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 17th, 2010, 11:48 PM   #7421
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,772
Likes (Received): 10327

Not sure about the Abe Lincoln part, but the rest is true. Pretty big news and there are suggestions FIFA might delay December's vote until the claims have been investigated fully

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/9099326.stm
RobH no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old October 18th, 2010, 12:43 AM   #7422
dacrio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 529
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
FIFA are considering postponing the decision on the 2018 and 2022 World Cups as they investigate allegations that two senior members offered to sell their votes.


Link
good idea.

it would be better that in December fifa's members will decide only for 2018. or is Blatter to decide who will host the World Cup.
dacrio no está en línea  
Old October 18th, 2010, 12:50 AM   #7423
Rev Stickleback
Registered User
 
Rev Stickleback's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,107
Likes (Received): 1924

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gondolier View Post
Oh, hogwash. It's just a rather specious attempt to give 4 more teams in their makeup. The IOC certainly doesn't buy that 4-sub-nations argument.
GB competed in the Olympics as Britain from the outset. There's nothing to suggest the countries were forced to, they just did, and the precedent was set. They also used to happily send a GB football team to the olympics too, with the distiction being that it was an amateur team. When other countries started playing pros in international matches, the British football team pulled out of the Olympics. IT was a dispute that would rumble on through the formation of FIFA and the world cup, which is why the British nations didn't enter until 1950. People like to believe it was due to arrogance, believing England were the best in the world and had nothing to prove, but that hardly explains why Northern Ireland and Wales would refuse to take part too.

Quote:
It puts FIFA in the same league as the int'l beauty pageants who recognize all those little territories (MIss Marianas Islands, Miss Isle of Man, etc.) as separate nations so they will get their requisite 60+ nations since most of the moslem countries and a few holdouts, don't bother with them.
Football's the most popular and most widespread game in the entire world. It's not exactly crying out for teams to make up the numbers.


Quote:
Uhmmm..there was another league prior to 1994...except it was not as well funded and put together as the post-1994 progeny.
It "lacked funding" because it was an amateur league watched by nobody. Pro soccer was dead in the USA between the NASL folding and MLS forming.
Rev Stickleback no está en línea  
Old October 18th, 2010, 02:38 AM   #7424
Gondolier
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 303
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rev Stickleback View Post
Football's the most popular and most widespread game in the entire world. It's not exactly crying out for teams to make up the numbers.
Never said it wasn't. Then why does it still have the curious anomaly of what the world (the UN and other nations) recognizes as one country, the UK, but still has four teams/ or gov'ng bodies...or what you want 2 call it... for the British Isles? For example, when it was the USSR, why didn't it have 12 or so teams then? Why doesn't Japan have four teams as well to represent their four major island groupings, etc., etc.? Why keep the anomaly? Why not streamline the membership to reflect today's reality...not the traditional precepts of nearly a century ago? What's good for the goose isn't good enough for the gander?
Gondolier no está en línea  
Old October 18th, 2010, 03:45 AM   #7425
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,019
Likes (Received): 4801

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gondolier View Post
Never said it wasn't. Then why does it still have the curious anomaly of what the world (the UN and other nations) recognizes as one country, the UK, but still has four teams/ or gov'ng bodies...or what you want 2 call it... for the British Isles? For example, when it was the USSR, why didn't it have 12 or so teams then? Why doesn't Japan have four teams as well to represent their four major island groupings, etc., etc.? Why keep the anomaly? Why not streamline the membership to reflect today's reality...not the traditional precepts of nearly a century ago? What's good for the goose isn't good enough for the gander?
The game originated in England.

And the earliest regular internationals were between the home nations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These international matches consequently already had a rich history and engendered a passionate rivalry.

In other words the national football teams of the constituent nations of the UK had a clear identity long before anyone had the idea to create a worldwide competition. It was too late to turn the clock back.

Why are you making such a big deal of it?
JimB no está en línea  
Old October 18th, 2010, 03:50 AM   #7426
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,019
Likes (Received): 4801

Quote:
Originally Posted by slipperydog View Post
Bullsh!t, speak for yourself. My statements have nothing to do with who I WANT to win, it's who I think WILL win, and who I think has the BETTER bid. And I listed the reasons why. Because I happen to live in America is irrelevant. And your admitted incapacity to be objective clearly indicates that we should deduce that all your comments on this subject are disingenuous and slanted. That brings nothing to the conversation when we're trying to discuss the merits and shortcomings of each bid. I didn't realize this was a rah-rah cheerleader pump-up-you-own-bid "I'm biased and don't care" thread. My mistake.
Easy there, tiger.

Rob was just being honest. That's to be applauded, surely? It would be nice if more people could be as honest. So wind your neck in.
JimB no está en línea  
Old October 18th, 2010, 04:00 AM   #7427
CaliforniaJones
Registered User
 
CaliforniaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Orange County
Posts: 371
Likes (Received): 255

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ma...d_Cup_bids.svg
__________________
My Globe-Trotter network
http://gttravel.ning.com
CaliforniaJones no está en línea  
Old October 18th, 2010, 04:17 AM   #7428
Gondolier
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 303
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
The game originated in England.

And the earliest regular internationals were between the home nations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These international matches consequently already had a rich history and engendered a passionate rivalry.

In other words the national football teams of the constituent nations of the UK had a clear identity long before anyone had the idea to create a worldwide competition. It was too late to turn the clock back.

Why are you making such a big deal of it?
I KNOW it originated there. So what?

Y am I making such a big deal? Because it is part of the disparity in the sport in favor of one nation. Basketball, the 2 volleyballs (indoor and beach; and formerly baseball) in the Olympics were invented in the U.S. Judo was invented in Japan. You certainly don't see the US or Japan, having 4 or 5 teams in the world championships for those sports just because they originated in that country, do you?

That history thing is a lame excuse. Territories and nations are rejected and accepted each year according to the political realities of the day. Why does one sport and nation stay as an exception?

Isn't sports all about fairness? Then why should one nation have four teams...and then sort of use that 'pedigree' or edge if you want to call it, to its advantage in a supposedly fair, unbiased open competition?

If the UK were upright and stalwart as it pretends to be; it would recuse itself from having 4 states competing, and just own up to one. But it's not. And the English football Association or whatever it is...is just too weak, a wimp and unprincipled to put things aright.

Fair is fair.

Last edited by Gondolier; October 18th, 2010 at 04:24 AM.
Gondolier no está en línea  
Old October 18th, 2010, 04:24 AM   #7429
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,019
Likes (Received): 4801

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gondolier View Post
I was thinking of that. And using Rob's US v. Oz argument(s) in a UK v. USSR parallel, I wonder if he would still pick his UK over Russia.
Firstly, it's England who are bidding for the 2018 World Cup. Not the UK. No one refers to the USA's bid as North America's bid, do they?

Secondly, England hosting the World Cup in 1966 and USA hosting the World Cup in 1994 isn't really a like for like comparison.

By 2022, there will only have been 6 World Cups and 28 years since the USA last hosted. By the time that 2018 comes around, however, 12 World Cups will have been and gone since England last hosted. 52 years will have passed. And, at a guess, 75% of the population will not have been alive to see 1966 or will have been too young to remember.

There's also the fact that the World Cup is an altogether different animal now to what it was in 1966. Twice the number of teams. Fifty times the number of foreign visitors (few fans travelled abroad back then). And a hundred times the amount of worldwide press and TV coverage. It is totally unrecognizable from what it was back in '66. So although England has hosted a World Cup, long ago, she hasn't had the opportunity to host the mammoth tournament that it has now become.

Of course, that still leaves Russia - and Holland / Belgium - with the edge on this particular issue. But England 1966 shouldn't count against England's bid for 2018 to quite the same extent as USA 1994 could count against the USA's bid for 2022.
JimB no está en línea  
Old October 18th, 2010, 04:26 AM   #7430
slipperydog
Registered User
 
slipperydog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,852
Likes (Received): 2401

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
But England 1966 shouldn't count against England's bid for 2018 to quite the same extent as USA 1994 could count against the USA's bid for 2022.
In your opinion. We will have to see if FIFA agrees.
slipperydog no está en línea  
Old October 18th, 2010, 04:43 AM   #7431
Gondolier
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 303
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
Firstly, it's England who are bidding for the 2018 World Cup. Not the UK. No one refers to the USA's bid as North America's bid, do they?
JimB, you make the distinctions. I do not recognize them. So I will call it the UK as one team.

The USA's bid is actually North America's bid. It is CONCACAF's sole entry backed by that federation. You want me to get things right one way...but you don't the other.
Gondolier no está en línea  
Old October 18th, 2010, 04:57 AM   #7432
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

Why doesn't OZ wait until 2026 where they can run unopposed?

Are they that afraid of China?
hngcm no está en línea  
Old October 18th, 2010, 05:07 AM   #7433
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 hngcm View Post
Why doesn't OZ wait until 2026 where they can run unopposed?

Are they that afraid of China?
__________________

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


CONO SUR
CHILE - ARGENTINA - URUGUAY
Bolsilludo no está en línea  
Old October 18th, 2010, 05:12 AM   #7434
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimethyltryptamine View Post



Europe is not the only market that matters when it comes to televising the World Cup. China has more viewers than Europe and is growing faster. Key word, growth.
So why not give China a world cup?
hngcm no está en línea  
Old October 18th, 2010, 05:20 AM   #7435
_X_
Registered User
 
_X_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Geelong,Australia
Posts: 1,387
Likes (Received): 510

Quote:
Originally Posted by hngcm View Post
Why doesn't OZ wait until 2026 where they can run unopposed?

Are they that afraid of China?
Unlike CONCACAF there are numerous options in the AFC as per current bid.
All we can do is deal with the opponents we have,they are the only countries that have put their hand up.
CONCACAF will only present 1 bid again in 2026,this will be a unique set of circumstances,the likes of which many potential hosts from around the globe must be extremely envious of an actual uncontested bid when the hosting rights are open to 3 confederations.
Many Americans will experience 3 to 4 home WCs in their lifetime .Already since England hosted the Americas have had 1970,1978,1986,1994, and 2014 beckons.To have to wait an extra 1460 days isn't to much to ask surely
I will see one and only one World Cup on home soil if FIFA gives us that honour.What an amazing opportunity to turbo charge Asian football at the very earliest time
__________________
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 18th, 2010, 05:22 AM   #7436
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,019
Likes (Received): 4801

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gondolier View Post
I KNOW it originated there. So what?

Y am I making such a big deal? Because it is part of the disparity in the sport in favor of one nation. Basketball, the 2 volleyballs (indoor and beach; and formerly baseball) in the Olympics were invented in the U.S. Judo was invented in Japan. You certainly don't see the US or Japan, having 4 or 5 teams in the world championships for those sports just because they originated in that country, do you?

That history thing is a lame excuse. Territories and nations are rejected and accepted each year according to the political realities of the day. Why does one sport and nation stay as an exception?

Isn't sports all about fairness? Then why should one nation have four teams...and then sort of use that 'pedigree' or edge if you want to call it, to its advantage in a supposedly fair, unbiased open competition?

If the UK were upright and stalwart as it pretends to be; it would recuse itself from having 4 states competing, and just own up to one. But it's not. And the English football Association or whatever it is...is just too weak, a wimp and unprincipled to put things aright.

Fair is fair.
You really are being a bit daft.

What is unfair about it?

What possible advantage is to be gained by playing as four separate nations and thereby reducing the potential pool of players that can be picked by any one team? Think about it. In fact, if the home nations had always played as the UK rather than as four individual nations, they would most likely have enjoyed far MORE success - quite possibly winning the World Cup on multiple occasions.

As it is, true world football greats like George Best (Northern Ireland), Kenny Dalglish (Scotland) and Ryan Giggs (Wales) played in only six World Cup finals games between them (Dalglish in 1978 and 1982).

But despite it all, those players wouldn't have had it any other way. They cherished their countries' separate footballing identities. What you fail to understand, apparently, is that the UK is most certainly NOT united when it comes to football. We don't root for the other home nation teams. If England enjoy a level of success, the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish don't feel good about it. Quite the opposite. So we don't, as you claim, get four bites at the cherry. The English still only get one. Likewise, the Scots. And the Welsh. And the Northern Irish.

Facetious arguments about Japan having 4 teams in the judo World Championships are just plain silly. Japan is a single nation. Why would it split into four? The UK, by contrast, is a union of four separate countries with unique identities and separate football teams that competed as such long before Jules Rimet came up with the idea for a World Cup.

As to the rather puerile moralizing about the "unprincipled" English FA, you are merely further displaying your ignorance. I realise that, in the US, there is sometimes scant regard for identity as teams are lifted out of one city and landed instead on another that will guarantee higher attendances and a more favourable city council. But that sort of thing is frowned upon in football. History and identity matter a great deal. That's why the separate identity of the four home nations' teams is so cherished and fiercely protected.

Last edited by JimB; October 18th, 2010 at 05:37 AM.
JimB no está en línea  
Old October 18th, 2010, 05:31 AM   #7437
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,019
Likes (Received): 4801

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gondolier View Post
JimB, you make the distinctions. I do not recognize them. So I will call it the UK as one team.
Well, then, you are merely heaping pig-headedness on to your ignorance.

If that's the impression you wish to give of yourself, be my guest. Fill your boots, fella.

Quote:
The USA's bid is actually North America's bid. It is CONCACAF's sole entry backed by that federation. You want me to get things right one way...but you don't the other.
Do me a favour, next time you wish to make such a trivial point, preface it with a "pedantry alert", will you? Then we'll all know to ignore it. There's a good lad.
JimB no está en línea  
Old October 18th, 2010, 05:35 AM   #7438
slipperydog
Registered User
 
slipperydog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,852
Likes (Received): 2401

X, an Australian World Cup will do virtually nothing to improve Indian or Chinese soccer.
slipperydog no está en línea  
Old October 18th, 2010, 06:00 AM   #7439
ExSydney
Melbourne-Sydneysider
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 370
Likes (Received): 78

Quote:
Originally Posted by hngcm View Post
So why not give China a world cup?
To win a World Cup,you actually have to bid for it.
ExSydney no está en línea  
Old October 18th, 2010, 08:33 AM   #7440
_X_
Registered User
 
_X_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Geelong,Australia
Posts: 1,387
Likes (Received): 510

Quote:
Originally Posted by slipperydog View Post
X, an Australian World Cup will do virtually nothing to improve Indian or Chinese soccer.
SD
Put the game on their timezone instead of 3am you must get more viewers-----must.Also we'll have another spot for WCQ

I'm not gonna bag the USA bid,cos I'm quite happy to go,I just want it to be 4 years later than you do.I think some of your gridiron stadiums look awesome-especially Dallas.
I've made great American friends thru football

I just hope we get our one and only chance at the thing-we're the missing piece of the puzzle for FIFA.Host here and you complete the rotation-all continents and all confederations sorted and a massive bonus in ratings and value for sponsors thrown in.We will turn out in huge numbers as always-record numbers at Olympics,record numbers for Commonwealth Games and Rugby World Cups,even record numbers for the UCI in Geelong a few weeks ago.
Empty seats you will not see at an Australasian World Cup.We are proudly multicultural with 260 different cultures recognised at the last census,and with football participation numbers easily the highest of all codes here the interest would be huge
__________________
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  


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 02:59 AM.


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