If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
World Cup, Or Olympics
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
What would you prefur our government spend millions, if not billions on if you had to choose between the two.
Fifa world cup
Olympics
Fifa world cup
Olympics
Post edited by JustV on
0
Comments
Trying to win - Olympics
Hosting - Football
The football is much better. More of the country gets to see it, because it's spread around. Better atmosphere and better competition. No other sport has so many countries taking it so seriously. And football wouldn't cost anywhere near as much either, because everything is in place.
But if you're going to invest in sport, the Olympics are where you'll get success. Football is already the biggest sport in the world, so you're not going to make much of a dent by trying to bankroll a win. But a big budget for any of the less mainstream sports can lead to medals, as we saw in the cycling last year. Anything that can essentially make an amateur athlete professional will give them a huge advantage. Not that it's especially in the Olympic spirit, but the Americans have been doing it for decades, and the Chinese have followed suit, so why can't we? Also every country has a specialist sport that they win everything in, because they know that they don't have much competition. And football is probably one of the only world sports where this is impossible.
Unless we're winning, and then even curling can be exciting.
Curling is exciting, but not worth a billion quid.
I'd rather we win the world cup though, wherever it's held!
World Cup/Euro Championships are much better because they are spread out, it truly is a national event, all the big cities get a go. Therefore the whole country benefits, not just a few London toffee boys.
It's called the London olympics not the British olympics. It makes sense logistically that cities host the Olympics rather than countries.
With the World Cup it's different. Quite cleary you wouldn't be able to hold all the games in a single stadium.
And whether or not you think the Olympics is worth hosting or not. The benifit that will come with it won't just affect Londoners.
Still, I'd rather see the World Cup come here. Euro 96 was an excellent tournament, and I'd liek to see it repeated on a larger scale.
As for benefit, didn't Montreal and Atlanta both go bust because of the Olympics?
As opposed to running around and kicking things?
Whether or not you think the cost of the event means it's worth hosting or not, there ARE benifits to British sport. It's not just a London thing.
Other areas of the UK which will host parts of the games, including Cardiff’s Millennium Stadium, Villa Park in Birmingham, Old Trafford and Glasgow’s Hampden Park stadium. Broxbourne in Hertfordshire will host the canoe events, Eton Dorney the rowing, and Weymouth and Portland the sailing events.
After the Games, four arenas, three 50m swimming pools and the water polo pools will be disassembled and rebuilt in other parts of the UK. All the sports equipment used will also be donated to UK sports clubs and charities.
Hmm, are they hosting football by any chance?
all the major cities will be able to host a game
london, could pick any one of about 7 stadia in london that would be able to cater for a world cup game.
manchester, old trafford, city of manchester stadium
birmingham, villa park, st andrews, the hawthorns
leeds, elland road
liverpool, anfield & goodison
portsmouth st marys
newcastle, st james, stadium of light
St Mary's is in Southampton. I'm also very offended by you placing the Stadium Of Light in Newcastle...
As if that shed that P*mpey call home could ever host an international!
Not Arf Krap.
Well, if you boil it down to "running around and jumping over things," somebody can just say who cares about running around kicking a ball. There's a lot of people who care about both.
All that being said, football waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over the Olympics.