BBC Home

Explore the BBC


user rating: 3 star

Who will host the 2018/2022 World Cups?

World Cup
comment on the article

England face competition from Netherlands/Belgium, Russia and Spain/Portugal for the 2018 tournament.

The host of the 2022 contest will also be decided on 2 December, with Australia, Japan, Qatar, South Korea and the United States competing for the rights.

Which countries will win the rights?

Latest 10 comments

Read members' comments or add your own

posted Nov 26, 2010

Based upon statistics provided by FIFA Officials:

1. They are not keen on a joint bid, as well as Portugal and Spain having hosted recently.

2. They are Highly in favour of a European 2018 World Cup, Which Leaves Russia, unfortunately out of that.

By logical statements Belgium/Holland and England are the two remaining contestants; so it comes down to either "Who hasn't hosted it before" or "Legacy"

So, I say 2018 will go to England.

As for 2022, it's a bit early days yet, but I'm all for the Aussies getting it.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2010

As a sports fan I would like to see it come to England....though lets face it, our pathetic football team are not going to win it wherever its held.....It should be held in OZ in 2022.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2010

I think the Aussies will get 2022..... almost by default.

Japan and Korea have already staged a very recent WC, the last one in Asia in fact, albeit jointly, so they're out.

Qatar is simply too small. All the venues within 30 miles? Not to mention issues with drink and womens 'attire'... all part of the WC culture after all!

The only other option is the Americans but they held a WC a mere decade and a half ago.

But the Aussie bid is, ironically, the weakest.

They are time zone unfriendly, they have a token substandard national league of just eight clubs, all their stadia are used for other sports, most of which will be in mid season when the WC comes around.

So the 2022 candidates really are a poor bunch.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 27, 2010

From here on in , it's going to take a lot for a " Soft Target " country to hold any kind of world sport function with terrorist's getting more high tech by the year IMO .

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 29, 2010

no we only offered their wives designer handbags worth thousands.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 30, 2010

Good point slingitronny, though from the wrong angle. The English bid team cant complain about anything after that absurd 'gift' that was given to all the voters wives.
Technically and ethically, the best bid is by far Russia, they have the stadia, the money required to put an event of this kind, and they are one of the largest countries on this planet. They deserve to win.
They English bid seem to have the believe that they are 'entitled' to win. Maybee if they got their facts right for starters, in that football originated in Britain, not England.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 30, 2010

As for the USA hosting in 2022, I think the only thing counting against us is the fact we hosted as recently as 1994.

I know that some folks don't think of us as a football (soccer) nation, but really, none of the other 2022 candidates have it as their primary sport either, except maybe Qatar but their bid seems impractical for a number of reasons (maybe a Summer Olympics would be more suitable?).

The fact is, our stadia are second to none. The NFL is enormously popular and profitable and that uniquely American league has built some of the most breathtaking stadiums imaginable. The American gridiron is very similar in size to the soccer pitch and all the new NFL stadiums have been built with the possibility of hosting World Cup in mind, so the conversion is actually quite readily done.

I suppose our large country does mean that travel between most cities will be substantial, but Australia has the same problem. Japan has hosted even more recently than us. We have vastly superior facilities vis a vis Australia, and the largest population base of the '22 candidates. The 1994 tournament remains the highest gross aggragate attendance of any World Cup, though it had 12 fewer matches compared to subsequent WC formats.

We have a modern country with a well-developed sporting infrastructure. I just don't think Australia, Japan or Qatar can bring to the table what we can on the whole, no offense to those places.

And it is a pretty short hop from England as compared to the other three. Don't know who will win but I predict one English speaking country will, but not two. out of England, USA and Australia, one of those gets one of the tournaments, but just one, and that's my best guess (probably will be the Aussies).

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Nov 30, 2010

I can't see both the USA and England being hosts. FIFA would want at least one new country being a host. Hopefully not Australia. They're a small footballing nation and there are others that have not hosted and deserve it more.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Dec 1, 2010


the only other team bidding for the 2022 world cup who hasn't hosted before is Qatar - they are an even smaller nation than Australia and surely deseve it even less than them

at least Australia is a very sporting nation wnd has produced a fair few decent players in it's time

add comment | complain about this comment

Comment on this article

Sorry, you can only contribute to 606 during opening hours. These are 0900-2300 UK time, seven days a week, but may vary to accommodate sporting events and UK public holidays.


Rate Breakdown

  • 5 40.00%
    2 votes
  • 4 20.00%
    1 votes
  • 3
    0 votes
  • 2
    0 votes
  • 1 40.00%
    2 votes

average rating:
3.20 from 5 votes