The scary part is FIFA already produced a propaganda piece
NY Times
FIFA Film: An Epic Fantasy
They used Tim Roth
OT: Sepp Blatter to resign
- Thread starter famousbill19
- Start date
NY Times
FIFA Film: An Epic Fantasy
They used Tim Roth
Yet, with all that money, Qatar is still relying largely on a captive immigrant labor force that is literally being worked to death. Estimates are that 60+ people will have died for each game played in the 2022 World Cup.
WEll after the FIFA scandal I'd bet the IOC people will be less concerned about bribes and kickbacks next time around. I have no problems with up and coming countries that can actually afford it. I wouldn't give it to China based on their policies and human rights but it's not like the money spent came at a cost to their citizens. No way Brazil should have hosted as people rioted in the streets over living conditions. Doesn't the IOC get to see the plans? Hey, maybe it's a good idea to build a huge stadium in the rain forest that nobody will ever use bc its 150 degrees and the town's streets are flooded. Also, Why can't these events be partially hosted by multiple countries? You can get around regions of Europe just as easily as you can get around the US? Even the canadian world cup is a joke. It's great that they didn't have to spends tons of money but since when was soccer played indoors on turf?
Well thats because they can. I mean they could afford to pay them, but dont have to, because - well they are a corrupt petrodicatorship and the rest of Asia is a poor poor place.
vkj - so now human rights policies matter too? We have alot of people in jail compared to the rest of the first world and our cops kill alot of our citizen. We have the death penalty. We collect information on our own citizens without warrants. I can imagine that some in Europe might think we have a relatively abysmal human rights record. Are we eligible?
You see where this is going? Its hard to come up with a good standard that the world would agree to.
Yes - regions should be able to share. In fact they did for the 2010 world cup, which was split between Korea and Japan. But that doesnt solve the problem. Its not like Europe doesnt host on a regular basis. Germany, France, Britain, Spain, and Italy could all host with little additional building. But its the world cup, and it should be spread around.
The Olympics are a little different because of course they require one city, and while a large nation likely has the facilities, its unlikely they are all in one place. They should loosen their standards and allow one main city, but with events being allowed anywhere in the nation, as long as say 50% of events are within the main city.
I was unaware that human rights wasn't one of the supposed conditions in these things. I hope you are joking with your comment about us and our cops killing a lot of citizens. Outside of the UN and some crazies nobody would question our civil rights. Outside of Russia and North Korea who is gouging for China?
Im not joking. We have an incredibly high rate of imprisonment. Our cops kill more citizens in a month than some European nations kills in years. We have the death penalty. Most of the world doesnt, either by law, or de facto (i.e. its on the books but never used) Our treatment of blacks was heinous in the past and we still got Olympics. Our nation is the one setting up mulitbillion dollar complexes in the desert to collect as much data as it can Hoover up regardless of source.
So yes - I think its fair to question the USs civil rights record. Its not perfect. Its not as a good as alot of Europe in alot of ways. It is better in other ways (more freedom of speech for example.) Which is the point. There is plenty of grounds to come up with different variables for who and should not host. But they will either lead to the same five nations hosting every major international sporting event, or they will be ignored.
I know the world is bigger than America. Doesn't mean that soccer doesn't suck. Also doesn't mean that the folks chasing the ball are not really talented. These guys are human seals with their ball control.
It's a boring sport. Just because lots of people who don't have access to better forms of entertainment watch it doesn't make it good.
Way to much time spent with nothing going on. Can't stand the flopping. Officials should have a cattle prods so they can shock the floppers. And the fact that the official get to say when time is up as opposed to an actual clock drives me nuts. Also there is huliganism which we don't have - unless the Lakers or the Cavs loose the final (insert yr of your choosing)
Are you a baseball fan? hockey? basketball? I find all of those more boring that soccer is. Baseball is a bunch of guys standing around watching a guy throw a ball and another guy swinging a stick at it. Hockey is soccer on skates. Basketball, which I love to play, but hate to watch, is very monotonous. don't get me started on golf or Nascar. Football? There is only 11 minutes of actual game action in an event that takes us 3.5 hours to watch. But I still love football. The argument that there is nothing going on doesn't apply when put in context of every other sport.
" Hockey is soccer on skates."
You're kidding, right ?
Listen, I'm not the biggest fan of either sport, but there's a reason that hockey players wear all of that padding and helmets. Let me know the next time a soccer player gets checked into the boards or takes a stick to the face.
You're kidding, right ?
Listen, I'm not the biggest fan of either sport, but there's a reason that hockey players wear all of that padding and helmets. Let me know the next time a soccer player gets checked into the boards or takes a stick to the face.
How the hell do you get news of a 30 year+ scandal of which this guy is elected to 5 or more terms, and then gets REELECTED when this stuff comes up again. Soccer politics/bribes are crazy.
If that comparison would be made at all, it'd be more like "full contact soccer on skates... with weapons... at 3x speed". I kinda lump both sports in a similar interest category (watch the "events" like the playoffs and world cup, and only the games where I have a rooting interest)... but in terms of game play, hockey is much faster and more brutal. More like hurling on skates, if anything.
I agree with the baseball thing, very boring. Basketball is fun to watch but again you have floppers and I still can't tell what is and isn't a foul. Hockey is a mans sport, not one I follow, but it Is exciting most of the game. And there is blood. Now if you played soccer on a field the size of 2 basketball courts and could cattle prod the floppers I think that would be interesting. And get rid of the officials mystery clock and the off sides
"How the hell do you get news of a 30 year+ scandal of which this guy is elected to 5 or more terms, and then gets REELECTED when this stuff comes up again. Soccer politics/bribes are crazy.
Sounds a lot like Democratic politics in Chicago." Or Republican politics in Texas or anywhere
Sounds a lot like Democratic politics in Chicago." Or Republican politics in Texas or anywhere
Oh, were you serious? I figured you were just having fun with ruh rah Americentrism.
So, besides the fact that you're talking about international competitions with international audiences ...
We have exactly one city with the facilities and will to host a Winter Olympics. They wouldn't want to host every Olympics, nor would it be fair to do so. Europe, for one, has more major cities close to ski infrastructure, far larger resorts, and more Olympic/winter sport history. Why would only America host those games?
As for the WC, just a few reasons the US isn't the best place, let alone the only place: other countries are way more into soccer, have plenty of stadiums, are way less spread out than the US, or even just California, and have better public transportation. If I were to attend a World Cup, I'd much rather be in a small country like the UK than flying to and from Dallas, LA, Michigan, New England...
I wouldn't disagree that they should limit host locations to a handful or dozen locations with existing infrastructure - maybe one or two locations per continent. The amount of money spent and lack of return have gotten ridiculous. But there's really no logical argument to support "it should always be in the US." I still don't think you're serious.
Highest average of attendance per match: 68,991, 1994, in the U.S.
Second place is 53,592, last year in Brazil, about 25% lower.
Highest attendance in a tournament: 3,587,538, 1994 again.
Second place is 3,429,873, also last year, but with 8 more games than in 1994.
The U.S. actually is a very attractive location for visitors from other countries, and even if soccer is much less popular than football, baseball and basketball here, there are still more fans with the money to attend the games here than in most other host countries. I think it's good to move these things around the world, but FIFA could do a lot worse than bringing the World Cup back here.
Just curious which city you had in mind. The US has hosted the Winter Olympics at Lake Placid, Squaw Valley, and Salt Lake City. I imagine that other ski resorts near Denver, Seattle, Portland, etc. could also fairly easily host the event.
Salt Lake. Neither Lake Placid or Squaw Valley is a city and their Olympics were in 1980 and 1960; neither one has up-to-date facilities.Salt Lake could do it with the least amount of investment, and it seems that it wants to. The Olympics have grown an awful lot since 1980, and Lake Placid is considered too small. Word is their bid would have to be an area bid with Montreal. Same with Squaw Valley - it'd be a Lake Tahoe bid, which I think is in the works. But, again, facilities/
Seattle and Denver could theoretically work, though Seattle has a lack of actual ski resorts (they're "ski areas" there and they don't have lodging or much on-mountain amenities). In fact Seattle bid on the 1976 Winter games, but lost ... to Denver, which failed to put together the money necessary and dropped out. I would imagine that would make Denver's job a little harder (or more costly in bribe form ;)) Facilities needed are obviously much more than just having skiable mountains, which is why Denver couldn't get its sht together.
What you and BeKnighted should keep in mind is that I'm simply arguing with the contention that the US should host every and all Olympics and World Cups and with the underlying premise that we already have the best infrastructure. I'm not saying that Denver, Seattle, Bozeman, Santa Fe or anywhere else should never make a bid and/or be awarded, just that there are plenty of other cities around the world that are just as well suited to it.
Lilyhammer was probably my favorite Winter Olympic Venue, at least from my living room couch. Of course I'm a bit prejudiced since I like the Steven Van Zandt Netflix series 'Lilyhammer'.
I certainly agree that the U.S. shouldn't be the only site for the World Cup, but I think there's very little question that the U.S. has the best infrastructure. There literally are enough existing suitable and available stadiums to hold 2 World Cups at once (probably more, actually, if you count college stadiums) and I'm pretty sure there's no place else that could say that.
That's actually one of the main reasons why USA hasn't received another World Cup as the 1994 World Cup in US was done without one new stadium needing to be built as some of those stadiums no longer exist.
So much of the new bribe $$$ is tied up in multi-billion $$$ construction contracts for new stadiums...and now with the influx of all the new NFL stadiums built since 1994 (and/or new/expanded college stadiums), not one stadium would need to be built for 2022, 2026, 2030, etc...World Cups in the USA.
Same for England...not one new stadium would need to be built (some might get renovations), but yes, no other countries has the ready-built stadiums as the USA.
Here's a look back at the stadiums that were used in the 1994 World Cup (had just 24 teams, now there are 32 teams with more locations used)
Rose Bowl
Stanford Stadium (85,000 seat stadium torn down, new stadium has 50,000 capacity)
Pontiac Silverdome (closed, and falling apart)
Giants Stadium (torn down, replaced with new stadium)
Cotton Bowl (still there but Jerry's World is THE stadium in that city today)
Soldier Field (basically torn down and replaced with new stadium)
Citrus Bowl (basically torn down and replaced with new stadium)
Foxboro Stadium (torn down and replaced with new stadium)
RFK Stadium in DC (still there but in terrible shape)
So many new stadiums have been built in USA since 1994...a 32 team World Cup (or as someone said 2 World Cups at once) could easily be hosted in the USA next week, let alone come 2022 or 2026, etc...
I had neglected that factor, sadly.
Oh, and RFK more or less has been replaced by FedEx field, although they still hold friendlies and (I think) the occasional qualifier there. RFK is kind of a nostalgic place for U.S. soccer fans, despite not having had any real maintenance in at least 15 years.
Any nostalgic feelings from any soccer fan now is replaced by feelings of all the new soccer specific stadiums that have been built over the last 5-10 years....as DC United doesn't even use the 2nd level sections at RFK.
Playing any game, in any sport, in a 2/3 empty stadium is a horrible environment.
Good news is that after all these years, DC United is finally trying to get a soccer specific stadium built in the DC area. (A $300 Million project where DC would build the 25,000 seat stadium (approx $150 Million) while the city will spend approx $140-$150 Million to clean up/rebuild surrounding infrastructure.
NOTE: Ironically that Jack Kent Cooke Stadium (Fedex Field) that opened in 1997 has gone from 91,000 seats to just over 70,000 seats now...as smaller (with a lot more new amenities) provides a much better fan atmosphere/environment too.
Last edited:
Similar threads
