-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
should the US try and host a World Cup?
- Thread starter voyager1
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2013
- Messages
- 4,070
- Reaction score
- 2,449
- Location
- U.S.A.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
NOPE!
Too expensive to achieve a reasonable ROI
Financially speaking
The ATM is out of twentys....
Thom Paine:mrgreen:
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2013
- Messages
- 30,807
- Reaction score
- 22,358
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Who cares for soccer anyway.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2006
- Messages
- 93,944
- Reaction score
- 69,025
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
Hell no! It's way too expensive. Shouldn't try to host the Olympics either. The world should just have some central location that hosts all of our world challenges and sporting events.
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2011
- Messages
- 10,660
- Reaction score
- 3,785
- Location
- Chicago
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
No. Soccer is not a sport.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2008
- Messages
- 41,559
- Reaction score
- 31,163
- Location
- Southern England
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
We certainly don't need a repeat of this travesty!
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2006
- Messages
- 14,870
- Reaction score
- 7,128
- Location
- Your Echochamber
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Most everyone except Americans, almost no one cares about American Football relatively speaking, to the rest of the world Soccer is Football.
Considering the crap we spend the taxpayer's dollar on ... :lamo
Yeah sure, lets instead build some planes that suck and some tanks we'll never use and eventually sell with the same amount of money.
By what standard? Is golf a sport to you? How about curling? Nascar?
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 31,130
- Reaction score
- 22,292
- Location
- US of A
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Meh. I think it would be better hosted in a country where soccer is more popular.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2013
- Messages
- 30,807
- Reaction score
- 22,358
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I know, I was talking about the U.S.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2006
- Messages
- 14,870
- Reaction score
- 7,128
- Location
- Your Echochamber
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I know, I was too.
TitusAndronicus
Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2010
- Messages
- 89
- Reaction score
- 57
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Yes. In 2026 Asia and Europe will be ineligible to bid, leaving only North America, South America, Africa and Oceania (does not include Australia). Brazil won't be able to because they hosted recently, Argentina is expected to wait until 2030 and Mexico already has hosted twice. It would be hard for a U.S. bid to lose, especially considering North America won't have hosted it in 32 years, more than Africa at 16, South America at 12, Europe at 8 or Asia at 4.
For the World Cup you need 8-12 stadiums of 40,000 or more. The U.S. has these in spades. The SEC could host the World Cup and the smallest of 10 stadiums would be 76,000...which is larger than the biggest stadium for Brazil's tournament...so no construction is required. Hotels and airports are covered as well. The biggest potential cost of the games would be investment in transportation infrastructure, both road and transit. This is hardly a negative as transportation infrastructure is rated at a D level and could use more funding.
Also, the 1994 U.S. World Cup turned a profit of $50M by using existing infrastructure.
For the World Cup you need 8-12 stadiums of 40,000 or more. The U.S. has these in spades. The SEC could host the World Cup and the smallest of 10 stadiums would be 76,000...which is larger than the biggest stadium for Brazil's tournament...so no construction is required. Hotels and airports are covered as well. The biggest potential cost of the games would be investment in transportation infrastructure, both road and transit. This is hardly a negative as transportation infrastructure is rated at a D level and could use more funding.
Also, the 1994 U.S. World Cup turned a profit of $50M by using existing infrastructure.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2009
- Messages
- 20,410
- Reaction score
- 7,696
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
While I agree with you that spending money on a World Cup would be dumb you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to military equipment. Our planes are among the best if not the very best in the world and the Abrams has proven its worth multiple times.