World Cup

[Deleted member 1740]

Didn't Portugal qualify back in 86 ? Have qualified for most tournaments so they are good enough

No one should co host - one host and that's it - if they haven't got the infrastructure then they either build it or don't host it.

Like Brazil have despite 1000's of people living in slums?

Do you seriously believe that is the correct way to go about holding football competitions?

Look at how much that stadium in the Algarve gets used since the Euro's!

 

[Dodger]

Didn't Portugal qualify back in 86 ? Have qualified for most tournaments so they are good enough

No one should co host - one host and that's it - if they haven't got the infrastructure then they either build it or don't host it.

No-one mentioned 86.

They were as bad as we are during the years I mentioned so what if they had been picked for hosting during those years as they had the stadia but in reality were also rans?

Same could happen in years to come for many countries England being one of them.

Co-hosting I really don't have an issue with it even if the 2 are not 2 of the 'best teams'. They should be there as hosts and surely even of they are only ever going to be bit part players they should be included?

If not then what's the point in the rest of those bit part teams that have qualified playing?

Hell,just make it Spain,Germany,Italy Holland every 4 years.

 

[Papas1982]

Like Brazil have despite 1000's of people living in slums?

Do you seriously believe that is the correct way to go about holding football competitions?

Look at how much that stadium in the Algarve gets used since the Euro's!

But how small should we go? San Marino? Gibralter?

How ow many people agree with Qatar as wc hosts? No footballing pedigree whatsoever, no current infrastructure. But lots of money!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Like Brazil have despite 1000's of people living in slums?

Do you seriously believe that is the correct way to go about holding football competitions?

Look at how much that stadium in the Algarve gets used since the Euro's!

The correct way is for the tournaments to be hosted by the countries capable of hosting them without putting themselves into financial ruin -

The first thing that needs sorting is the bid process.

Brazil have poured millions into both the World Cup and Olympics and shouldn't have been awarded either.

 

[Papas1982]

Part

No-one mentioned 86.

They were as bad as we are during the years I mentioned so what if they had been picked for hosting during those years as they had the stadia but in reality were also rans?

Same could happen in years to come for many countries England being one of them.

Co-hosting I really don't have an issue with it even if the 2 are not 2 of the 'best teams'. They should be there as hosts and surely even of they are only ever going to be bit part players they should be included?

If not then what's the point in the rest of those bit part teams that have qualified playing?

Hell,just make it Spain,Germany,Italy Holland every 4 years.

The atmosphere is always better whilst the hosts are involved. Now whilst not all hosts will win the event. If they're a team that host and get spanked in all three Group games, how does that help the atmosphere?

 

[Dodger]

But how small should we go? San Marino? Gibralter?

How ow many people agree with Qatar as wc hosts? No footballing pedigree whatsoever, no current infrastructure. But lots of money!

None agree,none.

Re SM that is you just being plain stupid now.They don't have 1 stadium capable nor do Gibraltar so that is never going to up for argument.

 

[Dodger]

The correct way is for the tournaments to be hosted by the countries capable of hosting them without putting themselves into financial ruin -

The first thing that needs sorting is the bid process.

Brazil have poured millions into both the World Cup and Olympics and shouldn't have been awarded either.

You can't judge that for years to come until the government see what,if any,return is made.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

No-one mentioned 86.

They were as bad as we are during the years I mentioned so what if they had been picked for hosting during those years as they had the stadia but in reality were also rans?

Same could happen in years to come for many countries England being one of them.

Co-hosting I really don't have an issue with it even if the 2 are not 2 of the 'best teams'. They should be there as hosts and surely even of they are only ever going to be bit part players they should be included?

If not then what's the point in the rest of those bit part teams that have qualified playing?

Hell,just make it Spain,Germany,Italy Holland every 4 years.

But they didn't get picked so it's irrelevant.

There is a clear difference between "bit part" teams that qualify and ones that host

One has "earned" the right by performances on the pitch in qualifying so have a right to be there

It's the finals - it should be all the teams that have earned their place , the previous winners and the one host country.

 

[Papas1982]

The correct way is for the tournaments to be hosted by the countries capable of hosting them without putting themselves into financial ruin -

The first thing that needs sorting is the bid process.

Brazil have poured millions into both the World Cup and Olympics and shouldn't have been awarded either.

why not? The government clearly feel the financial benefits will eventually better the economy. Brazil are actually a country whose economy wasn't as battered as most during the depression.


They have favelas as they do have a massive divide in rich and poor, but you can find areas of neglect the world over. Look how parts of London have been improved with the Olympics here.


Brazil fit your criteria of being big and good enough to host an event. If financial power is the key element then China Russia and Arab States will be having a good for wc and Olympics.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

The correct way is for the tournaments to be hosted by the countries capable of hosting them without putting themselves into financial ruin -

The first thing that needs sorting is the bid process.

Brazil have poured millions into both the World Cup and Olympics and shouldn't have been awarded either.

I very much doubt there's many countries that are capable of spending billions without getting into financial trouble.

 

[Papas1982]

None agree,none.

Re SM that is you just being plain stupid now.They don't have 1 stadium capable nor do Gibraltar so that is never going to up for argument.

I see, spotting a flaw in your argument is stupid?

in all seriousness, what size should we go to?


There are 47 countries in Europe according to google. You moan that only a handful can host on their own, but how many will you suggest should be able to host. All or nothing IMO.


Surely San Marino could co host with Italy, or gibralter with Spain. I'm sure they could build one stadium? Or are this countries to small to support you point?

 

[Dodger]

But they didn't get picked so it's irrelevant.

There is a clear difference between "bit part" teams that qualify and ones that host

One has "earned" the right by performances on the pitch in qualifying so have a right to be there

It's the finals - it should be all the teams that have earned their place , the previous winners and the one host country.

And if that picked host side are gash? South Africa.....

We'll agree to disagree because I know you will sit all night.

For a man that does not support his national team you have a hell of a lot to say on World Football.

I'll await the peaceful silence after England perform tomorrow...............

 

[Deleted member 1740]

why not? The government clearly feel the financial benefits will eventually better the economy. Brazil are actually a country whose economy wasn't as battered as most during the depression.


They have favelas as they do have a massive divide in rich and poor, but you can find areas of neglect the world over. Look how parts of London have been improved with the Olympics here.


Brazil fit your criteria of being big and good enough to host an event. If financial power is the key element then China Russia and Arab States will be having a good for wc and Olympics.

Very few of the stadiums in Brazil will be used after the WC, thats not much used to huge country with high rate of poverty and a poor (if any)welfare state.

 

[Liverbirdie]

The co-hosted ones have been superb but they are moving away from this all though to a format that is an utter joke IMO.

Yes, but 3 hosts is getting close to what Uefa want, which is a joke.

2 hosts max, otherwise it is just a back door entry for loads of diddy teams.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I very much doubt there's many countries that are capable of spending billions without getting into financial trouble.

Then don't host them

Greece and SA are two perfect examples - crippled by hosting major events and no legacy afterwards.

 

[Dodger]

I see, spotting a flaw in your argument is stupid?

in all seriousness, what size should we go to?


There are 47 countries in Europe according to google. You moan that only a handful can host on their own, but how many will you suggest should be able to host. All or nothing IMO.


Surely San Marino could co host with Italy, or gibralter with Spain. I'm sure they could build one stadium? Or are this countries to small to support you point?

Not at all..........San Marino and Gibraltar would never be considered as countries have to have a capability of hosting games around a few cities and the last time you,I and UEFA looked San Marino and Gibraltar did not have multi cities within their nation.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

And if that picked host side are gash? South Africa.....

We'll agree to disagree because I know you will sit all night.

For a man that does not support his national team you have a hell of a lot to say on World Football.

I'll await the peaceful silence after England perform tomorrow...............

Then you have one poor team as opposed to two or three or even four

Not sure what my non support of England has to do with talking about World Football ?!

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Then don't host them

Greece and SA are two perfect examples - crippled by hosting major events and no legacy afterwards.

I agree, unfortunately money talks.

 

[Papas1982]

Very few of the stadiums in Brazil will be used after the WC, thats not much used to huge country with high rate of poverty and a poor (if any)welfare state.

Are you sure? Some of the stadiums have been privately redeveloped by clubs so as to earn revenue during the World Cup. Others will be used by clubs also, plus they belive that the tourism income will be massive too, add sponsors to that and Brazil expect to turn a profit on the wc and Olympics.

Brazil il too have massive over population, but it's not down to FIFA to judge that. If Brazil can afford the wc, which there economist suggest it can, then they shouldn't be ruled out. Brazil had poverty before the World Cup and will do after, much like South Africa. I'd still rather see it in bith these nations than Qatar.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I agree, unfortunately money talks.

I also agree and it's money going it to corrupt people's pockets