Monday, October 1, 2012

Should the USA have bothered bidding for 2022 World Cup?

Should the USA have bothered bidding for 2022 World Cup?
Before any Americans get up in arms and possibly offended let me explain my question. It was fairly obvivious that the 2022 World Cup was going to end up going to the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) because 4 of the 5 nations are in the AFC (personally i would have like it to have gone for Australia (who are in the AFC) , but thats for another time). My main point is, Should the USA pulled out of 2022 bidding and waited for 2026 becasue (and here's the logic): Europe were guranteed 2018 Asia was bound to get 2022 (which they did) South America won't bid till for a tournament till 2030 becuse they have all made a pact not to harm or challenge and have promised to back a centenery bid by Uruguay/Argentina All that means that The USA would only face eligible bids for 2026 from Africa, Oceania and fellow North American bids. It seems unlikely that Canada, Mexico or New Zealand are going to put a competive bid together and time between 2010 and 2026 makes it unlikely that an African bid would win, not to mention that South Africa is 'probably' the only suitable african nation Plus, it is my understanding that a country for a future hosting continet has to wait 2 tournaments to bid again eg. South America 2026, Europe 2030, Asia 2034 So with this logic in mind and that the USA can and probably will walk into hosting 2026. Was it a waste of time and money the USA bidding this time round? (I get why they placed a bid, but would they have been better off looking at the picture tactically and possibly saving time, effort and money)
Other - Soccer - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
NO THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE. WAIT UNTIL 2026 OR 2030
2 :
You make some vaild points. In hindsight I'd say no- that goes for England as well. Once you take in some of the comments Blatter made prior to the voting (i.e: "When Russia bids for something, you can never say no". Along with a statement where he stated he wanted to bring the next two cups to new lands).-This tipped his hand that two new countries would be annointed. Taking in that I'd say it was a waste. USA selling features was they'd make a boat load of cash for FIFA. Problem is FIFA already makes loads of cash. Blatter has these delusions of grandeur that he will be awarded the Noble Prize soon. HA! Your point about it was Asia's turn was wrong, as they hosted it in 2002. I think it was pointless for Japan and S. Korea to bid as they just hosted it. I think Australia would have been a good choice. I think I echo other "rational" USA fans and say that I would not have a problem if the Aussies were awarded the Cup. So 2026 will be interesting. Hopefully Blatter and Platini will be out of office before the next round of voting goes. You're right about CONMEBOL and Argentina/Uruguay-which deserves to host again. As far as Africa goes, I think Morocco is capable of hosting a successful WC. In fact they were majorly screwed over by Blatter when came to the 2006 voting. They were a popular choice, and rumors swirled that they were "promised" to host the next Cup (2010). Egypt is a questionable host.
3 :
Well, I don't think it was a waste of time if anything I think it was to prove a point. To show that we are starting to take soccer seriously. What about the Women's WC? We can bid for 2015 or 2019 right? 17
4 :
nope qatar alreaddy have the cup for 2022 check their stadium out they are very nice
5 :
you make pretty good points. in hindsight, no, it was not a good idea to bid, but fifa would have loved to have the usa host the wc. think about it. the usa generated (at least last year), the highest percentage of their revenue. and a lot of the football, stadiums are multi purpose. many pro and collegiate stadiums can easily hold well over 100k people. dallas stadium alone holds 120k. ohio state can hold 100k, so can ann arbor, dont get me started on the new giants stadium and msg, and i didnt even mention any in la. and not to mention the fact that the tv ratings would sky rocket. i think that would be about 10 times higher revenue than the past one, factoring in inflation. the 94 wc in america (although im not nearly old enough to remember) i think was shocking to see how many people in the usa actually showed up. but i think the main reason is to show stability. soccer is popular in asia, but in north america, its the most popular sport (most played recreational sport), we all know about south america and europe. in asia, the fastest growing sport (thanks to mainly yao ming) has become basketball. dont you think that fifa would want to keep soccer as the most dominant sport in asia too? i mean, its the most populated continent on earth. and also, to boost the economy. and i think its a great pr move. blatter isnt the most popular guy in the soccer world. i think he would get support from the media when it shows how soccer is boosting economies in all areas of the world (although qatar has a thriving economy). but thats my theory. i guess we will never truly know.
6 :
od course


Posted by at