Onside for England 2018
Successful bids for high-profile sporting events run on several tracks.
A bid must carry their domestic audience but in the process not alienate the overseas voters who will decide the outcome.
And since the international voters of sports organisations have diverse, even conflicting interests, a winning campaign can never be a one size fits all variety.
England's bid for the 2018 World Cup has made a start in that direction, right on message with little talk of football coming home.
Launched in Wembley Stadium's evocative Bobby Moore room, and with many of the former England captain's fellow 1966 World Cup winning squad present, the temptation to trot out the old cry of how this country gave football to the world and why this gives it a divine right to stage the tournament, more so as by 2018 it will more than 50 years since it was last held here, must have been very strong.
Thankfully the urge was resisted..
Curiously, the only person not on message was Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who kept insisting football would be coming home.
The bid team know only too well that talk of football coming home makes many round the world think this is back to the old arrogant England that helped sink the bid for the 2006 World Cup.
But then things have moved on since those dismal days, not least the 2012 Olympics team's success in 2005.
How much that has changed the mood was evident at Wembley on Monday.
Gone was the old Millwall hair shirt British bid teams seemed to habitually wear. Haunted by failures they seemed to take a perverse pleasure in saying: the world hates us but we don't care.
Children from local schools were brought to Wembley, reminding me of the school kids from the East End of London who formed part of the 2012 presentation in Singapore in 2005 and the powerful role they played in convincing the International Olympic Committee the bid should come to London not Paris.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
The kids clustered round David Beckham and Gary Lineker at the feet of the Bobby Moore statue underlined the aspirations of those who may play for England come 2018 and certainly created the right images for the bid.
But there were things at the launch which were more like English football having a spot of navel gazing.
The slogan "England United, the world invited", sounds good but it was clear that this was meant to refer to the various factions of the English football world talking to each other.
So we had Sir David Richards, chairman of the Premier League, Manchester United chief executive David Gill and Lord Brian Mawhinney, chairman of the Football League all on the stage at once.
All the vice-presidents of the bid were there to show that English football is now a band of brothers.
This still did not stop Lord Mawhinney from reminding everyone that the Football League is the oldest league in the world - you should have seen Dave Richards' face as he said that.
And then there is the question of who leads the bid. Sepp Blatter, President of Fifa, asked recently who is England's Franz Beckenbauer? David Beckham has been promoted as the face of the bid but he is no Beckenbauer and has a long way to became a Seb Coe, the charismatic leader of the 2012 bid who so brilliantly combined athleticism with political guile.
Fair enough the launch was aimed at the domestic audience and with 19 months to go, there is time to fine tune, after all Coe emerged as 2012 bid leader only a year after the 2012 bid was launched.
However, we should not under-estimate the obstacles that need to be overcome if England is to win.
Many in world football believe 2018, after tournaments in South Africa and Brazil, should come back to Europe.
But that does not necessarily mean England. It could be Russia, it could be the joint Spain-Portugal bid. With Europe having eight votes on the 24-man Fifa executive anyone with European backing stands a strong chance, but England first has to get votes from outside Europe to convince Europeans it is the continent's strongest candidate.
England also has to decide which of its two major European rivals are the strongest.
Most in the bid team believe it is Spain-Portugal, some feel it could be Russia.
The process of sorting out the European vote means wooing voters from Asia and Africa. That will start in earnest in two weeks time when the FA Cup final is held.
But it could also mean a deal with the USA. Let them have 2022 provided they back England for 2018.
One FA insider told me, "Fifa feels with 2018 in England and 2022 in USA could earn the world governing body another billion".
That, more than the children or the passion for the game, could prove England's strongest calling card and one that may impress the hard-boiled men on the Fifa executive a great deal..
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~14~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Thanks Mihir,
I think it would be interesting to see how much leverage this will give Sepp Blatter in his 6 + 5 home grown players rule. I should imagine he would only support an english bid if they agree to this rule.
Complain about this comment
A good, measured article. I vaguely recall either FIFA or it was possibly just UEFA stating they did not like joint bids, so it could be that Russia will be the main competition. I also agree about Beckham. He is of course world famous and though clearly not as stupid as those who lampoon him would have us believe, you get the feeling that he lacks the political guile that may be needed to steer the bid through.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Mihir. Just out of interest, how do you rate our chances?
Good too see our brightest and best there for the launch. (Why no mention of Rooney Mihir?)
I would love it if we were to get the World Cup in 2018. I can see no reason why this country could not stage the greatest of tournaments. We love our football, and we have somke of the worlds best (and safest) stadia!
Lets just hope Brown and his cronies don't mess this up.
Complain about this comment
As expected, Blatter and Platini will probably do their utmost to see the Spanish / Portugese bid win.
Complain about this comment
england can host the world cup tomorrow, the league one is the fourth most watched league in europe, and with wembley, old trafford and emirates stadium, and chelsea and liverpool to make new, bigger and better ones, where else can it go, footballs coming home!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
i doubt the spain and potugal, first of all, portugal hosted the euro 2004, and spain ain't reall got any big stadiums, execpt for camp nou and the bernabeu.
Complain about this comment
and i just can't see six hme grown players in the big four teams, that would make them much weaker, because they have to be home grown as well, you just can't buy player like lennon, rooney, owen etc and then ay thats my six, no they have to be like gerarrad in liverpool, homegrown, and there aint many gerrards, so they'll have to improve there resereves, and thatwould make them weaker, especially Man U, cause how many of their player have come their the academy, all ferguson knows is how to splash out the money, rather then use the young homegrown players, but wenger would be an expert doing that.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
As for who to lead the bid, there are so many parallels between Seb Coe and Gary Lineker, I really do hope he is given / accepts the opportunity to strengthen the bid
Complain about this comment
Maybe we should not be so greedy and let a country that hasn't already hosted the World Cup have a go?
Complain about this comment
I am sorry but if you paid attention to people like Jennings then you know that Mexico has got the votes already in terms of the Fifa exe board. i mean Mr Warner has the votes he need to keep him in power in concaf by making Mexico happy as they are willing to pay the most to him and his cronies. (this is still all hear say but I would not be surprised as there some sources to this.)
I would love a world cup here in England but I can't see it till Pantini or another person is the head role at Fifa but that's not going to happen more likely the newly re-elected head of Asian confed will be the next guy or the head of the African fed.
Sadly I think FA does not have bigger enough slush fund.
Ok if you get rid of this just ask blatter has threaten people with his lawyers before but never will sue has he does not want to pursuer himself in court if they bring up the bag man and the case in Zug in Switzerland.
Just look at the mess over Mastercard and VISA.
Complain about this comment
Firstly, what on earth does this mean? "Gone was the old Millwall hair shirt British bid teams seemed to habitually wear. Haunted by failures they seemed to take a perverse pleasure in saying: the world hates us but we don't care"
Secondly, has Mihir forgotten that England missed out on 2006 World Cup because there was a "gentlemens agreement" within UEFA that England got the Euros in '96 leaving Germany to bid for the '06 World Cup. The FA chose to renage on this agreement which meant the other European FA's voted for Germany. This was perhaps arrogant but nothing to do with "football's coming home" arrogance.
Unfortunately another negative, non-article from Mihir Bose. Why do you bother BBC?
Complain about this comment
Valencia, Bilbao and 5 other stadiums have more than 40,000 seats about the same as here in the premier league they will have to expand or rebuild about 5 stadiums. Similar to the numbers in England as London can only have two stadiums.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Even as a Scotsman i really do hope England win the bid to host 2018. With the exception of Germany, i think it is the best equipped country on the continent to deal with staging such an event. Wembley, The Emirates, Old Trafford, Anfield, St James' Park, Villa Park the list is seemingly endless. Lets just hope you don't win it!
Complain about this comment
I have tried to resist the urge to reply to the decidedly off topic nonsense of 'mightymuk'. I have tried and failed:
Ferguson doesn't know how to bring through players? Are you being ironic? Giggs, Scholes, Neville, Phil Neville, Butt, Beckham, O'Shea, Fletcher, Wes Brown, Jonny Evans, Evans-Blake, Greening. Welbeck, Darren Gibson, Eckerlsey etc. have all played a couple of games this season too.
Anyway sorry for that everyone.
It would be lovely to have the World Cup in England. Not hosting it for more than 50 years is a shocking statistic. Also, surely there would be practical problems hosting it in a country as vast as Russia with different time zones, hours of travelling etc?
Complain about this comment
As a regular critic of your blogs, well done on this one Mihir.
A well thought through article which highlights the political and intangible aspects of the bid which have to be got right.
Having the best stadia and a (relatively!) good transport infrastructure are nowhere near enough to win Jack Warners vote these days!!
Complain about this comment
Given the tight availability of global credit you would thought that the World Cup would be staged in a country that already has the infrastructure to hold such a competition and can generate the most cash. It is a no-brainer that country is England. If FIFA decide yet again to overlook England for 2018/22 then we should reconsider our membership. Why be members of an organisation that is run against our interests? People will still watch Premier League and pay high wages to the world's best footballers. On the whole English people support their club first and their country second anyway.
England should do what India is doing to the ICC - telling them who is their biggest paymaster and demand some more respect!
Complain about this comment
On fairness alone England deserve the 2018 World Cup. We last hosted the tournament 43 years ago, 52 by the time this tournament kicks off. That is too long. Spain hosted the tournament in 1982 and what with their 2016 bid for the Olympics have they really got the resources to take on this event as well?
The World Cup should be played in countries that are at the front of the game. It is a travesty that it is being played in South Africa, can anyone actually name a team that plays in there league? We should have had the 2010 World Cup as right now the Premiership is the strongest and most well supported leagues in the World. Plus with Brazil staging the tournament in 2014 means that two world cups will be played back to back in the Souther hemisphere. But with Sepp Blatter and co behind the deal what do you expect.
Complain about this comment
Hi All
Great post, and I would agree with the content as well. England must stop thinking we have a divine right to host, and instead focus on what makes a bid successful and allign ourselves with FIFA's goals. Of course a little unique brand and sparkle is welcome, even required perhaps, but we must proove to FIFA we should host the W.C because of what we can do for football going forward, not based on our history.
As for the capability to host it, I think England is well suited. We will have Wembley, old trafford, new anfield, St James park and emirates as stunning showcase venues with a host of other prem teams looking to expand current grounds and this is before we approach the welsh to use the Millenium stadium (which would be a good move to incorporate the welsh community). The infrastructure post 2012 will certainly be more than adequate to support such an event as well.
I for one would be upset to see a spain/portugal combination succeed with their bid given spain's issues around racism. How can a country which such visible racist problems around football be rewarded with the finest games? FIFA must not let that happen. The Russian bid is interesting, particularly as their teams are starting to see success on a more public stage (i.e europe) and their brand is intruiging but it would be a tough logistical feet!
England for 2018 then!
Complain about this comment
@mightymuk:
What are you talking about?! Spanish stadia:
>80,000 Camp Nou, Bernabau
>50,000 Estadio Olympico (none - in Seville), Estadi Olympic (Espanyol), Vincent Calderon (Atletico Madrid), Estadio Mastalla (Valencia), Estadio Manuel Ruiz de Lopera (Betis)
With 2 more stadia over 40,000 and Valencia (possibly, if they can find the money) moving to a 75,000 capacity Nou Mastalla at the start of next season I think Spain has more than enough big stadia. England only has 4 with more than 50,000 capacity. Include 3 >50,000 seaters in Portugal and I think their bid is fine on that count.
Not that I'm saying I'd rather the World Cup go to Spain/Portugal!
Complain about this comment
@realthing: Surely to spread the popularity of football you should allow countries with less popular leagues to host the world cup, your comment
"The World Cup should be played in countries that are at the front of the game. It is a travesty that it is being played in South Africa, can anyone actually name a team that plays in there league?"
is the travesty! (Orlando Pirates and Kaiser Chiefs by the way). Football should be played where it is popular, and seeing as it is the most popular sport in most African countries then just because their leagues are less well known or funded is absolutely no reason for the World Cup not to be hosted there. Where would the top European teams be without African players - Eto'o, Essien, Drogba etc. If there is any problem then it's the infrastructure being able to cope with the tournament, but that is a totally different point. Without top tournaments going to countries like S. Africa then how can you expect the game to develop in non-European and South American markets?
Complain about this comment
England obviosly have a good chance of hosting the world cup but Spain and portugal should be able to put in a bid just as good if not better. I should know as my dad is spanish.
The infrastructure is just as good as Englands. Both countries have ample airports, Motorways, hotels etc, and the stadia are actually better. At the current moment England have only 3 five star UEFA rated stadiums, Wembley. The Emirates and Old Trafford.
By Comparison Spain and portugal have 8. The Nou camp, The Barcelona olympic stadium, the Seville olympic stadium, the Bernabau, the Vicente Calderon, the Dragao stadium in Porto and the two stadiums in Lisbon.
English teams may be building new stadiums but so are Spanish teams. Atletico Madrid are moving from what is all ready a five star stadium, Valencia are in the process of building a 75000 stadium plus there is a potential Madrid olympic stadium.
I believe that Spain could easily host the world cup on their own, they all ready have, so why have they put in a joint bid with portugal? I guess it is to secure another 3 world class stadiums and secure all of the south American votes. A very clever move increasing their chances.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I like the suggestion of Gary Lineker as the Franz Beckenbauer of England's bid. Maybe he still lacks a bit of gravitas, but he could grow into it. Almost universally popular as a player, he has the right international profile and credibility from two very successful World Cups, he's likeable, articulate and hasn't offended anyone. Plus you know the likes of Sepp Blatter would be charmed in an instant if he brought his fiancee along to any of the junkets.
Complain about this comment
Interesting blog Mihir. However, one or two points need to be highlighted from one a couple of posters.
Firstly, England is probably one of the best European countries to host the finals in terms of Stadia, infrastructure etc. A fairly good job was made of the euro 96 finals, so I don't see why this couldn't be used as an example.
However, English fans are (yet again) coming across quite arrogant to an outsider when discussing their "right" to host the games, and the fact it is "shocking they haven't hosted it since". No, it isn't.
Counting the amount of times the World Cup has been up for selection in Europe is not that often, plus there is no reason why England should hog it, given that they hosted a major european finals within the last 15 years, as well as a commonwealth games and soon to have an olympics.
Someone above mentioned the deplorable racist attitude of many spanish people. This seems quite hypocritical from a country with such xenaphobic attitudes towards other nations (Germany in particular), something that the English press have been guilty of in the past, and have been appropriately slammed for. English international supporters on their travels haven't exactly conducted themselves in the best manner either (perhaps they would think twice about rioting in their own streets and cities rather than someone elses?).
Yes, England have won the World Cup (I think the BBC...or should that be EBC mention it every now and again) and well done. However, 43 years on and England have never reacher a final since, let alone win one. England have no devine right to win anything (as the international team has done its best to prove in recent times), and that goes for hosting international tournaments. Just because it is "England", doesn't make it anymore significant (unless you are English, obviously).
Frankly, there are better things that the countries limited financial resources could be spent on (and that goes for the olympic games as well, who really cares?).
The English team and the English application have the potential to be world beaters, that is if they don't fall victim to their own over ego'd high expectations first.
Complain about this comment
Surely it's England's turn before Spain, which had the WC in 1982. I've no doubt Spain would put on a fantastic tournament. The Barcelona Olympics in 1992 were brilliant, there are pletny of great Spanish cities and stadia, the weather's fantastic, food is delicious, people are very welcoming to visitors, etc. But it's England's turn, Euro '96 was a terrific, well-attended tournament, most of the stadiums are either built or planned, England's nice and small so easy for fans to get around, the hooligan threat is almost completely gone.
Complain about this comment
The ploy is either so we dont have the trauma of trying to qualify, or Beckham,winning his 247th cap as a sub in the 96th min can lift the cup on home soil thus finally eclipsing Bobby Moore.
Complain about this comment
I think the biggest threat to England's bid is the USA. It has the infrastructure (or will have it in place by 2018) and the money. FIFA will be star stuck when Obama swans in telling them how much he enjoys soccer. I believe Obama has already said he'll front Soccer USA's bid!
Complain about this comment
2018 should host the World Cup as 1) I wouldnt have to travel far (haha) no seriously we have the best stadiums in the world with The Emerites and Old Trafford and specially by then more ground would had been improved like Liverpools new ground and hopfully The Den (HAHA).
I think the introduction of the home grown players should come in this wouldnt only show the level of skill our youngsters have but also make the primier league more exciting and more competertive with the players and teams.
With the treat of hooligans this is a problem for other countries not England where ever you go you will get the trouble makers but england officals and police will have the skills and training to deal with after specially after the 2012 Olympic Games.
Even if we are unable to ask for the demands of stadiums with the capacity of some we could even ask Wales if the Millenium Stadium will be avaliable or even Twickenham which would be a great venue to play at. Also the surport of the english are the best in the world and what ever stadium or game the atmosphere in and around the city or the ground or area will be electric and it will get England in the party atmosphere that the World Cup of '66' brought and Euro 96!
COME ON ENGLAND AND GOOD LUCK TO MILLWALL ON THE 24TH MAY 2009!
Complain about this comment
Oh the irony of the FA spending millions on this campaign when clubs like Southampton are going to the wall and the FA & FL stand by and do nothing to help them... and in fact, actively put the boot in.
Who really cares about hosting the World Cup? Not that many real football fans will get tickets. If they do, they will pay through the nose for them. Half of the seats in the stadiums will go to corporates or the "FA Family". Clubs will extend stadiums at their own cost and then be left with a legacy they can't afford. All for hosting South Korea against Romania. Wow.
The FA & FL need to sort out problems on their own doorstep like making individuals accountable when they ruin clubs like Southampton, than wasting time on the bloody world cup.
Complain about this comment
I don't want to be devisive but if we do want to use current football stars, surely they should be respected role models and good looking to boot. In my opinion Terry, Lampard or Gerard would be far more appropriate than Wayne Rooney and if it is youth we want to stress than who better than Theo Walcott?
Complain about this comment
Do we really want to win?
I would prefer to lose and then enjoy another exciting qualification than to win and sit out two years of boredom (plus slide way down the fifa rankings as a result)
Complain about this comment
As a Spaniard, I think Spain and Portugal have as good a bid as England. Transport is cheaper, hotels are better, and as discussed above stadiums are bigger and they count with more 5-stars ones than England (albeiot this is all UEFA political rankings and not an accurate reflection of the quality of the grounds).
I do not see why it is England's turn over Spain. Several times it has been mentioned the Euro 96 hosted by England, the Olympics that London won over Madrid and Paris for 2012, there are English bids for the Rugby World Cup and even talk of Scotland and Wales bidding for the Euros. I iknow these two are not England but money will come from the British tax payer of which I am part as a UK resident). Spain, on the other hand, have hosted the 1982 world cup and the 1992 Olympics, and Portugal the Euros in 2004. The only ongoing bid or forthcomming tournament is the 2016 Olympics.
Of course I'd rather have the World Cup in Spain and Portugal over England, but this is my second best option. However, let us not forget the decision will be highly political and economical rather than thinking on the real benefit for a football tournament. Don't discount Russia or Australia too quick.
Complain about this comment
Call me "old fashioned", but since when has Russia been part of Europe? Additionally, why on earth would anyone host a World Cup in a country that doesn't a) respect football and b) understand it ... e.g. the USA?
I can see why Spain/Portugal would be good competition for England, they're passionate about the game and good at it too. That is what should make the grade for hosting the World Cup ... passion and talent. As always, these things are marred by politics and money. Ahh for the good old days!
Let's hope that Beckham's passion and drive for the game hold as much for the rest of the world as they do for England. He's a great role model and shouldn't be underestimated in his abilities to manage this. After all, he and his wife are the most successful global "brand" - and that doesn't happen by accident.
Complain about this comment
England's biggest problem is the lack of distribution. FIFA are unlikely to want so many stadia in the same region - it needs to be distributed. Germany gave 12, for example. However, for England, since London is very football rich, I can see FIFA giving concession for 2 stadia in London. Which would give:
Emirates Stadium, London
Wembley Stadium
Old Trafford, Manchester
New Anfield, Liverpool
St. James Park, Newcastle
(New Nottingham Forest Stadium), Nottingham
Villa Park, Birmingham
Elland Road, Leeds
And unfortunately, it doesn't really pan out from there. Especially since Leeds and Newcastle are fairly close to each other.
Bristol City, if they're building a new stadium, would work. However, England may end up getting rugby stadia as part of the bid (ugh) or we might have to ask for the Millennium Stadium (real ugh - it's lovely but not in England).
If FIFA allow Manchester to have two, then a new Arabic City - I mean Manchester City - stadium would work, obviously. Manchester too has the benefit of having a solid infrastructure without London's chaos.
Spain have several solid stadia distributed well around Spain due to the way Spain has always worked. However, they have other problems such as infrastructure and racism.
So if England can get their stadia up, then they will be favourites.
Complain about this comment
For your information thesefeetdontdance,the only Beckham that is likely to be in the England Team come 2018 will be Brooklyn!
Complain about this comment
On the whole an interesting blog, nothing too Earth shattering but no claims that it would be and it's too early days for the story to be unfolding with all its intrigues and politics.
The article was let down by one quote though:
** One FA insider told me, "Fifa feels with 2018 in England and 2022 in USA could earn the world governing body another billion" **
The concept of USA and England having an agreement over one backing the other in regards 2018 and 2022 is a matter of public record. The British press was widely reporting this liklihood as early as last midweek and it's hardly a massive leap.
I'm not saying this is grandstanding by you Mihr, if an unnamed source told you this, fair enough, but you should be researching your stories. I don't want this to come accross as a simple Mihr bashing comment because on the whole this is a reasonably good summary of the bid opening but whether writing about the World Cup 2018 or Ancelotti going to Chelsea you seem to never read the background to the stories you write which is why you cosistently announce 'behind the scenes secrets' and 'exclusive revelations' that are already widely known.
If someone tells you something you think is good gossip or a bit of a scoop... PLEASE google it first and make sure it's not something on the front page of The Sun on the same day.
Complain about this comment
Looking at the bids:
Spain seem to have a great case, as strong as England definately. Not had a tournament for a while, world class infastructure and football already established, easy to get to and well located for an Asian and Americas TV audience. Guaranteed weather in most places and ticket prices likely to be reasonable.
The negatives seem to be that Spain hardly needs the tournament to promote the game, Portugal have had the Euro's recently but mainly the MAJOR problem must be Spain's consistent and frankly unchecked problem with racism in the grounds. I realise the Spanish FA say a lot but in reality clubs won't act decisively unless they fear the backlash and fines of 2000-5000 Euro's is hardly terrifying. One wonders whether some African voters may be influenced by the treatment some of their stars have recieved.
Russia is a strong candidate in the sense it's a huge, influential country never to have held the tournament and will presumably carry a lot of Asian/Eastern European votes but everything else seems against it. Infastructure, financing, safety and the sheer size of the country seem major hurdles. Is the entire tournament going to end up being held in Moscow? We could have a situation where London residents live closer to the nearest World Cup stadium in 2018 than certain Eastern Russians.
USA will get 2018 or 2022, it seems somewhat inevitable that, as in every walk of life, money will talk and FIFA won't be able to resist the potentially huge rewards of a successful USA World Cup. Arguably the most boring final in World Cup history was an unfortunate blight on a very high profile and profitable finals in 94. The negatives are, it's America... Soccer and America is one of life's great mysterious relationships. Are we flogging a dead horse trying to get them to fall in love with a sport that has draws in it?
In all honesty, the other contenders seem also rans... Netherlands/Belgium have had a tournament too soon and FIFA seem very anti-joint bids currently. The idea of Japan or South Korea having a World Cup again so soon seems utterly ludicrous and gruesomely unfair. Mexico's biggest problem is alas nothing to do with them, if the USA get either then that kills Mexico's chances, if Spain gets one of them then that also probably kills Mexico's chances. The rest, Indonesia, Quatar etc seem a bit like token bids that are deliberately setting themselves up to withdraw later and 'sell' their support in return for lucrative compromises.
Complain about this comment
Just don't involve Gordon Brown in anything, the man is an absolute clown and will mess it up like he has done with everything else in this country.
Complain about this comment
34 - Chelsea Paul.
When i first read your comment i thought "what on earth is this bloke on about of course we want to host it".. but then on about a seconds reflection i actually agree with you on a number of levels...
I have been to a few tournaments (Portugal 04 and Germany 06) to watch England and had an amazing time (i'll lso go to SA in 10 if we qualify)... and whilst there were the usual England following idiots there it was great to go to another country and have a holiday.... if it is in England our chances of getting tickets for games will probably actually be drastically reduced (certainly for England games - which will be a touts dream).. and then to enjoy the "aptmosphere will probbaly have to go to a "fan park".. which unlike my fantastic experiences in Germany and Portugal i fear i will be surrounded by the type of halfwits that throw pint glasses at screens in pubs when England lose... and then go on the rampage...like smashing up German cars (like Euro 96)... and for thise that say it doesn't happen - it does... i have witnessed it first hand too many times to recall...
Sadly i think i have to agree - i would rather enjoy another qualifying campaign and a "holiday" trip at the end of it - where i can meet other fans from other countries in a nice friendly environment...
i hope we don't get to host it... give it to the Spanish/Portuguese - it will be a much better experience for me!
Complain about this comment
whydoi - The only rugby stadium in England that's got the 40,000 capacity needed by FIFA for a World Cup venue is Twickenham, which, not being outside London doesn't help with the distribution of venues around the country.
In the current economic climate and their current league position, can either of Nottingham Forest or Bristol City justify spending millions on (or secure finance for) building a 40,000 capacity ground that would become a white elephant after a tounament.
Complain about this comment
I think the Australian bid is not getting much consideration on here. I think Australia has a very, very good chance of hosting one of either 2018/2022. This is because football is actually growing in popularity in Australia, and will only increase with a World Cup, they have good stadiums already in place, they have hosted big tournements very well before, they have never had a world cup and also (and proberly the most improtant) I can see Fifa fancying a jolly up there.
Either way the 2018/2022 tournements will for me go to either England/Russia and Australia/USA. I discount Spain/Portugal because Fifa do not like joint bids, which is a fact. While after having the tournements in South America and Africa Fifa are going to want to maximise profits.
Complain about this comment
"Additionally, why on earth would anyone host a World Cup in a country that doesn't a) respect football and b) understand it ... e.g. the USA?"
Because FIFA would make an immense amount of money off an American World Cup, just like it did in 1994 (when, I remind you, there hadn't been a professional domestic league in ten years). As well, the infrastructure is already in place; no new stadiums would need to be built. And the possible stadium selections dwarf England's choices. Three potential stadiums that will seat more than 80,000 for footie (Rose Bowl, Cowboys Stadium, FedEx Field). Another 20 that seat at least 60,000, including the new Meadowlands stadium in New Jersey, the two retractable roofed stadiums in Houston and Phoenix, and Qwest Field in Seattle where the Sounders are outdrawing half the Premiership. And every game will be a sellout.
I think it's wise for there to be a 2018/2022 lockup between England and the USA. FIFA wants to come back to Europe every eight years, but it also wants to make gobs of money when it's playing the Cup outside of Europe, too. It's well known that FIFA has been looking for an opportunity to come back to the States. With the new "rotation" system CONCACAF would go after CONMEBOL (assuming Brazil is getting the 2014 World Cup), and this would be their opportunity.
Of course, I wouldn't put it past FIFA to go Spain/Portugal-Mexico for 2018/2022. They're just like that.
Complain about this comment
I'd much rather go somewhere with a great atmosphere, great weather with friendly people than have to watch it here in this expensive, dull country with non-existent customer service.
Complain about this comment
It would be great. I think England deserves it. It will also be a good way of qualifying since the model of all foreigners in the Premier League has doomed Englnds squad to the Second division.
Complain about this comment
russia will get it. they are holding the winter olympics in a town with no ski resort!!
extras no doubt provided to delegates aboard comrade abramovic's floating palace!!!
Complain about this comment
Whoever gets it will be decided by freebies and kickbacks. Why not change the selection process so that the continent is pre-determined and then the governing body(UEFA/CONCAF etc)selects the host country/countries. I know the FIFA gravy train wouldn't agree, so it must be a good idea.
Complain about this comment
I'm an avid football follower but don't believe that this country should even contemplate trying to lodge a successful bid. Look at the state our country is in. There are basics that need addressing before the showboat of a world cup. For a country that's a billion and a half pounds in debt do we need to burden ourselves with this costly venture? Just look at the olympic bid. Already that has cost over 3 times the estimated costs. Plus who REALLY benefits? Apparently facilities would be improved around the country etc etc. Well I can say the olympic charge hasn't benefited a SINGLE facility within a 10 mile radius of me. Then there's the problem we have controlling who comes into our country. Already terrorists can wander in at will. No doubt with our already slack border control with such a major event pending then our border control would be relaxed even greater still leaving us wide open to all sorts of misdemeanours.
Let's please get back to basics and focus getting in order the problems that are directly in our path and not some hoorah of an event that let's face it would probably be out of the reach of the average football fan nowadays. Not like in '66 were the stadia were filled with working class families cheering on their team. It would consist of corporate suits who don't really care about football, just the trimmings that would go with such a glitzy event.
Complain about this comment
Looks like the central theme of this bid is new labour party political correctness. A campaign which is clearly clueless about why the 2006 campaign failed .The labour party obviously thinks the world cup is another Notting Hill carnival and any mention of our football heritage is "arrogant" .
Complain about this comment
spain are only bidding with portugal because spain hosted it not too long ago, and stand a better chance using portugal, when they lose out they will bid on their own years later.
most of the voters will dislike joint bids, so that already tells us it will be england v russia.
but theres no guarantee one of them 2 world cups will even come back to europe, got to take in to account the dodgy stuff that will go on between blatter and warner, and also take into account they will both probably retire once the 2 nations are chosen, and probably go into hiding!
as for the usa bid i dont see why obama would make much of a difference since he wont be in office when that world cup comes around, its unlikely he'll even be around for the 2014 wc.
Complain about this comment
end of the day fifa will make a big loss after south africa and brazil wont help much after that, they will have no option but to cash in on england usa to get back 8 years of losses.
and to people saying england dont deserve it because we are getting all world events, just look at why we are getting all these events, fifa will be!
Complain about this comment
i think they should also include ireland, wales and scotland within this bid.
same way we saw korea and japan, and poland/switzerland.
and will make it better with more bigger stadiums, there are only really 4 stadiums in england i can think of that would be good for hosting it, emirates stadium, anfield, old trafford and wembley, but if they put wales, scotland and ireland in the bid, they could have the millenium stadium in cardiff, landsdown road in dublin, and perhaps celtic park and the ibrox in glasgow
Complain about this comment
The very fact that certain people don't like our pride in a sport that we gave birth to is extremely ill-logical and petit.
Mihirs article is a typical PC, biased towards the fifa's favour against our great nation and it's primary sport that has given love and passion to the world. I can see the bbc are continually being PC and not for the people's choice....ofcourse, we don't want to OFFEND anyone do we now hmmm.
Complain about this comment
"11. At 12:11pm on 19 May 2009, joetwick wrote:
Maybe we should not be so greedy and let a country that hasn't already hosted the World Cup have a go?"
Excuse me, but England has not hosted the WC since 1966. Mexico? They hosted it in 1970 and 1986. USA? They hosted it in 1994. Spain hosted it in 1982. I know it's terrible and unfashionable to say so, but we did give football to the world, and we do have the best league, stadia and fans in the world, and we haven't hosted the World Cup for over forty years. So maybe it is 'our turn' after all.
Do you never wonder why so many people (especially journalists) in this country are so negative and anti-English?
Complain about this comment
For me the main rival would be Australia as they could say that a World Cup tournament would help stimulate growth in their new (by European and South American standards) league. They also have the fact they've never hosted a World Cup on their side too.
Spain has hosted a World Cup more recently than England, as have the US. Not sure if the Russians have ever hosted one, but I don't think so and that would count in their favour. Because of that I'd put the Russians as our strongest European competitors.
But there is a lot to be said for England deserving a second tournament. Other countries have had two and even if you decide that talk of "Football coming home" is too arrogant, it would be fair to say we have one of the biggest fan bases for football in the world, the oldest league and cup competitions in the world and we haven't hosted a World Cup for nearly 50 years.
I give us more than a 50/50 chance of winning the bid, but it is anything but clear cut because of the valid arguments for hosting in both Russia and Australia.
Complain about this comment
I have to respond to the comments suggesting making use of Twickenham, Hampden Park and the Millennium Stadium.
Twickenham:
- For a World Cup bid you can only use a maximum of two stadiums in one city. For London we already have Wembley and then will probably make use of the Emirates (unless another London stadium is built in the meantime). We won't be able to use Twickenham.
Hampden/Millenium:
- They are not in England. An England bid can only use stadiums in England. I'm not putting the Welsh and Scottish down or saying we don't need them, I'm just saying that FIFA would not allow the use of a stadium outside the host country.
- Also, if Scotland and Wales won't consider even allowing their players to join with a UK team for a one off Olympics then what makes you think they will allow their stadiums to be used for a World Cup hosted by England? It isn't a joint UK bid, it is just an English bid, so they will effectively become England for a few weeks. They wouldn't allow it anyway.
- Before someone points out that the Rugby world cups are often spread out I will remind you that rugby is a different sport. It has different rules.
Besides, there are enough Stadiums in the Premier League/Football League and Wembley to host a very good world cup. The advantage for an English bid is that FIFA won't need to worry about stadiums being ready on time as they are experiencing with the South African bid, or the construction of white elephants as experienced in South Korea/Japan. Most of our stadiums are already built, and at a push a couple of smaller clubs will be left with a 40,000 stadium they can only half fill (which is not exactly unusual anyway in England!!)
Complain about this comment
"i think they should also include ireland, wales and scotland within this bid.
same way we saw korea and japan, and poland/switzerland."
Purdy14 - Korea/Japan was an official joint bid, with everything split equally between them. It wasn't just one country bidding and nicking a couple of stadiums from the others. Ireland, Wales, England and Scotland would have to use the same number of stadiums, it would have to be called the Ireland/Wales/Scotland/England bid (with all four disputing which name comes first) and all four would qualify automatically. Importantly, what about Northern Ireland?
As for Poland/Switzerland......when was that?
Complain about this comment
attertone - one of the benefits of our bid is that I doubt it would be much of a 'burden' on us. The Olympic bid has required everything to be constructed from scratch. This will not be the case of the World Cup, the stadiums are already there, and those that are not will be constructed by clubs who want their stadium to be used at the World Cup.
The FA's main expense will be the advertising and organising/administration!!! The FA will just rent out Wembley for a few more rugby/american football/motor racing events to make up the cash!
Complain about this comment
England are STILL deluded that they gave football to the world! Evey country had a generic game, but the first (and extant)rule book, featuring an eleven maan game with a goalkeeper, dates from Aberdeen in Sctoland in the SIXTEEN HUNDREDS.
England gave the world merely the FA - football bureaucracy. Cheers, guys. If you are going to be "arrogant" at least have accomplished what you are so fond claiming, rather than erroneuosly and continually stealing the credit for same.
By the way - that said i hope the bid is successful. I do not think the misinformed blinkered conceit of some of the posts here will detract form the success or failure of the bid.
Complain about this comment
I bit my tongue and bit my tongue but I just can't anymore. As an American living in Spain, I of course would love to see the Cup in either Spain or the States. However, I do think England should win one of the next two coming up for bid.
That said, to all of you who bash the USA and saying "we don't deserve a World Cup" because we "don't understand the game"... I'll remind you that there are probably more people in the USA that follow soccer than there are in England. Lots of us love the game, and follow it.
Complain about this comment
sorry if its been mentioned but spain also still havent 100% sorted rascism like it has been sorted in britain.
also not many countries like brazil would like to go to russia cos its to cold!!
think of the opposite of south korea and japan!
Complain about this comment
For there to be more soccer fans in the US than England, at least 1 in 4 Americans would have to be passionate about soccer and consider it their main sport.
I live in the US now and I can categorically state that isn't the case. Yes there are a large number of people who are willing to watch the game, a large number of immigrants (like myself) who consider it our main sport, and even a small number of Americans who think that way too. But not anywhere near as many as in a country like England, Italy or Spain.
That isn't a put down, it's just a numerical fact. The US actually has a far better system of support for kids and university students who want to play sport and that includes soccer. US parents are far more involved in their kids activities. That is a cultural thing to some extent as English kids don't necessarily want their parents at every training session and every game.
The MLS is still evolving and uses a system that is relevant to the US sports fan. I believe it will eventually become economically stable and far more successful than the old North American Soccer League (or whatever it was called). There is more emphasis on proper training, proper youth development and domestic players, and that is the way to develop a sport. The restriction on salaries and therefore artificially restricting aging foreign stars will both keep soccer on a sound financial footing and prevent it becoming about European and S.American has-beens.
What the English object to though is the idea that a country for whom football is clearly their main sport should not get a second chance at hosting the tournament after 50 years and yet the developing US sport gets a chance to host it twice in less than 20 years. It isn't about elitism, it's about fairness.
Complain about this comment
I can't think of anything more dreadful in a sporting context than the football world cup in England any time! The sport already has far too much power and influence, can you imagine how much worse things would get in 2018? I remember being in France in 1998 and there was no escape from the world cup!
Not all sports fans are football fans. Anyway the world cup is coming to this country in 2018, the cricket world cup.
Complain about this comment
I don't think we're objecting to you guys getting a shot again. In fact, I support it. But the ignorance about the state of the game in the States is quite sad. (and I hate to bash your numbers, but with less than 55 million in England, it's quite a lot less than 1 in 4 that would have to like the game in the States... probably more about 1 in 8 :)
Complain about this comment
Gone was the old Millwall hair shirt British bid teams seemed to habitually wear. Haunted by failures they seemed to take a perverse pleasure in saying: the world hates us but we don't care.
What does the above mean? When have Millwall had a 'hair shirt'?
Complain about this comment
USA or Spain shouldn't get it was they had world cups in more recent times of the 90's and 80's. USA had it only 4 world cups ago whilst England is football's home, its our sport, England v Scotland was the first international game ever and we haven't had it since the black and white TV days. USA doesn't even call the worlds biggest sport by its proper name, won't they get confused that FIFA is called that and not FISA?
Why are those who don't want England to get the world cup going on about the Olympics or Commonwealth games etc, what has that got to do with the FIFA world cup? Even UEFA's Euro shouldn't have a bearing because it doesn't seem to with Portugal does it!
Bottom line its not arrogance but we are well overdue it football maybe the worlds game but its our sport, we invented, the original FA, leagues, cups and clubs/teams all started here so yes we should get special recognition, not unfair in a bid over other countries but it should return to England ever so often and its been way too long, especially if the likes of Spain and USA are trying to get it, they only had it the other week, lol.
My parents weren't even born when we had the World cup let alone me. USA had it mid 90's. Don't expect us to get it though as Sepp Blatter and his sidekick Michelle Platini hate England and many of the other home land associations, every time there is something to do with FA or PremierLeague they get involved, even about the Olympics GB team and our home football associations they had to have their say when it's nothing to do with them. They don't own the Olympics and don't own our Football assoction.
Can't wait till someone does a European Super league in European football for clubs, that will take away some of the power at least and hopefully an international one would follow. Its the teams and fans that make a tournement big not the FA's.
Complain about this comment
It's surely England's turn. The Premier league is the biggest in the world at the moment and our top clubs are dominating Europe. We seem to have largely solved the horrible problem of hooliganism- whereas Spain has a nasty element of racism. In the years since 1966 English football has been through the mill, for sure, but 53 years is long enough to wait.
Can't help but feel we won't be successful because I feel the powers that be see the English game as synonymous with the game's worldwide problems, and thus, FIFA will award the tournament to the two Iberian nations.
Complain about this comment
Lots of paranoia on here - bordering on the racist at times.
England are very likely to get the bid. For a lot of good reasons. FIFA know these.
Expect to see England host the WC in 2018 and the USA to get it in 2022.
In the meantime, to some of you, try and be a little less panic struck and xenophobic.
Complain about this comment
How embarrassing was Gordon Brown? since when has he been english?
Complain about this comment
11 joetwick
"Maybe we should not be so greedy and let a country that hasn't already hosted the World Cup have a go?"
---
What, like Spain, the US, Japan and Mexico?
It would be a travesty if one of those countries was favoured over us
Obviously Russia are a big threat, but lack the infrastructure, and Australia should also have a good case, only geography lets them down really
It's such a shame that politics will probably lead to the US (and Concacaf) supporting us in return for 2022 when somewhere like Australia would actually be a good place instead of giving the US two within thirty years
you would hope that politics can be put aside and let us finally have it again
Complain about this comment
I hope the majority of English people do not share the ignorance and attitude of Sirmattsway in post #68.
Some points he makes are valid, with particular reference to the fact that certain bidders have hosted the tournament more recently than England and also the fact that just because we are hosting other worldwide sports events in the 2010-19 decade (Olympics/Commonwealth games/possible the Rugby WC) does not mean we should not host another.
However when comments are made such as "USA doesn't even call the worlds biggest sport by its proper name, won't they get confused that FIFA is called that and not FISA?" it completely undoes the decent comments that had already been made and shows a distinct lack of knowledge about the subject.
"Soccer" was a phrase coined by the English pre-1900 and comes from "AsSOCiation Football" in order to help differentiate it from other, less regulated, forms of the game, not least "Rugby Football" which of course we now call just Rugby. So in short, calling it Soccer is just as correct as calling it Football. Who knows why certain countries/regions refer to it by one name rather than the other, but both are equally as correct and to slight the Americans for calling it Soccer quite frankly is laughable when we, the English, invented the phrase.
As for "football coming home" it all gets a bit tiresome really and I'd really like to see this campaign step away from all of that. It is generally agreed now by historians that the modern form of the game that we see has descended from "Mob Football" (which still happens in Derbyshire once a year if I remember correctly) and then was drawn into laws and regulations by the FA. Since then the game has spread around the world and the game we see now is much different to what it once was. The way I think we should look at it is that it was our gift to the world.
Complain about this comment
@kasbah (58): Yes, there are plenty of stadia in England. In an ideal scenario, we could have:
Wembley Stadium, London
Emirates Stadium, London
White Hart Lane, London
Stamford Bridge, London
Old Trafford, Manchester
(New Manchester City Stadium), Manchester
New Anfield, Liverpool (assuming it gets built)
(New Kirkby Stadium), Liverpool (assuming Everton figure out what they want to do)
Stadium of Light, Sunderland
St. James' Park, Newcastle
Elland Road, Leeds
Villa Park, Birmingham
Plus many more. However, the problem is that they're not spread out evenly throughout the UK. London could host its own mini-World Cup, for example, while Merseyside-Greater Manchester could do the same.
As for the United States bid, the States can offer tons of money in the form of sponsors - and the more cynical would note that this is why FIFA are hosting a World Cup in South Africa. Money talks, especially if you are Septi - I mean Sepp - Blatter.
Complain about this comment
i really really have to laf with commenst like, "its our game we invented" "1st game in world was England v scotland "
ok
1. England copied queens park Fc in Glasgow rules, before that they used the Shefield rules and the camridge rules. Once they used the rules invented in Glasgow, modern football started in England. Scotland played Englang in partick in Glasgow. Scotland told England you must use our rules and then from then on you used Scotland rules and dummped the 2 other forms of football.
Scotland has the oldest league in the world that used the modern rules(still used today)
so Footballs coming home in 1996 was not quite true, it was close, but 300m too south.
Another point 1000 fans arrested in 2006, how many will be arrested in their own country???.
No its a non starter, needs to be family occasion so not England
Complain about this comment
Children from local schools were brought to Wembley, reminding me of the school kids from the East End of London who formed part of the 2012 presentation in Singapore in 2005 and the powerful role they played in convincing the International Olympic Committee the bid should come to London not Paris.
--------------
the powerful role the kids played in Olympics host selection??????....what kind of nonsense is that...London won the 2012 bid due to US support....in the 1st round Paris was No.1 followed closely by London and New York...Bush asked the countries supporting NY to switch to London for the next round as they were eliminated...it was simple Geopolitics (and I have no problems with it)...why do professional journalists write such fluff I will never know
Complain about this comment
@ 7 Mightymuk: "and i just can't see six home grown players in the big four teams.......especially Man U, cause how many of their player have come thru their academy, all ferguson knows is how to splash out the money, rather then use the young homegrown players"
Sorry, off-topic I know but I can't let this nonsense slide by.
Foster, Neville, Brown, Evans, Ferdinand, Scholes, Carrick, Hargreaves, O'Shea, Fletcher, Giggs, Rooney, Welbeck, Gibson, Campbell. That's 15 home-based players (11 through the acadamy/ juinor ranks) at Utd. You could make a damn good team out of that.
Also, players who join the club at a certain age and mature there e.g. Ronaldo, also qualify.
Now work your way thru the Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea squads and see what you can come-up with. Trust me, you won't get close to the numbers at Utd.
Check your facts before making an idiot of yourself.
Complain about this comment
"59. At 8:39pm on 19 May 2009, kasbah wrote:
"i think they should also include ireland, wales and scotland within this bid.
same way we saw korea and japan, and poland/switzerland."
Purdy14 - Korea/Japan was an official joint bid, with everything split equally between them. It wasn't just one country bidding and nicking a couple of stadiums from the others. Ireland, Wales, England and Scotland would have to use the same number of stadiums, it would have to be called the Ireland/Wales/Scotland/England bid (with all four disputing which name comes first) and all four would qualify automatically. Importantly, what about Northern Ireland?
As for Poland/Switzerland......when was that?"
well it could be a Britain/Ireland bid..
and the poland/switzerland was the euro 2008, not world cup, but basically same thing
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Can Englang assure this turn that, hipothetically, beeing England a semi-finalist this tournament, and if the pre-schedulled callendar semi-final game is to take place at the Liverpool stadium, the game would be played in Liverpool, instead of forcing the locally installed semi-finalist, who won at the quarter-finals the right to play there, to move the day before the game, forcing the opponent, who by the schedulle had to expect England to move to Liverpool, and not the other way around, to search for a hotel in London the very night before the game. In 1966 the Portguese team stayed at one "noisy" hotel, got installed at 1 am, in picadilly. How's that for "1966 Fair-Play"? Who was the best team by far that tournament?
Complain about this comment
Am getting more and more irritated at people saying "it's our turn" - what a ridiculous statement. I would be more inclined to agree had we put in a bid to host every world cup since 1966 and hadn't been given it, however; this is not the case!
The tournament should be spread around, I wouldn't discount Australia, and had somewhere like the UAE but in a bid (I thought someone had?) then they would be a strong contender as well as they're not exactly stuggling financially at the moment. Ultimately we have no inherent right to host the tournament - so put together a strong bid with the right people and we can win.
Finally - Mightymuk
"especially Man U, cause how many of their player have come their the academy"
One of the most stupid things I have ever ever read! Ignoring the vast number of players who have come through our youth system, my understanding is that the players simply have to have been trained in the home nations as youth players anyway (regardless of nationality), therefore; Foster, Ferdinand, Evans, O'Shea, Brown, Carrick, Fletcher, Giggs, Scholes, Rooney, Welbeck, Gibson, Campbell not to mention all the fringe players and the foreign youth we get from other clubs and feeder clubs.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
did i mention i also hate moderators
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mirih Bose is an awful correspondent! Garth Crooks is useless. I am stating facts! You cant refuse to put that up.
Complain about this comment
Rejoice!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
One potential issue to raise on this is the effect of regime change at a general election.
Has there been concensus/agreement amongst interested parties as to how that is managed? Continuity 7 months before the final decision date would appear critical.........
Complain about this comment
All this politics means nothing, it will all come down to the weather....
Mihir - I am usually left disappointed by your blogs, which in my opinion tend to be uninformative and self-promoting. However, credit where it's due, this one is a good read.
I would add, though, that it isn't entirely unreasonable to expect a continuous high standard from the BBC sports editor? I look forward to the day when I read a quality blog from you and my initial reaction is not one of surprise.
Complain about this comment
The WORLD cup should be held once a year in Sheffield.
Or, on second thought, perhaps the word "world" signifies that the world cup does not belong to any particular country and no country has the right to claim it's their "turn". Unless, of course, the world cup is rotated between all the 203 or so sovereign states. And that would mean that England's turn will be in...
I actually think England would host a great WC - and the English fans would probably behave better at home than abroad - but I can't stand people who think England has some divine right to hold this competition that they originally didn't even take very seriously.
Complain about this comment
I don't really think it matters if we did or did not create the game, the fact is we are a huge football loving nation, with some of, if not the best stadia and infrastructure in the world. I have no objection with the World Cup going to developing football countries, such as the USA or even the Middle East, but I think after such a long time and after superbly organised and well run Euro 96, England is due a World Cup.
I would feel very very angry if the USA got the World Cup ahead of England. The Russians have a fair argument, a large football loving nation, however I imagine their are a number of issues with the huge distances between cities and the difficulties in getting in and moving around the country.
It is very frustrating that the decision is more a political argument rather than a football argument, this is where England are in danger. It matters not to me that we used the 'footballs coming home' slogan, yet this being seen as arrogant could be used as another excuse to deny England the chance to host a tournament that, in my opinion, we now deserve.
I'm 32 now and would love to see a world cup in my home nation before I am 50. If we fail in 2018 and 2022, that looks an unlikely prospect.
Complain about this comment
England will not fail. Having the most big stadium is irrelevant. Fact is that England will have two 90000-seaters for the semis and the final. There will also be at least 4 options for 60000 for the quarters.
With the WC format as it is, we saw that in Germany, smaller compact stadiums filled with genuine fans created excellent atmospheres for games. Sheffield, Leeds, Sunderland, Newcastle, Birmingham (2) and Milton keynes are all possibles for the group stages and last-16 round.
Russia will prove a strong bid. But outside Moscow and St Petersburg there is not much. Will Russia stump up in excess of $2 billlion for the bid?
Spain is a formidable footballing nation. However, I think joint bids will fail. England will win he African vote, and I think the draw of Man Utd, Liverpool, etc will be a major factor for Asians.
Complain about this comment
only hope world cup will be held in england ,so there will be more best team,more star come to england ,more Brilliant game happens!!!!
oh,god .so Excited
http://www.nowgoal.com/17.shtml
Complain about this comment
Can I please explain the Millwall Hairshirt comment as I feel the subtlty has passed many readers by.
The "Hairshirt" was an item of clothing that historically was made of irritating material or animal fur. Over time this has been corrupted, and the term is now used to describe an object that is worn just to be uncomfortable.
ie - the Millwall hairshirt is the tag of "No one likes us and we don't care"
Basically a negative label that is endured by the fans as they feel it is worth it.
Mihir - this is a great article which highlights all the necessary information to spark a very longwinded debate, based purely on speculation as none of us know enough about FIFA, or their internal decisions regarding such a matter.
Thank you
Sepp Blatter out!!!!
Complain about this comment
2018 england
2022 australia
it mustn't go to the usa. the world cup they produced last time was a bore, lacked an air of passion seen in european or south american places, and they have the audicity to still call it soccer and not football. no, i wouldn't back america if my life depended on it.
and to think in some american media they hype themselves about winning it. the arrogance of the americans is unmatched, be it sport or politics.
Complain about this comment
Too many people are comparing bids' validities instead of focusing on the 24 men who will take the decision. It's about FIFA politics more than who has the best stadia.
Andrew Jennings believes Mexico are out in front because FIFA Vice-President Jack Warner has 13 of the 24 votes in the bag for them.
If England want to host 2018 they need to start wining and dining now.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
View these comments in RSS