Xtratime Community banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This July FIFA will decide who will host the 2006 World Cup. There are currently five nations making bids:

- Brazil
- England
- Germany
- Morocco
- South Africa

The most popular analysis seems to say South Africa will be chosen. I don't agree with that myself, since I feel that SA is much too dangerous right now to host an international event such as the World Cup. As for Morocco, I don't believe they have the infrastructure or the cash to handle the event.

Which leaves Brazil, England, and Germany. My feeling is that Europe, with France in '98, has had the Cup too recently to come back in 2006. So I'm all for Brazil, who has the resources to do it and can guarantee that attendence will be high, since Brazil is the most passionate soccer nation in the world.

What do you guys think?
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
It is widely regarded that the infra-structure in Brazil is not suitable for a World Cup event to be hosted. But the Maracana stadium looked fantastic during the World Club Champiobships and FIFA were generally impresses with the way Brazil held teh tournament. But keep in mind only 8 clubs participated, and 80% of the fans were from the 2 Brazilian teams.
My opinion is that the World Cup should be held in a county who's national teams stands a ealistic chance of winning it. At present moment that would be hard luck for the US, all Asian and African countries, aswell as mos Eastern European countries, and would mean it the WC would be held only in some South American countries and mostly in Western European countries. But I really would not mind having the World Cup in Italy once every 16 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Hmmm. . . Italy would be kind of cool, its too bad they're not in the running. Personally, as an Inter fan, I would like the idea of a final match at the San Siro, with Brazil taking its fifth cup, of course.

However, I have to disagree with the idea the Brazil does not have the infrastructure to host a World Cup.

I don't think that the World Club Championships were a fluke. Even though Vasco and Corinthians were a heavy draw, there were fans who came from all over the world and enjoyed themselves at the games and viewing Brazil's more touristy sights (David Beckham not the least among them :)).

As for a realistic chance of winning, there's no argument. Brazil is not only the one country to have won four cups, but it is also the only country to have participated in every cup. It is safe to say that Brazil always has a "realistic" chance of winning, even in some years the soccer gods do not smile upon them.

But getting back to the point, out of the five that are actually in contention, where would YOU like to see the cup after next. Imagine that you were going there to watch the games. Which of the five would you like to go to?

Out of those five, my vote Brazil, hands down.
 

·
International
Joined
·
5,629 Posts
South Africa should host the event! It is the world cup and it should be displayed across the world, not just in Europe or the Americas!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,932 Posts
England 2006 - great stadiu and their campaign is the best as they want it most.

What pis*es me off the most is that FIFA are saying that they will not let another comp with dual hosting nations even though they have not seen how Belgium-Holland and South Korea-Japan get on.

Wales and Engalnd would be the dream with the semis played at the Millenium stadium and the final at Wembley.

------------------
WITH HOPE IN MY HEART
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
37,734 Posts
Driver X,
Brazil does have the infra structure to have world Cup.
In 1950 we had hte second biggest world cup attendences...only America (a country with no tradition if football) had bigger attendences.
Also, all the telecomunications of Brazil have been privatized and all major motorways.highways are being privatized...with their level of quality increasing considerably.
Add that to the biggest stadiums in the world (Maracana, Morumbi, Beira Rio, Fonte NOva, Mineirao, Serra Dourada, Arruda...etc.) you would have a dream world cup...showing the world what a TRUE world cup is about....and how to support a naiton in the world cup.
Also....European teams would have good support, as in Sao Paulo Italy would have a big support, and GErmany in the south. Spain in Bahia...Hollnad in Pernambuco....Argentina in the south etc....etc.. Japan in Sao PAulo etc...
ALso we already have 11 of the 24 votes...as guranteed by Ricardo Teixeira 2 months ago...so the cup is coming to hte country of football! :)


------------------
GAVIOES DA FIEL
Pelo Corinthians, com muito amor...ate o fim.
LHP - THE WORLD IS OURS!!!
 
M

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
I think that the world cup in 2006 should be held in England because God knowz what they will do if its not in England because they've spend alot of effite and money into this project!! So they should get it!
 
B

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
England should definitely host the World Cup in 2006. It has the infrastructure already in place with some of the best stadia. The design for the new Wembley looks magnificent. Further, England has passed recently with flying colors in the 1996 European Championships. The year, 2006, would also mark the 40th anniversary of England's sole World Cup victory in 1966.

The other four remaining nations have severe problems. Brazil does not have the financial backing or even the support of their greatest player, Pele. South Africa is suffering from the worst crime and violence ever in its history. Morocco does not have the necessary infrastructure at all. Germany has hosted a World Cup recently in 1974. Overall, England is the best choice to host the World Cup in 2006.
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
On FIFA TV I actually heard that Morocco's infrastructure was excellent, it was just the temperatures during the summer that concerned them. But it's also been pretty hot in Mexico,Brazil, and the US when the WC was held there.

England have put a lot of money into the stadiums, but that should not mean FIFA should have sympathy for that and reward them for that, just for that sole reason. Tha fans will always remain a major concern in England.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,932 Posts
The English fans are fine if they are in their own country (i.e. Euro 96). When they go abroad it is the problem.
I'll be honest I think that it should be England or Brazil.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,990 Posts
I think it should be England, as posted above it will be the 40th anniversary of England's 1966 win. Also England has the Stadia already in place, they have recently proved they can succesfully hold a major tournament (Euro96), and the English Police are the best at dealing with Hooligans worldwide (maybe because they had more to deal with?). So being honest, England's bid is the most well rounded of them all.
I also agree with Pool, it would be good if Wales could be included in the bid and the Millenium stadium used for the Semi's.
Pool does this mean you want automatic qualification for Wales? hehehe :)
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
LONDON - Violent clashes between English and Turkish fans before Wednesday's UEFA Cup final sounded the alarm bells ahead of Euro 2000 on Thursday and could harm England's bid to stage the 2006 World Cup.

UEFA is launching an inquiry into the violence which left 19 injured and triggered 42 arrests after pitched street battles in Copenhagen
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,932 Posts
Razor - of course, i mean the last time that we got to the world cup (the only time) was in 1958 and we got to the quarter finals but were beaten 1-0 by Brazil. I want to see Giggs in a World Cup.
Did you watch the Wales Brazil game? What did you think? Do we deserve to be 101st in the world?????? :(

I question Englands bid big time now. For me it has to be Brasil '06, sorry guys.
 
F

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
I believe SA can hold 2006 WC. Here in SA they've been talking about the hooligan problem in England, and it's been blown way out of proportion.

The same goes for SA's problems, concerning the crime rate. Sure we do have the highest amount of hijacking's in the world, but how many Supporters do you know are gonna have cars. Crime in SA has been blown way out of proportion in England.

SA do have the infrastructure to hold the games. and Crime will not be problem, thing is every country will have crime. plus the pound and dollar are so strong, compared to SA currency, it will be the cheapest WC for Supporters. Unlike France!!!

F_rog (in SOUTH AFRICA)
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top