I agree completely, so long as the team isn't complety out if its depth. USA 94, Japorea 2002, and S Africa 10 were all fine in this regard, with USA being the weakest in terms of culture/ability at the time of hosting. I'd be fine with Australia, Canada, or China hosting strictly on their ability to fund the needed infrastructure and global expansion. IMO, it is a good idea to place the finals into these 3 markets every fourth WC or so. If we are talking about putting the finals in another large market like India or Indonesia, that's a different thing entirely. Same thing with a host that might have a viable team that wouldn't be a complete embarrassment but who has no business hosting due to logistical/size issues like a Qatar. There's expansion for global reach and then there is just expansion for the sake of expansion. The latter jus doesn't make sense given the presence of so many viable hosts who have yet to get the opportunity to date: Australia, Canada, China, Turkey, Russia...whoever might have the infrastructure capabilities a decade out (which is a long time) like a Colombia, etc.
I hope the USA does not host 2022. Let FIFA suffer for the horrible situation they are in. Don't bail them out USA. The head of US Soccer said that the US would not bid for another WC until there were changes at FIFA that made the bidding process more transparent.
Honestly, I don't think there are that many countries that can host that can't make it on their own anyway. The top teams in CONMEBOL who make it have hosted. The rest really can't. USA, Mexico, and Canada have all qualified on there own. No one else in CONCACAF can host. The teams in Europe that can host always make it on there own. The same with Africa and Asia. Qatar could work, if every game was played in a dome with AC. Domes have been used before (1994, 2002). I just don't want to see crappy teams hosting. Make it at least once on your own.
More countries may be able to host if FIFA gets desperate and loosens the hosting rules such as; not more than 1 host city can have 2 stadiums, stadium capacity, total number of stadiums.
You only have to look at a map of Qatar and how they have already changed the number of stadia to realise that the rules are already relexed in those things.
Not really. England, for example would have had a rather different mix of stadia had it been allowed to bid with the same definition of city that Qatar was allowed to use.
I'm guessing 2018 and 2022 are staying right where they are. Construction is already underway in both countries. Honestly, no matter what happens with FIFA in the future I wouldn't mind seeing the US pass on host till the 2040s. That way my generation who was teenagers in 1994 could take their grandchildren to the World Cup. More generations of Americans would be able to see at least one US hosted World Cup in their lifetime then.
I think what people have a hard time with are hosts that aren't near locks for the final tournament. Canada has been to the WC, but there are at least 6 teams in CONCACAF better than them, so it's been ages since they got out of qualifying. Russia has been in but they are out as often as they're in. Turkey is probably the most viable new euro(apologies to Netherlands, Portugal, Poland, and Greece), but it will be at least 16 years between WCs for them. Fellow confed members prefer to see the hosting go to a team that is an odds on favorite to get in anyway to free up the allocation spot. It's not the end all be all, but it does help shore up some intra-confed votes, which are critical to winning. I'd like to see Canada get one someday, but I'm sure that CR, HON, JAM, T&T, PAN, and GUA would prefer a USA or MEX bid instead. FWIW, 10 teams have made the last 5 WCs. 4 more have made 4 and another dozen or so have made 3 of 5. Australia is a safer play out of Asia and China would be a dark horse based upon economic clout kind of like Russia in 18.
In the last four WCQs, Canada has been eliminated in the Semifinals every time. There are groups of 4 with the top 2 teams advancing. Canada has finished third twice (one of those times they were 8 points behind second) and fourth twice. Among the 12 Semifinalists in the groups combined, Canada has ranked 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th. Canada has 5 wins, 7 draws, and 12 losses for 0.92 points per game during those four Semifinal groups.
That's what I'm saying. They haven't been good enough to make the hex. I don't think they are quite as bad as their recent GC and WCQ record suggests. They're fully capable of respectable results v a team like Panama (1-1-1 in last three competitive matches). But they can also lay eggs v others. It's a funding and organizational issue. Last calendar year, they only had 5 matches. If they knew they were hosting 8-10 years out, I would expect them to climb to around 5-7 in the confed. That it might take a WC host to spur this commitment is problematic though.
One man's thoughts: Regardless of any possible fraud in the votes for 2018 and 2022 the most important issue is FIFA's (assuming they're still around after this) ability to delineate proper standards for all future hosts. Something that covers a minimum number of existing venues, plans for use after the event, labor standards, financial commitment, etc. This should also include clarifications for how to enable co-hosting and minimal sizes for each nation-state involved. (again, speaking to the long-term viability of the venues) AFTER that's been done and assuming the standards are good and fair, then I'd have no objection to going back to Qatar and saying "If you can meet these standards then the event will remain. If not, then we need to consider alternatives." This way you're not particularly punishing a nation and involved workers for any ill acts that were perpetuated by only select individuals. I'd also have no objection to an extraordinary co-hosting arrangement by inviting other Emirates to partner up for 2022 as that could prove the type of good gesture needed both politically and for expanding football. There would still only be one team from a host nation involved, but if this resolves much of the event logistics by adding places like Abu Dhabi and Dubai to the event then all the better, no? Point being, first FIFA needs to ensure the original vetting process that allowed Qatar to bid alone never happens again. Once that process has been rectified then we can address 2022 with more patient eyes.
But didn't that already exist, and was ignored for Qatar? Qatar's stadia existed in sketch form only and I am pretty sure that was not sufficient for any of the past bidding processes.
Agree completely. A lot of what was spelled out explicitly has been ignored/adjusted already. I'm sure there are other parts of the RFP the public does not have access to that further define minimum standards that have been moved. There is no way that FIFA hosting documents do not have clauses pertaining to conduct/conditions/behavior damaging to the FIFA brand and consequences if these issues clearly outlined for hosts. Corruption aside, FIFA's overarching problem is that there is too much flexibility and flying by the seat of their pants. This culture opens the door to willy nilly changes and also corruption.
Partially so. FIFA has standards for stadium design and conditions, tournament organization, etc. They also have expectations for number of venues and such. These are the items that factored into the FIFA bid evaluations whereby Qatar did have the lowest score. However these are obviously not requirements or else the Qatari bid would've been disallowed outright. I'm talking about something more solid and clear that a Qatari-type bid doesn't even get through the vetting process. For example, if FIFA expects at least 10 venues then perhaps a minimum of 5 must be existing at the time of the bid and at least 8 of them must have a full time tenant after the event. Qatar's bid would not meet either threshold. Minimum 8 host cities? 5 of them must already have 90% of the hotel, team training and guest facilities already in place. Again, Qatar would not have met this mark. Put simply, if there are in fact minimum requirements they're too low and too unclear. Raise them so that each bid cleared for vote is at least plausible.
That is making the assumption that corruption does not outweigh standards in FIFA. Part of the non-accusatory explanation could be the fact that FIFA decided to award a Host privileged so far in advance. They now will allow so much more leeway for items that do not exist at the time of the bid. However that was never communicated in advance, allowing everyone the luxury of 'fantasy' scenarios. Probably the smartest thing FIFA could do to clean up it's act is to revoke bids if bribery is discovered as part of their policy. It will make it less likely in the future that people will 'buy' people.
No, it assumes that if FIFA has clear and specific minimum requirements in order to become eligible to bid then any blatant corruption to circumvent those standards will be rooted out all the more quickly and easily. FIFA didn't/doesn't have any rules of this sort expressly prohibiting small nations with no/minimal stadiums from bidding, which is why Qatar was allowed to bid. I'm talking about something that wouldn't even let that bid cross the table. Put another way, once the type of standards I'm referencing are put into place everyone will know from day 1 which nations are even eligible to bid by themselves. This alone won't stop any potential bribery but it will at least mean all potential candidates can be expected to put on the event without inordinate risk and/or without causing themselves financial duress. Right now FIFA's standards as shown in those evaluation forms amount to little more than lip service guarantees and rudimentary assessments of a city's ability to host a world cup match. There's no reason with FIFA's resources and all this experience from past events we can't establish a more factual, detailed means of evaluating potential costs and risks and taking a lot of the guess work out of the equation. This way each bidding nation knows more exactly where it stands and that other candidates are at least legitimate.
The rules may have been ignored for Qatar but they should be looked at. What are the aims behind them and are there better ways to achieve those goals? The basic requirement is a safe tournament. Next comes attractive and large stadiums that are full with fans from all over the world. For that you require plenty of hotels and transport infrastructure. I am not sure why there should be a restriction on cities having more than 1 stadium involved. If I was putting together a hypothetical English World Cup with no restrictions I would use 3 London Stadia, 2 in Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Sunderland, Aston Villa (with at least 1 new stand) and then make up the numbers with rebuilt/expanded grounds chosen from Leeds, Sheffield, Southampton, Nottingham, Leicester or Everton. Spreading it out further, as was proposed to best fit the current rules, weakens the overall quality of the bid. It also means fewer seats available in total and more likelihood of wasted investment. I would change the rules so that the qtr finals have to be in 4 different cities. The semis, final and 3rd place match in at least 3 different cities. Also, importantly, the home nation should not have a route to the final playing all their matches in the same stadium. I would make it so that they have to play in at least 3 different stadium in at least 3 different cities should they get that far. Changes like that would help many mid-sized countries put on a World Cup. Argentina would benefit from having more than 2 in Buenos Aires and perhaps 2 each in Cordoba and Rosario. Australia might want to have 2 venues each in Sydney and Melbourne.
I recall some prominent pundit (Wahl?) being asked this on the radio when discussing the bids prior to Russia/Qatar winning their events, and he implied the rule is rooted in wanting to ensure countries hosting the event didn't spend all their resources in one-two communities and actually made an effort to invest in smaller cities/clubs. This way you don't find all the investment going to the largest cities and wealthiest clubs that already had advantages. Now, the corollary to this is that you're increasing the opportunities for graft by essentially forcing more construction, but it does make sense for FIFA to want to see something done that grows the game in places where it's not already established or could use the financial boost. Granted, building brand new stadiums of World Cup quality in places where no team exists or would never need/afford such a venue (Manaus, Brasilia...) is taking that notion to the extreme. That'd be like an England bid skipping Leeds to build a new 40k-seater in Bradford.