Why ASEAN will failed to host World Cup?

It was reported that ASEAN, which comprises Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam and Malaysia, is going big in World Cup. Since all of these countries did not manage to qualify on the pitch, they're going through back-doors.
ASEAN is going to bid for FIFA World Cup 2030 !!!


Wow... When I first heard about this news, I am very excited. But, after calming down and figured it out, I doubt ASEAN could succeed in bidding the world's most popular event because of the following reasons. Second surprise came, when Malaysia was said to lead the pack for the bidding. Malaysia, the unlikely team which became the winner of ASEAN cup recently, may found ourselves "syok sendiri".


Common Sense
  • Our level is nowhere near the World Cup level. Although we still have plenty of time before 2030, ASEAN needs much efforts to up the level, at least on par with South Korea.
  • To select a team who represents all the hosting countries, it would be very difficult. By then, the supposedly ASEAN team will became "rojak" team. Sure, there will be heated arguments on which players shortlisted and how many players from each countries.
  • Each countries have their own identity and culture, which needs to be show casts to the world given the world wide coverage. Would Malaysia want to lose our color?
Economic Sense
  • From the countries involved, who will be the chosen host? And, where will be the grand final? Because, that important locations would determine the profitability of the multi-billions event.
  • Since ASEAN do not have a common currency regime, some countries may lose out to another due to different currency exchange rates.
  • How much costs would each members shared?
Finance Malaysia suggests that Malaysia could bid for the World Cup by teaming up with Singapore. Two is better than the whole ASEAN. Of course, if can, we can host the entire event ourselves.

Related posts:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"You Can Keep Your Existing Health Insurance"

I wondered about this statement at the time Obama made it.  Clearly, by changing all the rules of health care insurance and mandating conformity, it was unlikely that the vast majority of Americans would not find themselves forced by 'The Affordable Care Act' to have to deal with a completely different health insurance plan and completely different set of health care providers. I now understand what Obama meant.   He was speaking to his immediate family and (politician) friends.  They are exempt from the "Affordable Care Act."  Clearly what he meant to say was: "if you are exempt from Obamacare, like me and my family, you can keep your existing health insurance."  He never meant to mislead.
Read more

Work Ethic of 70s, 80s, 90s

Image
Different generations have their own view on working. You like it or not, working is part of our live. No work = No life. However, this equation has since changed to " Working = No life ". Do you agree? Generally, those born in 70s were perceived to be loving their job. They work hard mainly because of 3 meals/day. For them, a secured life means having a stable job with stable income. They believe that with every efforts you put in, that will reward you back later. As such, over time (OT) is nothing for them. As a responsible 70s, losing their job is a serious matter they tend to avoid. That's why they usually found another job first, before resigning. How about 80s? Other than chasing for stable income, those 80s working adults will also look into the job scope , opportunity for promotion , or working environment . They will take initiative to find for better job. Hence, job hopping is very common for them. Notably, 80s are reluctant to sacrifice their quality of life b
Read more

Things We Now Know

The poor are losing ground in the new Obama world.  The facts are showing up even in the halls of collectivist extremes like the New York Times.  The rich are getting richer and poor are being locked in place.  Big government is throttling the economy and the hopes and dreams of lower and middle class Americans. Today's Wall Street Journal's article by Simon Constable lays out some of the simple and obvious facts of the Obama era: "The richest 20% of households account for 38% of spending, according to government data for 2011, the latest available.  Compare that with 2003 when the top earners spent 26% of the total."  The article goes on to say..."it could get even worse."  It will. Who really benefits when the regulators strangle the banks?  Do banks really need to get much more conservative in their lending practices?  Why does the government know best?  How far can you stretch the FDIC guarantees before American banking is simply a subsidiary of the US g
Read more