World Cup 2018/2022 announcements

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

Azerbaijan. It had women's suffrage before the US and UK

It's kind of a real stretch to call Azerbaijan a Middle East country. I mean, they are up in the Caucasus!

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Are you talking about money the Olympics generated or monies distributed to the voters (i.e. bribes)? It sounds like you mean the former, but GE is talking about bribes/sweetening the pot for the voters.

I don't think there's any doubt that FIFA as a whole would make a ton more money holding the Cup in the US over Qatar. Clearly, that was not a factor in their decision.

I thought it was basically known that the Salt Lake City Olympics had huge bribes going on. It caused people to resign when it became outed:

2002 Winter Olympic bid scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is the reason Romney was hired to head the Olympic Committee, to clean it up.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I thought it was basically known that the Salt Lake City Olympics had huge bribes going on. It caused people to resign when it became outed:

2002 Winter Olympic bid scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is the reason Romney was hired to head the Olympic Committee, to clean it up.

I'm well aware of the SLC bribery scandals. Take a look at the chain of posts that lead up to my exchange.

GE says the US didn't bribe the voters enough, noting that even though FIFA the organization would make money hand over fist having the Cup in the US, the voters themselves would not get anything.

To which Abe responded that that's BS because the SLC bid was accepted because of money. This actually makes no sense no matter how you read it, because if Abe is talking about the SLC bribes, he's actually agreeing with GE (USA didn't offer up as much money to the voters as Qatar). But clearly he's not agreeing. Which can only mean he's saying the SLC bid was awarded because of all the money the IOC could make from a US Olympics. But then that doesn't make sense because, A) GE was talking about bribes, and B) clearly that wasn't true today--FIFA ignored the US money windfall to go with Qatar.

That's why I asked Abe to clarify because his response didn't make sense either way that you interpreted it.

[panerd]

A late arrival to this thread but I haven't seen this question asked. How exactly did the USA become a "soccer country" worthy of hosting soccer's biggest event? I know a lot of the people in this thread are big soccer fans... great but this country isn't. I would say it goes NFL, MLB, college football, college basketball, NBA, NHL, golf, soccer. Sure we have the money and stadiums but we don't have the fans.

[MJ4H]

You are aware we have hosted it before, right?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

You are aware we have hosted it before, right?

Sure, but that's just another reason we don't deserve it. Why are we so special? We don't like soccer that much, the rest of the world does.

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by panerd

A late arrival to this thread but I haven't seen this question asked. How exactly did the USA become a "soccer country" worthy of hosting soccer's biggest event? I know a lot of the people in this thread are big soccer fans... great but this country isn't. I would say it goes NFL, MLB, college football, college basketball, NBA, NHL, golf, soccer. Sure we have the money and stadiums but we don't have the fans.

History would refute that. If I'm not mistaken, the 1994 was the most attended WC in history. It's obviously not just the host country fans that attend, but our infrastructure allows for fans from all over the world to get here, and travel around rather easily.

[molson]

Originally Posted by panerd

. I would say it goes NFL, MLB, college football, college basketball, NBA, NHL, golf, soccer.

I think I'd put NASCAR ahead of soccer, and probably golf and the NHL too.

But we do have a shitload of people here, and I'm sure we could fill up any stadium for a world cup game - but ticket sales are not FIFA's priority. (And I think Qatar will do fine ticket-wise, they're going to blow the world away with obnoxious presentation, and people in the region, and Europe, will flood there to see it).

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

History would refute that. If I'm not mistaken, the 1994 was the most attended WC in history. It's obviously not just the host country fans that attend, but our infrastructure allows for fans from all over the world to get here, and travel around rather easily.

Yeah, 1994 was the most attended WC in history even though the format changed from 24 to 32 teams (with two more groups so twelve extra games) in 1998.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by panerd

A late arrival to this thread but I haven't seen this question asked. How exactly did the USA become a "soccer country" worthy of hosting soccer's biggest event? I know a lot of the people in this thread are big soccer fans... great but this country isn't. I would say it goes NFL, MLB, college football, college basketball, NBA, NHL, golf, soccer. Sure we have the money and stadiums but we don't have the fans.

You've already been smacked down with data. But i'll pile on. You're totally wrong.

94 is STILL the highest attended WC ever, and that's with 12 fewer games than all tournaments since. If we host again we will shatter that record and set one that will be unbreakable by any other nation in it's place.

USA bought the most tickets of any traveling nation for South Africa 2010.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

You've already been smacked down with data. But i'll pile on. You're totally wrong.

94 is STILL the highest attended WC ever, and that's with 12 fewer games than all tournaments since. If we host again we will shatter that record and set one that will be unbreakable by any other nation in it's place.

USA bought the most tickets of any traveling nation for South Africa 2010.

Is that just because we used football stadiums? I have no idea what the typical capacity is for a foreign soccer venue, just asking.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

You've already been smacked down with data. But i'll pile on. You're totally wrong.

94 is STILL the highest attended WC ever, and that's with 12 fewer games than all tournaments since. If we host again we will shatter that record and set one that will be unbreakable by any other nation in it's place.

USA bought the most tickets of any traveling nation for South Africa 2010.

But they still chose Qatar, right? And everyone in this thread seems to think the only expanation is bribes. I happen to think its because soccer is a second class sport in this country.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by panerd

But they still chose Qatar, right? And everyone in this thread seems to think the only expanation is bribes. I happen to think its because soccer is a second class sport in this country.

1. How closely do you follow world soccer? This is relevant to the discussion, trust me.

2. "Spreading the game" is one of FIFA's main reasons for taking it to places like USA (94), Japan/Korea (2002) and Qatar (2022). They want to turn parts of the world into soccer fans, or give them a big boost in doing so.

For example, Major League Soccer has now been around for 15 years. Almost every team has built it's own stadium in that time. It's gone from something literally started out of obligation in order to get the World Cup to a stable league that is clawing out a larger piece of the pie year over year. It's now up to 18 teams and commading $40 million expansion fees. Despite the people who know nothing about it and expect it to fold every day, the league isn't going anywhere.

Korea and Japan both have reputable leagues (all very much in the same level of MLS really). Korea's had been around a bit, but Japan was another league basically formed in order to secure the world cup.

3. It's arguable at this point that the USA is sort of ready to take it to the next level, and become a true power in world soccer. We have a league that will be sporting 20+ stable teams by 2022. We have teams that have David Beckham, Thierry Henry, Rafael Marquez in the starting lineups.

The US National Team clearly was fully in the mainstream sports spotlight during it's world cup run. TV viewership was at an all-time high for the past world cup.

Not only could the US bid, as is, guarantee the biggest payday out there, but it could reasonably be expect to help further the long-term growth in what could eventually by one of the premier markets for consumption of soccer, period.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

1. How closely do you follow world soccer? This is relevant to the discussion, trust me.

2. "Spreading the game" is one of FIFA's main reasons for taking it to places like USA (94), Japan/Korea (2002) and Qatar (2022). They want to turn parts of the world into soccer fans, or give them a big boost in doing so.

For example, Major League Soccer has now been around for 15 years. Almost every team has built it's own stadium in that time. It's gone from something literally started out of obligation in order to get the World Cup to a stable league that is clawing out a larger piece of the pie year over year. It's now up to 18 teams and commading $40 million expansion fees. Despite the people who know nothing about it and expect it to fold every day, the league isn't going anywhere.

Korea and Japan both have reputable leagues (all very much in the same level of MLS really). Korea's had been around a bit, but Japan was another league basically formed in order to secure the world cup.

3. It's arguable at this point that the USA is sort of ready to take it to the next level, and become a true power in world soccer. We have a league that will be sporting 20+ stable teams by 2022. We have teams that have David Beckham, Thierry Henry, Rafael Marquez in the starting lineups.

The US National Team clearly was fully in the mainstream sports spotlight during it's world cup run. TV viewership was at an all-time high for the past world cup.

Not only could the US bid, as is, guarantee the biggest payday out there, but it could reasonably be expect to help further the long-term growth in what could eventually by one of the premier markets for consumption of soccer, period.

I follow soccer and I would have enjoyed if the World Cup were here. I just don't see everything through the red, white, and blue glasses. The US is not a soccer country. We appear to have a difference of opinion on this. All I will say is that the United States wasn't chosen and I think this is why.

[bob]

Originally Posted by panerd

I follow soccer and I would have enjoyed if the World Cup were here. I just don't see everything through the red, white, and blue glasses. The US is not a soccer country. We appear to have a difference of opinion on this. All I will say is that the United States wasn't chosen and I think this is why.

That being said, outside of the home country of South Africa, more tickets to this year's world cup were sold to US citizens then those of any other nation.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by panerd

I follow soccer and I would have enjoyed if the World Cup were here. I just don't see everything through the red, white, and blue glasses. The US is not a soccer country. We appear to have a difference of opinion on this. All I will say is that the United States wasn't chosen and I think this is why.

This isn't about the US not getting it. It's about what an astoundingly insane decision it is to give it to Qatar.

The British Media is not outraged that Russia got it, nor is anyone else. It's a pretty logicial move. Qatar on the other hand doesn't even remotely make sense in the sense of FIFA's "legacy" decisions.

There will be no legacy. The stadiums are temporary, and the nation has a citizien population of what...a few hundred thousand?

Any other country made a great deal more sense, and the fact that Australia was bounced in the very first round of balloting is at a minimum, bizzare.

[cthomer5000]

This is without even getting into the socio-political stuff like women's rights, gay rights, workers rights.... etc.

Qatar is a mind-boggling decision. Period.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

This is without even getting into the socio-political stuff like women's rights, gay rights, workers rights.... etc.

Qatar is a mind-boggling decision. Period.

+1

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by bob

That being said, outside of the home country of South Africa, more tickets to this year's world cup were sold to US citizens then those of any other nation.

I think this is a misleading stat. A quick glance of the 32 teams tells me we have a population of roughly 200 million more people than any other county except Brazil.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by panerd

But they still chose Qatar, right? And everyone in this thread seems to think the only expanation is bribes. I happen to think its because soccer is a second class sport in this country.

There are sevreal reasons, but obviously some are upset that we lost. Same with the Rio win over us in the Olympics bis.

1). The last world cup was here just 16 years ago, and just 8 years ago in Korea and Japan. That leaves only two bids that are new. f the two, I'd go ith Australia first, but the time differential is awful for Europe.

2). At the end of the day, Fifa is a non-profit. Comments about the wealth gained from commercials, tickets, and stadium attendance don't mean as much to a non-profit.

3). Qatar's bid included some really special tech. Pushing the tech aspect of the game has got to be a priority.

4). The US presentation suffered some flaws. Clinton went off topic and talked about his non profit work, Freeman miscued and skipped a page.

5). The stadiums built by Qatar will be donated to poor countries that need state of the art stadiums. That's a really good point, and something no one else has in their bid. The American bid is all about how much money they'd make. Even our claim that we are diverse boiled down to "So we'll fill the stadium". The Qatar bid is all about how other poor soccer nations can get world class venues.

6). Despite all of the comments about how hard it was to pull off, the South Africa World Cup was a success from most respects. It was historic and I think they felt good about going somewhere else off kilter as well.

[Lathum]

dola- I agree Qatar is an absurd decision.

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I think this is a misleading stat. A quick glance of the 32 teams tells me we have a population of roughly 200 million more people than any other county except Brazil.

how is that a misleading stat?

it's a once every four-years event with a finite number of tickets. How else would you propose such a stat be tracked?

Raw numbers are all that matter for a one-time event, not the relative % of a nation attending games in a foreign country - it would be negligible for every one of them, i'm sure.

[Lathum]

I don't follow your logic.

A Nation of 300 Million + has a much larger pool of potential buyers than a nation of 50 million. Seems logical they would purchase a larger number of tickets.

That doesn't even factor in economic feasibility, even in a recession US consumers have more ,money than most nations. It also seems to me the average US soccer fan likely has a higher income.

Again, all this is off the top of my head.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

2). At the end of the day, Fifa is a non-profit.

[Crapshoot]

I wish it was in the US too, but you guys realize the rest of the world doesn't exactly live and breath Americana right (ie, DT's "who the fuck is going to travel there?" bit)? The US hosted it in 1994 - and generally, there's at least a 30 year gap before the same country hosts it again. IE - Germany had to wait 32 years (and soccer is the primary sport there), Italy waited 60 years, etc etc. I mean, FIFA is definitely a joke, but this wasn't the US' "right" or anything similar.


Australia is the legitimate candidate that got screwed here

[bronconick]

Yeah, Australia's boned. They're probably looking at something around 2060-70 to have a legit shot again, since when it gets to Asia again, China will walk away with it.

[bob]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

Despite all of the comments about how hard it was to pull off, the South Africa World Cup was a success from most respects. It was historic and I think they felt good about going somewhere else off kilter as well.

Depends on how you define success. SI just had an article about how those stadiums are not getting used (rugby teams don't want them due to no luxury boxes, soccer league in South Africa draws less than 1000 fans), and the government is going to be pissing away money to maintain them.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by bob

Depends on how you define success. SI just had an article about how those stadiums are not getting used (rugby teams don't want them due to no luxury boxes, soccer league in South Africa draws less than 1000 fans), and the government is going to be pissing away money to maintain them.

I was referring to it from FIFA's vantage point

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

To which Abe responded that that's BS because the SLC bid was accepted because of money. This actually makes no sense no matter how you read it, because if Abe is talking about the SLC bribes, he's actually agreeing with GE (USA didn't offer up as much money to the voters as Qatar). But clearly he's not agreeing. Which can only mean he's saying the SLC bid was awarded because of all the money the IOC could make from a US Olympics. But then that doesn't make sense because, A) GE was talking about bribes, and B) clearly that wasn't true today--FIFA ignored the US money windfall to go with Qatar.

That's why I asked Abe to clarify because his response didn't make sense either way that you interpreted it.

Actually it makes perfect sense. The implication, as I saw it, in saying the US didn't bribe enough is that the US is above bribing people for hosting tournaments, when that's not the case at all.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

There are sevreal reasons, but obviously some are upset that we lost. Same with the Rio win over us in the Olympics bis.

1). The last world cup was here just 16 years ago, and just 8 years ago in Korea and Japan. That leaves only two bids that are new. f the two, I'd go ith Australia first, but the time differential is awful for Europe.

2). At the end of the day, Fifa is a non-profit. Comments about the wealth gained from commercials, tickets, and stadium attendance don't mean as much to a non-profit.

3). Qatar's bid included some really special tech. Pushing the tech aspect of the game has got to be a priority.

4). The US presentation suffered some flaws. Clinton went off topic and talked about his non profit work, Freeman miscued and skipped a page.

5). The stadiums built by Qatar will be donated to poor countries that need state of the art stadiums. That's a really good point, and something no one else has in their bid. The American bid is all about how much money they'd make. Even our claim that we are diverse boiled down to "So we'll fill the stadium". The Qatar bid is all about how other poor soccer nations can get world class venues.

6). Despite all of the comments about how hard it was to pull off, the South Africa World Cup was a success from most respects. It was historic and I think they felt good about going somewhere else off kilter as well.

Well done. I think the tech thing really stood out (some of those stadium will be amazing) and the fact that Qatar is donating part of the stadiums to poor Arab countries will be a great way to build the game in the Middle East. That and a World Cup wants to be able to claim it truly is a 'world' game, which includes hosting it in a variety of locations.

[Groundhog]

Only reason I have even heard of Qatar is that they are always one of the teams we have to beat to qualify for the world cup.

[ISiddiqui]

So you don't follow the news at all, especially where the US would have briefings for the Iraq War? That may explain things.

[jbergey22]

Seems like an interesting place to have the world cup. 110-120 degree heat during the time when this is going on. It doesnt sound like an ideal vacation spot to me.

Id end up a lobster.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So you don't follow the news at all, especially where the US would have briefings for the Iraq War? That may explain things.

Pretty sure he's being facetious

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

I wish it was in the US too, but you guys realize the rest of the world doesn't exactly live and breath Americana right (ie, DT's "who the fuck is going to travel there?" bit)? The US hosted it in 1994 - and generally, there's at least a 30 year gap before the same country hosts it again. IE - Germany had to wait 32 years (and soccer is the primary sport there), Italy waited 60 years, etc etc. I mean, FIFA is definitely a joke, but this wasn't the US' "right" or anything similar.


Australia is the legitimate candidate that got screwed here

My comment was legit. I'm traveling with a Brit right now (Brit citizen living in Australia). It was his comment. None of the European soccer fans (who all love getting drunk and being rowdy and watching games) are going to want to go to Qatar he said.

[Icy]

Russia and Quatar... no surprise as they can bribe more than the other countries right now, mafia and oil money ready to be expended.

Englad or Spain & Portugal that could host a WC tomorrow if needed as have already top soccer stadiums. Of course no new stadiums building means less money to go to FIFA pockets.

FIFA is a corrupt joke as is the Olympics Organization.

Yeah i'm bitter and probably biased.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by cthomer5000

The British Media is not outraged that Russia got it, nor is anyone else. It's a pretty logicial move.

You're right, but the other factor is I think the British media have realised that their actions/attitudes did not help our cause in any way whatsoever, and are trying to wind their necks in a little [although we still seeing stories of how the voting process is unfair, blah blah blah])

[Young Drachma]

Qatar makes no sense. Ditch the US if you want, but there is absolutely no way the decision makes any sense at all. Luckily, it's nearly 11 yrs away. both votes scream oil money.

[Karlifornia]

Australia should have been the pick. Qatar is small time and the US had one less than two decades ago.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well done. I think the tech thing really stood out (some of those stadium will be amazing) and the fact that Qatar is donating part of the stadiums to poor Arab countries will be a great way to build the game in the Middle East. That and a World Cup wants to be able to claim it truly is a 'world' game, which includes hosting it in a variety of locations.

The tech thing definitely stood out.

Of course, it doesn't hurt that Doha is just a beautiful city to visit. A friend works overseas in Doha, and he says that the nightlife is great if you've got the cash to spend.

Next to Dubai, it's 2nd on my list of Middle East cities my fiance and I are considering going to.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Icy

Englad or Spain & Portugal that could host a WC tomorrow if needed as have already top soccer stadiums.

I add the US to this as well, and I wonder what effect this has AGAINST their bids. Every time it looked like South Africa may not be able to pull it off, you'd see some press talk about making a late shift to the US because it has the stadium, travel and security infrastructure to handle a huge event like this with little advanced notice. Does anyone else think that a FIFA voter might have looked at it like "I'm going to vote for Russia and Qatar because they are new venues and would have a big regional impact for soccer if they can pull it off; and, if either of them F it up, we've still got the UK/US able to step up?"

[OldGiants]

Why was the bid from England and not from Great Britain? Including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland so games could have been played in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Belfast (what's a big city in Wales?) seems much more attractive to the world in general. Making a joint bid that included Ireland (Dublin) would have been even smarter.

An England=only bid gave the finger to Scotland, did it not? And why are Scotland, Wales and No Ireland allowed to have 'national' teams in soccer when the Olympics -- rightly-- only recognize Great Britain? The selfishness of the England-only bid is offensive, and reason enough to toss it out the door at first sight.

[ISiddiqui]

England, Scotland, etc have always been seperate in football. I don't think that was the reason people voted against the English.

[MIJB#19]

Oh well, at least we beat England in the voting.

[bhlloy]

The English FA doesn't necessarily get on with the Welsh and Scottish FA's so that's probably a big reason why. A bid that included the Millenium Stadium in Wales and Hampden & Ibrox/Celtic Park in Scotland might have been more attractive in terms of stadia and location but like ISiddiqui says above, wouldn't have really made a difference I don't think.

These WC's were going to "new", developing markets whether we like it or not I think. Going to be a while before traditional markets like the US and UK get another shot now.

[OldGiants]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

The English FA doesn't necessarily get on with the Welsh and Scottish FA's so that's probably a big reason why. A bid that included the Millenium Stadium in Wales and Hampden & Ibrox/Celtic Park in Scotland might have been more attractive in terms of stadia and location but like ISiddiqui says above, wouldn't have really made a difference I don't think.

I didn't mean to imply that doing this would have gotten England the bid, simply pointing out that this was not the bid of a country (or joint bid) but only a bid from one part of Great Britain. There is no reason to have Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on an equal basis with 'real' countries. There is no need for separate FAs in those tiny places, nor any reason for the rest of the world to have to allow sections of Great Britain to compete on an equal footing with nations.

The time to remove automatic Champs League -- even at the preliminary stage -- from No Ireland, Wales and Scotland is now. No way are they sovereign nation states deserving of special treatment.

I understand this was really an English FA bid, but there should not be a separate English FA. It should represent all Great Britain, just like in the Olympics.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by OldGiants

I didn't mean to imply that doing this would have gotten England the bid, simply pointing out that this was not the bid of a country (or joint bid) but only a bid from one part of Great Britain. There is no reason to have Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on an equal basis with 'real' countries. There is no need for separate FAs in those tiny places, nor any reason for the rest of the world to have to allow sections of Great Britain to compete on an equal footing with nations.

The time to remove automatic Champs League -- even at the preliminary stage -- from No Ireland, Wales and Scotland is now. No way are they sovereign nation states deserving of special treatment.

I understand this was really an English FA bid, but there should not be a separate English FA. It should represent all Great Britain, just like in the Olympics.

This is very much an outsiders view looking in . Nothing wrong with that view, but it will never happen in team sports for a multitude of historical, political and religious reasons.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by OldGiants

I understand this was really an English FA bid, but there should not be a separate English FA. It should represent all Great Britain, just like in the Olympics.

But there is a pretty big difference between FIFA and the IOC. The rules of soccer are made by FIFA and the English, Welsh, Scottish, and Northern Ireland FAs. They make up the International Football Association Board.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by OldGiants

I didn't mean to imply that doing this would have gotten England the bid, simply pointing out that this was not the bid of a country (or joint bid) but only a bid from one part of Great Britain. There is no reason to have Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on an equal basis with 'real' countries. There is no need for separate FAs in those tiny places, nor any reason for the rest of the world to have to allow sections of Great Britain to compete on an equal footing with nations.

The time to remove automatic Champs League -- even at the preliminary stage -- from No Ireland, Wales and Scotland is now. No way are they sovereign nation states deserving of special treatment.

I understand this was really an English FA bid, but there should not be a separate English FA. It should represent all Great Britain, just like in the Olympics.

There is no way that this would fly in Scotland. You should have heard the wailing from the press and fans when someone suggested a UK team should take part in the Olympic soccer tournament.

FIFA has a number of member associations which are not sovereign nations. I think the only other one in Europe is the Faroe Islands, but there are a few more in Asia and the Americas.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by OldGiants

I understand this was really an English FA bid, but there should not be a separate English FA. It should represent all Great Britain, just like in the Olympics.

There are a lot of parts of nations that compete as a part, and not as the whole. Examples below:

Curacao
Reunion
Faeroe Islands
Greenland
Hong Kong
Bermuda

And that's just off my head