This country for years has been noted for its madness for sport and for punching above its weight at international competition. And the rest of the world marvels at that, often with jealousy.
And we’re known for hosting world class events, major events, events seemingly out of the grasp of a small, tucked away nation who relies on the rest of the world for in the majority everything else.
The FIFA World Cup would be the pièce de résistance for this country’s sporting legacy.
It seems almost like a natural progression for this sport-crazy nation to host the globe’s biggest sporting event. And that would be that, the battlers from down under have done it all.
But this idea that Australia’s merit to host this simply awesome show has a sense of mere formality to it only goes so far.
For all those reasons that an Australian World Cup would work, there are almost equally as many reasons as to why it wouldn’t.
You know – Newton’s third idea.
The press thus far has been too kind to Mr Lowy and his buddies at the FFA with their pipedream of hosting football’s greatest prize.
And low and behold, the Federal and State Governments, in times of recession and global financial crisis, have been windswept in the romanticism of such a proposal too.
Essentially the big-head nature we’ve now obtained to our sporting prowess has seen that we now carry ourselves in any sporting sense with arrogance and self-absorption.
If we want something, we probably deserve it. If we want to hold something, we probably could hold it tomorrow.
Just think about it, whenever there seems to be an Olympic Games in trouble, or a world championships host struggling to be ready in time, how often do we, and no-one else funnily enough, suggest we could step in and save the world at a moment’s notice.
Please, we’re good, but not that superior.
So where do our rose-coloured glasses get us in a pickle regarding hosting either the 2018 or 2022 World Cup?
It falls down essentially in two areas.
Firstly, there is the timing issue. To this stage, the issue of dealing with domestic football codes hasn’t been addressed. Oh sure, it’s the world’s biggest event, the AFL, NRL, ARU, amongst other organisations can merely step aside for a fortnight or two whilst we conduct our brilliance.
But it’s by no means that simple.
For six weeks, all these competitions need to stop operating or go into such a revised competition fixturing-wise that it’s almost counter-productive to keep running.
The idea in Melbourne is that the AFL can use Telstra Dome, Etihad Stadium, or whatever they’re calling it this week whilst the World Cup can use the MCG and the soon-to-be-finished Rectangular Stadium that by then would be expanded to the required 40,000 minimum capacity (this is also totally flawed by a point I’ll make later on).
The AFL scraped through when the Commonwealth Games came to town in 2006 without use of the MCG. But that was for four weeks, this will be for six.
By then the competition will have an extra two teams, resulting in an extra match to be played each weekend.
And when Her Majesty’s athletics carnival was on, the season hadn’t started yet, so any interference was lessened. The World Cup would be almost bang-on in the middle of the football season, which would be the most undesirable timing for a fixture disruption as far as the AFL is concerned.
The NRL could suffice without the use of its bigger stadiums for a month or so, but can the clubs afford to? The sustainability of some of Sydney’s oldest and most proudest clubs rely on surprisingly better stadium deals from ANZ Stadium and the Sydney Football Stadium.
The money isn’t in playing out of traditional suburban grounds anymore, and if pushed into going back to these venues, or to some other alternative, the already tinkering competition could look substantially different if a World Cup came to town.
The World Cup could be that final straw to the NRL’s camel back.
The Tri-Nations would have to be bumped back, and tinkering with the scheduling of the lucrative domestic internationals, or the lucrative European internationals would also ensue.
Either way, rugby union would be also disrupted.
And sure, the World Cup could be worked around, but as you can see, by throwing the World Cup stone into the pond, you must not disregard the enormous ripple affect on the other football codes.
The second, what I’m calling brain fade made by those entrusted with the responsibility of all this, is the issue of venues.
Let me start this off with a comment by esteemed Fairfax scribe Michael Lynch:
“FIFA expects a World Cup host to have at least 12 stadiums of more than 40,000 seats and one of more than 80,000 seats. Australia has more than enough stadiums to qualify.”
Whoa Michael! Are you sure of that?
And before we isolate Lynch on this, he has many other friends who are towing this preposterous party line, including the Prime Minister, many state Premiers, the FFA chairman, CEO as well as many soccer pundits.
This comes back to this arrogant and often ignorant ideal that we are truly world class in anything sporting.
I mentioned earlier this belief that the idea to solve the AFL clash in Melbourne is to give up the Telstra Dome so that the football can still run whilst the World Cup has use of the MCG and Rectangular Stadium.
This is tied into an idea where the AFL continues its competition throughout the duration of the World Cup.
Plan A is to have the AFL to stop so the Australia bid has access to all three. And here’s where the inane cock-ups begin.
FIFA rules stipulate that only one city may have two venues. Every other city involved is then limited to one.
You would’ve heard, from many of an authoritative soul, that Melbourne has three venues, Sydney three, Brisbane two. And all we’d need is Perth and Adelaide to jump on board and we are practically there.
It’s so embarrassingly off the mark.
Melbourne or Sydney will only be able to use one stadium.
If we assume that’s Sydney for the moment, don’t worry about the Rectangular Stadium – once the MCG is selected, it can sit and collect dust for two months, it can’t be included.
So once the clever ones at FFA realise this ‘one city – two stadiums’ rule, they’ll realise they better start talking to the likes of Newcastle, Townsville, Gosford, Canberra, about how they’d feel about bigger stadiums, because believe you me, we’ll need at least four, yes four, other cities not named Melbourne, Sydney, Perth, Adelaide or Brisbane if we want to get a bid together, let alone succeed in the winning the right to stage it.
And whilst the MCG, ANZ Stadium and Suncorp lend themselves to being existing venues that meet the FIFA stadia recommendations, other issues crop up.
The Western Australian State Government has knocked back the plan to build a new world-class stadium to replace Subiaco Oval.
As it stands, no stadium is suitable in Perth, and unless they eventually decide to reignite the new stadium plans, Perth’s outlook for World Cup action looks bleak.
Subiaco is far from capable and the costs required to redevelop it to meet FIFA standards almost equate to a new stadium.
At this stage, funds to do either are far from forthcoming.
Adelaide is the victim of its State’s financial woes. As it stands, AAMI Stadium is far from being a World Cup venue. Ironically, after a mere $190m upgrade the SANFL sees it differently: “When complete, the redeveloped AAMI Stadium would be Commonwealth Games-ready and FIFA compliant for World Cup or international soccer.”
Yet Ben Buckley, in a rare moment of public acknowledgment that the FFA do have some idea about the hosting requirements, has come out and labelled Adelaide in as much danger of missing out as Perth if it doesn’t build a new stadium: “The clock is ticking, we have to have the submission done by the end of the year,” Buckley said.
“If a decision is not made soon, Adelaide is in danger of missing out. We don’t want a city with a proud history like Adelaide to miss out.”
Seems like blackmail to the SA Government to get a wriggle on, and sort something out, but it all looks hopeless when the people that Buckley are aiming these remarks at, the same people who have the power to make the changes required, have such a misguided and unfortunate view:
“We’ve already got world-class stadiums in Adelaide,” the South Austalian Sports Minister Michael Wright said in response to the Buckley’s plea.
So Adelaide looks in dire straits to having a venue suitable anytime soon, and given the WA Government’s track record, you’d be more inclined to back the SA Government in, that’s how bad Harvest Terrace has been at these sorts of things.
This idea that we have already enough stadiums is way off-limits. By my count, as you read this now, we have five ready to go, but cut that down to four because of the one-city-two-stadium rule.
Realistically speaking, we’d never look like having ten venues by 2018. If we did, we’d have spent so much money on what some will become white elephants that the World Cup would be indeed counter-productive.
Do we want something counter-productive, especially in these times?
Recommend this story.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Football articles
- Socceroos vs Japan in Brisbane is a masterstroke (130)
- Fans want a club, not a name, that fills them with Pride (129)
- The war that’s not a war (128)
- Western Sydney’s new A-League team: What’s in a name? (101)
- Too many doubts over new A-League club (101)
- Magic EPL finish as Manchester City triumph in tightest of title races (93)
- Is this the end of the football salary cap? (63)
- Oman the Socceroos’ focus, says Kennedy
- There’s life In England’s lower leagues (3)
- Chelsea teach Barca and Real an ugly football lesson (3)
- Solving the issue of the long A-League off-season (3)
- Abbas wants A-League excitement at Sydney FC (13)
- Axed coach takes Adelaide United to court (8)
- Milicic yet to sign say west Sydney
- There’s life In England’s lower leagues (3)
- Chelsea teach Barca and Real an ugly football lesson (3)
- Solving the issue of the long A-League off-season (3)
- Oh my god! They’ve killed Kenny (12)
- Is Chelsea’s Abramovic finally satisfied? (15)
- Is this the end of the football salary cap? (63)
- Supporting a loser will make you love sport (27)
- Explore:
- football, Football World Cup

March 25th 2009 @ 7:14am
Luke W said | March 25th 2009 @ 7:14am | Report comment
Leigh,
When presenting the bid to FIFA, you don’t need the 12 stadiums built and ready to go. Only a handful of countries in the world (USA, UK, Spain, Italy) would even get close to that. Rather, countries must present to FIFA their plan to have the stadiums ready by 2018 or 2022 (which are both a very long time away). South Africa only has 10 stadiums ready for the World Cup, with only one of which either not being upgraded or constructed. Brazil is constructing a high speed rail line specifically for the event. I’m sure that the FFA has backing from the Federal Government for hundreds of millions of dollars if we do score either of the World Cups.
Also, if the NRL and AFL are smart, they could easily take advantage of the World Cup. Thousands of tourists will descend on Australia, most of whom would probably be staying for a large chunk of the tournament, but only seeing one or two matches. Why not offer discount tickets to people who have a World Cup ticket. Fill the suburban grounds with tourists to help cover the costs of moving the fixtures, possibly help expand the codes and most importantly, create some harmony between the codes here in Australia.
I agree the World Cup is a long shot, but we definately have the capacity to host it.
March 25th 2009 @ 7:43am
True Tah said | March 25th 2009 @ 7:43am | Report comment
Leigh
dont agree that the rest of the world marvels at our ability to punch above our weight in sports when the sports we do well in at the Olympics – e.g. swimming, shooting, etc – 99% of the world’s population couldnt care less about these sports, and the other sports we are good at – e.g. cricket, rugby, again 99% of the world’s population couldnt care about these sports either. Im not worried about it personally.
I dont think the AFL or NRL would be able to stand in the way of the FIFA WC, I suspect the Rudd Govt would basically make these sports shut down for the duration of the FIFA WC and give them access to the stadiums FIFA wants.
March 25th 2009 @ 7:48am
Redb said | March 25th 2009 @ 7:48am | Report comment
True Tah,
“I dont think the AFL or NRL would be able to stand in the way of the FIFA WC, I suspect the Rudd Govt would basically make these sports shut down for the duration of the FIFA WC and give them access to the stadiums FIFA wants.”
Doubt it.
Redb
March 25th 2009 @ 8:42am
Brian said | March 25th 2009 @ 8:42am | Report comment
Ok first the stadiums, they only need to be ready by 2022 which is 13 years away. Based purely on current AFL trends and crowds both Adelaide and Perth would be ready for a new Telstra Dome type stadium by 2022. AAMI is hardly suitable now. Likewise Energy Stadium in Newcaslte is already being redeveloped and the owners have stated they will have a 40,000 if and when the WC comes around. So (by 2022) we easily have 7 stadiums (MCG, ANZ, SFS, Suncorp, Adelaide, Perth, Newcastle). That leaves another 3 requiring upgrading for the event. Now remembering we are 13 years away Townsvile, Gold Coast and Canberra all currentyl have 25,000 stadia and a large band of rectangular shaped field lovers. Townsville would be particulalry cheap to develop as it does not rain in June-July whilst Gold Coast population should be nearing a million by 2022. So yes a couple of things need to happen but none of these stadiums would be white elephants.
Secondly the other codes the AFL played its Finals in August in 2000 shifting the whole season by a month and the Olympics weren’t even in Melbourne. They would lose 4 weeks for a WC as they already have one week off mid-season now. That could easily be played in March or October. We are talking about a competition that tinkers with the fixtures every year giving only minor consideration to fairness. At worst I’m sure they could be bought off. Yes Redb would sulk but the AFL would lose a lot of public support if they stood in the way of a FIFAWC. The NRL would also have to cease but they could easily make up that revenue in their rounds the weeks before the event with the upwards of 100,000 poms who would come for a WC. They would also benefit from the new stadiums built for the WC. As for the ARU I’m sure they could reschedule an international.
Finally the main reason why Australia can win the WC is the same reason S.Africa will host the IPL – security. It will be a huge issue in S.Africa in 2010, and after Europe hosts in 2018 FIFA will decide on 2022. If you want to ensure games start on time and bomb scares probably won’t occur Australia is not a bad choice. I am not saying Australia will win but its definately in with a chance
March 25th 2009 @ 8:54am
Leigh Eustace said | March 25th 2009 @ 8:54am | Report comment
Brian,
I tend to agree that we could scrape by stadia-wise. An upgrade to Canberra stadium would be a good thing, perhaps a new stadium for Wollongong, that would be a good thing, and of course Perth needs that 60,000 as the Major Stadium Taskforce directed, and the sooner Adelaide’s premier venue is inner-city the better.
But the fact is the only way these rather worthy projects get up, even with either nine or thirteen years to do them, is that it would have to be Rudd that pays for them. And its not like we can leave these decisions or further Governments, or hope that future State Governments will be more positive about these issues than the current ones – the decisions and plans need to be done within twelve months or so for the bid documentation.
It’s going to cost a hell of a lot of money, and even though PriceWaterhouseCoopers suggests we’d get a return, there’s gotta be a sense of reluctancy to spend that much. You even said it yourself: “At worst I’m sure they (the AFL) could be bought off.” Big money spent just to ask someone to stop the competition for six weeks? Before you spend a penny on infrastructure? Not sure.
March 25th 2009 @ 9:01am
Luke W said | March 25th 2009 @ 9:01am | Report comment
Leigh,
Why would there be a reluctance to spend that money? Not only is their the short term return from the WC itself, but there is massive long term benefits to all codes of Australia with bigger grounds and better facilities, not to mention puts us right at the top of the list to host more international events.
March 25th 2009 @ 9:02am
Pippinu said | March 25th 2009 @ 9:02am | Report comment
Leigh
I found this article to be poorly written and a bit too long.
It’s an interesting topic (even if it has been a bit overdone with another decade to run), but take a little bit of extra care next time.
March 25th 2009 @ 9:49am
Redb said | March 25th 2009 @ 9:49am | Report comment
Brian,
It’s called compromise. The AFL and FFA have already agreed tentative terms on ground sharing in Melbourne with the AFL playing out of Docklands, leaving the MCG and bubble to the World Cup. This seems a satisfactory compromise and is not stading in the way of anything.
If FIFA demand all other sport stops then I have a problem with it. As a further compromise the AFL could have a bye in the week of the final. What rationale could FIFA use to justify a request for all other sporting competitions cease?
I seriously doubt this would effect our chances anyway.
Redb
March 25th 2009 @ 9:58am
danny said | March 25th 2009 @ 9:58am | Report comment
leigh,
i agree that there are some problems with the bid but don’t think you’ve given it due respect.
the other codes have already come out and thrown their support behind the bid. while there’s a lot of misinformation circulating re: fifa regulations, i’m sure those in high places are aware of the rules. eg, as far as i’m aware, not only can there not be competing competitions running at the same time as the world cup (ruling out luke’s idea of afl/nrl ‘capitalising’), but the world cup venues cannot be used for a month in the lead-up. ergo, the mcg (for instance) would be off-limits to the afl for approximately 8 weeks. the afl have supported the world cup bid, well aware of such considerations. it may result in a stretching of resources, geelong may get 4 home games in a row, and the finals may be put off until october, but it would be manageable. the nrl would be in even less trouble, as they have more grounds capable of filling the void. on the financial front, there would certainly be some monetary compensation (not ‘buying off’) that would aid the other codes. not to mention the healthy investment in the shared sporting infrastructure.
which leads me to the stadia. first, on the two-stadiums, one city point. an australian bid would not progress too far without at least trying to squaaze two grounds into both melbourne and sydney. fifa have shown a remarkable flexibility on regulations in the past; i’m sure this one would be equally open to discussion. regardless, one could mount a serious argument that homebush and moore park are as good as in separate cities. i have no doubt both melbourne and sydney would be able to have two host-stadia.
outside australia’s biggest cities, there are still plenty of options. as has been stated at length, we do not need to demonstrate an ability to host the cup tomorrow. just a commitment to be ready to host it in 9/13 years. lang park is close to ready to go; an upgrade to above 60,000 (enabling it to host a semi-final) is all i’d add. the gold coast stadium, currently 27,000, is built to allow expansion to 40,000. newcastle is currently being upgraded and will be able to hold 40,000. sydney has homebush (which could be expanded to its olympic-era capacity) and moore park. canberra could justify an expansion to 40,000, even if only temporary. melbourne has the mcg, the biggest ground in the country and the only oval ground i think we could/should use. the new swan st stadium has foundations for expansion to 50,000. adelaide and perth need new grounds, and would realistically be convertible enabling the afl to utilise them as well.
that, by my count is 8 current stadiums (some requiring extensive renovation, others negligible changes) and only two completely new grounds. and re: the politicians out west holding out; when push comes to shove, and the millions in revenue are on the line, i’m sure they’ll agree to partially fund a new stadium.
i agree that it will be difficult, but i think we’ve got a very realistic chance of hosting the world cup in 2022.
March 25th 2009 @ 10:22am
Australian Football is a Sherrin said | March 25th 2009 @ 10:22am | Report comment
I still think the main flaws are the ‘economic benefit’ assumptions.
Traditionally, these are presented as ‘best case’ rather than the range of worst, most likely and best.
Invariably costs sky rocket,
and forecast benefits are not met (such as tourism numbers and the like).
Australia has stuff all industry other than retail to benefit from the event.
A bit of construction on stadiums hopefully will be dwarfed by transport upgrades etc – - but, again, invariably, these are normally limited to upgrading transport access to a limited number of sports venues rather than more important ‘whole of network’ integrated upgrades and improvements.
Korea benefitted far more than Japan from the 2002 FIFA WC. Tourism was flat for both in the wake of 9/11 – - and, this is an every present threat to a tourist based economic model.
But, back to Korea – they had an industrial base ready to explode. They DO produce mobile phones and wide screen tvs etc. They WERE able to leverage off the FIFA WC and launch brands onto the world market. Japan’s industry and brands were more ‘mature’. Less ‘upside’.
We don’t have either mature or immature consumer electrical industry.
What would we launch to the world?? the re worked modern Torana??
It would all hinge on keeping up front costs to a minimum.
After all, the last thing we really need is a landscape dotted with more Homebush type debt ridden 85% empty stadia…….that’d start looking like Japan!!