Mantis Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 (edited) well my point in the end was that I dont think FIFA will move the World Cup, USA, Mexico were all ridiculously hot for World Cups and have actually been voted some of better World Cups. Russia will be really warm as well. If players are given fluid breaks and if Qatar can get this air-conditioning it will be ok The fact remains though that all of the other candidates were far better options. Qatar was even ranked by FIFA themselves as being high-risk. Why hold a "high-risk" tournament when you have other candidates that are much lower risk? FIFA are beyond corrupt. Edited July 18, 2013 by Mantis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 I want to see a WC in Borneo. I mean, why the **** not? It'll have Orangutans. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 I want to see a WC in Borneo. I mean, why the **** not? It'll have Orangutans. If Wales could qualify then Bale would be right at home... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 They're not building domes in Qatar. They are going for a design using towers for air convection. (I read this months ago so it might be inaccurate). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) I heard they're planning to temporary move the country into Europe via ship. Edited July 19, 2013 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted July 19, 2013 Author Share Posted July 19, 2013 Hey, it worked for Israel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HalfTimePost Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Still think it's some kind of sick joke that Qatar got the World Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 It just needs the top nations to boycott the World Cup in Qatar. Surely FIFA would have to buckle if that happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voinjama Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 A boycott would never happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted July 21, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted July 21, 2013 It was a midday kickoff and Irish players have said it was 110 degrees that day. any photo of Steve Staunton in that game will tell you how bad it wasTemperature is the temperature in the press box. On the field, with poor air circulation, add about 15 degrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted July 21, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted July 21, 2013 On the subject of terrestrial broadcasts of the World Cup, the USA has no laws requiring FTA broadcast, and the past 5 world cup finals (and almost certainly the next 3) have been shown on free TV.(and the US arguably has more top-level (in terms of local popularity) sport shown on free TV than any country in Europe) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted July 21, 2013 Author Share Posted July 21, 2013 Are the blue ribbon events (Superbowl, NBA playoffs, March Madness etc) shown on free to air TV though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted July 21, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted July 21, 2013 The general perception in the US is that if it isn't on a free terrestrial channel, the event has less of a claim on being a big deal. In turn, though, the guaranteed money from pay TV subscriptions (ESPN's business model is best described as forcing the solid majority of cable/satellite subscribers who don't watch ESPN to pay about $6/month to get it) is what subsidizes everything. Since the national pay TV sports channel operators (ESPN, NBCSN, CBSSN, and the forthcoming Fox Sports 1, as well as Turner (which operates its channels as a sort of hybrid of sports and non-sports)) all have close relationships with free terrestrial broadcasters (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, and CBS, respectively), the typical deal is structured so that the major games are shown for free and it's the second- and third- and lower-tier games that get shown on pay TV.Of 267 regular and post-season NFL games, all bar 32 (of which about half would typically be 2nd pick for the week, and the other half would be about 5th or 6th pick for the week, if such a concept existed) of regular season are on free TV (and for those 32, the pay TV broadcaster has to show it on a free terrestrial broadcaster in the primary cities of the team's playing; if you're a Patriots fan in Boston, every Patriots game is on free TV, but if you prefer not to support your local club, you'll have to spend a fair amount of money to see their games). Analogy would be Sky being obligated to cut a deal with ITV Central or BBC Birmingham whenever they picked a Villa game.On the college football front, there's a ton more games played in a lot fewer time windows, so the proportion of games on pay TV is substantially greater. Still, ABC shows two or three of the biggest games most Saturdays, while NBC shows Notre Dame's home games, CBS shows a game from the biggest league (the South Eastern Conference), and Fox shows a game or two once baseball's over. The Bowl games, except for the comparatively minor Sun and Cotton Bowls are all on ESPN now.Bar a Sunday afternoon game of the week, the NBA regular season and the playoffs are pay TV (ESPN and Turner) affairs now. The Finals are on ABC.Most college basketball is on pay TV now, bar a game of the week on free TV. For March Madness, the Elite Eight (quarterfinals) onward, half of the Sweet Sixteen and third rounds, and a quarter of the second round are on free TV (and every game is streamed online for free). Arguably, moving from 63 of 64 games on free TV (but heavily regionalized and often using whip-around coverage) to 27 of 67 (but no regionalization and no whipping around) was an improvement.For the NHL, see the NBA, but two games of the final are on pay TV.Baseball is now mostly pay TV, with Fox moving some games from free to Fox Sports 1; this is taken as another sign of baseball's slide into irrelevance.For MLS, as it stands, five games a year (but not the MLS Cup final) are shown on free TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 FIFA at it again Fifa vice-president Jim Boyce has called on the Premier League to drop their opposition to the 2022 World Cup in Qatar being switched to winterFifa president Sepp Blatter said he is determined to move the tournament to avoid the intense summer heat.But the Premier League are opposed to a move as it would cause major disruptions to the fixture calendar."A sensible decision has to be made," Boyce told the BBC. "I would appeal to people in the Premier League."Medical evidence highlighted the dangers of playing games in temperatures that average 40C in June and can reach 50C. The heat dips to an average of 20C during the winter months.Qatar said it would play games in air-conditioned stadiums, but that will only resolve the problem in venues.Boyce said: "I know Qatar has said they will air-condition the stadiums and I'm sure they will be fantastic but you have to be realistic."You're taking thousands of people, who want to see and enjoy a World Cup, but in temperatures exceeding 50 degrees, that would not be comfortable or healthy for all of those people."Probably the main objectors at the moment are the Premier League and I can understand why because there's a lot of money involved."But from a common sense and especially a health point of view, (a winter World Cup) is something I would dearly love to see and I would hope that people would sit down and try to sort it out."Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore is worried that momentum is shifting in favour of a winter World Cup but insists he will continue to fight the proposal."Ultimately Fifa will decide, so of course one is worried," he said. "We're not silly, we're not stupid, we can see that that's the way the momentum is shifting."They can't really just decide to shift it by six months. Everybody's running a tight calendar."To suddenly change it all around is very impractical and in my view won't work and it shouldn't be allowed to work."The money quote in the middle is a beauty. I wonder if Scudamore will budge and where is the opposition from other nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 From a common sense point of view the World Cup would never have been held in Qatar in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 yes but got a majority vote so thats how it goes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Well the 2022 world cup might be the first that I will not bother watching, it is nothing short of a **** disgrace that the world cup is being held in that joke of a 'country'. It would be nice if the football associations across the world decided to boycott it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 but why is it a joke of a country? because it is small? a lot worst places has held it in last few years. South Africa is hardly land of safety either is Brazil or Russia. If anything Qatar be safer than them 3 places Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted July 25, 2013 Author Share Posted July 25, 2013 So reading between the lines here, FIFA are claiming that the Premier League will stand in the way of a winter world cup in 2022 because they are motivated by money rather than what is good for the game? Isn't that like Graham Norton complaining that something is a bit too camp? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRS-T Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 but why is it a joke of a country? because it is small? a lot worst places has held it in last few years. South Africa is hardly land of safety either is Brazil or Russia. If anything Qatar be safer than them 3 places Yes. You wouldn't give the World Cup to Wales would you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts