No worries about the World Cup hosts

I live in Mexico. Mexicans are not naive about their country; they know it has problems. Serious problems in terms of violence, as evidenced in the recent violence following the killing of authorities of a major drug lord. Some of this violence happened in Guadalajara, a city that will host the World Cup, so suddenly news (and actually a lot of fake news were published on media, specially social media, and with the uncritical approach that most people have to social media, these were taken as truths...) started complaining about the World Cup being in Mexico, and requiring a cancellation. Even Portugal, who will be playing a friendly match in Mexico City in March, expressed concern about the match.

This baffles me for so many reasons.

Mexico is huge; it is larger than France, Germany, Spain, and Italy combined, and as such a large country, regions are very different, also in terms of where you should go. Surely it is a problem that gang violence can erupt like it did in a city hosting the World Cup (that said, take my word for it, Guadalajara is a great city), but it is also a result of the government's firm response to criminal groups, a response that in my personal opinion also illustrates how seriously Mexico will take the World Cup. 

And Mexico is amazing, full of kind and welcoming people, and frankly they have more experience in hosting world events than many: this will be their third World Cup, but they have also hosted Olympics, numerous international events, that includes yearly Formula 1, NBA and NFL games. It hosts world class museums, universities, and some of the most visited and famous tourist sites in the world.

So people should have no worries about Mexico.

It almost baffles me as much to hear people say that the US should be withdrawn as host because of the policies of the current government, given that this tournament has before been hosted by rather unsavoury regimes that I am not going to bother mentioning, but who hosted memorable tournaments. The US has the infrastructure and the experience in hosting events, including the 1994 World Cup. Perhaps, some years ago, I would have criticized it for not being a real footballing country, but I do not think that this is valid today; of course other sports are bigger, but football (I refuse to call it soccer) is a big and growing sport, with an interesting and solid MLS with decent quality.

I do not know or can I comment on the government policies, but notwithstanding the mess in the Copa America final, I think the US will be great hosts, also because no matter what, in my experience, the vast majority of US Americans are also kind and welcoming people.

There are huge problems with FIFA and how the World Cup is awarded, the exaggerated and overblown prices and the completely shameless pursuit of money rather than the popular beauty of football. 

But Mexico and the US  (and Canada) co-hosting is not one of these problems.

Russia 2018 and Qatar 2022

Today the hosts for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups were selected. It was widely expected that the winner of the 2018 bid would be in Europe, where England, Spain/Portugal and Russia were contesting. Following FIFA president Sepp Blatter's wish to spread the beautiful game further in new countries and regions (which admittedly gave us an excellent cup in South Africa), the choice of Russia for 2018 was not strange, and it will surely be interesting to see the World Cup there, amid strong anti-foreign feelings there.
I really do wonder whether Russia is able or even willing to welcome the world to one of the greatest events that exist.
Qatar will be even more interesting. The small Middle Eastern nation has never participated in a world cup, but invested enormous resources in their bid, and will surely have to invest even more in stadiums and infrastructure for their hosting in 12 years, but even more in actually having a competitive team! In any case, situated between Europe, Africa and Asia, good links and climate, it is surely to be one of the most memorable world cups of the 21st century, and surely already augur a new era in the spread of football around the world.

Some conclusions on this Confederations Cup

The Confederations Cup has ended with a great match between Brazil and the surprising US, and I guess it is time for some conclusions:

• I have to admit that the tournament was not such a bore as I had initially predicted it would be. There were some very dramatic matches, surprises and good goals, promising well for the World Cup. However, I would insist that quality is generally low.
• Refereeing was good, but still, FIFA refuses to introduce use of visual aids for the matches, something that could surely improve refereeing. In the final, Kaká scored a goal that only TV saw in. A minimum could be the introduction of goal-referees?
• Spain is not as good as we (or they) thought. Although they are now the most unbeat team in history, they displayed some of their traditional tournament weaknesses in this tournament: not playing to level when it counted against teams they should be far superior to.
• USA is better than everyone thought, confirming the upward trend of US football over the years. I don't understand why anyone would still underestimate them after a World Cup quarterfinal in 2002!? No matter my personal view on it, the US is a football power, and many new young players will be supplemented by some of the more experienced players that didn't play in this tournament. On Danish TV last night, Ove Christensen said that the US should be considered outsiders for the title next year, and I totally agree.
• Italy's World Champions had a poor show, and the team needs renewal and spirit. They no longer seem to be up to defend their title next year, and the performances against Egypt and Brazil were simply pathetic.
• Brazil was outstanding, and it seems that Dunga has managed to incite the ever-talented Brazilians to play as a solid team, confident of their individual abilities and true to their status as the mightiest football nation in the universe.
• Egypt had charm and good players, but showed poor discipline and no winner mentality like the USA. It is no loss at all that they will not be at the World Cup next year.
• New Zealand doesn't belong at this level, while Iraq seems on its way up, but won't be at the World Cup anyway.

More specifically in regard to the World Cup:

• This was a test for South Africa, and they largely passed it, making it to the semifinals, where they played a fine game against Brazil, and an entertaining third-place match against Spain, although this latter match is pretty useless for both. I still believe that South Africa will be the weakest host in the history of World Cup football - they are a rugby nation!
• The rugby nation status was seen with the state of the pitches, that were generally in a much poorer state than is expected from a World Cup...
• There was some amusing discussion on the vuvuzela, horns used by South African fans during the matches, that sound like a long mosquito buzz. It certainly sounds horrible, but banning them would be ridiculous, and is outright hipocritical considering the many instruments used in other parts of the world! Of course football fans have the right to make all the noise they want!
• At least if the vuvuzela can make South Africans more interested in the World Cup... Stadiums were not full, and FIFA had to give away tickets to boost attendance. Well, South Africa is a cricket-nation, so it should not surprise.

So all in all, the tournament turned out better than I had thought. Still, I believe that South Africa was the wrong choice to host the World Cup.

World Cup to Indonesia?

The race for hosting the 2018 and 2022 World Cups has started, with the following countries already offering to host: USA, England, Australia, Russia, Spain/Portugal, Mexico and Japan. With 2010 in South Africa, and 2014 in Brazil, one the following World Cups will likely go to Asia, and a few days ago Indonesia apparently came out as a candidate.
Indonesia has never been to a World Cup, except in 1938, where they participated as the Dutch West Indies, and is ranked 139th in the world in FIFA's last world ranking. While they may improve over the next years, Indonesia is clearly not a football nation, and they should not get a world cup unless they improve their football and display greater interest for the sport.

Of course, South Africa, an exclusive rugby and curling nation, has been given a World Cup for 2010, so why not give it to Indonesia, where the major sport is badminton?
It is like giving Mali the ice-hockey world cup.

South Africa as World Cup host

I have said it before, but here I am going to underline it: am not looking forward to the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, and I believe FIFA made a great mistake by giving the World Cup to South Africa in its eagerness to give it to some African country.
While I think South Africans current attitude to foreigners is a popular disgrace from a country that should know better (how about some of the neighboring countries having to play there?), I do not believe the South Africans have what it takes to organize a pleasant, world class tournament which welcomes the world, like we have seen in Germany, Japan/Corea, France, USA, etc. The country is gorgeous, yes, but suffering by violence, poverty and corruption. I am afraid that with prices of tickets and organizational issues, we will see as many empty stadiums as we saw during the African Nations Cup in Ghana in January.
And Ghana is a footballing nation, with a talent and passion for the game which is unheard of in South Africa!

It is often mentioned how important it is for a tournament that the host nation does well (that is one of the reasons the hosts don't have to qualify, as well as get an automatically easier draw by being seeded highest), but would South Africa do well...? Although it is hard if not impossible to predict, I think we may be looking at an elimination in the first round: South Africa didn't participate in the 2006 World Cup, they were plainly bad in the African Nations Cup, and talented South Africans players are notably absent from big European clubs where other African players are superstars (a notable example perhaps being the ageing Benny McCarthy in Blackburn?). And while there have been rumours about Carlos Alberto Parreira's resignation as South African coach, the new and relatively unknown Joel Santana does not bode well for the organization of the South African team...

South African sport has always been dominated by rugby (where they are great world champions) and cricket; South Africa is simply not a footballing nation. With a world cup on its door, one can already see the large commercials and promotional posters, but the "fever" which grips other countries is unexistant; it is hard even to find a pub to watch a Champions League game in Johannesburg, and when finding it, one finds that nobody watches it nor cares.

If the world cup must be held in Africa, it should be in one of the many great African footballing nations: Ghana, Nigeria, Morocco, Egypt, Senegal, Cameroun... However, as is true, these countries do not seem to have what is called the "organizational infrastructure".
Apparently South Africa does (just don't walk out at night, specially if you are from a neighboring African country).

Such a great event belongs to real footballing nations and although I have been wrong before, I have very low expectations to a World Cup in South Africa.