There are a couple of things I'm confused about--
1) You provided numbers of attendance for the South Africa event (350,000). You then used that number in the rest of the article as average attendance per day rather than a total number. So which is it? Were there an average of 350,000 extra people in South Africa every day of the World Cup? Or was that the total number of people who visited the country? If it is the latter then all the comments about how Qatar will be able to keep up with that many tourists are a bit off-base, since the tourists will be recycled. Obviously, it will be harder for a smaller nation to pull it off, but it would be nice to have some clarity here instead of FUD.
2) Are there any guidelines that FIFA uses to determine what the host nation is? I am honestly curious about this. If there aren't any guidelines, then sadly FIFA, being a private organization, are allowed to use whatever logic (or lack thereof) they wish to determine which bid will be successful. Consider the analogy of a consumer having the option of buying a Big Mac versus getting a healthy meal of boiled vegetables. While the veggies are obviously a better meal, Micky D's is throwing in a free toy to sweeten the deal. What is the consumer more likely to purchase? And who am I, the guy behind the consumer in line, to decide that he shouldn't have chosen the hamburger?
Yes, the US/England would probably have held a better World Cup than the nations that eventually won the bid. But unless the process for determining who wins the bid has stringent guidelines in place and is deterministic, any complaints are just going to be seen as whining.
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation