- Mar 21, 2004
- 29,415
- 34,197
Think it should just be hosted in Uruguay alone to mark the 100th anniversary to be honest.
I don't know, it was just a thought.Do they have the stadium and infrastructure for a 100+ match 48 team tournament in just Uruguay?
They managed 32 teams in Qatar but 48 in Uruguay is probably a bit of a stretch.Do they have the stadium and infrastructure for a 100+ match 48 team tournament in just Uruguay?
BUT WHY! 1 country is fine ffs.
But 1 country means you can only accept 1 brown envelope. Now they can accept 6.BUT WHY! 1 country is fine ffs.
A 48 team tournament is so big that if you restrict it to one country you can basically only rotate between about 10 countries and nobody else has a prayer.BUT WHY! 1 country is fine ffs.
So trueBut 1 country means you can only accept 1 brown envelope. Now they can accept 6.
It’s an absolute joke but then after where the last one was held and seeing who’s readying their brown envelope for 2034 nothing surprises me any more.They managed 32 teams in Qatar but 48 in Uruguay is probably a bit of a stretch.
For me it feels wrong that Europe is hosting this at all, what would the big deal really be to let Spain, Portugal and Morocco have 2034 and Asia/Oceania have 2038, just moving the cycle one step? 2030 should've been entirely in South America to celebrate the centenary IMO.
This creates a big logistical mess for anyone who wants to watch the tournament and every broadcaster across the world that wants the rights to it. It makes things a hell of a lot more expensive for everybody.
They are doing this so they can award Saudi Arabia in 2034
Not entirely sure how having 3 games in the southern hemisphere and those 6 teams (plus team staff, fans, media, etc.) then flying to the northern hemisphere for the rest of the tournament is keeping FIFA on its "path to climate-friendly" tournaments.