Kaizero

Our betting monopoly is actually fairly sound, in theory, as it’s a state owned non-profit organization that gives all its profits to grassroot sport organization and charities. The only issue are the shit odds.

Somebody go look up the odds. Edit: Nice one Kaz 3-3 was 70/1 apparently Can't find Ronny hat-trick odds but Messi tomorrow against Iceland is 12/1. Would guess Ronaldo would have been 20/1 or more so you're looking at 1400/1+ christ Which service do you use? I’m using unibet, but they almost allow no combinations. Always have to follow the «deals» they set up rather than mixing and matching yourself. bet365, they have a 'bet builder' where you can pretty much make your own slip with whatever Bet365 is so fucked for a Norwegian, almost impossible to deposit money due to them not working around our laws properly

1 game starting at 11am and 4 games in total throughout the day, you mean

Somebody go look up the odds. Edit: Nice one Kaz 3-3 was 70/1 apparently Can't find Ronny hat-trick odds but Messi tomorrow against Iceland is 12/1. Would guess Ronaldo would have been 20/1 or more so you're looking at 1400/1+ christ Which service do you use? I’m using unibet, but they almost allow no combinations. Always have to follow the «deals» they set up rather than mixing and matching yourself. Ronaldo hat trick at 2-1 was 7.65 and draw 3.85 with unibet.

..why the f*** did I not bet on this Whoa gutted man, odds would have been insane To make it worse for you, I took that after you said it Only had £1 on it though, got £31. It was only 30/1?! On Unibet, yeah. It was at 2-1. Ronaldo HT and draw though, not exactly 3-3.

..why the fuck did I not bet on this Whoa gutted man, odds would have been insane To make it worse for you, I took that after you said it Only had £1 on it though, got £31.

This is why Ronaldo is the GOAT. He can carry a team alone.

BLOOD, BLOOD EVERYWHEEE

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.