2011 World Cup

The 2011 IFAF World Cup is set to be played in Austria from July 8-16. The pairings are as follows:

Group A
#9 Australia (1-2)
#3 Germany (3-2)
#5 Mexico (3-2)
#1 United States (3-0, 2007 IFAF Champion)

Group B
Austria (0-0)
#6 Canada (0-0)
#7 France (0-5)
#2 Japan (8-1, 1999 and 2003 IFAF Champion)
or #8 South Korea (1-2) (qualifying match Feb. 26 in Tokyo)

Where in the world is IFAF '11?

Not even a week has yet passed by, nor has the dust yet settled on World Cup 2007, yet here I am to discuss potential sites for the next one. Europe hosted the first two events (Italy '99, Germany '03), and Japan hosted the most recent tournament. Who should host IFAF WC2011? Let's look at it by region:

ASIA
Kawasaki just hosted the 2007 World Cup. It would be unlikely that Asia would get to host consecutive events, especially considering fan turnout was poor.

AUSTRALIA
The expense of travel to The Land Down Under alone probably precludes this from being an option just yet.

CANADA/MEXICO
No offense to Canada, but if the World Cup is going to be hosted in Canada, it would probably be done in a split effort with the United States. It doesn't make much sense to have teams travel to North America and then not take advantage of the American fanbase, which seems never to be able to satiate its lust for football. That said, Canada would be a fine place to host the event, but hosting it in the United States would be more practical. Conversely, there is really no good argument at the moment for hosting the event in Mexico.

EUROPE
A strategically selected city in Europe would make a lot of sense, as the football-crazy (the roundball kind) continent has the greatest potential for growth of the American sport. European economies by and large are strong, which should allow for an appropriate affair to be hosted. Soccer pitches are easily transformed into gridirons, which means facilities for the even will not be a problem anyway on the continent. Furthermore, fifty percent of the participants in the first three World Cups have been from Europe (Finland, France twice, Germany twice, Italy and Sweden twice).

Since Germany and Italy have already hosted the event, I'll leave them out of consideration for host country for WC2011. There are still plenty of viable candidates: Barcelona, Dublin (Croke Park has hosted American football before, and Lansdowne Road is also a viable option), London (Wembley will get a taste of American football when the NFL comes to visit in a couple of months), Paris, Stockholm ... there's no need to go on. The point is, there are plenty of options.

UNITED STATES
Like Europe, there are many reasons it would make sense to host WC2011 in the United States. For starters, it would generate huge revenues - much moreso than any other site. Typical American football stadiums hold 80,000-100,000 fans, and usually sell every seat. This event could be hosted in any city -- whether large like New York or Los Angeles, or small like Tuscaloosa, Alabama -- and be virtually guaranteed to be a cash cow. A terrible turnout in an American city would draw ten times as many fans as the previous World Cup in Kawasaki did. If the IFAF can figure out a stipulation within the organization of the event for part of the profits to augment the travel expenses and other costs of operation for the participants in the event, then that should allow for the greatest turnout yet for a World Cup.

Reforms for World Cup '11

It's feeling like a two-post day, so why fight it?

Let me start off by saying I believe World Cup '07 was a smashing success, for what it was supposed to be. That said, I believe there were several major errors made, and I hope they will be addressed before 2011.

Today, I'll address what I believe to be the worst of these mistakes: only one representative was selected from North America. This is preposterous. The closest analogy I can think of is to give Europe the same number of qualifiers as say North America in the World Cup (soccer). Ludicrous. Asinine. There is absolutely no doubt that the second-strongest football country in the world is Canada. However, the Canadians didn't even have a chance to qualify, because IFAF decided on one North America representative, and chose the United States as "an invitee." And that's not to mention Mexico, silver medalists of the previous two World Cups. I know that the purpose of these competitions is to increase world interest in football, but excluding the countries with well-established football bases is a colossal mistake. The more legitimate the competition, the more marketable the event. Part of the reason this World Cup received no media attention in the United States must be that no American would/could believe this to be a legitimate world championship. And who could argue with them when America's stiffest competition -- Japan -- would be absolutely massacred by the Rutgers football team?

The World Cup pool is kept smaller due to expenses, but countries like Canada and Mexico can easily drum up funds to travel to a World Cup. If the IFAF World Cup is ever to be taken seriously, then the best football countries must be represented in the tournament.