World Cup 2018 & 2022 bids

Why should they consider that? It makes not a jot of difference to how good hosts they will be, neither of their competitors exactly had a chance of winning it did they?


No, why would it? They get to watch the best players on earth at there doorsteps, they will find more love from the game from that without a shadow of doubt.

And if they do well and host a fantastic world cup I would love to see your reaction.


Who knows in 2022, but England could not beat one of their competitors in the last World Cup and finished behind them in group play. And everyone else has at least qualified for a World Cup on merit. It may be good for international relations but it's shite for football.
 
Just a random thought, wouldn't seeing their national side trashed 3 times at home put generations of Qataris from football?

They will just be happy to be involved!
Bit soon to assume they will get thrashed anyway - they have 12 years to develop the team and will surely improve from wherever they currently are.
 
How is that arrogance or does FIFA not understand the role of Western Europe in football? It was Blatter himself who referred to England as 'the motherland of football' which was something you did not hear in the English presentation at all. The fact that the United States, Australia, South Korea and Japan were beaten out by Qatar and quite decisively says it has nothing to do with English perceptions at all.

And why let developed football nations bid then? Why tell they they are the lowest risk or have the best commercial package, why come to Downing Street, with the red carpet laid out and for that matter in alpha cities across the World if you have no intention whatsoever of giving the world cup to such countries?

I dont think FIFA asked anyone to bid!!! Its the choice of bidding nations to enter into the race. Downing street INVITED FIFA delegates to visit them!!! you're making out that it was some kind of an imposition to bid! Losing bidding countries are by no means victims!
 
England is not the only country to have ever contributed to footballs development! Its argued that China invented it and Italy, Spain, Brazil, Uruguay and Germany can argue that they have also made just as significant a contribution.

And English football will not suffer any 'detriment' from not hosting the world cup, as I wrote in other posts, football in this country will continue to be a great form of entertainment central to the lives of many people.

Don't spout that nonsense, people have been using their feet to kick things since the beginning of time but it was England that created the game that we see before us.

It was England who put it into practice that two teams of eleven players each would play against each other for ninety minutes with the purpose to score more goals against the other team, that each team would have a goalkeeper who could handle the ball in what is known as the penalty area, and should a foul be committed against an attacking player in that penalty area a free kick from twelve yards with just the goalkeeping opposing would be taken. We also dictated that there would be a halfway line which if you petruded across you would be subject to staying onside, that the playing area is bounded by touchlines on the sides and goalines on both ends, with throw-ins being awarded to the opposing team and either a corner or a goal kick respectively. That you are not allowed to deliberately handle the ball from your shoulder blade down to your finger tips and if you should a foul has been committed against the other team who get a free kick or penalty, and so forth, so forth, so forth.


Tell me, who has done more for developing football than England?
 
No, why would it? They get to watch the best players on earth at there doorsteps, they will find more love from the game from that without a shadow of doubt.

And if they do well and host a fantastic world cup I would love to see your reaction.

How do you quantify "do well", I'm predicting they finish the group with ZERO point.

There is no way it can be a fantastic WC, the games themselves might be okay, but the extreme heat will be a massive problem for the visitors and the laws will make it a less than interesting WC in terms of atmosphere.
 
yes, something this country helped create in the first place!

That has nothing to do with the issue, but if you want to get into that territory, it is something that this country did help to eradicate. Not by letting it continue as an accepted cultural belief that should be tolerated, but by rejecting it.

Do you accept that not all cultural beliefs are as 'correct' as others?
 
I dont think FIFA asked anyone to bid!!! Its the choice of bidding nations to enter into the race. Downing street INVITED FIFA delegates to visit them!!! you're making out that it was some kind of an imposition to bid! Losing bidding countries are by no means victims!

You highlighted a passage which included England getting the lowest risk bid and best commercial bid of any 2018 entry - i.e. we have the best chance of hosting a great and profitable tournament of any bidder.
 
I dont think FIFA asked anyone to bid!!! Its the choice of bidding nations to enter into the race. Downing street INVITED FIFA delegates to visit them!!! you're making out that it was some kind of an imposition to bid! Losing bidding countries are by no means victims!

If Fifa had made it clear that they want to go to a new place, risk levels don't actually matter at all. Then England, Spain, USA, Japan & Korea could have saved billions.
 
Who knows in 2022, but England could not beat one of their competitors in the last World Cup and finished behind them in group play. And everyone else has at least qualified for a World Cup on merit. It may be good for international relations but it's shite for football.

So lets award a world cup to the Congo or Indonesia next time, who are both BELOW Qatar in the world rankings...
 
You highlighted a passage which included England getting the lowest risk bid and best commercial bid of any 2018 entry - i.e. we have the best chance of hosting a great and profitable tournament of any bidder.

And if that was the criteria England and USA would've walked it.
 
They will just be happy to be involved!
Bit soon to assume they will get thrashed anyway - they have 12 years to develop the team and will surely improve from wherever they currently are.

It takes much more than 12 years to get to a decent level.
 
My point was we shouldn't be looking at the past...but the future. Sure England invented the game...but we don't need to ram it down everyone's throats each time we bid for the WC. And yes, I agree....I don't see the point of us bidding. Then again, isn't there anything more we could've done? as I said above, perhaps we should've used the London Olympic bid as an example of how to push the regeneration/legacy angle. As Rood said above, we completely misread what FIFA were looking for.
True, we thought they wanted good, safe, exciting football venues when really they were only interested in venues that provided them with the largest personal gains.

It wasn't about football at all, it was only about the FIFA members.
 
It takes much more than 12 years to get to a decent level.
They will offer money to some good uncapped foreign players to play for them like they do with track and field where they have "bought" kenians to compete for them, they do that in a lot of sports and they will do the same with football(they already do).
 
Oh they'll be fantastic. Without a doubt. They'll throw so much money at it it'll be like Disneyland meets Vegas meets Dubai with football..and I'll more than likely go (Ifs permitting) but that isn't the point..

Here's the point (IMO)..

Firstly the notion that FIFA is a hugely corrupt and agenda driven organisation (but that's really a given) but mainly the overbearing feeling that the actual base aspects of football and World Cups (the quality of football, the teams actually in it, the fans actually going, the players actually playing etc) are no longer taken into consideration when deciding the who hosts the football World Cup. Which is silly. All those saying "yeah but it's nice they're given a chance' probably aren't fecking going..and certainly aren't fecking playing in it. The World Cup isn't a charity drive, it's a football tournament but Blatter (at face value at least) seems to be trying deliberately to give it to countries who don't seem suitable as a sort of incentive to get football really big there...

And I've got no problem with that philosophy. In essence it's great and I love the fact the WC went to Africa last time, and I think it should definitely go to countries who wouldn't normally see top class football...but in moderation. Not every year. It's disregarding the core of football and the core of the fanbases to be political. And that's without even touching on the idea that a country shouldn't use the WC as an incentive to clean up/modernise their act once they've got it. They should do that AS an incentive to get the WC.

Lets look at the last 4 decided hosts and see what their merits have been..

South Africa - First WC in Africa. Little WC history in the country itself (comparatively) but a deserving one for the continent as a whole. Practically it didn't initially meet criteria though. Little infrastrucure to begin with and concerns over safety, weather, altitude, travel etc. It ended up not being a great WC but it was worthy and in the end a success for the country itself.

Brazil - Deserving on historical merit. Easily. Same concerns over safety, travel etc though, but because of it's long and rich history with football deserves its chance.

Russia - Again, deserving on history, concerns over it's readiness, once again an infrastructure to be build from scratch and travel headache's for fans.

Qatar - First WC in the ME. History wise non-existent. Weather and accomodation demands, and AGAIN has to build everything from scratch.

So in the last 4 WCs, none have gone to a country with both deserving history and suitable infrastructure.. They haven't given much consideration to the base swell of support (and talent) from the main countries likely to be competing in it. and not to the country best suited to do it. They've all been political in one way or another and this is the problem.I'm fine with 2, even 3 of these. but 4? No. Not as a fan who will try and go to all of them, and not as a football fan who wants to see the best tournament possible.

I'm all for the idea, but slip in a country with an already concrete infrastructure in between why don't you. Japan was a good idea, and it followed France and preceeded Germany. Even just one of those now would be a God send. Instead we have 4 consecutive WCs that will likely provide some headache's in some aspects. This is the problem.

Qatar is not a footballing nation by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it really a "developing nation"..It's the 2nd wealthest place on earth per capita FFS! If you wanted to give a World Cup to a nation that's never had it try Holland, a country who's players fans and people have contributed to it richly for decades and never hosted it..If you wanted to give it to the ME, why not wait until one of the more prominent Arab states with a proper footballing history came up with a bid? Sammskys melodramatic attempts to paint Qatar as a sort of Billy Elliot/Oliver Twist figure are laughable, a bit misguided and missing the point. They have done little to deserve the most prestigious tournament in the world....Apparently now the world's biggest football tournament deserves to be hosted by anyone who can afford to do it, or hasn't done it before, rather than the places best suited for the best football, best experience for the fans and best conditions for the players, or by those who would do all this AND have a rich history with the sport and competition.....It's not a travelling circus, it's a football tournament.

Russia, whilst deserving in through it's history has also sort of won it not by virtue of being the best place to have it, but by virtue of it being "deserving" sort of forgetting that the reason Eastern Europe hasn't hosted one before isn't because of some darstadly Western conspiracy, but because it's infrastructure and racial tollerance has been well below the standards required for years...It should have to sort these out and deserve it on merit before it's given it surely? Instead of some kind of fast track...

Again, sorry to sound a bit like a top white, but are you going to try and go to all these? Is sammsky? Probably not. I am, and while I love the travelling and the new horizon broadening that goes with it (and I take deep offence at anyone trying to pain me or anyone else as jingoistic for this) I'd like the best place for a good WC somewhere in there as well ...especially since they only roll round every 4 years.

/rant....Off to put the kettle on.

/thread.
 
So lets award a world cup to the Congo or Indonesia next time, who are both BELOW Qatar in the world rankings...

Just because a nation has qualified for a World Cup doesn't mean they should host one. The point was that a nation that hasn't qualified for a World Cup shouldn't be hosting one. They're not the same thing.
 
You just ignoring my point then? I was merely pointing out a flawed argument.

No, I'm not ignoring your point, just making a joke of Fifa's ridiculous decision.

3 things are clear:

1. You don't need to be good at football to host a WC,
2. The higher the risk the better (pls refer to chart),
3. You need to have never hosted it before.

Hence San Marino & Andorra co-hosting fits all 3 criteria.

Malta are too good...
 
Just because a nation has qualified for a World Cup doesn't mean they should host one. The point was that a nation that hasn't qualified for a World Cup shouldn't be hosting one. They're not the same thing.

But there is no way of quantifying that, say Indonesia struck oil tommorow and could build world class stadia and transports etc... would they then be a reasonable bid because they have qualified before?
 
They will offer money to some good uncapped foreign players to play for them like they do with track and field where they have "bought" kenians to compete for them, they do that in a lot of sports and they will do the same with football(they already do).

Hey it worked for Pepe and Deco.

It works for half the English cricket team...so why not Qatar.
 
But there is no way of quantifying that, say Indonesia struck oil tommorow and could build world class stadia and transports etc... would they then be a reasonable bid because they have qualified before?

Perhaps a better way would be to limit it to top 50 in the Fifa ranking.

FYI: Qatar are ranked 113, below Iceland & Wales.

If Iceland find some oil, perhaps they should bid too.
 
But there is no way of quantifying that, say Indonesia struck oil tommorow and could build world class stadia and transports etc... would they then be a reasonable bid because they have qualified before?

No, not for me. They aren't a footballing nation. It's wouldn't be the only criteria.
 
Perhaps a better way would be to limit it to top 50 in the Fifa ranking.

At time of vote I take it you mean, since it isn't in the realms of impossibilty that Qatar will be in the top 50 come 2022.

FYI: Qatar are ranked 113, below Iceland & Wales.

If Iceland find some oil, perhaps they should bid too.

But they have never qualified for a world cup, so surely not :wenger:
 
Just out of interest....and apologies for going off topic a bit.....what would happen if England (and maybe some other countries) decided not to adhere to FIFA rulings any more and set up a governing body of their own?

Could they do something like that?

Of course but it would require other nations to do so as well if you want to keep England from getting isolated which would be to FIFA's liking as our grip at club level would weaken very considerably. England and the home nations couldn't do it but large parts of Western Europe could force it through for sure.

In terms of 'rebelling' against FIFA we do that already, for instance it is a FIFA directive favoured by Blatter personally that any player that gets sent off has no right not to serve an automatic suspension immediately as happens in the Champions League, but in the Premier League we completely ignore him.
 
101 Haiti
102 Niger
103 Gambia
104 United Arab Emirates
105 Kuwait
106 Uzbekistan
107 Korea DPR
107 Togo
109 Syria
110 Iceland
111 Wales
112 Central African Republic
113 Qatar

Teams ranked immediately above Qatar... :lol:
 
Of course but it would require other nations to do so as well if you want to keep England from getting isolated which would be to FIFA's liking as our grip at club level would weaken very considerably. England and the home nations couldn't do it but large parts of Western Europe could force it through for sure.

In terms of 'rebelling' against FIFA we do that already, for instance it is a FIFA directive favoured by Blatter personally that any player that gets sent off has no right not to serve an automatic suspension immediately as happens in the Champions League, but in the Premier League we completely ignore him.
Thanks.

It was the only way that I could think of getting rid of Blatter and co.
 
Holding World Cups in countries that isn't to fond of the game as well as other things associated with the game like drinking/women & running up & down the streets with nothing on, doesn't make sense to me. FIFA are doing a fine job on killing the Romance that used to surround the World Cup years ago imo. World Cups should be held in footballing countries.

Carling Nations Cup > World Cup!
 
At time of vote I take it you mean, since it isn't in the realms of impossibilty that Qatar will be in the top 50 come 2022.

But they have never qualified for a world cup, so surely not :wenger:

Obviously at the time of bidding, being in the top 50 nations isn't exactly a very harsh criteria, is it? The fact Qatar is outside the top 100 makes this even more farcical (I didn't realize till I looked it up).

Iceland would fit Fifa's selection criteria quite well, except they maybe a little too liberal, making some laws against some minority would probably help the bid.
 
101 Haiti
102 Niger
103 Gambia
104 United Arab Emirates
105 Kuwait
106 Uzbekistan
107 Korea DPR
107 Togo
109 Syria
110 Iceland
111 Wales
112 Central African Republic
113 Qatar

Teams ranked immediately above Qatar... :lol:

Hate that FIFA ranking. No way Haiti are better than us at football. Put us in the CONCAF qualifiers one year and see which team jumps up the table highest in one year.
 
Hate that FIFA ranking. No way Haiti are better than us at football. Put us in the CONCAF qualifiers one year and see which team jumps up the table highest in one year.

It's flawed, but generally not far wrong...
 
Just out of interest....and apologies for going off topic a bit.....what would happen if England (and maybe some other countries) decided not to adhere to FIFA rulings any more and set up a governing body of their own?

Could they do something like that?

If things keep going the way they are i wouldn't be surprised if something like that happened eventually.