|
|
Post by cvtower on Dec 2, 2010 10:20:46 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by OfficialAztecINSIDER on Dec 2, 2010 11:01:46 GMT -8
Very curious choices to be sure. I'm really interested to see how Qatar pulls this off.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Frantic on Dec 2, 2010 11:18:01 GMT -8
No doubt some selection committee voters went to sleep last night knowing they were going to be very wealthy.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Dec 2, 2010 11:22:47 GMT -8
The U.S. is fast becoming the Rodney Dangerfield of the world in so many ways. They don't mind our money or our help in times of emergency, though.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by Frantic on Dec 4, 2010 9:39:05 GMT -8
I learned a little more about the selection process.
22 FIFA members make the decision. The members don't seem to be as interested in selecting sites that tourists will travel to; they are more interested in spreading soccer around the globe. At least that's the company line.
As to why the US was not selected, it seems FIFA believes we had our shot in 1994. We did a great job and it resulted in professional league that is still thriving to this day. Now it's someone else's turn.
I'm unsure why Russia was selected. Use your imagination.
As for why/how Qatar was chosen, Qatar apparently committed to spending $1 Billion to build 12 different stadiums around the country. There will be no use for the stadiums after the WC, so get this: after WC, the stadiums will be dismantled and then rebuilt in "needy" countries that lack stadiums. Thus, if there was hanky-panky going on in selecting Qatar, look to see where those stadiums end up. Follow the money!
It's also strange that TWO future sites were selected. It seems the current FIFA president wants to put his stamp on history (or maybe get a little extra coin?).
The US can bitch about not getting it again, but England probably has more right to bitch. For some reason FIFA and England don't get along.
Bottom line: if you are over the age of 40 you probably won't be alive to see another WC in the US.
|
|
