arwebb Posted September 20, 2006 Report Share Posted September 20, 2006 Relevant points.I guess I always think of Brazil as the footballing nation "par excellence" and that if there was any one international sports festival that it would want to host,it would be the World Cup in which the country has a record second to none and has won more times than anybody else! I would agree with all of that and I was sure that, if something had to give, the Rio Olympic bid would be it. Oh well. They'll still need football stadia if they get the Olympics, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRATK Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 It doesn't surprise me.As I've said elsewhere,I always had serious doubts that Brazil would be able to pull off both a World Cup and an Olympics in short order.I always felt one of these ambitions would have to give,but I had assumed they would concentrate on the World Cup and put the Olympic ambitions on hold.It looks as if it may be working out the other way round and the country has decided to concentrate on supporting a Rio bid for 2016 instead! I don't think Brazil is thinking in Rio 2016. I can't imagine Brazil trying to host the SOG after they said they haven't the money to host the principal event of the favourite sport of the country. Relevant points.I guess I always think of Brazil as the footballing nation "par excellence" and that if there was any one international sports festival that it would want to host,it would be the World Cup in which the country has a record second to none and has won more times than anybody else! I think that Brazil really wants to hope. But I believe Lula realized that he can't spend a huge amount of money that they don't have for a popular but irrelevant sports event. So Argentina then,or if they can't do it..how about Chile (presuming FIFA are aiming to keep it in South America if they can)? A solo bid of Chile it's almost impossible. At this moment, we don't have any stadium in good shape... our stadiums really sucks. And I don't think the government wants to spend billion of dollars just for a World Cup. But, in the next years, there will be a total renovation of the stadiums for the U-20 Women Youth World Cup. The National Stadium will be improved and also the stadia at Antofagasta, Coquimbo, Valparaíso and Concepción. A new stadium will be build in Santiago (probably with 40,000 seats) and a possible renovation of Monumental Stadium in Santiago is also possible. With this, a binational bid with Argentina is possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted September 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 But, in the next years, there will be a total renovation of the stadiums for the U-20 Women Youth World Cup. When is that being held? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRATK Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 When is that being held? 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOC Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 quote]O'Neill has also confirmed Australia is likely to bid for the 2011 Asian Cup finals and 2018 World Cup finals, and would put itself forward as an alternative host should South Africa fall down in its plans to host the 2010 World Cup. http://www.smh.com.au/news/football/soccer...8431837576.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafa Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 how can australia be an alternate host for 2010? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympian2004 Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 how can australia be an alternate host for 2010? lol That's true. O'Neill can't be serious if he claims that Australia could be ready for a World Cup within only three-and-a-half (or even less) years. When even a soccer-maniac country like Germany needed the whole six years to prepare the World Cup properly (especially to refurbish all stadia or construct new ones), how does the football diaspora Australia want to manage it in only half the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 Well, Australia already has a number of stadia capable of hosting World Cup games. For example: Brisbane Suncorp Stadium (52,000 capacity) Melbourne Melbourne Cricket Ground (100,000+) Telstra Dome (56,000) Sydney Aussie Stadium (41,000) Telstra Stadium (83,000) So they're already about half-way there. It would be a long haul to get themselves ready to be a 2010 back-up, but there's no reason why they couldn't bid for 2014 if they wanted to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 but there's no reason why they couldn't bid for 2014 if they wanted to. Yeah, IF FIFA opens up the 2014 selection to a bidding for OTHER continents. They seem to be on a rather narrowly defined scenario. But the US has first spoken to FIFA about 2014 and being a back-up then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nykfan845 Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 Well, Australia already has a number of stadia capable of hosting World Cup games. For example:Brisbane Suncorp Stadium (52,000 capacity) Melbourne Melbourne Cricket Ground (100,000+) Telstra Dome (56,000) Sydney Aussie Stadium (41,000) Telstra Stadium (83,000) So they're already about half-way there. It would be a long haul to get themselves ready to be a 2010 back-up, but there's no reason why they couldn't bid for 2014 if they wanted to. To be ready for a potential 2010 WC relocation bid, would be near impossible with only 6 stadia already built. 2014 is much more realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 Like I said, a long haul, but not impossible. As far as the USA possibly being a back-up host for 2014, how long would that rule North America out of hosting if it happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 As far as the USA possibly being a back-up host for 2014, how long would that rule North America out of hosting if it happened? I don't quite understand your question -- but if all these early reports are factual, it appears that FIFA wants to keep 2014 on this side of the Pond, and if Argentina doesn't work out, they may work their way up north. I think they know the door is always open here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympian2004 Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 (...) but there's no reason why they couldn't bid for 2014 if they wanted to. That wasn't the question. We just talked about 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 I don't quite understand your question -- but if all these early reports are factual, it appears that FIFA wants to keep 2014 on this side of the Pond, and if Argentina doesn't work out, they may work their way up north. I think they know the door is always open here. Basically, if the USA were to host 2014, especially as it would be only 20 years after their last hosting and the fourth North American tournament in the last 12, there must surely be little chance of North America hosting another tournament for at least the next 20 years and probably longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted September 21, 2006 Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 Basically, if the USA were to host 2014, especially as it would be only 20 years after their last hosting and the fourth North American tournament in the last 12, there must surely be little chance of North America hosting another tournament for at least the next 20 years and probably longer. Oh yeah. I believe USA-Soccer is fully aware of that. (We're used to that insofar as the Winter Games.) And that's what I've been saying all along, if we had our way, a 20-year interval would be fine. But -- and NOC doesn't seem to understand this -- if FIFA hasn't opened the door, then -- unlike Australia -- why should we be barking up that tree? Why be repetitive? As I said, as in the last-minute switch of the Women's WC in 2003, FIFA knows they can move it here -- even given just 16 months' notice. To NOC: and just because USA-Soccer hasn't issued its intentions AS OF YESTERDAY, doesn't mean they are asleep until the next millenium. Conversely, just because Australia or any other nation, has made public its wishes, doesn't also mean that they are necessarily going to get it. The geo-selection criteria for a World Cup today seems even more specific (and therefore, more limited) THAN for an Olympic Games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted September 21, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 21, 2006 It's not so much the stadium question for Oz that I have doubts about _ it's definitely not impossible. It's more that actively promotingm the country as a back-up host to Blatter's favourite option is NOT the weay to win hearts and minds in FIFA. Better to play it quietly behind closed doors, send a few advisors to South Africa, build bridges and goodwill, win support ... and THEN steal it out from under them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRATK Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 I don't quite understand your question -- but if all these early reports are factual, it appears that FIFA wants to keep 2014 on this side of the Pond, and if Argentina doesn't work out, they may work their way up north. I think they know the door is always open here. If there's no other country in South America to host, any country could bid. The point is that I don't think that the United States could defeat England or other European bid in the voting. I don't think that the US could ever beat an Australian bid because they probably will have the support of Africa, CONMEBOL and Asia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 If there's no other country in South America to host, any country could bid. The point is that I don't think that the United States could defeat England or other European bid in the voting. I don't think that the US could ever beat an Australian bid because they probably will have the support of Africa, CONMEBOL and Asia. But that's not the point. FIFA, at this point, is approaching each country individually. If there is an open bidding, how do you know: (1) FIFA will not limit to 1 or 2 continents only? How do you know that it will or won't be a free-for-all? From the looks of it, they will be handpicking the would-be hosts until they are totally exhausted. (2) How do you know what each country can or cannot bring to the table? Some FIFA sources already intimated that England's venues as of today are too cramped. Maybe that's a BROAD hint right there! Duh!! Finally, (3) how do you know how each and every executive Board member will vote? Do you have a crystal ball? Until FIFA officially decides otherwise, or until Argentina officially signs the papers, the only thing sure is it's NOT Brazil NOR Chile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 Some FIFA sources already intimated that England's venues as of today are too cramped. Maybe that's a BROAD hint right there! Duh!! I suggest these FIFA "sources" actually visit one or two of our stadia. Then they might realise their utter stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 How do you know what each country can or cannot bring to the table? Some FIFA sources already intimated that England's venues as of today are too cramped. Maybe that's a BROAD hint right there! Duh!! I wouldn't read too much into that article. The sources aren't even named and I think the positives of an England WC would far outweigh the minor concerns of an unnamed source within FIFA. Having said that, I would have thought 2014 would be too soon for Europe again. If there has to be a system in place I'd prefer it to be Europe for every third WC, meaning 2018 should go to Europe leaving 2014 open for another continent. So the alternative options for 2014: USA? Certainly more than capable, and I personally would have nothing against a tournament in the US, because I'm sure they'd do a fine job. But, like most here from outside the US, I can't help but feel some other country should be given a go before the middling footballing nation that is the US hosts again. Australia? Would be my favourite. In a stronger position than the US was in '94 in terms of soccer's development and would have few problems staging the tournament. Also has the new frontier thing in its favour without the "will they be ready on time" factor. The Aussies love their sport and would be passionate, friendly hosts. Argentina? In the preferred region and more passionate about the game than the USA or Oz. But could they really host something as big and expensive as a world cup at this time? I don't know. Any other S.A. country? FIFA don't like joint hosts and if Brazil or Argentina can't pull it off for the South Americans, it really is time to abandon the idea of a South American WC in 2014! China? Would certainly make sure it was done properly. There would be no problems as far as venues are concerned (see Beijing 2008) and if they have intentions of hosting a world cup, they have to be taken seriously. I can't get excited about the idea of a Chinese World Cup though - China is even less of a footballing nation than the US and Australia. If FIFA chose China, it'd be a decision motivated by money rather than the game imho. UAE? According to Wikipedia they have been mulling over a possible bid. But then so, apparently, have Jordan and Iraq. All fairly unlikely! Europe? Has several countries that would host fantastic world cups who are probably looking at 2018 as their best option. It would be a huge blow to FIFA's rotation if they were forced to pick a European nation for 2014 and an indication that, despite the strong political sentiment, football hasn't moved outside of its traditional home as far as most in FIFA would like or have you believe. Even speaking as a European, I think it would be a shame if it emerges that Europe is the only viable option for 2014, whether this be through lack of interest from other nations, or other nations' inability to host because of financial reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympian2004 Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 @Rob: I'd also add Mexico to the list of potential 2014 alternates. It has proven that it can host wonderful World Cups and its last World Cup would have been 28 years ago. The only problem is: Would FIFA want to give the World Cup to a country which has already hosted twice? By the way, since you mentioned that Europe has several countries capable to host the World Cup: Which countries do you have in mind precisely? I think that the World Cup has grown to dimensions which push smaller countries out of the race. A middle-sized country like Portugal had already serious sustainability problems with its stadia for the smaller Euro. Thus the race is reduced to the most populous European countries -- Great Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, maybe also Russia and Poland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arwebb Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 I would think Rob would primarily be thinking of the nations you have mentioned. Perhaps Turkey would be a good host in the longer-term. What about Ukraine? I understand where you're coming from about smaller nations not getting as much of a look-in and I do think FIFA has to look again at their opposition to joint bids. Holland and Belgium springs immediately to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRATK Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 Blatter said that: 1. Joint bids are possible only if there isn't any solo bid that meet the requirements and one requirement is to be a South American nation. 2. If there is no country in South America that can host the WC, any nation could bid, including North America. So, a joint bid is possible but unlike. And in the case there isn't any South American bid, Europe will have at least one bid. Australia will possible bid too. So, you will have at least two rivals. The votes of UEFA and AFC/OFC will go to their own countries. Also, there is the possibility that Mexico bid... Mexico will have the votes of CONMEBOL and some of CONCACAF. If Mexico doesn't bid, USA will have the votes of CONCACAF. In this hypothetical situation, the bids will fight for the votes of CONMEBOL and CAF. USA can get some votes of CONMEBOL but it's possible they could vote to Australia or even to the European bid. CAF and AFC are very close so they probably support Australia or the European bid. I don't have a crystal ball... but the only thing that I remember is that USA won the 1994 WC with one vote of difference to Morocco+Brasil when they have the complete support of FIFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 I don't have a crystal ball... but the only thing that I remember is that USA won the 1994 WC with one vote of difference to Morocco+Brasil when they have the complete support of FIFA. Well, so did Germany over RSA, and because the Kiwi guy abstained. So you can't really say you know how it's going to go. I think it's who Blatter and the Nike? (or is it the Adidas?) bloc "endorse." So, all it takes is 1 vote -- which matter for 1994 and 2006. BTW, where did you get Blatter's latest pronouncements (your items #1 and #2 above)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rei Posted September 22, 2006 Report Share Posted September 22, 2006 it's more likely Europe gets 2014 rather than 2018.. I'd say England but I doubt only 2 years after the olympics, may be Spain or Russia. 2018 it's Australia turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.