Surprising, I know:
I did not make this headline up
Surprising, I know:
Yeah but then you'll have countries bribing officials to become one of the 4 locations.
Best way to do it is random country generator. Who wouldn't want an Olympics in Chad?
Putin says, hold it every time in places that are historically part of Russia -- Moscow, St. Petersburg, the Crimea, etc.
Alaska, Lithuania, Poland, Georgia (NntG), ... in fact, I'm sure he'd be willing to consider a request for annexation by any country or territory wishing to compete for an Olympic Games under this criteria.
I don't think that's fair. I think they should do more multi-country bids like Japan-South Korea in 2002. It puts less pressure on the country to spend all the time and money building and renovating stadiums. And they still get an influx of tourists and attention from the world media.
The multi-country bids are fine for the smaller countries (like Japan-SK) because of travel, but it just isn't necessary in most countries that should be hosting it.
If FIFA just stuck to first world countries (South Africa, Brazil and Qatar do not qualify) everything would be fine. It should be in Europe 75% of the time, with the occasional US and Japan/SK thrown in from time to time. Nowhere in Latin America can handle it.
Right. The World Cup has no business in Argentina or Brazil or Mexico--there's no interest in soccer there and they don't have any stadiums worthy of hosting.
It's hilarious that you said Brazil who can't get there shit together for this World Cup and has been having riots and is generally unsafe outside of a few small areas. And do you think crime-ridden Mexico is a good idea? Americans don't even go to most of the vacation spots because of crime, let alone the bigger cities.
Having soccer fans around doesn't make a country a good fit to host the WC.
I like you man, but kinda finding you bigoted, I've lived in Mexico my whole life in a peacefull town in central México, I have many american friends as they come often as exchange students and spanish students abroad. i've myself visited the US a few times and I just don't think that you really know what are you talking about. Also, Brazil is perhaps the best team ever in soccer, so they deserve just because of that to host a Wolrd Cup after 64 years.
I'm not bigoted at all. There are beautiful parts of Mexico, but much of it is terribly unsafe, and American tourists have been urged to avoid much of the country. This is not my opinion. But until Mexico's government decides to do something about the cartels, that will be the case. My wife's family is from Guatemala, and they don't feel comfortable traveling to most of Latin America.
Regarding Brazil, I guess it just depends on what your criteria is for a WC bid. If it's "they are good at soccer" then fine, Brazil fits. But if you want a country with infrastructure and safety, Brazil is not it. Many WC organizers pulled out due to all of the riots, they have awful traffic infrastructure and they might not have multiple stadiums finished by the times the WC starts. You could avoid all of that by picking a first world country. It's like saying Green Bay deserves the Super Bowl because the Packers have been so good for so long. It just doesn't make as much sense as putting it in Miami.
That FIFA does not seem to be concerned with the fears of a potential American tourist whose soccer-watching career apparently ended after the first game he saw on TV is not, in itself, a sign of corruption.
I'm not taking about me. But like I've posted a few times, I'm pretty tuned in to the economics of the ticket sales because of a family business and I can tell you fans around the works care, as therefore so should FIFA. Like RioThan said, if you want to throw a country (or a continent) a bone every now and then, that's fine. But they did that with South Africa last time, Brazil this time and Qatar coming up.
What is FIFA's motivation when picking a host country? Isn't it mostly economical?
Well It's unsafe as everywhere in the planet, I do not feel comfortable walking through drug plantations but then again I never do that, I feel it would be a shame if the only factor to decide wheter or not a tournament should take place in one place or another just because of economics, not only because it would alienate many countries but also because it would morph into some snobbish festival. Add to it that Brazil isn't the sisters of the poor in economy really, sure they're not a global power but I'm pretty sure they're solidly within the top20 how many countries are we talking about? 6? that's not a "World" Cup.
Green Bay would be a great place to have a SB if not for the cold, and its the same american people that would skip it because of that, if the SB was in June I bet you've had already had more than one SB there. And didn't they just pick Detroit like 8 years ago? I'm not saying that it was a great desicion but they made it regardless of economic reasons.
I do think that the world cup in Qatar is a bad idea, and it doesn't have anything to do with them as a country, it's because of the weather as you pointed out with Green Bay, Brazil doesn't have that problem. I also have a problem with the time zones, europe want's to watch those games that's why during the 94' US cup the games were played at around noon, not the best time of the day to run around a pitch for 90 minutes, and with a World cup in Qatar the games would be played most likely during the evening wich would be in the middle of the night here wich I don't like.
It's too bad to hear about bribes but FIFA guys are shameless.
Do you honestly feel Mexico is just as safe as anywhere else on the planet? I have a number of Mexican-American customers and acquaintances who don't go back to their hometowns because they don't feel safe. Even in Cancun there are men carrying assault rifles everywhere you go.
Well I'll awknoledge that I don't live in a border town, I live in a central Mexico colonial town, very quiet, and I really feel safe here, I avoid going to the beaches in Michoacan for example, but that's it, I don't feel the need to go to a border town like Laredo, Juarez or Tijuana and whenever I'm at Mexico City I do feel safe, of course I don't stay in the worst neigborhoods. I'm not saying that is the most safe country out there but it really doesn't seem unsafe to me living a quiet life in a colonial and touristy city.
But if the WC was in Mexico, you'd need to pick a dozen or more towns with big stadiums to host. I don't see that in Mexico.
Well Mexico city has 3 very nice ones, Guadalajara has a couple including omnilife wich is pretty nice the best in america latina for sure, they're building a new one in Monterrey, there are nice stadiums in Pachuca and León, Territorio Santos modelo is also new, it's only like 4 years old. They'd have to build or upgrade stadiums and I'd like them to stay out of cities like tijuana, they have an stadium, but I feel like people woulnd't like to go there... all in all, there's something, the same with Brazil and Argentina for example, brazilian stadiums need to be upgraded, but I'd feel shocked If they don't have at least 200 profesional teams.
Look, I don't want to make it seem like I'm hating on Mexico. I've been to Mexico twice already this year (one place I loved and the other I'll never go to again), and Mexico has incredible history, art, music, and food. I have a special affection for Latin people because I married into a Latin family, so my sons are half Hispanic.
But on the whole, Mexico has some issues that would prevent them from being an ideal option to host the WC. That's all. They are certainly not the only country to fall into that category, in fact most do.
Weren't you bragging about how you chose your doctor based on race or ethnicity?
I said I chose a Jewish doctor when I moved because I've always had a Jewish doctor, so if that makes me a bigot in your eyes, fine. But nothing I've said here is bigoted at all. I've simply said some countries make more financial sense to host the WC over others. That's not a knock on any individual from any of those countries, but some countries are better fit for it than others.
I love how people can saw Qatar is a bad choice and that's fine, but I say Mexico is a bad choice and I'm a bigot.
I don't think travel is that big of a deal. They had it in the US in cities coast to coast and there wasn't a problem. Brazil is a bigass country too. 2018 will be in Russia, although it's all in the western half, but that's still a pretty expansive region.
I don't see why they couldn't hold it in the large cities of Brazil and Argentina in the same WC. Or in the US, Mexico and Canada. Or in a couple safe cities across Asia.
I don't know if I'd go that far, but I do think Greece should host the Olympics regularly, like every 3-4 times. It's the home of the Games, and spent itself into bankruptcy building those venues. The IOC should throw them a bone.
They are still in debt from the Olympics a decade ago.
Of course, they are still in debt from everything a decade ago.
But now they have the facilities - maybe they need a minor retouching now that it's been 10 years, but they're there. They don't need to build a ton from scratch. If they were to host the Games now, they'd make a big profit.
They need to do more than some minor retouching. A lot of the venues have been abandoned at this point.
I am shocked, shocked! to find that bribery is going on in here...
corruption in FIFA? What next?
a lot of the injuries you see on the soccer pitch really aren't injuries at all.
And here I thought Italians were the fastest-healing players in the world due to their heavy pasta diet.
I never watched soccer. A few World Cups ago, a friend of mine told me to watch a game with him, and I agreed. There was an injury, and it was so severe that the player needed to be taken off the field on a stretcher. I thought maybe soccer was tougher than I had given it credit. That player was back on the field within 2 minutes of game clock.
And that essentially ended my soccer watching career.
While i 100% agree with you that it drives me nuts watching soccer players roll round on the ground pretending to be dead or something only to return moments later it does happen here too from time to time.....
Everybody hates that stuff, but the English Premier League is an exception. Now that there are more games on television here I've gained a respect for the EPL and its players. These guys are tough, strong, incredibly fast athletes and by and large they offer very little theatrics. Plus, they play the damn game straight up with no stoppage, unlike our sports where they stop for a potty break every 8 minutes, but I digress...
A lot of it is to catch your breath/slow play seeing as there are no time outs.
Fine. But you know that's extremely rare.
The big difference between European athletes and American athletes is ego. Most American athletes will try as hard as they can to act like they aren't hurt even when they are, to show how tough they are. European athletes don't seem to care if people think they're tough, because they will roll around in agony after not even being touched.
Basketball players will stand in, take the charge, make it look like they got knocked to the ground, and then immediately get up. They either get the call or they don't.
They don't writhe around on the ground like little girls pretending they are hurt. The whole crowd would laugh at them if they did.
That drives me nuts in Soccer. It does not need to happen. It's the fault of the refs for patronizing it. If the theatrics did not consistently work, there wouldn't be any.
The part i don't understand is why they think "amount of pain inflicted" has anything to do with getting a call. I get the flopping or diving, fine. I don't agree with it, but if you flail to ground, it looks like you got fouled. By why is the grabbing your shin (which is the only part of your body with padding) and screaming in agony necessary?
If I were a European soccer ref I would say "Suck it up, you pussy" about a dozen times a game.
Amen to suck it up you pussy.....
I always imagine the euro-pussy's screaming (in a girl's voice) "I'm dead.....I'm dead....LOOK HOW FUCKING DEAD I AM EVERYONE while they roll around like my dog when he finds a smelly dead fish.
What's strange is that most of the prominent soccer nations also have a strong rugby culture, and that is incredibly brutal and those guys never show pain.
And of course hockey players are notorious for playing with terrible injuries.
They do it in Soccer because it works. It's the fault of the refs for not just ignoring it.
Yes, the refs can give out cards for intentional diving, but that's the wrong approach. It still focuses on making the ref an audience for theatrics. Just tell them to ignore it and play on.
What's strange is that most of the prominent soccer nations also have a strong rugby culture,
I wouldn't quite say that. There are basically six countries (counting the UK nations separately) in Europe that play rugby, and one of them (Italy) is not that good at it. There are four Southern Hemisphere countries (New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Argentina) that are really into rugby, but the first three aren't all that big in soccer. Then there's a couple of Pacific Island countries that play rugby but not soccer. That's about it.
It is because diving can win you games, which is by far and away the most important thing at the professional level. By diving in the middle of the park and going down like your leg exploded you can definitely shifts a ref mindset of 1. The player who fouled you and 2. How he is calling the game. This can eventually lead to a distinct advantage for your team through a red card/foul in or around the box. I feel diving is especially common in HUGE games (UCL or league title implications) or huge mismatches where one team is really going to have almost 0 good goal scoring opportunites.
Insert Dwyane Wade in a wheelchair with an elbow injury as well...
Countries need to prove infrastructure and capacity BEFORE being selected, not in anticipation of selection. The current structure rewards building rather than effective usage of existing infrastructure
My brother-in-law runs a ticket broker company for major events, and the WC is their bread and butter. They are in-touch with all of the going on around tournament, and he was just telling me that a couple stadiums are set to be finished within 2 weeks of when the WC begins, and that's if there are no set backs, which there always are in construction. Even if everything goes fine, you typically want a stadium finished 90 days before you use it to test everything, count seats, etc. They will have 14 days, and that's with rushing all the construction.
Since Brazil has extremely poor building codes and half of the stadiums were thrown together helter skelter, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a crazy collapse like we've seen before.
He also thinks the Qatar WC will bancrupt his company, because who wants to go to Qatar.
Qatar's really, really easy to get to from Europe. Like a 5-6 hour flight from almost every European capital. That whole stretch of coast from Qatar to Abu Dhabi is already a pretty big tourist destination. They'll have no problem selling the tickets.
Distance has little to do with it. Abu Dhabi and Dubai are popular for a particular type of tourist, but many people do not want to go to the Middle East. Couple reasons: safety and booze. One of the major problems the major FIFA sponsors are having with Qatar is that it's dry (not desert dry, but no alcohol dry). They are considering making an exception to allow alcohol sales within the stadiums only, but there will be no bars, no beer tents, none of that. Qatar is also very unwelcoming to women and people of various ethnicities.
They're also moving the WC to some wacky time of year so that it's not 140 degrees during the games, probably November. This is not a typical travel time for most people, unlike the summer when the WC usually is.
Um...I've been to Qatar. There are women everywhere, as well as multiple ethnicities. It's a relatively friendly country, so I'm not sure where you're getting the hostility from.
It's not my hostility. Outside of the US, I'm not going to the WC regardless of where it is.
My brother-in-law, who makes his living selling tickets primarily for the WC, has already heard from many of his major clients that they will be skipping Qatar. There are a lot of people who aren't big on travelling to Muslim nations, regardless of whether or not that's founded on fact.
Terrorism is something that scares people at any major event. Without crossing any lines here, hosting the event in the Middle East certainly doesn't quell those fears.
Have you been in the summer? I heard it gets to around 120. That is pretty hostile level of heat if you ask me.
Now Qatar wants to move the WC to the winter.