It 'feels' like a World Cup should in Mexico. Anyone agree?
2006-06-22 06:57:56 · 32 answers · asked by Kearney Zzyzwicz 2 in Sports ➔ Football ➔ FIFA World Cup (TM)
no... it should change places ( i think the name WORLD CUP says it all)
2006-06-22 06:59:36 · answer #1 · answered by sunkissedlove<3 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No chance. They have already had two World Cups and an Olympics. The World Cup should change destinations all the time. I think the setting adds so much to the 'character' of the tournament.
South Africa is a good choice for 2010 and then after, why not Brazil for 2014? It's ages since the 'pedigree nation' hosted the tournament, and it would help with the development of the country. Imagine the carnival atmosphere the games would have!
Australia would also be a good choice as they showed in the rugby. They have the stadia, the infrastructure and the fans.
2006-06-24 00:46:59 · answer #2 · answered by The Global Geezer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Do you ask this because the World Series are in the US every year?
World Cup venue should change places. Currently there is a sort of Europe-South America-Anywhere else cycle. Mexico should count itself lucky having organized it already twice (1970 and 1986). 1986 only because Columbia could not host it due to circumstances.
Besides, hosting the WC is expensive. I have heard that Mexico is already a lot in debt so I wonder if it would be wise to even consider hosting it.
See you in 2010 in South Africa !
2006-06-22 08:19:10 · answer #3 · answered by fkvdmark 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hell NO!! What are you talking about? Do you know that every country in the world would love to host the World Cup? There is so much money to make due to this event. I think the US maybe next to host the World Cup after South Africa 2010.
2006-06-22 07:00:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No the fifa "world" cup is meant for the world. Mexicoisn't the safest of places and nother places want to have the world cup in their nation for national pride.
2006-06-22 07:00:40 · answer #5 · answered by Pabpacker 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree because Mexico should at least win once the world cup and they should at least get a piece of something. They deserve it.
2006-06-22 06:59:34 · answer #6 · answered by POWER 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a good question, it would bring huge business to Mexico. Unfortunately FIFA rotates the WC location amongs all 4 major regions (Europe, Africa, Americas, Asia) to promote soccer worldwide. Not that the promotion is needed. :-)
2006-06-22 07:01:13 · answer #7 · answered by Chi-Chao 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's called the World Cup...Hello!
2006-06-22 07:06:45 · answer #8 · answered by Duke 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. I like it the way it is. All over the world. Gives everybody a chance to travel to the place they're the closest too. And it gives every country a chance to have a home advantage.
2006-06-22 07:08:31 · answer #9 · answered by ~ Roxbaby ~ 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not at all. Maybe sometimes, but not every one.
That's like always having the Olympics in Greece, except soccer wasn't even invented in Mexico.
It's a global event and the venues should be as diverse as the teams playing.
2006-06-22 07:02:12 · answer #10 · answered by jimvalentinojr 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Certainly
2006-06-22 06:58:49 · answer #11 · answered by seferitanner 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋