Our World Cup bid launched, now let’s back it
Columnist By Adrian Musolino, 15 Jun 2009 Adrian Musolino is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- 2018 World Cup, 2022 World Cup, Asian Football Confederation, FFA, FIFA, football, Lucas Neill, Socceroos, World Cup
156 Have your say
Related coverage
- Football news
- Socceroos news
- Socceroos Fixtures news
- World Cup Favourites news
- World Cup Roar of the Crowd Competition news
- Football World Cup - South Africa 2010 news
- Socceroos 2014 FIFA World Cup Qualifying news
Australian Danny Allsopp, left, fight for the ball with Indonesian Hariono, right, during AFC Asian Cup 2011 qualifiers Group B at Gelora Bung Karno in Jakarta, Indonesia, Wednesday, Jan 28, 2009. AP Photo/Achmad Ibrahim
It’s official, we are in the running for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup finals. The flash launch reinforced why Australia is well positioned to stage the biggest sporting event in the world. It’s now time for a united vision and for the public to get behind the bid.
The bid has the support of both sides of politics and there seemed to be genuine confidence and expectation from the launch.
It was bold but appropriate affair.
There was no corny celebrity cameos or the like.
The focus was rightly on what Australia can offer to the world, focusing on our closeness to Asia, place within the Asian Football Confederation, where more football fans live than in any other continent and our successful record of staging major events.
Malcolm Turnbull’s cringe worthy use of the term ‘soccer’ aside, this was proof of footballs’ successful journey to acceptance.
This was a common theme emerging; just how far the code has come in such a short space of time.
It wasn’t that long ago that the code was wrecked by instability and its foundations were so unstable that it required such drastic intervention and revolution to sort itself out. This deserves stressing.
As Lucas Neill said, a decade ago Australia football was a very different place and in that short space of time we have emerged with the foundations of a strong league, our national side has qualified for successive World Cups, grassroots football is receiving significant support and there are signs that the old establishments will be integrated into the new structures. And now we are bidding for a World Cup on our shores.
It’s remarkable progression and perhaps this experience will prepare the football community well for the challenge ahead.
The next step is not only working with state governments to settle the stadia issue but also winning the public over.
It’s not surprising the launch felt like a selling campaign to the Australian public.
Many need convincing as there is still much scepticism about our chances, not helped by the doubts about stadia but also scepticism from the usual sources about the game’s worthiness in Australia.
It needs to be reinforced, what a World Cup in Australia would mean to not only the code but also Australia as a whole, culturally and economically.
The competition is strong, especially from the US for 2022, our most likely rival in the bidding process.
It’ll be a fascinating duel between two nations who share a similar historical indifference toward the game.
We need to show FIFA and the global community we want this World Cup and its lasting legacy will be cementing the game in the hearts and minds for current and future generations alike.
December 2010 looms large and the hard work is just beginning.
We wait and hope.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- 2018 World Cup, 2022 World Cup, Asian Football Confederation, FFA, FIFA, football, Lucas Neill, Socceroos, World Cup
June 15th 2009 @ 11:04am
Janex said | June 15th 2009 @ 11:04am | Report comment
the promo ad will be mostly seen over the net world wide from anyone interested in the world cup, biding nations, socceroos etc. I think we’ll all be surprised by some of the stats that eventually come out from viewings off the net. And it is very much about it being Australia United besides from the landscapes. Bewtween this and the Baz Lurhmann film Australia, we have got to be everywhere, don’t we!
June 15th 2009 @ 11:16am
Redb said | June 15th 2009 @ 11:16am | Report comment
True Tah,
Agree. This Cup bid is not so much about being a legacy for Australia but rather a legacy for Australian futbol. Apart from the one-off tourism benefit what will it really add? If we dont’ win the right to host and it looks very unlikely, the Sun will still rise in the morning and Australia will still be a great place to live.
The test for the FFA in my eyes will be in the concessions it is willing to concede to other more dominant codes in this country both in terms of stadia legacy and domestic competitions in 2018 or 2022.
As Gerard Whately said on the ‘Offsiders’ yesterday, if you have to bid to be taken seriously down the track and I think that’s correct. He suggested 2030 a more likely year for OZ. Poor old Rudd and Turnbull will be less interested in that timeline.
Redb
June 15th 2009 @ 11:18am
tifosi said | June 15th 2009 @ 11:18am | Report comment
true tah is right.
Commercially australia offers nothing, unlike the USA or china.
Somehow i see the bids going this way because of the POLITICS involved.
2018 – Spain/Portugal –
The rest of europe hates the way the EPL has dominated the the continent and as pay back backs spain. With votes from the latin and South Americans its a shoo-in.
Besides where would you rather go? Manchester or Sunny Barcelona? No brainer as far as im concerned.
2022- USA
Why ? Two reasons. one, FIFA needs futbol to succeed there, the worlds biggest economy with the best infrastructure. Commercially it would be a huge hit. Americans arent interested in mickey mouse events, they want to see the best of the best, thats why they would flock to the World Cup again. With 300 million people and growing you are guaranteed a huge financial gain.
second reason? FIFA want a world cup in China sooner rather than later. Giving Australia 2022 would mean China waiting till 2030 at the earliest. Somehow i dont see FIFA wanting to wait that long. Yes the game is corrupt in china at the moment and their human rights stink but look what they did with the olympics.
Politics aside, then its anyone’s ball game!!
June 15th 2009 @ 11:20am
Michael C said | June 15th 2009 @ 11:20am | Report comment
Interested to see some actual speculative numbers presented – (please note – I’m not taking a pro or anti stance via this comment)
hoping for a $5 billion ‘windfall’.
I just wonder if that’s before or after expenses? At any rate, those who have thrown around numbers like $10 or $20 billion in the past have a more real world number to deal with now.
The point General Ashnak makes is significant enough – - the reality is an Adelaide or PErth can’t afford a billion dollar stadium project that does not involve an AFL friendly stadium long term – - – unless the contingency is that soccer will trample AFL and become the biggest thing in town for more than 6 weeks in either 2018 or 2022.
Point of this is if we’re talking about a potential $5 billion dollar windfall that is subject to a 10-14 year projection of economic conditions, cost and ease of international travel/tourism etc – so then, you don’t want to go building too many purpose built stadia in the first place – - let alone in the smaller states building what would more than likely become huge white elephants. (Japan built too many stadia that have taken way too long to start generating income let alone profits – - by which time they’ll be due for replacement!!!). I would love to know if $5 billion is the best case, worst case, or conservative middle ground ball park figure??
$5 billion can be eroded very, very quickly – - but as stated – 0.5% of GDP, not to be sneezed at; nor be pi$$ed away either on over building of non essential infrastructure – - as, generally, the funds diverted to construction of sports infrastructure and the economic activity and jobs involved – could have been spent on other projects just as easily (but, perhaps not so nationally profiled).
There’s a current article on RSA one year out – http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news?slug=ap-wcup-oneyearcountdown&prov=ap&type=lgns
The stadium was long delayed by residents angered at the prospect of raucous soccer fans disrupting the tranquility of some of South Africa’s most expensive real estate. The cost of $550 million is way more than originally budgeted and there are fears it may become a very expensive white elephant after the whistle blows on the semifinal it hosts.
But it has also provided a platform for Cape Town to launch a $1.5 billion infrastructure program to upgrade transit and other facilities that would otherwise have been neglected. That pattern is repeated in other host cities.
and further
But he said the economic benefits of the World Cup were likely overstated and that South Africa still had to overcome many challenges to make the tournament a success. Most of there challenges include transport and communications, and also the FIFA WC HAS provided a platform for the taxi drivers to resist plans for rapid urban bus systems. Such an event provides ‘opportunity’ for specific groups to utilise a ‘blocking’ power to further their cause (rightly or wrongly).
actually, an interview in 2007 with the British born boss of South African Premier Soccer League was interesting –
‘The arch on the stadium being built in Durban is bigger than the one at Wembley. It’s monumental. But it makes no sense. What the hell are we going to do with a 70,000-seater football stadium in Durban once the World Cup is over?’
with a few of the towns being Rugby strongholds, he laments It really pisses me off that rugby is going to benefit from this World Cup.
The question of course in the first instance is that where there’s existing facilities that they are there primarily BECAUSE of Rugby – so, Mr Phillips needs to keep mindful that the bread is buttered in part by soccer and in part by rugby in part by the nation more broadly than just the interests of two competing sports codes. Hopefully the Australian attitidue can be a little more bi-partisan – - – from all sides.
June 15th 2009 @ 11:22am
Pippinu said | June 15th 2009 @ 11:22am | Report comment
Doesn’t FIFA now frown on joint bids?
I agree that once we get past a European host in 2018 (almost guaranteed), we will have China and the US to contend with in 2022 – very tough opposition – not impossible – but very tough.
June 15th 2009 @ 11:26am
tifosi said | June 15th 2009 @ 11:26am | Report comment
Pip
Somehow i see spain dropping their iberian cousins from the bid !!!
June 15th 2009 @ 11:28am
Pippinu said | June 15th 2009 @ 11:28am | Report comment
heh, heh – in the dog eat dog of world footballing politics – that rings true!!
June 15th 2009 @ 11:42am
The Bear said | June 15th 2009 @ 11:42am | Report comment
I am not overly concerned about the outcome. The process will do just as much for the country and asia, as the actual event. In all good time, we will host. Then it will be the best for all of our diverse communities and footballing family. In the nest decade or so? It’s irrelevant to me. It’s an achievement in it’s own right to have Federal Political support…we shall if Lowy, Rudd and Turnbull’s and FFA’s vision trickles down from Party heads to the state level. One should assume so.
June 15th 2009 @ 12:11pm
danny said | June 15th 2009 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
the $1b figure being bandied around is a fair way off the mark, according to this article out of radelaide:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25632716-5006301,00.html
mentions in there, amid the bollocks about an upgraded adelaide oval hosting world cup games (no chance) that;
‘The FFA has commissioned plans for a series of boutique 25,000 seat stadiums that, with temporary seating for the Cup, lifts capacity to 45,000.
Stadiums – costing about $250 million each – would be built around the country off the same plan.
The temporary seating would be dismantled after the Cup tournament and given to schools and community sporting organisations.’
whilst they may not have the aesthetic appeal of the bubble dome, these stadia would be pretty acceptable i’m sure. if i recall, the cost of stadium wa (ie the 60,000 convertible ground that’s been axed recently) was estimated to cost $1b. that may be the source of such speculation on prices.
for what it’s worth, i think convertible stadiums are the perfect answer for readelaide and perth going to the future. but if they went down that path, even though the price is significantly higher than the temporary rectangular pitches, there’s no question about their long term viability if they’re capable of hosting afl as well as football (not to mention allowing socceroos matches).
another thing i though of the other day, and after some input. the mcc/mcg have indicated they want to redevelop the southern stand in the near future to bring the whole grounnd up a notch. what if they incoporated a moveable lower tier to the new southern stand, allowing the seating of one side of the ground to be brought closer to the action? this would partially alleviate what i can see as the only problem with the mcg as a world cup venue, ie the distance to the pitch.
June 15th 2009 @ 12:34pm
True Tah said | June 15th 2009 @ 12:34pm | Report comment
MC
if the head of PSL is “pissed off” that rugby is going to benefit from the world cup, then he clearly isnt doing his job well enough. The fact that for the large part, PSL gets piss poor crowds, how can South African rugby be blamed for this? Maybe he should do his best to ensure that these stadiums dont become white elephants.
Of the grounds being used for FIFA WC, two are owned by provincial rugby unions, Loftus and Free State stadium, with another (Ellis Park) having a provincial union as a partial owner.
I dont get the fact that they went out and built grand new stadiums in Green Point (Cape Town) and Mose Maghiba (Durban) when in both cases there were excellent stadiums already in those cities owned by provincial rugby unions, with 50K plus capacities.