FIFA Council unanimously approves World Cup expansion to 48 teams

cardfaninfl

Demographically significant
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Posts
1,010
Reaction score
131
Location
Beyond the sun.
Well since FIFA gave a WC to a homophobic country that actually is religiously intolerant I would see no issues with them issuing it to the USA since most of what you said is inaccurate political rhetoric.
Uh huh.
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...vent-united-states-hosting-football-world-cup
In an attempt to polish their image, FIFA is redefining bid requirements to better justify future selections. Top officials are stating travel bans could be an automatic disqualification.

https://www.si.com/planet-futbol201...-losses-2016-scandal-investigation-corruption
It took about 370 million reasons for them to realize their Russia and Qatar mistake. The FIFA waterheads are looking for a bid with zero controversy. If a South American or African proposal is submitted that is doable and without "inaccurate political rhetoric" controversy involved, FIFA could make the selection based on brand image instead of immediate revenue gain.
 

Lorenzo

Registered User
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Posts
8,778
Reaction score
3,135
Location
Vegas
Interesting topic. The uruaguay bid would be interesting. A North American WC would mean a vast traveling schedule. They would need to consolidate the travel best as possible as well as make pitch friendly arenas. Yes the USA has the most luxurious stadiums for fans, but they were not made with a soccer pitch in mind(in spite of what people say). Jerry Jones wasn't far off when he said he built Jerry world with hosting a "final" in mind. But I see it As in final that the turf will end someone's career. I know at the UofP they have a real grass pitch. That's what many stadiums will have to do.
 

Zeno

Ancient
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Posts
15,547
Reaction score
5,330
Location
Fort Myers
Uh huh.
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...vent-united-states-hosting-football-world-cup
In an attempt to polish their image, FIFA is redefining bid requirements to better justify future selections. Top officials are stating travel bans could be an automatic disqualification.

https://www.si.com/planet-futbol201...-losses-2016-scandal-investigation-corruption
It took about 370 million reasons for them to realize their Russia and Qatar mistake. The FIFA waterheads are looking for a bid with zero controversy. If a South American or African proposal is submitted that is doable and without "inaccurate political rhetoric" controversy involved, FIFA could make the selection based on brand image instead of immediate revenue gain.

This isn't the P&R forum so I won't get in to it but the "Muslim Ban" and southern border "fortification" is a bunch of political BS.

The fact of the matter is WC94 was one of the most successful WC's ever, I think it still might be the highest attended. The only complaint was the amount of travel--with games on both coasts. It was a huge financial success for FIFA and I seriously doubt 2026 would be any different.
 

cardfaninfl

Demographically significant
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Posts
1,010
Reaction score
131
Location
Beyond the sun.
This isn't the P&R forum so I won't get in to it but the "Muslim Ban" and southern border "fortification" is a bunch of political BS.

The fact of the matter is WC94 was one of the most successful WC's ever, I think it still might be the highest attended. The only complaint was the amount of travel--with games on both coasts. It was a huge financial success for FIFA and I seriously doubt 2026 would be any different.
I'll be sure to announce 'TRIGGER WARNING" next time.

And at the same time you are getting your knickers in a twist about words and phrases, you deny in the same breath FIFA would worry about headlines with similar language. It's like your earlier argument that one country's faults justifies another country's policy, then within the same sentence claim the policy doesn't exist. It's not a bold debate strategy, but it is bold to assume nobody would see through your paradox and Captain Obvious "fact of the matter" attempts.
 
Last edited:

Zeno

Ancient
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Posts
15,547
Reaction score
5,330
Location
Fort Myers
I'll be sure to announce 'TRIGGER WARNING" next time.

And at the same time you are getting your knickers in a twist about words and phrases, you deny in the same breath FIFA would worry about headlines with similar language. It's like your earlier argument that one country's faults justifies another country's policy, then within the same sentence claim the policy doesn't exist. It's not a bold debate strategy, but it is bold to assume nobody would see through your paradox and Captain Obvious "fact of the matter" attempts.

You can believe what you want. I actually work for the agency most effected by both policies and have a little more than "CNN/Fox knowledge", it just irritates me when people (general public and media) parrot non-truths.

The bottom line FIFA as it stands right now chases money, that is the only reason for the expanded WC and when it comes to money know bid will be more capable of handling the expanded field or be as financially successful.
 

cardfaninfl

Demographically significant
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Posts
1,010
Reaction score
131
Location
Beyond the sun.
You can believe what you want. I actually work for the agency most effected by both policies and have a little more than "CNN/Fox knowledge", it just irritates me when people (general public and media) parrot non-truths.

The bottom line FIFA as it stands right now chases money, that is the only reason for the expanded WC and when it comes to money know bid will be more capable of handling the expanded field or be as financially successful.

Thanks, I was waiting for your permission to believe what I want. And when you "actually work for the agency" which believes a border wall in its intended context doesn't mean fortification, and a travel ban targeting Muslim countries that will do little to stop terrorism doesn't mean Muslim Ban, be sure to notify me with another post. Mmm'kay?

"The bottom line is FIFA as it stands right now" is not chasing money, and has never been concerned about profits for FIFA. So you are wrong again. As long as the brand was at least stable, FIFA had to actively try to screw up incoming profits and jeopardize their ability to enrich their personal interests. They accomplished that with the last host selections, and are operating at a 9 figure loss. Continuing with a damaged brand will lead to being dissolved and the vehicle used to line their pockets removed. Therefore, working toward a huge revenue boost NINE YEARS IN THE FUTURE is polishing the brass on the Titanic instead of taking measure to insure they don't hit an iceberg. FIFA needs a PR boost to reestablish stability, increase credibility, and let the world know change is being implemented. Announcing an expanded field will increase excitement from other countries and will signal changes brought about by new management. That is the "only reason for the expanded WC" announcement and its timing.

Is that a little clearer for you? Because the one thing we do have in common is "when people parrot non-truths."
 

Zeno

Ancient
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Posts
15,547
Reaction score
5,330
Location
Fort Myers
I am not arguing with you. Be as condescending as you like if that makes you feel better.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
540,953
Posts
5,296,661
Members
6,290
Latest member
stbmd
Top