Discussion in 'FIFA and Tournaments' started by Nico Limmat, Jun 4, 2017.
Agreed, though I'd say there are 3: you are forgetting Australia/NZ.
Australia/New Zealand for 2030 I actually wouldn't mind it at all
I am pretty sure that's not the world's most populous timezone.
That is a fair point, and I did mix the 2 as my travel experience is in England but the bid is UK, so i was careless in using the two interchangeably. The Porto point is probably valid, as although I did find Portugal different from Spain, it wasn't that different. Besides language...but then I'm not sure I'm that good at understanding the Scots either!
And having never been to Scotland I wouldn't mind seeing it. My wish would be that the Republic of Ireland also get added to the bid which would make it much more of an exciting trip for me. The latest I read which was fairly recent is that adding Ireland is still a real possibility.
My preferences are not based entirely on how varied the venues are, but you make good points. I will also say that the big differences between the Brazilian and Russian host cities was something I liked about those 2 World Cups.
I would say it definitely did NOT happen naturally, or because the criminal element in both countries decided to not conduct violent crimes against visitors because they wanted to be nice and welcoming. A massive amount of security planning and execution was behind the lack of crime, and probably the threat of extreme repercussions against any perpetrators which made criminal activity not worth the risk.
My point though was I don't expect any issues related to crime or hooliganism in any of the bidding countries, although it wouldn't surprise me if some sensationalist news media and other Internet sources will come up with those storylines. Stories like those generate clicks.
Maybe not numerically, but in football-terms it is.
Not "maybe not". Definitely not. lol
Also it should be pointed-out that when it comes to kick-off times, the 2014 WC suited people watching on TV in Europe more than it suited attending fans in Brazil! 2002 was the last time the kick off times were somewhat inconvenient to people watching from Europe.
Plus why do I think the South American bid is the strongest or why it will be: mainly because of the heritage behind the World Cup as a whole given that in 1930 it was played in a South American country and you had South American teams in the final. That has at least got to count for something right?
Brazil 2014 to 2030 that is a 16 year gap for South America to not host
But then the 2nd strongest bid definitely has to be the African bid put forth for 2030. Why? 20 year gap for Africa...2010 hosted in South Africa 2030 could those African co hosts win the bid? I mean considering Morocco was robbed of hosting in 2026...I would say they too have a shot at hosting for 2030 along with Egypt and Algeria in a co host bid.
Then your 3rd bid you have Spain/Portugal for 2030...Iberian co hosts...Russia 2018 to 2030 that is a 12 year gap for hosting so could they win the bid? It is possible
4th bid you have UK bid with England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but the only problem is getting the Republic of Ireland to join in on the bid...if you can do that then their chances to host go dramatically up
5th bid you have an Asian/Oceania type bid that being Australia/New Zealand...could they get it? I doubt it given Qatar 2022 to 2030...that is an 8 year gap...that should take them out of it
It counts for something but its not everything.
Uruguay won the 1924 FIFA world championship, but CONMEBOL didn't even give them the 2024 Copa America. Nor was France, who hosted that first world championship, awarded host for Euro 2024.
Should Italy automatically host the 2034 WC just because they hosted and won the 1934 one?
100-year anniversaries are happening all over the place. I'm sure these anniversaries will be honoured in some way but, frankly, you are making a bigger deal of them than they really are. 100 is just a round number.
I really think all this history, heritage, birthplace of football, 100th anniversary, how many years since country XYZ hosted, etc. means next to nothing in FIFA's decision process.
There's a team of financial experts crunching spreadsheets determining how much money will be made; they get 90% of the attention. There's some risk analysis experts analyzing the risks associated with each bid (i.e., the potential impacts on revenue).
Then there's a historian in the corner bringing up these romantic notions of where the World Cup should be hosted based on history and heritage. And nobody at FIFA gives a shit. Only fans care. Qatar is proof.
Qatar is certainly proof you can buy the hosting rights, but FIFA still tries to cycle through the continents when hosting the World Cup. So we have had Africa 2010, South America 2014, Europe 2018, Asia 2022, North America 2026.
This means the next host(s) should be in Africa, but given the 100th anniversary, there's a stronger likelihood the World Cup will be held in a South America and then in 2034 it will be held in Africa. That's assuming FIFA stick to that approach they took under Blatter.
I think if the UK and Ireland do launch a bid, they'd likely win. England is the birthplace of association football, so there is a romantic element there, and they have a right to feel cheated out of 2018 WC (just like the US felt with the 2022 bid). England is one of the safest countries in the world, has the infrastructure, hasn't hosted since 1966 (the US and Mexico have hosted much more recently) and should have lots of players coming through the ranks who will be good enough to win it, which means the public in England will remain enthused throughout because there's a good likelihood they'll reach the final. They would have the strongest bid I imagine.
I was mostly joking in my post but for sure there is some rotation. As I understand it the rotation policy isn't explicit anymore, so I think Africa is still a longshot even though it may be their 'turn'.
I still believe revenue is a major factor, and advertising and TV rights a big part of that. So having the games on in the "right" time zone is a consideration. The problem being that no one time zone is perfect, they all have pluses and minuses for different regions. I don't know how revenue varies between the bids though, and not knowing the numbers makes handicapping this difficult.
I also agree that 1966 was a really long time ago though, and that probably does give England some advantage given that there are many other factors in their favor. I think a UK bid especially (with or without Ireland added) will be the favorite. The 'birthplace of football' stuff will be part of the hype if they win, and part of the bid, I just don't think in the minds of those making the decision it's a driving factor.
It'll be interesting and should be close though, as it looks like there will be at least 3 strong bids, assuming that the South Americans can get their sorted, which I think they will.
Very good analysis all round here.
The current "rotation" policy is that if a country from a confederation has hosted one of the two previous world cups then countries from that confederation can't bid. If that stays in place then bids from AFC and CONCACAF countries wont be accepted for 2030. The host must come from UEFA, CONMEBOL, CAF or OFC. If we start to have cross confederation bids not sure how that will work.
If they go by who won 1934 then 2034 should go to Argentina.
Australia and New Zealand combined don't have enough big cities to host 48 teams, and would both have to spend billions of dollars building new stadiums that would then become white elephants after the tournament concluded, just like South Africa/Brazil/Russia/Qatar.
You've got only eight "big" cities between the two countries (Auckland, Wellington, Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne, Canberra, Adelaide, Perth), and the domestic rugby leagues generally don't draw big enough crowds to make use of World Cup sized stadiums.
The centerpiece of the Australia 2022 bid was the MCG.....a circular stadium designed for cricket and Aussie Rules football with horrible sightlines for soccer due to the seats all being far away from the pitch.
In fact, the entire Australia 2022 bid featured only two rectangular stadia with over 50,000 seats....Brisbane and Stadium Australia in Sydney.
as much as I would love to attend a World Cup in Australia/NZ I have to agree with your assessment. I looked at the 2022 Australia WC bid and it involved 6 or 7 new or expanded stadiums, with many of the expansions to only the 40,000 range, still small for a World Cup.
I visited Australia in 2019 and went to an AFL match in the Docklands (Marvel) Stadium in Melbourne and was amazed at how massive the pitch is. I agree, the size of an AFL pitch makes it far from ideal for football. I also attended a Rabbitohs-Broncos NRL match in Stadium Australia (ANZ) in Sydney and it would be ok because it has movable seats to make it rectangular. That's where the 2023 Women's WC final match will be held.
But sadly I think your point is correct that there are just not enough stadiums (or big cities) in the 2 countries for a 48-team tournament, unless the big AFL stadiums are used; which was a big issue with the AFL the last time around. They really almost don't have enough for a 32-team tournament without a lot of wasteful expansion.
I have mentioned this before and I will emphasize it again.
The main reason an Australia World Cup will probably never happen is that the major television markets do not want to wake up at odd hours in the night and morning due to their time zones.
Other AFC Federations and cities will probably get priority.
The time zone aspect is one of the few good parts of the Qatar WC too, even more so from a US standpoint. Which is why I selfishly was kinda okay it didn’t go to Australia or Japan.
No it wasn't. The final was always going to be held in Sydney if the bid got up. I agree with you about horrible sight lines at the MCG. It applies for all sports, not just football. It's crap to watch cricket at as well.
But which major television markets do you mean?
English FA currently sells its Carabao Cup tournament at ungodly hours to the Chinese videostream market.
An Australian World Cup would have a 2+ time zone difference with Beijing. That TV market is +400% larger than EU and North America combined.
Europe is a major market that spends the most and has major sponsors that would hate Australian time zones.
USA is about a Billion dollars between Spanish and English Television rights.
If I recall correctly that US $1 billion was split across 2 World Cups (2018 + 2022).
Nonetheless, USA still is a major streaming market.
A Billion dollars is a lot of money.
No matter what the length of time is or number of tournaments. Still a big deal.
I think @HomietheClown has it right, this is a massively important consideration.
I would love to see the financial numbers with the markets. Yeah the Chinese market may bring more viewers, but the real question is revenue. How much more money in FIFA's pocket by selling the TV rights to the tournament? I agree more Chinese will watch vs. people in the US market or the Western European market, but how much money is associated with the rights?
I don't know the numbers but I am certain that it is not equal. Even if 4x more Chinese will watch than Americans and EU viewers combined, I believe the value of the TV rights is still significantly less. Maybe I am wrong, I don't know. I would love to see the numbers.