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

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
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 concluded this week that there have been 964 deaths of migrant workers from Nepal, India and Bangladesh in 2012 and 2013 alone.
 
 
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.
 
Once in Qatar the workers are placed with a construction company. They have to live where they are told. They can't drive a car. Their passports are taken from them, effectively forcing them to remain on the job until their boss says they are done. They can't quit even if they could pay their recruitment loan off. It's called the kafala system.
 
 
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 mistake Blatter was referring to, it wanted to make clear in a press release, was thinking it was a good idea to host a summer soccer tournament in a country where the average temperature in July is 107 degrees and highs routinely push into the 120s. Apparently Blatter was previously unaware that it gets hot in the Middle East during July. They should probably hold it in the winter, he was saying.
 
 
So Sepp Blatter is worried about getting a sunburn. Or maybe that the air conditioning in his motorcade won't be powerful enough. Or, well, who the hell knows what he's concerned about?
 
 
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.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
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. 
 

mikeford

woolwich!
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2006
29,519
St John's, NL
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?
 

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
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
 
"If Garcia's report comes up and his recommendations are that wrongdoing happened for that vote for the 2022 World Cup, I certainly as a member of the executive co would have absolutely no problem whatsoever if the recommendation was for a re-vote.
 
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,673
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.
 

MiracleOfO2704

not AWOL
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2005
9,528
The Island
Kliq said:
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.
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.
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
Kliq said:
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.
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.

Vinho Tinto said:
What facilities need to be built in the US? Serious question. We have stadiums, hotels, highways, and airports.
None, but that's true of England, Australia, Spain, Holland, Japan, etc as well.
 

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
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?
 

Fred not Lynn

Dick Button Jr.
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,253
Alberta
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...
 

Luis Taint

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2012
5,883
Fred not Lynn said:
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...
I would expect a lot of "accidents" occurring if Qatar gets stripped.
 

Schnerres

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2009
1,554
Germany
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.
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
Schnerres said:
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.
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?
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,463
moly99 said:
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?
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.
 

DLew On Roids

guilty of being sex
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2001
13,906
The Pine Street Inn
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.
 

Schnerres

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2009
1,554
Germany
moly99 said:
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?
 
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...:)
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,286
AZ
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
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,850
Infield Infidel said:
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?
 
Well, in the case of Canada, they'd get to actually play in it.
 

dirtynine

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 17, 2002
8,394
Philly
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. 
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,676
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.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,846
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
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
 
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. 
 

swiftaw

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2009
3,434
jsinger121 said:
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.
 
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). 
 

Bosoxen

Bounced back
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 29, 2005
10,186
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
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
 
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.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,286
AZ
Bosoxen said:
 
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.
 
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. 
 

dirtynine

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 17, 2002
8,394
Philly
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.  
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,483
The 718

Spacemans Bong

chapeau rose
SoSH Member
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
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
 
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. 
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,846
Spacemans Bong said:
 
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. 
 
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.
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
Spacemans Bong said:
No Chicago also made zero sense.
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.

dirtynine said:
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.
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.
 

Bosoxen

Bounced back
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 29, 2005
10,186
moly99 said:
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.
 
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.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
5,846
Bosoxen said:
 
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.
 
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.
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
Bosoxen said:
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.
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.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,069
UWS, NYC
Vinho Tinto said:
What facilities need to be built in the US? Serious question. We have stadiums, hotels, highways, and airports.
Some of our bordellos could use a fresh coat of paint.
 

Bosoxen

Bounced back
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 29, 2005
10,186
moly99 said:
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.
 
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.
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
13,410
A Lost Time
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.
 

Infield Infidel

teaching korea american
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,463
Meeting Place, Canada
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. 
 

SoxFanInCali

has the rich, deep voice of a god
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 3, 2005
15,568
California. Duh.
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.
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
13,410
A Lost Time
The trouble is that west coach matches start at 12-1 pm whereas on the east coast they can start at 3-4 pm.
 

moly99

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 28, 2007
939
Seattle
Nick Kaufman said:
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.
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.
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
13,410
A Lost Time
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.
 

Nick Kaufman

protector of human kind from spoilers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2003
13,410
A Lost Time
Btw, starting times are an issue in this year's world cup as well:

 
AO PAULO (AP) — The professional football athletes' union in Brazil is warning that early afternoon matches in tropical cities may jeopardize players' health during the 2014 World Cup.

The union said Tuesday it notified Brazil's Sports Minister Aldo Rebelo and the Brazilian football federation that it is against the kickoff times announced by FIFA last week.

Union president Rinaldo Martorelli told the Associated Press that the body will take all available measures to keep the matches from being held at the hours established by FIFA, including legal action.

"We are sending a message to FIFA to alert them of our concern regarding these issues and saying that we will defend the professional athletes' rights in every level," read the statement of the National Federation of Professional Football Athletes.
 
...
 
 
The players' performance is jeopardized," physiologist Turibio Leite de Barros recently told the Folha de S. Paulo newspaper, Brazil's largest. "The U.S. World Cup was one of the worst of all time technically because of the inadequate starting times."

The 2014 World Cup match schedule had already been the subject of debate after Brazilian football leaders and politicians overruled Valcke's original wish to stage matches in four regional clusters to minimize travel in the continent-sized country.
 
 
 
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/soccer/worldcup/2012/10/03/union-warns-of-afternoon-matches-at-2014-fifa-world-cup-brazil/1609795/
 

Bosoxen

Bounced back
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 29, 2005
10,186
Evening kickoffs? Yes, please!
 
It's not happening but it sure would be nice to not have to take time off of work.
 

Spacemans Bong

chapeau rose
SoSH Member
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.