Who will host the World Cup in 2018 and 2022?
The Holy Grail.
Next year Australia will once again take its place in the finals of the Football World Cup in South Africa. While our qualification this time around was a cakewalk instead of the penalty shootout highlight reel last time around, the public will once again come to a standstill when the Socceroos walk out of the tunnel in our first game.
One equally important event will take place next year. In December 2010, Australia is looking to win a bid to entertain the world for the first time with a World Cup shindig. The winning hosts for both the 2018 and 2022 World Cup tournaments are to be announced.
You only have to cast your mind back to the hysteria of the Sydney 2000 Olympic bid win in 1993 to get an idea of how important this event can be. The sporting world will be back at our place while we put on the greatest show on earth.
FIFA has decided to announce both the 2018 and 2022 winners at the same time and to make things even more interesting; the organisation has the policy not to allow a confederation who has hosted any of the previous two tournaments to host the next one. With the continents of Africa ruled out in 2018 plus not putting any bids for 2022 and South America ruled out as they are hosting in 2014, we are in prime contention to have the World Cup for the first time.
However Australia will face some stiff competition in winning one of the two tournaments with a strong field of nations looking to host this prestigious event.
Here are the contenders:
Australia, Indonesia, Qatar, Japan, South Korea, Russia, United States of America, England and two joint nation bid’s involving the Netherlands with Belgium and Spain with Portugal.
The 2018 World Cup
In 2018, it will have been 12 years since Europe last hosted the World Cup. With policy of making the previous two World Cup hosts ineligible to host the next Cup it will boil down to this, who in Europe will host a World Cup and who outside of Europe will host a World Cup.
It’s safe to say that 2018 will be in Europe; it’s the home of football and is the continent with the greatest number of teams and more importantly money. Another four years out of Europe is unthinkable. It is a consistent host of World Cup’s and rightly so. This will of course lead the way for an Asian or North American to host in 2022. It may be the other way around but not likely.
Of the European nations looking to host the clear favourite has to be England, the home of football and were last hosts way back in 1966, also being the only time they have won the Cup. England are the biggest underachievers in world football with consistent failures and unrealistic expectations. However out of all the bidders they have the best infrastructure and the strongest domestic league in the world.
The bid from Russia is the dark horse in stopping England from hosting the tournament. The capital Moscow itself has quite a few stadiums with good capacities. The monumental size of it however, coupled with the unpredictability with how the country would plan for the tournament is likely to put off most FIFA delegates.
Besides how can it even be considered apart of Europe when Europeans need a visa to enter another supposed European country?
While FIFA has allowed a joint host in the past, the concept of it happening in Europe is not something FIFA has warmed to. UEFA allowed Switzerland and Austria to co-host Euro 2008 but that was Euro 2008, and that was Switzerland and Austria. The key nations to both joint ventures are themselves footballing giants in the form of Spain and the Netherlands (even though the Netherlands need more stadiums). Having a small country along side either of them is not an idea FIFA is crazy about. Sepp Blatter has even been quoted as saying, “As long as we have single-country bids which provide all the necessary guarantees, we will reject co-hosting bids.”
FIFA requires the host has at least 12 stadiums holding a minimum of 40,000 people and one with at least 80,000 for a World Cup Final. This is already in place with most Premier League club stadiums and the national Wembley Stadium in England. Spain has the ability to have this infrastructure by itself and could do it without Portugal. Therefore they cannot be entirely ruled out in winning the right to host the 2018 World Cup.
However with England hosting the Olympics in 2012 they will also have a legacy of new stadiums and dedicated transport systems for events on a scale of this size in place fresh and ready to go.
To me though, English football has more fundamentally pressing issues then winning the rights to host the World Cup. It seems that the English Football Association has become obsessed with the idea of staging a World Cup rather then winning one.
Celebrity and corporate backings along with the Government financially chipping in have driven the FA even more. Gone are the days of heavy investment in football academies and the nurturing of young talent to develop World Cup winning sides. It seems to have taken a backseat to make way for the money that will be made generated by ticket sales, corporate sponsorships and tourists flocking the country.
I do believe that deep down the supporters of the bid are doing it for the ideals of having the World Cup back in the birthplace of football and the legacy it will leave. Football IS England; it’s as simple as that. But anyone who rejects the notion that it isn’t money driven is living in cloud cuckoo land.
None of this however matters, England will win one of the two hosting rights and I believe it will be in 2018. In summary, the biggest footballing nation in the World hasn’t hosted it since 1966; it’s their turn.
The 2022 World Cup
The second World Cup host, and for the sake of all that is right in football, must be Australia. No argument and absolutely no bias. Here’s why.
Australia’s competitors for 2022 are Indonesia, Qatar, Japan, South Korea and the United States.
Firstly Japan and South Korea, both joint hosted the World Cup in 2002 and are now each going it alone. Both nations together ran a highly successful and organised tournament that was efficient and memorable. Asia is also a massive market with a willing-to-spend attitude. Though after hosting the competition in recent memory it is highly unlikely that either nation will win the bid.
Sticking to Asia, Indonesia is less likely then Japan or South Korea. I think to an extent a World Cup in Indonesia would be great it just wouldn’t be viable. Even though they have the whole ‘hasn’t hosted a World Cup before’ thing going on, just how Australia does, there is too much political instability and lack of infrastructure, even though the Government has stabilised to an extent.
The Government has thrown it’s weight behind the bid saying that 10 years is enough time to build stadiums, which has given it a level of legitimacy. And even though it has a population over 200 million, there is not enough support on a global scale and not enough financial reasons to host it there.
Then there is the United States, which last hosted the event in 1994 and was a massive financial success. Right now it’s easy to suggest it will be too soon for another World Cup in the USA but in reality it will be 28 years by then, a scary thought and something that will not be too much of a factor in the decision process of FIFA.
But here’s the real reason they shouldn’t get the World Cup, because it’s the United States of America. I’m sorry but their last World Cup might has well have been held on the Moon. And don’t give me the whole biggest World Cup attendance of all time nonsense; there was no atmosphere and no genuine support. Just lots of people there for the spectacle of pretty colours and loud noises inside massive American Football stadiums, which they originally had trouble filling and ended up getting them to full capacity through desperate measures. The real supporters you saw on TV were mostly people from outside the country and the United States very small band of Soccer fanatics.
It’s just not a big enough sport. It was such a magnificent debacle last time around which was driven purely by money and a pipedream legacy. The tournament did however create some awesome controversy.
Who could forget Maradona being sent home in disgrace, the most turgent final ever played between Brazil and Italy and McDonalds getting into trouble over Saudi Arabian flags? The best thing to come out of that event was Bulgaria and fantastically pixellated pitches. I would rather have it in Indonesia because at least Football is massive there and it would leave a foundation for generations of footballing kids not as lucky as those in the United States.
Football is laced in tradition and America hasn’t got one or enough drive to warrant a future one to footballing purists. They tried to create it last time and full credit to FIFA as they imposed the creation of the Major League Soccer as a condition to hosting the tournament.
And while the American soccer league has been a success of sorts, and the recipient of new support and financial backing, it just hasn’t captured the imagination of the American public. But with football being big business and America being all about big business, it wouldn’t be a surprise to see it go there.
A disappointment, but not a surprise.
Quadruple the money debate and plonk it straight down on the bid for the nation of Qatar. Qatar is an oil rich country in the Middle East. Still need an explanation?
Playing football in the desert with 40-degree heat in the summer is a radical idea. So much so that Qatar is even building a stadium underground! Even more radical! However it would only hold 11,000 that wouldn’t meet FIFA’s requirements. I mean that would be something I would like to see, but not at the World Cup.
There is no footballing reason to host the World Cup in Qatar only a monetary reason. This is something that will never sit well for supporters. We can very reluctantly stomach the USA, but not Qatar. It has a population of under a million, there is no legacy of football going to built there. But with football and with the changes we have seen in the last 10 years with oil oligarch’s purchasing Premiership teams as play things to show off to their mates, anything is possible when it comes to FIFA’s decision.
However may I put forward the notion that FIFA isn’t as bad as it’s always made out to be? I will admit that the president of FIFA, Sepp Blatter is an idiot who has in the past suggested radical changes like changing the size of goal posts and that women footballers should wear tighter shorts. Nevertheless, Sepp realises and acknowledges this fact; without the fans you don’t have football. A World Cup in Qatar is never going to work.
That’s where Australia falls nicely into place. Australia has the perfect mix of sporting culture and tradition, an established football following and a fail-safe financial windfall from hosting the Cup. It has great infrastructure, the ability to build a few more stadiums with ease, numerous cities to host games and a booming and resilient economy. Plus it has the greatest veil for FIFA to hide behind, however true it really is, the fact that there is a lasting legacy to be had in strengthening an ever-growing domestic league and growing population.
We love sport, more then most countries and would embrace a World Cup. The only worry is that it would plonk itself smack bang in the middle of Rugby League and AFL season, something that it would have to work around.
Australia makes the most sense in a group where it is harder to pick a clear choice then Europe. The only thing not going for Australia is the god-awful tacky slogan of “Come Play” as the catch cry for the bid.
So finally in conclusion!
It seems that England and Australia are the two clear choices to host the World Cup’s in 2018 and 2022. The dark horse in all this is still the Russian’s. But it won’t at all affect Australia’s chances because if Russia wins one then England can’t. The United States is a strong possibility to knock off Australia but with Brazil hosting the 2014 World Cup it’s unlikely to happen within 8 years in the same time zone even if it is technically in another continent.
The hardest thing to fathom is with an ever-changing global environment why would FIFA want to award a World Cup when it could do it further down the track? 12 years from the bid announcement to the first kick off is a truly more time then is necessary for a country to assemble itself. It seems with the shambles in South Africa with getting ready to host next year and now with Ukraine and Poland lagging behind for Euro 2012, it’s hardly surprising they want to be prepared.
But perhaps the biggest reason to get nervous is the new way in which FIFA delegates will choose who gets the Cup. They have decided to model themselves on the voting system used by the International Olympic Committee. This may or may not lead to proxy gift-giving techniques to lure executives to vote in favour of richer nations like Qatar, a similar style that has called into question the prerogative of the IOC.
They must remember that if football stays true to the sport, to the supporters and to the beautiful nature in which it is played then it will make more money then any corporate sponsor ever can.
