FFA’s World Cup bid lacks transparency
Roar Guru By Tifosi , 8 Dec 2009 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- 2018 FIFA World Cup, 2022 FIFA World Cup, FFA, football, World Football
FIFA President Sepp Blatter, left, talks with Football Australia chairman Frank Lowy as they arrive at the opening ceremony for the 58th FIFA congress in Sydney, Thursday, May 29, 2008. AP Photo/Mark Baker
The FFA’s bid to host the 2018/2022 FIFA World Cup reminds me of the current debate on the Emission Trading Scheme here in Australia. Both sound great in theory, but the public don’t understand the details of what it involves.
The public want to know, in simple English, what it means.
I love football, and always will, but I have been sceptical of Australia’s bid for the 2018/2022 World Cup.
I have advocated here on The Roar, once about a year ago and recently in September, that I believe that Australia is better suited to hosting the AFC Asian Cup rather than the FIFA World Cup.
I won’t go through why again, but you can read my thoughts here and here.
It seems the comments from the AFL and MCG about the lack of detail of what is actually required has struck some kind of nerve. Whilst the AFL has overreacted, the truth is that there is some merit to to their concern.
My concern about the Australian bid has been the lack of detail pertaining to the stadia situation. It has bothered me from day one. Australia lacks suitable stadia for football, rugby, and league in AFL dominated states.
I became really concerned when I received an email from the bid committee asking for help in finding the 64 training venues required.
That set off alarm bells.
The bid is doing a wonderful job of networking around the world, making the right connections, and meeting the right people. But I still can’t see how we can win the bid without knowing what stadia we will be presenting.
Have a look at the official Australian bid website.
On it you will read about how great Australia is, how great the people are, how experienced we are at hosting major events, and what tremendous sporting facilities we have. All true, no doubt.
However, there is no mention whatsoever of what cities are actually bidding and what stadia those cities are actually offering.
Or how they will be paid for if they need upgrading.
The Americans, our main competitors for 2022, on the other hand, let you know exactly what they offer in terms of stadia and I can assure you it far surpasses what we offer.
Also, the news that the MCG must now undergo some sort of rectangular configuration is, to me, an example of what the FFA don’t let the public know.
Does this imply that other oval grounds being considered would need the same type of rectangular configuration? Who knows.
And that’s the problem.
So please FFA, let us know what is happening with this bid. After all, it’s the taxpayers that are bankrolling it.
Only when the facts are out on the table can people decide if the World Cup is indeed winnable, because at the moment its certainly doesn’t look that way.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- 2018 FIFA World Cup, 2022 FIFA World Cup, FFA, football, World Football
December 8th 2009 @ 12:08pm
sheek said | December 8th 2009 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
They say the first casualty of (code) wars is the truth. My understanding is this…..
Neither FIFA nor FFA are saying no other sports can participate during the time a world cup is held in a particular country.
The problem facing Australia is two-pronged.
1. No other country (that I’m aware of) has 4 major football codes competing for grounds during a season (or part thereof).
2. There simply aren’t enough capacity grounds to accommodate all 4 footy codes at the same time.
Now I’m not a particularly big fan of FIFA, but I don’t see any conspiracy here. It’s a simple matter of too many footy codes & insufficient grounds of capacity. To suggest otherwise is deliberate humbug.
Now if the AFL, NRL & ARU don’t want to accommodate the FFA & FIFA, then that’s their prerogative & goodbye world cup host.
We’ll (Australia) have to wait until another time in the future when either we have fewer footy codes, or more grounds of capacity to co-handle all 4 footy codes in the one season.
A simple thought on the bidding process as I understand it. A country, not a city or cities, bids to host the world cup. It may offer likely grounds (requires a minimum of 12 different stadia). In FFA’s case, they are unable to offer the likely 12 at this point in time.
However, if Australia does end up hosting a WC in either 2018 or 22, I would suggest the stadia would be found in the following cities – Melbourne(3), Sydney(3), Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Newcastle & Canberra all one each.
Other potential candidates might be Townsville, Gosford, Wollongong & Launceston.
BTW, before everyone descends into chaotic hysteria, how has SA’s rugby union been affected by the WC next year, if at all???
December 8th 2009 @ 12:15pm
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
Sheek
I know there is one example of one brand new stadium being built across the road from a perfectly good rugby stadium.
December 8th 2009 @ 12:47pm
rojack said | December 8th 2009 @ 12:47pm | Report comment
This article from Ray Gatt says it all.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sport/open-your-eyes-demetriou/story-e6frg7mf-1225807952610
The actual world cup is probably 12 years from now and FFA got the bid requirements from FIFA in May 2009. How can anyone expect FFA to nail down all the details in 6 months for an event that is 12 years away. AFL and NRL expect all the details to be mapped out, right down to their 2011/2012 season schedule. Are you guys kidding me? Yes, there will be disruption. That is a given. But no, you guys don’t have to shut down your season. The fact that you guys actuall fell for it goes to show you guys are either:
- suckers for cheap propaganda .
- naive, or
- just down right bias.
The complaint about lack of transparency is bull. These is a very complex bid. All lot of options are being discussed. These things need time to work out. And it needs all the code to cooporate in good faith. To be honest I can’t see how AFL/NRL will ever be happy regardless of what FFA proposed. FFA can do all the work and bend over backwards, only for AFL/NRL to say no.
Btw no surprise the sydney olympic and melbourne commonwealth bid did not get this kind of treatment during their bidding process.
December 8th 2009 @ 12:58pm
AndyS said | December 8th 2009 @ 12:58pm | Report comment
“How can anyone expect FFA to nail down all the details in 6 months for an event that is 12 years away”
But that is exactly what FIFA does expect. If they can’t demonstrate a plan that does that, with whatever necessary support agreed and aligned behind it, then they are wasting their time bidding. Given they have a six months to finalise the Bid Book, I’d say they have about one to two months to finalise whatever agreements are required.
December 8th 2009 @ 1:12pm
rojack said | December 8th 2009 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
The bid book has to be submited by May 2010. So they still have another 6 months to sort it out. The point i am trying to make is that it is a complex process. FFA has to negotiate with all the states and the codes. We can’t expect all the details to be mapped out now. And some might have to be agreed in principle and then the details to be sorted out after May 2010. I don’t think that is unreasonable. I don’t see the Olympic and Commonwealth bid treated like this. Lets face it, there will be a lot of people that will be unhappy regardless. They have hidden agendas. So you just can’t please everyone. This is where the government has to step in. But FFA should try their best.
December 8th 2009 @ 1:56pm
Michael C said | December 8th 2009 @ 1:56pm | Report comment
Rojack – DO just remember that the AFL (and NRL as required) delayed or start early their seasons to cater for the Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games.
The requirement to displace was far, far less than what the FFA is asking/demanding.
The Olympic and C’wealth games are far, far more bipartisan – - soccer world cup is very specific.
The reality on this bid is that Australia is up against nations that are :
A. soccer nations (i.e. most the infrastructure exists – whether to be upgraded or rebuilt is the question)
B. the infrastructure is already in the control of the national/regional soccer authorities
C. nations are larger populations with more cities of suitable size (perhaps not Qatar!!!!)
A lot of these 12 years out requirements really only seem a push for a nation like Australia because, in essence – Australia is very unsuited to seeking to host such an event.
It’s nobodies fault.
And the AFL and NRL can’t be blamed.
And just perhaps, just perhaps, the FFA should’ve focussed on first trying an Asian Cup and then build up to a World Cup…..that, surely, would be the natural progression!?!?!? It just seems that Frank Lowy is driving this, he’s an old rich man and he is impatient and likes to get his way.
December 8th 2009 @ 2:16pm
rojack said | December 8th 2009 @ 2:16pm | Report comment
I like how you believe we should think small and aim small. We have already hosted the world 2nd and 3rd biggest sporting event (Olympic and Commw games). You honestly think we can’t handle this? We have the infrastructure. Yes, it will cause some disruption. But it can be work around. But then again, we should think small and worry about the disruption to AFL/NRL and just abandon the whole thing. Yes, there will be a cost, but the benefits money wise will outweight the cost. That is the whole point.
December 8th 2009 @ 2:35pm
Michael C said | December 8th 2009 @ 2:35pm | Report comment
I don’t think the nation can’t handle it.
BUt, that’s only part of the equation,
because, it’s not a can we or can’t we.
I’d've thought we’ve proven enough to the world what we can do in such regards. Or do we hope to show up Japan that they had to share with South Korea whilst we can do it all alone??? perhaps there’s an element of that national ego massaging.
Again though – - that’s only part of it.
If the FFA could run it without forcing the AFL and NRL out of town – - – then, fine.
And that may yet be able to happen.
btw – there’s no certainty that the benefits will outweigh the cost. Remember, it’s a FIFA event. The MCG and Docklands are on a better financial wicket sticking tight with the AFL.
The WC Cup will swallow public funds voraciously – - if we could do it on the cheap – then, that means cutting corners on stadia…..which means massive impact on NRL and AFL.
The returns really are limited to tourism and ‘exposure’, but, Sydney post the Olympics has shown how shallow that can be……not helped by 9/11 a year on. But – that’s the point – - the benefits are not fixed.
It’s not a simple costs = X and event generates Y and we all win. FIFA controls everything. And, I somehow doubt that the FFA would take a dividend and pay back the Government!!!!
Lets just not be blindly assuming massive benefit – - after hearing a long time World Cup supporter/advocate in Jeff Kennett wavering because he reckons it’s just too, too expensive – - – I’ve got even bigger doubts. So, lets not make blanket assumptions and lets demand some modelling scenarios.
December 8th 2009 @ 3:13pm
Michael C said | December 8th 2009 @ 3:13pm | Report comment
btw –
how do you claim that me suggesting doing the ‘Asian Cup’ first is a case of thinking small??
December 8th 2009 @ 1:50pm
Michael C said | December 8th 2009 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
I love this article because I thought exactly the same thing listening to Tony Abbott on ABC tele on Sunday morning.
How he described the ETS and the poorly costed and detailed nature of it and the ‘trust us/no worries’ style elements,
and I just thought, this sounds like the FFA and K.Rudd with the World Cup bid.
It made it apparent that if one or two states fall from Labour hands, then, K.Rudd and the FFA might suddenly be in trouble unless they have some spectacular rabbits up their sleeve.
December 8th 2009 @ 6:30pm
MyGeneration said | December 8th 2009 @ 6:30pm | Report comment
I think that’s a pretty silly analogy. Abbott will have success making people fearful of the ETS because climate change is poorly understood, let alone how the ETS is going to combat it. Whilst I agree there are some things that are unexplained about the World Cup bid, it is not hard for a sport-loving nation to understand the ‘good’ that would come from it, so the negativists are going to be pushing shit up hill compared to what Abbott is embarking on. And I very much doubt that the Libs would see much plus side in going against a World Cup bid, especially as soccer’s profile is only going to increase over the next year and, depending on what happen’s in next year’s WC, maybe longer.
BTW, I’m very much in favour of the bid – I mean, we’re Aussies, we do sport – but that doesn’t mean that detailed questions shouldn’t be asked, especially by the likes of the NRL and AFL, and we shouldn’t necessarily roll over for FIFA (or the FFA pretending to speak for FIFA). Scepticism is a good thing, to be applied in healthy doses to Emissions Trading Schemes and World Cup bids.
December 9th 2009 @ 6:23pm
Beast-A-Tron said | December 9th 2009 @ 6:23pm | Report comment
I think it is an adept comparison.
“I agree there are some things that are unexplained about the World Cup bid, it is not hard for a sport-loving nation to understand the ‘good’ that would come from it”
I’ve yet to see anyone argue, sensibly, how much the WC will cost and how much money it will generate. People spout random words such as “tourism” and “biggest sporting event in the world”… yet I’ve seen no rational, detailed argument taking into consideration some of the costs involved that no other WC hosting country would have to deal with (they do exist).
“And I very much doubt that the Libs would see much plus side in going against a World Cup bid”
If the benefits do not outweigh the cons economically speaking, they would go against such a bid. Unfortunately the lack of information has made such an analysis impossible.
Abbott will have success on making people fearful of the ETS because it is attempting to tax an inelastic good – see how poorly Rudds’ alcopops tax affected consumption of alcohol. I have so far heard not a single argument in favour of the ETS with sound economic basis to it.
Regardless of your stance on global warming, the ETS is a very poorly constructed policy, it is fiscally irresponsible and as far as I can see, the policy aim does not match what the policy outcome will be. The heart of the problem lies at the generation of power, a highly inelastic good, which Rudd has utterly failed to address. When will politicians learn that supply is easier to manipulate than demand? The regulation/prohibition of various kinds of vice demonstrates this conundrum.
So I guess what I see in comparison of the two issues, is a lack of information and transparency on pertinent details. My guess is, something is being hidden. I think the outcome of both issues, will be different in the minds of the planners from those ordinary folk dissecting the issues.
“Scepticism is a good thing, to be applied in healthy doses to Emissions Trading Schemes and World Cup bids.”
Indeed scepticism is a good thing, and so many people get emotional and take offence to scepticism on this board. Shame.
December 9th 2009 @ 6:27pm
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 6:27pm | Report comment
It doesn’t suit a politician to get the true costs and benefits out there (and the post-event studies are only ever completed years later).
It’s far better to mutter things like: big event, put Australia on the map, etc
December 9th 2009 @ 6:39pm
Beast-A-Tron said | December 9th 2009 @ 6:39pm | Report comment
“It’s far better to mutter things like: big event, put Australia on the map, etc”
For a second there I didn’t know whether you were referring to the WC or the ETS.
December 9th 2009 @ 7:03pm
Pippinu said | December 9th 2009 @ 7:03pm | Report comment
ON that score, the similarities are eerily similar (PM pretends to be interested in something for the purposes of self-aggrandisement)
December 8th 2009 @ 2:47pm
Tifosi FC said | December 8th 2009 @ 2:47pm | Report comment
Firstly, I think Climate change is real and needs to be addressed.
The problem though is that the general public dont undertsand how it works so are reluctant to back it.
Secondly, I would love a World Cup here, but not one that is played on cricket ovals and the like which appears to be where this bid is heading. Australia wont do the tournament justice, nor does the country have the capability either.
This isnt a mickey mouise tournament here where talking about.
December 8th 2009 @ 2:51pm
AndyRoo said | December 8th 2009 @ 2:51pm | Report comment
Their is one thing I would be interested in, what are the availabilty of tickets like?
Is anyone going to South Africa next year, were individuals able to purchase tickets before the draw?
I don’t expect to be able too see the Socceroos but a few random games in Brisbane I would be fine with
December 8th 2009 @ 3:06pm
Mxjosh said | December 8th 2009 @ 3:06pm | Report comment
I disagree that Australia is poorly suited to host the World Cup. Granted it is still a way of but i believe Australia has more potential than some of the other bids. So long as we can find a diplomatic solution in regards to stadium usage with other codes I believe were well placed to challenge for the 2022 World Cup
December 8th 2009 @ 3:29pm
Michael C said | December 8th 2009 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
Mxjosh – - so many of the issues would be non issues if FIFA were not so rigid,
and presently, some of the issues potentially able to be over come……depend in no small part on FIFA not being so rigid,….
December 8th 2009 @ 3:28pm
rojack said | December 8th 2009 @ 3:28pm | Report comment
To Michael C
Same as you, I would only support this bid if the benefits outweight the cost. I would still support it if there is a slight cost. Some benefits cannot be measured in $. Although I remember they couldn’t guarantee Sydney Olympic and Comm Game would make a return but that didn’t stop them. Ask anyone about the Sydney Olympic now and people don’t talk about AFL/NRL disruptions or the traffic mayhem that occured. People remember the positive. You can’t measure that.
The Sydney olympic cost about 6B. We don’t know how much the world cup will cost yet as it depends on the stadiums. But i would think it would cost a lot less. We don’t have to build olympic village and train line to airport. And we definitely don’t need to build new sporting facilities just to be used once (eg: Equestrian centres).
The spending will mostly likely be on upgrades. Yes, we might have to build a new one in Perth and upgrade the one in Adelaide but those would be built regardless of the world cup bid. If anything, the state govt is probably happy they can piggyback on this. So the spending will be on infrasture that will continue to be used, most likely by the same code that is working against it. How ironic.
December 8th 2009 @ 3:50pm
Michael C said | December 8th 2009 @ 3:50pm | Report comment
rojack -
a salient point – in Perth and Adelaide – certain AFL related stadia expenses will happen anyway.
The states have perhaps been holding out to try to get Federal funds.
Personally – if it could all be done right, we have AFL and NRL not excluded from host cities, and get public infrastructure fixed up like PT and airport rail links in Melbourne and so on and so forth…….but, just getting extra hotel rooms for a 4 week period…….
certainly on large stadia on exhibited history – yes, the domestic instances of rectangle codes don’t warrant big stadia dotted around the country, so, to avoid white elephants or purely wishful thinking construction, then, the AFL can benefit………except…..they probably get the venues anyway and it’s simply moving the cost burden from state to federal govt.
December 8th 2009 @ 4:16pm
Lazza said | December 8th 2009 @ 4:16pm | Report comment
Why do these AFL stadia need taxpayers money to upgrade anyway? If it’s such a successful comp they should be financing their own stadia like English Soccer clubs do.
The technology and expertise exists now to build multi-purpose stadia that can be re-configured easily and have a roof etc. They may cost more initially but they can be used for so many sports and other events and won’t have to be idle for 6 months a year.
December 8th 2009 @ 4:39pm
Michael C said | December 8th 2009 @ 4:39pm | Report comment
Lazza -
well, it’s a bit like this -
if everyone else scums of the govt, why shouldn’t Aust Footy,
alas, we haven’t been very successful on track record in Melb, Ade and Perth……and in Brisbane the Gabba 15 yr plan was drawn up before the bad news Bears became 3peat Lions.
agreed on the reconfigurable/roof as an options venues – - and if a FIFA WC helped to justify it, all well and good.
but – - give me a Melb airport rail link first!! and a road tunnel connecting the Eastern to the Tulla under the ‘dead centre’ of Melb.
(y’see, it’s all about Melb and the AFL……or,….is the FFA just making it thus??, or Demetriou??…..AD for premier, Bugger off – he’ll do more for the state where he is!!!)
December 8th 2009 @ 3:56pm
keeper11 said | December 8th 2009 @ 3:56pm | Report comment
“AT the end of the day – they just didn’t have the balls to come out and say, yes, the AFL season can’t operate – bad luck! ”
really pip..
..unlike yr very own AD…the ‘Uncle Jeb of australian sport…
who ran squeeling to his god ol’ boy chums at the Hun and 3aw crying…:
” ‘mammma..ohhhh..mamma ….saaave me ..!”
What a .. ‘ man ‘…..
guess he and his tough mates at AFL HQ couldn’t pop the champers this time as OUR national team the Socceroos unfortnately qualified for the WC…
so having another try at ‘defeating’ the enemy code by other means one could say….
December 8th 2009 @ 4:01pm
Pippinu said | December 8th 2009 @ 4:01pm | Report comment
Lack of truthfulness from both Lowy and Buckley has led us to where we are now.
I mean – Lowy and Buckley actually told the Australian people with a straight face that we were a chance of winning 2018!
December 8th 2009 @ 4:50pm
Michael C said | December 8th 2009 @ 4:50pm | Report comment
Mate -
Buckley came out claiming that govt funding improved the MCG due to the 2000 Olympics!!!! Outright lie, and his Fairfax printpals in M.Lynch and M.Cockerill have towed the line by claiming the AFL recieves all this federal fuding – - that they don’t.
Buckley/Lowy’s media lackeys even tried to claim that a project at Kardinia Park was 100% fed govt funded……..when it included Geelong FC funds, AFL funds, plus local council.
Who has been playing the media game so far??
And trying to portray the AFL poorly,
when, all along the AFL has stated “Support in principle” and “Need to see the detail”,
and – reality is – this position hasn’t changed.
The AFL has NOT mentioned blocking access. (of course, they wouldn’t yet – but, they I DO believe are setting the foundations).
btw “so having another try at ‘defeating’ the enemy code”
tell me that’s not what the FFA are attempting to do here……..get the biggest ever free kick and to attempt to clobber the other codes once and for all.
December 8th 2009 @ 7:20pm
rojack said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:20pm | Report comment
After what AD said on Monday, I now believe AFL is not supporting the bid “in principle”. Publicly they say they will support the bid. Privately, they are just trying to kill it. The way he went on about having to kill the season and then went on to say 3 clubs will die. Are you kidding me? No surprise people are falling for it.
To be honest, I am glad AD has come out like that. Because we now know the truth. I definitely won’t feel bad if the Govt steps in to force the situation. You can’t work with someone that has hidden agenda.
“tell me that’s not what the FFA are attempting to do here……..get the biggest ever free kick and to attempt to clobber the other codes once and for all.”
I honestly, believe football will never be number 1 in Aust. But no other codes should deny football from growing or hosting a world cup. As a football fan, I would never deny Aust chance to host a rugby or cricket or any world cup, even if it causes disruption to my code, as long as it benefits the country as a whole.
AD should just come out and say i don’t want a FIFA world cup in Aust because I am scared it might get too popular. The govt can then step in to come up with a compromise that suit everyone. Imagine how much time and money that would save. It won’t damage AD/AFL credibility because we all expect it anyway.
December 8th 2009 @ 5:47pm
tifosi said | December 8th 2009 @ 5:47pm | Report comment
Interesting approach from AFL and NRL
Last time around it was NRL going off its nut and AFL keeping quiet. This time its the other way around.
And why hasnt anyone asked what rugby thinks?
Interesting read from South Africa’s bid committee chief on his thoughts of australia bidding for the world cup
Quote http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-sport/jordaan-pays-tribute-to-socceroos-fans-20091204-k9z1.html
“It will strengthen the understanding that football in Australia is as important as any of the other codes,” said Jordaan.
“The scales have been tilted against football in Australia, the international understanding is that it is really a rugby and cricket country.
What No mention of the AFL at all. How is that possible!!
December 8th 2009 @ 8:03pm
bever fever said | December 8th 2009 @ 8:03pm | Report comment
Probably because he is ignorant/insular/uninformed, could be one of those or possibly all.
Millions upon millions of people around the world have no idea that rugby let alone ausise rules exist, most would not through any fault of their own, their standard of education would not let them.
I imagine FIFA is quite happy they stay that way, they love monoculture.
December 8th 2009 @ 7:13pm
sheek said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:13pm | Report comment
I think some (many) are getting ahead of ourselves here. I agree with those who say we can handle a FIFA world cup. 2018 is plenty of time, although 2022 would be better.
We handled both the 2000 Olympics & 2003 rugby WC spectacularly well. Although the football WC is a much bigger event than either of those.
I also believe we’ll have the stadia in place, with extra to spare. The AFL, NRL & ARU won’t have to suspend their seasons, this is a “furphy”. Sure, they might have to make adjustments, but they’ll be able to conclude their annual commitments with only minor inconveniences.
It’s more than possible that by 2018 Australia will have 40,000 plus stadia in the following locations – Sydney x 3; Melbourne x 3; Adelaide x 2; Perth, Brisbane, Gold Coast, Newcastle, Central Coast, Wollongong, Canberra, Townsville & Launceston.
Brisbane & Perth could even have a second stadia each with minimum 40,000 capacity. So as you can see, there’s a cushion of between 5-7 stadia above the minimum 12.
Also, football fans WILL travel. Perhaps not quite as many to Australia as say Europe, but they will travel. So there’s no reason the FFA shouldn’t finish in the black, & quite handsomely too.
December 8th 2009 @ 7:17pm
AndyS said | December 8th 2009 @ 7:17pm | Report comment
But is “could”, “should” and “might” going to get them the gig next year? They’d need some absolutely cast-iron bipartisan guarantees from the Federal government…
December 8th 2009 @ 10:05pm
jimbo said | December 8th 2009 @ 10:05pm | Report comment
Sheek,
good points, but the minimum is 9 stadia not 12 – the rules say between 9 and 12.
South Africa are using 10 Stadia for next year’s WC.
We already have enough stadia to host a WC. One over 80K for the opening ceremony and final and 2 over 60K capacity for the semis.
If the MCG pulls out then we have to build another one with 60K+ capacity, which will be great for one of the non-AFL states and territories, because it will be rectangular and purpose built for Rugby or football and will generate more jobs and money during the construction for the local economies..
And with the sort of money AFL are asking for compensation it will be cheaper to build a new stadium.
We don’t need the AFL or their stadia to host a WC and they will not get any benefits of the football WC in their cities or states.