By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - USA TO SUBMIT BIDS TO HOST WORLD CUP IN '18 OR '22

Ok there is a mistake in the OP. It's not benelux, just belgium+netherlands! And we'll get it so don't even try ^^



Around the Network
pastro243 said:
zexen_lowe said:
okr said:

Oh, my European neighbours and their constant complaints about socc..., oops, football and USA. Always good for a laugh. It's funny how you care about a simple word.

No passion for soccer in USA? I bet most of you don't even know (or care) that USA is still one of the most succesful and most important countries when it comes to women's football/soccer. And the male US team isn't nearly as bad as many Europeans and South Americans might think.

You want "real" football passion in the stadiums? We'll get plenty of it in 2010/Sout Africa and 2014/Brazil.

I for one wouldn't mind at all if the 2018 or 2022 world cup goes to USA, but as I said before, I think Canada might have better chances if both countries submit their bids.

As Sepp Blatter already stated (and once I agree with him): If any of the designated hosts fail to organize the tournament (we all know South Africa had severe financial problems and there's still a chance even Brazil might get in trouble), USA will be the best backup country in the world and the only one that could handle a late and quick shift of such a huge event.

Nobody is asaying that the US does bad in football, everyone knows they're very succesful in women's football (they won the gold medal, right?) and in the last two WC they didn't do bad (they had an excellent 2002 WC and were eliminated in a very tight match against the to-be-finalist Germany in quarter-finals, anmd in 2006 they took part in the most difficult group and drew against the to-be-champion Italy in a match they deserved to win). But a team's success has nothing to do with passion (there are countries with bad teams and a lot of passion -I dunno, a lot of Central American and African teams-, and countries with good teams and no passion -Venezuela has improved a lot lately, but the country simply doesn't like football-).

I think that a WC should only be hosted in a country were it would be THE event, and all other activities (like other sports) have to take a backseat against the WC. For example, in the 2006 WC, even if we didn't host the WC, every Argentina match the city was completely paralyzed, every office and school put TVs so everyone could see the matches and nobody worked or studied for the two hours that took the match. The only thing the newspapers were talking was about the WC, and everywhere the only thing people talked was about the WC, as it should be, because the WC is the biggest sport event in the world along with the Olympics, I'm sure that in most participating countries it was the same. Do you think that if another WC would take part in the US, it would be the most important thing happening there, it would be the even that drew the most attention from the newspapers? I think not. That's no "WC atmosphere" for me

 

I agree with Zexen, there should be passion in the country that organizes the WC. Oh, and Canada wont get the WC on those years, they had the U 20 world cup on 2007, and that makes hard that they have another big football tounament in their country so soon. For example, here in Chile, we had last year the U 20 woman WC and the US won, I saw the final when I was in San Francisco and even though they won nobody seemed to care.

And as zexen said, having a good team has nothing to do, and we south americans think the US is bad because even thpugh they go to every world cup its because their rivals, except for mexico, are really bad, and its easy to get to the WC comparing the Euro qualifiers or the south american ones.

The WC has to be the most important thing happening in the country thats the host, here even thought we didnt go to the last 2 WC we saw all  of the matches, they even gave us time at school to watch some matches, and in 1998 when we went, I was 8 and the country was paralized every time the national team played, we just went to school to see the matches and they painted our faces and we sang and played football all day, you could really see the impact. And in 1962 when we where the hosts that made Television be massive for the first time in our country.

 

 

Even though the USA may not have "Soccer" as our # one sport we still probably have more than 15 or 20 times more players than your country (Chile) does simply by mere population.  So it would be much easier for the USA to come up with a decent enough  team to get into the WC.  

Every highschool and most elementary schools have Soccer teams now.  The sport is growing very much here in the states and having a WC here would do nothing but help improve its popularity.  So I think all of you people talking smack about "devotion" to the game are idiots.

Having the WC in the States would do nothing but help the sport grow, and that is what FIFA is all about. 

 



"If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow."

Quote by- The Imortal John Wayne, the original BADASS!

 

 

 

damndl0ser said:
pastro243 said:
zexen_lowe said:

Nobody is asaying that the US does bad in football, everyone knows they're very succesful in women's football (they won the gold medal, right?) and in the last two WC they didn't do bad (they had an excellent 2002 WC and were eliminated in a very tight match against the to-be-finalist Germany in quarter-finals, anmd in 2006 they took part in the most difficult group and drew against the to-be-champion Italy in a match they deserved to win). But a team's success has nothing to do with passion (there are countries with bad teams and a lot of passion -I dunno, a lot of Central American and African teams-, and countries with good teams and no passion -Venezuela has improved a lot lately, but the country simply doesn't like football-).

I think that a WC should only be hosted in a country were it would be THE event, and all other activities (like other sports) have to take a backseat against the WC. For example, in the 2006 WC, even if we didn't host the WC, every Argentina match the city was completely paralyzed, every office and school put TVs so everyone could see the matches and nobody worked or studied for the two hours that took the match. The only thing the newspapers were talking was about the WC, and everywhere the only thing people talked was about the WC, as it should be, because the WC is the biggest sport event in the world along with the Olympics, I'm sure that in most participating countries it was the same. Do you think that if another WC would take part in the US, it would be the most important thing happening there, it would be the even that drew the most attention from the newspapers? I think not. That's no "WC atmosphere" for me

 

I agree with Zexen, there should be passion in the country that organizes the WC. Oh, and Canada wont get the WC on those years, they had the U 20 world cup on 2007, and that makes hard that they have another big football tounament in their country so soon. For example, here in Chile, we had last year the U 20 woman WC and the US won, I saw the final when I was in San Francisco and even though they won nobody seemed to care.

And as zexen said, having a good team has nothing to do, and we south americans think the US is bad because even thpugh they go to every world cup its because their rivals, except for mexico, are really bad, and its easy to get to the WC comparing the Euro qualifiers or the south american ones.

The WC has to be the most important thing happening in the country thats the host, here even thought we didnt go to the last 2 WC we saw all  of the matches, they even gave us time at school to watch some matches, and in 1998 when we went, I was 8 and the country was paralized every time the national team played, we just went to school to see the matches and they painted our faces and we sang and played football all day, you could really see the impact. And in 1962 when we where the hosts that made Television be massive for the first time in our country.

 

 

Even though the USA may not have "Soccer" as our # one sport we still probably have more than 15 or 20 times more players than your country (Chile) does simply by mere population.  So it would be much easier for the USA to come up with a decent enough  team to get into the WC.  

Every highschool and most elementary schools have Soccer teams now.  The sport is growing very much here in the states and having a WC here would do nothing but help improve its popularity.  So I think all of you people talking smack about "devotion" to the game are idiots.

Having the WC in the States would do nothing but help the sport grow, and that is what FIFA is all about. 

 

Please tell me that you don't follow much football, because that statement is simply ridiculous. If population was the only thing that mattered, then the best teams would be China and India. Guess what? China only participated in one WC and lost all its matches, India as far as I know never participated in one. Conclusion: Population does not matter.

It's easy, the US has a decent team, but nothing amazing, and certainly not on par with most South American nations (Chile included) and it will take a lot of time to change that. They qualify to every WC simply because there are very few CONCACAF nations that are any good.

Face it, there already was a WC there and it didn't do much, what makes you think a new one will?




zexen_lowe said:
damndl0ser said:
pastro243 said:
zexen_lowe said:

Nobody is asaying that the US does bad in football, everyone knows they're very succesful in women's football (they won the gold medal, right?) and in the last two WC they didn't do bad (they had an excellent 2002 WC and were eliminated in a very tight match against the to-be-finalist Germany in quarter-finals, anmd in 2006 they took part in the most difficult group and drew against the to-be-champion Italy in a match they deserved to win). But a team's success has nothing to do with passion (there are countries with bad teams and a lot of passion -I dunno, a lot of Central American and African teams-, and countries with good teams and no passion -Venezuela has improved a lot lately, but the country simply doesn't like football-).

I think that a WC should only be hosted in a country were it would be THE event, and all other activities (like other sports) have to take a backseat against the WC. For example, in the 2006 WC, even if we didn't host the WC, every Argentina match the city was completely paralyzed, every office and school put TVs so everyone could see the matches and nobody worked or studied for the two hours that took the match. The only thing the newspapers were talking was about the WC, and everywhere the only thing people talked was about the WC, as it should be, because the WC is the biggest sport event in the world along with the Olympics, I'm sure that in most participating countries it was the same. Do you think that if another WC would take part in the US, it would be the most important thing happening there, it would be the even that drew the most attention from the newspapers? I think not. That's no "WC atmosphere" for me

 

I agree with Zexen, there should be passion in the country that organizes the WC. Oh, and Canada wont get the WC on those years, they had the U 20 world cup on 2007, and that makes hard that they have another big football tounament in their country so soon. For example, here in Chile, we had last year the U 20 woman WC and the US won, I saw the final when I was in San Francisco and even though they won nobody seemed to care.

And as zexen said, having a good team has nothing to do, and we south americans think the US is bad because even thpugh they go to every world cup its because their rivals, except for mexico, are really bad, and its easy to get to the WC comparing the Euro qualifiers or the south american ones.

The WC has to be the most important thing happening in the country thats the host, here even thought we didnt go to the last 2 WC we saw all  of the matches, they even gave us time at school to watch some matches, and in 1998 when we went, I was 8 and the country was paralized every time the national team played, we just went to school to see the matches and they painted our faces and we sang and played football all day, you could really see the impact. And in 1962 when we where the hosts that made Television be massive for the first time in our country.

 

 

Even though the USA may not have "Soccer" as our # one sport we still probably have more than 15 or 20 times more players than your country (Chile) does simply by mere population.  So it would be much easier for the USA to come up with a decent enough  team to get into the WC.  

Every highschool and most elementary schools have Soccer teams now.  The sport is growing very much here in the states and having a WC here would do nothing but help improve its popularity.  So I think all of you people talking smack about "devotion" to the game are idiots.

Having the WC in the States would do nothing but help the sport grow, and that is what FIFA is all about. 

 

Please tell me that you don't follow much football, because that statement is simply ridiculous. If population was the only thing that mattered, then the best teams would be China and India. Guess what? China only participated in one WC and lost all its matches, India as far as I know never participated in one. Conclusion: Population does not matter.

It's easy, the US has a decent team, but nothing amazing, and certainly not on par with most South American nations (Chile included) and it will take a lot of time to change that. They qualify to every WC simply because there are very few CONCACAF nations that are any good.

Face it, there already was a WC there and it didn't do much, what makes you think a new one will?

I do follow the WC to some degree but I am not religious about it.  And yes we did host a WC and it was one of the most successful of all time.

 

Population is not the only mitigating factor for having the best players.  And if you re read my comment you would see where I was talking about how it is becoming more successful here in every highschool.   I can gaurantee you that if China put there "mind" to it they would probably have a very very good team (just like the olympics).   

 

Your entire comment had nothing to show me where I was wrong about growing the sport, which is where my comment was geared.  So your rebuttal is full of fail, and miss truths.  

 



"If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow."

Quote by- The Imortal John Wayne, the original BADASS!

 

 

 

Spain should host it... passion for the sport is there. Fans of the sport are across every border to Spain... Most South Americans can handle themsleves in Spain well too...

SPAIN!!! (Great weather too!)



Around the Network
damndl0ser said:
zexen_lowe said:
damndl0ser said:

 

Even though the USA may not have "Soccer" as our # one sport we still probably have more than 15 or 20 times more players than your country (Chile) does simply by mere population.  So it would be much easier for the USA to come up with a decent enough  team to get into the WC.  

Every highschool and most elementary schools have Soccer teams now.  The sport is growing very much here in the states and having a WC here would do nothing but help improve its popularity.  So I think all of you people talking smack about "devotion" to the game are idiots.

Having the WC in the States would do nothing but help the sport grow, and that is what FIFA is all about. 

 

Please tell me that you don't follow much football, because that statement is simply ridiculous. If population was the only thing that mattered, then the best teams would be China and India. Guess what? China only participated in one WC and lost all its matches, India as far as I know never participated in one. Conclusion: Population does not matter.

It's easy, the US has a decent team, but nothing amazing, and certainly not on par with most South American nations (Chile included) and it will take a lot of time to change that. They qualify to every WC simply because there are very few CONCACAF nations that are any good.

Face it, there already was a WC there and it didn't do much, what makes you think a new one will?

I do follow the WC to some degree but I am not religious about it.  And yes we did host a WC and it was one of the most successful of all time.

 

Population is not the only mitigating factor for having the best players.  And if you re read my comment you would see where I was talking about how it is becoming more successful here in every highschool.   I can gaurantee you that if China put there "mind" to it they would probably have a very very good team (just like the olympics).   

 

Your entire comment had nothing to show me where I was wrong about growing the sport, which is where my comment was geared.  So your rebuttal is full of fail, and miss truths.  

 

You know that the reason the only reason it was very successful is because you have very big stadiums, right? Check the capacity of the stadia used in US94 and in Germany06 and you'll see why. A WC game like Brazil-Italy, to give an example, would fill a stadium in any venue it was played, be it in the US, in Germany, in Morocoo or in the Easter Island. That doesn't mean the WC was a success in terms of generating much enthusiasm for the sport, seeing the lack of strength the MLS has.

And while you might think that having the sport played in highschools will benefit enormously, in reality, while it'll help, it won't do much unless there's a radical shift in the people's minds and they start perceiving football as a very important sport. Otherwise, there's nothing the US can do against countries were it is. Why? Because if a kid is a good athlete in my country, he'll aim for sure to be a footballer in 90% of the cases, because football is the most important sport by a huge margin. If a kid is a good athlete in your country, do you think it'll aim to be a footballer so easily, given that there are more popular sports? Most kids' dreams here when they're 10 or so is playing for the national football team. Is that similar in the US? I highly doubt that.

Anyway, let's see in 10 or 15 years where are the US. I'll gladly eat my words they improve a lot and say, place themselves constantly as one of the 10 best nations in the world. As the current situation stands, I highly doubt they will anytime soon.




What about mexico? the greatest WCs were hosted here, the greatest team of all time IMO were in 1970, and im talking about brazil and we cant forget the best goal on the WC s (maradona says hi).



zexen_lowe said:
damndl0ser said:
zexen_lowe said:
damndl0ser said:

 

Even though the USA may not have "Soccer" as our # one sport we still probably have more than 15 or 20 times more players than your country (Chile) does simply by mere population.  So it would be much easier for the USA to come up with a decent enough  team to get into the WC.  

Every highschool and most elementary schools have Soccer teams now.  The sport is growing very much here in the states and having a WC here would do nothing but help improve its popularity.  So I think all of you people talking smack about "devotion" to the game are idiots.

Having the WC in the States would do nothing but help the sport grow, and that is what FIFA is all about. 

 

Please tell me that you don't follow much football, because that statement is simply ridiculous. If population was the only thing that mattered, then the best teams would be China and India. Guess what? China only participated in one WC and lost all its matches, India as far as I know never participated in one. Conclusion: Population does not matter.

It's easy, the US has a decent team, but nothing amazing, and certainly not on par with most South American nations (Chile included) and it will take a lot of time to change that. They qualify to every WC simply because there are very few CONCACAF nations that are any good.

Face it, there already was a WC there and it didn't do much, what makes you think a new one will?

I do follow the WC to some degree but I am not religious about it.  And yes we did host a WC and it was one of the most successful of all time.

 

Population is not the only mitigating factor for having the best players.  And if you re read my comment you would see where I was talking about how it is becoming more successful here in every highschool.   I can gaurantee you that if China put there "mind" to it they would probably have a very very good team (just like the olympics).   

 

Your entire comment had nothing to show me where I was wrong about growing the sport, which is where my comment was geared.  So your rebuttal is full of fail, and miss truths.  

 

You know that the reason the only reason it was very successful is because you have very big stadiums, right? Check the capacity of the stadia used in US94 and in Germany06 and you'll see why. A WC game like Brazil-Italy, to give an example, would fill a stadium in any venue it was played, be it in the US, in Germany, in Morocoo or in the Easter Island. That doesn't mean the WC was a success in terms of generating much enthusiasm for the sport, seeing the lack of strength the MLS has.

And while you might think that having the sport played in highschools will benefit enormously, in reality, while it'll help, it won't do much unless there's a radical shift in the people's minds and they start perceiving football as a very important sport. Otherwise, there's nothing the US can do against countries were it is. Why? Because if a kid is a good athlete in my country, he'll aim for sure to be a footballer in 90% of the cases, because football is the most important sport by a huge margin. If a kid is a good athlete in your country, do you think it'll aim to be a footballer so easily, given that there are more popular sports? Most kids' dreams here when they're 10 or so is playing for the national football team. Is that similar in the US? I highly doubt that.

Anyway, let's see in 10 or 15 years where are the US. I'll gladly eat my words they improve a lot and say, place themselves constantly as one of the 10 best nations in the world. As the current situation stands, I highly doubt they will anytime soon.

 

So let me get this strait, you first said it didn't do much to it was very successful because of the stadiums?  Does it even matter why it was  successful other than it was?

One of the main reasons soccer is taking off here is partially due to the WC we had here.  There is still nothing in your post that proves otherwise, other than your own opinion.   I am not trying to be a thorn in your side at all, and I do see your point to some degree.  However trying to base where the WC goes based on its perceived popularity from affar is plain wrong.  And unfair to the sports followers here or wherever else that it is not the end all be all sport.   We have proven we are good hosts and that is all that should matter.



"If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow."

Quote by- The Imortal John Wayne, the original BADASS!

 

 

 

damndl0ser said:

 

So let me get this strait, you first said it didn't do much to it was very successful because of the stadiums?  Does it even matter why it was  successful other than it was?

One of the main reasons soccer is taking off here is partially due to the WC we had here.  There is still nothing in your post that proves otherwise, other than your own opinion.   I am not trying to be a thorn in your side at all, and I do see your point to some degree.  However trying to base where the WC goes based on its perceived popularity from affar is plain wrong.  And unfair to the sports followers here or wherever else that it is not the end all be all sport.   We have proven we are good hosts and that is all that should matter.

Maybe I should have worded differently, it was succesful as it was the highest attended WC ever (check Wiki), only thanks to the stadiums. So, economically, it was a success. On the other hand, it didn't do much for the sport in the US, the only thing it did was that the FIFA forced the creation of a national league (I can't believe you didn't even have one), whose popularity and competitiveness is still very low.

And of course I don't know where the WC will go, and I know that what I say in a forum won't do jack. I know the FIFA (organization I hate, by the way, specially the president Blatter and the vice-president, my compatriot, Grondona). I'm barely stating what I think. If the FIFA priorizes the economic part over the fan part, well, it's in accord to their corporative (and horrible) decisions. As a fan, I couldn't care less of how much money a WC nets. That's not for me to judge. I only care about the games and the atmosphere. And yes, it's the end be all thing, at least for me. The WC is the most important event for me, even more than the Olympics. I care a lot where it goes. And, looking at other posts here, seems like I'm not the only fan who has a problem with it going to the US




I will have to disagree with you because I think having the WC in the States did help grow the sport here. Soccer will never be as popular here as it is in most other countries. But I think it scares some of you to think we may some day become a power on the Soccer field. And anything that would stand in its way is a good thing to some of you including not having a WC here.



"If you've got them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow."

Quote by- The Imortal John Wayne, the original BADASS!