2018/2022 World Cups

[RedAnarchist]

So, Russia will host the 2018 tournament and Qatar will host the 2022 World Cup final. What's everyone's opinion?

I can see the British media, as usual, already lining up to find something to blame - the Panorama programme and the violence in Birmingham last night will be at the top of their list.

[NKVD]

I'm happy England lost so bad. I'm sick and tired of their arrogance when it comes to football. They thought they were entitled to the 2018 world cup, and didn't even consider wether someone else deserved it more. Russia makes sense as the best choice, as it will have the ability to host a good well organized tournament and aren't really arrogant about the quality of their football (unlike Spain or especially England).

As for Qatar, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I'm happy we (America) didn't get it. On the other hand, Qatar is basically a country that says it'll throw money at the even and that is all it has going for it. While it is a good thing to host the world cup in the middle east, it shouldn't be in a reactionary monarchy like Qatar. I think Australia hasn't hosted it before and could have been a good choice, though the South Korean bid was technically impressive. I think I read that South Korea would have let North Korea host one of the matches.

[ComradeOm]

I can see the British media, as usual, already lining up to find something to blame - the Panorama programme and the violence in Birmingham last night will be at the top of their list. Absolutely hilarious. Witness the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/dec/02/world-cup-2018-fifa-england-bid): "What objective elements there are to Fifa's personal schmooze of a bidding process... had England on top. Yet Russia has 2018". So Ingerland was the best and only all that pesky politicking by corrupt foreigners got in the way. Once again, as with every tournament in the past 40 odd years, Dear Old Blightly has been cheated out of its football heritage. When will these silly kleptocrats realise that Ingerland invented this game!

That said, Qatar is a truly bizarre choice. Granted, it was an exceptionally weak field, with only the US being a real alternative, but still. Even assuming this anti-desert heat technology works, I find it hard to envisage what sort of atmosphere or crowds they'll get. Which is not even mentioning the disturbing sight of the WC being treated as a billionaire's plaything and doled out to a tiny city state

[manic expression]

Any of the 2018 bids would have been good choices. Belgium-Netherlands' bid was solid, Spain-Portugal would have been superb hosts IMO, England had a very decent case...but in the end, Russia makes the most sense and I think it's a great decision. Can't wait to see how it develops.

Qatar is laughable, though. I'm disappointed the US didn't get it, of course, but Qatar? Any of the other bids were far better, and in addition to the US (and Korea and Japan) I think Australia would have been fine hosts, Australia was the best bid that hasn't had a WC before. Qatar has to deal with brutal weather, infrastructure problems that even if solved will be totally useless after the final whistle is blown, an automatic qualification for an undeserving national team, a tiny country with few attractions and more social snags than if we held the competition in mid-18th Century France. I hope it works, but honestly, Qatar? Really?

[Devrim]

Absolutely hilarious. Witness the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/dec/02/world-cup-2018-fifa-england-bid): "What objective elements there are to Fifa's personal schmooze of a bidding process... had England on top. Yet Russia has 2018". So Ingerland was the best and only all that pesky politicking by corrupt foreigners got in the way. Once again, as with every tournament in the past 40 odd years, Dear Old Blightly has been cheated out of its football heritage. When will these silly kleptocrats realise that Ingerland invented this game!

What is truly amazing is the way that the UK media presented it like they had a real chance of getting it with the main opposition being Spain. I listened to some Spanish journalists on TV yesterday before the vote, and they were convinced that they had a strong bid, but were worried that the Russians would beat them, an accurate assessment as it turned out. With England going out in the first round, the English assessment couldn't have been more wrong.


That said, Qatar is a truly bizarre choice. Granted, it was an exceptionally weak field, with only the US being a real alternative, but still. Even assuming this anti-desert heat technology works, I find it hard to envisage what sort of atmosphere or crowds they'll get. Which is not even mentioning the disturbing sight of the WC being treated as a billionaire's plaything and doled out to a tiny city state


Qatar is laughable, though. I'm disappointed the US didn't get it, of course, but Qatar? Any of the other bids were far better, and in addition to the US (and Korea and Japan) I think Australia would have been fine hosts, Australia was the best bid that hasn't had a WC before. Qatar has to deal with brutal weather, infrastructure problems that even if solved will be totally useless after the final whistle is blown, an automatic qualification for an undeserving national team, a tiny country with few attractions and more social snags than if we held the competition in mid-18th Century France. I hope it works, but honestly, Qatar? Really?

I think that the Qatar decision is interesting. Part of FIFA's remit is to take the World Cup to new countries. When looking at the majority of the bids for 2022, Korea Japan, and the US, they had held a WC within recent memory. Leaving just Australia who also had never held one.

Yes, the field was weak, but what do you expect. South American countries weren't allowed to bid as 2014 was going to South America, and FIFA had unofficially decided that 2018 was going to Europe ruling them out.

Outside of Europe and South America, apart from the three countries mentioned who have recently had WCs which countries are capable of making a bid? Indonesia and Mexico had already withdrawn, China expressed no interest.

Yes, there are some quite problematic things about Qatar, noticeably its smallness, and the problems obviously associated with that. It is basically just a small city.

On the other hand, it is the first time there will be a WC in the Arab world, which surely fits in with the remit.

Devrim

[ComradeOm]

Qatar is laughable, though. I'm disappointed the US didn't get it, of course, but Qatar? Any of the other bids were far better, and in addition to the US (and Korea and Japan) I think Australia would have been fine hostsI think the US would have been a good choice but, like Japan/Korea, they have had the WC recently. Its very odd for a country to stage the event twice in two decades. (Mexico probably being the only exception). As for Australia, I don't think that they were ever really in the running. They were certainly capable of hosting it but I don't see anything particularly attractive about their bid


What is truly amazing is the way that the UK media presented it like they had a real chance of getting it with the main opposition being SpainI don't know how they do it so consistently. Now the story is that Ingerland were humiliated (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/dec/02/how-england-world-cup-2018-bid-failed), that they were dreamers outdone by Machiavellian politics (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/dec/02/england-2018-world-cup-bid), that other forces were at play (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/dec/02/world-cup-2018-bid-england-reaction), that their bid was simply best (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/dec/02/2018-world-cup-bid-result-reaction), that the politicians were wrong to descend to FIFA's level (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/02/world-cup-british-journalism-wikileaks) and that this was first and foremost a defeat caused by the integrity of the media (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/dec/02/world-cup-2018-fifa-british-media). Heroes to zeroes. And this is just the Guardian... I don't want to know what the red tops are calling it

[Edit: Oh, okay. The headlines in the Sun and Mail respectively: FIFA bungs Russia the 2018 World Cup (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3258227/Fifa-bungs-Russia-the-2018-World-Cup.html) and Mafia state leader Putin turns up to gloat over World Cup stitch up (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1335188/World-Cup-2018-Russia-knew-won-24-hours-decision-made.html). How unexpectedly hysterical]


On the other hand, it is the first time there will be a WC in the Arab world, which surely fits in with the remitI can only imagine that this is what sold it to FIFA, and it is a laudable goal. But Qater? How many Arabs are actually going to attend the games? Certainly not the millions of spectators that we saw in S Africa. My fear for Qatar is that we're going to see flat atmospheres in pre-fad stadiums in extremely hostile climate conditions

[Devrim]

I can only imagine that this is what sold it to FIFA, and it is a laudable goal. But Qater? How many Arabs are actually going to attend the games? Certainly not the millions of spectators that we saw in S Africa. My fear for Qatar is that we're going to see flat atmospheres in pre-fad stadiums in extremely hostile climate conditions

Well yes Qatar. They can only award it to somebody who is bidding. Certainly in some ways, Egypt would be a much better choice. It has the population and the football tradition. Hosting a WC is an expensive business though, and whatever Qatar doesn't have they do have the money.

The stadium plans look very impressive. Whether they can fill them or not is a different question. More to the point, it is such a small place, where will everybody stay?

On the point of the temperature, I understand that they are planning to play the games at night.

Devrim

[Unidos Marchemos]

I'm very happy to see both nations host the world cup. Russia can use this as an opportunity to clean the eyesore that is the skinheads, and Qatar is an interesting choice as it's a small gulf arab nation that has never hosted a cup nor has a very good team, so It should prove interesting :D

but at least FIFA is committed to expanding the game throughout the world.

[Woland]

This is absolutely terrible news. Anywhere but here.

[I.O.T.M]

I'm pretty disappointed about England not getting the World Cup, I was hoping I'd get to see some International football live. :crying:

[Bandito]

Who's going to Russia with me in 8 years?

[ComradeOm]

Better and better. Paul Hayward, who admittedly is a known idiot, claims that "must be a price for the vindictiveness that caused the best technical bid for 2018 to traipse in last, and the Football Association should exact all the revenge it can by retreating towards Uefa" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/dec/03/revenge-retreat-england-2018-world-cup). The arrogance is staggering and the vitriol surprisingly sustained. At least in S Africa the media could turn on their own team...


On the point of the temperature, I understand that they are planning to play the games at nightWhich should be enough to have alarm bells ringing straight away. As I said, the competition to Qatar was not particularly strong but that doesn't excuse throwing the WC to a tiny city state. Even if it allows FIFA to make the (empty) claim that it has brought the competition to the Middle East - its only gone so far as a billionaire's playground

[NKVD]

This is absolutely terrible news. Anywhere but here.

Err. Are you worried about hooliganism flaring up during the world cup? Or about how much the government will spend on the world cup? Why do you think it is a bad thing to have your country host the world cup?

[Manic Impressive]

I'm pretty disappointed about England not getting the World Cup, I was hoping I'd get to see some International football live. :crying:
Don't worry we're entering a team into the Olympics, not the same but at least it'll be international football.

spain/portugal would have been good but Ingerland was an equally good choice. Russia not so good it's a pain in the arse to get visas for Russia, stadiums aren't as big + the neo nazi element. + Ingeland needed to host it as we probably won't qualify otherwise :(

p.s. FIFA is massively corrupt no matter who won the bid

[Wanted Man]

I don't think the Holland/Belgium Bid ever had much of a chance. I mean, it's really cute to have Johan Cruyff and Ruud Gullit cycle to meetings and to make a "green" bid, but FIFA officials don't give a crap about any of that.

The English reactions were pretty hysterical, as if hosting the tournament was England's God-given right. But reactions here were even funnier. Our officials pretended that they did not mind losing at all, and they claimed that FIFA is a perfectly honest and transparent organisation, and that critics of the bid and of FIFA were simply unpatriotic and not real football lovers.

Right after that, Gullit suddenly decided that officialdom was not for him, and that he was looking to make a comeback as a club manager. I'm sure clubs are looking forward to that prospect. :lol:

The Qatar decision was pretty interesting as well. Apparently, they do want to build stadiums in cities other than Doha. After the tournament, parts of these stadiums will be removed and sent to Africa. They also want to manage the temperature in the stadiums. Ronald de Boer, currently active in Qatar, suggested the possibility of holding the tournament in January. I'm sure all the European FAs will be delighted at the idea of having to completely overturn their schedules for the World Cup...

[NKVD]

Russia not so good it's a pain in the arse to get visas for Russia, stadiums aren't as big + the neo nazi element. + Ingeland needed to host it as we probably won't qualify otherwise :(

Spectators will have visa-free entry into Russia, and they are building pretty reasonably big stadiums (as big as Spain, at least). The neo-nazi element is a real problem though. As for England not qualifying, that's the best part about hosting in Russia. :)

[IronEastBloc]

This is absolutely terrible news. Anywhere but here.

whats wrong with russia mate?

[I.O.T.M]

The FA are really throwing their toys out of the pram. What ever happened to losing with dignity?

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

And the winner is... oh look, this envelope is full of money....

[Rjevan]

Who's going to Russia with me in 8 years?
Count me in, even better than 2014 Olympic Winter Games in Sochi! ;)

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Russia and Qatar. Gas and oil, basically.

Qatar's a very poor choice. Ethically its only just above Beijing '08. Logistically... well, the place is smaller than Yorkshire. Every last game will take place within 40 miles of each other. Hundreds of thousands of beery, hot foreigners (from Qatar's perspective) all milling around right next to each other is, on the face of it, not a good call. Mind you. hopefully if any of the morons start kicking off Qatar's armed forces will get involved. Wipe some of the dregs out.

Russia.. yeah id go with that, although Id have liked to have seen Spain/Portugal get it (I know some very pretty Spanish ladies). As soon as I saw that Englands 'team' included Dave Cameraman and Prince Whatsisface I kind of wante us to lose. Hopefully it ruined their day :)

I still think Russia bought it. But thats capitalism isnt it? Good luck to 'em.

WOT FIFA, GOVERNING BODY OF A MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY, CORRUPT???!!?!!?!!?£">!"£r":rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Well, yeah....

[Bandito]

http://mushroom.nosox.org/b3ta/mafifa.gif

[ComradeOm]

Russia and Qatar. Gas and oil, basicallyYes, because FIFA is angling to get a discount on the heating bill for their Swiss headquarters...

[Wanted Man]

Russia and Qatar. Gas and oil, basically.

Qatar's a very poor choice. Ethically its only just above Beijing '08.

Luckily, the next Olympics will be taking place in a proper country.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Luckily, the next Olympics will be taking place in a proper country.

yep, Russia 2014. I love the Bobsleigh!

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Yes, because FIFA is angling to get a discount on the heating bill for their Swiss headquarters...


i was suggesting that Gas and Oil is where the money came from to buy the vote, really. I dont think some Russian backroom guy caught Sepp on a quiet moment and said "Sepp, here y'are, mate - Give it to us and you can have 10 free canisters a month. keep your toes warm on those cold Geneva nights."

[ComradeOm]

i was suggesting that Gas and Oil is where the money came from to buy the vote, reallyAnd where did the £15 million that the FA spent on the bid come from? More to the point, why on earth should it matter?

[Vanguard1917]

Qatar's a very poor choice. Ethically its only just above Beijing '08. Logistically... well, the place is smaller than Yorkshire. Every last game will take place within 40 miles of each other. Hundreds of thousands of beery, hot foreigners (from Qatar's perspective) all milling around right next to each other is, on the face of it, not a good call. Mind you. hopefully if any of the morons start kicking off Qatar's armed forces will get involved. Wipe some of the dregs out.

'Ethically' Qatar is a 'poor choice', but let's hope its army 'wipes out' unruly football fans ... ?

[F9]

I couldnt care less from now in 2010 where the 2022 WC will be held, i will give a fuck the summer before it;)

[Devrim]

Russia and Qatar. Gas and oil, basically.
...
I still think Russia bought it. But thats capitalism isnt it? Good luck to 'em.


I don't really see any problem with the choice of Russia except English and Spanish sour grapes. Of course the world is capitalist, and it isn't as if they didn't spend £15,000,000 on the English bid. FIFA has let it be known for a long time that it sees its remit as taking the tournament to new places, and if this is the case, then the map that the Russians used during their presentation showing the number of WCs that have taken place in Western Europe compared to Eastern Europe is a very strong argument. The score is, as they put it, ten-nil.


Qatar's a very poor choice. Ethically its only just above Beijing '08.

To be honest I am getting quite sick about people whining about 'ethics'. Of course, I don't think that there is anything particularly 'ethical' about the government of Qatar, but whilst there has been lots of questioning of the 'ethics' of a tiny city state in the Middle East, nobody has thought to question the 'ethics' of giving the World Cup to one of the other bidders, the USA, which is responsible for the deaths of more people in one country alone, Iraq, than Qatar has citizens. I think that there is more than a little hypocrisy at work here.


Logistically... well, the place is smaller than Yorkshire. Every last game will take place within 40 miles of each other.

This is a valid point.


Mind you. hopefully if any of the morons start kicking off Qatar's armed forces will get involved. Wipe some of the dregs out.

The contempt for ordinary working class people here is appalling.

Devrim

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

While that certainly is true, I do think FIFA made an unwise choice in not trying to expand the game in the worlds largest market. I have no qualms in the us losing so much as I have in qatar winning. If FIFA felt it was best to host the tournament in the Arab world for the first time, then why not include the whole Arab world instead of just Qatar? Granted Qatar was making the bid and could host semifinal and final matches, as well as several from earlier rounds, but 2022 is a while away. Why not tentatively schedule matches in Amman? Dubai? Or, 12 years away...perhaps Baghdad or Basra or Damascus? Maybe even across the gulf and have a match in Tehran? Or perhaps the most tentative, schedule a match in Jerusalem/al Quds (and label it as such).

I'm new to following the sport, but the decision to host all the games in Qatar leaves me scratching my head.

[Devrim]

While that certainly is true, I do think FIFA made an unwise choice in not trying to expand the game in the worlds largest market.

China and India both have populations about four times bigger than that of the US, which also had the WC in 1994, which is relatively recently. Of course they can only give it to people who bid and neither of them did, but there are a lot of countries in the world, and only three have ever held it twice, with the one that held it twice, Mexico, in a short period only being chosen for the second one after Columbia dropped out late in the day.


If FIFA felt it was best to host the tournament in the Arab world for the first time, then why not include the whole Arab world instead of just Qatar? Granted Qatar was making the bid and could host semifinal and final matches, as well as several from earlier rounds, but 2022 is a while away. Why not tentatively schedule matches in Amman? Dubai? Or, 12 years away...perhaps Baghdad or Basra or Damascus? Maybe even across the gulf and have a match in Tehran? Or perhaps the most tentative, schedule a match in Jerusalem/al Quds (and label it as such).

Because it is a massive commercial undertaking which needs central planning. The WC has only ever been shared between two countries once (Korea and Japan), and both of them were involved in making the bid together. The way the bids are prepared is that you can't 'tentatively schedule matches', but you have to present a plan designating the stadia to be used and the necessary improvements to be made to them. Perhaps a joint tournament with the other Gulf monarchies, with which Qatar has close links, would have been better. It would certainly have avoided the problem of having all of the people who go to a WC (generally about 250,000) in a tiny place. That is not the bid that FIFA had to choose from though. One can only assume that the people running the Qatari WC are well aware of the strains this will place on the countries infrastructure, and think that it will be able to cope.

Devrim

[IronEastBloc]

What's the point? every footy fan who's *****ing will still turn into the world cup regardless, even if they pretend to be mad that Qatar and Russia got it.

South Africa 2010 had double the opposition these cups had, and they pulled in a very successful tournament.

[Red Commissar]

I think Qatar hired Zidane to represent their bid. This was one of their videos they threw out.

u2CELDHrfwQ

I think they also gave Zidane a bonus for winning the bid too.

I don't really mind though to be honest. I was hoping to see a match if they brought it to US but it's no biggie. I remember back in 1994 (I was 4 approaching 5 then), my father took me to the Argentina-Bulgaria game that came to Dallas. It was mainly for him and his friends though to see Maradona play (he was getting old then though, but they liked him). They got the tickets ahead of time, only to learn later that he was disqualified after failing a drug test the night before during their practice (http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/30/sports/maradona-fails-drug-test-and-could-face-suspension.html).

Needless to say they were not amused.

[empiredestoryer]

im happy that england a terrorist nation did not get the world cup but im also sad that another terrorist nation russia got it how sad is that:confused:

[F9]

im happy that england a terrorist nation did not get the world cup but im also sad that another terrorist nation russia got it how sad is that:confused:

i am sad that people think like that.. Whats the meaning of this and the connection to football?

[Manic Impressive]

i am sad that people think like that.. Whats the meaning of this and the connection to football?
The English FA and the media coverage in the UK constantly mix politics with football

[F9]

The English FA and the media coverage in the UK constantly mix politics with football

i never said politics cant be mixed with football(obviously:cool:).All i said is i dont give a fuck if UK get it, or Russia gets it, or North Korea gets it, they are all the same shit in the end.

[Devrim]

I don't really mind though to be honest. I was hoping to see a match if they brought it to US but it's no biggie. I remember back in 1994 (I was 4 approaching 5 then), my father took me to the Argentina-Bulgaria game that came to Dallas. It was mainly for him and his friends though to see Maradona play (he was getting old then though, but they liked him). They got the tickets ahead of time, only to learn later that he was disqualified after failing a drug test the night before during their practice (http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/30/sports/maradona-fails-drug-test-and-could-face-suspension.html).

I saw Maradona play in 1984 when he was at Barca. I saw Best play in 1974 at United. Unfortunately I never saw Pele play.

Devrim

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

And where did the £15 million that the FA spent on the bid come from? More to the point, why on earth should it matter?


I dont think it does matter, which is why I said "Good luck to 'em".

Calm down, la.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

'Ethically' Qatar is a 'poor choice', but let's hope its army 'wipes out' unruly football fans ... ?


yep fingers crossed theyll shoot every last person that arrives to watch the tournament.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

The contempt for ordinary working class people here is appalling.

Devrim

Against my better judgement I feel compelled to defend myself here. My "wipe out some of the dregs" comment was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek (you are the one that jumped to the conclusion that all hooligans are working class. In fact many of them - and most of the ones I know -are not working class). Football hasnt been an "ordinary working class" sport for 20 years. I had called Qatar "ethically... a poor choice" (I still think it is) in the previous sentence. My "dregs" comment was intended to be ironic, but I appreciate it doesnt carry across text.

Although calling football hooligans "dregs" has nothing to do with ordinary working class (hello!), and everything to do with many of them being dickheads, thanks.

I love you so much, I just hate it when we argue.

[Devrim]

I had called Qatar "ethically... a poor choice" (I still think it is) in the previous sentence.

Would you suggest that the US would be a less poor ethical choice?


"dregs" comment was intended to be ironic, but I appreciate it doesnt carry across text.

Fair enough.

Devrim

[ComradeOm]

Blatter in favour of winter World Cup (http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/soccer/2010/1217/1224285762710.html)

[Chicano Shamrock]

Sure the US world cup seems somewhat recent now but in 2022 it would have been 28 years. It's not as close as one would think. I think it is a catastrophe that Qatar got it over USA.

1994 USA is still the most successful world cup ever. I don't see how holding the world cup in a state that bans public drinking is going to work.

Oh well I hope the Qatar thing goes to shambles and it is awarded to Australia.


Would you suggest that the US would be a less poor ethical choice?

Devrim
As far as personal freedoms for visiting fans... yes of course. From what I have read Qatar will have designated fun zones for drinking and tomfoolery. I am to assume that zones outside of these will not be fun. :D

Russia sounds like a blast.

[Devrim]

Sure the US world cup seems somewhat recent now but in 2022 it would have been 28 years. It's not as close as one would think. I think it is a catastrophe that Qatar got it over USA.

To me it seems recent, and I am not quite as old as the people making the decisions in FIFA. Only three countries have ever had the WC twice. To be honest I don't think that any country should expect to have it more than once in a life time.


USA is still the most successful world cup ever.

In what way? Sure the US put on a good World Cup, but what do you mean by the most successful ever? If you are referring to money that isn't really the point. If you are referring to the actual football, it wasn't.


I don't see how holding the world cup in a state that bans public drinking is going to work.

Drinking will be allowed during the WC. FIFA writes the laws for countries in the period when the WC is going on.

Actually though it is not that difficult to find a drink in Qatar now. I was there earlier this year for one day (changing flights), and I managed to find a little local restaurant that served alcohol without even trying.


As far as personal freedoms for visiting fans... yes of course. From what I have read Qatar will have designated fun zones for drinking and tomfoolery. I am to assume that zones outside of these will not be fun.

As far as personal freedoms go, last time I wanted to go to the US, where I have direct blood relatives (two uncles), I was refused a visa. Maybe you have personal freedoms, but I didn't get to see them.

Devrim

[Chicano Shamrock]

In what way? Sure the US put on a good World Cup, but what do you mean by the most successful ever? If you are referring to money that isn't really the point. If you are referring to the actual football, it wasn't.



Drinking will be allowed during the WC. FIFA writes the laws for countries in the period when the WC is going on.

Actually though it is not that difficult to find a drink in Qatar now. I was there earlier this year for one day (changing flights), and I managed to find a little local restaurant that served alcohol without even trying.
Devrim
By successful I mean the highest attended world cup ever. I don't know how FIFA could be in charge of a countries laws while the event is going on but if they suspended some of their backwards rules for a couple months that would be decent.

Even if it all runs smoothly it will still suck. Who wants to go to Qatar? Now Egypt that would have been cool.

[Jazzratt]

By successful I mean the highest attended world cup ever. I don't know how FIFA could be in charge of a countries laws while the event is going on but if they suspended some of their backwards rules for a couple months that would be decent. Hell, why not go the whole hog and invade them? A nice bit of regime change could be just the ticket for those backward rules.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Would you suggest that the US would be a less poor ethical choice?



Fair enough.

Devrim

Well... that depends on the qualifiers you use, doesnt it? Like Comrade Shamrock says, in terms of personal freedoms then yes it would be ethically a better choice. I think looking at the wider picture then id judge them about equally... but i never wanted USA to get the 2022 world cup anyway, for exactly the same reasons i think its a shame Qatar has got it. Except for size. If it were between USA and Qatar id probably go... USA. Qatar is smaller - smaller - than Yorkshire. In fact it is how small Qatar is that baffles me the most about its selection now.

Holland/Belgium would have been my choice...

*braces self for list of Dutch war crimes*

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Well Holland/Belgium would have been my pick for 2018, anyway. 2022 id have probably gone for Japan or Australia.

[Permanent Revolutionary]

I really think England deserved the '18 one, and I can't really understand why they could give '22 to Quatar. They have absolutely no footballing tradition.

I think bribes were made.

[An archist]

Well Holland/Belgium would have been my pick for 2018, anyway. 2022 id have probably gone for Japan or Australia.

Not mine, it would mean big stadiums would be built that can never be properly filled after the world cup, and it's kinda awkward to have few people in a big stadium.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Not mine, it would mean big stadiums would be built that can never be properly filled after the world cup, and it's kinda awkward to have few people in a big stadium.

The Darlington Arena:


http://img.skysports.com/08/07/480/Darlington--The-Darlington-Arena-General_1068350.jpg


Capacity - 25,000
Last years average attendance - 1,900

Money well spent.

[Wanted Man]

Not mine, it would mean big stadiums would be built that can never be properly filled after the world cup, and it's kinda awkward to have few people in a big stadium.

How is that in Belgium? I can imagine some of the bigger provincial clubs here that could use larger stadiums, but not to the extent that the World Cup would have provided. If we had won the bid, the capacity of one of these stadiums (Heerenveen) would have been slightly scaled back after the cup, but still higher than it is now. That seems like a reasonable solution.

Other proposed stadiums were just ridiculous. Feyenoord, currently almost bankrupt, were going to get a new stadium with a capacity of 80,000, and the old one would still be used for the World Cup. No doubt, the public would have had to pay for all this. Ajax were going to either get an expansion or a new stadium, also completely insane. It would have been totally badass to see World Cup games in the monumental Olympic Stadium, though.

On another note, I think it was absolutely ridiculous that a boring shit town like Heerenveen was made into a bidding city, while a real city like Groningen was left out. But that's just my chauvinism of course.


The Darlington Arena:


http://img.skysports.com/08/07/480/Darlington--The-Darlington-Arena-General_1068350.jpg


Capacity - 25,000
Last years average attendance - 1,900

Money well spent.

:lol: That's hilarious.

That reminds me, how are the attendances at Nottingham Forest, MK Dons, Bristol, Plymouth, Sheffield and Leeds at the moment? Weren't they going to expand all of those for the World Cup as well, or build new stadiums? I thought that was a bit overkill.

Although at least most of these are cities where the need could arise at some point. A massive stadium in Darlington is way sillier because the stadium itself can basically host a quarter of the population, which is a bit much for a Conference side. I bet most people would rather travel a bit to see Newcastle or something like that.