Jump to content

Brazil Olympic Committee Picks Rio For 2016


Stu

Recommended Posts

post-1527-1157673386.jpg

João Havelange Olympic Stadium being built

People.. See .. Kfuri is not completely crazy. As a matter of fact we're a 3rd world country. And the problems he described there are. But his article was a kind of putting down in words all our sadness and angry against our situation. Don't let him so serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I appreciate Rominger's being very honest. It doesn't mean he's any less partiotic a Brazilian than you are. He is just being honest. I wish we had somebody in the Japanese/Tokyo Olympic Committee to reveal to us their warts and potholes. :lol:

I'll second that. I'm sure if Rio wins the right to host, Rominger will be fully supportive of it, but nevertheless keep an honest eye over preparations. He's not disturbing a reality, he's just trying to bring some realism to some blind daydreaming.

Too often on these forums we have people blindly supportive of their national bids, whatever warts they have. But comments like Romingers are far more constructive and informative than simply posting lots of nice pictures of Copacabana Beach and quoting press releases from the local bidding committee. Any bid needs some constructive criticism if it is to come up with the best possible plans and strategy.

As I've said before, I'd love to see Rio host, but that's only ever going to happen if it can face and address its current shortcomings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#1 - Welcome.

#2 - Where's "Here"? (just kidding.)

No, I appreciate Rominger's being very honest. It doesn't mean he's any less partiotic a Brazilian than you are. He is just being honest. I wish we had somebody in the Japanese/Tokyo Olympic Committee to reveal to us their warts and potholes. :lol:

#3 - Uhmm, an "Olympic Stadium" needs an 80,000 capacity. So someone in Rio has goofed.

sorry .. I read wrong .. the capacity would increase to 80.000. I've just checked the government website up.

I'll second that. I'm sure if Rio wins the right to host, Rominger will be fully supportive of it, but nevertheless keep an honest eye over preparations. He's not disturbing a reality, he's just trying to bring some realism to some blind daydreaming.

Too often on these forums we have people blindly supportive of their national bids, whatever warts they have. But comments like Romingers are far more constructive and informative than simply posting lots of nice pictures of Copacabana Beach and quoting press releases from the local bidding committee. Any bid needs some constructive criticism if it is to come up with the best possible plans and strategy.

As I've said before, I'd love to see Rio host, but that's only ever going to happen if it can face and address its current shortcomings.

Yeah! You're right. But there is a kind of prejudice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry .. I read wrong .. the capacity would increase to 80.000. I've just checked the government website up.

I checked the Rio de Janeiro government website and it does tell the the Olympic Stadium Joao Havalange will be for 45,000 spectators, and that it could be increased to 60,000 spectators.

Which government website did you checked that says it could be upgraded to fit 80,000 spectators?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I checked the Rio de Janeiro government website and it does tell the the Olympic Stadium Joao Havalange will be for 45,000 spectators, and that it could be increased to 60,000 spectators.

Which government website did you checked that says it could be upgraded to fit 80,000 spectators?

Official Diary of Rio City Governmet: http://doweb.rio.rj.gov.br/sdcgi-bin/om_is...ecs#JUMPDEST_00

05/24/2006

You can read by yourself. It's written in Portuguese. Just a piece:

"Na sua fase inicial, o estádio terá capacidade para 45 mil espectadores, podendo ser ampliado para comportar até 80 mil. O relatório preliminar das características do estádio foi encaminhado pela Prefeitura à Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) e à FIFA"

"In the beginning, The stadium will have capacity of 45 thousand spectators, but can be increased to support 80 thousand. The report with the stadium characteristics was sent to Brazilian Soccer Confederation (CBF) and to FIFA."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Official Diary of Rio City Governmet: http://doweb.rio.rj.gov.br/sdcgi-bin/om_is...ecs#JUMPDEST_00

05/24/2006

You can read by yourself. It's written in Portuguese. Just a piece:

"Na sua fase inicial, o estádio terá capacidade para 45 mil espectadores, podendo ser ampliado para comportar até 80 mil. O relatório preliminar das características do estádio foi encaminhado pela Prefeitura à Confederação Brasileira de Futebol (CBF) e à FIFA"

"In the beginning, The stadium will have capacity of 45 thousand spectators, but can be increased to support 80 thousand. The report with the stadium characteristics was sent to Brazilian Soccer Confederation (CBF) and to FIFA."

Thanks a lot!

I was checking this webpage:

http://www.rio.rj.gov.br/smel/

In short it says:

Estádio Olímpico do Engenho de Dentro

Área - 360.000 m2

Capacidade - 45.000 pessoas mas pode ser ampliado pra 60.000 pessoas

Localização - Rua das Oficinas, Engenho de Dentro

Início das obras - segundo semeste de 2003

Inauguração - primeiro semestre de 2006

Utilização - Partidas de futebol, shows e eventos

de grande porte

My portuguese sucks, but numbers are easy to catch and it says 60,000. I'm sure we'll get to know the exact number from another source. Both government pages contradict one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a big difference between a 15,000 expansion and a 35,000 expansion. Adding 35,000 seats to a new, existing stadium is kinda crazy. I mean you're almost slapping on a whole new stadium there. Of course, I don't know how London will slap on 55,000 seats; and then bring it down to its reduced 25,000? :blink:

Let me try to explain you what happens.

Stadium is being built for 45000. But if you take a look at the project .. In the north and south part of the stadium there aren't second floor. The second floor exists only in the west and east. So with this new second floor it would be created new 15000 seats. To became an Olympic Stadium, the would built the north and south second floor and New more 20000 seats closer and around the field.

I wish you understood.

This project video is just for the pan-american games, but you can have an ideia about what i'm talking about.

http://www.racional.com/versao/en/atualida...o-estadio02.asp

Thanks a lot!

I was checking this webpage:

http://www.rio.rj.gov.br/smel/

In short it says:

Estádio Olímpico do Engenho de Dentro

Área - 360.000 m2

Capacidade - 45.000 pessoas mas pode ser ampliado pra 60.000 pessoas

Localização - Rua das Oficinas, Engenho de Dentro

Início das obras - segundo semeste de 2003

Inauguração - primeiro semestre de 2006

Utilização - Partidas de futebol, shows e eventos

de grande porte

My portuguese sucks, but numbers are easy to catch and it says 60,000. I'm sure we'll get to know the exact number from another source. Both government pages contradict one another.

Yeah. But the constructors sayd it could be increased. That website I wrote here there is a likn: "Leia Mais" under the text. There is the constructor report explaing how can them increase the stadium. And the qualifications about air conditioner system, security sistem, until the grain will be used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xikaum,

First, to the short reply, I partially agree with what you wrote about Juca Kfouri. He seems to be in war with everyone, and some of his articles are more provocative than everything else. And, I do believe that if Sao Paulo was hosting the PanAm Games (or bidding for the OG) he wouldn´t be so critical. He, like the rest of the Sao Paulo press, likes to attack the city of Rio whenever he can which is something I don´t see quite often at our local (Rio based) newspapers. Once again, I may be biased, but I try to be reasonable. Still, I can´t refuse some of his arguments.

For the long reply. I wonder if you have already gone to a huge event. I mean, REALLY huge. After working in the past two Winter Games, I always tried to imagine how would it be when the city could host the Games.

I will give an example. What Sidney, Salt Lake, Athens and Torino have in common, besides the fact that they were the last 4 Olympic cities? All of them had some kind of subway/tram line inaugurated for the Games. Why? Because they knew that besides the fact that the amount of tourists would be great enough during the Olympic period, it was an "excuse" to build such a mass transportation system because the city needed.

What we have here so far? Zero, nothing. And, if you look at what it was promised in 2002, they wanted to impress the ODEPA and, by instance, the IOC with an "Olympic-level-PanAm-Games". Considering that most of the (good) hotels are located far from most part of the venues, how long do you think it will take to go from, say, Copacabana, to Riocentro. If you live here you how long it takes to get there in a normal day. And if it is sunny at the weekend you know how tough it is to leave the Barra da Tijuca neighborhood.

Meanwhile, they just wanted to build new venues which, in some cases, are totally unecessary, or do you know any other city that built TWO swimming venues.

Why is there need to build in an area (at the race track) where it was previously a swamp, which means the costs are increasing way more than they announced in 2002, while there were dozens of other places around where they didn´t need to make stronger foundations.

The success of Barcelona and Sydney were good planning ahead and a good schedule, which means finishing venues in advance, improving infrastructure and a reasonable budget. I am not seeing this.

Don´t get me wrong, I love the aspect of hosting such a multisport event, I think Rio has full potential to use such an event to improve the city in general, the so-called "Post-Games effect", and I think that with some good planning, Rio can and will be some day, the host of the Olympic Games.

Unfortunately, the way they are handling is just getting me sick. It´s an opportunity being wasted. The mayor, the governor don´t care about sports. They are only interested in creating buzz to hide other major problems of the city. I know how our beloved BOC president likes to be on the media.

Just to summing up all of this. In Payne´s book, when he talks about Sydney, one of the things that he credited to the city´s success was the fact that the organizers were listening to all the critics they were receiving and trying to fix all the problems before the Games begin. Here, besides all the critics, all I am hearing is that "everything is under control", "the PanAm will be great", and all those catchy phrases and that there are "no problems".

Just let´s hope next year there won´t be any.

In short it says:

Estádio Olímpico do Engenho de Dentro

(...)

Inauguração - primeiro semestre de 2006

Just to illustrate my point here. It says "Inauguration - 1st semester of 2006", officially now it is being told that it will be "sometime around March or April/2007".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xikaum,

First, to the short reply, I partially agree with what you wrote about Juca Kfouri. He seems to be in war with everyone, and some of his articles are more provocative than everything else. And, I do believe that if Sao Paulo was hosting the PanAm Games (or bidding for the OG) he wouldn´t be so critical. He, like the rest of the Sao Paulo press, likes to attack the city of Rio whenever he can which is something I don´t see quite often at our local (Rio based) newspapers. Once again, I may be biased, but I try to be reasonable. Still, I can´t refuse some of his arguments.

For the long reply. I wonder if you have already gone to a huge event. I mean, REALLY huge. After working in the past two Winter Games, I always tried to imagine how would it be when the city could host the Games.

I will give an example. What Sidney, Salt Lake, Athens and Torino have in common, besides the fact that they were the last 4 Olympic cities? All of them had some kind of subway/tram line inaugurated for the Games. Why? Because they knew that besides the fact that the amount of tourists would be great enough during the Olympic period, it was an "excuse" to build such a mass transportation system because the city needed.

What we have here so far? Zero, nothing. And, if you look at what it was promised in 2002, they wanted to impress the ODEPA and, by instance, the IOC with an "Olympic-level-PanAm-Games". Considering that most of the (good) hotels are located far from most part of the venues, how long do you think it will take to go from, say, Copacabana, to Riocentro. If you live here you how long it takes to get there in a normal day. And if it is sunny at the weekend you know how tough it is to leave the Barra da Tijuca neighborhood.

Meanwhile, they just wanted to build new venues which, in some cases, are totally unecessary, or do you know any other city that built TWO swimming venues.

Why is there need to build in an area (at the race track) where it was previously a swamp, which means the costs are increasing way more than they announced in 2002, while there were dozens of other places around where they didn´t need to make stronger foundations.

The success of Barcelona and Sydney were good planning ahead and a good schedule, which means finishing venues in advance, improving infrastructure and a reasonable budget. I am not seeing this.

Don´t get me wrong, I love the aspect of hosting such a multisport event, I think Rio has full potential to use such an event to improve the city in general, the so-called "Post-Games effect", and I think that with some good planning, Rio can and will be some day, the host of the Olympic Games.

Unfortunately, the way they are handling is just getting me sick. It´s an opportunity being wasted. The mayor, the governor don´t care about sports. They are only interested in creating buzz to hide other major problems of the city. I know how our beloved BOC president likes to be on the media.

Just to summing up all of this. In Payne´s book, when he talks about Sydney, one of the things that he credited to the city´s success was the fact that the organizers were listening to all the critics they were receiving and trying to fix all the problems before the Games begin. Here, besides all the critics, all I am hearing is that "everything is under control", "the PanAm will be great", and all those catchy phrases and that there are "no problems".

Just let´s hope next year there won´t be any.

Just to illustrate my point here. It says "Inauguration - 1st semester of 2006", officially now it is being told that it will be "sometime around March or April/2007".

I understood you and you're right. Talking about mass transportation I've got no idea how it will be. From Z.S to Barra takes a life.

But my question is: Are we being good since it's our first time and we're a "poor" country? Or are we being too bad to daydream hosting the Olympic Games? You know what I mean ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understood you and you're right. Talking about mass transportation I've got no idea how it will be. From Z.S to Barra takes a life.

But my question is: Are we being good since it's our first time and we're a "poor" country? Or are we being too bad to daydream hosting the Olympic Games? You know what I mean ?

Shouldn't you Brazilians be worrying more about getting totally ready for the 2014 World Cup before taking on the 2016 Olympics? I mean, one comes before the other? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't you Brazilians be worrying more about getting totally ready for the 2014 World Cup before taking on the 2016 Olympics? I mean, one comes before the other? :blink:

Baron,

They're different stuffs. World Cup invloves all the country more than OGs. It includes natinal organization about air lines, roads, tha national hotel web, the new or remodelled stadiums, national security and everything else. OGs are local. So the organization is a little bit concentrated.

Both bids are being studied by both organizations: CBF (Brazilian Soccer Confederation) and COB (Brazilian Olympic Committee). I know One drops by other. I don't know the news about how these studing are going.

It seems to me Rio 2012 Olympic Project will be used again with the necessary changes. They must remake something.

But to be sincere I don't about WC Brazil project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understood you and you're right. Talking about mass transportation I've got no idea how it will be. From Z.S to Barra takes a life.

But my question is: Are we being good since it's our first time and we're a "poor" country? Or are we being too bad to daydream hosting the Olympic Games? You know what I mean ?

I do understand your point. It is not that we can´t dream about hosting the OG here. I mean, if it was like, Varginha (apologize for the non-brazilians for putting this, but I couldn´t resist), you would be called crazy, nuts, lunatic. But Rio can have some day the structure to be an Olympic city.

I just wanted to be clear that, with those guys out there running the project, there is absolutely no way we could host the Games, specially with the PanAm example running in front of us. If CO-Rio was reasonable in 2002, they wouldn´t talk about Megastadiums, Olympic venues. What they would do would be a compact, simple and efficient PanAm Games. Then, 2 things would happen: 1 - They would not have to face so many problems at this phase and 2 - Even those delayed venues would be faced as a normal obstacle for a short-budget city.

Instead, they promised paradise on Earth.

I am just waiting to see how many tickets will be sold. I am expecting Athens-empty stadiums for most of the events. Just watch the Women´s World Basketball Championship this week. Brazilians don´t like sports (besides soccer, of course), they like winners.

Shouldn't you Brazilians be worrying more about getting totally ready for the 2014 World Cup before taking on the 2016 Olympics? I mean, one comes before the other? :blink:

No need to worry, because there would only be the 2014 WC to take care of. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do understand your point. It is not that we can´t dream about hosting the OG here. I mean, if it was like, Varginha (apologize for the non-brazilians for putting this, but I couldn´t resist), you would be called crazy, nuts, lunatic. But Rio can have some day the structure to be an Olympic city.

I just wanted to be clear that, with those guys out there running the project, there is absolutely no way we could host the Games, specially with the PanAm example running in front of us. If CO-Rio was reasonable in 2002, they wouldn´t talk about Megastadiums, Olympic venues. What they would do would be a compact, simple and efficient PanAm Games. Then, 2 things would happen: 1 - They would not have to face so many problems at this phase and 2 - Even those delayed venues would be faced as a normal obstacle for a short-budget city.

Instead, they promised paradise on Earth.

I am just waiting to see how many tickets will be sold. I am expecting Athens-empty stadiums for most of the events. Just watch the Women´s World Basketball Championship this week. Brazilians don´t like sports (besides soccer, of course), they like winners.

No need to worry, because there would only be the 2014 WC to take care of. ;)

So you believe we'll get the 2014 World CUp ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you believe we'll get the 2014 World CUp ...

Yes...unless Canada decides for a last minute bid. I don´t think Colombia has better stadiums to offer.

For me, hosting the WC is easier for the brazilian government than the OG.

To my surprise, Blatter said yesterday the decision about 2014 would be only made in 2008, not at the end of this year, as I heard before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're such a joker, Rom. ;)

I know, I know, but when it comes to comparisons, even speaking about such a improbable event from an absent soccer country like Canada, we are usually downgraded.

What I see is the following: Blatter, for many reasons, including political, is not confortable with the fact that Brazil will host WC 2014. He already made several statements questioning the capacity of the country to host such a huge event, specially after what we saw in Germany this year. Quite frankly, considering our track record, he is not that far from the true, although, like I said, this is an excuse for the fact he has other plans in mind.

So, since he already mentioned that the American continent (North, Central and South), would host the 2014 WC, since Conmebol (the South American soccer federation) has already mentioned that they will choose Brazil to be the SA bid for 2014, since none of the Central American can host such a big event and since either Mexico or US has mentioned anything....

It IS a long shot, and I don´t believe it either, but Blatter will find a rival to face the Brazilian bid until 2008.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, you know I think the FIFA powers-that-be spoke too soon when they said: oh, 2010 should go to Africa; and then 2014 to Brazil. Duh!! They didn't check with their media consultants. That's 2 World Cups (summer events) in a row for the southern hemisphere.

So I think Blatter and the FIFA brass are finally coming to their senses now, and also telling the UK -- which I have been telling our British friends here over a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNGGGGG time, FIFA wants to return the World Cup to the US -- if not in 2014, then 2018!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, you know I think the FIFA powers-that-be spoke too soon when they said: oh, 2010 should go to Africa; and then 2014 to Brazil. Duh!! They didn't check with their media consultants. That's 2 World Cups (summer events) in a row for the southern hemisphere.

So I think Blatter and the FIFA brass are finally coming to their senses now, and also telling the UK -- which I have been telling our British friends here over a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNGGGGG time, FIFA wants to return the World Cup to the US -- if not in 2014, then 2018!!

Come On guy .. 94 US World Cup was one of the worst. Were the stadiums good ? Yeah .. Have we won ? yeah ... Has it been well organized ? Yeah ... But for us, and I believe for everyone who really likes soccer, it was boring. I mean American people doesn't like soccer. I remember the reporters closer the stadiums asking for the passing people about what's going on in the stadiums. And sometimes they didn't know neither the teams were playing inside. So .. Americans can be huge events good organizers, but they don't have soccer PASSION. That one wich we(Latino-Americans) and Europe countries have.

Even if Japan and Korea were not contries where soccer is the most popular sport, People became interested in and they've gone to stadiums, making a very beautiful party.

I'm afraid of how it would be if Canada host the 2014 World Cup. If we don't bring this World Cup to Brazil I wish Canadians were not like American ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come On guy .. 94 US World Cup was one of the worst. Were the stadiums good ? Yeah .. Have we won ? yeah ... Has it been well organized ? Yeah ... But for us, and I believe for everyone who really likes soccer, it was boring. I mean American people doesn't like soccer. I remember the reporters closer the stadiums asking for the passing people about what's going on in the stadiums. And sometimes they didn't know neither the teams were playing inside. So .. Americans can be huge events good organizers, but they don't have soccer PASSION. That one wich we(Latino-Americans) and Europe countries have.

Even if Japan and Korea were not contries where soccer is the most popular sport, People became interested in and they've gone to stadiums, making a very beautiful party.

I'm afraid of how it would be if Canada host the 2014 World Cup. If we don't bring this World Cup to Brazil I wish Canadians were not like American ones.

Xikaum, don't be absurd. Why would FIFA even consider Canada as a host? What are they in ranking - #48 or something? Soccer is NOT their game; it is ice hockey. If the soccer in 1994 was boring, that was not the US' fault -- blame FIFA. They paired off the teams. The point is, and obviously you miss it, because like Rominger said, you are looking at everything thru rose-colored glasses rather than in realistic terms, the US has the stadia and the infrastructure ready. And we filled the stadia in 1994 with the HIGHEST World Cup attendance SO FAR. Not even the recent Germany WC surpassed the 1994 admissions!! Take THAT!! [/b[ :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Xikaum, don't be absurd. Why would FIFA even consider Canada as a host? What are they in ranking - #48 or something? Soccer is NOT their game; it is ice hockey. If the soccer in 1994 was boring, that was not the US' fault -- blame FIFA. They paired off the teams. The point is, and obviously you miss it, because like Rominger said, you are looking at everything thru rose-colored glasses rather than in realistic terms, the US has the stadia and the infrastructure ready. And we filled the stadia in 1994 with the HIGHEST World Cup attendance SO FAR. Not even the recent Germany WC surpassed the 1994 admissions!! Take THAT!! [/b[ :angry:

I didn't understand. Canada is a strong Brazil rival. Since It is in America, They've got money, a good infrastructure and everything it's necessary. Don't tell me US has a good position in FIFA ranking. And in spite of not having It hosted the WC in 94.

US RANKING POSITION: 29th (http://www.fifa.com/en/mens/statistics/index/0,2548,All-Sep-2006,00.html)

I think that's why all people around the world has becoming anti-American .. This "we're-the-best" way of thinking.

I'm not here to argue. I just said American world cup organization was amazing. But it was empty.

So ... Like most of the things you do, WC would be good to increase more your economy and not support your desire of having the most beautiful sport championship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And where is Canada? #71!! FIFA wouldn't even consider Canada. If certain halfwits here say that "there is no football tradition in America," then what more Canada? You're really quite absurd. Even the most dense Canadian on this board -- and there are many sharp Canadian posters here -- wouldn't even presume to think this; and you? :rolleyes:

As for those rankings, there is always disarray in those rankings after a World Cup. The US team is in transition. Presently, they are still looking for a new coach. Croatia? #24; Japan? #27 by that present list. They are a gauge up to a certain point, but nobody really takes those FIFA rankings seriously.

Further, it's not JUST sporting tradition that counts -- it's the market, the infrastructure in place, the security that the tournament needs, the organizing experience, etc. Do you really think after the uncertainties FIFA is finding w/ South Africa now, your country next, they would still line up with a 3rd inexperienced (insofar as a football tournament) host country? :rolleyes: Don't be ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come On guy .. 94 US World Cup was one of the worst. Were the stadiums good ? Yeah .. Have we won ? yeah ... Has it been well organized ? Yeah ... But for us, and I believe for everyone who really likes soccer, it was boring. I mean American people doesn't like soccer. I remember the reporters closer the stadiums asking for the passing people about what's going on in the stadiums. And sometimes they didn't know neither the teams were playing inside. So .. Americans can be huge events good organizers, but they don't have soccer PASSION. That one wich we(Latino-Americans) and Europe countries have.

Even if Japan and Korea were not contries where soccer is the most popular sport, People became interested in and they've gone to stadiums, making a very beautiful party.

I'm afraid of how it would be if Canada host the 2014 World Cup. If we don't bring this World Cup to Brazil I wish Canadians were not like American ones.

this comming from someone whose nation can very likely be stripped of the event, and is bidding for an Olympics it stands little chance of getting...very interesting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And where is Canada? #71!! FIFA wouldn't even consider Canada. If certain halfwits here say that "there is no football tradition in America," then what more Canada? You're really quite absurd. Even the most dense Canadian on this board -- and there are many sharp Canadian posters here -- wouldn't even presume to think this; and you? :rolleyes:

As for those rankings, there is always disarray in those rankings after a World Cup. The US team is in transition. Presently, they are still looking for a new coach. Croatia? #24; Japan? #27 by that present list. They are a gauge up to a certain point, but nobody really takes those FIFA rankings seriously.

Further, it's not JUST sporting tradition that counts -- it's the market, the infrastructure in place, the security that the tournament needs, the organizing experience, etc. Do you really think after the uncertainties FIFA is finding w/ South Africa now, your country next, they would still line up with a 3rd inexperienced (insofar as a football tournament) host country? :rolleyes: Don't be ridiculous.

First of all ... Don't forget you're the 29th now! What was your position in 1994 ?!?

I don't take that ranking seriously but you came with numbers.

Let me explain to you what happens: One of the strategy of FIFA is sometimes taking World Cup to the countries where there is not soccer tradition in order to stimulate market in this country. That's why I said Canada would be a good place to host. It would open the market and it's a place, FIFA's almost sure, would do a good championship and it's in America.

Off course World Cups need infrastructure and everything else you already have. But You hosted in 1994 ... 12 years ago, 4 world cups ago. Don't YOu think is too early to host another one? Your time has passed. WC coming to Brazil with poor infrastructure or Canada with their non-tradition is easier than going to developed USA. Be sure !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all ... Don't forget you're the 29th now! What was your position in 1994 ?!?

I don't take that ranking seriously but you came with numbers.

Let me explain to you what happens: One of the strategy of FIFA is sometimes taking World Cup to the countries where there is not soccer tradition in order to stimulate market in this country. That's why I said Canada would be a good place to host. It would open the market and it's a place, FIFA's almost sure, would do a good championship and it's in America.

Off course World Cups need infrastructure and everything else you already have. But You hosted in 1994 ... 12 years ago, 4 world cups ago. Don't YOu think is too early to host another one? Your time has passed. WC coming to Brazil with poor infrastructure or Canada with their non-tradition is easier than going to developed USA. Be sure !

Yeah, you're right.

But I know it ain't gonna happen anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...