World Cup 2018/2022 Decision to be made

5starpool

The decision for who will host these events is to be made Thursday 2nd December.

The bidders are:

2018
England
Spain/Portugal
Russia
Belgium/Holland

2022
USA
Australia
Japan
Qatar
South Korea

Who would you like to see get these events? There have been many allegations of vote rigging, etc, especially some speculation of a voting pact between Spani/Portugal and Qatar, even though this is obviously against the rules. Qatar would surely be a disaster though. All games played in the middle east in the middle of summer.

I care a bit less about the 2018 one as it will all be European time centred, but due to the time difference issue only I would prefer the 2022 bid to be won by the States, although I don't know if they are likely to or not. Another factor for 2018 though is that if it is joint European hosts, then that will be one less European place for qualification, so England/Russia might be better from that POV, as well as England benig much easier to get to for matches, etc if we are there.

So, thoughts? Gossip about who is likely to get it?

etc, etc.

p.s. sorry if there was a thread about this, I looked on the first 3 pages and couldn't see one.

GavRedKing

My money would be on England 2018 and 2022 im not to sure about really.

Id like to see England get it, they have the stadium and training facilities, according to reports the commitee are worried about transport and hotels for the fans, which im sure they can get sorted, so England would get my vote.

2022 could go to one of many countries, Id like either to go to USA or Australia.

Frisbee

5starpool wrote: »

2018
England
Spain/Portugal
Russia
Belgium/Holland

2022
USA
Australia
Japan
Qatar
South Korea

Order I'd like to see them in.

2018
England
Spain/Portugal
Belgiun/Holland
Russia

2022
USA
Australia
Japan or South Korea
Qatar

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

I hope England get the 2018 bid so I'll be able to attend a good few of the games. If not, then Russia.
I hope Qatar get the 2022 bid. Apparently all the stadiums would be air-conditioned to a relatively low temperature. I think it would be amazing going to the middle-east anyways, and for a WC it would be that bit more special. I dont really mind who else would get it tbh...

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Link for the WC bids, briefly explaining the AC thing in Qatar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_and_2022_FIFA_World_Cup_bids#Qatar

Some concerns with Qatar's bid deal with the extreme temperatures.[74] The World Cup is always held in the European off-season in June and July, and during this period the average daytime high in most of Qatar is in excess of 40°C (104°F), with the average daily low temperatures not dropping below 30°C (86°F).[75] Sheikh Mohammed bin Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, the 2022 Qatar bid chairman, responded saying "the event has to be organized in June or July. We will have to take the help of technology to counter the harsh weather. We have already set in motion the process. A stadium with controlled temperature is the answer to the problem. We have other plans up our sleeves as well."[76] The first five proposed stadiums are planned to employ cooling technology capable of reducing temperatures within the stadium by up to 20 degrees Celsius. Additionally, the upper tiers of the stadiums will be disassembled after the World Cup and donated to countries with less developed sports infrastructure.

5starpool

To be honest, I think there are loads of drawbacks to the Qatar bid from a fans point of view. They say they would allow Israel to compete (big of them) and allow alcohol in designated fan areas, but this is not good enough, never mind the fact that we like to see bouncy women during crowd sweeps, even if they are publicity stunts like the Paraguay woman/mobile phone one apparantly was.

Xavi6

The general consensus in this part of the world is that Australia are favourites for 2022.

Be super if we did get it.

MR NINE

Up until last summer I would have been in favour of new hosts such as Belgium, Russia and Qatar winning out but after South Africa my mind has changed. Keep it safe, reliable and unadventorous.

2018:

I hope Russia don't get it (purely for time difference reasons). I'd like to see England get it coz I reckon they'd host a good WC. However, I also think it'd be a good laugh watching Sky/the general english medias reaction if Englands bid didn't win so I don't really mind. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Englands gutter newspapers cost them the WC (hosting it, not winning it). On a side note why didn't Spain put together a solo bid, surely they have the stadiums, facilities etc for it.

2022:

Don't want to see Japan, Qatar or South Korea host it. Japan and South Korea hosted fairly recently and I though a lot of the games lacked atmosphere. Also, as an Italy fan, I'm still smarting at the amount of ridiculous decision that went in favour of the Koreans throughout the tournament. I can't see Qatar hosting a good World Cup. I guess I'd prefer USA to Australia, it'd be hell trying to watch the matches during an Aussie World Cup.

Dempsey

I think all bar the Russian bid would be a good choice for hosting the 2018, the visa restrictions and drinking culture there would make for a very dull tournament from a travelling fan's point of view. Weather has the potential to be really crap. England would be easiest for Irish fans but Spain/Portugal or Belgium/Holland would be just as good if not better to travel to.

Definately like to see Australia get the 2022 but since USA has a bigger population, FIFA would rather give it to them i reckon. Money talks and all that.

Dont be at yourself

I'd like Holland/Belgium or Spain/Portugal for 2018. Holland/Belgium would be great craic. Normal weather, great beer, nice people...

And for selfish reasons, I'd like Japan 2022.

UnitedIrishman

England or Spain/Portugal for 2018.

USA/Austraila for 2022 - possibly the latter just edging it.

gimmick

An Aussie world cup will never happen Id say due to the fact that most of the TV market and advertising money will be in Europe. Who the hell is going to watch matches at 3am etc?

I think England will get the 2018 tourny, and would not mind seeing The States get 2022.

Xavi6

gimmick wrote: »

An Aussie world cup will never happen Id say due to the fact that most of the TV market and advertising money will be in Europe. Who the hell is going to watch matches at 3am etc?

There wouldn't be any matches at 3am. We're ahead. The earliest kick offs would be about 7am but most would be lunch time.

No different to 2002.

gimmick

Fair enough, but 2002 was a complete pain in the hole as well.

Xavi6

gimmick wrote: »

Fair enough, but 2002 was a complete pain in the hole as well.

Well it would be worse in the US considering an 8pm kick off over there would be about 2am Irish time.

You can't say you'd prefer the US over Australia based on time difference.

Fr Tod Umptious

Xavi6 wrote: »

Well it would be worse in the US considering an 8pm kick off over there would be about 2am Irish time.

You can't say you'd prefer the US over Australia based on time difference.

Well there are a number of subtleties that would mean that the USA would be a better time zone option.

All but two Australian host cities are in the AEST time zone, thus meaning a Irish summer time difference of 9hrs.

USA has 9 of its potential cities on the east coast, thus a 5 hr time difference between USA and Ireland.

In the last few World Cups games have usually been on at 1pm, 5pm and 8pm local time.
So for Irish viewers the majority of games in an Australian WC would be at 4am, 8am and 11am
For us USA WC games would be at 6pm, 10pm and 1am.

Also the US TV market is skewed very much in favor of it’s East Coast, therefore there may even be a situation where all games are 1pm, 5pm and 8pm Eastern Time rather than Pacific time

Give me 6pm, 10pm and 1am any day over 4am, 8am and 11am

Mr.Nice Guy

Spain/Portugal could do with it seeing as their economies are supposedly close to going pear shaped like our one. England would be a good host too and they're local so that would make seeing matches a good possibility. The downside is the '66 references would go into overdrive.

I'd like Australia to get the 2022 one. I think they would appreciate it more than the Americans (generalisation I know).

Diabhal Beag

gimmick wrote: »

An Aussie world cup will never happen Id say due to the fact that most of the TV market and advertising money will be in Europe. Who the hell is going to watch matches at 3am etc?

I think England will get the 2018 tourny, and would not mind seeing The States get 2022.

There were no problems for the Australia World Cup in rugby. Doubt it will be a problem for soccer.

Hope England get the 2018 WC. Would be even sweeter if by then Ireland were in a World Cup by 2018.

flahavaj

Hope the English get it. It might even be good for our economy with teams/media using Ireland as a pre-tournament base etc.

8-10

England 2018 and USA 2022 are both very attractive options to me, I'll be happy as long as one of these turns to reality.

Pal

I think it will be Russia and USA

Outsider Qatar ridiculous but possible.
Australia is just a stupid idea.

Dempsey

Pal wrote: »

I think it will be Russia and USA

Outsider Qatar ridiculous but possible.
Australia is just a stupid idea.

You think Qatar is better bid than Australia? I'd say you dont know much about what you are talking about since Qatar has been declared a high risk whilst Australia has the best assessment along with South Korea

3hn2givr7mx1sc

England or Spain/Portgual for 2018. England would make it handy-ish to see a few games and S/P would be a good holiday.

USA or Australia for 2022, both would be a class holiday if I could afford it.:pac:

MisterAnarchy

I'd be happy with England or Spain/Portugal getting the 2018 tournament.
Both have the necessary infrastructure ,no need to build any new stadia and are easy to get to .
Hopefully USA get 2022 .
They have the best stadia in the world by a mile,a good time difference for Europe and South America (the 2 main tv markets) and a big population .
Qatar is a farcical bid,a country with a population of 1.7m people ,hosting the World cup,ludicrous.

Fr Tod Umptious

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Spain/Portugal could do with it seeing as their economies are supposedly close to going pear shaped like our one. England would be a good host too and they're local so that would make seeing matches a good possibility. The downside is the '66 references would go into overdrive.

I'd like Australia to get the 2022 one. I think they would appreciate it more than the Americans (generalisation I know).

And an incorrect generalisation if you ask me.
There are millions of soccer fans in the US.
By 2022 I would image that they could sell out every game in the US, something that would never happen in Aus

Xavi6

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And an incorrect generalisation if you ask me.
There are millions of soccer fans in the US.
By 2022 I would image that they could sell out every game in the US, something that would never happen in Aus

You made some valid points earlier about time difference but the above is not true IMO.

Football is huge in Australia now and ex-Pate and ethnic communities alone would come close to selling out most games before you even hit those coming for a once in a life time holiday and your average Australians.

Mr.Nice Guy

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And an incorrect generalisation if you ask me.
There are millions of soccer fans in the US.
By 2022 I would image that they could sell out every game in the US, something that would never happen in Aus

There are, but there are millions more who don't like it or who look down their noses at it. They had their chance in '94 and it didn't exactly set the place alight so I'd rather see a continent that would appreciate it get it.

Fr Tod Umptious

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

There are, but there are millions more who don't like it or who look down their noses at it. They had their chance in '94 and it didn't exactly set the place alight so I'd rather see a continent that would appreciate it get it.

If the US get it it will be 28 years between hosting world cups, soccer in the US and particularly in the US media will have changed utterly in that 28 years.

Yes there are people who will not know it's even on but there will be enough fans there to sell out every game.

What makes you think Australia would 'appreciate it more' ?

Le King

I hope the US get it in 2022 and England surely will get 2018. Both would suit me right down to the ground for location.

Dempsey

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

If the US get it it will be 28 years between hosting world cups, soccer in the US and particularly in the US media will have changed utterly in that 28 years.

Yes there are people who will not know it's even on but there will be enough fans there to sell out every game.

What makes you think Australia would 'appreciate it more' ?

I lived in Australia, they like their sport and would relish having such an event in their country far more so than the US. Before Robbie Fowler signed for Cardiff, he was in Australia assessing a potential suitor. It was big news, up there with the frenzy when Beckham and Galaxy arrived in Sydney for a friendly match. Now imagine a World Cup

Mr.Nice Guy

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

If the US get it it will be 28 years between hosting world cups, soccer in the US and particularly in the US media will have changed utterly in that 28 years.

Yes there are people who will not know it's even on but there will be enough fans there to sell out every game.

What makes you think Australia would 'appreciate it more' ?

For Australia it would be a major national event. Bigger than The Ashes would be. I could see them relishing the experience. I'm not so sure Americans in the main would feel the same way. I'd rather it go to a country that treasures it with near sell-outs than go to one that's lukewarm about it but sells out due to its huge stadium capacity.

After South Africa, as long as the Australians don't bring a didgeridoo to each game I'll be happy.

Le King

Dempsey wrote: »

I lived in Australia, they like their sport and would relish having such an event in their country far more so than the US. Before Robbie Fowler signed for Cardiff, he was in Australia assessing a potential suitor. It was big news, up there with the frenzy when Beckham and Galaxy arrived in Sydney for a friendly match. Now imagine a World Cup

What a rubbish statement. Don't brand that rubbish around here.

I think the US has a far bigger pull than Australia. Plus we have previously hosted a world cup and Australian times wouldn't suit the biggest market. Regardless I think the US has got to win this.

Xavi6

If Australia win it they will put on a super showing, I've no doubt about that.

For selfish reasons, Perth needs a decent football/rugby stadium and it would give the State Government the kick up the hole they need.

All fingers crossed.

Dempsey

Le King wrote: »

What a rubbish statement. Don't brand that rubbish around here.

I think the US has a far bigger pull than Australia. Plus we have previously hosted a world cup and Australian times wouldn't suit the biggest market. Regardless I think the US has got to win this.

Its not rubbish, dont be so ignorant.

I've already stated that FIFA's choice would be the US over Australia simply because of the money they could generate.

BTW, Australia's assessment done by FIFA is top with Korea because they have government support, if the US government doesnt support the bid, how can you say that the country wants it more???

FIFA on US and Japanese Bids wrote:

the necessary government support has not been documented as neither the government guarantees, the government declaration nor the government legal statement have been provided in compliance with Fifa's requirements for government documents..."

Le King

Dempsey wrote: »

Its not rubbish, dont be so ignorant.

I've already stated that FIFA's choice would be the US over Australia simply because of the money they could generate.

BTW, Australia's assessment done by FIFA is top with Korea because they have government support, if the US government doesnt support the bid, how can you say that the country wants it more???

Hold on here a minute. You're calling me ignorant yet you clearly stated that Australia would relish it more than the US? That makes sense...

Barack Obama personally wrote to Sepp Blatter recently advocating the bid. We have the infrastructure there.

You clearly said Australia wanted it more too. Am I missing something here? Are we talking cryptic? Because you are being very hypocritical in the space of a post.

Dempsey

Le King wrote: »

Hold on here a minute. You're calling me ignorant yet you clearly stated that Australia would relish it more than the US? That makes sense...

Barack Obama personally wrote to Sepp Blatter recently advocating the bid. We have the infrastructure there.

You clearly said Australia wanted it more too. Am I missing something here? Are we talking cryptic? Because you are being very hypocritical in the space of a post.

Having a bigger population doesnt mean that they would want it more as a country. Ever been to Australia?

Obama wrote a letter, Australia wrote cheques and gave government guarantees. If the US wanted it more, wouldnt they have done the same?? Why didnt they?

Nothing hypocritical in what I said, you actually reading my posts properly?

Le King

Dempsey wrote: »

Having a bigger population doesnt mean that they would want it more as a country. Ever been to Australia?

Obama wrote a letter, Australia wrote cheques and gave government guarantees. If the US wanted it more, wouldnt they have done the same?? Why didnt they?

Nothing hypocritical in what I said, you actually reading my posts properly?

Who said anything about population. Now your starting to lie. And yes I have been to Australia. What effect is that on the bid? They don't and won't ever care what I think...

The US is going to be a bigger revenue generator for FIFA than Australia. That's a fact.

Xavi6

Le King wrote: »

The US is going to be a bigger revenue generator for FIFA than Australia. That's a fact.

Depends on which Asian countries qualify.

Dempsey

Le King wrote: »

Who said anything about population. Now your starting to lie. And yes I have been to Australia. What effect is that on the bid? They don't and won't ever care what I think...

The US is going to be a bigger revenue generator for FIFA than Australia. That's a fact.

Didnt say that your opinion would matter to then, it wouldnt!!

Fact is, and you should know this because you've been there, is that the average australian is far more into their sport than the average american. A higher percentage of australian people attend their domestic games than americans (A-League vs. MLS). So its safe to say they are as a country bigger into football amongst the other sports they go to and play etc.

Once again I'll point out (3rd time), that I agree that US would probably be a bigger revenue generator and reason why FIFA would take a medium risk over a low risk bid (I think FIFA care more about money than the sport itself) and its the only drawback FIFA can find on the Australian bid but still have it as a better risk than USA. That registering with you yet?

Dempsey

Xavi6 wrote: »

Depends on which Asian countries qualify.

Very true

Xavi6

Dempsey wrote: »

Fact is, and you should know this because you've been there, is that the average australian is far more into their sport than the average american. A higher percentage of australian people attend their domestic games than americans (A-League vs. MLS). So its safe to say they are as a country bigger into football amongst the other sports they go to and play etc.

That's a bit of a disingenuous statement to be fair.

Yes the percentage may be higher due to the respective populations but A-League games attract attendances of less than 10,000 more often than attendances above that.

Using the A-League as a case for Australia is not really the best thing.

Dempsey

Xavi6 wrote: »

That's a bit of a disingenuos statement to be fair.

Yes the percentage may be higher due to the respective populations but A-League games attract attendances of less than 10,000 more often than attendances above that.

Using the A-League as a case for Australia is not really the best thing.

If its a higher percentage of the total population of the country attending matches then i dont think its disingenuous to say that, as a country, they are bigger into their football. Yes, the MLS has a bigger total attendances but when you do factor in the respective populations(310M vs 22M), it does favour the point I'm trying to make.

Xavi6

Dempsey wrote: »

If its a higher percentage of the total population of the country attending matches then i dont think its disingenuous to say that, as a country, they are bigger into their football. Yes, the MLS has a bigger total attendances but when you do factor in the respective populations(310M vs 22M), it does favour the point I'm trying to make.

But a 60,000 seated stadium is a 60,000 seater stadium regardless of the nation's population. 24,000 MLS goers are more likely to fill that than 8000 A-League-ers.

Which is why Qatar would be a joke IMO.

Dempsey

Xavi6 wrote: »

But a 60,000 seated stadium is a 60,000 seater stadium regardless of the nation's population. 24,000 MLS goers are more likely to fill that than 8000 A-League-ers.

Which is why Qatar would be a joke IMO.

I know the point you are making but thats not what I'm getting at. I'm talking about the contrast in both countries attitude to the World Cup. You'll find americans walking down every major city of america that couldnt give a toss about football, let alone care if the World Cup was in town, you couldnt say that about Australians. They take great pride in international sporting events in their country even if its not their personal preference.

If Beckham can draw 80000+ to meaningless friendly, I'd have no reservations about a World Cup

Xavi6

Agree 100%. As I said earlier, Australia would put on a great show.

People in the thread are getting hung up over time difference, which is understandable, but Australia is the best candidate IMO definitely.

eagle eye

I wouldn't mind seeing Australia get a World Cup but I think the UK and the USA are the best options.

DOC09UNAM

gimmick wrote: »

Fair enough, but 2002 was a complete pain in the hole as well.

Say what you want, but in my short life of following football, the best memory I have was matty holland banging in a goal against cameroon at eight in the morning.

5starpool

DOC09UNAM wrote: »

Say what you want, but in my short life of following football, the best memory I have was matty holland banging in a goal against cameroon at eight in the morning.

I happened to be out of work for that world cup (just back from travelling, good timing) and despite trying to get up every morning for the early matches, I'd say I missed 75% of them.

Early mornings are a curse. Not just for football, mind, just in general.

Dolph Starbeam

I can see England winning the 2018 bid, if not then hopefully Spain/Portugal, a lot of the stadiums in Spain could do with a revamp so i'd like to see it being played there, there are a few teams building stadiums at the moment too.

2022 i really don't know where i'd like it to be, my heart says Australia for how i think they would love to host it and put on a great show, but my head says the USA because of the time difference. I'm sure both would put on very good WC's.

As long as there are no vuvuzellas i don't care where the WC is going to be hosted.

Fr Tod Umptious

From a purely Irish point of view the USA is the better option over Australia in my opinion.

1. Travel - Much easier and cheaper to get to. You could even go to a East Coast city for a weekend to catch a game.

2. When there - Much easier to get around, great motorways and flight network. Also a vast number of hotel rooms availabe from Ritz Carltons to Motel 6s.

3. Support - If Ireland qualify huge Irish support in stadiums.

4. If staying at home - It's much easer to watch games from late afternoon into early morning that to watch them from early morning into mid-day

Also I agree that you cannot compare A-League and MLS attendance as a measure of local interest.

Many American soccer fans pay for Fox Soccer Channel to watch Premisership and CL but do not watch or attend MLS (sound familiar)

Xavi6

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

2. When there -

Much easier to get around, great motorways and flight network.

Also a vast number of hotel rooms availabe from Ritz Carltons to Motel 6s.

Is Australia some sort of third world country? The road network on the east coast is fantastic and it's not that far between Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane which would be where the bulk of games would be.

3. Support - If Ireland qualify huge Irish support in stadiums.

Same for Australia.

Many American soccer fans pay for Fox Soccer Channel to watch Premisership and CL but do not watch or attend MLS (sound familiar)

And many Australian soccer fans pay for Fox Sports to watch the Premiership, CL and Europa League plus internationals but don't attend games.

Not looking for an argument but apart from time difference and distance there's zero between them. Again, if you aren't hung up on that then America is no better a bid.