-
Website
http://www.epltalk.com -
Original page
http://www.epltalk.com/how-england-or-the-united-states-can-win-the-2018-world-cup-bid/2214 -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
Mexico have had it twice, The Benelux region and Canada do not have the level of support domestically, China and Australia I'd rule out until at least 2026. Spain? maybe but still held it since England last held it. Portugal just had the Euros and Greece is an absolute non starter as the abysmal organisation of the Champions League final and their domestic league shows. The Israel/ Palestine option is a complete pipe dream. Zimbabwe has more chance of hosting it than those two!
I'm willing to accept that there may be something I'm not aware of, but it seems a weighty statement to make without justifying it.
Otherwise, although you argue the case well, it seems a bit ridiculous to have joint hosting nations on separate continents.
I can't ever really see it happening. Plus do FIFA still have the rotating continents policy? Or was that abolished recently?
The 1994 World Cup was the most successful in history based on the highest overall attendance for the tournament. And that was when there were 24 teams, not 32.
There are a ton of pundits worldwide (many of them in the UK) who have proclaimed WC94 as the most successful WC. It was well organized and successfully run.
Looks like FIFA has scrapped the rotation policy.
Cheers,
The Gaffer
I knew it was when i saw the bit about Israel/palestine doing a joint bid. That's even more farsical than the idea of USA and England!
USA had their WC in '94. England (one of the worlds great footballing nations) haven't had a pop at it since '66.
USA should get behind Englands bid. I have no doubt thye would hold a great tournament; all the ingredients are there - football mad country, great infastructure, fantastic stadiums, good team. Ok ok the last one was a joke!
It also only theoretically makes sense if the matches are all played in Boston and N.Y. and even then it is a stretch. Try figuring out whether the final would be held in the U.S. or at Wembley.
Brilliant idea, gaffer.
Its one thing for Scotland and Wales to do a joint bid and Austria/Switzerland. They are small and need the help.
Neither England or the US will need help and flight prices between the 2 by 2018 will be astronomical. If for any reason you have to play in England, then the US and then England again that will be a terrible price to incur should your team get so far.
England hasnt had it since 66 - end of argument. AMerica may be used to hosting the Olympics every 12 years but in Soccer they are minnows compared to the established football nations and dont deserve a World Cup anytime soon. I live here and I would love them to get it but if I am being unbiased it shouldnt be anytime soon.
But do yourself a favor and peruse www.worldstadiums.com and see how many stadia over 50,000 there are in the U.S. and how many there are in the U.K. or any European country for that matter.
The variety, location and size of venues (with the interest and population to support them) in the U.S. is unparalleled until China starts building stadiums, but even then the relative wealth and diversity of nationalities is laughable.
The U.S. will sell out or approach capacity for every game. Why? Because Italian Americans will be rooting for Italy. French Americans/ Canadians will be rooting for France. Swedish-Americans will be rooting for Sweden. Latinos for Spain/Mexico. Many of all ethnicities for Brasil etc. etc. Outside of Europe where the relative location allows for all of the big European countries to be well represented, the U.S. is by itself in this regard.
There are obviously many reasons to host it elsewhere, but the US has some things going for it. Further, the idea that the US should "rally behind" England's bid is strange. The US wants a bid, if it doesn't get it then it may or may not have a secondary preference.
Back to the original point:
Gaffer. Seriously?
Yes, seriously!
Both England and the United States -- separately -- will launch very aggressive and convincing bids. It'll probably end up like Hilary vs Obama. Two great candidates, but they're doing the Democrat party a disservice by focusing so much of their energies on trying to win the bid, when someone like McCain (i.e. Russia or China) may sneak up behind them and win the whole thing.
England and the United States would be stronger if they submitted a joint bid. And I don't see the US or England getting the WC in 2018 and then the loser of those two getting the 2022 WC.
Cheers,
The Gaffer
I doubt anyone in either country would support such a bid and it really is a stupid idea! Sorry Gaffer!!
Any plan allowing WC games to be played in Chicago meets with my approval! A joint proposal would meet with a warm reception in the US, I would have serious doubts that you'll find many if any supporters in England. Lest we forget, Englands primary reason for hosting a WC is to give their squad a leg up on getting to the finals and winning. So, the English FA to sign on to the deal would have to be assured that all England games, must be played on home soil.
For the US Soccer Association, and more importantly ESPN, who's financial support for the games will be more important for every WC here on in, having a local venue works just fine and increases their revenue and works well.
That said FIFA shouldnt be awarding the World Cup on stadium capacity or quality.