Kaizero

Ronaldo is giving me a boner at the worst time.

Watching this with my mom whose only interest in this WC is hoping Ronaldo wins because «he’s a good lad, doesn’t deserve all the bad press he gets»

Great start

Russia -3 golden

We can offer much better profits for FIFA. Don’t forget FIFA also hates England. Go for 2034, think you’d get that one.

Why are you wasting a bid? Argentina/Uruguay will 100% get it.

He would be if he won the World Cup, though

In all likelihood that would just cement it rotating between North America and Europe.

If we sell Mitro and buy Rondon I will be upset.

Yes, or either just the US or Mexico. Or a combination of US/Mexico/Canada that doesn't involve one of the three. The main issue is that places like Russia and Qatar gets to host it, not that North America has few countries capable of hosting it. England should've gotten the 2018 World Cup in a world where FIFA wasn't corrupt.

The reason is simply that there are many, many, many, more viable host countries in Europe than in other continents. Therefore it is much harder for England to get it when it's Europe's turn (and also because FIFA seemingly hates England ). When they go to North America, there's really only two options. Doesn't mean North American shouldn't get to host it on equal footing as other continents.

You can get to most major US cities from Stockholm with Norwegian for less than £400 round trip.

Should've had the final at The Rose Bowl. At least LA has a fairly large populace that care for soccer (though according to Trump they're not really "American" I guess).

To be honest, as it's the 100th year anniversary of the World Cup, it'd make sense for Uruguay to host it.

Lopetgui hadn't lost one match in charge of Spain yet.

Not sure why that is so important really, who cares how many stadiums they need to build? Assume it means less profit for FIFA, which is probably a major reason. I think it's a good choice but I don't really get why people assume the WC should just go to the country who is already the most established. It’s a tough one, because those who are already established also generally carry the least baggage. But you do want to see new places get a shot. And there aren’t too many places that fit the bill. But I do think Morocco is one of those places. I generally agree it'd be cool to see new places. But also don't want to watch it in places with poor human rights (Qatar) and in places where it's bound to create a negative legacy economically for the hosts, which sadly puts a fair few places out of competition beyond those who have some sort of infrastructure already in place. The latter > the former, though, naturally. I think the best way for nations like that is to spread the burden with joint bids instead of single bids. Just read the Norwegian FA delegate voted for the US option mainly due to the same concerns I have.

Both Brazil and South Africa predicted profit, they got massive losses - and the cost of arranging a match in one of their stadiums costs more than the team playing their get through ticket sales. It's just not good to give such a massive tournament to a country that doesn't need a massive infrastructure lift. In Brazil's case, that wasn't the stadiums - more the general infrastructure needed to modernize their cities for such an event. It's just how it made no sense for a joing Norway/Sweden Euro bid. Most people into football in both countries (myself included) wants that to happen, but we have no teams that would even fill half of the stadium sizes that would need to exist to host it - after the EC - so even if we'd get an upswing, it'd mean a longtime loss, which is why our politicians scrapped the idea because they are fun ghouls.

Not sure why that is so important really, who cares how many stadiums they need to build? Assume it means less profit for FIFA, which is probably a major reason. Makes the nations run at a horrible loss and leaves massive empty ghost stadiums that fall apart. https://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2015/02/02/world-cup-stadiums-brazil-south-africa-fifa-white-elephants

100% the right choice by FIFA, for once. These nations need to do very little to be able to host a tournament compared to Morocco, which would probably need to build five to six stadiums. Also in favour of the US getting 60 matches compared to Mexico/Canadas 20.

I hear they're from an Insta account called Mockup-FC.

Time's Up, you know.

Europe. He means that when the time comes for Europe to get a WC, the competition between nations capable of hosting it is much harder than when they look at North America, where there's essentially just two. Canada couldn't host it alone, I think.

You mean his career managing the U-Sides of the Spain setup? What even is this opinion?

Now watch it be Brazil.