Who should get the 2006 WC Finals?

[jsbach]

With the huge drive in England to get the World Cup Finals in 2006, there must be a lot of you out there that are hoping for this...
SO...

how about telling why you think they should (or shouldn't) get it.
Or who should and why...

 

[Canoe]

I don't agree, but this is an extract from a recent news headline


Pele backs South Africa bid
Pele has become the latest big name to back South Africa's ability to hold the 2006 World Cup.
FIFA president Sepp Blatter said last week that he believed it was Africa's turn to host the event, and Pele has backed that suggestion.
The Brazilian great said: "African football has really improved in recent years, but Africa remains the only continent never to have organised and held the World Cup."

 

[jsbach]

I think South Africa will get it due to the political nature of these things, but I personally am a bit nervous about what would happen there.

South Africa is a country new to democracy and there are many many many problems.
The infrastructure to handle such a huge event is just not there. They can't handle their own crime problems (Some of the most violent cities in the world, statistically)... how can they be expected to handle the security problems that might arise from hooliganism?

Personally, I think on one level it would be great for South Africa or Brazil to hold the 2006 WC, but they simply don't seem to have the infrastructure in place, or the resources to get it there.
That is where England and Germany have the advantage. I don't think anyone doubts that they'd be able to put it together.
What they have going against them is the fact that France, also from UEFA, just had 98.
I'd give it to England over Germany because it's been 8 more years since they had it.

 

[AJAX supporter]

I want it in a country of which the hosts stand a realistic chance of winning it, so that's Germany, England, or Brazil.

I read that Pele thought that the state of the Brazilians stadiums is awful and the WC should not be held there, so that leaves England and Germany as my favourite candidates.

England had Euro 96, but the new Wembley stadium looks promisingly spectacular, but Germany has great stadiums too. I wouldn't mind in which of the 2 it would be.

Hopefully not South Africa, they just stand a chance of winning it, and with the 2002 going to Asia, 2006 should go back to Europe, European nations are the driving force behind world soccer, so a European nation should host the WC at least ever 8 yrs I think, most nations stand a realistic chance of winning too.

 

[ZZUB]

The world cup I think will be held in South Africa simply because Fifa want all the Confederations to have held the world cup by 2010.
Personally I would like to see England host it but i suspect its going to go to South Africa.
With respect to South Africas infrastructure being able to host the tournament I believe South Africa will be able to cope easily. In 1995 South Africa hosted the best and biggest Rugby World cup without trouble. It isnt a minor tournament, it is behind the Soccer world cup, Olympics and world Atheletics the biggest sports tournament in the world.
The key to all of this is FIFA's approach to how they develope the game, sadly I dont think England will win the bid.
With FIFA having stated that they want all the confederations to host the tournament by 2010 this would indicate they will give it to Oceania in 2010 which means that Australia and New Zealand would be likely co hosts. Right now New Zealand has made a huge success of the Under 17 world cup and Australia is all set to host the Olympics. Again both countries if working together will be more than capable of hosting the world cup
If things go as the current direction Sepp Blatter is heading in i dont think Europe will see the world cup hosted there till 2014.
Mike

 

[GOONERBHOY]

SCOTLAND. THE REAL HOME OF FOOTBALL.
What`s that "football`s coming home" rubbish.

I think Australia Should Host it. They are doing well with the Olympic organisation and it`s the only way the Aussies will Qualify now that FIFA have stuck them in the American qualifying group.

 

[Messiah]

I don't believe that South Africa will host the WC 2006 due to the high crime rate there. I think it'll either be held in England or in Germany but i hope it'll be in Germany.

 

[jsbach]

The problem is that FIFA seems to lump North and South America together on this issue.
Therefore, since Mexico had it in 86 and the USA had it in 94, that hurts Brazil's chances a bit.

I gather that the main problems with Brazil's bid are a matter of poor organization to the campaign and a lack of money and other resources to reconstruct the facilities.

The World Cup has come a long way since 1950.

Personally, I wish Brazil had a better bid put together because I think they are due to host and the atmosphere of a World Cup in Brazil, now with world media attention could do more for the sport worldwide than anything FIFA has going.

 

[Lord]

I think South Africa and Germany are the biggest names, but South America didn´t host a WC for 6 WC´s, so It´s already time for a South American Cup.

WC´s in Asia, Africa are good for business, for the game, but South America and Europe are the base of soccer.

Argentina support the WC in Brazil.
Brzilians satdiums are +-, but to fix it is easy. South Africa needs to build (I think) some Stadiums to hold a WC, and Barzil already have more then 5 stadiums for more then 80000 peoples.