If they do stick with 48 teams or, ffs, go to 64, then it's pretty much going to always have to be a multicountry/continent-spanning event. As ridiculous as that is, it might provide a way to reduce the incentive for graft. They could just rotate it through each confederation and then have whichever confederation look at bids to host games from individual venues - and bypass the federations.
I'm not sure about this one-country/one-vote thing. It doesn't make a lot of sense for tiny island nations to have the same number of votes as Brazil, etc. But if it were weighted by population, India, China, and the USA would have way too much power for countries where football isn't even all that popular, per capita. Of course, if it were somehow based on the number of registered players or members or whatever, there'd be endless cheating on those numbers. Perhaps there's some more complex system of tiered voting or regional blocks or something.
I suppose that's all pointless anyway. Fairness and sensible economics isn't a consideration with these people.
Perhaps the most honest way to do it would be to just let whoever wins the TV rights to decide where they want to have it. At least then fans would see what's really going on and it would increase the value of those rights.
I suspect Britain-Ireland have a good shot at 2030 (or maybe a combined Britain-Ireland-France?) , but there's probably a push to get the World Cup in China and/or India. Those are really the last frontiers, aren't they?
Canada has it's own history of human rights abuses. Nobody is clean.
Perhaps its just because I live here that I see the difference between a World Cup in the US and a "US World Cup." But I think there's a big difference. I still don't really want it here and doubt I'll go (A lot changes in eight years, but I'm sure tickets will be outrageously priced and getting in and out of the venues will be a logistical nightmare and I very well may not care at all about sports by then) but it's not the same level of outrage as Russia or Qatar hosting. Not only because we already have the venues to host it, etc, but because the US government isn't really involved in the bids, contrary to what Trump might have you believe. Sure, Obama made a call or two and Trump signed some letters, but his claim that he "worked very hard on this" is just as much of a lie as everything else he said. I suspect Obama probably thought of it more in terms of being a nice get for Chicago - which has decided not to bother anyway - than for the US. No politician beyond the local level (unless you count the people who run the USSF as politicians), and certainly nobody running for president, is going to really get anything out of the US hosting the World Cup and losing the 2022 bid didn't cost any of them anything.*
I suppose it's the same in the UK. Cameron got involved in England's bid for 2022, or so I read. It certainly would have been a nice PR event for him for a news cycle or two, but I doubt it was a big priority for him and I doubt a single voter in the whole country gave it much thought or ever would, when voting for parliament.
That's different from how it is in Russia or Qatar or Morocco, where these things are very much tied to regime. Putin cared a lot about this and the Olympics and would have seen it as a major embarrassment to fail, so it's a failure of humanity that we were unable to deliver that embarrassment to one of the 21st Century's prize cunts.
*The US as a whole doesn't really have much of a tourism and image effort, as far as I'm aware. States, regions, and cities do, of course, but I don't know if there's really a Visit the USA thing going any more. I recall when GWBush was in some ads encouraging tourists to the USA (I saw them in airports) it was surprising not just because of the stupidity of using Bush as a spokesman, but the very idea that a place so big could be boiled down into an effective 30 second sales pitch that anyone would listen to.
I'm not sure about this one-country/one-vote thing. It doesn't make a lot of sense for tiny island nations to have the same number of votes as Brazil, etc. But if it were weighted by population, India, China, and the USA would have way too much power for countries where football isn't even all that popular, per capita. Of course, if it were somehow based on the number of registered players or members or whatever, there'd be endless cheating on those numbers. Perhaps there's some more complex system of tiered voting or regional blocks or something.
I suppose that's all pointless anyway. Fairness and sensible economics isn't a consideration with these people.
Perhaps the most honest way to do it would be to just let whoever wins the TV rights to decide where they want to have it. At least then fans would see what's really going on and it would increase the value of those rights.
I suspect Britain-Ireland have a good shot at 2030 (or maybe a combined Britain-Ireland-France?) , but there's probably a push to get the World Cup in China and/or India. Those are really the last frontiers, aren't they?
Originally posted by Bordeaux Education
View Post
Perhaps its just because I live here that I see the difference between a World Cup in the US and a "US World Cup." But I think there's a big difference. I still don't really want it here and doubt I'll go (A lot changes in eight years, but I'm sure tickets will be outrageously priced and getting in and out of the venues will be a logistical nightmare and I very well may not care at all about sports by then) but it's not the same level of outrage as Russia or Qatar hosting. Not only because we already have the venues to host it, etc, but because the US government isn't really involved in the bids, contrary to what Trump might have you believe. Sure, Obama made a call or two and Trump signed some letters, but his claim that he "worked very hard on this" is just as much of a lie as everything else he said. I suspect Obama probably thought of it more in terms of being a nice get for Chicago - which has decided not to bother anyway - than for the US. No politician beyond the local level (unless you count the people who run the USSF as politicians), and certainly nobody running for president, is going to really get anything out of the US hosting the World Cup and losing the 2022 bid didn't cost any of them anything.*
I suppose it's the same in the UK. Cameron got involved in England's bid for 2022, or so I read. It certainly would have been a nice PR event for him for a news cycle or two, but I doubt it was a big priority for him and I doubt a single voter in the whole country gave it much thought or ever would, when voting for parliament.
That's different from how it is in Russia or Qatar or Morocco, where these things are very much tied to regime. Putin cared a lot about this and the Olympics and would have seen it as a major embarrassment to fail, so it's a failure of humanity that we were unable to deliver that embarrassment to one of the 21st Century's prize cunts.
*The US as a whole doesn't really have much of a tourism and image effort, as far as I'm aware. States, regions, and cities do, of course, but I don't know if there's really a Visit the USA thing going any more. I recall when GWBush was in some ads encouraging tourists to the USA (I saw them in airports) it was surprising not just because of the stupidity of using Bush as a spokesman, but the very idea that a place so big could be boiled down into an effective 30 second sales pitch that anyone would listen to.
Comment