If you are going to look for a logical evaluation of the 2018/22 bids that is free of bias you could do worse than Simon Kuper. The Soccernomics author broke down the bids and explained some of the logic that the exco group will use in making their decision.
“Only the purest of Exco members – Michel Platini, for instance – will vote strictly on quality of bid and the prospect of new markets. Others will be swayed by more political, but equally legitimate, concerns. Most Exco members want something for their votes: often, a vote for their own country”
It’s next to impossible to guess all the motivations and influences of the “24 old men” that hold the ability to crush the dreams of millions. However, that won’t stop us from trying.
[PRBREAK][/PRBREAK] The 2018 bid seems a little easier to handicap than the 2022 one. It seems like a pretty clear two way race between England, the safe bid, and Russia, the sexy legacy bid. Spain and Portugal are alive, but barely. Forget the Dutch/Belgium bid if you haven’t already.
When you are talking about a voting format that relies so heavily on the the whims of a few, the ability to make friends matters. It’s here that England suffers. Consider that and the (totally justifiable) actions of the British press and it becomes increasingly difficult to see how England wins. That’s a shame because an English World Cup has the potential of being something very special.
Russia seems like it offers the exco folks the chance to go into a “new” area and an ability to do what it takes to win these things – it isn’t the days of the CCCP any longer but it doesn’t seem likely that a documentary ripping FIFA will appear on Russian TV tonight.
Most people reading here are more interested in the 2022 bid. With the United States looking to bring the party back, fans on both sides of the border are looking at this as the best chance to see a World Cup in their “backyard” during their lifetime. With rumours swirling that FIFA wants to go to China in ’26 (and the assumption that if they do they’ll be in Europe for ’30) it would be a long time before the USA could bid again.
Many in the US are looking at the Qatar bid with fear. It gets a lot of attention and is intriguing on several levels. Outside of the US, however, the more serious threat is thought to be Australia. The Aussies are also safe – they bill themselves as the “no worries” World Cup – and offer FIFA that whole legacy thing. The USA has hosted. Australia has not. The biggest strike against the Aussies is that they are in Asia (football wise, I didn’t fail geography) and China might be flexing its muscles behind the scenes.
The blunt truth is that the Aussies have less enemies than the United States. The exco members might be influenced by what they think might be put in front of them for 2026, but that won’t be the primary concern.
The other thing in Australia’s side is that for all their g’day mate no worries appearances, the Aussies are ruthless bidders for big events (see – Olympics, Sydney 2000). The slippery mores of FIFA bidding is not something that will concern them too much.
As we’ve seen in recent Olympic bidding, it’s tough for the US to win these things. Although the USA bid is clearly the best for 2022 (as England is the best for 2018), that might not be enough.
Since the process started my opinion has gone from a feeling that the USA was a slam-dunk, to a point now where I’ll be surprised if it wins.
My picks?
Russia 2018
Australia 2022
There is no way that FIFA is going to let Europe wait 12 years between World Cups again, so 2026 will be in Europe and 2030 could end up being a showdown between two superpowers – the USA and China.
As to what all this might mean to Canada, you’ll read that in part 2 of 3 of The Big Bid tomorrow.