Dismiss Notice
Guest, I have a big favor to ask you. We've been working very hard to establish ourselves on social media. If you like/follow our pages it would be a HUGE help to us. SoSH on Facebook and Inside the Pylon Thanks! Nip

2022 World Cup In Qatar: 1,000 Workers Already Dead

Discussion in 'Breakfast with Gazza (with Sachmoneious Bullcrap)' started by Kliq, May 17, 2014.

  1. Kliq

    Kliq Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    7,327
    If this is the wrong place to put this I apologize, but I just saw a great article on Yahoo about the working conditions in the Qatar construction camps for the 2022 World Cup: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/-untouchable--fifa--president-sepp-blatter-responsible-for-atrocities-in-qatar-171943680.html
     
    According to the story, under media pressure, the Qatari government did an investigation into the labor practices of the work camps. It came out with some shocking information.
     
     
    It should be noted that the number came from the government's own investigation, so the actual number is potentially much higher then that. According to the story, most of the workers on the stadiums are impossibly poor migrant workers from surrounding countries. These workers are so desperate that they take out a loan to pay a recruitment company to place them with a job in Qatar.
     
     
    Most of the deaths come from cardiac arrest and from construction accidents, but there are also indicators that suicide is also a big problem in the camps.
     
    Sepp Blatter recently admitted that putting the world cup in Qatar was a mistake. Why? Because the Qatar summer was going to be too hot for soccer.
     
     
     
    The author makes a point at the end of the article saying that FIFA and the World Cup are so powerful that they don't have to fear these atrocities getting out, because they expect the public and politicians from powerful nations to ignore this problem. The World Cup is still 8 years away, so a lot can change, but personally, I don't think Qatar is going to be able to hold onto this tournament for much longer.
     
  2. Tony C

    Tony C Dope Dope

    Messages:
    10,684
  3. geoduck no quahog

    geoduck no quahog Well-Known Member Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    9,613
    I won't hijack this thread, but if anyone's interested - I can provide accounts of horrendous conditions for foreign workers throughout the Gulf, the reasons why...and the solutions.
     
    I have to be a little careful in case I ever end up working or visiting there again, particularly since at one point in my career I was given 72 hours to leave a country based on my attempts to change the situation. I called their bluff and stayed, but was always looking over my shoulder.
     
    There have been some attempts to address the situation in Abu Dhabi, but the underlying cause is so powerful that I doubt any real changes will come. 
     
  4. DrewDawg

    DrewDawg Dorito Dink SoSH Member

    Messages:
    28,186
    I'd be interesting in hearing what you can share...
     
  5. mikeford

    mikeford woolwich! SoSH Member

    Messages:
    24,041
    I'd be super interested to hear whatever you can share on that, geoduck. Maybe post it in one of the forums only members could see?
     
  6. Infield Infidel

    Infield Infidel teaching korea american SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,457
    The Sunday Times reporting at least $5m of pay-offs in the Qatar vote, by Bin Hammam, to FIFA voters in Africa, and also Trinidad (old friend Jack Warner), and also Tahitian Reynald Temarii. Qatar has always maintained that Bin Hammam, a Qatari, was not involved in their bid. 
     
    The full report is behind a paywall, but here's a synopsis http://www.espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1856097/qatar-football-officials-implicated-2022-world-cup-corruption-scandal?cc=5901
     
    The Tahitian one is crazy, Bin Hammam is alleged to have paid the legal fees of Temarii (who was suspended by FIFA) so that he would be reinstated in time to vote. If he hadn't been reinstated, the No. 2 Tahitian guy would have voted, and the No. 2 guy was going to vote for Australia instead of Qatar. 
     
    FIFA VP says he's open to a re-vote. http://www.espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1856293/fifa-vice-president-jim-boyce-open-2022-world-cup-re-vote-following-qatar-allegations?cc=5901
     
     
  7. soxfan121

    soxfan121 JAG Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    23,043
  8. Kliq

    Kliq Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    7,327
    Okay, so when Qatar loses this world cup bid (which they hopefully will, although with FIFA who the fuck knows) and the WC is only 8 years away now, who will pick it up? Does this make the US the number one option, since we will have no problem building the facilities in time?
     
    Also, the WC being held in the winter, during club season, is such a joke. That Sepp thinks that is a legit solution is just a testament to his utter battiness.
     
  9. Vinho Tinto

    Vinho Tinto Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    5,191
    What facilities need to be built in the US? Serious question. We have stadiums, hotels, highways, and airports.
     
  10. MiracleOfO2704

    MiracleOfO2704 not AWOL SoSH Member

    Messages:
    5,479
    Not necessarily. The Olympics involve making one city ready for several different sporting events, and they're given 7 years to totally build all structures and revamp infrastructure. Russia was named for WC2018 at the same time as Qatar's 2022 win, Germany 2006 was voted on in 2000, and Korea/Japan 2002 in 1996. So by FIFA's previous standards, 2022 shouldn't be up for vote until 2016.

    That said, this has been a disaster from the start, and getting 2022 out of Qatar should be one of Blatter's priorities.
     
  11. moly99

    moly99 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    939
    He doesn't think it's a legit solution. The alternative, though, is to let athletes die of heat stroke.

    It's very likely that Blatter is the one leaking the bribery info to the media in an attempt to discredit his rivals in FIFA (IE punish those who voted against him for the presidency) and possibly get the world cup moved.

    Personally I think the best punishment for both FIFA and the Qataris is to go ahead with the world cup in the gulf, and then have the athletes and fans boycott it.

    None, but that's true of England, Australia, Spain, Holland, Japan, etc as well.
     
  12. Infield Infidel

    Infield Infidel teaching korea american SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,457
    here's the interesting thing, FIFA has a rule that hosts must be from a confederation that hasn't hosted the past two cups. So if Qatar loses the WC, South America (Brazil 2014) and Europe (Russia 2018), are out. So the host would have to be from North America, Asia, Africa, or Oceania. 
     
    Oceania is out unless New Zealand puts a bid (not likely).
     
    In Africa, of the only historical bids, South Africa, Morocco, Egypt, SA already hosted recently, Egypt is in turmoil. Morocco could bid I guess, they are hosting African Nations Cup next year, But probably too much to build in too short a timeframe 
     
    So it'd be down to Asia/Australia, and North America. The bids would likely be US, Australia, Japan and China. US, Japan and China could host a WC tomorrow. Japan will also have a brand spanking new Olympic Stadium for Tokyo 2020. Australia would have some work to do since FIFA likes shiny new stadiums, but infrastructure-wise Australia would be fine. 
     
    I guess Canada and Mexico could bid, but like the South American country wrt Brazil, why build the stuff yourself when someone just across the border will do the heavy lifting?
     
  13. Fred not Lynn

    Fred not Lynn Dick Button Jr. SoSH Member

    Messages:
    4,563
    So if FIFA takes the World Cup away from Qatar, do they have to pay back the bribes?

    It's corrupt enough to take bribes in the first place, but taking the bribes and not delivering the thing they were for takes corruption to a whole new level...
     
  14. Luis Taint

    Luis Taint Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    5,883
    I would expect a lot of "accidents" occurring if Qatar gets stripped.
     
  15. Schnerres

    Schnerres Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,511
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_and_2022_FIFA_World_Cup_bids
     
    I think the previous bids should all be considered (USA, Japan, South Korea, Australia). And each should not have that many problems to build stadiums, highways, airports, hotels, etc. like South Africa had, for example. I think each country has enough of an infrastructure but may need some modernizing for several huge stadiums (VIPs, seatings, etc.) and build a few supermodern arenas.
     
  16. nolasoxfan

    nolasoxfan Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    2,666
    Bump this. Very interested.
     
  17. moly99

    moly99 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    939
    Is it really sensible to build a new stadium for a one time event?

    The 2022 Olympics bidding process is going terribly after Russia spent $51 billion on their winter Olympics. Thus far Sweden, Germany and Poland have lost public referendums or had their governments simply kill the project due to poor public support. Norway would lose if they held a referendum and the bid committee is desperately trying to get the government to fund the Olympics without a public vote.

    In the current global economic climate building a new stadium just for the world cup or Olympics seems really dumb. Why should Australia or South Korea build a new stadium for the World Cup so they can play four matches there?
     
  18. Cellar-Door

    Cellar-Door Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    13,031
    World cup usually isn't as bad. You don't need specialty stuff which is one of the most expensive parts of the Olympics.
    Winter is the worst because everything you build is worthless after the olympics (who is paying big money for a bobsled track?)
     
    Summer isn't as bad since you can sell the stadium, but still a major money loser, IOC regs make it tough, You have to build housing (WC uses existing hotels for teams), you have to have everything within a certain number of miles (WC spreads everything out across the country.)
     
    South Korea planned to build one new stadium if they won, but mostly they would use existing stadiums.
    US would likely build nothing (maybe St Louis, where the Rams need a new stadium and there has been a push for a MLS team as well might cut a deal to pay part then let the Rams buy it out).
    Australia is really the only bidder other than Qatar who planned to build multiple stadiums.
     
  19. DLew On Roids

    DLew On Roids guilty of being sex Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    13,636
    I'm waiting for the first corrupt FIFAcrat (redundant, I know) to make the argument that because so many have sacrificed so much, WC 2022 has to stay in Qatar. You know it's coming.
     
  20. Schnerres

    Schnerres Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,511
     
    Of course this makes no sense at all to build new stadiums or modernize half of them. But then, you could also ask, why aren´t we playing the WC in Italy, Great Britain, Germany, Spain (Europe), then US (North America), then Japan/South Korea(Asia), then Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay(South America), then restart in the same countries with the stadiums, just to save money.
     
    There are countries that don´t have stadiums at all and some who have old arenas. Yes, the US might have modern arenas. But i don´t know how many of them would be used for a WC. Usually, you want some matches to be played in bigger, important cities. So you don´t want the 4 quarterfinals in Buffalo, Cleveland, Cincinnati and Kansas City, the semis in Nashville and Jacksonville and the final in Green Bay, just because the have the best arenas (that was a ficitive scenario), you also want matches in Chicago, LA, New York, Dallas and Philly, for example. So maybe those stadiums need some renovations or they will be left out of a WC, which will bring a few million worldwide fans less to your city and less worldwide attention.
     
    I remember when Kaiserslautern was a WC city in 06. We were part of the whole fun, international guests came here, we had matches, visitors, it was basically a month long party (blessed by superb weather) and everything was great as long as it lasted.
    Today? Our stadium has about 48.000 seats, and it is almost never sold out these days. It was build to bring the WC to Kaiserslautern, created much drama (politicians invested money, were sent to hell, because stadium was too big for the clubs interests), some companies went into bankruptcy, the club went into 2nd Bundesliga again, etc.
     
    There are always two sides of the medal. The 1st is the short-sighted. You will get the WC, it will bring you world-wide attention, you will have a huge party, it could turn into a success (but still be a financial desaster). The backside is, the money you need to spend won´t be seen again. Never. Tourists? They come and they go. Cities like Kaiserslautern live in the memories of the WC visitors. But most of them won´t come again. I doubt the Australian socceroos came back, or the Saudis or the Paraguayans. Maybe some Italians, who don´t have to travel that far, but...they will travel to Munich no matter if we host a WC or not, and they won´t travel to Schalke or Kaiserslautern...:)
     
  21. DennyDoyle'sBoil

    DennyDoyle'sBoil Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill SoSH Member

    Messages:
    22,508
    The US bid did not include new stadium construction, for what it's worth. In 1994, FIFA allowed use of a couple of football stadiums that could not accommodate FIFA's preferred pitch size, but now I believe requires full dimensions. Newer NFL stadiums all are built (or most) to now accommodate a FIFA regulation pitch. Of the 18 stadiums identified in the bid, the ones without grass are probably a no go, though I would think by 2022, Jerry Joes would have figured out a way to get a grass field in his palace to get world cup games. Phoenix is a great natural grass venue, but in summer probably a no go. That leaves the fairly obvious contenders.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_2022_FIFA_World_Cup_bid
     
  22. DrewDawg

    DrewDawg Dorito Dink SoSH Member

    Messages:
    28,186
     
    Well, in the case of Canada, they'd get to actually play in it.
     
  23. dirtynine

    dirtynine Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    4,468
    They brought grass into the Sliverdome in '94.  The turf situation won't prevent any particular venue from hosting.  Here were the venues in '94:
     
    LA • Rose Bowl
    Detroit • Silverdome
    San Francisco • Stanford Stadium
    NYC • Giants Stadium
    Orlando • Citrus Bowl
    Chicago • Soldier Field
    Dallas • Cotton Bowl
    Boston • Foxboro Stadium
    DC • RFK Stadium
     
    From that list, only the Rose Bowl would be a repeat candidate to host.  (Well, Solider Field, but it's a radically different venue now.)  Even if you picked the same cities (not likely), you'd have new stadiums in each. (The outlier is Orlando - I don't think they'd be a repeat city anyway, but the Citrus Bowl is being heavily renovated soon.)
     
    Just running the experiment to its conclusion, here are nine possible venues today:
     
    LA • Rose Bowl
    NYC • Met Life Stadium
    San Francisco • Levi's Stadium (Santa Clara)
    Miami • Sun Life Stadium
    Chicago • (New) Soldier Field
    Dallas • AT&T Stadium (aka Jerryworld)
    DC • FedEx Field
    Seattle • CenturyLink Field
    Boston • Gillette Stadium
     
    Nothing would need to be built. 
     
  24. jsinger121

    jsinger121 @jsinger121 SoSH Member

    Messages:
    14,258
    You could even go with the New Stanford Stadium over Levi's Stadium as both are capable of hosting the world cup. New Stanford Stadium seats 50K.
     
  25. coremiller

    coremiller Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,396
     
    The Phoenix stadium was designed with this situation in mind.  It's a retractable roof stadium, so they'd close the roof during the summer for heat reasons.  But it also has a natural glass field that can be rolled in or out.  They grow the grass outside and then roll the field into place when needed. 
     
  26. swiftaw

    swiftaw Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,731
     
    Or both, the world cup requires 12 stadia with no more than 2 per city. 9 must hold at least 40,000, 2 must hold at least 60,000 (for the semi-finals) and one must hold 80,000 (opening match and final). 
     
  27. Bosoxen

    Bosoxen Bounced back Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    9,523
     
    AT&T Stadium hosts soccer every summer with a temporary grass surface. In fact, there was a game there on Saturday between Mexico and Ecuador. No, it's not World Cup quality stuff (there were complaints about the surface) but it's a start.
     
  28. DennyDoyle'sBoil

    DennyDoyle'sBoil Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill SoSH Member

    Messages:
    22,508
     
    They can do it up in Seattle too (and I believe did for the US/Panama game or some other game), but I think some players expressed concern about the seams.
     
    With enough prep, they will figure it out.  Phoenix is an amazing soccer venue and would make a great world cup stadium, but I tend to think if Qatar's hosting bid gets yanked, having games in a city that hits 110 or 115, despite the retractable roof, probably won't go over that well.  (For the record, while this is fun to think about, I would guess it's very unlikely that Qatar would lose the games.  The litigation would be astounding and FIFA will find a way to smooth it over over Blatter's power-consolidating objection.)  But as for Phoenix, too much discussion by Blatter about how it's not just the games themselves that need to be cool, but the environment itself. 
     
  29. dirtynine

    dirtynine Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    4,468
    I think what might be likely, though, are fans, players, and even national federations boycotting a winter-situated, bribery-awarded, human-rights-violating World Cup.   If that threat becomes real enough, change will be forced.  Social/media pressure will get intense, especially if really nasty stuff starts to come to light. And it won't be necessarily on Fifa; it'll be on individual countries not to support the games.  
     
    I love the World Cup, and I'm going to try to go to all of them I can - but I'll be skipping Qatar if it comes down to that.  For all the very serious reasons mentioned, and even trivial ones like it sounds like a lousy place to have a good time (colloquially, you can't drink a beer or even show affection in public.) 
     
    Just to be clear, I don't necessarily want the games to go to the US (England deserves it before anybody else, and Australia would be a logical choice as well), but it can't be Qatar.  I'd fully support a mid-east bid at some point - a joint bid between several states could be an amazing global experience.  But I don't think the current scenario has any of the positive side that such an event could show the world.  
     
  30. OilCanShotTupac

    OilCanShotTupac Sunny von Bulow Gold Supporter SoSH Member

    Messages:
    15,050
  31. Spacemans Bong

    Spacemans Bong chapeau rose SoSH Member

    Messages:
    17,698
     
    Reading that reminded me how ripshit I was that San Francisco got looked over by the bid committee. It makes no fucking sense, at all. No Chicago also made zero sense. 
     
  32. coremiller

    coremiller Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,396
     
    When they put the bid together, Levi's Stadium didn't exist yet, the bond measure wasn't passed until June 2010 and full funding wasn't secured until December 2011.  I could see them passing on Stanford, Stanford is on the small side for a U.S. WC venue and doesn't have the high-end corporate hospitality options that top pro stadiums do.  Now that Levi's has been built the Bay Area is a no-brainer hosting site.
     
  33. moly99

    moly99 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    939
    Soldier Field wasn't designed with soccer in mind unlike the new stadiums, and is also pretty small. The only smaller permanent NFL stadium is the putrid Oakland Coliseum. (The Vikings will also play in a smaller college stadium until they move into their new stadium.) If Chicago rebuilt Soldier Field I'm sure they would be added.

    The great thing about the World Cup is that there's a built in way to get out of it: don't qualify. All you have to do is skip the qualification tournaments and you won't be stuck playing in it. There's no need to actually boycott it and cause a diplomatic furor. That's why I think it's possible some countries will in fact skip it.
     
  34. mgoblue2

    mgoblue2 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    651
    What are the details on the new SF Stadium? I assume it holds >40K?
     
  35. Bosoxen

    Bosoxen Bounced back Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    9,523
     
    There is a less than zero chance of this happening. Taking away three years of international playing time is a really good way to have some players walk away. And if some of those happen to have dual citizenship, you can bet your ass they'd jump if they're still eligible.
     
    Not to mention the shitstorm they'd get from pissing off their fans. I'd imagine a little diplomatic furor is small potatoes compared to that.
     
  36. The Napkin

    The Napkin wise ass al kaprielian Dope SoSH Member

    Messages:
    19,482
  37. coremiller

    coremiller Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,396
     
    Plus I imagine that all the top teams have big corporate sponsorships, and those sponsors won't be happy about a nation just skipping a world cup cycle.  It might even be written into some sponsorship agreements that the country has to attempt to participate.
     
  38. moly99

    moly99 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    939
    I don't think a World Cup match really gets your players any more experience than friendlies played against the same teams. I've heard this argument before from Canadians who think the reason they have struggled to qualify (while flipping Honduras and Costa Rica are representing North America this year) is that their national team doesn't have enough experience. But both common sense and the evidence argue against this. The US has improved because it has improved its youth camps, not because got to play in 94.

    I also doubt fans would really be upset if their teams skipped a tournament in Qatar, particularly if an alternative tournament were staged. Euro fans in particular are going to be pissed they can't drink beer at the stadiums in Doha.

    I'm sure the sponsors and broadcasters would be enraged, but that's the damn point.
     
  39. mgoblue2

    mgoblue2 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    651
    Oh how I've missed LMGTFY.

    SF would be a solid city to host from. Close to a possible final at the Rose Bowl, big city, "culture", infrastructure.
     
  40. Mugsy's Jock

    Mugsy's Jock Longtime Member Lifetime Member Gold Supporter SoSH Member

    Messages:
    8,221
    Some of our bordellos could use a fresh coat of paint.
     
  41. Bosoxen

    Bosoxen Bounced back Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    9,523
     
    I didn't say anything about experience. It's about taking away a three year window of playing for the highest stage in the sport. Imagine, if you will, a hot shot 16 year-old Brazilian striker currently working his way through the ranks. The 2012 World Cup would be SMACK in the middle of his prime. If Brazil were to decide to boycott the entire cycle, you can bet your sweet fucking ass that kid would be pissed. And rightfully so. Oh sure, he'd play in some worthless friendlies (assuming he doesn't tell the Brazilian federation to pound sand) but that's not really what these guys play for, is it?
     
    As for the fans, you're looking at this from an American's standpoint. You can't do that. You have to look at this from the standpoint of a native of a country whose national passion is soccer. If the US were to boycott the WC, a few people would get pissy but the majority of Americans wouldn't bat an eye. If Mexico were to boycott the WC, you'd have riots in the streets and the heads of the federation eviscerated on national television. People absolutely live for the World Cup. There's a reason some folks spend their entire life's savings to go watch their team. Missing it due to poor play is one thing (hell, there was almost a riot at Estadio Azteca when they were on the brink). But skipping it on purpose is a surefire way to permanently destroy a whole lot of goodwill.
     
    I'm all for Qatar being stripped of the World Cup - and damn the political consequences. But if they go on as planned, I wouldn't expect anything less than full participation. Provided they don't do something monumentally stupid like move it to the winter months.
     
  42. Nick Kaufman

    Nick Kaufman protector of human kind from spoilers Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    9,902
    Speaking of a US bid and hot weather in Quatar, I wanted to say that one problem I had with the 94 cup was the fact that because of time differences, games had to played in the middle of the day under conditions.... of oppressive heat. That was one of my main takeaways from the final and it was especially true of games played in the West.
     
    I know it won't happen, but I think it would be far better if a US tourney had most of the matches played in the east coast.
     
  43. Infield Infidel

    Infield Infidel teaching korea american SoSH Member

    Messages:
    11,457
    There are a few locales out west that can get around that though. Glendale (Phoenix) and Dallas would be indoors, Santa Clara (San Fran) and Seattle might not be too hot. 
     
  44. SoxFanInCali

    SoxFanInCali has the rich, deep voice of a god and the penis of Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    10,463
    The temperature in Santa Clara in June/July can be 15-20 degrees warmer than in San Francisco.
     
    I'd still rather play in 85-90 degree temperatures on the west coast with low humidity than at most sites back east.
     
  45. Nick Kaufman

    Nick Kaufman protector of human kind from spoilers Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    9,902
    The trouble is that west coach matches start at 12-1 pm whereas on the east coast they can start at 3-4 pm.
     
  46. moly99

    moly99 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    939
    I find this view perplexing unless you are only looking at temperature and not humidity. I would much rather play soccer outside in summer in Los Angeles than DC or Miami, even with the noon vs afternoon difference.
     
  47. Nick Kaufman

    Nick Kaufman protector of human kind from spoilers Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    9,902
    I am basing my opinion on the images i remember from that world cup. Perhaps they are not accurate, but that final starting at 12:30 local time with literally no shadows under the players made it seem really uncomfortable for the players. That game was also a bit of a snooze fest. That effect was magnified by the fact that I was watching the game at 23:00 local time which colors my opinion that the smaller the time zone difference between the continents, the better.
     
    I remember heat being an issue in Mexico as well fwiw.
     
  48. Nick Kaufman

    Nick Kaufman protector of human kind from spoilers Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    9,902
    Btw, starting times are an issue in this year's world cup as well:

     
     
     
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/soccer/worldcup/2012/10/03/union-warns-of-afternoon-matches-at-2014-fifa-world-cup-brazil/1609795/
     
  49. Bosoxen

    Bosoxen Bounced back Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    9,523
    Evening kickoffs? Yes, please!
     
    It's not happening but it sure would be nice to not have to take time off of work.
     
  50. Spacemans Bong

    Spacemans Bong chapeau rose SoSH Member

    Messages:
    17,698
    It was 81 degrees for the 1994 final. I've played rugby in warmer temperatures than that and been perfectly comfortable.
     
    You'd need to put me in over-100 degree heat to want to play on the East Coast in the summer over the West Coast. 
     
    It's also worth pointing out that despite the desert heat, the two Mexico World Cups are fondly remembered as two of the most exciting World Cups ever while the last World Cup sucked total ass despite being played in winter. 
     

Share This Page