The longer it's gone on the more I have agreed with that, I just can't be mithered with it anymore.
World Cup 2018 & 2022 bids
- Thread starter Cal?
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
The longer it's gone on the more I have agreed with that, I just can't be mithered with it anymore.
Do we really want to pay this price to host the 2018 World Cup?
The vision of a prime minister, a future king and England's most recognised footballer prostrating themselves before Fifa's pseudo-papal state was never going to be edifying. days before the 2018 World Cup vote, the English bid is starting to feel like complicity in the supreme authority's slavering pursuit of the game's astronomical wealth, both over and underneath the counter.
Guilt by association is not a charge David Cameron, Prince William or David Beckham would answer to. They would say the prize exceeds any compromise they might have to make by playing politics in Zurich. But the reality is that all those on the catwalk in this parade are going along with the world governing body's refusal to reform. To see world leaders confer respectability on such a dubious private club is unendingly worrying.
The allegations of influence-peddling outlined by Panorama, which follow a Sunday Times exposé into alleged vote-selling by Fifa executive committee members, have rendered Thursday's vote hollow, except that a verdict will be delivered anyway, and two bidders will fly away from the lakes counting the gains from being awarded the 2018 and 2022 tournaments.
Sepp Blatter's dysfunctional "football family" will be left with a choice: become a transparent international parliament for the world's favourite game or continue to provide a means for opportunists to sell power to would-be tournament hosts and private companies.
The modern Fifa is what happens when an administrative body mutates into a rampantly commercial animal. No longer mere custodians of the game, they become deal-makers inflating the price of television contracts and fostering a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately culture. Countries hoping to earn the ultimate honour of staging sport's biggest event after the Olympics are encouraged to engage in a beauty contest which is so constructed to allow favours to be swapped, inducements to be laid out and – if the Sunday Times was correct – individual executive committee members to profit at the ballot box.
Don't let them vote, it only encourages them. Only a minor tweak of the old anarchist slogan is required to capture the feelings of many as the Zurich cabaret opens. In a more idealistic world the 2018 and 2022 votes would be postponed indefinitely, or all the bidders would assert their displeasure by withdrawing their applications, leaving the lawns of Fifa HQ as the only viable venue until corruption is faced. Temptation exists partly because Fifa is less busy than Uefa, the European equivalent, or the national associations who kneel at Blatter's throne. Fifa has fewer tournaments to organise and so less to bestow. When the chance comes round, World Cup staging is instantly ensnared with inter-confederation politics and the ambitions of less wealthy countries hunting a greater share of the booty.
Many times the thought has arisen: are horsetrading and acquiescence a price worth paying for an event England have not won since 1966? Here, international football is an afterthought to the global proselytising of the Premier League. The mother country would have a hard time refuting the charge that the English just don't take the international game seriously, however giddy St George turns every couple of years.
The stock defence will be that Panorama's allegations are "old". Much was already known about Fifa's relationship with the now defunct marketing firm International Sports and Leisure (ISL) from past revelations and a Swiss court case. The payouts by ISL at the time were not a criminal offence in Switzerland but the alleged scale ($100m) highlighted by Andrew Jennings and the BBC is undeniably shocking, even if Panorama succumbed to the usual silly cult of the presenter.
Among those accused are the heads of African, Brazilian and South American football (Issa Hayatou, Ricardo Teixeira and Nicolás Léoz). Jack Warner, a major powerbroker and intended lunch partner for Cameron, has been wooed nonstop by England's bid leaders. Fabio Capello's team were even shipped out to Trinidad and Tobago for a game partly to please Warner, the Concacaf president, who faces fresh accusations that he "used his position to try to help touts obtain tickets for the 2010 World Cup". These allegations are being pinned not to minor functionaries but senior members of the politburo.
The long reach of the Panorama material – 10 years and more – increases rather than diminishes its seriousness. It says long-term survival is possible at Fifa even after malpractice has been exposed. Casual observers will see the same old faces presenting themselves for another chance to play God.
The four named by Panorama are in addition to the Exco members accused in the Sunday Times investigation, which means six of the 23 who were scheduled to vote on Thursday – two of whom have been suspended and will not take part – are the subject of suspicion. In its urge to bring a World Cup final to Wembley for the first time in 52 years, the English bid called Panorama's timing "unpatriotic" and talked of "our friends" on the committee. Realpolitik, they would call it. Desperation, others would say.
Do we really want to pay this price to host the 2018 World Cup? | Football | The Guardian
The vision of a prime minister, a future king and England's most recognised footballer prostrating themselves before Fifa's pseudo-papal state was never going to be edifying. days before the 2018 World Cup vote, the English bid is starting to feel like complicity in the supreme authority's slavering pursuit of the game's astronomical wealth, both over and underneath the counter.
Guilt by association is not a charge David Cameron, Prince William or David Beckham would answer to. They would say the prize exceeds any compromise they might have to make by playing politics in Zurich. But the reality is that all those on the catwalk in this parade are going along with the world governing body's refusal to reform. To see world leaders confer respectability on such a dubious private club is unendingly worrying.
The allegations of influence-peddling outlined by Panorama, which follow a Sunday Times exposé into alleged vote-selling by Fifa executive committee members, have rendered Thursday's vote hollow, except that a verdict will be delivered anyway, and two bidders will fly away from the lakes counting the gains from being awarded the 2018 and 2022 tournaments.
Sepp Blatter's dysfunctional "football family" will be left with a choice: become a transparent international parliament for the world's favourite game or continue to provide a means for opportunists to sell power to would-be tournament hosts and private companies.
The modern Fifa is what happens when an administrative body mutates into a rampantly commercial animal. No longer mere custodians of the game, they become deal-makers inflating the price of television contracts and fostering a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately culture. Countries hoping to earn the ultimate honour of staging sport's biggest event after the Olympics are encouraged to engage in a beauty contest which is so constructed to allow favours to be swapped, inducements to be laid out and – if the Sunday Times was correct – individual executive committee members to profit at the ballot box.
Don't let them vote, it only encourages them. Only a minor tweak of the old anarchist slogan is required to capture the feelings of many as the Zurich cabaret opens. In a more idealistic world the 2018 and 2022 votes would be postponed indefinitely, or all the bidders would assert their displeasure by withdrawing their applications, leaving the lawns of Fifa HQ as the only viable venue until corruption is faced. Temptation exists partly because Fifa is less busy than Uefa, the European equivalent, or the national associations who kneel at Blatter's throne. Fifa has fewer tournaments to organise and so less to bestow. When the chance comes round, World Cup staging is instantly ensnared with inter-confederation politics and the ambitions of less wealthy countries hunting a greater share of the booty.
Many times the thought has arisen: are horsetrading and acquiescence a price worth paying for an event England have not won since 1966? Here, international football is an afterthought to the global proselytising of the Premier League. The mother country would have a hard time refuting the charge that the English just don't take the international game seriously, however giddy St George turns every couple of years.
The stock defence will be that Panorama's allegations are "old". Much was already known about Fifa's relationship with the now defunct marketing firm International Sports and Leisure (ISL) from past revelations and a Swiss court case. The payouts by ISL at the time were not a criminal offence in Switzerland but the alleged scale ($100m) highlighted by Andrew Jennings and the BBC is undeniably shocking, even if Panorama succumbed to the usual silly cult of the presenter.
Among those accused are the heads of African, Brazilian and South American football (Issa Hayatou, Ricardo Teixeira and Nicolás Léoz). Jack Warner, a major powerbroker and intended lunch partner for Cameron, has been wooed nonstop by England's bid leaders. Fabio Capello's team were even shipped out to Trinidad and Tobago for a game partly to please Warner, the Concacaf president, who faces fresh accusations that he "used his position to try to help touts obtain tickets for the 2010 World Cup". These allegations are being pinned not to minor functionaries but senior members of the politburo.
The long reach of the Panorama material – 10 years and more – increases rather than diminishes its seriousness. It says long-term survival is possible at Fifa even after malpractice has been exposed. Casual observers will see the same old faces presenting themselves for another chance to play God.
The four named by Panorama are in addition to the Exco members accused in the Sunday Times investigation, which means six of the 23 who were scheduled to vote on Thursday – two of whom have been suspended and will not take part – are the subject of suspicion. In its urge to bring a World Cup final to Wembley for the first time in 52 years, the English bid called Panorama's timing "unpatriotic" and talked of "our friends" on the committee. Realpolitik, they would call it. Desperation, others would say.
Do we really want to pay this price to host the 2018 World Cup? | Football | The Guardian
Fifa report backs England and US World Cup bids as most profitable
World Cups held in England and the United States would meet all of Fifa's projected revenue targets and deliver bigger profits to world football's governing body than any of their competitors, according to a confidential report.
Both England, who are bidding for the 2018 finals, and the US, bidding for 2022, were given an unbeatable overall 100% rating by management consultants McKinsey.
McKinsey were commissioned by Fifa to analyse each bid across five key revenue streams: sponsorship, ticketing, hospitality, licensing and media rights.
The report, which does not reveal Fifa's projected target figure, just each country's potential to meet it, has been sent to the Fifa executive members who will decide the destinations of the two World Cups on Thursday.
It will be discussed by the executive committee for the first time on Wednesday.
The report, entitled Fifa's World Cup Host Candidate Assessment, gave England an overall 100% rating for 2018, followed by Spain/Portugal with 91%, Holland/Belgium 87% and Russia 86%.
For 2022, it rated the United States top with an overall 100% evaluation, followed by Japan with 73%, South Korea 71%, Qatar 70%, and Australia on 68%.
England scored 100% in all five of the revenue stream areas, while the United States scored 100% in four.
All the European candidates for 2018 scored 100% in media rights because McKinsey did not see a variation in revenue potential as all countries fall into the same European time zone for broadcasting matches.
The biggest difference in any 2018 revenue stream came in hospitality in which Russia only scored 56%.
England also had the highest revenue potential in licensing and merchandising, while Holland/Belgium scored 73%. The report is a significant boost to England's bid for 2018 following the BBC's Panorama programme screened on Monday, which alleged corruption at the head of world soccer's governing body.
Andy Anson, the chief executive of England's bid campaign, told a media briefing on Monday that the team had been encouraged by the report, without going into the details.
"Fifa gave us a very strong technical evaluation. Fifa have now had an economic study and England comes out way ahead of its competitors in that study, and we clearly have the strongest bid for 2018 – its the perfect foundation."
Fifa report backs England and US World Cup bids as most profitable | Football | guardian.co.uk
Money - it is what it all comes down to. Should we be surprised at the corruption allegations if this is the case?
World Cups held in England and the United States would meet all of Fifa's projected revenue targets and deliver bigger profits to world football's governing body than any of their competitors, according to a confidential report.
Both England, who are bidding for the 2018 finals, and the US, bidding for 2022, were given an unbeatable overall 100% rating by management consultants McKinsey.
McKinsey were commissioned by Fifa to analyse each bid across five key revenue streams: sponsorship, ticketing, hospitality, licensing and media rights.
The report, which does not reveal Fifa's projected target figure, just each country's potential to meet it, has been sent to the Fifa executive members who will decide the destinations of the two World Cups on Thursday.
It will be discussed by the executive committee for the first time on Wednesday.
The report, entitled Fifa's World Cup Host Candidate Assessment, gave England an overall 100% rating for 2018, followed by Spain/Portugal with 91%, Holland/Belgium 87% and Russia 86%.
For 2022, it rated the United States top with an overall 100% evaluation, followed by Japan with 73%, South Korea 71%, Qatar 70%, and Australia on 68%.
England scored 100% in all five of the revenue stream areas, while the United States scored 100% in four.
All the European candidates for 2018 scored 100% in media rights because McKinsey did not see a variation in revenue potential as all countries fall into the same European time zone for broadcasting matches.
The biggest difference in any 2018 revenue stream came in hospitality in which Russia only scored 56%.
England also had the highest revenue potential in licensing and merchandising, while Holland/Belgium scored 73%. The report is a significant boost to England's bid for 2018 following the BBC's Panorama programme screened on Monday, which alleged corruption at the head of world soccer's governing body.
Andy Anson, the chief executive of England's bid campaign, told a media briefing on Monday that the team had been encouraged by the report, without going into the details.
"Fifa gave us a very strong technical evaluation. Fifa have now had an economic study and England comes out way ahead of its competitors in that study, and we clearly have the strongest bid for 2018 – its the perfect foundation."
Fifa report backs England and US World Cup bids as most profitable | Football | guardian.co.uk
Money - it is what it all comes down to. Should we be surprised at the corruption allegations if this is the case?
Its a disgrace if England don't get the bid quite frankly.. none of the other nations deserve it as much as England does.
Since 1966? we've had to wait, Brads post on Spain/Portugal summed up my feelings well and as for Russia.. they should be genuine rivals but do they possess as much famous and world class stadia as England, I think not.
Since 1966? we've had to wait, Brads post on Spain/Portugal summed up my feelings well and as for Russia.. they should be genuine rivals but do they possess as much famous and world class stadia as England, I think not.
Fair enough, but I want it!
I can understand the moral stance, but it is overly idealistic IMHO.
With respect to the other bids, It's a no brainer as England could host the World Cup tomorrow with the standard of facilities that we already have not to mention the future plans that are lined up.
I have concerns with the Russia bid as they clearly have racism issues. Not really a fan of 2 countries hosting a World Cup aswell.
I have concerns with the Russia bid as they clearly have racism issues. Not really a fan of 2 countries hosting a World Cup aswell.
Deserve? This is FIFA here!
I understand that too, but look at South Africa - $6bn profit for South Africa from World Cup 2010, $7bn profit for FIFA.
The whole situation stinks, and I hate the idea of spending huge amounts of taxpayers money lining FIFA's bank account, especially in today's climate. It is as though FIFA have no conception of reality.
Watching Sky Sports and the Russian Bid Chief looks a right nob.
Where do those numbers come from?
I would expect that the WC would be of net benefit to our economy regardless of FIFA's cut - but it is always difficult to work out these kind of things.
One thig is that this South Korea - North Korea thing looks to help the USA for the 2022 bid.
So is the voting live on tv anywhere? and if so at what time?
On BBC & BBC website & Sky News/Sports News 2.30pm
Ian Wright's view
BBC – Brainless, Betraying, Cretinous | The Sun |Sport|Football
He makes some good points.
BBC – Brainless, Betraying, Cretinous | The Sun |Sport|Football
He makes some good points.
Feck it, I'm getting my currencies (and amounts) muddled! Sorry - in dollars, US3.2bn revenues for FIFA for SA 2010, US$700m profit, no taxes paid.
FIFA being a charity(!) had a US$2bn surplus for 2010.
Right, for SA - digging out the stats, there is GDP and then there is governmental monies.
SA govt earned US$400m - net benefit to GDP is, correctly, large, over US$6bn in increases from some estimates, but this is much broader than tax receipts.
I didn't mean stupid as in dumb I meant stupid as in putting they're own narrow interests before everything else.
I'm waiting for Lineker to quit the BBC. Considering he did the same when the Mail did the whole thing on Triesman.
Would be interesting to look closer at FIFAs financials and understand what exactly they do with all the money - I dont actually have a problem with the organisation making money from the WC if that money was reinvested into the game.
BBC Sport - Football - 2018 and 2022 Fifa World Cup votes explained
VOTING PROCEDURE
1 Dec: 2022 bids make 30-minute final presentations to Executive Committee (ExCo) at Fifa headquarters in Zurich
Order: Australia (1300 GMT), South Korea (1400 GMT), Qatar (1500 GMT), USA (1600 GMT), Japan (1700 GMT)
2 Dec: 2018 bids make 30-minute final presentations to ExCo at Fifa headquarters
Order: Netherlands-Belgium (0800 GMT), Spain-Portugal (0900 GMT), England (1000 GMT), Russia (1100 GMT)
Process: Secret ballot of 22 ExCo members at Fifa headquarters
To win: One bid needs an absolute majority - 12 votes
If no majority: Bid with fewest votes drops out and another round of voting occurs until majority achieved
If tie: Fifa president Sepp Blatter has casting vote
Announcement: Results put in two envelopes and taken to Zurich Exhibition Centre, where Blatter announces winner (approx 1500 GMT)
VOTING PROCEDURE
1 Dec: 2022 bids make 30-minute final presentations to Executive Committee (ExCo) at Fifa headquarters in Zurich
Order: Australia (1300 GMT), South Korea (1400 GMT), Qatar (1500 GMT), USA (1600 GMT), Japan (1700 GMT)
2 Dec: 2018 bids make 30-minute final presentations to ExCo at Fifa headquarters
Order: Netherlands-Belgium (0800 GMT), Spain-Portugal (0900 GMT), England (1000 GMT), Russia (1100 GMT)
Process: Secret ballot of 22 ExCo members at Fifa headquarters
To win: One bid needs an absolute majority - 12 votes
If no majority: Bid with fewest votes drops out and another round of voting occurs until majority achieved
If tie: Fifa president Sepp Blatter has casting vote
Announcement: Results put in two envelopes and taken to Zurich Exhibition Centre, where Blatter announces winner (approx 1500 GMT)
Why do they need a secret ballot? If it was open that might solve some of the corruption allegations easily.
I think you've answered your own question
They're not interested in deflecting their allegations. They're interested in remaining corrupt.
Oceanian bloke is appealing so they don't get to vote which can't do Australia's bid much good at all. No idea how this will effect the UK bid.
A good friend of mine who is a prominent figure on SBS (Australia) has told me that Qatar have got it.
Watch this space.
For those wondering who it was, I wouldn't say his hair is as Fozzy ... er I mean Fuzzy as say Rafael or Fabio.
Watch this space.
For those wondering who it was, I wouldn't say his hair is as Fozzy ... er I mean Fuzzy as say Rafael or Fabio.
In the last few weeks the Spain/Portugal and Qatar bids have been slowly shortening in odds but Russia are now favorites for 2018 (it was England for the whole of the last 2 years until the recent fiasco) so make of that what you will.
WC2018:
Russia 8/11
England 2/1
Spain & Portugal 7/2
Belgium & Holland 33/1
WC2022:
Qatar 4/7
Australia 9/4
USA 9/2
Japan 40/1
South Korea 50/1
WC2018:
Russia 8/11
England 2/1
Spain & Portugal 7/2
Belgium & Holland 33/1
WC2022:
Qatar 4/7
Australia 9/4
USA 9/2
Japan 40/1
South Korea 50/1
The voting doesn't take place until tomorrow.
Qatar are not getting the WC....just no.
Just watched the press conference with Beckham....thought he did rather well, didn't really stumble, and made sure not to insult any of the other nations, at such a late and crucial stage of the process.
United Fan 101 - we both know SBS is good for only one thing...world movies
ahh the joys of softcore porn on terrestrial TV.
Just watched the press conference with Beckham....thought he did rather well, didn't really stumble, and made sure not to insult any of the other nations, at such a late and crucial stage of the process.
United Fan 101 - we both know SBS is good for only one thing...world movies
ahh the joys of softcore porn on terrestrial TV.
Hmmm, well...The problem is that FIFA's ways of making money often directly conflict with the host countries ways of making money. There were countless stories out in SA about how local businesses trying to cash in on the WC were being threatened and sued for using any kind of "offical" terms or likenesses, to the point where they had to resort to using terms like "'you know what' hot dogs" rather than "soccer dogs" (bad example, but you get the idea) ..It was all very heavy handed...Everyone heard about the women getting kicked out for advertising a rival to an official sponsor, well that kind of thing was happening all over the shop. Essentially a (generally) empoverished nation were given the WC and then not allowed to play off it for fear of it taking a few shiny pennies away from Coke or Bud of Maccy Ds...It was capitalism at it's very worst.
So yeah, FIFA will make money by actively shielding it's own interests at the detriment of the host country's....I do have a problem with that. Though I suppose it's more the general corporate greed I have issue with than anything potentially 'corrupt' FIFA have done...But they're an absolutely laughable organisation, with laughable memebers and a laughable leader.
Yes I heard about the women getting kicked out but they werent locals, they had been sent by some Dutch brewery from what I remember?
I never heard any stories about locals being stopped from doing business but it wouldnt suprise me - like you say that is probably more the big advertisers like Coke etc protecting their own interests.
We have heard that England's bid is likely to make more money for FIFA than the other bids so if they really are corrupt as we think then maybe it will work out for us in the end anyway.
I think we can all agree on your last line!
I never heard any stories about locals being stopped from doing business but it wouldnt suprise me - like you say that is probably more the big advertisers like Coke etc protecting their own interests.
We have heard that England's bid is likely to make more money for FIFA than the other bids so if they really are corrupt as we think then maybe it will work out for us in the end anyway.
I think we can all agree on your last line!
Yes, but he has connections to people in Asian and Oceanian football who have connections with others at FIFA. Anyway, take it with a pinch of salt.
Qatar are not getting the WC....just no.
Just watched the press conference with Beckham....thought he did rather well, didn't really stumble, and made sure not to insult any of the other nations, at such a late and crucial stage of the process.
United Fan 101 - we both know SBS is good for only one thing...world movies
ahh the joys of softcore porn on terrestrial TV.
Be that as it may, he has heard from reliable sources that Qatar have bribed their way to hosting the World Cup. Again, pinch of salt. This is reflected in the odds.My preference would be England followed by Netherlands/Belgium for 2018, and probably the Aussies for 2022.
I fear my support whether based on emotion or what i see as good sense, is not backing an eventual winner.
As an Aussie, I'm getting seriously excited about this!
Obviously from a biased point of view, the lengths that getting the WC would go to improving the game in Australia & throughout Asia/Oceania would be huge.
They've tried it in the US already, and if Qatar wins it, prepare for the most spectator unfriendly world cup in history. It'll be 50 degrees & dont you dare take off your shirt or drink a beer to cool down. Also, imagine if the Israelis qualify for that world cup, their fans would be so happy!
Our 30min video is being shown on telly in about 5mins, should be interesting!
Obviously from a biased point of view, the lengths that getting the WC would go to improving the game in Australia & throughout Asia/Oceania would be huge.
They've tried it in the US already, and if Qatar wins it, prepare for the most spectator unfriendly world cup in history. It'll be 50 degrees & dont you dare take off your shirt or drink a beer to cool down. Also, imagine if the Israelis qualify for that world cup, their fans would be so happy!
Our 30min video is being shown on telly in about 5mins, should be interesting!
Presentations starting now.
There is a stream on
Soccer | Football | A-League | Champions League : The World Game on SBS: The World Game on SBS
Australia first up
There is a stream on
Soccer | Football | A-League | Champions League : The World Game on SBS: The World Game on SBS
Australia first up
FIFA will change that law for the duration of the tournament at least, part of the price nartions have to pay to host such an event.
Qatar would be a freekin' joke but it wouldn't be surprising.
If Qatar get it it will be a fecking disgrace really.
Why would it be a disgrace?
1. Their football team is awful, this is the football WC, so having a competent team is kind of important,
2. The weather is awful, you can air condition the stadia, but you cannot air condition the entire country,
3. This is a country of 1.5m population,
4. This is a country that bans alcohol,
5. This is a country that women are not allowed to show their fact in public, never mind being dressed in bikinis,
6. All the other 4 bidders deserve it a lot more than they do.
When there's bids from America and Australia on the table.
Not to mention Japan.
Not to mention Japan.
Good. I hope they get it. We will be spared your pointless drivel for a month in 2022. Totally worth it.