Comments for en-gb 30 Tue 22 Jul 2014 23:09:12 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at Daveyboy Even though I said that Australia would be awarded 2018,i personally think it should go to England,because we really need it.Not from the perspective to boost tourism or any other financial gains(even though the financial crisis is packing punches left, right and centre) but from an inspirational perspective. its shocking the lack of young talent we have coming up the ranks.the youths have lost or failed to adopt their passion for their game..I know lately we have had a fine WC qualification but it hides the fact that we are still currently on decline when it comes to talent.younger people these days would rather just sit at home and watch the EPL or play fifa computer games,then go out there and give 110% at starting a career in football.england needs that morale boost,football is a big part of the culture here.people think we are arrogant always going on about how we want to win a world cup,the real reason is because people are desperate to see the glory days of 1966 , they want to rekindle the fire and explosive passion for the game we have lost over the years .a world cup in 2018 in england means much more to england than a 2018 WC in australia. Wed 04 Feb 2009 10:04:43 GMT+1 Burton As someone from North America (Canada), I think if the new US president Obama stands behind a 2018 World Cup bid then the chances of a successful American bid is highly likely.FIFA would like to promote football in the US and Canada with another World Cup event. In addition afternoon games in North America will be shown in Europe at TV evening prime time, generating higher ad revenues.There is no shortage of stadiums in the US. You could actually held a World Cup event in 4 separate regions of the US (East Coast, South, Mid-West, West Coast).England might be the historical home of football. But lacking in infrastructure to hold really big Sporting events. The list include the scarcity of modern large capacity stadiums, rundown state of local transportation systems & bottlenecks for International travelers to enter/exit England. It would interesting to see how the 2012 Olympics fared with smaller individual event venues. Tue 03 Feb 2009 22:07:14 GMT+1 Phil_Browns_shoe Do the football fans of the world want to interact in the greatest football infrastruture and history in the World? You bet they do...Do the FIFA want to interact in the greatest football infrastruture and history in the World? You bet they won't... Tue 03 Feb 2009 18:48:27 GMT+1 jamesgraysy bring em all on , footballs coming home in 2018. Tue 03 Feb 2009 18:29:13 GMT+1 PaulieNumbers As an American I'd love to have it here again and the atmosphere a second go around would be different. It's only been 15 years since we last had it, but the popularity has grown much since then. I still feel that fans from other nations with a stronger football tradition would find it still a bit lacking.England makes the most sense here because of the stadia and the fans, but I feel we're still being a bit narrow-sided. Just because you have the best stadia, transport links, and tradition doesn't make it a lock because it is the World Cup after all. I wouldn't be surprised if Australia got it since it'd be on a different continent than in the past in a nation with a football background. Tue 03 Feb 2009 17:34:08 GMT+1 TopClassCitizen - Its Hart-y Time Obviously the Manchester Stadium would be Old Trafford, however, couldn't there be a loophole to involve Eastlands? It's just we have such a great atmosphere there and would be a real shame to leave us out... Tue 03 Feb 2009 16:53:43 GMT+1 mike Looking at all the countries in the running, it is easy to pick 4 or 5 bids that stand a good chance.I feel Australia should host one of the two WC's. No doubt about that at all.Then the obvious strong candidates are England, Spain/Portugal, Russia and USA. I have to rule out the Belgium/Netherlands bid because they do not have the big stadiums. They did a great Euro Champs but the stadia are too small for a WC.To be honest I do not like joint bids. So I would not favor a Spain/Portugal bid. Spain is big enough to host the tournament on its own.Russia should host a WC! But Russia lacks stadia-beyond Moscow where will they host games. Anyone who has been to football in Russia will testify that the facilities are poor. There are many doubts I have about Russia, though I also feel they deserve a chance sometime.USA again I feel this would be their second WC in 30 years. Great stadia-they now have large solely football stadiums.Finally, England! One must feel they are really overdue this tournament. It is over 50 years since the WC was staged in England. The EPL is the highest standard and so are the stadiums. IMO that to pass over England again would be a huge snub. I believe it is time.My choices would be England and Australia! Tue 03 Feb 2009 16:35:05 GMT+1 philipjj England's to lose, but I think they might.Spain/Portugal may be a strong contender, but it's quite possible Benelux comes in as a dark horse. It's presenting itself as one administrative area, not two countries as reported. Though only two of the teams will automatically qualify.Great WC traditions but lack of stadiums may be an issue. Tue 03 Feb 2009 14:37:21 GMT+1 mweller Even though I'm American, I'd like to see England win the 2018 bid. I think Eruope should be the 2018 host, and personally think it's a travesty that England hasn't hosted for so long--the infrastructure, fan support, and history should be all taken into account; and from that perspective I'd cast my lot with England.I'd of course like for the US to host again--but would agree it's too soon now--but perhaps not for 2022. Logistically we have solid infrastructure--all 32 american football stadiums are all seaters, smallest I think around 55,000. Two (counting Dallas' new stadium to open this year) I know are 85,000+. Also, I believe the '94 WC holds attendence records. What we do lack is footballing tradition, but it is growing in popularity.That said, I doubt the bids would go back to back to English speaking nations for some of the political reasons mentioned before--so I doubt there's a chance for any combination of Canada/England/US/Australia for 2018-2022.So, I suspect it will be England/Spain/Russia for 2018, and Japan/Qatar/Indonesia for 2022. Hopefully, from my perspective, US in 2026. Tue 03 Feb 2009 14:12:58 GMT+1 alibob007 One thing to remember when considering stadia that I read somewhere is that only one city in the host country can use 2 stadiums. So that would mean -London - Wembley & EmiratesBirmingham - Villa ParkManchester - Old TraffordLiverpool - New Goodison or AnfieldNewcastle - St JamesSunderland - Stadium of LightNeed a minimum of 8, so where else? Poss redevelop Elland Road, Hillsborough, a new Bristol stadium, Hull etc. Would never be able to use Cardiff, Glasgow etc for obvious reasons. Tue 03 Feb 2009 14:12:25 GMT+1 OneDayRemains The FIFA regulations say that no more than 2 stadia can be within the same city and that no more than 2 cities can have 2 stadia. You need 10 stadia to host a World Cup, therefore there is a minimum of 8 cities.Spain alone would be a good bid, and FIFA may wish to give it to them on the premise that they fight racism strongly. They would have the cities to do that, a federal structure guarantees medium sized cities in many places: Madrid (two stadia), Barcelona (two stadia), Valencia, Sevilla, Zaragoza, Bilbao, La Coruña and Santander would be a strong list. Places like Vigo, Murcia, Mallorca, Malaga and Pampalona would be unlucky to miss out.Then you look at Britain, you could have two stadia in London (Wembley and the Emirates/redeveloped White Hart Lane/Stamford Bridge/Twickenham), two in Manchester, Anfield, Villa Park, St James Park, Nottingham (City Ground), Southampton/Portsmouth and Plymouth. Those cover the country well, and although a couple might not be used at full capacity again, they could always be rolled back to 30,000 seat stadia like a couple of the stadia in Germany were. The problem with England is that there are several cities with more than one stadium, so although there are plenty of useable stadia, many are within the same city as others. There are other choices like Elland Road, Hillsborough, and The Stadium of Light, but you have to be careful not to concentrate the tournament too much in one part of the country.I actually think a home nations bid would work best if the joint bids weren't so hated by FIFA. There may be 4 FIFA nations, but a broad agreement wouldn't be difficult between governments, there isn't a language barrier per se like there is between Spain and Portugal, the Netherlands and most of Belgium and so on. That way you could add Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dublin, Belfast and Cardiff to the list of potential hosts and the bid becomes a lot stronger. Tue 03 Feb 2009 13:57:58 GMT+1 HuddUniBoroFan Is it just me or is there a rule that states that only one city from a host nation can have two stadia? That pretty much rules out alot of countries, especially Russia who only have a few massively populated cities and the rest of the population is spread out across smaller areas? This would be a logistical nightmare. Australia and the USA provide our biggest threats, as stated by many people above joint bids are discouraged, and Spain has a big racism problem which isnt exactly a great marketing tool. Portugal had Euro 2004, Holland/Belgium 2000. ^^ unounos is right when they say that Australia does in fact have a host of great cities and so does the US but they had it in 94 and probably won't get it again. Considering Australia would have to build the stadia they should be awarded 2022- I have no doubt that they will host a brilliant world cup, but England are the best short term bet for 2018. There are stadiums all over the country in different cities that could hold matches.Wembly (London)Emirates (London)Old Trafford (Manchester)New Anfield (Liverpool)Villa Park (Birmingham)St James Park (Newcastle)Stadium of Light (Sunderland)Riverside (Middlesbrough)KC Stadium (Hull) (I think it has over 30,000 seats?)City Ground (Nottingham) With these stadiums put forward and the ease of getting to each of them apparent only a monumental cock up would stop the Cup coming back home where it belongs. Tue 03 Feb 2009 13:56:30 GMT+1 Kubali Australia? Do they have enough big stadia in enough cities to host a 32 team world cup?Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide. Canberra, Brisbane? Maybe Melbourne and Sydney double up? Australia of course have a great sporting infrastructure but not sure if they do for a football world cup which requires a large number of big venues in multiple cities. Tue 03 Feb 2009 10:59:29 GMT+1 NeilS Why should closeness to the Olympics be a hindrance?In 74 W. Germany hosted the WC just 2 years after the Munich Olympics, in 94 the USA held it when they had held the Olympics in 84 and 96.The infrastructure and logistics employed for 2012 should be regarded as a benefit to the 2018 bid - so long as it doesn't snow! ;-) Tue 03 Feb 2009 10:22:41 GMT+1 Daveyboy ok heres my take on it.who are Englands competitors for 2012?Russia is off the list.they have not done enough to tackle racism and this would harm the competitiveness of African nations.same goes for spain.joint bids will be many logistical problems of having two country's organise a world cup.portugal/spainbelgium/holand off the listthat leaves us withIndonesiaQatarUSAMexicoAustraliajapanindonesia-political stability the listbrazil will host no point in having mexico host the next one geographically too close..same goes for USAQuatar sure do have the money..but arabs need to realise football isnt just about the atmosphere in a middle eastern country will be oppressive to supporters plus security will be an issue.japan+south korea just organised 2002..too soon.finally we are down to Australia.thats are only real competitor for 2012cool down on the drama Mihir Bose..lolengland sure do have a challenge ..the only obstacle we have is the 2012 olympic games..two major tournaments in a small time as much as i would hate to admit it..2018 is going for australia...england will get 2022. Tue 03 Feb 2009 00:00:11 GMT+1 ColognePaul As a fervant England fan I hope very much that we DO NOT win the bid! Staging the tournament means automatic qualification. That may sound good but it condemns the host country to two years without a single meaningful game of football instead of the thrills of a qualification round.I prefer to see England fight for qualification, and if they make it, I enjoy the tournament as a bonus. Mon 02 Feb 2009 09:49:53 GMT+1 Joe Lewis Given the farcical nature of the 2006 bid I sincerely hope that none of those morons involved are trying to help us achieve future events?I liked the idea of non-football playing nations hosting the World Cup initially but think that the sport should be given to the people where football is a real passion in the home country.One thing that makes me laugh though is the involvement of the Premier League officials - these guys are only ever supportive of international football when it suits them. In fact I very much doubt they really have any time for it at all. Sat 31 Jan 2009 11:44:50 GMT+1 jonesstrikesback Who cares where it goes? Its the world cup. As long as I can watch the football. Or travel easily to the venue - I don't care. Spain and Portugal would appeal to me. I think the best chance of England getting the bid would be a joint process with England and Wales and Scotland. But then Blatter doesn't want joint bids?!?!?!? So where does this leave the SPA PORT bid? he's obviously on the take for a new car or something. How come blatter doesn't like to be addressed by anything other than President? Till there is regulation of the worlds governing bodies. It'll be the biggest briber who gets the games. Here's to hoping Blatter goes chicken oriental before he can sink his hands teeth into this one. Fri 30 Jan 2009 18:29:21 GMT+1 diqiqa England might be an easy place to hold a world cup, the stadiums are in place (even if they are all idendikit affairs modelled on the nearest Ikea) as is the infrastructure but it would contribute very little to an exciting or unique world cup. Euro 2006 saw empty stadiums for almost all matches except those involving England and Scotland. If most games in the premiership are half empty and devoid of any atmosphere what hope is there for Iran versus Japan? Spain, Russia, Holland etc may not have stadiums of the quality of England but without a doubt they can offer much better atmosphere and passion. Fri 30 Jan 2009 15:29:11 GMT+1 HEED3625 Post 23What are you going on about???? Join the EURO and have friends again!How does becoming a puppet of europe help our chances? It'l just give them more powers over us then we will not only never host a world cup again but not be aloud to try to host one!Why do people think we should suck up to people to get things? Its the constant begging and grovelling that keeps the voting 'political' and not about the bidWe should stand up tell them what our bid is show them why its the best then tell them if they like it vote for it if not don't but not to expect us to chase after people for the votes! Fri 30 Jan 2009 13:30:04 GMT+1 Xavierneville In Most sporting fields England are disliked, and disliked quite heavily. As such we have struggled massively to hold world events; Olympics, World Cup, World Championships, Euro's etc. We only get the Rugby and Cricket jamborrees becuase of the limited participation and lack of countries able to stage such an event.This country has little popular support amongst the world especially Europe. Only when we become more liked amongst the worlds community will we find the friends to win bids.... Fri 30 Jan 2009 09:12:52 GMT+1 Charlie For those who are interested in learning more about how bidding for a WC works the following 2 books should be of great interest: - How they stole the game, David Yallop- Foul!, Andrew JenningsAlso, I would recommend investigating the travel and attendance schedules of the British Olympic committee during the bid process for 2012, the process is very similarShould England win it? Possibly. Will we win, it all depends on how hard we work at it Fri 30 Jan 2009 08:40:44 GMT+1 Eddie Patton Do your research - you neglected to mention the fact that Australia is bidding to host the World Cup in 2018. They may have no chance of getting it but they may be in with a shout for 2022. As for Mr Dempsey's abstention - brave? Pathetic. No country has the divine right to host the Tournament, even England despite its stadiums, infrastructure and fans who are passionate about football, the same passionate fans who couldn't be arsed to go to the Euro '96 semi-final at Old Trafford. Lets face it the winner of the bid will be the country who greases the palms of the most executives. Isn't Sepp Blatter and a number of his cronies under investigation? Finally, CONGRATULATIONS to Lansdowne Road and the Irish for winning the bid to host the 2011 Euro League Final, a massive coup. Maybe the English bidding committee could ask them how they did it? Fri 30 Jan 2009 05:27:08 GMT+1 Arnie_Aardvark The Spain/Portugal and Netherlands/Belgium bids are likely to be ruled out as Sepp Blatter said after the Japan/South Korea World Cup that joint bids would no longer be accepted. Fri 30 Jan 2009 00:57:29 GMT+1 DarronGibbo_MUFC I dont think we have much chance when Blatter & Platini are always out against us. Thu 29 Jan 2009 22:23:05 GMT+1 GodsSon83 This is to the moderater, i thought this was a counrty of freewill, and speach. I m allowed to say i think fifa is corrupt, its what i believe. Now your censoring me for having a opinion on a corparation,that i believe have delagates whom have recieved money for votes. This is the same corp that would only sanction products of its sponsers in germany 2006. Its it any wonder South Africa 2010. But England havent held a world cup for over 50 years HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Not impressed BBC Thu 29 Jan 2009 18:10:59 GMT+1 jamesgraysy the problem is the fa burned all their bridges when they double crossed the germans when bidding for the last world cup. on the other hand i cant see japan, qatar or indonesea getting it, holland and belgium didnt exactly do a great job of handling the crouds at euro2000 and finaly the last time russia hosted a major sporting event hardly anyone turned up, so in my opinion our closest rivals are spain and portugal Thu 29 Jan 2009 15:58:31 GMT+1 RubberNutz History has shown that hosting the Olypics has no bearing on whether or not the world cup is awarded...China has just hosted an Olympics on the back of the womens world cup.The USA hosted an Olympics 2 years after hosting a world cup in 1994In 1972, West Germany hosted an Olympics, 2 years later they had the world cup.London 2012 will not have a strong bearing on the result. Thu 29 Jan 2009 15:45:53 GMT+1 radiohead The winning bid for 2018 & 2022 require 12 stadiums seating 40,000+, including one of 80,000 for the final. This rules out bids from just about every country, even Italy would struggle for meet such criteria. FIFA need to be realistic with the bid requirements and stop forcing countries into building huge stadiums that will be useless afterwards. At least footbal clubs in England can usually fill their stadiums on a regular basis.I have an idea which would appeal to FIFA. Since FIFA are only concerned about the corporate customer and not the real fans, then just hold the 2018 Europe wide. FIFA don't care that fans have to pay huge travel costs to follow their team from city to city. Thu 29 Jan 2009 15:23:29 GMT+1 RANDALL_KEITH_ORTON Personally I don't think we'll get to host it as Michele (I hate the English) Platini has too much influence within football to allow us to host it. If I had my way we'd pull out of Uefa and Fifa and get on with governing football ourselves. Thu 29 Jan 2009 14:57:33 GMT+1 RANDALL_KEITH_ORTON If England aren't granted the World Cup in 2018 then somethings severly wrong with the football world. We have the best fans, stadia, tollerance of other nations and the Queen! Thu 29 Jan 2009 14:51:19 GMT+1 Joe G This post has been Removed Thu 29 Jan 2009 14:41:26 GMT+1 chivasbeard "England invented the sport and won't have held the World Cup for over 50 years by then, it's a no brainer! England should demand to host it!"... or we should take our ball back!Doesn't any Home country bid automatically fail due to other fifa members disdain for us having the anachronism of 4 permanent votes on t' commitee (or something like that -Eng, Sco, Wal, N.I).Also I'd have thought the EPL, far from being an ace up our sleeve, is just a cause of resentment due to it's worldwide onslaught and threat to fifa's power. Thu 29 Jan 2009 14:28:36 GMT+1 silentbob84 @ #7'I dont think England will get the two biggest sports tournaments in the world within a space of six years.'And the USA didnt host the world cup in '94 and the Olympics in '96?! Thu 29 Jan 2009 14:13:57 GMT+1 GodsSon83 This post has been Removed Thu 29 Jan 2009 14:02:12 GMT+1 RANDALL_KEITH_ORTON England invented the sport and won't have held the World Cup for over 50 years by then, it's a no brainer! England should demand to host it! Thu 29 Jan 2009 13:18:27 GMT+1 cal_mac Anybody advocating Sir Dave Richards to be given any sort of role of any responsibility is obviously forgetting the way he ran Sheffield Wednesday into the ground. The main highlight is probably lumbering them with a massive debt to expand Hillsborough - which never needed expanding - so that they could host Euro 96, and so Richards could weedle his way in with the powers that be, ultimately leaving Wednesday a matter of months before we were relagated from the Premiership. The club are still suffering from the debt, and quite frankly I find it amazing that such an abysmal club chairman was ever elected Chairman of the Premioer League.In terms of the World Cup bid, I would love to see England get it. But then again, it'll all come down to politics probably. I'd like to think that after 2 consecutive non-European tournemants it'll come back to Europe. However, one feels that Blatter & his cronies will simply take it where they can get the most money Thu 29 Jan 2009 13:03:07 GMT+1 Eddie Robson I agree with all those saying we've got the stadia to stage a really good World Cup. I didn't begrudge Austria and Switzerland getting the Euros, but I still felt a bit disappointed to see matches like Holland v Italy taking place at 30,000 capacity stadia. If that game had been staged at Old Trafford, you could sell the place out. It was bizarre to see the entire knock-out round at the Euros taking place at just two stadia, because they were the only 40,000 capacity stadia available.Also, the high level of interest in last summer's tournament confirms how many interested neutrals we have. I for one would love to go to a World Cup match here, I wouldn't mind who the teams were. Thu 29 Jan 2009 12:23:39 GMT+1 Bald and Proud Is it just me or does the whole World Cup bidding system remind anybody else of the Euro-vision voting system whereby neighboring countries vote for each other?If, and this a big if, the voting members are taking into consideration factors such as quality of stadia, ease of transport etc than surely no other country can match an English bid at the minute? Old Trafford, New Anfield (providing of course it is built in time!), Emirates, Eastlands, St James' Park, Stadium of light, Villa Park and of course New Wembley are all top quality venues with decent, if not spectacular transport links. We have Europe's busiest Airport in Heathrow not to mention the other airports around the country, by 2018 we will have a re-vamped transport system in London too. How can any other country compete? If England still has the stigma of hooliganism attached then surely Russia and especially Spain should be worried about their reputation for racism and crowd violence.If the world cup hosts are decided on purely football matters then no-one can compete with England, however if the decision is based on out-dated stereotypes and political aims then i am afraid England won't hold a World Cup for decades. Thu 29 Jan 2009 12:07:43 GMT+1 mcswegan England will never get the World Cup because most other nations hate us and think the premier league is ruining football due to the wealth of the clubs and the way it inflates global transfer fees/wages Thu 29 Jan 2009 12:01:13 GMT+1 Crazy Paving Euro 96 was a huge success, we showed we have the infrastructure and support to make any major tournement a success. We haven't hosted the tournement since 1966, Germany have had it twice since (1974, 2006), as have Mexico (1970, 1986). Agreed, it has been a long time since Mexico had it, but not as long as us. Russia logistically would be a nightmare, huge distances, questionable infrastructure and the race issue.Spain/Portugal, well Portugal have had their recent chance and Spain alone could be a competitor, but again, race rears it's head. FIFA say it's unacceptable, now is their chance to show that.The USA have a cheek, it's NOT a football country and they had it in 1994. As for the rest, well, you can't blame them for trying, but have they really got the credibility?England deserves the World Cup, but I can see FIFA discriminating against us again. Thu 29 Jan 2009 11:53:53 GMT+1 11th Heaven...Giggs I can't help but think that none of the other bids have as much 'pulling power' as England's. Surely, as others have noted, Russia and Spain's recent brushes with the sour aspect of racism should be enough to dispose with their bid.This is Fifa, however, and as such, they have to consider each bid. Personally, I don't see Holland and Belgium as having the necessary infastructure to cope with such a competition yet. With Russia's current problems with homeless and the vast divide in wealth, can you really see Fifa aiding them with funds to build stadia? The problem is, I can.Looking at it rationally, England should be the favourite. They will already have the infastructure present from the 2012 Olympics, so it will be a cheaper bid than most. They already have the stadia, with 9 years to improve them.Yes, Portugal and Spain have a good chance, but with Spain currently tainted, I would have thought it reasonable to expect Fifa would make a sensible choice, and that choice is England. Thu 29 Jan 2009 11:47:49 GMT+1 Mascherano To Post 12:Germany won the hosting rights to the last World Cup thanks to a very brave piece of voting by Charlie Dempsey - former FIFA Exec member for Oceania.He recognised the myriad problems associated with hosting a tournament of such scale in South Africa and did not vote for them, despite his 'constituency' asking him to.Unfortunately Mr Dempsey cannot help us this time - he recently passed away.Blatter hides behind his 24-man Executive but ultimately he will decide where the World Cup goes. Thu 29 Jan 2009 11:31:05 GMT+1 U11846789 England has lost friends because of it's continual toadying to the USA under Bush.Bush became the equivalent of a leper. Politically speaking.Now he's gone. But the damage of being so firmly associated with him will linger on.Join the Euro, England, and then you'll get the WC in 2018... Thu 29 Jan 2009 11:16:31 GMT+1 BCChris Your right Mihir, it has nothing to do with quality of stadiums or football of the country. Look at the South Africa bid! they dont even have the stadiums prepared! As with the 2012 London bid, we did not even have the stadium ready, or the other facilities. So its not what you have to offer, its what you say you can have in place and how you say it. Getting the 2012 olympics was an amazing shock, considering the facilities Paris has in place to host such an event. Now lets keep our fingers crossed and hope that they do this right. Hosting a world cup would realy bring this country together as one powerful and united unit, it would be magic and its realy what this country needs right now.Anyway Mihir this was a very interesting blog and you have enlightened me on a lot of stuff i did not know about this, cheers Thu 29 Jan 2009 11:02:28 GMT+1 rchrdav As long as Platini is at UEFA and Blatter is at FIFA we will never get any competition here, they both have an anti england stance. Thu 29 Jan 2009 10:46:18 GMT+1 Joe Hesketh Good job with the blog Mihir,dutchfinest, while it probably would seem a little unfair for England / Britain to host two massive sporting events in a short period, we can't forget USA hosted the World Cup & Olympics in the space of two years!Personally I would love to see the World Cup come to England (a very biased opinion but there you go), as by then it would have been 22 years since we had hosted a football tournament of any description, and the opportunity to see the best footballers in the world grace our shores for the first time in over 50 years would be brilliant.It's obvious that politics are going to play a massive role, and really it's too early to start wondering how people are going to vote just yet - but I really feel if we play to our strengths about having the strongest leagues, the best modern stadia and hopefully by 2018 some of the best facilities in the world, then we should be the favourites to win our bid.JH Thu 29 Jan 2009 10:09:29 GMT+1 monkeyfeet31 I agree that it would be great for England to host the world cup, but I honestly can't see it. I think FIFA want to spread the game to the far corners of the earth, rather than take it to an already established footballing country (especially one which sees some of the worlds best footballers play every week.... and Titus Bramble). Although Euro '96 was a fantastic success, does anyone else remember that the ticket pricing was all wrong, and as a result a large proportion of the group games were played in half empty stadia. Thu 29 Jan 2009 09:21:58 GMT+1 TeamShrek I'd be extremely surprised if the 2018 bid doesn't go to Europe; Australia would make three southern hemisphere cups in a row, and unlike South Africa, the time delay makes matches unappealing for the Europeans and Americans (Asia is largely used to European game times, mainly thanks to the Premier League). Within Europe it has to be England or Spain/Portugal; Holland/Belgium (no offence) lacks glamour, and Russia presents a lot of logistical issues; the visa situation would have to be radically overhauled, and unless they only have games in Moscow and St.Petersburg, the transport infrastructure doesn't have a hope. Between England and Iberia its a very close call, they both "deserve" it, and both have the infrastructure and pedigree for global appeal, but you're right in your analysis; leveraging the Premiership is key for England; all those Asian audiences have far more recognition of Old Trafford and The Emirates than the Nou Camp or the Bernabeu, and the FA are idiots if they don't get the Prem actively involved in the bid. Thu 29 Jan 2009 09:08:43 GMT+1 hackerjack The number and make up of the countries bidding is rather stupid if you ask me.The USA and Japan have both had world cups in the last 30 years so should be excluded. Netherlands/Belguim and Portugal/Spain should be removed for the same reason regarding the Euros. A seperate Spanish bid would be acceptable.Indonesia are wasting everbodies time with a big, Qatar could probably pull it off but they wont get the vote quite yet, same goes for China and Canada.Of the bidders (or potential bidders) so far, for me only England, Russia and Mexico should be considered.For me it needs to be Europe in 2018 and Mexico in 2022, leavign the path clear for a flood of Asian bids (China, Qatar, UAE, Japan & possibly India) in 2026. Thu 29 Jan 2009 09:08:39 GMT+1 rjaggar This bid should be technically excellent.The welcome we have given to players from all over the world in the Premier League and below should hold us in good stead.But dirty deeds are dirty deeds, so this bid needs to be about winning 2-1 on a filthy January night in Wigan, not stroking the ball around gently on a warm summer's day as the opposition all admire our pretty play thinking of their appearance fee and the night ahead on the dance floor.There's an art to winning football matches on filthy nights. Hopefully the bid team will contain those who thrive under such conditions? Thu 29 Jan 2009 09:05:45 GMT+1 tarquin How dull Mihir, not allowing us to think about who has the best stadiums, teams, fans and facilities - oh wellAs for politics, what annoys me is FIFA introduce these new rules for only 1 or 2 world cups - such as the 'no joint hosting' rule, introduced in 2004, the rotation rule, which only lasted for the 10 and 14 cups, was to give Africa a tournament (why not just choose the continent rather than create a system only to abandon it after 2/5 of its rotation?)Very infuriating, Europe and South America are the traditional hosts and 2018 will have been the longest Europe have ever gone without a cup - before people jump on me for being unfair bear in mind that Europe has the most eligible countries, the biggest following, and the biggest clubs, as well as the most developed infrastructure - while places like North America only have 3 countries capable of hostingAs for the European bids - the Spanish bid is a joke, how can they host two cups after we've hosted our only one? Spain had it in 82, and Portugal had the Euros only 5 years ago - oh and will FIFA ignore the several incidents of racism that have come out of internationals played in Spain? Surely FIFA's anti-racism campaign should be serious enough in their eyes to not consider a country like thatI like the idea of it going to somewhere like Australia tho, either there or China would provide the same logistical difficulties and it seems fair Asia should get a cup (Oz is in the Asian fed now) - and Australia is still emerging as a football nation, be good for them, but maybe in 2022... after usAnyway I'll let FIFA get on with what someone rightly called eurovision style voting, utter joke Thu 29 Jan 2009 04:44:38 GMT+1 iroberts89 By 2016, England will have Old Trafford, Wembley, the Emirates, St James' Park, Stamford Bridge, Villa Park and at the very least Anfield and Goodison Park, which may well be two new 60,000 seater stadiums instead. Noone else in europe can match that surely? added to the fact that london is the hub for flights from just about anywhere to europe, and new transport links in place for the olympics, england surely has to be MILES ahead of the competition already? We have 8 usable stadiums all over 40,000 seats already; might we be able to use hampden, celtic park, ibrox, the millenium stadium and even twickenham? (Im sure the RFU wouldnt mind some more money, especially from football) and over half of those stadia should be over 60,000 by 2018. There is a huge fan base, so there won't be empty stadiums. Despite our complaints, Im pretty sure our infrastructure is a lot better than south africa's, so that shouldnt be an issue, and england is leading the charge with regard to stamping out racism and respect to referees. Oh hang on, Platini hates the FA doesnt he...oh well forget it, since the whole of europe will no doubt hate us as a result Thu 29 Jan 2009 00:20:34 GMT+1 TerrierChad Chances are the tournament will be held is Europe as both South Africa and Brazil are consider somewhat risky in terms of organising and the traditional European football nations will be considered safe options.Although joint bids are again allowed I don't believe that they are looked on with favour which could be a problem for the Portugal/Spain and Belgium/Netherlands bid. As people have already noted, hopefully, FIFA will take note of the severe racial issues parts of Russia and Spain have.England have an advantage due to the fact that most of the stadiums will be up to standard regardless of the World Cup so there should be no worries over building. England's only problem could be organising and coordinating the bid. Please take note of the Olympic bid. Thu 29 Jan 2009 00:00:55 GMT+1 Tacalabala Surely we need to be doing whatever Germany did to beat South Africa for 2006, because THAT was an absolute steal.People should remember this is FIFA, any concept of fairplay and honour is thrown out in the FIFA committee, and Blatter only cares for his own power - this is a tough negogiation. Wed 28 Jan 2009 23:29:44 GMT+1 1950 England will have excellent stadiums by 2018 Wed 28 Jan 2009 22:44:53 GMT+1 FabregasInDisguise its got to be england . Simple. What do the other countries have that we dont ? If people are on about hooligans in England , Russians national champions fans wont let the manager sign black players so what does that say ? Spain had a euro's not too long ago.Not a world cup since 1966 , its madness. The Dutch-Belgium bid doesnt appeal either , small countries so less travelling is a positive , but Englands not exactly huge is it. The lesser powerful countries of football e.g Qatar , Japan, U.S.A; yes it would be good for them to have a World Cup and maybe it would help them grow as footballing nations but shouldnt FIFA go with a country whose first sport is football , so the fans are there , the stadiums are defitinly there. I just hope this dislikin of England is put a side and comment sense comes through.Sorry for the rambling if anyone bothered to read haha i just really hope to see a world cup here before I die , I am 18 so thats a bit pessimistic thinking i know. Wed 28 Jan 2009 22:40:38 GMT+1 Jack I think it would be unfair to award the World Cup to Holland/Belgium as they had the Euros not long ago. Ditto with a combined Portugal/Spain bid, although I do feel on it's own Spain would be a reasonable contender. Wed 28 Jan 2009 22:35:04 GMT+1 astrobenja If this vote is going political, all England supporters should make a strong and vocal case against any sort of Spanish hosting. Why? Let's compare and contrast the two countries attitudes to punishing racism. In England, the possibility of racist chanting in the recent game between Spurs and Pompey was highlighted across the media for the week preceeding the game. As a result, the fans respected the game and the player (Sol).In Spain, recent fines for persistant booing of black players, and monkey chants elsewhere, were handed to four clubs. At that same hearing, a snowball attack on an opposition keeper recieved a larger fine.It's up to our media now to unermine the competition. Wed 28 Jan 2009 22:32:04 GMT+1 dutchfinest well, since I'm Dutch, I'm ofcourse hoping that the World Cup comes to Holland!I think it will be tough for England to get the 2018 World Cup, since they already have the olympics of 2012. I dont think England will get the two biggest sports tournaments in the world within a space of six years. I also have my doubts about Belgium and Holland, though. If we want to bring the World Cup to our country we will have to build about ten new stadiums large enough for the event. The huge traffic problems in Holland could also lead to some difficulties.Spain and Portugal seem like the best competitors, maybe as a reward for the Spanish winning Euro 2008. They also have all the stadiums already there.Russia seems unlikely in regard to travelling distances, but who would have thought that South-Africa would host the World Cup? Wed 28 Jan 2009 21:19:49 GMT+1 Black and White and Ram All Over! Just as Spain and Portugal may get some South American votes does that mean we'll get some of our old colonial votes too?If Australia, NZ, USA, Canada et al are all out of the running would they vote for us? Wed 28 Jan 2009 20:17:16 GMT+1 Lexden66 Forget all of these competitors, its going to go to Dubai or Abu Dhabi if they choose to run for it!!!!!!!!! Wed 28 Jan 2009 20:06:28 GMT+1 Kahuru1 All is true, but I think England should also try to get all of Africa's four votes ... if played properly this should be England's bid to lose. Wed 28 Jan 2009 19:34:55 GMT+1 andie99uk Its a bit like Eurovision, but the world gets its chance to do political block voting.I am nearly 40 & dont think I will ever see a World cup in England during my lifetime. we still seem to have a certain stigma about our stadia and hooligans that dosent want to go away. Wed 28 Jan 2009 19:27:08 GMT+1 Jordan D FIFA is one arena where Politics matter, and Mihir you are right to talk about it.Who are the other members of the FIFA Exec and how many will term expire by Dec 2010? Wed 28 Jan 2009 19:12:08 GMT+1 giggysbaby This post has been Removed Wed 28 Jan 2009 18:51:18 GMT+1