Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
pizzahut451 said:
Kasz216 said:
kowenicki said:
kopstudent89 said:
kowenicki said:
kopstudent89 said:
Your behaviour is poor. You didnt even read what Qatar had to offer. The stadiums that will be built will then be taken apart and donated afterwards to 3rd world countries(yes donated). Another thing, the stadiums will be airconditioned with green technology in order to get too hot inside the pitch.. u heard it.
Your beahviour is disgraceful
|
I'm sure Ethiopia or someone will really welcome a football stadium!?!?
how about some water and food first? or perhaps a shit load of free oil?
please.... spare me.
|
Why so angry :P does it really have to revolve around europe every 4 years??
|
I'm not remotely angry.... and yes.
|
Me i'd pretty much just rotate between Europe and South America until the other teams start picking it up.
|
So whats the point of calling it a world cup? And other countries cant jus ''pick up'', they need something to push football as sport in that country. Look what WC 2002 did in Japan andn Korea, they are both pretty solid national teams and they were pretty bad before the WC 2002
|
You mean, the Same Japan who's highest FIFA ranking came in 1997?
And the Same Korea who's highest FIFA ranking came in... 1998?
Then who both plummeted quite a bit before the world cup in Korea?
Their historical rankings so no world cup effect all... if anything it shows that the pressure makes local teams worse, which FIFA covers for during the actual world cup season by inflating their rankings.
I noticed you left out South Africa.. because well... their soccer program took a huge downfall since they got the WC.
Qatar will be the weakest host country in hisotry. They may be the first host country to not score a goal. Who does that really benefit?
|
It doesnt change the fact that WC helped football assosiation in Japan and Korea A LOT.Which is what FIFA is trying to achive in Quatar and Russia. And btw, where was USA before '94 ? Or France before '98 (im sure they were good, but not number 1)?
''if anything it shows that the pressure makes local teams worse'' - Yeah, hosting WC 1998 really made France fail miserably...
As for South Africa, its gonna take some time and more investments for football in order to become ''big'' in that country.
There is no denial about Quatar not having good performance on WC, but i think it will motivate their team to play much better for their people of their country in Wolrd Cup. If not in that particilar world cup, than maybe the next one. it will inspire their team to do better on the next big events.
|
The WC didn't do anything for USA soccer... ask ANYBODY in the USA.
Also, uh... have you seen France's soccer program lately? They needed FIFA corruption to even get in.
But no, France isn't intimidated by the world cup because they're France.
They expect to be in every year... and they expect to go far every year.
So there is no pressure like "God we need to qualify, the hosts always qualify!" or "IF we don't when a game we'll be a laughing stock!"
That's exactly why you want to hold the World Cup in places like Europe and South America.
|
US football team became much better after that event.
And i wasnt talking about french football today, i used 1998 WC as an example of French football succses.
And i didnt quite understand the bolded sentence
|
Host Teams are put under huge pressure to succeed because they are hat home... when in reality they shouldn't be competing. France didn't have that worry because France ALWAYS should be competing.
The 94 cup did not help US soccer. People cared about soccer about 4 months after the WC then stopped. It did little for US soccer. The US improvements were tied to completely different things.
|
That really depends on what national team you are talking about. And its not necceraly true all the time. Hosting a world cup can (and will) have lots of positive effects on national team of the country as well as negative ones.
