ChezGiven Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 he has a point , as more attractive venues go italy,france or spain would be a better choice. France has better stadiums than england? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SeattleToon Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Warner is a corrupt bastard, but CONCACAF will not roll over without a fight in 2018. At that point, the World Cup would have rotated through the other four confederations as planned (2002-Asia, 2006-Europe, 2010-Africa, 2014-South America), so it would be highly suspicious if the rotation policy was ended just in time to rob CONCACAF in favor of Europe, especially since the World Cup would have already been held twice in Europe (France 98, Germany 06) since it was last held in CONCACAF. England and Spain are the two best European candidates right now, but given that Europe has only 8 out of the 24 votes on the Executive Committee and that CONCACAF has a lot of favors that can be called in for supporting Asia, Africa, and South America in their bids, I doubt a European country will be able to get 13 votes for the 2018 World Cup if CONCACAF wants it. My guess is that CONCACAF will come to an arrangement with CONMEBOL to only support Brazil 2014 if CONMEBOL supports CONCACAF in 2018. Otherwise, I'd expect CONCACAF to challenge Brazil in 2014. My guess is that Europe, and England, will have to wait until 2022. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 It's to late for CONCACAF to launch a bid for 2014 now, the only way they would get it is if Brazil couldn't host it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Football's a global sport now and I think it's pretty arrogant to just assume that Europe should get to host it more than any other continent. The game is growing and the days of automatically alternating from Central/South America and Europe are over for good. Since WWII: 1950 Brazil (S. America) 1954 Switzerland (Europe) 1958 Sweden (Europe) 1962 Chile (S. America) 1966 England (Europe) 1970 Mexico (CONCACAF) 1974 Germany (Europe) 1978 Argentina (S. America) 1982 Spain (Europe) 1986 Mexico (CONCACAF) 1990 Italy (Europe) 1994 USA (CONCACAF) 1998 France (Europe) 2002 Japan/Korea (Asia) 2006 Germany (Europe) 2010 S. Africa (Africa) 2014 ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicago_shearer Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Rotation is such an unfair system. I've no idea why Uefa would have agreed to it seeing as there are any number of countries in Europe that could host a tournament and only three or four realistic options (at most) in the other confederations. Concacaf essentially means America, Canada or Mexico capable of putting together a bid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SeattleToon Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 UEFA didn't agree to it...that's why they put forth Germany to oppose South Africa for 2006. UEFA's problem is that they only have eight out of the twenty-four seats on the Executive Committee and that they've angered a lot of the other confederations over the years with their eurocentric attitudes. Even if UEFA's eight members vote as a united block (which they often do not), they still need to attract the support of at least two other confederations (each of which have four seats) in order to get to the magic number of thirteen votes needed to pass anything. Twelve-twelve ties get broken by Blatter, who generally is anti-UEFA. You've got to think that FIFA would look much more favorably on bids by either the USA or China because of their commercial potential. China's got the world's largest population, and USA 94 was the most financially successful World Cup ever. And don't forget that the USA is the only country in the world that currently has 10+ fairly new soccer ready 60,000 seat stadia. You're looking at potentially a 4,000,000 World Cup attendance the next time it's held in the USA. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicago_shearer Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Permanent even rotation would mean that the US would be huge favourites for every Concacaf World Cup - so the US basically gets 1 every 20 years (with an outside chance of Canada or Mexico) while France, Germany, Italy, Spain, England, Portugal, Poland, and however many smaller nations with facilities or joint bids each battle for the UEFA spot. Is it so Eurocentric to just do a straight bidding contest? It seems to work for the IOC. Germany 2006 is the new benchmark in terms of fan attendance, atmosphere, security, infrastructure and organization. FIFA should encourage bids from any country that can match or better Germany's effort and take it from there. I don't think it will necessarily favour Europe, but it is certainly more fair than shutting the door on many countries that are capable of putting on a good tournament. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphrodite Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Football's a global sport now and I think it's pretty arrogant to just assume that Europe should get to host it more than any other continent. The game is growing and the days of automatically alternating from Central/South America and Europe are over for good. Since WWII: 1950 Brazil (S. America) 1954 Switzerland (Europe) 1958 Sweden (Europe) 1962 Chile (S. America) 1966 England (Europe) 1970 Mexico (CONCACAF) 1974 Germany (Europe) 1978 Argentina (S. America) 1982 Spain (Europe) 1986 Mexico (CONCACAF) 1990 Italy (Europe) 1994 USA (CONCACAF) 1998 France (Europe) 2002 Japan/Korea (Asia) 2006 Germany (Europe) 2010 S. Africa (Africa) 2014 ? 2014 is going to South America isn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 No idea mate! It would make sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza ladra Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 First off, Warner is a corrupt SOB. He's looking for a bribe or automatic qualification for T$T. Second, there are two-three countries in CONCACAF that really host the WC-- Mexico, United States and perhaps, Canada. The rotation is rather silly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest optimistic nit Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 he has a point , as more attractive venues go italy,france or spain would be a better choice. France has better stadiums than england? i was about to say. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Italy's venues are crumbling mess, they couldn't even beat Ukraine and Poland for the Euro's. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LucaAltieri Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 Italy's venues are crumbling mess, they couldn't even beat Ukraine and Poland for the Euro's. Not to mention the hooliganism. How many people do you find stabbed at the average Premiership game? Add the crap (3 tier) train network on top of that. England must be way ahead of Italy on the list. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SeattleToon Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 The trains in Italy are probably more reliable than the trains in England....or don't you notice that every time the Toon play in London the tracks are being repaired somewhere along the line thus requiring detours by bus... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsunami Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 The rotation system will end; europe should get it more often, for the simple reason that there are more countries that would be better equiped to host it, some of which, under the present system, have virtually no chance of ever getting it. This may mean joint bids, but so be it. Should Germany, France, Italy or Spain get to host the WC before England it would be a disgrace. We are an easy target and too often lie down in the face of unjustified criticism of the state of our game, stadia & fans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LucaAltieri Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 The trains in Italy are probably more reliable than the trains in England....or don't you notice that every time the Toon play in London the tracks are being repaired somewhere along the line thus requiring detours by bus... At least we have replacement buses Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest afternoonfix Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 he has a point , as more attractive venues go italy,france or spain would be a better choice. France has better stadiums than england? was fine 1998 , lovely country also and not too far away Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SeattleToon Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Tsunami, It's just that type of attitude that really annoys everyone outside of UEFA. There are now probably more countries outside of Europe well-equipped to host it (USA, Mexico, China, Australia, Japan, Korea, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa) as there are within UEFA (England, Germany, Spain, France, Italy). Even within UEFA, Italy needs to deal with its hooligans and renovate its stadia, and even France would need to enlarge its stadia since FIFA has raised the minimum seating requirement (was 35,000 in 1998, will be 45,000 or 50,000 by 2018). So truth be told, only England & Spain would be serious UEFA contenders for 2018 (the Benelux bid would be a joke since most of their stadia are big enough), and they'll be up against the USA, China, and Australia at the very least. The next European World Cup should definitely go to the UK, but there is no logical reason to assume the the UK is better equipped than non-UEFA countries. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicago_shearer Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 Tsunami, It's just that type of attitude that really annoys everyone outside of UEFA. There are now probably more countries outside of Europe well-equipped to host it (USA, Mexico, China, Australia, Japan, Korea, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa) as there are within UEFA (England, Germany, Spain, France, Italy). That sort of proves the point about continental rotation. If there are just about as many in UEFA as the other continental associations combined, how is it fair to rotate? It's not as if Trinidad or Panama will be competing for CONCACAF's turn any time soon is it? Personally, I'd be more than happy with an open contest for 2018. England, USA, Australia, China and whoever else. That would be best for the sport. I would prefer England because that would be the best balance of world class facilities and atmosphere. But I wouldn't be complaining too much if they gave it to the US, provided they host the final at Soldier Field. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 Seems like England ain't going to get it at this rate http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/9196434.stm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Idiot Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 Belgium-Netherlands are "medium risk"? How so? Honestly rather you got it than Russia. Still torn about us doing this with Portugal. But I really hope it's not Russia. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 Belgium-Netherlands are "medium risk"? How so? Honestly rather you got it than Russia. Still torn about us doing this with Portugal. But I really hope it's not Russia. Aye if its not England I'd want it to be Spain/Portugal as I think that would be the next best suited. Holland/Belgium is too small and held a tournament to recently and Russia will be a ballache for everyone going apart FIFA officials and could see it being hampered by large swathes of empty seats and no atmosphere much like RSA. Only reason I can think of Holland/Belgium being medium risk is lack of stadiums but Russia is worse on every front other than they'll be bent as fuck and given Jack Warner and his bent cronies free rein. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 Belgium-Netherlands are "medium risk"? How so? Honestly rather you got it than Russia. Still torn about us doing this with Portugal. But I really hope it's not Russia. Don't Russia have crazy VISA laws? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 SSN have just claimed we're top of the list. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segun Oluwaniyi Posted November 16, 2010 Share Posted November 16, 2010 Anybody but Russia. If we qualify, I'd hope rather not have massive banana posters at our matches. I know that's a bit ridiculous, but I was very displeased with not only the events surrounding Osaze's departure, but how it was handled and dismissed in that country. 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