Did a search but did not see a thread on this. I think in theory it sounds like a good idea, but for some reason I sense that money and parochialism rules.
I'm surprised nobody has commented on this. I guess I'm going to have to reluctantly use a Kick for the first time. I think you're right. This is a convenient way to give the tournament to Europe every 3 times without making it seem like they are. I think they should just do it that way anyway. With the number of countries in Europe that can host it and the strength of the game there, it just makes sense to let it be there every 3 times. Historically, it's been there every other tournament for quite a while now. I think Jack Warner's crazy to think that he can manage to keep it away from Europe for 3 games in a row. But he's greedy and has the ability to pull the smaller countries with him. I find it really interesting that the article says he wants the games in Mexico. Every indication I've seen is that the US is preparing a bid for 2018. Granted, it's been a while since they've been in Mexico... but no-one has hosted the World Cup more than twice so far. England, Spain and Argentina ought to get it a 2nd time before Mexico gets it a third time. I honestly wonder why he cares for it to be Mexico hosting rather than the US. In either case, CONCACAF would get an extra team, TnT would get in, and he'd get yet one more opportunity to skim off a crapload of money into his family's pockets.
I wouldn't mind Canada getting it but does it have enough big stadiums? I think you need 16 with a minimum capacity of 40,000+ Canada wouldn't be to hot in summer so the players would be able to play at a high level in day time games. South Africa is going to be a disaster imo on and off the pitch. England deserves the World Cup the next it's in Europe after them Spain
The weather won't be much of an issue in South Africa. The average June temperature in Johannesburg or Bloemfontein is under 20C with Cape Town approaching 30C.
The last bidding papers released had 8 as the minimum, although 10-11 is probably better. You also need at least 1 60,000+ stadium, although 2 is also probably better. It would be even better to have the tournament in winter in the southern hemisphere. Football is a winter sport, and none of the the potential southern hemisphere venues have the problem of snow covered pitches.
You ever been to Southern Ontario (Toronto, Hamilton, London, Kitchener) in July? Daytime highs of 35 C aren't all that uncommon.
Last year during the World Lacrosse Championships in London, Ontario we suffered through a longer than usual stretch of days where daytime high's were closer to 40 C (~100 F). Basically the Canadians, Americans, Australians, Spanish and Italian players and fans were able to deal with it. Everyone else seemed to be unable to cope.
someone commented on the 35 celcius being common which is true but the real killer in Southern Ontario is the Humidity. 22 degrees can feel too brutal to play when the humidity is up. When we reach 30, forget it, people in the stands are sweating it up never mind the players. As for South Africa i don't see how in this day and age it could be a disaster. While I agree most African countries are run in shambles day to day when it comes to big corporately sponsored, highly supervised organized events in Africa things are pretty much at par. I mean they run the CAF Cup of Nations rather smoothly imagine that with way more money and FIFA on your back. Sure it won't have the bells and whistles as Germany, France, Japan/Sth Korea but it will be run well and I'm sure most people will be surprised at how good it will be.
The only realy possibility for Ontario would be either an early morning start (9 or 10 AM EST approx. 3 or 4 PM in much of Europe) or late evening start (8 or 9 PM EST approx. 2 or 3 AM in much of Europe) to avoid the routinely oppressive heat and humidity in the middle of the day. A 10 AM EST would mean the game would be ending just as the really brutal heat was starting to set it.
The article is not about "bidding" in general, but more of an analysis of Brazil's ability to stage an "appropriate" WC.
Yes, Asia has never hosted before '02. After all is said and done, it's going to be either Russia (who have never hosted) or England ('66). Ah, it must be nice to get all this attention for something that's already basically settled. Bugs me more than just a little. I'm very tempted to place a bet now, wagering consumption of a well-cooked hat, that CONCACAF and Asia shouldn't even waste their time. But, hey, there's a lot of money in Asia. If China does well with the Olympics, I'd have to say that they're an outside favorite along with Mexico and the US. No matter how much it would hurt for the World Cup to be away from Europe for 3 consecutive times, money can sway that. I should probably just stop paying attention for the next couple years, though.
What you fail to consider is that a losing bid isn't actually a waste of time. Many countries bid in order to get a "place at the table" in future cycles and to learn from the feedback of their failed bid so they can present an even stronger one when they actually have a chance.
Whilst there isn't a strong history of this in World Cup's (South AFrica being the exception) it has proven the case in the summer Olympics in recent times. Looking back we have London (2012) after 2 unsuccessful bids by Manchester, Beijing (2008) was unsuccessful in 2000, Athens (2004) misssed out in 1996, and Sydney (2000) gained the games after 2 previous unsuccessful Australian bids by Brisbane and Melbourne. If you are serious about hosting you will probably end up bidding more than once.
Continents with 2 most recent hosted WCs Ineligible South America 2014, 1978 Africa 2010 Eligible Europe 2006, 1998 Asia 2002 North America 1994, 1986 Clearly Europe should get it next...
Agreed, it should be Concacaf's turn at 2018. I for one liked the rotation system as it allows the region's fans - rich and not so rich - the opportunity to go see it live. Having a bidding process is good in theory, but then only the well-off can afford the travelling to WCs, that or wait and hope that it comes around to the region again. And there is no written rule that Europe (meaning "favorite" England) should get it in 2018...kind of the way they were expected, no, should be at Euro08.
Depends entirely on what's considered 'fair.' For the longest time, it's every other tournament was held in Europe. Now, for the first time, it will be away from Europe two tournaments in a row. While we'd both love to have it in Canada, Mexico or the US, I think it's extremely unrealistic for the Cup to be held away from Europe three tournaments in a row. Most realistic rotation, in my eyes, is Europe, Africa, South America, Europe, North America, Asia, repeat until the sun grows cold. And I'm betting that's what it will settle out to be, when we look back 40 years from now.
I doubt we will have an exact pattern... Generally, I don't think Europe will always get every 3rd world cup, I'm not even sure about 2018, and since there are lots of strong contenders in Asia, but few in Africa and North America, I think there will be more world cups held in Asia than you'd get with your pattern.
I think UEFA will get every third cup for the forseable future (at least the next forty years). I do agree that Asia will get more than the others as the other confederations have more limited options to choose from unless the rules change a bit to allow joint hosting. Realistically North America only has two, South America has two, Africa has one at a stretch, and Asia has 4-5 countries that can host a World Cup.
I disagree with some of your assessments. North America has three. Canada could very easily host the World Cup. I don't really know about South America, so I'll take your word for it. Africa... you're right now. But I don't think Morocco would've been a bad choice instead of South Africa. Problem is, you're making your assumption on how things are now (as am I). But the next World Cup that would be up for grabs for Africa is 2022. That's 15 years from now. How drastic and quick was the change for South Korea? I know, not 15 years, but what would it take for some African country to get their act together and become a realistic host. Say, Libya. Or Nigeria. Less than 20 years ago, the USSR was still around. Who knows how things will be 20 years from now. I certainly don't. But I think it's reasonable to suggest that a lot more countries will be able to host in 20 years that can do it now. Yeah, Asia will probably always have the advantage. I can easily imagine Iran being able to host within 20 years, for example.