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 October 14th, 2010, 11:04 AM   #7281
Bolsilludo
Yo ♥ Europa & Cono Sur
 
Bolsilludo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Montevideo URUGUAY
Posts: 4,951
Likes (Received): 4861

Quote:
Originally Posted by _X_ View Post
Anyway bloke time to move one
The wonderful thing about the WC is its diversity between confederations.Is the standard higher in the UCL,most likely,Euro maybe but this is the WC and some parts of this world are going thru a big growth phase compared to the established markets

I'm sure we'd all be supporting a combined Argie/Uru bid for 2030.
Don't get me wrong, I am glad that countries like Australia and New Zealand grow. But I think they still have long way to go, especially New Zealand.
__________________

..........
......


CONO SUR
CHILE - ARGENTINA - URUGUAY
Bolsilludo no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old October 14th, 2010, 06:30 PM   #7282
MoreOrLess
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,239
Likes (Received): 228

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysteryMike View Post
Yeah Australia were in Oceania, which probably further stamps the point. New Zealand are also planning on joining the Asian Confederation. 75% of the world's population resides in Asia, so I don't know what kind of growth you're talking about but clearly it can't be anything in the real world. Football has well and truly developed in Europe and South America. Asia is football's growth zone and that is exactly why Asia will get more spots in future world cups, to reflect the population demographics of the world. Asia's football is also coming up in leaps and bounds to reflect the demographics of the region.
Perhaps we should just forget about qualifying altogether and base it purely on population stats then? 32 biggest nations qualify and forget about the rest even if there far superior?

Trust me theres alot of room for football to grow in eastern Europe and South America, Russia being in South Africa last summer instead of North Korea or Costa Rica would obviously have been far better for the game and a much truer reflection of achievement.

As I said I think "growing the game" is just cover to Blatter giving out qualifying spots to his cronies like Jack Warner.
MoreOrLess no está en línea  
Old October 14th, 2010, 07:15 PM   #7283
AlekseyVT
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Moscow City
Posts: 8,283
Likes (Received): 7061

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolsilludo View Post
Don't get me wrong, I am glad that countries like Australia and New Zealand grow. But I think they still have long way to go, especially New Zealand.
Of course, there are lot of football teams who have long way to go for WC medals, not speaking about WC title (including Australia, New Zealand, Russia, Japan, etc.). But for play at WC and don't be boys for beating - Australia and New Zealand don't have such way.
AlekseyVT no está en línea  
Old October 14th, 2010, 11:05 PM   #7284
Trelawny
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Tdot & The Caribbean Region
Posts: 2,580
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by _X_ View Post
Yet they were the only unbeaten team at this years WC and gave us some great moments including






NZ=49
Equador=72
Probably the worst game I have ever seen in a world cup.

This is the reason why Ecuador didn't qualify. And Uruguay did well in the world cup. These great teams shouldn't be fighting for their lives to be in the tournament.While new Zealand plays mickey mouse countries to get in, shame.

Trelawny no está en línea  
Old October 15th, 2010, 12:15 AM   #7285
The Gazmon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 34
Likes (Received): 0

People are forgetting that this is a 'World' Cup, it's a representation of the world, not just the 'best' countries in the world. It's a collection of the best countries in their respective regions, of the world.

NZ earned their right to be there, regardless of rankings Oceania get 0.5 spots for how many teams? Over 10. South America get 4.5 for 10-teams, is that fair? In terms of proportional representation, no. In terms of footballing pedigree, then yes.

What about North Korea? They were the lowest ranking side ever to compete in the World Cup, so should they not be there? They earned their place, FIFA gave the AFC 4.5 spots and it's the AFC's decision to decide them as they see fit.

If you truely wanted the best teams in the world at the tournament then you'd not both about qualifiers and just have the top-31 teams qualify, plus the host nation; hardly a true representation of the global game.
The Gazmon no está en línea  
Old October 15th, 2010, 12:19 AM   #7286
Bolsilludo
Yo ♥ Europa & Cono Sur
 
Bolsilludo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Montevideo URUGUAY
Posts: 4,951
Likes (Received): 4861

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trelawny View Post
Probably the worst game I have ever seen in a world cup.

This is the reason why Ecuador didn't qualify. And Uruguay did well in the world cup. These great teams shouldn't be fighting for their lives to be in the tournament.While new Zealand plays mickey mouse countries to get in, shame.

What a match!, how to forget it.
__________________

..........
......


CONO SUR
CHILE - ARGENTINA - URUGUAY
Bolsilludo no está en línea  
Old October 15th, 2010, 12:32 AM   #7287
Bolsilludo
Yo ♥ Europa & Cono Sur
 
Bolsilludo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Montevideo URUGUAY
Posts: 4,951
Likes (Received): 4861

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Gazmon View Post
People are forgetting that this is a 'World' Cup, it's a representation of the world, not just the 'best' countries in the world. It's a collection of the best countries in their respective regions, of the world.

NZ earned their right to be there, regardless of rankings Oceania get 0.5 spots for how many teams? Over 10. South America get 4.5 for 10-teams, is that fair? In terms of proportional representation, no. In terms of footballing pedigree, then yes.

What about North Korea? They were the lowest ranking side ever to compete in the World Cup, so should they not be there? They earned their place, FIFA gave the AFC 4.5 spots and it's the AFC's decision to decide them as they see fit.

If you truely wanted the best teams in the world at the tournament then you'd not both about qualifiers and just have the top-31 teams qualify, plus the host nation; hardly a true representation of the global game.
The question is, should Conmebol keep 4.5 spots for the next world cups?. The answer is, of course YES!.
The number of teams in a world cup is finite. I don't care at all if you want more spots, but don't take them from us!.
__________________

..........
......


CONO SUR
CHILE - ARGENTINA - URUGUAY

Last edited by Bolsilludo; October 15th, 2010 at 12:45 AM.
Bolsilludo no está en línea  
Old October 15th, 2010, 07:28 AM   #7288
Walbanger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 1,239
Likes (Received): 1103

Wait, what?
No one wants to take away the .5 from CONMEBOL
Walbanger está en línea ahora  
Old October 15th, 2010, 08:29 AM   #7289
_X_
Registered User
 
_X_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Geelong,Australia
Posts: 1,387
Likes (Received): 510

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walbanger View Post
Wait, what?
No one wants to take away the .5 from CONMEBOL
x2
No one except Jack Warner is talking about changing the current allocations which are representative of the WORLD

How the hell we are talking about this 3 pages on after an idiot suggest we go back to a 20 team comp between UEFA and CONMEBOL I'll never know
__________________
Valcke-"Qatar bought World Cup",Platini-" We can't air condition the beaches and the streets in Qatar",Chuck Blazer-"you can't air condition a whole country",Phillip Lahm-"Qatar decision'madness' ",Wenger-" Winter World Cup Would Cause Problems Between Clubs, Countries And FIFA"
_X_ no está en línea  
Old October 15th, 2010, 08:56 AM   #7290
The Gazmon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 34
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolsilludo View Post
The question is, should Conmebol keep 4.5 spots for the next world cups?. The answer is, of course YES!.
The number of teams in a world cup is finite. I don't care at all if you want more spots, but don't take them from us!.
I never suggested removing any of their places, I think South America deserve that many spots, that said I don't agree with taking spots away from areas that aren't as good at football (or as highly ranked) and giving it to the more established areas. By doing that we'd have about 30 of the 32 teams from Europe or South America, hardly a 'World' Cup.

The current format is great, I think it works well and gives good representation. The only thing I'd change is give South America 5 spots, CONCACAF leave them only 3 (if preferred nothing wrong with the current system, it seems to work fine). The other thing is remove Oceania and make them part of the AFC, keep AFC as is but with 5-spots. The difference being that the early qualifying stages for AFC are regionalised.
The Gazmon no está en línea  
Old October 15th, 2010, 09:17 AM   #7291
MysteryMike
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 757
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trelawny View Post
Probably the worst game I have ever seen in a world cup.

This is the reason why Ecuador didn't qualify. And Uruguay did well in the world cup. These great teams shouldn't be fighting for their lives to be in the tournament.While new Zealand plays mickey mouse countries to get in, shame.
Buddy Equador got thumped 5-0 by Brazil, then they got thumped 5-1 by Paraguay and the reason they didn't make the world cup wasn't because of that game anyway, Chile gave them a deserved beating as well, they should have won that game 5-0 as well anyway they finished off an undeserving nations chances of qualifying. Where are you from any Trelawny? Oh yeah, the Caribbean right? Trinidad and tobacco right, who did they beat to make it into the world cup for 2006? Oh yeah, Bahrain, but it seems as though it's only when New Zealand beats Bahrain and qualify that suddenly they're beating mickey mouse opposition. New Zealand performed better at a world cup than either jamaica or tnt anyway and they can actually win games against decent opponents.

Last edited by MysteryMike; October 15th, 2010 at 09:24 AM.
MysteryMike no está en línea  
Old October 15th, 2010, 02:14 PM   #7292
Will737
...
 
Will737's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Me!bourne
Posts: 889
Likes (Received): 36

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysteryMike View Post
Buddy Equador got thumped 5-0 by Brazil, then they got thumped 5-1 by Paraguay and the reason they didn't make the world cup wasn't because of that game anyway, Chile gave them a deserved beating as well, they should have won that game 5-0 as well anyway they finished off an undeserving nations chances of qualifying. Where are you from any Trelawny? Oh yeah, the Caribbean right? Trinidad and tobacco right, who did they beat to make it into the world cup for 2006? Oh yeah, Bahrain, but it seems as though it's only when New Zealand beats Bahrain and qualify that suddenly they're beating mickey mouse opposition. New Zealand performed better at a world cup than either jamaica or tnt anyway and they can actually win games against decent opponents.
Trinidad and Tobago are mickey mouse and dont deserv a teem
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimethyltryptamine View Post
Oh sod off.
Will737 no está en línea  
Old October 15th, 2010, 02:29 PM   #7293
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,018
Likes (Received): 4786

Quote:
Originally Posted by _X_ View Post
x2
No one except Jack Warner is talking about changing the current allocations which are representative of the WORLD

How the hell we are talking about this 3 pages on after an idiot suggest we go back to a 20 team comp between UEFA and CONMEBOL I'll never know
The idea of returning to a World Cup finals of 24 teams will never happen. That doesn't mean that it is necessarily an "idiotic" suggestion.

Forget, for a minute, the irrelevant (in terms of bidding for the right to host the World Cup) arguments as to how many places should be culled from which continental organisations.

MoreOrLess' principle argument (which has subsequently been ignored) is that, because there are now so many teams that qualify for the finals and because FIFA consequently require 10 or 12 stadia of sufficient size and quality, in a minimum of 9 separate cities of sufficient size and quality, the bloated tournament eliminates the possibility of all but a small handful of countries being able to host the World Cup without having to build expensive and wasteful white elephants.

MoreOrLess was suggesting that, by making the tournament itself less elitist, FIFA has ironically made the bidding process more elitist. It's a perceptive and perfectly reasonable argument.

It's just a shame that too many people (yourself included) forgot that this is a thread about World Cup hosting bids (rather than a pissing contest about football teams and the quality of football in various continents). If they hadn't, maybe you wouldn't have had to complain about the last three pages?
JimB está en línea ahora  
Old October 15th, 2010, 02:34 PM   #7294
Solopop
Solopop
 
Solopop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,113
Likes (Received): 99

If I had my way I'd change the world cup to feature 40 teams. More places, means more people get a go.
Solopop no está en línea  
Old October 15th, 2010, 02:41 PM   #7295
Mo Rush
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 28,964
Likes (Received): 74

My idea

CAF 4 or 5 (rather than 5)
UEFA 14 or 16 (rather than 13)
CONMEBOL and CONCACAF 7 or 8 or 9 (not separately!)
AFC 3 or 4
OFC 0 or 1

Not sure if that adds up to 32
Mo Rush no está en línea  
Old October 15th, 2010, 02:47 PM   #7296
Aka
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,382
Likes (Received): 145

I just think that qualification in South America should become a bit more difficult. A ten team league is just too easy for Brazil and Argentina. They've struggled some times? Yeah! But imagine if that happened with an European team, for example.
Aka no está en línea  
Old October 15th, 2010, 02:52 PM   #7297
woozoo
Registered User
 
woozoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
Likes (Received): 185

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
The idea of returning to a World Cup finals of 24 teams will never happen. That doesn't mean that it is necessarily an "idiotic" suggestion.

Forget, for a minute, the irrelevant (in terms of bidding for the right to host the World Cup) arguments as to how many places should be culled from which continental organisations.

MoreOrLess' principle argument (which has subsequently been ignored) is that, because there are now so many teams that qualify for the finals and because FIFA consequently require 10 or 12 stadia of sufficient size and quality, in a minimum of 9 separate cities of sufficient size and quality, the bloated tournament eliminates the possibility of all but a small handful of countries being able to host the World Cup without having to build expensive and wasteful white elephants.

MoreOrLess was suggesting that, by making the tournament itself less elitist, FIFA has ironically made the bidding process more elitist. It's a perceptive and perfectly reasonable argument.

It's just a shame that too many people (yourself included) forgot that this is a thread about World Cup hosting bids (rather than a pissing contest about football teams and the quality of football in various continents). If they hadn't, maybe you wouldn't have had to complain about the last three pages?
My thoughts exactly, though I don't have access to a computer and work and Ill be damned if I could be bothered typing this shit out on an iPhone.

That said, I think 32 is a decent number of teams competing in the finals. I would definately not like to see it increased though, and if anything it could get smaller. But as I said 32 seems ok.

I don't see why they don't just host the matches at less stadiums, say 7 or 8. The pitches could cope with that amount of games. Is it a concern over infrastructure and the logistics of housing the fans in a smaller amount of cities?? I dont really see that as a problem either...
woozoo está en línea ahora  
Old October 15th, 2010, 02:55 PM   #7298
woozoo
Registered User
 
woozoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
Likes (Received): 185

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aka View Post
I just think that qualification in South America should become a bit more difficult. A ten team league is just too easy for Brazil and Argentina. They've struggled some times? Yeah! But imagine if that happened with an European team, for example.
The conmebol qualification system is the most fair of all confederations, and it certainly isn't easy. Argentina and Brazil qualify each time because they are consistently easily two of the best teams in the world.
woozoo está en línea ahora  
Old October 15th, 2010, 03:01 PM   #7299
Solopop
Solopop
 
Solopop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,113
Likes (Received): 99

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mo Rush View Post
My idea

CAF 4 or 5 (rather than 5)
UEFA 14 or 16 (rather than 13)
CONMEBOL and CONCACAF 7 or 8 or 9 (not separately!)
AFC 3 or 4
OFC 0 or 1

Not sure if that adds up to 32
Merge AFC + OFC and give it 5 spots.
4 CAF
9 CONM + CONC
14 UEFA

I think that'd be the best if you stuck to the 32.
Solopop no está en línea  
Old October 15th, 2010, 03:05 PM   #7300
AlekseyVT
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Moscow City
Posts: 8,283
Likes (Received): 7061

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aka View Post
I just think that qualification in South America should become a bit more difficult. A ten team league is just too easy for Brazil and Argentina. They've struggled some times? Yeah! But imagine if that happened with an European team, for example.
Actually, for Top European teams qualification is more easy. It's more difficult for Brazil to play with Bolivia at high attitude (it's need to made fly through ocean for majority of players) that for Spain in Andorra or for Italy in San Marino.
AlekseyVT 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 02:52 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