Do you Agree with this???

Question

That Which ever country wins the world cup, will be the next to host the world cup. Do you think this is a good Idea?

Answer 1

Great Idea.Give the playing nations something to play for.The economic boost would help and if the infrastructure would not allow them to host the cup then they could politely decline.

Answer 2

No. The country that host the world cup gets a lot of publicity and financial incentive thus it should be moved around so as to increase the popularity of the world cup itself.

Plus there are a whole host of other reasons why they don't do the winner host next world cup. One very good reason is that what if the country for some reason or another wins but don't want to host the next world cup.

Oh, I totally agree with Erri.

Answer 3

It sounds like a good idea, but not all countries are capable of hosting the World Cup. If your plan was approved, some countries might host the World Cup with a degree of reluctance. I don't think a World Cup has ever taken place without the host country spending the few years prior to the tournament sprucing the country up. If a third-world country won the World Cup then they shouldn't host the World Cup unless they have sufficient facilities.

Answer 4

Not at all.
1. Only Uruguay, Italy, Brazil, Germany, Argentina, France, England has won the cup. In the actual cup, 3 out of 4 semi-finalist have already won (3 Germany and Italy, 1 France). So really few countries seems allowed to host the cup.
2. Hosting the cup raise your chances to win, so these few countries could be reduced again. (6 times out of 19 host wins, England and France won their only cup when they were host countries)
3. Host country is - of course - allowed to partecipate at the tournement, without playing preliminaries. This allow great teams to avoid a difficult competition, and to create a winning squad and tactics avoiding must-win matches. Partecipating - of course - is needing to win, so few candidates are reduced again.
4. Hosting is a goal to many countries and is an enormous business event. How could FIFA deal with countries willing to share the organization with other (Japan-Korea, Belgium-Holland and so on)?
5. Only Euro and SA teams won the cup, so your rule doesn't match FIFA attitude. They want to push football as first sport all over the world. The opportunity to host WC competition is given in consequence, so USA, Japan, Korea have got their cup. Your rule forces African, North-American, Asian, Oceania countries out of chances.
6. Political and social crisis could force FIFA to avoid some candidate. This happens with South-Africa when apartheid rules. But how could FIFA deal with "disliked" countries if they owned to be host winning the cup?

Answer 5

No,coz MANY countries will never get to host the world cup.

Answer 6

No or on current history it would never get to places like Korea/Japan or South Africa - the name "World Cup" says it all, so all countries should have the option to bid to host the competition.

Answer 7

That's not too bad, except for the rule that FIFA has that the winner of the last World Cup and the Host both automatically qualify. In your case, then only 1 team would make it through, instead of the typical two (for e.g., in Germany 2006 Brazil went through auto. because they won the last WC - Korea/Japan and Germany auto. went through because they are hosting the '06 WC).

Answer 8

no other countrys will never win the world cup but they can host it like south africa

Answer 9

No because it would always be held in the same countries then. Whats fun in that??? Thats like saying the country to host the WC gets to choose the winner!

Answer 10

Yes i agree. Not a bad idea. It give's other countries a chance to host the one and only WC.