2018 and 2022 - Rate the bids

An interesting idea, but difficult in practice. I think we probably need a few more "ground rules" before getting into it too deeply.

Take stadia, for example. The obvious problem is that we just don't know on the whole what stadiums are being proposed as we don't know the redevelopment plans. And with current stadiums, some could be great stadiums, but too small at 30,000 seats, or too narrow in the cases with some USA stadiums.

 

what?

If you do a bit of research you'll know what stadiums are proposed in most countries and what capacities they are aiming for, and you'll know that most american gridiron stadiums will be (made) wide enough for the world cup (many of the new ones are already).

 

Australia - 6
Capable country economically. Not very large population-wise and their football tradition is not that extensive.

England - 9
They have everything required for a competition like a WC

Indonesia - 3
A large country devoid of stadiums, football traditions, etc

Japan - 5.5
They can certainly do it AGAIN. AGAIN is the key word.

Qatar - 2
WHY?

Mexico - 6
Held 2 WCs, hot Summers and frequently some altitudinal issues.

Russia - 6.5
Questions on infrastructures and safety. Excellent weather, long traditions, large country with resources.

South Korea - 5
They can certainly do it AGAIN. AGAIN is the key word.

United States - 8
They have everything except the public interest. They had a WC only 16 years ago.

Belgium/Netherlands - 7.5
Certainly can do it. Had an EC recently.

Portugal/Spain - 9
Spain's WC was in 1982. A lot of time has passed. traditions, capabilities, stadia are all there.

 

Australia - 5
Lacking in the required stadia, difference in timezone, lack of football tradition, conditions are good though as it will be during winter here.

England - 9
Required stadia with improvements expected on many of them, cost is not a problem, most grounds in England are within a 10 hour drive/train journey e.t.c, climate is favourable - not too hot most of the time, and of course they have had to wait since 1966 for another world cup.

Indonesia - 2
Not much to say

Japan - 4
Recently held a world cup, that is probably the only major thing that will stop them. Also major timezone difference again

Qatar - 1
It is practically a desert, so no chance.

Mexico - 6
Already had 2 WCS

Russia - 6
Weather is similar to England, some good stadia, but questions on transport, safety, and it is just too big a country.


South Korea -3
Recently held a WC


United States - 6.5
Recently held a wc, the country does not appreciate football as much as other countries, large country, money is not a question though.

Belgium/Netherlands - 6
They are very capable, climate is favourable, but a joint bid will probably mean that they will not hold it.

Portugal/Spain - 8
Joint bid may also damage their hopes, climate in the south is very hot and almost desert like in mid summer, otherwise they are capable of hosting

 

Australia - 7
Some purists for the same reason they won't like the U.S. bid won't like the Australia bid because many of the stadiums aren't soccer/football specific. Some of the best Australia stadiums are for rugby and cricket.

England - 9.5
My favorite for 2018 they have public support and history of the game as well as having not hosted it since 1966.

Indonesia - 1
No

Japan - 4
They can do it. And can host it alone. They had 10 stadiums for 2002, but just hosted it 7 years ago.

Qatar - 1
No

Mexico - 5
Have the stadiums, but already hosted 2 World Cups and if people are complaining about weather in the U.S. even though all the stadiums in the southern U.S. now have retractable roofs, Mexico's got hotter weather than the U.S.

Russia - 6
Solid bid possibility. Would have to build several new stadia but it seems like the resources are there to do so. Tough competition going again other European countries for hosting duties.

South Korea - 4
See Japan.

United States - 8.5
They have everything including public interest. If you haven't seen these summer tours drawing crowds of over 65K regularly for meaningless preseason friendlies for clubs like AC Milan, Inter, Chelsea, Barcelona, and Real Madrid then you must not be paying attention. And political support from President Obama. Many often forget about the latin community in the U.S. that boosts the sports interest in the U.S.

Belgium/Netherlands - 5.5
Joint bid reduces the rating for me. I think one day Netherlands can probably host it by itself with all their stadiums being proposed.

Portugal/Spain - 6.5
I do not like joint bids. Spain has the capability of hosting it by itself. Portugal has 3 spectacular stadiums but after that nothing that great.

 

Stadia
Large stadiums aren’t as desirable as they sound. For games like Saudi Arabia/Tunisia smaller more intimate stadiums where the neutral support doesn’t overwhelm is important. Who wants a 75,000 stadium full of 60,000 neutrals?? Therefore more balanced European bids are more desirable for me.

Infrastructure
The Benelux bid has the best transport, small area and easy travel between cities. Spain are building a high speed rail network. England has good railways but overpriced since privatisation. The other countries I’m not so sure about but more flying would be definitely required for the bid ones

History
Well any country that hasn’t hosted it deserves it on that basis, but then large countries which haven’t hosted for more than a generation deserve it too. I always say the world cup should be a reward not an incentive and I stand by that. The most deserving of the award are one of the four European bids.

Impact
Not as important for me. What I am looking for is a germany effect, that is new infrastructure helps the growth in football and creates a euphoric feeling around it. Dutch and Belgian football is growing massively and just need the stadium investment to continue that growth so I think the biggest positive impact is there.

Countries like the USA, Oz, Qatar and Indonesia will have a different effect. I don’t think it will trickle down to the national domestic leagues as a European bid would do, unless a large percentage of the tournament stars moved to or played their.

Geography
Well the Russian bid is surprisingly not as widespread as the Oz or American bids, that is because the Russian bid is confined to European Russia (west of the urals, unless Yekaterinburg is used). And that is a far smaller area than the States, Brazil and Oz which is a plus for the Russian bid.

All of the European bids have great concentrated geography as do the Japanese and Korean bids, lots of interaction and lots of the world cup fee.

Europe also fairly easy and cheap to get to from most places.

Climate
Southern hemisphere as it is “winter”. European climates will be perfect because the tournament will be timed for Europe. The further west the worse the temperatures will be to give Europeans good TV times.

Economic readiness
Well we cant predict what economic state most countries will be in, we can assume Russia may be a superpower again by then, Europe may be a federation and the USA may just be the same. We do know that the countries bidding are capable financially at this moment in time or they wouldn’t bid.


My Ranking would go

Benelux- A Germany-esqe bid and I want to see this 106,000 seater new de kuip

England- Solid bid but I don’t reckon I could stand the public hysteria and media hype we would be subjected to

Iberian- I dislike this bid because spain can go alone, eff Portugal they hosted Euro 2004. However you can't deny the immenseness of the bid i mena the new Atletico, valencia and athletic stadiums, both betis and sevilla are refeurbishing and expanding, the nou camp, the bernabeu etc etc

Russia- My dark horse, may get support from Eastern Europe and Asia who knows

USA- A reward to the long suffering fans of the sport in America, too many neutrals likely, too many cities left out so the world cup experience won’t hit everywhere

Australia- Perth is too isolated, too many ovals are planned (1 is too many). Positive is it’s recent immigrant population and weather at that time of year

Mexico- the weather will be crazy mang

Japan- too recent

Korea- Their hysterical childish fans contributed negatively to the worst world cup in my living memory

Indonesia- hahaha when they stop watching the premier league and start caring about their own league then maybe, and they need a semi decent national team first

Qatar- lol not in a million years, not even if they started signing people to play for their national team like they do in other sports. ******** em!

 

I'll give it a go:

Australia
Stadia (Both existing and those they have committed to build)
9.5
The only small hiccough is the SA government playing hardball in Adelaide - but Canberra will step in if needed

Infrastructure (accomodation and transport)
9
Accomodation is fine inner city transport is slightly behind Western Europe (but ahead of USA IMHO)

History (how long ago did they recently have the tournament, how deserving are they of it now)
9
Difficult one as this is a two pronged question Australia doesn't have the history on the world stage that Europe for instance has - but then again history doesn't necessarily just the World Cup, it does have a long history of the game and an extremely proud sporting history overall. Not having held the tournament before gives Aus marks as well

Impact (what effect will the tournament have on football in the country)
10
Huge impact

Geography (how easy would it be to get around at the tournament)
8.5
Large country but similar to USA in that it is easy to get around.

Climate (where will the most conducive temperatures and altitude be found for high quality football)
10
Winter in Aus - even then only Canberra would have a slight chance of being below zero, unless Tasmania is included

Economic readiness (How capable are the hosts of providing the facilities)
10
Australia is already recovering quite well - even though it never even officially followed the rest of the world into recession.

Safety
10
Generally Australia is close to the safest country on the planet - terrorist wise, the cup could be targeted in any country, but as a target itself Australia is low risk compared to most.

England
Stadia (Both existing and those they have committed to build)
10
Stadiums are already there but they are building more anyway.

Infrastructure (accomodation and transport)
9.5
Accomodation is fine inner city transport is typical for Western Europe but not quite top

History (how long ago did they recently have the tournament, how deserving are they of it now)
9.5
It will be more than 50 years since the inventor of the game have had the cup.

Impact (what effect will the tournament have on football in the country)
8
Impact of the cup in any country will be large - but how much bigger can the game get in European countries.

Geography (how easy would it be to get around at the tournament)
9.5
Easy to get around, but agin the rail system is slightly behind othe Euro countries.

Climate (where will the most conducive temperatures and altitude be found for high quality football)
9
Summer - but can't see too many overtly hot days in England

Economic readiness (How capable are the hosts of providing the facilities)
7
Financial crisis has hit England hard and they have to prepare for the olympics as well.

Safety
7
Generally safe country but could be more of a terrorist target.

Indonesia
Stadia (Both existing and those they have committed to build)
3
They have ONE stadium of WC standards

Infrastructure (accomodation and transport)
3
Tourist ares don't/ wont have stadiums - what accomodation and infrastructure?

History (how long ago did they recently have the tournament, how deserving are they of it now)
8
Indonesia do actually have a lot of history - and of course they have never held the cup.

Impact (what effect will the tournament have on football in the country)
6
Football is already hug there - not sur of how much impact it would have apart from pride.

Geography (how easy would it be to get around at the tournament)
2
Have you ever tried to get around Indonesia?

Climate (where will the most conducive temperatures and altitude be found for high quality football)
5
Not in summer, but that doesn't really matter as it is tropical.

Economic readiness (How capable are the hosts of providing the facilities)
4
Not good economies, although similar to India, Indonesia has the population to help.

Safety
3
Constantly on travel allert.

Japan
Stadia (Both existing and those they have committed to build)
10
Already have excellent stadiums in use.

Infrastructure (accomodation and transport)
8
Very good but expensive.

History (how long ago did they recently have the tournament, how deserving are they of it now)
3
Not as long a history even as Australia, USA and Sth Korea - and only had the tournament in 2002.

Impact (what effect will the tournament have on football in the country)
3
Already held the tournament recently - what more impact could another one give?

Geography (how easy would it be to get around at the tournament)
8
Easy enough to get around - but, again, expensive.

Climate (where will the most conducive temperatures and altitude be found for high quality football)
5
Summer in Japan can get hot and humid

Economic readiness (How capable are the hosts of providing the facilities)
9
Has suffered economically but is an economic superpower as such.

Safety
10
Like Australia, very safe and not really a terrorist target.

More countries in next post.

 

Qatar

Stadia (Both existing and those they have committed to build)
3
So far no stadiums - they have the (petrol) dollars to build them but where?

Infrastructure (accomodation and transport)
5
Seriously how can they fit the visitors when those visitor are likely to be a number larger than their population?

History (how long ago did they recently have the tournament, how deserving are they of it now)
8
They do have a fairly long history in Asia and haven't held it I guess.

Impact (what effect will the tournament have on football in the country)
5
I just can't see it having a huge impact on a country that small - although it would have a large positive impact for the middle East as a whole.

Geography (how easy would it be to get around at the tournament)
10
It's a small country so we have to give them this one

Climate (where will the most conducive temperatures and altitude be found for high quality football)
3
Summer in the Middle East = extremely hot.

Economic readiness (How capable are the hosts of providing the facilities)
8
They have petrol dollars, but even then can they handle the WC?

Safety
7
Most Middle East countries not currently a war zone are actually very safe, culture has to come into it though - how safe is it going to be for the bikini clad Brazillians and bare chested drunken chavs in a country that simply doesn't accept this behaviour. Also close to obvious danger zones.


Mexico

Stadia (Both existing and those they have committed to build)
9
Stadiums are already there but ageing - still shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Infrastructure (accomodation and transport)
7
Not third world but still not up to "western" levels.

History (how long ago did they recently have the tournament, how deserving are they of it now)
6
A lot of history, but they have had it twice already.

Impact (what effect will the tournament have on football in the country)
7
Again - how much impact can there be for a country that is already this much into football.

Geography (how easy would it be to get around at the tournament)
6
I confess I haven't been there but can't really see it being as easy as the USA or Australia for what is still a fairly large country.

Climate (where will the most conducive temperatures and altitude be found for high quality football)
6
Summer - will be pretty warm.

Economic readiness (How capable are the hosts of providing the facilities)
6
Don't know that Mexico has the resources available of other bids

Safety
7
Doesn't seem to be as safe as others

Russia

Stadia (Both existing and those they have committed to build)
9.5
What they don't have they could build but where outside of Moscow and St Petersberg are major teams?

Infrastructure (accomodation and transport)
6
Not a country that is really set up for tourists, although transport around Moscow and St Petersberg at least would be good.

History (how long ago did they recently have the tournament, how deserving are they of it now)
9
Yes they have history - but not as much as other Euro bids IMO.

Impact (what effect will the tournament have on football in the country)
8
Football is already big there.

Geography (how easy would it be to get around at the tournament)
5
Big downfall for Russia. Apart from the big two cities how well connected are the rest?

Climate (where will the most conducive temperatures and altitude be found for high quality football)
8
I'd imagine that summer in Russia could be fairly pleasant, but parts do still get hot

Economic readiness (How capable are the hosts of providing the facilities)
7
Russia is not as strong economically as other countries - a lot of million/billionaires doesn't necessarily make a good economy.

Safety
5
Not exactly known as a safe country.

South Korea

Stadia (Both existing and those they have committed to build)
8
I don't know if they built enough stadiums (like Japan did) for 2002, and I can't see where new ones would go.

Infrastructure (accomodation and transport)
8
Very good but expensive.

History (how long ago did they recently have the tournament, how deserving are they of it now)
5
Probably longest (and arguably best) history in Asia, with only really Iran and Australia for competition, but did host in 2002

Impact (what effect will the tournament have on football in the country)
3
Already held the tournament recently - what more impact could another one give?

Geography (how easy would it be to get around at the tournament)
8
Easy enough to get around - but, again, expensive.

Climate (where will the most conducive temperatures and altitude be found for high quality football)
6
Not as bad as Japan, but summer can get hot and humid

Economic readiness (How capable are the hosts of providing the facilities)
8
Has suffered economically but still strong.

Safety
9.5
Very safe but the North is there - although can't really see that being a problem.

One post to go.

 

United States

Stadia (Both existing and those they have committed to build)
10
Has them in spades - including enough that are not to thin.

Infrastructure (accomodation and transport)
8.5
Accom fine, just beind Aus for inner city transport IMHO.

History (how long ago did they recently have the tournament, how deserving are they of it now)
7
Similar to Aus, Korea etc, but 1994 still wasn't that long ago.

Impact (what effect will the tournament have on football in the country)
5
They had the impact in 94 - can't see how much more would come now. The USA is probably the only country where the WC could be ignored by a large proportion of the population.

Geography (how easy would it be to get around at the tournament)
8.5
Same as Australia

Climate (where will the most conducive temperatures and altitude be found for high quality football)
7
Texas, Florida and LA aren't going to miss out - and they will all be hot. Other places in the US aren't always cool in summer either.

Economic readiness (How capable are the hosts of providing the facilities)
8
The US has suffered badly in the crisis, although do have the resources to pull it off anyway (the will of the ordinary American to spen for a "foriegn sport" may be another thing)

Safety
8
Highest crime rate of any Western country, and whether they like it or not, the USA is target no. 1 for most terrorist organisations. That being said the security would certainly be the best available.


Belgium/Netherlands

Stadia (Both existing and those they have committed to build)
9.5
Most stadiums are already there just wondering where stadiums 9/10/11 etc are being built - shouldn't really be a problem though.

Infrastructure (accomodation and transport)
10
Easily the best for this catagory.

History (how long ago did they recently have the tournament, how deserving are they of it now)
9
Fantastic history - especially for Netherlands, and they haven't hosted. Not sure about joint bids though.

Impact (what effect will the tournament have on football in the country)
8
As for England and Russia - football's already big

Geography (how easy would it be to get around at the tournament)
10
Very easy.

Climate (where will the most conducive temperatures and altitude be found for high quality football)
9
Similar to England, can't see it getting too hot.

Economic readiness (How capable are the hosts of providing the facilities)
9.5
Like Australia the economic crisis doesn't see to have affected the Netherlands or Belgium as much - although it has affected the EU.

Safety
9.5
Only the (very) slightly larger terrorist threat being in Europe would put safety behind Aus and Japan.

Portugal/Spain

Stadia (Both existing and those they have committed to build)
10
Between the 2 countries they have/ will have enough stadiums.

Infrastructure (accomodation and transport)
9.5
Similar to England - Just behind Netherlands

History (how long ago did they recently have the tournament, how deserving are they of it now)
9
Yes they have history - but most recently held of Euro bids. As above with Joint bids.

Impact (what effect will the tournament have on football in the country)
8
Football is already big there.

Geography (how easy would it be to get around at the tournament)
9.5
How easy is it to get accross some of the terrain? Especially between Spain and Portugal.

Climate (where will the most conducive temperatures and altitude be found for high quality football)
8
Spain would be hottest of Euro bids.

Economic readiness (How capable are the hosts of providing the facilities)
7
Not sure how badl Spain has been affected recently but they have always been behind the likes of England and the Netherlands economically.

Safety
9
Safe but not as safe as others IMO.

That's all of them. I've tried to be as impartial as I can, as you have probably noticed most countries got high marks pretty much everywhere - because most would actually be able to put on a very good WC.

 

How do people rate the safety of countries like Qatar and Australia when they've never had to deal with hundreds of thousands of football hooligans?

 

There are hundreds of football hooligans, not hundreds of thousands.

You're off by a factor of 1000.

 

Even though I appreciate the idea of objectively rating the bids, I find this latest proposed method not very helpful.

The fact that two post are needed to explain the ratings seems to me an indication that this method is flawed.

And how are people, who almost certainly have not visited all bidders and almost equally certainly have no adequate factual data about many of the aspects of this rating method to produce a balanced rating for all the bidders without resorting to general perceptions (opinions) about the candidates.

To produce a comparison with any degree of balance and objectivity would take some time researching the matter. Not something the typical poster is likely to do.

As a testament to that, even though the posts are long, they do not (up until now at least) provide nearly enough information on the given rating to allow a reader to scrutenize it. So sensible commenting on a rater's ratings is not very likely to happen.

All in all these turn out to be just very lengthy opinions.

 

i think it was obvious how he wanted us to answer the question, the problem was it would take to long to give a comprehensive answer, and even then it wouldn't be, because no one has anywhere near all of the answers.

Lets just say we know the bad bids (qatar, Indonesia), we know the ifffy bids (japan, korea, mexico), we know the bids that are only in the running because of rotation (USA, OZ), and we know that if FIFA could they'd stage the world cup in Europe indefinately because that is quite clearly the best place for it on so many differnt levels.

 

Rugby and football fields have pretty much the same dimensions. Rugby fields are 68 metres wide (75 yards) and 100 metres long (110 yards) with some extra length on the ends (for Rugby league which is the most popular form of Rugby in Australia this adds 16 metres to the overall length). A stadium designed for Rugby is the same as one designed for football. Cricket grounds are another issue, as the shape and dimensions vary. Watching football at cricket grounds isn't ideal, but no worse than watching football at an athletics field. I doubt there will be too many cricket (or Australian Football) grounds being used in any case. Possibly only the MCG. All of our major stadiums are multi use. All sorts of sports get played on them, as well as other types of events. In that sense, none of them are football specific, but then neither are a lot of grounds being proposed by the other bidding nations.

 

The first thing to do is split the bids into 2 groups: Europe and rest of world. All that matters is where the bids rank in their group because one and only one cup will go to Europe.

Group "Europe": England, Russia, Portugal/Spain, Belgium/Netherlands

Group "Rest of World": Australia, United States, Mexico, Indonesia, Qatar, Japan, South Korea

My personal opinion: England for 2018, Australia for 2022.

 

Your public acknowledgment of Australian sporting history (& its management) on BS is sometimes breath-taking ....... by your obfuscation. Dog-whistling does no-one any credit.

AUS has run SAFELY many large (ie multi-hundreds-of-thousands of people/fans/spectators/citizens) events in the Olympics (twice), Commonwealth games (multiple times), World Cups in cricket & both Rugby codes (multiple times), F1 cars & bikes (multiple times).

FFS, every type of international sporting event (except for the FIFA World Cup itself) has been conducted SUCCESSFULLY in Australia.

Safety (from football hooligans) isn't an issue with a FIFA World Cup Tournament, in Australia. It may well be an issue for the Holland / Belgium bid.

 

As fascinating this thread is, it is enormously hard to do so. But hey, why let a little thing like that get in the way! After all, we are trying, in one post, to compare bids, whilst FIFA whilst FIFA will happily destroy forests to produce report after report to do so.

So, I will chip in my tuppence worth.

Australia.
Stadia: Good quality stadia that can be used for the World Cup, but not all soccer-specific. If the Aussie rules are included, then the field of play is going to be a long way away from the fans.

Geography: Can move freely round the nation, since they have been dealing with this for decades! However, the distances involved are massive. Time zone is not an issue, since it has the same as Japan and Korea, but it is a long way way away from regions that will deliver the most fans. It is still a trek from Japan and the 2 Koreas, both of whom are fellow AFC qualifiers.

Football history: Not much. Australia has not made too many ripples, in spite of the recent excellent qualifying run. However, a WC will push football in Australia on. Maybe even to have a go at Rugby for dominance.

People: Sports mad. The lot of them. Great atmosphere, great fun, but a rising number of racism accusations. Not saying it is something that is an issue now, but it is something to watch.

Benelux.
Stadia: Good stadia, all modern (to varying levels) and a future plan to develop this new 80,000 (Wiki) to 100,000 (Johan) seater "New De Kuip." Not a whole-scale development required.

Geography: Many good cities with hotel space, good public transport links, small nations allowing for quick travel, and in Schipol, one of the top international airports.

Football: Belgium has not made any huge earthquakes, but a current crop of excellent youngsters. Holland is one of THE best nations never to win the world cup. A great squad that has in its time, delighted and frustrated in equal measure. A WC would be great, being hosted in a (combination of) old/new footballing nation(s).

People: Great fans (bit hard on the eyes. All that orange!), but the Dutch can be a bit scary/nuts.

England.
Stadia: Some of the worlds biggest names in the world with the history to go with it. All Football specific, modern, and ready to go at a moments notice. The new stadia are in the pipeline as it is, and dont require a WC to get built.

Geography: Transport between cities is easy, and using any number of methods available (Rail can be expensive, however, booking ahead brings the cost down. Heck, Virgin from Manchester to London in first class for peanuts? Really!) However, it is not as easy as in Holland.

History: Football in its current form was started in England. That speaks for itself. A WC will be the crowning jewel in this golden decade of sport (As much as the Olympics may vaunt itself, it will be all about the WC!) The WC will allow development beyond Englands shores.

People: Fans are football-mad. The WC will be backed like nothing else. There will be hysteria, but mostly from the media. Most people will ignore it, as they will be too busy out on the beer! However, my fear is that a WC will give the shrinking hooligan element a chance for a big hurrah. Though the police have done a good job in jumping up and down on them like a tonne of bricks!

Indonesia.
Stadia: Many stadia, but will need renovation to reach FIFA standards. But in a nation that large, and you are only needing 12, they can manage.

Geography: Vast nation, spread out over a whole string of islands. Ferry system is most ubiquitous, but many of the ships are ageing and potentially dangerous.

History: First Asian nation into the WC. A WC in Islams most populous nation COULD act as a big harmonious peace thingy.

People: Muslim nation that is achieving stability and a high degree of peace. But does have a home grown terrorist issue which will have to be controlled.

Japan
Stadia: Many excellent stadia can be used. More potentially lined up for development. Though they will need a new stadium for the final as the one used in 2002 is no longer big enough.

Geography:A long, thin country. Bigger than most people realise. Travel can be easy/difficult. Actually moving is easy, as long as you fit in with their scheduling! The Shinkansen network is better than pretty much anything in the world. And improving all the time.

History: Not done a great deal with regards football. Does not stop them from learning. "Its the Japanese way!" Football is moving up in Japan, and commands huge popular support, but still lies second to Baseball. A WC would probably help Football push Baseball off the top. But then, having the WC in 2002 will be a card against the Japanese bid.

People: Both amazingly helpful, and deeply frustrating. As soon as something goes up against the rules to which they carry out their job, they dont want to know. However, they are amazingly helpful, hardworking, and a WC in Japan will be a success. The collective will will not let it fail. The good thing is, there is no domestic hooliganism!

Mexico
Stadia: Some pretty impressive stadia now, also working on 13 new ones! Thats a lot.

Geography: Not the largest nation bidding, but not the smallest. Infrastructure is not as developed as in its neighbour, or the European bidders, but then, people still manage! Footy fans would do the same.

History: Would be first "3peater" as host. Probably the biggest card against it.

People: Nuts. Great people, good drink, nice food. Drug wars. Got the lot.

Portugal/Spain.
Stadia: Like England, can use some of the most evocative names in world football. All good quality. Like England, dont need a massive programme of whole-sale regeneration.

Geography: Larger than England, but a developed network. Moving will be easy.

History: Spains contribution through Barca and Real is undisputed. Some of the Best players in the world. But DID host a bid far more recently than England, and it is going in as a joint bid.

People: Spanish fans are amazing. And full of nervous energy.

Qatar.
Stadia: Not much now, but have the money to develop them. Legacy however, is a concern. Can the nation support 12 stadia after the WC?

Geography: Small, and easy to move. But largely desert, and in the WC window, really hot. Developing the airline and Doha airport into a major hub.

History: Money speaks for the lack of history.

People: Will support the WC. Great people.

Russia.
Stadia: Many stadia ready to go, and plenty of famous buildings.

Geography: Large, but the WC will be built around the Eurpean side. Fairly easy to get there, but will they require all the visitors to have a visa?

History: Had some darned good teams in the past, not done much recently. A WC will probably herald a revival.

People: Great and scary in equal measure.


South Korea
Stadia: Great stadia, ready to go, like Japan

Geography: Small and easy to move around. Developing a rail network to rival Japan.

History: Similar to Japan in football terms, but had the stonking run in 2002. A WC would really help the K Leagues development.

People:Helpful and friendly, not as polite as the Japanese, but in many ways, more fun.


US
Stadia: Great stadia ready to go, high capacity, technologically advanced. However, not football specific. So, footballs development in stadia terms leaves me unsure.

Geography: Large. But there are planes. And maybe the occasional train too!

History: Slowly developing into a good side. A WC will help with focus the population on soccer even more.

People: Lovely people, friendly and helpful (largely), but majority can take or leave the WC, and treat it with a deal of indifference.

I think that is it for now.

Just my opinion.

 

I agree with what you said. That's the perception with many American stadiums. They are multi purpose and many conform to international soccer standards but some purists think that since it's mainly used for one sport it's not suitable for another. But the people that are making the decisions actually know what they are looking at with these stadia instead of giving an opinion on it based on something they heard. Thus the reason Australia and the U.S. are the favorites in 2022.

 

No idea about Qatar but I would say Australia would be a much safer place than those countries bidding that are well known for football hooliganism. The other advantage we have is that the hooligans, who lets be honest here are the poorer sections of society, can't afford the travel and accomodation to Australia in winter. Its much easier to go from Amsterdam to London (and vice versa) for a day trip, play up and either go home or spend the next night in gaol and then go home. In other words your shit won't be coming here because they can't afford the trip. They will be watching it in your pubs (or whatever the Dutch equivalent is) and causing a nuisance in the Netherlands.

 

A lot of people seem to criticise the narrower width fields that many American Stadiums have, but you've got so many and its really no big deal to remove 3 or 4 front rows on some if needed, that there will be no need to use narrow stadiums if you are succesful in your bid. Stadia are not a problem for the US bid. I think your biggest drawback is that you are a recent host. Other than that I can't see too many problems.

 

Okay, as I'm moving there in a couple of weeks, I'll try and do Qatar 2022...
It's difficult to do though as it's hard to say what the country will look/be like in 13 years time....

Stadia - existing - 1. I give it 1/10 for existing stadia as they only have one stadium that would meet FIFA's standards - Khalifa International Stadium. Most club stadiums hold around 20,000 people and will have to be seriously upgraded.

stadia to be built - 9. If they were to get the cup - I'm sure they would come up with all sorts of extravagant designs - filled with superlatives and all sorts of bizarre designs. Currently underway is the Laptop Stadium.. a stadium that folds underground when not in use. Those who prefer more traditional grounds would probably not like it though.

Infrastructure (accomodation and transport) - 4
With only one major city, this would be a problem as I'm sure Qatar does not currently have enough hotel rooms to cater to the sort of crowds the world cup will bring. On a recent trip to Doha, I almost missed my appointment as the airport was completely out of rent-a-cars. I could probably make my retirement renting the spare room out. Another problem is that the Gulf countries tend to cater exclusively more upscale tourists so anyone seeking any sort of 'budget accomodation' will be left out in the cold.. erm, I mean heat....

History (how long ago did they recently have the tournament, how deserving are they of it now) - 6 - Contrary to popular belief, the tiny slip of a country Qatar has been a pretty big player in the Asian sports world... recently hosting the Asian Games, World Youth Cup, various global racing events and will soon host the Asian cup. The region has never hosted the world cup before and Qatar is one fo the few countries within the region with the capabilities (financially, stability, etc.). Qatar is one of the Arab world's more progressive countries. The Qatari national team has not been particularly successful at the international stage but are somewhat competitive by Asian standards.

Impact (what effect will the tournament have on football in the country) - 8
Arabs are soccer-crazy and it would be huge for not only the country but for the region in general - something the Qatari bid comittee are aware of and they are trying to sell their bid as being a bridge between the east & west.

Geography (how easy would it be to get around at the tournament) - 9. LOL! you can drive around the circumfrance of the country in about 5 hours. I can imagine the traffic jams in Doha though.

Climate (where will the most conducive temperatures and altitude be found for high quality football) - 50. That's in 50 degrees celsius, which is what the temperature gets to be around this time. This makes hosting the WC in the summer virtually impossible. Would have to hold it in Dec/January when temperatures are the best in the northern hempishere at this time.

Economic readiness (How capable are the hosts of providing the facilities)
- per capita, Qatar is one of the world's richest countries

Safety - the biggest danger here is the driving. I kiss the ground everytime I successfully cross the street. Crime is virtually non-existant. The threat of terrorism is genuine but I guess it's like that all over the world.

So I guess it's a bit of an (oil)pipe dream but it would be cool if it did happen. One thing I've suggested is a co-hosting world cup between Qatar + the UAE. This would expand the stadia, infrastructure dramatically but I don't think it's even been proposed yet. The weather is the big problem, amongst many - the WC would have to be held in the winter months - causing all sorts of logistical fiasco for the Euro leagues.

 

No it wouldn't, what on earth would make you think that?