I keep hearing that World Cup 2010 may be held in Australia rather than South Africa.
2006-08-14 17:51:02 · 17 answers · asked by Juventina 6 in Sports ➔ Football ➔ FIFA World Cup (TM)
touzours; I know you understand Italian ...you've got it all wrong my friend!
You didn't give me a chance to explain.
2006-08-14 18:04:23 · update #1
AwesomeBill : did you not read my question? I'm talking about World Cup 2010!
2006-08-14 18:13:59 · update #2
touzours: I don't understand what you're trying to say. If you want email me if not ..forget about it.
2006-08-14 18:15:48 · update #3
cremedelacreme04 ...thank you
2006-08-14 18:19:03 · update #4
LeO MeSsi ..thanks I have good taste in men hey!!...LOL
2006-08-14 18:37:33 · update #5
No unfortunately... theres talk in Australia that our governing body, the FFA, are bidding for the 2018 or 2022 World Cup!!
2006-08-14 19:35:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
G'day Juventina,
Thanks for your question.
I would like it to be but not at this stage.
The 2010 FIFA World Cup will be the 19th FIFA World Cup, an international tournament for association football, that will take place in South Africa. This will be the first time that the tournament will be held on the African continent.
South Africa is building five new stadiums to accommodate the event. However, there have been reports that FIFA is concerned about the pace of South Africa's preparations and is preparing a contingency plan to move the tournament to the United States, Germany or Australia on short notice if necessary. FIFA President Sepp Blatter has dismissed these reports and has said the World Cup will not be moved from South Africa.
Sepp Blatter said this recently ""With the enthusiasm shown here today, we are already walking to Africa and South Africa in 2010".
There is a precedent for transferring a World Cup. The 1986 tournament was originally scheduled in 1974 to be hosted by Colombia, but after the Colombian authorities declared in late 1982 that they could not afford to host the World Cup under the terms that FIFA demanded, Mexico was selected in May 20th,1983 in Stockholm, beating the bids of Canada, and the United States (who eventually hosted the 1994 Tournament) as replacement host and became the first nation to host two World Cups. This second World Cup in Mexico came only 16 years after the first one in 1970.
I have attached some sources for your reference.
Regards
2006-08-14 18:16:27 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
The final chapter has not been closed on the 2006 World Cup and already the next tournament in the headlines. There were reports in South Africa this past weekend saying that FIFA has designated Australia as a back up country in the event that South Africa can’t pull it all together in time.
The head of South Africa’s local organizing committee denies this is the case and says that South Africa is on target to host a successful tournament.
The speculation about South Africa’s ability to host the world’s greatest sporting event inevitably will continue for months to come. FIFA is gambling on a country whose current infrastructure would be stretched beyond its limits if the tournament were to be held there today.
2006-08-14 18:00:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
No, South Africa is the official host for the 2010 World Cup. I believe the mascot is to be chosen in a couple of months.
2006-08-14 18:11:57 · answer #4 · answered by nelson c 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Wiki says US, Germany, or Austalia. Australia and the US would be the 2 most logical sites. Australia becuase it would be their first time hosting, and a chance to be rewarded for their 2006 result. US in my opinion would be logical because most of the stadiums are builts already.
Although it's probably done in the past, do you think the World Cup wants to spend 2 straight tournaments in Germany? Just my opinion.
2006-08-14 18:00:15 · answer #5 · answered by joey_blue_eyez 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
y? y do everyone think that s africa cant handle it? just because some parts of africa have some problems, does not mean the whole africa does. S africa is nice and even if the world cup was in a bad area in africa, i would still go for the game, not the host.
2006-08-14 20:01:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I heard either Germany, the USA, or Austrilia will be the back-up country FIFA will vote on which one will host, if South Africa does something wrong.
2006-08-15 05:28:11 · answer #7 · answered by Frenchman 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The primary concern is the instability of the region what with terrorism and all. They are just laying down some options. Contrary to popular mis-belief, the final chapter of World Cup 2006 was over when Italy hoisted the cup. Get over it people. Move on.......................
2006-08-14 18:10:06 · answer #8 · answered by Awesome Bill 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
With the state of Crime, Government corruption, Strike Actions, and no public transport in SA, the chances of them losing this event is a growing possibility. I think if you have the choice of going to OZ or SA for your healths sake choose OZ.
2006-08-14 21:39:54 · answer #9 · answered by highburybooks 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no i dont think thats posible but it would be so good because then all the hott soccer players like fernando torres will be in australia now how good is that.
2006-08-14 22:46:20 · answer #10 · answered by hbs465 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋