a years, maybe less than 3 years is not enough time for all the planned stadiums to be build or expanded. They would lose the stadiums in Plymouth, Milton Keynes, Leeds and Sheffield if the 40k+ capacity is still made mandatory. They would also lose the proposed stadiums planned in Nottingham and Bristol. So in order for England to meet the demands in time, they would have to join with Scotland to host it in time, and they would also need the rule where only one city can include 2 stadiums wavered so that both of Glasgow's large stadiums can be used.

OR just give the US the 2018 games and give England the 2022 games so that it has time to renovate everything it needs. Screw the continental rotation rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we get to the point where the World Cup is pulled from Russia, I'm pretty sure minor technicalities like 40k minimums and only one city with two stadiums will be the last things people are worried about.

The political issues will be off the chart however. So no chance for the games to come to the US. While I haven't thought about it much, I wonder if China isn't a good "safe" choice politically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The political issues will be off the chart however. So no chance for the games to come to the US. While I haven't thought about it much, I wonder if China isn't a good "safe" choice politically.

Not just politically, but economically as well. That is the most bizarre thing about the choice of Qatar. FIFA would have made more money legitimately in China or the USA than they will in Qatar. It would have been simpler to sign a huge TV deal with Chinese state TV and then give themselves huge bonuses. Which is of course what CEO's do to pocket cash. Instead they have had to give NBC a deal due to switching the matches to winter in Qatar and will end up making less money. It's a culture of corruption; they just can't help themselves.

There's no way they will take the world cup away from Russia or Qatar. But every host from now on will be chosen due to their actual merits. Even if Blatter survives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realistically cannot see Russia being stripped of 2018. Russia may not be a haven for human rights itself, but at least it has the financial, meteorological and political ability to host the tournament. Construction has already started anyways, and at least Russia has a somewhat decent soccer tradition. Essentially what I'm saying is that in comparison to Qatar, Russia looks like heaven on Earth. I think it is in the best interests of everyone to focus on 2022 and to get the tournament out of that hellhole ASAP. Let 2018 go to Putin and move on. Is it the best set of circumstances? No, but it avoids any sort of "political conspiracy", doesn't make stadiums in Russia to go to waste and doesn't force a country to scramble to host on just 3 years notice (regardless of how prepared the US may be, it's still a significant financial undertaking in a short period of time).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm laughing at how they put RICO charges against the FIFA members. For those who don't know the meaning of RICO charges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act

They've basically defined FIFA as a mafia/criminal organization by doing this. We all knew it, only that it's now an indisputable truth.

Also, CONCACAF headquarters in Florida are being taken over right now as we speak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also taking the World Cup off Russia and allocating it to the U.S. would be throwing kerosine on the fire.

Politically it could be structured as shaming Russia, but allowing them to host under "it's too late now"; but stripping Qatar by the same token that there is still more than enough time to prepare an alternative host nation.

Yes, the U.S. is an option as the runner up, however removing it from Asia might not be a good idea, particular as it is the U.S. that has pulled the rug from under their feet.

This is why I think South Korea is a potential resolution for 2022. It has the infrastructure, and has the capacity to make up the difference. Furthermore, it keeps 2022 in Asia - potentially avoiding issues of western superiority.

As for the U.S., if it were to bid, it would then be a good chance for 2026.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's in the Swiss Justice officials' hands now. I imagine Russia will get to keep 2018; but Qatar is still a big ? mark; and especially if there are those other forces still unhappy with the Nov-Dec placement. I wonder if Blatter will now call in his favors from his own gov't.

I'd also like to know IF and WHEN Michael Garcia's report will ever be revealed fully -- and how much of it will play a role in the US and Swiss investigative actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Australian news tonight very much concerned on our own shifty ways in our 2022 bid. Although on a far lesser scale than Russia, SA and Qatar, we 'donated' $500,000 to Trinidad and Tobago for sports infrastructure and all of it went into the personal bank account of a FIFA crony.

Probably stuffed our 2023 Women's WC bid before it's even off the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...