I don't understand the Qatar decision. I was so excited.
Given all the information I read, I don't see how Qatar can be considered an attractive option. Oppressive heat, tiny population, and the worst offense to me, an automatic bid for a team that has never earned a spot in the World Cup in its history.
I know the US had received similar criticisms before the 1994 World Cup for taking up an auto bid (though they did deflect some of that by then qualifying in 1990), but there were major economic factors benefiting the US then.
The World Cup has games happening across the host country in many cities. Naturally, the 2022 World Cup will be hosted by a country where the third largest city is smaller than Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan.
It is the policy of the documentary crew to remain true observers and not interfere with its subjects. "Well. Shit." -hansen9j Go Pack Go! (7-4, 2nd NFC North) Let's Go Riders! (getting pretty tired of being the bridesmaid)
Thoroughly disappointed in these decisions, particularly Qatar. What kind of country doesn't follow a Q with a U?
Also, there's the size of the country and its cities, the oppressive heat, the laws against drinking, the lack of scantily-clad women in the stands, etc etc.
I will be starting work on Canada's 2026 bid later tonight.
Originally posted by CorajudoI think that Fifa picked the worst candidate for each World Cup, particularly Qatar in 2022.
I agree. It's very frustrating, especially the lack of transparency in the whole process. The ONLY thing I can think of that would lead anyone to choose Qatar over the US is the fact that the World Cup has never been in the Middle East before, but the World Cup has also never been in Australia before, so why not go there if that's the reasoning? We'll never know the reasoning though, because this whole process is bogus.
Being English, I don't need to tell you how bitterly disappointed I am that we didn't win for 2018. Especially as my home town was one of the cities that would have staged games.
I'm amazed that USA didn't get the nod for 2022. Of the countries bidding, I thought they stood the best chance. I can understand Australia not getting it. It would be dead in the middle of winter and most of the stadia that were to stage games are being used by other sports that i)are more popular in Australia than soccer and ii)are still in season in June/July.
It'll be interesting to see how many players collapse through heatstroke in 2022 before FIFA realize that having a tournament in the Middle East at the hottest time of year probably wasn't the smartest decision they could have made.
Russia getting a bid I can understand, but Qatar? Seriously? I guess the bright side is it leaves the USA and England as the heavy favourites for 2026 and 2030, but who knows what FIFA's thought process is anymore.
Originally posted by CorajudoI think that Fifa picked the worst candidate for each World Cup, particularly Qatar in 2022.
I agree. It's very frustrating, especially the lack of transparency in the whole process. The ONLY thing I can think of that would lead anyone to choose Qatar over the US is the fact that the World Cup has never been in the Middle East before, but the World Cup has also never been in Australia before, so why not go there if that's the reasoning? We'll never know the reasoning though, because this whole process is bogus.
But they have been to Asia before and the Middle East is in Asia. If the logic was "they don't go there alot" they should go to North Africa.
I'm pretty disappointed too as we really have the stadiums to host it here.
-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year -- -- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --
Originally posted by ZeruelI'm pretty disappointed too as we really have the stadiums to host it here.
I know, something about a county of fewer than 2 million people building nine massive state-of-the-art stadiums seems BRILLIANT.
More than twice as many people traveled to South Africa for the 2010 World Cup than the entire population of Qatar. I won't act like I know shit about Qatar, but I don't know how ANY country could handle it's population increasing by 200 percent for a month.
I'm just flabbergasted that our cartoon Kangaroo and nasal speaking Prime Minister didn't get us over the line. And we used Paul Hogan and Elle MacPherson! What the hell else could we do? Maybe we shoulda got Mark Webber to do some burnouts in the carpark afterall.
FYI - parts of Australia in the 'dead of winter' can be quite pleasant.
While both results are very disapointing, I can't say I'm surprised by either of them. FIFA seems to like the World Cup being hosted in countries where football is not that popular, with the view to increasing the game's global presence even further. I wouldn't be surprised to see China get the 2026 WC.
Of course, I could just be cynical and say FIFA's votes go where the money is. But FIFA is a organisation which is very high in moral fibre... that would never happen, right?
Originally posted by superfurryWhile both results are very disapointing, I can't say I'm surprised by either of them. FIFA seems to like the World Cup being hosted in countries where football is not that popular, with the view to increasing the game's global presence even further.
Despite the fact that the game is already pretty popular here (well, more popular than it was), I think FIFA would still produce more new soccer fans by having the World Cup in the US than by having it in Qatar, based solely on the populations of the two countries.
Originally posted by superfurryWhile both results are very disapointing, I can't say I'm surprised by either of them. FIFA seems to like the World Cup being hosted in countries where football is not that popular, with the view to increasing the game's global presence even further.
Despite the fact that the game is already pretty popular here (well, more popular than it was), I think FIFA would still produce more new soccer fans by having the World Cup in the US than by having it in Qatar, based solely on the populations of the two countries.
Agreed. The 1994 World Cup put soccer 'on the map,' as it were, for the general American sports fan. After all these years of growth (Major League Soccer, increased growth at the grassroots and college levels, and the fact that better TV coverage has made it easier for US viewers to watch the World Cup, Premiership, La Liga, etc.), another World Cup could have put it over the top.
Originally posted by superfurryFIFA seems to like the World Cup being hosted in countries where football is not that popular, with the view to increasing the game's global presence even further.
If that's the strategy, the US should get the next six bids.
I wouldn't be surprised to see China get the 2026 WC.
The way I hear it, FIFA currently has a rule against playing on one continent more than once in three cups, so as Qatar counts as Asia.. that seems to leave China out until 2034.
(And I imagine Yakutsk and Vladivostok are wondering about Russia counting as 'Europe' for WC purposes.)
The way I hear it, FIFA currently has a rule against playing on one continent more than once in three cups, so as Qatar counts as Asia.. that seems to leave China out until 2034.
(And I imagine Yakutsk and Vladivostok are wondering about Russia counting as 'Europe' for WC purposes.)
That is true. A zone is ineligible for the next two WCs.
Africa (CAF) couldn't host 2018, and South America (CONMEBOL) can not host 2018 nor 2022 because of Brazil (2014).
Because of Russia (UEFA) 2018, and Qatar (AFC) 2022, UEFA can not host in 2026 and AFC can not host in 2026 nor 2030.
Since USA 1994, looking ahead to 2026 bidding, Europe would have hosted three times (France, Germany, Russia), Asia twice (South Korea/Japan, Qatar), Africa once (South America), and South America once (Brazil).
I was shocked that Australia had one vote in the 1st round of voting. If they can host the Olympics in 2000, why not the World Cup? I was sure that Qatar would go out first. Yeah, they'll PLAN to build indoor stadiums, but where are all the teams going to practice? 32 teams are going to have a hard time sharing 12 stadiums (7 of which do not exist yet).
-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year -- -- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --
Originally posted by ZeruelBut they have been to Asia before and the Middle East is in Asia. If the logic was "they don't go there alot" they should go to North Africa.
But North Africa is in Africa and they've been to Africa more recently than they've been to Asia?
Originally posted by TheBucsFanDespite the fact that the game is already pretty popular here (well, more popular than it was), I think FIFA would still produce more new soccer fans by having the World Cup in the US than by having it in Qatar, based solely on the populations of the two countries.
I think they view this as "giving the World Cup to the Middle East", not just Qatar. There was some crazy stat yesterday about something like two billion people living within four hours' flight of Qatar. Or four billion within two hours' flight. There was a lot of people fairly nearby anyway.
You shouldn't underestimate the importance FIFA place on taking the game to new places and bids which talk of "bringing the world together" because then they can pat themselves on the back for voting for something warm, fuzzy and altruistic sounding. As soon as Sepp started yesterday's (ridiculously long) introduction by "taking a minute to talk about the importance of this.....Association Football" it was an absolute shoo-in that they were giving a WC to at least one of the new boys bidding.
To be honest I have no problem with America missing out purely because I don't think any one country should get two out of eight World Cups these days. I'm more disappointed for Australia who I think would've done a great job.
And obviously I'm gutted that England didn't get 2018. I know the game doesn't exactly need the boost in the UK but the infrastructure's in place already and giving it to one of the countries that started this whole international football lark every 50+ years shouldn't be asking too much damnit. Also, Russia seems like a cold place and *I* don't really want to go there which should count for something.
Still, I'd be lying if I said there wasn't something intriguing about Qatar's talk of flat-pack stadia and walls of cool air surrounding outdoor pitches. It should be fun seeing it come to fruition (or not).
I hope they have a backup plan, like they did with South Africa. For a time, it looked like Brazil was going to get 2010 a couple years ago because FIFA officials weren't satisfied with the progress in SA.
-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year -- -- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --
Originally posted by ZeruelI hope they have a backup plan, like they did with South Africa. For a time, it looked like Brazil was going to get 2010 a couple years ago because FIFA officials weren't satisfied with the progress in SA.
They always do. Mexico stepped up in '86 after (I think) Colombia admitted they couldn't do it. I doubt Qatar will struggle too much because they've got 12 years and filthy amounts of money to deal with any issues.
Having said that I'm not sure how these solar powered-air-conditioned-open-air stadia keep people cool if there's anything resembling a stiff breeze to mix hot air with cold, but I confess to understanding little of the science behind it beyond thinking "that sounds wicked cool".
Originally posted by TheBucsFanDespite the fact that the game is already pretty popular here (well, more popular than it was), I think FIFA would still produce more new soccer fans by having the World Cup in the US than by having it in Qatar, based solely on the populations of the two countries.
I think they view this as "giving the World Cup to the Middle East", not just Qatar. There was some crazy stat yesterday about something like two billion people living within four hours' flight of Qatar. Or four billion within two hours' flight. There was a lot of people fairly nearby anyway.
But are they all going to commute from their homelands to the game or something? I heard yesterday that Qatar is smaller than Connecticut, which is 48th out of 50 US states in terms of size.
Even if that's not an issue, I still don't think this stat matters. I don't think the fact that it takes eight hours to fly from Brazil to the US (I have no idea if that's how long it actually takes) is going to stop anybody, for example.
You shouldn't underestimate the importance FIFA place on taking the game to new places and bids which talk of "bringing the world together" because then they can pat themselves on the back for voting for something warm, fuzzy and altruistic sounding.
I think you're putting words in FIFA's mouth. The thing that most frustrates me is that actually, neither you nor I have any idea what motivated the people voting for this to go with Qatar.
I think this "bringing the world together" nonsense is as likely to happen in any one country as any other, regardless of whether that country has hosted a World Cup before.
As soon as Sepp started yesterday's (ridiculously long) introduction by "taking a minute to talk about the importance of this.....Association Football" it was an absolute shoo-in that they were giving a WC to at least one of the new boys bidding.
If you believe Sepp, he had no idea what was in the envelopes before he opened them to reveal the winners.
To be honest I have no problem with America missing out purely because I don't think any one country should get two out of eight World Cups these days.
That still doesn't explain it going to Qatar, who, in my opinion, was the least appealing candidate out of any of the nine going for either Cup.
Thread rated: 5.18
#
#
#
#
