Unpopular opinions.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

2 hours ago, MixuFruit said:

From the neck up

I’ll have the bottom half.

[effeffsee_the2nd]

Currently England don't have enough appropriate stadia to host a 48-team World Cup.

Furthermore- I don’t approve of this 48 team world cup. We already saw empty seats at the last 2 for games between 2 lower ranked nations , some of them taking place in the aforementioned white elephant stadiums. It suggests to me that after buying the tournament they are then going tonto with the ticket prices to claim back cash. Not to mention pish dead rubber games. The world cup SHOULD be an elitist tournament for the best teams.

[Shotgun]

2 minutes ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

The world cup SHOULD be an elitist tournament for the best teams.

Yes. It should be the best representatives of each continent/confederation. The purpose of the qualifiers is to weed out the dross.

[BFTD]

57 minutes ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

England should be a certainty to host the next world cup they bid for. I could understand the losing to Germany in 2006 but now thats out the way, They are a small country with a spread of large all seater grounds throughout the country and they are all already built & in use ( this should be a requirement for all bids tbh , nae mare of these white elephants in the middle of bastart naewhaur!)their transport infrastructure is at least useable if not the greatest. it’s probably down to corruption and perhaps a reluctance to give one of the wealthiest and most powerful domestic nations any more than what they have already

It is mystifying how England don't win more votes to host major international tournaments, considering their bids usually consist of telling the world the game belongs to them and everyone had better do as they're told or they'll take their ball back. Perhaps the current isolationist political philosophy will increase the chances of hosting an event where the world will converge on a single place and expect to be welcomed.

Seriously, though, they don't offer enough cash. Everyone else seems to understand that's the game, but England seem to have the idea that prestige and tradition is worth as much as a few hundred million Swiss Francs. Turns out, it isn't.

[DiegoDiego]

Which countries do, or are nearest to it?

Germany are closest*, with 14 stadia. England are at 11, including Twickenham.

For 2030 the Argentina - Uruguay - Chile - Paraguay bid totals 17; Morocco 5; Romania-Greece-Bulgaria-Serbia 6.

China have expressed an interest and have 9, Spain-Portugal 10.

Of course the majority of these stadia will require some upgrades to fully comply.

*I'm going on stadia currently used for football, I'm not going to bother researching counties like Australia and the USA which have venues for other sorts which could be used.

[BFTD]

2 minutes ago, Shotgun said:

Yes. It should be the best representatives of each continent/confederation. The purpose of the qualifiers is to weed out the dross.

I do hope we're not going down the "it should be the best 16 nations in the world" route.

There are folk around who like to complain about how the World Cup should consist of (currently) 11 European nations, 4 South American, and one from CONCACAF. It never seems to occur to them that they could just tune in for the final 16 games of the tournament and leave the rest of us to enjoy watching the World Champions get ridden by an unfancied side from Africa, again.

[DiegoDiego]

Really? Is it to do with the spread rather than the number, i.e. a city can only have a couple as too many used (like London) would have too many folk in the same city?
Even then they surely have enough stadiums? Even if you restricted it to one stadium per city you'd have London, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds  Newcastle, Sunderland, Nottingham, Birmingham, Sheffield, Middlesbrough, Derby, Leicester and Southampton.

It's 40,000 minimum capacity to host group stage games now*, 50k for quarters, 60k for semis and 80k for the opening game and the final.

*2030 rules haven't been officially announced, but that's what they had in place for 2026.

[DA Baracus]

1 minute ago, DiegoDiego said:

It's 40,000 minimum capacity to host group stage games now*, 50k for quarters, 60k for semis and 80k for the opening game and the final.

*2030 rules haven't been officially announced, but that's what they had in place for 2026.

How many stadiums are needed for the group stage? And is there a limit of how many can be in one city?

[welshbairn]

I haven't changed my mind since Qatar bribed their way to holding the World Cup that I'd love to see it in one of Donald's real shithole countries, baked mud and sand for pitches, journalists and blazers told to bring their own tents, players put up in air conditioned dormitories. Marvellous.

[DiegoDiego]

How many stadiums are needed for the group stage? And is there a limit of how many can be in one city?

I think it's a minimum of sixteen, but I can't seem to find that from a decent source.

You do need to propose 72 training camps, plus a further four for each stadium and two for referees. So we better give Oriam a splash of paint if we want to latch onto an English bid.

[Hampden Diehard]

The reason that England don't get more votes for WC bids is that a lot of people think they're arrogant kents. Ditto the Eurovision votes for the UK. 

[Empty It]

The reason that England don't get more votes for WC bids is that a lot of people know they're arrogant kents.

FTFY.

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, Shotgun said:

Yes. It should be the best representatives of each continent/confederation. The purpose of the qualifiers is to weed out the dross.

What makes confederations so special as a way of determining who should qualify? It's just an arbitrary way of dividing the countries up into groups? Why not go further and only have 1 team from Scandinavia, 1 from Eastern Europe, 1 from the former Yugoslavia etc?

[Shotgun]

1 hour ago, BigFatTabbyDave said:

I do hope we're not going down the "it should be the best 16 nations in the world" route.

There are folk around who like to complain about how the World Cup should consist of (currently) 11 European nations, 4 South American, and one from CONCACAF. It never seems to occur to them that they could just tune in for the final 16 games of the tournament and leave the rest of us to enjoy watching the World Champions get ridden by an unfancied side from Africa, again.

No, which is why I said ‘the best from each continent/confederation’ not ‘the best teams from Europe, a couple from South America plus Celtic and Rangers colts. 

[Shotgun]

1 minute ago, craigkillie said:

What makes confederations so special as a way of determining who should qualify? It's just an arbitrary way of dividing the countries up into groups? Why not go further and only have 1 team from Scandinavia, 1 from Eastern Europe, 1 from the former Yugoslavia etc?

Or, we could just invite everybody. 

[Raidernation]

Or, we could just invite everybody. 

And have, like, a mini-tournament to start, in order to whittle down the numbers?

Maybe even set it up geographically to reduce travel?

[tamthebam]

2 hours ago, craigkillie said:

What makes confederations so special as a way of determining who should qualify? It's just an arbitrary way of dividing the countries up into groups? Why not go further and only have 1 team from Scandinavia, 1 from Eastern Europe, 1 from the former Yugoslavia etc?

1 from the old British Empire as well- f*ck you Canada, USA, Australia, South Africa, the Republic of Ireland, Egypt, and Engerlund when they lose the Qualifying Final to Nigeria (played in the neutral ex-Empire venue of New Delhi in the sweltering heat)

[Shotgun]

2 hours ago, Raidernation said:

And have, like, a mini-tournament to start, in order to whittle down the numbers?

Maybe even set it up geographically to reduce travel?

I think you could be onto something here. 

[Florentine_Pogen]

4 hours ago, welshbairn said:

I haven't changed my mind since Qatar bribed their way to holding the World Cup that I'd love to see it in one of Donald's real shithole countries, baked mud and sand for pitches, journalists and blazers told to bring their own tents, players put up in air conditioned dormitories. Marvellous.

I'd love to see Donnie Dingbat as head of FIFA. Surely to f*ck he couldn't be any more corrupt or batshit crazy than recent incumbents.

[BFTD]

3 hours ago, Shotgun said:

No, which is why I said ‘the best from each continent/confederation’ not ‘the best teams from Europe, a couple from South America plus Celtic and Rangers colts. 

I know, I was referring to what you were replying to. That's usually where we end up in these conversations.

Off on a tangent, but I really fancy a World Cup for the shittest nations in the world. San Marino, Gibraltar, maybe Liechtenstein from Europe, perhaps Venezuela from South America, a handful of micro-nations from  the South Seas, some tiny islands in the Caribbean...surely I'm not the only one who'd watch that? Could make a fun little warm-up to the main event. It'd also be nice to see those nations play in a competition where they'd actually have a chance of winning a few games.

Naturally it'll never happen unless they get the Celtgers Colts onboard. You have to bring in the TV money from somewhere.