When FIFA announced last year that the 2030 FIFA World Cup would be played in six countries spread across three continents, the reaction was the typical mix of bewilderment and indignation as football’s global governing body had once again outdone itself in making a decision that seemingly ignores common sense.While “celebrating the centenary of the FIFA World Cup” by playing the first three matches in Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, the latter of which hosted the first FIFA World Cup in 1930, sounds like a nice idea on paper, South America is a roughly 12-hour flight away from Spain, Portugal and Morocco, where the rest of the World Cup will be played – not exactly ideal for athletes who will have to play in South American winter one day and in Europe’s/North Africa’s summer a couple of days later. Not to mention the ecological footprint of such a global footballing extravaganza.
pull down to refresh
related posts
33 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby 12 Dec
Wow what a huge difference between a typical year and World Cup years. Surprised they aren’t pushing to move it to every 2 years.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 12 Dec
There are already too many competitions and this would be impossible for the athletes. But they're trying with the new FIFA World Club Cup in 2025, which will be in the USA.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @LowK3y19 12 Dec
Big money in Futbol
reply