daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Stadiums and Sport Arenas

Stadiums and Sport Arenas » Completed | Under Construction | Proposed | Demolished



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Which bid should host the FIFA World Cup 2018 / 2022?
Australia - 2018 255 12.32%
Belgium / Netherlands - 2018 247 11.94%
England - 2018 538 26.00%
Indonesia - 2018 68 3.29%
Japan - 2018 35 1.69%
Mexico - 2018 105 5.07%
Qatar - 2018 78 3.77%
Russia - 2018 279 13.48%
South Korea - 2018 16 0.77%
Spain / Portugal - 2018 267 12.90%
USA - 2018 116 5.61%
Australia - 2022 378 18.27%
Belgium / Netherlands - 2022 111 5.36%
England - 2022 114 5.51%
Indonesia - 2022 122 5.90%
Japan - 2022 37 1.79%
Mexico - 2022 149 7.20%
Qatar - 2022 153 7.39%
Russia - 2022 148 7.15%
South Korea - 2022 23 1.11%
Spain / Portugal - 2022 184 8.89%
USA - 2022 249 12.03%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 2069. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools
Old May 10th, 2009, 10:20 PM   #5021
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,767
Likes (Received): 10316

The US are very fortunate that one of their national sports has venues whose pitches are more-or-less the same size as football pitches. It's a lucky coincidence that they're as ready as they are. If it wasn't for this coincidence they'd be in much the same position as other nations with their general level of interest in the game.

I'm not saying the US is being greedy or shouldn't make the most of this happy coincidence by bidding, but I'd be wary of awarding it too often to the US. If it goes to countries with a minority interest in the game I'd rather it went somewhere that hasn't hosted before, like Australia, providing of course they can get everything ready on time.
RobH no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old May 11th, 2009, 01:53 AM   #5022
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post

Again, true/realistic fans get it. Conversely, however, it must be accepted that the US indeed has a masterful list of facilities and metropolitan areas to do the job and do it well. I wish they weren't so widely dispersed but that could also be part of the appeal for the games, depending on one's perspective. And while the games might mean more to the bottom line of sporting infrastructure and cultural pride in other countries, another WC in the US could, nay - would, go a long way to bolstering the sports appeal in the States.
The world cup should be a reward rather than an incentive.

Countries with a long and varied footballing culture should be rewarded for that rather than countries who want to kick start a footballing culture being "rewarded".

The fact of the matter is most countries developed their football culture from nothing, without fan fare, just on the game and its spectacle, whether that country be Nigeria, Iran or Peru.

I think it is unfair for america to say we want the world cup because our game needs a jump start, when other countries have had to do it the hard way, and the real fact is we already gave you a jump start and if your flagging again so soon then surely that tells you something...

The fact of the matter is, i could care less if the sport ever became big over there, and the only reason FIFA cares is because of the money.

Other than money why would anyone reaslistically want it to, so you can add your dodgy parlance to the game, or try to corporatise it still further, or even try and poach our best players (that's unlikely considering the European economy is larger).

The point is what benefit is it to us in Europe for America to love football and be good at it?? What benefits are there to the world game?? The most populated wealthy industrialised nation suddenly becomes interested in and good at football...

Quote:
We all have to remember the selection of one site isn't meant as an insult to the others, it's merely an indication that that's the one place that fits best for that moment. If the games didn't move around with such consideration it'd be in the same 3-5 nations all the time, which would be bad for the sport in the long run.

Cheers.
didn't the super bowl always used to flit between southern california and florida??

anyway

Why would it be bad for the sport?? Football is a whole lot more than the world cup, Club football makes the game tick, always has always will. International football isn't needed and outside of the major tournaments is quite frankly annoying.

What would be bad for the game is money and television being of greater influence...

PS. I'd rather the world cup stayed in Europe and established countries instead of another debacle like korea/japan, horrible kick off times for most of the world, horribly annoying korean fans, players and "referees" , it was over hyped and fell flat.

Last edited by bigbossman; May 11th, 2009 at 01:59 AM.
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old May 11th, 2009, 04:21 AM   #5023
woozoo
Registered User
 
woozoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
Likes (Received): 185

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
Why would it be bad for the sport?? Football is a whole lot more than the world cup, Club football makes the game tick, always has always will. International football isn't needed and outside of the major tournaments is quite frankly annoying.
That is your opinion. This is a very subjective matter. For a lot of people in a lot of countries, the world cup and the internationals and friendlies involved in qualifying for the world cup are the biggest thing in Football.

For countries with poorer developed leagues (some European countries, many latin countries, almost all of asia and USA), their national team is the most important thing in football.



Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
PS. I'd rather the world cup stayed in Europe and established countries instead of another debacle like korea/japan, horrible kick off times for most of the world, horribly annoying korean fans, players and "referees" , it was over hyped and fell flat.
Wrong. For most of the world (population), the kick off times are perfect when played in Japan Korea, as most of the world lives in that region.

Again this is an example of your Euro centric view of world football.
Football is massive in Asia. Its the number one sport in most countries, and number two in the rest. Just because the countries have not had the time or economies to develop strong leagues or strong national teams does not mean they should be disregarded as fans. The popularity of the premier league throughout the region is a sign of how many football fans there are in East/South East Asia.
"Annoying Korean fans"??? Annoying to who? You? Other Europeans?
woozoo está en línea ahora  
Old May 11th, 2009, 04:53 AM   #5024
woozoo
Registered User
 
woozoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
Likes (Received): 185

Quote:
Originally Posted by SIC View Post
Even with that low percentage, you will have sellouts of massive stadiums. Realistically speaking, Europeans will be able to get tickets easier than if it was in Autralia and Japan and the trip would be cheaper.

I don't know if Australia has more people interested than the US, honestly. Even just percentage wise. Just because MLS doesn't sell out NFL stadiums, doesn't mean each major city in the States doesn't have people that care about the World Cup and top class football in general, because they do.
Australians are the fourth most applicants for the 2010 world cup, behind South Africa, USA and England (thankyou South African sub forum).
Thats ahead of football nations Brazil, Germany, Italy and Spain, despite having 1/10, 1/4, 1/3 and 1/2 of the populations respectively.
If thats not a clear sign of how popular football is in the country i dont know what is.



In 2006, the world cup games featuring Australia were some of the highest rating programs all year . Well over two million viewers watched the knockout game between Italy and Australia (over 10% of population). This is despite the fact they were broadcast at 2 or 3 am on weeknights.

The central square in Melbourne was broadcasting all games live. Australian games drew over 15 thousand supporters, and extra giant tv screens were needed to be put in place in nearby parks for the overflow of people.
After the game against Croatia where where Australia qualified for the knock out stage, the two main arterial tram routes and main intersection/roads of central meblourne were closed as people celebrated in the streets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uA2mm...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDlDm...eature=related

For the italy game, an entire street was blocked off from traffic in little Italy, and giant screens put up (as well as the screens in the central square and nearby park).

I imagine that the celebrations would be comparable anything that would take place in Europe, and all this support took place in the early hours of the morning on weeknights.
woozoo está en línea ahora  
Old May 11th, 2009, 08:14 AM   #5025
JYDA
Registered User
 
JYDA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,172
Likes (Received): 94

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
Other than money why would anyone reaslistically want it to, so you can add your dodgy parlance to the game, or try to corporatise it still further
I sure hope the yanks don't "corporatise" the game any further. They've recently introduced shirt sponsors and those annoying LED advertising boards around the pitch. What's next? Giving every domestic competition a corporate title sponsor?? GASP!!!
JYDA no está en línea  
Old May 11th, 2009, 06:16 PM   #5026
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
The US are very fortunate that one of their national sports has venues whose pitches are more-or-less the same size as football pitches. It's a lucky coincidence that they're as ready as they are. If it wasn't for this coincidence they'd be in much the same position as other nations with their general level of interest in the game.
Kind of a stretch, isn't it? That the US has adopted another sport as it's current national passion shouldn't imply the country would be totally devoid of stadia if the NFL didn't exist. Maybe there'd be a plethora of general athletic venues much like in China? Or maybe the US would've adopted soccer along the way, instead?!! Bottom line, the idea that the NFL factor is a fortunate coincidence is not only a reach but singularly presumptive. Only if the US had no sporting interest and a meager economic means to host the event would this have any genuine merit.
Quote:
I'm not saying the US is being greedy or shouldn't make the most of this happy coincidence by bidding, but I'd be wary of awarding it too often to the US. If it goes to countries with a minority interest in the game I'd rather it went somewhere that hasn't hosted before, like Australia, providing of course they can get everything ready on time.
That's fine, but I'd be cautious in implying what constitutes "too often." This is merely the nation's second modern bid, folks! It's not like they're out to monopolize the thing, and if your sentiment is valuable to FIFA and the rest of the world then you've nothing to fear.

The other caveat is the ability of those nations to host. Apart from Australia there aren't many countries in the same "minority interest" category, especially those with the means to host. So if it came down to the US vs, say, India, and the latter clearly had inferior facilities (it's just an example, folks!) would there still be some level of anti-US sentiment involved?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
The world cup should be a reward rather than an incentive.
Then we should mandate no new construction allowed for the event, as evidence that the host nation isn't using the event to exploit government/clubs/banks to expand football at the expense of FIFA's name. Ditto the Olympics. But we all know that's absurd in today's reality.
Quote:
The fact of the matter is most countries developed their football culture from nothing, without fan fare, just on the game and its spectacle, whether that country be Nigeria, Iran or Peru.
One could say the same is happening here, just under different (modern) conditions and over a longer period of time. Remember, the US had some football culture before WC '94.
Quote:
I think it is unfair for america to say we want the world cup because our game needs a jump start, when other countries have had to do it the hard way, and the real fact is we already gave you a jump start and if your flagging again so soon then surely that tells you something...
a) Just FYI, Mexicans and Canadians sometimes take umbrage with the idea that the US constitutes everything American. They prefer demonizing comments specify the US.
b) Saying the sport in the US would benefit from a WC is a far different cry from saying we "need" it. Don't distort the stated views or facts, please. The sport is hardly flagging in light of all the new facilities and the current level of exposure compared to pre-MLS days. Is the recession taking its toll? Absolutely. Is it succeeding at the levels we'd prefer? Most assuredly not. But rest assured MLS and US soccer will continue to progress, WC or no WC.
Quote:
The fact of the matter is, i could care less if the sport ever became big over there, and the only reason FIFA cares is because of the money.
Money = Power = Ability. The more $ FIFA garners the more they can support the game across the globe. And rest assured the big players want to increase their marketing potential to as many consumers as possible. It's the same reason many clubs are doing tours during the off season, and the US is growing increasingly popular for such events.
Quote:
Other than money why would anyone reaslistically want it to, so you can add your dodgy parlance to the game, or try to corporatise it still further, or even try and poach our best players (that's unlikely considering the European economy is larger).
Now you're bordering on xenophobia, to say nothing of the misguided directive about corporatism as pointed out by JYDA. Besides, if it's unlikely anyway then what is your concern? I feel safe in saying MLS will NEVER compete with the upper echelon of European Leagues, even after 100 years and if there were 3 more world cups hosted, and I've no problem with that end result.

BTW, I'd say Europe and the big leagues are the largest net poacher of foreign talent going. Perhaps you're familiar with some of the insults hurled at the roster make-up of our shared favorite club?
Quote:
The point is what benefit is it to us in Europe for America to love football and be good at it?? What benefits are there to the world game?? The most populated wealthy industrialised nation suddenly becomes interested in and good at football...
How about global TV contracts for domestic leagues? How about increased marketing potential for brands and players? How about increasing the talent pool of players?

BTW, if you take that stance with the US be prepared to take it for Africa and Asia, as well. Don't let the WC go to China, or back to Japan or Korea, or ever think about going to Egypt. Surely you've absolutely nothing to gain from promoting the World Cup as an all-inclusive event.
Quote:
Why would it be bad for the sport?? Football is a whole lot more than the world cup, Club football makes the game tick, always has always will. International football isn't needed and outside of the major tournaments is quite frankly annoying.

What would be bad for the game is money and television being of greater influence...

PS. I'd rather the world cup stayed in Europe and established countries instead of another debacle like korea/japan, horrible kick off times for most of the world, horribly annoying korean fans, players and "referees" , it was over hyped and fell flat.
Then I suggest you write UEFA and invite them to opt out of the event. Screw England vs Argentina in the semi-finals. Screw opportunities for the likes of Cameroon to compete against the more established powers. Simply stay with UEFA competitions and see if/how quickly the rest of the world loses interest in your uber-protectionist scheme.



Seriously, if anyone doesn't want it to go to the US then simply say so. You're entitled. But trying to justify it via false/tentative assumptions and protectionist effrontery is disingenuous to say the least.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old May 11th, 2009, 06:26 PM   #5027
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by woozoo View Post
That is your opinion.
point the obvious why don't you. Just because one shares their opinion doesn't mean that it can't also contain strains of the truth!!

Quote:
This is a very subjective matter. For a lot of people in a lot of countries, the world cup and the internationals and friendlies involved in qualifying for the world cup are the biggest thing in Football.
Are you judging everything based on the fact that asia has 60% of the worlds population and a lot of the worlds contries??

Because outside of Asia or more specifically eastern asia your comment doesn't hold much water.

Quote:
For countries with poorer developed leagues (some European countries, many latin countries, almost all of asia and USA), their national team is the most important thing in football.
Seriously many latin american countries, some of Europe what are you basing this on?? liechenstein and panama??

Quote:
Wrong. For most of the world (population), the kick off times are perfect when played in Japan Korea, as most of the world lives in that region.
hmmm...

The majority of the worlds population live in India or west of it. That is the majority of the worlds population is at least 4.5 hours behind Japan/Korea.

The kick offs during the 2002 world cup and the corresponding time 4.5 hours after.

1530 = 1100

1800 = 1330

2030 = 1600

Great kick off times for people who work during the week don't you think, and that's just the best of them...

Quote:
Again this is an example of your Euro centric view of world football.
Football is massive in Asia. Its the number one sport in most countries, and number two in the rest.
So?? Football is massive if San marino doesn't mean they deserve to hold a world cup!!

Quote:
Just because the countries have not had the time or economies to develop strong leagues or strong national teams does not mean they should be disregarded as fans. The popularity of the premier league throughout the region is a sign of how many football fans there are in East/South East Asia.
They should support their domestic league instead of fattening the pockets of Cashley cole and Fat Frank!

They complain they never get taken seriously but then they neglect their own leagues, and don't produce players, we shouldn't be in the business of handouts.

Africa it could be argued was in the same boat 30 years ago...

Quote:
"Annoying Korean fans"??? Annoying to who? You? Other Europeans?
Why are picking up on an opinion. If someone finds something annoying then they find it annoying. What's it to you, if you want to know why i thought they were annoying, then it's because i thought the spectacle looked fake and over the top, a caricature of how koreans believed (at the time) football fans should act.

Until these countries start contributing to the world game we shouldn't pander to them. Africa, The americas (outside of the obvious), The middle east, Europe even korea and japan are fine, the rest need to fix up!
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old May 11th, 2009, 06:29 PM   #5028
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by JYDA View Post
I sure hope the yanks don't "corporatise" the game any further. They've recently introduced shirt sponsors and those annoying LED advertising boards around the pitch. What's next? Giving every domestic competition a corporate title sponsor?? GASP!!!
Come on, i clearly said more. That would lead you to beleive i am not too happy with how far it is gone already, but that doesn;t compare to how far your sports have gone, so much so that they are actually considered businesses, which is a joke.

Franchises, closed leagues, bumper TV contracts are not where football needs to or should go, and that's what i fear America would bring to the table..
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old May 11th, 2009, 06:35 PM   #5029
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
Until these countries start contributing to the world game we shouldn't pander to them.
Does anyone else find it interesting that when the US takes this type of a stance regarding economic and political matters they're roundly beat down for it? Just sayin'.

__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old May 11th, 2009, 07:19 PM   #5030
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
Then we should mandate no new construction allowed for the event, as evidence that the host nation isn't using the event to exploit government/clubs/banks to expand football at the expense of FIFA's name. Ditto the Olympics. But we all know that's absurd in today's reality.
haha wtf, you are assuming that building new football infrasture in a country automatically means "expanding" the sport. When in reality it is a chance to cater to demand.

Therefore countries with a culture for football demand the best facilities to facilitate that culture and it's continued growth and a world cup is of course a fair opportunity.

It's classic carrot vs stick!

Quote:
One could say the same is happening here, just under different (modern) conditions and over a longer period of time. Remember, the US had some football culture before WC '94.
yeah and, doesn't mean we should give you another world cup...

Quote:
a) Just FYI, Mexicans and Canadians sometimes take umbrage with the idea that the US constitutes everything American. They prefer demonizing comments specify the US.
Sorry to canadians and mexicans but deal with it.

Quote:
b) Saying the sport in the US would benefit from a WC is a far different cry from saying we "need" it. Don't distort the stated views or facts, please. The sport is hardly flagging in light of all the new facilities and the current level of exposure compared to pre-MLS days. Is the recession taking its toll? Absolutely. Is it succeeding at the levels we'd prefer? Most assuredly not. But rest assured MLS and US soccer will continue to progress, WC or no WC.
You are putting to much emphasis on the word need in the context it was used.

I never said you were flagging, the fact that you are building new infrastucture doesn't mean you are suceeding. It means that you need it to suceed, that is Franchises can't operate efficiently without their own stadiums. I am of course playing devils advocate but you can't really use that.

If it will continue to progress, let other countries who haven't hosted it recently bid for it!

Quote:
Money = Power = Ability. The more $ FIFA garners the more they can support the game across the globe.
LOL ok if that's what you want to believe.

Quote:
And rest assured the big players want to increase their marketing potential to as many consumers as possible. It's the same reason many clubs are doing tours during the off season, and the US is growing increasingly popular for such events.
Yeah but that doesn't mean it's good for football. Money will destroy the game we love and turn it into something robotic and unromantic mark my words!

Quote:
Now you're bordering on xenophobia, to say nothing of the misguided directive about corporatism as pointed out by JYDA.
*cough* maybe you should look at what i am saying and how i am saying it before you jump on it!


Quote:
Besides, if it's unlikely anyway then what is your concern? I feel safe in saying MLS will NEVER compete with the upper echelon of European Leagues, even after 100 years and if there were 3 more world cups hosted, and I've no problem with that end result.
It's unlikely you will poach Europeans. However you will compete for everyone else, and then it will become Europe vs America blah blah

Quote:
BTW, I'd say Europe and the big leagues are the largest net poacher of foreign talent going.
You're telling me, I hate it more than the next man. I think i mentioned it in one of my blogs in my sig!

It shouldn't be tolerated!!

Quote:
Perhaps you're familiar with some of the insults hurled at the roster make-up of our shared favorite club?
I hurl them insults myself, clubs should represent their communties. Youth products should be locals, not kids poached from other teams. Fabregas for as much as i love him would be loved even more if he came from Hackney or somewhere, just look at theo and kieran gibbs!

Quote:
How about global TV contracts for domestic leagues?
Great more money in the game, it's got enough!

We have got to a stage where the european game is rich enough to outspend everywhere so there is no need for more money in it, what europe needs is fairer distribution of money between the leagues, atm the bigger your population and the more westerly the richer, very fair.

Also what would be nice is more money for the Brazilian and Argentine leagues so they could keep their best players, but that won't happen and time soon.

IF everyone could afford to play in their domestic league they would, and it would benefit world cups

Quote:
How about increased marketing potential for brands and players?
*cough* what, i don't want more david beckham footballers. They are a joke.

Quote:
How about increasing the talent pool of players?
In theory, but they would just stay in America and play in world cups...

Quote:
BTW, if you take that stance with the US be prepared to take it for Africa and Asia, as well. Don't let the WC go to China, or back to Japan or Korea, or ever think about going to Egypt.
China can **** off, Japan and korea should wait. Egypt can have it when they like, big football country, big population...

Quote:
Surely you've absolutely nothing to gain from promoting the World Cup as an all-inclusive event.
WTF, seriously you make more unfounded widesweeping statements than i have shocked responses for!

The world cup is a bit of a sham, why should T & T get in ahead of the 6th best african or South american team, it's a joke. There is one thing being all inclusive and another letting crap into the tournament.

Quote:
Then I suggest you write UEFA and invite them to opt out of the event.
LOL you clearly didn't read what i wrote properly

Quote:
Screw England vs Argentina in the semi-finals.
LOL screw it, and like that has ever happened or will... anyway what's so great about that, i'd rather watch the seville derby!

Quote:
Screw opportunities for the likes of Cameroon to compete against the more established powers.
What?? when did i ever say we should scrap the world cup. I said it isn't needed doesn't mean it should be scrapped.

I don't need to go to pizza hut, but i do because i can, and because it adds something, my life however wouldn't feel empty without it!

Quote:
Simply stay with UEFA competitions and see if/how quickly the rest of the world loses interest in your uber-protectionist scheme.
what?? seriously where is this agenda coming from. European football coped just fine before the explosion, but that is bye the bye, you have a random chip on your shoulder...

Quote:
Seriously, if anyone doesn't want it to go to the US then simply say so.
I never said i don't want them to host it, i said they should join the back of the queue, and build a football culture first.

Quote:
You're entitled.
why thank you, so kind...

Quote:
But trying to justify it via false/tentative assumptions and protectionist effrontery is disingenuous to say the least.
Stop with the bullshit, get your head out of your arse and see the wood from the trees.

I said that if world cups outside the established are as shit as korea/japan was then we should keep them away from these new powers for a bit. The established refers to Europe and the americas. That isn't me saying they should only be in Europe, it is me saying if South Africa is shit then a trend has begun!

Last edited by bigbossman; May 11th, 2009 at 07:26 PM.
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old May 11th, 2009, 07:44 PM   #5031
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
Does anyone else find it interesting that when the US takes this type of a stance regarding economic and political matters they're roundly beat down for it? Just sayin'.

yeah but football is a game...

In life we have an obligation to those less fortunate than ourselves, in sport we reward winning, and in football punish losing!!
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old May 11th, 2009, 08:14 PM   #5032
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
haha wtf, you are assuming that building new football infrasture in a country automatically means "expanding" the sport. When in reality it is a chance to cater to demand.

Therefore countries with a culture for football demand the best facilities to facilitate that culture and it's continued growth and a world cup is of course a fair opportunity.
Like the proposed temporary expansion in Bristol? The volume of existing, world-cup worthy stadia in Brazil? Or all those full stadiums in Italy?

I get your point and agree with it in part, but let's not kid ourselves: Like the Olympics the World Cup has become an opportunity to enhance facilities, even if just by improving the amenities and cosmetic features. Just as people do extra to clean their homes before company arrives, whoever is selected as host nation will see several facilities get improvements that otherwise wouldn't have been done, or at least not been done then, were it not for the WC. Otherwise the only absolute to support your case in this facet of the discussion is Germany.
Quote:
yeah and, doesn't mean we should give you another world cup...
Doesn't mean the US should be discounted from an open bidding process, either.
Quote:
You are putting to much emphasis on the word need in the context it was used.

I never said you were flagging, the fact that you are building new infrastucture doesn't mean you are suceeding. It means that you need it to suceed, that is Franchises can't operate efficiently without their own stadiums. I am of course playing devils advocate but you can't really use that.
Well how else was I to interpret your post that said:

"I think it is unfair for america to say we want the world cup because our game needs a jump start, when other countries have had to do it the hard way, and the real fact is we already gave you a jump start and if your flagging again so soon then surely that tells you something..."
Quote:
If it will continue to progress, let other countries who haven't hosted it recently bid for it!
Then perhaps you won't mind putting an England bid on hold while the Netherlands/Belgium play host, and then maybe some Balkan nations, Scotland/Wales, Russia, etc.
Quote:
Yeah but that doesn't mean it's good for football. Money will destroy the game we love and turn it into something robotic and unromantic mark my words!
Here you and I may be differing in the direction we're coming from. I agree the money factor has impacted the game but am taking a realistic view for this particular debate, not an ideological one. Besides, keeping the WC within the fold of the most invested nations might serve to enable an oligopoly among chief nations/leagues, in much the same way the UEFA CL maintains the status quo among bigger clubs (which you also point out). I think FIFA has a broader mission than that, even if I do think Blatter unfairly punishes UEFA members.
Quote:
It's unlikely you will poach Europeans. However you will compete for everyone else, and then it will become Europe vs America blah blah
Though we both feel this is unlikely, and leaving the ideological option out since it's unlikely, why would this scenario would be worse compared to today? More competition?!!
Quote:
*cough* what, i don't want more david beckham footballers. They are a joke.
No one does, sir. No one does.
Quote:
China can **** off, Japan and korea should wait. Egypt can have it when they like, big football country, big population...
Now hear it this way, as told from ManU and Madrid supporters: "The likes of Bristol can f*** off, Valladolid and Brescia should wait. Grasshoppers and Kiev can have it when they (are a) big football club, with big number of supporters." Not trying to offend, sir, but it sure sounds like the level of parity you're aspiring for at the club level isn't so favorable at the global, national team level.

Quote:
I said that if world cups outside the established are as shit as korea/japan was then we should keep them away from these new powers for a bit. The established refers to Europe and the americas. That isn't me saying they should only be in Europe, it is me saying if South Africa is shit then a trend has begun!
Korea/Japan was a decidedly unique, political compromise that is unlikely to be ever repeated. The matters of logistic issues from that event lead to the current no-cohosting stance and the unwritten rule capping venues at 16. And while you perceived the atmosphere as false/weak it seemed the event as a whole still did it's job, no? Maybe not the best, but they can't always be.

Most importantly, if any nation is to improve their status and mirror the capacities and atmosphere of the "established" favorites, they'll need such sample events and exposure to make that climb unless your idealize version of business practices comes to light.

Granted, explaining your thoughts about the WC in general helps to clarify your perspective in this debate. Perhaps we agree on more things in principal, I simply view the decisions for this particular bid process with more basis on current conditions than what I'd ideally like them be. Remember, I favor the next two events going to England and Australia for some of the reasons you're offering. I simply find the level of outright dismissal for a US bid to be comical.

Cheers.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old May 11th, 2009, 08:20 PM   #5033
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
yeah but football is a game...

In life we have an obligation to those less fortunate than ourselves, in sport we reward winning, and in football punish losing!!
Hmmmm. Just to clarify, you also said:

Quote:
...what europe needs is fairer distribution of money between the leagues, atm the bigger your population and the more westerly the richer, very fair.

Also what would be nice is more money for the Brazilian and Argentine leagues so they could keep their best players,...
Don't worry, I get what you're meaning and essentially agree. It can be a thin line between establishing fairness and eliminating the achievements of competition, and an equally thin line between viewing sport as simply entertainment as opposed to a defining and socially positive cultural element. If it's the latter then that would imply a little more egalitarianism should be taken into account. ie: Perhaps the WC should be viewed with a sense of "obligation to the less fortunate?"
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."

Last edited by GunnerJacket; May 11th, 2009 at 08:27 PM.
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old May 11th, 2009, 08:25 PM   #5034
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
Hmmmm. You also said:
what has that got to with it, i said fairer distrbution, football is about the game on the pitch, and on the pitch other countries shouldn't get handouts, off of it, it's unfortunate that the game is dictated by money, hence why it was distributed fairer it would reflect more fairly on the pitch.

Feyenoord are a bigger club than middlesbrough but middlesbrough have more money because they are in England. That is what i mean. Clubs should have the wealth their fanbase deserves not because they have a rich owner or play in a rich league.

But at the same time wealth shouldn't allow you to buy all the best players and horde them, it's a fine balancing act!
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old May 11th, 2009, 08:56 PM   #5035
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
Like the proposed temporary expansion in Bristol? The volume of existing, world-cup worthy stadia in Brazil? Or all those full stadiums in Italy?
1. It won't/shouldn't be a temporary expansion in Bristol the demand is there!!
2. Yes but the demand for football is there, give them the nice facilities and they can cater to it
3. Every country has had it's bad attendance years, just so happens italy is having it now, and it is clearly down to the evil that is televised football, not hooliganism! Italy has the demand, they all do.

Quote:
I get your point and agree with it in part, but let's not kid ourselves: Like the Olympics the World Cup has become an opportunity to enhance facilities, even if just by improving the amenities and cosmetic features. Just as people do extra to clean their homes before company arrives, whoever is selected as host nation will see several facilities get improvements that otherwise wouldn't have been done, or at least not been done then, were it not for the WC. Otherwise the only absolute to support your case in this facet of the discussion is Germany.
I have no problem with countries building new facilities. I just hate countries overstretching and building white elephants just so they can host these events.

I want there to be a demand first, is what i am saying.

Quote:
Doesn't mean the US should be discounted from an open bidding process, either.
of course not, but if it is my vote they ain't getting it.

Quote:
Well how else was I to interpret your post that said:

"I think it is unfair for america to say we want the world cup because our game needs a jump start, when other countries have had to do it the hard way, and the real fact is we already gave you a jump start and if your flagging again so soon then surely that tells you something..."
needs a jump start doesn't mean you need the world cup, if you need a jump start it means you need it to get the car started right away, you can always wheel it to a mechanic, same with football, the world cup will jump start the game, if it isn't there it will be a slower process

i said if your flagging, i didn't say you were as you highlighted

Quote:
Then perhaps you won't mind putting an England bid on hold while the Netherlands/Belgium play host, and then maybe some Balkan nations, Scotland/Wales, Russia, etc.
1. i did say recently, and based on that i didn't realise 1966 was??

2. I'd rather it went to netherlands/Belgium ahead of us anyway

Quote:
Here you and I may be differing in the direction we're coming from. I agree the money factor has impacted the game but am taking a realistic view for this particular debate, not an ideological one. Besides, keeping the WC within the fold of the most invested nations might serve to enable an oligopoly among chief nations/leagues, in much the same way the UEFA CL maintains the status quo among bigger clubs (which you also point out). I think FIFA has a broader mission than that, even if I do think Blatter unfairly punishes UEFA members.
I never said it should just stay in Europe, i said the established, where there is demand, and where sucessful world cups have been held previously.

The facts are that atm the best players come near exclusively from Europe, South america and west/north africa. If south america could keep it's best players there would be no harm to the world game. After all the best North africans tend to stay in North Africa especially Egypt.

I don't see it as impossible, all that is needed is faith in Brazil and Argentina from a massive TV company and they could potentially create world wide leagues imagine a Brazilian league with all the great brazilians around the world... i digress...

Basically until an Asia country starts pumping Europe with superstars it can never be claimed that not holding world cups there is harming them, as it didn't take world cups in africa... granted in africa it was closer ties to Europe culturally and many Europeans playing for the country of their parents, but still...

Then the world cup will be the world cup, people would see players they rarely get to see and it would mean a lot more.

Quote:
Though we both feel this is unlikely, and leaving the ideological option out since it's unlikely, why would this scenario would be worse compared to today? More competition?!!
It will weaken the power of the european game, as if africans/SAs etc were split between the two then the TV deals would be less, the wealth would be less, and i have a feeling with your business models for sport it would tip in your favour, and then who knows... worst case scenario of course

Quote:
No one does, sir. No one does.
at least we can agree on that

Quote:
Now hear it this way, as told from ManU and Madrid supporters: "The likes of Bristol can f*** off, Valladolid and Brescia should wait. Grasshoppers and Kiev can have it when they (are a) big football club, with big number of supporters." Not trying to offend, sir, but it sure sounds like the level of parity you're aspiring for at the club level isn't so favorable at the global, national team level.
But club football is a meritocracy you get rewarded for sucess and punished for failure. You don't get united fans saying Bristol city don't deserve premier league football because if they get there they obviously do.

However, in reality that is what man united do when they go and poach players they say if you were a big enough club you could stop us signing your best players, berbatov?? IF tottenham were, berbatov would never have left.

National teams build by investing in youth and in some cases getting lucky, that is all there best players come in one generation (peru 1970s) and stimulate greater growth through their success. The difference with national teams is that wealth isn't a indicator to talent level, so any country can produce a great team. Football culture, through having more people trying to play the game (Brazil, Germany etc) or excellent understanding of the game through coaching (Italy, the netherlands, spain etc) is what allows you to continue to create good sides and build your culture to a level where you are self sustainable like most of the current powers.

Africa doesn't suceed because of poor organisation and the fact that their national teams don't have a footballing ideology in that, most nations developed there's before the modern game, but in africa countries have for too many years of been coached by Europeans from differnt nations and watching their best players trundle to Europe at the earliest opportunity. The game grew at the wrong time in a way.

I want the same level of parity, clubs to representative of their fanbases but with the ability to punch of their own weight, and nations to be representative of their culture, and if their culture allows the to punch harder then so be it.

Like i said you don't see many great players from countries with weak football cultures.

Quote:
Korea/Japan was a decidedly unique, political compromise that is unlikely to be ever repeated.
It still would've been a joke if they'd held it individually

Quote:
The matters of logistic issues from that event lead to the current no-cohosting stance and the unwritten rule capping venues at 16. And while you perceived the atmosphere as false/weak it seemed the event as a whole still did it's job, no? Maybe not the best, but they can't always be.
Well for the fact that the best sides (Spain and italy) were dubiously knocked out by the hosts and Germany got to the final, suggests not.

I try and forget it.

Quote:
Most importantly, if any nation is to improve their status and mirror the capacities and atmosphere of the "established" favorites, they'll need such sample events and exposure to make that climb unless your idealize version of business practices comes to light.
NO i'd rather they developed there own style. South american and european styles are similar by coincidence, but they are still different in near enough every country.

Quote:
Granted, explaining your thoughts about the WC in general helps to clarify your perspective in this debate. Perhaps we agree on more things in principal, I simply view the decisions for this particular bid process with more basis on current conditions than what I'd ideally like them be. Remember, I favor the next two events going to England and Australia for some of the reasons you're offering. I simply find the level of outright dismissal for a US bid to be comical.

Cheers.
I'd give it to the states over OZ if they used a load ovals, that's for sure.

Yes i agree i am way too much of a purist idealist on football, but hey ho

If i had to choose where the next world cup outside Europe went (2022), i'd choose Morocco or Egypt!

Last edited by bigbossman; May 11th, 2009 at 09:11 PM.
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old May 11th, 2009, 09:01 PM   #5036
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
what has that got to with it...
In this debate I'm suggesting FIFA is obligated to spread the wealth, as it were, by using the WC as an excuse to stimulate investment in the game. Not as THE deciding factor, but as a factor.
Quote:
Feyenoord are a bigger club than middlesbrough but middlesbrough have more money because they are in England. That is what i mean. Clubs should have the wealth their fanbase deserves not because they have a rich owner or play in a rich league.
Re: Wealthy owner - agreed.
Re: Wealthy league - disagree. I'm assuming you don't mean wealthier leagues need to supplement funds for smaller leagues but are aspiring for a day when less money was directed towards the likes of Pool and Milan, but in lieu of that Utopian scheme we need to account for the fact that, in all likelihood, some teams will always be bigger and some leagues are always going to be bigger. Surely Feyenoord shouldn't be treated differently than, say, Inverness?
Quote:
But at the same time wealth shouldn't allow you to buy all the best players and horde them, it's a fine balancing act!
Agreed, but that's partly a roster limit issue which we'll reserve for elsewhere.

Equal distribution of UEFA funds to the leagues/national associations
Equal distribution of league revenues to its members
All else reserved to the club
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old May 11th, 2009, 09:14 PM   #5037
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
1. i did say recently, and based on that i didn't realise 1966 was??
Well, it's more recent than when Netherlands last hosted.
Quote:
2. I'd rather it went to netherlands/Belgium ahead of us anyway
Kudos, to you then, for your openness. I'd be thrilled for either them or England, to be honest. If anything I fear an English event failing to achieve the hype it would surely get.
Quote:
I don't see it as impossible, all that is needed is faith in Brazil and Argentina from a massive TV company and they could potentially create world wide leagues imagine a Brazilian league with all the great brazilians around the world... i digress...
I would like to see the results of Brazil's event and what that can do for their domestic game, especially as they've refined their league format. Truly a rising economic power.
Quote:
It will weaken the power of the european game, as if africans/SAs etc were split between the two then the TV deals would be less, the wealth would be less, and i have a feeling with your business models for sport it would tip in your favour, and then who knows... worst case scenario of course
Though that also sounds a bit like your hope for more leagues to be truly domestic. Regardless, I don't see the established leagues losing too much power and prestige. Not in our generation, anyway.
Quote:
Well for the fact that the best sides (Spain and italy) were dubiously knocked out by the hosts and Germany got to the final, suggests not.
With regards to the hosting, however, they did fine. Suitable facilities, arrangements, etc. On the field shenanigans could take place anywhere.

Besides, I contend anything that sees Italy eliminated early is good for the game!


So we're not in complete agreement but that's fine. We've an off-season at Islington to fret about. Thus, I'll move to table our non-architectural discussion for the sake of the thread.

Cheers.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old May 11th, 2009, 09:20 PM   #5038
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
In this debate I'm suggesting FIFA is obligated to spread the wealth, as it were, by using the WC as an excuse to stimulate investment in the game. Not as THE deciding factor, but as a factor.
But then shouldn't all the world cups be going to africa where the talent is there but the organisation and wealth is severly lacking??

Quote:
Re: Wealthy owner - agreed.
I'm a crazy advocate of the germany club model! or even the barca/real madrid model

Quote:
Re: Wealthy league - disagree. I'm assuming you don't mean wealthier leagues need to supplement funds for smaller leagues but are aspiring for a day when less money was directed towards the likes of Pool and Milan, but in lieu of that Utopian scheme we need to account for the fact that, in all likelihood, some teams will always be bigger and some leagues are always going to be bigger. Surely Feyenoord shouldn't be treated differently than, say, Inverness?
Remember our discussion?? When i advocated regional leagues. We can't and shouldn't bring the big leagues down by sanctioning them, when can bring them down by merging the smaller leagues together and into the big leagues to create super leagues that have the same/similar population pool to the big leagues. Thus meaning the big clubs in the small countries can kep their top talent, and mean that the playing field in Europe would be evened out.

Also this is the problem, in england traditionally we have more "big" clubs than our top division can handle that is the success, in Holland they have maybe 7-8 who have the fanbase in the league. A league is only as strong as it's weakest link, and our weakest link is stronger because our population is larger.

I am not suggesting the premier league gives the dutch league money, i am saying that if the premier league was no richer than the top dutch teams then why would the top dutch players come to England.

The premier league financially dopes anyway...

Quote:
Agreed, but that's partly a roster limit issue which we'll reserve for elsewhere.

Equal distribution of UEFA funds to the leagues/national associations
Equal distribution of league revenues to its members
All else reserved to the club
I'd equally distrube UEFA TV money it's a joke that man united made more on TV the year Porto won the champions league...

I wouldn't distribute all league revenue equally, only a %, you should be rewarded for where you come in the league with higher revenue.
bigbossman no está en línea  
Old May 11th, 2009, 09:25 PM   #5039
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbossman View Post
I'm a crazy advocate of the germany club model! or even the barca/real madrid model
Ah, yes. If only we could all have access to the King and his political and financial resources.

But you're correct, Germany's rules regarding group makeup of ownership is ideal. Find a way to enforce that of all clubs and you've my vote.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old May 11th, 2009, 09:33 PM   #5040
bigbossman
Registered User
 
bigbossman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South East London
Posts: 3,408
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
Well, it's more recent than when Netherlands last hosted.
touché

Quote:
Kudos, to you then, for your openness. I'd be thrilled for either them or England, to be honest. If anything I fear an English event failing to achieve the hype it would surely get.
Our fans don't deserve it, we're too arrogant. We believe it is our destiny and that we should win. ALthough now the Bigbossman is Italian/Spanish/German/Greek/Andorran brigade will start up!

Quote:
I would like to see the results of Brazil's event and what that can do for their domestic game, especially as they've refined their league format. Truly a rising economic power.
Judging by the shitty stadium renovations they have planned not much. What they need is a bumper TV deal in advance, then they can go and buy the best players back for the big clubs, but apparently it has been tried with one or two clubs before but corruption has lead to managers and agents pocketing the money.

Quote:
Though that also sounds a bit like your hope for more leagues to be truly domestic.
Exactly what i hope for. I don't want an NBA or an NFL where all the best players play in 1 or 2 places. I want the world cup to be where all the best players come together and it's a festival, just like it used to be.

Quote:
Regardless, I don't see the established leagues losing too much power and prestige. Not in our generation, anyway.
It can happen, if the ******* East asians wouldn't care so much about our leagues. They're the ones that give us all this bloody money.

Quote:
With regards to the hosting, however, they did fine. Suitable facilities, arrangements, etc. On the field shenanigans could take place anywhere.
too many athletics stadiums, not that many travelling fans, bribing referees :nuts. It was probably the most unaccessible world cup since Chile 1962 or Mexico 1970.

Quote:
Besides, I contend anything that sees Italy eliminated early is good for the game!
so much hate for italy lol

Quote:
So we're not in complete agreement but that's fine. We've an off-season at Islington to fret about. Thus, I'll move to table our non-architectural discussion for the sake of the thread.

Cheers.
DOn't talk to me about Arsenal it's too depressing...
bigbossman no está en línea  


Closed Thread

Tags
australia, united states of america, world cup

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu