In addressing the issue if FIFA takes Qatar's bid away because of corruption and weather, a fan suggested the USA could step in and take over. To which it elicited this comment from a Canadian on ESPN's thread:
"Who says USA is the obvious choice? ANY european country is a better choice since 'Mercans still value baseball, american football and basketball and even hockey more than Football, or how do you say it??? SOCCER. Put it where there are REAL fans."
Spoken like a true Canuck.
A couple of things I'd like to weigh in with.
If it comes to the point where FIFA has to make that decision, the USA is a fine destination in my view.
Yes, the U.S. is an obvious choice because it already has endless stadiums and facilities most of which are in outstanding order. Not just that, the last time the WC was held there in 1994, it shattered all sorts of records including revenues and attendance. There's no doubt in my mind it would be repeated if not surpassed in 2018.
Not 'any' European nation would be a better choice. Germany just had the WC in 2006. France in 1998. Italy hosted in 1990 and is in no position to step in (even though it's begun the process of revamping its soccer stadium with state of the art architecture) as is Spain on such short notice given the current state of its economy. That leaves England, Holland and/or Belgium and joint bids.
England could be an interesting selection since it hasn't hosted since 1966 but I don't know if it's interested especially so soon after the Olympics. Holland and Belgium are tiny countries that honestly can't match the potential of U.S. money.
Let's expand it. Japan? Just hosted in 2002 with South Korea.
So it's slim pickings really.
That leaves North America. Canada could offer some of its facilities but we don't have word class ones and they'll only look worse in 2018. I suppose we could embark on a journey to build them but I don't believe it's something most Canadians would stomach.
Which all comes back to the USA with its wealth, critical mass and growing stature in soccer which FIFA wants to see continue. If there's one country you want to see the sport grow it's there. Qatar is insignificant to the sport moving forward no matter what they say.
He says put it where there are "real fans." It's a silly statement since the U.S. does have an enormous soccer base. Its sporting landscape is so big most can't really contextualize it like this parochial putz. Even a small share of that pie is worth more than say, soccer mad Norway or Belgium.
Honestly, Canadians who talk and think this way are baffle me because there's no excuse to take such a stance.
Last, about the word 'soccer.' Sad attempt at smug soccer jargon.
I call it soccer and without reservation or embarrassment. It's the word we use here and it doesn't mean because we use it we know less about the game. Besides, soccer is a British word we imported.
Of all the useless gibberish I hear about America soccer bashing, this is the top one.
Yes. Bring it to America. It's actually the most logical choice - and even an obvious one.
"Who says USA is the obvious choice? ANY european country is a better choice since 'Mercans still value baseball, american football and basketball and even hockey more than Football, or how do you say it??? SOCCER. Put it where there are REAL fans."
Spoken like a true Canuck.
A couple of things I'd like to weigh in with.
If it comes to the point where FIFA has to make that decision, the USA is a fine destination in my view.
Yes, the U.S. is an obvious choice because it already has endless stadiums and facilities most of which are in outstanding order. Not just that, the last time the WC was held there in 1994, it shattered all sorts of records including revenues and attendance. There's no doubt in my mind it would be repeated if not surpassed in 2018.
Not 'any' European nation would be a better choice. Germany just had the WC in 2006. France in 1998. Italy hosted in 1990 and is in no position to step in (even though it's begun the process of revamping its soccer stadium with state of the art architecture) as is Spain on such short notice given the current state of its economy. That leaves England, Holland and/or Belgium and joint bids.
England could be an interesting selection since it hasn't hosted since 1966 but I don't know if it's interested especially so soon after the Olympics. Holland and Belgium are tiny countries that honestly can't match the potential of U.S. money.
Let's expand it. Japan? Just hosted in 2002 with South Korea.
So it's slim pickings really.
That leaves North America. Canada could offer some of its facilities but we don't have word class ones and they'll only look worse in 2018. I suppose we could embark on a journey to build them but I don't believe it's something most Canadians would stomach.
Which all comes back to the USA with its wealth, critical mass and growing stature in soccer which FIFA wants to see continue. If there's one country you want to see the sport grow it's there. Qatar is insignificant to the sport moving forward no matter what they say.
He says put it where there are "real fans." It's a silly statement since the U.S. does have an enormous soccer base. Its sporting landscape is so big most can't really contextualize it like this parochial putz. Even a small share of that pie is worth more than say, soccer mad Norway or Belgium.
Honestly, Canadians who talk and think this way are baffle me because there's no excuse to take such a stance.
Last, about the word 'soccer.' Sad attempt at smug soccer jargon.
I call it soccer and without reservation or embarrassment. It's the word we use here and it doesn't mean because we use it we know less about the game. Besides, soccer is a British word we imported.
Of all the useless gibberish I hear about America soccer bashing, this is the top one.
Yes. Bring it to America. It's actually the most logical choice - and even an obvious one.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.