[Dismal Operator]

(05-28-2015 05:07 AM)britchard Wrote:  

Why should the USA get to host in emergency over the UK? We have better stadiums and atmosphere, a real football culture and there wouldn't be this silly business of teams having 5 hour flights for their next game.

If we're talking 2022, it would be the US because that World Cup has to be non European one since 2018 is in Europe. All the original bidders were outside of Europe.

[Saweeep]

(05-28-2015 06:09 AM)kosko Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 05:07 AM)britchard Wrote:  

Why should the USA get to host in emergency over the UK? We have better stadiums and atmosphere, a real football culture and there wouldn't be this silly business of teams having 5 hour flights for their next game.

USA just has a easier setup. In the summer no American football conflicts and it has 30 stadiums that could be used with proper hotel, highway, and airport access. This list below does not even include many college stadiums either, just mostly big NFL stadiums that would be empty in June/July.

Houston
Dallas (Arlington)
Phoenix (Glendale)
Chicago
New York (New Jersey)
Miami
Tampa Bay
San Francisco (Santa Clara)
Boston
Denver
Pasadena or Stanford
Washington DC

^^^^
All those cities could host in June/July of next year even if needed. Very little work would need to be done and it would not conflict with other soccer clubs as would happen in the UK since no MLS facilities would be used aside from Foxborro in Boston, you would also have to lay down sod in Boston but that takes 6 days max to do.

The USA was put as a permanent "Plan B" when South Africa was awarded the games just in case they couldn't pull it off. Plus no BS politics, If the UK was awarded emergency games then France and Germany and maybe other UEFA nations would start moaning and crying.

There is no football played in the UK during this time either.

To be honest, British stadia are far better suited to football, having been built for this very purpose.

There's also the fans to think about; European WC are just better from a time of match and travel point of view for most of the fans wealthy enough to attend at shortish notice. As we Europeans make up more of the teams, especially at the cutting edge, it makes more sense.

As for the others bitching a moaning; well we haven't had a WC for 50 years. Italy had 90, France had 98 and Germany 06.

Either way it is a moot point as said; this is a non Europe WC.

[kosko]

(05-28-2015 06:35 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 06:09 AM)kosko Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 05:07 AM)britchard Wrote:  

Why should the USA get to host in emergency over the UK? We have better stadiums and atmosphere, a real football culture and there wouldn't be this silly business of teams having 5 hour flights for their next game.

USA just has a easier setup. In the summer no American football conflicts and it has 30 stadiums that could be used with proper hotel, highway, and airport access. This list below does not even include many college stadiums either, just mostly big NFL stadiums that would be empty in June/July.

Houston
Dallas (Arlington)
Phoenix (Glendale)
Chicago
New York (New Jersey)
Miami
Tampa Bay
San Francisco (Santa Clara)
Boston
Denver
Pasadena or Stanford
Washington DC

^^^^
All those cities could host in June/July of next year even if needed. Very little work would need to be done and it would not conflict with other soccer clubs as would happen in the UK since no MLS facilities would be used aside from Foxborro in Boston, you would also have to lay down sod in Boston but that takes 6 days max to do.

The USA was put as a permanent "Plan B" when South Africa was awarded the games just in case they couldn't pull it off. Plus no BS politics, If the UK was awarded emergency games then France and Germany and maybe other UEFA nations would start moaning and crying.

There is no football played in the UK during this time either.

To be honest, British stadia are far better suited to football, having been built for this very purpose.

There's also the fans to think about; European WC are just better from a time of match and travel point of view for most of the fans wealthy enough to attend at shortish notice. As we Europeans make up more of the teams, especially at the cutting edge, it makes more sense.

As for the others bitching a moaning; well we haven't had a WC for 50 years. Italy had 90, France had 98 and Germany 06.

Either way it is a moot point as said; this is a non Europe WC.

Okay thanks for the correction as I assumed UK clubs still played as MLS oddly did last year during the WC.

Dont you worry the UK will pay dearly when it wants to host again when UEFA is in rotation to host. The reality is you don't need to sell snow to a polar bear with Europe and soccer. FIFA saw a big upsurge from USA '94 and there is still much more room to grow in the USA market. Any large EURO nation can host a WC but your not growing markets which is what corrupt FIFA has been attempting to do. USA TV will big cash money for TV rights relative to its population and viewer base.

Logistics are also much better in the USA. Yes the UK has short travel time and better Stadiums but the peons and plebs live very close to many UK Stadiums. To get a security plan in place would be more complex in the UK versus America where most Stadiums are in the middle of parking lots in the suburbs off the main highway. Its easier to put security on the ground in the most militarized country on earth on short notice. London had a difficult time with security and logistics for the Olympics due to the reality far to many people live close together in that region.

FIFA will need some PC play it safe nation next to host. Bets are that Canada with our third world level stadiums will likely get the nod. They are nudging either Australia or Canada to host but I believe Australia is out of rotation now due to switching federations.

[Saweeep]

Lets face it, World Cups, Olympics etc are just an opportunity for Elites to funnel serious public money into their own pockets via the awarded contracts.

We're just a bit butthurt in the Uk that we are continually on FIFA's naughty step because we try, harder than most anyway, to play by the rules and get unhappy about how things are done. Hence no WC for 50 years

[VolandoVengoVolandoVoy]

(05-28-2015 06:52 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

Lets face it, World Cups, Olympics etc are just an opportunity for Elites to funnel serious public money into their own pockets via the awarded contracts.

We're just a bit butthurt in the Uk that we are continually on FIFA's naughty step because we try, harder than most anyway, to play by the rules and get unhappy about how things are done. Hence no WC for 50 years

THIS

When people talk about the World Cup or the Olympics "losing" money, I always have a bit of a chuckle.

They are HIGHLY profitable if you are on the inside. Billions of dollars in public and corporate money provide endless opportunities for rent seeking behavior, influence peddling, and outright theft.

Of course, if you are an average tax paying member of the public on the hook for the bonds that must be paid off over the course of decades it is not such a good deal.

[VolandoVengoVolandoVoy]

LOL

[britchard]

Sorry but to me, the world cup is all about the buzz and the atmosphere.

Germany '06- cracking tournament, one of the best ever, in a European country that lives football.

South Africa '10- decent tournament, just average all round. If it wasn't for all the controversy (lampard goal, suarez handball), would have been very underwhelming.

Brazil '14- very good tournament, the country just breathes football.

Korea/Japan '02- tournament that isn't really remembered for anything except incredibly high costs.

All the best tournaments are the ones hosted by countries that love the game, i.e European and South American countries, some African countries (but these lack the infrastructure).

Giving the world cup to the US over the UK would be like hosting an online international meeting on masculinity on Jezebel over RVF or Chateau Heartiste.

[Vacancier Permanent]

I remember reading somewhere in a French paper that City and PSG are owned by the same family, two cousins. Since inter family breeding a are quite common in that part of the world. Even more so at the top elite levels.

Regarding a relocation of the 2022 WC, Australia, China or Canada would get my vote. It would make it to be a very unique atmosphere. A WC in England would have a far more appeal not to mention better atmosphere than in the US, not to mention more prestige for the players. Just playing at legendary and historic venues full of history like Anfield, Old Trafford, Wembley, St James Park etc vs playing at stadiums whose names few if any people outside these cities would know their name like would be the case in the US.

Another man that has been running another major sport like a dictator for the past few decades is Bernie Ecclestone with Formula 1. First it started with removing classic and historic circuits from the F1 calendar (Estoril, Magny Court, Imola just to name the most obvious ones) to make room for circuits in places with absolutely zero F1 tradition like India, Korea or Russia. All in the name developping F1 in new markets, hence lining up their pockets. Not to mention rigging seasons with their non sense and constantly changing regulations.

Time for both Sepp and Bernie to be ousted ASAP as they've both already done enough damage in their respective sport.

[VolandoVengoVolandoVoy]

(05-28-2015 08:30 AM)britchard Wrote:  

Sorry but to me, the world cup is all about the buzz and the atmosphere.

Germany '06- cracking tournament, one of the best ever, in a European country that lives football.

South Africa '10- decent tournament, just average all round. If it wasn't for all the controversy (lampard goal, suarez handball), would have been very underwhelming.

Brazil '14- very good tournament, the country just breathes football.

Korea/Japan '02- tournament that isn't really remembered for anything except incredibly high costs.

All the best tournaments are the ones hosted by countries that love the game, i.e European and South American countries, some African countries (but these lack the infrastructure).

Giving the world cup to the US over the UK would be like hosting an online international meeting on masculinity on Jezebel over RVF or Chateau Heartiste.

Don't underestimate the appeal of football in the USA.

The number of Hispanics in the USA is roughly equal to the total population of England.

If you happen to be in a Latino area (LA/socal, Florida, largest parts of Texas, Arizona, etc) when the Mexican national team is playing, people go fucking crazy.

Another example, I met up with a friend in a Brazilian neighborhood in the Boston area during the last World Cup and there were flags everywhere, street parties, bars were full, the whole deal.

Also lots more of the white population is now interested in football.

If you take into account the number of Hispanics and the increased interest of whites, I think in absolute numbers there are just as many football fans in the USA as any single European country.

We just have a shitty domestic league, since our top athletic talent is funneled to american football, basketball, and baseball.

[African.horn]

Corruption aside, I find the notion of non-Americans being dragged back to America to serve sentencing for really worrying. Despite them contravening the law, it's in relation to a Swiss based corporation on European soil. They just can't help themselves but get involved.

Official reason being given is they used US Dollars and some American banks.

[The Beast1]

Apparently FIFA and the Qatar 2022 Supreme Committee also donated to the Clinton foundation.

I checked the donors page, but couldn't find any entries for either on the donors lists. Yet every news outlet from Zerohedge to the Washington Post is writing about it.

Womp womp for Hillary!

[Vacancier Permanent]

Lennart Johansson, former UEFA president just said that the 2018 WC should be held in England as "they haven't had it since 1966 and it's the country of football. And that the 2022 WC should have a new vote to determine a new venue for it."

I agree on the 2022 WC but not removing the 2018 from Russia. Russia is a country with a long football tradition.

Enough of the Qatari farce!

[VolandoVengoVolandoVoy]

(05-28-2015 08:40 AM)African.horn Wrote:  

Corruption aside, I find the notion of non-Americans being dragged back to America to serve sentencing for really worrying. Despite them contravening the law, it's in relation to a Swiss based corporation on European soil. They just can't help themselves but get involved.

Official reason being given is they used US Dollars and some American banks.

There was a lot more that went on in the USA than an IP address or a bank transfer.

This article gives some good detail on the beginning of the case and the key informant, a fat greedy American soccer dad who was president of CONCACAF.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...-fifa.html

Quote:

By several accounts, Warner subsequently became less than circumspect about Blazer’s considerable excesses. Word of them reached the U.S. attorney’s office in Brooklyn. The day came in November 2011 when agents from the FBI and the IRS approached Blazer as he cruised a Manhattan street in a motorized scooter. The IRS takes a very dim view of those who pilfer millions and do not even file their taxes for a decade.

As was first reported by the New York Daily News, the agents offered Blazer a simple proposition: “We can take you away in handcuffs now—or you can cooperate.”

By the News’s account, the agents subsequently presented Blazer with a keychain containing a miniature microphone and directed him to record a series of meetings with FIFA officials.

Basically FIFA officials were running an international criminal conspiracy similar to the Mafia. One of their bases of operations was the USA.

Blazer could be consdered a Capo or underboss. Blatter would be the Capo de Tutti Capi, Boss of Bosses, the real Don.

It is completely appropriate to have the USA prosecute this case.

Under RICO and other laws, the bosses of a criminal conspiracy have joint responsibilities for any and all criminal activities carried out by their co conspirators, whether or not they directly ordered or participated in those actions.

[Darius]

(05-28-2015 08:39 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

We just have a shitty domestic league, since our top athletic talent is funneled to american football, basketball, and baseball.

You just summed up why Football(Soccer) isn't big in America and why it will never be that big in America.

It's at least 4th tier on that list and you could probably make an argument that Hockey is bigger in America than Football(Soccer).

If the interest and the money was there, the top athletic talent would be as well.

[Menace]

So it seems again, like Al Capone, a criminal was done in by not paying their taxes. How stupid can you be.

[MidWest]

(05-28-2015 08:39 AM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 08:30 AM)britchard Wrote:  

Sorry but to me, the world cup is all about the buzz and the atmosphere.

Germany '06- cracking tournament, one of the best ever, in a European country that lives football.

South Africa '10- decent tournament, just average all round. If it wasn't for all the controversy (lampard goal, suarez handball), would have been very underwhelming.

Brazil '14- very good tournament, the country just breathes football.

Korea/Japan '02- tournament that isn't really remembered for anything except incredibly high costs.

All the best tournaments are the ones hosted by countries that love the game, i.e European and South American countries, some African countries (but these lack the infrastructure).

Giving the world cup to the US over the UK would be like hosting an online international meeting on masculinity on Jezebel over RVF or Chateau Heartiste.

Don't underestimate the appeal of football in the USA.

The number of Hispanics in the USA is roughly equal to the total population of England.

If you happen to be in a Latino area (LA/socal, Florida, largest parts of Texas, Arizona, etc) when the Mexican national team is playing, people go fucking crazy.

Another example, I met up with a friend in a Brazilian neighborhood in the Boston area during the last World Cup and there were flags everywhere, street parties, bars were full, the whole deal.

Also lots more of the white population is now interested in football.

If you take into account the number of Hispanics and the increased interest of whites, I think in absolute numbers there are just as many football fans in the USA as any single European country.

We just have a shitty domestic league, since our top athletic talent is funneled to american football, basketball, and baseball.

THIS!!!

As a Mexican American myself and a die hard Mexican soccer fan, I vouch for this. The Mexican national team feels at home every time they play in the U.S.

Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, San Diego, Phoenix, Chicago you name it, those stadiums in those cities are packed whenever the Mexican national team plays. What's the Hispanic population in America like 50 million? Same population as a European country.

Also I read somewhere that America's favorite soccer team is the Mexican national team because of the sheer number of Hispanics here. Its even more popular than the U.S. national team. So much so that Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys wanted the Mexican national team to have its home in his stadium and considered Mexico fans to be the most passionate sports fans in the whole country of ALL sports.

Quote:

Fans of the Mexican National Soccer Team, known as “El Tri,” are the best sports fans in the U.S.A., according to a new column in ESPN Magazine. These fans travel – anywhere in the U.S.A. where they can watch their beloved “El Tri.”

Full Source

The Mexican Football Federation makes a shit load of money off of their countrymen and its descendants in the U.S., charging them upwards of $150 and in dollars, instead of charging pesos at home to Mexicans. I won't be surprised if the Mexican Federation Association is one of the richest in the world having a market in both the U.S and Mexico.

Quote:

Mexico’s fans, with their raucous chants and occasional contemptuous beer showers, are among the most colorful and energetic in the United States, a country where stadium enthusiasm is often orchestrated with Jumbotron exhortations and musical cues.

“America has baseball and basketball and football,” said train rider Rachel Cohen, who was visiting from Mexico City with her husband, Abraham. “But soccer is all we Mexicans have.”

El Tri’s annual slate of games north of the border generates millions, not just for the Mexican soccer federation, Femexfut, but also for American interests — particularly Soccer United Marketing (SUM), the commercial arm of Major League Soccer. Since 2003, SUM has owned the promotional and marketing rights to El Tri, staging five well-attended games every year.

“The Mexican soccer team is unique in having two markets: the ‘natural’ one in Mexico, and in the U.S. with Mexican migrants,” said José Samuel Martínez López, a professor at Universidad Iberoamericana in Mexico City. “The consumer market for soccer among Mexican migrants is strong and growing, and MLS has seen this as a good place to do business.”

Full Source

Like you said. Our European brothers should not underestimate American's soccer passion, especially our Hispanic community. Having the world cup here in the states will be incredible.

[Akula]

^^^^If they had another World Cup in the US the whole country would go bonkers. We love big sporting events and given all the Central and South American immigrants plus everyone now understanding the sport so much better and all the rivalries and teams around the world there is a huge fan base. You can't go to a sports bar on the weekend that isn't showing Premier League or Brazil or Mexican League games. The MLS is also on all summer too and only really competes with baseball (and the WNBA! ).

Hell they had a Man U - Real Madrid exhibition game last year at Michigan Stadium and they sold 100,000+ tickets in just a few days (!). Some of the Man U players said it was one of the most incredible stadium experiences they'd had:

http://www.espnfc.com/international-cham...ted/report

[realologist]

(05-28-2015 02:28 PM)Akula Wrote:  

^^^^If they had another World Cup in the US the whole country would go bonkers. We love big sporting events and given all the Central and South American immigrants plus everyone now understanding the sport so much better and all the rivalries and teams around the world there is a huge fan base. You can't go to a sports bar on the weekend that isn't showing Premier League or Brazil or Mexican League games. The MLS is also on all summer too and only really competes with baseball (and the WNBA! ).

Hell they had a Man U - Real Madrid exhibition game last year at Michigan Stadium and they sold 100,000+ tickets in just a few days (!). Some of the Man U players said it was one of the most incredible stadium experiences they'd had:

http://www.espnfc.com/international-cham...ted/report

I went to that game with my uncle and brother. My uncle has season tickets to Michigan football games for 20+ years and said that was one of the top 5 loudest games he's ever been to there.

The atmosphere just had an electric feel to it that felt like the calm before a huge thunderstorm and the first lightning bolt was the starting whistle.

[Foolsgo1d]

(05-28-2015 06:47 AM)kosko Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 06:35 AM)CrashBangWallop Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 06:09 AM)kosko Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 05:07 AM)britchard Wrote:  

Why should the USA get to host in emergency over the UK? We have better stadiums and atmosphere, a real football culture and there wouldn't be this silly business of teams having 5 hour flights for their next game.

USA just has a easier setup. In the summer no American football conflicts and it has 30 stadiums that could be used with proper hotel, highway, and airport access. This list below does not even include many college stadiums either, just mostly big NFL stadiums that would be empty in June/July.

Houston
Dallas (Arlington)
Phoenix (Glendale)
Chicago
New York (New Jersey)
Miami
Tampa Bay
San Francisco (Santa Clara)
Boston
Denver
Pasadena or Stanford
Washington DC

^^^^
All those cities could host in June/July of next year even if needed. Very little work would need to be done and it would not conflict with other soccer clubs as would happen in the UK since no MLS facilities would be used aside from Foxborro in Boston, you would also have to lay down sod in Boston but that takes 6 days max to do.

The USA was put as a permanent "Plan B" when South Africa was awarded the games just in case they couldn't pull it off. Plus no BS politics, If the UK was awarded emergency games then France and Germany and maybe other UEFA nations would start moaning and crying.

There is no football played in the UK during this time either.

To be honest, British stadia are far better suited to football, having been built for this very purpose.

There's also the fans to think about; European WC are just better from a time of match and travel point of view for most of the fans wealthy enough to attend at shortish notice. As we Europeans make up more of the teams, especially at the cutting edge, it makes more sense.

As for the others bitching a moaning; well we haven't had a WC for 50 years. Italy had 90, France had 98 and Germany 06.

Either way it is a moot point as said; this is a non Europe WC.

Okay thanks for the correction as I assumed UK clubs still played as MLS oddly did last year during the WC.

Dont you worry the UK will pay dearly when it wants to host again when UEFA is in rotation to host. The reality is you don't need to sell snow to a polar bear with Europe and soccer. FIFA saw a big upsurge from USA '94 and there is still much more room to grow in the USA market. Any large EURO nation can host a WC but your not growing markets which is what corrupt FIFA has been attempting to do. USA TV will big cash money for TV rights relative to its population and viewer base.

Logistics are also much better in the USA. Yes the UK has short travel time and better Stadiums but the peons and plebs live very close to many UK Stadiums. To get a security plan in place would be more complex in the UK versus America where most Stadiums are in the middle of parking lots in the suburbs off the main highway. Its easier to put security on the ground in the most militarized country on earth on short notice. London had a difficult time with security and logistics for the Olympics due to the reality far to many people live close together in that region.

FIFA will need some PC play it safe nation next to host. Bets are that Canada with our third world level stadiums will likely get the nod. They are nudging either Australia or Canada to host but I believe Australia is out of rotation now due to switching federations.

I don't understand how you can say the USA has better stadia and logistics over the UK when it comes to football.

All of the Premier league clubs have large capacity stadiums with experienced ground staff and brilliant grass to play on. We're talking decades of experience here.

Wembley is not a football stadium at at heart so its pitch can be shit due to relaying and ripping up the turf constantly.

London has several large international level clubs with large stadiums right next to tourist hot spots, hotels and train networks.

The same goes for Greater Manchester and Scotland where the big teams reside.

Security is not a risk in the UK. Compared to the USA the UK is an incredibly easy affair. How many guns, gangs and nutjobs roam the streets of the USA?

We have one of the best police forces when it comes to managing crowds and violent idiots. All the US police do is get the gas and guns out. What sort of crowd control is that?

As a matter of fact the UK would have to be the best place in the world to host a World Cup outside of Germany.

- English
- Safe
- Plenty of transport links
- National game is loved
- A lot of places to drink, eat and party

The USA is too big and too violent compared to the UK and very costly.

[Cattle Rustler]

^spoken like someone who has never been to the US and only get his updates from the news.

[Darius]

(05-28-2015 06:18 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

^spoken like someone who has never been to the US and only get his updates from the news.

Let's be honest. There are many countries in Europe that would be a better place to host the World Cup rather than the US.

They have multiple leagues that are bigger than the MLS. MLS attendance is comparable to second tier leagues in some European countries.

France, Germany, England, Ireland, Italy, Spain and Holland are all better places to hold the World Cup.

[Vacancier Permanent]

Cattle Rustler,
A deeply ingrained culture of football, a country that breathes football, a country which has all the infrastructures and facilities built for the very purpose of football, these are the things that money cannot buy. Regardless of the the tens of millions of immigrants from all over the world.

Deeply ingrained culture of football along deeply rooted tradition of football at the deepest levels of the country, from households to the medias to the corporate world. That's what the US has been sorely lacking and will keep them from achieving anything worthy in world football.

As long as the elites in the US won't start caring for football (and not soccer), then the US will not go beyond the level they are today, that of an average team at best with a very mediocre domestic league, the equivalent of a 3rd division in Europe.

Organizing a football world cup in the US is the equivalent of organizing a baseball world series/world cup in the UK. While I'm sure there could be fans of baseball in the UK, there is no deeply ingrained culture of baseball there. Nor do the elites, neither the masses for that matter, care one iota about it. Can you or anyone name one baseball venue in the UK? Me neither. Exactly similar to football venues in the US.

Fans want to see world cups in countries with a deeply ingrained tradition of football that goes for decades if not a century or more. They want to go and see matches in historic venues and stadiums.

Players as well as fans, would much rather go and play at say Anfield, Old Trafford, St James Park, Wembley, which are legendary stadiums, with tons of history in each of them. Stadiums that both fans and players alike grew up watching their idols, their teams play and dreaming of one day, going there, let alone playing in those cathedrals of world football.

Regarding the level and quality of the football produced during USA94 was one of the lowest in all of the WCs. Why? For the simple reason that matches were mostly played around noon or early afternoon to accommodate TV contracts and schedules. Playing games in Florida, Texas, or anywhere in most of the US in June and July at noon or early afternoon at almost unbearable conditions of 40C+ with 90%+ humidity. Because of those asphyxiating conditions, players were not able to perform at their very best.

[JacksonRev]

(05-28-2015 06:44 PM)Darius Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 06:18 PM)Cattle Rustler Wrote:  

^spoken like someone who has never been to the US and only get his updates from the news.

Let's be honest. There are many countries in Europe that would be a better place to host the World Cup rather than the US.

They have multiple leagues that are bigger than the MLS. MLS attendance is comparable to second tier leagues in some European countries.

France, Germany, England, Ireland, Italy, Spain and Holland are all better places to hold the World Cup.

The US has a similar population to all of those countries combined. Hell, the population of immigrants in the US is close to the largest countries in that list.

Not to mention that the US has higher major league soccer attendance than Brazil (which lives and breathes soccer), Russia, Argentina, and Japan, despite only being the fifth most popular sport in the country. With a murder rate less than a quarter of Brazil's, and half of Russia's.

Plus, with the poor notoriety of US teams, you have massive amounts of people that watch other league's on television that would come out in droves for the World Cup.

[Vacancier Permanent]

A world cup in England, or rather, extend it to the entire UK, would be glorious!
12 world class venues:

Wembley (London).
Anfield (Liverpool).
Old Trafford (Manchester).
St James Park (Newcastle).
Emirates Stadium (London).
Stanford Bridge (London).
Celtic Park (Glasgow).
Stadium of Lights (Sunderland).
Millennium Stadium (Cardiff).
Villa Park (Birmingham).
Elland Road (Leeds).
Add another stadium in Ireland to keep the Irish happy and you have all the ingredients for a fantastic tournament in venues that are oozing with football tradition, history and appeal.

[Darius]

(05-28-2015 07:24 PM)Vacancier Permanent Wrote:  

A world cup in England, or rather, extend it to the entire UK, would be glorious!
12 world class venues:

Wembley (London).
Anfield (Liverpool).
Old Trafford (Manchester).
St James Park (Newcastle).
Emirates Stadium (London).
Stanford Bridge (London).
Celtic Park (Glasgow).
Stadium of Lights (Sunderland).
Millennium Stadium (Cardiff).
Villa Park (Birmingham).
Elland Road (Leeds).
Add another stadium in Ireland to keep the Irish happy and you have all the ingredients for a fantastic tournament in venues that are oozing with football tradition, history and appeal.

The English are crazy about their Football. They have an insane amount Football clubs in the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_foo...gue_system

I never realized it until I picked up Football Manager 2011 a few years ago on a whim.