The bidding for the 2018/2022 FIFA World Cup is underway, and the nine candidates that have submitted bids will be working feverishly until December 2 to try and convince the 24 members of the FIFA Executive Committee that their bid is the best one for either 2018/2022.
I’m beginning to think, though, that the bids that have to spend billions on upgrades might miss out after recent events.
FIFA’s quest to give Africa its first World Cup has to be admired, but the reality has been a sense of frustration and concern about how the preparations have been undertaken. Ticket sales were initially slow and prices have been cut to entice the locals to purchase more tickets.
Stadia construction was behind schedule and took a firm push by FIFA to get construction back on schedule and completed.
Just recently, however, FIFA admitted that they signed off on an extra $100 million to ensure that training camps and practice facilities were up to exacting standards, sums up the dramas involved with this World Cup.
News then that the 2014 FIFA World Cup preparations in Brazil are also behind schedule, coupled with the Ukraine’s problems in getting ready for UEFA Euro 2012, surely must be giving FIFA nightmares about giving future World Cups to countries that need to spend billions on stadia and infrastructure, regardless of how many years each country will have to get themselves ready.
However, FIFA do like the PR in saying how they help countries transform and highlight how $6 billion has been spent in South Africa upgrading stadia and essential infrastructure and leaving a lasting legacy for the country and the African continent.
Sepp Blatter has also heaped praised on both the Qatari and Russian bids, both of which will need to spend billions to make it happen. But with FIFA relying on the World Cup for 95 percent of their revenue, it’s crucial that the tournament is hassle free.
Out of all the current bids, I believe the Russian bid will leave the biggest legacy in terms of stadia and infrastructure improvements for a country.
The USA bid provides the highest possible financial windfall for FIFA from the tournament itself, with over five million tickets available with projected revenue of $1 billion. It also provides the least hassle, as they could theoretically host the tournament tomorrow.
It will be interesting to see which way FIFA will go. FIFA might hedge their bets and go both ways: one for the legacy, one for the windfall.
In light of England’s self-inflicted own goal, I could see the bids going to Russia for 2018 and USA for 2022.
matty1974
Guest
The key message the FFA bid is pushing is that Australia is a 'safe pair of hands'. Safe from terrorism, civil strife, political and economic instability and public indifference. Bid teams are not allowed to trash their rivals, so FFA is being smart about how they highlight the deficiencies of other bids. The North Korean 'threat' of war against South Korea in the last couple of days further diminishes their slim hopes of hosting. Ironically the possibility of some kind of North/South reconcilliation has been a key feature of the Korean bid's 'legacy'.
prsancho
Roar Rookie
It could be Australia 2018, China 2030...
John
Guest
The Russian bid looks amazing. The fact they have the money, unlimited budget for the bid and guarantees from Putin and Medvedev gives them a lot of stability, especially since the United Russia party will most definitely be in power in 2018. 6 stadiums are already under construction. I still see Australia winning 2022. USA had 94, Japan/Korea(Asia) had 2002. With 2018 Spain/Portugal economies are about to collapse both countries are having severe problems financially. Which would only leave England or Russia. Both are in the top 10 largest economies in the world. England would definitely be able to host the World Cup if it was held tomorrow but the Russians would leave a lasting legacy and would benefit the regions outside of the Big cities. I also see Fifa going for Russia & Australia as both nations are currently riding out the financial crisis(to grow this year Australia:3.2%,Russia:5%).
Cpaaa
Roar Pro
The USA are not too popular with terrorists either. they already have available stadia, but so will Australia in 18/22. not an issue. Asia has only held it once and that was a joint bid. Football is on the rise Down Under and there fore upping the anti in the Asian confederation. Qatar on the other hand,until their football improves its better left alone. Not to forget that an Australian WorldCup is the closest the Oceania confederation will ever get to hosting the WorldCup. USA 94 is still very much fresh in our memories, so what sort of legacy will a second go achieve. Australia is still the safest bet country for a World Cup. im feeling it.
Bay35Pablo
Roar Guru
I cannot see USA getting it in 2022, given they had it so recently in 1994. They would be more likely to sell it to the Middle East, or send it to Asia (preferably Australia) again before the US so soon. Certainly not before Europe gets it again!!
Moonface
Roar Guru
FIFA aren't short of a quid - they try and balance the WC hosts suitability and finances with growth and development which is part of their charter - the UK football market is already saturated and will go against them. They would rather like to continue to grow the game in Asia. Asia is the fastest growing football market and the biggest TV market and moneyspinner for TV rights. The FIFA WC TV rights deal for FTA and PayTV for SA 2010 is almost double the deal they got for Germany 06 and mainly because of the big growth of TV and payTV companies in Asia in the last 5 years.
Ben of Phnom Penh
Guest
One can't help but feel that the Saudi Al-Qaeda suspect who declared his somewhat hazy plan to attack the World Cup has put something of a dampener on the Qatar 2022 bid
Son of a Gun
Roar Rookie
China for 2026. Unless of course frank starts handing out westfield vouchers. Last throw of the dice for cranky frankie.
Eamonn Flanagan
Guest
You're dreamin..you missed Australia. 2018 or 2022 take your pick! Ever heard of Asia! A World Cup in Asia will leave "your biggest legacy," do you know more than Frank:)
Ian Noble
Guest
You might be interested to see this shorten version of England's bid www.england2018bid.com/theroadto2018/bidbookhighlights.aspx
Ian Noble
Guest
As you may know FIFA had to give SA an additional £80+M to be ready for the WC2010. Judging from the sale of tickets it will not make a significant profit neither will Brazil in 2014, so FIFA may want a safe haven for 2018 or 2022. Ok, I am bias but England offers a pretty safe bet for generating a significant profit with great stadia and infrastructure in place, TV and communication set up, hotels and safe environment. The experience from Olympics 2012 and RWC 2015 will mean to generate much needed profits and income for FIFA should be a breeze..