I will, but I'd also like to know the answer if someone has it, cause it's a football forum, and that's how football forums are supposed to work.
United States-led 2026 World Cup bid in jeopardy to Morocco's
- Thread starter Man of Leisure
- Start date
Well put.
The idea that a country should be perfect in every sense to hold a WC is insane.
Who knows... Venezuela was the richest South American country only 18 years ago. Another great ad for triumphant populism.
How the feck can the US have 2 world cups when England haven't had it since 1966? It's ridiculous. Glad it's not going there!
I completely disagree. There's no magical rule that says the WC should go to third world countries who have never hosted it before. It should (imo) always go to either countries that have a footballing tradition (typically Europe or South America) or else a country that has world class infrastructure already in place and would make it a commercial success.
Doesn't FIFA give some money to the host country for infrastructure development? Afterall, FIFA rakes in billions from a WC.
If they do, then they shouldn't. The tournament should go to countries that already have the infrastructure in place imo.
Why? Isn't that a bit narrow minded? It's a global game, if it can be improved in the poorer countries, that's great. Rather see Fifa's money go towards that than in the pockets of the blokes working there.
The world cup in South Africa wasn't a failure.
You can't restrict what is the world's premier door to a handful of developed countries. And who says the infrastructural development from hosting the world cup can't last?
I just don't think getting the WC should be the equivalent of "the poor lottery". Ultimately its a sporting event that should cater to the fans. Its not meant to prop up poor nations or infuse them with economic stimulus independent of their own ability to do so. That's not to say it should never go to places its never been before - but rather it should frequently go to places that are synonymous with historically iconic football nations.
You must live under a rock mate. Morocco is : 1) nothing like Qatar 2) passion for football : local clubs there are often voted best in the world see raja 3) Very safe
Yeah South Africa did a great job I thought.
I kind of disagree. The development of infrastructure is dependent on whether the country has lot of surplus money or the club football in that country is huge money churning organization.
Having the WC only in the wealthier countries puts doubts on why other countries are in FIFA in the first place.
That's precisely why its easier to place higher priority on countries who already have an excellent infrastructure in place.
See but the big difference there is that the government itself isn't promoting those. The kingdom of Morocco is the one who has the law about jailing people for being homosexual. If FIFA wants to have it in morocco that is fine, i just dont want to see fifa fining or suspended people or fans for chanting homophobic things. That is just completely hypocritical to do that after awarding a world cup to a place that will jail you for being a homosexual. This doesn't even get to the facts about Russia and Qatar's stances.
And my main point was that people who complain about Trump and his travel ban being the cause, or things that Trump has said are just stupid reasons that people will prob use as an excuse to punish USA and specifically our DOJ for past events. If people want to debate Morocco and USA as it pertains to their stadia qualifications, enjoyment factor, or their ability to host a large tournament field effectively cool. I just think it is dumb to try and blame Trump for anything, especially considering the next two world cups can have leaders/governments making Trump look like a saint in comparison.
I think Scotland should get it. So we would, you know, automatically qualify for it.
I work with a few South Africans and they consider it to be a disaster, solely based on money spent for the return. They enjoyed the carnival atmosphere it brought during tough times but it left them with facilities they couldn't maintain and tons of wasted investment. They now use the stadiums for gigs and they spend most of the year completely unused.
I think the World Cup itself was a success, apart from the ball that was like a beach ball, but it begs the question that is it morally correct to host a World Cup in a country that won't benefit from the outlay?
America might not have the fan base for a World Cup but it has the facilities and infrastructure for it. Same for most countries in the developed world.
Think we all know why Sepp and FIFA were targeting the poorer or oil rich non sporting nations with their World Cup agenda, and it really wasn't to bring football to the world.
Some reports suggest that USA lost millions or even billions of dollars in '94 WC. The economy was impacted negatively.
I am not sure how much of that is true. Some other reports suggest that US made some money off it because they did not have to make any new stadiums.
It has the fan base too. 94 is the most attended WC despite having less games, US had the most travelling fans at the previous WC. Pre-season friendlies in the States draw 80-100k crowds. The MLS is a fast growing league. Additionally, Canada has a similar fanbase and Mexico obviously does too.
The multiculturalism of the US and Canada also means just about every country will have "local" fans to support them.
feck sake, I know Morocco is a football country ive just never considered them a viable candidate for the WC. Ive nothing against it I was just surprised thats all.
By that statement you are virtually ruling out the whole of Asia (except China perhaps), Oceania and Africa ? That is an incredibly parochial attitude. How are you going to promote football in those continents if you keep the WC in Europe and The Americas ? Besides which Morocco has a fine footballing history, alongside which the USA's pales beside, and the whole nation is passionately football mad. It just doesn't happen to be a very large country. However if you want to look at how successful a football WC could be staged in an African country you have only to see the incredible Rugby & Football World Cups staged by South Africa.
Last edited:
I partly agree. I think it’s misguided to equate bigotry in some countries with legal discrimination in others. It’s the difference between there being prejudice against interracial couples and interracial couples facing jail terms, or between racism and apartheid. It was the cold legality of apartheid that made it particularly terrible.
But I still think this could be good for Morocco and help to break down such prejudices. They’re becoming harder to sustain as the world grows more interconnected. For example: https://www.thedailybeast.com/social-media-frees-moroccan-victims-of-anti-gay-mob
But financially it might not be a good idea. The World Cup cost South Africa a lot of money and I don’t know if it was worth it. http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/09/investing/world-cup-south-africa-brazil/index.html
I'd love it if the next European World Cup is held in Netherlands and Belgium. Rich Footballing history, infrastructure, tradition everything is there. Great connectivity with the rest of the world, small distances and tolerant culture. All other major European nations (in Footballing terms) have hosted the World Cup. About time Netherlands and Belgium get to host one.
That is really no more than an excuse. The US government's apathy and lack of commitment and funds dedicated to solving those issues is a large part of all of those domestic problems. Human trafficking, drugs and guns all on a massive scale ... can't be brushed under the table by saying they are not promoted. Is a country that leads the civilised world in those crimes deserving of a football world cup ?
Morocco is a muslim country so it's not as if they really have any real say in laws pertaining to religious matters per se. And of course Qatar is a muslim country too so FIFA obviously don't agree in principle (corruption aside). I don't think it's too much to ask people to refrain for a week or two from breaking a country's laws simply because you don't agree with them. And by that I mean breaking any laws which are different from those at home, even if you believe they impinge on your human rights. If you can't then don't go !
Did I say anything of the kind ? Emphatically not. I agree with your statement but you shouldn't have used it in reply to my post because it makes no sense in that context.
Last edited:
Yes, it’s terribly unjust that apartheid South Africa never held the World Cup. Of course black people (or homosexuals) might have had a problem with that but they should have thought about that before being born.
Hypothetically if a country that forbade the practice of Judaism was bidding for the world cup, you'd have no problems with it as practising Jews could choose to not practice their faith for two weeks or simply not to go?
You don't need the WC to "promote" football these days. Unlike as recently as the 90s, the popularity of the various European leagues today - and the ease at which they can be easily followed anywhere around the world by way of satellite dishes/TV contracts (or online streams) means that the value of the WC as a football promoting tool has been largely usurped by league football. I'm personally ok with Morocco in terms of location since it is very close to Europe and would obviously also be easy to reach by Africans, the western hemisphere, the middle east. It also happens to be in an amenable time zone.
And you base that on what? I'm not focused on headlines, what I'm saying is the result of most research on the topic, see (just examples):
Baade, R. A., & Matheson, V. A. (2004). The Quest for the Cup: Assessing the Economic Impact of the World Cup. Regional Studies, 38(4), 343-354.
Lee, C. K., & Taylor, T. (2005). Critical reflections on the economic impact assessment of a mega-event: the case of 2002 FIFA World Cup. Tourism management, 26(4), 595-603.
Maennig, W., & Du Plessis, S. (2007). World Cup 2010: South African economic perspectives and policy challenges informed by the experience of Germany 2006. Contemporary economic policy, 25(4), 578-590.
You're just repeating the old myths that FIFA representatives, officials and politicians repeat: Trickle down economics, infrastructure, prestige, tourism, blabla.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to give the world cup to developing countries and I'm in favor of a change from the western-centric focus on sports. Just don't do it the FIFA way.
What an impossibly awful analogy.
I’m responding to what you posted. Perhaps you should think more about the implications of your words.
Another incredibly inane analogy. I am sure you can keep them going, just continue to use your imagination.
Good points with legality vs just peoples' ideas. My only rebuttal to the world cup breaking down prejudices is that I am fairly certain the Russia world cup will do nothing to break down the situation there, and Qatar is currently in the midst of their issues that the world really isn't calling them out on with slave labor. Couple different situations but neither are really effecting that much change to my knowledge, but i may be wrong. I just don't know how I feel about excusing certain things based on the assumption that maybe if we reward them they might change due to outside pressure. Who knows though on what might happen.
Wow. Awful.
Not every country has the same laws. It is nonsensical to expect a right ensured in our home country to be available in the WC host country. Next Americans will be asking that the gun laws of their country should be upheld whenever they come to Europe or UK.
I don't get why it was inane. Do you think the rights of homosexuals are less than the rights of people of faith?
I did - I was sure there would be some who would object and you didn't let me down. Don't you know that it's almost impossible to tell a person's sexual orientation from their looks alone ? There are many things women are not permitted to wear/do in Muslim countries, it doesn't seem to be an issue to the vast majority to adhere to them whilst there, does it have to be for anyone else ?
Not being arrested because of who you are is a pretty fundamental 'right'. It's strange how people seem completely aghast at the idea of people being locked up for their religion, gender or ethnicity but when it comes to orientation suddenly it's compared to being pissy that they have different law about guns.
Strange parameters you are giving for a WC hosting country. Luckily neither Japan or Korea followed them !
And BTW the vast majority of the income generated comes from TV and Advertising rights of course ... and since 2/3s of the world's population lives in Asia so the USA couldn't be worse timezone from their perspective !
Carrot or stick. It's an age old problem. However fact is humanity is a corrupt species so neither will work if we are honest, all you can do is try to make life more palatable for the proletariat.
Do we need to declare our sexual orientation when we enter Morocco? If yes, are we arrested immediately and put in jail?
When one is in a foreign country, one lives by the laws of that land. If one can't hold on for 2 weeks, then one stays away. I don't see it as significantly important than other laws.
You don't have to declare your religion either. I don't quite get why you object to the comparison. Unless you wouldn't have a problem with a country that forbade Judaism hosting a World Cup on the basis that you don't have to declare your religion when entering and they could just hold off practising it for two weeks?