Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If you could decide the next world cup hosts?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #26
    Another vote for Australia here, or a joint effort between Spain and Portugal.

    Comment


      #27
      Happy to transfer my Spain vote to a joint Spain-Portugal one - would make good use of the Euro 2004 infra.

      Comment


        #28
        Originally posted by Bordeaux Education View Post
        Australia would, as Harry says, open up the country to football and would be a genuine new step so probably gets my vote. Having only one host team qualifying sits well with me as well.
        NZ would get 3 token group games. Oceania would then get another entrant. That's how Australia gets the votes for their bid (much cheaper than buying them, they can't outspend China in the Pacific).

        Comment


          #29
          Originally posted by Bordeaux Education View Post
          Spain sounds good as do Australia and Argentina. A UK one would be brilliant as long as there was no "Team GB" bullshit. It is probably genuinely time for it as well. Having said that, Australia would, as Harry says, open up the country to football and would be a genuine new step so probably gets my vote. Having only one host team qualifying sits well with me as well.

          I tell you what would be a left field choice is India. They have hosted the U17's World Cup, they have the stadia and another new location.
          India would be an intriguing proposition. to make it more interesting, make them host a joint bid with Pakistan...

          Comment


            #30
            They've hosted cricket world cups jointly with Pakistan.

            Comment


              #31
              And with Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Four South Asian auto-qualifiers, better make it 128 teams.

              Comment


                #32
                London.

                Comment


                  #33
                  I'll put this here (sound needs to be turned on at bottom)

                  https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/081594...-cup-of-spies/

                  Comment


                    #34
                    I'd fuck off this business of holding it somewhere that pampered footballers and hacks on junkets can get the utmost in comfort. I want run-down stadiums that aren't big enough. Unsuitable climates. Danger. I want the wet-Tuesday-night-in-Stoke of World Cups. I want a joint-Horn of Africa superbid for 2022. The irradiated nuclear hellscape of Post-America 2026. Jan Mayen 2030. That football pitch in a fuck-off big boat from the Nike advert 2034.

                    Comment


                      #35
                      Originally posted by Greenlander View Post
                      Was 1990 the last World Cup where each group had the games played in a pair of cities.
                      Originally posted by Flynnie View Post
                      Strictly yes, although 1994 did something like this. Five of the six group games were played in two cities, with a wild card game somewhere else. Each team played two games in one city, and then one game somewhere else.
                      From 1998, it was fully randomised. With the exception of 2002, where it was randomised within one particular country.
                      This genuinely took me aback. It was only yesterday or the day before that I was pondering the same question, perusing my WSC wallchart and noticing belatedly (very, as it turns out) that the same stadia are being used for teams in different groups.

                      In my head, the old model is still the norm, because (I now realise) the only World Cup where I took an active interest in who was playing where was 1990's – the first WC I paid attention to and the sole time I've done the sticker album collecting, etc. It remains so ingrained in my mind that, for instance, England and Ireland's group was based entirely in Cagliari on Sardinia and Palermo on Sicily for their group games, I've never stopped to notice that this system hasn't applied since the early '90s. I really liked that arrangement of having each group based in a particular area.

                      Comment


                        #36
                        With England fans stuck on islands.

                        Comment


                          #37
                          Originally posted by dogbeak View Post
                          I'd fuck off this business of holding it somewhere that pampered footballers and hacks on junkets can get the utmost in comfort. I want run-down stadiums that aren't big enough. Unsuitable climates. Danger. I want the wet-Tuesday-night-in-Stoke of World Cups. I want a joint-Horn of Africa superbid for 2022. The irradiated nuclear hellscape of Post-America 2026. Jan Mayen 2030. That football pitch in a fuck-off big boat from the Nike advert 2034.
                          I'll have that 2034 boat float down the Congo river, then.

                          Comment


                            #38
                            Yeah a UK/Ire one sounds great but that would mean 5 hosts automatically qualifying, so I can't see it. 2 has been done a couple of times, but I think any more than that and it becomes a bit silly, like Northern Hemisphere Rugby World cups - another quarter final in Cardiff, wow, what a surprise.

                            I liked the joint Dutch/Belgian bid for 2018 when they said it would be the first carbon neutral tournament.

                            Comment


                              #39
                              Originally posted by ooh aah View Post
                              Yeah a UK/Ire one sounds great but that would mean 5 hosts automatically qualifying, so I can't see it. 2 has been done a couple of times, but I think any more than that and it becomes a bit silly.
                              There will be 3 in 2026

                              Comment


                                #40
                                Originally posted by Satchmo Distel View Post
                                Seconded. Germany had their second 32 years after the first and we are already past that [for Spain].
                                That's strange to realise, but then this is a reflection of how one's perception of the passage of time alters.

                                I mean, from my childhood point of view, as someone who just missed getting into football in time for Mexico '86 (I was 7) and for whom even that WC already felt a long time ago come Italia '90, Mexico '70 felt like it belonged to a different geological epoch. After all, football then was barely in colour, and so many of the players belonged to the 1960s; whereas by '86 there were a load of players I was to become familiar with in the 1990s. And despite having much more of a long-view now, my impression of this 'vast gap' has never really altered since.

                                Yet of course in real terms there's not that much of a gap at all between the two Mexican World Cups – it's the equivalent of this year's tournament being held in South Korea and Japan again. Or the next one going back to Germany. Or 2026's being back in South Africa already. And all those three WCs have only just happened, from my adult perspective.*

                                So I'm intrigued to know, if any of the older members of the boards can recall, how it felt when Mexico hosted the 1986 tournament (as supersubs, but still) 'only' 16 years after their previous gig – was there that much of a yawning difference between the two eras as it seemed from my later point of view, or did it feel like the circus had barely left town before it rolled back in again?


                                (*Come to think of it, Rafael Márquez has not only appeared for but captained Mexico in every WC from 2002 to 2018. He was sent off in his first one for headbutting Cobi Jones, a player who made his international debut for the USA in 1992. Márquez s a few months older than me, so perhaps he's the ideal man to ask for his perspective on his nation's pair of hosting gigs.)

                                Comment


                                  #41
                                  Mexico got it because original hosts Colombia pulled out. There is a good article on the politics here

                                  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...a-in-1986.html

                                  Comment


                                    #42
                                    Originally posted by Various Artist View Post
                                    That's strange to realise, but then this is a reflection of how one's perception of the passage of time alters...So I'm intrigued to know, if any of the older members of the boards can recall, how it felt when Mexico hosted the 1986 tournament (as supersubs, but still) 'only' 16 years after their previous gig – was there that much of a yawning difference between the two eras as it seemed from my later point of view, or did it feel like the circus had barely left town before it rolled back in again?
                                    I was 8 in 1970 and vividly remember the Esso coin collection if not any matches. Had to leave the country to defend the last days of Empire (my parents worked for the Commonwealth Office). By 1986, I was living in South London where I watched the NI games with other exiles in the Horse and Groom pub near Westminster Bridge.

                                    I had a vague memory of Polish defender Wladyslaw Zmuda playing in both but turns out 1974 was his first . He also won a silver medal at the 1976 Olympics. So part of the same career/ era?

                                    Comment


                                      #43
                                      Originally posted by Various Artist View Post
                                      That's strange to realise, but then this is a reflection of how one's perception of the passage of time alters.

                                      I mean, from my childhood point of view, as someone who just missed getting into football in time for Mexico '86 (I was 7) and for whom even that WC already felt a long time ago come Italia '90, Mexico '70 felt like it belonged to a different geological epoch. After all, football then was barely in colour, and so many of the players belonged to the 1960s; whereas by '86 there were a load of players I was to become familiar with in the 1990s. And despite having much more of a long-view now, my impression of this 'vast gap' has never really altered since.

                                      Yet of course in real terms there's not that much of a gap at all between the two Mexican World Cups – it's the equivalent of this year's tournament being held in South Korea and Japan again. Or the next one going back to Germany. Or 2026's being back in South Africa already. And all those three WCs have only just happened, from my adult perspective.*

                                      So I'm intrigued to know, if any of the older members of the boards can recall, how it felt when Mexico hosted the 1986 tournament (as supersubs, but still) 'only' 16 years after their previous gig – was there that much of a yawning difference between the two eras as it seemed from my later point of view, or did it feel like the circus had barely left town before it rolled back in again?


                                      (*Come to think of it, Rafael Márquez has not only appeared for but captained Mexico in every WC from 2002 to 2018. He was sent off in his first one for headbutting Cobi Jones, a player who made his international debut for the USA in 1992. Márquez s a few months older than me, so perhaps he's the ideal man to ask for his perspective on his nation's pair of hosting gigs.)
                                      If there was a cut off, it seems to me that it would be between 78 and 82. Argentina 78 seemed impossibly exotic, with the ticker tape and the grainy pictures/sound quality. Spain 82 was much more "normal" (and this wasn't because it was closer. 82 was really only round the very start of mass foreign tourism, and I am pretty sure at that age I had never met anyone who had been to Spain. So the destination was exotic, but the tournament was much less so) I wondered if this was related to England participating but I don't think so- the Scotland team of 78 featured familiar faces from the First Division, so Kevin Keegan was no more nor less of your neighbour than Archie Gemmill.

                                      It could of course be related to my age - 78 I was 12, and a child; 82 16 and a budding wannabe adult. But even at this remove, it feels like that was the shift

                                      Comment


                                        #44
                                        Originally posted by dogbeak View Post
                                        I'd fuck off this business of holding it somewhere that pampered footballers and hacks on junkets can get the utmost in comfort. I want run-down stadiums that aren't big enough. Unsuitable climates. Danger.
                                        In fact, fuck it, compress the whole thing into less than a week. One day per round, rounds held on consecutive days. Three games on the trot on day 1 will definitely separate some wheat from chaff. Any team knocked out in the first round has their entire squad sacrificed, Mesoamerican ball game style. All members of the winning squad given gigantic burlap sacks with dollar signs painted on them full of bullion, and forced into immediate retirement from international football. Give all goalkeepers a shotgun and two shells.

                                        I know you are all aghast at expanding beyond 32 teams, but I'd make it open (no, mandatory) for all FIFA nations, and I'd add another 45 members from somewhere so we could have 256 on the go. Hold it on Hackney Marshes if need be.

                                        And instead of being every four years, it's now four times a year.

                                        Comment


                                          #45
                                          They never mentioned the human sacrifice angle on CBeebies 'Go Jetters' when they did the ballgame thing at Chichen Itza:
                                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge1gD3nHPJI

                                          Comment


                                            #46
                                            Originally posted by ad hoc View Post
                                            If there was a cut off, it seems to me that it would be between 78 and 82. Argentina 78 seemed impossibly exotic, with the ticker tape and the grainy pictures/sound quality. Spain 82 was much more "normal" (and this wasn't because it was closer. 82 was really only round the very start of mass foreign tourism, and I am pretty sure at that age I had never met anyone who had been to Spain. So the destination was exotic, but the tournament was much less so) I wondered if this was related to England participating but I don't think so- the Scotland team of 78 featured familiar faces from the First Division, so Kevin Keegan was no more nor less of your neighbour than Archie Gemmill.

                                            It could of course be related to my age - 78 I was 12, and a child; 82 16 and a budding wannabe adult. But even at this remove, it feels like that was the shift
                                            I would say 1982-86 because British TV and press did not give heavy coverage to Euro 84 so we had been starved of a fully televised tournament.

                                            Since then, though, tournaments have come thick and fast and it tends to be same old, same old.

                                            Comment


                                              #47
                                              I'll vote for Iberia, but only if we can have matches at the Mestalla in Valencia. Not the new one, the existing one.

                                              Comment


                                                #48
                                                I'm somewhere between Hot Pepsi's belief that it should be held in US college football stadia, and Dogbeak's belief that it should be held in miserable conditions.

                                                Wherever it is, it should be held in huge, but very basic, stadia. 120,000 seat concrete bowls. FIFA should be forbidden from asking for any upgrades to stadia or having any requirements at all about their facilities beyond the team being able to get to them.

                                                The trouble with US College stadia is that Knoxville and Ann Arbor just aren't exotic enough for a world cup.

                                                I don't know what the stadia are actually like, but this makes me believe that there should be a joint West Africa tournament from Mali and Senegal, or Ghana and Cote D'Ivoire.

                                                Comment


                                                  #49
                                                  Originally posted by anton pulisov View Post
                                                  I'll vote for Iberia, but only if we can have matches at the Mestalla in Valencia. Not the new one, the existing one.
                                                  If Iberia gets it, does 3,300 seat Estadi Nacional in Andorra get a game?

                                                  Comment


                                                    #50
                                                    Ann Arbor and Knoxville are also non-starters from a transport and lodging point of view.

                                                    Not to mention the fact that many of the traditional bowls have been dandified with luxury boxes and the like.

                                                    In the event of an Iberian World Cup, FIFA would headquarter itself in Andorra to take advantage of the "favourable tax environment"

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X