# 2022 FIFA WC - Potential re-vote bids



## Laurence2011 (Mar 4, 2011)

Created this specific thread in order to keep the current Qatar thread clear.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Thanks for the effort, Laurence. I wonder if the title/objective should be altered to simply Possible World Cup Hosts, for considerations beyond just 2022? 

Anyway, as a launching pad here is the list of previous hosts:

1930	Uruguay
1934	Italy
1938	France
1950	Brazil 
1954	Switzerland
1958	Sweden
1962	Chile
1966	England
1970	Mexico
1974	West Germany
1978	Argentina
1982	Spain
1986	Mexico
1990	Italy
1994	USA
1998	France
2002	Korea/Japan
2006	Germany
2010	RSA
2014	Brazil
2018	Russia
2022	Qatar

The nations that have hosted twice:

Italy
France
Brazil
Mexico
Germany

And the number of events held outside Europe:

5 South America
3 North America
1 Asia
1 Africa


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

When I have time I'll look into the formal stadium requirements and then we should look at how each nation compares to those standards. I'm guessing that it's a very realistic and short list of nations capable of hosting without needing undue concessions (Qatar) or a partner (Netherlands/Belgium). I'm not saying those should be discounted outright, but it would be interesting to see exactly how many could do the job and how many would need serious work. 

It's entirely possible we come up with a list of some 20 nations capable of hosting, in which case we could be looking at rotations that mean the likes of Germany and France won't host again for some 50+ years!


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

China and Australia to me stand out as the most conspicuous countries never to have hosted a World Cup, but being perfectly capable of doing so. 

Other potential nations that could host in the 2020's would be Thailand and Malaysia (jointly?) or Malaysia/Indonesia (jointly), Turkey, Colombia (maybe jointly with Venezuela or Peru).

Later on, maybe in the 2030s, India could be a host.


----------



## LuisClaudio (Sep 13, 2011)

for me

Australia
USA
Colombia
Canada
Turkey
China


----------



## Lakeland (Mar 8, 2012)

mopc said:


> Other potential nations that could host in the 2020's would be Thailand and Malaysia (jointly?) or Malaysia/Indonesia (jointly), Turkey, Colombia (maybe jointly with Venezuela or Peru).
> 
> Later on, maybe in the 2030s, India could be a host.


None of those countries (except for Turkey) have any chance at a World Cup. If they went to Asia there is only three realistic options: China, Australia or Japan.

I said it before, the best thing for China is for the US to get the WC in 2022. That way Asia would be next in line and it comes down to them and Australia for the 2026 WC.

The 2030 World Cup is interesting. Would they go back to Europe for a Spain/Portugal or Netherlands/Belgium? What about Italy? In the next ten years they should have new stadiums built by Milan, Inter, Roma and Napoli. Is there any chance Uruguay (1930 Centennial celebration) could do a joint bid with Argentina?


----------



## TEBC (Dec 26, 2004)

FIFA shouldnt take that long to cancel Qatar WC.


----------



## GEwinnen (Mar 3, 2006)

Lakeland said:


> The 2030 World Cup is interesting. Would they go back to Europe for a Spain/Portugal or Netherlands/Belgium? What about Italy? In the next ten years they should have new stadiums built by Milan, Inter, Roma and Napoli. Is there any chance Uruguay (1930 Centennial celebration) could do a joint bid with Argentina?



This WC will go back to Europe, if the 2026 edition will be in Asia/Australia!
The centennial World Cup should go to the home of football!


----------



## Kerrybai (Apr 29, 2013)

GEwinnen said:


> This WC will go back to Europe, if the 2026 edition will be in Asia/Australia!
> The centennial World Cup should go to the home of football!


The centennial in Argentina/Uruguay would be great too. 5-6 stadiums for each country with the final back in Montevideo 100 years on from the first tournament.


----------



## ReNaHtEiM (Jul 15, 2013)

Kerrybai said:


> The centennial in Argentina/Uruguay would be great too. 5-6 stadiums for each country with the final back in Montevideo 100 years on from the first tournament.


Argentina would never accept not to have the final.
It's more likely that they bid alone for 2034 if Uruguay insist on staging the final.


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

ReNaHtEiM said:


> Argentina would never accept not to have the final.
> It's more likely that they bid alone for 2034 if Uruguay insist on staging the final.


I don't agree. The final will be in Montevideo, at Centenário Stadium. That's the whole point of it and Argentines know that.

I just think it will be more like 2-3 venues at Uruguay and 8-9 at Argentina.


----------



## ReNaHtEiM (Jul 15, 2013)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> I don't agree. The final will be in Montevideo, at Centenário Stadium. That's the whole point of it and Argentines know that.
> 
> 
> 
> I just think it will be more like 2-3 venues at Uruguay and 8-9 at Argentina.




The whole point of it is: why should Argentina have a co-host and abdicate the final when they can have the final and the whole tournament just four years later.



Like GEwinnen already said. If USA should get the WC from Qatar, it will go to Asia next and then most likely to England (which is by the way the best choice for the Centennial imo).



So 2034 would be South America's turn again.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

*Potential Australian Bid

No upgrades required*

*Stadium Australia (Olympic Park, Sydney) 84,000*
City Population: 4,800,000










*Melbourne Cricket Ground 100,024*
City Population: 4,350,000










*Lang Park (Brisbane) 52,500*
City Population: 2,240,000










*Adelaide Oval 53,500*
City Population: 1,830,000










*Under construction/renovation or planned construction/renovation*

*Hunter Stadium (Newcastle) 33,000 to 40,000*
Grass ends under preparation to convert to two new stands.
City Population: 310,000 (Greater Newcastle 540,000)










*Sydney Football Stadium 45,500*
Upgrade of facilities and new roof to fully enclose ground.
City Population: 4,800,000










*New Perth Stadium 60,000*
Site prep finished, construction starts later this year
(Image is indicative only, no designs made public yet)
City Population: 1,970,000










*Carrara Stadium (Gold Coast) 25,000 to 40,000*
Being renovated for the 2018 Commonwealth Games
City Population: 590,000










*Canberra 30,000*
Currently under planning, plans involve the stadium to be easily expanded an extra 15,000 seats if Australia is awarded 2022 World Cup.
(Image was the proposed World Cup stadium from the bid)
City Population: 380,000










*Possible New Stadiums/renovations from the original bid.

Geelong 44,000 Renovation*
City Population: 215,000










*Townsville 40,000 Renovation*
City Population: 190,000










*Blacktown Stadium (outer suburb of Sydney 34km from Centre) 41,000 New Stadium*
City Population: 4,800,000 (City of Blacktown 300,000)


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Australia Bid Cities

Sydney










Melbourne










Brisbane










Perth










Adelaide










Gold Coast










Canberra










Newcastle










Geelong










Townsville


----------



## IThomas (Feb 11, 2011)

I'd like to see in Australia/NZ: Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Gold Coast, Newcastle, Adelaide, Hobart, Auckland, Wellington. 

About my country I think 2026 or 2030 edition, with new stadiums and redevelopment of old ones.


----------



## EK413 (Jul 3, 2006)

Australia hosted the 2000 Olympic Games...
The outgoing president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) Juan Antonio Samaranch declared to the host nation, ‘I am proud and happy to proclaim that you have presented to the world the best Olympic Games ever.’


----------



## The Real Gazmon (Jun 20, 2013)

IThomas said:


> I'd like to see in Australia/NZ: Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Gold Coast, Newcastle, Adelaide, Hobart, Auckland, Wellington.
> 
> About my country I think 2026 or 2030 edition, with new stadiums and redevelopment of old ones.


Joint bid doesn't make sense:


Not needed, Australia is big enough on its own
The distances to cover, especially Perth to NZ
They are in different confederations


----------



## Manitopiaaa (Mar 6, 2006)

I don't get why this thread is open. If they take it away from Qatar they will give it a country that already has a plan in place for the 2022 World Cup and has the venues or can deliver by 2022. There's only 4 countries who can deliver (Australia, Japan, South Korea, and the United States of America). Japan and South Korea recently hosted and Australia's bid for 2022 came in dead last of the official candidates (it got 1 delegate out of 22 and was promptly eliminated). I think the US is the likeliest bet but if push comes to shove they'll probably bite their tongue and pick Australia (especially with Japan now hosting the Tokyo Olympics in 2020). If Australia wants the WC, they should revamp their plan. Getting 1 out of 22 delegates isn't a sign of support. Spain/Portugal could be a wild card though given their 2nd place finish for 2018 and the fact that nearly all of the infrastructure is in place.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Manitopiaaa said:


> I don't get why this thread is open. If they take it away from Qatar they will give it a country that already has a plan in place for the 2022 World Cup and has the venues or can deliver by 2022. There's only 4 countries who can deliver (Australia, Japan, South Korea, and the United States of America). Japan and South Korea recently hosted and Australia's bid for 2022 came in dead last of the official candidates (it got 1 delegate out of 22 and was promptly eliminated). I think the US is the likeliest bet but if push comes to shove they'll probably bite their tongue and pick Australia (especially with Japan now hosting the Tokyo Olympics in 2020). If Australia wants the WC, they should revamp their plan. Getting 1 out of 22 delegates isn't a sign of support. Spain/Portugal could be a wild card though given their 2nd place finish for 2018 and the fact that nearly all of the infrastructure is in place.


The whole bidding process was flawed though. You couldn't award it to second place in a tainted vote as it wouldn't be a true reflection of the vote. Many of those Qatar votes would have gone towards Asian votes if Qatar wasn't involved. Also strategic voting is done to knock out rival bids earlier, the pattern of which can be seen when you look at the rounds of voting. 

We also had the situation of having two world cups awarded at once, which openly invited vote swapping, a good example of this was the US and England openly voting for each other. That straight away disadvantaged Australia and South Korea for instance, because we had no member on the Executive Committee to offer a vote in return for one.

Saying all that the US bid was still the strongest and probably still is and is by far the safest options for FIFA. Also add in it's a safe, stable and great country and has all the corporate $$.


----------



## mopc (Jan 31, 2005)

With all the corruption and absurd demands and "quality standards", I think the World Cup should be removed from FIFA's jurisdiction.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

Kerrybai said:


> They most certainly did. Look up 'Hooligans an untold story' on Youtube.
> 
> By 2022 I would hope England will be a friendly enough place to host a World Cup. It would be an amazing host if they can prevent any hooliganism.


The hooliganism problems that were didn't happen in England as the local authorities have a firm grip on the phenomenon. It's when those people travelled to tournaments around Europe that trouble happened. As said, England was perfectly safe by Euro 1996.


----------



## Manitopiaaa (Mar 6, 2006)

WesTexas said:


> I love my USA but I am all aboard on the Australia bid.


It's impressive that Australia can host the event given their population. That would be like Texas hosting the World Cup:

If they had to pick 12 cities:
Arlington: Cowboys Stadium
Austin: Texas Memorial Stadium
College Station: Kyle Field
Dallas: Cotton Bowl
El Paso: Sun Bowl
Fort Worth: Amon Carter Stadium
Houston: Reliant Stadium
Houston: Rice Stadium
Lubbock: Jones Stadium
San Antonio: Alamodome
San Marcos: Bobcat Stadium
Waco: Casey Stadium


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Manitopiaaa said:


> It's impressive that Australia can host the event given their population. That would be like Texas hosting the World Cup:
> 
> If they had to pick 12 cities:
> Arlington: Cowboys Stadium
> ...


And yet they awarded it to a country with a population smaller than the cities of Brisbane and San Antonio.


----------



## kerouac1848 (Jun 9, 2009)

The US is probably best, an Australian WC doesn't particularly excite me at all tbh. I'd rather it go to an East Asian country next time it heads to the Eastern Pacific region.

Completely left field, but Morocco would be good although I'd be amazed if they have the capacity by 2022 to host a WC. 

England as an alternative to Arg/Urg for the 2030 is a decent idea if those two can't host it, but I'd prefer to see an effort to make that WC happen first.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

My take on the Australian re-vote bid, if it were to happen. Bearing in mind its at short notice so they'd want to limit the number of new builds.

Melbourne Cricket Ground- Melbourne- 98,000*
Minimal changes









Stadium Australia- Sydney- 83,500*
Minimal Refurb: New retractable stands, already planned









Perth Oval- Perth- 62,000
New Build









Adelaide Oval- Adelaide- 56,000
Minimal changes: Temporary stand at North End









Brisbane Stadium- Brisbane- 52,500
Existing









Tasmania Stadium- Hobart- 48,000
New Build









Docklands Stadium- Melbourne- 56,000
Minimal changes









*OR*

Sydney Football Stadium- Sydney- 45,000
Minimal Refurb: New retractable roof, already planned









Newcastle International Stadium- Newcastle- 44,000
Major Refurb: New stands at both ends









Port Darwin Stadium- Darwin- 43,000
New Build









Skilled Stadium- Geelong- 42,500
Major Refurb









Capital Stadium- Canberra- 40,000
Major Refurb/ New Build









Willows Stadium- Townsville- 40,000
Minimal Refurb and Temporary stands









*Would host the Opening Game
*Would host the Final
I know not all these photo's are realistic!


----------



## GEwinnen (Mar 3, 2006)

will101 said:


> Outside of England, quite possibly. The rules of hosting have changed, even ignoring all of the corruption in FIFA. Some other places in Europe should get a first cup before England gets a second.


All nations in Europe which are capable to host the WC hosted it at least once:

Spain 1982
Italy 1934, 1990
France 1938, 1998
Germany 1974, 2006
England 1966
Russia 2018


----------



## rodrigorc (Feb 28, 2009)

I vote for USA. It seems they are loving the game now, it would be a good moment to have another world cup there.

But what about:

Belgium/Netherlands
Switzerland/Austria
England


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

GEwinnen said:


> All nations in Europe which are capable to host the WC hosted it at least once:
> 
> Spain 1982
> Italy 1934, 1990
> ...


I'm not against co-hosting in conditions that merit such, as I think the joint Netherlands/Belgium bid was quite attractive, functional and we know both nations would support the event. And given that they couldn't host it independently it seemed a workable compromise for moving the event around. 

To wit, I think the answer toward co-hosting is to max it at 2 nations together (no 3 or 4 nation partnerships) and simply use up one of the automatic spots assigned to that confederation for the additional host nation. So if Argentina does a joint bid with Uruguay then CONMEBOL would get one less guaranteed spot in qualifying. I'd have no problem with that. Too many nations out there capable of doing half the job that we should find a way to make eligible for the event in the future. I'd have hoped that perhaps something like Poland/ Ukraine could someday step up and broaden the event's reach.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

Manitopiaaa said:


> It's impressive that Australia can host the event given their population. That would be like Texas hosting the World Cup:
> 
> If they had to pick 12 cities:
> Arlington: Cowboys Stadium
> ...


Many of those stadiums have fields that are too narrow to fit a football pitch. I know Amon Carter is.

Some of those places are also located in small cities or towns that lack the infrastructure to handle the massive influx of traffic the World Cup brings.

Baylor University (Waco) is also moving to McLane Stadium in less than two months.


----------



## Lakeland (Mar 8, 2012)

My ideal US bid:

1. New York - Metlife Stadium (82,566)








2. Dallas - AT&T Stadium (80,000)








3. Miami - Sun Life Stadium (74,918)








4. Chicago - Soldier Field or New Stadium (63,500) (probably 75,000)








5. Seattle - CenturyLink Field (67,000)








6. San Francisco - Levi's Stadium 68,983 (expandable to 75,000)








7. Los Angeles - Rose Bowl, Renovated LA Coliseum or New Stadium (93,420), (93,607) (probably 75,000)








8. Philadelphia - Lincoln Financial Field (68,532)








9. Houston - NRG Stadium (71,054)








10. Washington DC - Fed Ex Field or New Stadium (85,000)








11. Atlanta - Falcons New Stadium (71,041)








12. Tampa - Raymond James Stadium (75,000)











> Boston - Gillette Stadium (73,393)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Had a hard time picking between these and leaving one off. If I was forced to do it... I would take out Lincoln Financial Field.


----------



## JorgeGt (Apr 4, 2013)

USA is the obvious choice and a safe one (I actually wil,have a chance to attend  ) but, Australia will be great and won't a chage plans for the hosting confederation Asia, China has plenty of stadiums too.


----------



## Good Karma (Mar 22, 2011)

Manitopiaaa said:


> It's impressive that Australia can host the event given their population. That would be like Texas hosting the World Cup:
> 
> If they had to pick 12 cities:
> Arlington: Cowboys Stadium
> ...


Well Texas is bigger then most countries so that's no surprise. I'm more surprised that it still isn't an independent country.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

Would a UK bid count as a joint bid for a world cup as it technically only 1 nation state bidding?Or does the football associations bid for it as obviously that would count as 2/3/4 associations bidding with the special exemption the home unions get from Fifa.

If we could some how get away with it id like a UK bid for the Centenary World Cup in 2030, only thing i can see being a problem with it is how would you decide who out the home nations qualifies automatically i suppose they could have a Home Championship with the Winner qualifying automatically and the three others could qualify as normal through the normal method.

Id maybe have something like 12/14 venues split 
England 6-8
Scotland 3-4
Wales 2
N.Ireland 1

Hopefully by 2030 the FA will have changed name to the English FA, and we will stop saying ghastly phrases like lets bring the game home etc the world already knows we invented the game it doesn't need to be told repeatedly, maybe if we had not been so arrogant until 1950 we would have had a better relationship with other nations in Fifa and maybe we would have had a few more stars over the three lions instead of reminiscing about 66 constantly.


----------



## Good Karma (Mar 22, 2011)

Harry1990 said:


> Would a UK bid count as a joint bid for a world cup as it technically only 1 nation state bidding?Or does the football associations bid for it as obviously that would count as 2/3/4 associations bidding with the special exemption the home unions get from Fifa.
> 
> If we could some how get away with it id like a UK bid for the Centenary World Cup in 2030, only thing i can see being a problem with it is how would you decide who out the home nations qualifies automatically i suppose they could have a Home Championship with the Winner qualifying automatically and the three others could qualify as normal through the normal method.
> 
> ...



There's no shame in calling it the Home of Football. We are still playing the rules the English codified over 150 years ago. All I've been hearing about the Brazil World Cup is that it's the spiritual home of football and during the Athens olympics the constant slogan was 'Welcome Home'. England should not feel guilty about standing up to the corrupt organisation of FIFA, it's one of the few nations who actually do stand up to them. Most other nations are lap dogs to FIFA because of the money FIFA gives them to keep them sweet, most notably the African FAs who recently passed a joint notion with FIFA suggesting countries such as England are being racist in their opposition to the Qatar World Cup :nuts:.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Leedsrule said:


> My take on the Australian re-vote bid, if it were to happen. Bearing in mind its at short notice so they'd want to limit the number of new builds.
> 
> Docklands Stadium- Melbourne- 56,000
> Minimal changes


Docklands won't be available unfortunately due to AFL's stranglehold on the stadium. They will need it to keep their competition running during the world cup.

Edit: You also won't see stadiums in Hobart or Darwin because both cities don't have any major professional sides of any sport to use the stadiums afterwards (cricket aside for Hobart, but they use Bellerive Oval). That's why Geelong and Townsville would get stadiums because Geelong has a major AFL team and Townsville a Rugby League club.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

Good Karma said:


> There's no shame in calling it the Home of Football. We are still playing the rules the English codified over 150 years ago. All I've been hearing about the Brazil World Cup is that it's the spiritual home of football and during the Athens olympics the constant slogan was 'Welcome Home'. England should not feel guilty about standing up to the corrupt organisation of FIFA, it's one of the few nations who actually do stand up to them. Most other nations are lap dogs to FIFA because of the money FIFA gives them to keep them sweet, most notably the African FAs who recently passed a joint notion with FIFA suggesting countries such as England are being racist in their opposition to the Qatar World Cup :nuts:.


Don't get me wrong i am proud we invented the game, as well as our long and proud league system and many other sports but if we keep on going on about it then we have little to no chance of ever hosting a major tournament in football again, we are seen as arrogant and like we need special treatment, whether that's true or not its how its perceived by the associations we would need to get votes from in a bid. Im no fan of Fifa but until all the national associations leave to form there own governing body we are trapped by the rules.


----------



## Good Karma (Mar 22, 2011)

Harry1990 said:


> Don't get me wrong i am proud we invented the game, as well as our long and proud league system and many other sports but if we keep on going on about it then we have little to no chance of ever hosting a major tournament in football again, we are seen as arrogant and like we need special treatment, whether that's true or not its how its perceived by the associations we would need to get votes from in a bid. Im no fan of Fifa but until all the national associations leave to form there own governing body we are trapped by the rules.


I very much doubt this is the reason why England didn't get the World Cup in 2018. It's not a surprise that the 2 oil rich countries got the two World Cups. It's all to do with the dollar signs in FIFA's eyes, we all know FIFA is the most corrupt organisation.


----------



## Motul (Nov 8, 2003)

GEwinnen said:


> All nations in Europe which are capable to host the WC hosted it at least once:
> 
> Spain 1982
> Italy 1934, 1990
> ...




Polan can into WC. :yes:


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

St. Louis should have a brand new NFL stadium before 2022. I wonder if that will bump them onto the list of possible cities.


----------



## Harry1990 (Feb 5, 2010)

Good Karma said:


> I very much doubt this is the reason why England didn't get the World Cup in 2018. It's not a surprise that the 2 oil rich countries got the two World Cups. It's all to do with the dollar signs in FIFA's eyes, we all know FIFA is the most corrupt organisation.


Im not a spoke person for Fifa an yes they are corrupt, but it would also be good to see what we could do to get better relations with the other countries in Europe especially the successful run countries like Germany,Spain etc also remeber how poorly the English bid for i think the 2006 WC was recieved


----------



## The ATX (Mar 1, 2013)

Good Karma said:


> Well Texas is bigger then most countries so that's no surprise. I'm more surprised that it still isn't an independent country.


It used to be its own country. But it was struggling so badly due to massive debt resulting from it's independence war with Mexico that it allowed the U.S.to annex it.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Is there a reason so many American Stadiums don't have a roof? Is it a climate thing or just cost?


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

My breakdown of the US bid.

1. New York - Metlife Stadium (82,566)
:lock: obvious

2. Los Angeles - 
:lock: regardless of stadium situation. former host of WC final

3. Washington DC - Fed Ex Field or New Stadium (85,000)
:lock: world class city, National capital, dump of a stadium

4. San Francisco - Levi's Stadium 68,983 (expandable to 75,000)
:lock: world class city

5. Chicago - Soldier Field or New Stadium (63,500) (probably 75,000)
:lock: world class city. Will be the smallest stadium in event

6. Dallas - AT&T Stadium (80,000)
:lock: world class stadium in major state. Boring sunbelt city.

7. Miami - Sun Life Stadium (74,918)
lock, if stadium is renovated
75% without stadium renovation

8. New Orleans superdome (72,003)
80% famous city for tourism. known as a great host of the Superbowl/Sugar bowls.

9. Philadelphia - Lincoln Financial Field (68,532)
75% average NFL stadium, world class city with US history

10. Atlanta - Falcons New Stadium (71,041)
70%Recent Olympic city, new stadium. home of big world cup sponsor (coke)

11. Seattle - CenturyLink Field (67,000)
70% only because Seattle is a big soccer supporter. Only city in Pacific northwest capable of hosting. Far away from other host cities.

12. Houston - NRG Stadium (71,054)
65% (I honestly think this stadium is overrated and the city is boring)

13. Boston - Gillette Stadium (73,393)
50% world class city, historic US city. Stadium is too far from city

14.Denver - Sports Authority Field at Mile High (75,165)
45% nice city, beautiful state. city most likely to be awarded a game in Mountain Time zone.

15. Minneapolis - New Vikings Stadium (73,000)
40% new stadium, nice city but not a tourist destination.

16. Tampa - Raymond James Stadium (75,000)
10% old stadium, boring city, Miami is first choice of a Florida City

17. Detroit Ford Field (65,000)
9% has hosted Superbowl, not a tourist destination. former world cup city. motor city/music city history. Small stadium by NFL standards.

18. Phoenix - University of Phoenix Stadium (71,362)
8% boring city, boring stadium

19. Kansas City - Arrowhead Stadium (75,364)
6% soccer is becoming bigger in the city. Stadium is awesome. Still viewed as a boring midwest city by the outside.

>5% , St. Louis: most likely will have new NFL stadium. Former Olympic city. Another rust belt city.

>5% other NFL stadiums. lots of mid size cities with no real international appeal.

>5% Colleges stadiums, massive but most have bench seating and are in small 
towns that couldn't handle the crowds.

>2.5% San Juan, PR or Honolulu, HI
to far away. no stadium capable of hosting.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

poguemahone said:


> Is there a reason so many American Stadiums don't have a roof? Is it a climate thing or just cost?


Culture. We hate roofs. American football is an outdoor sport and we think it should be played outside. There are outdoor stadiums in cities with bad weather. In late season games its not uncommon to see teams playing in the snow in places like Denver and New England. NFL Football is also played in the fall so the heat isn't a big factor for southern cities due to the time of year, weather is pretty mild then. Seattle built a roof over their stands because it rains there more often than in most of the US.

The cities with dooms only have them so they can host the superbowl and final four basketball games.

This video is why we love outdoor games. Snow games are awesome.


----------



## flashman (Jan 13, 2011)

Really liked your breakdown of American bid cities, Weava. But I'd take New Orleans right out the mix for starters. Just no soccer culture or tradition there. Tempted to bump Miami out of the mix, too. It's a June/July event and the heat in Miami would be a concern. Same with Houston unless game is indoors and air conditioned. 

Phoenix is well located to host teams from Central or South America, but again, heat would be a factor for day games, a must when considering European television scheduling. If it wasn't for the corporate considerations, I'd pass on Atlanta as well.

I'd have Seattle as a lock, a madhouse for soccer. I'd rate Kansas City as a higher pick, even a lock. Game's doing quite well there. Washington's a tough one to bypass as DC United have been a staple of MLS from the get-go. But Baltimore's stadium is quite nice and not far away.

It would be interesting if this bid was designed to tailor itself to the MLS footprint and include Canadian cities in the mix. Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal would all tick a lot of boxes as appealing host cities. Granted, Toronto would need a stadium. But at least there's time to get it done. All the Canadian cities mentioned have huge soccer fan bases and are well established tourist destinations.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

weava said:


> Culture. We hate roofs. American football is an outdoor sport and we think it should be played outside. There are outdoor stadiums in cities with bad weather. In late season games its not uncommon to see teams playing in the snow in places like Denver and New England. NFL Football is also played in the fall so the heat isn't a big factor for southern cities due to the time of year, weather is pretty mild then. Seattle built a roof over their stands because it rains there more often than in most of the US.
> 
> The cities with dooms only have them so they can host the superbowl and final four basketball games.
> 
> This video is why we love outdoor games. Snow games are awesome.


I went to a Cleveland Browns game in December once and it was snowing so heavily the whole game and it was -15 Celsius. Snow was up to my calves at the end!

After looking, it turns out it was quite a famous game now known as the 'Snow Bowl' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ssHCwteX4M

Edit: I can't say I enjoyed myself too much in that cold coming from Sydney haha.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

flashman said:


> Really liked your breakdown of American bid cities, Weava. But I'd take New Orleans right out the mix for starters. Just no soccer culture or tradition there. Tempted to bump Miami out of the mix, too. It's a June/July event and the heat in Miami would be a concern. Same with Houston unless game is indoors and air conditioned.
> 
> *Phoenix is well located to host teams from Central or South America*, but again, heat would be a factor for day games, a must when considering European television scheduling. If it wasn't for the corporate considerations, I'd pass on Atlanta as well.


Phoenix is a west coast city, South America is directly below the east coast which means Texas, New Orleans, Atlanta, Florida, and heck, even Kansas City are closer to south America than PHX. Everybody will be flying to the games anyways so I don't think location in relation to south america matters anyways.


----------



## Lakeland (Mar 8, 2012)

flashman said:


> Tempted to bump Miami out of the mix, too. It's a June/July event and the heat in Miami would be a concern. Same with Houston unless game is indoors and air conditioned.
> 
> Phoenix is well located to host teams from Central or South America, but again, heat would be a factor for day games, a must when considering European television scheduling. If it wasn't for the corporate considerations, I'd pass on Atlanta as well.


Houston and Phoenix both have retractable roof stadiums. Miami's stadium is getting a roof as well http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=114993195&postcount=360

Atlanta is getting an MLS team in 2017 so they should be able to develop a fan base.


----------



## flashman (Jan 13, 2011)

weava said:


> Phoenix is a west coast city, South America is directly below the east coast which means Texas, New Orleans, Atlanta, Florida, and heck, even Kansas City are closer to south America than PHX. Everybody will be flying to the games anyways so I don't think location in relation to south america matters anyways.


True. 

I was thinking teams from the upper half of S.A. - Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, even Bolivia - and Central America would find it a convenient enough destination, in terms of both travel time and culture. Not that they'd have a say in where they might play.

Hadn't seen the update on Miami's stadium roof. Nice addition. I'm still unconvinced Miami's a great soccer city. It wasn't included in the 1994 World Cup.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

poguemahone said:


> Docklands won't be available unfortunately due to AFL's stranglehold on the stadium. They will need it to keep their competition running during the world cup.
> 
> Edit: You also won't see stadiums in Hobart or Darwin because both cities don't have any major professional sides of any sport to use the stadiums afterwards (cricket aside for Hobart, but they use Bellerive Oval). That's why Geelong and Townsville would get stadiums because Geelong has a major AFL team and Townsville a Rugby League club.


I know and that's why I said or Sydney football stadium because I know its unlikely docklands would be used, but it would be great if it was used. 

But your second point isnt strictly true. Fifa would want the tournament to be spread out across the country so Darwin especially is likely to get a stadium. In 06 a stadium was built in Leipzig even though there was no team there to use it after. Most of the 10 stadiums haven't seen another capacity crowd. And Manaus in 14 was only chosen due to its location.


----------



## Azrain98 (Nov 27, 2011)

mopc said:


> China and Australia to me stand out as the most conspicuous countries never to have hosted a World Cup, but being perfectly capable of doing so.
> 
> Other potential nations that could host in the 2020's would be Thailand and Malaysia (jointly?) or Malaysia/Indonesia (jointly), Turkey, Colombia (maybe jointly with Venezuela or Peru).
> 
> Later on, maybe in the 2030s, India could be a host.



Malaysia and Indonesia can try be host for WC 2030 since FIFA wanted one host nation from southeast asia..


----------



## Azrain98 (Nov 27, 2011)

for me it's ok qatar host the world cup 2022....why want re-vote..?


----------



## nothatso (Oct 26, 2013)

poguemahone said:


> After looking, it turns out it was quite a famous game now known as the 'Snow Bowl' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ssHCwteX4M


There is usually at least one game a year that is dubbed the "Snow Bowl", last year there were several. Here is another one from last season:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEXaZ4jrgjI

Anyway, snow wouldn't be an issue for the World Cup. :lol:


----------



## irving1903 (Nov 25, 2006)

weava said:


> 6. Dallas - AT&T Stadium (80,000)
> :lock: world class stadium in major state. Boring sunbelt city.


My biased opinion would argue against the boring part. But anyways wasn't the Cotton Bowl also included in the initial bid ?

I guess recent stadium projects in Atlanta, SF and Minniapolis would take precident over it. But it's probably one of the best of the original '94 Stadiums, along with Soldier Field and the Rose Bowl.


----------



## Lakeland (Mar 8, 2012)

irving1903 said:


> My biased opinion would argue against the boring part. But anyways wasn't the Cotton Bowl also included in the initial bid ?
> 
> I guess recent stadium projects in Atlanta, SF and Minniapolis would take precident over it. But it's probably one of the best of the original '94 Stadiums, along with Soldier Field and the Rose Bowl.


Even with renovations, the Cotton Bowl is really outdated compared to AT&T and NRG Stadium. Back in '94, FIFA didn't care about bench seating or modern amenities but now its a different story. 

If LA builds a new stadium, there probably won't be any games at the Rose Bowl.


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

Let's see. I vie for the US, of course. Economically it holds up, and it still holds the record for attendance (1994). 

To hold the WC you need between 8-12 host cities.

My choice would be:


Los Angeles
New York
Chicago
Washington DC
Seattle
Dallas
Denver
San Francisco 
Miami
St. Louis or Kansas City


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

We'd go with 12 I guess. 3 from the West Coast (LA, San Francisco, Seattle), 4 from the East Coast (Boston, East Rutherford, Washington, Philadelphia), 3 from the South (Atlanta, Miami, Dallas), and then 2 from elsewhere (Chicago, Denver would be my guess). This spreads out the games so most of the population has easy-ish access, but it keeps them grouped together to help travel for foreign fans. I also think it would be cool if we had a lot of cities host that didn't host in 1994. It would show how massive this country really is.

I hope Indianapolis is included again, but Chicago won't be left out for a second time.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

Leedsrule said:


> I know and that's why I said or Sydney football stadium because I know its unlikely docklands would be used, but it would be great if it was used.
> 
> But your second point isnt strictly true. Fifa would want the tournament to be spread out across the country so Darwin especially is likely to get a stadium. In 06 a stadium was built in Leipzig even though there was no team there to use it after. Most of the 10 stadiums haven't seen another capacity crowd. And Manaus in 14 was only chosen due to its location.


There is no way the Government here (who would be funding the new stadiums) would build in Darwin. the population is only 127,000 (of which 11,000 are military) and has no team to ever use a new 40,000 stadium or the population. is also a 4 hour flight from the closest major cities. Then there is also issues with things like infrastructure there, with an airport which shares a runway with the Air Force and lack of hotels etc.

Leipzig on the other hand is within driving distances to other major cities, has a population over 500,000, holds major concerts in the stadium and a football team which averaged 16,000 in the stadium in the 3rd division last year.

As much as I would like to see the world cup in places like Darwin and Hobart, it won't happen. Best thing darwin has going for it though is it's winter temperatures averaging around 30 degrees!


----------



## Ulpia-Serdica (Oct 24, 2011)

Another reason to move the tournament 

ISIS threaten Qatar World Cup terror attacks if FIFA don't cancel tournament


----------



## will101 (Jan 16, 2011)

Archbishop said:


> We'd go with 12 I guess. 3 from the West Coast (*Pasadena*, *Santa Clara*, Seattle), 4 from the East Coast (*Foxborough*, East Rutherford, *Landover*, Philadelphia), 3 from the South (Atlanta, *Miami Gardens*, *Arlington*), and then 2 from elsewhere (Chicago, Denver would be my guess). This spreads out the games so most of the population has easy-ish access, but it keeps them grouped together to help travel for foreign fans. I also think it would be cool if we had a lot of cities host that didn't host in 1994. It would show how massive this country really is.
> 
> I hope Indianapolis is included again, but Chicago won't be left out for a second time.


Since you were so specific about East Rutherford, I changed the others to be equally specific. Regarding this list, I would drop Philadelphia, as it puts four venues in a tiny space, and each of the major regions of the country should only have three. I would replace it with Kansas City, a large and nicely upgraded venue in the heart of the midwest.

But if the tournament will have grown to 40 teams by then I would recommend adding Indianapolis and Minneapolis. That would create a geographically diverse list of quality stadiums. And if we need a 15th, Charlotte should be considered.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

poguemahone said:


> Docklands won't be available unfortunately due to AFL's stranglehold on the stadium. They will need it to keep their competition running during the world cup.
> 
> Edit: You also won't see stadiums in Hobart or Darwin because both cities don't have any major professional sides of any sport to use the stadiums afterwards (cricket aside for Hobart, but they use Bellerive Oval). That's why Geelong and Townsville would get stadiums because Geelong has a major AFL team and Townsville a Rugby League club.


The AFL or NRL won't be held during a World Cup. But the main reason the AFL wants to keep Docklands, is so that it doesn't lose it for 8 weeks instead of just being out for 4 weeks.

As for Darwin and Hobart, look at my fantasy bid for Gamesbids.com. They will most likely be stadiums with an oval field, but seating infield (as they have no tenants yet). They could serve legacy A-League sides whilst obviously being used for the other football codes and sports like Cricket.


----------



## Manitopiaaa (Mar 6, 2006)

FIFA is shitting bricks trying to please the BRICS. Never underestimate their wanton craze for awarding the BRICS countries the games (even if the bids are underwhelming)

2010-South Africa (BRICS)
2014-Brazil (BRICS)
2018-Russian Federation (BRICS)
2022-Qatar (Not Brics but Qatar is the 'Arab' World Cup)
2026-China? (BRICS)
2030-India? (BRICS)

The Big Allied 11 already have mostly hosted so there's none of that "new fresh smell" that FIFA adores:
England: 1966
France: 1938, 1998
Germany: 1974, 2006
Italy: 1934, 1990
Japan: 2002 (shared)
Republic of Korea: 2002 (shared)
Spain: 1982
United States of America: 1994

It's really only Australia, Canada and Turkey that have yet to host the games of the Big 11.


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

China won't get a bid for the games. Their federation is too corrupt and messed up to properly bid.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Archbishop said:


> China won't get a bid for the games. Their federation is too corrupt and messed up to properly bid.


Errr....we're talking about FIFA here! :lol:


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

Well Qatar was united on their bid and had backing from AFC. China's football federation is too messed up to properly bid.


----------



## Good Karma (Mar 22, 2011)

Considering Europe has once again (tonight with Germany's World Cup win) proven that it is the powerhouse of world football why not bring the World Cup to Europe again in 2022. Out of The last 5 World Cup winners, 4 of them are European. 

But seriously though if FIFA are insistent on this continental rotation policy then every other World Cup should come to Europe. UEFA should start flexing their muscles more in FIFA.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

Good Karma said:


> Considering Europe has once again (tonight with Germany's World Cup win) proven that it is the powerhouse of world football why not bring the World Cup to Europe again in 2022. Out of The last 5 World Cup winners, 4 of them are European.
> 
> But seriously though if FIFA are insistent on this continental rotation policy then every other World Cup should come to Europe. UEFA should start flexing their muscles more in FIFA.


with that logic, the US should host every Olympics, we've won the medal count in 5 of the last 5 summer Olympics :cheers:


----------



## Good Karma (Mar 22, 2011)

weava said:


> with that logic, the US should host every Olympics, we've won the medal count in 5 of the last 5 summer Olympics :cheers:


Ah no China topped the medal table in 2008(it goes by gold medals first) just goes to show how arrogant the US are to change things to suit them. And who said Europe should host every World Cup?? I said it should host every other World Cup. It's only fair considering it is the most successful and has more potential hosts with more football traditions and culture.

The Olympics is different to the World Cup, without the USA in the Olympics the games would still be possible and would work (I.e Moscow 1980) but the World Cup would not be possible without European nations taking part. If all European nations voted to break away from FIFA and set up their own World Cup do you think the countries like the USA, Brazil wouldn't chose to be part of it. Of course they will.


----------



## ReNaHtEiM (Jul 15, 2013)

2014 SA
2018 EUR
2022 NA
2026 EUR
2030 ASIA
2034 EUR
2038 AFR

Sounds good.


----------



## Good Karma (Mar 22, 2011)

ReNaHtEiM said:


> 2014 SA
> 2018 EUR
> 2022 NA
> 2026 EUR
> ...


Exactly my point kay:


----------



## Lakeland (Mar 8, 2012)

Besides the US, Australia, Japan and maybe China (if their government invests a ton of money aka Beijing Olympics) we are pretty much running out of options in the rest of the world. I also think, countries are starting to realize what a waste of money hosting the WC can be especially if you don't already have the stadiums and infrastructure in place. Maybe things would be different if FIFA allowed the host country to take in some profits from ticket sales, merchandise etc... but you know that's not happening.



Good Karma said:


> If all European nations voted to break away from FIFA and set up their own World Cup do you think the countries like the USA, Brazil wouldn't chose to be part of it. Of course they will.


FIFA owns the World Cup you can't just set up another one.


----------



## Good Karma (Mar 22, 2011)

Lakeland said:


> FIFA owns the World Cup you can't just set up another one.


They naturally own the *FIFA* World Cup, but any other organisation can theoretically set up their own tournament if they wish.


----------



## Lakeland (Mar 8, 2012)

Good Karma said:


> They naturally own the *FIFA* World Cup, but any other organisation can theoretically set up their own tournament if they wish.


True, but without the history/stats and FIFA WC trophy it won't have the same meaning. It would be like the NHL getting rid of the Stanley Cup and playing for something else. The history is what makes these events special.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

Lakeland said:


> FIFA owns the World Cup you can't just set up another one.


It's not completely unheard of to set up another championship in the US.

you had all the schools that jumped from NAIA to the NCAA back in the 70s.

the NCAA took the college basketball championship away from the NIT which used to be the more prestigious post season tournament

There is now also talk of the big NCAA football schools breaking away and creating their own division and post season too after having the plus 1 playoff replace the BCS.

Then there was the AFC that went up against the NFL, the AFC was so successful as a startup league that the NFL decided it would join them and the superbowl was created by having the AFC and NFC champions play each other.

If all the teams started moving en masse to a new tournement, it would become more prestigious than the FIFA cup and FIFA would just become a has-been like the NIT.


----------



## dinamo_zagreb (Dec 23, 2011)

Lord David said:


> Wrong. If the government puts forward a bid. The Chinese will go crazy and support it.
> 
> They did so with their Beijing 2000 bid, as was their successful 2008 bid.
> 
> ...


I don't think they will bid until they are competitive, until they are at least on same level as Japan or Korea Republic - currently, they are waaay behinde. They didn't build anything on 2002 WC qualification and 2004 AC silver - instead of growth, they decreased big time.


----------



## moosefoot (Aug 7, 2013)

If it does come to that, I'm all behind USA. Australia's my second.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

I think a breakaway from the major countries is definitely possible if FIFA keeps making this much money. Think about it this way, FIFA makes over $4 billion off the world cup yet only pays out $576 million in prize money including 70 million to clubs for the use of their players. You can guess where the rest goes. If the top nations all broke away and started their own world cup they could keep all that money for themselves.

Even here in CONCACAF you have the tail wagging the dog. It's controlled by all the tiny banana republics who continually re-elect corrupt despots like Jack Warner to run the confederation because he runs it as a wealth re-distribution scheme. They run the gold cup every two years which I would safely guess makes tens of millions yet pays out $50,000 per team in prize money while the rest disappears into Jack's pockets and the pockets of Caribbean FA presidents that kept him in power. I know he's gone but the new guy is from the Cayman Islands. A guy from the f***ing Cayman Islands runs CONCACAF. You couldn't make it up. Could you imagine a guy from San Marino running UEFA??? Ridiculous.


----------



## andore.arq (Apr 27, 2009)

By now, anyone know how many people died in the construction process of the stadiums of QTR '22?


----------



## Manitopiaaa (Mar 6, 2006)

Good Karma said:


> Ah no China topped the medal table in 2008(it goes by gold medals first) just goes to show how arrogant the US are to change things to suit them. And who said Europe should host every World Cup?? I said it should host every other World Cup. It's only fair considering it is the most successful and has more potential hosts with more football traditions and culture.
> 
> The Olympics is different to the World Cup, without the USA in the Olympics the games would still be possible and would work (I.e Moscow 1980) but the World Cup would not be possible without European nations taking part. If all European nations voted to break away from FIFA and set up their own World Cup do you think the countries like the USA, Brazil wouldn't chose to be part of it. Of course they will.


You realize the "World" (it's called the World Cup) doesn't end once you leave the shores of Lisbon, right? This isn't 1491. So your European fanboyism is a bit ill-placed. By the same token, what happens to the World Cup if it's only Europe? It becomes the 'Europe Cup'. Then you call Americans arrogant for stating they won the most medals yet see nothing arrogant about making the World Cup a 'Eurocentric' competition? Please.

PS: If we go by your idea, then Portugal shouldn't be allowed to host the World Cup either. They've never won the World Cup nor have they ever been in the Finals. So if hosting is based on performance in the World Cup, only 3 European countries should host. Let's not piggyback on the accomplishments of France, Italy and Germany (and to a lesser extent England and Spain). Portugal contributed as much to a German win as Zambia. So why are you so proud?


----------



## ReNaHtEiM (Jul 15, 2013)

It's right that there should be a rotation to give the WC to every confederation over the years.
But Europe should get it more often than the others. Let's say 4 out of 10.

There are a number of reasons:

Birthplace of football
European teams are the most successful ones at WC's 
The money is still in Europe even if Asia is emerging
Europe can afford hosting a World Cup (not like most countries in Africa/SA)
In Europe there are the most countries that are capable of hosting
NA: 3
SA: 2-3
AFR: if at all 2
ASIA: 5-6
EUR: >10

:cheers:


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Good Karma said:


> Politics and Sport are intrinsically linked, saying otherwise is BS.


I'd offer a slight amendment that it's not sports, per se, but rather the money and media appeal around select sporting events. Few countries and politicians will make waves over a handball tournament or youth event, but the Olympics, Euros, etc. are global platforms and prime opportunities for graft. 

The greater the money and development involved, the greater the appeal for corrupt power brokers.


----------



## Topher51 (Mar 28, 2009)

rebbel13 said:


> That would actually be pretty sad, if American "Soccer" fans only know about their own MLS and not knowing the Clubs and Leagues where the best players are at. It would be the same as European Basketball fans not knowing anything about the NBA.


Speaking for myself, I know far more about multiple EPL clubs than I do my default MLS club. Not that I am ever in a position to pick watching the MLS or EPL, but if I was, EPL would win out 9 times out of 10.


----------



## Aulus (May 7, 2013)

USA, China or Australia.


----------



## BIFC (Jun 6, 2011)

China~ :banana::banana::banana:


----------



## Ladiesman020 (Jan 3, 2014)

I was all for a Qatar World Cup untill they started housing HAMAS
Now I say let it go to USA or Australia


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

rebbel13 said:


> That would actually be pretty sad, if American "Soccer" fans only know about their own MLS and not knowing the Clubs and Leagues where the best players are at. It would be the same as European Basketball fans not knowing anything about the NBA.


I actually do that with basketball. I watch tons of mid major college basketball games every year. Mostly Missouri Valley conference and occasionally top 25 teams. I haven't followed the NBA since the 90s.


----------



## franciscoc (Feb 7, 2012)

Possible candidacy of Spain and Portugal. 
The 3 Portuguese stadiums are new and are already completed (Da Luz, Dragao, Alvalade). 
5 Spanish stadiums are new and are already completed (Cornella, Cartuja) or near completion (San Mames, Peineta, Nou Mestalla). 
3 Spanish stadiums are remodeling project (Nou Camp, Bernabeu, Anoeta).











Portugal stadiums

Da luz (65.000)


Dragao (50.000)


Alvalade (50.000)



Spain stadiums

Nou Camp (99.000>105.000)



Bernabeú (81.000>93.000)



La Peineta (70.000)










Nou Mestalla (61.500)


La Cartuja (60.000)


San Mamés (53.000)









Anoeta (32.000>42.000)



Cornellá (40.500)


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

I've been a little disconnected of the proceedings....but...how serious is the notion that FIFA may retract Qatar's bid to host the games?


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2014)

Kenni said:


> I've been a little disconnected of the proceedings....but...how serious is the notion that FIFA may retract Qatar's bid to host the games?


At this point, its all speculation. We'll find out in September.


----------



## EK413 (Jul 3, 2006)

Portugal & Spain are ready for it if you ask me. Portugal has all the stadiums in place as they hosted the Euro 2004.


----------



## sweet-d (Jul 20, 2010)

I seriously doubt FIFA retracts Qatar's bid its a bit too late for that. It would also make other host skiddish because what happens if you begin to invest money in infrastructure and stadiums and then you lose the bid for no reason at all. Let FIFA lay in the mess they made. It would benefit football tremendously if Qatar keeps the World Cup.


----------



## Kerrybai (Apr 29, 2013)

sweet-d said:


> I seriously doubt FIFA retracts Qatar's bid its a bit too late for that. It would also make other host skiddish because what happens if you begin to invest money in infrastructure and stadiums and *then you lose the bid for no reason at all*. Let FIFA lay in the mess they made. It would benefit football tremendously if Qatar keeps the World Cup.


It's not no reason if the bribery charges are proven to be correct.


----------



## nothatso (Oct 26, 2013)

EK413 said:


> Portugal & Spain are ready for it if you ask me. Portugal has all the stadiums in place as they hosted the Euro 2004.


I agree, but... I think the countries that actually bid to host the 2022 WC should be given preference.


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

sweet-d said:


> It would benefit football tremendously if Qatar keeps the World Cup.


Only if it kills FIFA.


----------



## GEwinnen (Mar 3, 2006)

franciscoc said:


> Possible candidacy of Spain and Portugal.


Never! Did you realize the 2018 World Cup is in Europe?hno:


----------



## Good Karma (Mar 22, 2011)

GEwinnen said:


> Never! Did you realize the 2018 World Cup is in Europe?hno:


It's in Russia who are half Asian and don't particularly want to be European anyway. Ok just kidding but this continental rotation is becoming ridiculous let the best bid win.


----------



## pcalil (Nov 30, 2012)

Good Karma said:


> It's in Russia who are half Asian and don't particularly want to be European anyway. Ok just kidding but this continental rotation is becoming ridiculous let the best bid win.



actually there's no continental rotation, it's a confederation rotation, and Russia belongs to UEFA, no matter in which continents its territory lays on (nevertheless all the venue cities are in European part anyway) so no country from this confed. may host a WC until 2030 (I'm not jugging wether the rotation is good or not, I'm just stating that it is in place)


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

Good Karma said:


> It's in Russia who are half Asian and don't particularly want to be European anyway. Ok just kidding but this continental rotation is becoming ridiculous let the best bid win.


Russia belongs to UEFA; and the WC is being played, for now, in the European half of that rogue nation. So that eliminates all of Europe for 2022 and 2026.


----------



## Good Karma (Mar 22, 2011)

Knitemplar said:


> Russia belongs to UEFA; and the WC is being played, for now, in the European half of that rogue nation. So that eliminates all of Europe for 2022 and 2026.


So if Europe is meant to get the World Cup in 2030 why is Uruguay & Argentina being considered by many as a favourite for 2030...


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Good Karma said:


> So if Europe is meant to get the World Cup in 2030 why is Uruguay & Argentina being considered by many as a favourite for 2030...


Because it's the centennial of course. But the whole continental/confederation rotation should stop anyways. Just let nations bid if they want to and choose from there.

Australia is of considerable distance to Qatar, but since we're in the AFC now, that means we're needlessly denied a shot until 2030.


----------



## Good Karma (Mar 22, 2011)

So Europe needs to go another 16 years before getting a chance at hosting another World Cup. Can't see that happening.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

I think rotation has been formally put to rest, no? They'll try to achieve diversity but proper rotation is not mandatory anymore.


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

Qatar winning 2022 proved FIFA have no rules.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

sweet-d said:


> I seriously doubt FIFA retracts Qatar's bid its a bit too late for that. It would also make other host skiddish because what happens if you begin to invest money in infrastructure and stadiums and then you lose the bid for no reason at all.


I don't think FIFA will retract the games, either, but your reasoning doesn't apply. If FIFA does take action it's not "for no reason at all" but because a) they've proven the bidding process was flawed and/or rigged and b) because Qatar has failed to demonstrate their ability to properly succeed as host. (I'm not saying that's reality, merely indicating what FIFA's approach would be)

Bottom line, any FIFA action regarding Qatar would likely not set a precedent the way you're suggesting. If anything the issue is the precedent set by allowing such a small nation to host.


----------



## cmc (Oct 4, 2005)

FIFA sold the 2018 and 2022 WCs and they know it was a big mistake, problem is they don't want to retract now.


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2014)

cmc said:


> FIFA sold the 2018 and 2022 WCs and they know it was a big mistake, problem is they don't want to retract now.


I don't think anyone is regretting Russia hosting it. They will be very good hosts: very hospitable playing conditions for players; strong soccer tradition; rising domestic league; large market with numerous large cities; new stadiums with a real legacy; strong existing transportation and infrastructure that can meet the demands of large influx of tourists, and the list goes on. 

You know what you are going to get with Russia. The problem many people have with Qatar is they don't know what to expect, which is why everyone is panicking and trying to force through a re-vote.


----------



## RFSK (Aug 13, 2012)

in 1994 when us got to host, England and France were saying foul play, were saying the US bought it, and that they had no Football tradition, heck that they don't even call it the same.

Fifa insisted on it, because they wanted a part of the US sports market and saw potential. now is the Same, Qatar is maybe a small country, but its the first time it's in the middeleast. and by hosting it there, they acknowledge the whole of middleeast


----------



## Weissenberg (Jul 31, 2014)

RFSK said:


> in 1994 when us got to host, England and France were saying foul play, were saying the US bought it, and that they had no Football tradition, heck that they don't even call it the same.
> 
> Fifa insisted on it, because they wanted a part of the US sports market and saw potential. now is the Same, Qatar is maybe a small country, but its the first time it's in the middeleast. and by hosting it there, they acknowledge the whole of middleeast


It's not about football tradition in Qatar, but about the abuse of human (especially labor) rights in that country, weather conditions and the fact that Qatar's population barely exceeds 2 millions people. You can cope with one of those factors seeing it as some form of collateral damage in effort to extend what we call the football world. But all three of them? Not to mention that most people having a real stake in football developement around the globe don't really care about the game making it to the region of human rights abuse, sheik dictatorships and wars nobody really understands.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2014)

RFSK said:


> in 1994 when us got to host, England and France were saying foul play, were saying the US bought it, and that they had no Football tradition, heck that they don't even call it the same.
> 
> Fifa insisted on it, because they wanted a part of the US sports market and saw potential. now is the Same, Qatar is maybe a small country, but its the first time it's in the middeleast. and by hosting it there, they acknowledge the whole of middleeast


The Middle East is part of the Asian Confederation. When Japan/Korea hosted, they weren't acknowledging East Asia, but Asia. If Australia won, they wouldn't be acknowledging Oceania, but Asia. South Africa is as different from Northern Africa as an orange is to an apple, but South Africa were still representing all of Africa. 

The only Mid East countries that should get anywhere near a World Cup are Iran and Saudi Arabia. I dont particularly care for the corruption claims, but rather the logistics of hosting the biggest tournament in the world in Qatar. The equivalent of giving a World Cup to Albania when you have the rest of Europe available.


----------



## uğur1 (Jun 22, 2010)

Countries who have strong football culture,they must take big tournaments,It is ridiculous to give big tournaments countries like South Korea,Japan,Qatar.I think,2022 WC must be given to England or Spain.


----------



## KeanoManu (Mar 1, 2012)

Haven't the football quality and culture in Japan and South Korea grown a lot since the World Cup there? Isn't the current boom in the US a long-term effect of the 1994 World Cup?

I don't mind that less important countries hosts it, if they're countries that has the potential of being important. Can't complain that Japan and South Korea hosted it. Can't complain that USA hosted it. Can't complain that South Africa hosted it. Can't complain if Australia are given the chance to host it.

I do however mind that dictatorships that doesn't respect human rights and are repressive about the personal freedom of their citizens are given the opportunity to host the World Cup.

Neither Russia nor Qatar should host it. The tournament should be stripped from both countries. It's despicable that they were given them from the beginning.


----------



## invincibletiger (Oct 6, 2010)

^^ I don't think democracy has ever been a criteria of granting hosting rights of major tournaments like World Cup football or Olympics.


----------



## KeanoManu (Mar 1, 2012)

It should be. But at least we can require that the countries that hosts respects human rights. Neither Qatar nor Russia do that.


----------



## uğur1 (Jun 22, 2010)

Democracy should be a criteria for major tournaments,it is a big gift for non-democratic countries to give big tournaments,Putin or other dictators use that for their leadership against their opposite.


----------



## Bhound (Mar 14, 2012)

^^ Same can be said then of the USA. All the turmoils going on all over the world the USA and England have a hand in them. People should not be selective of what is good for the world when some countries forment wars in other countries in the name of democracy Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Bosnia, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Egypt etc. And if then we were to look at any wrong doing either to citizens or formenting civil disorders in other countries I bet you no more than a dozen countries would qualify to host any of the major sporting events. Like they say, don't throw a stone when you live in a glass house


----------



## andore.arq (Apr 27, 2009)

Human rights can be a criteria.

Iraq is now a democracy, so what do you think the WC '22 go there?


----------



## nothatso (Oct 26, 2013)

Bhound said:


> ^^ Same can be said then of the USA. All the turmoils going on all over the world the USA and England have a hand in them. People should not be selective of what is good for the world when some countries forment wars in other countries in the name of democracy Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Bosnia, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Egypt etc. And if then we were to look at any wrong doing either to citizens or formenting civil disorders in other countries I bet you no more than a dozen countries would qualify to host any of the major sporting events. Like they say, don't throw a stone when you live in a glass house


Firstly I believe _uğur_ is Turkish and _KeanoManu_ is Swedish. So none of that directly has anything to do with them. 

Secondly it's ridiculous for you to use the specter of the _evil omnipresent and omniscient anglophonic warmongers _as a counter argument to his notion of democracy as a requirement. The truth is that nobody in the developed western world, including the US and UK, have as poor a human rights record _within their own borders_ as either Qatar or Russia. I don't think the USA was planning on hosting it's World Cup bid in Afghanistan. Now, I don't think I agree with the assertion that democracy should be a requirement, but saying that two developed countries intervened in the affairs of some others doesn't change the fact that those two countries have considerably more favorable conditions for the average person living or visiting within their borders.

Lastly, don't accuse people or countries of doing things when you lack proof or a general understanding of the situation. The Vietnam War, for example, was started by communist revolt, not by pro-democracy countries _fomenting _unrest. Unless you have unbiased proof that conflicts in Syria, Egypt, Libya, Bosnia, and Ukraine were started due to US/UK influence, then don't even bother using those conflicts to support your claim. Beyond all that, I don't think this is the place to go on politically-motivated tirades and so the direction of this conversation should probably be changed.


----------



## Bhound (Mar 14, 2012)

:lol:^^ Are you for real? Tell that to those in Guantanamo tortured day and night as well as the rendition flights for so called terror suspects that includes kidnapping even those from Western Europe (Germany citizens). Whilst you are still at it I take it that you have heard about Drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanitsan that have killed countless innocent civilians. And you preach about human rights? Just about a month ago, for your information a Russian citizen was grabbed by the thuggish American agents in Maldives and shipped to Guam and that to you is human rights? I can go on and on and you and I know it, selective justice is only good when done by the so called developed western world I pray and trust that when judgement day comes you and your democratic western world will pass the test.


----------



## Bhound (Mar 14, 2012)

"I don't think this is the place to go on politically-motivated tirades and so the direction of this conversation should probably be changed." 
Indeed it should be changed but please come down from your moral high horse and learn that the world does not revolve on those that think they are sinless.


----------



## nothatso (Oct 26, 2013)

Bhound said:


> :lol:^^ Are you for real? Tell that to those in Guantanamo tortured day and night as well as the rendition flights for so called terror suspects that includes kidnapping even those from Western Europe (Germany citizens). Whilst you are still at it I take it that you have heard about Drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanitsan that have killed countless innocent civilians. And you preach about human rights? Just about a month ago, for your information a Russian citizen was grabbed by the thuggish American agents in Maldives and shipped to Guam and that to you is human rights? I can go on and on and you and I know it, selective justice is only good when done by the so called developed western world I pray and trust that when judgement day comes you and your democratic western world will pass the test.


I don't think you actually paid attention to most of what I said. Let me reiterate the most important point for you:


> The truth is that nobody in the developed western world, including the US and UK, have as poor a human rights record _within their own borders_ as either Qatar or Russia. I don't think the USA was planning on hosting it's World Cup bid in Afghanistan.


You seem intent on just defensively rambling on about _evil western boogeymen_. It looks like what some call "whataboutism". The central idea being "It's okay for my country to do bad things because some other country did some vaguely similar bad thing". You seem so inclined to blame westerners for hypocrisy while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the validity of claims against Russia and Qatar. American drone strikes do not make Russian suppression of independent press or Qatari use of what is essentially slave labor any less despicable. While the US military may accidentally hit civilians during war, and while that is also bad, it would in no way affect their potential hosting of a world cup, nor does it make Russia or Qatar any more suitable by comparison.


----------



## Ramson (Mar 29, 2012)

If Qatar will be stripped for hosting the WC2022, then the event will be hosted in AFC, CONCACAF, OFC or CAF.. since 2018 will be hosted by UEFA, then Spain/Portugal will not allowed to host for 2022 and 2026.. expect UEFA to host on 2030 or beyond..

If Qatar will remained the host for WC2022, then Australia and China are not allowed to host on 2026 and 2030 since both are members of AFC.. expect them to bid on 2034 or beyond.. while the host for WC2026 are countries belong to CONCACAF (North America), CONMEBOL (South America), OFC (Oceania) and CAF (Africa)..


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Just simply do a reform of FIFA. Allow any nation to bid for a WC without restrictions on what confederation they are in.

That being said, we probably won't be bidding for 2026, but it gives 2030 a good chance.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Just simply do a reform of FIFA. Allow any nation to bid for a WC without restrictions on what confederation they are in.

That being said, we probably won't be bidding for 2026, but it gives 2030 a good chance.


----------



## KeanoManu (Mar 1, 2012)

2030 will most likely either be in Uruguay/Argentina or in Europe.

It's a shame that the real, civilized, Europe has to wait a minimum of 24 years between hosting it now. 

I don't think many Europeans see the Russian WC as a European WC.


----------



## Blackhavvk (Dec 23, 2013)

KeanoManu said:


> I don't think many Europeans see the Russian WC as a European WC.


Many Russian do not see the European world as a civilized world. But you can go to the World Cup 2018 This is not so far. I think the most important thing. Not your attitude towards Russia.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

KeanoManu said:


> I don't think many Europeans see the Russian WC as a European WC.


??? ohno

Of course many (if not most) of us Europeans see Russia as a European Nation. (not to mention their future WC entirely hosted in the European part of their country, set aside Ekaterinburg).

Europe ≠ EU (and vice versa), you know. 

I mean, Russians are (knowing that approx. 75% of them, i.e. 105 million+, live in the European part of Russia):
Europeans by culture.
Europeans by their history (at least since 7 centuries or so).
Europeans by language.
Europeans by ethnicity (at least regarding the slavic majority).
..and may I add:
Europeans by religion (in any case, for most of them): Orthodoxy 


Isn't that enough to be considered as European? Don't you think?


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

Three U.K. oddsmakers (BetVictor, unibet, paddypower) have the U.S. as favorite to host 2022 World Cup over Qatar.


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2014)

KeanoManu said:


> It's a shame that the real, civilized, Europe has to wait a minimum of 24 years between hosting it now.
> 
> I don't think many Europeans see the Russian WC as a European WC.


Geography, and intelligence for that matter, are obviously not your strong suit.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Only give the US the 2022 World Cup under the condition that FIFA reforms.

Make subsequent bidding available to everyone (except Qatar for the 2026 edition) and have all Football Federations allowed to vote.

Don't eliminate Canada or Mexico just because the US is hosting.

Each edition from now on should be given to any nation that is suitable of hosting, regardless of confederation. No more continental rotation.


----------



## KeanoManu (Mar 1, 2012)

5portsF4n said:


> Geography, and intelligence for that matter, are obviously not your strong suit.


Please elaborate on that.

Russia are doing everything they can to not be part of the European community and they're a de facto dictatorship that acts like a global villian.

They should never have been given a WC. You can't be aggressive towards your neighbours and then host a large international tournament. And it's a shame that they're using a UEFA spot.


----------



## Ярик1010 (Jun 16, 2014)

KeanoManu said:


> Please elaborate on that.
> 
> Russia are doing everything they can to not be part of the European community and they're a de facto dictatorship that acts like a global villian.
> 
> They should never have been given a WC. You can't be aggressive towards your neighbours and then host a large international tournament. And it's a shame that they're using a UEFA spot.


I'm even more pro-European than you. I want to see strong Europe with independent geopolitical position. To be part of the European community doesn't mean to be vassals and to serve interests of United States. Unfortunately, the reality is quite opposite. You don't has strong and sovereign position.

According to your logic, Western NATO aggressors should not host any international competition for decades. 

You should to remember, dude. We always will spent such policy which serve our interests - either together with rest part of Europe or without them. Your politicians will only bark as response. Point.


----------



## Russia&Germany (Jul 21, 2014)

KeanoManu said:


> Please elaborate on that.
> 
> Russia are doing everything they can to not be part of the European community and they're a de facto dictatorship that acts like a global villian.
> 
> They should never have been given a WC. You can't be aggressive towards your neighbours and then host a large international tournament. And it's a shame that they're using a UEFA spot.


Right now you are aggressiv. So maybe it's a good thing that UEFA chose Copenhagen over Stockholm.

Russian people do want a good relationship between Russia and it's EU neighbors. Unfortunately there are political and geopolitical problems between those two, but these are made by our and your politicans and not by sports or the wish of hating you.
http://dict.leo.org/#/search=unfortunately&searchLoc=0&resultOrder=basic&multiwordShowSingle=on


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2014)

KeanoManu said:


> Please elaborate on that.


Believe me, I would love to. I would love nothing more than to compose an essay on geopolitics and imperialism for you, to put the Russian, and indeed the Middle Eastern, conflict into context for you, but I have better judgement than to air such views in a public forum - not least because this is a forum for stadiums where political discourse is frowned upon. 

If you only rely on the mass media to form your opinions, nothing in the world makes sense. It is a mish-mash of coincidence, unpredictability, and horror. If you venture off the beaten track, you will find innumerable evidence that puts every single event into context.

The one thing I would add is that since FIFA are adamant about separating sport and politics, no political situation should have any bearing on Russia and their hosting of soccer events, regardless of how you (are told to) view Russia.


----------



## ReNaHtEiM (Jul 15, 2013)

Lord David said:


> Have all Football Federations allowed to vote.


Bad idea.
While it would help to fight bribery, the fact that some confederations would be totally underrepresented (CONCACAF/COMNEBOL) is terrifying. 
Europe and Africa e.g. could just switch hosting every second World Cup and nobody could do anything against it.

Also I don't think it's wise to give too many seats in the exco to small unimportant countries. This Warner guy was from Trinidad.
As the past shows they are pretty easy to buy (yes of course, the worst of them all is Swiss, we all know:nuts.


----------



## carlosfng (Mar 1, 2010)

KeanoManu said:


> 2030 will most likely either be in Uruguay/Argentina or in Europe.


As a South American I sadly have to say that it isn't probable that any Conmebol country can host the 2030 WC. After what was seen in Brazil, and the death of the Argentinian FA's leader (and also FIFA's vice-president), the Argentina/Uruguay bid has cooled off a lot. Other countries may apply, such as Colombia or Chile or a grouping of neighbors to them; but they are kind of a shot in the dark, since today they definitely couldn't be able to do it on their own, and 16 years into the future is too far away to be predicted. So it remains to be seen - perhaps we will have it, but until now it seems it has cooled off.

I'm supposing that if Qatar is turned down, US or Australia seem the prime candidates. They both might host, if one is given 2022 and the other 2026, unless a surprise great African bid comes along. South America is aiming for 2030, but as I explained, it will be a struggle to make it happen.


----------



## Aulus (May 7, 2013)

Will Qatar really lost the WC? I'm not sure at all..


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Lord David said:


> Have all Football Federations allowed to vote





ReNaHtEiM said:


> Bad idea.
> While it would help to fight bribery, the fact that some confederations would be totally underrepresented (CONCACAF/COMNEBOL) is terrifying.
> Europe and Africa e.g. could just switch hosting every second World Cup and nobody could do anything against it.
> 
> ...


Whether you like it or not, that's what's going to happen in future. It's already been decided.


----------



## ReNaHtEiM (Jul 15, 2013)

Seriously?


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/13613128


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

KeanoManu said:


> Please elaborate on that.
> 
> Russia are doing everything they can to not be part of the European community[...].


LOL.... I mean, are you serious shifty....LOL



:hilarious


----------



## darkhorse09 (Jul 16, 2009)

Qatar is!!


----------



## DR.SHREJMAN (Nov 30, 2006)

darkhorse09 said:


> Qatar is!!


so u r a hater ...i would say WC 2022 in qatar and if u don't like it go F*** ur self :cheers:


----------



## Yellow Fever (Jan 3, 2008)

^^ swear once more you will be brigged!


----------



## SirAce (Mar 16, 2008)

DR.SHREJMAN said:


> human rights is the problem now or qatar?


Workers human rights related to WC2022 building sites in Qatar are the problem.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Guys, I suggest we keep this to actual news links and articles about the event. The personal opinion side has been bandied about well enough and none of that will change things.


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

HUGE DEVELOPMENT! The United States Department of Justice has arrested FIFA officials in Switzerland for racketeering and money laundering, among other things.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/s...cials-face-corruption-charges-in-us.html?_r=0



> ZURICH — Swiss authorities began an extraordinary early-morning operation here Wednesday to arrest several top soccer officials and extradite them to the United States on federal corruption charges.
> 
> As leaders of FIFA, soccer’s global governing body, gathered for their annual meeting, more than a dozen plain-clothed Swiss law enforcement officials arrived unannounced at the Baur au Lac hotel, an elegant five-star property with views of the Alps and Lake Zurich.
> 
> ...


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

https://twitter.com/SamBorden/status/603414950309158912


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

Apparently helping fund a slave state is where Switzerland draws the line on extradition. Sorry FIFA. Now we have to get Sepp down.


----------



## poguemahone (Apr 4, 2012)

:cheers:


----------



## carnifex2005 (May 12, 2010)

Grabbed from Big Soccer...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/27/s...cials-face-corruption-charges-in-us.html?_r=0

*Fifa*
Jeffrey Webb
Eugenio Figueredo
Jack Warner
Eduardo Li
Julio Rocha
Costas Takkas
Rafael Esquivel
José Maria Marin
Nicolás Leoz
*Others*
The New York Times says charges “were also expected against” sports marketing executives Alejandro Burzaco, Aaron Davidson, Hugo Jinkis and Mariano Jinkis.

It said José Margulies has also been charged for allegedly facilitating illegal payments.

From the preliminary names, it looks like Concacaf and Conmebol were caught (Aaron Davidson is a marketing exec with Traffic Sports. This could have big implications for the Copa America 2016 and the NASL). This looks to be nothing against the Qatar bid as yet. That being said, RICO can get those guys in jail for pretty much the rest of their lives. They'll be rolling in no time.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Reuters: Swiss federal office of justice says criminal proceedings opened in connection with allocation of 2018 and 2022 World Cups.

Unclear if that Swiss statement is in conjunction with today's arrests or separate. Significant development if latter.

https://twitter.com/richard_conway


----------



## Dexter Morgan (Dec 23, 2009)

I have an idea how the world football community can thank the Americans for taking down FIFA. The world now has to call football soccer. It's only fair.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

It seems that FIFA is so rotten and corrupt to the core that it is beyond repairing. Hopefully at some point the national football associations will finally grasp the nettle and agree to cease recognising it's authority. Even might be better to get rid FIFA altogether and start again.


----------



## DanMB (May 14, 2015)

Isn't the pressure bigger on FIFA to take away the world cup in Russia? Many powerful people in the US has already gone out to say that a world cup in Russia is something they can't tolerate. Qatar does not have as many powerful enemies such as Russia and their world cup has.

I'm fairly certain that it's the world cup in Russia that will be taken away and not Qatar's if a re vote arrives in the future. Qatar is an ally to the US and the west and thus i don't think the Qatar world cup will be under any sort of scrutiny, it's the Russian world cup that will face enormous pressure from the west.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

I feel a bit dirty posting this, but "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!"

I'm glad something has finally stepped up to root out the filth that lies at the heart of F.I.F.A., we all know that giving the world cup to a slave state who just so happens to have billions of dollars of oil money wasn't exactly the best option, hopefully this will be the start of a rebuilding process.


----------



## Sochifan (Dec 28, 2013)

No matter how much ppl lie, propagandize, whine its not going to change Rus hosting.

Accept it.

And as far as what you said about a boycott. That won't happen for a number of reasons. Fox Sports paid millions to broadcast it and there is very few countries that the US could strong arm into a boycott. Few will admit this but the US gov allies are small in number and shrinking. Closest ally England would cause a riot if they did this. And countries like Greece, Italy, etc would never go a long with this. So its a complete non starter and thats why its not really talked about anymore bc the powers that be came to the same conclusion.


----------



## SkyLinePana (Apr 28, 2015)

DanMB said:


> Isn't the pressure bigger on FIFA to take away the world cup in Russia? Many powerful people in the US has already gone out to say that a world cup in Russia is something they can't tolerate. Qatar does not have as many powerful enemies such as Russia and their world cup has.


us officials could give a rats ass about the world cup.
Tolerate? Who said that? ever?
the us is not a dictatorship like russia or qatar, the govt doesnt run on the wims og a few people.
this is a multi year bribery and fraud investigation
this is NOT about "getting back at the enemy" like you seem to assume everything is.
projecting much?


> I'm fairly certain that it's the world cup in Russia that will be taken away and not Qatar's if a re vote arrives in the future. Qatar is an ally to the US and the west and thus i don't think the Qatar world cup will be under any sort of scrutiny, it's the Russian world cup that will face enormous pressure from the west.


----------



## SkyLinePana (Apr 28, 2015)

Sochifan said:


> No matter how much ppl lie, propagandize, whine its not going to change Rus hosting.
> 
> Accept it.
> 
> And as far as what you said about a boycott. That won't happen for a number of reasons. Fox Sports paid millions to broadcast it and there is very few countries that the US could strong arm into a boycott. Few will admit this but the US gov allies are small in number and shrinking. Closest ally England would cause a riot if they did this. And countries like Greece, Italy, etc would never go a long with this. So its a complete non starter and thats why its not really talked about anymore bc the powers that be came to the same conclusion.


you need to watch less russia today bro.


----------



## cyril sneer (Mar 10, 2015)

I think Russia is a far more credible host than Qatar. Its Qatar that is totally unsuitable and everything and everyone is having to bend over backwards to accommodate Qatar. 2022 should go to Australia or USA in my opinion.

I think today has potential to be a great day for football. Hopefully the investigation digs deep and weeds out all the corruption in FIFA. In any other line of work Blatter would have resigned by now even before this investigation. He cannot seriously win Friday FIFA election whilst there is such a investigation going on under his watch.


----------



## DanMB (May 14, 2015)

cyril sneer said:


> I think Russia is a far more credible host than Qatar. Its Qatar that is totally unsuitable and everything and everyone is having to bend over backwards to accommodate Qatar. 2022 should go to Australia or USA in my opinion.
> 
> I think today has potential to be a great day for football. Hopefully the investigation digs deep and weeds out all the corruption in FIFA. In any other line of work Blatter would have resigned by now even before this investigation. He cannot seriously win Friday FIFA election whilst there is such a investigation going on under his watch.


I'm not saying that Qatar and their world cup is more credible than Russia, i'm saying that while Qatar is an ally to the west Russia is an enemy for the west, thus there is in my opinion a far bigger chance that the EU, the US etc will oppose or even boycott the world cup in Russia, why would they boycott or oppose a world cup based in their ally Qatar?

John McCain and other US senators are writing letters to FIFA begging FIFA to move the world cup from Russia while no one has done the same about Qatar. So for me the Qatar world cup is 100 % safe while i still see a possibility that the west may boycott Russia all together like they did in the 1980 Olympics in Moscow. I think the west sees the Russian world cup as propaganda for the ''Putin regime'' and thus their policy of isolating Putin may very well have to end up with boycotting his world cup.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

To add to what's been shared, here's what we know in the States:

- These are two different investigations and the US one is focused on allegations of bribery that occurred on US soil and/or involving US corporations. It is, essentially, a shakedown for alleged money laundering whereby persons or corporations are abusing their tax status. Whether or not there is any undue use of funds to influence officials under bribery laws in unclear but unlikely under the applicable format of US law. What it means, however, is that whatever charges are being filed are most likely valid and will stick, unless the defendants strike plea deals and/or offer up bigger prizes not yet known.

The asterisk to this case is how it might resonate with the other American nations involved. If found guilty in the States some of these officials may face charges in their home nations, as well, prompting change in how those native football associations behave.

- The Swiss investigation is different in tenor and largely in response to the Garcia report. FIFA says it's happening at their request but at least three pundits have suggested that's a passive notion at best and FIFA certainly didn't expect anything like this. It's believed that once the Swiss were contacted by the US AG about their investigation it raised their own alarms about the potential severity of the case on Swiss soil. So while they're not at any stage where they can/are subpoena witnesses they are asking for people to speak with them and they do have the right to acquire certain data from FIFA. So the Swiss Ag is now trying to affirm if there was any illegal activity in the bidding for 2018 and 2022. 

Keep in mind, however, that currently Sitzerland does not have a law making bribery of private companies illegal outright. A bill for such is pending, one designed wholly in response to FIFA, but for now the extent of illegal practices for which FIFA could be charged here (as I understand it) concern bribery involving Swiss officials or State officials from other nations while on Swiss soil. What they hope to find, most importantly, is anything that sheds light on the money trail to clarify if the Garcia report findings are true.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Regarding a revote or move of the games:

As I've said before, the biggest concern about Qatar '22 is not the actual event but the precedent FIFA has set in awarding the games to the lowest rated bid (logistically) as scored by their own staff. A bid which has required so many concessions from the anticipated norms for the event that not only was it an unfair comparison to other bids but it suggests that going forward FIFA has almost no standards of expectations from host nations. So above and beyond redressing Qatar I would prefer FIFA set up new minimum requirements and parameters for hosting to ensure this doesn't happen again. All future bids must feature:

- Guarantees of viable conditions for play in June & July
- Guarantees of stadium use and viability after the WC
- Minimum sizes and numbers of host communities to ensure feasibility of hosting without undue cost
- Established human rights and labor laws to ensure there isn't a whiff of any scandal

If FIFA does this then I can accept Qatar as the one-off mistake that led to change, provided they still prove they can build the venues and verify they won't abuse labor or guests from now through the end of the games.


----------



## Topher51 (Mar 28, 2009)

While I would love to see both tournaments awarded to the UK and USA without a revote, I don't believe either tournament should be moved at this point. Bribery aside, those countries have invested very heavily in the infrastructure for both already.

However, what FIFA should do is strip both Russia and Qatar of their host country qualification and make them earn a spot in the tournament.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Well for now the bribery claims for those events remain simply unproven allegations, so it's premature to take action against either country. Further, you'd have to connect the bribery to the national association itself as opposed to just some individuals. 

FIFA can always act after any guilt is proven.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Press statement by the FBI can be found here. This is deep, and apparently 6 people have already pled guilty to their involvement!

To be sure FIFA is not walking away from this unscathed.


----------



## Sochifan (Dec 28, 2013)

There was nothing wrong with Russia's bid. People saying this are just having Russophobic fantasies based on no evidence whatsoever.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Sochifan said:


> There was nothing wrong with Russia's bid. People saying this are just having Russophobic fantasies based on no evidence whatsoever.


And you will find most people acknowledge that. Russia might well be the collateral damage victim of associating with FIFA at a time when FIFA got too greedy and was then caught red-handed. Or if there was anything it might have been the work of individuals and not something coordinated by the Russia Football Federation. We'll wait and see.


----------



## will101 (Jan 16, 2011)

GunnerJacket said:


> Keep in mind, however, that currently Switzerland does not have a law making bribery of private companies illegal outright. A bill for such is pending, one designed wholly in response to FIFA, but for now the extent of illegal practices for which FIFA could be charged here (as I understand it) concern bribery involving Swiss officials or State officials from other nations while on Swiss soil. What they hope to find, most importantly, is anything that sheds light on the money trail to clarify if the Garcia report findings are true.


Ah, Switzerland, that charming little place that took more than 50 years to admit that much of the country was running on funds looted from Nazi death camp victims. And now we find out that in most cases bribery is not a crime there. This just keeps getting better and better.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

As the Swiss counsel was explaining it, or at least as I was interpreting it, bribery of government officials and staff is illegal and bribery to obtain illicit or illegal items, information or privileges is illegal. However, simply exchanging money between two businesses, even if the purpose is bribery, is currently allowable as a cost-of-business exchange and cannot be prosecuted. 

The crux in all this is, of course, Swiss law regarding financial privacy and tax policies, which are what enable the nation to attract such capital in the first place. In order to position themselves to root out bribery they'll have to amend these laws and risk adverse impacts to other organizations and practices.


----------



## GEwinnen (Mar 3, 2006)

Fifa's next step will be to move to Qatar! Non stop bribery and selling World Cups at unlimited auctions is Fifa's future.


----------



## noize (Jul 24, 2004)

I think it's pretty likely that FIFA move WC 2022 if the pressure goes on, but Russia... No, still a very powerfull country in geopolitics.


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

> *UEFA shows this FIFA the red card*
> 
> *A statement has been issued by the UEFA Executive Committee following a meeting today in Warsaw.*
> 
> ...


www.uefa.org/about-uefa/executive-committee/news/newsid=2252026.html#uefa+shows+this+fifa+card


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Sochifan said:


> There was nothing wrong with Russia's bid. People saying this are just having Russophobic fantasies based on no evidence whatsoever.


Your choice of words sounds suspicious. Did you used to work for Pravda?

Most of those "Russophobic fantasies" were based on considerable evidence. It would be shocking if the Russian bid did not include some bribery; that seems to be par for the course when dealing with FIFA.


----------



## will101 (Jan 16, 2011)

How long would FIFA last if UEFA, CONCACAF and all of their members withdrew their memberships?


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy (Mar 14, 2010)

Recently, from Qatar's News Café, silencing, boycotting and censoring each and everyone criticising 2022:




Halawala said:


> I have deleted all the posts again. Please don't reply ANYTHING related to the deleted posts. No more trolling and disrespect to anyone for whatever reason. Any posts related to the above deleted posts will be deleted.


Symptomatic.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

will101 said:


> How long would FIFA last if UEFA, CONCACAF and all of their members withdrew their memberships?


CONCACAF won't do it, IMO, because too many people and smaller nations within the region benefit from the current system. But it's entirely possible to see UEFA break off and pull a few larger nations with them, namely the US, Canada and Australia. If they leave and if potential sponsors within those nations know greater scrutiny is being applied to FIFA then the writing would be on the wall. A World Cup without so many big nations will be near worthless by comparison, especially if there's essentially a competing event taking place at the same time. Think Fox will want to show a winter event in Qatar that has no US, Spain or German national teams involved?

But we don't need to destroy FIFA, we simply need it to change. And this looks like the best opportunity. I'm not normally one to praise the Internal Revenue Service, but it sounds like they might prove our saviors in this regard by forcing FIFA to come clean.


----------



## DanMB (May 14, 2015)

For me giving Russia the world cup was logical in many ways, firstly because Russia is the largest country in the world and by far the most populous country of Europe, and they have never had a world cup before. Secondly because football in Russia still has a lot of potential to become bigger and better from better stadiums and having a world cup. Also remember that FIFA gave the world cup to Russia many years ago when no one could have guessed that the problems in Ukraine would happen. I think Russia regret getting the world cup because Russia wanted the world cup when the economic situation and future still looked good, today there is many better things Russia could use this money for but now it's too late for Russia to give up because they have already spent many billions on the world cup.

Also i understand if FIFA had a desire to have a first world cup in a Muslim country, but i don't think Qatar was the right choice for that.


----------



## DanMB (May 14, 2015)

noize said:


> I think it's pretty likely that FIFA move WC 2022 if the pressure goes on, but Russia... No, still a very powerfull country in geopolitics.


Not really, the Qatar bid is less at risk because Qatar does not have many geopolitical enemies, while most countries in Europe, the US etc would want the world cup in Russia to be moved. If the situation in Ukraine gets worse i could clearly see a big risk that all NATO countries will be boycotting even going to Russia which would be a disaster for the FIFA world cup, that would force FIFA to move the world cup or to accept having no Germany, England, Spain etc in the tournament.

Qatar is an ally of the US and Europe and thus will not be under any pressure from these powerful countries to lose their world cup, while Russia is an enemy state and thus will be under strong pressure from all western countries.

I don't think any of the world cups will be moved but if one gets moved it will not be the one in Qatar but the Russian world cup.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Neither event will be moved unless it's proven the bid was won through illegal/improper means, and even then they'd only be moved if the parties involved felt an alternative could be found in fair and due course. But they wouldn't be moved simply based on 1 or 2 nations' political influence or else neither FIFA nor we will have learned anything.


----------



## moosefoot (Aug 7, 2013)

DanMB said:


> Also i understand if FIFA had a desire to have a first world cup in a Muslim country, but i don't think Qatar was the right choice for that.


Islam is the undisputed 2nd religion in Russia after Orthodox Christianity, and the World Cup 2018 would have one of its venues in the Russian Republic of Tatarstan (specifically in its capital of Kazan) which is majority muslim (>55%). In fact this republic is majority ethnic Tatar as well (>53%), not Russian.

Just saying.  The "Federation" in "Russian Federation" is really warranted - it's incredibly multi-ethnic with huge religious diversity to boot across all its republics and subjects.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

Sochifan said:


> No matter how much ppl lie, propagandize, whine its not going to change Rus hosting.
> 
> Accept it.
> 
> And as far as what you said about a boycott. That won't happen for a number of reasons. Fox Sports paid millions to broadcast it and there is very few countries that the US could strong arm into a boycott. Few will admit this but the US gov allies are small in number and shrinking. Closest ally England would cause a riot if they did this. And countries like Greece, Italy, etc would never go a long with this. So its a complete non starter and thats why its not really talked about anymore bc the powers that be came to the same conclusion.


Good lord you are paranoid. Stations like RT literally rot brains. The funny thing is that you paranoids never come back and say you were wrong. 

Ironically enough 95% of the criticism for the joint bids has been towards Qatar and not Russia. Maybe you fear that Russia also bought its WC along with Qatar? And I have heard almost nothing about people objecting to Russia holding a WC. In fact even Westerners who don't like Putin or Russia's neo-imperial ethno-fascistic tendencies of the last few years would admit that Russia as a footballing nation who has yet to hold the Cup is more then an adequate and worthy host. 

It has been Qatar that has come under by FAR more criticism from laymen. And the games that were more clearly and likely bought of the two. We can see you are nervous that it the scope is bigger then Qatar however.....


----------



## cmc (Oct 4, 2005)

*Russia I can understand, but Qatar...really.*
and with all that's going on, FIFA and Blatter are really trying to
avoid the 2022 thing. It's time for the guy go and a re-vote is a must.


----------



## MarkLanegan (May 20, 2013)

^^

What a mess, Blatter hno: 

What a mess


----------



## Sochifan (Dec 28, 2013)

Dan you keep saying things not rooted in reality. I explained clearly why a boycott is a no go.

Even if you got your wish and lets say US, England, and a few of the vassals boycotted, theres a number of European countries that wouldn't go a long with that. And even England would be shaky on that. The ppl there who are obsessed with football wouldn't take too kindly to a country that barely cares about football strongarming into not participating. 

If you look worldwide, Russia has better relations with most of South America than US does. Rus has good relations with African countries, most of Asia, most of middle east, euro countries such as Hungary, Serbia, Greece, Cyprus, etc.

It reminds me of the Asian infrastructure bank thing where the US govt tried to strong arm countries into not joining it. But England etc did anyway.


----------



## Sochifan (Dec 28, 2013)

nomarandlee, its a fact that the Russophobes in our govt are obsessed with hurting the 2018 cup just as they attempted w Sochi. This latest little stunt is because they want to hurt Blatter bc they somehow think if hes out they can hurt Russias wc more.


Something I find comical is how some people and the establishment try to act like Russia hosting an International event is some sort of out of the ordinary thing when the reality is Russia hosts International sporting events almost every week. Its just that only the big ones are used for propaganda campaigns.

A reason this is done is bc the estab hates people getting to see the real Russia and not the usual manufactured lies and misconceptions about them.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

The reason this is done is because hundreds of millions of pounds has been paid in kickbacks and bribes and several _have already pleaded guilty_. They've been caught. This is a bloody brilliant day for anyone who watches football.

What effect it has on the upcoming World Cups we'll have to see. I'd be surprised if they ended up being played elsewhere at this stage.


----------



## Dexter Morgan (Dec 23, 2009)

Sochifan said:


> Dan you keep saying things not rooted in reality. I explained clearly why a boycott is a no go.
> 
> Even if you got your wish and lets say US, England, and a few of the vassals boycotted, theres a number of European countries that wouldn't go a long with that. And even England would be shaky on that. The ppl there who are obsessed with football wouldn't take too kindly to a country that barely cares about football strongarming into not participating.
> 
> ...


tyrants get along with other tyrants. you right.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards (Mar 26, 2015)

Always interesting to see just how paranoid Russians are. The West is not out to get Russia. The Russian World Cup isn't at much risk. These people have been arrested because they are suspected of criminal activity. The US Federal authorities believe they have enough evidence to gain convictions. American anti-corruption laws are probably the most far-reaching in the World. If you pay, accept or facilitate bribes in the USA or using American banks you can be pursued for it. That is what is happening. Just as a British trader was recently arrested for apparently manipulating the New York stock markets. Other countries have neither the power nor the investigative might to prosecute crimes that occured in multiple countries. Note that the crimes being investigated by the USA are nothing to do with the award of the 2018 or 2022 World Cup. The Swiss as hosts of FIFA are the ones investigating those.

Edit to add this: The head of the FA has said that Blatter has to go. He has also said that England will not be hosting the 2018 World Cup.


----------



## DanMB (May 14, 2015)

It seems that Putin and the Russian leadership thinks these arrests are aimed at Russia, because Blatter is a big supporter of the Russian world cup. Is the US aiming to oust Blatter with a person who is more anti-Russian perhaps? I don't think the Qatar world cup is under any threat because Qatar is a known ally to the US and Europe. I do think the world cup in Russia will be under serious pressure to be moved, especially if Blatter is ousted.

The US goal of isolating Russia is thus not only aimed at politics and economics but also sports, this is really a dangerous escalation and we are firmly back in the days of the cold war when Russia and their Olympics was boycotted by all western countries. The US also knows that Russia has already spent many billions on the world cup so it would be a huge blow for Putin and Russia as a country to have spent all that money and then get the world cup moved from Russia, which is why this is the strategy. I'm certain that if the world cup is not moved from Russia the US and all their western partners will boycott the event, thus putting enormous pressure on FIFA to move the event in a short notice, the US will not come to Russia for a Russian world cup, this is out of the question for me.

Remember in life that geopolitics are the most important thing, the west will not do anything against Qatar because the US sees Qatar as a trusted ally of them, Russia is an enemy to them and thus they will focus solely on the Russian world cup and not the one in Qatar.

Many senators such as McCain have already written letters to FIFA about this fact, just recently McCain said that if Blatter continues to support the world cup in Russia he should be ousted and replaced as leader of FIFA, McCain is part of the US elite and thus we can conclude that this is the stance of the leadership of the US.


----------



## bloganista (Aug 26, 2013)

DanMB said:


> No, but this is not a reason to strip of a world cup because the same thing has happened before, in South Africa. What i do now is that powerful people in the west will use this as a pretext to try to stop the world cup in Russia. I think that if they fail to stop the world cup in Russia all NATO countries will probably boycott the world cup which will obviously lead to financial disaster both for Russia and for FIFA.
> 
> The Qatar world cup is safe, it has the backing from its western allies and partners, this is not true for the Russian world cup which is why i regard the Russian world cup as uncertain, because a lot of lobbying has already happened by the US, the Uk to stop the Russian world cup from happening while nothing has been done to stop the world cup in Qatar.


 *All *sponsors of the World Cup issued condemnatory remarks regarding FIFA except one. Yes, you guessed it - _Gazprom. _ They certainly went very quiet about FIFA corruption.
Their continued silence speaks volumes, not wanting to bite the rotten hand that fed it.

Qatar's hosting has become even more of a joke over the past 2 days.
You think that teams such as Germany and Holland will actually partake in this total sham that Qatar has become??? 
I can't imagine it myself.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

- Arrests made regarding corruption with Qatar and the FIFA 2022 World Cup.

- Russian posters blame the USA and England with conspiring to take away the 2018 world cup? Okay...


----------



## bloganista (Aug 26, 2013)

Sochifan said:


> A reason this is done is bc the estab hates people getting to see the real Russia and not the usual manufactured lies and misconceptions about them.


 The real Russia is a highly corrupt oligarchy, that's no misconception.
If Russia bid to host the World Cup without offering FIFA stacks of cash under the table, then fair enough.

But you really believe it didn't?


----------



## bloganista (Aug 26, 2013)

...


----------



## bloganista (Aug 26, 2013)

RobH said:


> What effect it has on the upcoming World Cups we'll have to see. I'd be surprised if they ended up being played elsewhere at this stage.


If they are not played elsewhere this would be an endorsement of FIFA's shenanigans over the past 10 years.


----------



## DanMB (May 14, 2015)

bloganista said:


> *All *sponsors of the World Cup issued condemnatory remarks regarding FIFA except one. Yes, you guessed it - _Gazprom. _ They certainly went very quiet about FIFA corruption.
> Their continued silence speaks volumes, not wanting to bite the rotten hand that fed it.
> 
> Qatar's hosting has become even more of a joke over the past 2 days.
> ...


The reason why Russia and Gazprom are against this is because they have reason to suspect that the real target is Blatter due to his support of the world cup in Russia, the goal is probably to oust Blatter and replace him with a person willing to move the world cup from Russia. McCain is furious against Blatter for refusing the US demand of moving the world cup from Russia, thus Blatter has to be removed.

Qatar may be a joke but do you seriously think that NATO countries regard Qatar as a major problem? Qatar is an ally to them just like the Saudis, of course they will not use any action to hurt an ally. Russia on the other hand has always been their major enemy so of course it is the world cup in Russia that is under the biggest pressure. I'm 100 % certain that Germany, the US, Holland, England etc will play in Qatar, but i'm fairly certain that if the world cup in Russia is not moved it will be boycotted by an united coalition of all anti-Russian countries in the world, from Germany to the US to Japan which would be a serious blow for both FIFA and Russia.



matthemod said:


> - Arrests made regarding corruption with Qatar and the FIFA 2022 World Cup.
> 
> - Russian posters blame the USA and England with conspiring to take away the 2018 world cup? Okay...


This is because US senators have written letters to FIFA about moving the world cup from Russia, McCain also said that if Blatter continues to support Russia he should be removed from office, nothing like that has been said or done about the world cup in Qatar, this is why the world cup in Qatar is safe and the Russian one is not. The US is the most powerful country in the world and Qatar is an ally of them, this means that the Qatar world cup is backed by their ally the US, the Russian world cup on the other hand is opposed by the US and other major countries, thus this is much more likelier to be moved for this simple reason.


----------



## DanMB (May 14, 2015)

UEFA confirms that they fully support Prince Ali against Blatter...Hmm....Blatter has been the major backer of the Russian world cup, if/when Blatter is gone i think we will fairly quickly start to see movements towards moving the world cup from Russia.

It's a smart strategy by the west, try to remove the world cup from Russia by ousting the FIFA elite and replacing them with new people. I think the strategy is this; Replace Blatter and all the others in the FIFA elite who gave Russia the world cup, then the new people taking over FIFA can say that the Russian world cup was all just a legacy of the former boss Blatter and his corrupt cronies, after that it won't be any problems to move the world cup to Germany or another western country with good stadiums instantly. The west must really have been furious about Blatter not budging in his support for Russia so they changed strategy to this.


----------



## bloganista (Aug 26, 2013)

DanMB said:


> The reason why Russia and Gazprom are against this is because they have reason to suspect that the real target is Blatter due to his support of the world cup in Russia .


Gazprom are keeping schtum about recent developments while all other sponsors have condemned FIFA and Blatter for the total farce.
Why do you think Russia have kept so tight-lipped about the corrupt Qatar bid??? The silence is deafening. They have not even uttered a word regarding the matter while all other non-Russian sponsors are crying foul.



> the goal is probably to oust Blatter and replace him with a person willing to move the world cup from Russia. McCain is furious against Blatter for refusing the US demand of moving the world cup from Russia, thus Blatter has to be removed.


 Yes, good riddance to this parasitical Blatter, even if it means holding the World Cup in Timbuktu instead of Russia. 


> I'm 100 % certain that Germany, the US, Holland, England etc will play in Qatar, .


 That would be like attending the wedding of a man who shot your mother dead.
Besides, its planned to take place in the middle of the domestic football season. I can't imagine it at all.



> but i'm fairly certain that if the world cup in Russia is not moved it will be boycotted by an united coalition of all anti-Russian countries in the world, from Germany to the US to Japan which would be a serious blow for both FIFA and Russia.


 Your just mixing politics into it which is pointless.
Did Russia win the bid to host fairly? That's the key question. 
If not, move the World Cup somewhere else. Full stop.


----------



## bloganista (Aug 26, 2013)

DanMB said:


> .
> 
> It's a smart strategy by the west, try to remove the world cup from Russia by ousting the FIFA elite and replacing them with new people.


 Anything that replaces the current vermin which infest the board room of FIFA must surely be a great thing (unless they are replaced by a new crop of fraudsters).



> I think the strategy is this; Replace Blatter and all the others in the FIFA elite who gave Russia the world cup, then the new people taking over FIFA can say that the Russian world cup was all just a legacy of the former boss Blatter and his corrupt cronies, after that it won't be any problems to move the world cup to Germany or another western country with good stadiums instantly. The west must really have been furious about Blatter not budging in his support for Russia so they changed strategy to this.


If Russia's successful bid was achieved by corrupt means they have no right to hold the World Cup. Period.
You're just trying to blur and confuse the issue with your political smoke and mirrors.


----------



## DanMB (May 14, 2015)

bloganista said:


> Anything that replaces the current vermin which infest the board room of FIFA must surely be a great thing (unless they are replaced by a new crop of fraudsters).
> 
> 
> If Russia's successful bid was achieved by corrupt means they have no right to hold the World Cup. Period.
> You're just trying to blur and confuse the issue with your political smoke and mirrors.


Even if Russia got the world cup honestly the west can easily fake evidence to ''prove'' that everything was corrupt. This why the west is so desperate in forcing Blatter and his men out, after that the new people can easily be persuaded to take a hard line against Russia. If you seriously think Qatar is even an issue here you are very naive, the west have no problems with Qatar, they are trusted US allies and thus immune from any harm. The real issue is Russia and that is of course what the Russian government and Gazprom realizes.

The main problem is that the anti-Russian countries are trying to drag politics into sports, we know that the US and NATO want to isolate and harm Russia and they want to use even sport as part of this strategy. This is really a confirmation that we are in a cold war, to lobby this hard against a world cup is really not some minor thing, it's an act of incredible political pressure against another country, especially since Russia has spent billions on new stadiums. The west knows that it would be a serious blow to Russia to have spent billions on a world cup that then gets moved.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

DanMB said:


> The main problem is that the anti-Russian countries are trying to drag politics into sports


Yeah, THAT'S the main problem :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

DanMB said:


> With your reasoning football will never develop or grow in Asia, Africa, Russia, most of the world because you would only allow a select few rich countries in Europe and America the right to have a world cup. This would of course lead to no development of football in other regions. Football has tried for many decades to make football develop in regions outside of Europe and America. Look at how much better countries such as Japan are now than 20 years ago, this is because Japan organized a world cup.


There are three key flaws with your theory: 1) This presumes that only a World Cup can develop the infrastructure needed for soccer to flourish in developing countries, which isn't the case. True, hosting major events like the WC or the Euros can help kick start the urgency but if they're the only way you get something done then perhaps the demand really isn't there. 2) The level of investment required for a WC can far outstrip the actual requirements locally. Brazil and South Africa have many beautiful modern stadia now thanks to their events but they're much larger than necessary and scattered in some places where people thought they could develop the game only now to find it a complete waste of their investment. That's not all FIFA's fault but it's part of the process and FIFA has not done anything to discourage outlandish investment schemes. 3) If it's true that events like these are needed to spur major investments then shouldn't that same opportunity be afforded places that have venues but many of them are old and in need of renovation and repair? Folks in Italy have been desperate for new stadiums and really wanted the upcoming Euros to kickstart a major rebuilding effort. Seems soccer would receive the same type of return on investment by keeping a local hotbed thriving, no?



afonso_bh said:


> In terms of stadia, the World Cup was the best thing that have happened for brazilian football. But other than that...


True, but it's also true that there were many missed opportunities and many projects pursued to degrees that were really too far. Given the chance I'm confident they would at least redo some of their stadium selections and aimed for more smaller venues with viable uses after the games.


campineiro1 said:


> So much money?
> Brazilian GDP from 2009 to 2014: $ 14000 billion
> World cup: $11 billion
> 1100/14000 = 0,07 %
> ...


Compared to the entire Brazilian GDP? A curious measure. Perhaps if the public knew that they wouldn't have held those public marches and minor riots over the spending.

You're painting a partial picture, though, because the amount invested remains massive and, most importantly, the question is whether or not it was used wisely to get the best for Brazilians. Unless the nation has somehow escaped it issues regarding unemployment, inflation, poverty, etc, then I suspect many would say those shiny new stadiums aren't as helpful as originally advertised.

For instance, they could've built smaller venues, worked harder to ensure they had teams playing in all of them after the WC (which may have required picking different cities), and then they could've saved enough money to pursue some of the also-promised infrastructure projects that never saw the light of day. Or to provide better housing for the families displaced by some stadiums.

......



DanMB said:


> We know that the real goal is to strip Russia of the world cup due to political reasons regarding Ukraine, and that is of course a fair reason. But supporters of this view must make it clear that this is simply a way to punish the Russian government for their ills and nothing else. We have no reason to suspect that the Russian bid was more corrupt than the South African world cup bid and other bids in the last few years at least.





Sochifan said:


> nomarandlee, its a fact that the Russophobes in our govt are obsessed with hurting the 2018 cup just as they attempted w Sochi. This latest little stunt is because they want to hurt Blatter bc they somehow think if hes out they can hurt Russias wc more.





DanMB said:


> It seems that Putin and the Russian leadership thinks these arrests are aimed at Russia, because Blatter is a big supporter of the Russian world cup. Is the US aiming to oust Blatter with a person who is more anti-Russian perhaps?





DanMB said:


> The reason why Russia and Gazprom are against this is because they have reason to suspect that the real target is Blatter due to his support of the world cup in Russia, the goal is probably to oust Blatter and replace him with a person willing to move the world cup from Russia. McCain is furious against Blatter for refusing the US demand of moving the world cup from Russia, thus Blatter has to be removed.


This is as politely as I can put it for you two: Just stop. That SOME folks and politicos in the US have issues with Russia does not mean there is a massive conspiracy to take away the 2018 WC. In fact, most folks don't give two s***s about you hosting and would much rather Putin continue to waste your money on a bunch of far reaching glamor graft projects than on something that might actually harm somebody. And smart people know boycotts or fussing about the event wouldn't yield any benefit anyway. THIS IS NOT ABOUT RUSSIA 2018!! So save your breath and our time and please take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. We all accept it's going to happen, we think there's a great deal of merit to Russia hosting the event and growing their soccer culture and hopefully it turns out to be a great event. Okay?

If you can't fathom how much this is about FIFA, and the prospect of this organization being too powerful and unwieldy, and about how much we all want to prevent FUTURE problems from occurring then, truly, none of us can help you. This is about a select group of men hoarding money and using their power to abuse others and enrich others, and a lot of it illegally and without regard for human decency. THAT'S what this is about. Not Russia. 

This isn't about geopolitical power. It's not a new cold war. It's about a multi billion dollar organization and their manipulation of funds and contracts to avert taxes, labor laws, and to influence domestic leagues. 

Seriously, if you can't appreciate that then I suggest taking your case elsewhere.



> I don't think the Qatar world cup is under any threat because Qatar is a known ally to the US and Europe.


Qatar is a nation so small, so bereft of any appropriate infrastructure and with such questionable labor laws that there is no reasonable way they alone should be hosting this event. That they won it epitomizes the idea that FIFA thinks they're immune to logic and fair financial laws and process that they are EXACTLY why this whole process has come to light. FIFA pushed their largesse one step too far by giving the event to a nation-state smaller than most major cities, one with known human rights concerns and the lowest score of all applicants, and then expected us all to somehow think nothing shady is involved!

Political connections won't help Qatar if it's proven they won the event via bribery and if it shows that FIFA ignored valid concerns about labor abuses and other social issues. Just as assured as I am that Russia's event will not be taken away, I'm that much more confident Qatar's will be moved. They don't need 10 stadiums of WC size. They haven't proven they can resolve the issues with the kafala practices. The event shouldn't have been moved to accommodate weather concerns. This is a complete mess that sets a bad precedent for the future unless FIFA establishes new rules for the selection process.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

DanMB said:


> Even if Russia got the world cup honestly the west can easily fake evidence to ''prove'' that everything was corrupt. This why the west is so desperate in forcing Blatter and his men out, after that the new people can easily be persuaded to take a hard line against Russia. If you seriously think Qatar is even an issue here you are very naive, the west have no problems with Qatar, they are trusted US allies and thus immune from any harm. The real issue is Russia and that is of course what the Russian government and Gazprom realizes.
> 
> The main problem is that the anti-Russian countries are trying to drag politics into sports, we know that the US and NATO want to isolate and harm Russia and they want to use even sport as part of this strategy. This is really a confirmation that we are in a cold war, to lobby this hard against a world cup is really not some minor thing, it's an act of incredible political pressure against another country, especially since Russia has spent billions on new stadiums. The west knows that it would be a serious blow to Russia to have spent billions on a world cup that then gets moved.


Please provide evidence to how US folks are lobbying "this hard" against Russia 2018. One or two letters from select talking heads is not a campaign! 

Neither Congress nor the President has formally requested a change for 2018.
The US Soccer Federation has not requested a change.
CONCACAF has not requested a change.
None of the major US sports news outlets have requested a change.
Even while voicing concerns over Ukraine the US still went to Sochi.

So if you're so damn convinced about this conspiracy theory of yours then here is your chance to enlighten us! Educate the world and shows us all this proof that the US is fully vested in taking the World Cup from Russia! Prove to us that the aforementioned issues with Qatar and the hundreds of millions in tax-evasion and money laundering issues for events other than 2018 are all just a smoke screen for the main goal of starting another cold war!

Please, enlighten me. But don't just spout your theories. Show us the evidence.


----------



## Sochifan (Dec 28, 2013)

First of all I'm not Russian. I'm an American that strongly supports Russia. 

Secondly, Dan, enough already. You are posting the same Russphobic things over and over again that aren't rooted in reality.

I don't know if you are American but John McCain is a loon. Nobody respects anything he says and his wild rantings are not a basis for anything.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

DanMB said:


> My point is that i can't see any sort of western pressure to move the world cup from Qatar, firstly because Qatar is an ally of them and it would be illogical to push hard for something that would just punish an ally of yourself.


Then I suggest you read more of the articles referenced throughout these threads or spend some time reading the articles on ESPNFC.com about the matter as a start. They'll outline how the concern is about FIFA and how they do their business and make their money, and that there is some legit concern about Qatar. Remember, the US was competing for the 2022 slot, not 2018. They were, in fact, favored to win the event and scored the highest technical marks from FIFA's staff going into the bid process. You can also see several news videos on YouTube about concerns with Qatar and the Qatari bid and its human rights abuses are part of the E60 special about FIFA that you can find previewed here. (First video after that highlights Qatari bid)

If you can access the articles within the Washington Post or the New York Times you'll see the scope of all this covers: Bribery and tax evasion within the US, illegal contracts, contorted media deals... and most of this for events other than the 2018 WC.



> On the other hand i can't see why the US and their allies would not go after the Russian world cup


If you're this hip to political issues then you should also realize that such relationships are never so black and white and that in the scheme of things removing these games are not worth the effort. The US hasn't attacked over the Ukraine and has maintained diplomatic relations with Russia throughout. Do you really think we want to go into another cold war? Do you not think the US would look the bully if they did what you're suggesting? 



> I'm not saying that this is definitely going to happen, my point is that there is no obvious benefits for the US and Europe to remove the world cup from Qatar while there are enormous benefits for them in removing the world cup from Russia. The Qatar world cup thus has the backing of all the powerful countries...


Again, you're not reading the press articles about this and have obviously not followed the constant issues that have haunted the Qatari bid. Here's a hint: Look at this thread title. Reread the thread. Read the original one about Qatar '22. Learn.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

It occurred to me that one of the main reasons Russia is caught up in this is simply the timing of their bid. 

The selections for 2018 and 2022 were made in rare circumstances, chosen just by a 22-member executive committee (as opposed to all 209 FIFA members) and chosen at the same time. This meant that the opportunities for bribery and possible vote trading were greater (fewer folks involved). So even if the folks behind Russia's bid didn't do anything wrong, any entity investigating the bid process for 2022 will have to examine the 2018 process, as well. The fact that Russia alone pulled off kind of an upset win vs. Spain and England would not have been considered extraordinary. The fact that the next name out of the envelope was Qatar, however, automatically raises suspicions about all the people involved. 

This doesn't mean the Russian bid was clean nor does it mean I or anyone wants to take away their WC. It simply means these unique circumstances aren't their fault but they are caught up in the story.


----------



## DanMB (May 14, 2015)

Now UEFA is saying that they may boycott the coming world cup if Blatter is re-elected....It seems that Russia is stuck in a hard place, either Blatter wins who is friendly with Russia but hated by all western countries or a person supported by the west takes over who may take a hard line against the Russian world cup. If Blatter gets re-elected then the western countries can say that they are boycotting FIFA and Blatter and not Russia, but the effect will be the same.

I think Russia regrets very much getting this world cup by now, but regrettably the money has already been spent, it's too late to back away. It's important to realize that the situation that existed when Russia bid for the world cup no longer exist because of many political things in the last 5 years. Far from being good for Russia this world cup will only be about controversies, boycott threats and problems.

Russia wanted Sochi and the World cup to better Russia's image but all it led to was firstly a total boycott by western leaders to Sochi and enormous propaganda about how bad Sochi was and this World cup will be even worse, nothing positive will be written about it and it will be boycotted by all western leaders and maybe even their teams as well. Thus billions was spent in vain, it's obvious that Russia should give up on this front, nothing positive will ever be said about Russia or anything Russia does so Russia should stop trying.


----------



## cyril sneer (Mar 10, 2015)

There would be absolute uproar if the World Cup was removed from Russia and given to USA :nuts: :lol:


----------



## bloganista (Aug 26, 2013)

> *cyril sneer *There would be absolute uproar if the World Cup was removed from Russia and given to USA


Actually there is an underlying layer of truth in what you say.

The USA deserves to host the World Cup - the world owes the US a debt of gratitude for attempting to deal with FIFA corruption. So much for other countries who just tolerated it, especially Russia who even refuse to condemn it.

I never thought I'd ever write this (being English) but here goes:

GOD BLESS AMERICA!


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

DanMB said:


> Now UEFA is saying that they may boycott the coming world cup if Blatter is re-elected....


A) All they've said is they haven't ruled out a boycott, B) they don't specify 2018 but have gone on record in the past talking about boycotting the WC... in Qatar! 



> Far from being good for Russia this world cup will only be about controversies, boycott threats and problems.


Funny enough, the same could be said about the past 2 World Cups. And the ones in Japan & South Korea. So basically any international sporting event that's involved over-the-top spending.

I'll play nice with this one, because, seriously, I'm trying to help or learn:


> Russia wanted Sochi and the World cup to better Russia's image but all it led to was firstly a total boycott by western leaders to Sochi and enormous propaganda about how bad Sochi was...


A) There's no dictate that leaders have to show up for these things. I don't seem to recall Putin making a big deal out of expecting them so what's the issue?
B) Yes, these grand investments are always about trying to improve an image but that doesn't mean they're guaranteed or immune to graft and corruption. Russia bent over backwards to make Sochi viable, arguably to degrees that many people think were unnecessary. Sure, Sochi may not be a tourist haven without the investment, but based on results it seems that the investment may not pay off, anyway. In which case perhaps the money could've been spent on more important things. None of which has to do with boycotts or international politics but more the simple fact you can't necessarily make a tourist mecca overnight.
C) The facilities and logistics behind the Sochi games had their issues, mainly because Russia aimed too high for what was feasible for such a remote city with barely any facilities to begin with. Doesn't mean they were awful, but they weren't ideal.


> and this World cup will be even worse, nothing positive will be written about it and it will be boycotted by all western leaders and maybe even their teams as well.


I've yet to read an article suggesting the 2018 WC will be awful because it's in Russia or because of Russian politics. Most people assume the country has learned from Sochi and will do better, and most understand that the Russian venues are more practical than Brazil '14. The only things people have said negative that I've seen have to do with suspicions about bribery to win the bid, and as I've said much of that relates to timing and remain simply suspicion. If you have articles suggesting otherwise I'd love to see them. 


> Thus billions was spent in vain, it's obvious that Russia should give up on this front, nothing positive will ever be said about Russia or anything Russia does so Russia should stop trying.


Politically speaking you would be better off making your case by speaking in simple facts and attacking the issues instead of painting a picture of conspiracy theories. You want to turn around opinions then give the reasons why. If you're simply going to whine and complain about others then you're guilty of the same stuff you're accusing others of doing.

Cheers.


----------



## Blackhavvk (Dec 23, 2013)

bloganista said:


> The USA deserves to host the World Cup


Then let them take part in the voting at the World Cup 2026. It will be unfair to the championship without a vote. All countries are equal.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

Sochifan said:


> nomarandlee, its a fact that the Russophobes in our govt are obsessed with hurting the 2018 cup just as they attempted w Sochi. This latest little stunt is because they want to hurt Blatter bc they somehow think if hes out they can hurt Russias wc more.
> 
> 
> Something I find comical is how some people and the establishment try to act like Russia hosting an International event is some sort of out of the ordinary thing when the reality is Russia hosts International sporting events almost every week. Its just that only the big ones are used for propaganda campaigns.
> ...


What "government" full of Russophobes are you talking about? 

Listen, I really don't have the time nor the initiative to answer all the paranoid excuses/ramblings/fodder/BS of nationalist or fanboys who look every which way at how angelic Russia/Putin are perpetually being hunted and persecuted by the evil West/Americans who want to see Russia destroyed. All because Putin is so great, his hands so clean, and the US/West so badly intentioned because they don't want Russia stronk. 

The fact is that the Russia WC 2018 case rarely comes up in official reports for criticism. That even with Putlers ethnic-fascistic moves that there has been serious propositions to boycott the 2018 WC. That this investigation has n't proposed that Russia is someway involved in the slimy bribery and extortion that FIFA officials are accused. 

Now, maybe you are very concerned that Putin and Co. greased some FIFA palms to make sure to get the cup but that isn't my problem. And you will likely deny and spin it even if evidence came out that they did. But that is no my problem you choose to be a fanboy of a rotten government. And right now you have no reason to worry given no allegations have come out or are hinted at. And Russia 2018 is close enough that I don't see it going anywhere else. Qatar 2022 though......


----------



## Sochifan (Dec 28, 2013)

Yes, Sochi sucked because a media hotel didn't have a shower curtain.


----------



## will101 (Jan 16, 2011)

bloganista said:


> Actually there is an underlying layer of truth in what you say.
> 
> The USA deserves to host the World Cup - the world owes the US a debt of gratitude for attempting to deal with FIFA corruption. So much for other countries who just tolerated it, especially Russia who even refuse to condemn it.
> 
> ...


Go sit with a pot of tea (or a pint of the bitter), and watch something like 'The King's Speech' or 'Chariots of Fire'. You'll feel better.

:cheers:


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

DanMB said:


> It seems that Putin and the Russian leadership thinks these arrests are aimed at Russia, because Blatter is a big supporter of the Russian world cup. Is the US aiming to oust Blatter with a person who is more anti-Russian perhaps? I don't think the Qatar world cup is under any threat because Qatar is a known ally to the US and Europe. I do think the world cup in Russia will be under serious pressure to be moved, especially if Blatter is ousted.


Funny then that the charges haven't yet been aimed at Blatter. But you have a conspiracy to keep up so.....



> I'm certain that if the world cup is not moved from Russia the US and all their western partners will boycott the event, thus putting enormous pressure on FIFA to move the event in a short notice, the US will not come to Russia for a Russian world cup, this is out of the question for me.


Funny enough even with Putler's antics over the last few years that hasn't been serious calls to boycott the WC. But if Putin decides to escalate the conflict and land grab more territory then why should anyone feel obligated to send their team to the WC? That is a on the whole a completely different issue though then corruption at FIFA is it not. 



> Remember in life that geopolitics are the most important thing, the west will not do anything against Qatar because the US sees Qatar as a trusted ally of them, Russia is an enemy to them and thus they will focus solely on the Russian world cup and not the one in Qatar.


I think this is a huge steaming pile of BS. So far the leaks that have come out about corruption have been about the 2022 bid, not the 2018 bid. And casual sports fans are MUCH more up in arms about Qatar because to them it is clear that that decision is endlessly more foolhardy then the choice of Russia. Most casual fans know that, take away the politics, and Russia in most respects is a very good choice to host the tourney given its size, football legacy, geographic position, and ability to host. Even Western "Putin-phobes" or "Russo-phobes" get that. Meanwhile it is is beyond any rationale comprehension that Qatar is a proper choice unless if one were to be bribed into thinking so. 

Beyond that there is the question of timing. 2018 may be too close to change venues even if there was improper dealings with FIFA and Russian authorities. 2022 on the other hand is still far enough away that many nations could still easily take Qatar's place if need be (and should be).



> McCain is part of the US elite and thus we can conclude that this is the stance of the leadership of the US.


McCain is ONE U.S. senator. That is like claiming that anything in the Duma that Vladimir Zhirinovsky says or proposes is official Russian policy. You agree with that? 

Such nonsense.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

dp


----------



## DanMB (May 14, 2015)

We have to see the developments the coming weeks and months, i think the Russian world cup is safe as long as Blatter stays in power, because Blatter has invested much in the world cup in Russia, but if Blatter is ousted there is a whole different ball game, we don't know what Blatter's replacement may think about the Russian world cup, he may take a hard line or continue Blatter's policies. The ouster of Blatter would be the end of the status quo at least and could open up the calls for re-vote bids for both Russia and Qatar.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

DanMB said:


> Now UEFA is saying that they may boycott the coming world cup if Blatter is re-elected....It seems that Russia is stuck in a hard place, either Blatter wins who is friendly with Russia but hated by all western countries or a person supported by the west takes over who may take a hard line against the Russian world cup. If Blatter gets re-elected then the western countries can say that they are boycotting FIFA and Blatter and not Russia, but the effect will be the same.
> 
> I think Russia regrets very much getting this world cup by now, but regrettably the money has already been spent, it's too late to back away. It's important to realize that the situation that existed when Russia bid for the world cup no longer exist because of many political things in the last 5 years. Far from being good for Russia this world cup will only be about controversies, boycott threats and problems.
> 
> Russia wanted Sochi and the World cup to better Russia's image but all it led to was firstly a total boycott by western leaders to Sochi *and enormous propaganda about how bad Sochi was and this World cup will be even worse, nothing positive will be written about it and it will be boycotted by all western leaders and maybe even their teams as well. Thus billions was spent in vain, it's obvious that Russia should give up on this front, nothing positive will ever be said about Russia or anything Russia does so Russia should stop trying*.


That is the saddest story I've ever heard. :sad2:

Especially given how much of respect and benefit of the doubt Russian media outlets give to others nations...... 

Sochi wasn't unfairly depicted. The money, zealous patriotism, the homophobia, the waste, the inefficiencies of the village.....All true. 

You are not going to change peoples minds about Russia or any other nation by showing big glitzy stadiums on TV or seemingly well run sporting events. The world has a bit more depth then that. Maybe you wish that is all it took to impress people but it aint. 

If that were the case then you would surely look favorably on the US and UK which have put on some good events over the last 25 years. Needless to say given your rhetoric the sporting expositions haven't made a dent on making positive impressions of either.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

I'm actually very surprised Russia is going with the conspiracy theory angle. Their bid hasn't been directly accused of anything. Certainly nothing has stuck yet (they "lost" all their emails when Garcia came calling).

It would seem far more sensible for them to take the same diplomatic line as Blatter has. Spew some stuff out about being shocked at these revelations, express hope that those guilty are dealt with etc.

They've made themselves _look_ guilty by taking the stance they have!


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

dp


----------



## Sochifan (Dec 28, 2013)

To be honest I was once like some of you. I knew nothing about Russia and everything I knew of Russia was what I later realized was just propaganda and misconceptions.

Then I learned about them, engrossed myself in Russian culture, got to know real Russian people, watched their sports, etc. Once you do that you will get a completely different perspective and quickly see just how much the Western elite view presented of them is not rooted in reality.

I watch every Russian Premier League game. I watch tons of KHL games. I follow every international sporting event in Russia. I especially follow anything in Sochi closely, even things I don't care about like the Womens Chess Championship.

And I'm not a paid troll or whatever you want to dismiss me as. I'm an honest person with no agenda.

Its all a charade and demonizing Russia is about nothing more than the elite angry with them for getting away from the dollar and wanting to cut into their energy market share. When the banking cartel was looting them in the 90's there was plans to build a big Russia area at Epcott.

Regular people like us shouldn't be having hatred of someone for interests that benefit us in no way. We need to be the ones fostering unity because it will never come from the establishment because things like peace aren't good for business.


----------



## SkyLinePana (Apr 28, 2015)

you can say that, but then there is your username right there.


----------



## Sochifan (Dec 28, 2013)

Gunner, you are saying things about Sochi which simply aren't true. I get it, elitist liberals think they have to hate Sochi because if Sochi is a success then Russia is a success and Putin is a success. But some of the people on here are informed about Sochi so that doesn't fly so well.


----------



## ReNaHtEiM (Jul 15, 2013)

All these whiny Russians. This thread is not about 2018.
I'm so over it...

uke:


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

Sochifan said:


> To be honest I was once like some of you. I knew nothing about Russia and everything I knew of Russia was what I later realized was just propaganda and misconceptions.
> 
> Then I learned about them, engrossed myself in Russian culture, got to know real Russian people, watched their sports, etc. Once you do that you will get a completely different perspective and quickly see just how much the Western elite view presented of them is not rooted in reality.
> 
> ...


So because you have decided to fall in love with Russian sports, pop culture, or whatever that somehow means that the rest of us are haters who are tricked by our elites who dare criticize Putler because they are all just mean, greedy, hegemonic, racist haters of the glorious Russian civilization and Dear Leader Putin. 

If you don't like Putlers shamless ethno-centricism, promoted homophobia, invasion and annexation of neighbors, silencing of dissent and manipulation of media, cynical alliance with Orthodox religion, and promoting and paranoia of hate of other nations then somehow WE are the deluded haters. 

Got it. And you claim to be the one awake?


----------



## Sochifan (Dec 28, 2013)

I'd trade my US citizenship for Russian citizenship right now buddy. Every word you spouted right there shows how informed you are. Not very.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Sochifan said:


> Gunner, you are saying things about Sochi which simply aren't true.


Fine. Considering I've posted so little about Sochi in this thread please feel free to correct anything in which I've erred. Or was I wrong in saying they weren't "ideal?"



> I get it, elitist liberals think they have to hate Sochi because if Sochi is a success then Russia is a success and Putin is a success. But some of the people on here are informed about Sochi so that doesn't fly so well.


Elitist liberal? You _really _don't know me.

You're painting everyone as straw-man extremists on one side or the other so as to justify your stance, which isn't fair to everyone else trying to address the issues with FIFA. Please know that people can distinguish between Putin and Russia, between Sochi the community, Sochi the games and Sochi the politics behind the event. And we can distinguish between Sochi '14, Putin and Russia '18 and treat them as individual topics.

So I ask you to do the same. Grasp the worldview of FIFA and the events that took place in and before the awarding of the '18 and '22 games and realize this isn't about Sochi, or Putin, or Russia.


----------



## Blackhavvk (Dec 23, 2013)

nomarandlee said:


> So because you have decided to fall in love with Russian sports, pop culture, or whatever that somehow means that the rest of us are haters who are tricked by our elites who dare criticize Putler because they are all just mean, greedy, hegemonic, racist haters of the glorious Russian civilization and Dear Leader Putin.
> 
> If you don't like Putlers shamless ethno-centricism, promoted homophobia, invasion and annexation of neighbors, silencing of dissent and manipulation of media, cynical alliance with Orthodox religion, and promoting and paranoia of hate of other nations then somehow WE are the deluded haters.
> 
> Got it. And you claim to be the one awake?


These words make me think about your mental instability. You need to watch less TV, and soothing drink. Received treatment at the clinic.


----------



## SkyLinePana (Apr 28, 2015)

Sochifan said:


> Gunner, you are saying things about Sochi which simply aren't true. I get it, elitist liberals think they have to hate Sochi because if Sochi is a success then Russia is a success and Putin is a success. But some of the people on here are informed about Sochi so that doesn't fly so well.


oh you are one of those libertarians who wants so suck some putin ****.
very cute.


----------



## SkyLinePana (Apr 28, 2015)

Blackhavvk said:


> These words make me think about your mental instability. You need to watch less TV, and soothing drink. Received treatment at the clinic.


are you saying drink more?
isnt all of russia an alcoholic at this point?


----------

