Not that important: FIFA World Cup decisions

[BlueCheese]

Let's say you were given the dream job of running the international competition of the world's most popular sport. Where would you decide to hold its quadrennial showcase summer event, eagerly anticipated and closely followed by hundreds of millions, if not billions of people? An event requiring building a dozen full-size soccer stadiums, hosting perhaps millions of fans and visitors, and constructing the infrastructure necessary to move them around?

Well, how about Qatar? It's a nice place, that clearly has the money to build things. What else does it offer?

- A population of 1.7 million, ranked 148th in the world (per Wikipedia). Afterwards, at 50,000 people per stadium, you could seat a third of the country's population at them, thus providing for Qatar's crucial stadium needs well into the next several centuries. Even better, about three-quarters of the population (online estimates vary) consists of guest workers, so you might even be able to fit every Qatari citizen inside.

- An authoritarian government, ranked 144th in the world in freedom by Democracy Index. No worrying about whether approval to build all those stadiums will get stuck in a recalcitrant legislature. A place where gender equality is making progress-- according to Amnesty International, as of 2008, both men and women can be sentenced to death for homosexuality. Also, drinking alcohol in public is a punishable offense, thus reducing the chances of soccer hooliganism.

- An opportunity to grow new markets. Qatar has almost no soccer tradition, so this is a good chance to grow the fanbase of "the beautiful game".

- An average temperature of 106 degrees in July. This will put to rest the fears of fans freezing to death that so plagued South Africa this year and Germany in 2006.

Okay, enough fun. I don't really have much against Qatar or Qataris. It's just that FIFA's decision is ludicrous. I'm not one to beat a patriotic drum, but the US was clearly the much more sensible bid in almost every respect, probably even in terms of revenue. If not the US, Australia, Korea, or Japan would have made reasonable choices, though the latter two hosted the Cup in 2002. But really, a summer tournament in 100 degree weather?

[Karenina]

1. I don't think you quite get the "big picture."

Just think about what travel conditions will be in 12 years as the middle class fan base is NOW being eviscerated. FIFA is hedging its bets.

[MrCoffee]

2. This is all about Sepp Blatter's idea of his place in history

He wants to be remembered as the man who brought the World Cup to the world (by choosing really ill-suited venues), as opposed to being remembered as a complete asshat who screwed up nearly every decision he was entrusted with and held the game back with both fists.

[AndrewP]

3. Bingo

[BlueCheese]

4. Honestly...

... that's the most charitable explanation possible. Blatter is lucky that soccer is too popular a game for even extreme incompetence to ruin, though he and FIFA are certainly giving it their best shot.

Sometimes it seems that international organizations serve mainly to remind us that power corrupts.

[Drale]

5. Kind of like giving the 2016 Olympic games to Rio

and leaving Chicago out in the cold. Yes Chicago has a gang problem as well, but in Rio the games shoot down police helicopters on monthly basis and I've never heard of a Chicago gang doing that ever. It's all politics lets give it to a country that really shouldn't get it because it will look like we are including them in world events.

[BlueCheese]

6. Compared to Qatar...

Rio is terrific. I see your point, but at least a lot of people live in Rio, and Brazil has a lot of people and a big sporting tradition. Qatar has almost no people and no soccer tradition.