That's the thing mate. It's probably always gone on and would be naive to think not but it is as you say the lack of suprise about it.
Doubt it will even raise any eyebrows and will be tomorrow's chip paper (metaphorically of course as Health and Safety put stop to that!)
It is disgusting that wrong uns like him can command that sort of bribe (£500k) from a position of privilege he has been put in. Probably never even had much interest in football until he realised what a gravy train it has become. That money could do so much to develop the game in Nigeria or even save many of the clubs that are going out of business in this country.
The game is so tainted and each of these episodes just drag it down further.
One of the main problems is, and I expect to receive lots of stick for this, that one of the main aims of not just FIFA and UEFA, but sports governing bodies all over the world is to "share the love"... to delegate responsibilities to as many countries and individual federations as possible, to allow everyone to "have a go", whether it is hosting, participating or making so-called "collective" decisions such as these.
It may be perceived fair and avoiding bias from the global powerhouses involved but one has to say that there are many, probably TOO many instances of this going wrong. You cannot treat and expect every country to operate at the same level, under the same procedure, work to the same aims and enforce the same sanctions. There are blatant clashes of culture, custom and drastic variations in both economic and socio-political development that make this infeasible.
A couple of examples:-
1. Does allowing lower economically developed countries the chance to participate in voting such as for the World Cup venue make sense when you consider how much money these people can make through abuse of process and how far comparatively that money goes in their own countries? Add to that the fact that corruption in many of these countries is not just par for the course but considered a recognised advantage of office!
2. How about allowing all and sundry to participate in WC or EC qualification? Are San Marino, Andorra etc improving? I mean San Marino lost 8-0 to Hungary last week. They are not getting better. Why is it considered almost too insulting to allow them to play each other in a pre-qualifying filtering stage where the players can actually win a game, feel like they've achieved something and feel like they actually have something to play for and aspire to?
It might all be well and good in theory but how does it bear up in practice? Do we have to accept that supremacy and big brother syndrome is a fact of life and not just an expression of capitalist greed and monopoly? Or do we have to be inclusive for the sake of fairness and encouraging equality, by carrying on "sharing" so that we can patronisingly try and drag countries kicking and screaming to what we perceive is "development"?
This is not saying that more economically developed countries are not corrupt or problematic, you can't gloss over Italy in recent years but in this command-structure of fairness, I'm sure there are a lot of murky goings on a long way down the branches where prying eyes rarely look.
Football is big,big buisness.It is not a sport anymore.Its the same with the Fifa and Uefa leadership elections .The 'Lobbying for Votes' leads to promises which is nothing other than corruption.The same practices that occur in winning big tenders ,especially in third world countries,are the norm in football.
But as long as millions watch and love it nothing will change.In a globalised world values have dissapeared.Money and Greed are the winners over commonsense and fairness.
The England bid gave all FIFA officials' wives handbags, jewellery etc. Is it better that the money is spent on these things or on all-weather pitches in West Africa? Assuming that the money actually goes to these pet projects that actually benefit football worldwide, then it's an improvement imo.
To ISLS's unrelated point about San Marino, I don't see what the problem with them is. It's not like European international footballers (and it's only Europe where this is an issue - all other continents bar South America have preliminary rounds) are playing too many matches, and the extra matches against the minnows probably financially benefit the 'superior' associations through advertising, ticket receipts etc
[cite]Posted By: IA[/cite]To ISLS's unrelated point about San Marino, I don't see what the problem with them is. It's not like European international footballers (and it's only Europe where this is an issue - all other continents bar South America have preliminary rounds) are playing too many matches, and the extra matches against the minnows probably financially benefit the 'superior' associations through advertising, ticket receipts etc
Without wishing to be flippant, the fact that all of the other continents except SA have preliminary rounds probably suggests that they would be appropriate
But, I would imagine that in all other continents (each of which is much bigger than Europe), international matches cost associations quite a bit of money in travel and other expenses. Whereas in Europe, international matches are a cash cow for national associations.
I wish I could understand your problem. If they're happy to be a confidence booster for the better nations, then so be it. Bear in mind, you probably would've had Montenegro among the weaker nations (because they are a new association and had no ranking until they were allowed into the big boys' group for the WC2010 qualifiers). Do they offend you by being in the same group?
But, I would imagine that in all other continents (each of which is much bigger than Europe), international matches cost associations quite a bit of money in travel and other expenses. Whereas in Europe, international matches are a cash cow for national associations.
I wish I could understand your problem. If they're happy to be a confidence booster for the better nations, then so be it. Bear in mind, you probably would've had Montenegro among the weaker nations (because they are a new association and had no ranking until they were allowed into the big boys' group for the WC2010 qualifiers). Do they offend you by being in the same group?
Who rattled your cage this is supposed to be a topical debate so why the vitriol?
It may be a "side issue" (in capital letters) or "unrelated" as you have labelled it but I brought it up as I think it has relevance in a debate about the involvement of (EDIT: smaller/weaker) countries in football.
Your point about travelling is a valid one and I can understand that.
It doesn't "offend" me, I just think it's a point that could do with addressing. Do you really think they are happy to be a "confidence booster"? Is it really good for them to get tonked every week?
As for Montenegro, no I wouldn't put them in that category. Regardless of their lack of rating and embryonic status as a country they have a squad that would comfortably compete with a Pot 3 standard. The last time I checked they have a player that starts for AS Roma, a player that starts for Sporting, a player that starts for Fiorentina, amongst others. I haven't bothered to wikipedia to back up my argument but off the top of my head I very much doubt that the likes of San Marino and Andorra could boast representation on a par with that.
It would be nice if you could dismount from your high horse and participate in a non-patronising and reasoned discussion and not one that seemingly operates on your terms only.
Not sure of the connection with andyaddick's link, unless he's saying we should pre-judge all Nigerians. It has even less of a connection to Reynald Temarii.
Seriously, all-weather pitches in west Africa v handbags for officials' wives. Amazing that the former is "scandalous bribery".
San Marino is not an economically deprived country. Nor is Andorra. And the point is about as relevant to the original thread as me posting "Parky out". Should've made a new thread for it.
Montenegro were a new country. New countries don't have rankings, but OK, you'd give them a special ranking because they have some good players. That's convenient because they drew away at Cyprus, Georgia and Ireland last time out. Liechtenstein could have taken at least one point off Scotland. How many teams have to play the super preliminaries? And if one of them does have a decent team (Iceland will have a good one in a few years, Northern Ireland overperform relative to their individual talents, Wales will eventually have a good team - I guess), how many matches would they have to play to be in with a chance of qualifying? Or is this just for Andorra to play San Marino?
When was it ever different. West Ham's first ever manager, said to be very good with regards to results, was said to be corrupt to the core. He got involved in too much dodgy kickbacks etc, and was eventually sacked. Within a short space of time of that he was dead through suicide.
It's never been different. Many manager's from the playing 'golden age' of the 50's, were linked to match fixing. Get over it, it's the way the world runs and it ain't much different in this country just more complex financial shenanigans.
[cite]Posted By: IA[/cite]San Marino is not an economically deprived country. Nor is Andorra. And the point is about as relevant to the original thread as me posting "Parky out". Should've made a new thread for it.
Apolgies for the lack of clarity, you are of course correct, I'm getting my wires crossed in terms of LEDC / weak football nations and didn't particularly pay much attention to the term I was using in that sentence. Fine, I won't discuss this issue any further beyond this post. The original post may have gone off at a tangent but I was considering the role played by 'minor' nations in an overall picture, from playing, to officiating, to hosting, to collective decision-making. I made the connection in my head. Others may not. Consider the matter closed.
[cite]Posted By: IA[/cite]Or is this just for Andorra to play San Marino?
Clearly the model needs work, but I would propose it to include the likes of Andorra, San Marino, Luxembourg, Faroe Islands, Malta, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Liechtenstein, Kazakhstan, Georgia
Then add a few more
ARMENIA 0-1 Ireland
Albania 1-0 LUXEMBOURG
GEORGIA 1-0 MALTA
Scotland 2-1 LIECHTENSTEIN
I put them in caps to make it clear. These teams aren't going to qualify, but they are competing.
You could make the exact same point for the next tier of teams (Wales, Cyprus, Iceland, Lithuania, Latvia etc) needing prequalifiers and keep going up until the point that Germany, Spain, Italy etc should qualify automatically. I reckon you don't believe in that, but I just don't see what harm they do by being in the regular qualifiers. Besides, if you put them in a preliminary group, the regular qualifiers would have to wait for that to finish beforehand, with the international matches being less spaced out for the bigger nations.
Typical of what - the whole of Nigeria? Jesus Henry Christ you do talk some old shite. One of my best mates in Nigerian - from Lagos no less. I was best man at his wedding. One of the nicest people you could ever wish to meet. And (though I may be going out on a limb here) as far as I'm aware he hasn't bribed planning officials to let him build an extension on his house, and doesn't collect money from the local people via protection rackets.
How does someone as ignorant as yourself manage to get to the age necessary to have the manual dexterity required to operate a keyboard? Or do you really believe absolutely everything you see in the media (or generalise entire cultures on the few people from an individual culture you meet)?
Mind you, I guess this is progress for you. At least your pathetic generalisations are aimed at the correct country this time.
Hey - what happened to Armenia and Georgia in your list? )
Seriously though - I thinki there can be a good argument made for a two-tier qualifying tournament in Europe -but the sheer logistics of arranging it would be a nightmare. if it did happen though, at least England wouldn't have to play (and probably lose against) dross like Wales.
is it just me or am i alone in gradually falling out of love with this game?
What with the situation at Charlton , England's overpaid tossers flopping in the world cup and now corruption in the sport what is happening to the so called beautiful game?
Typical of what - the whole of Nigeria? Jesus Henry Christ you do talk some old shite. One of my best mates in Nigerian - from Lagos no less. I was best man at his wedding. One of the nicest people you could ever wish to meet. And (though I may be going out on a limb here) as far as I'm aware he hasn't bribed planning officials to let him build an extension on his house, and doesn't collect money from the local people via protection rackets.
How does someone as ignorant as yourself manage to get to the age necessary to have the manual dexterity required to operate a keyboard? Or do you really believe absolutely everything you see in the media (or generalise entire cultures on the few people from an individual culture you meet)?
Mind you, I guess this is progress for you. At least your pathetic generalisations are aimed at the correct country this time.
One of "the pair" is Reynald Temarii, from Tahiti. But you are probably right, he should get some credit for some degree of accuracy.
Back to the minnows: the logistics are a nightmare, and the same logic filters through to all of the other levels.Why are Wales allowed in the elite group, for example?
Also, what club would sign a Liechtenstein international? They're better than most of the other teams in your second list, so they'd likely qualify for the second round, so after playing 6-14 matches in the minnow round they'd have to play another 8-10 matches in the second round. That's over 14 competitive international matches every two years, compared to a maximum of 10 in the current system. And I just don't see the benefit in it. What harm does the current system do?
[cite]Posted By: IA[/cite]The England bid gave all FIFA officials' wives handbags, jewellery etc. Is it better that the money is spent on these things or on all-weather pitches in West Africa?
Of course what should happen is that FIFA officials should pay for (or FIFA should pay for) all their travelling, hotel and dining expeses. No relatives on the trip and no gift whatsoever should be handed out by bidding countries, the delegates should see a presentation, visit the grounds as required and that's it. But of course that's why these unelected (by the supporters of the game) officials climbed on the gravy train in the first place.
I also think that you might be being a bit optimistic if you believe that all (or any) of that cash was going towards building pitches IA.
Maybe I am being optimistic, but the article linked said that they were going to spend the money on this pet project of pitches.
If the money is entirely spent on pitches in Africa, I do not have a problem with the 'bribery'. If it's spent on luxuries or the overseas bank accounts of corrupt officials, I do have a problem.
I'm guessing you would have a problem whether or not the money goes toward developing the game in underdeveloped regions ?
If England fail to get 2018 it will be over 50 years since their last World Cup Finals. This is England, the country who invented the game, has arguably the strongest league in the world (in depth too), Quality of infrastructure/policing of football, Quality of Stadiums which it will 100% fill. You don't need to expose anything really, the circumstantial evidence is damning and will tell you that something is corrupt in the football governing bodies.
I wonder what they're saying on forums in Russia about what it would mean if they lost the bid. One of the greatest countries in the world, and has never had the chance to host it...
Maybe the England bid would do better if it spent less time accusing other bidding nations of bribery (Triesman) and less time actually bribing FIFA officials (handbags).
It's not a matter of everyone's 'turn'. If Spain/Portugal have a better bid than England, then so be it. Germany did for 2006. Much and all as a World Cup in England would be enjoyable, I'd like to think the best host is picked each time (with a reasonable restriction on two tournaments in a row in the same continent), rather than doing each large nation in turns (or because of successful bribery). It's not unreasonable to think Spain/Portugal might have a better bid than England, is it?
[cite]Posted By: IA[/cite]I'm guessing you would have a problem whether or not the money goes toward developing the game in underdeveloped regions ?
No not at all, IA. But to offer your vote on the basis of an under the counter bribe, whatever the intended destination of the cash, is not what the bidding process is supposed to be all about. At least the handbags are given in the open.
I think that if two countries have similar bids then yes, whose turn it is should be taken into account.
I am also flat against joint bids even though I would personally profit from Portugal holding a part of the tournament if we still have the bar by then. But that is beside the point, I know.
Hmm, I suppose. But if rich countries do want to host this tournament, I don't have any ideological objection to poorer countries benefitting from improved facilities, even if I don't like bribery. I suppose you're probably right, and even if the money is entirely spent on pitches, they're likely to only be in Nigeria rather than across west Africa.
'Turns' would benefit Russia, not England.
As goes joint bids: do you know the answer to this? Do Portugal expect to qualify automatically if they win the bid? It probably doesn't make a difference (they'll qualify anyway), but it's in the back of my head. I thought South Korea and Japan did very well as joint hosts, and now South Korea are in a position to make a bid on their own, which shows that it's brought an improvement in their facilities etc.
[cite]Posted By: IA[/cite]As goes joint bids: do you know the answer to this? Do Portugal expect to qualify automatically if they win the bid? It probably doesn't make a difference (they'll qualify anyway), but it's in the back of my head. I thought South Korea and Japan did very well as joint hosts, and now South Korea are in a position to make a bid on their own, which shows that it's brought an improvement in their facilities etc.
Yes they do expect to qualify automatically, as far as I know this has been the case so far with joint bids. Although Portugal will only have two stadiums involved - Porto and either one of Benfica or Sporting - so they will be looking at spending almost nothing having upgraded for the Euros six years ago.
Comments
Doubt it will even raise any eyebrows and will be tomorrow's chip paper (metaphorically of course as Health and Safety put stop to that!)
It is disgusting that wrong uns like him can command that sort of bribe (£500k) from a position of privilege he has been put in. Probably never even had much interest in football until he realised what a gravy train it has become. That money could do so much to develop the game in Nigeria or even save many of the clubs that are going out of business in this country.
The game is so tainted and each of these episodes just drag it down further.
Boo
It may be perceived fair and avoiding bias from the global powerhouses involved but one has to say that there are many, probably TOO many instances of this going wrong. You cannot treat and expect every country to operate at the same level, under the same procedure, work to the same aims and enforce the same sanctions. There are blatant clashes of culture, custom and drastic variations in both economic and socio-political development that make this infeasible.
A couple of examples:-
1. Does allowing lower economically developed countries the chance to participate in voting such as for the World Cup venue make sense when you consider how much money these people can make through abuse of process and how far comparatively that money goes in their own countries? Add to that the fact that corruption in many of these countries is not just par for the course but considered a recognised advantage of office!
2. How about allowing all and sundry to participate in WC or EC qualification? Are San Marino, Andorra etc improving? I mean San Marino lost 8-0 to Hungary last week. They are not getting better. Why is it considered almost too insulting to allow them to play each other in a pre-qualifying filtering stage where the players can actually win a game, feel like they've achieved something and feel like they actually have something to play for and aspire to?
It might all be well and good in theory but how does it bear up in practice? Do we have to accept that supremacy and big brother syndrome is a fact of life and not just an expression of capitalist greed and monopoly? Or do we have to be inclusive for the sake of fairness and encouraging equality, by carrying on "sharing" so that we can patronisingly try and drag countries kicking and screaming to what we perceive is "development"?
This is not saying that more economically developed countries are not corrupt or problematic, you can't gloss over Italy in recent years but in this command-structure of fairness, I'm sure there are a lot of murky goings on a long way down the branches where prying eyes rarely look.
But as long as millions watch and love it nothing will change.In a globalised world values have dissapeared.Money and Greed are the winners over commonsense and fairness.
There is a lot of money sloshing about the game, and in some countries that means only one thing: corruption.
To ISLS's unrelated point about San Marino, I don't see what the problem with them is. It's not like European international footballers (and it's only Europe where this is an issue - all other continents bar South America have preliminary rounds) are playing too many matches, and the extra matches against the minnows probably financially benefit the 'superior' associations through advertising, ticket receipts etc
Without wishing to be flippant, the fact that all of the other continents except SA have preliminary rounds probably suggests that they would be appropriate
But, I would imagine that in all other continents (each of which is much bigger than Europe), international matches cost associations quite a bit of money in travel and other expenses. Whereas in Europe, international matches are a cash cow for national associations.
I wish I could understand your problem. If they're happy to be a confidence booster for the better nations, then so be it. Bear in mind, you probably would've had Montenegro among the weaker nations (because they are a new association and had no ranking until they were allowed into the big boys' group for the WC2010 qualifiers). Do they offend you by being in the same group?
Who rattled your cage this is supposed to be a topical debate so why the vitriol?
It may be a "side issue" (in capital letters) or "unrelated" as you have labelled it but I brought it up as I think it has relevance in a debate about the involvement of (EDIT: smaller/weaker) countries in football.
Your point about travelling is a valid one and I can understand that.
It doesn't "offend" me, I just think it's a point that could do with addressing. Do you really think they are happy to be a "confidence booster"? Is it really good for them to get tonked every week?
As for Montenegro, no I wouldn't put them in that category. Regardless of their lack of rating and embryonic status as a country they have a squad that would comfortably compete with a Pot 3 standard. The last time I checked they have a player that starts for AS Roma, a player that starts for Sporting, a player that starts for Fiorentina, amongst others. I haven't bothered to wikipedia to back up my argument but off the top of my head I very much doubt that the likes of San Marino and Andorra could boast representation on a par with that.
It would be nice if you could dismount from your high horse and participate in a non-patronising and reasoned discussion and not one that seemingly operates on your terms only.
Seriously, all-weather pitches in west Africa v handbags for officials' wives. Amazing that the former is "scandalous bribery".
San Marino is not an economically deprived country. Nor is Andorra. And the point is about as relevant to the original thread as me posting "Parky out". Should've made a new thread for it.
Montenegro were a new country. New countries don't have rankings, but OK, you'd give them a special ranking because they have some good players. That's convenient because they drew away at Cyprus, Georgia and Ireland last time out. Liechtenstein could have taken at least one point off Scotland. How many teams have to play the super preliminaries? And if one of them does have a decent team (Iceland will have a good one in a few years, Northern Ireland overperform relative to their individual talents, Wales will eventually have a good team - I guess), how many matches would they have to play to be in with a chance of qualifying? Or is this just for Andorra to play San Marino?
It's never been different. Many manager's from the playing 'golden age' of the 50's, were linked to match fixing. Get over it, it's the way the world runs and it ain't much different in this country just more complex financial shenanigans.
Apolgies for the lack of clarity, you are of course correct, I'm getting my wires crossed in terms of LEDC / weak football nations and didn't particularly pay much attention to the term I was using in that sentence. Fine, I won't discuss this issue any further beyond this post. The original post may have gone off at a tangent but I was considering the role played by 'minor' nations in an overall picture, from playing, to officiating, to hosting, to collective decision-making. I made the connection in my head. Others may not. Consider the matter closed.
Clearly the model needs work, but I would propose it to include the likes of Andorra, San Marino, Luxembourg, Faroe Islands, Malta, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Liechtenstein, Kazakhstan, Georgia
AZERBAIJAN 1-0 Turkey
ARMENIA 3-1 Slovakia
Macedonia 2-2 ARMENIA
FAROE ISLANDS 1-1 Northern Ireland
LUXEMBOURG 0-0 Belarus (Belarus won in Paris, remember)
Greece 1-1 GEORGIA
Latvia 1-1 GEORGIA
GEORGIA 0-0 Israel
Then add a few more
ARMENIA 0-1 Ireland
Albania 1-0 LUXEMBOURG
GEORGIA 1-0 MALTA
Scotland 2-1 LIECHTENSTEIN
I put them in caps to make it clear. These teams aren't going to qualify, but they are competing.
You could make the exact same point for the next tier of teams (Wales, Cyprus, Iceland, Lithuania, Latvia etc) needing prequalifiers and keep going up until the point that Germany, Spain, Italy etc should qualify automatically. I reckon you don't believe in that, but I just don't see what harm they do by being in the regular qualifiers. Besides, if you put them in a preliminary group, the regular qualifiers would have to wait for that to finish beforehand, with the international matches being less spaced out for the bigger nations.
How does someone as ignorant as yourself manage to get to the age necessary to have the manual dexterity required to operate a keyboard? Or do you really believe absolutely everything you see in the media (or generalise entire cultures on the few people from an individual culture you meet)?
Mind you, I guess this is progress for you. At least your pathetic generalisations are aimed at the correct country this time.
Final word from me then, on our agreement to disagree - WCQ 2006, ECQ 2008, WCQ 2010, ECQ 2012 (so far) matches won, points total, GD:
Andorra: 0, 0, -116
San Marino: 0, 0, -159
Luxembourg: 2, 9, -91
Faroe Islands: 0, 6, -90
Malta: 1, 9, -80
Azerbaijan: 3, 16, -59
Liechtenstein: 4, 17, -61
Kazakhstan: 4, 16, -61
Seriously though - I thinki there can be a good argument made for a two-tier qualifying tournament in Europe -but the sheer logistics of arranging it would be a nightmare. if it did happen though, at least England wouldn't have to play (and probably lose against) dross like Wales.
What with the situation at Charlton , England's overpaid tossers flopping in the world cup and now corruption in the sport what is happening to the so called beautiful game?
I chose to be selective with my evidence presentation as well ;-)
One of "the pair" is Reynald Temarii, from Tahiti. But you are probably right, he should get some credit for some degree of accuracy.
Back to the minnows: the logistics are a nightmare, and the same logic filters through to all of the other levels.Why are Wales allowed in the elite group, for example?
Also, what club would sign a Liechtenstein international? They're better than most of the other teams in your second list, so they'd likely qualify for the second round, so after playing 6-14 matches in the minnow round they'd have to play another 8-10 matches in the second round. That's over 14 competitive international matches every two years, compared to a maximum of 10 in the current system. And I just don't see the benefit in it. What harm does the current system do?
Of course what should happen is that FIFA officials should pay for (or FIFA should pay for) all their travelling, hotel and dining expeses. No relatives on the trip and no gift whatsoever should be handed out by bidding countries, the delegates should see a presentation, visit the grounds as required and that's it. But of course that's why these unelected (by the supporters of the game) officials climbed on the gravy train in the first place.
I also think that you might be being a bit optimistic if you believe that all (or any) of that cash was going towards building pitches IA.
If the money is entirely spent on pitches in Africa, I do not have a problem with the 'bribery'. If it's spent on luxuries or the overseas bank accounts of corrupt officials, I do have a problem.
I'm guessing you would have a problem whether or not the money goes toward developing the game in underdeveloped regions ?
Maybe the England bid would do better if it spent less time accusing other bidding nations of bribery (Triesman) and less time actually bribing FIFA officials (handbags).
It's not a matter of everyone's 'turn'. If Spain/Portugal have a better bid than England, then so be it. Germany did for 2006. Much and all as a World Cup in England would be enjoyable, I'd like to think the best host is picked each time (with a reasonable restriction on two tournaments in a row in the same continent), rather than doing each large nation in turns (or because of successful bribery). It's not unreasonable to think Spain/Portugal might have a better bid than England, is it?
No not at all, IA. But to offer your vote on the basis of an under the counter bribe, whatever the intended destination of the cash, is not what the bidding process is supposed to be all about. At least the handbags are given in the open.
I think that if two countries have similar bids then yes, whose turn it is should be taken into account.
I am also flat against joint bids even though I would personally profit from Portugal holding a part of the tournament if we still have the bar by then. But that is beside the point, I know.
'Turns' would benefit Russia, not England.
As goes joint bids: do you know the answer to this? Do Portugal expect to qualify automatically if they win the bid? It probably doesn't make a difference (they'll qualify anyway), but it's in the back of my head. I thought South Korea and Japan did very well as joint hosts, and now South Korea are in a position to make a bid on their own, which shows that it's brought an improvement in their facilities etc.
Do you think so?
excuses I heard range from, couldn't afford it to it was a cold Monday night!
Brazil
Yes they do expect to qualify automatically, as far as I know this has been the case so far with joint bids. Although Portugal will only have two stadiums involved - Porto and either one of Benfica or Sporting - so they will be looking at spending almost nothing having upgraded for the Euros six years ago.