I think its dumb, it's the Europeans that want it to stop because they want it in EU as much as possible, but they don't think that maybe over here in CONCACAF (North America) or CONMEBOL (South America), people want it as much as they do. What do you think.
2007-10-30 11:21:28 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Football ➔ FIFA World Cup (TM)
YEAH, I AGREE WITH YOU. IT'S DUMB.
2007-11-01 17:19:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
use your head. the loss of the rotation rule means there is no continental based shift GUARANTEED. that does not mean, other continents will not be allowed to contest as a host.
and why the ***** would you like 2 see a tournament as bad as korea 2002 or a disaster biddign like south africa. if a country has the facilities, and capcity to host the world cup, it should be given the chance. football is a european sport, and european nations are best equipped for this sport.
so what would you like to see? trash like india or polluted china or a dangerous host nation to hold the world's greatest event. USA can host a successful world cup and now it has just the same chances as any other bidder, rather than some stupid rotation policy.
football is a european sport, was created in europe and will always be ruled by europe. where a tournament is host should onyl matter to the point that can be facilitated. if not a country does not deserve to host the world cup.
2007-10-30 19:30:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It depends whether they keep to the new rule or not. The original rotation was to get it to Africa and then back to South America. The new rule says that you can't bid if your confederation was awarded one of the last two world cups. That rule basically means UEFA gets to host one out of three. More likely than not the main bidders for the other two will be CONCACAF (USA, Mexico, and Canada), CONMEBOL (Argentina and Brazil), and AFC (China, Japan, Korea, and Australia). Of course, I am doubtful about how long this new rule will last.
2007-10-30 22:38:52 · answer #3 · answered by Tmess2 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Usa hosted the finals not that long ago--England, the home of soccer hasnt hosted it since 1966!
Why dont you plan a trip to Europe to watch the World cup? I agree that south America is due another, as its not been since 1978 that Argentina hosted.
2007-10-30 18:30:08 · answer #4 · answered by keefbeef 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It should be in Brazil!
Brazil, the KINGS of Soccer, has not hosted the WC since 1950!!!
That was even before Pele's time!!!
2007-10-31 01:42:24 · answer #5 · answered by R10- Barca4Ever 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think it simple selfishness of EU,the world cup is like a pieces of pie every one should get a pieces of it.
2007-10-30 19:21:29 · answer #6 · answered by zelente 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
So what? What's wrong with having it in Europe........NOTHING that's what........the World Cup is a better experience if it's in Europe.
2007-10-30 20:50:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
you would think its ok if your European but i still also think its wrong and i am also Mexican
2007-10-30 18:26:14 · answer #8 · answered by El Cid 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋