Should Brazil Still Host the World Cup?

for the footballing romanticism of the nation, I'd obviously love to still see a World Cup in Brazil next year ... but given the grave safety concerns regarding the stadia (their construction, their structural integrity, the delays, the now necessary rushed timelines), and given the protests and rioting that were the political back-drop to the 2013 Confed Cup, there may be a mounting to case to ask the question: should Brazil still host the 2014 World Cup?

I believe the back-up hosts are England, though I'm not sure ... were that the case, it'd be added reason to really pull for Brazil to deliver ... I'm obviously of the opinion that the back-ups should be from the Americas ... and who's better equipped to host a tournament of that magnitude at short notice than the US of A? if the US have applied to be a back-up host, Brazil should immediately be stripped of hosting rights ...

more seriously: I think we all expect that they will sort it all out in the end ... but, sadly, reports of an impending stadium workers' strike will only increase the pressure ...

thoughts?

Xifio;3596427 said:

if the US have applied to be a back-up host, Brazil should immediately be stripped of hosting rights ...

Click to expand...

Pretty much how I feel.

Don't worry, they'll get their things sorted out. I'd be more worried about their crime in favelas spreading out to the visiting fans' area etc. But that won't happen.

I know it's in the far distance, but World Cup in Qatar? Now that should've been given to US. That happening there is just nonsense.

I think I read where Gulati said the US didn't have any intention of serving as a backup host. You get the feeling the USSF is pretty ticked about the Qatar thing.

Should Brazil host? Probably not. Judging from the reaction of people there they have bigger issue that need attending to. Will they? Yes. It is FIFA after all.

I was planning to post a similar question revolving around the Qatar WC (since I'm engaged with the QotW), but I can post it in a couple of days.

My main concern as a spectator is probably going to be the broadcasting time, which is not really an issue unless I'm at work.

Other than that, I would say something trite - if they're not prepared well enough, they should not host it. It's the World Cup, the biggest global football event; if you're not going to deliver excellent conditions for the teams/attendance, don't even bother. Add to that, the workers engaged and a country's issues as factors. I'm not familiar with the "back-up host" thing, but if there's another country in a more prepared state to host the event, why not . . .

Brazil can't handle the pressure. Give it to the US.

Of course they should, even if there are kidnappings and extorsion it will still be better than Qatar.

Xifio;3596427 said:

who's better equipped to host a tournament of that magnitude at short notice than the US of A? if the US have applied to be a back-up host, Brazil should immediately be stripped of hosting rights ...

Click to expand...

1. Germany
2. USA

But, FIFA will never relocate the World Cup.

Can you imagine the chaos in Brazil if the World Cup is taken away.

From a neutral's point of view, I would say that 2014 World Cup > 2016 Olympics to the average Brazilian citizen (middle class). Let's face it, Brazil does not have a tradation in the men's 100 m or pole vault.

Yeah that's true, Germany is probably the best equipped to host because they had to have everything in order only 7 years ago.

They'll be fine, folks.

Stop overreacting and talk about something else that's actually important.

It'll happen, don't you guys worry... In 1950 the Maracana wasn't properly finished at the start of the tournament, and while I think it won't be that bad, it won't be that different either.
About safety and crime and all that, yeah, things are bad, but it won't happen during the event as the authorities will find a way to keep drug lords quiet (like paying them off...)
Personally (and more importantly, as a tax payer) I don't think it is a good idea hosting the World Cup in Brazil but since so much money was already spent, they better play the damn thing here. Or else stadia like the one in Manaus and the one in Cuiaba or even the one in Brasilia will never ever have more than 10% of their capacity filled in a football match. Besides, I don't think FIFA will have the balls to change the hosting country unless something major happens

No of course they won't actually change. I just want the matches in the US so I can go.

Why not travel?

It's not like you would be the only American so you wouldn't feel too out of place.

Kibe Kru;3596737 said:

Personally (and more importantly, as a tax payer) I don't think it is a good idea hosting the World Cup in Brazil but since so much money was already spent, they better play the damn thing here.

Click to expand...

This is a concern I had. Given the money that's already been spent they pretty much have to host it now. If they don't it'd be straight up robbery.

Rocky;3596825 said:

Why not travel?

It's not like you would be the only American so you wouldn't feel too out of place.

Click to expand...

Because I'm in the army and we'll be gearing up for a deployment

Brazil is expensive as hell, too. At least from what I've heard.

When the world cup arrives, it gets very expensive, no matter where it's held

Brazil would declare war on Switzerland if the WC was taken away.

ShiftyPowers;3596845 said:

Because I'm in the army and we'll be gearing up for a deployment

Click to expand...

Would it increase your chances were I to develop some chemical weapons?

Kibe Kru;3597744 said:

Would it increase your chances were I to develop some chemical weapons?

Click to expand...

Alcool is the best chemical weapon Brazil has ever produced.