Pre-match: 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup Host Selection - December 2

One thing I think most fans want though is for the World Cup to be spread around. Not going back to the same countries again and again. 48 years should be the minimum wait to host a WC for a country that has hosted one before. That pretty much ensures that each traveling fan doesn't have to repeat the same exact experience they've already done in their life.

 

I could buy this if it went to Morocco or Egypt. Those are serious soccer countries and interesting places. Morocco rocks. Qatar is a country of 800,000 people and an equal number of servant/indentured servants/slaves. Who would want to go to Qatar if they did not have to? In the summer? This was either bribery or insanity.

 

Egypt and Morocco must regret not bidding. Of course they don't have the unlimited funding that Qatar has (assuming natural gas and oil prices don't plummet) but is it really any less realistic for them to host than for Qatar? Would the inspection committee's report have been any worse for them than it was for Qatar?

 

I think by their very nature, it's bound to be one or the other.

 

While that's a good point, then why not Australia? It's much farther from Korea/Japan than from Qatar/Germany (or Russia when it hosts).

 

if you have never been to Morocco, put it on your list. Great country, great people.

 

Not everyone in the Middle East - or anywhere else, for that matter - is on the same schedule.

I already showed you Azerbaijan, which sextupled their GDP PPP over the last decade.

In total dollars, Qatar's total GDP was $5.4B in 1990 (or given by CIA at that time, which could have referred to one year earlier), $12.3B in 1999 and $101B in 2009 ($92B official exchange rate).

Off these numbers, the growth has been nearly exponential.

And, obviously, one does not expect to build the same infrastructure in a $5B economy as in a $100B one.

CIA also had the Qatari GDP per capita in PPP at $17K in ~ 1989/90 and at $121K in 2009. With an anticipated 10%-15% growth, they add more wealth in one year than they were making in total only 20 years ago.

By comparison, the US had the GDP per capita in PPP of $21K in 1989 and of ~ $46.5K right now.

The US doubled is nominal economy while Qatar increased 20 times over.

 

Yes it is less realistic. First of all, Egypt and morocco are African nations and CAF just had a world cup. I think you're underestimating the unlimited funding part, both these countries have major social-economic problems which would certainly make hosting a world cup very difficult.

 

Fair point. But CAF countries were theoretically eligible since two world cups will have passed by 2022.

 

Egypt in particular has a massive urban underclass. Cairo is impossibly crowded. And I'm really not sure that many other suitable "host cities" outside of Alexandria, Luxor, and maybe the resort of Sharm el Sheik.

 

Outside Giza all the other cities listed are away from Cairo. That's a pretty good list.

 

There's a lot of problems in Egypt. Terrorist organizations there have targeted tourists themselves and there have been several deadly attacks on tourists in Dahab, Sharm El-Sheikh and Luxor recently. Add to that the situations in bordering Gaza, Sudan and Libya makes Egypt a very risky location to host such an event. Plus, the weather is not that much better than in Qatar and the money for stadium-cooling systems would be a huge strain on their economy.

 

Our economy is diversified. Qatar's is concentrated. These aren't arguments, they are facts. It's also a fact that the GCC states have been rich for quite a long time now and their economies are all still concentrated. I'll draw a lesson from history and say that Qatar is likely to take the path of least resistance and stay pretty concentrated. Dress it up however you like, but FIFA is inviting another financial disaster just like South Aftica was for them this past summer.

 

That guy can sit on my couch and watch a game with me any day, my wife will bring us beer, and my 5-year old will send him home with a picture for his refrigerator.

 

Reducing the likelihood of a financial disaster from remote to nil is not a good enough reason to not spread the World Cup to every region of the world.

I can't think of a good reason why Australia shouldn't be hosting the 2022 WC other than its much more difficult for most people to get to Australia than Qatar, but that's a natural consequence of spreading the WC around the world. Unbelievable that they only got 1 vote.

 

It's got to start somewhere. They view this as a catalyst to that end.

Not as concentrated as they once were. The UAE has done decently, but Dubai was overleveraged on real estate. They're still a HUGE logistical hub and house a tremendous number of regional and world HQs.

Abu Dhabi is doing a steadier and more complete job of diversifying.

 

And that is what's perplexing to me.

I know Qatar's presentation was great, but was Australia's that much shit?

 

And Abu Dhabi has done this without the world cup - their economy is more diversified than Qatar's because they have invested in international airline (Etihad Airways) and banks along with other business that have global trading value along with tourism to allow them to have a good import/export ratio. Spending 50 billion on a world cup hinders investments in other areas that are more important.

And this goes to the point that billionaires do not need help with their economies. Why does one of the richest nations in the world need help?

 

Decent point. I think, though, that they view this as a one-time, big-money effort to kickstart the tourism. I'm relatively certain that they have almost NONE.

Also, Qatar Airways exists and is apparently superb, so I don't understand why the airline argument was made.

 

This gets better and better...

http://espn.go.com/sports/soccer/news/_/id/5903143/qatar-neighbors-host-games-2022-world-cup

 

Australia's inner struggles didn't help their cause. They were not going to be able to use several of the stadiums first proposed, because the Aussie Rules season would be going during the FIFA WC. I think that killed all their chances, just as the outing of the vote-buying scandal ruined England's.

 

The general point of all this is that people with knowledge of macro or micro economics will understand that a World Cup only provides net economic value when brought to a place where money can be actually made off of the world cup. What is more important is building airlines that have global reach, investment companies, science and technology research firms and banks. By spending 50 billion they will be throwing away equity that is more importantly used for the activities mentioned above.

For the world cup to make a direct economic gain it currently can only do that in places like the U.S, England, and Germany and possibly Italy and Spain (not sure how much they'd have to spend on stadiums and infra). From an accounting perspective places like Brazil, South Africa, Russia, Qatar will all have a net loss of "equity" from their country's economy as they will buy "assets" that cannot be sold at cost of purchase. I.e, The market value for a stadium in Qatar is much less than in England or the U.S. As well, the revenues of the world cup from said stadiums are only for one month as opposed to other countries that will actually use these stadiums to full capacity, as in the U.S, England etc. and unlike South Africa, Qatar (as noted by people that total capacity exceeds total residents).