Following the announcement that Brazil has been awarded the 2014 World Cup, FIFA decided to end the rotation among the confederations (Europe, Asia, South America, North America, Africa). They did this just as North America's turn to host the Cup was due, in 2018. I find the timing curious though I really don't see a grand conspiracy. I'm nearly positive that politicking by European nations prompted FIFA to end the rotation. By 2018, the World Cup would have been out of Europe for 12 years. To me, that isn't a very long time; to Europeans, it apparently is.
I understand the rationale: Europe has the most teams involved in qualifying and contributes the most teams to the field. Therefore it is only logical that they get the World Cup at least every three rotations. Well, it's logical to them. To me, the only thing in consideration should be the ability to host the Cup. This means quality stadia, quality locations, ability to handle the millions of tourists, and, nowadays, to provide the security that needs to be in place. I think that limits where the Cup can be held, but not unfairly. For example, I'm positive Brazil will put on a good Finals; they better, anyway, because I plan to be there.
In terms of 2018, I think the favorite is still the United States. The United States has the stadia and the ability to handle it, as shown by 1994. The runner up will probably be England or Spain. Coming in 4th will likely be Mexico, which is a shame because I'm sure they'd put on a good Cup, too. I suppose this will sort itself out over the next 10 years but I look forward to the World Cup coming back to the US.
Ariel Meredith
Anne V
NFL Cheerleaders: Week 11
Best Players 6-5 and Under
Comments (3) Add A Comment
England. The 2018 Cup will go to England. Spain last hosted the Cup in 1982, and Mexico had in 1986. The United States hosted the Cup in 1994, but England has not hosted it since 1966. That's much longer than any other viable candidate you mentioned.
Plus, if the Cup had to come to North America why does no one mention Canada. They just hosted the Under 21's, have a soccer specific stadium in Toronto, along with already made stadiums for the Canadian Football League. They could either build more stadiums or convert them for soccer.
I just don't get why the big campaign for the U.S. to host the World Cup, anyway. We were good hosts in 1994 but there are other countries that deserve it's turn.
J. HOVA: BROOKLYN
Brooklyn, NY
Total Comments (18072)
I agree HOVA. With as many great venues like Old Trafford and Emirates stadium, it could be even better than Germany '06. That was an awesome WC. Imagine the electric atmosphere from a 50-60K crowd in England. Makes me want to buy a ticket now and start my travel reservations.
Little Evil (GUNNER)
Albuquerque , NM
Total Comments (347)
Good points, Hova and Little Evil. I wouldn't mind seeing the World Cup in Canada but, objectively, they don't have the stadia. There's BC Place (Vancouver), Commonwealth Stadium (Edmonton), Rogers Centre and BMO Field (Toronto) and Olympic Stadium (Montreal - but it doesn't count because it's falling apart). Also, the U21 WC was *HUGE* in Toronto and Montreal but it had trouble drawing flies in Edmonton and Vancouver (even for Team Canada games - I was esp. disappointed with Edmonton's turnout).
Perhaps a co-operative bid between Canada and the US? Games could be in Toronto, Montreal (if Olympic Stadium is fixed), NYC, Chicago, Philly, maybe LA and Dallas (depending on flight times, etc.). That might work.
I do think it will come down to England and the US as the finalists, though.
naxself
Fort Worth , TX
Total Comments (913)
Comment
Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.