Jump to content

Us To Bid For Wc 2018


Recommended Posts

I also have to agree totally with Rob...and that has nothing to do with me living in Europe.

I don't think anyone is saying that England has a divine right to 2018. I also believe that Spain should most definitely bid for 2018. However, I do get angered by America getting an equal share of the pie with Europe when that is so obviously not the fair way of doing things. Continental rotation works up to a point in the Olympic games, but it shouldn't be followed in Football. How on earth can anyone defend North America deserving the right to host a world cup every 16-20 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply
I also have to agree totally with Rob...and that has nothing to do with me living in Europe.

I don't think anyone is saying that England has a divine right to 2018. I also believe that Spain should most definitely bid for 2018. However, I do get angered by America getting an equal share of the pie with Europe when that is so obviously not the fair way of doing things. Continental rotation works up to a point in the Olympic games, but it shouldn't be followed in Football. How on earth can anyone defend North America deserving the right to host a world cup every 16-20 years.

Why not? There are really only 5 continents to speak of. (Australia/Oceania now competes for its spot w/ Asia, so when FIFA decides that it's Asia's time again to host; then I imagine it will be between China and Australia. And technically, Australia would be one of the smallest host countries in the last 40 years of World Cup hosting, if it were to get it.)

But, again, why shouldn't North America get a separate bye? Did we part the continents that way? As of today, just between the US, Canada, Mexico and Cuba, we have some 442 million people -- pretty much the same to the 25 countries that make up the EU. Throw in the rest of Central America and the Caribbean, and that certainly makes the CONCACAF countries, population-wise, closer to the entire Europe.

So, why not? Further -- and FIFA, please pay attention...:

1. While England claims that football originated there, well, FIFA's World Cup actually began in Uruguay. And they're not even on the SAME continent!!

2. Sporting prowess? Well, the Euro nations still get 65% of the intial WC slots, so why shouldn't other non-Euro countries get a little edge with the 'home court" advantage? If the Euro teams are as superior as they are, then they'll play well even on Martian soil. So why the beef in letting non-Euro countries host the Cup?

3. Why might the US get an edge? Maybe FIFA hasn't forgotten that we stepped in to stage the 2003 WOMEN's WORLD CUP, after things became untenable in the original host country, China? The US, it seems, is on standby again for 2014 should Brazil falter. Maybe the world soccer nabobs want to reward favors called in? Nothing wrong with that.

4. The audience numbers of the 1994 World Cup are STILL the HIGHEST RECORDED Attendance for any World Cup to date. OK, we have bigger stadia, but similary, if there was disinterest, then there would be lower figures. But NO, even if the US team WASN'T PLaying, a lot of the GAmes sold out!! I believe it was called at an 86% average attendance! What does that tell you and FIFA?

5. Finally, Copa America is played in the Americas, whatever the UEFA or Euro CUp is called is for the European region. This is the WORLD Cup -- NOT the Every3rd-Europe World Cup.

All that should be sufficient reason for FIFA to give 2018 in North America. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh we're back on this argument are we? I wondered how long it would take.

I'll come to that later. First, more on how I see yesterday's developments. Yes, it is a setback to England, but by no means a decisive one. Remember, eight of the members of the FIFA Executive Committee are European, so Europe is already well on the way to securing a majority to get the 2018 process opened up come December. One analysis I've seen today says the American representative is key. Persuade him to vote to open it up and enough should follow him to secure that vote. But that's just one view.

Also, the lead story in the Daily Telegraph's sports section today says that if 2018 does end up coming to Europe, Blatter has told Brown England "is the front-runner". So it is quite clear that, while Blatter has publicly indicated what he would like to see, he is sensible enough to realise that it is by no means a done deal and I think we would all be foolish to see it as such.

Now, back to the old argument. One thing is for sure - given the doubts surrounding South Africa and Brazil at the present moment, FIFA is going to want a 2018 host that they can be as sure as they can be is going to deliver the goods and they are lucky in that the countries who have expressed an interest, or are said to be interested, so far all have the facilities and the track record to pull it off.

However, Baron, you seem to have great difficulty recognising these two FACTS. No matter how much you bluster, you cannot disprove the following:

1. Europe is a key heartland of world football. Indeed, you could argue that Europe is THE heartland of the game.

2. At the present time, Europe has more nations who are capable of hosting a World Cup than any of the other Confederations.

Under the system of rotation that you seem to favour, North America, a confederation which has only three nations capable of hosting the World Cup alone, would have the same frequency of hosting as Europe, a confederation with at least twice as many nations capable of hosting on their own. That isn't right. It is obvious that that isn't right.

In making this point, I'm not saying that I'm opposed to rotation full stop. Far from it. What I am arguing is that whatever rotation system is adopted has to recognise both the hosting abilities of the respective confederations AND the passion for football in the respective confederations. In both these areas, Europe is ahead of every other area and, therefore, it makes sense that the tournament returns to Europe more often.

To argue that North America should host as often as Europe, as you are, just goes against basic common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1. While England claims that football originated there, well, FIFA's World Cup actually began in Uruguay. And they're not even on the SAME continent!!

For your information,we don't claim anything of the sort. People have been kicking a football around since the time of the Ancient Greeks and Romans! What is a fact,is that the modern rules of the game of soccer football (you know,the game whose World Cup you so passionately want to see come back to the US) were drawn up by the Football Association of Great Britain in 1863 which is why the game acquired the name Soccer (abbreviated slang term that comes from 'ASSOCiation Football).If you're still unsure,then read this particular article from the innumerables ones out there on the subject:

History of Soccer

But no doubt I'm just being a pedagogue again,and you actually knew this already?? ;)

The audience numbers of the 1994 World Cup are STILL the HIGHEST RECORDED Attendance for any World Cup to date. OK, we have bigger stadia, but similary, if there was disinterest, then there would be lower figures. But NO, even if the US team WASN'T PLaying, a lot of the GAmes sold out!! I believe it was called at an 86% average attendance! What does that tell you and FIFA?

It shows that there is a lot of interest in soccer in the US.But it is in no way a national game as it is in Europe or South America.

I recall watching an episode of the David Letterman show during the playing of last summer's World Cup and he jokingly asked how many of his audience actually knew there was a World Cup on and that the US was in it? He then asked if anybody cared and everybody just laughed!! Such a reaction would be unthinkable in England or any European or South American nation.That's the big difference.It's good that interest in the game is steadily growing in the US but you are far from treating it as a a national pastime as we do over here.When you get to that level,then we can talk again about equal rights to hosting the World Cup! <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found a new article about Canada and WC2018 hosting duties. It also talks about co-hosting which I doubt the USA will want but by the sounds of this it would be a distinct part of the American bid to make it much more international to win over the other bids since they already hosted 1994.

http://www.thestar.com/article/186987

Canada a World Cup site?

Possibility rises of co-hosting in 2018

Mar 01, 2007 04:30 AM

Cathal Kelly

A great deal of what FIFA president Sepp Blatter says can safely be ignored.

Let's stop and recall his infamous brainwave about boosting interest in the women's game by having the competitors play in spandex shorts.

But ears perked in Canada and spines tingled in England yesterday when the man running soccer's world governing body publicly mused about the destination of the 2018 World Cup.

Up until this point, it has been generally conceded that England deserves to host the planet's biggest sporting event.

As one of the world powers, they are due, not having hosted the Cup since 1966. Their stadium infrastructure – always the biggest hurdle – is among the finest in the world. The country is small, making travel easier, and easily accessible. Sure, everybody who's ever ridden a train in England knows there's room for improvement on the transportation front, but 11 years is plenty of time to fix that problem. All in all, it's close to a perfect resume.

But on a visit to England to meet with the nation's sports minister yesterday, the Swiss FIFA chief said he views the current rotation thusly: South Africa 2010, South America 2014 (Brazil is a lock if they can show themselves capable of staging the tournament), North America 2018, Asia 2022. That leaves Europe (and presumably, England) waiting two decades for their next chance.

In making this assessment, he added that he thought either of the U.S., Mexico or Canada were capable of hosting the tournament in 2018.

I'm not sure when Blatter last perused a map of our continent, but it would immediately reveal some flaws in his assertion.

The U.S. is already planning a bid for 2018. In fact, they're interested in poaching the 2014 tournament away from Brazil. Mexico has staged the tournament before (1986) and is even better equipped to do it now.

Canada, however, is incapable of hosting a World Cup. We're flat out too big – few fans want to watch their team play in Edmonton one day, and then hoof it to Halifax for a game three days later. Limiting the games in cities lying between Montreal and Toronto might work, but is politically untenable.

We don't currently possess a single stadium big or modern enough to host a match – all World Cup stadiums must be open air, turfed and accommodate a minimum of 50,000. At least one 100,000-seater would realistically be required. We lack a state-of-the-art rail system and adequate hotel accommodations outside Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. There is no real domestic league to piggyback the marketing and lead-up on top of.

Of course, money can solve these problems. But who in Canada is going to serve up the billions required to build at least eight huge parks that will sit empty after the Cup is over? Who will invest billions more to upgrade rail travel and install a high-speed line between Windsor and Montreal – a corridor that would include at least three host cities? The short answer is nobody. Which means we haven't the proverbial snowball's chance, Blatter's heartening evaluation aside.

What we should be thinking of is a co-hosting role. They're all the rage these days. After Korea-Japan 2002, we're looking forward to Switzerland-Austria for Euro 2008. The tandem of Hungary-Croatia is the current favourite to host Euro 2012.

So it's in America's interest to "internationalize" its bid with at least one host city outside the U.S. They might be better served looking to their neighbour to the south, but Montreal is international by the standards of most Americans.

Vancouver's harbourfront Whitecaps Stadium will be the most attractive soccer venue in the nation when it's finished. And Canada's love of soccer runs very strong in Calgary and Edmonton.

But the obvious choice is Toronto, proximate to probable host cities like New York and Chicago and already possessing a venue – the new BMO Field–— that can easily be expanded.

Of course, maybe Blatter's the only one following this little timetable of his. But daily it's beginning to look like a World Cup game in Canada is a real possibility, rather than a teasing pipedream.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, if Canada's going to get into the picture; then Mexico will want to include DF and Guadalajara. Uh-uh. NOT POSSIBLE. FIFA does not want bi- or tri-national bids.

Why can't people get it out of their heads that IF THERE IS A SINGLE NATION that can do, why should 1 or 2 other subjunct nations get into the act?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing is, if Canada's going to get into the picture; then Mexico will want to include DF and Guadalajara. Uh-uh. NOT POSSIBLE. FIFA does not want bi- or tri-national bids.

Why can't people get it out of their heads that IF THERE IS A SINGLE NATION that can do, why should 1 or 2 other subjunct nations get into the act?

I agree. I just think they are saying this because they believe since USA hosted not too long ago and are now bidding once again that they need to make their bid much more distinct and different than the last time they hosted therefore including the countries from North America. I still doubt this comes to fruitation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As I've said before, FIFA is very wise to pursue the continental rotation. It seems only fair.

And I've more than adequately explained to you why what you seem to think is right is, actually, wrong. Can you understand that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, not matter what Baron says, he is justing goating the English in this. Baron is all about reactions and you English are feeding right into it.

Secondly, 2018 could be interesting if its Russia, Spain, England, China, Australia and the USA, that will be one hard act to contained with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I want to see is a properly argued case from Baron for the US, not whinging bleatings based on a ridiculous rotation system which has no basis in reality. Is that too much to ask?

Link to post
Share on other sites
What I want to see is a properly argued case from Baron for the US, not whinging bleatings based on a ridiculous rotation system which has no basis in reality. Is that too much to ask?

Reason 1 - 40 million Latinos crazy about football

Reason 2 - 130 million Mexicans across the boarder

Reason 3 - One of the most successfuly trackrecord in hosting major events

Reason 4 - Pre-existing stadiums with less than 3 having to be constructed and most stadiums not requiring major updates

Reason 5 -9 cities with a population over a 1 million and 31 over 500,000, and thats not including cities like Atlanta, New Orleans and Miami

Reason 6 - Since 1994 UEFA has had 2 WC, Asia has had 1, Africa 1, South America 1, whats missing?

Reason 7 - the USA is a rich country that can afford to do this

Reason 8 - the growth of the game in a major market

Reason 9 - a almost certain profitable tournament

Reason 10 - an affordable travel option for much of the world

Link to post
Share on other sites
Reason 6 - Since 1994 UEFA has had 2 WC, Asia has had 1, Africa 1, South America 2, whats missing?

Well that's wrong for a start. When has South America hosted two World Cups since 1994 exactly?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well that's wrong for a start. When has South America hosted two World Cups since 1994 exactly?

Typical, without a responce, resorts to the same things to discredit the arguement instead of addressing it and coming up with a counter point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, not matter what Baron says, he is justing goating the English in this. Baron is all about reactions and you English are feeding right into it.

Of course he's goading us.We goad him. It's all part of the fun! Chill out!! :P

Secondly, 2018 could be interesting if its Russia, Spain, England, China, Australia and the USA, that will be one hard act to contained with.

Would sort of put even the 2012 race in the shade,eh? It can't work like that of course if FIFA continues to adopt a policy of continental rotation,unlike the Olympics.If FIFA chooses UEFA for 2018,then Russia could be in with a good chance as it has never hosted a World Cup before but I hope that FIFA will decide to go with England on this occasion.If they choose AFC/OFC then it could be an interesting race between China and Australia with Australia,I hope,winning.If it's to be CONCACAF,then I hope Mexico or Canada will give the USA a run for its money.I just hate things being handed to anyone on a plate!! B)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Reason 6 - Since 1994 UEFA has had 2 WC, Asia has had 1, Africa 1, South America 1, whats missing?

Australia 2018??

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a better idea - while Europe and the USA have a cat fight, Australia is already working on its bid program and doing deals to bring the event here.

We are masters of winning major events and we know how to bid and win

You guys can watch from ths stands while Australia will host the 2018 World Cup

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...