http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-z2jtUS9-Y&feature=player_embedded
As someone that's still more than a little bitter at the IOC's decision for 1996 and 2008 (human rights? Just make sure the stadium is built) I'm not going to discourage English or American rage today. The choice of FIFA to go to Russia and Qatar does strike one as more than a bit cynical.
Both the American and English bids were technically superior. In the case of 2018, all three bids running against Russia were technically superior actually. In the 2022 race it's hard to imagine a less likely host than Qatar. Whether it was for "legacy" or if cheques were passed is irrelevant right now. Emotion will rule the day and it will for several days.
[PRBREAK][/PRBREAK]
The USA may live to fight again. With the 2022 cup in Asia and Europe being told the next bid can't be to 2030 (not that FIFA won't change its mind if it wants to) 2026 seems wide open for a North American win. There is another CONCACAF country I'm hoping to see bid, but, again, we will hold off on that speculation out of respect to our American friends. The USA should have won. Americans have every right to be pissed.
The English too -- especially if, as rumoured, they were the first eliminated. If that's the case, FIFA demonstrated itself to be even pettier than was already thought. An English World Cup would be brilliant. I hope today's frustration and anger passes because every football fan in the world should want to see a final at Wembley. It would just seem right. I should still be alive in 2030. I hope to be there.
As much as the anger is justified, it is important to separate the should-haves from the possibilities of these two cups. Russia is actually a bigger risk in my mind than Qatar is, but it is a big country rich with oil money. Yes there is also a lot of problems, but logistically it doesn't seem that farfetched that Russia can pull it off. It will be tough for people to travel there (and to travel within the country when there) but not impossible.
As the video above shows Qatar could be more than a little trippy. There is a lot of money there and logistically having all the stadiums within 60 km of each other seems absolutely brilliant, actually. There are all kinds of human rights issues that make this a very uncomfortable marriage and getting your hands on booze might prove to be difficult, but I'm not about to dismiss the possibility of Qatar putting on a hell of a good show. Reaching out to the Middle East through sport doesn't seem to be the worst idea (no does having a dry(er) World Cup either, and that's coming from a guy that likes to watch football games "wet"). On a personal level I'm quite interested to go.
However, the whole bid process has left me exhausted and questioning of the process. In the TV world that we live in is there even a need to restrict World Cups to one country? Would it not make sense, reduce the appearance of corruption and spread the game to more of the world to have World Cups played in multiple countries? You'd have eight hosts, plus a host for the final? As stated it's a TV game anyway. Spread the wealth, reduce the costs associated with hosting and everyone wins.
That won't happen, but maybe it should.
In the meantime we can turn our attention to 2026. By that time the last seven World Cups will have been held in Europe, Asia, Europe, Africa, South America, Europe and Asia. It seems pretty clear that '26 is North America's to lose. That would put the USA as the front runner today.
Unless......
Related:
The Big Bid 2: What's in it for Canada?
The Big Bid 1: Why the Americans are going down.