Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup/Archive 1

Crime
The sad reality is that Brazil is not prepared to host a World Cup and will not be prepared in 2014. Sure they can upgrade their stadia and infractructure, but violence and crime will still be rampant as it cannot be solved in a mere 7 years. The main brazilian cities - Rio and Sao Paulo - are reknowned for their crime and the murder rate there is consistently ranked among the top 5 in the world. The local gangs will have a field day raping and pillaging tourists. That is how foreign money will come to Brazil during the world cup!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whilecover001 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

His argument is unfortunate and biased. The assaults happen anywhere in the world, including in the United States, England and so on. You should not rely as much on hype we see on television. I live in São Paulo and I have never been robbed, so be careful to give that kind of comment.


 * Brazil is full of large soccer stadia, sometimes their capacity is bigger than the whole population of the cities, but they are all 30, 40, 50 years old and in bad state of conservation. Some of these stadia were build in peaceful cities like São José do Rio Preto, Uberlândia, Cariacica, Londrina but such cities weren't even reminded because they are either smaller cities, countryside cities or cities with few political importance.  They want the bigger cities as hosts, the cities which are capital cities, but these important cities happen to be the violent cities too. Gargalos 05:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not be stupid they are building new stadiums and crime is not a problem in you watch too much TV, the United States is one of the most dangerous countries in the world but the media hides it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.118.102 (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Mistake???
If FIFA said that the 2014 world cup would be held in South America, than why does this article say that the USA and Australia are candidates
 * The answer is in the last sentence of of the introduction. Kingjeff 16:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Because they are alternatives if South America can't host the world cup

Would this World Cup even take place? With all the possible events that might happen on 2012?
 * Sorry, but what exactly is going to happen in 2012? NaLaochra 01:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * IIRC, Blatter suggested moving it forwards 2 years, why, i dont know, but its most likely not going to happpen. I think it's safe to say it will happpen in 2014. Vaud 02:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

why is the article talking about the U.S. or an asian country hosting the 2014 world cup, when the paragraph before it states that FIFA has already given the hosting duties to South America? Vaud 23:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * well, since the 2014 World Cup is taking place in South America, i guess i will go ahead and change this article to reflect that, and delete the part about the US, china, etc hosting it, as already said, it is to take place in south america. if that changes in the future, then obviously this article will be changed to reflect that Vaud 20:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am the original poster, and what I meant is what if the so called Mayan Prophecies take place and major things are altered? What would happen with the World Cup?
 * Well, if the world's gonna supposedly end in 2012, obviously this would not take place. Anywho, unless you can fortell the future, i say this article stays..imho, of course. Vaud 04:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with vaud if it is going to be in South America how can Asia and North America be bidding?
 * Well, it is still not 100% certain that the World Cup will be held in South America. It has been said that FIFA will most likely have a south american country host it, but it is still not certain. Also, the south american confederation has chosen to let Brazil host the world cup, if in fact it is held in south america. While yes, it wouldnt hurt to discuss other countries/continents hosting the world cup, i personally think this article should be written as if south america will be hosting it, and maybe a section called 'other proposed bids' or something like wise, to talk about the other countries/continents hopeing to be allowed to bid.. Vaud 01:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * O.K. so I decided that since from what has been said by FIFA so far, with South America most likely being the host continent, i went ahead and put the South American Bids in on catagory, and for all the other continents, i put them under a 2nd catagory.. Vaud 03:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Canada, USA and China are being taken in consideration for hosting the Cup of '14 because Brazil was the only country in South America to bid (in spite of the fact Colombia did a bid for a while though) and a stand-by country is always needed because Brazil was given a dead-line of one year to prove its conditions to host the Cup and there's no other South-American country interested on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.24.158.38 (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Some errors
Australia is not part of the Asian confederation, but part of the confederation of Oceania.

Second, CONCACAF (Confederation of North, Central America and Caribean Association of Football, or something like that) is no longer its name, rather it is simple Confederation of Football.

Fernando Gómez.


 * Actually, Australia is part of the Asian Confederation, after the 2006 World Cup. As for CONCACAF, considering its official website calls it as such, it should be referenced here as CONCACAF. Vaud 20:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

--

The first sentence currently says that the 2014 World Cup is occurring in Kroatia. See: The 2014 FIFA World Cup will be the 20th FIFA World Cup, an international association football tournament that is scheduled to take place in June and July 2014 in kroatia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.232.149 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move
Moved per consensus. --Pkchan 13:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Australia planning to bid.
It may be too late but Australia still haven't given up on bidding for the 2014 World Cup. This article seems to suggest that they are planning to bid for either the 2014 or 2018 World Cup (probably both). Western Australia backs World Cup bid - NEWS.com.au

Jabso 11:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It now looks the Australia will only be bidding on the 2018 Cup: http://www.theage.com.au/news/soccer/world-cup-bid-for-2018-gets-political-clout/2006/07/14/1152637870779.html

Jordan/Iraq Bid
The referenced article is from 2004, since nothing really has been heard about a proposed Jordan/Iraq bid since then, should we include them in this article? Vaud 00:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Canada
Do any of you guys know when the dideline for bids are? and will canada place a bid
 * Canada? Very unlikely... 惑乱 分からん 11:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To elaborate, I think Canada actually would fall short on FIFAs set criteria for bidding. Canada is neither a soccer nation, nor particularly powerful internationally, I think. (Up for discssion, I guess...) 惑乱 分からん 12:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the canadians even know the name of the game, they called soccer :-)  .- Jor70 10:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean do not even know, anyway, that's definitely not a valid argument, (even if it'd matter ;) ) since all of USA, Japan and South Africa primarily refer to the game as soccer or a related word. 惑乱 分からん 11:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * relax, just a joke --Jor70 12:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Twelve places?
It says "Based on city size and existing stadiums, these are the twelve locations that have the potential for renovation or reconstruction", but there are more than twelve places listed. Fourteen if I counted it correctly. Someone should probably fix this, even though it's not at all critical at this moment. /129.16.24.218 13:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Only 5 confirmed at the moment, the rest of the cities need to confirm upgrades in transportation, accomodations, press facilities and stadio security before they can be confirmed. There have been more cities in the draw, but some have withdrawn due to the huge amount of upgrades needed. --Skippern (talk) 21:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No stadiums up the FIFA standards?
Just heard on the news that no stadiums in Brazil are up to FIFA's standards for hosting a game for the world cup finals. Maybe something should be added? :) Chandler talk 18:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to. In the lst WC, I don't recall a stadium being used "as it was" for World Cup in the last four competitions and in the 2010 competition. All of them had to suffer adjustments from the announcement to the competition itself, therefore none (or very few) were up tp FIFA's standards Garavello 18:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * what you just wrote is an argument FOR including it. Chandler talk 09:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, beacuse that is not mentioned in any WC article. So, why it has to be written here? No other WC host had stadiums ready for WC as the time of being elected. Writing it just in the WC 2014 would seem that this is the first case, when it's not the first case, it's the common rule. Garavello 13:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The BBC Sport report on it has some information on the stadiums needing a revamp. —  j acĸrм  ( talk ) 18:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw no real info there... Only a tidbit about the Maracanã stadium. The Portuguese wikipedia's page about the event has more info and links for the stadiums (as well as links to english's versions of their articles in most of them). Garavello 19:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Maracanã, Morumbi and Mineirão are ready to receive games only minor press rooms adaptations will be made. The rest will be reformed in the next 7 years, also 3 new stadiums to be build. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.8.209.91 (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maracanã had plans for minor and major upgrades regarding crowd security, press facilities and transports regardless of the outcome of 2014 draw, if I remember correctly. --62.97.244.2 (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Disaster
So, has anyone heard about the disaster in the stadium of Fonte Nova, in the city of Salvador, state of Bahia? Part of the structure of the stadium has fallen appart, eight people died and several were injured.

Here follows the new (source: http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/ap/news/nation_world/20071125_ap_brazilstadiumbleachercollapses8die.html )

''SAO PAULO, Brazil - A section of stands at a soccer stadium in northeastern Brazil gave way Sunday as fans cheered at the end of a game, killing eight people, police said.

At least 60,000 were in the stadium for the game at the Fonte Nova stadium in the coastal city of Salvador when the victims fell several stories to the ground after a hole several yards wide opened in the concrete floor of a section of the highest bleachers.

At least nine people fell through and eight of them died, said Maj. Edmilson Tavares of the city's federal police. He said he could not immediately confirm how many people were hurt.

The accident happened as fans of the Bahia club went into a wild celebration, storming the field when their team managed a 0-0 tie with Vila Nova which secured Bahia a place in the nation's second division.

Globo TV reported that fans had been jumping up and down in glee, and that dozens of people were injured.

Many fans did not realize that the bleachers had given way and continued to celebrate by swarming the field after the game.

The stadium was built in 1951, according to the Web site of Salvador's A Tarde newspapers.

A survey of soccer stadiums released last month by Brazil's Sinaeco association of architects and engineers said the Fonte Nova's stands were "in ruins," A Tarde reported.

The newspaper said Fonte Nova was evaulated as part of a study of Brazilian soccer venues because Brazil will host the 2014 World Cup. Salvador would almost certainly get some of the games.

Brazil, which has won a record five World Cups, was awarded the right last month to host 2014 tournament Tuesday by FIFA's executive committee. Latin America's largest country hosted the competition once before, losing to Uruguay in the 1950 final.

The state governor of Bahia state, Jacques Wagner, ordrered the Fonte Nova stadium closed while authorities investigate the cause of the accident.'' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.24.30.84 (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The stadion of Fonte Nova is extremely old and have been in need of upgrades for a long time, if Salvador get to be one of the host cities, Fonte Nova will get long awaited repairs, though this incident might have given Salvador a little trouble of getting to the top of the list (not familiar with how the process of choosing host cities works). --62.97.244.2 (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

2014 FIFA World Cup qualify draw
Three years before the World Cup FIFA opens the inscriptions to all its national federations who wish qualify to the World Cup.--Beaker35 (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[[.]]
 * You know it's still six years until the 2014 World Cup, right? That means it's three years until it's three years before the tournament. Should we be worrying about this now? – PeeJay 02:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

YES! Right now it is four years from the 2014 World Cup. The qualification draw is next year minus a week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.6.185 (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Final list
Globo just leaked the definitive cities to host games and to be announced tomorrow:


 * Rio de Janeiro
 * São Paulo
 * Belo Horizonte
 * Porto Alegre
 * Curitiba
 * Brasília
 * Cuiabá
 * Manaus
 * Fortaleza
 * Salvador
 * Recife
 * Natal

Good luck for who you play in Cuiaba lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.17.73 (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Rumors of expansion
I've heard some rumors that FIFA is planning to expand the number of participating nations from 32 to 48 teams in 2014, that's why there are 12 venues (12 groups of 4), does anyone know anything about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.2.114.157 (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. BTW Germany in 2006 also had 12 venues, and South Africa in 2010 has 10 venues with only 8 groups. So that's no evidence for expansion. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC) PS: Spain in 1982 even had 17 stadia for just 24 teams in 6 groups.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, not saying there are rumors of expansion only because of the number of venues. I heard FIFA has a plan to do so in a near future (because of increasing soccer level of many nations worldwide), but I don't know if it's going to be in the next world cup or later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.2.114.82 (talk) 05:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Logo
Hi people. Just wanted to let you know that the official logo for the cup is circulating on the web. I spotted it on the Brazilian USA embassy website and found it with a google search. I would upload it but I don't know what the fair use mumbo-jumbo/proper procedure is. But I'm sure someone here knows what to do. Here you are:. I know it's bad quality but maybe someone else can find it. 68.206.66.89 (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. The logo will be officialy released on July 8, 2010 in South Africa. It's the same logo Globo.com leaked but still lacks "World Cup" (or Copa do Mundo) inscriptions. --Ciao 90 (talk) 11:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.92.57.226, 19 June 2010
Please replace the Venues section with:
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Why do we need to change the pictures around? (I will watch this page for reply) -- &#47; DeltaQuad &#124; Notify Me  &#92; 12:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Venues
The twelve host cities for the 2014 World Cup were announced on 31 May 2009. Belém, Campo Grande, Florianópolis, Goiânia and Rio Branco were rejected.

98.92.57.226 (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I just thought it would be better to have pictures of the actual stadiums. Most other FIFA World Cup articles do (e.g. 2010 FIFA World Cup, 2006 FIFA World Cup). - 98.92.57.226 (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Sounds good. -- &#47; DeltaQuad &#124; Notify Me  &#92; 17:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Just asking, why is there not a city or picture for the Sao Paulo Stadium? Please reply "Mac" if it is a Mac problem and it is viewable on Windows, because I use a Mac. Also, is the bold text the city, state, or venue of the stadium? I am getting confused about which text is the city, state or venue. Please reply "City", "State", or "Venue" if it is a city, state, or venue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.6.185 (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not linux 190.175.207.142 (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Logo
What is the significance of this logo and should it be used instead?

File:Brasil 2014.jpg

Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

American continent
The lede currently reads "held in the American continent since...". North America is a continent and South America is a different continent. It is wrong to suggest that they're one continent. Changing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

-- No it is not. A lot of people around the world use the term "American Continent" to refer to the whole Western Hemisphere. You must be a United Stater to be saying things like this. --67.149.99.154 (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * — Jeff G. ツ 21:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it is. Which people use the term "American Continent"? Since they are two continents it would be acceptable to call it "American Continents" or the American Hemisphere, but not American Continent. I think Jeff is requesting that you prove it's called the "American Continent" be reputable people. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We could say it is the first tournament to be held in "the Americas" since 1994. – PeeJay 10:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The "Americas" sounds good, but it's more important to state that it's Brazil's first World Cup since 1950. I gess we could post that though. Soxrock24 (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We could say a lot of things. We didn't refer to Eurasia when talking about the German games. We don't refer to the second games in the southern hemisphere. We don't make reference to a lot of things. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Currency formatting
I have tidied up the references to currencies in this article as per currency MOS to read more fluidly and be clearer to the reader as well as adding US$ and £ conversions. Zarcadia (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Tenders"???
WTF does this mean? Do you mean "bids"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.173.248 (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Corrected information about the new Sao Paulo venue. The official capacity of the project is 48.000. The upgrading is not confirmed yet, as it depends of funding from FIFA.

Skiped the Opening section, since there are oficially three cities bidding for the opening match: Salvador, Brasilia and Belo Horizonte. São Paulo depends of an upgrading of the actual project in order to launch a bid for the the opening match. I suggest to avoid publish biased and especulative information, since this is an encyclopedia and content must have encyclopedic and neutral information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.183.22.209 (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Marked your edits as vandalism and restored the content. Feel free to provide citations when you make changes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

To prove that the section was written only with speculative information, here are the links with official data about the issue:

Official capacity of the Sao Paulo city venue, with the official announcement - and published document - from the Corinthians´ president (2nd paragraph):

http://esportes.terra.com.br/futebol/brasil2014/noticias/0,,OI4652685-EI10545,00-Estadio+do+Corinthians+sera+financiado+pelo+BNDES.html

http://www.corinthians.com.br/mobile/noticias/view.asp?id=9756

Fifa´s official announcement, pointing the possibility of the opening game in Sao Paulo, but not confirming it.

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/brazil2014/news/newsid=1291348.html#press+release+sao+paulo+stadiums

It´s important to notice that a 48000-seat stadium does not fit FIFA requirements for a Opening Game, for what they claim at least 65000 seats. Corinthians contract do not preview the upgrading.

Cities bidding for the opening game:

Belo Horizonte

http://www.copa2014.org.br/noticias/3110/BELO+HORIZONTE+DA+PONTAPE+INICIAL+PELA+ABERTURA+DA+COPA+2014.html

http://esportes.terra.com.br/futebol/brasil2014/noticias/0,,OI4447478-EI10545,00-Belo+Horizonte+apresenta+projeto+para+sediar+abertura+da+Copa.html

Salvador

http://www.portalctb.org.br/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11029

http://www.copa2014.org.br/noticias/5091/SALVADOR+ENTRA+NA+DISPUTA+PELA+ABERTURA+DA+COPA.html

http://globoesporte.globo.com/futebol/noticia/2010/08/salvador-oficializa-candidatura-para-sediar-abertura-da-copa-de-2014.html

Brasilia

http://www.jornaldeturismo.com.br/noticias/df/34362-governador-do-df-defende-abertura-da-copa-2014-em-brasilia.html

http://kiminda.wordpress.com/2010/07/28/brasilia-briga-pelo-jogo-de-abertura-da-copa-2014/

http://www.nominuto.com/esporte/esporte/brasilia-faz-lobby-por-abertura-da-copa-2014/57434/

Some people are trying to use wikipedia as a marketing tool, but we all know that that´s not the purpose of wikipedia. Considering that there´s no clear definition of the opening match venue, it´s at least reasonable avoid publishing unconfirmed data about that while there´s not an official announcement by the organizers and FIFA.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.183.22.229 (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Capacity of stadium
There´s some kind of vandalism going on about the official capacity of the venues. I just corrected the capacity of both Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro venues according to official information from the organizing commitee, and added the references. The Sao Paulo venue, by now indicated as the new SCCP Stadium (Corinthians), according to the official announcement by the club´s president Andre Sanchez (reference n. 11) has a planned capacity of 48.000. Government officials are speculating the possibility of an upgrading, but that has yet to be confirmed.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.183.22.197 (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The vandalism is all yours :). The stadium capacity has not been finalized and as such should indicate the range until such time as it is finalized. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * However, with the reference, it will prevent further changes since it has been the most-frequently changed item in this article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The capacity of the Sao Paulo venue have been constantly vandalised here, probably by a SCCP fan who wants to use wikipedia as a way to spread speculative information about the club. I don´t know if you´re a SCCP fan, but people are trying to keep this article unbiased and accurate with official information/notes/announcements from both the Organizing Commitee and clubs involved (in the case of private stadia). Is this vandalism ? For me, vandalism is to change articles content with non official and biased data in order to justify someone´s inflated fan ego, ignoring the concept and objective of the encyclopedia. And if it´s the case of indicating something that´s not finalized, we must notice that FIFA officially has not approved any venue for Sao Paulo, as it has not recieved the official project yet and the construction is still not approved by brazilian authorities. In this sense, the venue for Sao Paulo should be blanked until FIFA approves it as official. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.0.185.104 (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The information has been changed many times. I added the range for one stadium based on what the stadium's article indicates. You are correct in stated that whatever FIFA officially approves is what the article should indicate. I don't think you can attribute the changes to any one group of fan-base, and more to the point, I think that doing so breaks an underlying policy that we are to assume good faith on the part of editors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

Too many pictures
This article's a picture farm. Do something about it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.13.157 (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Economy?
The section is meaningless. No country leads a policy of zero inflation which is inefficient. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.108.212.234 (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't indicate zero inflation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean, is there an official Brazilian policy whose goal is zero inflation? It seems very unlikely. If there is, however, this should be clear in the section, otherwise I would remove the section altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.108.212.234 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your opinion and will proceed now with the removal of this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teaches of peaches (talk • contribs) 04:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Question about automatic qualification?
I believe the policy by fifa that host nations automatically qualify has been discontinued? Perhaps that should be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.57.229 (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not believe this to be true. You would need a source to verify that claim.  Defending champions (that is, Spain) no longer qualify automatically - but hosts still do.  Brazil certainly don't have to play in the qualification (according to the recent FIFA information on the number of qualifiers). Jlsa (talk) 03:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Without a reliable source we will not make the change. To the best of my knowledge, the policy has not changed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Brazil
I think the hosts contribution in football is great and it must be included more than what we are having it currently in our article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jitinkumar123 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you can find a recent precedent, then I too agree. Compare it to 2006 FIFA World Cup and 1990 FIFA World Cup for instance.
 * One thing further. Don't confuse the national football team with the nation hosting the event. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed: "It will be the first World Cup to be held in South America since the 1978 FIFA World Cup in Argentina, the first time two consecutive World Cups are staged outside Europe and the first time two consecutive World Cups are staged in the Southern Hemisphere (the 2010 FIFA World Cup was held in South Africa)."

To: "It will be the first World Cup to be held in South America since the 1978 FIFA World Cup in Argentina, and the first time two consecutive World Cups staged outside Europe (the 2010 FIFA World Cup was held in South Africa)."

Reasons: 1) Typo: "are staged" changed to "staged" 2) "the first time two consecutive World Cups staged outside Europe" implies "the first time two consecutive World Cups staged in the Southern Hemisphere" --The second statement adds redundancy only.

Highlighting the symbolic/social value of staging two consecutive World Cups in the Southern Hemisphere may hold value, but in this case it should be said in a separate sentence/paragraph.

99.241.104.200 (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Schedule from FIFA.com
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/01/52/99/91/2014_fifa_world_cup_matchschedule.pdf Feroang (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * it edition it 32 days long, 1 day longer that the 2010 edition; group stage 15 days, 1 rest day, round of 16 in 2 days, 2 rest days, quarter Finals 2 days, 2 rest days, semifinal 2 days, 2 rest days and 3rh place and final 2 days; G: Game days, R: Rest day, 15G + 1R + 2G + 2R + 2G + 2R + 2G + 2R + 2G = 32 days. Rugby World Cup is 42 days long, we should paste the duration in some place--Feroang (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/64/42/24/2010fwc_matchschedule_postevent_e.pdf 2010 scherule from fifa.com--Feroang (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Logo
Where'd this logo come from? http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mh0a_V17tuU/T8zezePECKI/AAAAAAAAEAc/07qGwl4IukQ/s400/2014-World-Cup-Logo5.png I swear it was the official logo, but it seems to have been superseded by the silly facepalm one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrotherEstapol (talk • contribs) 14:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The one you've linked to looks like a Photoshop job. – PeeJay 19:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Kick-off times of the 2014 World Cup
Fifa's website lists kick-off times as "13.00, 15.00, 16.00, 17.00, 18:00, 19.00 and 21:00 local time, with knockout stage matches at 13.00 and 17.00 local time."

Match 8, on June 14, is currently listed on the Wikipedia page as being a 22:00 kick-off.

One assumes this has been listed in BRT (Brasilia Time) rather than AMT (Amazon Time), and is therefore likely to cause confusion. Could this be changed so that all times are local times, and could all kick-off times perhaps have the UTC kick-off times beside the local times?

Idiosu (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese in lede sentence
I just checked the other WC article ledes and none of them list the competition name in the host's language. It is listed in the other_titles parameter of the infobox though. Should we be changing the other articles to match this one or remove it from this one? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I added it because I felt the pronunciation needed. Adding it as a reference to the side of the Portuguese title in the box is another possibility, though. Lguipontes (talk) 05:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. Make it as similar to the 1950 FIFA World Cup infobox for consistency. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure of adding it because the elitist standard pronunciation of futebol was English-like in that time (the stress was over the first of two syllables rather than in the third). But since I usually palatalize ti/di and vocalize coda el in the IPA transcriptions of persons born after 1935, even if it was surely standard usage before the 1950s (in spite of being already the dominant form in Rio de Janeiro), dominant popular usage is not something of concern. Lguipontes (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Mascot naming controversy
There has been some resistance to the name given to the mascot (http://esportes.r7.com/blogs/cosme-rimoli/o-pobre-tatu-bola-batizado-de-fuleco-deve-render-10-milhoes-de-dolares-para-a-fifa-uma-parte-fuleira-dos-r-4-bilhoes-que-pretende-arrecadar-com-a-copa-ao-brasil-sobrara-a-conta-de-r-80-bilhoes-27112012/), including online petitions to change it and facebook hate pages. Rejection of the name arises from many arguments:


 * Fuleco does not sound like a Portuguese word, but evokes Spanish or Italian.
 * Fuleco sounds too similar to a number of words that are rude or offensive, like "furico" (slang for "anus") and "forreco" (slang for "makeshift")
 * It defeats the purpose of identifying the tournament with a typical Brazilian animal, the armadillo.
 * There was no need to make up a name, since the animal's original (tatu-bola) name was already good-sounding (at least to Brazilian ears) and easy for foreigners to pronounce and write (because no accents are used).

The mascot has been attacked at least two times:


 * Porto Alegre: http://ultimosegundo.ig.com.br/brasil/rs/2012-10-05/mascote-da-copa-2014-e-destruido-em-confronto-no-rio-grande-do-sul.html
 * Brasília: http://globoesporte.globo.com/futebol/copa-do-mundo/noticia/2012/10/mascote-da-copa-da-copa-do-mundo-de-2014-e-esfaqueado-em-brasilia.html

There is some concern that the Brazilians themselves may not buy items with the mascot's name on: http://www.opovo.com.br/app/opovo/esportes/2012/11/27/noticiaesportesjornal,2960961/fuleco-o-controverso.shtml

Most Brazilians believe the name is offensive to Brazilian culture: http://guilhermederrico.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/artigo-o-fuleco-brasileiro-e-seus-contratempos (Notable exception the Veja magazine, which always celebrates whatever comes from Europe or the United States and makes light of Brazilian nationalist demands). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.81.198.14 (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

36
I hard thier is going to be 36 teams in total. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

"A view of the pitch is preferred"
"A view of the pitch is preferred and I don't believe that the new image is actually legal on some wikiprojects" Why is a "view of the pitch preferred"? According to who a "view of the pitch is preferred"? Maybe in Canada a "view of the pitch is preferred? Do you guys have soccer there? Soccer is not a Winter game. When we write "stadiums" we want to show the "stadiums". Not the grass. Otherwise all Stadium's pictures would look the same: all green, all grass! And what is "I don't believe that the new image is actually legal on some wikiprojects" supposed to mean? Ok, it's your opinion (period). Brazil's World Cup's wikipedia page has nothing to do with your opinion. Cheers! MarcosPassos (talk) 08:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * According to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football‎.
 * The reason that it may not be legal is that I can't tell what sort of image it actually was. If it was an overhead view or an image of a model. It's also not clear if this was taken by an individual viewing a model or if it is a publicity photo. If it's an aerial view, several nations do not allow for freedom of view (or something similar) and I'm not sure if Brazil is one of them. South Africa (the most recent World Cup host) is. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's easier, I can just mention it to the copyright cabal and they can come review all of the images. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That pic has 3.0 license. Scroll down and you will see. http://www.copa2014.gov.br/ MarcosPassos (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Great. A view of the pitch is still preferred. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Source? MarcosPassos (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As written above, Wikipedia:WikiProject Football‎.
 * Several discussions have taken place including this one that I participated with. If you want to challenge my opinion, do it on the project's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Stadium names
FIFA does not permit the use of sponsorship names for world cup matches. That means if the Wikipedia article uses a sponsor name, or the tournament uses a different name than the article's name we should either create a redirect at the name pointing to the correct article (such as at Soccer City) or pipe to the correct name (see World Cup 2010). Since there is an official page that describes the venues, please start by providing that and then make the article match that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There seems to have been an edit war over the names of certain of the venues, but I see no discussion here about it. Could I suggest editors raise their concerns here and reach agreement rather than edit-warring as it is so much nicer this way. --John (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion has been happening over at Talk:2013 FIFA Confederations Cup as both articles have been having the same issues. Chris1834 (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Some sections will require full review
Hello All

Is there already a group of watchers and contributors for this article? I would like to help with some suggestions and may edit this article soon with several updates. First the infrastructure section is already outdated. For example, Natal, Manaus and Salvador will not have any special mobility projects at the moment like light-rails or metros. Salvador might have one completed connecting the airport. São Paulo may not have a metro line (gold line) to connect to the airport of Congonhas completed in time. Same for Brasilia I have already updated. Also there are 2 stadiums with outaded renders, Arena da Baixada and Arena das Dunas.

Let me know if you have any other suggestions. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkalk (talk • contribs) 22:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Your input is welcome! Feel free to add any pertinent information, but please make sure to include verifiable sources with any statements. The state & cost of the infrastructure improvements for the 2014 World Cup is definitely a notable topic. Thanks 87Fan (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Switzerland hasn't qualified yet
It's still possible for Switzerland to get knocked out of the to qualifying spot by Iceland. They need to be removed from the qualified countries list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.130.18.99 (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Or by Slovenia. Schnapper (talk) 07:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Global music contest to find the official song
It seems that Sony has launched a "Global Music Contest" today to "find" the official 2014 world cup song. here. Do you guys think that this is relevant and should be inserted in the article or not? MarcosPassos (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I will take the lack of objections to insert the information above in the article as an endorsement. Thanks. MarcosPassos (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Climate of host cities
There's now a section Climate of host cities claiming "average daytime temperature" for the cities, however the numbers given are the daily highs and not average daytime temperatures (the difference being quite significant, 5°C in many places). -37.30.47.123 (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this section even necessary? --MicroX (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Since temperature is a major issue of the 2022 games, it might be useful, but it is unreferenced and I wouldn't cry if it went away. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Removed the section. --MicroX (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For the northern hemisphere (mainly Europe), this is pretty irrelevant, since our coldest climate is ever above 46º F/ 8º C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.247.147.182 (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Bosnia national football team
Bosnia qualifies for the first time to a FIFA World Cup. Therefore, their best place should be N/A in the article. For FIFA, the only successor to Yugoslavia national football team is Serbia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelipon86 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you've finally decided to use the talk page... Cool.
 * "The Bosnia and Herzegovina Football Federation (Nogometni/Fudbalski Savez Bosne i Hercegovine – NFSBiH) was founded after the Second World War, being affiliated to the Yugoslav Football Association (FSJ). FK Sarajevo won Yugoslavian championships in 1967 and 1985, NK Željeznicar in 1972. Moreover, FK Velez (1981 and 1986) and Borac Banja Luka (1988) lifted the Yugoslavian Cup. Bosnian clubs impressed in Europe too, with Željeznicar being 1984/85 UEFA Cup semi-finalists. Željeznicar's exploits underlined the local game's strength, as more than 900 clubs were now associated to the NFSBiH. (...) The creation of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia post 1918 brought an increase in the number of leagues, and soon a domestic national championship was organised featuring two teams from Bosnia and Herzegovina. The unified championship ran until 1939/40." UEFA website MarcosPassos (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Addition to Ticketing Section
The second stage of World Cup ticketing starts on Monday November 11th. There should be some reference of the start date and time, 12 pm CET / 9 am Brazil time, November 11th. Additionally, FIFA will be designating demand for each Ticket Product in either green, amber, red or black, which could help the general public make better decisions on their ticket application.

http://passportchronicles.com/how-to/world-cup-tickets-second-stage-first-come-first-serve

Green Reasonable Availability At the time of accessing the website, the respective Ticket product is still available and therefore, at that point in time, a successful application appears likely

Amber Medium Availability At the time of accessing the website, a limited number of the respective Ticket product is still available and therefore, at that point in time, your application should still be successful

Red Low Availability At the time of accessing the website, a small quantity of the respective Ticket product is still available and therefore, at that point in time, your application may still be successful

Black No Availability At the time of accessing the website, the respective Ticket product is not available and therefore, at that point in time, your application will be unsuccessful. Drewdown232 (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC) Drewdown232

Algeria
Table of qualified countries gives Algerian date of qualification as 19 Nov 2012 when it should be 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agb17 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Collapse of the stadium
Hi there. Here's a video that's just in the news about the collapse of the main stadium in Brazil for the world cup http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25DlTdrj2TY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.248.156.253 (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request 2240 EST Dec 1 2014 (Sorry, don't know proper formatting for this)
Within the mascot subsection there is a sentence that says "1.7 million people and more than 48 per cent voted for Fuleco, ahead of Zuzeco (31 per cent) and Amijubi (21 per cent), making it the unanimous winner." Unless I don't know what unanimous means, 48% agreement does not qualify as such. I propose just deleting "unanimous" - there really is no need for an adjective. 99.141.255.165 (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Taken care of: it was actually copied right from the article by whoever put it in there, which makes me wonder how good the website is it came from. I reworded it a little and took out the word unanimous. Chris1834 (talk) 05:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Goalkeeper "requirement"
Under the "squads" section it says that teams have 23 players and that three "must" be goalkeepers. I am 99% sure this is false. I think something like "typically three are goalkeepers" would be more appropriate and correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott.ogawa (talk • contribs) 22:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It is actually true and copied directly from the rulebook page 38 paragraph 29:2 (read here) that states "three of whom shall be goalkeepers". The text in the article is correct. QED 237   (talk)  22:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * But thank you for asking, I am glad when people ask if they think something is wrong. I hope you want to stay here on wikipedia and contribute to the articles. QED 237   (talk)  23:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks QED237. I will watch the video shortly to become a better editor, though mostly I just like making these small corrections (have made maybe a dozen in the past). I would say, if you combine that crazy World Cup rule with the official Laws of the Game, then I think it might be best to say "three must be designated as goalkeepers". This I am 99.9% sure of: Any player is allowed to play in goal, and nothing prevents a coach from using his "goalkeeper sub" on the field. In that sense the FIFA World Cup rule is completely vacuous, and is only about how players must be "designated". Does this make sense? Cheers 129.105.133.233 (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I totally understand what you are saying and I can agree to some degree. Not sure however if designated is the word to use or if we should leave it as is. To me it is probably best to leave it. How much you want to edit is totally up to you. QED 237  (talk)  10:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

What is seeding?
Dumb question, I know. What's seeding for? How does it relate to the groups that the teams are placed in? If you could include a sentence or two on that, it would be helpful to football illiterates like myself. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * When the groups are drawn, one team from each seeding pot is drawn to form a group. I will try and phrase this shortly and add to the article. QED 237   (talk)  11:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone is messing with the seeded teams. Italy, Portugal and Russia are NOT seeded. 98.100.71.74 (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes there is currently a lot of vandalism, and I have asked for the page to get protected. I will try my best to sort out this mess. Thansk for pointing it out. QED 237   (talk)  21:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Group G
Seems like there is confusion. Ghana is G3 not G2.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.102.194.40 (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

United States in 4, Portugal G2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.146.220.21 (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * And that is so. Any problem? You can please indicate. →Enock 4 seth  (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * There was a short while of these kind of errors but they are now fixed. Thank you for letting us know on this talkpage. QED 237   (talk)  19:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Korea Republic
Though they are known as South Korea too, they should be listed as Korea Republic for the WC since thats the name used by FIFA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.217.42 (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi, this is actually not written directly. Is from the template 🇰🇷 south korea also from South Korea national football team is Korea Republic (South Korea) national football team. hence this should be no problem. Nice you asked on the talk page. →Enock 4 seth  (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Argentina vs Nigeria
Just to left a "statistical note": it will be the 4th time (on a total of 5 participations) that Nigeria will face Argentina in the group stage; as in 1994, 2002 and 2010. It could be mentioned when the group page will be created, IMHO. --Dэя-Бøяg 17:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been done: 2014 FIFA World Cup Group F. Chanheigeorge (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I see... well done. --Dэя-Бøяg 17:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Rigged Draw
Allegations were made on Twitter the night before the draw that the draw was rigged.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/early-doors/did-fifa-really-fix-world-cup-draw-fantastic-160323229.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.21.134 (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Suspensions
Freddy Guarin is suspended for Colombia's first match due to a red card in their final qualifier against Paraguay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.62.241.51 (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Do the suspensions carry over from the qualifiers? I thought they all had a clean slate. --RidiQLus (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think yellow cards are wiped back to zero, but if a player was sent off or surpassed a certain number of total yellow cards in their final qualifier, the suspension will be in effect from the start of the tournament. – PeeJay 00:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Percentage of Conclusion - Stadiums
Please edit the percentage of conclusion of the 6 not yet finished stadiums.

Source of the percentage of conclusion: http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/esportes,a-seis-meses-da-copa-do-mundo-atrasos-marcam-obras-dos-estadios,1108253,0.htm

Thanks.

Nicolasrg (talk) 04:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done... I think. Anyone who actually reads Portuguese should feel free to correct anything I've screwed up. (As a sidenote, I find 92.83% a disturbingly precise number for the completion of a building, but who am I to argue?) -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 00:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

World Cup 2014 Song
Hi,

The official world Cup 2014 will not be selected from the SuperSong. SuperSong will only select a music that will be in the official album. http://www.supersong.com/us The official World Cup song have been chosen yesterday and it will be We are One from pitbull http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/01/23/uk-soccer-worldcup-song-idUKBREA0M1LW20140123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenzhu (talk • contribs) 13:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Links
>> Anger in Brazil over World Cup spending>> Rio police storm favela in dawn operation>> Brazil deploys army in Rio slums[>> Brazil army occupies slums ahead of World Cup([[User:Lihaas|Lihaas]] (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)).

Cost of World Cups
The section regarding the historic cost of World Cups uses a different reference source for each World Cup, each with a different methodology. They are not comparable.Ordinary Person (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Incomplete
Where is the mention of the favelas controversy and moving people about?(Lihaas (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)).


 * And for that matter, the storming of the slums (see belowLihaas (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Construction Deaths
I think we should mention the amount of deaths that have occurred during the construction of the new stadiums -- 8 workers have died as a result of accidents thus far. [] Adamh4 (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are right, but we have to find a good source about that first because you are saying that 8 workers died, yet your source says 7, and other news in the web are mentioning figures ranging from 4 to 6... We have to get the source straight first. MarcosPassos (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)