Hypothetical question: Dolphins success or American success? | Page 5 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Hypothetical question: Dolphins success or American success?

JCane said:
Wow.

That's some phony American **** if I ever heard any.

Rooting against the United States in anything has a terroristic ring to it.
Click to expand...

Rooting for soccer to stay unpopular in the USA is PRO USA.

The more parts of our society that remain resistant to the third world culture the slimy liberal Marxists would like to force upon us the better.
 
I thought this question was whether you would rather have Dolphin's success or American success....as in getting the USA back to being the greatest country on the face of the earth, doing away with the deficit, fixing our ****ty health care system, making sure that all Americans have a good job, helping college students find jobs and not be thousands of dollars in debt, etc., but I guess that would be something for the Political Forum.

I think I would trade American success over winning a SB, but it's close. ALSO, the USA winning a World Cup would not mean much to me or most Americans. Soccer just is not that important to most Americans. Just my 2 cents. :up:
 
WVDolphan said:
Rooting for soccer to stay unpopular in the USA is PRO USA.

The more parts of our society that remain resistant to the third world culture the slimy liberal Marxists would like to force upon us the better.
Click to expand...

I've read some dumb things on this board and I'm gonna lump this one in with the "Taking Names" thread.

Suddenly being progressive and becoming more interested in the world's most popular sport is a bad thing. Imagine an American city not named New York or Los Angeles were to host the World Cup. Go look at what the World Cup has done for the smaller host cities financially.

That's not exactly third world.
 
JCane said:
I've read some dumb things on this board and I'm gonna lump this one in with the "Taking Names" thread.

Suddenly being progressive and becoming more interested in the world's most popular sport is a bad thing. Imagine an American city not named New York or Los Angeles were to host the World Cup. Go look at what the World Cup has done for the smaller host cities financially.

That's not exactly third world.
Click to expand...

I have. Do you know what "white elephants" are? Why do you think there are tons of people in Brazil protesting the world cup?
 
JCane said:
I've read some dumb things on this board and I'm gonna lump this one in with the "Taking Names" thread.

Suddenly being progressive and becoming more interested in the world's most popular sport is a bad thing. Imagine an American city not named New York or Los Angeles were to host the World Cup. Go look at what the World Cup has done for the smaller host cities financially.

That's not exactly third world.
Click to expand...

Tell that to South Africa who had to build 10 new stadium's for it 4 years ago. And now 9 of them have no use Add to that FIFA gets all the ticket and TV revanu from the World cup. I'm sure after spending 3 to 4 billion just for stadium's, South Africa is far in the red and not in the black.
 
Gsmack_42 said:
Tell that to South Africa who had to build 10 new stadium's for it 4 years ago. And now 9 of them have no use Add to that FIFA gets all the ticket and TV revanu from the World cup. I'm sure after spending 3 to 4 billion just for stadium's, South Africa is far in the red and not in the black.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

This is why many Brazilians are protesting. Most of the billions that country spent on those stadiums will go to waste. In the meantime, citizens of that country are in desperate need of basics. Most of the money made during the world cup will go to FIFA.

The same thing happens with the Olympics. This is why they refer to the stadiums that are built as "white elephants". They simply sit and rot after the games they were built for are finished.
 
WVDolphan said:
Exactly.

This is why many Brazilians are protesting. Most of the billions that country spent on those stadiums will go to waste. In the meantime, citizens of that country are in desperate need of basics. Most of the money made during the world cup will go to FIFA.

The same thing happens with the Olympics. This is why they refer to the stadiums that are built as "white elephants". They simply sit and rot after the games they were built for are finished.
Click to expand...

I saw a Real sports on HBO about that. I see in 10 to 20 years that the USA being about the only country set up to host a world cup. But I can't see NFL owners letting FIFA getting all the money.
 
South Africa seems to have squandered their opportunity. Overall value of their stock market has almost doubled since the beginning of the 2010 World Cup. South Africa has seen as major spike in overall tourism. South Africa did a poor job of sustaining economic growth after hosting a major event like the World Cup. Sydney did very well after hosting the Olympics. World Cup can be incredibly beneficial financially if you have the right people in the right city/country.
 
Gsmack_42 said:
I saw a Real sports on HBO about that. I see in 10 to 20 years that the USA being about the only country set up to host a world cup. But I can't see NFL owners letting FIFA getting all the money.
Click to expand...

Why would the USA be the only county???
 
Christyman5 said:
Why would the USA be the only county???
Click to expand...

Where about the only one that has the stadium's, in place that have the upkeep it takes for the event. Most country's are going to have to build 300,000,000 plus dollar stadium's. That have a good chance of only being used for 4,game's. You see half the board here bitch about that amont for JRS from tax payers. And JRS has what at least 16 to 17 collage and pro games a year.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the soccer team would probably STILL be Made up of players from other countries so it wouldnt be TRUE american.

DOLPHINS!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom