I realize FIFA has a rotating policy but I mean why do they put it in countries where football is already big(it doesnt improve the profile of the sport since its already the main sport)
Meanwhile, hold it in US or Australia(where they have the necessary infrastructure and the sport gets almost no profile in either country) football didnt exist in US before 94, but then us hosted it and a professional league even developed out of it to the point where the sport gets some coverage
2006-12-17 08:26:11 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Football ➔ FIFA World Cup (TM)
You make a good point. So does fatto_in_napoli in pointing out that full stadiums are a must. But providing the nation can handle security, have acceptable venues and stadiums and/or a proven track record to co ordinate and hold an event of this magnitude, they all should have equal opportunity to host. If the sport is truly going to increase and grow globally, FIFA must seriously consider the spreading of nations as hosts. However as for the rotation system, Blatter has stated that it was largely introduced to assist Africa in a winning bid. So that whole concept may now be irrelevant.
2006-12-17 08:39:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
World Cup, Olympics, those two sporting events are multi billion dollar money generators. The country lucky enough to be picked to host the World Cup could expect tourists visiting, which means money being poured into the country's economy. Same holds true with the Olympics. USA is not a likely host for at least another 30 years, there's not enough interest in the USA, and the USA is not as a popular tourist destination as it was 10 years ago because of what's going on in the world.
2006-12-17 16:36:58 · answer #2 · answered by mac 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
FIFa is scrapping the roatations after the 2014 WC which will most likely be in Brazil as it will be in South America. Brazil has been the only one with intrest.
The contenders for 2018 are Australia, China, England, Mexico and the Netherlands and Belguim in a joint bid!
Bidding for the cup closes in 2010. If you want the cup, go to your federal parliament people!
Worked for Australia's Commonwelth games bid!
2006-12-17 17:47:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
you have a point, i think they should hold the WC in countries with less interest to build it.
but i also think FIFA aim for full stadiums, and if the WC is in the US, the stadiums wouldn't be as full because there are not as many fans of the sport there. australia is a good spot though.
2006-12-17 16:30:45 · answer #4 · answered by fatto_in_napoli 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You hosted it 1994, very short time ago, now you have to wait a bit. Lots of countries want to host the World Cup.
2006-12-17 17:28:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
good point, but soccer DID exist in the US before '94. Remember the New York Cosmos with Pele and Co.?
2006-12-17 17:36:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yep, and surprisingly, the US has the attendance record of the FIFA WC: 3,587,538 [average 68,991 per match], so as you can see fatto_di napoli is 100 % wrong.
That certainly would be closer to home than South Africa.
2006-12-17 16:43:15 · answer #7 · answered by At Last WC2010 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
wouldnt be a bad idea.
2006-12-17 16:46:06 · answer #8 · answered by MJ 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i hope its in the USA! i can go then!!!!!!!!! but if its in South Africa, that will be cooolll. i hope i can goo
2006-12-17 20:08:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
VERY good point.
2006-12-17 18:23:40 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋