World Cup to the USA

[Lazie]

Swine flu? what about it?
From what I have been reading, the UK is seeing 100,000 swine flu cases per day. Swine flu may have originated in Mexico, but it is not a Mexico problem alone.

Where you got it that I said it was Mexico's problem alone? You asked what we can thank Mexico for? I think you answered it.

"Swine flu may have originated in Mexico"

[Karl]

I would love it!

[HL]

for the umpteenth time...Tilla you are one of the few voices of reason on this forum.

[Peter R]

Tilla, HL:

I do not disagree with all the monetary and infrastructural reasons why the USA should be awarded a WC. However, my point and I read Mosiah to be in line with that thinking, is that OUTSIDE of the stadium, it would be just another 9-5 day in the land of milk and honey. In other words, when you enter town, there would be no real community involvement in the spectacle of the WC and to me that would be an ingredient of the WC experience that would be sadly lacking. Think of Montreal in 76 and Atlanta in in 96 where these cities ate, breathed and slept the Olympics...there was a vibe; that vibe, other than in some pockets, I suspect would be conspicuously absent from a USA World Cup.

From a selfish perspective even for me the USA is easier to get to than say Argentina or Brazil or the other continents, so from a purely football perspective the WC in the USA is the easiest way for me see the great contest, however, I found the 94 experience left me COLD COLD COLD, except for within the confines of the stadium...lots of tailgate partying etc. but other than that, a real let down and for that reason I would rather visit a country where the vast majority of the population appreciated the magnitude of a WC.

[Gamma]

true ....i had a beatiful experience in germany 06......he night before brasil australia the city neva sleep...parades music fans......this is in the heart of munich

usa is convenient... i could fly to midweek games in different cities from where i am and thus see more games etc...so from that point of view it would be great BUT WC is also about the ATMOSPHERE....

[Assasin]

They could make more money in England. The stadiums are also there and there are many football fans. Remember the pound is also 2 for one US(almost).

The US is convienent for me as I am sure I could take my family to a game or two, other than that it would be costly and not nuff of us on the forum despite our chat can make it unless Jamaica reach and we scarifice bigtime.

Yes I would love it in the US again sometime in my lifetime but I doubt it will be so soon. Britain get my vote. Watch Warner and the caribbean sell out the US. Remember that Britain gave them a game in T&T for their vote.

Obama have fi come real good fi win as he is up against Beckembar, and Beckham.

[Warlord]

[quote=Assasin;178205]

They could make more money in England. The stadiums are also there and there are many football fans. Remember the pound is also 2 for one US(almost).

Most western European nations..ie. France, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Spain etc can host a WC without a problem. It isnt only limited to England! Those nations also have passionate fans too.

The US is convienent for me as I am sure I could take my family to a game or two, other than that it would be costly and not nuff of us on the forum despite our chat can make it unless Jamaica reach and we scarifice bigtime.

The US is convenient for most of us that live in North America. Its relatively easy to get to the host cities that will host games. Thats not an issue. The issue of logistics would factor in if the WC was held in certain South American nations. I know for a fact that both Argentina and Uruguay can host it without any issues. Brazil..im not so sure even though they were awarded 2014, they have some work to do. Personally, I would attend any finals the boyz were playing in whether it is in US or even as far as Japan!

Yes I would love it in the US again sometime in my lifetime but I doubt it will be so soon. Britain get my vote. Watch Warner and the caribbean sell out the US. Remember that Britain gave them a game in T&T for their vote.

If you studied the history of the WC, you'd realise that the finals shift continents each cycle. Case n point, Mexico' 86, Italia '90, USA'94, France '98, Korea and Japan' 02, Germany '06, South Africa 2010, Brazil, 2014. I can almost guarantee you that North America will see another WC within the next possible 2-4 cycles. Whether that will be Mex, Canada or US who knows but there will be another WC on this side of the globe! The game that England had with Trinidad had nothing to do with Warner or Concacaf's vote in support of England. That game had to do with their Federation celebrating their 100 year existence. If you were paying close attention, you wouldve noticed that Warner has repeatedly been non-supportive of England hosting in 2018. His comments regarding their bid clearly demonstrates that fact.

Obama have fi come real good fi win as he is up against Beckembar, and Beckham

.

Maybe im missing sumthin here but when did Beckham's vote become pivotal with FIFA in regards to who should be hosting a WC? I didnt realise he had that much power!

[Mosiah]

I saw one match at the Silverdome too, and the atmosphere inside the stadium was a little better than the sleepy, ignorant town of Detroit.

[Mosiah]

Then how do you explain this:

Hell yeaahhhh!! Concacaf is due another tournament. Jamaica nuh have enough stadium, Trinidad have stadium but dem too small, MExico is a high risk for swine flu, plus yuh never know when the authorities and the drugists ago kick off .... well, that leave USA and Canada.

We're talking about a World Cup tournament that is at least 10 years away and yuh still deh pon Mexico's swine flu. If, I didn't know better, I would have thought you were a redneck yank!

[Assasin]

while many of these countries have facilities, how many have multipli stadiums that seat 50-70 thousands? I think of a few in England. Again they will be able to host it but the fact that the pound value more than the Euro it would mean more money when the stadium full as in England.

Becks not so long ago was the most popular footballer in the world and he was choosen as the ambassador for the world cup. He has nearly as much influence as Obama who is not a member of FIFA or any organization related to FIFA.

"The US is convenient for most of us that live in North America. Its relatively easy to get to the host cities that will host games. Thats not an issue. The issue of logistics would factor in if the WC was held in certain South American nations. I know for a fact that both Argentina and Uruguay can host it without any issues. Brazil..im not so sure even though they were awarded 2014, they have some work to do. Personally, I would attend any finals the boyz were playing in whether it is in US or even as far as Japan!"

You go because you can afford it. How many pickney you have in daycare or college? Do you still have a job? Let us be realistic here.


"The game that England had with Trinidad had nothing to do with Warner or Concacaf's vote in support of England. "

Gwaan go sleep. Jack say him nah support England and when him get the game him turn around and say different? Why else did they get a game? Enlighten me.

[Lazie]

Then how do you explain this:



We're talking about a World Cup tournament that is at least 10 years away and yuh still deh pon Mexico's swine flu. If, I didn't know better, I would have thought you were a redneck yank!

Call mi what yuh want ... we all know yuh nuh know nuh better.

[Bricktop]

From a selfish perspective even for me the USA is easier to get to than say Argentina or Brazil or the other continents, so from a purely football perspective the WC in the USA is the easiest way for me see the great contest, however, I found the 94 experience left me COLD COLD COLD, except for within the confines of the stadium...lots of tailgate partying etc. but other than that, a real let down and for that reason I would rather visit a country where the vast majority of the population appreciated the magnitude of a WC.

Amen brother. What a set a people apathetic to football.

[Jangle]

Well if the USA was awarded another WC, they would have the time to build the grassroot support. Trust me, if FIFA said that the vibes was a criteria, then the US would pay people fe dance in the streets. Never put anything past a determined USA. See they soon started hosting cricket games.

[Zeppo]

The game here has come a long way since 1994.

There is now an established pro league that has been around for over 13 years, and just look at the crowds for the Gold Cup and these pre-season exhibition games going on with the Euro club teams.

A WC in 2018 would mean that more than 20 years have passed since the previous one, so you could expect an even bigger success and even more appreciative crowds.

[Warlord]

[quote=Assasin;178235]

while many of these countries have facilities, how many have multipli stadiums that seat 50-70 thousands? I think of a few in England. Again they will be able to host it but the fact that the pound value more than the Euro it would mean more money when the stadium full as in England.

What are you talking about? It aint bout whose currency value is higher son. If that was the case the UK would host every single WC. Why havent they done that? Its all about numbers. Here's a breakdown of a few stadiums in Western Europe that can seat between 50-80K per game

Italy - Guiseppe Meazza Stadium (San Siro) - Inter and AC Milan - 80,074
Italy - San Paolo Stadium - Napoli - 78,210
Italy - Stadio Olympico - As Roma and Lazio - 72,700
Italy - Stadio Della Alpi - Juventus - 67,229
Italy - Stadio San Nicola - Bari -58,248
Spain - Nou Camp - FC Barcelona - 98,772
Spain - Estadio Bernabeu - 80,354
Spain - Estadio Olimpico - Sevilla - 57.619
Spain - Estadi Oimpic Luis - Espanyol - 55,926
Spain - Vicente Calderon Stadium - Atletico Madrid - 55,005
Spain - Manuel Ruiz - Real Betis - 52,132
Spain - Estadio Mestalla - Valencia - 52,469
France - Stade de France - Saint Denis - 80,000
France - Stade Velodrome - Olympique Marseille - 60,031

Becks not so long ago was the most popular footballer in the world and he was choosen as the ambassador for the world cup. He has nearly as much influence as Obama who is not a member of FIFA or any organization related to FIFA.

Beckham popularity as a player has no bearing on whether or not England hosts the WC in 2018. He can have his opinion like Obama on who should host it but that doesnt mean that it is guaranteed to happen. That decision is ultimately made by FIFA's Executive Commitee.

You go because you can afford it. How many pickney you have in daycare or college? Do you still have a job? Let us be realistic here.

I dont disagree with that. Of course you wont go if you cant afford it, but if you can youd go wouldnt you? Sure there's a global recession and people are losing their jobs left, right and centre yet some can still afford to attend football matches and the WC. Its all about your economic situation and what you are faced with. I have 2 young ones that are well cared for, very fortunate in that I have a job in the field I went to college for and now I also own my own business. Ofcourse everyone's economic situation is different but if you can afford it then and the money aspect wont be an issue.

Gwaan go sleep. Jack say him nah support England and when him get the game him turn around and say different? Why else did they get a game? Enlighten me.

Already stated why England gave them a game. Its in the press why they did. Sure Englands FA will use it as a political means to gain an advantage (Concacaf's vote) but it is what it is. As I stated earlier Warner's comments about England's bid post England/TNT game says otherwise.