So apparently the World Cup peeps are just trying to anger the Americans. While I am not trying to bash Qatar, this location was an extremely left-field choice, and the economically smarter choice would have been the last superpower country that has not been overcome by soccer fever like virtually everywhere else. And I forgot to mention the brutal summers that this country experiences...imagine how the players must feel. Obama and the United States had been prepping for this potential hosting duty for a while now, with Florida approving high-speed rails left and right and a proposal to connect Orlando to Tampa and potentially Miami. Nonetheless, we had been snubbed, as we lost to a place the size of Connecticut and the popularity of Sunset 60 (extra points if you tell me what that is).
But hey, while we are on the subject of potentially picking out-of-left-field choices to upset Americans (the soccer federation’s excuse is that they want to pick adventurous locations for their World Cups…so how do you explain the Germany and Japan decisions of previous World Cups?), I have assembled a list of other locations the World Cup can take place is that will not only not be in America (grammar rules it does!) , but will take place in locations that will piss off the few American fans that actually exist. These aren’t just places to play, these are places to play and make America very angry.
The original logical choice would be Canada. Why not give the 2026 hosting duties to Canada? Then have some games right on the border of the United States, just to piss them off a bit more.
Last but not least, have Montreal host a few games, as payback for what happened to the Expos back in 1994 (After two decades of disappointment, we build a potential dynasty and you moth#*&$*##*$&(*@s couldn’t agree on a few millions!?!?) Canada would also work fine because unlike Qatar, Canada isn’t a brutal hellhole (in terms of playing sports) in the summertime. Celine Dion can sing the official song, and then the French cycling team can carry around the game ball. Spite is beautiful.
Hosting the World Cup in Iraq would be near-suicide, but downright mean (and for the cynics, hilarious). They can definitely lift the spirits of the country and the economy (honestly, Iraq could use a booster like the World Cup to start a new era in the world), but the sheer idea of spending money to send MORE people into Iraq (this time instead to play ball) would be the ultimate kick in the pants—and a nice blend of irony and cruelty. That’s just what you get for hosting a pointless war in a pointless time without an actual point or an actual goal in mind. Now, this time, you can head to Iraq with an actual goal in mind…to win. By the way, hosting the World Cup in Iraq would permanently make the Americans the “road team.” I would say Afghanistan; but that war already ended….wait…there are still soldiers there? Shame on me for mixing sports and politics.............
Greenland would be the “Oh come on, what the @()&$(**@()$” choice of the millennium. Not only does it have just a mere 56,000 people, but it also cannot even grow enough grass to sustain a soccer field. Nonetheless, it still has soccer as the official sport. So the pick here would be logical, and another way to truly anger Americans by giving the spot to a place in North America, but NOT America. Greenland can definitely give it a shot, as their slogan can be “Not America.” That just might work.
Why not Cuba? Better yet, give it to the Caribbean west of Puerto Rico. This time, some games can be held 80 miles south of Key West, and the rest of the games can be played in nations that prefer baseball. I wonder what would happen if the World Cup Federation just handed the selection to the Dominican Republic and the West Indies without them even trying.
Antarctica. We already picked one extreme (heat) so why not aim for the other? Antarctica’s economy is virtually non-existent, but there are plenty of people there (a few thousand—mostly researchers that probably don’t even know Spain are defending champs) that would love to see a soccer game in their backyard. This can bring tourists over from all over the world; this can introduce them to a world they know nothing about. Imagine an opportunity to watch soccer by day, and then hang out with penguins after it’s all done. Then we can show them the supposed effects of global warming. It can be fun, freezing, educational, very unique, and best of all, a slap in the face to the American soccer peeps. I can see it now: “We lost to ANTARTICA?!?!?! #)(&#)(@#mother()*@*#))#, they don’t even have a capital city!!!! Do they even have a city?!!?!? M&#(*))()(((**!!!!”
Many other potential candidates exist: Poland (Years ago, John Kerry forgot about Poland, now the country has revenge), Ghana (they seem to beat the Americans all the time in soccer, might as well beat them in hosting too), the Cook Islands ($10 if you know where that is without looking at a map), Tristan da Cunha ($100 if you know where that is without looking at a map), and lastly:
The Moon. I am pretty sure when every other country has been represented and the World Cup Federation ran out of options besides America (assuming America apparently still makes the world grumpy in 2058), the moon will be next. This would be the final, final punch, the final jab, the final slap, and the final insult to American soccer fans.
Wait, one more:
Moon. On French soil.
Boy am I bored.