The World Cup, An Alternative View

[Keith_M]

This (http://rt.com/op-edge/169640-brazil-world-cup-price/) is an interesting article summarising the other side to The World Cup.


While I've enjoyed watching a couple of matches, I can't seem to get fully into it, because there's still something troubling me about the reality, away from the glossy view presented in the Media








Dear Admins, please do not move this to the Dugout, as it IS Football related. Thanks :greengrin

[Hibee_Dave]

Agree with the OP completely - modern sporting events have become so detached from the places that host them as they have become world events rather than an event for the host nation. Look at the Athens Olympic facilities now - a total waste. Probably the London olympics was pretty good in a legacy sense and something like Euro 96 where existing club stadia with history and a reason for being there as well as guaranteed use afterwards was a great example of doing it right.

A 40,000 seater in the middle of the Amazon which only got used for group matches?! That's criminal. Also, the majority of people who watch the world cup are watching on TV so facilities really don't need to be THAT good. FIFA need to reevaluate everything they are involved in.

[Hibs7]

FIFA are outdated and live in a little world of their own. Major changes in personnel within FIFA are required but it will never happen . Qatar is a perfect example of corruption over common sense.

[Hibercelona]

The reality is that Brazil isn't the only country in the world facing this type of crisis. But as long as there's something half decent on the TV to distract people who have it easier, nobody will bat an eyelid.

[jacomo]

I'm sure Russia will save the game for the people when they host it next. :rolleyes:

[Onceinawhile]

I'm sure Russia will save the game for the people when they host it next. :rolleyes:

Communist football would be a disaster. No one would be allowed possession of the football. It would be cut into 22 and a bit given to each player.

[Keith_M]

Communist football would be a disaster. No one would be allowed possession of the football. It would be cut into 22 and a bit given to each player.


Yeah but they would then announce the end of Communism, at which point a handful of people in the crowd would seize control of the stadium and use security to eject everybody else, keeping it for themselves.

[(((Fergus)))]

Yeah but they would then announce the end of Communism, at which point a handful of people in the crowd would seize control of the stadium and use security to eject everybody else, keeping it for themselves.

What actually happened in countries where communism came to an end was that (most) "public" "enterprises" were put up for sale and thus became the property of investors - as many of them originally had been before they were confiscated by the state. In some cases, the descendants of the original owners were able to buy them back. Here is an interesting set of photographs showing the changes in East Germany between the end of communism and now: http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-east-germany-s-transformation-fotostrecke-59943.html

As for the expense of the stadia in Brazil and I had wondered whether it was really necessary to have so many grounds to host the tournament. Surely more games could have been played on fewer pitches? Especially if those pitches were synthetic? And especially if they will just disappear back into the jungle afterwards.

However now that the stadia are there, the only way to get more value out of them is to keep hosting the world cup in Brazil. (Only half joking.) Actually it might be quite fun to have the winners of this WC become hosts of the next and so on. Like winner stays on in pool. :greengrin

More realistically, I would rather award the WC only to those countries that have (by and large) the infrastructure already in place, i.e. where there is a strong football culture already that will appreciate and enhance the event as is happening in Brazil. Why bother proselytising football to the world? Make it entertaining, accessible, and financially proportionate, with minimal corruption, death and/or slavery, and they will come.

[stokesmessiah]

What actually happened in countries where communism came to an end was that (most) "public" "enterprises" were put up for sale and thus became the property of investors - as many of them originally had been before they were confiscated by the state. In some cases, the descendants of the original owners were able to buy them back. Here is an interesting set of photographs showing the changes in East Germany between the end of communism and now: http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-east-germany-s-transformation-fotostrecke-59943.html

As for the expense of the stadia in Brazil and I had wondered whether it was really necessary to have so many grounds to host the tournament. Surely more games could have been played on fewer pitches? Especially if those pitches were synthetic? And especially if they will just disappear back into the jungle afterwards.

However now that the stadia are there, the only way to get more value out of them is to keep hosting the world cup in Brazil. (Only half joking.) Actually it might be quite fun to have the winners of this WC become hosts of the next and so on. Like winner stays on in pool. :greengrin

More realistically, I would rather award the WC only to those countries that have (by and large) the infrastructure already in place, i.e. where there is a strong football culture already that will appreciate and enhance the event as is happening in Brazil. Why bother proselytising football to the world? Make it entertaining, accessible, and financially proportionate, with minimal corruption, death and/or slavery, and they will come.

Great post and that set of pictures was lovely to look through.

[Jonnyboy]

Great post and that set of pictures was lovely to look through.

:agree: Photograph's are fantastic