USA possibly getting World Cup bid in 2018

Talk about football in the AFC, CAF, CONCACAF, CONMEBOL and the rest of the World
Post Reply
soccer11
Admin
Posts: 4870
Joined: 24 Feb 2005, 23:40
Location: Michigan, USA

USA possibly getting World Cup bid in 2018

Post by soccer11 » 02 Mar 2007, 18:24

What do guys think about the US possibly hosting the World Cup here in 2018. I think it's really good and would again boost soccer (football) here in the states. we did a hell of a job this time and i believe we would do better this time.
Image

mufc21
Veteran Member
Posts: 920
Joined: 18 Aug 2006, 21:52

Post by mufc21 » 02 Mar 2007, 18:31

ye but that world cup you hosted was one of the worst of all time if i remember correctly. Personnaly i pray you dont get it because every sprting tournament there is you want it. Like when you wanted cricket. You dont even play cricket. I hope you dont get it. No offense

J
Admin
Posts: 1699
Joined: 10 Feb 2005, 20:41
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Post by J » 02 Mar 2007, 22:24

Yeah I heard htis too. I heard it was going to be Mexico, Canada and the U.S all put together hosting it...

soccer11
Admin
Posts: 4870
Joined: 24 Feb 2005, 23:40
Location: Michigan, USA

Post by soccer11 » 02 Mar 2007, 22:53

we wanted cricket, haha i didn't even know that

but anyways. who says it would be bad. we have all sorts of enormous stadiums to put it in. soccer has gotten bigger in the states since 94 and the USA is one of the biggest markets in the world. the world cup final we hosted is still the record for most people attending the final game
Image

J
Admin
Posts: 1699
Joined: 10 Feb 2005, 20:41
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Post by J » 03 Mar 2007, 00:16

mufc21 wrote:ye but that world cup you hosted was one of the worst of all time if i remember correctly.

If you are going to say something like that, don't you think you should explain why?

gnarlyjim
EF Mountie
Posts: 3767
Joined: 07 Jul 2006, 02:08
Location: Canada

Post by gnarlyjim » 03 Mar 2007, 00:34

mufc21 wrote:ye but that world cup you hosted was one of the worst of all time if i remember correctly.
Hmmm.. I looked around and found this fact on several sites:

The average attendance of nearly 69,000 shattered a record that had stood since 1950, due to the bigger capacities of the American stadia compared to those of Europe. To this day, the total attendance for the final tournament of nearly 3.6 million remains the greatest in World Cup history.

Can you explain how it one of the "worst of all time"?
Image

mufc21
Veteran Member
Posts: 920
Joined: 18 Aug 2006, 21:52

Post by mufc21 » 03 Mar 2007, 00:39

as i said i think i remember that. Anyways i wasnt referring to the people going to it. I was talking about the quality. Ill get you some facts when im up to it or go do it yourself

ajc
The Philly Flyer
Posts: 3094
Joined: 29 Apr 2006, 02:08
Location: Delaware, USA

Post by ajc » 03 Mar 2007, 04:20

mufc21 wrote:as i said i think i remember that. Anyways i wasnt referring to the people going to it. I was talking about the quality. Ill get you some facts when im up to it or go do it yourself
Do you mean the quality of play? Because the venue shouldn't have anything to do with that when world class players are on show.
J wrote:Yeah I heard htis too. I heard it was going to be Mexico, Canada and the U.S all put together hosting it...
I don't know how great of an idea that would be. It seems like there would be so much travel involved for the teams that it would certainly cause complaints from the teams. I could see doing the Southern U.S. and Mexico, or the Northern U.S. and Canada, but not all three.
Image
Click it

soccer11
Admin
Posts: 4870
Joined: 24 Feb 2005, 23:40
Location: Michigan, USA

Post by soccer11 » 03 Mar 2007, 05:40

J wrote:Yeah I heard htis too. I heard it was going to be Mexico, Canada and the U.S all put together hosting it...
I don't know how great of an idea that would be. It seems like there would be so much travel involved for the teams that it would certainly cause complaints from the teams. I could see doing the Southern U.S. and Mexico, or the Northern U.S. and Canada, but not all three.
yeah that would be too much travel. that would really make it a bad WC

and when u say we hosted a WC that sucked, explain why? we can't help that the teams weren't good, so um J, thanks for looking out
Image

mpcarres14
Veteran Member
Posts: 1847
Joined: 30 Mar 2005, 00:26
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by mpcarres14 » 03 Mar 2007, 06:15

I don't really know how the 94 WC was quality wise, but some of the superstars of the tournaments have since gone on to become legends. Baggio, Bebeto, Romario, Stoichkov, Bergkamp, Hagi, Klinssman, Milla, Dunga, Batistuta, and Maradona are now amongst the top 30 players in history, and they were all present at that tournament. However, one major flaw that is present in hosting the WC in the USA with today's modern game is the amount of travel. America is a massive country, and stadia are scattered all over the country. This could mean five hour plane rides for teams travelling from a base in LA to DC to play, thus increasing player fatigue and decreasing the quality of play. In reality, the ideal place to hold the WC would be England. They will have so many top qualitye stadia for use (Wembley, Old Trafford, Ashburton Grove, St. James Park, Stamford Bridge, Stanley Park or whatever Liverpool's new place is called, Olympic Stadium, Millenium Stadium even though it is in Wales it could probably be used, and White Hart Lane all have a fairly large capacity, while all of them fit FIFA regulations.) The only problem is that the English FA is, well, a complete farce. If they can't choose a capable manager, what can persuade the world that they can host its biggest sporting event?
Image

God damn brewery!!!

J
Admin
Posts: 1699
Joined: 10 Feb 2005, 20:41
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Post by J » 03 Mar 2007, 07:26

ajc wrote:I don't know how great of an idea that would be. It seems like there would be so much travel involved for the teams that it would certainly cause complaints from the teams. I could see doing the Southern U.S. and Mexico, or the Northern U.S. and Canada, but not all three.
Thats was just what I heard. I don't know if they meant each country individually was putting in a bid or all put together. I heard this on FSC and they made it seem like all three put together...?

I agree though, it would be way too much travel.

J
Admin
Posts: 1699
Joined: 10 Feb 2005, 20:41
Location: Massachusetts, USA

Post by J » 03 Mar 2007, 07:32

Yeah, I just found an article on it, I'm pretty sure they mean any three of us could host it here in N. America, not all put together.


http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story ... 66&cc=5901

powell
English Meister
Posts: 3941
Joined: 03 Mar 2006, 20:59
Location: england

Post by powell » 03 Mar 2007, 08:39

yeh i heard that usa were bidding to host the 2018 world cup but so are england trying to, google 'world cup 2018' and you'll find out more.

gnarlyjim
EF Mountie
Posts: 3767
Joined: 07 Jul 2006, 02:08
Location: Canada

Post by gnarlyjim » 03 Mar 2007, 13:28

I really hope that Canada gets the World Cup, but I don't think they will. The USA could get it again, but personally, I think England would be best suited. They have all the stadiums, plus a huge number of fans. They would also be able to draw in people from neighboring countries. Anyway, that's my two cents.
Image

Post Reply