Undoubtedly, FIFA are a bunch of avaricious, crooked bastards. However, it is also part of their mandate to no only spread the appeal of football around the globe, but also to ensure that the World Cup gets to those countries where it is already hugely popular. For that reason, I don't have a problem with playing it in Brazil. They have won the cup more times than any other nation, and it is only right that they have their turn to host it. Yes, the weather is a problem, but I suspect it's not exactly cool there any time of year. We will just have to put up with it. To me, Brazil's claim is undeniable. Qatar is another matter entirely. The awarding of it to this tiny state in the desert is so overtly motivated by greed that it sticks in your throat. FIFA's decision is wholly indefensible. I suspect that they realise that they have made a huge mistake; but, it's too late now. At least they have now exposed themselves for what they really are to the whole world. Perhaps they will be a bit more careful in future. But, with that arrogant ****, Blatter, in charge, probably not!...
It's a state, that's for sure. Anyway, as for the World Cup in Russia & Qatar, it shows the sort of thinking where the logic is fundamentally sound, but there is little or no common sense. For example, whilst the idea of taking the World Cup to new countries has been around for twenty years (USA, Japan & South Korea, South Africa) there is a flaw in each. Time differences are the most obvious, be it the West Coast USA or the Far East, as for Western Europe the matches were either played late at night or early in the morning, neither of which makes for the TV audiences you'd get if a match kicked off at 8pm (and, from experience, the Far East has the same issue - I was in Singapore during Euro 96, and there was a rash of people skiving work as the matches were finishing at 2am) Weather is another issue rarely taken into account - in 1994 they were playing matches in Orlando and Pasadena in June/July, where temperatures reach the low 90s/high eighties respectively, whilst Japan (from personal experience) and South Korea can be exceptionally humid in the summer. And then there was the flustercuck that was South Africa, where locals were priced out of the tournament so the stadiums were regularly half empty barring matches where the teams had large travelling support, plus there were numerous issues with the infrastructure, for example one of the knockout games in Durban where the fans were stranded at the airport until after kick-off. Russia makes a certain amount of sense as they are staging the Winter Olympics in Sochi which, evidently, satisfied FIFA they can stage an event of that magnitude, but there's less sense about Qatar, other than saying the World Cup has come to a new country and a part of the world that has never staged a World Cup before. Thing is, neither has Holland/Belgium, and they were in the bidding for 2018 and they did a good job of staging Euro 2000.
It's outrageous that Holland in particular has never staged a World Cup. Few countries have given more to the modern game than Holland, they practically invented it.
I'm not sure on this, but could that be because they don't have adequate facilities to be considered.? You need several top class stadiums, to start with
I expected a wider world view from you! I think that any country that plays football should in principle be a candidate to host the World Cup. Any other criteria would deprive some countries of the right to hosting it forever. But I see nothing wrong at all in it being held at the time of year most suited for football to be played in the chosen country.
Utter crap in my opinion. As someone said earlier in the thread, you wouldn't host the Winter Olympics in Sudan. They were awarded the World Cup on the understanding that it would be a summer tournament. Had they said from the start it would happen in winter then they probably would not have been awarded it. It's damage limitation from FIFA, so when everything else in this WC goes tits up they can say, well at least the weather worked out. I'd like England to boycott it, whether they move it to winter or not, purely on their appaulling human rights record. We haven't a chance of winning it, so why not take a stand and let FIFA know that they can't push us around.
Of course countries that play football should have a chance to stage the World Cup, provided they can offer reasonable conditions. If they can't then hard luck, we can't host the Winter Olympics do you think that unfair? I don't, it's difficult skiing on the South Downs or the Pennines come to that.
Any country that holds winter sports events can hold the winter Olympics and if they were to be held in the southern hemisphere they would have to be held in our summer. Leaving human rights aside, all the arguments on this thread amount to 'football is a European sport and the only thing that matters is that the European season shouldn't be disrupted.' It would have been better if they had gone for a winter bid from day one but there is neither anything wrong in principle with holding a World Cup in a hot country nor in holding it in January.
That's just not true. The most tangible argument, (whilst, as you say, leaving human rights to one side), is that a summer tournament was what was bid for and any complications or difficulties or significant health concerns should have been borne in mind then. To back-track so thoroughly and in such a short space of time is basically moving the goalposts and totally undermines the bidding process. As I said before - the really worrying thing is that FIFA are SO corrupt that they don't even bother trying to hide it. As an aside I also have no problem with Northern Hemisphere countries saying : "Look, we invented this game that we like to play. We're gonna have a tournament where everyone's invited but it happens at the time of year that's best for us. And that'll be summer time (Northern Hemisphere). You don't have to join in if you don't want to but it'd be nice if you want to take part. You could even host it if you want". Bear in mind that the vast majority of the world (both land mass and human population) is in the Northern Hemisphere. Look on a globe - the whole of India, for example, is in the Northern Hemisphere. I just don't think that every country in the World has an inalienable right to host the World Cup. Countries that are permanently sweltering should be discounted full stop.
Gloabalisation is not a human right and the aim of the World Cup should not be, in any way, a pseudo-corporate attempt to spread the "profile" of "brand football". If parts of the world get permanently excluded then thank Christ there will still be SOME variety left in the world! All FIFA's talk about "extending the footballing family" and "giving football to the world" is, in no way, some sort of moral crusade to foster international peace and understanding. It's an attempt to increase the number of eyes that see Coca Cola's logos on the advertising hoardings and the McDonald's ads during the TV breaks.
Plus wouldn't it be great to build into the whole process some way to exclude Australia forever? No-one wants to go there.
The next one's in Brazil though, and we've already had two on Mexico and one in Spain in high summer. the only thing you need to have a football match is a pitch and a stadium. Anyone who can provide those to a high enough quality should be allowed to host the World Cup. But everyone agrees that football is best played in cooler conditions which means we should be arguing for all northern hemisphere World Cups to be in the Winter. FIFA have got the right answer this time (admittedly by the wrong method)
But the Qatar bid would have been STRONGER if they had suggested January from the start so they would be more likely to win!
You're assuming that people would want the "best conditions" to be available for the World Cup. Personally I care much more about domestic club football and I think most football fans do too. The World Cup is a bit of fun that needs to fit around the actual important stuff. Save the best conditions for the club football.
Winter sports events? Include Football and Rugby! How do you propose that we hold snow events without snow? Who said it should only suit Europe? Holding it in January to suit the climatic conditions is fine. The point is that holding a football event where the heat or hieght is extreme is wrong in PRINCIPLE. It's like hosting a sailing event in the sahara desert. All of this has nothing to do with Europe as such but everything to do with football.
I don't think so. I think a lot of people would have ruled it out from the off if Qatar and FIFA were up front about the impossibility of a summer tournament. Of course the bid would have actually been stronger (what with, you know, not being based on lies and a sudden need to backtrack) but that would not have made it more likely to win.
There is a difference between being UNABLE to hold a sporting event because you've not got snow, or ice or water to hold it on and your OPINION that it is undesirable because of the temperature or humidity or whatever. If football was forbidden to be played if temperatures were above 35C or some such rule then that could be applied as a fair criterion to select suitable countries. But some stadia in Brazil next year will be hotter than Qatar would be in January which suggests that the argument is prejudice not fact.
I AM arguing that World Cups should be held in the Winter, but that would rule out Siberia and Scandinavia so the bids should include the timing to take into account climatic conditions. BUT in the case of Quatar it has been chosen not because of their great love of football but simply their great hord of MONEY. How can you justify that countries like Holland and Argentina have not held a modern World Cup but the United States has, on FOOTBALL grounds? It's as lennypops says, Coca-Cola, MacDonalds etc. You can argue that bringing the US in to the 'football family' is a good thing or not but it's not what it's really about is it.
Sorry PS you dont need a rule you just need some common sense. The Antartic has a little snow would you propose holding the Winter Olympica there? A bit TOO cold perhaps.
