this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
0 points (50.0% liked)

Main

139 readers
3 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ray192@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Saudi Arabia has 2 such pre-existing stadiums. They didn’t meet the requirement (the South American bid did). But of course FIFA suddenly decided to relax that rule for Saudi.

Australia doesn't have meet those requirements either (most of the 40k+ stadiums are Ovals that don't meet the sightline requirements) so the rule relaxation benefits them too.

[–] Kingslayer1526@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

That is far more easy to relax on then Saudi Arabia having only 2/14 stadiums and needing to spend billions in 12 more stadiums for absolutely no fucking reason and will be used for nothing after the wc. Australia already has all the required grounds and the reason they are all ovals are because they are cricket grounds but they will be used before and long after the wc for cricket and afl so it's not wasting any money

[–] Ray192@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

I'm not arguing who has the better bid. The point is that loosening the requirements benefitted Australia too, not just SA.

[–] BlackMage075@alien.top 1 points 11 months ago

Used for nothing? this is not Qatar

Saudi Arabian league is very popular in the region and draws tens of thousands in attendance even before the last shopping spree and is currently in the top 10 most valuable leagues in the world, let alone in 10 years time