So, they are having the World Cup playoffs today and tomorrow in Qatar, but it’s too hot to have the whole Cup in June?
Shouldn't be there at all. But the concern was partly the large number of fans. They can better manage a small number being kept cool.
I remember their pitch way back when, where they talked about using artificial clouds that no one believed was possible.
I don't remember that, but holy shit that is wild on so many levels. Those Arabian countries and China are all in on that stuff, but the results are mixed and more localized than truly useful.
Well, that sucked. I got to watch this game in Cusco, Peru this afternoon and, of course, for the second day in a row I get kicked in the balls by a team of mine in a big game. I have a theory now that I get one big result roughly every 10 years and the time in between in filled with underachievers, chokers, and abject suffering. In ‘98, I got the Vols. In 2010, the Packers win the Super Bowl, and last year they Bucks. If this year is a preview of the upcoming decade, I’m going to need Prozac or something.
I realize that FIFA has stadium size requirements for the world cup but getting the world cup to only host in NFL Stadiums is a damp squib, imo
And to be honest, having two host cities in Texas is a [dadgum] travesty, idc how many Hispanic people live there.
almost 1 in 10 Americans are a Texan. It is second only to California (more than 1 in 10 Americans are Californians). Of 11 American sites, it makes total sense to have 2 in California and 2 in Texas, otherwise there would be 2 in Florida (slightly less sense, mathematically and geographically) or one in Chicago or Ohio or something, which would make less sense. The way I am looking at it is the geographic mean for US population centers. Double coverage in California and Texas is defensible, as opposed to a site in the rust belt. An argument could be made for Chicago, but Kansas City kind of makes up for that more so than a single Texas city would. Again, looking at it from a geographic/population perspective.
Actually, I should be thinking of this from a North American perspective which makes the situation even more in favor of the current sites. You are pulling in Mexico population with Texas, but doing something in Ohio or Chicago would be a waste because you already have Toronto and there are way less Canadians than Mexicans, and they are already overwhelming clustered around Toronto and Vancouver. So yes, two Texas sites. If you are looking to be situated closest to the most asses for seats.
DC would have been a decent city, but our stadium situation is shit and honestly there is enough stuff going on around here that it is better to spread it out elsewhere in the country, from an economic perspective. DC doesn't need it. It'd just be another thing. It could actually be a nice bump for Atlanta or Philadelphia.
