World Cup polls in USA
I D Santoso
cup poll. Here are the results of the poll:
- Only 20% of Americans realize that World Cup will be played in USA.
- Only 25% of Americans know that the events involve soccer
- Only 8% are aware that it will be played in 1994.
- 53% of Americans said they're not interested in watching WC in TV
- and 62% said they have no interest in attending one of the games.
I think, those numbers above are very bad, aren't they?
I hope future World Cups are held in a country whose people love soccer!!!
Any comments?
---
David Santoso
Kevin Y Lui
Accourding to the result we get from LA times, it is very upset to see
that so few people are interesting in watching WC. I agree with you WC
should be held in a place in which the people love soccer. Therefore,
Asian countries, such as China, Korea, Japan, etc should the first choice
due to the following reasons:
1. They have enough place and enough people.
2. The people there love soccer very much.
3. They have enough experience to handle big sport events. For example,
Olympic in Seoul, Asian National Sport Competition in Peijing, and
the Toyota Cup in Toyko.
4. Europe and South America are in the highest level of soccer in the
world. Therefore, it would be a little bit unfair to hold the WC in
a country of either place because European countries always win
the WC when it is held in Europe and South American countries always
win when the WC is in Latin America. But there is a certain distance
between Asian soccer level and their level. It is difficult for Asian
country to take advantage even though they are the host.
Brad Gibson
>This was the news from Los Angeles Times (Feb. 28 1994) about a world
>cup poll. Here are the results of the poll:
>
> - Only 20% of Americans realize that World Cup will be played in USA.
the US.
> - Only 25% of Americans know that the events involve soccer
soccer.
> - 53% of Americans said they're not interested in watching WC in TV
(which would make it one of the most watched sporting events in
American history).
> - and 62% said they have no interest in attending one of the games.
games.
>
>I think, those numbers above are very bad, aren't they?
the US aware of WC94 than there are in almost any country in Europe,
say. Twice the population of the UK have expressed interest in
attending one of the games.
>
bombarded by anti-US-host postings. How many years has it been ... I'm
starting to lose count.
I also hope that in the future FIFA will continue to not be afraid to
to *occasionally* let the WC be played on soil outside of Europe and
South America. It's true you want to keep all the "old" fans happy,
but there's many a good argument for trying to bring the game to a new
audience. Having every third or fourth WC played on such soil seems
like a good idea to me.
>Any comments?
You got 'em.
Brad
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad K. Gibson INTERNET: gib...@geop.ubc.ca
Dept. of Geophysics & Astronomy
#129-2219 Main Mall PHONE: (604)822-6722
University of British Columbia FAX: (604)822-6047
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
V6T 1Z4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
De Wys
>I hope future World Cups are held in a country whose people love soccer!!!
>
>Any comments?
Did you get tickets for the Rose Bowl? If no one cared about soccer
here, how come all tickets are vitually sold out?
Don't worry what the "average" AMerican thinks, most of them don't
knwo who the president is either.
The world cup will be a success, regardless of what most people think.
Ted
--
* Ted DeWys dew...@basf-corp.com *
* All opinions are mine, not my employers *
* Parsippany, NJ USA Oranje Wereldkampioen 1994 *
* VOICE: 1-201-316-3665 FAX: 1-201-316-0784 *
Calle
That's probably why Japan is being considered to host WC 2002. Good point.
Europe will have it every 8 years, we need one in Africa, South America
will have it ... some time next century.
If USA picks up football once and for all after WC94, then FIFA's decision
was correct, otherwise, it was a waste. Time will tell.
MCALLE
Sergio Adeff
While I support Japan'02 for very much the same reasons I supported USA'94,
that is, let's take the opportunity of making soccer truly global while
satisfying finantial, infraestructural, and organizational criteria, I
would readily agree with points 1 & 3 above but find point 2 a very weak one
(when comparing with nations in Europe and South America,) and reject
what is concluded in point 4 with respect to unfairness in holding the WC
in Europe or South America.
Phrase by phrase, "Europe and South America are in the highest level of
soccer in the world" is obviously true, but from it doesn't follow
"Therefore, it would be a little bit unfair to hold the WC in a country
of either place" (no more than from "George is better student than Charles"
doesn't follow "therefore, it would be a little unfair to allow George to
compite with Charles for a fellowship they both cherish".) Without further
information and considerations, such conclusion-making would deserve a fair
collection of deprecative adjectives indeed. (Now, if George is rich and is
just seeking honor for he would be able to attend college without the
fellowship, while Charles would be prevented to attend college if he loses
the fellowship to George, then the matter of unfairness would be seen on
a completely different light). It doesn't help to support such phrase with
a " because European countries always win the WC when it is held in Europe
and South American countries always win when the WC is in Latin America"
for Brazil won it Sweden'58 and Mexico'70, Netherlands came post-nicked
close to win it in Argentina'78, and Argentina won it in Mexico'70 and came
false-penalty-given-for-W.Germany-and-wrong-second-sending-off close to win it
in Italy'90, although, by and large most cups have been won by a soccer power
ofd the same FIFA region where the finals where played. It actually makes a
powerful attractive to have the possibility of that tradition be broken again.
Like Mexico, USA makes a nice neutral ground, but Japan would make the best
neutral ground possible, which also has a different kind of contrasting
attractive. However, my South American peers will agree with me that is
quite annoying that som many years have already past (since Argentina'78)
without the World Cup finals being played in our region. Granted, is not
entirely FIFA's fault for Colombia resigned her possibility for '94, but
while many of us still find the heart to support Japan'02 in the interest of
soccer globalization, it would be unthinkable not to have WC'06 back in
South America, particularly when Europe did not make such a sacrifice and
is holding France'98. I feel compelled to add that some African country
should hold WC'10. By then, I hope, a true rotation should have begun, of
the type CONCACAF-Europe-Asia/Oceania-South America-Africa. Unless Africa
shows up with a much-higher-than-average grow in GDP (of the kind now China
is exhibiting) as any sensible human being would love to see, it would be
advisable to have a multinational African WC (perhaps North-African countries,)
the same way that Benelux countries now seem to be planning what I would hope
it will be Benelux'18, right after -my hope again- Canada'14.
To sum it up, here is my list of future WC finals' hosts:
USA'94
France'98
Japan'02
Colombia'06
Saharalands'10 (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt)
Benelux'14 (The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg)
Canada'18
etc, cyclic by FIFA regions, (plugging Oceania with Asia until a time when
regions would possibly be reorganized as countries are absorbed into the
coming worldwide government as little by little bigots are made to understand
the pettiness, shamefulness, brutality, irrationality, and generally
impracticable uglyness of their views. :-).)
--
Sergio Adeff (an Argentinean in Mississippi) cca...@cotton.vislab.olemiss.edu
"I give my opinion not as being good, but as being my own." (Montaigne)
Jim DePorter
>Any comments?
Okay, here are my comments...
- The US national team has played more International games in the last
year then any other nation.
- More International games have been played in the US in the last year
then any other country.
- WC tickets are more expensive then any other WC in history.
- All WC venue tickets that have been offered to the public have been
sold six months before the first game starts.
Oh yeah, one other thing. I'm not interested in watching the WC on TV.
I'll do it, but I'd much rather be at the games.
Of course the above information wasn't printed in a newspaper. It's
amazing that people talk about the press being so biased against
soccer and then use the press's own stats to show why everyone else
in the US can't like the sport. Hmmm
Reminds me of the minister who quit the church because everyone he
met was a sinner.
Of course I'm not sure what 'Americans' mean in your stats. I'm sure
the Times also polled people north and south of the US border (-8
>---
>David Santoso
I hope those were enough comments. The problem with posting the
above poll is that it's been posted about once every two weeks for
the last 2-3 months. People on rss care about the game or they
wouldn't be here. No matter what anyone thinks there are many of
us in this group that are US citizens (well *I* am (-8 )
Probably the worst thing I can say about all this is that people
outside of the US have to be careful of US statistics. Especially
the ones in newspapers. Depending on how the questions are asked
(and even in what order) you can get the results you are looking
for. As a good example the people who run polls for elections
are very careful about their questions so they don't add any biases
into the results.
Good luck,
jimd
--
FUTURE, n. That period of time in which our affairs prosper, our
friends are true and our happiness is assured.
Ambrose Bierce
Ed Purcell
In the short term, no one can argue that the World Cup will be very
successful. (And it's a little late to complain that the World Cup
should not have been awarded to the U.S.)
However, a more important measure of success of World Cup USA 94 is whether
the "legacy" ($50 million ?) leads to the establishment of a TELEVISED
big-time football league in North America. The continuous televisation
of professional football (somewhere in the future 500 channel constellation
of multimedia entertainment) is crucial.
Dr. Colombes
pur...@cad.ucla.edu
Mark Koek
[...]
>To sum it up, here is my list of future WC finals' hosts:
>
>USA'94
>France'98
>Japan'02
>Colombia'06
>Saharalands'10 (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt)
>Benelux'14 (The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg)
>Canada'18
>etc, cyclic by FIFA regions, (plugging Oceania with Asia until a time when
>regions would possibly be reorganized as countries are absorbed into the
>coming worldwide government as little by little bigots are made to understand
>the pettiness, shamefulness, brutality, irrationality, and generally
>impracticable uglyness of their views. :-).)
Well.
This certainly is long term planning.
Sergio is also predicting the invention of airconditioning systems the
length of the entire coast of North Africa, as well as a way of keeping the
Libyans from arming their favourite players with automatic rifles and
large knives.
I'd like to add to that that I think that by the time of the Canada'18 World
Championships the players, amongst whom will be many of my two-headed, seven-
armed, twelve-footed sons, will all be naked and will play with a radio-
controlled ball. Thus, the game will certainly be watched on the megaTVs
installed on the pavements of all streets in the world.
Sorry about that.
Gilbert Marquez
cca...@sugarcane.vislab.olemiss.edu (Sergio Adeff) wrote:
It doesn't help to support such phrase with
> a " because European countries always win the WC when it is held in Europe
> and South American countries always win when the WC is in Latin America"
> for Brazil won it Sweden'58 and Mexico'70,
^^^^^^^^^
Isn't Mexico part of Latin America? I suggest you check your world map.
> It actually makes a powerful attractive to have the possibility of that > tradition be broken again. Like Mexico, USA makes a nice neutral ground
Since when Mexico is a neutral ground for Latin Americans?
Or are you speaking only for Argentinians?
I always thought that Mexico was considered part of Latin America, even
though Brazil is one of the only countries in LATIN AMERICA that does not
speak spanish, Brazilians will never make such a comment.
Bill Muskett
: This was the news from Los Angeles Times (Feb. 28 1994) about a world
For a different slant on the results here are some excerpts from a story in
today's Contra Costa Times (San Francisco Bay area - you mean you've never
heard of it?).
Headline - Interest in Cup rising
- Those who would be very interested in watching a live game in person up
from 10% (poll last Oct) to 15% (up 50%).
- Very interested in watching a game on TV up from 13% to 17% (up 31%).
- Those who know it will be played this year up from 11 to 18% (up 64%).
- Those who know it will be played in the US up from 13 to 20% (up 54%).
Among quotes from Alan Rothenberg -
"Almost 50% intend to watch at least part of it...That's 125 million, that's
better than Nancy and Tonya."
"...it all happened without much action. Most of our sponsors have waited
until after the Winter Olympics. We expect a lot of promotion the next
couple of months."
(so look for ticket requests here to go up even more!)
Rothenberg also referred to the 15% "very interested" in watching a match
in person and the 23% "somewhat interested", adding: "That's close to
100 million tickets if taken literally. We just have three and a half million
available."
Bill
Colin Morris
> san...@aludra.usc.edu (I D Santoso) writes:
>
> >This was the news from Los Angeles Times (Feb. 28 1994) about a world
> >cup poll. Here are the results of the poll:
>
> > - Only 20% of Americans realize that World Cup will be played in USA.
> > - Only 25% of Americans know that the events involve soccer
> > - Only 8% are aware that it will be played in 1994.
> > - 53% of Americans said they're not interested in watching WC in TV
> > - and 62% said they have no interest in attending one of the games.
>
> >I think, those numbers above are very bad, aren't they?
> >I hope future World Cups are held in a country whose people love soccer!!!
>
> >Any comments?
>
> Okay, here are my comments...
>
> - The US national team has played more International games in the last
> year then any other nation.
> - More International games have been played in the US in the last year
> then any other country.
> - WC tickets are more expensive then any other WC in history.
> - All WC venue tickets that have been offered to the public have been
> sold six months before the first game starts.
>
Apart from the excellent last point, I don't see that any of these
comments refute the original poster's contention. The reason that the
U.S. has played more International games than anyone else is simply
the fact that there's no professional soccer in the U.S. The only way
many U.S. players can get any match experience is through organizing
friendly internationals. As for tickets being more expensive, I think
this is more indicative of the fact that Americans tend to be "big
event" watchers, and will pay dearly for the privilege:- look at the
large number of high-priced "packages" going to corporate sponsors etc.
--
Colin Morris Ingres, an ASK Group company cmo...@ws2s.ingres.com
'Future (Japanese) plans include Cannonball City, "a faithful recreation
of life in the United States", perhaps with souvenir handguns' - The Economist
Sergio Adeff
>Sergio Adeff (cca...@sugarcane.vislab.olemiss.edu) wrote:
>
>->To sum it up, here is my list of future WC finals' hosts:
>
>->USA'94
>->France'98
>->Japan'02
>->Colombia'06
>->Saharalands'10 (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt)
Canada'14
Benelux'18 (The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg)
(corrected, I have reversed the order discussed in previous, deleted text,)
Korea'22 (unified by then, we hope)
Argentina'26 (by that time we'll have won so many WCs....)
>->etc, cyclic by FIFA regions, (plugging Oceania with Asia ............
>
> Excuse me, but for the 201(8) and 2010 World cups, who will
>qualify as host nation? This will IMHO mean it would be unfairly harder
>to qualify for the WC if all host nations qualified automatically.
>
This was also asked by a Peruvian fan (thanks for the concepts, pal.) The
fact is that what it appears as a problem, can easily be turned up into
an additional attractive (and a very profitable one for the nations involved.)
See, in the case of Benelux, Luxemburg would probably be happy with hosting
a first round series and some other matches, and Belgium & Netherlands may
simply have a pair of games deciding it (or a single game in Luxemburg.) The
winner is the "true host", qualifying automatically and hosting the Final.
Imagine Tunisia and Algeria (say) contempt themselves with hosting first
round games: Then, Morocco, Libya, and Egypt would have a tournment to
similarly decide which one is the "true host". Of course, if all want to
be the "true host", they may have a tournment with all of them. This
tournment should be held well in advance, say six years before the finals.
The losing nations would go through the normal qualyfing process.
If one of these nations qualify, they should play the first round
in their own country. It may be the case that the proponents decide beforehand
which is the "true host" country for finantial, stadia, and else reasons.
In any case, the proponents should propose a mechanism in their presentation
to FIFA, and FIFA should aprove it. Simple, isn't it ?
Jim DePorter
>In article <CM1wA...@SSD.intel.com> ji...@ssd.intel.com (Jim DePorter) writes:
>>
>> Okay, here are my comments...
>>
>> - The US national team has played more International games in the last
>> year then any other nation.
>> - More International games have been played in the US in the last year
>> then any other country.
>> - WC tickets are more expensive then any other WC in history.
>> - All WC venue tickets that have been offered to the public have been
>> sold six months before the first game starts.
>>
>Apart from the excellent last point, I don't see that any of these
>comments refute the original poster's contention. The reason that the
>U.S. has played more International games than anyone else is simply
>the fact that there's no professional soccer in the U.S. The only way
>many U.S. players can get any match experience is through organizing
>friendly internationals. As for tickets being more expensive, I think
>this is more indicative of the fact that Americans tend to be "big
>event" watchers, and will pay dearly for the privilege:- look at the
>large number of high-priced "packages" going to corporate sponsors etc.
Sorry, the real purpose of my comments were to point out that US
statistics really don't give a good view of the interest in soccer.
If 100% of the US was interested in the WC, but a small percentage
of the US is interested in supporting a pro league, then having the
WC in the US doesn't buy the true US fan anything. My contention is
that by having the WC in the US, there have been more games played
by the US team and more games played between other International
teams in the US providing a chance for more people to see the games
in the US. If the WC had been in South America, popularity and
interest in the US would be at the same position they had been
going into Italy in '90.
What would be interesting to see would be the number of MSL cities
on Rothenberg's list that will meet the MSL requirements by the
deadline he has set. I know that out of 20 cities, Portland has
already pulled out and from their comments I can see other cities
pulling out also (would you spend a lot of money not to get chosen
as a 1st division city?).
So what do the stats really mean?
Probably nothing at all for the WC. Most of the tickets are
sold, the contracts for TV and radio have been set, as have been the
requirements for no commercials during the games.
The stats will be used to price advertising. The stats will help
convince organizations to become partners in the MSL.
But what will really make a difference is when the final WC game
is over, will there be a greater interest in the game throughout the
US?
>--
>Colin Morris Ingres, an ASK Group company cmo...@ws2s.ingres.com
>'Future (Japanese) plans include Cannonball City, "a faithful recreation
> of life in the United States", perhaps with souvenir handguns' - The Economist
We can only hope,
later,
Sergio Adeff
South America doesn't include Mexico indeed. Also in soccer terms, Mexico
is part of CONCACAF, just like USA, Canada, Honduras, etc.
Kim-Son Nguyen
> >In article <2l1fb7$t...@aludra.usc.edu> san...@aludra.usc.edu (I D Santoso)
> writes:>>This was the news from Los Angeles Times (Feb. 28 1994) about a worl
> >>cup poll. Here are the results of the poll:
> >>
> >> - Only 20% of Americans realize that World Cup will be played in USA.
> > Which means 50 million Americans *do* know that WC94 will be played
> > the US.
> >> - Only 25% of Americans know that the events involve soccer
> > Which means 63 million Americans *do* know that the events involve
> > soccer.
> >> - 53% of Americans said they're not interested in watching WC in TV
> > Which means 118 million Americans *are* interested in watching WC on
> > (which would make it one of the most watched sporting events in
> > American history).
> >> - and 62% said they have no interest in attending one of the games.
> > Which means 95 million have some interest in attending on of the
> > games.
>
> Lucky that there is so many Americans, isn't it?
>
> Tom W.
>
Yes, there are many Americans. So what? Soccer is the fastest-growing
sport in America and many European
anything. That is jealousy since the United States of America is the best
country in the world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Kim-Son Nguyen bbs.k...@tsoft.net |
| * * * |
| Mathematics is the queen of the sciences. -Karl F. Gauss- |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Jones
|> South America doesn't include Mexico indeed. Also in soccer terms, Mexico
|> is part of CONCACAF, just like USA, Canada, Honduras, etc.
|>
Right, I'm with it so far. Mexico Is *not* in South America.
|> But (Gilbert Marquez) wrote:
|> I always thought that Mexico was considered part of Latin America.
OK I can live with this (even if Sergio can't)
However someone else then said it is in Central America, to which the reply
was no its not its in North America.
Now I'm confused, I know it is not in South America (Sergio told me so it
must be true !). I know it is in Latin America (they speak a Romance Language
and it is in the Americas - but I'm not quite sure where this definition leaves
Quebec).
The other things I know.
1. Mexico is South of Texas (I know this one I checked), & Texas is
in North America.
2. Mexico is North of Guatamala, & Guatamala is in Central America.
So (I know that this isn't the place but try to humour me) wher is Mexico can
someone tell me (with reasons please).
Kevin.
Sergio Adeff
OK, since Kevin is so confident in my knowledge, and abusing of the patiente
of most elementary geography knowing r.s.s.ers sufferers, let's have Kevin
and others read this:
1) Latin America is not a geographical entity. The term is loosely applied
to the set of Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking American countries when
reference is made to geopolitical and cultural aspects. It leads to
great lost of comprehension, for these are far more different among them
than say, USAean states and Canadean provinces between them. Many people
in Latin America feel just as ofended with the term as Quebeqians when
they are included in Anglo America, but never so much as Unitedstateans
seem to be ofended when they are told that Chileans (say) are just as
Americans as them, or Latin Americans when Unitedstateans talk abouth
themselves as Americans while implying the others in America are not.
2) America is a continent, which has three subcontinents, called North-,
Central-, and South America.
3) North America includes CANADA, USA, and MEXICO. (That's why their latest
agreement is called NAFTA, an acronysm for North American Free Trade
Agreement, see ?).
Konstantin Laufer
[...]
> 1) Latin America is not a geographical entity. The term is loosely applied
Exactly!
> to the set of Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking American countries when
Are you implying that Haiti is *not* part of Latin America? Of course
you didn't mean to. Furthermore, if Haiti is part of LA, then so is
Quebec. End of proof :-/
--
-Konstantin Lau...@math.luc.edu
-URL file://schauinsland.math.luc.edu/pub/laufer/WWW/home.html
Stephen Halchuk
|>So (I know that this isn't the place but try to humour me) wher is Mexico can
|>someone tell me (with reasons please).
Mexico is (take your pick):
1. part of the Americas (the term used for those countries north and south
of the equator which seperate the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans).
2. part of North America (it is a member of NAFTA, the North American
Free Trade Agreement)
3. part of North/Middle America (it is a member of CONCACAF, the
COnfederacion Norte-Centro-Americana y del CAribe de Futbol. By the
same reasoning, Surinam and Guyana [CONCACAF members], both
geographically located on the South American continent, must be part
of North/Middle America)
4. part of Middle America (generally includes Mexico, Central America
(see below) and sometimes the Caribbean nations)
5. part of South America (it played in the recent version of the Copa
America, the South American nations championship. By the same
reasoning, America (United States of) must also part of South America)
6. part of Latin America (Spanish is a derivative of Latin, as are
Portuguese and French, the predominant languages spoken in those
nations south of the United States)
7. NOT part of Central America (this term is generally reserved for
those nations south of Mexico and north of Colombia, i.e. Guatemala,
Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama)
8. part of Equatorial America (part of the country lies within 15
degrees of the equator [Note this is not really a term, I'm just
adding to the confusion])
This post is meant to show the silliness surrounding geographical
labels and the inevitable politics that go with them. Take it with a
grain of salt.
Stephen
---
+============+ | S. Halchuk, hal...@seismo.emr.ca
| o \0\ |} | And the referee says "Lets go Moses" ....
| \ | } | And Moses Chunga steps up to the ball....
| \\ | } | And its a GOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAALLL! :-) The Real Sounds
Larry McMahan
: 2) America is a continent, which has three subcontinents, called North-,
: Central-, and South America.
Wrong! There are TWO continents...
North America, and
South America.
The Central American istmus is part of North America.
: 3) North America includes CANADA, USA, and MEXICO. (That's why their latest
: agreement is called NAFTA, an acronysm for North American Free Trade
: Agreement, see ?).
But ALL of North America is NOT included in NAFTA. See above.
: --
: Sergio Adeff (an Argentinean in Mississippi) cca...@cotton.vislab.olemiss.edu
: "I give my opinion not as being good, but as being my own." (Montaigne)
Larry
Joe2103
in CONCACAF: See Guyana and Suriname!
Colin Morris
>
> Sergio Adeff (cca...@cotton.vislab.olemiss.edu) writes:
> : 2) America is a continent, which has three subcontinents, called North-,
> : Central-, and South America.
>
> Wrong! There are TWO continents...
> North America, and
> South America.
> The Central American istmus is part of North America.
>
> : 3) North America includes CANADA, USA, and MEXICO. (That's why their latest
> : agreement is called NAFTA, an acronysm for North American Free Trade
> : Agreement, see ?).
>
> But ALL of North America is NOT included in NAFTA. See above.
... so by most of the world'd definition, all of North America is
included in NAFTA (apart from Bermuda :-))
Balbir Singh Purewal
>In article <CMBFs...@cup.hp.com> mcm...@cup.hp.com (Larry McMahan) writes:
>>
>> Sergio Adeff (cca...@cotton.vislab.olemiss.edu) writes:
>> : 2) America is a continent, which has three subcontinents, called North-,
>> : Central-, and South America.
>>
>> Wrong! There are TWO continents...
>> North America, and
>> South America.
>> The Central American istmus is part of North America.
>>
>Most of the non-U.S. world defines that there is one continent - America...
>
>> : 3) North America includes CANADA, USA, and MEXICO. (That's why their latest
>> : agreement is called NAFTA, an acronysm for North American Free Trade
>> : Agreement, see ?).
>>
>> But ALL of North America is NOT included in NAFTA. See above.
>
>included in NAFTA (apart from Bermuda :-))
>
TomWana
event for more than three weeks in advance. I predict that you will start to
see more advertising for the WC after college basketball ends, and a concerted
effort by ABC and sponsors after pro basketball ends.
PalaceFC
more than three weeks in advance. I predict you'll see more attention given
(to the World Cup) after the college and pro basketball seasons end."
Just one more bloody good reason why the World Cup SHOULDN'T BE HELD IN THE
USA.
GEORGE GOMES
: I don't think that Americans have the attention span to anticipate such an
: event for more than three weeks in advance. I predict that you will start to
: see more advertising for the WC after college basketball ends, and a concerted
: effort by ABC and sponsors after pro basketball ends.
I don't know when college and pro basketball seasons end but to grab
the attention of the americans, Stanley Cup playoffs (Hocky) is coming which
can run right untill the opening day of WC'94 and also American favourite
pasttime Major League Baseball is starting next month.
They say 20% interested americans are more than enough than 100% crazy
(for football of course) in some other country. I say it *nonsense*.
George