FIFA is F'ed

[smackababy]

i still wouldn't say MLS is a commercial success...

For a league in a sport not many care about it, it is growing and gaining rapid success. I think every MLS playoff game last season sold out. They are adding expansion teams. The glamour matches we (American soccer fans) used to like (such as tonight's Toronto FC vs Man City) are getting a lot of flack for disrupting the MLS season itself.

Soccer is growing in the US. It helps baseball is declining. It is huge business worldwide and US stations have picked up European league broadcasts as well.

 

[dr150]

FIFA is corrupt?! Get outta here!

At least we can rest assured that boxing and wrestling aren't rigged.

 

[sdifox]

is it a fact that almost all host country lose money in either WC and Olympic?

Montreal just finished paying off a few years ago. The Olympics was in 1976...

 

[velillen]

For a league in a sport not many care about it, it is growing and gaining rapid success. I think every MLS playoff game last season sold out. They are adding expansion teams. The glamour matches we (American soccer fans) used to like (such as tonight's Toronto FC vs Man City) are getting a lot of flack for disrupting the MLS season itself.

Soccer is growing in the US. It helps baseball is declining. It is huge business worldwide and US stations have picked up European league broadcasts as well.

MLS is definitely doing well right now. But its also on a slippery slope. They are adding to many teams to fast. They have averaged adding a team every year since 2005. With 4 more teams slated to join and 4 more possible locations wanting teams. The MLS already has markets that dont sell out home games. if the MLS wants to keep adding teams they need to adopt a system like those used in Europe. Have multi level leagues (ie Tier 1, Tier 2, ect) Each year the bottom 2-3 teams are relegated from Tier to Tier 2. The top 2-3 teams from Tier 2 move up to Tier 1.

It might actually work better in the US than in Europe if we kept the salary caps in place as that would prevent teams from just blowing tons of money on players.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

looks like friday's presidential election might be postponed after all:
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/32904317

sorry sepp.

 

[Jeff7]

I don't know much about the governing body of pro soccer, but I'm always happy to see a scumbag corrupt official get taken down hard.

It'd be nice to see it happen to regular government officials, too, and not just something to do with sports.


"Corruption costing us billions of dollars? I don't really....wait, did someone touch my soccer?!"
<blind rage>



(Still, yes, it is good to see it happen from time to time.)

 

[StrangerGuy]

I don't think it would cost developed countries as much as it does the crappy ones. Look at the US. We have most of the infrastructure for the World Cup already. We have large stadiums and networks set up to handle large sporting events. It would benefit US soccer a lot and businesses would benefit, as we already have the stadiums. Countries that don't have this set up get massively screwed (except for maybe Qatar, as they got money to burn, for now). Brazil is going to be hurt. South Africa felt it hard. It doesn't offer them any benefit to host this, in rational eyes. But, of course, it isn't about economics. It is about pride.

Plus, South Africa and Qatar can qualify for the World Cup finals without being the host nation!


Likely. I don't think numbers are every officially published though. Brazil spend like $3 billion on 2014 and Russia is estimated to be spending $5 billion. There likely won't generate that back. Even if the US spend $1 or $2 billion, it wouldn't likely make money from the game itself. Rather, it would grow a sport that would eventually "make" that money back and it wouldn't exactly ruin the economy.

Bullshit, it has always been about economics. The kind where any sort of massive spending will inevitably line up the pockets of politicians of the host nations.

 

[Imp]

Toronto gets the Pan Am games this summer. Starts in a month or two. Wonder how much money it'll lose relative to Olympics.

<In before American asks what Pan Am games are.>

 

[AcidBurn69]

They'll bribe themselves out again

 

[zinfamous]

is it a fact that almost all host country lose money in either WC and Olympic?

almost certainly, but as has been said before, it depends on the host city and usable existing infrastructure.

However, that type of efficiency is probably never going to happen again, because I think the IOC only accepts bids that show new, super fancy, super expensive facilities, specifically for the Olympics.

It's no longer simply the $50 mil for hookers and blow that taxpayers have to fork over for the IOC board over those two weeks. They want more!

 

[lothar]

I don't think it would cost developed countries as much as it does the crappy ones. Look at the US. We have most of the infrastructure for the World Cup already. We have large stadiums and networks set up to handle large sporting events. It would benefit US soccer a lot and businesses would benefit, as we already have the stadiums. Countries that don't have this set up get massively screwed (except for maybe Qatar, as they got money to burn, for now). Brazil is going to be hurt. South Africa felt it hard. It doesn't offer them any benefit to host this, in rational eyes. But, of course, it isn't about economics. It is about pride.

Plus, South Africa and Qatar can qualify for the World Cup finals without being the host nation!


Likely. I don't think numbers are every officially published though. Brazil spend like $3 billion on 2014 and Russia is estimated to be spending $5 billion. There likely won't generate that back. Even if the US spend $1 or $2 billion, it wouldn't likely make money from the game itself. Rather, it would grow a sport that would eventually "make" that money back and it wouldn't exactly ruin the economy.

You mean to tell me that as popular as soccer is as a sport is in Brazil, they don't have enough stadiums?

That's akin to saying the US doesn't have enough NFL stadiums to hold a "world wide" NFL event.
Or that the Brits don't have enough stadiums to hold a FIFA match.

If this really true about Brazil, then wow. The one thing that they're good at, they goofed up.

 

[smackababy]

MLS is definitely doing well right now. But its also on a slippery slope. They are adding to many teams to fast. They have averaged adding a team every year since 2005. With 4 more teams slated to join and 4 more possible locations wanting teams. The MLS already has markets that dont sell out home games. if the MLS wants to keep adding teams they need to adopt a system like those used in Europe. Have multi level leagues (ie Tier 1, Tier 2, ect) Each year the bottom 2-3 teams are relegated from Tier to Tier 2. The top 2-3 teams from Tier 2 move up to Tier 1.

It might actually work better in the US than in Europe if we kept the salary caps in place as that would prevent teams from just blowing tons of money on players.

I definitely agree, but we'd need another 10+ teams for that. IMO, that would actually elevate US soccer skill and bring it closer to the bigger Europe leagues. We'd get more talent, more young players getting experience, and more reason not to lay down.

And, as a spectator sport, MLS is by far the cheapest. "Good" seats at Chicago Fire, for example, are like $40 a piece. There are even $2 beer nights. It is amazing, if you like soccer.

You mean to tell me that as popular as soccer is as a sport is in Brazil, they don't have enough stadiums?

That's akin to saying the US doesn't have enough NFL stadiums to hold a "world wide" NFL event.
Or that the Brits don't have enough stadiums to hold a FIFA match.

If this really true about Brazil, then wow. The one thing that they're good at, they goofed up.

Brazil did not have stadiums that could hold the capacity of world cup matches. You think Santos (Brazil's most popular football club) can host a World Cup game with their 16,000 capacity stadium? Nope.

The US has stadiums for other sports that suit World Cup stage (football and baseball), and that is the only reason they have the infrastructure. England could likely do it, but it would be pushing it. I think most of their football stadiums only hold around 40,000. I know Old Trafford (Man United's stadium) holds more though. It would be even more difficult due to the lack of travel between matches, unlike in a lot of other countries.

 

[lothar]

They're probably the second most corrupt NGO in the world only after the International Olympic Committee. So much for being the "beautiful game."

If democratic countries were smart, they'd stop bidding on international sporting events. Let the dictators get screwed over.

I bet you 100% Kim Jong Um won't get screwed over.

http://kimjongunlookingatthings.tumblr.com/image/106550267049

"looking at a football match"

 

[smackababy]

I bet you 100% Kim Jong Um won't get screwed over.

http://kimjongunlookingatthings.tumblr.com/image/106550267049

"looking at a football match"

He wouldn't, just 99% of the NK people would.

 

[SSSnail]

He wouldn't, just 99% of the NK people would.

When that kid dies, it will be a very ugly death.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Brazil did not have stadiums that could hold the capacity of world cup matches. You think Santos (Brazil's most popular football club) can host a World Cup game with their 16,000 capacity stadium? Nope.

The US has stadiums for other sports that suit World Cup stage (football and baseball), and that is the only reason they have the infrastructure. England could likely do it, but it would be pushing it. I think most of their football stadiums only hold around 40,000. I know Old Trafford (Man United's stadium) holds more though. It would be even more difficult due to the lack of travel between matches, unlike in a lot of other countries.

Brazil spent something like $250 million on the stadium in remote, amazon basin Manaus. The roads in aren't sufficient, so they had to bring materials up the Amazon by barge. That stadium was used for 4 games, and now sits empty. It is one of the most glaring examples of waste and misallocated resources ever.

Most of the larger BPL stadiums in the UK seat only about 20-30k, with the exception of Old Traf as noted, as well as Emirates (60k), and a couple of 50k stadiums. Still, the UK could pull it off easily.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Premier_League_stadiums

The USA hosted the event in 1994 and easily had the infrastructure in place to do so. Things have only improved since then. The easy fit for hosting here is that american football stadiums aren't being used during the summer, so they are all available, college and pro. That means somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-75 very large and modern venues are instantly available; many without significant alteration for the games.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_football_stadiums_by_capacity

That said, I fear this action will kill the 2026 bid (out of spite). I really wanna take my kids to a World Cup game.

 

[pcgeek11]

Soccer ... :|

Who cares.

 

[kranky]

The size and scope of the bribes and kickbacks they are accused of taking just astounded me. When you're moving hundreds of millions of dollars around, a lot of people have to be involved and I'm surprised the lid didn't come off sooner.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

Soccer ... :|

Who cares.

most people on this planet

 

[sdifox]

Soccer ... :|

Who cares.

US DOJ does...

 

[Anubis]

Soccer ... :|

Who cares.

The world

 

[Anubis]

Brazil spent something like $250 million on the stadium in remote, amazon basin Manaus. The roads in aren't sufficient, so they had to bring materials up the Amazon by barge. That stadium was used for 4 games, and now sits empty. It is one of the most glaring examples of waste and misallocated resources ever.

Most of the larger BPL stadiums in the UK seat only about 20-30k, with the exception of Old Traf as noted, as well as Emirates (60k), and a couple of 50k stadiums. Still, the UK could pull it off easily.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Premier_League_stadiums

The USA hosted the event in 1994 and easily had the infrastructure in place to do so. Things have only improved since then. The easy fit for hosting here is that american football stadiums aren't being used during the summer, so they are all available, college and pro. That means somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-75 very large and modern venues are instantly available; many without significant alteration for the games.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_football_stadiums_by_capacity

That said, I fear this action will kill the 2026 bid (out of spite). I really wanna take my kids to a World Cup game.

yea the US is pretty much the only contry that can pull it off without an issue because of what we already have. The big European countries can come pretty close

in 94 we did it in football stadiums and the final was in the rose bowl, worked fine

in 99? the womans world cup did it again to great success, same type of venues,

a joint US/Canada WC host would be amazing.

also England they also have Wembley which seats 90k to use

and the US college football stadiums would not hold that many people when set of for soccer because the filed is much larger

 

[VtPC83]

Soccer ... :|

Who cares.

Note sure if you're joking or not but along the same line as this, I love seeing my fellow Americans display their ignorance of the most played/viewed sport on the planet because I get a good laugh out of it, each and every time.

 

[smackababy]

Brazil spent something like $250 million on the stadium in remote, amazon basin Manaus. The roads in aren't sufficient, so they had to bring materials up the Amazon by barge. That stadium was used for 4 games, and now sits empty. It is one of the most glaring examples of waste and misallocated resources ever.

Most of the larger BPL stadiums in the UK seat only about 20-30k, with the exception of Old Traf as noted, as well as Emirates (60k), and a couple of 50k stadiums. Still, the UK could pull it off easily.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Premier_League_stadiums

The USA hosted the event in 1994 and easily had the infrastructure in place to do so. Things have only improved since then. The easy fit for hosting here is that american football stadiums aren't being used during the summer, so they are all available, college and pro. That means somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-75 very large and modern venues are instantly available; many without significant alteration for the games.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_football_stadiums_by_capacity

That said, I fear this action will kill the 2026 bid (out of spite). I really wanna take my kids to a World Cup game.

The few I looked up were between 30k and 45k (Old Traford excluded), but I didn't look up a bunch of the smaller clubs. But yes, the US has everything in place to host a World Cup with little "prep". We have stadiums, hotels, transportation, food accommodations, etc in place already.

I think the US has a good chance of getting the 2026 bid IF they want. Although, the chance of FIFA awarding it to a country willing to actually arrest the corrupt people at the top is probably pretty low.

There is still a good chance I'd be going to the 2022 Qatar cup anyway. It is in a place I wouldn't mind visiting and a small enough country I can see the games I want with minimal travel.

 

[TwiceOver]

Bribed, that's funny. They were being "Lobbied".