Stifler Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Look at South Africa, only 4 years on and some stadiums are going un used, has the sport developed over there much?, not really, Rugby is still the focus of attention. Football was South Africa's national sport then and still is now... unless you think the black majority doesn't count or something. Rugby isn't even South Africa's second sport. My argument is that it hasn't left much of a legacy though has it? Again a lot of stadiums have a reduced capacity and have to be used for other events. not much of the footballing legacy that FIFA claim to leave behind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallace Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 I think North and South America should be counted as one area when rotating the bids. There is realistically only a couple of countries who could put a World Cup on and that is the USA and now Brazil. I recall reading that since the tournament was expanded to 32 countries, bidding countries have to have a certain number of cities to host games and that means virtually all countries in South America are unable to bid which is why Brazil had no rivals when it came to being South America's turn. Even Argentina would have a problem with the tournament in its current format. I am not sure if Mexico could cope now even though they have also hosted the World Cup previously. On that basis, it means that the US and Brazil will get to host the World Cup regularly compared to countries in Europe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Look at South Africa, only 4 years on and some stadiums are going un used, has the sport developed over there much?, not really, Rugby is still the focus of attention. Football was South Africa's national sport then and still is now... unless you think the black majority doesn't count or something. Rugby isn't even South Africa's second sport. My argument is that it hasn't left much of a legacy though has it? Again a lot of stadiums have a reduced capacity and have to be used for other events. not much of the footballing legacy that FIFA claim to leave behind. I'm not disputing the legacy, I'm disputing the fact you said 'rugby is still the focus of attention" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Canada are going to make a serious bid for the next World Cup that they are eligible to host. It would be nice to see them get it. It's growing sport over there, arguably more so than in the USA.I wouldn't be surprised of Canada didn't start their own MLS type league in the next 10-15 years if a few of their cities bidding for an MLS franchise get knocked back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 We had Euro 96 tbf That's true but firstly that's not really the same, and secondly what I'm getting at is that Germany/Mexico have hosted it twice since we have and there was a possibility of America/South Korea getting it again so quickly simply due to the ridiculous rotation process, and of course we ended up with Qatar. I'd have been pissed off whatever happened in that one if I'm honest, with the possible exception of Australia. Suffice to say, I think England are due a turn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Look at South Africa, only 4 years on and some stadiums are going un used, has the sport developed over there much?, not really, Rugby is still the focus of attention. Football was South Africa's national sport then and still is now... unless you think the black majority doesn't count or something. Rugby isn't even South Africa's second sport. My argument is that it hasn't left much of a legacy though has it? Again a lot of stadiums have a reduced capacity and have to be used for other events. not much of the footballing legacy that FIFA claim to leave behind. I'm not disputing the legacy, I'm disputing the fact you said 'rugby is still the focus of attention" Rugby still gets a lot more investment than football does, the world cup was supposed to stop that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Canada are going to make a serious bid for the next World Cup that they are eligible to host. It would be nice to see them get it. It's growing sport over there, arguably more so than in the USA. I wouldn't be surprised of Canada didn't start their own MLS type league in the next 10-15 years if a few of their cities bidding for an MLS franchise get knocked back. Nah. It's growing, but not at any kind of substantial pace. And there's no way Canada would break off from MLS and go their own way. They wouldn't even consider that in hockey, which enjoys 10x as much support across the country as football. They'd lose way too much money. Though I do agree that a Canadian WC would be a great tournament and would definitely encourage the growth of the sport here. They'd have a lot of work to do, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Give it 15-20 years and Colombia could host a cracking tournament, assuming their current economic trajectory holds. Had the 2011 U-20 WC, which was a success by all accounts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newcastle Fan Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 e final of the 2022 WC will be played in Lusail, Qatar - a city which does not yet exist. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisJbarnes Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Im very much looking forward to the 2026 World Cup Final in Pyongyang and the 2030 World Cup Final in Chernobyl. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Don't forget the first one on Mars in 2050. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/10892665/Sepp-Blatter-I-want-an-interplanetary-World-Cup.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesPaul Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Don't forget the first one on Mars in 2050. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/10892665/Sepp-Blatter-I-want-an-interplanetary-World-Cup.html Wait, he said that? I thought it was an Onion article. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Don't think so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesPaul Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Fuck sake. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
magpie1892 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 e final of the 2022 WC will be played in Lusail, Qatar - a city which does not yet exist. I used to live in Qatar and if you'd said that a month ago I would have said 'yes, but in winter'. Now I'm not so sure. Having said that, I did say there was a good chance WC2022 would not be held in Qatar here: http://postimg.org/image/v95c9r05n/ This was November 2011, so I scooped the Sunday Times by 2.5 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordiesteve710 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Would be a bit s*** if Japan or S Korea got it again so quickly after they last hosted it I wouldn't mind those hosting again tbh, their fans were great last time to be fair. I'd rather they got it than Australia or the US. England would always be my first choice though. It's a crime that they haven't held one since 66 ffs. Definitely a country that'd be ready to hold it tomorrow if they had to. Its never going to come here for a very long time, if Sepp Blatter stays in power th WC will be going to countries where stadiums need built and can be changed easily... I think France, Turkey, and Italy will all host a world cup before England gets a chance again. Assuming that 2022 stays in Qatar, and again assuming FIFA stand by their "principle" (I know, I know) that no confederation gets it twice in a row, I'd be gobsmacked if 2030 goes anywhere other than China. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Canada are going to make a serious bid for the next World Cup that they are eligible to host. It would be nice to see them get it. It's growing sport over there, arguably more so than in the USA.I wouldn't be surprised of Canada didn't start their own MLS type league in the next 10-15 years if a few of their cities bidding for an MLS franchise get knocked back. Assuming what you just said about South Africa was true,why would you want Canada to get it when they'll never love it more than hockey. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Canada are going to make a serious bid for the next World Cup that they are eligible to host. It would be nice to see them get it. It's growing sport over there, arguably more so than in the USA.I wouldn't be surprised of Canada didn't start their own MLS type league in the next 10-15 years if a few of their cities bidding for an MLS franchise get knocked back. Assuming what you just said about South Africa was true,why would you want Canada to get it when they'll never love it more than hockey. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Boom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesPaul Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Shots fired. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Canada are going to make a serious bid for the next World Cup that they are eligible to host. It would be nice to see them get it. It's growing sport over there, arguably more so than in the USA.I wouldn't be surprised of Canada didn't start their own MLS type league in the next 10-15 years if a few of their cities bidding for an MLS franchise get knocked back. Assuming what you just said about South Africa was true,why would you want Canada to get it when they'll never love it more than hockey. There is a clear indication that the sport is growing in Canada now. It won't be to leave a legacy behind, just more of a natural development. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtype Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 It'll have been 20 years since we last hosted and we had to share it with the midgets across the pond back then. Don't think it's too soon. We'd certainly run a better tournament than anyone else outside Europe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 I think North and South America should be counted as one area when rotating the bids. There is realistically only a couple of countries who could put a World Cup on and that is the USA and now Brazil. I recall reading that since the tournament was expanded to 32 countries, bidding countries have to have a certain number of cities to host games and that means virtually all countries in South America are unable to bid which is why Brazil had no rivals when it came to being South America's turn. Even Argentina would have a problem with the tournament in its current format. I am not sure if Mexico could cope now even though they have also hosted the World Cup previously. On that basis, it means that the US and Brazil will get to host the World Cup regularly compared to countries in Europe. How many "cities" does Qatar have? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 I think North and South America should be counted as one area when rotating the bids. There is realistically only a couple of countries who could put a World Cup on and that is the USA and now Brazil. I recall reading that since the tournament was expanded to 32 countries, bidding countries have to have a certain number of cities to host games and that means virtually all countries in South America are unable to bid which is why Brazil had no rivals when it came to being South America's turn. Even Argentina would have a problem with the tournament in its current format. I am not sure if Mexico could cope now even though they have also hosted the World Cup previously. On that basis, it means that the US and Brazil will get to host the World Cup regularly compared to countries in Europe. How many "cities" does Qatar have? You could argue that it only really has 1, Doha. Doha has a population smaller than that of Tyne and Wear. All other regions (not cities) of Qatar have a population smaller than that of Newcastle, in fact in most of them the population of of Whitley Bay is greater. In fact there is one region of Qatar where you could fit the entire population inside Hillheads stadium (Whitley Bay's stadium). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdckelly Posted June 15, 2014 Share Posted June 15, 2014 isn't half the proposed stadiums for that one supposed to be in Doha anyway? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now