Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoosier Red
A lot of that has to do with promising government money to cover for cost over runs and to make sure FIFA gets its money. For whatever reason, the United States wouldn't guarantee the money explicitly, but if the event were held here, there's no way it wouldn't provide all the profits FIFA needs and more. Consider the 1994 World Cup holds the record for not only per match attendance, but also for Total Tournament attendance. That's significant because it has held the record even as the next 4 tournaments had 12 more games than the 94 WC.
|
If FIFA were interested in a profitable World Cup, I think that England and the U.S. would have been the choices, as both countries already have a substantial amount of state-of-the-art facilities where games could be held, would probably be able to guarantee sell-outs for all games, and would bring in the most advertising dollars. However, I don't thing the FIFA executive council is interested in how much money the World Cup can make, but rather how much money they can make by deciding where to place the World Cup. There are already plenty of allegations about vote buying, influence trading and kickbacks flying around, especially in the English media. Maybe the media scrutiny on finances that FIFA would be sure to face in England and the US had something to do with things too.