- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
The World Cup trophy is pictured in front of a FIFA logo prior to the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. AP Photo/Keystone, Patrick B. Kraemer.
FIFA’s choice of 2022 World Cup hosts comes down to one question: does it want (need) a second bite at the cherry to solidify its growth in the United States of America, or does it want to conquer a new frontier?
Ignoring for a moment the relative strengths and weaknesses of each bid (that’s the subject of another column – coming soon), what does FIFA’s track-record of choosing hosts tell us about their 2022 decision, particularly when it comes to their previous choices of rest of the world (non-European) hosts?
With European countries left to battle it out for 2018, the rest of the world is fighting over 2022. And there has been a definite pattern when it comes to World Cup hosting: the European heartland gets its turn every second World Cup, with the rest of the world getting its go in-between.
Europe last staged consecutive World Cups in 1954 and 1958 (Switzerland and Sweden).
Since then, FIFA has followed the Europe-rest of world-Europe-rest of world pattern (ignoring the rest of the world double in 2006 and 2010, which is due to FIFA’s now defunct confederation rotation system for determining hosts).
And within the FIFA’s track record, two patterns emerge, both of which provide encouragement for Australia’s bid.
Firstly, when it comes to rest of the world’s turn, there’s a recent trend to “conquering new frontiers.”
Apart from Mexico 1970, the rest of the world quota had been filled by South America (ignoring Mexico 1986, when Mexico stepped in for Columbia), but since 1994, FIFA’s rest of the world venture has had the definite agenda of broadening the game’s horizons.
The recent rest of the world hosts include:
– 1994 USA
– 2002 Japan-South Korea
– 2010 South Africa
(Brazil fills the European slot in 2014 as a result of FIFA’s failed confederation rotation system, so it doesn’t apply in this example.)
These World Cups were about leaving a football legacy in the regions in which football was either far from the dominant sport or had more growing to do. And only hosting a World Cup was going to leave that legacy, such as the creation of the Major League Soccer (MLS) competition in the years after USA 1994 or the growth of Asian football post-2002.
There is more at stake for FIFA than taking the World Cup to the biggest economies around the world, which should be considered when weighing up Australia’s bid against the USA’s. After all, South Africa was hardly an economic superpower or cash cow that FIFA could milk.
Sepp Blatter is big on legacies, and despite all his posturing on each bids’ relative strengths and weaknesses, bringing the World Cup to Australia would rank alongside his achievement of delivering a World Cup to Africa.
Remember, Australia is the only continent not to host a World Cup.
Also consider that the only confederation not to host a World Cup is Oceania, and if you consider our roots in Oceania, continued strong links, geographical proximity to and the fact no Oceania Football Confederation (OFC) nation could realistically host a World Cup, an Australian World Cup could be seen as delivering the tournament to this neglected region and confederation.
Ultimately, FIFA’s motivations have proven to be on broadening football’s boundaries when handing out recent rest of the world World Cups, and only Qatar and Australia’s bids would do that for 2022 (Japan, South Korea and USA have also hosted previously). With doubts about the reality of the tiny nation of Qatar being able to host a World Cup, Australia’s in a prime position to achieve FIFA’s goal of broadening the game’s horizons in 2022.
The second trend is the rarity of a country hosting twice – and when a country has hosted twice, there’s been a huge gap in-between World Cups.
Only Italy, France, Germany (as West Germany first, then unified Germany), Mexico and Brazil (assuming they go through with the 2014 World Cup) have hosted two World Cups. And even with FIFA’s insistence on staging every second World Cup in Europe, there’s been little doubling up in the same country in a short space of time.
Italy had 56 years between Cups, France 60 years, Brazil 64 years, and Germany (West Germany) 32 years (not forgetting the huge political transformation the country experienced through unification).
Ignoring Mexico’s double sixteen years apart (1970 and 1986), hosting twice is rare and usually numerous decades apart.
Even if successful in its 2018 bid, England would have waited 52 years between Cups, despite the huge transformation of the English game following since the “dark days” of the 1980s.
With that precedent in mind, consider that if the USA were awarded the 2022 World Cup, it would have only been a 28-year wait between tournaments – the shortest wait in history (again, ignoring Mexico).
This may not seem like such a critical point but consider the timing of the 2022 World Cup decision this December: 12 years before the actual Cup, only sixteen years after USA 1994, and only eight years after Japan-South Korea 2002.
Like Japan and South Korea’s bid, you have to wonder if the close proximity to the USA’s last hosting gig will be fresh in the minds of FIFA delegates when they vote on December 2 – particularly when American “soccer” is still feeding off the legacy of the 1994 tournament, with the MLS expanded and growing on its own volition.
With ongoing corruption allegations from the recent vote swapping scandal engulfing the bidding process, FIFA may be keen to avoid the obvious allegations that it’s going back to the USA for “unfinished business”, cementing the progress of the round ball game in the country and cashing in on its growth, over its own mantra of spreading the boundaries of the game.
If Australia’s bid is considered up to FIFA standard, then why, in theory, should the USA be given a second bit at the cherry a matter of decades later when Australia (throw in Oceania) has yet to host a World Cup? If FIFA does award the USA the 2022 World Cup, what does that say about FIFA’s desire to broaden the game’s boundaries?
As its slogan says: “For the Game. For the World”, and FIFA may struggle to justify a second American World Cup when certain parts of the world are still waiting for their taste of the game’s greatest spectacle.