Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: SoccerInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  Sports e-mail alerts  |  RSS

Poll: 2018 World Cup should be held in .....

We'll take the United States out of the equation because, let's face it, FIFA wants a European country (or countries) to host the 2018 World Cup. Don't worry, my compatriots, the Americans are the front-runners for 2022. Vote for your Euro favorite:

By Steve Goff  |  September 10, 2010; 3:05 PM ET
Categories:  FIFA , USA World Cup bid  | Tags: World Cup  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Gulati discusses U.S. World Cup bid
Next: Bob Bradley addresses decision to start Ricardo Clark in World Cup round-of-16 match vs. Ghana

Comments

If other options are available, why have it in a country that has already hosted the tournament?

Posted by: nico78 | September 10, 2010 3:12 PM | Report abuse

my thoughts exactly. I would choose a place that hasn't hosted yet. Russia has the money and corruption to make a World Cup successful. It's such an enormous country though...will they be keeping the tournament in the west centered on Moscow and St. Petersburg? Or will they put stadiums in more far-flung regions of the country.

Spain(/Portugal) has no money. But I suppose there is plenty of infrastructure already in place. They have already hosted and not that long ago.

Netherlands/Belgium is interesting, but aren't most of their stadiums pretty small? I thought FIFA didn't like these joint bids.

I didn't vote for England because they are just too snobby when it comes to soccer.

Posted by: fedssocr | September 10, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

hehe joint bids

Posted by: Reignking | September 10, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

By 2018 we won't be seeing C. Rinaldo, Sergio Ramos, Andrés Iniesta, Xabi Alonso or David Villa playing in the WC. But you can bet both countries will still, at the least, be proud of these players. At the best, Spain will still be a country worth talking about when it comes to soccer. I think you'll get a good amount of people from the States going there for the WC.

Netherlands/Belgium would also be an awesome location but I think you'll get less interest stateside about actually going there to watch games.

England is the easiest, for obvious reasons, if one of FIFA's goals is to get Americans to the game. I think personally it's the most boring of the European choices.

Russia........... I'd rather take my changes in the streets of Brazil or South Africa over Russia any day of the week. Plus it's a helluva long plane right from the U.S. But, to play devil's advocate, the Russian government would sink BILLLLLLLONS into building some of the best stadiums most of us would ever get to see in our lifetime.

Posted by: Twitch703 | September 10, 2010 3:55 PM | Report abuse

Russia........... I'd rather take my changes in the streets of Brazil or South Africa over Russia any day of the week. Plus it's a helluva long plane right from the U.S.

Posted by: Twitch703 | September 10, 2010 3:55 PM
---------------------------------------------

Russia's not that far. Sarah Palin can see it from her house...

Posted by: Kenobi | September 10, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

"Netherlands/Belgium would also be an awesome location but I think you'll get less interest stateside about actually going there to watch games."?!?! r u serious Twitch?

I was in SA for the cup and one thing I leraned over there is...the Dutch not only know how to party but r probably the nicest Europeans you'll meet (in gereneral of course) and the transport systems r top notch. (SA was tough to get to more than 2 cities and Brazil is going to be even worse when you see where their stadiums r located) I for one would love to go to Brazil in 14 and The Netherlands in 18...

Russia on the other hand is just way too expensive to most Americans (not just getting there but the actual cost of living and hotels etc.)

England is just a miserable place to visit let alone live...sorry Brits.

Wouldn't mind Spain/Portugal so hopefully its btw Spain & the Dutch

Posted by: TinyJordan | September 10, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

I voted Spain/Portugal because I would love to take my daughter there to watch the WC!

Posted by: boda-united | September 10, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

I voted for Madrid because I have friends there. Pure self-interest, but I'm not going to blah, blah, blah about infrastructure, new hosts, and "coffeehouses." My friends' house is the only infrastructure I need.

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | September 10, 2010 7:04 PM | Report abuse

England is just a miserable place to visit let alone live...sorry Brits

Posted by: TinyJordan | September 10, 2010 4:46 PM

Ha! Have you tried? I'm guessing you haven't lived there by using a moronic term like 'Brits'.

England is not the best footballing nation on earth, but it is the best place to watch football. I've loved my trips to Holland, Belgium, Spain and Portugal - bit none of them compare to the experience you'll get watching the game in England. Stadia built for atmosphere, knowledgable fans, great places to drink, cosmopolitan populace and a
max of four hours by train between venues. I can't believe people would be so myopic in their Anglophobia that they would rather watch the World Cup in frickin Russia over England.

Posted by: Kev29 | September 10, 2010 11:03 PM | Report abuse

Yes I'm speaking from experience Kev. Been across the pond on numerous occasions even got a chance to watch Arsenal at Highbury. And your right about the atmosphere in the stadiums, it was an experience I'll never forget. But every time I have to go over there I'm not too happy about the food and weather...esp the food.

I look at it like this...If the WC wasn't in the equation, which country would i want to vacay in? You can call it Anglophobia but Engerland ties for dead last with Russia.

Posted by: TinyJordan | September 10, 2010 11:30 PM | Report abuse

After numerous trips to the UK you still eat English food?

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | September 11, 2010 10:18 AM | Report abuse

"Netherlands/Belgium would also be an awesome location but I think you'll get less interest stateside about actually going there to watch games."?!?! r u serious Twitch?"

Yes Tiny, I am serious..... and don't call me Shirley.

Here's my rationale: most Americans are going to be too intimidated to travel to N/B based on not understanding the language and not understanding the culture.

Now I said *most* Americans. Not all. And yes, I've been there and to other places in Europe plenty of times.

If I had to pick between N/B and S/P, as far as which location I think would be less intimidating for non-internationally experienced American travelers, I would choose S/P (of course England would be the obvious choice but I'm hoping that England is not the winner unless it comes down to Russia vs. England).

My opinion is coming from the perspective of which location I think will get the most Americans going abroad to participate if England is ruled out as the winner.

England would be the easiest to get to and would get the biggest American audience, no argument there. I'm just being selfish and hoping for S/P or N/B

Posted by: Twitch703 | September 13, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company