FIFA tells Brazil beer must be sold at the 2014 World Cup matches
Beer must be sold at all venues hosting matches in the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, football's world governing body, Fifa, has insisted. Fifa General Secretary, Jerome Valcke, said the right to sell beer must be enshrined in a World Cup law the Brazilian Congress is considering.
Alcoholic drinks are currently banned at Brazilian stadiums and the country's health minister has urged Congress to maintain the ban in the new law.
Brewer Budweiser is a big Fifa sponsor.
Mr Valcke is visiting Brazil to press for progress on the much-delayed World Cup law.
Fifa has become frustrated, because voting on the legislation has been held up in Congress by the dispute over alcohol sales.
The Brazilian government has also failed to resolve differences with Fifa over cut-price tickets for students and senior citizens, and demands for sponsors of the World Cup to have their trademarks protected.
In remarks to journalists in Rio de Janeiro, Mr Valcke sounded frustrated with Brazilian officials: “Alcoholic drinks are part of the Fifa World Cup, so we're going to have them. Excuse me if I sound a bit arrogant but that's something we won't negotiate,” he said.
“The fact that we have the right to sell beer has to be a part of the law.”
Alcohol was banned at Brazilian football matches in 2003 in an attempt to tackle violence between rival football fans.
Health Minister Alexandre Padilha and other MPs have called for the ban to be maintained.
Mr Valcke said negotiations with Brazil over details of the World Cup had been slow.
“We lost a lot of time and we were not able to discuss with people in charge that are willing to make a decision,” he said, adding that it was the first time a country was still in talks five years after winning the right to host the tournament.
During his visit to Brazil Mr Valcke has been touring the stadiums in 12 cities where the 2014 World Cup will be played.
He criticised the pace of construction and said Brazil had not yet improved its infrastructure to the level needed to welcome visit.
Suggested Stories
-
May 25th 2012
Rousseff announces veto of several Forest Code controversial amendments
-
May 25th 2012
Government decides to extend soft loans for Brazil’s three largest corporations
-
May 25th 2012
Almost 19 million urban Brazilians live with no access to drinking water of sewage
-
May 25th 2012
Repsol partner in a huge deposit off the Brazilian coast with 1.25bn barrels of oil
15 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
The money spent is astronomical and rising - somebody sometime is going to have to say enough is enough.
I really wish the argentinians would search for the facts first instead of just posting rubbish. But i geuss if they can not get the facts about the falklands right then its unlikely they'll get the facts about anything else right ;-))
How you can claim i am deluded when i made it clear that Brazil hosting the world cup would be a spectacle to watch (a reference to the carnival spectaculars Brazil are known for). I only stated that the UK would be the ideal choice should Brazil and FIFA fail to resolve their differences or should brazil not have the stadiums and infrastructure in place in time. Why? Because the UK has world class and world famous stadiums and the infrastructure in place already.
As for the the Maracana and the aztec stadium, sorry but they don't even come close to the likes of Old Trafford, Anfield, Emirates, Stamford Bridge and off course the most famous stadium in the world - Wembly. Hell you ask someone in asia or africa if the have heard of the Maracan or the aztec stadium and they'll not have a bloody clue. Ask them what the name of the stadium was the last world cup was played in and alot won't remember, with the exception of south african people. Ask them if they know the stadiums called Old Trafford, Anfield, Emirates, Stamford Bridge and wembley and they'll start screaming about their favourite teams and favourite players. But then the premier league is the only league where matches are televised in almost every single country on earth.
You say 1966 was a debacle.. I now ask you, how was it a debacle when at the time it was one of the best world cups ever and widely acknowledged as such? Shamrock rovers being in europe was the biggest debacle i had seen in football for 30 years. Though all credit to them for getting there.
Though an even bigger debacle is the fact it took the republic of ireland 6 decades to qualify for a world cup.
By the way O'gara, at least we have held a world cup and won it. You Republic of ireland has done neither. So am not surprised to see your post evidently showing your jealously. Now why don't you go cry to argentina ;-)))
England won the world cup in 1966,
and thats the end of it,
this is not about england, its about brazil,
The notion that old Trafford,Anfield or the emirates are comparable to the Maracana or Azteca merely emphasizes that you are the perfect 100% little Englander who hasnt just his head in the sand but his cojones as well.
BTW Am I the fake Paddy who is really Argentine or the Shamrock Rovers supporter?Well if I am the latter well what can I say? well actually England hasnt beaten Ireland in futbol since 1985 maybe you should take up Hurling!!
if I am the latter well how about Argentina 2 World cups England 1, Argentina 14 continental titles England 0!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11 Briton indeed England did win the World cup in 1966.Let me congratulate you on that and even though it was bitter for Argentina at the time it brought us to the situation where South America will never allow the likes of Rous in power ever again.
Though i also took in the facts of the article above and there is no way fifa would allow a world cup in brazil if they can not get their way, there is far to much money at risk, same if brazil doesnt have the infastructure or stadiums ready in time. Or would you prefer they played in open fields and grounds stood on the touchline, while thousands of others are stuck at train stations with not enough trains or other transport to get them to the matches that they had bought tickets for and paid for filghts to brazil for. The UK is the only obvious alternative country where a world cup can be held and organized in a very short period of time i.e. 3-6 months.
As for the last time we beat ireland at football... who cares, this is not about whos team is better than others. You insulted my country so i insulted yours in return.
If you think Maracana or aztec stadiums are more famous then the likes of old trafford, emirates, standford bridge or even wembley, then it is clearly you who is deluded.
Oh and for your information o'gara England and Ireland have played 14 matches England have won 6 lost 2, Ireland have won 2 and lost 5, the other 6 were draws. The last time we played you was in 1995 where you won by 1 goal. So that was 16 years ago, our current generation of players have never played against each other, and its safe to say we have the talent to beat you any day.
I agree neither Ireland or England have the likes of messi or others, well apart from Rooney. But it was only 2-3 months ago when England beat the world number 1 team, Spain.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!