Should England get the World Cup in 2018? Personally, being English, i think we do, because we have some of the worlds best stadiums, with others, such as the New Anfield, the replacement for Goodison Park and a possible stadium for West Ham. Also we haven't held the event for a long time and we were the country that first took to football, so i think we deserve our second time of hosting the event (plus, it might be the only way we can qualify! :lol: )

It is however a shame that the vote comes before the 2012 Olypmic games as (providing we didn't cock it up) it would be a good advertisment of how we can hold such a large event.

The only thing that would be a good display of would be hooliganism in full force.

of course, you deserve it, would be a good host, and england is next to the best footballing nation the world has ever seen *cough*

so yeah....there you go

nah, wait... you bribed the poor ref of the last wc you held in england so eff off! :D


seriously, i know how much the english would like to be the host and how much they are enthusiastic about the game, so there you go and best of luck!
but this time we are going to get it, anyway!

No, I believe the Netherlands are also running :mischief:

No. The World Cup should be hosted here in Melbourne. :mischief:

The only thing that would be a good display of would be hooliganism in full force.

I knew someone would bring this up, even though we now have one of the best safety records at football matches, I mean when did you last hear of there being large riots at a football match in the UK, because i haven't for a very long time. We have learnt from our mistakes from the 80s.

nah, wait... you bribed the poor ref of the last wc you held in england so eff off!


How dare you say we bribe the ref, the ball was clearly over the line! (possibly:mischief:)

but this time we are going to get it, anyway!

I would suspect there would be mass sucides if Germany beat England on penalties! :lol:

*waiting for Scandinavia to join the competition*

:mischief:

I think that England shouldn't have it, I'd pick rather some nation that hasn't had them before. Am I right that Netherlands&Belgium haven't hosted them before?

They did host Euro 2000 together and joint bids are slightly annoying because of the qualification places. Perhps they should have to play each other with the winner qualifying automatically and then the loser having to go through normal qualification.

They did host Euro 2000 together and joint bids are slightly annoying because of the qualification places. Perhps they should have to play each other with the winner qualifying automatically and then the loser having to go through normal qualification.

Indeed, we hosted 2000, and AFAIK it was a success. We also hosted several youth tournaments lately, which were also quite successful.
your plan sounds good to me, we'll beat Belgium any time of the day ;)

No. The World Cup should be hosted here in Melbourne. :mischief:

Yeah, give it to Australia! 100,000 people at the World Cup final at the MCG would be fantastic. Plus, if most matches are played at night here then they'll be on during the afternoon/eveneing in Europe. Yep, Australia sure would be an awesome place for the World Cup.

Countries that have announced their interest include Australia, China, England, Greece, Mexico, Russia, and the United States, while the Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg) have expressed interest in bidding together.
Australia, England, the Benelux and Russia would all be pretty cool. The United States have already had a world cup, and it's not like it's a popular sport there. China is an interesting choice, we'll see how the Olympics go first.

I don't think the Netherlands would get it because they already hosted Euro 2000.

I'd love to see England get it because, as a Scotsman, I could just nip down for the games ;)

The only thing that would be a good display of would be hooliganism in full force.

*ahem* we hardly ever have crowd trouble at domestic matches here. Most other leagues in europe are at least 15 years behind ours in terms of crowd control

^^

Maybe that is because other leagues in Europe don't need that much crowd control? :yeah:

dutchfire@ I'd really want to see Russia host it! Not a long trip to St. Petersburg to watch some matches, only couple of hundred kilometres!

The United States have already had a world cup, and it's not like it's a popular sport there. .

It was however, one of the most financially successful world cups in history. It doesn't matter that we don't watch a lot of football normally...when you bring such a huge event, we watch it on TV, we buy tickets and T-shirts, and our businesses line up to advertise. There is no doubt we'll get another WC. We have the best infrastructure, some of the best stadiums, and we know how to handle big events (we've hosted the WC, Olympics, World Baseball Classic, and just about everything else).

I don't have an overly strong opinion. I'm thrilled that Brazil gets the cup in 2014 , and I know that we're unlikely to get it again until 2022...so if we can't have it, why not England?

<snip>

I don't have an overly strong opinion. I'm thrilled that Brazil gets the cup in 2014 , and I know that we're unlikely to get it again until 2022...so if we can't have it, why not England?

Because Australia is better.

No, the US should.

Yes, England would make a great host, as far as passion and enthusiasm is concerned. Netherlands + Belgium would be ok. But Australia or the US would be a disappointing choice for me as it's hardly a popular sport there.

@ downtown: Who cares if the WC is a financial success or not?!!! You really have a strange conception of sport. Besides, don't even compare you stadia to the English ones for football, as any football fan can tell you they don't stand the comparison for a second for that sport.

I'm in favor of USA 2018, England 2022.

^^

Maybe that is because other leagues in Europe don't need that much crowd control? :yeah:

dutchfire@ I'd really want to see Russia host it! Not a long trip to St. Petersburg to watch some matches, only couple of hundred kilometres!

Bah, spain, italy, russia, holland, greece, turkey and even france have had much more fan trouble in the last 5 years than us

@ downtown: Who cares if the WC is a financial success or not?!!! You really have a strange conception of sport. Besides, don't even compare you stadia to the English ones for football, as any football fan can tell you they don't stand the comparison for a second for that sport.

Haha, FIFA cares, duh. The World Cup is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, sporting competition in the world, and that means $$$$$$$$. We shouldn't spread it around so every country in the world can get it once and feel all warm and fuzzy inside. The head sporting groups have a vested interest in making sure that TV ratings are high, advert dollars are flowing in, and that they sell a lot of tickets. Plus, the host country has to have all the stadiums, hotels, police, resteraunts, etc etc to accommodate millions of people.

I know it bugs the hell out of you Europeans, but by every standard of measurement, the 1994 World Cup was one of the most successful, and we're going to get it again.

The english may have better "football only" stadiums (I'll be the first to admit that the American ones are rather piss-poor. In fact, I think there are only 4 in the whole country). But we have several multi-purpose stadiums that hosted matches before quite well, and often fit more people than some of the euro stadiums.

Yes, England would make a great host, as far as passion and enthusiasm is concerned. Netherlands + Belgium would be ok. But Australia or the US would be a disappointing choice for me as it's hardly a popular sport there.

Yeah, like Australian's would care about football. It's not like over a million people stayed up until 3am to watch the national team play in the world cup. :rolleyes:

Football has gathered a huge following since reaching the World Cup and the new A-League, and there is no reason that it will stop soon. Hell, Melbourne Victory averages crowds bigger than half the Aussie Rules team, and they've only existed for 2 and a bit years.

@ downtown: Who cares if the WC is a financial success or not?!!! You really have a strange conception of sport. Besides, don't even compare you stadia to the English ones for football, as any football fan can tell you they don't stand the comparison for a second for that sport.

The MCG is probably the best stadium in the world. And Australia has proven it is very good at running major sporting events, you can look at the 2000 Olympics and 2006 Commonwealth Games for examples.

I think we're (Australia) possibly a couple of huge stadiums shy of being able to host something the size of the Football World Cup by ourselves. Possibly.

The only constraints I have regarding the WC are A) it's close enough for me to go and B) Scotland are there ;)

Haha, FIFA cares, duh. The World Cup is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, sporting competition in the world, and that means $$$$$$$$. We shouldn't spread it around so every country in the world can get it once and feel all warm and fuzzy inside. The head sporting groups have a vested interest in making sure that TV ratings are high, advert dollars are flowing in, and that they sell a lot of tickets. Plus, the host country has to have all the stadiums, hotels, police, resteraunts, etc etc to accommodate millions of people.

I know it bugs the hell out of you Europeans, but by every standard of measurement, the 1994 World Cup was one of the most successful, and we're going to get it again.

The english may have better "football only" stadiums (I'll be the first to admit that the American ones are rather piss-poor. In fact, I think there are only 4 in the whole country). But we have several multi-purpose stadiums that hosted matches before quite well, and often fit more people than some of the euro stadiums.


The US is also a developing market for soccer, and it seems like the FIFA likes to use the World Cup to promote soccer in these countries. After two "established" soccer nations as hosts, your turn may be up again. Especially if the one in Brazil suffers from infrastructural problems, which seems not entirely impossible.
And you're right, the '94 World Cup was brilliantly marketed. I was in California at the time, and World Cup merchandise was on sale everywhere. Far more than during the last one in Germany.

I think Holland and Belgium should get it.. :D

I think we're (Australia) possibly a couple of huge stadiums shy of being able to host something the size of the Football World Cup by ourselves. Possibly.

There are plenty of stadiums available of a suitable size. 3 in Sydney, 2 in Melbourne, plus Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Canberra, Central Coast, Newcastle, Gold Coast, Townsville, Wollongong...

I think Holland and Belgium should get it.. :D
QFT... :D

10 char

How many countries have actually stated an interest in hosting it? England obviously but people are mentioning other countries, how many are making noises towards actually going for it?

Australia is definately planning on going for it.

On Australia:
http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2007/1103/australia.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/10/30/1193618884723.html
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=477177&&cc=3436

FIFA's World Cup requirements demand between nine and 12 stadiums, with a minimum of 40,000 seats for the group matches and 60,000 seats for semi-finals, the opening game and the final. There also are other criteria, including clean advertising, provision for a minimum of 600 press seats and up to 30 camera platforms.

As it stands, only four stadiums in Australia meet the minimum standards — the MCG, Telstra Dome (Melbourne), Telstra Stadium (Sydney) and Suncorp Stadium (Brisbane).

FFA is sure to use its bid for leverage in pushing for redevelopments of Bruce Stadium in Canberra, EnergyAustralia Stadium (Newcastle) and Sydney Football Stadium, with new venues in Perth and Adelaide to be built.

I think they've forgotten Subiaco, AAMI Stadium/Football Park in Adelaide, and the SCG, which must come close as well. They have the seats but are probably lacking in the press capacities.

Also, if we did get the World Cup they would probably expand the new multi-purpose stadium being built in Melbourne to a suitable capacity for World Cup games.

I don't think the Netherlands would get it because they already hosted Euro 2000.Yeah of course. The Netherlands cannot host the WC 2018 because it already hosted the Euro 2000. However, the fact London will host the Olympics in 2012 is a good thing for a world cup bid in 2018 because that means all infrastructures would be built. :crazyeye:

Sorry Steviejay this isn't your fault since you only hear the media buzz, the thing is I've always been amazed about Brits double standards when it goes about their country (though that's more specifically English than British).

Anyway, a joint UK bid will never happen because that would mean 4 teams qualified as hosts. I don't believe this will happen.. of course except if Britain becomes a normal country with a single national team.

Na, a joint bid would never happen, I agree. England pertty much have the infastructure in place anyway so wouldn't need us and they'd be too proud to ask anyway ;)

I suppose now that the rotation policy has been shelved, it could go anywhere. and didn't some FIFA representative say that England would never get the World Cup again because, apart from inventing it, they haven't contributed much to it and places like France would get it again before England does?

Bah. Actually, I'm still bitter that Paris hadn't been picked for the Olympics in 2012. I guess if London wouldn't have gotten them I would probably accept easier an England bid for the 2018 WC. But considering the context, I think it would just be too much.

Anyway, I think it would probably be good to have a new European host for 2018. A country like the Netherlands, Poland or Russia (even though Russia would have to change its visa policy first).

Since 1990, the things turned out to alternate between a new host and a "traditional" host. We had Italy in 1990... then the US in 1994. We had France in 1998... then Japan and Korea in 2002. We had Germany in 2006... then South Africa in 2010. We'll have Brazil in 2014... then England in 2018???? Naaaaaah.

FIFA pretends the World Cup to be a global event, but it always goes to the same countries. If one really enjoys footie to be a global sport, he should accept new countries hosting the world cup.

The problem is not all countries can support hosting the WC. FIFA would love the idea of it being held in different places every 4 years but ultimately, as 2014 shows, not every country on the continent can afford to / has the desire to, host it. Sometimes it's just not possible which is why it was ultimately binned.

I believe the Cricket W/C is an good bench mark for this. I remember reading stories at the time when it was held in the Carabean islands, the tickets cost so much the crowds were low and the like (however I'd like to add I didn't follow it so I could be wrong, I'm football, not cricket ;) )

I agree, it is unlikey that it would be a joint bid for Britain, and if they did, i suspect only one other country would be allowed, Wales or Scotland.

It was however, one of the most financially successful world cups in history. It doesn't matter that we don't watch a lot of football normally...when you bring such a huge event, we watch it on TV, we buy tickets and T-shirts, and our businesses line up to advertise. There is no doubt we'll get another WC. We have the best infrastructure, some of the best stadiums, and we know how to handle big events (we've hosted the WC, Olympics, World Baseball Classic, and just about everything else).

I don't have an overly strong opinion. I'm thrilled that Brazil gets the cup in 2014 , and I know that we're unlikely to get it again until 2022...so if we can't have it, why not England?

Who cares about financial success, they're going to make bucket loads of money wherever they hold it. Another problem with the US is the big distance between the various stadiums (Something the Netherlands and Belgium don't have ;)).

I agree, it is unlikey that it would be a joint bid for Britain, and if they did, i suspect only one other country would be allowed, Wales or Scotland.

On fear of sounding bias if I had to pick between those two it'd be Scotland who'd probably get chosen. Wales have the Millenium stadium but after that I'm not sure what big stadii they have (what about Cardiff FC's ground) where as Scotland has 4 40k+ stadiums (Hampden, Ibrox, Celtic Park and Murrayfield) where as Tynecastle is due for upgrading and they're hoping to drastically increase the capasity (although nowhere close to the 40k needed)

I would like either Australia or the USA to get the cup. USA because its relatively close for me to go there, and Australia because I think it would be awesome.

I would pick Scotland as well, since you have plenty of stadiums capable of holding a finals match. I mention Wales simply because of the Millenium stadium, which is huge and i think it is the biggest stadium in Britain outside England so it would make a good semi final ground as well.

The US could go with a regional look. Group A plays in the Northeast, Group B in the Southeast, etc. Just put together 3 stadiums in close proximity to one another for each group. No other country could pull that off...

No. Russia should get it, or if not Australia. England have already hosted the tournament, so I don't see any moral reason why they should get to have hosted it twice, yet Russia, Europe's largest country and three times the size of England, should never have had it. There's also the opportunity to increase the profile of football there; although it is expanding now, football has been for decades the sport of Moscow and the Russian Caucasus with only limited popularity in most other places. Then of course Australia would be an attractive destination too for many reasons.

Benelux? What a friggin joke. You might as well give it to San Marino. :p

The US could go with a regional look. Group A plays in the Northeast, Group B in the Southeast, etc. Just put together 3 stadiums in close proximity to one another for each group. No other country could pull that off...

Thats what we did in 1994. The final was held in LA, but group play had matches in Detroit, Boston...all over.

Thats what we did in 1994. The final was held in LA, but group play had matches in Detroit, Boston...all over.

Yeah, but I don't remember it being as specialized then. I'm thinking we should use upwards of 20 stadiums. I'm saying that each group have 3 stadiums in which to play it's six games. That way you can travel to certain part of the US and see all your team's group games.

Australia aught to have the 2018 World Cup!

Here's a list of potential stadiums:
We'd have 12 or 13 stadiums (12 if 2 stadiums in Melbourne or Sydney is not permitted)

In order of Capacity:

Melbourne - MCG - 100,000
Sydney - (Telstra Stadium) Olympic Stadium - 83,500
Perth - Stadium WA - 70,000
Brisbane - (Suncorp Stadium) Lang Park - 52,500
Adelaide - Adelaide Oval - 50,000
Townsville - (Dairy Farmers Stadium) Stockland Stadium - 45,000
Canberra - Canberra Stadium - 43,000
Newcastle - (Energy Australia Stadium) Marathon Stadium - 41,000
Gold Coast - (Skilled Park) Robina Stadium - 40,000
Hobart - New Stadium - 40,000
Geelong - (Skilled Stadium) Kardinia Park - 36,000 (with 4,000 temporary seats) - 40,000
Darwin - (TIO Stadium) Marrara Stadium - 25,000 (with 15,000 temporary seats) - 40,000

12 stadiums in 12 cities, with the possibility of having Telstra Dome or Aussie Stadium used as a 2nd venue in the respective cities.

In this setup, we'd most likely have only 4 Oval stadiums (MCG, Adelaide Oval Kardinia Park and Mararra Stadium), in the 12 stadium setup.

It can work, and should work!

^^

Maybe that is because other leagues in Europe don't need that much crowd control? :yeah:

dutchfire@ I'd really want to see Russia host it! Not a long trip to St. Petersburg to watch some matches, only couple of hundred kilometres!

Da. You have your team (Finland? :p) Play in St Petersburg for one match, only to have their next scheduled match in Vladivostok! :D

This might be the only way that England can participate in the 2018 WC the way they are going...

This might be the only way that England can participate in the 2018 WC the way they are going...

Why do you think we want it so desperatly! ;)

Perth - Stadium WA - 70,000

Only if the State Government gets off its behind and approves the damned thing. A Stadium of such quality is needed Here for many years now, but there has been nothing done about it. It is annoying that it has not been a single thing about this stadium for plenty of time now. Hopefully with us bidding for the World cup it will spur the state government into action in getting us a bigger stadium than what they originally ha planned, since they say that they are wanting to build a 60,00 seat stadium, but that is too small.

Yeah, but I don't remember it being as specialized then. I'm thinking we should use upwards of 20 stadiums. I'm saying that each group have 3 stadiums in which to play it's six games. That way you can travel to certain part of the US and see all your team's group games.

I think FIFA caps the number of stadiums at world cups at some number.. way lower than 20.

12?

Yeah, and unless we were able to use college football stadiums, we wouldn't have 20 quality fields in cities that could actually host cup matches. Remember, you need more than just a stadium...you need police, nice hotels, places to eat, stuff to do at night...

Sure, Jacksonville has a stadium, but you don't want to host a cup match there!

I'm thinking...Boston(Foxbro? Whever the Pats and the Revolution play), NY/NJ (Meadowlands), Columbus (Crew Stadium, or the Horseshoe), Chicago (Solider Field), Miami, Dallas (whatever their soccer stadium is called), Phoenix and LA.

In 1994, Matches were held in:

Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, LA, NY/NJ, Orlando, San Fran, and DC.

So swap Detroit with Columbus, Miami with Orlando, and Phoenix with DC or San Fran. I don't think Standford Stadium is around anymore.

Well the Benelux would be really nice, we are both (netherlands and Belgium) very football enthousiastic countries, the atmosphere is good around here, and we would show what great combination we can be!
(BTW it doesn't always has to be bigger and better) ;)

Remember that in 1994, only 24 teams participated to the world cup making a total of 52 games instead of 64 as currently. As a result, it's a lot more understandable to hold a world cup in 12 different venues nowadays, making it an average of 5.33 games in each city.

I don't think the US should get it again, not so soon anyways, but if they do Seattle should be one of the locations. It has an appropriate stadium, has all the hotel and tourist stuff, and most importantly Seattle has its own cultural profile while the Pacific North-West region in turn offers something distinctive for non-Americans.

I wouldn't object to San Diego being a location, but it is very close (by US standards) to LA.

Internal air travel in the US is easy and dirt cheap. It's far more trouble to travel from Frankfurt to Munich than Chicago to Seattle or New York to Atlanta, as I know by my own experience.

I think FIFA caps the number of stadiums at world cups at some number.. way lower than 20.

12?

It's supposedly 8 - 10 for the World Cup. Brazil currently has 18 stadiums bidding for the World Cup in 2014 where they hope that 12 of those will be chosen.

So basically and ideally 8 - 12 stadiums should be chosen for a World Cup.

I thought they were requiring 12 stadiums...

I thought they were requiring 12 stadiums...

Nope, it's just FIFA and their ever changing rules. There are 10 host cities for the 2010 World Cup, there were 12 permitted for the 2006 World cup. FIFA now states only 8-10 stadiums may be used for the World Cup. Brazil is requesting 12 out of 18 bidders for 2014. :p

Well the Benelux would be really nice, we are both (netherlands and Belgium) very football enthousiastic countries, the atmosphere is good around here, and we would show what great combination we can be!
(BTW it doesn't always has to be bigger and better) ;)

We're talking about 2018 here, chances are Belgium won't be around as a state then :)

We're talking about 2018 here, chances are Belgium won't be around as a state then :)
Ill weeds grow apace... ;)

Haha, FIFA cares, duh. The World Cup is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, sporting competition in the world, and that means $$$$$$$$. We shouldn't spread it around so every country in the world can get it once and feel all warm and fuzzy inside. The head sporting groups have a vested interest in making sure that TV ratings are high, advert dollars are flowing in, and that they sell a lot of tickets. Plus, the host country has to have all the stadiums, hotels, police, resteraunts, etc etc to accommodate millions of people.

Well, I DON'T care, and I don't think most football fans care if FIFA gets any richer. The world cup is about having the best party possible, which means, much more than merchandising success, having the best ambiance, atmosphere and passion possible.
I only watched 1994 on TV, but I was in Germany in 2006 and the country was a whole party. I doubt that happened in the US then, or ever....



Yeah, like Australian's would care about football. It's not like over a million people stayed up until 3am to watch the national team play in the world cup. :rolleyes:

Football has gathered a huge following since reaching the World Cup and the new A-League, and there is no reason that it will stop soon. Hell, Melbourne Victory averages crowds bigger than half the Aussie Rules team, and they've only existed for 2 and a bit years.

I know football is getting bigger in your country, but still it's difficult to compare being up at 3am once or twice to a life long passion for the game.
I hope you'll have a chance to go to Argentina, England, Brazil, Spain..... one day and witness what football passion is about. The list is long, but Australia isn't even in the top 50, yet...

Well, I DON'T care, and I don't think most football fans care if FIFA gets any richer. The world cup is about having the best party possible, which means, much more than merchandising success, having the best ambiance, atmosphere and passion possible.
I only watched 1994 on TV, but I was in Germany in 2006 and the country was a whole party. I doubt that happened in the US then, or ever....

FIFA cares, and they happen to be the ones who'll decide.

I know football is getting bigger in your country, but still it's difficult to compare being up at 3am once or twice to a life long passion for the game.
I hope you'll have a chance to go to Argentina, England, Brazil, Spain..... one day and witness what football passion is about. The list is long, but Australia isn't even in the top 50, yet...

In the last 4 years, football has gone from being a sport played and rioted by ethnic minorities to the 4th most popular sport in Australia, with only Aussie Rules, Rugby and Cricket ahead of it. A World Cup in Australia would probably push it ahead of Rugby and Cricket, which would be no small feat.

Platini cool over England Cup bid (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7093180.stm)

Apparently Platini doesn't like the idea of England hosting the WC in 2018.

Can I just ask why? Why do people seem so against of England hosting it? is it because of Iraq? or just the fact no one likes them? what? cause the idea that a country comes out to say that 'maybe' they'd like to host it only for professionals to come out and dismiss them seems downright absurd.

FIFA cares, and they happen to be the ones who'll decide.

Can I just remind you the thread is named Should England get the 2018 World Cup? Not will FIFA give the world cup to X or Y....
Now, as a football fan, I don't care wether a world cup makes money or not. Do you? If you do, please explain me why, and what as a football fan I'll gain from it.

@ steviejay
I read the article, and there's no quote of Platini saying he doesn't want England to stage the WC. He just tries to remain partial as other European countries seem to be interested in hosting the event, which is fair enough for a UEFA president. What I understand from reading in between the lines is Platini is trying to mount pressure on European governments to agree on a "sport specificity", that is to say for business laws not to automatically apply to sport, and to protect it from stupid systematical application of laws that are not thought for sport, but for sausage factories or the car industry, as he and others consider sport shouldn't be about making money.
You may call me a dreamer.... But I'm not the only one....

Apart from that, there are many things I dislike about England, as I do dislike many things about my country, but I would love to see the world cup there, and many people do. Nothing to do with the Iraq war.

Platini cool over England Cup bid (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7093180.stm)

Apparently Platini doesn't like the idea of England hosting the WC in 2018.

Can I just ask why? Why do people seem so against of England hosting it? is it because of Iraq? or just the fact no one likes them? what? cause the idea that a country comes out to say that 'maybe' they'd like to host it only for professionals to come out and dismiss them seems downright absurd.

ach, thats bs.
first, platini is a diplomat. as head of uefa, etiquette forbids him to take side, aslong as there are multiple european candidates for hosting the cup. the europeans need to sort that out first, and only then platini can support that european candidat.
second, eventhough no one likes you, you can still get the cup. it worked in germanys case ;)
and third, look at kaiser franz comments in his interview with bbc two weeks ago, where he stated that he can imagine very well to support an english bid.
or look at these comments by him:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/6939170.stm

He told BBC Five Live's Sportsweek: "There is no better country in Europe to host the World Cup in 2018. England is the favourite."

He added: "The most important thing is to end the rotation and bring the tournament back to Europe.

"The Premier League at the moment is the best league in Europe and the stadiums are outstanding.

"In my opinion, there is only one very serious candidate and it is England."

now be honest, you only needed someone to butter you up :)

btw, i like the idea of a joint england and scotland bid!

otoh, the netherlands could be a great host as well. pretty girls and much more comfortable to reach from my home than england.

In fact better than the article, just watch the interview and make an idea for yourself: http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/sol/newsid_7090000/newsid_7093100?redirect=7093126.stm&news=1&nbram=1&bbram=1&bbwm=1&nbwm=1
I think Platini's main problem is his English. Many further misunderstandings will come from his expression difficulties in that language. I can't believe the French media say he speaks perfect English! That's embarrassing and a real shame as the guy has some really good ideas IMO.

Can I just remind you the thread is named Should England get the 2018 World Cup? Not will FIFA give the world cup to X or Y....

Should England get the 2018 World Cup means that there are alternatives, and those alternatives are relevant to the thread.

Now, as a football fan, I don't care wether a world cup makes money or not. Do you? If you do, please explain me why, and what as a football fan I'll gain from it.

<snip>

If FIFA loses money hosting the World Cup, it would not be a sustainable event and would die off.

Can I just remind you the thread is named Should England get the 2018 World Cup? Not will FIFA give the world cup to X or Y....
Now, as a football fan, I don't care wether a world cup makes money or not. Do you? If you do, please explain me why, and what as a football fan I'll gain from it.

Well, its not just FIFA that stands to earn money...its all those guys who run stands selling WC stuff, hotels, food places, cities which badly need capital infusions..

If the World Cup is held in an area that doesn't have the needed infrastructure, and money becomes an issue, then those non-football issues become distractions to the football! The big story with the South African cup right now, is whether they'll be able to get all their stuff together in time for it to actually work! Infrastructure issues almost ruined the Athens Olympics.

The World Cup is about football, you're right, so we need to make sure that the place hosting it is good enough, so thats all we have to talk about.

Should England get the 2018 World Cup means that there are alternatives, and those alternatives are relevant to the thread.



If FIFA loses money hosting the World Cup, it would not be a sustainable event and would die off.

lol You're a stubborn one! Did I ever say other alternatives aren't relevant?!
Whichever country the WC is hosted in, FIFA would make money anyway with TV rights, you'll seeFIFA won't lose any money at all in South Africa or in Brazil, I can guarantee you. Besides do you seriously believe a world cup in England would lose money?:crazyeye:

Well, its not just FIFA that stands to earn money...its all those guys who run stands selling WC stuff, hotels, food places, cities which badly need capital infusions..

If the World Cup is held in an area that doesn't have the needed infrastructure, and money becomes an issue, then those non-football issues become distractions to the football! The big story with the South African cup right now, is whether they'll be able to get all their stuff together in time for it to actually work! Infrastructure issues almost ruined the Athens Olympics.


Good points. Your first argument has two sides:
First, big companies like Nike or Adidas that sell stuff, I couldn't care less whether they make 10 or 200 million dollars from the event.
Second, those guys selling stuff in the street and those cities that need capital infusions, well I guess third world countries need it a lot more badly than the world's biggest economy, don't you think?:p

Now infrastructures is a tougher nut to crack for poor countries, but they still should be given a chance, even if they don't offer the same infrastructures as 1st world countries. You'll see the WC in Brazil will be great anyway. As far as England is concerned there's no problem whatsoever on that side.

2006: Germany
2010: South Africa
2014: Brazil
2018: ?

It must be a european country. If it's not, it means at best 2022. Could you imagine 16 years without a WC in Europe? never happen, never will.

Europe represent half participants in WC. Most people looking at WC are in Europe. Most spectators come from Europe. When you look at history (WWII apart), it have always been one european, one another region at most...

50: Brazil
54: Switzerland
58: Sweden
62: Chile
66: England
70: Mexique
74: Germany
78: Argentina
82: Spain
86: Mexico
90: Italy
94: USA
98: France
02: Japan/Korea
06: Germany
10: South Africa
14: Brazil

The fact that it isn't in europe in 2014 is almost an heresy...

When looking at european countries, england could be a good candidate, but i think another country will get it: Spain, Netherlands, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Sweden. Not possible candidate: Germany, France, Italy (previous one too close), Russia (far, unstable and russian), Ukraine and Poland (got the euro just a few years before it)

Spain, Netherlands, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Sweden.

Spain, yes i could see that, as well as the Netherlands as a joint bid of whatever is left of Belgium. Denmark, Norway and Sweden would have to joint bid to stand a chance. Portugal hosted the last Euro's so it depends on whether it seems too
close.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7072125.stm

Here's a summary of Englands bid and potential threats from other countries.

Blatter said he liked the Dutch-Belgian (Dutch-Flemmish-Wallon :crazyeye:) bid.

Blatter said he liked the Dutch-Belgian (Dutch-Flemmish-Wallon :crazyeye:) bid.

That is also a cool place for a World Cup.

Russia (far, unstable and russian).

Ya gotta love you French. You really do believe France is the centre of the universe. :lol:

Anyways ... for me it's a run-off between Andorra, San Marino, Luxembourg and Holland-Belgium. If these places aren't small enough, then we could have Vatican city. Only downside is that it's nearly a hour plane-ride from France. Luxembourg and Andorra are prolly the leading candidates, because of their proximity to France. I'd say Luxembourg just edges it because it is closer to Paris! :goodjob:

2006: Germany
2010: South Africa
2014: Brazil
2018: ?

It must be a european country. If it's not, it means at best 2022. Could you imagine 16 years without a WC in Europe? never happen, never will.

Europe represent half participants in WC. Most people looking at WC are in Europe. Most spectators come from Europe. When you look at history (WWII apart), it have always been one european, one another region at most...

50: Brazil
54: Switzerland
58: Sweden
62: Chile
66: England
70: Mexique
74: Germany
78: Argentina
82: Spain
86: Mexico
90: Italy
94: USA
98: France
02: Japan/Korea
06: Germany
10: South Africa
14: Brazil

The fact that it isn't in europe in 2014 is almost an heresy...

When looking at european countries, england could be a good candidate, but i think another country will get it: Spain, Netherlands, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Sweden. Not possible candidate: Germany, France, Italy (previous one too close), Russia (far, unstable and russian), Ukraine and Poland (got the euro just a few years before it)


Umm, yes it's called the World Game for a reason. If Fifa wanted to ensure that a European country would get the 2018 World Cup then it should have stated so, but it didn't. So there. Australia has plenty of European expats which would most certainly support an official Australian bid. :goodjob:

With regards to Russia, it's not because it's unstable, nor is it because it's Russian :confused: it's most likely due to current lack of venues (I can only think of two, Luzhniki Stadium (The national stadium in Moscow, most certainly for finals) as well as the stadium they're building in Sochi for the 2014 Winter Olympics), as well as the criticism that could arise to a WC based in mostly (if not all) cities in the western half of the country (I'm sure Vladivostok would like to host some matches). Essentially, the sheer size of the country and current lack of venues is a current downside, but who knows?

Ya gotta love you French. You really do believe France is the centre of the universe. :lol:

Anyways ... for me it's a run-off between Andorra, San Marino, Luxembourg and Holland-Belgium. If these places aren't small enough, then we could have Vatican city. Only downside is that it's nearly a hour plane-ride from France. Luxembourg and Andorra are prolly the leading candidates, because of their proximity to France. I'd say Luxembourg just edges it because it is closer to Paris! :goodjob:

my mistake, by far, i meant that stadiums may be too far away from one to another...Come on guys, Russia is in 8 different time zones!! It's not because it's far from France

about the unstability, well, politically, it's very stable, but there are some trouble (chechnia anyone) and economically, it may be not that stable. No offense to anyone

Umm, yes it's called the World Game for a reason. If Fifa wanted to ensure that a European country would get the 2018 World Cup then it should have stated so, but it didn't. So there. Australia has plenty of European expats which would most certainly support an official Australian bid.

And yes it's the world cup, but it would be the third bid in a row happening in the southern hemisphere...sorry, but i really don't believe in an australian bid.
If it is not in Europe, it will be in north america (Mexico or Canada) because confederation rotation would be this:
02 - Asia; 06 - Europe; 10 - Africa; 14 - South America; 18 - North America.

Obviously, it will be in Europe. Concacaf have only 3 countries capable of organising the WC, one being the US which organised the competition in 94...

The rotation system has been scrapped, after Brazil was really the only South American country to put up a bid. Now, the cup can be on any continent.

I do think it's unlikely to have 3 southern hemisphere cups in a row. One of the disadvantages about having it in a place like Australia is the time zone problem...we're all going to have to get up at weird hours to watch live matches, and its going to mess up ratings. I'm not saying they're never going to get the cup (they should), but thats one of the drawbacks.

I'd quite like a Holland/Belgium/Lux WC because that's still close enough to allow me to pop over and watch some games.