Africa v Europe after Brazil pulls out
- AAP

Then it became Europe versus Africa for World Cup 2006.

Brazil's late decision today to withdraw from bidding for the 2006 championship and throw its weight behind South Africa has put even more pressure on Germany and the ailing bids of England and Morocco.

The South Africans appeared ahead anyway before the Brazilian football federation announced its decision to leave the race just two days before the 24 FIFA members sit down in Zurich for two days to decide the venue.

With FIFA president Sepp Blatter openly backing an African venue for the first time in 2006, the South Africans are now the clear favourites. Part of their campaign is that Europe has had nine of the 16 World Cups already.

Although the withdrawal of one of the five contenders should theoretically strengthen each of the cases of the other four, it doesn't work that way.

If Brazil had stayed in the hunt, it may have pulled some voters away from South Africa.

But there's a strong chance now that the three South American votes (Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay) could swing to South Africa and the Germans, confident they will get seven of the eight European votes, will have to to look elsewhere for support.

It's likely that the four African votes (Cameroon, Tunisia, Botswana and Mali) will decide to put their weight behind one candidate rather than splitting and risking a loss to Europe altogether.

That means backing South Africa which already has the stadiums and massive support of the fans to make a strong case ahead of Morocco.

The four Asian votes (South Korea, Thailand, Qatar and Saudi Arabia) three from CONCACAF (United States, Trinidad and Tobago and Costa Rica) and one from Oceania (New Zealand) remain targets when the four remaining candidates present their campaigns on Wednesday.

The Asian confederation has said it would leave its four executive committee members to vote as they wish rather than hand down a mandate while the CONCACAF trio have been strongly targeted by the English campaign team.

England's bid has been badly hit by the violence of its fans at Euro 2000, which prompted soccer's European governing body UEFA to theaten expulsion from the competition, and also a FIFA inspection report which says its facilities are technically inferior to those of South Africa and Germany.

Nevertheless, bid committee member Bobby Charlton, who was on the England team that won the World Cup in 1966 and is one of the most respected figures in the game, was upbeat when he arrived in Zurich today.

"I feel excited about it," the former Manchester United great said.

"I am not afraid of anyone. We can compete with the best out there even though we have had our problems.

"Some people are saying we should throw the towel in. It's not our way to do that. That's not what will happen, believe me.

"We're not finished yet," Charlton said.

"We know we have a fantastic bid and that won't change whatever happens and we will continue right up until the last minute."

The voting process is that, if one of the four contenders gets more than half the votes, it wins straight away. If that doesn't happen, the last place bidder goes out and the voting starts again until there is a clear winner.

While it looks like a South Africa v Germany final, Danny Jordaan, South Africa's bid leader, isn't celebrating early and, like Charlton, will fight his case up until the last minute.

"We have exceeded every one of the FIFA requirements," he said.

"Nobody is in any doubt that South Africa can host a very profitable and successful World Cup.

"Nine of the 16 World Cups so far have been played in Europe.

"Germany and England are asking FIFA to make that 10 and give each of them what would be their second tournament," Jordaan said.

"Africa is asking for its first in over 100 years of the game."

GO SOUTH AFRICA!!!

Yep, it sure is looking good for South Africa at the moment, It will be very good for African football if South Africa do manage to present it.........

anybody other than england would be a good choice!

Why Shez?

England has the best football grounds in the world? You can't debate that. Old Trafford, Anfield, St. James, Ewood Park, Ellan Road, Stanford Bridge, and Wembley. The list goes on.

We have one of the best police forces in the world. Well capable of dealing with violence. Would you have the World Cup go to South Africa? With the highest murder rate in the World?

Face the facts. We are the best equipped, the most organized, and the country most capable of showing the world a brilliant World Cup.

If the world cup would to be presented in europe ,I would go for Germany,they have good stadiums too.England would be the worst hosts ,hooligans will still destroy the event wether the policemens are there or not .I rather have it morrocco or in south Africa than England .

Paolo_Rossi,
Don't be silly - how much violence do u see at Premier League matches IN ENGLAND?? None, because we can control the animals - it's when the minority of thugs leave the country they go wild. We have some of the best stadia too - look at Euro 96? But whatever, I guess it's 'in' to hate England now. Let it go to South Africa.


[This message has been edited by Neutral (edited 07-04-2000).]

South Africa is BIG no. Violence would be a big problem. England is the nation with the best facilities and the best police force.

We can DEAL with any violence. We are a footballing nation. We host the Premier League year in and out. We are the BEST CHOICE.

Hell if it's a mater of size let's do it in Uruguay we have 6 or 7 good stadiums and there is no violense towords countries.

URUGUAY FOR 2006!!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!

I wanted that WC to be played in Brazil!!!

I hope it will go to RSA now, **** Germany.

To Mr a_shearer : Ha!

I do really hope it goes to South Africa...

South Africa has an apalling high crime rate! Great Britain has to instruct their policeman for heavens sakes!

Do you like football Neo?
Do you want to see a World Cup that is hosted in quality stadia?
Do you want to see a World Cup protected by one of the best police forces in the world?
Do you want to see a World Cup in a nation dedicated to the sport?

Then you want to a World Cup in England! We are the logical choice! We are the Luxury Sedan of World Cup bids! A safe enjoyable and comfortable ride! http://www.soccergaming.com/ubb/smile.gif http://www.soccergaming.com/ubb/smile.gif

Stop being anglophiles and xenophobes and BACK OUR BID! http://www.soccergaming.com/ubb/smile.gif

hohoho..hahaha...

You laugh now, but when the entire Italian mens team is hung by their long golden hair from a tree somewhere outside Johannesburg and then whipped within an inch of their life until they cough up 6 trillion lira you won't think its so funny.

http://www.soccergaming.com/ubb/smile.gif

It just keep gettin' better and better...

And the bloody Germans wouldn't be much better. Remember the AMAZING job they did policing the Olympics in Munich?

Do you have any actual reason for not wanting England to host the World Cup?




[This message has been edited by a_shearer (edited 07-04-2000).]

Yes!

Africa diserve this. Europe have had enoughf WC for know. Also, Europe should get less teams in and alow 1 Oceania team a direct pass.

GIVE IT TO AFRICA!!!!!!!!!

England DO NOT deserve to host it and never should again till they can keep there animals under control!!!

Europe has hosted enough. I don't consider England part of Europe.

England has hosted ONCE that I can recall.

We have BETTER FACILITIES than Africa and are more equipped to stop violence!

South Africa has one of the highest violent crime rates in the world. Germany have proven themselves incapable through the Olympics in Munich!

England 96' was a major success! England will give the world a brilliant, safe, and enjoyable World Cup. None of the other bidders can promise that.

Here's my prediction they will give it to South Africa and then switch it at the last moment to humm, USA! (for reasons of political unrest, crime, whatever...)don't believe it? Just remember Colombia 86....

Beckenbauer - World Cup dream is over ..

The announcement yesterday that a deal has been struck between South Africa and Brazil for reciprocal support for the African bid for the 2006 World Cup and for the South American bid in four years' time has angered Franz Beckenbauer.

"That deal is offensive," he complained.

"It is horse-trading and means that we have probably lost the bid."

Beckenbauer had acted as ambassador for his country's bid and Germany, along with South Africa, are ahead of England and Morocco in the running to host the tournament.

Former South African president Nelson Mandela revealed on Tuesday that he was telephoning two nations to ask for their support when FIFA vote on Thursday, but he refused to name the countries.

However, South African bid chief Danny Jordaan maintained that he would campaign right up until the deadline. "South Africa's 2006 campaign is taking nothing for granted and will continue to press its case until the very last moment," he said.

Shearer, yer really not that bright are ya?!

England not a part of Europe?!! Get real man.
Q) Do you realise where England and the rest of the UK would be if it wasn't for the EU?
A) A poxy little island of the coast that's where.
What is about people like you? So wound up in your English pride you can't see the facts in front of your nose. England is shafted mate. Whatever glorious past you dream of is just that. The past!!

And as far as the WC bid goes you may as well dream on about that too!! Your fans once again proved that they are animals so who in their right minds would give your nation a chance to host it. You crack me up man, you really do!!!

Mark,
there is a distinction between the majority of harmless England fans, and the minority of English holigans.

btw - I think Polish Power's predicition might not be too far off the mark.

Give the world cup to Australia!!!!

well at least let us in it!!
meaning give us direct qualification to it!

Charlton refuses to concede

Sir Bobby Charlton, along with campaign director Alec McGivan, is due to address the 24-man FIFA executive in Zurich tonight as England make their final presentation before tomorrow's vote to decide who has won the contest to stage the 2006 World Cup.

Although England’s bid seems to have fallen well behind Germany and favourites South Africa, Charlton has vowed to campaign to the bitter end.

"If we had withdrawn I would have felt so ashamed that it would have lasted with me forever," said the former England captain. "I am not being foolish, but if we lose tomorrow then it will pass, but it is out of the question that we would withdraw.

"With the amount of work that thousands of people have put in with regard to our bid, it is not something we would even want to consider. It is not the British way."

The English team were in talks with CONCACAF president Jack Warner last night with the aim of winning last-minute support and Charlton is optimistic of securing their crucial backing.

"We are a long way from being dead," he claimed. "We speak to lots of people and get different opinions. Things change by the minute, and I am still convinced that we are very much in this race."

Mark, I HATE the European Union because they are federalist SOCIALISTS.

They hate the United Kingdom. They always have. I refuse to let them pollute the UK's economy with their worthless currency and politics.

This policy of isolation that THEY have instigated reflects on UEFA.

Hey a_shearer what the heck are you, the english version of Hitler??. And they accuse the French of being chauvinists.

You crazy english think you are so hot. There are so many reasons the world cup should go to south africa and so many reason why England should not get it.
So to all you english people out there who are sure england will get it let me say one thing, YOU WON'T. Now stop denying and face reality. Your great football days are over and never to be seen again, you didn't happen to see euro 2000 did you? That is england of the present. England should switch to something like water polo. See you in South Africa (i'm not from SA by the way.)

I might aswell ask you if you were Stalin?

The EU is an awful idea. So is single currency. So is globalisation.

It will de-stabalise the British economny and force us to correct the financial mistakes of the Germans, French, Greeks, Italians.....so on and so on.

Does anyone here have any good reasons why it shouldn't go to England?

Apart from your xenophobic ravings?

We have better facilities, better police, all in a football mad country.

Plus, we have only hosted ONCE.

No, but Jack Warner,the president of the former CONCACAF does:

Warner says England should have withdrawn

LONDON, July 3 (Reuters) - North and Central America (CONCACAF) soccer president Jack Warner said on Monday he believed England's bid for the 2006 World Cup finals is doomed to failure.
England's 2006 campaign team are still confident of gaining the three CONCACAF votes but it would appear that it will be too little too late.

Speaking on BBC radio Warner said the bid was irreparably damaged. ``I don't think England will be there beyond the first round if Morocco is out -- if Morocco is in they may go beyond the first round but no further,'' he said.

``I have a soft spot for England and I have tried to ask them to withdraw to save them from humiliation.

``It's quite likely I will vote for England in the first round. The English bid is good, the presentation is good. Unfortunately they have been the victims of a series of misfortunes.

``In the last month the English bid has nose-dived to a level where I don't think they will be able to recover. Until the end of May I think the English bid was doing extremely well, but in the last month or so things have taken a dramatic turn for the worse and that has caused some serious damage.''

DRUNKEN HOOLIGANS

Images of drunken English hooligans fighting in Brussels and Charleroi before and after the Euro 2000 clash with Germany scarred what was otherwise a successful tournament. The British government was afterwards criticised by UEFA for failing to stop troublemakers attending the match.

``They should have pulled out, it would have brought them back into the bosom of European football,'' added Warner. ``Let's face it England has been on the periphery of European football politics for a long while.

``If England had withdrawn they would have given the world a signal of magnamity and win back some friends in Europe. It would also have helped them bid for it again in four years.

``To get back to the centre of world football in the short term they will have to overcome the animosity that now exists for them in Europe. The English government will have to show that they can deal with the hooligans.''

His comments are the latest in a series of of blows to the English campaign, which now appear to be lagging behind those of Germany and South Africa

FIFA's technical inspection team last week ranked England's facilities as inferior to both Germany's and South Africa's.

Warner also said that England's early departure from Euro 2000 following two dismal defeats at the hands of Portugal and Romania had done nothing to enhance their bid.

``They will have to improve the level of their play on the field and that doesn't seem possible in the next four years until the era of the present players is over.''

Alec McGiven, the director of England's 2006 bid, responding to Warner's comments on the BBC agreed that events at Euro 2000 had left them facing an uphill battle.

``None of us have hidden from the fact that after the problems in Euro 2000 we have suffered a major setback, the question is can we recover from that. But I'm the first to admit that hooliganism has damaged not just this bid but the reputation of English football right around the world.''

``It's worth remembering that CONCACAF have three votes not just Jack Warner's and that they will probably vote as a group. I find it encouraging that he appears to be indicating that the CONCACAF votes will be with us on Thursday for the first round.''

a shearer here is a good reason.
it's africa's turn to host. North America had it then Europe then Asia and now Africa. Then the one after goes to South America. that 's the way it should be.
Plus england had it and europe has had it a lot now give someone else a turn give a continent a turn.
Plus another reason are hooligans. there would be too many in england. Even if you say SA has a higher crime rate the hooligans are seem to be more signifigant to the comitee, remeber how everyone was saying euro 2000 how england chances were bad now because of what happened.
Those, to me are the two main reaons, plus WC was just in France. To the English i say wait until 2014 at the earliest.

Iraq and Iran have never hosted. How about giving it to them? Or maybe Cuba? How about Kashmir?

Giving it to South Africa ISN'T SAFE! They don't have the facilities to deal with the hooligans.

Just because you have a problem with Europe doesn't mean you should throw away the World Cup to a nation that can't handle it.

The World Cup would be safer and more enjoyable in England.

No, a_shearer, you're right. South Africa won't be able to host the competition, having never hosted a big tournament like this before. The superbly handled Rugby World Cup of 1995 was held in a completely different country. The African Nations Cup has never been successfully held in South Africa. Teams travelling to South Africa flee in terror from the massive armed gangs on the streets and...

Enough of your white propaganda. England DO have the best stadia and facilities. However, South Africa ALSO have good stadia, good facilities, good infrastructure - more than enough to host a World Cup. Germany's bid is also a fine one. England have lost this bid because of their lack of UEFA support and the behaviour of fans (which would not be an issue in the championships). Germany have lost this bid due to their lack of campaigning outside of UEFA - they have not done enough to get CONCACAF's votes, and the votes of those who will vote for England and then change after England get knocked out of the voting. And to steal a phrase from the England bid, South Africa are ready, South Africa are right. Its time to spread football's biggest carnival into Africa.

White propoganda MY ASS! Any argument dealing with Africa and suddenly this becomes about racism! God, I hate you PC liberals.

This is not about which country is just "good". This is about which country is the BEST. England has all the best facilities and stadia. We are a superior choice. Its so SAD that we have to give Africa a World Cup just to be politically correct. They aren't ready to host a football tournament.

However, like you pointed out, they CAN successfully host a Rugby tournament because they have a nation of RUGBY fans. They are a rugby power. But you must admit that the World Cup will attract more fans than the Rugby World Cup! South Africa (the nation with one of the highest murder rate and THE highest rape rate in the world) can't physically handle it.

And BTW Zidane, I SPECIFICALLY brought up Iraq and Iran because they are also un-stable nations. Do you really want a World Cup to go to a third world nation?

LOL

White propaganda is a term coined during WWII for material that is used blatently to promote one sides point of view. Black propaganda was material that purported to be from one side but was from another, eg. Allied leaflets were written in German and dropped over Germany. Your own prejudices came out there by assuming it was a racist issue...

Hello,

I think this should be a decision PRO SOCCER and not PRO where the wc wasn't yet.

Germany <b>wants</b> to host the worldcup 2006. We have also great stadiums. Almost every club of the bundesliga is currently building a new arena.

Anyway, Southafrica would be a good host, too. But I think, when Germany 2006 will get WC2006, all the south africans will say some senseless racist comments. And that's really unfair. The best location should host the WC2006 and that's in my opinion Germany.

Stefan

A_shearer wahatar e you talking about then. of course no one wants a WC in a third world country, that would be stupid. They just don't have what it takes. But why are you talking about third world nations. If you think South Africa is a third world country you are badly mistaken. Your just a typical Brit who knows just make assumtions based on hardly any fact.
All signs point to South Africa. It's the only logical choice. They have everything they need, stadia, infrastructure everything. And their people love football too. Don't go saying that england should get it because they like football more. That's nonsense. Do you think USA is football crazy or Japan or even South Korea. Get real man.

Come on Stefan - Compare Bundesliga stadia like-for-like with Premiership venues and then tell me which are best. Theres no question which is the best country - England - but politics have prevailed.

Perhaps the term 'white-propoganda' wasn't the best choice of words eh Drinky?

You've all admitted that England is the best equipped nation to host the tournament.

So why South Africa? More politically correct bull**** I suspect.

"Africa hasn't had it yet *whine* *whine*." Well life just isn't fair!

If life was fair, 10 year olds would get to drink. But do you know why we don't let them? Because they aren't ready, haven't developed the right internal facilities, and it ISN'T SAFE!

a_shearer - If hosting the 2006 World Cup sauses ultimate armageddon in South Africa, feel free to come back here then and stick it to us. At the moment though, they have adequate stadia, experience of hosting a football event, and have the fact that we need to open up the game to new continents to enlarge the audience and get more people playing the game. South Africa is more than a politically correct choice, and it is patronising to them to say otherwise.

the best african country to give the world cup to would be MORROCCO (or however u spell it)

It hosts the King Hassan cup every year, and has the tourist facilites at Casablanca, Rabat etc.

Its national team is better than SOuth Africa's (they did better in the world cup and have done well in friendlies against Holland) (they did ok a year ago against france, but i know they got a bit hammered this year by the french)

They have not as much crime as south africa, and it is near Europe so more european fans could afford to go than in S.A.

England and Germany should give their votes to Morrocco just to piss the South Africans off for 'getting into bed' with the brazilians, over 2010 world cup.


It not just South Africa, but also Morrocco could be the first african world cup


chris

a_shearer

Look if England win you can come back here and tell us how bad of idiots we are. But every one knows that England doesn't stand a chance in hell. There's just NO way you will get it. Germany has a better chance than you. And still they wont' get it. Give up, hand the world cup to africa and try again in 2014 because you don't have a chance at the 2010 WC either. South Africa are more then able to host this event. They have fine stadia they have all the infrastructure they need, plus you can say it's africa's turn. There are a million reasons SA should get it and even more why England shouldn't.
So give up man. It's over. Maybe if you didn't have so many hooligans at Euro 2000 there might have been a slight chance.

England won't win.

Because FIFA is a liberal association determined to undermine the good of the game for their own political gain.

South Africa IS NOT the best choice. Everyone knows that. But FIFA wants to make the politically correct choice and give it to Africa. Its compromising the safety, integrity, and enjoyment of the game.

Sad and pathetic.

I personally like German stadiums, and the atmosphere is very clean. Security would not be a problem, I do not think.

Olympic stadium is just a masterpiece...and every other German stadium is very artistic and given a very modern look...

Plus, the National Team needs all the help it can get...

England would be nice, but after the Euro-cup, many oversea travelers might be too frightened to walk out with colours supporting their team...

And I agree with Shearer on South Africa...they are very behind when it comes to security...I know nothing of their mortality rate, but I know that theft is awful, and that they have the highest incident of rape in the world...I love the culture, but I pity their government...

I think Germany would be the best location...

I think the 2006 WC should go to the Island of Vanuatu. They're in the middle of the Pacific. They probably have two or three quality pitches, the teams can practice on aircraft carriers belonging to their nations, the increased military presence would ensure that any holigan activity would be quickly stopped (throw the idiots into the sea). The weather is wonderful - except for occiasional tsunami that could kill eveyone on the island. Appointment would also mean automatic qualification for the Vanuatu national team which is a bonus for the locals.

http://www.soccergaming.com/ubb/smile.gif

Well a_shearer Iraq, Iran AND Kashmir happen to located somewhere in the vacinity of Asia. That is where the 2002 WC is being held. Plus there is fighting in Kashmir so we couldn't use that. Iraq and Iran dont' have the infrastructure. but South Africa does and will build more by 2004.
And what are you talking about hooligans??? Look in your own country. I'm not saying anying bad about england it's a great country but the hooligans are there and everyone knows it so face reality.

Ok Shearer, I'll name a couple of countries and you tell me which ones should host the WC even if they don't have bids for 2006...

1.Australia
2.Spain
3.Germany
4.Sweden
5.Italy
6.Argentina
7.Uruguay http://www.soccergaming.com/ubb/smile.gif (hey we only hosted once to!)
8.Morroco
9.Malaysia


Hey everyone let's back up Neutrals Bid! LOL

[This message has been edited by Bolso (edited 07-06-2000).]

South Africa is a big NO-NO for me.
a_shearer is right with some of his arguments

e.g. England has the better stadia,better police force to deal with hooligans,better facilities and more experience.

However, I believe that today, FIFA will vote for SA.Because of ONE reason, their trump card.......
Nelson Mandela: him alone got them the Rugby World Cup 95 and the African Nations Cup, so he will get them the World Cup before he croaks.... ooops! Sorry but it's the truth.

a_shearer did get a tad carried away in his arguments, but the sentiment was, and is, totally correct:

If you want a great World Cup, a safe WC, an enjoyable WC,a passionate WC,an exciting WC, in a football-mad country,
PICK ENGLAND!!!


PS: I'm from Eire so I have more reason to hate the English than anyone.LOL
Vote for Celtic Nations 2008 Euro Championships!!!!!!!!!!

None of the countries you have listed Bolso, have made preperations. (Germany noted.)

Germany to host in 2006
Well, well, this is a big surprise...

Germany have won the race to host the 2006 World Cup, defeating South Africa by 12 votes to 11 in the third round of voting by FIFA's 24-man executive committee.

England's three-and-a-half-year, £10million campaign to stage the event ended in failure in Zurich today when they were eliminated from the second round of voting, receiving only two votes, from Scotland and New Zealand.

That left Germany and South Africa to enter the third round with 11 votes apiece, with Germany strongly favoured to win, as both Scotland and New Zealand sided with the Europeans.

The Germans' shrewd campaign reaped reward in the final hours, with the four Asian countries backing their bid.

Morocco was eliminated in the first round, which saw England receive five votes.

Updated: Thursday, 6 July 2000 22:17:13



[This message has been edited by Black_Ned (edited 07-06-2000).]

That wasn't the point shearer...

Shearer

why cant idiots like you work out in your thick head that FIFA have to spread the so called "world game" to every part of the world!!

Sth Africa's facilities and infrastructure were ok for the world cup even if they arent teh best and if they got the world cup then it would give the Africans a chance to see the World game at its best.....

people like you have to realise people play soccer outside of europe and sth america...

u think its your right to have to world cup in your continent!

A_shearer reminds me of the anti-thesis of the 'liberal' attitudes he states - men sitting in a smoke-filled room patting each other on the back and winking that they'll do each other favours - because 'we don't want to see those dirty Africans host it - they probably haven't even heard of cars yet!' before guffawing loudly, handing it to an established nation and slapping each other on the back for doing the right thing and making sure only the tried and tested happens. I am usually meant to be impartial on these forums, but a_shearer's attitude on his one point nauseates me.