Australia’s plan to host the 2018 or 2022 World Cup has been cast into the shadows in a towering self-assessment of the United States’ rival bid by America’s top soccer official.
US Soccer Federation president Sunil Gulati presents a long list of credentials he believes will see the US beat Australia to win the rights to host the 2022 FIFA World Cup – if Europe wins 2018 as widely expected.
While unable to directly criticise a rival bid under FIFA regulations, Gulati’s roll call of US strengths exposed areas of concern for Australia’s bid.
Gulati conceded a European nation is likely to win 2018, making the battle for 2022 between the US and five Asian bids: Australia, Japan, South Korea, Qatar and Indonesia.
“The United States has a $US14 trillion ($A15.46 trillion) GDP with 18 stadiums that have a capacity of five million seats,” Gulati said. “None of our rivals will have that.
“We would host a technically-sound World Cup beyond anyone’s expectations with world-class stadiums and infrastructure.
“We have lots of experience hosting events, a very large population, including a very large immigrant population with virtual guaranteed sell-outs for all 64 games and the opportunity to leave a legacy for the sport that would truly make a very large country integral and central to the sport.”
As Australia’s bid juggles stadium commitments with other sports, state and federal governments clash over the cost of infrastructure upgrades, and the tax-payer funded $46 million bid budget includes significant outlay to foreign consultants, Gulati said the US bid required no public funding.
“We are not asking US government or state authorities to spend billions of dollars to build facilities,” Gulati said.
“Given the world economic climate that is a difficult thing to do. Our funding comes from the private sector or donations. Because of the NFL and a number of universities, we have world class facilities without the need to build new ones.”
Australia has based its pitch on its proximity to Asia and the region’s growing population and economy but Gulati, a highly-credentialled economist, suggested smoke and mirrors were behind that claim.
“The two economies most people talk about when they talk about Asia in terms of growth rates or economies are China and India,” he said.
“We would be happy to have one of those countries to host the World Cup when it is their turn. For sure, I know their turn is not 2018 or 2022.
“If Europe gets 2018 there are only two confederations for 2022. There is Asia and there is CONCACAF. If you go on a rotation basis then we are actually a little bit late. We should be hosting in 2018.”
Gulati revealed the US bid could already claim three of the required 13 votes from FIFA’s executive committee from its own regional representatives, including controversial FIFA vice-president Jack Warner, who has been aggressively courted by Australia.
“We have the full support of (North and Central American Confederation) CONCACAF whether it comes to 2018 or 2022 by unanimous decision.
“Mr Warner, (and FIFA executive committee members) Mr Blazer and Mr Salguero have all assured us they will be supporting our bid.”
The influence of US President Barack Obama should not be ignored, claimed Gulati, also highlighting the diverse credentials of its bid committee.
Diplomat Henry Kissinger, filmmaker Spike Lee, Mexican boxer Oscar De La Hoya, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Robert Iger, president of The Walt Disney Company, are board members of the US bid.
“It is not for show,” Gulati said. “That would be easy. We would have listed 100 people for show. We have an active committee.
“Around the globe there is a reaction to the noticeable change, the perception, in the leadership of the country. That is a positive for us but, until the final whistle blows, you don’t know how things are going to turn out.
“The United States has more tickets to sell, is a good time zone, and there are a large number of commercial partners here.
“The US market has become increasingly important (to FIFA). It is a very affluent market, obviously.
“We think the economics are important but integrating the US into the international soccer community, even beyond where we are, is immeasurably important.”
FIFA’s 24-man executive committee will vote on the 2018 and 2022 hosts in December. Thirteen votes are required to win the rights.
Australia, the US, England, Belgium/Holland, Spain/Portugal, Russia, and Japan are bidding for 2018 or 2022 while Indonesia, Qatar and South Korea are bidding for the finals in 2022 only.
Realfootball
Guest
Tifosi, stadiums are just buildings. The football culture was the legacy I was referring to, and in terms of what FIFA hoped the 94 WC would do for football in the US, there has been no significant legacy in terms of the promience of football in American society. But I agree on the future, and the US's Latino population. The "Average Joe" in the southern US has a Spanish/Mexican surname these days, and as you point out, it will become ever more so. I simply cannot see FIFA giving Australia a WC over the the US. It would make no sense at all. My personal feeling is that the WC bid has been a colossal waste of time and energy for the FFA, and that the casualty has been this season's A-League. Rome hasn't exactly been burning, but it has been crumbling in silence while the FFA fiddles away at the WC bid. No doubt Lowy and Buckley would argue that they had to roll the dice. I would argue that the time, effort and money would have been better spent promoting and developing the A-League, a task at which the FFA has grossly failed this season.
Tifosi
Guest
No Legacy?? So do you think Red Bull Arena would have been built if the didnt have the world cup back in 94?? Or any of the other soccer specific stadia that have come on board since Columbus built the first one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Bull_Arena_(Harrison) MLS might not capture the hearts and minds of the average joe in America, but soccer in general is getting much bigger in the USA. With its ever increasing latino population id be more confident that soccer has a future in the USA more than it has here in Australia.
Realfootball
Guest
I have never thought we had a serious chance at hosting the WC. From every angle except one, the USA has a far stronger case than Australia. That one angle is that they have already hosted the World Cup, and 1994 is long enough to see if indeed there was any "legacy". Clearly there has been no significant legacy in terms of the status of the game in the US. So what they really saying? "We know it didn't work last time, so give us another shot"? The US is basically asking for 1994 all over again, because it didn't work last time. This is a poor argument, but the scale of the potential prize will, I think, convince FIFA to roll the dice with the USA one last time.
Tifosi
Guest
FIFA wont care about legacy after 2014, they will just want a tournament that can be hosted with the minimum amount of fuss and make money. They dont want to sort of problems inflicting sth africa happening again. Poor ticket sales from overseas countries, stadium improvements finishing right at the death etc. They want to walk in, make money, then walk out. The USA bid provides that with a massive population base and infrastructure all of which is in place. Australia doesnt come close. The fact they can leave out Chicago as a host city is testament to the strength of the bid. Here we are thinking of using Geelong as a host city. I mean really Geelong?? Besides I really doubt FIFA will bypass this (Dallas Cowboys Stadium) http://cdn.picapp.com/ftp/Images/3/7/1/c/Chelsea_FC_v_9e51.jpg http://cdn.epltalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cowboy-stadium.jpg for this ( Nth Queensland Cowboys Stadium) http://www.msfa.qld.gov.au/graphics/images/DFS%20Aerial.jpg
Mick
Guest
1 thing on timing of games The world cup final of 1994 was played in the middle of the day & it was 48 degrees C
TheMagnificent11
Roar Guru
I think the earnings from TV rights money is far more important to FIFA than the size of the stadiums or even legacy. A WC in Australia would not be in bad time zone for Europe e.g. a game played in Sydney at 8 pm would be should a 11 am in London because they'll daylight savings. On the other hand, a game played at 8 pm in LA would be shown in London at 4 am (I think). So I think we're in a better time zone for earning TV rights money from Europe. Then the question comes to the next biggest TV rights money market. If a WC was held tomorrow, I assume North and South America would pay more for TV rights than Asia. However, in 2022 I think that will be a different case. On the legacy front, a WC in Australia does more than a WC in the US. The US has a well established domestic league and are the world leaders in women's football. I don' see that improving much with another WC. So overall, I think Australia has a better case than the US. The US have us on infrastructure but I think we've got them covered in the other categories.
Chris
Guest
The infrastructure they have is just insane. 31 NFL stadiums with 60,000+ capacity. Literally 50 other stadiums larger than 40,000. They even make the stadiums in the UK look bad. By comparison we have the grand total of three rectangular stadiums larger than 40,000. Somehow I can't see us winning.
Joe FC
Guest
What else would you expect him to say.
Jeb
Guest
Obviously he is right about a lot of things: america has the stadiums and other infrastructure right now. Thanks to the nfl and college some single states eg Texas and California have enough plus 44,000 seat stadiums. And of course all games would be sell-outs and tv deals would be big. BUT where I think he is wrong is contained in this quote: "...and the opportunity to leave a legacy for the sport that would truly make a very large country integral and central to the sport." the 94 wc kick-started mls etc so I'd never suggest that it didn't have a legacy, however it's foreseeable that the impact a further wc would have in the US is a lot less than it would have anywhere else - say here for example. Put it this way - america is probably the only country in the world that could hold the world cup where some residents don't know it is on.