Do the Media Actually Want England to Host the World Cup?

[Le Pop]

Not too sure if this is 'news' or 'sport', but...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1278706/FA...

Regardless of the details of this incident, do you wonder sometimes if the media are hell-bent on derailing the England World Cup 2018 bid? I'm sure that if this happened in other interested countries the media would be gagged and the whole thing sorted in private in the 'national interest'?

[grumbledoak]

You'd rather the corruption went on in private? An interesting view, no doubt shared by the FA and some of the better paid divers. I think I prefer freedom of the press, on balance.

[siscar]

I suspect that there are a lot of people both in the media and our of it who don't want England to host the world cup. Every sport is a minority activity, football is no exception, if you don't follow it then having the world cup here isn't attractive.

[Heliosphan]

siscar said:

I suspect that there are a lot of people both in the media and our of it who don't want England to host the world cup. Every sport is a minority activity, football is no exception, if you don't follow it then having the world cup here isn't attractive.

Well if people want to ignore the joy it brings to millions and the undoubted economic benefit for the country then fine.

The press just want to sell papers; I'm sure they'd love an injury to a major player or another sex scandal - it'd be headline news for weeks.

[Le Pop]

Heliosphan said:

The press just want to sell papers; I'm sure they'd love an injury to a major player or another sex scandal - it'd be headline news for weeks.

...which begs the question 'do we get the media we deserve?'

[DSM2]

Heliosphan said:

siscar said:

I suspect that there are a lot of people both in the media and our of it who don't want England to host the world cup. Every sport is a minority activity, football is no exception, if you don't follow it then having the world cup here isn't attractive.

Well if people want to ignore the joy it brings to millions and the undoubted economic benefit for the country then fine.

The press just want to sell papers; I'm sure they'd love an injury to a major player or another sex scandal - it'd be headline news for weeks.

Millions don't go to live matches. On TV it makes no difference where it's held.

As for economic benefit, don't kid yourself. Just like the Olympics, we'll be paying for the WC, if we get it, for years. SA are already in financial difficulty because of it.

If you count the dubious benefit of the 'improved' infrastructure as an economic benefit, you might get to draw-even but these thing are rarely a true economic benefit to the holders.

[playerone]

DSM2 said:

Heliosphan said:

siscar said:

I suspect that there are a lot of people both in the media and our of it who don't want England to host the world cup. Every sport is a minority activity, football is no exception, if you don't follow it then having the world cup here isn't attractive.

Well if people want to ignore the joy it brings to millions and the undoubted economic benefit for the country then fine.

The press just want to sell papers; I'm sure they'd love an injury to a major player or another sex scandal - it'd be headline news for weeks.

Millions don't go to live matches. On TV it makes no difference where it's held.

As for economic benefit, don't kid yourself. Just like the Olympics, we'll be paying for the WC, if we get it, for years. SA are already in financial difficulty because of it.

If you count the dubious benefit of the 'improved' infrastructure as an economic benefit, you might get to draw-even but these thing are rarely a true economic benefit to the holders.

The infrastructure is already in place. South Africa had to build it. Big difference.

[The Hypno-Toad]

playerone said:

DSM2 said:

Heliosphan said:

siscar said:

I suspect that there are a lot of people both in the media and our of it who don't want England to host the world cup. Every sport is a minority activity, football is no exception, if you don't follow it then having the world cup here isn't attractive.

Well if people want to ignore the joy it brings to millions and the undoubted economic benefit for the country then fine.

The press just want to sell papers; I'm sure they'd love an injury to a major player or another sex scandal - it'd be headline news for weeks.

Millions don't go to live matches. On TV it makes no difference where it's held.

As for economic benefit, don't kid yourself. Just like the Olympics, we'll be paying for the WC, if we get it, for years. SA are already in financial difficulty because of it.

If you count the dubious benefit of the 'improved' infrastructure as an economic benefit, you might get to draw-even but these thing are rarely a true economic benefit to the holders.

The infrastructure is already in place. South Africa had to build it. Big difference.

What he said ^^^^^^

We already have loads of stadiums that could hold a World Cup match

Anfield
Hillsborough
Emirates
Old Trafford
Stamford Bridge
Eastlands
Wembley
The new Olympic Stadium
Probably Sunderland, Newcastle, St Marys, Elland Road, Villa Park.

By the time the World Cup comes around you could add in Tottenham and Everton, as they are getting new stadium built. We certainly don't lack the resources and with all the rail & road links being put in place for the Olympics I can't see where the problem would be.
Apart from the fact Blatter hates us obv.

[Mojocvh]

These quangoes keep coming up with ways to squander £££ that the country just doesn't have....IMO.

[spikeyhead]

Consider the effect on the journo's expenses, either they get a month swanning round some holiday resort staying in 5* hotels, or are leaving Grimbsby on a cold Tuesday night to jump on a train back into London, a night at the local travelodge before the next days game darn sarf.

No wonder they don't want us hosting it.

[CrashTD]

Heliosphan said:

undoubted economic benefit for the country then fine.

World famous for bringing big projects in on time within budget.

[SmoothRB]

It's more fashionable to give the WC to 3rd world countries or places where football in a real minority sport.

[loltolhurst]

SmoothRB said:

It's more fashionable to give the WC to 3rd world countries or places where football in a real minority sport.

huh south africa its the fav sport?

[Heliosphan]

DSM2 said:

Heliosphan said:

siscar said:

I suspect that there are a lot of people both in the media and our of it who don't want England to host the world cup. Every sport is a minority activity, football is no exception, if you don't follow it then having the world cup here isn't attractive.

Well if people want to ignore the joy it brings to millions and the undoubted economic benefit for the country then fine.

The press just want to sell papers; I'm sure they'd love an injury to a major player or another sex scandal - it'd be headline news for weeks.

Millions don't go to live matches. On TV it makes no difference where it's held.

As for economic benefit, don't kid yourself. Just like the Olympics, we'll be paying for the WC, if we get it, for years. SA are already in financial difficulty because of it.

If you count the dubious benefit of the 'improved' infrastructure as an economic benefit, you might get to draw-even but these thing are rarely a true economic benefit to the holders.

Millions do go to matches actually.

3.3 million people attended games in Germany 2006 not to mention an additional 15 million visitors to the country throughout the tournament. 3 million people also attended games in the 2002 World Cup - they made over $1 billion in ticket sales alone.

The overall benefits appear to be massive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_the_FIFA...

If you think it'll be an economic disaster put a link up.

Edited by Heliosphan on Sunday 16th May 16:01

[SmoothRB]

loltolhurst said:

SmoothRB said:

It's more fashionable to give the WC to 3rd world countries or places where football in a real minority sport.

huh south africa its the fav sport?

Hence why I used the logical operator 'or'.

[SmoothRB]

loltolhurst said:

SmoothRB said:

It's more fashionable to give the WC to 3rd world countries or places where football in a real minority sport.

huh south africa its the fav sport?

Hence why I used the logical operator 'or'.

[loltolhurst]

SmoothRB said:

loltolhurst said:

SmoothRB said:

It's more fashionable to give the WC to 3rd world countries or places where football in a real minority sport.

huh south africa its the fav sport?

Hence why I used the logical operator 'or'.

and "or places where football in a real minority sport" means what logically speaking..

[SmoothRB]

loltolhurst said:

SmoothRB said:

loltolhurst said:

SmoothRB said:

It's more fashionable to give the WC to 3rd world countries or places where football in a real minority sport.

huh south africa its the fav sport?

Hence why I used the logical operator 'or'.

and "or places where football in a real minority sport" means what logically speaking..

Like the US.

[plasticpig]

The Hypno-Toad said:

playerone said:

DSM2 said:

Heliosphan said:

siscar said:

I suspect that there are a lot of people both in the media and our of it who don't want England to host the world cup. Every sport is a minority activity, football is no exception, if you don't follow it then having the world cup here isn't attractive.

Well if people want to ignore the joy it brings to millions and the undoubted economic benefit for the country then fine.

The press just want to sell papers; I'm sure they'd love an injury to a major player or another sex scandal - it'd be headline news for weeks.

Millions don't go to live matches. On TV it makes no difference where it's held.

As for economic benefit, don't kid yourself. Just like the Olympics, we'll be paying for the WC, if we get it, for years. SA are already in financial difficulty because of it.

If you count the dubious benefit of the 'improved' infrastructure as an economic benefit, you might get to draw-even but these thing are rarely a true economic benefit to the holders.

The infrastructure is already in place. South Africa had to build it. Big difference.

What he said ^^^^^^

We already have loads of stadiums that could hold a World Cup match

Anfield
Hillsborough
Emirates
Old Trafford
Stamford Bridge
Eastlands
Wembley
The new Olympic Stadium
Probably Sunderland, Newcastle, St Marys, Elland Road, Villa Park.

By the time the World Cup comes around you could add in Tottenham and Everton, as they are getting new stadium built. We certainly don't lack the resources and with all the rail & road links being put in place for the Olympics I can't see where the problem would be.
Apart from the fact Blatter hates us obv.

As long as zero public spending is required it isn't a problem. We already have the olympic financial albatross round our neck we do not need to host another frivolous sporting event to add to the burden.

[sadoksevoli]

I've always wondered who the hell this Lord Triesman fellow is....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Triesman,_Baron...

It seems corruption and football go hand-in-hand but what on earth and how on earth did this former Communist Parrty member, Labour apparatchik and university lecturer get the job?
Another lovely legacy from our former rulers.