Blatter: 2018 in England unlikely

[ScottyB10]

Sepp says that the rotation should go to either Asia or Noth America in 2018...

BBC Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/6403761.stm)

[yure323]

Sepp says that the rotation should go to either Asia or Noth America in 2018...

BBC Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/6403761.stm)
The Fifa president said his personal inclination was for the rotation to continue to North America, with the USA, Mexico, and Canada all capable of hosting the tournament.
Good news ! :D

[dabes2]

I consider this positioning for concacaf in 2022.

[#10 Jersey]

I consider this positioning for concacaf in 2022.

Based on what?

[cleansheetbsc]

Sepp says that the rotation should go to either Asia or Noth America in 2018...

BBC Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/6403761.stm)

Sepp seriously dislikes England/the English.

[MassachusettsRef]

Leave it to Blatter to shoot his mouth off and--seemingly--change his own opinions on a whim.

If you look closely at the article, it seem that Blatter is saying three things.

The first is his personal opinion (that the World Cup should next go to CONCACAF in 2018).

The second and third are decisions that need to be made by the FIFA ExComm. They are:

A) Will the "principle of rotation" continue amongst all regions? and

B) Should CONCACAF & CONMEBOL be considered one singular region for such purposes?

I tend to doubt that the answer will be "yes" to question A. But, if the answer is "yes," then the answer to question B is almost GUARANTEED to be "yes" because Asia/Europe/Africa will have the votes to make sure it's the case (by combining the Americas, those three other regions get the World Cup more often).

Bottom line, if the FIFA ExComm says "yes" to both questions, then--barring a collapse of the Brazil bid for 2014--the World Cup won't cup back to the USA until 2030 (Americas in 2014, Asia in 2018, Europe in 2022, Africa in 2026, Americas in 2030). But, like I said, I doubt the answer will be "yes" to the first question.

So while this may look good due to Blatter's personal opinion, the facts are that these developments could be very bad for a potential USA bid.

[thespian89]

Sepp seriously dislikes England/the English.

Hey, whatever helps us.:D

[tab5g]

if they can vote to combine (for rotation purposes or whatever) Conmebol and Concacaf, can't they just as easily vote to combine the African and Asia confederations (for WC hosting purposes)?

year: host
2006: UEFA
2010: South Africa (or Australia or China as back-ups)
2014: Brasil (or the US as a back-up)
2018: UEFA (England I would guess, even though Sepp doesn't favor it)
2022: Australia (or Asia)
2026: a joint NorAm hosting, or a SouthAm host if Conmebol miss out in 2014)
2030: UEFA (although Uruguay could get the centennial tournament)

[MassachusettsRef]

if they can vote to combine (for rotation purposes or whatever) Conmebol and Concacaf, can't they just as easily vote to combine the African and Asia confederations (for WC hosting purposes)?I think that's logical, yes. And, ever since the "principle of rotation" was announced, I've always argued that the system will eventually be 1) Americas, 2) Europe, 3) "Rest of the World"--but that has never been stated definitively so many have speculated that it will be strict rotation system among all continents, which I think is a fantasy.

Really, from a political standpoint, UEFA's 8 votes hold the key. Europeans now understand that they are NOT going to get the World Cup every 8 years, like they have in the past. The best they can hope for is every 12 years, so they want to form alliances with the other confederations to make this happen. The way to do it is to force two votes; one that combines the Americas and one that combines Africa/Asia. The tricky part is that, while African and Asian reps will want to combine the Americas so they see the tournament more often, they won't want to allow such a move to happen to themselves (same goes for the American representatives). So the UEFA delegates will have to form two separate alliances to get two different majority votes. It's possible. But it's also possible that all four other confederations ban together to prevent any of these votes (basically a deal amongst CONMEBOL, CONCACAF, CAC & AFC to force UEFA to only get the World Cup every 20 years).

[Sachin]

Sepp says that the rotation should go to either Asia or Noth America in 2018...

BBC Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/6403761.stm)

Note to self: Book hotels for London in June and July 2018 now.

[Tigerpunk]

Two issues: one short term and one long term.

Short term: There just aren't that many countries that *can* host a WC. South Africa, the best positioned country in Africa, is going to barely pull it off, if at all. There are at best two countries in South America, and two (Canada an OUTSIDE shot at 3) in CONCACAF - one of which has held it twice, and has substantial problems (pollution, heat, crime, finances) of its own. Asia has three countries that could legitimately self-host, perhaps 4 if India shows an interest in the game, with Australia a pipe-dream for the same reasons Canada is a longshot. OFC is...ummm, hahahaha. So a strict rotation would cause serious problems in the short term.

Long term: The balance of power is going to change, SUBSTANTIALLY, past one "full" rotation. In 30 years, the economies and populations will make the game, from both an athletic and financial standpoint, far less European. Having the world cup in Europe every 12 years could seem downright anachronistic, given their population, purchasing power, and quality of teams.

It would not shock me if 30 years from now, the favorites of the World Cup would be China, Brazil, and Russia, with outside shots from the US, Argentina, Mexico, and a few African teams, and England, Germany, Italy, and Spain as darkhorses. It would also not shock me if UEFA filled out less than a quarter of the total bids, and that the market rights in Europe were substantially less than both Asia and the combined Americas.

Hell, in 30 years, environmental or nuclear castrophe could change our world forever, and there might not even be a world cup. Picking a rotational policy that is expected to last more than one rotation seems pretty short sighted.

[Red Card]

At the Gold Cup in 2005 in Estadio de Giants, Blatter received a lot of applause and cheering before and after the presentation. He did not do the presentation in Germany because he knew he would be booed. Maybe this is a factor?

[The Wisdom Cube]

I have just a couple thoughts...

Firstly, we know how Blatter operates... so what does he have to gain politically by saying this?

Secondly, I am pleased to hear this just due to the fact that tickets were insanely hard to come by for Germany. I am sure that England would be even worse. Not to say that getting them for a World Cup here or somewhere else would be particularly easy, but easier than a World Cup in England...

[wolfp10]

if they can vote to combine (for rotation purposes or whatever) Conmebol and Concacaf, can't they just as easily vote to combine the African and Asia confederations (for WC hosting purposes)?

year: host
2006: UEFA
2010: South Africa (or Australia or China as back-ups)
2014: Brasil (or the US as a back-up)
2018: UEFA (England I would guess, even though Sepp doesn't favor it)
2022: Australia (or Asia)
2026: a joint NorAm hosting, or a SouthAm host if Conmebol miss out in 2014)
2030: UEFA (although Uruguay could get the centennial tournament)

I think we are getting ahead of ourselves when we start planning World Cups 15-25 years in advance.

2014 hasn't been decided, let's focus on that World Cup first.

[dabes2]

I consider this positioning for concacaf in 2022.

My thinking is that Blatter argues against England in 2018, gives in at the last minute, but extracts a concession for next time.

With the benefit of additional posts, I do think that a rotation system of Europe, Americas, ROW make some sense. I guess that would leave concacaf as likely for 2026 unless 2014 doesn't work in SA. I guess I'll be 60, retired and go to every possible match.

[Dom. FC]

I think it is a leap of logic to think that the Executive Board's 8 UEFA votes will go to a European site. If their Country isn't the host they may vote their own self interest on where they would like to go. For many I suspect the USA would trump England in that respect. The article I read in the Guardian sort of implied that with 8 votes already Uefa was over half way to the 13 needed to give it to England. I don't agree with that interpretation but I understand why a English publication would put it out there.

[england66]

Sepp seriously dislikes England/the English.



for England and the English that looks like good news.

[MassachusettsRef]

I think it is a leap of logic to think that the Executive Board's 8 UEFA votes will go to a European site. If their Country isn't the host they may vote their own self interest on where they would like to go. For many I suspect the USA would trump England in that respect. The article I read in the Guardian sort of implied that with 8 votes already Uefa was over half way to the 13 needed to give it to England. I don't agree with that interpretation but I understand why a English publication would put it out there.That's not exactly what I was arguing (though it probably is what the Guardian wants to imply).

I'm arguing that the 8 votes would stick together in an alliance to merge the American confederations and the Asian/African confederations for the purposes of the rotation system. If those two mergers occur, then Europe gets the World Cup every 12 years. If they fail, then Europe gets the World Cup every 20 years. It's not a question of helping England or any other specific UEFA nation in 2018; it's a question of getting the World Cup to Europe more often, period. Because of that, the 8 votes will stick together--there's really no question about that. It's a question of whether or not the UEFA members can forge the necessary alliances (two completely different alliances) to get majorities for both votes.

[bltleo]

for England and the English that looks like good news.

of course Englishmen are so "hated" from Continental Europe:)

seriously..from my egoistic point view...I would be more happy if the world cup was in England...it is not so far away from Germany...and it is nothing better than to beat England in their home country:)...you know this feeling, England66...remember european cup 1996....Klinsi and Co:..and our victory...I would like to repeat it..

and additionally to this, atmosphere in England would be crazy...they are also soccer-mad nation....

I think world cup in Europe would be much better ....in USA are not so many people interested in soccer

but it was my egoistic point only

P.S man, some Americans would hate me for this:)

[M]

I think that's logical, yes. And, ever since the "principle of rotation" was announced, I've always argued that the system will eventually be 1) Americas, 2) Europe, 3) "Rest of the World"--but that has never been stated definitively so many have speculated that it will be strict rotation system among all continents, which I think is a fantasy.


Agreed. This is the rotation system that makes - current - sense in that it roughly balaances out potential hosts between three regions. A strict confederational rotation makes little or no sense in that so many potential hosts are European, and so few African or Oceanic. A country shouldn't have less or more opportunity to host, imo, just because it's located in a particular confederation.

Where FIFA has got in a mess is that it didn't figure this out up front, but simply panicked after the '06 hosting vote mess into effectively guaranteeing a particular confederation that it would get '10.