<p>
</p>
<p>Twenty-nine teams are competing. The NY Islanders are also in the NHL.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>You mean big money trumped public opinon and common sense? Right, like that never happened before.</p>
<p>^ It’s all disgusting.</p>
<p>Qatar does not have more money than the UK and did not bribe FIFA. Qatar’s GDP is under $100 billion whereas England’s GDP is over $2.5 trillion. </p>
<p>Why did Qatar win the bid? Let us see now. Spain hosted the World Cup in 1982, Italy in 1990, France hosted the World Cup 1998, Germany in 2006, Russia will host it in 2018. The World Cup has been hosted by a European country 5 of the last 10 times. England should not even have been considered. Back to back World Cups in the same continent defeats the point of the World Cup. European nations are supposed to host the World Cup every other year. </p>
<p>South America has hosted several World Cups, including Brazil in 2014. Asia has also hosted a World Cup when Japan and Korea co-hosted the event back in 2002. </p>
<p>On the other hand, no North African or Middle Eastern country has ever hosted the World Cup. It was their time.</p>
<p>Is it just me or do I sense serious anti-Arab sentiment on this thread?</p>
<p>I notice your post did not include any reasons why the US shouldn’t have got the bid over Qatar.</p>
<p>I also noticed that you invented two more continents, the Middle East and North Africa.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is why they were on the ballot for 2018 and not 2022 (i.e. they weren’t considered).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s a problem when the host team has never come particularly close to qualifying and will be lucky to get a point in the group stage.</p>
<p>Alex, no European teams went for 2022. US, Australia, Japan, Korea, Qatar.
It’s the size of Rhode Island. The summer heat is not nice. No worries, though. Now the ExCom says they can hold it in Jan./Feb. to avoid the heat, if they want.</p>
<p>Soccerguy, the US hosted the World Cup in 1994. And Qatar was one of the candidates for the 2022 World Cup. </p>
<p>Gloworm, the UK was hoping to be considered for 2022 and Korean and Japan hosted the World Cup in 2002. There is no way those two should have been seriously considered. </p>
<p>The US had an outside shot, although they hosted the World Cup 15 years ago. It is hard to make a strong case for hosting the World Cup twice within a 30 year period. </p>
<p>Australia and Qatar were the only two viable options. And the weather is not going to be a factor. Modern technologies have made it possible to sit comfortably in a stadium, regardless of the outside temperatures.</p>
<p>“It’s a problem when the host team has never come particularly close to qualifying and will be lucky to get a point in the group stage.”</p>
<p>South Africa is not exactly a powerhouse and they got to host the World Cup.</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>At the end of your 2nd paragraph in #864, you write:</p>
<p>European nations are supposed to host the World Cup every other year. </p>
<p>Considering it’s held every 4 years, that would be a real trick.</p>
<p>London withdrew from 2022 consideration several months ago.</p>
<p>And, correcting what I believe you meant to say (every other 4 years), 2014 should have been a European host. Didn’t happen. All the pretenders for 2018 were European, so it’s in Europe. However, Russia really was the least logical, since it only has 3 of the 16 sites already built.</p>
<p>Qatar?? What will people do when not at the games, as soccerguy pointed out. I won’t even talk politics, as that’s not allowed here.</p>
<p>Gloworm, let us start with the basic concept; Who should have hosted the 2022 World Cup?</p>
<p>Letr us start with the countries that should not have been considered:</p>
<p>1) Any European nation as a European nation will have hosted the 2018 World Cup.
2) Any country in the Americas as three of the last nine World Cups (Mexico 1986, US 1994 and Brazil 2014) were hosted in the Americas
3) Japan or Koreas as they hosted the 2002 World Cup.</p>
<p>Not many countries are left. Australia and Qatar were the best choices on the table, although I think it would have made more sense if two countries in the Gulf hosted the Cup, perhaps Qatar and the UAE…or a larger Arabic nation such as Egypt. At any rate, even though Qatar is a tiny country, it will represent Arabic speaking nations, which include over 20 nations with a land area and population roughly the size of the US. That’s a big deal to the masses in those countries.</p>
<p>I personally would have liked to see China host the World Cup. Maybe 2026 or 2030.</p>
<p>And I agree, we should no drag something as personal and ugly as politics into this discussion. We are discussing “the Beautiful Game” afterall!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They had also qualified for 2/4 World Cups after being banned during apartheid, and they had finished 3rd in their groups both times. In 2002 they were tied on goal differential but eliminated on goals scored, and this past World Cup they were eliminated on goal differential.</p>
<p>Like I said ThisCouldBeHeaven, South Africa is a very weak soccer nation…not much better than Qatar. Qatar never Qualified and South Africa has played a total of 9 World Cup games, winning just 2 of those 9 games. </p>
<p>And how about Japan? Before winning the bid to host the World Cup, Japan had never qualified for the World Cup. They finally qualified to play in their first World Cup in France in 1998 (they had already won the bid to host before qualifying) but lost all three games. </p>
<p>I really do not understand why there is such opposition on this forum where Qatar is concerned. Like I said above, could it be because Qatar is an Arab nation?</p>
<p>It could be because the process or selecting Qatar over the US and Australia had to involve something other than what is best for the sport and the players. Rather, it was what was best for the selection committee.</p>
<p>I would love it if major countries refused to participate in the tournament. And with the constant flux of violence and turmoil in the region there is a good chance that they won’t, IMO. That is, after all, twelve years from now. {ea</p>
<p>denise, only three nations have been honored with hosting the World Cup twice, and never within 30 years of each other. Germany in 1974 and 2006 (32 year gap), France in 1938 and 1998 (60 year gap), Italy in 1934 and 1990 (66 year gap) and Brazil (1950 and 2014 (64 year gap). </p>
<p>Why should the US, which is not a significant soccer nation have that honor? </p>
<p>Australia was a legitimate contender, but so was Qatar.</p>
<p>And for the record, Qatar has not been at war…ever. I do not expect that country to have a war. Same goes for the Bahrain, UAE and Oman. Those are pretty stable countries. I hope your prediction does not come true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Qatar is in Asia. Asia had a WC more recently than North America.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Alexandre, Brazil won the WC in 1970 and Argentina in 1986. Both those cups were held in … Mexico </p>
<p>Year Host Champions Attendance
1930 Uruguay Uruguay 589,300
1934 Italy Italy 361,000
1938 France Italy 376,000
1950 Brazil Uruguay 1,044,763
1954 Switzerland W.Germany 872,000
1958 Sweden Brazil 819,402
1962 Chile Brazil 892,812
1966 England England 1,464,944
1970 Mexico Brazil 1,690,890
1974 W.Germany W.Germany 1,809,953
1978 Argentina Argentina 1,685,602
1982 Spain Italy 2,108,723
1986 Mexico Argentina 2,393,031
1990 Italy W.Germany 2,516,354
1994 USA Brazil 3,587,088
1998 France France 2,775,400
2002 Korea/Japan Brazil 2,705,197
2006 Germany Italy 3,359,439
2010 South Africa Spain 3,178,856</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How does one measure the significance of a nation as a soccer nation? Number of participants? World Rankings? How many soccer players are there in the United States and how does that compare with say the top 10 European countries? By the way, take a look at the attendance numbers for ALL past WC? Is that not significant?</p>
<p>Lastly, while I believe that the Middle East or North Africa are worthy of hosting the WC since they never had the honor, the fact that a country such as Qatar emerged as one of the candidates remains strange. For all the shenanigans that have kept the FIFA in the news, it seems that the organizaton could have pushed for a larger organizing nation such as Egypt.</p>
<p>Fwiw, compare this table</p>
<p>2002 Korea/Japan<br>
2006 Germany<br>
2010 South Africa
2014 Brazil
2018 Russia
2022 Qatar</p>
<p>to</p>
<p>1982 Spain
1986 Mexico<br>
1990 Italy<br>
1994 USA<br>
1998 France </p>
<p>and one could easily wonder if FIFA has not gone overboard with the geographical diversity movement. Overboard or complety bonkers!</p>
<p>Why should the US get the World Cup?</p>
<p>The population is hardly enthusiastic about football. Let the cup go to those that love the sport, not to some monolith nation that only bothers to watch it every 4 years.</p>
<p>xiggi, why should Fifa only award European nations? Why not the entire world? How is it “going overboard” to recognize that football should be enjoyed by all in many countries?</p>
<p>Americans should stop complaining. Your country should never get the cup. Can any of you name a favourite team? A favourite player? A skill?</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>By the way, the US is not a strong football nation. The quality of players in the national team and abroad isn’t abysmal, but it isn’t very godo either. Your best player is the LA Galaxy guy, who isn’t good enough for a top 4 English side. England’s has a few great players, on the other hand, with the likes of Steven Gerrard, Wayne Rooney and Frank Lamprd.</p>
<p>I can see Qatar as being a good choice only if they play the game inside an air conditioned stadium. If the game is played in the extreme heat, it will affect the game but more importantly it will create excuses as to why one team lost and another won.</p>