Skip to main content

View Diary: [UPDATE - MORE PHOTOS] 200,000 Rise Up in Brazil - "The People Have Awakened" (333 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  FIFA, who organize the world cup, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ladybug53, Eric Blair, AoT, Quicklund

    require no fewer than 9 different host stadiums... but they have to be "nice" stadiums, i.e. fit for the global elite, i.e., super expensive.  Plus all the 'necessary' infrastructure projects, etc., that get tagged on as well.

    As we saw in South Africa, sometimes the country doesn't have enough high-income folks to fill the stadiums afterwards, and they sit as empty hulks.  But FIFA has already washed their hands of you and moved on.

    FIFA is also deadset against multi-country hosts, even though they acknowledge it worked the one time they tried it.  Granted, there are practical concerns...  Two concerns are that the host team automatically qualifies for one of the coveted 32 spots, so the more hosts you have, the fewer spots there are for other teams... and if you're going back and forth between two countries outside the Schengen zone, you can run into the usual difficulties.

    Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

    by nominalize on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 07:34:06 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  South Africa had pretty good attendance, actually. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      leftangler

      See: World Cup Attendance figures

      The 2010 World Cup in South Africa had the 5th highest average attendance, at 49,670 per game.  The 1994 World Cup in the US had the highest average per game attendance at 68,991, but that particular World Cup is an outlier as no other World Cup has been even close to that in average attendance.  The 2nd highest average attendance was the 2006 World Cup in Germany, at 52,491 per game, and the South African attendance is very close to that.

      I recall during the 2010 World Cup, there were lots of articles written that trashed the South African World Cup for low attendance.  Those stories were bullshit and based on ignorance of World Cup history (and I suspect an effort to show that Africa is incapable of hosting a large international event "properly").  It's always been the case that the World Cup had plenty of games with low attendance (usually games that involve neither the "big names" nor the host country), no matter where the World Cup is played, be it Europe, South America, Mexico, Africa, Asia.

      Speaking of Asia, there's a perception that the 2002 World Cup in Korea/Japan had monster attendance.  In fact, it's pretty far down on the list at 11th place at only 42,269 per game, well below South Africa's attendance.

      •  When I talk about low attendance, (0+ / 0-)

        I talk about the period after the World Cup, once the world's worth of people went home.  Neither the soccer or rugby pro leagues come close to filling the stadiums; the national teams and star concerts only fill them on an occasional basis.  
         

        Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

        by nominalize on Tue Jun 18, 2013 at 07:16:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ah, ok. (0+ / 0-)

          But I think it was worth it for South Africa's pride, morale, public spirit.  Sometimes cities and countries want to do things just for the uplift, lift the people's spirits, make a statement to the world that "we've arrived."  South Africa didn't have existing facilities, so they had to build them, to host the WC.  I don't know if they think it's worth it now, but I think they thought it was worth it at the time, judging from listening to South African talk radio via the web (www.702.co.za).

          Of course, the ideal is to be able to host big events like the WC using already existing facilities, like the US did.  The US used already existing NFL and college football stadiums, which only needed minor, if at all, renovations and tweaks to host FIFA games.

    •  FIFA also insists on rotating continents/regions (0+ / 0-)

      which is also bullshit. Do we really need to rotate all over the planet? England can't host for awhile because Germany did recently, and the US is out for awhile I dunno why, because every other region has hosted other than Oceania, and you have no teams there that can play competitively ( well the US couldn't in 94 but hey, and they still aren't world beaters, but FIFA wanted the game to catch on in the US. It still isn't a big sport here, but it is taken somewhat more seriously than in the days when people asked, does it hurt to head the ball? )

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site