Should England get the 2018 World Cup?

[downtown]

@ 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.

 

[azzaman333]

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.

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.

 

[Arwon]

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.

 

[steviejay]

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

 

[Till]

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.

 

[willemvanoranje]

I think Holland and Belgium should get it..

 

[Ozbenno]

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...

 

[Berrie]

I think Holland and Belgium should get it..

QFT...

10 char

 

[steviejay]

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?

 

[azzaman333]

Australia is definately planning on going for it.

 

[Tee Kay]

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

 

[Arwon]

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.

 

[azzaman333]

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.

 

[Marla_Singer]

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.

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.

 

[steviejay]

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?

 

[Marla_Singer]

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.

 

[steviejay]

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 )

 

[Joe Harker]

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.

 

[dutchfire]

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 ).

 

[steviejay]

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)