Liverpool FC Forum

by **The Manhattan Project** » Tue May 01, 2007 6:29 am

Will South Africa be capable of hosting the 2010 World Cup?

BBC

by **112-1077774096** » Tue May 01, 2007 6:40 am

i saw this on the news last night, blatter was saying they have a contingency plan should st africa not be ready. we have the stadium and infrastructure to host it, it would be good to come to us

by **The Manhattan Project** » Tue May 01, 2007 6:45 am

This is how I think it should have gone:

2010: England
2014: United States
2018: Australia.

South Africa has massive problems with security and I've even heard doubts about whether Brazil will be capable of hosting the 2014 finals.

Please someone vote out Sepp "Blather"

by **JoeTerp** » Tue May 01, 2007 12:01 pm

you got a pretty big english speaking bias there manhattan

by **stmichael** » Tue May 01, 2007 12:03 pm

if it got moved to england, would we still have to qualify?

by **ckay** » Tue May 01, 2007 12:38 pm

I'd say we would because the qualifying starts 2 years before and a decision wouldn't be made until the last moment.

by **The Manhattan Project** » Wed May 02, 2007 12:21 am

you got a pretty big english speaking bias there manhattan

Not so much an English-speaking bias, but more related to where football needs to grow (USA and Australia) and which countries can host it. Japan would be a good choice but they only had the finals in 2002. Spain would be a good potential host. France had the world cup relatively recently. Italy is in crisis.

by **yckatbjywtbiastkamb** » Sun May 06, 2007 2:23 pm

The Manhattan Project wrote:This is how I think it should have gone:

2010: England
2014: United States
2018: Australia.

South Africa has massive problems with security and I've even heard doubts about whether Brazil will be capable of hosting the 2014 finals.

Please someone vote out Sepp "Blather"

america and japan have hosted world cups for the wrong reasons - corporate dosh.
baseball is the biggest sport in japan and its one of the biggest sports in the u.s too.
imo the world cup should only go to country`s where football is king, it shouldnt go to australia or america again in an effort to gain popularity for the simple fact its not rugby league or snooker - it doesnt need to sell itself.
south america, europe and africa are footy mad and deserve to host the finals along with places like singapore etc.
in these countries the fans would turn up to games not for the gimmick but to appreciate the game.
uefa should stop selling their a**e to corporate sponsorship and start rewarding the fans in the nations who adore the game by staging the finals there.
i`d rather see the finals take place in a third world african country with rusty corrugated iron roofs and no floodlights than go to the states again, take it to the genuine fans.
no chance of that though, the uefa hierachy wouldnt make enough money to keep them in fancy restraunts and holidays disguised as fact finding missions for the next four years.

by **Big Niall** » Tue May 08, 2007 12:06 pm

I never thought South Africa should have got it. Remember people were fuming that germany got 2006 instead of SA. Germany put on a great competition, nobody thinks SA could have done the same.

America have no interest in "soccer" and should not get it. I don't think South America can afford it.

Europe or Asia for me.

Liverpool FC Forum

Doubts over 2010 - Fifa world cup

Who is online