Where should the World Cup be held in 2006?

[AJAX supporter]

I definitely think either England or Germany.
I think its stupid holding the world cup in countries who have no chance of winning it.

I think the world cup should only be held in the following countries: Italy, France, Brazil, USA, Argentina, Spain, Portugal, Germany, England or Mexico.

I'm strongly against co-hosting, it leaves less qualifying places and its pretty stupid.

 

[celtic fc]

MOST OF THOSE COUNTRIES YOU MENTIONED HAVE ALREADY HOSTED THE WORLD CUP!I SAY ITS SCOTLAND'S TURN!!!!

 

[F.B Forever]

I think it shoul be in TURKEY because by 2006 there will be a lot of new stadiums in Turkey. Anyway the stadiums are already good in turkey.

 

[shez]

i think the 2006 world cup must be hosted by England or Germany,because they're more likely to challenge for the title,which will make it a more successful world cup since the host nation goes far in the tournament,if a country wants to host the world cup it needs to have a strong national team,or what's the use of your home advantage if you know that you'll be out from the first round.

 

[RS91]

It should be held in my backyard. I'll supply the beer!

 

[AJAX supporter]

So the German and English bids were outstanding, I doubt that Brazil's, Morocco's and South Africa's bid will be better. Brazil's stadiums are in awful condition, I don't think many teams would feel safe in a nation such as Morocco and South Africa can only host rugby WC's not the biggest and best World Cup tournament.
And by the way, Scotland??haha, I think more than an avergae of 15,000 spectators will want to WC games, but 15,000 is about the average amount of capacity in Scotland soccer stadiums. It will most likely be England I guess, maybe Germany in 2010 or 2014.

 

[J.Karlsson]

If we went back 40 years in time, maybe Scotland could've had a chance of hosting the Cup...Sweden hosted it in 1958 you know...

Things are not the same today I guess...

 

[Jim Beam]

Only teams who could win it, and you include ENGLAND???? The only way they could win it IS by hosting it.

If we were to go by that standard then '94 wouldn't have been played in USA and was one of the best hosted tournaments.

The tournament should go to the countries who have the finances to host it properly and should also swap continents each time.

 

[LIVERPOOL FC]

I'd agree England or Germany. Since i'm British i'll obviously vouch for England.
Scotland? However, I would not mind a few of the games being played at Parkhead, Ibrox, Hampden, and the Millenium stadium in Wales.
Turkey? Oh yes, were fans attempt to kill foreign players (Welcome to hell), and where the police strike players with their battons. Remember Schmeical and Robson, not only were the fans throwing missiles at them, but the police joined in aswell.
Please dont say that English fans are worse, they just get a bad rep. German, Dutch, Italian, Spanish are just as bad. In fact, name me a country that has eliminated fan violence.

 

[j-rome]

The US has little to no fan violence. But then again, compared to other leagues, the MLS has little to no quality football.

England should be the 2006 host. Their bid was called "stellar", and the venues are really without equal. 2010 would then most assuredly be in Africa, so Germany will have to wait until 2014 to even get a sniff at hosting.

J-rome
--------------
"A nil-all draw at Highbury?
We'll take it."

 

[Emerson]

I really think that the world cup 2006 should be held in germany because they have excellent stadiums and they are always one of the contenders for the title. I wouldn't like the world cup to be held in england because they already had the european championship in 1996.

 

[Jim Beam]

england did host Euro 96 and lets be honest, it was crap. Towns and Citys smashed up and some poor russian lad was stabbed because the english scum thought he was german. Their pigs and shouldn't be allowed to host a tournament until they smarten up.