Quote:
|
With the exception of Brazil another list of countries who have done nothing much for world football and have achieved less than England. I don't follow the logic that the WC should be circulated around minnows.
(Can't believe I'm sticking up for England here!!)
|
Don't get me wrong, I think it is a specious argument he's making. And if World Cups were awarded on the basis of achievements in international football then it would only ever be held in Argentina, Italy, West Germany, Uruguay, and Brazil since they are the only teams to have ever won the WC outside their own countries. And if you want to talk about getting a raw deal, there has been 1 World Cup in South America in my lifetime despite teams from there having won it more than sides from Europe (held 4 times here)...
The point of the World Cup is not just to award it to succesful countries though, it is to promote the game. If it was given out to countries which would be guaranteed to organise it best, get fantastic looking stadiums, and do it on or under budget then you would just give it to Germany in perpetuity.
The corporate stuff and facilities in grounds in England I dare say are fantastic, but where on earth that means "fantastic grounds" I have no idea. Most of them look like bus shelters. No aesthetic effort has been put into them at all imo. The new Wembley, Emirates, and potentially Liverpools new ground are okay in that regard, but I suspect strongly that in 10 years the likes of St James, Riverside, City of Light, Old Trafford, Pride Park etc etc will all look pretty crap. Ironically enough I think if they do get it at some point in the future then it will be places like Goodison which would be the selling point as people want to move away from corporate blandness back to traditional designs...