BID EVALUATION REPORTS

[!VamosSochi!]

Since more and more of them are already being leaked to the media before they are going to be published in severalhours, it makes sense to start a dedicated topic. Here is the biggest leak so far from the BBC.

England's 2018 World Cup bid is viewed as low risk by Fifa, although the world governing body has flagged up concerns over training camp and hotel provision.

Due to be published on Wednesday, the executive summary - obtained by the BBC - is only part of the full report that Fifa will base its final decision on.

England's main rivals - the joint Spanish and Portuguese bid and Russia - were also given a "low risk" rating.

Across 17 risk categories, Russia is just behind England and Spain/Portugal.

Although there is not thought to be any overall ranking, it is understood England and Spain and Portugal have the most low risk gradings across those 17 categories, while Russia's bid has more medium risk assessments.

With the full Fifa report not to be made public, the executive summary highlighted some criticisms of England's bid.

"The bidder has not contracted the required number of venue-specific training sites or venue-specific team hotels," says the report.

"The bidder has contracted the required number of team base camp (TBC) but has not contracted the required number of TBC hotels.

"Additional training sites, likely to be selected from England's existing range of professional club stadiums and training sites may have to be considered. The proposed TBC renovations would have to be ensured and some pairings should be reviewed.

"In terms of accommodation, the bidder proposes a relatively large inventory.

"However the fact that not many of the rooms have been contracted in full compliance with Fifa's template hotel agreement requires further analysis and potentially renegotiation. Fifa could be exposed to excessive pricing.

"The requirements for contractual documents have been met and the necessary government support has been secured with the exception if the reservations and qualifications to four government guarantees as contained in the government legal statement."

However, an England 2018 spokesman played down the significance of Fifa's comments saying: "These are minor contractual issues which are already being dealt with by Fifa."

More positively England's bid is given a glowing report on transport, IT infrastructure and technology, event safety, marketing, media and communication, while its £455m budget has been "submitted in the format required".

Russia's bid is also given a low legal risk grading, though perhaps surprisingly, no questions are raised over its plans to build 13 new stadiums for the tournament. The report also says the necessary government support has been secured.

But there is criticism of Russia's transport and technology infrastructure.

"The country's vastness and its remoteness from other countries, coupled with the fact that the high speed rail network is limited and...would put pressure on the air traffic infrastructure," says the report.

"Any delay in the completion of transport projects could impact on Fifa's tournament operations and the proposed installation of temporary facilities could impose a high cost burden."

The Fifa summary on the Spain and Portugal bid raises concerns over their decision to enter a joint bid.

"It should be noted that a co-hosting concept could pose challenges regarding the joint operational delivery of the Fifa World Cup in terms of ensuring consistent standards.

"Therefore in order to provide a more complete basis for evaluation of the co-hosting concept, further key operational details would be required."

The Iberian bid is also criticised over venue specific team hotels and training sites and asks for a complete inventory of contracted training sites.

Fifa also says that in some cases "city transport infrastructure requires attention", while as regards technology, "insufficient details are provided in the bid book to allow proper evaluation".

The only bidder for 2018 rated with a higher risk evaluation is the joint bid from Netherlands and Belgium, which is given a medium risk assessment.

The Low Countries bid is criticised over hotel rooms, the joint hosting concept, training sites and team hotels, with government guarantees a major concern.

"The necessary government support has not been secured as neither the government guarantees nor the government declaration have been provided in compliance with Fifa's requirements."

[LuigiVercotti]

So how much do the technical reports reflect a definitive and contributing influence on how the execs should vote, and how much does it reflect the prejudices and biases of the relative supporters in FIFA?

[Rafa]

Not very much, but more than that of the IOC report given the smaller number of voters.

FIFA are too scared to probably dump Qatar, eventhough 10 venues are in an area smaller than Cape Town or Sydney.

Another article mentions that FIFA do not raise concerns with Russia building 13 new or upgraded venues.

What is encouraging is that the after Germany, the World Cup requirements were standardized, so that countries have significantly more clarity about what it takes to host the WC. Even after South Africa won the 2010 bid, the exact stadium requirements for e.g. the area of a media centre or mixed zone were not standard, which forced FIFA and South Africa, to co-develop the FIFA technical recommendations and requirements. A member of this team from South Africa will now play an integral part in Durban's 2020 Olympic bid.

South Africa was certainly far from perfect, but it was the first WC to test these "new" requirements from venues to base camps to transport, and Brazil and future hosts will significantly benefit from the tons of lessons from South Africa 2010.

[!VamosSochi!]

OK, the reports have been published at last at BID EVALUATION REPORTS

Enjoy

[memorabilia]

Nothing... absolutely nothing inside this report !

Worst than an IOC's ones !!!

[!VamosSochi!]

Nothing... absolutely nothing inside this report !

First of all, it is only executive summaries. The 9 country-specific reports were given only to the ExCos plus the Australian bid (who have no ExCo).

And then, what exactly did you expect of them?

[baron-pierreIV]

They should just award 2018 and 2022 to the USA!! Saves on a lot of costs....which savings can go into their pockets!!

[Rob2012]

Diana Ross better get practicing her penalties!

[Bezzi]

We can't get too many conclusions from the report. The reports of 2010 and 2014, with only one candidate, was more complete. I made a scoring based on the strengths and weaknesses of each bid.

General Ranking:

1- ENG - 15 pts

2- RUS - 13 pts

3- USA - 12 pts

4- SPA - 11 pts

5- AUS - 11 pts

6- KOR - 11 pts

7- JAP - 10 pts

8- QAT - 07 pts

9- HOL - 06 pts

2018 Ranking:

1- ENG - 15 pts

2- RUS - 13 pts

3- SPA - 11 pts

4- HOL - 06 pts

2022 Ranking:

1- USA - 12 pts

2- AUS - 11 pts

3- KOR - 11 pts

4- JAP - 10 pts

5- QAT - 07 pts

It seems clear that the fight for 2018 will be between England and Russia and 2022 will be between the U.S. and Australia, with some favoritism for England and the United States. The Spanish decision to join Portugal killed his bid. That did not help anything, just added the weaknesses of his neighbor.

[!VamosSochi!]

We can't get too many conclusions from the report. The reports of 2010 and 2014, with only one candidate, was more complete. I made a scoring based on the strengths and weaknesses of each bid.

General Ranking:

1- ENG - 15 pts

2- RUS - 13 pts

Very interesting calculations.

Could you share a bit of your methodology - how did you score the points?

I personally counted 18 positives and 14 negatives in Russia's executive summary.

And what about the infamous risk ratings that put Russia much below?

[Bezzi]

It's a bit complex. I considered 10 items of the executive summary (stadiums, team based capmps, etc..) + the part that talked about the legal risks. I assigned 0 to 2 points for each item (0 - bad rating, 1 - normal rating, 2 - good rating). Russia had an almost perfect rating but I evaluated negatively the high costs with stadiums. I believe that Russia is able to build 13 new stadiums, but making a comparison with others becomes a negative thing. Holland Belgium lost many points at the training venues and hotels. Qatar is a case apart. I took off 2 points because the quote about health risks due to hot weather.

[madrileño89]

Bullshit, no way Spain/Portugal is behind both Russia and the England bid. In my mind it's between England and Spain/Portugal. They have lower total costs than any of the others, have more than enough hotel rooms (which England doesn't even have close to enough of), excellent transportation (which Russia is seriously lacking on), experience with hosting big events, Spain is the reigning world champions..also, the UK already has the Summer Olympics, are they just going to give them everything they want? I'm sure most of you will chime in with your complicated lists and calculations, but that is just what I think at this point. Also, the England bid accusing everyone else of corruption and FIFA then clearing those bidding countries now makes England look like assholes.

For 2022, I think the USA will get it, it'll have been a while by then, and I don't think Australia can compete with the possibility of the huge world cup event that would occur if the USA hosted, with the growing popularity of soccer already very evident, and the number of world class stadiums and cities available to host across the country. I'm imagining Sun Life stadium in Miami crammed with 80,000 fans to watch a world cup match.. epic

[!VamosSochi!]

It's a bit complex.

Thank you, but I am afraid it is indeed complex.

And the report is open to all sorts of interpretations, because the the whole procedure is not transparent, not logical and not consistent.

The IOC at least tries to pretend to have a quality process.

The IOC announces scoring factors (and their importance weighting factors) in advance and follows them.

On the contrary FIFA surprise scoring factors (unweighted or secretly weighted) have almost nothing to do with those announced at the start of the process. Moreover the risks ratings are based on arbitrarily selected perceptions.

I wonder why FIFA is not afraid of being sued by the losing side because of this whole mess...

[Rob2012]

Also, the England bid accusing everyone else of corruption and FIFA then clearing those bidding countries now makes England look like assholes.

The England bid did not accuse anyone of anything.

Zen-Ruffinen, a very well connected, former general secretary at FIFA, told undercover reporters that there was a deal between Spain-Portugal and Qatar. The Sunday Times then reported what they'd been told.

FIFA subsequently investigated - as they had to given the weight of the allegations, the person they came from, and the fact that if true, such acts would be breaking the rules all bids signed up to when they entered. FIFA found no evidence of collusion so the bids were then cleared. End of story.

England 2018 has had nothing to do with any of it.

Epic fail on your part. Check your facts next time you post.

[Depechist]

And the report is open to all sorts of interpretations, because the the whole procedure is not transparent, not logical and not consistent.

The IOC at least tries to pretend to have a quality process.

The IOC announces scoring factors (and their importance weighting factors) in advance and follows them.

On the contrary FIFA surprise scoring factors (unweighted or secretly weighted) have almost nothing to do with those announced at the start of the process. Moreover the risks ratings are based on arbitrarily selected perceptions.

I wonder why FIFA is not afraid of being sued by the losing side because of this whole mess...

I would say that the highest risk factor to the World Cup is... FIFA

[Bezzi]

Bullshit, no way Spain/Portugal is behind both Russia and the England bid. In my mind it's between England and Spain/Portugal. They have lower total costs than any of the others, have more than enough hotel rooms (which England doesn't even have close to enough of), excellent transportation (which Russia is seriously lacking on), experience with hosting big events, Spain is the reigning world champions..also, the UK already has the Summer Olympics, are they just going to give them everything they want? I'm sure most of you will chime in with your complicated lists and calculations, but that is just what I think at this point. Also, the England bid accusing everyone else of corruption and FIFA then clearing those bidding countries now makes England look like assholes.

For 2022, I think the USA will get it, it'll have been a while by then, and I don't think Australia can compete with the possibility of the huge world cup event that would occur if the USA hosted, with the growing popularity of soccer already very evident, and the number of world class stadiums and cities available to host across the country. I'm imagining Sun Life stadium in Miami crammed with 80,000 fans to watch a world cup match.. epic

Without Portugal in this, I would give more points for Spain and they could overcome Russia. From what I noticed in the report, the joint bid was not considered a positive thing. But this is just "my" opinion. You don't have to agree.

[madrileño89]

The England bid did not accuse anyone of anything.

Zen-Ruffinen, a very well connected, former general secretary at FIFA, told undercover reporters that there was a deal between Spain-Portugal and Qatar. The Sunday Times then reported what they'd been told.

FIFA subsequently investigated - as they had to given the weight of the allegations, the person they came from, and the fact that if true, such acts would be breaking the rules all bids signed up to when they entered. FIFA found no evidence of collusion so the bids were then cleared. End of story.

England 2018 has had nothing to do with any of it.

Epic fail on your part. Check your facts next time you post.

I knew that it was the English press, it was a mistake on my part for saying the bid. Regardless, it reflects badly on the bid, with the English press now perceived as "out to catch" FIFA and the other bids in a cheating scandal.

[Bezzi]

Thank you, but I am afraid it is indeed complex.

And the report is open to all sorts of interpretations, because the the whole procedure is not transparent, not logical and not consistent.

The IOC at least tries to pretend to have a quality process.

The IOC announces scoring factors (and their importance weighting factors) in advance and follows them.

On the contrary FIFA surprise scoring factors (unweighted or secretly weighted) have almost nothing to do with those announced at the start of the process. Moreover the risks ratings are based on arbitrarily selected perceptions.

I wonder why FIFA is not afraid of being sued by the losing side because of this whole mess...

You're right. But in recent reports it was clear which candidates were stronger. They summed up everything in a single sentence:

2010 Report:

http://www.troywatts.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/fifawc2010evaluationreport.pdf

pg.8:

...the Inspection Group’s opinion is that South Africa has the potential to organise an excellent World Cup...

...we have come to the conclusion that Egypt is capable of organising a very good World Cup...

...the Inspection Group’s opinion is that Morocco has the potential to organise a very good World Cup...

...if they (Tunísia) change their opinion about co-hosting, and follow their bidding book they have the potential to organise a good World Cup...

...The Inspection Group takes the view that Libya would face great difficulties in organising a World Cup to the standards required...

2014 Report:

http://www.troywatts.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/fifawc2014evaluationreport.pdf

pg.9:

...in the considered opinion of the inspection team, Brazil is well placed to stage an exceptional 2014 FIFA World Cup...

[Rob2012]

I knew that it was the English press, it was a mistake on my part for saying the bid. Regardless, it reflects badly on the bid, with the English press now perceived as "out to catch" FIFA and the other bids in a cheating scandal.

The Times have made this process better and scared FIFA shitless. Anyone with a sense of fair-play and a belief that the bidding process should be transparent should be congratulating them.

What other people perceive doesn't matter if the perception is out of kilter with the facts. If people think less of England's bid because of our press it shows them to be rather stupid in my opinion. The fact is, the Sunday Times has outed two corrupt members of FIFA, and that is a GOOD thing.

And nor was it The Times that accused Spain-Portugal and Qatar. Again, get your facts straight. The Times reported on Zen-Ruffinen making these accusations; a well, connected man in FIFA circles. If they are untrue, and FIFA's investigation has found no evidence that they are true, it's him you should be angry with, not the English Press (which by the way, isn't one homogeneous body either; we have world class journalists and very poor journalists in this country just as in any other)

And if they'd discovered England's bid misbehaving, don't believe for a second they wouldn't run big with it. Their ultimate aim is to sell papers and such a scandal would surely sell many. The Times were not "out to catch" other bids (the implication being they were working on behalf of England 2018), they were running an investigation into FIFA. They were simply given the information about Spain-Portugal and Qatar during this investigation into football's governing body.

If, despite these obvious facts, people still choose to see this as reflecting badly on England's bid, then I have no time for them because they've clearly got an agenda. That goes for people on this board and FIFA Execs.

[madrileño89]

What other people perceive doesn't matter if the perception is out of kilter with the facts. If they think less of England's bid because of our press it shows them to be rather stupid in my opinion. The fact is, the Sunday Times has outed two corrupt members of FIFA. Anyone with a sense of fair-play and a belief that the bidding process should be transparent should be congratulating them.

And nor was it The Times that accused Spain-Portugal and Qatar. Again, get your facts straight. The Times reported on Zen-Ruffinen making these accusations; a well, connected man in FIFA circles. If they are untrue, and FIFA's investigation has found no evidence that they are, it's him you should be angry with, not the England press (which by the way, isn't one hemogenous body either; we have world class and very poor journalists in this country just as any other)

And if they'd discovered England's bid misbehaving, don't believe for a second they wouldn't run big with it. Their ultimate aim is to sell papers and such a scandal would surely sell many. The Times were not "out to catch" other bids, they were running an investigation into FIFA (the biggest story is the suspension of Adamu and Tamari). They were simply given the information about Spain-Portugal and Qatar during their investigation.

If, despite these obvious facts, people still choose to see this as reflecting badly on England's bid, then I have no time for them because they've clearly got an agenda.

You know, you can nitpick at me all you want, and try and throw your weight around on this issue, which has obviously gotten you upset, but the fact is it makes england's bid look worse. I never said that's what should happen, I've just seen that opinion expressed in multiple articles and online forums. Also, it seems the other bids are under a lot of criticism and scrutiny on here, especially the Iberian one, and it's frustrating to read so many posts with a clearly british slant in them when this is a forum that is supposed to be about all the bids. Oh, and nice save with your edit..

[Rob2012]

Throwing my weight around? If telling the facts as they are is throwing my weight around then I apologise. Perhaps my last contribution to this thread should instead have been a bit more tactful; perhaps showing a complete misunderstanding of the facts and accusing a country of looking like "assholes", for example?

Also, maybe you missed it, but the person who rated Spain-Portugal's bid below Russia's in this thread - who you intially replied to - is Brazilian. You know, big Portuguese speaking country on the other side of the Atlantic? Clearly a British slant there. Give your persepctive on other bids, nobody is stopping you but if it's frustrating reading so many posts with a British slant, maybe you shouldn't be reading a forum with many British members.

Sadly, I realise the Times' investigation may harm England's bid. I'm not that naive. It shouldn't, but it probably will and I'll certainly think less of FIFA (if that's possible) if it does. I'm glad though that the facts I provided - available freely on google.com - have shifted your position from accusing England of being "assholes", to now saying you don't believe England's bid should be affected by what the Press does. I'll chalk that up as a success.

Back on topic now I guess...

[baron-pierreIV]

I wonder why FIFA is not afraid of being sued by the losing side because of this whole mess...

Well, you know you join of your own volition...and by doing so, you HAVE to play by the rules of he organizer. Plus, they are probably made to sign waivers that they will abide by the results...however those are arrived at. And then you would look ridiculous if you were the ONLY ONE that sued. Plus, you would be certain NOT to be considered in the next round. So, you just got to go with the flow, however imperfect that process may seem to be.

[Rob2012]

I think it was clear from the start that FIFA were not keen on joint bids, and the report seems to bare that out to an extent. Like everything in this messy process, FIFA have shifted the goalposts constantly. Blatter said "no" to joint bids, then they agreed when they realised they had two wanting to bid, and now it seems the original position is coming to the fore again. This is a bit unfair on Spain-Portugal and Belgium-Netherlands, but FIFA do what suits them. Shifting 2018 to a Europe-only contest half way through was a bit of a mess as well. FIFA really need to sort out how they manage these things, because people don't know where they stand half the time.

[baron-pierreIV]

I think it was clear from the start that FIFA were not keen on joint bids, and the report seems to bare that out to an extent. Like everything in this messy process, FIFA have shifted the goalposts constantly. Blatter said "no" to joint bids, then they agreed when they realised they had two wanting to bid, and now it seems the original position is coming to the fore again. This is a bit unfair on Spain-Portugal and Belgium-Netherlands, but FIFA do what suits them. Shifting 2018 to a Europe-only contest half way through was a bit of a mess as well. FIFA really need to sort out how they manage these things, because people don't know where they stand half the time.

I thnk they were fairly consistent on their NO-JOINT-BIDS stance. I mean Japan and Korea read it loud and clear. Quixotic Qatar is going it alone without the help of the UAE, Dubai and Oman?? Why couldn't the 4 Euro countries who just egged FIFA to accept their bids, have done so?

[!VamosSochi!]

you HAVE to play by the rules of he organizer.

Correct, but the rules are cghanging all the time. As I've said there was one list of selection criteria in the beggining of the process officially signed (in a document called Bid Registration). Then the bids spent their millions trying to score well on that list and now they know that they are appraised on a very different set of criteria. What the...

And then you would look ridiculous if you were the ONLY ONE that sued.

There bound to be several losing sides...