Who Do You Think Will Host World Cup 2018

[Gringo]

Their is some people on that panel who are very questionble like Warner but Franz Beckenbauer voted Russia. I cant imagine him taking a bung to give Russia a vote.

Germans and Russians teaming up? Watch out Polski.

[Zatman]

As i said before I wanted England to win but if you go 1st page or 2 of this thread many people said Russia would win so why the uproar cause they won just because their technical report wasnt as good as England.

If their is no proof that Russia and Qatar made bribes its best not to make accusations.

[TrentVilla]

Many people said Russia would win (myself included) because we didn't believe in the honesty or integrity of FIFA looks like we were correct on both fronts.

There was merit in and logic for the support of Russia's bid there are no such things for the support of Qatar no logical or reasonable case can be made for their successful bid.

[kidlewis]

Absolutely Levi - The biggest asset the FA have at the moment is the premiership and especially its worldwide TV rights. Throw in some of the other factors re status of teams in terms of fan participation at a world level, the history, convenient times of matches for worldwide and you realise that here in England there is a heartbeat for the game for the armchair / pub based fan especially.

As the bid said the infrastructure and the product is here ready up and running. I am positive that it will happen and will happen very soon.

what about something like a post season tour of the top 8 premier league clubs?

that would be their pre season tour over the summer. and basically do a mini tournament in a country who is willing to 'pay' for the right to stage it. Sponsorship, tv rights you name it.

the trophy would be an obviously substantial prize fund, which would encourage teams to take it seriously. Say £10m for the winning team, and a shiny gold thing too boot.

2 groups of 4 round robin, semi and final.

Just IMAGINE the countries willing to shell out money for that. As many people have said, it's not England on the back of these peoples shirts, it's Gerrard, Rooney, Torres, Drogba.

The Prem would only need to take it to South America, or the USA or China or Japan and they would make an unbelievable amount of money.

add in the possibility of the top 2 teams from the major european leagues as another option then you talk about a genuine champions league, which would even (given time) push the champs league aside IMO.

no Dinamo Zagreb or Sevilla in there. Just the cream of the crop from the best leagues. what the CHAMPIONS league should be.

[ml1dch]

The Prem would only need to take it to South America, or the USA or China or Japan and they would make an unbelievable amount of money.

I don't think South America would really care all that much. The others (and throw in the Middle East), undoubtedly would get very excited by it.

Although your first idea - there aren't many sheikdoms who will pay huge amounts of money for Villa vs. Everton.

[kidlewis]

The Prem would only need to take it to South America, or the USA or China or Japan and they would make an unbelievable amount of money.

I don't think South America would really care all that much. The others (and throw in the Middle East), undoubtedly would get very excited by it.

Although your first idea - there aren't many sheikdoms who will pay huge amounts of money for Villa vs. Everton.

they'd pay to host the tournament and take a share of the sponsorship the tournament receive.

I think the links of Barclays, HSBC, gambling companies would pay rather a lot of money to sponsor such a tournament.

[ml1dch]

The Prem would only need to take it to South America, or the USA or China or Japan and they would make an unbelievable amount of money.

I don't think South America would really care all that much. The others (and throw in the Middle East), undoubtedly would get very excited by it.

Although your first idea - there aren't many sheikdoms who will pay huge amounts of money for Villa vs. Everton.

they'd pay to host the tournament and take a share of the sponsorship the tournament receive.

I think the links of Barclays, HSBC, gambling companies would pay rather a lot of money to sponsor such a tournament.

But South America cares far more about their own leagues. To make something like that viable you need to go somewhere where they don't have domestic leagues that are more popular there than ours. Like all the others you list.

There's a reason why no English teams have gone to play friendlies in South America. On the whole, they couldn't give a toss about us. And well done to them for that.

[kidlewis]

The Prem would only need to take it to South America, or the USA or China or Japan and they would make an unbelievable amount of money.

I don't think South America would really care all that much. The others (and throw in the Middle East), undoubtedly would get very excited by it.

Although your first idea - there aren't many sheikdoms who will pay huge amounts of money for Villa vs. Everton.

they'd pay to host the tournament and take a share of the sponsorship the tournament receive.

I think the links of Barclays, HSBC, gambling companies would pay rather a lot of money to sponsor such a tournament.

But South America cares far more about their own leagues. To much something like that viable you need to go somewhere where they don't have domestic leagues that are more popular there than ours. Like all the others you list.

There's a reason why no English teams have gone to play friendlies in South America. On the whole, they couldn't give a toss about us. And well done to them for that.

okay forget South American then. Asians would chomp at it though.

[Genie]

I see England have cancelled their friendly with Thailand and also removed FIFA's free rooms at the Dorchester during the Olympics.

Good on 'em. Won't change anything but I agree with not doing them any favours

[Zatman]

So England offering FIFA executives free rooms at Dorchester if they won. Is that not a form of bribery?

[Genie]

So England offering FIFA executives free rooms at Dorchester if they won. Is that not a form of bribery?

I'd expect the governing body of all sports get free rooms during the Olympic games.

[TrentVilla]

So England offering FIFA executives free rooms at Dorchester if they won. Is that not a form of bribery?

No I'd call it a courtesy, one which is now being withdrawn seeing as they couldn't show the courtesy to give our bid the due consideration it was due.

Under the circumstances it would be insane to make good on the offer.

I'm not quite sure how you have managed to see it as being a form of bribery and twist into being some sort of condictional offer on the basis of the bid being a success.

Once again this just sums up your lack of objectivity on this subject and on England in general.

[Woodytom]

Russia .............................. Oh Im a bit late for this thread.

[TrentVilla]

So England offering FIFA executives free rooms at Dorchester if they won. Is that not a form of bribery?

No I'd call it a courtesy (one probably extended to far more bodies than just the FIFA executives), one which is now being withdrawn seeing as they couldn't show the courtesy to give our bid the due consideration it was due.

Under the circumstances it would be insane to make good on the offer.

I'm not quite sure how you have managed to see it as being a form of bribery and twist into being some sort of condictional offer on the basis of the bid being a success.

Once again this just sums up your lack of objectivity on this subject and on England in general.

[Zatman]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/timvickery/2010/12/fifa.html

A good blog by Tim Vickery.

Stanley Rous is one of the major reasons England is not very popular in world football. He would not globalise the game of football and wanted it Eurocentric

[The_Rev]

That's a bit of a leap of faith to make, isnt it? Rous has been dead for 25 years and retired for almost 40. I cant see any of today's generation of people holding a grudge against him.

[KAZZAM]

Jack warner wat a word removed.

Jack Warner insists media investigations into Fifa are to blame for England's failed 2018 World Cup bid.

Three days before last week's vote in Zurich, BBC's Panorama programme accused three Fifa members of bribery and also alleged Fifa vice-president Warner tried to supply ticket touts.

The programme followed the Sunday Times investigation which saw six Fifa senior officials banned for a number of offences including corruption.

And Warner, whose support was key to England's hopes given he controlled three votes in his role as president of the Concacaf federation of Caribbean, North and Central American countries, feels those reports led to their downfall.

Insulted

He said: "Suffice it to say that the Fifa ExCo as a body could not have voted for England having been insulted by their media in the worst possible way at the same time. To do so would have been the ultimate insult (to Fifa)."

England 2018 insiders say Warner had promised to support them in the days leading up to the vote, which saw England, Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium fall by the wayside as Russia secured the hosting rights.

Bid leaders do not believe the media coverage was the reason for England securing only two of the 22 Fifa members' votes last week, but a number of other members have insisted that was the case including Cyprus' Marios Lefkaritis and Japan's Junji Ogura.

"The African members of the executive committee were furious over the Sunday Times report," Kyodo News quoted Ogura as saying.

"They even suggested suing the paper at the executive committee meeting."

The Japanese Football Association president was bewildered at the timing of the stories in the English media.

He added: "If the reports are true then that would be sad. But until they can present the evidence, then it's hard for any of us to definitively say anything.

"But what I can say is that the reports definitely had an impact on the England bid. There's no mistake about that.

"I have a hard time understanding why a network as prestigious as the BBC would go with a story like that at that particular time."

Meanwhile, the head of Australia's failed 2022 bid Frank Lowy today said that "playing straight" may have cost them the World Cup and that Fifa members lied outright to them about their voting intentions.

Lowy told SBS: "When we started the process we had a meeting with our advisers that we would do nothing improper in the fullest sense.

"I wanted to give credit to Australia and not to get caught in some kind of shonky business, and I can assure you now that we didn't do anything that was improper in this whole period.

Straight

"Did that cost us the bid? Maybe. I don't know, I'm not sure. But we are straight and we wanted to play it straight.

"Unbelievable things have happened. Qatar had 11 votes in the first round - one more and the vote would have been over then.

"I believe some intended to vote for us from the second round onwards and never got the chance, while quite a number just outright lied to us...or they wanted to be nice to me

Skysports

[EssexVilla]

So we lost the bid because the media exercised the basic human right of free speech? I don't believe a word of it. And if true then what are FIFA endorsing?

[leviramsey]

No Soccer for Oil

Fans of soccer and liberal democracy — I’m in both groups — were disappointed to hear that the FIFA grandees awarded the 2018 World Cup to Putinland Russia and the 2022 event to Qatar (!). My friend Grant Wahl has a typically sharp immediate reaction for Sports Illustrated that boils down to three points: (1) the choices prove once again that FIFA is not exactly a model of integrity and transparency; (2) Qatar? Really? Really?; and (3) the U.S. put together a strong bid and left everything on the pitch.

I would expand Grant’s first point to darned-near all elite international organizations, from the International Olympic Committee all the way to the United Nations (though the Wall Street Journal today said FIFA makes the UN look like a model). Where there is no democratic accountability and plenty of rent-seeking opportunities, is corruption and non-merit-based decisionmaking all that surprising?

And of course this isn’t a matter of the United States losing out to a nation with a deep soccer (or any athletic) tradition, or even to a developing country set to burst onto the geo-political stage (like awarding the 1968 Olympics to Mexico City, the 1988 Games to Seoul, or the 2008 Games to Beijing). No, this was a matter of petro-wealthy sheiks buying a major sporting event. Bully for commercial competition, of course, but (a) those are sovereign, not private funds in play (though the distinction is observed in the breach in the Middle East); ( playing in 110-degree heat can’t make sense (see the problems with the relatively balmy 1996 Atlanta Olympics — and I’ll believe the air-conditioned outdoor stadiums when I see them); and © who knows what the political situation will be in the region 12 years hence. Plus bribing officials and riding anti-American sentiment — shocking, I know, given that George W. Bush was not part of the Bill Clinton/Morgan Freeman-led lobbying team — ain’t exactly a testament to the free market.

Speaking of economics, though, one silver lining to the U.S. disappointment — and that of England, once favored for the 2018 Cup but finishing with only two votes — is that hosting a “mega-event” like the World Cup or Olympics really doesn’t do much for a national economy (and more often than not has a detrimental economic impact). And while I haven’t studied the details of the U.S. bid, it’s safe to assume that whatever public stadium and other subsidies were in it — probably not much compared to luring/keeping pro sports teams — paled in comparison to Qatar’s bid (let alone Russia’s). And so American soccer fans’ loss is almost certainly American taxpayers’ gain.

In short, the Russia-Qatar double is a cynical course of events that will harm soccer’s long-term prospects in the United States and the reputation of international athletic bodies everywhere. (Just in time for the annual peak in anti-BCS vitriol among lovers of American football, this time with a neat antitrust twist — on which more at some later point.)

Perhaps the biggest question, though, is how will Qatar’s strict alcohol laws affect fans’ enjoyment of “the beautiful game”?

[TrentVilla]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/timvickery/2010/12/fifa.html

A good blog by Tim Vickery.

Stanley Rous is one of the major reasons England is not very popular in world football. He would not globalise the game of football and wanted it Eurocentric

I think plenty of us on here already know about Stanley Rous and the good and bad about his time at the helm. I don't though see how that is in any way of relevance of the conduct of FIFA at the World Cup vote.

Once again though it is clear you agree the England bid was rejected for reasons other than the strength of the bid which kind of means you don't actually have a point.

Well other than your suggestion England are bad losers which as I've already highlighted is a bit of a daft conclusion given you clearly agree the vote wasn't done on merit.

All that is left is the suggestion which you don't much like England.