What is FIFA’s Plan B for World Cup 2010?
Sepp Blatter says there’s a Plan B for World Cup 2010, should South Africa prove incapable of hosting. He didn’t say what it was, just that he had one. For all we know Plan B could be a piece of paper with PANIC!!! written on it in big letters.
Let’s hope not though, eh? Here’s exactly what the king of FIFA said recently:
“I would be a very negligent president if I hadn’t put away in a drawer somewhere a plan B,” said Blatter.
“However, only a natural catastrophe would change things.
“If we had to activate the plan B, we would take our decision after the Confederations Cup.”
Anyone else notice Sepp sending mixed signals there? Making clear there’s a Plan B seems like an obvious threat to South Africa to get it together before he takes his tournament elsewhere. Then the “only a natural catastrophe” line suggests Plan B is just a worst case scenario contingency plan.
But the final line suggests he’ll see how things look after the Confederations Cup in June 2009. The CC is basically a warm-up gid for the big thing, so Blatter’s implying that if he doesn’t like what he sees then the curtain’s coming down early on South Africa 2010.
Should it come to that, what do you think Plan B is? Obviously we can only speculate right now, but logic dictates it’s going to involve relocating the World Cup to a country with all the stadia and infrastructure in place and good to go at short notice.
Maybe a repeat of World Cup 2006 in Germany? Maybe another traditional football country with loads of stadiums, like England? Maybe the USA, always mooted as a potential World Cup stand in? Could be anywhere really.
But let’s hope it doesn’t come to that. My feeling is that the Seppster was just having one of his infamous headline grabbing moments (and to be fair, he’s good at it) in order to give South Africa a little scare.
Whatever happens, the 2009 Confederations Cup is going to carry a lot more intrigue than usual next summer.
 |
Soccer Forums | International Results |  |
 |  Travel |
Related Posts
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share        |
Comments
By Martin | July 1st, 2008 at 6:10 pm 
The United States seems like the only country outside of Europe that could put things together on a year’s notice… Maybe Australia?
I don’t know, but two European WCs in a row would likely kill any European bid for 2018.
Posted from 
United States
By Daryl | July 2nd, 2008 at 3:43 am That’s true, but I don’t think Blatter will be thinking about rotation if he has to make a decision in 2009. He’ll just be looking for somewhere - anywhere - that can put a WC together at a years notice.
Posted from 
United Kingdom
By moka (ACM) | July 2nd, 2008 at 4:11 am Africa is extremely unstable.. Considering what’s going on in neighboring Zimbabwe, they should definitely need to have a plan B..
But then again, it’s 2 years away.. So stability might come back to Zimbabwe, but Africa is still Africa..
Posted from 
Kuwait
By mele419 | July 2nd, 2008 at 8:07 am South Africa also has the highest per capita murder rate in the world.
I’m praying it’s changed, because I’m getting tickets as a graduation gift (2010 baby!) and I sure as hell don’t want to go to South Africa. Imagine, all of us stupid tourist footy fans flashing our tickets, cellphones and jewlery…
Posted from United States
By Anthony | July 2nd, 2008 at 8:49 am I hate to pass judgment on a country I’ve never been to, but when you see magazine ads for flame-throwers you can bolt on your car, I have to wonder.
Posted from United States
By gaston | July 2nd, 2008 at 10:19 am the only thing that isn’t done are the stadiums. other than that everything is intact, hotels, training facilities, transportation, security etc, everything is ready
as for those who say south africa has highest murder rate, daeth is everywhere (this is not an africa problem).
Posted from United States
By elisa | July 2nd, 2008 at 12:04 pm I have heard Spain or the USA. Awesome!
Posted from United States
By Martin | July 2nd, 2008 at 11:19 pm “as for those who say south africa has highest murder rate, daeth is everywhere”
That is probably the least comforting thing you can say.
Posted from United States
By mele419 | July 4th, 2008 at 9:06 am death is everywhere, no shit huh?
South Africa has the HIGHEST rate of MURDER.
VIOLENT
KILLING.
MORE
THAN
ANYWHERE
ELSE.
Posted from United States
By Evil Han | July 8th, 2008 at 1:18 am I agree on most of the comments. FIFA must relocate the 2010 World Cup out of South Africa. Somewhere else? My strong suggestion and support should be USA?
Anyway,
We were able to host a very successful 1994 World Cup: commercially and touristly. Despite the 94 WC finals didn’t go that well.
Yes,
We have modern sports stadiums and transportation facilities to do it once again. Along with major commercial sponsors and tourist attractions. Almost every US cities have already built, renovated, or negotiated to invest a new stadium. Thanks to the NFL (National Football League) for encouraging club owners to make it happen. 2010 WC in USA here we come!!
OBTW,
2014 WC host should not be awarded to Brazil. As you know that they too have political and social issues like South Africa. My recommendation is put the event in South America: Argentina or Europe: England or Spain.
Posted from United States
By Mac | July 8th, 2008 at 8:32 pm I am a resident from South Africa, let me tell you that Africa is as mentioned above : an ABSOLUTE MESS.
Yes , we have highest rate of MURDER,RAPE etc.
But its an absolutely beautiful country to “visit” - to visit, however not too live. If you stay out of the “dodgy” areas, you will be fine.
As for the World Cup, well we wont be ready - regarding the stadiums, whether they are on time or not, im not sure - do we have enough accomodation - NO
Do we have enough police to guarantee safety - NO - how can we keep foreigners safe, when we cant even keep locals safe.
Have we overspent budgeted amounts for stadium - YES , and in true African style, some African brothers and sisters have pocketed large sums, CORRUPTION - a very popular word in this part of the world.
So thats the long and the short of it.
Hell , i may be incorrect, maybe Africa can pull this one off, I as a local, somehow doubt it.
By Mac | July 8th, 2008 at 8:36 pm By Jason | July 8th, 2008 at 11:35 pm Agree with Mac. I am a local and not sure whether SA can pull this one off. Transportation, crime, stadiums, and safety are a chronic problem. But then again if you stay out of the dodgy areas it may be a fantastic, cheap holiday.
By Tom Blogs | July 10th, 2008 at 4:55 am Im an ex South African and as much as I would love for it to be there even Sepp Blatter has to face reality at some stage, hopefully it wont be to late. I think everybody knows by now knows that crime is a serious problem in SA and that you cant walk the streets of Juburg and live to tell the tale.
Posted from 
Australia
By Dude with Attitude | July 10th, 2008 at 6:40 am I am actually the Plan B-Thing is in fact the United States!
Blatter has spoken to three different countries in the case, that South Africa doesn´t get the stadiums ready! But USA would be a wise decision, cause the sport is growing over there and that World Cup would definetely put Soccer over in the US.
Anyways, i still believe come hell or high water the World Cup will indeed go to South Africa. The Confed Cup next year will show whether that´s true or not.
Posted from United States
By Madala | July 10th, 2008 at 8:00 am Firstly to the “locals”, and ex-south africans. You make out that walking the streets is guaranteed to get you killed. What nonsense. I know we have serious problems, but tell it like it is and not your personal skewed perceptions. Please don’t talk to me about corruption. SA pales in comparison to the USA. (note: Halliburton and Iraq) Let me remind you that we have hosted a rugby world cup and a cricket world cup. They are smaller tournaments in comparison, but I don’t recall major problems. Instead of willing on disaster, and justifying leaving this country, shut up and make comments on your new country.
Secondly to all the Americans, I have travelled around the USA, have seen the slums of Louisiana, and I have felt just as unsafe.
Let’s be honest the 1994 WC was probably the most insipid of all the WC tournaments. Face it soccer is a girls game over there, not for real men.
By Evil Han | July 12th, 2008 at 6:27 am @ Madala,
Wow! You finally were able to see the 2nd world poverty in my country. Especially in the Southern region of USA. Yes, Madala aka Asshole! Unfortunately, we do have some poverty here in USA. However, we are able to keep it under control, and it’s only a small percentage. If you try to compare our poverty into your nation (SA). There is no comparison like: bird shit or dog shit. Get your facts straight!
As for corruption in USA or Iraq? You can’t compare the two! At the same time, you’re going off the subject. Unreasonably, you are mixing up with ethics and morals. Many people, who are writing on this World Cup blog feels that SA has got some political and social issues. In order to be prepared for a major sporting event. As we are reading and watching on internet, tv, magazine, and newspaper. We see the chaos going on in your nation!
Since we are living in a global world of the 21st Century.
Posted from United States
By Evil Han | July 12th, 2008 at 6:43 am @ Madala,
BTW,
You’re comparing the USA men’s national team like a bunch of girliemen. Excuse me? Let us write about your SA men’s national team. When was the last time you guys were able to qualify for the Men’s FIFA World Cup lately? Since 1998? At least we (USA) were able to qualify consistantly: 1990-Present.
1994 WC in USA was insipid or a joke to host. As you wrote? Oh okay? Out of all the various WC events. USA was still ranked the top most visited spectators to host it in the world. Well we shall see how SA will show up tourists to watch and visit the tournament. Only time will tell? If you guys (SA) are able to pull it off on schedule?
Posted from United States
By hopefulBut | July 14th, 2008 at 7:29 am I agree on the “mixed signals”.How will a natural catastrophe (think earthquake, floods) be known 1 year in advance? A decision taken one year in advance can only be taken due to infrastructure or security concerns.
I am a South African citizen and resident, proud until very recently. My worry is not the stadiums, but the security situation.In my company (we are 40 employees), we have collectively experienced 9 incidents of violent crime (involving guns) in the last two months.One of my collegues lost both her parents, who were gunned down in their room.We are a technology company, and we are all middle class people who try to stay far away from dodgy areas.Avoiding dodgy areas hasn’t helped us much. My own wife and kid were attacked in our home two weeks ago. Fortunately they weren’t hurt, but we lost a lot of sentimental stuff, like her wedding ring.If the WC is held here in 2010,a majority of visitors will have a great time, but a sizable minority will have their worst holiday ever, and a small minority will leave this country in a body bag.
If that were to happen, it will cast a very dark shadow over the whole event.
Forget the stadiums. The other thing is, we don’t have public transport. And I mean don’t. We used to. But currently,there is no way to get from where I live (a typical mixed suburbun and commercial area where many of the accommodation is situated) to any entertainment areas, or to any stadium , using public transport. Labourers who don’t have cars stay in the so called “dodgy areas”, which is served by very unsafe unroadworthy mini bus taxis, going to the places of employment. There are deaths due to taxi wars every week. It’s usually some operator infringing on another’s perceived route, or someone offering a service to commuters when the main trade union has called a strike. The taxis do not service routes from hotels to stadiums, and they don’t have the capacity to do so.
Practically, that’s the only public transport we have. The only way to get from the airport to the city centre (or anywhere, for that matter), is using highly expensive private airport shuttles.
Bottom line. For soccer fans who don’t have driver’s licenses, or who do have licenses but who aren’t confident to drive under foreign conditions, I really cannot see how they will get around.The can use airport shuttle services, but that will defeat the object of SA being a “budget destination”. I really don’t know how it’s going to work. I wish I am missing something, and that somehow it is going to be a huge success…
By RJ | July 16th, 2008 at 4:26 am I live in Cape Town, the only tourist city in the world where there is no public transport from the airport. In fact, there is no public transport anywhere that is safe, clear or reliable. The crime-infested trains for exmaple don’t even have doors that close and are from 1958.
The levels of random violent contact crime is staggering. They will kill you for your mobile phone. African nations unfortunately just don’t have the organisational skill to pull off a modern event on this scale. Remember this is a place where politicians still refer to each other daily as “Comrade” and talk about “revolution”.
Home Affairs now takes 9 months to issue a new passport…how on earth are they going to get it together to host a World Cup. I’d hate to be Sepp Blatter !
By joaquin065 | July 19th, 2008 at 10:33 pm I think its fair to see how the Confederations Cup goes in 09. If it goes well with out alot of promblems then it most likly will be is SA. But if one of the back ups is the USA (which lets not lie it is. Along with mexico and spain) is that the USA is to big. I think as a fan you dont want to travel across four time zones in a four days time. You want to be based somewhere and go a few hours away watch the game and be able to go back to your hotel. If your talking about the best place to put the world cup by matters of safty and and getting from the hotel to the stadium and matters of that then the USA would be the best. But just in north america my first choice to put on a WC wouldnt be the USA. It would be Mexico. They have soccer stadiums not football stadiums. They have hosted two great world cups. (70 Pele, 86 Maridona). They have some advanced citys like monterry. They already have three BEAUTIFUL stadiums that wont need much addtion to them (jalisco stadium 72600, estadio olimpico 63186) And where would you rather see a world cup finals. The rose bowl? Or Azteca stadium? Any real soccer fan would know that the answer would be Azteca.
MEXICO 2010!
Posted from United States
By Evil Han | July 21st, 2008 at 12:47 am @ joaquin065,
Wow,
I don’t know? Where you are getting your ideas? Like having Mexico to host another WC event? Yes! Mexico did host 2 WCs: 70 and 86. Remember? There were only few national teams to qualify at the time: 70 = 16 and 86 = 24. Also, FIFA didn’t worry about “high-tech” football stadiums during that time. As long as you had stadiums that were capable to hold any game event.
Now,
We are living in the 21st Century of a Global Technological Revolution. FIFA wants to have “state of the art” football stadiums for any nation to host the WC. Therefore, if SA doesn’t comply up to the standards to host 2010 WC on time. FIFA would have no choice, but to relocate 2010 WC at another nation. My strong guess must be the USA! Since, almost every US major cities have built, renovated, or negotiated to invest modern sports stadiums. Thanks again to the NFL for making this happen.
Anyway,
Here is a list of 16 US major cities to possibly host in their modern stadiums for 2010 WC:
1. Gillette Stadium (Boston), 2. New Meadowlands Stadium (NYC), 3. Lincoln Financial Field (Philly), 4. M&T Stadium (Baltimore), 5. Fed-Ex Field (DC), 6. Paul Brown Stadium (Cincinnati), 7. Ford Field (Detroit), 8. New Soldier Field (Chicago), 9. New Arrowhead Stadium (KC), 10. Invesco Field(Denver), 11. U of Phoenix Stadium (Phoenix), 12. Qwest Field (Seattle), 13. New Cowboys Stadium (Dallas), 14. Reliant Stadium (Houston), 15. Raymond James Stadium (Tampa), and 16. New Dolphins Stadium (Miami).
What do ya think?
Posted from United States
By Evil Han | July 21st, 2008 at 12:59 am OBTW,
Here is other possible US major cities by 2010 to host the WC, but they don’t have modern stadiums:
San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, New Orleans, Atlanta, Buffalo, and Minneapolis.
How’s about that?
Posted from United States
Comments are closed
