Why can't India host a world cup alone?

India
March 24, 2011 9:18pm CST
Even small countries like england can host a world cup alone but india has to jointly host it with 3 other south asian countris! Look at 2003 wc which south africa hosted alone and a couple of matches were played in zimbabwe and kenya but 95% of matches were held in SA and they called it "wc south africa".Also look at west indies ,a small island hosting a cricket world cup alone.But in south asia 4 countries have to host the wc together. The funny thing is that south asia is the only place where people consider cricket as a religion and cricket players as god.
1 person likes this
5 responses
@venkit (2957)
• India
25 Mar 11
surley India can host the worldcup alone, but all other nations, srilanka and bangladesh, cant do it. thats why ICC make it like this. if bangladesh and srilanka are not part of this WC hosting, they will never ever get a chance to host the WC. and its same everywhere. when WC is hosted by aus, NZ also get associated. Same way SA and Zimbawe get associated together.
• India
25 Mar 11
right.But the thing you have to note here is that all 3 countries get equal number of matches.But in SA WC zim only hosted the matches which they actually played.All neutral games went to sa and they called it WC south africa.Likewise,they call it WC australia in 2015 i think.But here they just don't say wc india. I know what i am saying is pointless but i wish i heard "wc india".
@moksha09 (468)
• India
25 Mar 11
The countries from the sub continent were encouraged to host it together so that all could share in the revenue and cricket could spread faster. The feasibility administratively and logistically is another factor.But with the nature and attitude of India's north western neighbor they are missing out but blaming india for their missed opportunities. Bangladesh and SriLanka have benefitted. But you are right , in future India should host it all by itself, we can grow faster that way.
• India
25 Mar 11
It is not about growing faster but the pride involved in hosting the game alone,which is better than jointly hosting it will all the neighbouring countries. Also,the matches are shared equally between the 3 countries.Look at bangladesh,they have just 2 venues ,which is mirpur and chittagong ..and 90% of the matches in b'desh are played in Mirpur !On the other hand india has a lot of venues to play at. They should have done what they did at SA world cup 2003. Zim and kenya only hosted the matches in which they are playing and all other matches were played in south africa. But here all matches are equally shared and almost all the matches in bd'esh are in mirpur ground and that of SL in some pallelekee ground!
@ram_cv (16516)
• India
26 Mar 11
India can definitely host the world cup alone. But as per the ICC rotation policy the world cup has to be held in all the major countries in a round robin basis. So by sharing the world cup with the sub continent nations which cannot hold it themselves, India gets to host the world cup more often than other established countries. So I think this is a very sound policy. Cheers! Ram
• India
25 Mar 11
I also like to see india hosting a world cup, but its not happening. They always go in a group, may be if they host alone there is a chance for them to do any fraud activities and take the money in their own hands.
@msdivkar (1903)
• India
25 Mar 11
Hi ravi, It is not that India can not hold the world cup alone but it is that our neighbors can not do so alone and to get the sense of belonging India shares the world cup hosting with them. India is well equipped in terms of infrastructure like stadiums, logistics and everything that is needed for successful hosting of the cup but India believes in giving its smaller neighbors the credit of co-hosting of the cup which they can not do independently. As about West Indies it is not a single country it is the conglomerates of group of independent sovereign islands and South Africa is not small by any standard.