Potential 2026 WC Hosts (Update: Morocco Sole Challenger to CONCACAF Bid)

England shoulda got 2018

 

Has the best fans? In your head only.
And the whole air of entitlement in your post and many other post like these. If only 10% of that attitude is present in the officials involved in an English bid, that will be enough to make sure the rest of the world will not choose England.
Besides FIFA like to use a WC to further the development of football. England has not much on offer in that department.

 

England will get nothing until the four home countries give up the privileges handed to them a hundred years ago. The Ex Co seat and the four IFAB seats. That's the basic problem.

 

England are "entitled" to host the World Cup. We have only ever had it ONCE in 90 years by the time 2022 roles round, and that is a disgrace. After everything English football has given and done for the game of course it should get a World Cup and yes it is entitled to get one.

How can you say it hasn't much to offer in the development of football!!?? It created the game, and the popularity of it's domestic league fuels the passion for the game all over the world. What jerseys do you see in Africa, Asia, North America, South America??? - the jerseys of Manchester United Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool and now Man City. The reason the game wants to be developed in the rest of the world is because we gave the game to the World and the popularity of the Premier League means the English game is a world wide brand. Why did NBC spend millions in getting the rights to the Premier League coverage?? Because its the best football brand in the world.

And of course our fans are up there with the best in the World. Granted, the Bundesliga gets higher domestic average attendances, but no other country in the World gets bigger attendances at Second or Third tier domestic games, and no other National Team in the World takes as many fans to away games and major competitions.

 

Because France in 98 and Germany in 2006 put on a incredible tourney. England should got 2018 no doubt.

 

England are entitled? LOL that mentality right there is why England is not getting it, just like the way the US approached the 2022 bid. Instead of trying hard to get it they act like they all highly and mighty and should get it just because of who they are and nothing else.



[]__[]

 

You say this with a very bitter tone, but the reality is, yes, England ought to be entitled to it. The country is football crazy, has the infrastructure + the willingness to upgrade/overhaul it, and is very safe & 1st world. There are no human rights violations in England (unlike Russia/Qatar) and the violent crime rates aren't through the roof to the point where travelling fans ought to be overly cautious about where they go within the country and its host cities (unlike South Africa/Brazil).

Not to mention you wouldn't be impoverishing the country to host it.

If you really think Russia is more deserving than England to host 2018, I challenge you to watch Sochi olympic coverage for about 5 minutes.

The empty seats at various events, the constant vigilance because freakin' Chechnya is like 3 hours away, and the lack of infrastructure (undrinkable water, unfinished & unusable hotel rooms, lack of shops and restaurants) speaks for itself. You're a fool to think a first world venue like England shouldn't be entitled over a country like Russia.

 

No bitter tone at all but to say you are entitled is the same reason the US lost their bid to Qatar. While Qatar tried their hardest to convince fifa and put together a great bid and presentation the US thought that by just showing up with Oprah, a recorded message by Obama and a couple of more famous Actors they would get the bid.


Besides there are many countries with the infrastructure and willingness to upgrade that are safe 1st world and are also football crazy people and a lot more than England.

Also to think that the coverage of the Sochi game havent been political is to be naive. All the western media and networks are trying their hardest to paint Russia as a third world dictatorship for political reasons. So everything they say has to be taken with a grain of salt.



[]__[]

 

Its not just about England. What I said can also apply to countries like Germany, Italy, or Spain for example, but England actually bid for 2018 so my point is that they ought to have been entitled to getting it over Russia.

And don't take this the wrong way, but as a Canadian, I receive better winter olympic coverage than you or anyone else from other countries would (I'm not exaggerating. With no NHL hockey during the break, all the major Canadian providers team up and show every single moment of every event over 6 channels and free and fast online coverage). And trust me, Sochi is a giant joke. You're argument would have been valid until the games actually started and Canadian athletes starting explaining through interviews and tweets how awful it is there. So no, nothing really has to be taken with a grain of salt, its terrible.

It should be noted that you called me into this debate by quoting my "England shoulda got 2018" post, and that's all I have to base my argument around really. Its an England vs Russia debate.

 

https://www.bigsoccer.com/community/threads/2030-wc-to-be-in-argentina-uruguay.1990115/

I need not wait.

 

A sense of entitlement is all it took for Brazil to get 2014. England are entitled to host a World Cup for one very simple reason. They are capable of putting on a very good tournament with excellent facilities for players and fans, easy access to the venues, good transportation and lots of things to do and see other than watch football. They were easily the best proposition out of the bidders for 2018 and the ridiculousness of ginving it to Russia (who scored the lowest technical result of the bidders) was only over shadowed by the even more amazing decision to give 2022 to Qatar.

 

It's nothing to do with being high and mighty, if you met any Englishman north of Watford, then you would find they are the most down to earth, unassuming people on the planet. We definitley don't think we are better than anyone else, and aren't even rating our chances of making the Quarter finals of this years World Cup....

....however, I can say with all certainty that if there is one country on this planet that does deserve to host the World Cup and is in anyway entitled, then that is England. And that is based purely on: what it has given to the game world wide, what it has done for the game world wide, the amount of money it creates for the game world wide, the amount of exposure it provides for the game world wide, the amount of money it would save FIFA, the stadia it ALREADY has built and ready to go, the infrastructure that is ALREADY built and ready to go, the fact that EVERY game would be sold out unlike recent tournaments, the passion the fans would provide and the lasting legacy it would provide for young english soccer players.

There is no way you can even argue that England is not the most deserving nation in the World to host a World Cup tournament....even more so because we haven't had it since 1966.

 

Objectively speaking, last time a vote took place, England got only 1 (one) vote, which means that at the end, not even in Europe (6 out of 7 Exco Uefa members) they believe that they are "entitled" to host the WC. If by any chance, they gave up their IFAB members vote in FIFA's Exco, they would have probably got none or 0 (zeroe), now, how does this "entitle" anyone over anything ?.

 

Okay, replace entitled with the country most deserving / the country with the most right to host the World Cup.

Tell me one country that hasn't already hosted the World Cup in the past 50-60 years, that deserves it more than England???

And other than your own bias towards England, give me 3 good reasons why England wouldn't be the best country to host a World Cup competition?

 

I already tried this, and got bogus BS in response. You're 100% correct though. Completely agreed.

 

Again, the problem isn't England's football history. It's the century old privilege of the IFAB. And also, the memory of the racist Stanley Rous' FIFA presidency. The fact that England's World Cup was smack in the middle of Rous' term doesn't help matters.

 

One ?
there are lots of them :
Among those who still haven't hosted their first home WC (in no particular order) :

From Uefa : Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, Ukraine, Poland, Romania, Turkey
From CAF : Morocco, Egypt, Nigeria
From Concacaf : Canada, Cuba
From Conmebol: Colombia, Venezuela, Peru
From AFC (not elligible for 2026) : Australia, Iran, China, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia
From OFC : New Zeland

Among those who have hosted it with more than 50-60 years since their last :

Besides England, Sweeden and Switzerland from Uefa, we have, Uruguay and my personal favourite : Chile, from Conmebol (among all of these, the England WC was the most recent one of all).

There is one very good, objectively and undeniable one : It already had their own WC (where imho, rigging came out to be the maximum expression of all football's history), while there is still lots of other countries that equally deserve their chance to be the host of their first.

 

A couple of arguments that you make are just plain false, you say the amount of money that it will save fifa by having ready made stadiums. First of all Fifa doesnt spend one dime in fixing, renovating or building new stadiums. That bill goes entirely to the host nation and their tax payers citizens. Secondly you talk about the lasting legacy it will provide young english players. Well is not Fifa nor any other countries job to provide a legacy for english players that's the job of the english football federation. Thirdly you talk about the passion of english fans. Well if there's so much passion how come England couldnt sell all their tickets allotments for this summer's world cup. Just so you know the country that travels the most in the world are the Mexican fans and is backed by stats and numbers.

And once again you act like england are the all mighty when you talk about how much england has given to the sport. Yes they invented the sport and have one of the most popular leagues in the world. But there are plenty of countries that have given as much or more to the sport. In terms of world class players, coaches, passionate fans and exposure. Pele and Maradonna alone have done a lot more for the sport than any English player, by name recognition alone they have taken the sport all over the world.

And lastly the 1994 US world cup is to this day the highest attended world cup in the history of all world cups. Yes the US with no history, no football tradition, no famous players, no world class players and with no passionate fans is still the most attended WC by a big margin.

I'm not against an England hosted world cup I think it would be a successful one. But to say you are entitled to one is just being pretentious. And furthers perpetuates the stigma of english fans being arrogant and thinking they are God gift to football.



[]__[]

 

Why would they deserve to host? I'm not even sure they could pull it off if they wanted to.

 

Netherlands. We gave the world modern football. We have reached 3 finals. Our clubs and coaches serve as one of the planet's most prominent schools for players that star in the biggest leagues in the world, and have helped develop the smallest (eg. Tuvalu).
Our clubs / domestic league would actually benefit from the required investments (if handled wisely) in stadiums, which would otherwise likely never be realised. We are one of the founders of FIFA. We have never hosted.

3 reasons why England is not the best country to host it:
1) your monstrous, money driven domestic league is slowly but surely destoying the game. By leeching on smaller, financially less powerful leagues and sucking them dry of their most promising top talents. Not by nurturing those talents from childhood onwards and making them better, but by waiting from others to do the hard work in educating them and then practically bribing them and their parents. Only to then let them rot on a bench.
Your fans are no longer fans of theie own football clubs at the heart of their community; they are fans of multinational marketing machines, who, if given half a chance, would rather opt for a lucrative summer tour of meaningless exhibition games in the US or Asia to fill their coffers, then to allow their players to take part in their respective national teams. You've sold your clubs and game to the highest bidder, and your fans and FA watched and let it happen.
2) On a global scale no-one would benefit of a world cup in England, except for the already too powerfull, all consuming multi-billionairs that own your clubs.
3) you have already hosted. And almost lost the cup (if you didn't in fact replace it to hide the fact that you actually lost it) before you won it by more than one count of what could be seen as 'foul play'.

That was easy.

 

For the same reasons you want your country to host it.
As simple as that.
You don't like them ?, well that's your problem.
Probably, you didn't want Qatar to get 2022 as well, but they got it anyway.

Could they pull it off ?
Well, you'll never really know, unless they are given the opportunity to prove that they can.

 

Jumping to conclusions I see. I ask a simple question and this is the response I get. I was just curious because their infrastructure is terrible, and they have way more problems to deal with than any other country you listed. As far as I'm aware they've never even shown the slightest interest in hosting a World Cup. Every Cuban (well, Cuban American) I've met doesn't even really care about the sport.

You would have been better off naming Costa Rica and Panama. I've at least heard rumblings from them about a joint bid over the years.

 

I have an issue with this as your big argument for a few reasons.

1. The 2 clubs that form La Liga and Bayern Munich are far worse for doing this. They leach the top talent from around the world as well as from within their own league and dry up everyone but themselves.

2. You cannot blame players for wanting to play in front of a much bigger audience and in a more competitive league. For example, Eden Hazard's progression would stagnate if he stayed at Lille. Moving to Chelsea was good for the game, because it's necessary for him to reach his ceiling. He'd never do that at Lille against weak opposition. Same goes for Suarez when he moved from Ajax to Liverpool, Agger when he moved from Brondby to Liverpool, Chicharito from the Mexican league to Man U, etc. It's selfish to say it'd be better for football as a whole if the EPL didn't pull these guys in, because of the fact that none of them would have become the top players they are today without that increased difficulty & competition.

3. England has the combination of wealth, infrastructure, population, fandom, and human rights/quality of life needed to be the top league. It's not fair to hate on them for being the big league because of these things (and these are certainly the big factors in what makes the EPL so big, as well as the high English-speaking population worldwide.

4. "Your fans are no longer fans of theie own football clubs at the heart of their community; they are fans of multinational marketing machines, who, if given half a chance, would rather opt for a lucrative summer tour of meaningless exhibition games in the US or Asia to fill their coffers, then to allow their players to take part in their respective national teams." What does this mean. I'm from Canada and the closest pro-team to me is Toronto FC. Does that mean I should be supporting Toronto FC since it's my "local" club instead of the multinational marketing machine Liverpool? That's just simply not fair. To the second half of that point, FIFA has regulations in play that permit players to take part in play with their national teams at their own will, not at the will of their clubs. If these club teams had this power, there would be no international football, plain and simple.

5. England isn't the only league with team's who have sold their clubs to "the highest bidder", nor are they the only country where foreign ownership is common. It's a global game, so it's market ought to be global as well.


For the record, I've said before that I think a Netherlands solo bid would be fantastic as well. Would love to see them get it.

 

Well, you might as well change your mind on the issue if you actually knew that Cuba is among the oldest footballing nations within the Americas (their FA was born in 1912 and got afilliated to FIFA in 1929), and together with Mexico and the USA, are among the only Concacaf members to have ever reached quarters at a WC (actually it was the first who did, in the 1938 WC), where nowdays, its population is allowed to look at international footbal through local TV (most are fans of the Spanish La Liga), and today's level of the sport is a direct menace to baseball (actual top sport) within the island.

It's not for nothing, that Feyenoord is investing in Cuba in order to someday have the possibility to have one of their rising stars in their league defending their colors
http://totaldutchfootball.com/2014/01/24/feyenoord-look-to-future-cuban-talents/

At FIFA they are very aware of how football has progressed lately in the island
http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organisation/president/news/newsid=2060318/

About their interest in holding the WC, well till now, no one has presented a formal bid, so talking about a potential bid by anyone around the world is absolutely valid.

 

The US made the semi-finals in 1930.