M, You're correct in the increase as well. It was 24 to 32 between WC1994 (USA) & WC1998 (Germany). Andy T.
AndyMead, WC 1998 was France, not Germany as I quoted above. It was alos won by France. Check out the following for the teams, etc: http://www.soccerbot.com/fifa/tables/wcup98.htm Andy T.
I could see a scenario where the next three straight World Cups would be held in the Southern Hemisphere. Though nothing is guaranteed, there are rumblings here and there that South Africa will be the host for 2010 event. Brazil is very likely to have the 2014 WC. That leaves the more interesting question of 2018. I could see Australia (by itself likely or combined w/ NZ) bidding for the 2018 because: a) They have a good number of venues and more might be on their way; b) Historically stable nation that has experience with hosting big tournaments; c) They get a chance to get a little revenge against England (the rumored candidate) for the Rugby World Cup final; and d) It may be the only way that the Aussies could enter the big dance.
JJ Mindset, AUS will never host the Football WC, as it's had enough of FIFA & the old Septic Baldder to last for centuries. No-one here, especially the various governments that would need to be on board, will ever trust FIFA again nor put up the risk capital to support such an endeavour as the WC (especially after the FIFA, UEFA & CONMEBOL shenanigans last year over direct qualification for Oceania to WC 2006). If it was my own money (directly) I would not even consider putting it up. I would also actively campaign AGAINST any AUS government support for such (amongst my friends, colleagues, football fans and other Australians). Also, the rotation of WC's through the various confederations was just a device whereby Septic Bladder got some extra votes at re-election time. When it comes to the crunch, UEFA & CONMEBOL have at least 50% of the FIFA Executive votes and would need just one or two others to be compliant (easily done) for those two confederations to scrap or modify the system to suit themselves. My bet is South Africa will get 2010, Brazil will get 2014, Europe will get 2018 and North America will get 2022. Any further out is in the lap of the gods. Best single-fingered bird that Oceania & AUS can give FIFA, UEFA & CONMEBOL is by beating the 5th placed South American team for the final place in Germany WC 2006. Also I hope AUS makes it quite and very publicly clear to FIFA et al, they can shove it up their jumpers, when it comes to AUS putting out for them. Andy T.
Re: Future Cups Unless I am missing something, I don't see how England suddenly became the front runner for the next World Cup in Europe. Everyone is saying it's been so long since they hosted... by that logic they should be hosting 2006, not Germany, since the Germans hosted in '74 which was more recent than England's '66. Also there are several other European nations that have never hosted that probably should: -Portugal -Netherlands/Beligum (could be a joint host like Korea/Japan) -Norway -Denmark -Ireland -Poland -Russia Plus it's been even longer since Sweden or Switzerland hosted than England. So I just don't see how all of a sudden England is the favorite to get the next European World Cup... unless I missed something? Anyways, here's what I think will happen, or at least what I'd like to see: 2010 - South Africa 2014 - Brazil 2018 - Portugal (or one of the other European nations that haven't hosted... they will be ready by then) 2022 - USA or Mexico 2026 - Australia or China 2030 - Uruguay
Re: Future Cups Well England would be a fav because of their infrastructure. Old Trafford, Wembley, Ashton Grove, Stamford Bridge, St James Park are all 40-45K+ stadiums. Havent you realized FIFA is all about the $$$, the more butts they can put into the stadiums the better. Also would you be more willingly to watch a game and tour england rather than denmark, sweden, switzerland, norway, russia or poland?
I would love to see a World Cup in South America again but the game has changed so much in the $$$$ aspect. One country that could possibly host it is Ecuador. They currently have the best stadiums in S.A. They can build a 90+ stadium under 30 million dollars. They'll make their money back ten folds. http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Bleachers/3296/estadio/estadio.html http://www.clubldu.com/casablanca.htm
Re: Future Cups Well that is a good point, but if it was ENTIRELY about money, they would want every other WC in the USA, how many other countries have so many 80k+ stadiums, with a few over 100k (Michigan: 112,000. Neyland is around 105,000 although it'll be a cold day in hell that there's a WC match in Tennesee) And they would be full very easily. The infrastructure is good and the only real problems I see with the US is the heat and the size. It's not easy to go from NY to LA then Boston and SEA ect. Personally, I haven't got the slightest idea what Blatter and his buddies are thinking. I also agree that AUS was so alienated by FIFA regarding 06' that I doubt we will see a WC down under in the next 30 years. Just my 2 cents.
Re: Future Cups Which would be a darn shame, because I think that Australia would be the best candidate for 2018. Let Europe and North America fight over 2022 (or try to take 2014 away from Brazil, which would mean hell to pay in terms of FIFA politics). Consecutive World Cups in the Southern Hemisphere would be a cool thing, but that's me.
Morocco is capable to host a WC but can you realistically see FIFA selecting it in the current political climate? The rotation 'system' will inevitably dissolve as soon as other factors come into play (Mexico allegedly stole the '86 tournament from Colombia after a deal hatched with Havelange after the '82 Finals). For financial reasons, the US will surely host the Finals again soon. I just (vainly) hope the kick-off times won't be suited to European tv again, which made some stadia in '94 literally cauldrons.
Mexico was asked to hold the 86 world cup after the columbian economy fell through. They where the only country with the resources and capable stadia ready to go at the time.
At the end of 1982, Colombia informed FIFA officially that they did not have the resources to host the 1986 World Cup (it was knon for some time prior to this). Colombia was also in the throes of crippling terroist and crime problems that continue to this day. FIFA asked for bids, and Morocco, Brazil the USA and Mexico bid. Morocco and Brazil did not have the infrastructure and finances to host on short notice, and there were political (in Brazil social and political problems, in Morocco the problems with the rest of Africa over the Western Sahara) to effectively rule them out. In the USA, the problem was lack of interest, as shown by the collapse of the NASL- they did have the stadia and the infrastructure, as they have always had and will always have. Mexico (who were in a safe island between financial and political problems due to the oil boom) was the only feasible bid, and so they were awarded the WC in mid-1983. After the fall 1985 earthquake, FIFA sent a committee to see if the WC had to be moved again, but they determined that it was okay. Nobody stole anything, except maybe the terrorists, criminals and corrupt elite in Colombia. There were problems with the heat (the USSR came up with the idea of throwing plastic bags of water all over the pitch for their players) because of the unfortunate midday match times for the televsion audience as in 1970, but it was generally conceded to be one of the best organized games up to that time, and best for football along with 1970. It was the best attended games up to that time. Mexico can be proud of their history of hosting the World Cup.
I think there is a huge mistake in assuming that any country is willing to "step in" at a moments notice and host a huge event like the WC or Olympics (sorry WWC doesn't have the same onslaught of foreign visitors). This was forever changed because of 9/11. I doubt you could go to the mayor (and police commisioner) of any large US city and say, "hey look, Uruguay screwed up their WC and we need to bail them out. So go prepare for about 200k people invading your city from all over the world. Oh, you have 3 months to do it!" So let's get with the real world here. Another huge mistake is this naive notion that rotation is fair. In '04 that's a crock of sh!t. Let's look at the situation realistically. Nations able to seriously bid for WC TODAY: Europe: Italy Spain Germany (I know they're getting it in '06, but bear with me) France Portugal England Ned/Belgium joint bid Oceania: Australia SA: Brazil (all those who truly believe any other country in this region can seriously bid to host a WC in '04, we send greetings from planet Earth) NA: USA Mex AFC: Japan Korea China Africa: S. Africa Egypt Morocco Tunisia There you have it! In this entire huge world of ours 18 nations have a remote chance of getting a WC. Of those, 7 are in Europe. That's 39%, and that's why as far into the future as we can see, Eurpoe will get AT LEAST every 3rd WC. You can call this arrogant, greedy or hurtful to the rest of the poor world, but then that would make you either stupid, ignorant or naive (possibly a strong combination of the three). So get off your Utopian high-horse and get back to reality of the world we live in. Another myth I'd like to debunk that was going around earlier in this thread was about playing in the heat and how that would affect Euro teams. FIFA reports indicated that USA 94 was BY FAR the hottest WC in history (avg temp/humidity during the games). Final 8 for that tournament: Brazil Italy Sweden Bulgaria Romania Netherlands Spain Germany Boy the heat really hurt those poor Europeans!
Two things: First, just because almost half of the potential hosts for the World Cup are in Europe, it doesn't mean that Europe should host every other World Cup. You could make an argument that the World Cup could be rotated more on exposing it to different populations (in other words, bringing it back to the US or China or Brazil more often than most countries will allow more people from those continents to see it). Anyway, you can make a lot of different arguments, as this thread and others have shown. Everyone seeks 'fairness'. But is 'fairness' giving the WC to as many different states as possible (the borders of which, the last century has reminded us, can change over time)? Or is fairness making sure as many different nationalities and peoples witness the WC in person? Or is it 'fair' to give the WC only to 'traditional' soccer powers? Ultimately, I think you need to balance the various strands of 'fairness'. You need to account for tradition, and you need to make sure a WC is a logistical success, but you also need to ensure that the competition truly remains a "WORLD" Cup. With that said, I think the fairest possibile rotational system is as follows: A. Europe B. Other C. Americas (Repeat) With such a system, you could, potentially, have the following World Cups: 2006 Germany 2010 South Africa 2014 Brazil 2018 England 2022 China PR 2026 USA 2030 Turkey 2034 Australia 2038 Mexico 2042 Spain 2046 India 2050 Argentina I'll stop there, because by 2054, the EU might be it's own nation-state, aliens might have invaded, we could be in the midst of Armageddon, or, worse yet, the WC may be biennial.
WRONG! Oceania wants to host a WC by 2018 as then at least ALL confederations have hosted. I think that is a fair system. UEFA, CSF, AFC, CONCACAF, CAF & OFC then repeat.
Ok. I never claimed to be 'right'. I was merely offering my opinion, with what I consider supporting evidence, as to what the fairest solution is. That's nice. I'm pretty sure that every confederation besides the AFC 'wants' to host a WC between now and 2018. That's 5 confederations and 4 WCs, though, so it's not going to happen. You make no argument as to why this goal is important. Why isn't the goal that all associations host? Why isn't it that major cultures or religions all get a chance to host? Why not based on population? Why an OFC country before India or China or an Arab state? It's fair for the Oceania region to host as often as Europe or Africa or one of the Americas? How? This strict rotational business--based solely on arbitrary geographic lines dictated by FIFA--is garbage. Why isn't it fair that OFC and AFC be counted as one region? Or maybe it'd be 'fair' for the AFC to breakup into two regions and host twice as often? Maybe Western, Central and Eastern Europe can split into three regions as well? FIFA splits the world into 6 regions but other entitites--including, most notably, the United Nations--splits the world into several more regions that better reflect cultural links and geographic realities. The fact is that those that advocate a strict rotation amongst the 6 confederations--including some in FIFA--seek and accept a simple solution to a complex problem. There are many factors--almost all more important than geography--in determining what states/regions are best suited and most deserving of hosting a World Cup. I've made my arguments above. You, and others, simply look at a FIFA organizational chart that shows the world divided into six regions and immediately say "that's fair!"
Correct, you are not "right" in any sense, except in having your opinion, just like the one I have on the subject. There are 6 full confederations and they all should be treated equally, else there's no reason for having confederations in FIFA. In a rotation system, OFC counts as much as the AFC, or any other FIFA confederation. The AFC (of which India, China & the Arab states are part thereof) was allocated the last WC (Japan/Korea) and actually gained 2 extra WC finals places (permanently) for doing so. Logically, politically, financially & in footballing terms another confederation should host the next WC.
The OFC, with only one country capable of hosting a World Cup, should have the same status as CONMEBOL, CONCACAF, CAF, AFC, or UEFA? That's ridiculous. All of the above confederations have at least three countries with the potential to host a World Cup, Oceania has one. Should Oceania get to host a World Cup? Yes. Should they get to host it as often as other confederations in a fair rotation? No. And by the way, the reason for having confederations doesn't have anything to do with hosting the World Cup- it has to do with regional soccer competitions, World Cup Qualifying etc.
Ok, glad we agree. Why? Why shouldn't the 204 national associations be treated equally, then? They are all equal members of FIFA, hence we should rotate the World Cup 204 times in a row before a country sees the World Cup twice. Right? All I'm looking for is an argument--other than pointing to their mere existence--for why the 6 confederations should be the basis for a rotational system. First of all, as we all know (or should know), no one gains a WC finals place "permanently". Second, how can you argue that Arabs benefited from a World Cup in Japan/Korea more than Australians and New Zealanders? Financially and logistically, it was much easier for neutrals from Oceania to travel to the last World Cup than it was for neutrals from the Middle East. The point I'm trying to make here is that the lines drawn for the confederations make (some) sense purely for competition, but when other factors are introduced, they become less relevant. Since Africa and Oceania haven't seen a World Cup yet, and CONMEBOL hasn't seen once since 1978, the system doesn't really 'stand' now. That's the whole point of this discussion. Blatter and others have only said that there will be a "principle of rotation". Some have automatically assumed that to be a strict rotational system amongst the 6 confederations. And, they may be right. But that has NEVER been publicly clarified. Now we're getting to a point of agreement. It would indeed be fairer to combine the Americas and have OFC merge into Asia. So, if that is fairer in a sporting sense, why is it fair to stick to the 6 confederations (which you don't think is fair) for the rotation? Maybe a rotation along the lines I proposed (Americas, Europe, Other) would begin the push towards mergers and realignments of confederations. If money and politics drive things--as I admit they do--then do you seriously believe that the World Cup will be in Africa every sixth edition (the same as Europe and North America?). My argument takes into account money and politics a lot more than you seem to want to admit. Explain to me the political principle behind making sure that New Zealand and Australia take turns hosting the World Cup every 24 years while countries like England, Italy and Germany would be waiting upwards of 90+ years between "turns" (at minimum).
Ricky_DCU, What a self-contradiction this argument is ! If you have the potential to qualify, then you are able to apply to be the hosts of the finals. It's illogical to assert that the latter part of your argument supports the 1st part of the same argument.
Do you drive on the other side of the road in the opposite direction to all other traffic ? Simple, apply the rules until there's a change. OK, give one of those legacy AFC places to Oceania, as "hosting" only needs 1 place of the 32 available. Unfair ? To whom ? This applies to all countries within all confederations, even within the confederation of the host(s) country(ies). Swings & roundabouts here, as it'll be more difficult for Oceania countries this time around in Germany 2006. My understanding is that from the FIFA shambles around Germany (UEFA) beating out South Africa (CAF) in the voting for the WC 2006 (with both confederations showing their great diplomatic skills at intimidation & threatening behaviour vis-a-vis Oceania's vote), the rotation was put into place. I don't trust FIFA (especially the old Septic Bladder) along with those behmoths of World Football fraternity & equality (UEFA & CONMEBOL) to actually get past this vote for WC 2010. I assume that Brazil has it in the bag for WC 2014, but thereafter I bet it's all up in the air again (let the politics & associated corruption restart). Until any merger takes place, the reality is 6 confederations, unless there's some quid-pro-quo in it for the two confederations which would be assumed into the two majors. Oceania (Australia in particular) will never trust any of these thoroughly discredited organisations & office-bearers. A snow-flake will have a better chance of surviving in hell, than FIFA, UEFA, CONMEBOL & Bladder being trusted and/or believed in any matter of football. There's really only about 15-20 countries in the world who could successfully host a WC. These countries roughly approximate those who have run (or could run) the Olympics Games . The WC hosting should never again be shared. I believe that FIFA's process should be returned to a system that has some element of North / South & East / West in it's rotation / allocation as well as other significant pertinent capabilities & capacity for delivering such. Hopefully with some better & more open process within FIFA for bidding & voting.
I suspect with the power shared between Europe and South America the rotation idea will be operated a little more loosely, I expect it to be something like this. 2006 – Europe 2010 – Africa 2014 – South America 2020 – Europe 2022 – Asia [probably China] 2026 – Europe 2030 – South America [Uruguay] 2034 – North America 2038 - Europe All rather depressing reading if you are from one of the less influential Confederations, but then again it is all about the money and one day the "buying" power of Asia will outweigh that of Europe. Then TV rights sponsors will come running, look how keen European teams are to sell shirts in Asia, therefore influence for Asia in Fifa increases and the balance of power changes. South America will always have influential as long as their teams keep on winning, and the blackmail the other confederations with the “we won’t turn up and it’s not a world cup without us” routine, The worst case scenario is of course that if Europe and South America feel that their power is waning they will try too establish a Europe v South America competition only, outside of Fifa, look how reluctant these confederations are to have African, Asian or other confederation representatives at the world club championship, insisting that the world club champion can only be played between a European and south American side. Well I feel better after that rant, hopefully I haven’t depressed everyone from Oceania, North America or Asia who were hoping to see a “local” World Cup during their lifetime
Well, on a six-lane highway, do you spend equal time in all six lanes while travelling on it? Or do you switch lanes based on traffic flow, accidents, construction and exit ramps? Not all things are always equal, and, to my and most peoples' observations, the six confederations are not 'equal' when considering ability and rights to host a World Cup. We either have a fundamental disagreement here, or a fundamental difference on understanding what are 'facts'. So far, there are no 'rules'. That's been my point (and, a point you admit later in your last post). The whole idea of this thread and discussion is to speculate on what 'rules'--if any--should apply to World Cup host selection. Pointing to the six confederations for the basis of rotation merely due to their existence is fine, if you truly believe the six conderation system is a fair and accurate representation of footballing realities. However, you've readily admitted that they are not fair (you advocate a merger of the Americas and a merger of OFC and AFC). So, if you admit they are unfair on the one hand, how are they fair on the other? I suspect that you--and most others advocating this approach--do so because of your interest in having a World Cup in Australia or New Zealand sooner rather than later. So you know where I'm coming from, I actually personally hope that Australia sees a World Cup in 2022 (and not 2034) instead of China PR. I was just making a speculative guess based on what might happen if my theory was ever adopted. I'm not "anti-Oceania" in any sense. My point here is that the seeding breakdowns change all the time. With Korea's successful run in 2002, it was unlikely that a spot would be taken from AFC in 2006. However, rest assured that a weak performance from the Asians in 2006 and/or a qualification and strong performance from an OFC team, will see a spot shift from AFC to OFC. Similarly, over the next several World Cups, you may see CAF spots increase. But, then again, if they continue to fall short of anything but the second round, they might decrease. The reality here is that anything can happen. We could see 48 qualifiers sooner than later; we could see a regional qualification system in Europe as Eastern European sides grow stronger; or we could, if the confederations are ever merged, see a massive qualification system for the entire Americas. The fact is, we just don't know what will happen. That's why it's worth putting all our ideas and guesses forward in a forum like this. Things change and swing here, absolutely--but always to different degrees for different regions. Despite being closer, it will still be harder for many poor Latin Americans, Africans and Arabs to travel to Germany than it will be for Australians. This socio-economic discrepancy will never be fully solved, but if you truly want to ensure a World Cup, you have to address it to some extent. That's why I advocated looking at larger regions and other ties--like cultural and religious--as bases for rotation, rather than just the six confederations. My understanding--and maybe others have links to exact quotes--is that a "principle of rotation" was put in place. I don't think--and I may be wrong--that anyone in FIFA has authoratatively said that a rotation based on the six confederations has been or will be implemented. Here's a big part of my point. If you don't trust FIFA to stick to the six conderation system that you advocate, then what system do you personally want to see? Or, if you really want the six conderation system, then why? I find it odd that on the one hand you tell me: "Until the FIFA WC Finals rotation system is actually changed, versus your opinion on it, then the system stands and should continue to be used." But, then you say that you really don't believe the system has any chance of standing. Not that I disagree, but I think we're getting a little off course here. The fact is that FIFA--trusted or not--will make the decisions on who gets to host the FIFA World Cup. Right, which seems to me a good argument for a different system of rotation. Shouldn't all of those 15-20 countries see the World Cup? If you go back to Australia (and New Zealand, possibly) ever 24 years, you are effectively putting off WCs in some of those 15-20 countries for centuries. Also, as I was trying to say by alluding to changes in borders and histories, this number could greatly change (increase or decrease). I said it half-mockingly, but who knows whether or not the EU will be considered a single "nation-state" in 40-50 years? Who knows if India will be prepared to host a World Cup by 2046? Geopolitics are going to change--possibly more than we can possibly comprehend--so the goal should be to do what's right and fair for now and the foreseeable future. Not to try to implement a rotation system that will stand the test of eternity. For now, I agree, but I'd be careful of the word "never". Even if it's not a nation-state, a World Cup hosted by EU or by other regional bodies as they become further integrated, is not out of the question in the long-run. I'm confused. I thought you wanted FIFA to stick to a six confederation rotation? This final recommendation seems to be a departure from that.