<p>I don’t think Alexandre has experienced the excitement of baseball.</p>
<p>I would also say that soccer is similar in some ways to NASCAR racing, with the “players” going around and around until finally something exciting happens.</p>
<p>Also, if soccer ever makes it big as a pro sport in the US, it will have pauses for commercials.</p>
<p>I am interested in Alexandre’s opinion of how female-friendly Qatar will be for the World Cup. Will there be requirements as to dress, etc.? Objections to Qatar’s fitness to host the competition center on climate, availability of alcohol, and treatment of female visitors.</p>
<p>I think I agree with you Alexandre. I tried to watch the world cup and tried very hard to like it, but soccer is simply boring. There is not enough scoring and the camera has to be so high up from the field (I mean pitch) that it is difficult to see what is going on. The picture often looks like a bunch of ants running around. </p>
<p>As to baseball, it is a dying sport in America because it it too slow and does not have enough scoring.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Different games are simply different. There is nothing wrong with the game of football. That is why it is called the beautiful game. Some of the most exciting games ever have ended up in a 0-0 or 1-0. While scoring is the object of the game, it is not what makes soccer remarkable. Actually, a high scoring game could also be insipid. </p>
<p>Reality is that people enjoy different types of entertaining. Is watching a 10K at the Olympics boring? Is watching one of the “pinball on ice” races of Ohno more rewarding? What about basketball? Lots of scoring, but who remember baskets in the first three quarters? There is so much scoring that there is nothing specific to remember. </p>
<p>Most often, we find a sport exciting because of a personal connection. I ended up following fencing, waterpolo, and volleyball because of knowing friends who play at the high level. </p>
<p>We also tend to only appreciate games we know and understand.</p>
<p>Really, I think what makes a sport non-boring is familiarity. After having watched countless hours of youth soccer, I now find World Cup games very interesting to watch, even if there isn’t much scoring.</p>
<p>Cross-posted with Xiggi.</p>
<p>Europa, I am not sure how female-friendly Qatar is. I know the UAE is very female-friendly, but I think Qatar is a little more old-fashioned, though nowhere nearly as conservative as Saudi Arabia. That said, I am certain that in 10 years, Qatar will have come a long way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Alexandre you say those nothing, but what are your foundations to make such definitive statements. </p>
<p>I asked my father about your comments about Holland versus Germany or Spain, and his answer was … “Totally ridiculous! Holland is one of the most fanatic soccer countries in the world.” And, fwiw, religion and Holland are not really used positvely in the same sentence!</p>
<p>Again, you seem to conflate all your arguments on the presence of one sport on the regular American TV. How many times do people watch Michael Phelps outside the WC and Olympics … but would you say that the US is not a significant nation in swimming and should not host the Olynpics? Same for ice skating in the Olympics?</p>
<p>In the meantime, soccer remains one of the most popular sports in the US, in terms of player participation. The fact that it is NOT one of the most popular sport for the older population that did not grow with it is not a deterrent for the younger groups. </p>
<p>In the end, it is obvious that none of the elements discussed above are really relevant to the decision of awarding a WC site. It is NOT about local fan participation; it is not about the merits of that nation on the field; it is not about weather and facilities of communications. It is all about money … the official and legal tender as well as piles of dirty and under-the-tables payola. It is also about politics!</p>
<p>For the record, I do think that it was just to have a WC in an Arabic country. While I believe that it would have been better to have a Pan-Arab affair, I do not see any reason why the 2022 could not be a great success. All I hope is that there is not a local tradition that brings something similar to those annoying vuvuzelas that almost ruined the entire event in South Africa.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I strongly disagree that the United States is unworthy of hosting the WC. It has shown that it has a great capacity of organizing and filling its stadiums. Perhaps you might remember that the US was asked to host the 1999 Women WC when the organizing country defaulted. The event filled the stadiums for … women soccer. And while there was a fear that people might not fill a high school stadium, they ended up with the Giants Stadium … and that little stadium in California where the world witnessed the famous penalty kick by Chastain. The world and more than 90,000 screaming fans in the Rose Bowl. </p>
<p>And, by the way, regarding your comment that tickets were available for many venues in the US WC, you should know that people had no problems finding tickets for the WC in Spain, Italy, and Germany on the DAY of the games, except for games connected with the local team. </p>
<p>Soccer always generate passion. The fact that North Americans have more choices does not make it less of a soccer nation.</p>
<p>In terms of soccer, I think the U.S. is still a developing nation–hosting the World Cup again would have helped the development. But I do think it’s sensible to hold it somewhere that hasn’t hosted it so recently. My questions about Qatar are more logistical and political, really.</p>
<p>
This sums up my view on this.
quoted for truth</p>
<p>Xiggi, while we can sit and debate whether the Dutch are as fanatical about soccer as the Brazilians, Brits, Germans and Italians for all eternity, I think we can agree that the US was not the most legitimate choice for a venue for the 2022 world cup. I do not doubt its ability to host the world cup (not with over 20 NFL and College Football stadiums capable of hosting the event), but I think several other countries that have not hosted the event could host it just as well.</p>
<p>I agree that Qatar on its own was not the best way to go. I would have liked to see Qatar and the UAE host it together.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I am fairly confident that Qatar has the means to host an excellent world cup. It has the transportation and tourism infrastructure to make it happen. Contrary to what many here believe, Qatar is not that restrictive. Women are free to wear western clothes in public, but it is appreciated if they do not wear clothes that are too revealing. Hotels and resorts are no different from those in the US, with similar alcohol offerings and beaches. The only difference is drinking alcohol in stadiums (or other public places) which is not legal at this time. This may or may not change by 2022.</p>
<p>I recently heard someone from the UK mention how strange it is that American sports tend to rely so much on gimmicks to draw interest from fans. I think it’s true that without the frequent stoppages of play, soccer isn’t as interesting to sit through for the people that don’t care about the sport. </p>
<p>I’ve been to a lot of baseball and football games where there are people sitting nearby that neither know nor care about what is going on on the field but get really excited by something on the big screen between innings, or any type of non-sports entertainment. I just can’t see that working at a soccer match.</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>No, I have never been to Qatar. </p>
<p>When you were watching the WC games in the US in '94, were there commercial interruptions? No. Soccer has been televised w/o commercial interruption for many, many years in this country. You really wanted to make us laugh that soccer is socialistic, didn’t you?</p>
<p>Tell me about the popularity of soccer in Qatar, please.</p>
<p>
What about hockey. Scores are not much highr, if at all, than soccer.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I hadn’t thought about it in those terms, but I think you are on to something. In both soccer and socialism the rules are deliberately designed to result in a 0 - 0 tie, which is regarded as the ideal outcome.</p>
<p>^ Too funny!</p>
<p>Good ol’ Sepp now says it is OK if Qatar wants to share the hosting w/ neighboring countries, because Australia had places in NZ listed in their bid. Qatar DIDN’T have any other countries in their bid, though!</p>
<p>First the Kaiser talking winter, now Sepp talking neighboring countries. Seems the bid really didn’t matter at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Alexandre, I wish I could agree, but I cannot. The decisions have been made and we now have Brazil, Russia and Qatar for the future sites. As I wrote I am happy that the WC will be hosted in an Arabic nation. However, I believe that the losing countries, and especially England, Spain/Portugal, and the low countries have legitimate reasons to feel shortchanged for the 2018 WC. I also happen to believe that it was utterly stupid to decide the site of the 2022 WC this year. Lots of things can change in the world in 12 years, and nobidy needs 12 years’ anticipation to prepare a WC. </p>
<p>My conclusion remains the same. The selection of Russia and Qatar has little to do with sports, ranking as a soccer nation, and capacity to organize. All the countries that lost were equal or better choices in almost all aspects. </p>
<p>Again I am happy to see the WC going to a part of the world where it is never been hosted, but I find it disingeneous to state that the selections were made because the countries deserved it more or were better. </p>
<p>South Africa was a horrible choice. It was easily the worst WC in recent history. It yielded a rather poor spectacle, an incredibly annoying audience, an unremarkable competition, and a lackluster champion. All in all, a WC to forget. </p>
<p>The next two choices are nothing to be excited about, but they are what they are. We’ll live with it, but please do not pretend that those countries would be chosen by many fans, outside Russia and your region, especially given the expected limitations. In the end, we will remember the WC for the spectacle and the competition. After all, we remember the exploits of Pele, Maradona, or Gerd Muller; nobody cares about the country that hosted the event.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The only the thing that really precluded the US from hosting was the time between the 2022 and the 1994 world cup. For every other reason the US was the most logical choice:
<p>Btw, the only reason mexico hosted the 1970 and 1986 WCs was because Colombia backed out of the 1986 WC last minute and mexico was one of the few countries that had the infrastructure in place to host with little prep time. </p>
<p>In all reality I think there is a high probability that this will happen again with Qatar…</p>
<p>(btw I am not american…so defending the US bid was actually quite hard 
)</p>
<p>Thanks for the Mexico explanation whartongrad. It goes to show that the same country is not supposed to host the World Cup more than once in fifty years. The US, the UK and Spain should not be exceptions to that rule. Germany, Italy, France (as much as it pains me to say so), Mexico and Brazil should not be considered for a VERY long time. </p>
<p>And I would not compare Qatar of 2022 to Columbia of 1986. I did some consulting work for the Qatari agency responsible for managing the nations athletic facilities and they have the resources (financial and human) and the time to make the 2022 World Cup a logistical success, to say nothing of the country’s airports, highways and hotels, all of which are capable of handling the volume of such an event. </p>
<p>Xiggi, I firmly believe that all safe and stable countries with the means should be given a chance to host major events such as the World Cup and the Olympics. The US has hosted two Olympics and a World Cup in the last 30 years. Spain hosted the Olympics and the World Cup in that the last 30 years too. England has hosted both in the last 50 years. Those countries are not good choices. How can you justify giving the same country the honor of hosting an event such as the World Cup twice in 30 years? I don’t see how you could say they are equally good or better choices. The World Cup is precisely what it proclaims to be. All countries are equals and deserve a chance to host it. </p>
<p>I think Russia and an Arab country hosting the World Cup in 2018 and 2022 is the right and “better” choice. I agree that Qatar on its own does not make optimal sense. Qatar and the UAE together would have been a much better alternative…or Egypt. </p>
<p>But after 2022, there are several worthy candidates to consider. I would like to see China, Holland (maybe along with Belgium), Australia, an Eastern European country and India host the World Cup too. Perhaps after those countries have hosted, Nigeria will be in a position to host the Cup. </p>
<p>That is not to say that England, Spain and the US should not be considered until all those countries get to host the Cup, but as long as those nations have not hosted it, I would say their case is stronger than those of countries that already hosted the Cup.</p>
<p>Alexandre, again, my disagreement with you was aboutyour statements about the United States being an “unacceptable choice” based on the lack of merit or “significance.” </p>
<p>If your argument was solely about the untimely repetition of the WC, I might agree with you. However, if that was a reason to exclude a country, the FIFA could have avoided the entire charade by not entertaining the candidacy of countries such as the USA and England, among others. For what it is worth, the repetition prior to 50 years does not seem to be an exclusion factor. Of course, avoiding the charade altogether might not have been too popular with the people who have a (lucrative) voice in the selection. </p>
<p>And, please note that I have repeated several times I am happy that the WC goes to the part of the world where Qatar. I also wrote that I would preferred to be in tandem with one or more countries.</p>
<p>xiggi, my argument was primarily based on having hosted the cup recently. This obstacle is insurmountalbe in my opinion. I merely referred to the fact that soccer is a minor sport in the US to reinforce the point that even soccer powers such as Brazil, France and Italy had to wait over 50 years to host the Cup a second time. Germany hosted them within 32 years of each other. As Whartongrad kindly informed us, Mexico won the bid once, hosting it a second time only because Columbia withdrew from its obligation.</p>
<p>If you read my posts above, I never denied that the US could host an excellent World Cup (as it did in 1994) or that it does not have enough Soccer fans to make the event a success. But is it a worthy candidate? I don’t think so. I think Australia should host it in 2026, Holland and Belgium in 2030 and perhaps the US in 2034 with China in 2038, the UK in 2042 and Nigeria in 2046.</p>