The announcement from FIFA that the Australia-New Zealand bid had won selection for the 2023 women’s World Cup has sent the football community over the moon.
But now that we’ve won this bid, it’s time to look to the next men’s bid while there’s momentum.
The 2022 edition will be held in Qatar (grr…) while the 2026 event will be held by the United States-Canada-Mexico bid. Multi-nation bids such as this seem to be the future. The next opportunities for Australia to be a host will be in 2030 and 2034.
The 2030 edition of the World Cup will be highly contested.
So far there are bids from UK-Ireland, a South American bid from Uruguay-Argentina-Chile-Paraguay and another from Colombia-Ecuador-Peru. There’s a standalone bid from Morocco. An Eastern European bid is coming from Bulgaria-Greece-Romania-Serbia as well as another European bid by Spain-Portugal.
Then there are two separate possible bids from West Africa and North Africa, each jointly held between three nations. Finally, there are two more standalone bids with one each from Egypt and another from China as a trial run for a 2034 bid.
The UK-Ireland bid and Spain-Portugal bid will both be strong, while the Uruguay-Argentina-Chile-Paraguay bid includes two former World Cup winners in its lineup. Morocco is interesting and can’t be ruled out, but the main competition for Australia comes from China.
In the bidding for the 2034 edition there are bids from Egypt and China again, plus a Southeast Asian bid from ASEAN and a proposal by Australia for a joint bid with Indonesia. There has also been interest from Zimbabwe and Nigeria, but these would be the clear outsiders.
Another bid by Australia-New Zealand would have to be a distinct possibility off the back of the successful bid for the women’s tournament, but to this point the FFA seems to be looking north.
The question for Australia then, is which bid would give us the best possible chance of successfully being selected as a host nation?
The main problem for the Australia-New Zealand option will be FIFA’s stadium requirements and availability, which hampered Australia’s failed 2022 bid and which will only be exacerbated with the need for 16 stadiums in the new tournament format. Nonetheless, it might be possible to put together a joint bid with a few minor concessions and a few temporary stadiums and stands.
Starting with large rectangular stadiums we have Homebush, Docklands, Lang Park, Eden Park and the new stadium at Moore Park. As for Perth and Adelaide, new stadiums could be built with the ability to increase the design’s capacity to 40,000 seats with temporary stands.
(AAP Image/Dean Lewins)
Carrara on the Gold Coast had its capacity increased like this during the Commonwealth Games and the stadium in Newcastle could do likewise, each to 40,000 seats. Geelong could take a few games on the road and Kardinia Park could be upgraded to 40,000 seats as well.
So that gives us ten stadiums with over 40,000 seats that won’t clash with other codes. But you would still have places like Canberra, Wollongong, Townsville, Wellington and Christchurch that would be stuck with smaller ones while Parramatta is too good to leave out.
If FIFA were willing to allow slightly smaller stadiums to be used in the group stage, then we might be able to convince them that we can put a 16-stadium bid together. Or if we have to, we could build temporary stadiums with the required capacity from scratch, much like QSAC was for the 1982 Commonwealth Games.
So, it may be possible for Australia and New Zealand to host the men’s World Cup together.
But the next issue to overcome is the politics. If we go with the Australia-Indonesia option that puts us in conflict with ASEAN, which has much more global clout. Even the FFA’s approach to Indonesia for a joint bid with them wasn’t entirely well-received when the ASEAN bid is all about regional integration and cooperation.
On the other hand, if we side with the ASEAN bid then we don’t have the problem of needing to convince FIFA to change their stadium requirements. A few regional cities will miss out, but all of the major ones will still get to host matches and be represented.
ASEAN has a lot going for it with the Philippines, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam and Brunei having 640 million people between them. As a destination, its food, beaches, cities, wildlife and diverse culture are all very popular with tourists. There’s huge potential in the region and hosting the World Cup could help boost its stature.
As for the Chinese bid, they may not have as many friends as they did before and their use of investment in sport for political influence operations has even been cited in a high-profile American defence paper. They may not get as many votes as they were hoping for.
The choice then is which path should we take? Should we go with New Zealand which worked for us in the women’s World Cup bid, or should we go with ASEAN for the extra political clout and stadium infrastructure?
Either way, we seem to be in a good position and we should actually have a real go at making a serious bid. We shouldn’t just think that China will run away and win simply because of their money and President Xi Jinping’s global ambition.
With their mercantilism, aggressive posturing and coercive tactics toward other nations, they seem to have lost a lot of goodwill. Not to mention their handling of the virus.
The window is now open for a rival to outbid them, and that could be us.
coolncold
Roar Rookie
Midfielder, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam have already been preparing for the 2034 WC finals bid, https://www.deviantart.com/brendanboman/art/2034-FIFA-World-Cup-ASEAN-Concept-Logo-758907203 They have designed a logo too. So, don't think about it. Anyway, FFA has officially announced about the interest of bidding the 2030 WC. It is possible. However, the partnership is limited to NZ. https://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/buoyant-australia-eyes-another-bid-for-men-s-world-cup
c
Roar Rookie
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Greece :happy:
clipper
Roar Rookie
chris - so the AFL can't co-exist? I'm sure they have to share their grounds with Cricket, both seem to manage that quite well.
chris
Guest
clipper the NRL doesnt have a siege mentality like the AFL does. It can co-exist with other sports and has done for years. The AFL does not do this. I guess when you only have a small asset to protect everyone and everything is seen as a threat.
sam
Guest
The bully AFL .............gee thems fighting words Chris.
clipper
Roar Rookie
It just amazes me that they go on with this, when AFL at least puts something in. NRL never puts any money in. It's quite a good stadium and BBL uses it.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#chris If the FFA wanted to partner with the RAS then they could've......although the RAS might not have liked the 'main arena' design!! The 'bully AFL' as you put it...... The stadium redevelopment (2011) was jointly funded by the New South Wales Government ($45 million), the Australian Football League ($12 million) and the Royal Agricultural Society of New South Wales ($7 million). The venue is run by the RAS. So.....your idea of a 'bully' but in $12 million compared to the operator - the RAS - who put in $7 million. And the RAS get to run the venue!!! That's not a bad bully-bullied relationship. A bit better than how FIFA treats it's World Cup hosts/stadiums!!!! I quote from the Princess Bridge "You know that word you keep a using.....I do not think it means what you think it means" bully /ˈbʊli/ (noun) a person who habitually seeks to harm or intimidate those whom they perceive as vulnerable. (verb) seek to harm, intimidate, or coerce (someone perceived as vulnerable). I think you could actually argue that the AFL was 'bullied' more than either the NSW Govt or RAS. Getting almost 20% of cost of your new City Showground arena covered by a not for profit sporting competition/code......that's a pretty sweet deal!!!
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#Chris 'everyone knows'...... Perhaps in your suburb in Sydney?? In AFL states the upsurge in female participation has seen a lack of AFL ovals and requirement for facilities. This happened for soccer in the 2000s (on the back of female participation....when male participation was largely flat lining even with the 2006 WC). re Fudging numbers. They ALL do it. Painting their numbers in the best possible way. I've just illustrated to you how obviously the FFA are faking what they present as amazing growth. Both codes have healthy numbers for school competitions. We know that some kids play school comps AND play club as well...so....both 'fudge' via double dipping. In the case of soccer is there triple dipping via indoor/fusbal? The AFL DO NOT count in their coaches/umpires/volunteers....the FFA do (as of 2018). The AFL DO NOT count in their 'promotional experiences'. The FFA as of 2018 do. That the FFA previously counted in their 'tournaments/events' seemed a bit of a stretch as it was. But no - - you live in your world were you believe everything the FFA tells you (God on your side) and believe the AFL to be the devil embodied.
chris
Guest
Its just more money spent on the bully AFL. Money that is not deserved and is unfairly skewed to a game that promotes mediocrity and insularity.
chris
Guest
Everyone knows the AFL have been fudging their numbers for years to bully there way into areas. There arent enough AFL grounds to house even half of the participants the AFL claim.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
re Fake....as mentioned earlier - the FFA via the MiniRoos are faking it big time. Is MiniRoos an introductory program (so compare only with AFL Auskick)? Let's ask the FFA: The MiniRoos format was launched nationally in 2015 and has become the largest introductory program in Australian sport. But hang on - - the MiniRoos are the junior outdoor competition component of the game? So it's both. And it's the largest......because it's all bundled into one. In 2018 227,734. More than AFL Auskick 205,755 and more than AFL juniors 140,414. So.....clearly the FFA is the winner.......isn't it. How gullable are you?? Just swallow any claim the FFA makes? Ask yourself this - if the FFA numbers really are so much more real than the AFL number then wouldn't you expect a few more eyeballs on tv, a few more bums on seats and a few more club memberships?? (all metrics the AFL ticks but the FFA doesn't).
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
Fake participation stats..... The FFA are the worst culprits. And it's soooo easy to illustrate. .....The FFA 'grew' participation from 1.18 million in 2016 to 1.85 million in 2018. (good job lads - you deserve a rise.....that's an over 50% over 2 years.....how did that happen?). Well.....firstly.....they included over 75,000 peripherals.....coaches, referees and volunteers chief amongst them. And another almost 400,000 (registered??) 'participants' were in the "Community Events & Promotional Experiences" which boasted 550,495. That replaced the 2016 category titled "Tournaments & Events" which claimed 157,284. So.....when the FFA go on about almost 2 million participants.......it's a crock. From 2016 to 2018 the outdoor registered participation grew 5.7% or 13,320. So.......fake numbers.....the FFA is expert at that.
chris
Guest
What do I need to change? The AFL have for years suffocated everything around it and it continues to do so with its govt. lobbying, fake participation numbers and cosy relationship with the media. All with the aim of funnelling funds away from more deserving sports. The AFL have zero idea or interest in co-existing with other sports. That is why they are disliked so much in the northern states. Come to Sydney and ask anyone on the street to name 3 AFL players and they would be clueless.
Micko
Roar Rookie
That's not an Australian problem. That's an Oceania problem!
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
Spotless is the new Royal Ag Showgrounds. It was correctly co funded by State Govt and the RAS....and oddly perhaps by the AFL. The RAS get first priority. And Cricket has benefitted greatly. There's nothing at all wrong with this project. That you believe it to be so - I suspect - is either ignorance or envy.
Paul2
Guest
Ahh, Chris. You never change ;) Here's a list of stadiums for which the AFL or AFL clubs have directly contributed to major upgrades this century: - MCG -Docklands stadium -Kardinia Park -Adelaide Oval -Sydney Showgrounds -Carrara Stadium Here's the corresponding list for the FFA: Nobody's "leaching" off soccer, Chris. That would require soccer having actually made a contribution to stadium infrastructure.
chris
Guest
Paul2 - you mean like the millions that the govt poured into Spotless with only 5k GWS fans turning up? AFL is is leach on all of the other sporting organisations in this country. They take up way too much resources for the return they provide. Especially in the northern states.
Roberto Bettega
Roar Rookie
But that is precisely we football people are using, if Australian football contributes to stadiums, surely it has a right to use them?
Paul2
Guest
"The AFL has invested more heavily into community and elite level infrastructure than the other codes combined. The AFL has had to ‘grease the wheels’ so to speak, many of the stadium constructions are PPP. This is part of the reason why the AFL are NOT going to be overly generous in vacating stadia." Exactly. I know the concept of a sporting body actually helping to finance stadiums is novel for Australian soccer people, but it's not that hard to get your head around. Australian Football enables stadiums to be built; therefore Australian Football gets to use those stadiums when it needs them.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#clipper This is a multi sport site...I believe in avoiding ambiguity...I'll stick with the English own phrasing of 'soccer' rather than the disambiguated "Association Football".