FIFA: Re-run of 2022 World Cup vote a possibility

Related: I can't remember who said it, but I heard someone once describe how the England national team used to be an awe-inspiring thrill for fans and players alike because it was essentially an all-star team made up of the best players from one domestic league going up against an all-star team made up of the best players from another domestic league, whereas now there are a good number of clubs that are basically all-star teams selecting between the best players from all the national teams around the world.

 

I don't mean to be weird or political, but the World Cup can be annoying in distinct ways. It's a sporting World's Fair to certain fans, one that inspires some to arrive to the venue dressed in some sort of cultural statement. That's cute, but after a while it gets old; they're trying too hard. Give me someone with the replica kit and a beer in hand who's not desperate to be admired, to be loved. Then there are the vacationing first-world fans, who, while examples of comportment, seem to disdain the very competition. And then there are the fans who regard the tournament as a chance not only to assert identity and help put the country on the map but to settle scores, to satisfy triumphal lust. Some cry when the team loses or when it's eliminated. I almost admire the breezier approach of some players and teams these days. At the very least, the approach bespeaks perspective.

 

I watched England in the 70s and 80s and they were anything but a thrill ride.

 

Fair enough, it definitely helps if your national team is actually fun to watch.

My vague recollection is that the person who said that was English (ironically it might have been Paul Mariner, though again my memory is fuzzy), but maybe he was talking about the 60's? Or just good national teams in general?

 

I'm shocked, shocked to find that there is bribery going on here!

 

Sepp Blatter (remember him?) talks about the possibility of the US hosting the 2022 WC and defends himself (lol).
U.S. could still host 2022 World Cup - ex-FIFA president Blatter

 

Theres finally some steam picking up on this, there might actually be something to this finally

 

Since we're hosting in 2026 I don't want us to try and host in 2022. If Quatar falls apart let Australia or China host in '22. Our '26 WC is setting up for when the team ripens so no changes.

 

I would kind of prefer 2022 because I hate the 2026 format, and I worry at the rate things are going everyone in the world will have stopped caring about international football by then, but yes I can't deny that by 2026 we'll likely have a much more talented group of players in their prime.

 

I think part of the reason we got the '26 WC was to inoculate Qatar for '22. When it inevitably came out that the '22 bidding process was hopelessly corrupt, the knee-jerk response would be to say, "Take it from Qatar and let the U.S. host! They're the only country who can do it on such short notice." But if we're already lined up for '26, then FIFA can say, "Well, it is unfortunate that Qatar got it through bribery, but it would be unfair to give it to the U.S. when they already have '26, so we better just stick with Qatar."

 

Qatar reports three new virus cases at World Cup sites

https://www.france24.com/en/20200416-qatar-reports-three-new-virus-cases-at-world-cup-sites

 

I'd think giving it to England is a good compromise, after they got jobbed by Russia. They are one of the very few countries who could take it on. They havent hosted in awhile, and they seem to have fallen back in love with their national team again.

 

Its not going anywhere without major lawsuits.

 

China?

 

FIFY

 

I picked the two biggest countries in the Asian fed that haven’t already hosted. India?

 

If the virus picks the right gene from some other mammal and the death rate goes up to 30%, then it will be cancelled. So it's not a sure thing.

 

There are 19 countries in the Asian fed with a bigger population than Australia. But if you remove political roadblocks, human rights issue, potential pandemics and terrorist threats, you're left with Japan, South Korea and Australia.

Or, if you ignore some of those, and if the west were trying to bring Erdogan back into the fold, there's Turkey, which has 16 modern stadiums that could hold more than 30,000.

 

If FIFA starts disqualifying hosts over human rights violations, we'd be in trouble for 2026.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countrie...s-of-america/report-united-states-of-america/

 

Couldn't pretty much any of the countries with a major European league host the World Cup on short notice? I looked at Italy's capacities, and it looks like only 6 stadiums have 40K+ capacity. Since two clubs play in the Olimpico and the San Siro, that reduces the pool a little. But here are the others.

• England - Wembley, Emirates, London Stadium, and Tottenham's stadium just in London. Old Trafford and the Etihad in Manchester. St. James' Park in Newcastle. Anfield. Villa Park is above the 40,000 threshhold. I would imagine Elland Road would be a possibility as well.
• Spain/Portugal (assuming a joint bid) - Two stadiums in Lisbon, two in Madrid, two in Barcelona (Espanyol's stadium is just above 40,000), two in Sevilla, one each in Valencia and Bilbao
• France - They just hosted Euro 2016 and the 1998 men's World Cup. They have seven stadiums in Ligue 1 over 40K capacity.
• Germany - 10 stadiums in the Bundesliga at 42K or higher, plus there are additional stadiums in Stuttgart and Hamburg that could hold that capacity. They also hosted in 2006.

It just seems strange that the US is the "de facto" emergency host if something falls through. They were in this spot for the 2003 women's World Cup. I say this as someone who would love to see Australia host the World Cup one day as well.

 

You can add Hillsborough (Sheffield Wednesday) and/or Elland Road (Leeds United), Stadium of Light (Sunderland).

They'd probably include the Principality Stadium in Cardiff, with the cooperation of the Welsh FA. I don't think Scotland would agree to jointly host with England but Ireland might.

 

I can't speak with authority on the topic, but I've been made aware over the last decade or more that the biggest issue with holding a massive event like the World Cup on short notice isn't the availability of quality stadia insomuch as it's the ability to distribute tickets, organize hotels, transportation etc. The US has, apparently, a much better ability to deliver on all those "peripheral" aspects than anywhere else in the world. I do know that there are veritable sh*tloads of hotel rooms available at any given moment in any major (and probably minor) US city. And since this is such a car-centric country, it doesn't really matter where said hotels are located relative to a given stadium, because there are tons of relatively affordable transport options to move people around.

 

I think the big European countries could cope.

But what about FIFA's financial requirements and sponsors' requirements as to where and what can be sold in and around stadiums?

Chicago, the home of the U.S. Soccer Federation, Minneapolis and Arizona dropped out of the North American bid to host the 2026 World Cup because of what city officials said were burdensome financial demands by FIFA.

Vancouver, British Columbia, said its bid was rejected because it refused to comply with FIFA's requirements that include tax waivers and putting agreements under Swiss law.

- USA Today

 

I think those things might be excluded by FIFA if it meant that a World Cup wouldn't happen. Surely, they would give in in such a scenario. You can't haggle when your back is to the wall.

Quick search shows that USA has average occupancy rate of hotels at 66.2%, England at 79.9% as an example. But I think the other "peripherals" beyond hotel availability, based on various articles I've read over the last decade, are very important for hosting a tournament. I don't claim to know much about this topic.

 

A North American tourney would involve hotel stays throughout the tourney.

European fans can fly charter flights into England specifically for a match, as they do in the UCL.