Mid-Day Ticker: England bid chief speaks out, Santos wins first leg and more



The adverse reactions to Thursday's decisions by FIFA haven't lost any steam a day later, with the chief of England's 2018 bid strongly speaking out against the world's governing body of soccer.

Andy Anson expressed his opinions of FIFA's decision-making process, calling for reform in the aftermath of England's first-round elimination in Thursday's vote during a press conference on Friday.

"I would say right now don't bother (bidding) unless you know the process is going to change," Anson said. "When there are only 22 guys that gives them too much influence."

He continued: "When you have the best technical bid, fantastic inspection visits, the best economic report, and, from what people told us, the best presentation, it's quite hard to stomach that all that seemed to count for absolutely nothing."

Here are a few more stories to carry you over to the weekend:


An own goal in the 86th minute by Duilio Davino snapped a 2-2 tie and handed Santos a 3-2 victory over Monterrey and the upper-hand after the first leg of the Mexican league championship Thursday night.

Santos twice took one-goal leads only to have the visitors battle back to level the score. Jorge Estrada and Darwin Quintero tallied goals for Santos, while Humberto Suazo and Neri Cardozo scored for Monterrey, which hosts the return leg on Sunday.


The Manchester United-Blackpool fixture slated for Saturday has been postponed on account of the pitch at Bloomfield Road being frozen.

So far, that's the only Premier League game in England that has been forced to be rescheduled, though six matches on the Scottish Premier League slate – including Rangers match against Hearts of Midlothian – have been postponed as well. It marks the second time in as many weeks that Rangers has had a league match rescheduled.

Many matches in the lower divisions of England and Scotland have also been pushed off.


The Houston Dynamo had their plan for a downtown stadium unanimously approved on Thursday, getting the green light from the Harris County-Harris Sports Authority to go forward with the project, which is expected to take 16 months to complete.

The stadium is scheduled to open ahead of the 2012 Major League Soccer season, and it will cost the Dynamo $76 million to build. The city of Houston and Harris County will reportedly own the stadium, and the Dynamo have agreed to lease the site for $65,000 a year, according to the Houston Chronicle.

Texas Southern University will also play its football games at the new venue, which will reportedly not cost taxpayers any money to have built.


What do you think of Anson's comments? Do you see Monterrey coming back to win the Mexican league final? Disappointed that many of the weekend's games in the UK are being cancelled? Excited for the new stadium to open in Houston?

Share your thoughts below.

This entry was posted in European Soccer, Mexican Soccer, MLS- Houston Dynamo. Bookmark the permalink.

81 Responses to Mid-Day Ticker: England bid chief speaks out, Santos wins first leg and more

  1. Aaron in StL says:

    Good for Houston. That’s the best way to have a sustainable and successful franchise.

  2. maka says:

    FIFA is corrupt? nah.

  3. Neg says:

    The only bad thing about Andy Anson is that it sounds like whining. However, he is dead on. When there’s no transparency in the election process people tend to get swindled. I think we all would have been okay with Australia getting the 2022 bid or Portugal/Spain receiving the 2018 bid. It wasn’t just the US and England who lost, but it was the fans who will now not travel to these games based on what happened. Part of the World Cup is to see the sights and sounds of that country; not to sit in my air conditioned hotel room.

  4. Goalscorer24 says:

    That is a good point by Anson. If you get a report back that your submission is top notch, and it does not count at all toward the selection. What is the point of putting together a submission at all?

  5. Stephen says:

    Andy Anson makes a great point. What is the point in preparing a bid and spending millions when the best bid by FIFA’s own standards is rejected? If FIFA is looking for non-technical reasons to back a host, then let that be known ahead of time and stop wasting everyone’s time. Say out loud that you want to award the WC to countries who haven’t hosted before. If that’s what you want, great, do that. Just don’t get everyone’s hopes up for years and make them believe they have a good bid when in reality they never had a chance.

  6. CrazyMike366 says:

    Its great to see some backlash against FIFA, even if it did come off as bitter whining. I hated the idea of selecting two hosts in the same session and I totally agree that the bidders with what appeared to me to be the worst presentations of their groups won their respective bids.

    Also I’m very excited to see another SSS going up, though I’m a bit confused over how Houston Dynamo can fork over $76m and not own it, while just $21m will come from public funds, if I read correctly. Seems a little unbalanced.

  7. montana matt says:

    is that a kandinsky for your icon? badass.

  8. SwerveZ says:

    It’s like having your professor going over your paper, saying you have an “A paper”, only to officially turn this paper in and get an “F”…

  9. BellusLudas says:

    This is a time in history that seems unprecedented to me. On so many fronts we are simply sick of corrupt bureaucracies shoving it down our throat. The common man is beginning to discover his voice. We feed these organizations with finances…time to put our money where our mouth is and cut them off.

    Unless there is REAL reform in FIFA I am boycotting.

  10. Chicago - Scott says:

    When is DC United going to get their own stadium???

  11. David says:

    Anson is right. If all of the evaluations or guidelines don’t count for anything and it really is up to the whim 22 old men looking to leave some sort of perceived legacy then don’t bother. Millions of dollars and man hours wasted by all the other countries involved and honestly if Fifa comes to the US needing a backup again like with the womans World Cup they should tell Fifa to shove it.

  12. John in FL says:

    When they become Baltimore United

  13. Thor says:

    Over Under on who Qatar pays bigger bribes to

    Sepp Blatter or Al-Qaeda

  14. Rory says:

    Anyone remember that old Monty Python skit where the guys were competing to see who could recite War and Piece from memory? Then afterwards they decide just to award the victory to the girl with the biggest boobs?

    That my friends, is what FIFA is. Only instead of boobs, it’s unmarked bills and hookers with big boobs.

  15. JSmiley says:

    There’s an important criterion for voting by the FIFA committee that I don’t think has been considered much in the blogs I’ve read.

    People apparently voted in both cases for the weakest soccer-playing country. The desired effect of this is to diminish the home-nation advantage, and to maintain the status quo of the elite soccer countries.

    South American and Euro representatives voted for Asian countries over US. Why? Their fans would be able to see the games much more easily if they were played in the US. I’m convinced that these countries did not want to see the WC in the US because it would mean that the US would have a great chance at advancing deep into the tournament, and would take a big step toward being a permanent top 10 team.

    Same with voting for Russia over England, Spain or Holland. Having the WC in any of those three is handing them a ticket to the finals. Not quite so sure with Russia.

    The unfortunate side effect was that the resulting host countries are the least accessible for the fans who are likely to travel for the games.

    It’s really unfortunate because the criteria should be: 1) where can your fans see the games? 2) where will there be a profitable and trouble-free tournament?

  16. Fus says:

    Well played sir!

  17. Rory says:

    Don’t worry United fans, St. Louis and Baltimore are busy planning your new stadium as we speak.

  18. @badwolfdc says:

    After 2022 – Qatar is sending one over

  19. Chicago - Scott says:

    St. Louis can’t even survive in Semi-Pro.. Don’t see them getting a MLS team anytime soon.

  20. Chicago - Scott says:

    hahahaha I like it

  21. OH SNAP says:

    When they move the club

  22. OH SNAP! says:

    Sepp Blatter IS Al-Qaeda

  23. Judging Amy says:

    Not just Blatter wanting to achieve a legacy, but the blatant, blatant corruption taking place at many levels at FIFA.

    Many of my Muslim friends seem to think that the selection of Qatar was a progressive and bold gesture against anti-Muslim/Middle-eastern sentiment.

    No matter how you feel about the worthiness of that justification, I feel that its invalidated by the aura of corruption surrounding the bid selection process.

    The decisions perpetrated by a selection committee of 22 old elite bureaucrats clearly don’t reflect populist global sentiment. No matter what people say, the selections of Qatar and Russia, weren’t noble gestures spitting in the face of hegemony. The contemptible pretext used to obfuscate the corrupt motives of FIFA is simply another example of the S.O.P.s of power and money. Its the opposite of grassroots resistance.

  24. Welshbean says:

    isn’t the next WC in Brazil?

  25. JSmiley says:

    Also, having two votes at once exponentially increases the “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” factor.

  26. JSmiley says:

    Yes, but that wasn’t being voted this time.

    When Brazil says they want the WC, and it’s their turn, they get it. Doesn’t work that way for anyone else.

  27. Waterlewd says:

    FIFA loves a pity party. England won’t get the World Cup until FIFA feels sorry for them…like South Africa, Brazil, Russia, and Qatar. The lesson is make yourself appear pathetic yet willing to contribute everything you have to host the World Cup finals. It’s difficult for the 22 men of FIFA to look down on us when we look down on them with contempt.

  28. GMD says:

    Well played.

  29. Judging Amy says:

    Interesting idea. I think superficially the biggest consideration was expanding the World Cup into new regions (based on a “this is the world’s game” notion) and (in Qatar’s case) perhaps striking a blow against perceived “intolerance”. I think beneath the surface, backroom and open air (the ludicrous dismantling stadiums deal) bribes had a lot to do with the way the members voted.

    I am initially inclined to dismiss your theory on the basis that I just don’t see many countries fearing the US as a legitimate powerhouse threat. But then I reflect back on the tremendous strides made since ’94 and the fact that 2022 is still 12 years away. You make a good point many probably haven’t considered.

  30. This Guy says:

    Alot of people have accused me of whining but it doesn’t bother me that the US and England didn’t get the bids. The problem is the 2 countries with the biggest problems, infastructure, politics, and corrupt prone did get it. Spain and Australia get it and I can live with that.
    I doubt anybody believes this was a straight vote.

  31. Judging Amy says:

    Excellent point. If it weren’t for FIFA’s reputation this could perhaps be excused as a way to garner more excitement or to allow a nation more time to prepare. As it is, FIFA gets no benefit of the doubt.

  32. Brando says:

    Super happy for the Dynamo

  33. This Guy says:

    Having been one of the few people on here that has been to Qatar. I can say that it is not progressive. They may perceive themselves that way but women are still surpressed, it is a safehaven for terrorists, and it’s very hard to get around without paying someone(not a taxi) to drive you.
    And the worst part is it feels like there is a hot blow dryer pointed at your face at all times.

  34. Thor says:

    When there is real fear within FIFA of new football federation being formed as an alternative. I think they will begin to pay attention to the big boys.

  35. otergod says:

    he brings up some good points though. Countries who received the strongest bid ratings (australia & England) went out in the first round (US wasnt too far off in the first round). Teams who had shaky reviews managed to win the whole thing. The process as a whole seems to be the problem

  36. TimN says:

    My guess is that if there’s a journalist out there willing to do some true investigative reporting, they will turn up rampant corruption in this FIFA WC vote. It’s simply egregious that the U.S. and England bids failed. Come 2018, there will not have been a WC in North America in 24 years, and come 2022, 28 years…simply ridiculous. And then consider England, the home country of the modern game…no WC in 52 years come 2018!!

    Going in, we knew there was voter corruption, buying, rigging, etc. This vote was an absolute abomination to any kind of just and fair process.

  37. k says:

    How is the stadium soccer specific if the TSU football team will be playing there? Will they promise to not have football lines on the pitch during soccer games?

  38. Judging Amy says:

    I have heard conflicting reports about the country. I am not familiar enough with Qatar to comment although the terrorists bit is very concerning.

    My point wasn’t how progressive Qatar is, although as the middle-eastern nation chosen it is presumably the most in line with Western ideology (this isn’t to say it isn’t the things you mentioned just that its less oppressive than other M/eastern nations), but rather that FIFA thinks (or wants to be seen as promoting) that having a WC in a middle-eastern, Muslim, nation is a progressive or noble gesture.

  39. Pico says:

    I have thought this issue and there a couple of things come to mind:

    The US got beat at a process that mirrors its current standing in international policy. It appears that when it comes to world soccer, we do not have the strongest personalities playing the diplomacy game like other federations do, and for that the USSF bears responsibility.

    As per the other assertions that this was the result of a corrupted process (granted that the FIFA organization does nothing to dis spell the allegations), the we also got beaten at a process that we know a thing or two about – reference the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics bidding scandal that brought reform to the IOC selection committee.

    A sad day indeed for American soccer, but something that really did not surprise me.

  40. Nick says:

    Why doesn’t the entire western media go on a smear campaign of FIFA until they change their ways for good? Surely, the English could do this easily on their own, but if the USA and all of Asia (Aussie-land included)and all of Europe just go out and blast FIFA for their selection of Qatar until Sepp gets the message? It would go a long way.

    Come on England, your media is intrusive, rude, obnoxious, and willing to print the truth so long as it sells. This sells. Put everything you know to good use and make Sepp and co. look like the corrupt assholes they are.

  41. This Guy says:

    I wasn’t disagreeing with you just adding to your comment. UAE and Kuwait would have been good spots that are very progressive and traveling around is easier but unfortunately they didn’t bid.

  42. Telling the Truth says:

    “When you have the best technical bid, fantastic inspection visits, the best economic report, and, from what people told us, the best presentation, it’s quite hard to stomach that all that seemed to count for absolutely nothing.”

    This is absolutely true. This concern also applies to the US and Australia, who both worked tirelessly in arguing that they had the best infrastructure in place to accommodate a successful WC.

  43. JoeW says:


    I’ve been to Russia multiple times–fascinating place. But it’s going to be expensive to go there and I worry about the mafiya influence. When I was there, Westerners didn’t get shaken down much. But I was in a cab going to the train station with 3 US diplomats, all of us with passports and a guy pulled the cab over at gun point to shake down the cab driver who hadn’t paid his grisha or “roof” money. He (the gunman) let us go after he saw our passports but he had to think about it for a while–he nearly had us pony up protection money along with the cab driver. I don’t think the street crime is the problem that you see with South Africa or even Brazil. But the level of corruption–having to pay a $20 cash fine on the spot b/c your bag is suddenly overweight–crap like that, is just endemic to the country and I worry that with a big enterprise with a flood of people coming in, we’ll see a very organized, corrupt approach for all of those visitors.

    For Qatar, if you’re a super rich person with your own jet and an entourage, it will be great. When you get bored, you’ll just hop on over to Dubai. But for the common fan who doesn’t have tickets to all games so he/she goes to fan zones and watches outdoors on the big screen, who loves the pageantry of meeting and hanging with fans of other countries and trading stuff, of discovering local bars and partying like there’s no tomorrow, who like to get out in the streets and howl at the moon or try to do a friendly singing contest of chants and cheers with the opposing fans–no, none of that. I know the rules are supposed to be relaxed. But between the culture, cost, infrastructure and heat, much of what we come to know as the “World Cup Experience” for anyone who attends (other than Top Hats), it will be totally gone. It’s going to be like going to a bigger version of the Confederation Cup–more teams, more countries but otherwise paling by comparison.

  44. Richard says:

    it’s one of the Spain 1982 world cup logos – probably based off a kandinsky!

  45. Judging Amy says:

    Exactly. This isn’t just some conspiracy theory paranoia or speculation. Voters on this very committee got caught ON TAPE accepting bribes. Doesn’t get more blatant. IMO the media outrage hasn’t been nearly forceful enough.

    It will be a travesty and a lost opportunity if this gets swept under the rug in a few months/years. Ethical journalists owe it to us and their profession to expose FIFA. They are the ones who can effect the most change. Speak truth to power.

  46. JoeW says:

    First, I don’t think the media are organized that way (well, except for places like North Korea).

    Second, people are missing something. First round England got TWO freaking votes. Asia and South American and evidently even CONCACAF reps voted against them. In the first round, we got THREE votes (the three from CONCACAF). Which means that Asia and Europe (including ENGLAND) voted against us. Why would those FA’s encourage their media to look at why they didn’t vote for the US?

    It’s true that the proposals appeared to make no difference. I think it’s true that the “fan experience” appeared to make no difference. The amount of money that would come in to FIFA appeared to make no difference. I think it’s all about personal benefit to FIFA executives and a lofty vision of going places where the WC hasn’t gone.

    BTW, on Qatar, they hosted a major tournament before and it was embarassing–some matches with just a couple of hundred people in the stands–rattling around inside.

  47. Fireball says:

    Giving 2022 to the US would have funded any legacy of their choosing.

    Now they have shot themselves in the foot for short-term gain. Even without boycotting, few people will travel to either Russia or Qatar.

  48. fischy says:


    I don’t know about the boycott, but therein lies the problem. They’ve got us by the throats, and they know it.

  49. KenC says:

    I’m happy the US lost their bid. FIFA is a corrupt farce. When they pretend to use objective criteria, what’s the actual point? Just hand every bidder $10M and be done with it.

    Where exactly does FIFA get its authority? From the members, right? Why not create a new soccer authority. Shouldn’t be hard. It all comes down to how much money these international competitions make, which then gets handed down to the members. Of course, in FIFA’s case, they skim most of the profit off the top.

    If the REAL Cup were to go to England and the US, two things would happen, more money would be generated, and a non-corrupt organization would be able to distribute more to its members.

    So, true competition between FIFA and an honest organizing body would benefit everyone, as the member nations would get more revenue, rather than lining Blatter’s and his henchpeople’s pockets.

  50. fischy says:

    That would be gangsta

  51. fischy says:

    “South American and Euro representatives voted for Asian countries over US.”

    How do you know this? I believe it was public knowledge before the vote that CONMEBOL reps would vote for Qatar, but how do you know Euro reps did?

    I’ve already posted my own thoughts on this — I actually wrote Ives a letter that I hoped he’d post as a guest editorial, critical of the USA bid’s messaging. Basically, they were asking FIFA to give the USA the Cup to fortify MLS and vault the league into the top 4 or 5 in the world. I can’t imagine that would play well anywhere.

  52. fischy says:

    You need to change the channel from FAUX News every once in a while, if you want to see the real world. Bill Clinton, perhaps one of the two most famous and beloved political figures in the world, was there for the pitch. Our best player was there. President Obama had a taped message. The two biggest execs involved in US soccer were there. It’s hard to imagine a stronger set of personalities. Sure, I’d like to have seen an ex-Pres or current Pres who was identified as a bifg fan and to have celebrities more knowledgeable and more articulate about the game than Morgan Freeman Still, if you think the USA lost because of the presentation, then you weren’t paying attention to all the reports that made Qatar the favorite even before that.

  53. fischy says:

    I’d like to know about the votes — I wonder if the English rep wasn’t obliged to vote for Australia?

  54. JSmiley says:

    Pretty easy: in the first round US got three votes, all presumably from CONCACAF. Everybody else voted for Asian countries (plus Aussie, AFC anyway – general consensus is that England voted for Aussie). After Korea and Japan were gone, US picked up a few, but in the first vote, they were behind at least one AFC team in the minds of everyone besides CONCACAF.

    I didn’t think the US was exactly saying that the WC would fortify MLS. I thought US was pointing out that there’s actually a league here, unlike Qatar. And they pointed out that MLS is fairly international (58 countries represented). Still, it apparently didn’t come off well, but I don’t think it would have mattered if it had.

  55. fischy says:

    Gotcha — I had the later rounds in mind.

  56. erico_z/o says:

    Whoever Texas Southern University is, they better not soil the pitch with their gridiron lines.

  57. atmneux says:

    DC United Arab Emirate

    Not quite Qatar but close enough.

  58. RK says:

    But the Dynamo isn’t going to own it? I hope they can still generate good revenue.

  59. JSmiley says:

    One final note:

    I think we need Cee Lo to provide a farewell tune for the FIFA proceedings.

    link to youtube.com

  60. Don Pelayo says:


  61. AEG Scum says:

    Dear Ives, aka AEG mouthpiece, I thought you were a reporter, not a propagandist for hire. The Houston stadium will not “reportedly not cost taxpayers any money to have built”. Houston taxpayers paid for half the land and are contributing $20 million dollars to build the stadium.

  62. Barca says:

    Bravo sir.

  63. Barca says:

    The american football lines are going to ruin the pitch!!

    How could any legitimate football club agree to this?

  64. KJ says:

    Best way to show FIFA our unhappiness is simple: don’t go. Mostly to Qatar, but not going to Russia would work as well. If tickets aren’t sold in Qatar, FIFA will have to learn a lesson from that. If instead everyone watched it from home, we would see an increase in TV viewership, and maybe FIFA would get the message.

  65. Joamiq says:

    I think Anson is wrong that 22 members is too few. I think it’s too many. It’s harder to scrutinize the affairs of 5-7 people than 22. And if the Panorama report had exposed 3 of 5 as taking bribes rather than 3 of 22, I think it would be harder for Blatter to ignore. The people who contribute nothing but line their pockets need to go.

  66. Joamiq says:

    The fact that this won’t happen is precisely why FIFA can do whatever it wants to. In 8 years, this will be mostly forgotten, and those who choose to stay home will have their places taken happily by others. Demand for the WC will always be too high to allow for accountability.

  67. Judging Amy says:

    “As per the other assertions that this was the result of a corrupted process”

    Your point is a bit unclear but if you are arguing that this wasn’t a blatantly corrupt process, you are not just naive but willfully ignoring the fact that corruption did exist (see English investigation and on-camera capture of bribery), at least in some stage of the process.

    Your implication seems to be that the adverse result in the bid for the US was likely a result of the US bid team’s incompetence/international standing. It is hard to tell because you don’t come out and say one way or the other whether you attribute the result to corruption or not.

    If you agree that corruption had a hand in the process then it is hard to fault the US’ bid or the US’ current international standing.

  68. Cabrito says:

    Great to see FIFA practicing what they preach with the “FIFA Fair Play” and “Say No to Racism” campaigns, by allowing one of the most racist (Russia) and undemocratic/homophonic (Qatar) countries to host the World Cup. Awesome.

  69. Welshbean says:

    I think FIFA should just go out into the ocean; find a new decision making octopus to make their decisions for them….wait; maybe they already have?

  70. Judging Amy says:

    Truth. But in the soccer world, FIFA is such a behemoth that the process to enacting real reform is a long, hard, road to say the least.

    One has to imagine that the corruption stretches from the top down to the bottom levels. Too many people have much to lose if they rock the boat. There is also the case of those uncorrupted but still hostile to US and English interests.

    Self-interest needs to be sacrificed if FIFA is ever going to become a decent org.

  71. Ben says:

    and obviously you don’t understand how language works. “Reportedly” is a qualifier indicating that the case may be otherwise, but that is the information currently available. Second, Avi wrote this report, not Ives.

  72. Mark S says:

    Summarizing Proust Competition

  73. nebraskacoog says:

    Dear AEG scum,

    You dough head. Before you lambast Ives, you should know that the 20 million in tax payer money is not to build the stadium, but is to create the infrastructure (streets, sewers, and lights) in a run down area that will support the stadium and future revenue building businesses.

    The other thing is that the Dynamo are not technically the owners, but are the owners inthat they collect all funds from games. They only pay a measly $65000 a year for “the use” of the stadium.

    They had to do this in order to get the rights to holding future concert events there.

  74. Scott A says:

    Sounds good to me.

  75. wordsworth says:

    Guess you didn’t see the semifinals of the Mexican league playoffs where both Pumas and Monterrey had football lines on their fields.

  76. wordsworth says:

    TSU only plays 4 or 5 home games a year and neither team will play home games at the stadium on the same weekend. The Dynamo have claimed in the past of having a way to make sure the lines won’t be noticeable when they play.

  77. Pico says:

    Hey fischy,

    Sorry I was not clear in my comment. What I meant to say is that celebrities clearly do not guarantee success in these endeavors. No need to look further than the failed Chicago bid for the Olympics.

    What we all know is that FIFA is a game of politics and dealings (possibly shady) that is played at the confederations levels and individual countries federations levels. The Qatar committee spent countless hours and money working those players that they needed to secure the bid. For that game you do not need celebrities, you need soccer people who know other soccer people who can influence other soccer people. It is about obtaining as much power as possible through these dealings in order to affect an outcome and clearly the USSF failed miserably.

    As sound and credible their presentation might have been, it is naive to think that alone would sway voters in their favor.


  78. Brock says:

    Well being one of the people on here that is currently in Qatar, I would say that it is progressive – and improving. I have no idea what “terrorists” you think are being safehaved, and what major city isn’t difficult to get around in? Having been here almost a year now I have no problems. I expect that the Qataris will iron out any transportation issues better than what I experienced in Germany and South Africa

  79. Brock says:

    Qatar has a football league: Qatari Stars League

  80. Pico says:

    Yeah, I was trying to figure out how to phrase that one. My comment had to do about a combination of factors:

    If the Qatar bid win was due to a corrupted process then there is nothing the USSF could have done. Or maybe not!

    If everyone on earth suspects FIFA to be a corrupt organization, then it is pretty naive for USSF to think that it can roll out a couple of celebrities to plea its cause and everyone will just give us their vote. What USSF should have done is work the same channels that the Qatar organization did and played their own game. And to say that we cannot play dirty games is also naive because of already attempted it for the Salt Lake City bid for the winter Olympics.

    If the selection was not the result of corruption, then we need to question why the US can fair so poorly after presenting probable the most sound of all bids. Maybe some people do not like us for whatever reason. Maybe the USSF is not playing the politics game the way other are (see my reply to fischy above).

    In the end, I am not making a statement that this was a corrupted process or not. I don’t believe we have heard the end of it and more will come out, but I reserve my judgment until further proof.


  81. Rocco says:

    Yeah I believe that was the case fischy and there’s nothing controversial about that. They’re both members of the British Commonwealth and Australia had a great bid. We shouldn’t be upset.