I know it is going to be quite a while before the World Cup in Qatar happens but has anyone thought about what this could mean. I heard that they don't have the infrastructre to support the event and will have to build more stadia, which will then be built so that they can be dismateled and then sent to developing countries that ( I presume) need more stadia... or at least one stadium.
Plus, what do all of you think about the World Cup being held in Qatar?
1. How can a country that have never partaken in the competition, and have little interest in the sport, be selected to host it?
2. Building an army of stadia (not just one) and associated infrastructure IN THE DESERT only to later dismantle and export the lot is possibly the least enviromentally and economically sustainable urban strategy ever concieved. In the history of mankind.
3. The temperature will be in excessive of 40 degrees and it is envisioned stadiums will be "air conditioned", as games are played at night.
4. "Designated drinking zones?" - yes that will work.
5. All women will have to dress very modestly, including the brazilians, which will mean television rating will decrease by between 40% and 90%.
I agree with LinkOne's points 2-5. Not sustainable. Not environmentally friendly. Too hot for the players to be at their best. I'll still watch Brazil for do jogo bonita, even though it won't be quite the same without the full support of their female fans.
BUT, I don't think Qatar is too different than the US in 1994, from a soccer history standpoint. We beat out Brazil for the bid, having not qualified for the cup in something like 40 years. We didn't even have a full professional league at the time.
Good job FIFA, for bringing the world's game to a country that's never had it before, and that will probably work very hard to be good representatives of a region that doesn't often get good press...at least here in the US.
40C / 104F avg temperature, but 28C/82F at night... not exactly the most comfortable environment to hang out in - the outdoor cafe/viewing areas in the renderings look like it could get blisteringly hot.
The country would see more visitors than residents, which ought to make the necessary transportation infrastructure over-built for post-WC... nice "legacy" FIFA.
The region could use a boost sport-wise, and Qatar is perhaps the most capable of the nations in the area (with its natural gas resources, they'll have a high income for decades).
Also would be curious if all the workers/staff will be "imported" labor as everything is now, considering most Qataris are in management or admin.
if we have brutal war in iraq, building bonanza in uae, why can't we have peaceful sports event in qatar?
re: modesty
why should western values monopolize every fucking thing on earth?
Actually Qatar is one of the most "open" and tolerant country-states in that area. Al Jazeera, perhaps one of the best news networks around was started from Qatar.
I think events like these will lead the Middle East to being more accepted in the global community.
this is a serious question and hopefully doesn't come off as being anything other than just wondering what your opinion is:
but on the opposite side of your question...why should people from all over the world have to conform to a country's standards and religious practices in order to view a sporting event?
would you then say the same thing about women attending a sporting event in regions where women are required to wear veils?..so in order to watch soccer/football live one would have to change their mode of dress, purchase "appropriate" clothing even? i understand that 'western' culture shouldn't rule..but when travel occurs the other way there's no expectation of changing your mode of dress and how one practices daily living... all in all isn't the goal of fifa to allow as many fans as possible to see the game live? and as part of that shouldn't it be to provide a venue where the majority of its fans are comfortable?
would you say the same thing if north korea were to win the bid? or any number of other countries? i guess what i'm wondering is where would one draw the line of what's 'appropriate'...
i guess the main question is WHY is FIFA bringing the sport to a country the size of connecticut..that has no infrastructure/world cup stadia?
the main difference between this bid and the US in 1984 is that the US had stadia in place that could be adapted for the game... that and the US had qualified for the world cup before...Qatar has never even played a match in the world cup...so once again we'll have a team in the world cup that absolutely doesn't belong there... will get dismantled and will allow one group to have a much easier match than the other groups..how will that then encourage the sport in qatar?
i feel like there needs to be some qualifying criteria put in place for the selection of the largest sporting even on earth.. i think number one on the list should require the team to have qualified at least once...number two maybe require that they've qualified sometime in the last 20 years...
and i'm not sayin the US deserves the cup... although it makes more sense than having it in europe again first...
with all that said..FIFA deserves to update itself..in the same way that FIFA is thinking about building the game they should be thinking of ways to improve it.. the fact that they haven't moved into the 21st century with cameras and technology to allow the refs to be somewhat competent is startling.. every other major sport has video replay of some sort. the games are too close to allow for mistakes which happens easily with only three refs and no cameras...
I think you guys are assuming that women will have to wear viels and stuff there at the 2020 World Cup. I spent a lot of time in the Gulf and Bahrain and Qatar in particular are pretty open in terms of dress codes. I see women dressing and men dressing pretty much in western fashion... I think they are even more "open" than Dubai actually.
It's not like the World Cup is being held in Saudi or Iran.
med. I think you are under a mistaken belief that any society will continue to progress towards being more liberal. Mass regressions happen just as often. By 2020 Qatar could just as well become a military dictatorship that forbids women from observing events that involve men wearing shorts. Qatar reminds me of '70's Iran a bit.
larslarson: your observations are valid. Keep in mind Qatar has more money than brains. They are eager to show the world they are capable of doing this. In fact, I would expect quite a spectacle from them. Also think of all the 10 and 12 year olds in that region who may just become obsessed with soccer (as opposed to being obsessed with religion) due to this event. Some of them will end up playing in the cup.
These types of sporting events, be that the world cup or the Olympics, are a much better fit for developing regions. From urbanist/development perspective, these are wonderful opportunities to improve public infrastructure, transportation, and facilities. Whether this happens in actual life comes down to successful implementation. Atlanta didn't benefit much. Vancouver benefited a lot. London beat out NYC for the Olympics. I think NYC got the better deal out of that one.
What the hell is Qatar going to do with 15 brand new stadiums after the tournament? Maybe the premier league should ship its season to the Middle East...
"What the hell is Qatar going to do with 15 brand new stadiums after the tournament?"
Deathcamps. Or fat farms. By 2020 80% of Muricans will have Diabeetus. Emperor Obama will send the fattest ones over to Qatar for some manual labor spas.
Or maybe the top 15 finishers get to take a stadium home.
the way you put it, it is hard not to agree with you and i do. in the same time, you have put the blame on fifa as well and i agree with you on that even more.
as much as i am happy that this event might give us westerners a glimpse of their civilization and culture, it, unfortunately, is fueling existing animosity to muslim way of living. i really don't know if any of the rules qatar might be applying are official, or they are exaggerated by the known sources of this kind of divisive groups.
i really don't think any of it will be a negative factor during the games. i think we will see an incredibly well planned and invested organization with beautiful and innovative stadiums that are dis-mountable etc..
i thought it was a great decision to leave the vuvuzelas in the game last summer even though many complained it was destructive at the pitch.
let's be careful not to buy into this propaganda coming from known sources questioning the quality of the games twelve years from now and without really knowing.
the purpose of international games is also to bring the beautiful qualities of the particular geography and culture to the viewers. let's not reject it even before we know what'll be.
i think the soccer scene in the persian gulf region is very trying. i know they love the game there because i watch a lot of uefa games via gulf channels. obviously they see the potential and want to invest in it.
i remember the times when i would be critical of building in dubai on this forum and get bunch of people yelling at me for attacking to their livelihood of archi service providing. you would remember that. nowadays everybody abandon dubai... it is the popular response.
i think both the world cup and olympics, or at least one, should've gone to istanbul. but they lost both in their trials in the recent past. i think committees who decide for both games are the most corrupted organizations. it is obvious where these games go to and with what sort of moves played in the background.
I agree that i know nothing about Qatar, but then again that's sort of the point...why is fifa finding out of the way places to have the cup? i understand that it's the world's game, but with that said there are established centers of the game...and since it happens every 4 years it's a precious commodity...it's like having a rugby tournament in south america or japan or something.. there are enough locations that have established leagues and/or teams... turkey actually makes a lot more sense since they've actually had a decent team recently.
i don't know if that's similar to qatar or not... i will say that having the cup there will at least bring attention to the country/region... but then again that may not be a good thing...south africa was a 'success', but mainly in the way that they kept most of the bad news out of the coverage there.. or maybe they didn't..who knows. i just don't know why fifa wants the cups in places that are not destinations for most people and are potentially dangerous for some of its fans. but then again maybe this helps with erasing preconceptions.
Rusty, it would I think that your opinion that "Qatar reminds you of '70's Iran a bit" would be relavant if:
A. You actually knew something about Iran in general.
B. If you actually knew anything about Qatar in general.
C. If you actually knew something about the Arab World in general particularly in the Persian Gulf.
Also I'm n ot saying that they wil become liberal (in a western fashion). But they are definitely no Iran - two completely different cultures, two completely different religious affiliations, two completely different political backgrounds -- in general two completely different situations and countries.
Plus by saying Iran went backwards, it's like you are trying to tell everyone that the Shah (an absolute monarch and a dictator) was a really forward thinking individual paving way for a forward-thinking nation which couldn't possibly be further than the truth. That he was a self-proclaimed thug and tyrant is even finessed upon is just proof that you along with most Americans don't have a clue about the region and stick to interminable talk and propaganda.
Take Iraq for instance - just about every American here fell for all the bullshit about Iraq in 2002-2003 from all of the "experts" and look where it got us??? Looks like they are at it again now.
No offense but Americans naturally do not have the ability to understand anything about the Middle East.
I am well aware of huge differences between Iran and Qatar. Heck, you could fit entire Qatar inside a suburb of Tehran.
Still though, Qatar has undergone a period of liberalization and modernization during the reign of the current Emir, the type of which reminds me of Shah's Iran's policies in '70's Iran. Both are/were heavily supported by the western countries (especially US).
I know quite a number of American Iranians who have nothing but hatred towards Khomeini's revolution. Then again they all emigrated because of this, so my sample may be skewed.
My comparison starts and ends with western supported modernization. That's all.
It's like saying that the current US economy and state of political discourse kind of reminds me of late'80's Yugoslavia. One is completely unlike the other. But I'd vote for Palin/Milosevic ticket in a heartbeat :) I like chaos.
Isn't this going to be a logistical nightmare? Where the hell are you going to find workers, let alone manufacture enough steel, to create these ridiculous stadiums (which look like they've been created by a fine arts student in the 11th grade).
I think that's the issue. Not necessarily the issue of difference but between the difference that lies between Muslim and Islamic.
For instance, many Muslim countries before the 1980s had been going through their own internal reformations.
Tunisia banned the veil. Morocco had made similar statements about remaining a plurality. Modest dress was pretty much unheard of in Egypt. Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia were pretty lassiez-faire on the issue and still are for the most part.
And the big one here obviously is Turkey's secularization.
One particular bit that a lot of Europeans, and by extension Americans, don't understand is that sizable portion of Europe lived under a Christian-Muslim duality under the Ottoman empire for 6 centuries being largely peaceful.
All that being said-- Jordan, Lebanon and Syria were three of the biggest tourist destinations for much of the 19th and 20th centuries. No longer the case.
I use the terms Muslim and Islam not specifically to their true meanings. As Islamic generally now refers to the radical Arab Islamization that is currently happening worldwide.
I think this is something that perhaps Muslims do not find as terrifying as non-muslims do. And for many people around the world-- not just Europeans or Americans-- find this trend of 'radicalization' and 'Arabization' to be highly unsettling.
Many places around the world with both existing, historical or even new Muslims populations have not encountered these problems until very recently. And it is not something that either party is responsible for solely but both parties are to blame equally for their inability to get along.
In addition, many countries have been striving for secularized society for centuries and Muslims are just a new "victim" in a long battle of European 'Enlightenment.'
With all that being said, Sharia law (and all of its variations) only applies to Muslims. Most non-muslims are not expected to uphold those laws.
In addition, Christian and Jewish ideology really only applies to those who bare the original sin. Therefore, basically anyone who isn't Semitic also doesn't have to follow Christian and Jewish doctrine [That's basically ALL OF EUROPE.]
I have no idea why Europeans do not recognize that they are not an ethnic group named in the bible as being one of the original tribes of Israel.
"In addition, many countries have been striving for secularized society for centuries and Muslims are just a new "victim" in a long battle of European 'Enlightenment.'"
And its not too difficult to understand how this secularization is translated as an extension of imperialism ... along with the "free market" economic reforms... and all that good stuff. Doesn't necessarily have to be the case always, but you know...
And you'd all be lying to yourselves if you think the fear/dislike of the arab world is not propogating this excess reaction to Qatar getting 2022.
jvc..
i think that's the easy way out..
many people have brought up legit points about why the cup shouldn't be played in qatar...not the least of which is that as the host nation qatar is given a bye into the cup...thereby giving one of 32 spots to a team that will get beat in all three group games convincingly..and a team that deserves to go will be left home.
qatar has:
no history of soccer
no organized league
no world class stadia
do they have a national team?
etc.
turkey would make a lost more sense since it has all of the above.. it's one thing to go to the region..it's another to give the worlds largest sporting event to a country that has no proven track record of being able to host an event and no (as of yet) required infrastructure to support this many tourists..
WHY is the world cup not going to a country that already has all of this in place? it's every four years...countries/continents that regularly participate and win games in the world cup shouldn't have to wait three decades to host...or host teams should have to qualify like everyone else.
What I meant to say was not that the points brought up by people were all BS, just very condescending / speculative / and excessive + fueled, perhaps subconsciously, by the fear/hate of the muslim other.
The USA had as much history of 'soccer' and so much less interest in the sport, yet they still hosted in 1994.
I do agree that Turkey would be a better choice but, correct me if I am wrong, they did not bid.
And if it is FIFA's business to foster the game throughout the world it makes sense to give it to a country like qatar in a region like the middle east. That given, Qatar was chosen because its bid clearly demonstrated it had the financial clout and ability to build necessary infrastructure to host the cup.
And apparently there was also some shady business with the Qatari guy who's head of AFC and is Blatter's successor as FIFA president. Its been said that he agreed to stay on as AFC president and not challenge for FIFA presidency right away so that Blatter can continue his reign of terror for a while longer. FIFA is corrupt, whats new?
________________________________________
Moving on to the (highly condescending) remarks and concerns:
no history of soccer - its football.
theyre a tiny fucking country in the desert, yet, a larger proportion of qataris are interested in 'soccer' than the USA or Australia. At several points during the last several years their national team was ranked higher than Australia (remember, AUSTRALIA VERY BIG, qatar tiny). Although they do seem to have gone downhill since 2008.
organized league - remarkably, they've got one.
no world class stadia - they'll build it. and ship off bits and pieces to developing regions (who, to be honest, really need more important shit than stadium supplies_ another story) which will allow the game to grow.
do they have a national team - wtf..really? despite not being world beaters, the qatari national team is able to somewhat compete with the bigger asian teams like japan, skorea, iran etc... perhaps on par with china. again, only a few years ago they were ranked higher than australia. and if north korea (consistently ranked lower than qatar) can hold its own against brazil, why can't qatar?
______________________
drinking zones? nothing like that in the bid. and qatar is not saudi arabia. nothing about dressing restrictions either. Again, speculation fueled by anti muslim bs. And also to repeat anothers point:
"why should western values monopolize every fucking thing on earth?"
______________________
And why exactly is it required that only the countriess good at football get to host the damn cup anyway? If thats a requirement, what's the cutoff point? Is it decided by fifa rankings? Or is a 'history of soccer', whatever it means, required?
Again, this is not to say I like what goes on in the gulf, especially the imported slave labor from south asia. But can the west really talk about economic morality?
________________________
In short: qatar has financial ability to construct infrastructure to host a successful cup. fifa wants to spread the game. whats your problem?
________________________
Excuse me, I have to go eat lunch, then take a dump.
ok..so i didn't mean to be ignorant but apparently i was regarding qatar's team.. i honestly didn't know if they had one or were ranked.
the US has a history in the world cup.. they finished third in 1930...qatar has never even qualified...trying to compare the US getting the cup and qatar getting the cup is apples and oranges...the US already had the infrastructure and stadia needed to host.
the only thing re: host teams playing is that it takes away one of the spots for other higher ranked teams...or teams that have won games and deserve to go..
South Africa wouldn't have qualified...neither will Qatar...maybe even Russia..
it just makes one group weaker than the others and gives stronger teams an advantage..
The first World Cup was the only one without qualification. Every country affiliated with FIFA was invited to compete, and given a deadline of 28 February 1930 to accept. Plenty of interest was shown by nations in the Americas; Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru and the United States all entered. Other countries didn't show up because they couldnt afford the trip or they didn't feel like it was worth it.
yes its apples to oranges. But it is precisely because the US is a large nation and spends considerable resources on 'soccer' that it has a world cup history. wouldn't letting a country in the mideast host a w.c. allow it to invest in the sport and create its history?
And, in terms of interest in the sport - a much much larger percentage of qataris care for it.
Re: weak teams/ unbalanced groups because of weak hosts:
1) On the contrary, you could say taking away a weak host would detract from allowing an average national team/system from developing into a world class one, a la south korea (i realize south korea was in better shape than qatar, but it did jump from rank 40 smthin to 20 after w.c. 2002)
2) you could also use this argument to scrap the current system of alloting certain numbers from different federations. hence making this a south american/european competition. after all, would any other teams really qualify if it really was a competition of the best teams in the world?
-26 out of top 32 teams according to current fifa rankings are from these regions.
3) again, the world cup seems to bring out extraordinary performances from the very ordinary. Senegal (ranked very similar to qatar) beating france in 2002 / North korea vs brazil 2010 / north korea vs italy sometime in the 70s/80s and the like..
1.if there's one thing a football fan should know..and i'm sure you do..is that fifa rankings mean nothing.
2. i'd be interested to see how much money qataris spend on players compared to the US.. i imagine that the numbers wouldn't be disimilar..obv the US has a larger player pool but since we're breaking things down per capita i'd imagine that qatar has spent more per player..
3. do you really think qatar will ever qualify for another world cup?
1. i do know fifa rankings don't count for shit, hence the fact that qatar is ranked so low shouldnt affect the way a group is balanced. they'll play their hearts out in front of a home crowd. After all football is a game of 11 against 11 and on the pitch desire counts for as much as talent.
2. That doesn't make sense to me - I do not understand how the money spent per player would actually make a better national team, assuming they're not being genetically engineered or something. At least not as much difference as the larger pool and greater infrastructure do (academies, stadia, leagues etc.).
Maybe the money coming into the Qatari FA will allow it to invest on that stuff & bring in players from abroad etc.; leading to more footballing growth. Maybe they'll get another freddy adu from ghana - hopefully one that doesnt flop.
3. If the likes of Saudi Arabia and North Korea can qualify then there is every reason qatar can. really.
4. I am not qatari.
5. I believe the world cup doesn't necessarily have to be about the best teams going at it against each other, thats what i watch the champions league for. I personally find it enjoyable to watch national teams from *around the world* going at it agains each other. How awesome would a match between algeria and france be, or as happened in 2002(?) USA v Iran. They're not necessarily the best teams, but its the WORLD cup. Its as much fun to watch the football as it is to see the tensions of global geopolitics played out on the field.
6. Work is slow again.
Dec 27, 10 2:05 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
World Cup - Qatar 2022
I know it is going to be quite a while before the World Cup in Qatar happens but has anyone thought about what this could mean. I heard that they don't have the infrastructre to support the event and will have to build more stadia, which will then be built so that they can be dismateled and then sent to developing countries that ( I presume) need more stadia... or at least one stadium.
Plus, what do all of you think about the World Cup being held in Qatar?
A complete joke in every sense.
1. How can a country that have never partaken in the competition, and have little interest in the sport, be selected to host it?
2. Building an army of stadia (not just one) and associated infrastructure IN THE DESERT only to later dismantle and export the lot is possibly the least enviromentally and economically sustainable urban strategy ever concieved. In the history of mankind.
3. The temperature will be in excessive of 40 degrees and it is envisioned stadiums will be "air conditioned", as games are played at night.
4. "Designated drinking zones?" - yes that will work.
5. All women will have to dress very modestly, including the brazilians, which will mean television rating will decrease by between 40% and 90%.
Bravo Fifa, bravo.
What's the different bertween having the World Cup there or anywhere else?
They have 12 years to build all that stuff and by that time things will probably change...
on a related note:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/sports/soccer/21fifa.html
ugh, really? tragic.
here is a link to the stadium renderings..
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/1009/soccer.2022.world.cup.stadiums.qatar/content.1.html
LinkOne said:
5. All women will have to dress very modestly, including the brazilians, which will mean television rating will decrease by between 40% and 90%.
What a chauvinist comment!
I agree with LinkOne's points 2-5. Not sustainable. Not environmentally friendly. Too hot for the players to be at their best. I'll still watch Brazil for do jogo bonita, even though it won't be quite the same without the full support of their female fans.
BUT, I don't think Qatar is too different than the US in 1994, from a soccer history standpoint. We beat out Brazil for the bid, having not qualified for the cup in something like 40 years. We didn't even have a full professional league at the time.
Good job FIFA, for bringing the world's game to a country that's never had it before, and that will probably work very hard to be good representatives of a region that doesn't often get good press...at least here in the US.
40C / 104F avg temperature, but 28C/82F at night... not exactly the most comfortable environment to hang out in - the outdoor cafe/viewing areas in the renderings look like it could get blisteringly hot.
The country would see more visitors than residents, which ought to make the necessary transportation infrastructure over-built for post-WC... nice "legacy" FIFA.
The region could use a boost sport-wise, and Qatar is perhaps the most capable of the nations in the area (with its natural gas resources, they'll have a high income for decades).
Also would be curious if all the workers/staff will be "imported" labor as everything is now, considering most Qataris are in management or admin.
if we have brutal war in iraq, building bonanza in uae, why can't we have peaceful sports event in qatar?
re: modesty
why should western values monopolize every fucking thing on earth?
"why should western values monopolize every fucking thing on earth?"
Because there was no Earth until England found it!
People said much worse things about South Africa being worthy/able to host the event.
Yet, with one long, slender plastic horn, they changed the game for the better; forever.
Orhan - We in the west know best. And we have a government with a military at it's service to prove it!
Might is right!
Every planet has a bully, why not us?
I agree with Orhan.
When in Rome dudes...
Actually Qatar is one of the most "open" and tolerant country-states in that area. Al Jazeera, perhaps one of the best news networks around was started from Qatar.
I think events like these will lead the Middle East to being more accepted in the global community.
orhan,
this is a serious question and hopefully doesn't come off as being anything other than just wondering what your opinion is:
but on the opposite side of your question...why should people from all over the world have to conform to a country's standards and religious practices in order to view a sporting event?
would you then say the same thing about women attending a sporting event in regions where women are required to wear veils?..so in order to watch soccer/football live one would have to change their mode of dress, purchase "appropriate" clothing even? i understand that 'western' culture shouldn't rule..but when travel occurs the other way there's no expectation of changing your mode of dress and how one practices daily living... all in all isn't the goal of fifa to allow as many fans as possible to see the game live? and as part of that shouldn't it be to provide a venue where the majority of its fans are comfortable?
would you say the same thing if north korea were to win the bid? or any number of other countries? i guess what i'm wondering is where would one draw the line of what's 'appropriate'...
i guess the main question is WHY is FIFA bringing the sport to a country the size of connecticut..that has no infrastructure/world cup stadia?
the main difference between this bid and the US in 1984 is that the US had stadia in place that could be adapted for the game... that and the US had qualified for the world cup before...Qatar has never even played a match in the world cup...so once again we'll have a team in the world cup that absolutely doesn't belong there... will get dismantled and will allow one group to have a much easier match than the other groups..how will that then encourage the sport in qatar?
i feel like there needs to be some qualifying criteria put in place for the selection of the largest sporting even on earth.. i think number one on the list should require the team to have qualified at least once...number two maybe require that they've qualified sometime in the last 20 years...
and i'm not sayin the US deserves the cup... although it makes more sense than having it in europe again first...
with all that said..FIFA deserves to update itself..in the same way that FIFA is thinking about building the game they should be thinking of ways to improve it.. the fact that they haven't moved into the 21st century with cameras and technology to allow the refs to be somewhat competent is startling.. every other major sport has video replay of some sort. the games are too close to allow for mistakes which happens easily with only three refs and no cameras...
I think you guys are assuming that women will have to wear viels and stuff there at the 2020 World Cup. I spent a lot of time in the Gulf and Bahrain and Qatar in particular are pretty open in terms of dress codes. I see women dressing and men dressing pretty much in western fashion... I think they are even more "open" than Dubai actually.
It's not like the World Cup is being held in Saudi or Iran.
med. I think you are under a mistaken belief that any society will continue to progress towards being more liberal. Mass regressions happen just as often. By 2020 Qatar could just as well become a military dictatorship that forbids women from observing events that involve men wearing shorts. Qatar reminds me of '70's Iran a bit.
larslarson: your observations are valid. Keep in mind Qatar has more money than brains. They are eager to show the world they are capable of doing this. In fact, I would expect quite a spectacle from them. Also think of all the 10 and 12 year olds in that region who may just become obsessed with soccer (as opposed to being obsessed with religion) due to this event. Some of them will end up playing in the cup.
These types of sporting events, be that the world cup or the Olympics, are a much better fit for developing regions. From urbanist/development perspective, these are wonderful opportunities to improve public infrastructure, transportation, and facilities. Whether this happens in actual life comes down to successful implementation. Atlanta didn't benefit much. Vancouver benefited a lot. London beat out NYC for the Olympics. I think NYC got the better deal out of that one.
What the hell is Qatar going to do with 15 brand new stadiums after the tournament? Maybe the premier league should ship its season to the Middle East...
Deathcamps. Or fat farms. By 2020 80% of Muricans will have Diabeetus. Emperor Obama will send the fattest ones over to Qatar for some manual labor spas.
Or maybe the top 15 finishers get to take a stadium home.
lars,
the way you put it, it is hard not to agree with you and i do. in the same time, you have put the blame on fifa as well and i agree with you on that even more.
as much as i am happy that this event might give us westerners a glimpse of their civilization and culture, it, unfortunately, is fueling existing animosity to muslim way of living. i really don't know if any of the rules qatar might be applying are official, or they are exaggerated by the known sources of this kind of divisive groups.
i really don't think any of it will be a negative factor during the games. i think we will see an incredibly well planned and invested organization with beautiful and innovative stadiums that are dis-mountable etc..
i thought it was a great decision to leave the vuvuzelas in the game last summer even though many complained it was destructive at the pitch.
let's be careful not to buy into this propaganda coming from known sources questioning the quality of the games twelve years from now and without really knowing.
the purpose of international games is also to bring the beautiful qualities of the particular geography and culture to the viewers. let's not reject it even before we know what'll be.
i think the soccer scene in the persian gulf region is very trying. i know they love the game there because i watch a lot of uefa games via gulf channels. obviously they see the potential and want to invest in it.
i remember the times when i would be critical of building in dubai on this forum and get bunch of people yelling at me for attacking to their livelihood of archi service providing. you would remember that. nowadays everybody abandon dubai... it is the popular response.
i think both the world cup and olympics, or at least one, should've gone to istanbul. but they lost both in their trials in the recent past. i think committees who decide for both games are the most corrupted organizations. it is obvious where these games go to and with what sort of moves played in the background.
Orhan,
I agree that i know nothing about Qatar, but then again that's sort of the point...why is fifa finding out of the way places to have the cup? i understand that it's the world's game, but with that said there are established centers of the game...and since it happens every 4 years it's a precious commodity...it's like having a rugby tournament in south america or japan or something.. there are enough locations that have established leagues and/or teams... turkey actually makes a lot more sense since they've actually had a decent team recently.
i don't know if that's similar to qatar or not... i will say that having the cup there will at least bring attention to the country/region... but then again that may not be a good thing...south africa was a 'success', but mainly in the way that they kept most of the bad news out of the coverage there.. or maybe they didn't..who knows. i just don't know why fifa wants the cups in places that are not destinations for most people and are potentially dangerous for some of its fans. but then again maybe this helps with erasing preconceptions.
Rusty, it would I think that your opinion that "Qatar reminds you of '70's Iran a bit" would be relavant if:
A. You actually knew something about Iran in general.
B. If you actually knew anything about Qatar in general.
C. If you actually knew something about the Arab World in general particularly in the Persian Gulf.
Also I'm n ot saying that they wil become liberal (in a western fashion). But they are definitely no Iran - two completely different cultures, two completely different religious affiliations, two completely different political backgrounds -- in general two completely different situations and countries.
Plus by saying Iran went backwards, it's like you are trying to tell everyone that the Shah (an absolute monarch and a dictator) was a really forward thinking individual paving way for a forward-thinking nation which couldn't possibly be further than the truth. That he was a self-proclaimed thug and tyrant is even finessed upon is just proof that you along with most Americans don't have a clue about the region and stick to interminable talk and propaganda.
Take Iraq for instance - just about every American here fell for all the bullshit about Iraq in 2002-2003 from all of the "experts" and look where it got us??? Looks like they are at it again now.
No offense but Americans naturally do not have the ability to understand anything about the Middle East.
Geez med. who peed in your cereal this morning?
I am well aware of huge differences between Iran and Qatar. Heck, you could fit entire Qatar inside a suburb of Tehran.
Still though, Qatar has undergone a period of liberalization and modernization during the reign of the current Emir, the type of which reminds me of Shah's Iran's policies in '70's Iran. Both are/were heavily supported by the western countries (especially US).
I know quite a number of American Iranians who have nothing but hatred towards Khomeini's revolution. Then again they all emigrated because of this, so my sample may be skewed.
My comparison starts and ends with western supported modernization. That's all.
It's like saying that the current US economy and state of political discourse kind of reminds me of late'80's Yugoslavia. One is completely unlike the other. But I'd vote for Palin/Milosevic ticket in a heartbeat :) I like chaos.
If we forget about the following things...
1- Heat
2- Bribery
3- Incompetency
Isn't this going to be a logistical nightmare? Where the hell are you going to find workers, let alone manufacture enough steel, to create these ridiculous stadiums (which look like they've been created by a fine arts student in the 11th grade).
OH, and lets forget about the fact that the son of Hitler's personal Nazi architect Albert Speer designed all these stadiums.
workers will come from India, like they do now.
Steel will be purchased with money.
All stadiums looks silly. Period. The ones that are in DD stage do look like drawings done by a toddler.
"muslim way of living"
I think that's the issue. Not necessarily the issue of difference but between the difference that lies between Muslim and Islamic.
For instance, many Muslim countries before the 1980s had been going through their own internal reformations.
Tunisia banned the veil. Morocco had made similar statements about remaining a plurality. Modest dress was pretty much unheard of in Egypt. Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia were pretty lassiez-faire on the issue and still are for the most part.
And the big one here obviously is Turkey's secularization.
One particular bit that a lot of Europeans, and by extension Americans, don't understand is that sizable portion of Europe lived under a Christian-Muslim duality under the Ottoman empire for 6 centuries being largely peaceful.
All that being said-- Jordan, Lebanon and Syria were three of the biggest tourist destinations for much of the 19th and 20th centuries. No longer the case.
I use the terms Muslim and Islam not specifically to their true meanings. As Islamic generally now refers to the radical Arab Islamization that is currently happening worldwide.
I think this is something that perhaps Muslims do not find as terrifying as non-muslims do. And for many people around the world-- not just Europeans or Americans-- find this trend of 'radicalization' and 'Arabization' to be highly unsettling.
Many places around the world with both existing, historical or even new Muslims populations have not encountered these problems until very recently. And it is not something that either party is responsible for solely but both parties are to blame equally for their inability to get along.
In addition, many countries have been striving for secularized society for centuries and Muslims are just a new "victim" in a long battle of European 'Enlightenment.'
With all that being said, Sharia law (and all of its variations) only applies to Muslims. Most non-muslims are not expected to uphold those laws.
In addition, Christian and Jewish ideology really only applies to those who bare the original sin. Therefore, basically anyone who isn't Semitic also doesn't have to follow Christian and Jewish doctrine [That's basically ALL OF EUROPE.]
I have no idea why Europeans do not recognize that they are not an ethnic group named in the bible as being one of the original tribes of Israel.
"In addition, many countries have been striving for secularized society for centuries and Muslims are just a new "victim" in a long battle of European 'Enlightenment.'"
And its not too difficult to understand how this secularization is translated as an extension of imperialism ... along with the "free market" economic reforms... and all that good stuff. Doesn't necessarily have to be the case always, but you know...
And you'd all be lying to yourselves if you think the fear/dislike of the arab world is not propogating this excess reaction to Qatar getting 2022.
jvc..
i think that's the easy way out..
many people have brought up legit points about why the cup shouldn't be played in qatar...not the least of which is that as the host nation qatar is given a bye into the cup...thereby giving one of 32 spots to a team that will get beat in all three group games convincingly..and a team that deserves to go will be left home.
qatar has:
no history of soccer
no organized league
no world class stadia
do they have a national team?
etc.
turkey would make a lost more sense since it has all of the above.. it's one thing to go to the region..it's another to give the worlds largest sporting event to a country that has no proven track record of being able to host an event and no (as of yet) required infrastructure to support this many tourists..
WHY is the world cup not going to a country that already has all of this in place? it's every four years...countries/continents that regularly participate and win games in the world cup shouldn't have to wait three decades to host...or host teams should have to qualify like everyone else.
What I meant to say was not that the points brought up by people were all BS, just very condescending / speculative / and excessive + fueled, perhaps subconsciously, by the fear/hate of the muslim other.
The USA had as much history of 'soccer' and so much less interest in the sport, yet they still hosted in 1994.
I do agree that Turkey would be a better choice but, correct me if I am wrong, they did not bid.
And if it is FIFA's business to foster the game throughout the world it makes sense to give it to a country like qatar in a region like the middle east. That given, Qatar was chosen because its bid clearly demonstrated it had the financial clout and ability to build necessary infrastructure to host the cup.
And apparently there was also some shady business with the Qatari guy who's head of AFC and is Blatter's successor as FIFA president. Its been said that he agreed to stay on as AFC president and not challenge for FIFA presidency right away so that Blatter can continue his reign of terror for a while longer. FIFA is corrupt, whats new?
________________________________________
Moving on to the (highly condescending) remarks and concerns:
no history of soccer - its football.
theyre a tiny fucking country in the desert, yet, a larger proportion of qataris are interested in 'soccer' than the USA or Australia. At several points during the last several years their national team was ranked higher than Australia (remember, AUSTRALIA VERY BIG, qatar tiny). Although they do seem to have gone downhill since 2008.
organized league - remarkably, they've got one.
no world class stadia - they'll build it. and ship off bits and pieces to developing regions (who, to be honest, really need more important shit than stadium supplies_ another story) which will allow the game to grow.
do they have a national team - wtf..really? despite not being world beaters, the qatari national team is able to somewhat compete with the bigger asian teams like japan, skorea, iran etc... perhaps on par with china. again, only a few years ago they were ranked higher than australia. and if north korea (consistently ranked lower than qatar) can hold its own against brazil, why can't qatar?
______________________
drinking zones? nothing like that in the bid. and qatar is not saudi arabia. nothing about dressing restrictions either. Again, speculation fueled by anti muslim bs. And also to repeat anothers point:
"why should western values monopolize every fucking thing on earth?"
______________________
And why exactly is it required that only the countriess good at football get to host the damn cup anyway? If thats a requirement, what's the cutoff point? Is it decided by fifa rankings? Or is a 'history of soccer', whatever it means, required?
Again, this is not to say I like what goes on in the gulf, especially the imported slave labor from south asia. But can the west really talk about economic morality?
________________________
In short: qatar has financial ability to construct infrastructure to host a successful cup. fifa wants to spread the game. whats your problem?
________________________
Excuse me, I have to go eat lunch, then take a dump.
jvc.
ok..so i didn't mean to be ignorant but apparently i was regarding qatar's team.. i honestly didn't know if they had one or were ranked.
the US has a history in the world cup.. they finished third in 1930...qatar has never even qualified...trying to compare the US getting the cup and qatar getting the cup is apples and oranges...the US already had the infrastructure and stadia needed to host.
the only thing re: host teams playing is that it takes away one of the spots for other higher ranked teams...or teams that have won games and deserve to go..
South Africa wouldn't have qualified...neither will Qatar...maybe even Russia..
it just makes one group weaker than the others and gives stronger teams an advantage..
true..fifa is corrupt.
lol @ 1930 us world cup history.
The first World Cup was the only one without qualification. Every country affiliated with FIFA was invited to compete, and given a deadline of 28 February 1930 to accept. Plenty of interest was shown by nations in the Americas; Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru and the United States all entered. Other countries didn't show up because they couldnt afford the trip or they didn't feel like it was worth it.
yes its apples to oranges. But it is precisely because the US is a large nation and spends considerable resources on 'soccer' that it has a world cup history. wouldn't letting a country in the mideast host a w.c. allow it to invest in the sport and create its history?
And, in terms of interest in the sport - a much much larger percentage of qataris care for it.
Re: weak teams/ unbalanced groups because of weak hosts:
1) On the contrary, you could say taking away a weak host would detract from allowing an average national team/system from developing into a world class one, a la south korea (i realize south korea was in better shape than qatar, but it did jump from rank 40 smthin to 20 after w.c. 2002)
2) you could also use this argument to scrap the current system of alloting certain numbers from different federations. hence making this a south american/european competition. after all, would any other teams really qualify if it really was a competition of the best teams in the world?
-26 out of top 32 teams according to current fifa rankings are from these regions.
3) again, the world cup seems to bring out extraordinary performances from the very ordinary. Senegal (ranked very similar to qatar) beating france in 2002 / North korea vs brazil 2010 / north korea vs italy sometime in the 70s/80s and the like..
4) work is really slow today.
1.if there's one thing a football fan should know..and i'm sure you do..is that fifa rankings mean nothing.
2. i'd be interested to see how much money qataris spend on players compared to the US.. i imagine that the numbers wouldn't be disimilar..obv the US has a larger player pool but since we're breaking things down per capita i'd imagine that qatar has spent more per player..
3. do you really think qatar will ever qualify for another world cup?
1. i do know fifa rankings don't count for shit, hence the fact that qatar is ranked so low shouldnt affect the way a group is balanced. they'll play their hearts out in front of a home crowd. After all football is a game of 11 against 11 and on the pitch desire counts for as much as talent.
2. That doesn't make sense to me - I do not understand how the money spent per player would actually make a better national team, assuming they're not being genetically engineered or something. At least not as much difference as the larger pool and greater infrastructure do (academies, stadia, leagues etc.).
Maybe the money coming into the Qatari FA will allow it to invest on that stuff & bring in players from abroad etc.; leading to more footballing growth. Maybe they'll get another freddy adu from ghana - hopefully one that doesnt flop.
3. If the likes of Saudi Arabia and North Korea can qualify then there is every reason qatar can. really.
4. I am not qatari.
5. I believe the world cup doesn't necessarily have to be about the best teams going at it against each other, thats what i watch the champions league for. I personally find it enjoyable to watch national teams from *around the world* going at it agains each other. How awesome would a match between algeria and france be, or as happened in 2002(?) USA v Iran. They're not necessarily the best teams, but its the WORLD cup. Its as much fun to watch the football as it is to see the tensions of global geopolitics played out on the field.
6. Work is slow again.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.