World Cup bid makes us truly global citizens
By Mike Tuckerman, 29 Dec 2009 Mike Tuckerman is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- AFL, football, Les Murray, NRL, World Cup
401 Have your say
Related coverage
- Football news
- NRL news
- AFL news
- Toyota Premiership news
- World Cup Favourites news
- World Cup Roar of the Crowd Competition news
- Football World Cup - South Africa 2010 news

The Australian Socceroos' Mark Viduka kicks the ball in the Australia v Japan opening Group F match at the Soccer World Cup in Kaiserslautern, Germany, Monday, June 12, 2006. This is Australia's first World Cup finals appearance in 32 years. AAP Image/Dave Hunt
When I was in high school, I dreamed of travelling the globe. I mostly blame Les Murray for this, because his ‘World Soccer’ show became compulsory viewing of a Saturday afternoon.
Every weekend after watching the show, I’d dream of the days when I too could stand on the terraces of world football’s most famous stadia, watching the best players on the planet strut their stuff in front of packed houses.
The reality is that when I was old enough to set out for Europe, I spent most of my time watching dreadful German third division games at Fortuna Köln’s crumbling Südstadion.
Nevertheless, I always appreciated that football offered me a more worldly view than the staid suburban environment I grew up in.
So it was with a sense of excitement that I greeted the news that Australia was to bid to host the World Cup finals, although my joy was apparently not shared by those who call the NRL and AFL their sport of choice.
They argue that the cost of halting the domestic NRL and AFL seasons is too great to bother mounting a serious bid to host the World Cup, but as someone whose love of the round ball game has resulted in numerous trips abroad, I can’t help but feel that such complaints are a tad myopic.
In a country that craves international recognition, turning down the world’s biggest sporting event because it temporarily impacts on local affairs is like denying Rafael Nadal a shot at the Australian Open because hard courts don’t suit his natural game.
That is to say, not a particularly smart idea.
For a nation that has a reputation for being open-minded and cosmopolitan, it seems absurd to sabotage the chance to host the world’s most important sporting event because it impacts on local affairs.
I was at the 2006 World Cup in Germany, and I can safely say that the tournament supersedes anything this country has ever seen.
And as someone who not only hails from the rugby league heartland that is western Sydney, but who has also watched the odd game of AFL in Melbourne, that’s a statement I feel qualified to make.
The football World Cup should be right up our alley, so it’s a shame that so many cloak their views in quasi-nationalist rhetoric to claim that football is a foreign sport and that parochial interests must be protected.
They are entitled to their opinions – but so are the thousands of fans whose passion for the round ball game is not intended as a snub to domestic sports, and who support football simply because of a love for the game.
These fans might occasionally be drowned out by the din of newspaper columnists looking to protect their own self-interests, but undoubtedly they exist.
I can understand that NRL and AFL fans don’t wish to see their respective seasons interrupted by a World Cup.
But since the essence of ground-sharing means exactly that – to share – perhaps these fans can take a temporary back seat to a tournament that makes the Olympics look like a village get-together.
We’re talking about a potential $5.3 billion economic windfall – according to the boffins who come up with these figures – not to mention the hundreds of millions who tune into the tournament on TV sets across the globe.
And in a rapidly globalised world, hosting a World Cup would make us truly global citizens.
Whether that’s something the average Australian wants is another topic for debate.
But if the ethos of being Australian is to “get in and have a go,” I’d like to see the Australian government mount an open and honest bid to host the World Cup finals – regardless of whether that puts a few noses out of joint amongst the status quo.
I’m sure that NRL and AFL fans will disagree, but I don’t think I’m alone in that desire.
Recommend this story.
Follow Mike on twitter @Mike_Tuckerman
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- AFL, football, Les Murray, NRL, World Cup


December 29th 2009 @ 7:43am
Mushi said | December 29th 2009 @ 7:43am | Report comment
“I was at the 2006 World Cup in Germany, and I can safely say that the tournament supersedes anything this country has ever seen.
And as someone who not only hails from the rugby league heartland that is western Sydney, but who has also watched the odd game of AFL in Melbourne, that’s a statement I feel qualified to make”
Supersedes means to replace, over rule, or make redundant. The use of this term is pure and unadulterated arrogance on behalf of the author and typifies his approach if you don’t like the A-league you’re a snob, if you don’t want the world cup you’re a xenophobe.
Living in NRL heartland and watching a few matches of AFL is a very low hurdle to qualify someone on if a sport should be superseded. In fact such a “qualification” just displays how myopic and self serving the rubbish this author peddles with impunity throughout this and other articles.
Here’s a question how about actually holding the administrators of the round ball game to task for clearly not doing the necessary ground work with all the stakeholders prior to this point?
Their approach has been rank amateur to this point, and if they carry this type of execution through to the world cup it will make the Danish look like masterminds of international gatherings.
December 29th 2009 @ 12:00pm
amused said | December 29th 2009 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
hear hear. adrian m, the author of this article, et al tend to make hyperbolic, oversimplified arguments in favour of soccer. i’ve watched A league, played soccer as a younger player and acted in drama in high school.
this makes me qualified to rubbish the game because no one really cares except a vocal minority. that and the rather poor standard of A league here in this country means that it will never get to be the biggest game in Australia.
December 29th 2009 @ 12:06pm
Marshall said | December 29th 2009 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
Amused, open your eyes and see who wrote the article before you go accusing the wrong person
December 29th 2009 @ 7:37pm
jimbo said | December 29th 2009 @ 7:37pm | Report comment
Your drama training is obviously now paying dividends . . .
December 29th 2009 @ 10:19pm
jimbo said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:19pm | Report comment
Football already is the biggest sport in this country and has been for a few years.
Football in this country just isn’t the A-League (which has only been running for 4 years).
Its got to do with participation, registered players, clubs, mums and dads, international TV audiences, national teams, World Cups etc etc.
Very shallow view of the world to just try and denigrate Australian football and the A-League attendances.
The average Socceroos attendances at Germany 06 is bigger than the best average NRL and AFL attendances combined. The international TV audiences were over 300 times more than any AFL or NRL grand final.
December 29th 2009 @ 10:49pm
Springs said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:49pm | Report comment
What’s it got to do with Mums and Dads?
Rugby League in this country isn’t just the participation numbers (the only thing soccer has over it) and if touch is counted I would say League has bigger participation numbers. There may be more soccer clubs but the League clubs are much larger and hold more influence over the public. Ever heard of LEAGUEs clubs? Do you know how LEAGUEs clubs came about? Mums and dads? Most players play soccer because their mothers won’t let them play League (this is in NSW/QLD of course). Their fathers probably played League/AFL/Rugby when they were young and still follow their old club, that or their parents were born overseas. I doubt many international TV audiences watch the A-League. Each sport has 1 major national teams, they all have womens and junior national teams as well. Each sport has a World Cup, the League and Union World Cup and the AFL International Cup have all been played in Australia in the last decade. Australia has competed in each of the League and Union WC, winning the League WC 9 times and the Union WC twice. Australia has competed in 2 soccer world cups, soon to be 3.
The socceroo attendances at Germany has more to do with GERMAN sport. International TV has to do with International sport.
If soccer was the biggest sport in the country then the A-League would be the biggest comp in the country, simple.
December 31st 2009 @ 12:00am
jimbo said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:00am | Report comment
Ever heard of football clubs?
Most people who like football have never been to or will ever go to an A-League game, because football is a global game and there is more to choose from than just the A-League.
Its an international game and that’s why there is so many national football teams in Australia – mens, boys and womens.
I think you’ll find a lot of Australians and not Germans went to see the Socceroos play half way across the world.
TV ratings don’t just count Australians.
December 31st 2009 @ 12:05am
Mister Football said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:05am | Report comment
But I too have trouble following this line of thought.
The world wide ratings are huge – yes – but what’s that got to do with Australia? How does Australia benefit from that?
The AFL industry is worth $3.4 billion per annum, and virtually every cent stays in Australia.
But people watching foreign games, buying the merchandise of foreign clubs, etc – that’s money going elsewhere.
What does that have to do with Australia?
December 31st 2009 @ 11:12am
Springs said | December 31st 2009 @ 11:12am | Report comment
No, I have never heard of a Football Club in Australia. I hope you understand that I’m talking about the clubs with bars and pokies etc. Not the playing clubs. So soccer fans in Australia have more to choose from than the A-League? Can they just walk up and go to an EPL match can they? The only other thing they have is the Socceroos? And since no real soccer fans go to A-League games they would go to Internationals right? So how come they don’t sell out every match?
In Australia, TV ratings do only count Australians. There are as many national League teams as their is soccer teams.
December 30th 2009 @ 12:04am
Kurt said | December 30th 2009 @ 12:04am | Report comment
Fair enough Jimbo, not much to ask then that the biggest sport in the country bidding for the biggest sporting event in the world fund the construction of its own stadiums. That way soccer gets its legacy from the event and AFL/NRL continue disrupted. Everyone’s a winner.
December 31st 2009 @ 12:03am
jimbo said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:03am | Report comment
Kurt, excellent suggestion.
I believe the AFL and NRL don’t build their own stadiums either – they get the local, state and federal governments to build them and pay for them.
Athough the AFL continue to act as though they do own them.
December 31st 2009 @ 12:07am
Mister Football said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:07am | Report comment
Only a non-AFL fan would truly thing that.
January 1st 2010 @ 10:59am
Australian Football said | January 1st 2010 @ 10:59am | Report comment
disregarding the appalling grammar MR F… But Jimbo is 100% correct—-see Mike Cockerill’s SMH article—-AFL have received over $480m from government grants
December 31st 2009 @ 12:17pm
Jim Wilson said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:17pm | Report comment
Both the NRL & AFL GFs had an Australian TV audience of just under 4 million each. 300 x 4 million = 1.2 billion.
The live global audience for the last soccer WC final was 134.5 million.
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/fifaworldcup/features/story/2009/12/02/spf-draw-appeal.html
December 31st 2009 @ 12:25pm
MVDave said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
JW
Why dont you read the article before taking facts that you want to see but aren’t actually in the article? The 134 million figure was the world wide audience for the 2006 WC DRAW…you know the same one they had earlier this month in SA where they draw out which teams are playing each other! Not the final!
Where did you get the 300 x 4 million?
December 31st 2009 @ 12:53pm
Jim Wilson said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
Oops – sorry about that.
Soccer WC 2006 Final 260 m
http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601077&sid=aOYdMOmxoV4c&refer=intsports
Surprisingly in dollar terms it is behind the Super Bowl & Summer Olympics
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2749584#
December 31st 2009 @ 1:07pm
AndyRoo said | December 31st 2009 @ 1:07pm | Report comment
Also from Initiative
Soccer is increasing its global domination, Initiative said, citing a 14 percent increase in the World Cup’s global live audience compared with 2002. This year’s event had a cumulative 5.9 billion audience in 54 countries, of which 41 percent were women.
The world cup finals are more than one game Jim, it’s 64 matches.
December 31st 2009 @ 1:12pm
MVDave said | December 31st 2009 @ 1:12pm | Report comment
JW
Are you just on here to troll?
Did you actually read the article?
The Super Bowl was counted as a one game only value. The WC Final was counted as one of 30 days that the WC itself ran for. Therefore the WC value was totalled and then divided by 64 (number of games played in the finals) meaning they gave the WC final itself the same value as any of the group games??? Typical American flag waving.
The WC final comfortably beats the Gridiron Superbowl in a head to head in any measure you want to include ie TV viewers Superbowl around 100 million (vast majority in the US) whilst WC Final 260 – 750 million depending upon where you get the figures.
BTW Whats your point and relevance?
December 31st 2009 @ 1:23pm
Jim Wilson said | December 31st 2009 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
Someone said the Soccer WC was 300 times bigger than the AFL GF. It’s not.
December 31st 2009 @ 1:38pm
AndyRoo said | December 31st 2009 @ 1:38pm | Report comment
Jim
You provided links to show that it is!
300 x 4 million is 1.2bn
The world cup is 60 plus matches and according to Initiative a cumulative 5.9 billion audience in 54 countries . It’s watched in more than 54 countries by the way but ratings figures for a lot on non western countries aren’t counted.
Actually I guess you are right because according to your sources it’s not as big as 300 grand finals…it’s bigger!
December 31st 2009 @ 12:27pm
AndyRoo said | December 31st 2009 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
Jim
You do know the World cup draw doesn’t contain any football?
It’s just the drawing up fo the fixtures, it’s not the World Cup final.
December 29th 2009 @ 7:53am
football said | December 29th 2009 @ 7:53am | Report comment
Kurt
The point is that they are economic assumptions & predictions that are required to forecast the impact, none of the estimates or arguments on either side will be correct, but they are necessary.
The games adminstrators have ten years to speak to the stakeholders.
December 29th 2009 @ 8:09am
Kurt said | December 29th 2009 @ 8:09am | Report comment
Yes, I understand that. So please refer me to a single article written by an economist NOT directly involved in bidding for the WC that clearly lays out the economic benefits of hosting such an event. I’m serious by the way – just the one. I’m yet to find a single independent source written by a serious economist that actually agrees with the claims made by supporters of the WC, Olympics, F1 etc.
December 29th 2009 @ 7:54am
Tifosi said | December 29th 2009 @ 7:54am | Report comment
The reason they havent included all the stakeholders is that the FFA know they dont have to convince anyone but the 24 members of the FIFA Executive Committee that make the final decision.
Thats why the FFA bid is all smoke and mirrors at the moment and its the reason why they have hired all these outside consultants who know how the game works.
December 29th 2009 @ 7:58am
Mushi said | December 29th 2009 @ 7:58am | Report comment
Hmm talk about myopic
December 29th 2009 @ 8:37am
Punter said | December 29th 2009 @ 8:37am | Report comment
Yes such shortsightedness from the FFA, instead of concentrating on the requirements of the NRL & AFL seasons in 9 or 13 years time they have been concentrating on a WC bid that is due next year. No wonder it’s a ‘failed’ bid.
December 29th 2009 @ 8:31am
football said | December 29th 2009 @ 8:31am | Report comment
Kurt
If you are genuinly interested in finding the answer look at the economic impact on Korea of the 2002 WC, & the GDP growth quoted by the Korean government after the event.
The interesting point about 2002 is that it is not only in our region but in our time zone, funny how Pascoe doesnt refer to it isn’t it.
December 29th 2009 @ 8:42am
Kurt said | December 29th 2009 @ 8:42am | Report comment
Yeah, that Pascoe. Clearly another AFL stooge afraid of the rise of soccer, masquerading as a Sydney-based business & finance writer.
December 29th 2009 @ 9:07am
MV Dave said | December 29th 2009 @ 9:07am | Report comment
Pascoe has no direct information regarding the WC 2018/2022 bid and is basing his assumptionson the 2000 Olympics which were held in Sydenee not the whole of Oz as a WC is.
For a comprehensive review of economic impact of a WC follow the attached link from the German Tourism Authority after WC 2006; http://www.germany-tourism.de/pdf/DZT_WM_Bilanz_Bro2008_Eng.pdf
December 29th 2009 @ 11:50am
K.B. said | December 29th 2009 @ 11:50am | Report comment
MVDave,
wonderful piece of information Dave, thanks very much for that, and we can now put to rest the absurdity of Kurt’s claims that the Football World Cup will have no economical value or benefit to Australia…
Kurt leave it up to those who are more qualified and better informed then you …
However, Dave if I may, can I divert your attention for a moment, to a more important issue of the day i.e. Chelsea’s lead in the EPL with a clear view of achieving a history making double… And SFC now three points ahead of Melb Vic with the GCU FC now poised to over take the Mel Vic for second spot…
This must be very concerning for you lads down south of the Murray with ‘the Jackal’ now blaming the ‘Scottish One’ for his lack of form for not allowing him to take control of the captaincy and with that all the penalty spot kicks that go with it…
December 29th 2009 @ 12:11pm
MV Dave said | December 29th 2009 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
KB
It’s all part of the plan to take the decider down to the last game at SFC where we mug the sky blues and win the Championship
Now if Chelski can stop having so much luck! …
December 29th 2009 @ 10:13pm
Kurt said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:13pm | Report comment
A press release from the German tourism board with the WC logo all over it focusing primarily on touchy-feely statements about how visitors to Germany ‘felt’ about the experience constitutes a “comprehensive review of the economic impact of a WC”? Oh dear. Anyway, my challenge still stands. Find me a single article or report written by a serious economist not connected with the event that supports the claimed economic benefits of a major sporting event such as the Olympics or WC. Just one. It can even be in German – although I’m not sure how many of you ‘global citizens’ can read a second language…
December 30th 2009 @ 7:17am
MV Dave said | December 30th 2009 @ 7:17am | Report comment
Hey Kurt you claim to be the one that needs convincing find your own articles…plenty have been put up but you choose to ignore them. l dont need convincing that the WC is the biggest and greatest sporting event on the planet…
BTW It wouldn’t matter what articles were put up you would still play your usual role as naysayer etc…l havent seen anything to convince me that the WC here wouldnt be the best ever…but hey Kurt better to troll on the Sokkah sites where at least you can be involved in something of interest which obviously isnt the case on the AFL blogs…only matters of interest there is who has been arrested, got drunk etc etc
December 30th 2009 @ 7:45am
K.B. said | December 30th 2009 @ 7:45am | Report comment
MVDave,
Chelsea go 5pt clear at the top of the EPL… D: please pass that onto Kurt, there’s a good lad…. From one global citizen to another….
December 30th 2009 @ 10:20am
Kurt said | December 30th 2009 @ 10:20am | Report comment
No worries Dave, the challenge still stands by the way. If you do come across a serious academic economic analysis showing that such events are actually beneficial please do post it – I’m yet to find a single one. Cheers.
December 29th 2009 @ 9:34am
football said | December 29th 2009 @ 9:34am | Report comment
No-one is actually claiming Pascoe as a AFL stooge, however his article lacks understanding of the WC & is essentially flawed.
And by the way, Dont kid yourself that our print & electronic media dont have vested interests in the promotion of certain football codes in OZ.
December 29th 2009 @ 9:41am
K.B. said | December 29th 2009 @ 9:41am | Report comment
You’re pissing in the wind Kurt… ha ha… Even if after the event and the true net profit was only $1:00—to have such a sporting event of this magnitude—the FIFA Football world cup with 24b cumulative TV audience with their eyes transfixed on Australia with the final being either played out at ANZ stadium Sydney or the MCG would be worth the effort… (Not to mention the $5b windfall that you disagree with)…
Have you emailed Price Waterhouse & Co. of their breakdown of costs and benefits yet…? You only have to ask them how they came to that conclusion being an expert on economics yourself … I’m sure they would oblige you with a rational synopsis… Or try the Aust Trade commission they have come out with a similar conclusion…
~~~~~
KB
December 29th 2009 @ 5:54pm
Chuck said | December 29th 2009 @ 5:54pm | Report comment
The myopia is all on the side of those that sucked into the hyperbole without thinking first, witness the author of this article that confuses expense with profit.
The Olympics ran at a significant loss, the World Cup in the US in ’94 ran at a significant economic loss, the last World Cup in Germany also failed to break even. How is it that the World Cup in Australia will magically produce a profit when, 1) we don’t have the stadiums and will need to spend LARGE sums of money on infrastructure, 2) it costs far more for travelers to get here, 3) several multibillion dollar industries in the AFL and NRL will experience significant disruption over two years, 4) the event will cause undoubted inflation that will hurt the average Australians back pocket. I have no doubt the World Cup will produce a hole in our economy by which the last stimulus package will pale in comparison.
Unlike the Author of this article, I do not experience cultural cringe and am quite comfortable with Australia’s standing in the world. We’re already on the map and punching above our weight thank you very much.
December 29th 2009 @ 9:35pm
Beast-A-Tron said | December 29th 2009 @ 9:35pm | Report comment
God damnit the World Cup is bigger than any sport, can’t you simpletons understand!?. We don’t care about numbers, accounting principles or facts, the world cup is BIG and will AUTOMATICALLY provide economic benefits to Australia the likes of which we have never seen!! I don’t understand how, it just will damnit!
Blah you friggin myopic parochial AFL bogans are all alike, but you’ll soon been overtaken by the sleeping giant, smell the fear!
December 29th 2009 @ 9:47pm
Punter said | December 29th 2009 @ 9:47pm | Report comment
The question must be asked. Why are you so against another sport having their WC in Australia? So sad!!!
December 29th 2009 @ 10:06pm
Beast-A-Tron said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:06pm | Report comment
I’m not against any WC being held in Australia; merely shedding light on some of the arguments being pushed.
December 29th 2009 @ 10:17pm
Punter said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:17pm | Report comment
After reading alot of your posts, you sure don’t seem too excited about having the WC in Australia.
I fully understand that you may have no interest in it, that’s fine, we all have our issues.
But why do you constantly have to put it down all the time, it really seems you have agenda..
December 29th 2009 @ 10:27pm
Beast-A-Tron said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:27pm | Report comment
Put it down? Show me a quote that is an unfair criticism of the WC bid. Key word there, read carefully: “unfair”. You see, criticism is not inherently negative or biased, it actually can have a use believe it or not!
Bit rich for one human to accuse another human of agenda, but that is probably an argument for another day.
December 29th 2009 @ 9:55pm
MV Dave said | December 29th 2009 @ 9:55pm | Report comment
“the World Cup is bigger than any sport” … gee finally got something right.
December 29th 2009 @ 10:07pm
Beast-A-Tron said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:07pm | Report comment
Yeah biggest sure is best ain’t it. Might is right.
January 1st 2010 @ 10:05am
Australian Football said | January 1st 2010 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Gee two things right—-well done..
~~~~~~~
AF
January 2nd 2010 @ 3:24pm
Craig Eyles said | January 2nd 2010 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
KB
You forgot to mention that Germany’s World Cup made $4 billion AUD. The Euro is much more stronger than the Aussie dollar, so where does PriceWaterhouse get $5.3 billion? We’ll need 5 times the profit of Germany to get the estimated return based on Europeans spending over here.
And, BTW, may I enquire your connection to FIFA??
Etat
German World Cup contracts state that all future sporting events must be shut down in World Cup year. We’ll be known as the state of FIFAtoria.
January 3rd 2010 @ 10:51am
Australian Football said | January 3rd 2010 @ 10:51am | Report comment
Craig,
yes I have joined the FIFA family website and any Football loving person can subscribe and become a FIFA member….
Price Waterhouse & Co. had spent six months, more or less, to formulise and present an independent report on the financials of the proposed FIFA 2018 Football World Cup bid and its long term benefits… So you could imagine it was a thorough thick financial document that was presented to the Feds and the FFA of the benefits and rewards of staging the biggest sporting event in the world on Australian soil…
If you have any queries about that, I suggest you should email Price Waterhouse & CO of any concerns you may have… I for one and all of us Australian Football family members are fine with the analysis i.e. the $5billion windfall outcome as reported…
~~~~~~~
now AF formerly KB
December 29th 2009 @ 10:18am
hazza said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:18am | Report comment
If the World Cup economic impact is such a flawed argument, then why is it that you always get G7 nations bidding for it ? . eg. USA JAPAN KOREA GERMANY ENGLAND. BRIC nations such as RUSSIA BRAZIL CHINA are bidding for a reason. USA, KOREA , JAPAN are bidding for the second time in such a short time span. WAKE UP YOU FOOLS. If the greatest economic powers in the world want the world cup then it cant be such a bad thing to have! Can it?
December 29th 2009 @ 10:30am
etat said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:30am | Report comment
Hosting a world cup would make a powerful statement to other governments in our region. This is one of the big reasons that Rudd, a former diplomat, is willing to committ government funds to the cause. For this reason they will want to put on a good show and won’t hold back on funding and new builds for stadia.
Stadia construction will mean that the impact on Aussie Rules and Rugby League would be minimal in terms of their respective seasons in 2018 or 2022. For league, there are any number of stadiums that can handle the requirements of the sport. For the AFL there wont be any impact as football and aussie rules aren’t played on the same stadia. Football uses rectangular stadia and aussie rules is played on an oval. If Australia wins the bid, funding will follow, new rectangular world cup stadia will be built – probably with scale back options. Developers will be pushing for new 60,000 plus stadia in Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne with a probable post event scale back option to 25 to 35,000. The “new” stadium in Melbourne would be built as a new build or extension to swan street. By 2022 I don’t think there’ll be a need for a second stadium in Melbourne – the MCG is not rectangular and Docklands is a political mess. There wont be any impact to AFL as there won’t be any need for any “AFL” stadia. This means the AFL will run as usual only it will have a fantastic, once in a lifetime opportunity to expose the local game to the world. This kind of opportunity can’t be bought.
The end result of a successful bid will be that each continental capital will have an elite level AFL / cricket oval stadium (these already exist in the 5 capitals) and an elite level rectangular football / rugby league / rugby union stadium. Brisbane and Sydney already have this. Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne will be supplied with new rectangular stadia of the right standard. The majority of funding for these new stadia will come from the Australian Government so the states wont have to whinge much. The feds are driving the bid and will do most of the heavy financial lifting if the bid is successful.
December 29th 2009 @ 1:16pm
pH said | December 29th 2009 @ 1:16pm | Report comment
if only there was some accuracy to your comments etat, maybe the government will restructure the current bid that is so reliant on AFL and NRL stadia, if what you say with all these stadia comes true however, the cost to the taxpayer will be staggering.
December 29th 2009 @ 10:45am
hazza said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:45am | Report comment
Have a look at the economic impact of the2003 Rugby World Cup and multiply it by a factor of ten.
December 29th 2009 @ 10:57am
rugbyfuture said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:57am | Report comment
none of the leagueys or aussie rules people care about that though
December 29th 2009 @ 10:56pm
Kurt said | December 29th 2009 @ 10:56pm | Report comment
zero multiplied by ten is still zero.