World cup 2030 Britan and Ireland

kilkenny31

Read an article last week in sky news suggesting that Britian and Ireland should consider bidding for world cup 2030. Considering USA Mexico and Canada have been successful it seems reasonable to say that Britain and Ireland would have a good shot. What does everyone think? Sepp Blatter appears to have given it his support (probably more of a hindrance then help). I think it's something that should be looked into. Holding some group stage games and knockout games in croke park or Aviva would be great for soccer in this country.
Here's a link to what Blatter had to say: https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2018/0620/971896-blatter-backs-joint-uk-ireland-bid-for-2030-world-cup/

And here's a link to sky news article :
https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-how-about-a-uk-ireland-unity-world-cup-bid-11408251

Mokuba

1. Why would they be bothered to include us when we have just 1 suitable stadium readily available, and 2 more that would have a big controversy around them.

2. We are one of the (admittedly many) host nations for Euro 2020, are you aware of this?

yabadabado

England coukd very easily hold 2030 world cup on their own.
16 stadiums needed and they have no problems provided them.

I dunno why would they include us or any of the other countries in GB.Id imagine there would be uproar if some countrywas left out in a bid say Ireland got games but NI didnt .

kilkenny31

I would imagine they would include us because they have tried and failed in their bid to host the world cup by themselves. Why did USA Canada and Mexico group together. Either one of those countries could probably host the tournament on their own. I think it has real merit. England would be more likely to be succeful in a bid to host the tournament if it included Scotland Whales and Ireland. The majority of games would probably still be played in England with some games held ok Cardiff Glasgow Dublin and possibly Belfast.

NIMAN

England would be the main holders.

Scotland, Wales and the 2 Irelands would be token matches to keep us all happy!

And you have to remember that there will be 48 teams in such a WC, you could easily host some of the rubbish matches, and there will be plenty, in the likes of the Aviva and Windsor

Cookiemunster

Not a hope that the other UEFA countries would agree to losing 5 of the 16 qualification spots to the the hosts. And where would NI get a 40K stadium? England on their own is the only realistic option.

yabadabado

Canada and Mexico are only getting 10 games each,out of 80 games.

What could we hope for 5 maybe ?

How does qualification work with 5 countries as hosts ?FIFA still haven't decided for 2026 and I doubt they will let 5 countries in automatically, so who loses out ?

I don't think the 5 countries have anything like the commodity or energy reserves needed to negotiate support.

Omackeral

It looks like Argentina/Uruguay (and Paraguay clinging on too) have a bid in for the 2030 as a centennial celebration of the first ever World Cup. UEFA have it in 2018, Asia in 2022, North America in 2026. I can see South America getting it ahead of Europe again.

England should get another on their own but it'd be fantastic for Ireland to get games at a world cup too

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Pauliedragon

Have we not learnt our lesson from the rugby world cup fiasco and also I don't want Ireland associated with that grub Blatter.

Mint Sauce

Majority would be played in Britian, over here would just be Lansdowne Rd/Croke Park, and maybe Páirc Uí Chaoimh. Millennium Stadium in Wales, Parkhead, Ibrox, and Hampden in Scotland, with England getting the rest. Most Ireland would get would probably be groups and second round. Windsor in NI wouldn't even get a look in.

Mr.H

England dont need us. They are more than capable if hosting it by themselves.

kilkenny31

Well I doubt that all 5 countries would qualify automaticaly. The thing about this is England have already tried to bid and failed so it might be seen as a good option for them. Also the rest of the world who see us all a like one country anyway. It makes sense. It would technically be only hosted by two states (UK and Ireland) and it's a lot more compact then USA Canada and Mexico which is massive. I think what is likely to happen is a bid for the world cup in Great Britain for 2030 so only England Scotland and Wales. I think if this does happen FAI should do their best to get ireland in on the bid.

kilkenny31

Well I doubt that all 5 countries would qualify automaticaly. The thing about this is England have already tried to bid and failed so it might be seen as a good option for them. Also the rest of the world who see us all a like one country anyway. It makes sense. It would technically be only hosted by two states (UK and Ireland) and it's a lot more compact then USA Canada and Mexico which is massive. I think what is likely to happen is a bid for the world cup in Great Britain for 2030 so only England Scotland and Wales. I think if this does happen FAI should do their best to get ireland in on the bid.

Cake Man

I don’t think it would be fair for Europe to get it again in 2030, it just seems too soon. South America would surely be due their chance at that stage and given it would be the 100th year, it would seem fitting for Uruguay to have it (and with Argentina and/or Paraguay in the mix if necessary).

Even 2034 probably still would be too soon for another European WC as by that stage, the likes of Africa would be rightly screaming for their go again. It would be 24yrs and 6 WC’s since Africa hosted by then.

Even Australia (or a joint Aus/NZ bid) would be fully entitled to claim they should be given one. I’m probably a little biased saying it as I live here but I can’t understand why Australia never got a shot at it. They’d put on a great WC, the infrastructure is there.

Pauliedragon

Did we not learn anything from the Rugby WC fiasco? I also don't want to Ireland associated with that Grub Blatter.

dfx-

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think the 5 countries have anything like the commodity or energy reserves needed to negotiate support.

If England's attempt to get 2018 is any metric, no-one here knows how to..

Fr Tod Umptious

Pauliedragon wrote: »

Did we not learn anything from the Rugby WC fiasco? I also don't want to Ireland associated with that Grub Blatter.

Our involvement would likely only be a few games in either of the two stadiums in Dublin.

The RWC bid was for the full event all over the island.

Totally different.

Pauliedragon

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Our involvement would likely only be a few games in either of the two stadiums in Dublin.

The RWC bid was for the full event all over the island.

Totally different.

I get that but unless croke park goes all seater it rules it out which leaves the Aviva by itself. By 2030 England will have the new spurs stadium, prob everton and chelsea will have new stadiums by then. Do people really think the other UEFA countries who all have a vote now will vote to let us automatically qualify for the sake of one stadium.

artanevilla

Pauliedragon wrote: »

Did we not learn anything from the Rugby WC fiasco? I also don't want to Ireland associated with that Grub Blatter.

He's gone lad.

votecounts

Originally Posted by Pauliedragon
Did we not learn anything from the Rugby WC fiasco? I also don't want to Ireland associated with that Grub Blatter.

Wasn't blatter quoted in Russia that he would help an english bid in some capacity

Pauliedragon

artanevilla wrote: »

He's gone lad.

He's not gone. This whole story came about from Blatters comments. . Bear in mind also South America voted in a bloc to support the US, Canada, Mexico bid so they will have those votes in return as Argentina are looking for that WC and it's due back in South America by 2030 and it's the 100 yr anniversary. UEFA countries won't vote for a 5 team European WC as they lose places. Where would we look to gain votes?

dobman88

Why do people think that all of England Ireland Scotland Wales and NI would qualify automatically.

England would be hosting the most games and be the "main" host so would qualify automatically. Thinking any of the other countries could wrangle a deal for automatic qualification is laughable.

bobbysands81

With Brexit going on I couldn’t see Ireland committing to anything like this.

Paully D

Britain/Ireland are not in any way "sophisticated" enough to do what is needed in terms of securing votes etc to win the right to host a World Cup, under the current FIFA regime.

Mr.H

sugarman wrote: »

Croke park has temporary seating for the hill which was used for rugby and soccer games when Lansdowne road was being renovated giving it an 81k seating capacity.

And there can only be 2 stadiums used per city and with the world cup increased to 48 will require a minimum of 18 stadiums. So at a minimum 9 cities. Then there's capacity requirements.

So can't see England being able to hold it on their own. An England, Scotland and Wales bid makes the most sense. One Island, one currency, 3 places for hosts like 2026 and meets all other FIFA criteria.

These are all stadiums which have a capacity of over 30 thousand.

London - Wembley and one of Spurs, Chelsea or the Emirates stadiums
Manchester - Old Trafford and City of Manchester stadium
Birmingham - Villa park and St Andrews
Liverpool - Anfield and Evertons new ground
Leicester - King Power
Newcastle - St James Park
Sunderland - Stadium of light
Sheffield - Hillsborough and Bramal lane
Leeds - Elland road
Middlesborough - Riverside
Derby - Pride park
Blackburn - Ewood
Stoke - Bet365
Wolverhampton - Molineux

then there are stadiums in Coventry, Southampton, Ipswich, Nottingham and Brighton.

Then if they did even go for a United kingdom bid there are stadiums in Cardiff, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Even one in Belfast.

they have 4 stadiums over 70 thousand. Cities that can actually handle huge football games on a regular basis.

Why on earth would they ever want Ireland to be part of that? They do not need Ireland and Ireland would never be even considered. We have one stadium maybe two if Croke is included. They dont need two stadiums bad enough to weaken a bid with another country.

England have a great chance by themselves. They have the infrastructure.

Guy:Incognito

sugarman wrote: »

Croke park has temporary seating for the hill which was used for rugby and soccer games when Lansdowne road was being renovated giving it an 81k seating capacity.

And there can only be 2 stadiums used per city and with the world cup increased to 48 will require a minimum of 18 stadiums. So at a minimum 9 cities. Then there's capacity requirements.

So can't see England being able to hold it on their own. An England, Scotland and Wales bid makes the most sense. One Island, one currency, 3 places for hosts like 2026 and meets all other FIFA criteria.

England could well host it on their own.

London, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle ( plus Sunderland and/or Middlesbrough ) , Sheffield, Birmingham, Leeds, plus Leicester and Southampton maybe . That's off the top of my head. I'm sure there's other options.

At most they could add walesmor Scotland if they wanted.


England are long overdue hosting,


Edit, beaten to it.

Cake Man

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

England are long overdue hosting

Agree they could host it, their only problem is a European WC won’t/shouldn’t come around again for another 16 years at least.

LuckyLloyd

Why are England “long overdue” hosting exactly?

dan1895

Cake Man wrote: »

Even Australia (or a joint Aus/NZ bid) would be fully entitled to claim they should be given one. I’m probably a little biased saying it as I live here but I can’t understand why Australia never got a shot at it. They’d put on a great WC, the infrastructure is there.

Australia had a bid ready for 2022 but it fell down as other sports in the country would still need use of some of the stadiums while the tournament was on. The Aussie solution was to hold the tournament later in the year when it would be easier to squeeze it in but that was shot down by FIFA so Australia withdrew. Strangely FIFA then had no problem moving it for the Qatari's.

Guy:Incognito

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Why are England “long overdue” hosting exactly?

They have the facilities, the football culture, are previous winners and have not hosted in 52 years and counting ( 64 by the time of 2030)

Pauliedragon

dan1895 wrote: »

Australia had a bid ready for 2022 but it fell down as other sports in the country would still need use of some of the stadiums while the tournament was on. The Aussie solution was to hold the tournament later in the year when it would be easier to squeeze it in but that was shot down by FIFA so Australia withdrew. Strangely FIFA then had no problem moving it for the Qatari's.

I don't know if FIFA would allow the world cup to be in countries are that are in different conferderations. Australia got well ahead of themselves with that bid. They were never gonna get it. Credit to Frank Lowy but it's just a step too far. K.O times would not suit the TV market and the population is too small for massive corporate investment. Have a look at the backlash at the moment at the NSW goverments plans to spend 2bn on stadiums it's costing them votes left right and centre. Imagine the backlash if the country had to spend god knows how much on a world cup. The Aussies are sports mad and they can put on a show as good as anyone I was there for the olympics, rugby world cup and Asian cup in 2015 and it was incredible but the publics appetite for spending billions on events is gone. Queenslanders are still fuming over spending for the commonwealth games and that's miniscule compared to the soccer world cup.

LuckyLloyd

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

They have the facilities, the football culture, are previous winners and have not hosted in 52 years and counting ( 64 by the time of 2030)

So what if they keep losing to superior bids? Russian World Cup very impressively organised so far.

Guy:Incognito

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

So what if they keep losing to superior bids? Russian World Cup very impressively organised so far.

Depends if you actually think the other bids are superior.........

The 2012 Olympics were a great success.
I'm sure people will bang on about how horrible England is but at the end of the day if FIFA were properly socially responsible certain countries shouldn't be considered .

If you have Russia's record on gay rights (and the odd bit of military action including annexation of countries land) while the body awarding the world cup goes to such effort to tell us all how inclusive and non racist it is , you shouldn't be in the running.

If you've to use slave labour to build your stadiums and don't care whether a heap of them die because you'll just get more , then sorry, youre out . Thats without questioning anything else Qatar does.


Basically, what we're saying is that once you can put a shiney facade on your bid, then we won't ask to look behind the curtains.

England has the facilities and experience to do this. All without 1000 mile trips between grounds or leaving the country.

Tom Mann Centuria

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

So what if they keep losing to superior bids? Russian World Cup very impressively organised so far.

I think the English FA thought they had it in the bag by just jumping on the coat tails of the successful Olympic bid a couples of years before. I was extremely sceptical about Russia, but proven completely wrong.
It's been excellent, and they only things I've read about it have been positive, even from a member of England's LGBT+ supporters group.

Qatar on the other hand, total joke.

yabadabado

Qatar could turn out to be a fantastic world cup.

IncognitoMan

yabadabado wrote: »

Qatar could turn out to be a fantastic world cup.

Whatever about Russia, Qatar stands no chance due to the fact it has to be moved to Christmas to make it even viable.

Also a few thousand dead slaves might put a bit of a damper on things.

How it hasn't been taken off them is beyond a joke.

Amirani

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If you have Russia's record on gay rights (and the odd bit of military action including annexation of countries land) while the body awarding the world cup goes to such effort to tell us all how inclusive and non racist it is , you shouldn't be in the running.

England/UK broke international law and defied the United Nations by invading Iraq 6/7 years before the host for 2018 was chosen.

MagicIRL

Ireland would be a ****e host. Our public transport is abysmal. Until that's fixed, we can't host **** all.

Cookiemunster

MagicIRL wrote: »

Ireland would be a ****e host. Our public transport is abysmal. Until that's fixed, we can't host **** all.

We've hosted the Europa League Final. We're hosting 4 games in Euro 2020. If we were involved in 2030, it would be similar limited involvement.

Mr.H

Cookiemunster wrote:

We've hosted the Europa League Final. We're hosting 4 games in Euro 2020. If we were involved in 2030, it would be similar limited involvement.

Plus the fact it will never happen. So no need to worry.

Fr Tod Umptious

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

So what if they keep losing to superior bids? Russian World Cup very impressively organised so far.

We are sitting here watching it on telly.

I'm going to guess most of us here have never been to Russia nor do we know people who are at the games or in the country.

So our assessment of this world cup is based on what we see on telly, full stadiums, slick advertising, lots of goals.

Who is to say that there are not logistical and other problems behind all the glitz.

Who is to say England could not put on a better show ?

Stephen15

Nearly every World cup, Euros and Olympics in recently has had some sort of danger of controversy surrounding despite usually turning out fine. A lot of it is media scaremongering from The UK but Qatar is a disgrace the thought of a winter world cup is riddiculous IMO. Tournament from hell is often used look at these

2018 WC- Russia's human rights records, racism, gay rights and football hooliganism but yet no major issues as of yet

Euro 2016- Islamic terrorism

Rio 2016- Corruption in Brazil and stadiums not finished on time

2014 WC- Same issues as Rio 2016

Euro 2012- Racism in Poland and Ukraine, Football hooliganism and corruption

2010 WC- Corruption in SA and various stadium issues IIRC

Cookiemunster

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

We are sitting here watching it on telly.

I'm going to guess most of us here have never been to Russia nor do we know people who are at the games or in the country.

So our assessment of this world cup is based on what we see on telly, full stadiums, slick advertising, lots of goals.

Who is to say that there are not logistical and other problems behind all the glitz.

Who is to say England could not put on a better show ?

Almost to a man the reporters who are out there are saying that everything is running perfectly and its a great tournament.

yabadabado

Go onto football forums and it seems to be universally positive experiences.

Have a few mates who went over last week and 2 cousins still over there and they are all happy with how it went.

There would be no shortage of people to slate Russia if they had the opportunity but Iv yet to hear that.

ArmaniJeanss

Worth remembering from the Rugby World Cup 2015 that there were 3 hour delays getting from Twickenham station back to London after the opener, and that there were queues snaking around Waterloo station as Irish fans tried to get to Cardiff for their games against France and Argentina.
Or that the Lancashire authorities couldn't fulfil UEFA's preferred start time of 6pm for a United/Pool Europa League tie and it had to be put back to 8pm.

They have a good bid, but its not the nirvana of superb infrastructure and transport that some people would have you believe.

Berserker

Firstly, I see no value in a joint bid. The UK has the facilities and the experience to host an event like this. The RoI has one football stadium which would be suitable for a WC game, i.e. Lansdowne Road.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Worth remembering from the Rugby World Cup 2015 that there were 3 hour delays getting from Twickenham station back to London after the opener, and that there were queues snaking around Waterloo station as Irish fans tried to get to Cardiff for their games against France and Argentina.

That doesn't make sense. Firstly, Twickenham hosts sell out fixtures on a regular basis and there are never any problems with trains. London as a city hosts multiple sell out football games on a weekly basis during the football season supported by a reduced transport system most weekends. I was at the play off final a few weeks back at Wembley, which was a sell out and we walked straight onto a tube after the game. It was handled brilliantly. Also, not sure what you mean by Central London w.r.t. Twickenham. Secondly, why would there be queues around Waterloo for Irish fans travelling to Cardiff central?

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Or that the Lancashire authorities couldn't fulfil UEFA's preferred start time of 6pm for a United/Pool Europa League tie and it had to be put back to 8pm.

Kick off was at 8.05 at the request of Man United. They wanted to give their supporters time to be able to travel to Liverpool after finishing work. It had nothing to do with the police at all.

ArmaniJeanss

Berserker wrote: »

Firstly, I see no value in a joint bid. The UK has the facilities and the experience to host an event like this. The RoI has one football stadium which would be suitable for a WC game, i.e. Lansdowne Road.



That doesn't make sense. Firstly, Twickenham hosts sell out fixtures on a regular basis and there are never any problems with trains. London as a city hosts multiple sell out football games on a weekly basis during the football season supported by a reduced transport system most weekends. I was at the play off final a few weeks back at Wembley, which was a sell out and we walked straight onto a tube after the game. It was handled brilliantly. Also, not sure what you mean by Central London w.r.t. Twickenham. Secondly, why would there be queues around Waterloo for Irish fans travelling to Cardiff central?



Kick off was at 8.05 at the request of Man United. They wanted to give their supporters time to be able to travel to Liverpool after finishing work. It had nothing to do with the police at all.

Soz, Must have been Paddington, not Waterloo. Don't really know my London terminus stations off by heart.

The Europa fixture change was instigated by both the club and Trafford Council who would be 'the authorities' I mentioned. Presumably an England WC would have 2pm, 5pm and 8pm kickoffs so plenty of cities are going to have to do rush hour games.

I've only been to Wembley once but found it a nightmare to get out (Spurs game this season gone) - queued outside Central for 40 minutes and we literally didn't move, went down to Park and it was worse. Then walked onwards to the other one and same story but decided to stick with it and got onto the platform by 7.30, this for a 3pm kickoff.

Not really having a pop and I do hope ye get it. Just pointing out that the 'they have everything ready, could host it next week, way ahead of other bids' thing isn't quite true.

Edit : Just re-read that the travel chaos after the RWC opener was a person on the tracks incident so I would have to humbly withdraw any criticism there.

Kermit.de.frog

I see Sky News now saying that Theresa May says UK govt will support the bid.

Of course, you know that including Ireland is less about practical reasons and more about Brexit and encouraging the Irish onside!

We have two stadiums currently capable - Aviva and Croke Park.