Blatter on 2018 World Cup

[newtex]

Interview with Blatter on the BBC Sport website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/4208814.stm

Blatter says England should bid for the 2018 World Cup. He comments on the stadia being built for the Olympics and says they could be used for World Cup events.

An interesting part of the article is not attributed directly to Blatter:

"South Africa are hosting the 2010 tournament and under Fifa's rotation policy the 2014 World Cup will be in South America, almost certainly Brazil.

The tournament should return to Europe in 2018 so formal bids will have to be launched in 2010, two years before the London Olympics. "


That's a "rotation policy"? Europe, Africa, South America, Europe? I really wish FIFA would clarify this "rotation policy".

[almango]

.That's a "rotation policy"? Europe, Africa, South America, Europe? I really wish FIFA would clarify this "rotation policy".

FIFA left it open for them to return to Europe as the rotation actually starts in 2010 when only African countries were considered. At the moment all we know about rotation is that it is South America's turn in 2014.

[Popol Vuh]

i heard mexico wants a bid for the 2018 WC

[Forza AZ]

i heard mexico wants a bid for the 2018 WC
I can't see it being in America twice in a row. 2014 will be Brazil most likely, so it won't be in America again before 2026 I think.

A fair "rotation-system" would be:

2006: Europe (Germany)
2010: Africa (South Africa)
2014: America (Brazil)
2018: Europe
2022: Asia/Africa/Oceania
2026: America
2030: Europe
2034: Asia/Africa/Oceania
etc.

So, divide the World in 3 parts and rotate it in these 3. You can't have Europe only have a World Cup in every 20-24 years. Every 12 years would be good.

[RonaldoQuaresma88ca]

Blatter and FIFA speak of this 'rotation policy', but it is loosely based. After all, the World Cup is a prestigous event. Not all countries have the economic, social, political, and geographic means to host such a tournament. A country has to have geographic significance, economic and political stablity. Let's face it the WC can't rotate to South America and Africa for a while, same goes for Oceania, when you consider that each of those continents only have one or two countries that fit the description of worthy hosts! Even North America has its difficulty with this rotation, with Canada being unable to commit the resources needed to build the proper infrastructure and stadia to host the WC. They have the ability, but sometimes a countries government doesn't support its bid.

In any case, I agree with the previous poster, there cannot be a lapse of 20 years between WC's in Europe, after all, Europe has the most fans in terms of numbers, has many countries that have the ability to host such an event, and that is where all the money lies in the sport of soccer/football in terms of sponsors, television rights, soccer fanatics, etc.

If you look at each continent, and the viable options at the moment.
Africa
South Africa
Morocco
Egypt

South America
Brazil
Argentina

North America
US
Canada
Mexico

Asia
China
Japan
South Korea
India
Saudi Arabia
Indonesia

Oceania
Australia
New Zealand

Europe
Germany
England
Italy
Spain
Netherlands
Russia
Portugal
Turkey
Switzerland
Greece
Sweden


Even countries like Ireland/Scotland, or the Czech Republic/Poland, or Denmark/Sweden could make successful WC bids. Too many strong candidates in Europe. The rotation is good the way it is...with the Wc returning every 12 years, after 2 WC's.

[ursula]

With Austrailia joining Asia I don't see why Oceania is even thought of any more as part of any rotation.

[ursula]

If you look at each continent, and the viable options at the moment.
Africa
South Africa
Morocco
Egypt

South America
Brazil
Argentina

North America
US
Canada
Mexico

Asia
China
Japan
South Korea
India
Saudi Arabia
Indonesia

Oceania
Australia
New Zealand

Europe
Germany
England
Italy
Spain
Netherlands
Russia
Portugal
Turkey
Switzerland
Greece
Sweden


Even countries like Ireland/Scotland, or the Czech Republic/Poland, or Denmark/Sweden could make successful WC bids. Too many strong candidates in Europe. The rotation is good the way it is...with the Wc returning every 12 years, after 2 WC's.

I would say that since FIFA is also ruling out joint bids then you list is even smaller, particularly for Europe. Perhaps the list is more like this:

Africa
South Africa
Morocco
Egypt
Nigeria- in theory

South America
Brazil
Argentina

North America
US
Canada
Mexico

Asia
China
Japan
South Korea
Australia
India- in theory


Europe
Germany
England
Italy
Spain
Russia


In other words, three-five countries per confederation with the exception of the small South American confederation.

[Popol Vuh]

I can't see it being in America twice in a row. 2014 will be Brazil most likely, so it won't be in America again before 2026 I think.

A fair "rotation-system" would be:

2006: Europe (Germany)
2010: Africa (South Africa)
2014: America (Brazil)
2018: Europe
2022: Asia/Africa/Oceania
2026: America
2030: Europe
2034: Asia/Africa/Oceania
etc.

So, divide the World in 3 parts and rotate it in these 3. You can't have Europe only have a World Cup in every 20-24 years. Every 12 years would be good.

yeah but the western hemisphere is divided into North and South.

[PanchoM]

Blatter and FIFA speak of this 'rotation policy', but it is loosely based. After all, the World Cup is a prestigous event. Not all countries have the economic, social, political, and geographic means to host such a tournament. A country has to have geographic significance, economic and political stablity. Let's face it the WC can't rotate to South America and Africa for a while, same goes for Oceania, when you consider that each of those continents only have one or two countries that fit the description of worthy hosts! Even North America has its difficulty with this rotation, with Canada being unable to commit the resources needed to build the proper infrastructure and stadia to host the WC. They have the ability, but sometimes a countries government doesn't support its bid.

In any case, I agree with the previous poster, there cannot be a lapse of 20 years between WC's in Europe, after all, Europe has the most fans in terms of numbers, has many countries that have the ability to host such an event, and that is where all the money lies in the sport of soccer/football in terms of sponsors, television rights, soccer fanatics, etc.

If you look at each continent, and the viable options at the moment.
Africa
South Africa
Morocco
Egypt

South America
Brazil
Argentina

North America
US
Canada
Mexico

Asia
China
Japan
South Korea
India :D
Saudi Arabia
Indonesia

Oceania
Australia
New Zealand

Europe
Germany
England
Italy
Spain
Netherlands
Russia
Portugal
Turkey
Switzerland
Greece
Sweden


Even countries like Ireland/Scotland, or the Czech Republic/Poland, or Denmark/Sweden could make successful WC bids. Too many strong candidates in Europe. The rotation is good the way it is...with the Wc returning every 12 years, after 2 WC's.


You have left out several countries from South America that can Host a 32 team Soccer tournament . Better then South Africa ,or India ,Indonesia

Peru
Chile
Ecuador
Colombia
Uruguay
Paraguay

All of these countries have a better league then ANY of the Asian countries that you mentioned . And with the league comes Stadiums .

[ursula]

You have left out several countries from South America that can Host a 32 team Soccer tournament . Better then South Africa ,or India ,Indonesia

Peru
Chile
Ecuador
Colombia
Uruguay
Paraguay

All of these countries have a better league then ANY of the Asian countries that you mentioned . And with the league comes Stadiums .

Nah, the countries you mention all have huge infrastructure issues, None of them are anywhere close to 10 40000+ seat stadiums with the hotel space, and transportation facilities to host a WC- and they don't have the money to build said infrastructure without bankrupting the country. The big Asian countries all have the money to do so.

[PanchoM]

Nah, the countries you mention all have huge infrastructure issues, None of them are anywhere close to 10 40000+ seat stadiums with the hotel space, and transportation facilities to host a WC- and they don't have the money to build said infrastructure without bankrupting the country. The big Asian countries all have the money to do so.

I've been to Copa America in
Peru,Paraguay,Uruguay,Colombia

The tournaments where more enjoyable then USA '94 and japKor '02
because they are Football countries . Going to a World cup is like going to a Party . The host must be someone you want to greet you as you get there.
And I can not see myself getting exited about a World Cup in Mombay.

[Borruma]

Europe
Germany
England
Italy
Spain
Russia

Ehhh, France??? And in theory Ukraine, Romania, Turkey and Poland could all hold WC though obviously not at the moment. As for the rest you mentioned, Is Egypt stable enough to hold a WC (actually I'd say the same about South Africa)? Apart from China where else can it be held Asia apart the two countries who have already done it and Australia? And do they want a WC?

I'd agree with the poster who said that the WC should only be held in football countries. And no co-hosting too, that's just lame.

[Popol Vuh]

Nah, the countries you mention all have huge infrastructure issues, None of them are anywhere close to 10 40000+ seat stadiums with the hotel space, and transportation facilities to host a WC- and they don't have the money to build said infrastructure without bankrupting the country. The big Asian countries all have the money to do so. you're wrong , some of these countries have very good stadia in south america.

[Borruma]

Yeah, but do they have 8 or 9 40,000+ seaters? I doubt it but I prepared to be proven wrong.

[RonaldoQuaresma88ca]

As it stands:

In Europe: Germany, France, Italy, Spain, England, and Russia all have the means to host a WC.

And, countries like the Netherlands (economically strong), Greece (they've just held the Olympics), Portugal (Euro2004 hosts), Turkey (economically stable), and Switzerland and Sweden also have the means, to host a World Cup tournament on their own in the not-so-distant future.

1) Economic means
2) Political-Social stability
3) Geographic significance/Footballing tradition

All those countries above have these characteristics to be considered threats to hold a WC today or atleast in the next decade or two.

[Jabinho]

I'd agree with the poster who said that the WC should only be held in football countries.
And so the USA wouldn't count as a football country? The USA has the largest number of registered FIFA players. Had, by far, the largest attendance for any world cup. Made, by far, more money than any other world cup. I don't think FIFA would listen to the "no USA" World Cups argument based on a "football country" only argument for even a second.. :rolleyes: Especially since growing the sport here is a major aim of FIFA.
By holding another WC in the USA they work on two of their goals.. Making money and boosting the game's popularity.

[RonaldoQuaresma88ca]

You have left out several countries from South America that can Host a 32 team Soccer tournament . Better then South Africa ,or India ,Indonesia

Peru
Chile
Ecuador
Colombia
Uruguay
Paraguay

All of these countries have a better league then ANY of the Asian countries that you mentioned . And with the league comes Stadiums .You can't be serious...India and Indonesia have the populations, who follow football, not mention their significance in the World. India and Indonesia are emerging economies! Are Peru, Chile, Ecuador, Colombia, Uruguay, and Paraguay emerging economies? :confused: I don't think so!

Those countries don't even have much influence in South America, let alone the world. I'm sure they're beautiful countries and all, but they don't have 1 billion dollars to spend on upgrading their existing infrastructure and stadia, not to mention their less than marketable image. They are considered the world over - Poor countries.

[PanchoM]

And so the USA wouldn't count as a football country? The USA has the largest number of registered FIFA players. Had, by far, the largest attendance for any world cup. Made, by far, more money than any other world cup. I don't think FIFA would listen to the "no USA" World Cups argument based on a "football country" only argument for even a second.. :rolleyes: Especially since growing the sport here is a major aim of FIFA.
By holding another WC in the USA they work on two of their goals.. Making money and boosting the game's popularity.

This wasnt the case in '94, There was no Party atmosphere like there was in France '98 . Yes they made money in '94 , but that isn't much why I like this sport.

Growing the Sport , You mean taking it from the most popular sport in the world to the most popular sport in the world ?


Those countries don't even have much influence in South America, let alone the world. I'm sure they're beautiful countries and all, but they don't have 1 billion dollars to spend on upgrading their existing infrastructure and stadia, not to mention their less than marketable image. They are considered the world over - Poor countries.

You need to get out more .

India is a Cricket country that doesnt give a rats ass about Football .

Its kind'a hard to prove , but I would be willing to bet that there are more soccer fields in Chile then there are in England .

I remember reading an Article about the German team arriving at their Hotel in Japan in '02 . They got to Narita Airport and there was several reporters , then they boarder a bus and nobody followed , they got to their Hotel and went to sleep , the next day ( and following week) they wondered about the city and NOBODY knew who they where ! , the locals thought that they where American English teachers .
Yes Japan has more money then South America ! of course .
But not everybody lives their lifes in a money Rat race .

[Milos]

And so the USA wouldn't count as a football country? The USA has the largest number of registered FIFA players. Had, by far, the largest attendance for any world cup. Made, by far, more money than any other world cup. I don't think FIFA would listen to the "no USA" World Cups argument based on a "football country" only argument for even a second.. :rolleyes: Especially since growing the sport here is a major aim of FIFA.
By holding another WC in the USA they work on two of their goals.. Making money and boosting the game's popularity.

The USA should never be allowed to host another world cup unless it drops Baseball, American football and Basketball as its main sports. This is never going to happen so America should be punished by never hosting the world cup again.

[SoulflyTribeFC]

The rotation should be:

Europe
Outside of Europe
Europe
Outside of Europe
Europe
Outside of Europe


I'm a US fan and have ties to Mexico so I'd want to see another WC out here before i die of old age. I was too young to enjoy 86 and too poor for 94. The way it is now, we'll have the next chance in 2022 to have a WC in either US or Mexico and if neither gets it (because it goes to another team in "America") I'd have to wait 12 more years? Think about soccer nations like Spain and Italy and England. Already, their best shot is 2018 and it looks like Blatter is angling towards England. If Spain or Italy want to put in a bid after that, they'll have to wait until 2030? That's ridiculous. By then, Italy will have gone 40 years between Cups, Spain will have gone 48. England 2018 would mean it would have gone 52 years between Cups?!? These are the countries who set the standard in soccer for their leagues and national teams and this is how they are rewarded?

Germany went 32 years between Cups; that's about right (okay, so maybe England would have been a more fair choice).

I have no problem with Europe/Outside of Europe/Europe/Outside of Europe. It just seems more fair. Besides, whoever said any country or continent deserves to host it anyway? They should have to prove why they should host it and win over the voters.