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.
RedOrDead
Roar Guru
We need international recruits Taghd Kennelly (Ireland) and Mike Pyke (Canada) to endorse the FIFA World Cup 2022 bid! C'mon Swannies...be the first team to endorse the round-ball game!!! You may even get the Grand Final at ANZ Stadium if you do ;-)
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
And, former Australian netball captain, Liz Ellis, is the latest Aussie to support Australia’s bid to host the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Ellis has swapped the ‘netball’ for the ‘football’ and now joins a range of other top Australian sporting stars including Steve Waugh, Brett Lee, Mark Webber, Robbie Farah, Ian Thorpe and Cathy Freeman who all want to see the FIFA World Cup™ come to our shores. Source: http://www.australiabid.com.au/news-updates_detail.aspx?view=118 As far as I can observe - and, as I would expect - not a single Aussie Rules player or administrator has shown the public support that has been generated across all other sports. But, I guess, no major harm since the rest of the world would have no idea about the identity of anyone from Aussie Rules.
Luke W
Guest
Ok, you got a smirk out of me...
Art Sapphire
Guest
dasilva - grobelaar can defend himself, he won't. The silence is deafening. In the meantime you can peruse his latest inane contributions in the following thread. http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?s=448dc78fba02dcd1efa3044c2824de59&t=773519
RedOrDead
Guest
Errr....he's definitely not me!!
sydboz
Guest
BTW Dan as for your beloved China, your comment is just embarrassing in so many ways that no one is going to even bother. But I suggest you have a look at videos such as this to get at least some level of education on the planet :s. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NhgGagGwl4
jimbo
Roar Guru
Not even funny Pip, Miister Football, Dogz are Barkin, RedorDead, Scouser, Joel, Westie, MichaelC, Redb, Grobbelaar, ForgetMeNot and whoever else you are trying to be. Does the AFL pay you per blogger?
dasilva
Guest
I just think things don't add up and that there is discrepency in this hypothesis such as the fact that Grobbelaar has been on this board for over a year. There was an article when both Pip and Grobellar posted on the article. Where Grobelaar asked "Who's Slippery Jim?" in a JEsse Fink article even though Pip knows full well who is slippery Jim (they had big debates about whether the government fund AFL). This was all before the World Cup bid controversy where Pip quit the forum and alienated himself from the rest of the football community IF you can give me a plausible explanation why Pip would create Grobbellar and asked questions like that then I'll buy your argument.
Art Sapphire
Guest
The truth is sometimes unpalatable but you have to swallow it dasilva. You're good nature is your own worst enemy when it comes to seeing things for what they are. Everyone else here knows what's going on. I could easliy create another persona and come here as an over the top soccer bashing, AFL lover. But, I don't because its really boring. Most people come on The Roar to discuss issues in good faith and good humour, regardless of their points of view. The one's that don't, I and most sensible people don't have much time for. Simple.
dasilva
Guest
I think he is a troll However I'm quite sure you will agree that a troll doesn't necessarily have to be Pip I'm quite sure there are many people out there who want to satirised the fan base of football. I don't think you should equivalent people who are desrepectful of the game to be Pip. As it sounds like Pip is becoming a byword to the enemies of the game "ala Snowball in Animal Farm"
jamesb
Guest
Whites, I must admit I do have a soft spot for central coast. Since they've started 5 and a bit years ago, they have done a lot of things right. Played in 2 grand finals, average crowds of 7 or 8,000 (consider they are on the central coast) and are also setting up a centre of excellence. Mariners have certainly ticked a lot of boxes. More importantly they listen to their community. If the mariners followed a similar lead to clubs like Gold coast and Sydney FC, mariners would have gone a long time ago.
Fussball ist unser leben
Roar Guru
Appreciate your vote of confidence (notwithstanding the obvious sarcasm) True Tah but, alas, my days of being an employee are well and truly behind me ... unless, of course, "uncle" Frank or Ben - or, dream of dreams, Herr Blatter - gave me a call and said "come join the party"! ;-)
True Tah
Guest
Fussball I nominate you to be appointed as Australia's representative to the United Nations.
Derby County FC
Guest
Fussball ist unser leben True mate, i do. It was the first world cup for me that i really got into, loved it. I remember '78 and '82 but by '86 i had my own TV in my room, black and white of course!
The Special One
Guest
Found this interesting article http://mdisecons.blogspot.com/2010/02/week-6-demand-and-supply-fifa-world-cup.html In Asia, Fifa's sales representative for all broadcasting rights for the 2010 and 2014 World Cups is Football Media Services (FMS), the Singapore-based joint venture between leading sports marketing company Infront Sports & Media and Japanese advertising giant Dentsu. FMS acquired the rights in a deal worth around US$350 million and appointed different companies in selected territories to distribute these rights. But there's a dramatic difference in rates paid by the different Asian nations - similar to the scene in Europe. Sportcal's Ms Davies explains: 'The overall popularity of football in a given country is a key factor. In Italy, Germany and France, competition was very strong among free-to-air and pay-broadcasters for the 2010 World Cup rights, because they guarantee high audiences and high advertising revenue. In Spain, where football is very popular and where the national team has always been a contender to go past the group stage into the knock-out round, competition has been intense for the World Cup rights for over a decade.' Such was the case with China - which is rumoured to have paid less, on a per-head basis, than what Fifa is charging Singapore, though the actual figure has never been reported. TV Sports Markets' Mr Pickles explains: 'China has historically got away with paying comparatively small fees in relation to the size of its market because state-owned CCTV runs a monopoly on top sports rights and potential rivals are aware that making competitive bids will almost certainly incur a political backlash. But even in China, CCTV paid a significant increase for the 2010 and 2014 World Cups - more than four times what it did for 2002 and 2006. I can't disclose the actual figure, but I can say that CCTV is paying more than the $100 million it agreed to pay for the 2010 and 2016 Olympics.' It's also worth noting that the television and marketing rights associated with the World Cup are Fifa's primary source of revenue - contributing to some 90 per cent of takings. And it's a source of revenue the football governing body has sworn to protect in these challenging economic times. Media and marketing rights for the 2010 World Cup amount to some US$3.5 billion. The media rights fee portion - $2.5 billion - is up a whopping 79 per cent from the $1.4 billion earned for the 2006 World Cup, thanks to significant growth of interest in the United States, and a large rise in Europe. ******************* - Interesting news about China. No one dares to go up against CCTV so the TV rights dont get sold for as high as they could. Dont expect that to change. - Significant growth of TV money was due to Europe and USA. No doubt Asian is growing but Asia will never overtake europe as the prime payer of World Cup TV rights.
Midfielder
Guest
AF If you want some articles on the WC bid then have a look at our fans forum... I just added you SW one ... http://www.ccmfans.net/ …go to the... discussion boards [ top of the page]... and from there to ... Australia Football [third major heading] ... from there go to ...Australia bid for the 2018 or 2022 World Cup [near the top of the threads] .... BTW I took this longer method so you could look at our forum should you wish... Have a look from page 1 to 40 … not a bad history from the announcement of the bid to today and into the future… as I said before have a look around our fans forum if you like..
Art Sapphire
Guest
Still at it, Pip. A bountiful source of tiresome irony. Oh...the ennui.
Art Sapphire
Guest
dasilva - sadly, you are the only person who allows himself to be fooled. He has no credibility left on this forum. As I said before. He can defend himself but he won't. A man with integrity would.
jimbo
Roar Guru
Pip [Grobbelaar], give up man - your cover has been well and truly blown. I can think of no one else more competent in all football knocking matters on The Roar than Pip.
lfc.mvfc.trfc
Guest
The America's may not be 'one region', but they share a similar timezone. FIFA may well think that after 20 years, a World Cup in a Asian time zone would be more profitable in regards to television rights and viewers than a 2nd World Cup in 8 years in the 4-6 hour timezone that encompasses the Americas.