Kaizero Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 It absolutely means North America shouldn't get to host it on equal footing. They've decided that the whole fucking continent is going to host this 2026 WC. So what happens when it comes back round to NA? The whole continent again? Why don't we just do away with the decision making process and just rotate continents. Games can just be spread about wherever. First game in England, 2nd game in Serbia, third game in Iceland. Why the fuck not eh. Who needs atmosphere anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 So what happens when it comes back round to NA? The whole continent again? 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 Well that sounds shit. Thank fuck we'll all be dead by then IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketsbaia Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 So there's one European World Cup between 2010 and 2030. Possibly even longer if Argentina & Uruguay share the centenary tournament (although the nostalgia won't be enough to realistically host a 48-team competition). Next time it comes round to Europe, you'd have to think it's England's turn. Italy '90, Germany '06, Spain '82, France '98. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 The fact remains that there are few countries capable of hosting a World Cup. I’d be fine if it rotated to UEFA every 8 years, since Europe does have the highest number of potential hosts. Maybe the best idea would be to scrap the confederation rotations all together and just award it to the best bid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 Maybe the best idea would be to scrap the confederation rotations all together and just award it to the best bid. In all likelihood that would just cement it rotating between North America and Europe. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 Maybe the best idea would be to scrap the confederation rotations all together and just award it to the best bid. In all likelihood that would just cement it rotating between North America and Europe. Maybe. Other countries could also prepare better, knowing they wouldn’t be shoehorned into bidding in only certain years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 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. It does mean that they shouldn't get to host it on equal footing like. If you're going to give the World Cup to the likes of South Africa and Qatar, you can include Jamaica, Cuba, and all the central American countries when it comes around and not just give it to America and Mexico again, or award it to areas in America rather than the entire country. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimbo Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 The New England World Cup. How aggravating would that be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 Boston WC might finally get me to visit that treasonous hellhole Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuce Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 West Coast WC would be cool. San Diego, LA, San Francisco, Sacramento, Portland, Seattle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 Tottenham expecting to cry to the Premier League to bend the rules, to allow them to play their first home game at Wembley. Fuck off man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 Or make them play at their new stadium in an empty ground until it's done. They always seem to get their own way. Get deducted 12 points and kicked out the FA Cup...points deduction gets halved and then wiped out...plus reinstated to the FA Cup. Signing players after the deadline is up seems ok too (van der Vaart wasn't it?), yet Leicester get punished for being within a minute late with Silva last summer. It's a joke. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 Why couldnt they just ask for like 3 away games first like West Ham did (did they? I can't even remember tbf )? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 Hearts did similar last season, think their first 6-7 games were away. If the opposite side are happy then that's surely better than trying to twist the rules. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 Obviously if one continent has three countries it shouldn't be hosting the WC as often as a continent with 40+ countries, it's hardly rocket appliances ffs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbnufc Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 Hearts did similar last season, think their first 6-7 games were away. If the opposite side are happy then that's surely better than trying to twist the rules. Rules: twisted Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 Hearts did similar last season, think their first 6-7 games were away. If the opposite side are happy then that's surely better than trying to twist the rules. They weren't. They played at Murrayfield. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
triggs Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 Obviously if one continent has three countries it shouldn't be hosting the WC as often as a continent with 40+ countries, it's hardly rocket appliances ffs Only about 6 countries in Europe can actually host it tbf. If you're ruling out most of CONCACAF then you have to rule out most of Europe. England, France, Spain, Italy, Germany and Russia are the only countries in Europe that could host it really? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 Obviously if one continent has three countries it shouldn't be hosting the WC as often as a continent with 40+ countries, it's hardly rocket appliances ffs Only about 6 countries in Europe can actually host it tbf. If you're ruling out most of CONCACAF then you have to rule out most of Europe. England, France, Spain, Italy, Germany and Russia are the only countries in Europe that could host it really? There are absolutely loads that can co-host though to a much more reasonable extent than CONCACAF, especially if we're now allowing three countries to co-host. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 Hearts did similar last season, think their first 6-7 games were away. If the opposite side are happy then that's surely better than trying to twist the rules. They weren't. They played at Murrayfield. They did both. They played a few games away and the new stand still wasn’t ready, so they played at Murrayfield. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 8 of their first 9 were away. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 Oh man, all other stats sites may be useless soon: https://fbref.com/en/squads/b2b47a98/Newcastle-United-FC For those that aren't familiar with this network of sites, it started with baseball-reference and it has just about everything you could ever want to know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altamullan Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 Nice site Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts