Should England get the 2018 World Cup?

[dutchfire]

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

 

[Berrie]

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

Ill weeds grow apace...

 

[dionysos2048]

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.

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...

 

[azzaman333]

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.

 

[steviejay]

Platini cool over England Cup bid

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.

 

[dionysos2048]

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.

 

[kalif]

Platini cool over England Cup bid

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.

 

[dionysos2048]

In fact better than the article, just watch the interview and make an idea for yourself: http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/...3126.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.

 

[azzaman333]

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.

 

[downtown]

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.

 

[dionysos2048]

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?

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?

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.

 

[LAnkou]

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)

 

[Joe Harker]

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.

 

[Joe Harker]

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

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

 

[dutchfire]

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

 

[BirraImperial]

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

That is also a cool place for a World Cup.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Russia (far, unstable and russian).

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

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!

 

[Lord David]

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.

With regards to Russia, it's not because it's unstable, nor is it because it's Russian 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?

 

[LAnkou]

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

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!

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...

 

[downtown]

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.