Australia to bid for 2018 WORLD CUP

[Faster]

the Europeans think its coming to them, and the North Americans think its come to them, go figure

the only system i have ever seen in print has been this:

Europe

Africa

South America

CONCACAF

Asia/Oceania

[baron-pierreIV]

Well it is gaining ground today and the media said it is a sure thing - the bid will happen.

What they are saying is Rotational Games will produce the following -

2002 Asia

2006 Europe

2010 Africa

2014 Americas

2018 Oceania

I find this very hard to believe. I've posted articles which claim 2018 is destined for Europe, Baron has posted articles that state it's N. America's and now you're saying it's Oceania (which Australia is no longer a part of anyway!).

The truth, it seems, is nobody knows. The fact that Sepp Blatter, the head of FIFA has said this week that he welcomes a bid from England, "the home of football", suggests to me that the rotation isn't as fixed as some would have us believe - unless, of course, the rotation has 2018 set for Europe.

I would be more than a bit miffed if Sepp led us to believe we had a chance of winning 2018 (which, by encouraging us to bid, he is doing right now!) and then said later that there is a rotation system meaning Europe couldn't win.

I wouldn't place too much emphasis on what Blatter says re England and 2018.  I mean Rogge himself "welcomes a German bid" for 2016.  Huh?  We all know it will take the disappearance of the 5 other continents for the SOG to return to Europe in 2016.  So Blatter is blathering on about 2018 for England and the Aussies are going on this quixotic 2018 bid?  

My reading of all this is that the first year mentioned is good for a dry-run to the next one: therefore, a German summer bid would be credible for 2020, and an English WC bid might be sustainable for 2022.

[Rob2012]

The Olympics are a bad anaolgy though because:

1. 2016 will only be four years after London and will not go to Europe unless the rival bids are terrible. 2018 will be a full 12 years after Germany and Europe has as much a chance as anyone else as far as I can tell.

2. The USA and Australia are on a par, if not ahead of Europe in Olympic sport, where as this isn't the case with football. I understand and welcome frequent US Olympics as they are the dominant nation in athletics. It is not selfish for Europe to want to host every third world cup considering this is where the money/power and best football is.

Although things have changed in world football over the last decade, they haven't changed to the extent that Europe should have to wait 24 years between hostings.

[baron-pierreIV]

1.  It is not selfish for Europe to want to host every third world cup considering this is where the money/power and best football is.

2.  Although things have changed in world football over the last decade, they haven't changed to the extent that Europe should have to wait 24 years between hostings.

1.  The Brazilians might argue with that.

2.  I would like to see the awarding of the World Cup host site as a universal affair rather than a 'fair' rotation that must be interrupted for traditional reasons and therefore be broken (by the mindset) that it  ought to return to Europe every 3rd WC.'  Up until 1994 there was the alternation between Europe and South America for the WC site.  They are precisely trying to break out of that pattern.  It's no longer where having to physically attend the WC is paramount and distant travel is a major consideration.  You can be halfway around the world in 12-15 hours now; and you can get 'instant' coverage of the Games with a few split seconds' delay.

Besides, the difference between 2006 and 2022 would be 16 years, not 24.  And the rotation must bend because there are 5 regions/continents of the world that must be catered to fairly?  That's no one's fault; and even if the interval should be 20 years, why should one continent/grouping still get special treatment over the others?  That seems to go against the very principle of fair play.

Further, how many European companies are there as FIFA Partners now?  By my last count, only a fourth or so.  So I would like to think that fair universality (and technology) will prevail over this Euro-centric mindset.

[Rei]

Australia is not Korea, Japan, south Africa or south America.. could the oceanic games achieve a high audience by people as in the other countries?

it seems to me is not neither a football power nation nor one of the biggest taxpayer of Fifa..

why Fifa should prefer a bid like this instead of the much more guaranteed Europe and north America?

[Mikel]

If the 2018 WC won't go to Europe, then Europe shouldn't go to the next WC. What will do then the FIFA? Without Italy, France, England, Spain, Czech Republic, Portugal, Russia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, Germany etc?

[Rob2012]

If the 2018 WC won't go to Europe, then Europe shouldn't go to the next WC. What will do then the FIFA? Without Italy, France, England, Spain, Czech Republic, Portugal, Russia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, Germany etc?

Let's not get carried away Mikel. Europe isn't entitled to 2018, just as the US isn't.

I just happen to think many European countries have a stronger case than the US for hosting 2018.

[baron-pierreIV]

Let's not get carried away Mikel. Europe isn't entitled to 2018, just as the US isn't.

I just happen to think many European countries have a stronger case than the US for hosting 2018.

How can that be?  

Germany is hosting 2006.  Germany is in Europe.  FIFA divides the world into its continents/regions -- not countries.  1998 and 2006 have been Europe's.  Therefore, why should it go back for a 3rd time when the last CONCACAF hosting was in 1994 - and every other viable part of the football world will have had their turn in between?   I guess it has to be repeated:

1998 - Europe/France

2002 - Asia / Korea/Japan

2006 - Europe/Germany

2010 - Africa / RSA

2014 - supposedly S.America/Brazil

2018 - why should 2018 swing back to Europe when it was just there 11 years earlier?  The other parts of the world are equal partners in this.  

You keep forgetting this is the WORLD CUP not the European Cup.  Your thinking just flies in the face of universality.  I just pray that FIFA keeps its more universal and enlightened policies.

[arwebb]

And to say the TV coverage would be bad - it did not stop thousands of people in England watching the 2003 Rugby World Cup, and also the 2000 Olympics produced record results in all places except the USA due to the delayed telecast by NBC.

We had lunchtime kickoffs British time during the Rugby World Cup for the games in Perth, while the rest of the games were at about 9am, which isn't that bad. Only like Japan and Korea 2002.

[arwebb]

If the 2018 WC won't go to Europe, then Europe shouldn't go to the next WC. What will do then the FIFA? Without Italy, France, England, Spain, Czech Republic, Portugal, Russia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, Germany etc?

Steady on.

[arwebb]

Germany is hosting 2006.  Germany is in Europe.  FIFA divides the world into its continents/regions -- not countries.  1998 and 2006 have been Europe's.  Therefore, why should it go back for a 3rd time when the last CONCACAF hosting was in 1994 - and every other viable part of the football world will have had their turn in between?  

Why on earth should CONCACAF have the right to the same number of hostings in a rotation as Europe when there are far fewer nations capable of hosting than in Europe?

It is not enlightened to have a system which is not properly balanced to represent the hosting capability of the confederations. It is, in fact, brainless.

[baron-pierreIV]

If the 2018 WC won't go to Europe, then Europe shouldn't go to the next WC. What will do then the FIFA? Without Italy, France, England, Spain, Czech Republic, Portugal, Russia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, Germany etc?

well, that would be quite sporting.  

[arwebb]

You'd still need Brazil and Argentina out of the way.

[Rob2012]

Let's not get carried away Mikel. Europe isn't entitled to 2018, just as the US isn't.

I just happen to think many European countries have a stronger case than the US for hosting 2018.

How can that be?  

Germany is hosting 2006.  Germany is in Europe.  FIFA divides the world into its continents/regions -- not countries.  1998 and 2006 have been Europe's.  Therefore, why should it go back for a 3rd time when the last CONCACAF hosting was in 1994 - and every other viable part of the football world will have had their turn in between?   I guess it has to be repeated:

1998 - Europe/France

2002 - Asia / Korea/Japan

2006 - Europe/Germany

2010 - Africa / RSA

2014 - supposedly S.America/Brazil

2018 - why should 2018 swing back to Europe when it was just there 11 years earlier?  The other parts of the world are equal partners in this.  

You keep forgetting this is the WORLD CUP not the European Cup.  Your thinking just flies in the face of universality.  I just pray that FIFA keeps its more universal and enlightened policies.

FIFA shouldn't divide into continents though. The USA may be a world super-power, but in footballing terms, it's not a match for the majority of European countries who are capable of hosting.

When you say CONCACAF, we all know you mean the USA. And virtually giving the USA a free-run at the world cup every twenty years is flying in the face of universality in my opinion.

Why should other parts of the world, in continents with fewer capable hosts be "equal partners" when they have nowhere near the attendence levels on a weekly basis or the footballing culture that exists within Europe? If you added all attendences up in Europe on a typical weekend and did the same for North America, I'd imagine there would be at least five or six times as many people watching football in Europe (if I find the time I might try to do this).

Therefore, each large European country is equivilent to the whole continent of North America. Europe is equivilent to several North Americas in purely footballing terms.

I think having every third world cup in Europe is a fair reflection of where football is at at the moment. Having every other world cup in Europe, as it was previously, is excessive as things have changed...but not all that much.

[Mikel]

Let's not get carried away Mikel. Europe isn't entitled to 2018, just as the US isn't.

I just happen to think many European countries have a stronger case than the US for hosting 2018.

How can that be?  

Germany is hosting 2006.  Germany is in Europe.  FIFA divides the world into its continents/regions -- not countries.  1998 and 2006 have been Europe's.  Therefore, why should it go back for a 3rd time when the last CONCACAF hosting was in 1994 - and every other viable part of the football world will have had their turn in between?   I guess it has to be repeated:

1998 - Europe/France

2002 - Asia / Korea/Japan

2006 - Europe/Germany

2010 - Africa / RSA

2014 - supposedly S.America/Brazil

2018 - why should 2018 swing back to Europe when it was just there 11 years earlier?  The other parts of the world are equal partners in this.  

You keep forgetting this is the WORLD CUP not the European Cup.  Your thinking just flies in the face of universality.  I just pray that FIFA keeps its more universal and enlightened policies.

FIFA shouldn't divide into continents though. The USA may be a world super-power, but in footballing terms, it's not a match for the majority of European countries who are capable of hosting.

When you say CONCACAF, we all know you mean the USA. And virtually giving the USA a free-run at the world cup every twenty years is flying in the face of universality in my opinion.

Why should other parts of the world, in continents with fewer capable hosts be "equal partners" when they have nowhere near the attendence levels on a weekly basis or the footballing culture that exists within Europe? If you added all attendences up in Europe on a typical weekend and did the same for North America, I'd imagine there would be at least five or six times as many people watching football in Europe (if I find the time I might try to do this).

Therefore, each large European country is equivilent to the whole continent of North America. Europe is equivilent to several North Americas in purely footballing terms.

I think having every third world cup in Europe is a fair reflection of where football is at at the moment. Having every other world cup in Europe, as it was previously, is excessive as things have changed...but not all that much.

I totally agree with you, Rob.  :: EUROPE SHOULD HOST 2018 BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY COUNTRIES CAPABLE OF HOSTING, IN EUROPE WE PLAY REAL FOOTBALL AND THE PEOPLE GO TO SEE FOOTBALL MATCHES EACH WEEKEND... THESE ARE SUFFICIENT REASONS FOR HOSTING A WORLD CUP TWICE IN TWELVE YEARS...

[Faster]

it would be Europes third world cup since 1998 - CONCACAF has never hosted a world cup since the rotation system was put into place

your European logic is failed, thats like saying, because Norway, Germany and Russia are the dominated winter sports countries, they should host more than any other country, or since Canada produces more than 50% of the world's hockey players, the world cup and world championships should be in Canada every third time. when the truth is Norway, Germany and Russia have accounted for only 3 Olympics, and Canada has hosted two world cups, but no world championships

just because your the best at it doesn't mean it shouldn't be spread around

[arwebb]

Oh please read what I actually posted.

If we argued that the best nations should host it would be Brazil almost every time. What I am arguing is that the rotation system should recognise that there are more nations capable of hosting in some confederations over others. You may see that as bias, I see it as common sense.

[baron-pierreIV]

it would be Europes third world cup since 1998 - CONCACAF has never hosted a world cup since the rotation system was put into place

your European logic is failed, thats like saying, because Norway, Germany and Russia are the dominated winter sports countries, they should host more than any other country, or since Canada produces more than 50% of the world's hockey players, the world cup and world championships should be in Canada every third time. when the truth is Norway, Germany and Russia have accounted for only 3 Olympics, and Canada has hosted two world cups, but no world championships

just because your the best at it doesn't mean it shouldn't be spread around

I totally agree with you, faster.     :wink:   EUROPE SHOULD NOT HOST 2018 JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY COUNTRIES CAPABLE OF HOSTING.  ALTHOUGH THEY MAY CLAIM TO PLAY REAL (AND WHAT IS PLAYED ELSEWHERE IS FAKE?  FUNNY, FIFA NEVER MAKES THAT DISTINCTION) FOOTBALL , ETC., THESE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT ENOUGH REASONS FOR HOSTING A WORLD CUP TWICE IN TWELVE YEARS.

Rob, et al., then go tell FIFA what's wrong with their system and that they should change it.  

[baron-pierreIV]

If we argued that the best nations should host it would be Brazil almost every time. What I am arguing is that the rotation system should recognise that there are more nations capable of hosting in some confederations over others. You may see that as bias, I see it as common sense.

I see what you're saying but that's favoring one confederation more highly over another.  As it is, UEFA already gets 9 slots (a full quarter) in a WC -- and you still want to host every 3rd?  How much more lopsided and greedy can you get?  Why not exclude the rest of the world and just call it the European Cup?  That would be a lot easier, get rid of the pretense of all the qualifying games and have it more in line with your thinking.  

I think the days of a Euro-centric mindset are limited.

[Rob2012]

it would be Europes third world cup since 1998 - CONCACAF has never hosted a world cup since the rotation system was put into place

your European logic is failed, thats like saying, because Norway, Germany and Russia are the dominated winter sports countries, they should host more than any other country, or since Canada produces more than 50% of the world's hockey players, the world cup and world championships should be in Canada every third time. when the truth is Norway, Germany and Russia have accounted for only 3 Olympics, and Canada has hosted two world cups, but no world championships

just because your the best at it doesn't mean it shouldn't be spread around

Faster, I wasn't necessariliy talking about success. I was talking about culture and attendences. How many people watch football in the US or Canada? How much of your press coverage is given over to it? How many people in your workplace or school are talking about football?

Countries like Spain, England, Italy etc. have similar weekly attendances to the whole of North America yet, will on average have to wait about a century between hostings.

There are only two ways of doing this properly as far as I can see:

1. Have fixed continental rotation but recognise where the footballing cultures of the world are based, and the fact that some continents have many more capable hosts than others.

or

2. Ignore continental rotation and treat each country capable of hosting seperately.

These are the only two ways of spreading the world cup equally between capable, passionate countries. The first way is closer to FIFA's current model but is a bit ad-hoc and open to some debate. The second way is like the Olympic bidding model and would be based on which country has the best bid. Both are preferable to the current nonsense which, despite claims of universality is perversely biased towards continents with fewer capable hosts and less of a passion or footballing culture.

I assume, since Baron is so concerned with spreading tournaments around, that he is supporting a possible Toronto or Cape Town bid for the 2016 Olympics rather than yet another American one.

[baron-pierreIV]

I guess you guys interpret the concept of a World Cup differently from the way I do.  I see it as being inclusive of everybody, of a game that unifies all mankind -- not only in terms of participation, but in terms of hosting it as well.  

For a continent that already takes up 1/4th of the slots -- more than any other region -- and always has a fair chance of being equal with the Brazilians, it does seem extremely selfish.  As Mikel postulated that Europe should act like a spoiled child and perhaps boycott 2018 if it doesn't go your way, then I say perhaps the rest of the world should do an equal reaction and boycott should Europe always get favored in more ways than one.

[arwebb]

I see what you're saying but that's favoring one confederation more highly over another.  As it is, UEFA already gets 9 slots (a full quarter) in a WC -- and you still want to host every 3rd?  How much more lopsided and greedy can you get?  Why not exclude the rest of the world and just call it the European Cup?  That would be a lot easier, get rid of the pretense of all the qualifying games and have it more in line with your thinking.  

I think the days of a Euro-centric mindset are limited.

Stop talking rubbish.

Why should Europe host the World Cup as often as areas of the world that do not have the same capability of hosting? It's absolute insanity.

And if you want to be inclusive, surely 2018 therefore means Australia hosts.

[Faster]

i am coming done on the fence, i disargee with parts of all your arguements.

1) the following are a list of countries capable in 2005 of hosting the world cup

Canada

United States of America

Mexico

Brazil

Chile with Argentina

South Africa

Morocco

Australia

Japan

Korea

China

Italy

Spain

France

Germany

Belgium with Netherlands

Switzerland with Austria

Poland with Ukraine

Sweden with Denmark

Russian Federation

Turkey

England

Scotland with Rep. of Ireland

i think every soon and once stable that India, Argentina (Alone), and Croatia and Serbia together could host World Cups

so in relitive turns the ranking of possible hosts

1. Europe

2. Asia

3. North and South America (seperate)

4. Africa

5. Oceania

i think two things could be done

1) merge South America and CONCACAF and run the the qualification as the Africans do, 1 group per spot

45 teams - 8 groups - 6 teams in 5 groups, 5 in 3,

this would merge the rotational spot - and provide better competition for CONCACAF teams

2) a 20 year rotation

1. Europe

2. Asia

3. Europe

4. Africa

5. Americas

[baron-pierreIV]

I see what you're saying but that's favoring one confederation more highly over another.  As it is, UEFA already gets 9 slots (a full quarter) in a WC -- and you still want to host every 3rd?  How much more lopsided and greedy can you get?  Why not exclude the rest of the world and just call it the European Cup?  That would be a lot easier, get rid of the pretense of all the qualifying games and have it more in line with your thinking.  

I think the days of a Euro-centric mindset are limited.

Stop talking rubbish.

Why should Europe host the World Cup as often as areas of the world that do not have the same capability of hosting? It's absolute insanity.

And if you want to be inclusive, surely 2018 therefore means Australia hosts.

Okey, I guess we're up to round 25...

Stop posting garbage.

Haven't you read my previous posts?  As well as the arguments vs. a serious Australia WC BY OTHERS, including Aussies as well?  You're the stupid one.

[Sir Rols]

The very fact that Blatter and FIFA have not clarified rotation speaks volumes. With the likes of England, Spain, the USA and Australia all expressing interest in 2018, if FIFA was still serious about rotation it would have set the record straight for 2018 by now.

Rather, it seems that they have come to the same realisation that the IOC had long come to _ a formal rotation system is far too limiting to be sustained and leaves hosting slots open to substandard and undeserved bids. I really think a formal rotation cycle for the WC is pretty well dead now. What we might see is the odd cycle being given up to certain areas _ as they did for Asia 2002 and Africa 2010 _ but only as "one-offs" and in no particular order. Which may well also be a formula the IOC ends up pursuing as well (Dick Pound hinted as much could be considered last year).