This. Please close thread
How ridiculous is it that England hasn't hosted a major tournament since 1996?!
- Thread starter TheReligion
- Start date
When Russia and Qatar win the rights to host consecutive world cups then it's pretty obvious what drives the selection criteria.
It's a far bigger scandal that Qatar was given the Asian world cup in preference to Australia than England not having a tournament in 20 years.
It's a far bigger scandal that Qatar was given the Asian world cup in preference to Australia than England not having a tournament in 20 years.
Since WWII....
England has hosted the world cup in 1966 and the EC in 1996.
Germany has hosted the world cup in 74 and 2006 and the EC in 1988.
Itality has hosted the world cup in 1990 and the EC in 1964 and 1980.
France has hosted the world cup in 1998 and the EC in 1984 and 2016.
So yeah, maybe you could host one in the coming decade. But it is hardly a travesty that you haven't.
England has hosted the world cup in 1966 and the EC in 1996.
Germany has hosted the world cup in 74 and 2006 and the EC in 1988.
Itality has hosted the world cup in 1990 and the EC in 1964 and 1980.
France has hosted the world cup in 1998 and the EC in 1984 and 2016.
So yeah, maybe you could host one in the coming decade. But it is hardly a travesty that you haven't.
Oh here we fecking go.
There's only been 10 tournaments since 1996 so its not that big of an issue. I think, in fairness, that England is overdue a World Cup next time it rolls around for Europe. It has the infrastructure, the stadiums, and its human rights record is steadily improving.
Looking at the European countries that have hosted, it's not ridiculous at all.
What annoys me isn't so much we haven't had the World Cup since 1966, but the USA, who isn't even a real football nation, has had one WC in 1994 & there are calls it should have another in 2026 or even replacing Qatar if that falls through. Whereas we actually started the professional game.
It's not England specifically so much as so many European nations that are both footballing heavyweights and have the infrastructure already in place and appropriate climates. Italy and Spain haven't seen a tournament for ages either.
1982 World Cup was in Spain.
Im Irish and I dont find it strange at all. The Olympics were there in 2012 so I guess you have to pick and choose. I always just thought it was a cost thing. Pretty expensive exercise hosting. His comments were a bit of a dig but hes kind of right too. Its never been in China or India yet between them they hold 1/4 of the worlds population.
It would be cool if England and Germany held one together too...
Maybe we'll get to host Eurovision next year at least 
2096 is a Euro year.
How about a Euro WC, only stadiums with 75,000 capacity and over.
Shorter traveling distant than US WC
Human rights record? In that case USA are nailed on for 2026 with Trump in charge
11 Tournaments since then and 195 countries...
They're already doing that for Euro 2020
But they’re not using only the biggest stadiums...
Italy haven't had one since 1990. They have won four WCs.
It's not like FIFA aren't commenting on that — their politics were often to prefer a country without a big football history/history of organising big tournaments and without the infrastructure (so that it can be built), to influence youth and to inspire them to play football. It also helps that those countries are participating in the corrupt FIFA's system, of course, but still.
Football in England is already everywhere, the World Cup won't change that much, even though as a spectator I would've loved to watch an international competition taking place on Old Trafford, Wembley etc. again
Football in England is already everywhere, the World Cup won't change that much, even though as a spectator I would've loved to watch an international competition taking place on Old Trafford, Wembley etc. again
Yea that would work. Make home and away group games actually proper home and away games... host the knockouts in random stadia.
Completely ridiculous given the sport was invented here. Especially considering I was reading the USA was going to get another one?
Another question that should be asked is should third world countries or countries where their is extreme poverty be allowed to host a World Cup, personally I don't. Huge question marks over Russia as well considering the state sponsored doping of its athletes. Absolutely obsured such a country should be even considered as a host IMO.
Its every 4 years so it means you don't get much opportunity. A better thread would be how many nations have hosted a major international tournament since 66 and compare to England's. Germany have had 3. France have had 4 tourneys since 1960. England 2, Italy 3. Its not too outlandish.
Not ridiculous at all. But the sense of entitlement to host one is.
Yes, only England, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, USA should be allowed to host the world cup. They should even rename it to something else.
lol ok so your in favor of Russia? You think countries that have people dying on the streets should be pumping money into stadia that will probably end up going to ruin? All to simply host a football tournament?
How do you know stadiums will end up ruined when Russia have decent league?
What you are saying is only developed countries should host world cup which is just wrong.
Do you think that the money from the stadiums would go to those people if we're to cancel the World Cup?
Not all of them, but for some it'll be definitely be an issue. We have a really low attendance in our league, especially in the regions.
So what, the world owes you tribute or something?
If it was invented in Liechtenstein, we’d obviously have it there all the time.
Nothing. Everything. Something?
Thanks, no one had mentioned on the first page.
Invented in England me arse. Everyone knows footie was invented by the Romans cause they loved lobbing balls at each other anyways. Or Greeks.. maybe.
FIFA would rather bankrupt some countries than give it to countries that already have stadiums at the ready. Maybe we should question FIFA human rights policy. I know they want to spread the football family, but there are countries all over the world who could stage a World Cup with little or no fuss.
I hate this argument. So what then, the world cup should just be a little merry-go-round of 7 or 8 nations every 40 years?
FIFA's selection process has been shocking/corrupt recently but every country should have the opportunity to host it if they have the money available to build the stadiums required.
Not ridiculous at all.
It's not that 6,7 same countries should host it.
It's not that 6,7 same countries should host it.
Exactly. It's not on FIFA to worry about all that. If any country thinks they have financial strength to host world cup, they will put a bid and take risk.
otherwise, like you said some 5-8 countries will host the world cup forever.
Isn't that my point. That they should be looking in some cases where they are getting the money from. If the people in that country are going to suffer because they are taking money from other vital areas then it isn't right. Just so the politicians can have a jolly.