Tournaments have managed for decades in one country. What has changed?
nickjdavis
Head Pro
Looking at the drawn groups I think that this coming WC will be an absolute dirge, lacking any interest, jeopardy or excitement until the "round of 16".
Normally I'd be looking at the fixtures, identifying "must see" games and the "like to see" games, figuring out who was broadcasting what games, determining if there were fixture clashes between games I anted to watch but...
...the group fixtures for the forthcoming event are so utterly diluted, with all the "big" nations separate from each other and with 8 of the 12 teams who finish third also making it through to the "round of 32" there is absolutely no risk for any team who would be expected to make it through. Of the 72 group fixtures, if you exclude the home nations, there are probably only 10 that I would make an "organised effort" to watch.
Normally I'd be looking at the fixtures, identifying "must see" games and the "like to see" games, figuring out who was broadcasting what games, determining if there were fixture clashes between games I anted to watch but...
...the group fixtures for the forthcoming event are so utterly diluted, with all the "big" nations separate from each other and with 8 of the 12 teams who finish third also making it through to the "round of 32" there is absolutely no risk for any team who would be expected to make it through. Of the 72 group fixtures, if you exclude the home nations, there are probably only 10 that I would make an "organised effort" to watch.
PaulMdj
Well-known member
Costs go back to 1990, these are in the main football countries:
- 2026: Canada, Mexico, and the USA
- 2022: Qatar
- 2018: Russia
- 2014: Brazil
- 2010: South Africa
- 2006: Germany
- 2002: Japan and South Korea
- 1998: France
- 1994: USA
- 1990: Italy
12 of the last 14 hosts have stated they made a loss when hosting the WC.
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
So Newcastle are the latest club to sell the stadium to themselves
This is on the PL and I don't blame Newcastle. Why should other clubs who have played the system benefit yet those who follow can not? The PL clearly did not write tight enough rules at the begining and this is the consequence.
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
Looks like was done last year before they closed the loophole
Even so, other clubs are entitled to feel quite bitter about those who have done this trick already. It's a leg up they have not been allowed to take advantage of.
Swango1980
Well-known member
Absolutely. You very much get to embrace the culture of that country, it also becomes a big part of marketing that event.
It wouldn't overly surprise me if a future World Cup looks to play every single game in a different country. Or at least have about 60 host nations, using 10 countries in each continent. Or one continent, like Europe, with at least one game in every European country (removes players getting jet lagged from game to game)
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
I’m sure other clubs will , and I suspect they are looking for the next loophole to find to bypass the rules
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
Mexico were able to host the 86 World Cup on their own ?
Any World Cup imo should go to a single nation
PaulMdj
Well-known member
And?
Do their current stadiums all meet the FIFA requirements?
Could they host a 48 Team tournament on their own now 40 years later?
Could they afford it?
I absolutely agree it should be based in 1 Country but the reality is, money talks and FIFA are corrupt.
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
PaulMdj
Well-known member
You’re on a wind up aren’t you?If they don’t have the infrastructure anymore then they don’t host the event
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
Not at all - if a single nation can’t host the event then they don’t
Remove all the “joint hosts” etc and have one single host
If a single nation wants to host it then they ensure they have the infrastructure to do so
PaulMdj
Well-known member
That’s not the FIFA rules, everyone who has commented has already agreed we’d prefer 1 Country hosting.
Neilds
Assistant Pro
I'm not sure any country has the stadiums and all the rest of the infrastructure to be the sole host for any World Cup going forward. The only way for a single host to put in a bid would be to have it over about 3 months.
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
That’s not the FIFA rules, everyone who has commented has already agreed we’d prefer 1 Country hosting.
sorry confused at what the issue is ?Just stated that I think World Cup should be hosted by a single country and that Mexico were able to host it before on their own
Lucifer MorningStar
Well-known member
But of a loose point using Mexico as previous host so should have the ability to again. They hosted in what 1970 & 1982 at which time football was a standing spectator sport , health and safety was much less of an issue so stadiums don’t have to meet the same criteria they do these days. There’s also been a large shift in global capital , I’m sure if they could have afforded to do it alone they’d have tried to.
Just stated that I think World Cup should be hosted by a single country and that Mexico were able to host it before on their own
Realistically there are going to be fewer single country world cups being hosted based on costs, Infrastructure etc. To expect it to remain that way in future is unrealistic unless we’re going to the Middle East again and get the complaints about human rights again. FIFA is no longer just a governing body overseeing the game it’s now a multi billion dollar corporation and as such will go where the highest bidders are so more and more it will become a multi country hosted event.
Neilds
Assistant Pro
With half the amount of teams.
Just stated that I think World Cup should be hosted by a single country and that Mexico were able to host it before on their own
Maybe FIFA’s decision to expand the finals to 48(?) teams hasn’t helped.
Does the U.K. have 24 grounds at international hosting level? I doubt many countries have.
