World Cup 2018 Likely Going to Europe

Both would be great host nations but the fact that Spain hosted in 1982 and England hasn’t hosted since 1966 even though they invented the sport should clearly give it to England.

Russia has infrastructure and transportation issues that should make England a superior choice.

Holland is cool but they are right next to Germany and it was really easy for their fan base to get to those games in 2006, almost like they hosted it. I know because I went to 2 Dutch games and sat in the Dutch sections, which was basically the entire stadium (and city). And I was able to visit Holland in between matches because it was so close.

England should get it in 2018 if they don’t it will be a big upset.

Mostly because it would be neat. I don’t mind anyone getting it, any excuse to travel across the pond (though Russia is a bit far), but I’d lean away from Spain & Portugal. I don’t know if this factors into the committee’s decision but didn’t Portugal just host the Euros in 2004? I guess Holland / Belgium hosted the time before that…

I have no problem with England hosting, and I think it’s clear they have the best infrastructure / stadia in place. If we’re just going with “most time from previous international footballing event hosted” they should get the bid.

Disappointed (but not surprised) about the European selection. I would go crazy if the US won the bid, but I think we were looking at 2022 as the more likely target anyways. I would probably die if Seattle got a matchup of Brazil – Holland or something like that.

The trouble with the dual bids is that you have two host countries who automatically qualify. Not really a problem when at least one is a powerhouse who’s almost certain to qualify anyway, but I wouldn’t want two slots to go to teams that wouldn’t otherwise qualify.

England seems like a logical choice, but given the political considerations (not wanting to give England and a former colony back-to-back bids, maybe?) and the fact that the leaders for ‘22 would have to be us and Australia (Japan and South Korea hosted more recently, and I can’t imagine Indonesia or Qatar being as attractive as hosts) I wouldn’t be surprised to see Russia get it (with England probably next in line whenever they go back to Europe).

It would be nice to have it sooner, but as long as we eventually get it, I’ll be happy.

I love the idea of shared bids. It spreads the games around for more spectators in more places and spreads the soccer around better. We only get a World Cup every 4 years.

I think this begs the question of how much a kickback Blatter recieves from the Oil and Gas Dictators that make Russia great?

On a personal level both the Netherlands and Spain could easily host World Cups without the need for another country but decided to go this route to impress and entice more votes. Its obvious that they went with Portugal but I believe 2004’s Euros had logistic issues?

Joint bids are dumb and need to be written out; last time I checked only one city hosted the Olympics and inside their own country too (Reason 1 of why Salzburg hasn’t gotten them yet). It doesn’t matter how big a country you are; if you have enough diversified cities then by all means you can host it yourself. Remember this Belgium-Dutch bid also originally wanted to include Luxembourg.

1) I still think England has to be the favorite to win 2018. I’m not quite sure where you got Stamford Bridge from either. The final 16 stadium list that is being put forth to FIFA in the bid book has Wembley, Emirates, New White Hart Lane and the Olympic Stadium as the London venues. The book also lists Liverpool’s stadium as either the new Anfield or the current one so both are on the table. The England bid has its fault for sure, but it is technically as strong as Russia’s, probably better. It’s technically better than the Netherlands/Belgium bid and not far behind the Iberian bid. Meanwhile, the organizers have done an outstanding job politicking and earned themselves some votes during the 2010 World Cup voting period so they should do well with the African votes.

2) I’m not quite sure why this is considered a blow to the United States’ bid. I don’t think many truly believed that they had any shot at 2018 because whether FIFA mandated it or not, there was no way that we would see a third World Cup away from Europe. 2022 was always more realistic for the United States and they look to be in fantastic shape and that goes beyond the “they’ll sell over 5,000,000 tickets” argument.

I think it’s about time I put all of these thoughts on the bids into a post since I’ve been keeping a close eye on the bidding process for a while now and even spent a five hour plane ride reading the FIFA guidelines and recommendations for a World Cup host.

ZA got the bid due to every other nation bidding had a strong Muslim majority and at the time of the vote; fears were high after 9/11. Morroco and Egypt both have stronger economies and links with Europe as both are only a short trip across the Roman Pond; but the issue was religion back then. (Also social differences.) Another thing that put it towards ZA was the fact that one of the bids wasa joint one (between Libya/Tunisia) and this was right after Blatter announced joint bids were no longer on the table.

In reality if Russia gets it the question to ask is how will the time zones effect the organizing? We all know the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi can answer some of our questions as its 4 years before the WC; but it shouldn’t be the barometer we base Russia off of.

I wonder if the 2012 London Olympics could have an effect on England’s bid?