Monday, June 30, 2008

Blattering about Plan B

If FIFA isn't looking to the U.S. as its number one Plan B option, they're truly incompetent. No other country has the infrastructure a World Cup demands ready to go. After all, the last time a World Cup needed to be rescheduled in a hurry (2003 WWC in China, because of SARS), that's exactly where FIFA turned.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have to disagree. I'm sure England, Germany and other european countries could stage a world cup on demand. Now if you are excluding european countries because they just had the world cup, then ya.

A.C. said...

Actually, England and Germany are limited in certain resources - people at the 2006 World Cup were surprised, due to the famed German efficiency, how many things were botched at the Cup - accommodations and transport were an issue for many. Traffic in London is already bursting at the seams, and housing would be a big issue in many cities on short notice.
It's no contest as far as size of venues, either - the U.S. has far more big big stadiums in more places (thanks to the NFL) than any country in the world. The venues in Austria and Switzerland were criticized as being far too small for the demand of Euro '08, for example.

CACuzcatlan said...

I would gladly take 2010 in the U.S, but I would prefer South Africa pull it off because I know that if we get it on 2010, the U.S. will never host a WC again in my lifetime. When we host again, I want to do it right. Take a month off work, travel to as many games as possible, see every USNT game, go to the final. I just don't know if I will have the resources to do all that in two years. And with Mexico out of the running for probably another 50 years for their two World Cups, the only chance to see the WC in North America would be if Canada hosts.

Joel Aceves said...

Mexico could cover the World Cup at a moments notice. And unlike the U.S has full control of the stadiums, which will be an issue in the states as all stadiums have names of their sponsors which could cause a problem.

CACuzcatlan said...

Joel, I seriously doubt FIFA would give Mexico their third World Cup ahead of the US's second. Stadiums in Germany have sponsors and that didn't prevent them from hosting in 06.

Joseph D'Hippolito said...

Sepp Platter: "I would be quite negligent as president if I did not have a Plan B tucked away at the back of a drawer."

Sepp, baby, you're already one negligent son of a #$%&#@! To top it all off, you're a @#$%&ing crook, as well. Get off the pedestal, already.

Just one word for you, Sepp: sepuku. Live it, embrace it, love it.

papa bear said...

@anonymous #1: Germany was stretched to the limit hosting the 2006 WC and it is by far the most advanced country in Europe technologically and economically. European nations needs a lot of time to pull those off.

@Joel: there is no way Mexico would get a third World Cup so soon; and as Caz stated, basically every stadium in Germany has a name sponsor. FIFA just makes them use the colloquial name for it.

I kinda hope South Africa fails as I am pretty sure we will have no shot at another WC until 2022 since, let's face it, England is getting 2018 but hook or by crook.

Anonymous said...

Mexico can and will host another World Cup in our lifetime. There is just too much money and good memories to be had.

Unlike the US, which won't even shut down MLS for Euro2008 or Copa America 2007, the whole nation, including the president, will bend over backwards to accommodate Fifa stooges and suits.

Too much competition in the US from Red Sox vs. Yanks, NASCAR, Tiger, and err MLS/USL.

BBSC

Stadiums = check
Fervent support =check
Beer =check
Tequila = check
Sunny weather = check
Easy to get to = check

Anonymous said...

That's actually an interesting point. Would the MLS actually shut down if the World Cup was hosted here at the last minute?