# Future FIFA Competitions



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

On December 20th of 2021, FIFA will host a global summit on the future of football/soccer. This will be the start of talks about what the future of the sport will look like. For context, before this summit, the following things happened...


FIFA pledged to expand the World Cup, starting with the 2026 edition, to be 48 teams up from 32
FIFA also pledged to organize an expanded Club World Cup
12 European teams came close to creating a new competition called the Super League
UEFA pledged to introduce a new format for its club competitions
FIFA pushing for the World Cup to be every two years up from four

The one thing in common with these pledges/proposals is that the decision to come up with them involved only one or a handful of parties without taking anyone else into consideration. These decisions have a potential to create a huge divide within the sport. So hopefully the next few months starting December 20th will lead to some sort of conclusion about how the sport should be run for the foreseeable future.

In the meantime, I created this thread to talk about future hosts and stadiums of competitions run by FIFA and any other governing body of the sport affiliated with FIFA. We could also come up with new tournaments or revisions to existing tournament that could come about due to these talks and how the logistics and infrastructure of said tournament can work.

For even more context, this video should be helpful.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

You're conflating things that have been signed off on for years with others that are merely proposals. The 48 team World Cup is done. Even UEFA and CONMEBOL ok'd it. It was voted on, approved, and countries bid for 2026 on those requirements. That was 4 years ago. It is not at all part of the current calendar discussions and political bickering.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

JYDA said:


> You're conflating things that have been signed off on for years with others that are merely proposals. The 48 team World Cup is done. Even UEFA and CONMEBOL ok'd it. It was voted on, approved, and countries bid for 2026 on those requirements. That was 4 years ago. It is not at all part of the current calendar discussions and political bickering.


All six confederations have okayed and even acted upon the 48 team proposal, I am not arguing that. However the top club sides and the organizations that represent the players did not okay the World Cup expansion. A bit of backlash from a powerful organization can completely derail even the most seemingly guaranteed things to happen.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> All six confederations have okayed and even acted upon the 48 team proposal, I am not arguing that. However the top club sides and the organizations that represent the players did not okay the World Cup expansion. A bit of backlash from a powerful organization can completely derail even the most seemingly guaranteed things to happen.


The only one of those two organizations that raised any objection was the ECA under the bogus pretense that it would cause more strain on players. The tournament still requires a maximum of 7 games to win the title. The exact same as before.


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

As always Africa not mentioned.

1. CAF officially supports biennial World Cup
2. CAF also approved creation of an African Super League but has not revealed what the format will look like.

By the way Europe can't say money is ruining football when they benefit from signing players from the rest of the world. 

Europe also has by far the most packed club football schedule and therefore are disingenuous complaining about fixture congestion. 

Third, status quo where the football world serves Europe cannot be retained. In the 32 World Cup System all Confederations are able to send their best teams by virtue of having more slots than good Teams (AFC, CONCACAF, UEFA) or sending half the teams in the confederation (CONMEBOL). UEFA which has 8 good teams had 5 extra slots. CAF which has 9 or 10 good teams at any one time had 5 slots.

Football needs radical adjustments. Football leagues have become processions as well as playing, coaching and administrative talent gets concentrated in an ever reducing pool of clubs.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

HDI 0.548 said:


> As always Africa not mentioned.
> 
> 1. CAF officially supports biennial World Cup
> 2. CAF also approved creation of an African Super League but has not revealed what the format will look like.
> ...


That about sums it up. Growth is where the people and money are.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

HDI 0.548 said:


> As always Africa not mentioned.
> 
> 1. CAF officially supports biennial World Cup
> 2. CAF also approved creation of an African Super League but has not revealed what the format will look like.
> ...


I agree on a lot of the Eurocentric hypocrisy around fixture congestion. Clubs call players back for preseason in the last week of June, just 4 weeks after the last season ended. Then they proceed on an 11 month bloated calendar that is only interrupted for 4 weekends of international breaks upon which all of these club zealots will gaslight the world blaming international football for their players being overworked. These same people claim to value "scarcity" in the debate over World Cups yet see no contradiction in the complete absence of any in the club game.

The ultimate hypocrite is Aleksander Ceferin. Talks about players needing a summer off yet is forcing Italy to play 5 games this coming summer in Nations League and the new intercontinental cup after winning the Euro last summer in mid July. 

I'm not really a fan of biennial World Cups. I think a three year cycle makes a lot of sense and makes for a sensible compromise. However, the debate has been pretty disgusting to observe.


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

JYDA said:


> I agree on a lot of the Eurocentric hypocrisy around fixture congestion. Clubs call players back for preseason in the last week of June, just 4 weeks after the last season ended. Then they proceed on an 11 month bloated calendar that is only interrupted for 4 weekends of international breaks upon which all of these club zealots will gaslight the world blaming international football for their players being overworked. These same people claim to value "scarcity" in the debate over World Cups yet see no contradiction in the complete absence of any in the club game.
> 
> The ultimate hypocrite is Aleksander Ceferin. Talks about players needing a summer off yet is forcing Italy to play 5 games this coming summer in Nations League and the new intercontinental cup after winning the Euro last summer in mid July.
> 
> I'm not really a fan of biennial World Cups. I think a three year cycle makes a lot of sense and makes for a sensible compromise. However, the debate has been pretty disgusting to observe.


Outside Europe, international football is the main revenue generator. This is why these smaller countries desire more opportunities and more frequent international tournaments. They need more money to fund their projects. 

I do understand from a sporting perspective that more frequent World Cup means that the do-or-die aspect of it will perish and that now having 48 teams in it makes it less exclusive. The format is also silly (2 group stage matches?).

But there is no other easy solution to bringing up other countries to European level. The sport must also look towards what the growth market desire. Europe obviously would want to retain status quo. I don't think it makes sense for a club as big as Al Ahly to lose players to Brighton.


----------



## Tazvaz (Jan 31, 2017)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> All six confederations have okayed and even acted upon the 48 team proposal, I am not arguing that. However the top club sides and the organizations that represent the players did not okay the World Cup expansion. A bit of backlash from a powerful organization can completely derail even the most seemingly guaranteed things to happen.


UEFA opposed it but capitulated when it had become obvious all the other five confederations would be supporting it.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

HDI 0.548 said:


> Outside Europe, international football is the main revenue generator. This is why these smaller countries desire more opportunities and more frequent international tournaments. They need more money to fund their projects.
> 
> I do understand from a sporting perspective that more frequent World Cup means that the do-or-die aspect of it will perish and that now having 48 teams in it makes it less exclusive. The format is also silly (2 group stage matches?).
> 
> But there is no other easy solution to bringing up other countries to European level. The sport must also look towards what the growth market desire. Europe obviously would want to retain status quo. I don't think it makes sense for a club as big as Al Ahly to lose players to Brighton.


I personally FIFA needs to create more tournaments like the ongoing Arab Cup to help out smaller nations. Also with the World Cup expansion in mind, I do not think how the 48 team tournament will be set up is finalized. I think three teams in a group could be a placeholder formant until a better one is finalized. I personally think the best idea is the best certain number of teams (measured on their world ranking or by how well they did in qualifiers) go straight into a group stage. Then the remaining teams will play a preliminary round that is either a one off game or a semi final and final to qualify for the aforementioned group stage and have it held at one of the World Cup stadiums and market it as the World Cup and not the qualifiers. That formant I came up with will guarantee high viewer numbers for the early games and will make the first few games a winner takes all affair. That way we could have four team groups and the teams that worked harder to get to the World Cup can rest for the first few games.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Also with the World Cup expansion in mind, I do not think how the 48 team tournament will be set up is finalized. I think three teams in a group could be a placeholder formant until a better one is finalized.


No, it is definitely finalized. The allocation of the 80 games for 2026 was based on this. If we're talking 2030 then anything could happen.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

JYDA said:


> No, it is definitely finalized. The allocation of the 80 games for 2026 was based on this. If we're talking 2030 then anything could happen.


Nothing is 100% finalized until the international calendar and tournament dates are released.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I personally FIFA needs to create more tournaments like the ongoing Arab Cup to help out smaller nations. Also with the World Cup expansion in mind, I do not think how the 48 team tournament will be set up is finalized. I think three teams in a group could be a placeholder formant until a better one is finalized. I personally think the best idea is the best certain number of teams (measured on their world ranking or by how well they did in qualifiers) go straight into a group stage. Then the remaining teams will play a preliminary round that is either a one off game or a semi final and final to qualify for the aforementioned group stage and have it held at one of the World Cup stadiums and market it as the World Cup and not the qualifiers. That formant I came up with will guarantee high viewer numbers for the early games and will make the first few games a winner takes all affair. That way we could have four team groups and the teams that worked harder to get to the World Cup can rest for the first few games.


Some of those alternatives were proposed before and formally rejected with explanations given. It would be odd to reopen discussions. 

Substantially modifying terms at this stage would certainly invite local opposition to the games, litigation based on failure to bargain in good faith and Federal review of FIFA's management practices. Worse, it would be a PR disaster in all of N. America unless FIFA could find a way to sell it. The idea is to win hearts and minds, not alienate them.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

pesto said:


> Some of those alternatives were proposed before and formally rejected with explanations given. It would be odd to reopen discussions.
> 
> Substantially modifying terms at this stage would certainly invite local opposition to the games, litigation based on failure to bargain in good faith and Federal review of FIFA's management practices. Worse, it would be a PR disaster in all of N. America unless FIFA could find a way to sell it. The idea is to win hearts and minds, not alienate them.


However having a three team group would be a PR disaster in its own right as it could create a "Disgrace of Gijon" scenario. Do not know what that is, I have the perfect link for you. Disgrace of Gijón - Wikipedia


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

pesto said:


> Some of those alternatives were proposed before and formally rejected with explanations given. It would be odd to reopen discussions.
> 
> Substantially modifying terms at this stage would certainly invite local opposition to the games, litigation based on failure to bargain in good faith and Federal review of FIFA's management practices. Worse, it would be a PR disaster in all of N. America unless FIFA could find a way to sell it. The idea is to win hearts and minds, not alienate them.


At this point, I no longer believe the decisions made by FIFA are in good faith anymore. The reason they are starting to hold these discussions about the future of the game starting December 20th is because they might even be slowly admitting that they are an organization that makes decisions without realizing the widespread consequences of their actions.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

I would prefer this thread to be about possible new tournaments and revisions to existing ones that are run by FIFA and its six confederations. We can still talk about FIFA, but the main intention of this thread was to look into logistics and infrastructure regarding any of these tournaments.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> However having a three team group would be a PR disaster in its own right as it could create a "Disgrace of Gijon" scenario. Do not know what that is, I have the perfect link for you. Disgrace of Gijón - Wikipedia


And you have apparently not seen FIFA's comments and rejection of this from a year ago and again a couple of months ago. Apparently FIFA doesn't care either way. For better or worse, it seems a closed issue.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> At this point, I no longer believe the decisions made by FIFA are in good faith anymore. The reason they are starting to hold these discussions about the future of the game starting December 20th is because they might even be slowly admitting that they are an organization that makes decisions without realizing the widespread consequences of their actions.


I hope you are joking. FIFA leadership and staff have contact with thousands of soccer related people every year and have people reading and listening to what is said about them daily in probably 50 languages. They work with media companies that spend millions every week on analyzing public response to ideas, plans, proposals, etc.

Business is always changing and everyone can learn to do better. Maybe there are new approaches to developing the Asian and N. American markets or providing a better product or eliminating the unneeded or wasteful people. That's an on-going discussion. But it normally is done with plenty of warning ahead of time so as not to disrupt events that are already planned and in process.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

pesto said:


> I hope you are joking. FIFA leadership and staff have contact with thousands of soccer related people every year and have people reading and listening to what is said about them daily in probably 50 languages. They work with media companies that spend millions every week on analyzing public response to ideas, plans, proposals, etc.
> 
> Business is always changing and everyone can learn to do better. Maybe there are new approaches to developing the Asian and N. American markets or providing a better product or eliminating the unneeded or wasteful people. That's an on-going discussion. But it normally is done with plenty of warning ahead of time so as not to disrupt events that are already planned and in process.


In a post you made in the 2026 World Cup thread, you brought up how that one of the bid organizers said they wanted to have announcements for the host cities by this March or April unless there is competing news stories going on. The possible competing news story could be about FIFA and its future competitions. They have a few years to decide how 2026 is ironed out. The process to make the final outcome of that tournament will likely involve close contact with FIFA, the six confederations, the players and 2026 bid committee. What the final outcome for that tournament will look like will have to depend on how the upcoming international calendar will look like.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

pesto said:


> I hope you are joking. FIFA leadership and staff have contact with thousands of soccer related people every year and have people reading and listening to what is said about them daily in probably 50 languages. They work with media companies that spend millions every week on analyzing public response to ideas, plans, proposals, etc.
> 
> Business is always changing and everyone can learn to do better. Maybe there are new approaches to developing the Asian and N. American markets or providing a better product or eliminating the unneeded or wasteful people. That's an on-going discussion. But it normally is done with plenty of warning ahead of time so as not to disrupt events that are already planned and in process.


Maybe FIFA are holding these special discussions because they might be admitting their mistakes.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

RobH said:


> I'm just going to copy and paste a post I made in the international skybar a few months back into here:
> 
> The root problem, and maybe something that should've been followed-up after the 2015 FBI raids, is that the sporting regulator is also a major tournament organiser. Not hugely unusual in sporting federations around the world but once we start getting to the level of $$$ FIFA deals with it becomes a problem and is open to corruption and manipulation that isn't good for the game.
> 
> There's quite a strong case for FIFA to be split into two - a regulator that looks after the calendar, laws etc and has no commercial interests; and an organisation that organises World Cups.


Be careful what you wish for because UEFA is the body that just used this abusive power dynamic to kill the super league. They're both a regulator and a competition organizer that threatened action against any clubs that wanted to depart and do their own thing, extending to threats against participating players. Clear violation of competition law.



RobH said:


> As it is at the moment, there's huge temptation for FIFA to alter the calendar beyond recognition to suit their commercial interests above others' in the game.


Unlike UEFA? Creating the Nations League so they can crown a champion 3 out of every 4 years and even force it through in the middle of a pandemic with 3 matches in each international window. No, it wasn't just some harmless ploy to "replace friendlies", it was about money. Same reason they extended the Euro deep into the middle of July to add 20 more matches of TV/ticket inventory and ensure players get no break. Then this year forcing Italy to come back in November for a Nations League final 4 that doesn't need to exist. Now, this coming summer Italy has to play yet another new competition (The finalissima) right before playing no less than 4 Nations League matches in June before an early start to the next season. The same match load as a QF run in the World Cup. Then there's the Champions League expansion to 10 games and now this joint Nations League with CONMEBOL On and on and on it goes. More, more, more, more!!! Yet, through it all, Ceferin is happy stand on the moral high ground about players needing rest and summers off while simultaneously ensuring it never happens. Accuse others of greed while expanding UEFA's commercial grip on the game to encompass every international football match they can get their hands on. 

FIFA are not saints, neither are UEFA.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

GunnerJacket said:


> Amen. Or simply have the World Cup and other events be arranged jointly by the Confederations, while FIFA just oversees the rules.


Who do you think runs FIFA? The FIFA council is precisely that, the executives of each confederation and others elected by their respective confederation. Other than the FIFA president, It's all the same people running the confederations or elected by those confederations to represent their interests.


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

JYDA said:


> FIFA are not saints, neither are UEFA.


Thank you. Most of the arguments being pushed are so deluded. And it's funny because the reason for this is most people are arguing from a Europe-only perspective. They are not self aware about this either. I am pro FIFA changes and I will list why as I dismantle the pro status quo arguments. 

1. "IT IS ONLY ABOUT MONEY"
Most Football Federations rely massively on the FIFA Grant to operate. Something like women's football would never succeed in most countries without FIFA grant. Money is needed to develop football. Europe does not have a clue about how dire the situation is. 

In CAF, we have also wanted CAF to switch to making club football the cash cow and not rely alot on AFCON. The truth is though without the ability to retain players it will be impossible to catch up with Europe. This means club football can only excel outside Europe if we move to super league type leagues. Al Ahly is far away the richest team in Africa but they will lose players to Greek clubs and such because they have access to Champions League. 

2. "IT WILL DILUTE THE PRODUCT" 
This is grasping at straws. The amount of football on our TVs has increased drastically since 2000 and yet interest in football has not diminished. Secondly, the AFCON has been held every two years since the 1950s and its popularity has only increased. People like the world cup yes because of its once in a life time feel but it's mainly because of what Wenger was saying - stakes. World Cup, Euro and AFCON are unique because each match has stakes. Even losing in the group stage is a big deal. Fans want stake. 

You may as well say make the world cup every 6 years to make it even rarer. 

3. "IT WILL KILL THE PLAYERS" 
disingenuous argument from Europe. It is Europe that plays the most club football. It is they that added the Nations League and conference league. Why don't Europe eliminate these unnecessary Filler events and reduce league to 16 or 18 teams if they care about football players health. Europe also plays the most intense football assisted by their sophisticated doping institutions (sports "science").


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

HDI 0.548 said:


> Thank you. Most of the arguments being pushed are so deluded. And it's funny because the reason for this is most people are arguing from a Europe-only perspective. They are not self aware about this either. I am pro FIFA changes and I will list why as I dismantle the pro status quo arguments.
> 
> 1. "IT IS ONLY ABOUT MONEY"
> Most Football Federations rely massively on the FIFA Grant to operate. Something like women's football would never succeed in most countries without FIFA grant. Money is needed to develop football. Europe does not have a clue about how dire the situation is.
> ...


Some good points, but a bit too "black and white".

Expansion will dilute the product, by definition: more matches. The question is how much it will dilute and whether this can be managed (by, say, developing other matches of interest or by quantity making up for premium pricing). This can only be done my very sophisticated market analysis and best guesses.

Players will be very stretched. As a result, the focus will be an increase in PR campaigns to create more "superstars" and a turn toward new ways of attracting attention. The idea of relaxing substitution rules or limiting playing time has been bruited for awhile and will likely increase.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

HDI 0.548 said:


> Thank you. Most of the arguments being pushed are so deluded. And it's funny because the reason for this is most people are arguing from a Europe-only perspective. They are not self aware about this either. I am pro FIFA changes and I will list why as I dismantle the pro status quo arguments.
> 
> 1. "IT IS ONLY ABOUT MONEY"
> Most Football Federations rely massively on the FIFA Grant to operate. Something like women's football would never succeed in most countries without FIFA grant. Money is needed to develop football. Europe does not have a clue about how dire the situation is.
> ...


I like where you are going about inequality between the continents. However the fairest way to globalize the game is to have the fans, players and clubs involved, not just rely on FIFA and it’s sponsors and confederations.


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

pesto said:


> Some good points, but a bit too "black and white".
> 
> Expansion will dilute the product, by definition: more matches. The question is how much it will dilute and whether this can be managed (by, say, developing other matches of interest or by quantity making up for premium pricing). This can only be done my very sophisticated market analysis and best guesses.
> 
> Players will be very stretched. As a result, the focus will be an increase in PR campaigns to create more "superstars" and a turn toward new ways of attracting attention. The idea of relaxing substitution rules or limiting playing time has been bruited for awhile and will likely increase.


Dilution argument is weak bro. In 1998 the world cup was expanded and impact was positive. Expansion happens because more countries need to take part in the world cup as football develops. 

Europe is the only continent which had enough slots such that the best teams of that continent never had risk of missing qualification. Other continents, especially Africa, is different. Can you imagine if Europe has 7 slots? You would have at least 2 good teams in that continent miss out. In the African context, we have 9-10 good teams but only 5 of them could go to the world cup. 

What attracts people to football is not rarity. It is stakes of matches because the principle of the game is that it is competitive. Less dead rubbers and processions.


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I like where you are going about inequality between the continents. However the fairest way to globalize the game is to have the fans, players and clubs involved, not just rely on FIFA and it’s sponsors and confederations.


They are involved through Federations. In Kenya, and I assume most countries, Federation is elected by the members which includes football clubs and other stakeholders. The Government also holds the Federation accountable because they receive tax payer money to run their operations. 

If FIFA has done one thing well is to globalized the game. UEFA wants status quo to remain. Where they go to Argentina, Mali, etc. Pick the best 19 year old players and lecture people on how money is bad for the Game.


----------



## Temporarily Exiled (Sep 12, 2018)

A lot of your grievances are valid and true, but you do your argument a disservice when you spread the truth a little thin.


HDI 0.548 said:


> Europe is the only continent which had enough slots such that the best teams of that continent never had risk of missing qualification.


France and England failed to qualify in 1994.
Portugal failed to qualify in 1998.
The Netherlands failed to qualify in 2002.
The Netherlands and Italy failed to qualify in 2018.

In CONCACAF, Mexico have qualified for every World Cup since 1994 (they were banned from competing in 1990). In AFC, South Korea have qualified for every World Cup since 1986, and Japan have qualified without fail since 1998. In CONMEBOL, Argentina have qualified for every World Cup since 1974 while Brazil have competed in every single FIFA World Cup.


HDI 0.548 said:


> Other continents, especially Africa, is different.


The only reason that Nigeria isn't on this list is because they were couldn't beat Angola in two attempts in 2006, and also dropped points to Gabon and Rwanda. Otherwise they'd have a longer World Cup qualification streak than France, England, Portugal and the Netherlands.


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

Temporarily Exiled said:


> A lot of your grievances are valid and true, but you do your argument a disservice when you spread the truth a little thin.
> 
> France and England failed to qualify in 1994.
> Portugal failed to qualify in 1998.
> ...


Jesus man. CONCACAF and AFC have few good teams relative to their confederations, of course Mexico, South Korea will qualify all the time. Same can be argued about CONMENBOL since half of the teams get to qualify. 

Mentioning a bunch of shock results in Europe doesn't remove from the fact. In fact Europe has the most boring qualifiers in the world. This is a fact. 

Why don't you also mention Tunisia and Cameroon? In any case, Nigeria was relatively strong in this period they also always reached AFCON semifinals until Ghana broke their record. Here are the historical top teams in Africa vying for 5 slots. No continent has a similar scenario of more good teams than world cup slots. UEFA and OFC being the absolute worst. 

1. Egypt
2. Cameroon
3. Ghana
4. Nigeria
5. Tunisia
6. Ivory Coast
7. South Africa 
8. Senegal 
9. Algeria 
10. Morocco


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

The future does not belong to Europe. In the late 60s you guys also resisted inclusion of more teams. Fact of the matter is that the future of FIFA is inclusivity. Europe will not set the agenda. They even talk about World Cup in December, totally disregarding the fact that many federations don't use the May-Aug calendar. 

The Euro centric age is over. Come back with a proper argument because everything you guys are saying boils down to "retain status quo"


----------



## Tazvaz (Jan 31, 2017)

I was opposed to FIFA's proposals when they were initially unveiled, but after reading the documentation presented at the recent summit and listening to Arsene Wegner's ideas I have been persuaded.

As far as European football suffering losses as a consequence of FIFA's proposal, the Open-Economics report commissioned by FIFA concluded the following which I think will be very significant when we reach the vote on FIFA's proposal.

_It must also be considered that in a recent report,UEFA forecasted a potential loss of around 2.8 B USD for European NT football. It is important to underline that this projection was based on the first draft of the Reform proposed by FIFA. Adjusting the UEFA projections by applying the most recent FIFA IMC scheme (with the number of matches remaining stable and in line with the current calendar), any potential loss, even under the improbable UEFA scenario, would most likely disappear._


----------



## Zanderdad (Feb 1, 2013)

Can someone clarify - does a biennial world cup replace or supplement regional tournaments such as the European Championship and Africa Cup of Nations?

Does it mean the footballers play more football and get less rest in total?

Given that the precedent for winter world cups has been set, will it lead to more frequent disruption of the club calendar?


----------



## Zanderdad (Feb 1, 2013)

JYDA said:


> Be careful what you wish for because UEFA is the body that just used this abusive power dynamic to kill the super league. They're both a regulator and a competition organizer that threatened action against any clubs that wanted to depart and do their own thing, extending to threats against participating players. Clear violation of competition law.
> 
> *Unlike UEFA? *


Your argument is weak - essentially don't criticise FIFA because UEFA bla bla bla.

I don't think you will find many (any?) european fans who would defend any of the football associations. They should all be restructured.


----------



## TEBC (Dec 26, 2004)

I think the best thing FIFA could do to please everyone is to creat a kind of World Cup - B, with CAF,CONCACAF, AFC and OFC nation teams and some UEFA and CONMEBOL lower level teams. This could also work as a qualifier to the "real" WC. Imagine how nice to have a level-B WC being host by countries that usually wouldn't have the opportunity to do it.


----------



## Tazvaz (Jan 31, 2017)

That would violate one of the aims of FIFA's proposal: to create more meaningful games.

This is the reason why it involves the scrapping of the NL which would be replaced by one additional WC and one additional continental championship. The surveys clearly show people's preference is for WC and continental championship final competition group stage and particularly knockout stage games over NL games.



Zanderdad said:


> Can someone clarify - does a biennial world cup replace or supplement regional tournaments such as the European Championship and Africa Cup of Nations?
> 
> Does it mean the footballers play more football and get less rest in total?
> 
> Given that the precedent for winter world cups has been set, will it lead to more frequent disruption of the club calendar?


There is the provision for a continental championship in each odd year together with a WC in each even year if a confederation so wishes.

The average number of international games would be held at the current amount by reducing the number of qualifying games that would be played in October and/or November (group stage) and March (playoffs), thereby preserving the ratio between club (80%) and international (20%) soccer.


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

TEBC said:


> I think the best thing FIFA could do to please everyone is to creat a kind of World Cup - B, with CAF,CONCACAF, AFC and OFC nation teams and some UEFA and CONMEBOL lower level teams. This could also work as a qualifier to the "real" WC. Imagine how nice to have a level-B WC being host by countries that usually wouldn't have the opportunity to do it.


Nobody wants this Europeans approach of tiers and classes, etc. What is needed is accepting the fact that the future of football needs more stake in it. Europe football has little growth prospect, in fact it plateaud (nuts look at how concentrated European football is today). It will be irresponsible to ignore where the future lies.


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

Zanderdad said:


> Can someone clarify - does a biennial world cup replace or supplement regional tournaments such as the European Championship and Africa Cup of Nations?
> 
> Does it mean the footballers play more football and get less rest in total?
> 
> Given that the precedent for winter world cups has been set, will it lead to more frequent disruption of the club calendar?


A biennial World Cup threatens Europe's monopoly position in football. Any other argument is just a diversion from the real issue.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

TEBC said:


> I think the best thing FIFA could do to please everyone is to creat a kind of World Cup - B, with CAF,CONCACAF, AFC and OFC nation teams and some UEFA and CONMEBOL lower level teams. This could also work as a qualifier to the "real" WC. Imagine how nice to have a level-B WC being host by countries that usually wouldn't have the opportunity to do it.


A sort of Europa League like World Cup does not sound like a bad idea. With FIFA having all but confirmed the 48 team World Cup, the third place team getting sent to a lesser tournament could be a great way to lessen the stigma about creating a “Disgrace of Gijon” scenario.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

Zanderdad said:


> Your argument is weak - essentially don't criticise FIFA because UEFA bla bla bla.
> 
> I don't think you will find many (any?) european fans who would defend any of the football associations. They should all be restructured.


No, there are plenty of posters here who are perfectly happy with UEFA's never ending hypocrisy and even advocate for breaking away and telling the world to take a hike.


----------



## Temporarily Exiled (Sep 12, 2018)

JYDA said:


> No, there are plenty of posters here who are perfectly happy with UEFA's never ending hypocrisy and even advocate for breaking away and telling the world to take a hike.


Is it surprising to find resistance to the first major (intentional, permanent) change in scheduling for the World Cup ever?


----------



## Tazvaz (Jan 31, 2017)

I think we are moving towards a vote in March on the new int'l match calendar from 2024 including the biennial WC (even years), provision for biennial confederation championships (odd years) and a mandatory 25-day rest period for all players involved. FIFA's next ordinary congress is scheduled for 31 March in Doha (pandemic permitting) - the day before the WC draw - and the proposal will require a simple majority to pass.

Faced with the prospect of CAF (54 members), AFC (46), CONCACAF (35) and OFC (11) all voting in favour, I think the decision will be taken with unanimity, whatever UEFA and Conmebol say (I already imagine several members of both those confederations voting in favour).


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

HDI 0.548 said:


> A biennial World Cup threatens Europe's monopoly position in football. Any other argument is just a diversion from the real issue.


A biennial World Cup is merely a ploy to make more money by further exploiting the already popular brands, particularly those in Europe and South America. Any other argument is a false veneer to appease the mob.


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

GunnerJacket said:


> ploy to make more money by further exploiting the already popular brands,


We are way past this. Football was commercialized in the 1990s. But Only one continent is benefitting from globalizing the game. Europe literally decimated Africa and South America domestic football. We now just sell them players, that's our purpose. 

More money needs to be generated to support football development outside Europe.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

HDI 0.548 said:


> We are way past this. Football was commercialized in the 1990s. But Only one continent is benefitting from globalizing the game. Europe literally decimated Africa and South America domestic football. We now just sell them players, that's our purpose.
> 
> More money needs to be generated to support football development outside Europe.


a. The talent and viewership isn't going to Europe at gun point. Folks are free to play and cheer locally if they wish.
b. FIFA has been reaping the benefits of name brand players and teams to drive the value of their product for generations, with the revenues gleaned from Europe and western nations feeding the largesse of FIFA that could and should be financing all the development in other, poorer nations. That more of it isn't finding its way to local development is a matter of abusive spending, not a need for more revenues. 
c. The popularity of the biggest leagues has been driving the private investment seen in other leagues around the world, including the US, Canada, China, and elsewhere. If more nations want to get in on the act that's great, and I'd love to see a global football scene that isn't Euro-centric. (I'd start by cutting back on the proportion of WC spaces allocated to UEFA.) That being said, it's not the responsibility of UEFA to foot the bill. Have the oil barons start investing in African leagues and teams instead of buying English clubs. Find ways to better monetize African and Asian Champions Leagues. 

I'm not against more investment in smaller nations, I'm against killing the goose that lays the golden eggs in order to do it.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

GunnerJacket said:


> A biennial World Cup is merely a ploy to make more money by further exploiting the already popular brands, particularly those in Europe and South America.


So the CONMEBOL-UEFA joint Nations league is not???


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

GunnerJacket said:


> A biennial World Cup is merely a ploy to make more money by further exploiting the already popular brands, particularly those in Europe and South America. Any other argument is a false veneer to appease the mob.


Yes. It seems this (and FIFA vs. EUFA) have become a proxy for the status-quo vs. the future. Over time each of these institutions will replace people with backward looking views with those who can adjust to the new market. 

As you say, biennial is mostly a short-term proposal to make more money at the risk of driving down everyone's value in the long-run. Might work, might not. But it won't change what the world looks like in 20 or 30 years.


----------



## Tazvaz (Jan 31, 2017)

I recommend reading FIFA's feasibility study and the associated research of Neilson and OpenEconomics. Everyone benefits from this proposal.

The NT global economy is projected to move from a UEFA NTs 70:30 ROW NTs split to a more equitable 60:40 split but, crucially, everyone benefits because UEFA's projected 60% share would be worth more than its current 70%.


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

GunnerJacket said:


> a. The talent and viewership isn't going to Europe at gun point. Folks are free to play and cheer locally if they wish.
> b. FIFA has been reaping the benefits of name brand players and teams to drive the value of their product for generations, with the revenues gleaned from Europe and western nations feeding the largesse of FIFA that could and should be financing all the development in other, poorer nations. That more of it isn't finding its way to local development is a matter of abusive spending, not a need for more revenues.
> c. The popularity of the biggest leagues has been driving the private investment seen in other leagues around the world, including the US, Canada, China, and elsewhere. If more nations want to get in on the act that's great, and I'd love to see a global football scene that isn't Euro-centric. (I'd start by cutting back on the proportion of WC spaces allocated to UEFA.) That being said, it's not the responsibility of UEFA to foot the bill. Have the oil barons start investing in African leagues and teams instead of buying English clubs. Find ways to better monetize African and Asian Champions Leagues.
> 
> I'm not against more investment in smaller nations, I'm against killing the goose that lays the golden eggs in order to do it.


1. It is effectively at gun point. When the soviet union collapsed, countries had to reduce public funding of a lot of things including sport and accompanying infrastructure. This happened in Kenya. Countries also had to open markets to broadcast companies from Europe. This happened in Kenya. You could not have a policy to allow retention of players because the new economic paradigm demanded free movement of labor. In fact Europe can farm u18 players here. Europe was first to commercialize, first mover advantage - nobody could catch up. 

2. FIFA has promoted development of football. They expanded the world cup in 1998. They brought the tournament to Asia and Africa in the new Millenium. They established the FIFA goal project that gives countries money to fund football projects. It is through FIFA that countries have an equal say on the game. Europe prefers an G14 (now called ECA lmao) model of weighted opinion. 

3. You can't monetize football leagues in Africa without introducing radical changes like Regional or Continental leagues. This is what FIFA is working on now. They have the expanded Club World Cup and African Super League proposal. This is the only way Africa would be able to retain players. The reason people solely invest in European football is Because that's the only place worth investing in right now. I would rather buy Brighton than Al Ahly. But with changes to come this will be corrected.

5. The only successful leagues we've seen established or remodeled recently outside Europe are MLS and J League. These are also some of the biggest consumer markets in the world so can be able to hold their own. But even they know there is a Glass ceiling. Japan has tried Asia outreach and MLS is running the typical USA sporting cartel model but both know they cannot surpass even the tier 2 European leagues because they have access to the UEFA Champions League, which benefits from global talent.


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

Tazvaz said:


> I recommend reading FIFA's feasibility study and the associated research of Neilson and OpenEconomics. Everyone benefits from this proposal.
> 
> The NT global economy is projected to move from a UEFA NTs 70:30 ROW NTs split to a more equitable 60:40 split but, crucially, everyone benefits because UEFA's projected 60% share would be worth more than its current 70%.


Please share link to this. Please.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

HDI 0.548 said:


> 1. It is effectively at gun point. When the soviet union collapsed, countries had to reduce public funding of a lot of things including sport and accompanying infrastructure. This happened in Kenya. Countries also had to open markets to broadcast companies from Europe. This happened in Kenya. You could not have a policy to allow retention of players because the new economic paradigm demanded free movement of labor. In fact Europe can farm u18 players here. Europe was first to commercialize, first mover advantage - nobody could catch up.
> 
> 2. FIFA has promoted development of football. They expanded the world cup in 1998. They brought the tournament to Asia and Africa in the new Millenium. They established the FIFA goal project that gives countries money to fund football projects. It is through FIFA that countries have an equal say on the game. Europe prefers an G14 (now called ECA lmao) model of weighted opinion.
> 
> ...


Generally accurate, but there is a lot of investment in the Americas and Asia which should fuel further growth in fan base and value. Already the 27 MLS clubs have a higher average value than any EPL club beyond the Big 6.

Investors see growth in Africa as coming a bit later than in Asia, so not as much money is heading there. And for really strong growth, most clubs will want to develop fans away from home, especially in high and fast-growing income countries.


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

pesto said:


> Already the 27 MLS clubs have a higher average value than any EPL club beyond the Big 6


This doesn't really matter because the level of the game doesn't match this valuation so it's pretty contrived. The USA national team only gets more competitive if it's players are based on Europe. Look at the roster right now. 

The MLS clubs cannot even win the CONCACAF Champions League. The only way this would happen is if they retained US talents in the USA, that means offering more player wages than Europe and being able to compete at the highest level. 

The starting point of this conversation would be ability to retain players. Otherwise the investments have no purpose. If we still have the best players from all continents playing in Europe then nothing can change. Why should a Brazilian footballer be at Everton and not the biggest club in Brazil? Only because Everton has the privilege to lose to Liverpool, Man City, etc. Everton did not contribute to Premier League being huge yet they benefit from it. Lmao. 

What is funny is that football used to be like so. Which is partly why the World Cup was popular - it was your only chance to have this convergence of good players. Now it happens weekly in Europe at the expense of other continents. It's severe nowadays because players as young as 18 are being monitored.


----------



## Roxven (Jun 29, 2013)

HDI 0.548 said:


> This doesn't really matter because the level of the game doesn't match this valuation so it's pretty contrived. The USA national team only gets more competitive if it's players are based on Europe. Look at the roster right now.
> 
> The MLS clubs cannot even win the CONCACAF Champions League. The only way this would happen is if they retained US talents in the USA, that means offering more player wages than Europe and being able to compete at the highest level.
> 
> ...


You are saying Europe but it's not true. It's 5 countries from Europe. Rest of Europe have exactly same problem as rest of the world. Money is so heavily concentrated in top 5 leagues that rest of can't even compete with them. Look at Champions League, EURO or World Cup basically same 5 countries or clubs from those 5 countries. Europe as a whole is also in same place as Africa, Asia etc.


----------



## Zanderdad (Feb 1, 2013)

So it seems we'd be looking either at bi-ennial world cups and bi-ennial regional tournaments meaning we play every summer or at best players only get one summer off in 4.

Sounds like a heavy workload to me which could lower the quality of club football, and force clubs to buy ever larger squads.

Truth is most people care far more about club football than international football so why would we want to see more of that at the expense of our clubs? It's already too disruptive as it is.

On balance I'd have to be against this proposal. However, to address this issue of inequality (at the club level), there are some things we could do.

1) Stop the leak of industry funds to agents - they are a source of huge instability - and make the players pay their fees, not the clubs.

2) Introduce caps on the number of players each club can field from outside their continent - say max of 2. This will lower the quality of European teams a bit.

3) Worldwide ban on third-party ownership of players

4) Fifa to increase distribution of revenues to development nations

5) Scrap all WC and regional qualification games. Only intl football is in finals - and everyone is invited - from San Marino to Madagasgar - the tournaments just last longer when they happen. This would ease the burden on players.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

It already appears FIFA will be making compromises if the backlash for a World Cup every two years ruins their plans. FIFA plot global Nations League if plan for biennial World Cup fails


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

HDI 0.548 said:


> This doesn't really matter because the level of the game doesn't match this valuation so it's pretty contrived. The USA national team only gets more competitive if it's players are based on Europe. Look at the roster right now.
> 
> The MLS clubs cannot even win the CONCACAF Champions League. The only way this would happen is if they retained US talents in the USA, that means offering more player wages than Europe and being able to compete at the highest level.
> 
> ...


Winning CONCACAF is nice, but not if your value doesn't go up, Generally, investors view value as the goal; winning is good, but only since it helps value. 

As you note, various EPL clubs are happy getting beaten every year and still earn profits and watch their value go up from money generated by the major teams. It's groups like those that the top clubs want to eliminate from free paydays based on other people's work, risk and investment.

Players are going to go where the money is. That's determined by the value of the club (that is, pay reflects the club's expected earnings and asset base), Winning helps create earnings but being in a well known city or skillful brand development are also important factors. So for most clubs with global intentions the next step is to take their brand to Asia and double or triple its value. THAT is what virtually every club is trying to do.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> It already appears FIFA will be making compromises if the backlash for a World Cup every two years ruins their plans. FIFA plot global Nations League if plan for biennial World Cup fails


You're missing the bigger picture. UEFA will oppose this along with any and every proposal by FIFA. 

UEFA only want to play in competitions that they own and control. Hence, inviting CONMEBOL teams to their own Nations League where they get to sell the TV contracts and commercial agreements. They've built up a commercial ecosystem where every single game a UEFA member plays is part of their own marketing deals. Playing in a global nations league means FIFA sells the rights and distributes the money. UEFA wants to sell it themselves and keep it themselves. This was never about formats and timelines, it's about control.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

JYDA said:


> You're missing the bigger picture. UEFA will oppose this along with any and every proposal by FIFA.
> 
> UEFA only want to play in competitions that they own and control. Hence, inviting CONMEBOL teams to their own Nations League where they get to sell the TV contracts and commercial agreements. They've built up a commercial ecosystem where every single game a UEFA member plays is part of their own marketing deals. Playing in a global nations league means FIFA sells the rights and distributes the money. UEFA wants to sell it themselves and keep it themselves. This was never about formats and timelines, it's about control.


Personally with that in mind, I would like to see all six confederations have their own Nations League. Have each confederation crown a champion in a four team mini tournament featuring all the group winners and from there have a six team tournament with the two highest ranked teams getting a bye and from there crown a World Nations Leauge champion.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Personally with that in mind, I would like to see all six confederations have their own Nations League. Have each confederation crown a champion in a four team mini tournament featuring all the group winners and from there have a six team tournament with the two highest ranked teams getting a bye and from there crown a World Nations Leauge champion.


I forgot CONMEBOL only has 10 teams and OFC has only 11 full FIFA members (13 total). I personally think CONMEBOL and CONCACAF should have a combined Nations League as well as AFC and OFC. That way four Nations Leagues, four teams in a World Nations League mini tournament.


----------



## Tazvaz (Jan 31, 2017)

HDI 0.548 said:


> Please share link to this. Please.


FIFA


----------



## Tazvaz (Jan 31, 2017)

JYDA said:


> You're missing the bigger picture. UEFA will oppose this along with any and every proposal by FIFA.
> 
> UEFA only want to play in competitions that they own and control. Hence, inviting CONMEBOL teams to their own Nations League where they get to sell the TV contracts and commercial agreements. They've built up a commercial ecosystem where every single game a UEFA member plays is part of their own marketing deals. Playing in a global nations league means FIFA sells the rights and distributes the money. UEFA wants to sell it themselves and keep it themselves. This was never about formats and timelines, it's about control.


Generally that is correct, although of course UEFA compromises when it comes to FIFA final competitions where FIFA exploits the commercial rights.

Let us remember that under FIFA's proposal the global revenue split is projected to go from UEFA 70:30 RoW to 60:40, with UEFA's 60% share being higher than its current 70% share. Therefore we can be confident that this proposal will lead to more competitive games and attractive FIFA competitions and that, surely, is in _everyone's _interest.


----------



## Tazvaz (Jan 31, 2017)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> It already appears FIFA will be making compromises if the backlash for a World Cup every two years ruins their plans. FIFA plot global Nations League if plan for biennial World Cup fails


The contents of this article have effectively been superseded by the results of the feasibility study.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Zanderdad said:


> So it seems we'd be looking either at bi-ennial world cups and bi-ennial regional tournaments meaning we play every summer or at best players only get one summer off in 4.


FIFA has already said that any biennial World Cup would mandate a 30-day rest period in World Cup years. Other than teachers, how many people have 30 days off work, on top of a winter break....to say nothing of the days off they have during the season and that 5-subs are permanent now outside England....meaning fewer minutes being played by top players in general? 

Go look at the minutes played by top players over the past decade. There is no discernible difference. 

FIFA wants fewer low-stakes international qualifiers, less travelling, and mandatory rest periods following World Cups. All support player welfare.



> Sounds like a heavy workload to me which could lower the quality of club football, and force clubs to buy ever larger squads.


Are we watching the same sport? One of the most successful teams of the past 5 years (Liverpool) barely change their team game to game. They have a squad of 25 plus all their academy players to rely on, but have mostly played the same core of 13 players during their successful run, meaning that only those players are playing anything approaching a full-time schedule, with the rest struggling to break the 1000 minute barrier during the season. In other words, most of Liverpool's squad play fewer than 15 games in 365 days.........but you think clubs will be forced to buy larger squads? This is the same story across every major club, with no more than 18-20 players playing more than 1000 minutes. Even in an age of supposed fixture congestion, not a single club makes full use of its current squad size as is. The chances of that changing are slim to none.

The one key player that missed a significant chunk due to injury had his leg crunched by Pickford, not fatigue. All of their players are international footballers too.



> Truth is most people care far more about club football than international football so why would we want to see more of that at the expense of our clubs? It's already too disruptive as it is.


Is that the truth? The years in which the World Cup and Euros are on absolutely annihilate club football in interest. 30 million Germans will never watch a random Bundesliga game. They'll watch the national team in those numbers though. Even the home of football wouldn't dream of seeing numbers like 20-30 million for a Premier League match, or FA Cup final.....well not since the 70s anyway...... or Champions League final involving two English teams. Yet England will regularly do those numbers during World Cup and Euros.

The casual football audiences cares way more about meaningful international football at the highest level than the diehards who prefer club football. And there's way more of them than there are of us. I'm not saying the calendar should be tailored to casuals, but to say that more people care about club football isn't something I'd agree with. We spend our time around diehards, so it's easy to think that we are the majority.

But yes most certainly prefer club football to watching England take time in the middle of the club season to play San Marino in a qualifier. Yet what FIFA is proposing aims to eliminate such shenanigans by shortening qualification and ceasing the endless disruption of the club calendar. Both are positives.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

This thread needs Tim Vickery bringing some light onto the background interests shaping these developments: Will Europe-South America plan to curb FIFA's World Cup revamp do more harm than good?


----------



## Tazvaz (Jan 31, 2017)

Thanks for the link.

That article was published after FIFA's feasibility study was published, but it does not take its results into account. It also talks of Europe and South America voting unanimously against FIFA's proposal, something we can be confident will not happen.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

Tazvaz said:


> Thanks for the link.
> 
> That article was published after FIFA's feasibility study was published, but it does not take its results into account. It also talks of Europe and South America voting unanimously against FIFA's proposal, something we can be confident will not happen.


On the contrary, I am browsing the study from your link and it confirms exactly what Tim Vickery says, that the new format would (and I quote from the study) "reduce release days and promote streamlined qualification pathways" (page 7), which would be the opposite of what South America wants. 🤷‍♀️ 

As for the lack of unity inside UEFA and CONMEBOL in relation to FIFA, I too am confident in disagreeing with you.


----------



## Tazvaz (Jan 31, 2017)

At its last congress in May which approved the proposal to conduct a feasibility study, 86% of FIFA's Conmebol members and 64% of its UEFA members voted in favour.

Now the study's results are so positive, I find it hard to believe some of those who voted in favour in May won't vote to approve it.

On this (rare) occasion Tim Vickery is wrong because South America would get two qualifying rounds per four year cycle totaling 16 games instead of one of 18 games. With 6 places for Conmebol teams from 2026 having two groups of 5 teams would also create a more attractive qualifying round.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

HDI 0.548 said:


> 1. It is effectively at gun point. When the soviet union collapsed, countries had to reduce public funding of a lot of things including sport and accompanying infrastructure. This happened in Kenya. Countries also had to open markets to broadcast companies from Europe. This happened in Kenya. You could not have a policy to allow retention of players because the new economic paradigm demanded free movement of labor. In fact Europe can farm u18 players here. Europe was first to commercialize, first mover advantage - nobody could catch up.


Your confusing opportunity and enticement with something punative. That Europe has clubs and leagues capable of paying more is neither a sin nor an overall bad thing, as it is the popularity of those leagues and clubs which has driven the economy for global football we're enjoying today. 

Having a top class stadium or even a functioning league isn't a human rights issue, it's a matter of business. If the numbers don't work for some places then it's a shame but it's not a crime. 



> 2. FIFA has promoted development of football. They expanded the world cup in 1998. They brought the tournament to Asia and Africa in the new Millenium. They established the FIFA goal project that gives countries money to fund football projects. It is through FIFA that countries have an equal say on the game. Europe prefers an G14 (now called ECA lmao) model of weighted opinion.


Yes, FIFA has directed some progress for football and I'm all for more, that doesn't mean everyone involved is an angel or that every proposal should be advanced without care. FIFA officials alone have taken hundreds of millions of dollars over the years that otherwise could have, and should have, gone to local investment around the globe. 



> 3. You can't monetize football leagues in Africa without introducing radical changes like Regional or Continental leagues. This is what FIFA is working on now. They have the expanded Club World Cup and African Super League proposal. This is the only way Africa would be able to retain players. The reason people solely invest in European football is Because that's the only place worth investing in right now. I would rather buy Brighton than Al Ahly. But with changes to come this will be corrected.
> 
> 5. The only successful leagues we've seen established or remodeled recently outside Europe are MLS and J League. These are also some of the biggest consumer markets in the world so can be able to hold their own. But even they know there is a Glass ceiling. Japan has tried Asia outreach and MLS is running the typical USA sporting cartel model but both know they cannot surpass even the tier 2 European leagues because they have access to the UEFA Champions League, which benefits from global talent.


That's fine, and now you're hitting on something of note: The context of the situation at various nations. You're recognizing some evolution around the globe while still presuming the overall financial status quo will remain as is, forever and ever, amen. I disagree. Yes, the European Champions League is the most lucrative tournament going, and likely will be throughout my lifetime. But that's not a crime nor wrong, nor is it the responsibility of UEFA to sacrifice that to appease outside interests. But that doesn't mean competitions in Africa and Asia can't become more competitive on their own. MLS has achieved a very notable position without access to such a competition or a nascent passion for soccer among the locals, and it's easy to envision similar tales happening in Asia and Africa. And as those opportunities grow the extent of options for fans and players in those parts of the globe can increase. Doesn't mean a Nigerian or Egyptian league may ever match, say, France's Ligue 1 in financial prowess, but they can become that much more lucrative and sustainable. 

And none of this requires a biennial WC.



Roxven said:


> You are saying Europe but it's not true. It's 5 countries from Europe. Rest of Europe have exactly same problem as rest of the world. Money is so heavily concentrated in top 5 leagues that rest of can't even compete with them. Look at Champions League, EURO or World Cup basically same 5 countries or clubs from those 5 countries. Europe as a whole is also in same place as Africa, Asia etc.


What FIFA and the confederation should do is find ways to help enable regional leagues among smaller nations, in ways that can still work within the conventional club structures. The talk of a joint North Atlantic league, for instance, would allow low-population countries like Scotland to participate in a league that strengthens their professional infrastructure. If you can find a way to do this but only for countries below a particular threshold then at least you're solidifying the business models for those teams and leagues that can prosper at a decent level.

I'd also love to see the Champions League restructure payouts so that more goes to the member leagues than to only the participating teams, as the current and proposed models just perpetuates the caste system, but that's a fight for another day. Point being, though, a lot of changes can be done for the betterment of the game without going nuclear.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Tazvaz said:


> At its last congress in May which approved the proposal to conduct a feasibility study, 86% of FIFA's Conmebol members and 64% of its UEFA members voted in favour.
> 
> Now the study's results are so positive, I find it hard to believe some of those who voted in favour in May won't vote to approve it.
> 
> On this (rare) occasion Tim Vickery is wrong because South America would get two qualifying rounds per four year cycle totaling 16 games instead of one of 18 games. With 6 places for Conmebol teams from 2026 having two groups of 5 teams would also create a more attractive qualifying round.


Voting in favour of a feasibility study doesn't necessarily suggest support for the proposal itself, as there is no downside to it. Especially since the links between UEFA and Conmebol have strengthened in the meantime.

FIFA is playing a dangerous game. They understand that the nuclear option would mean that the biggest drawcards of World Cup from Europe and South America could organise their own competition, so this won't go to a vote unless there is certainty of outcome and no threat of rebellion from UEFA/Conmebol.

While I'm in favour of a biennial World Cup, UEFA has all the leverage. A World Cup without Europe isn't a World Cup, and would be dead on arrival.

Tim Vickery might be right in that the likeliest outcome is an expanded Club World Cup taking place once every four years, giving FIFA two flagship tournaments. Conmebol would support that as the competition is held in high regard there, and Europe's biggest clubs, who hold leverage over UEFA, would probably be in favour too, especially as it would remove the current annual Club World Cup distraction.

It might affect the Nations League to an extent, but it's probably preferable to the alternative for UEFA. By targeting the clubs instead of national teams, FIFA is likelier to succeed, as UEFA can't do anything about that since the big clubs drive most of their revenue.


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

GunnerJacket said:


> Your confusing opportunity and enticement with something punative. That Europe has clubs and leagues capable of paying more is neither a sin nor an overall bad thing, as it is the popularity of those leagues and clubs which has driven the economy for global football we're enjoying today.
> 
> Having a top class stadium or even a functioning league isn't a human rights issue, it's a matter of business. If the numbers don't work for some places then it's a shame but it's not a crime.
> 
> ...


I don't get the MLS argument of sustainability. You are essentially saying that we should have permanent classes with a handful European leagues at the top. Because without retaining players that talk of sustainability is just a nice way of retaining conveyer belt for Europe. If we're saying, for example, that Ghana should process its cocoa and not just export raw material, I don't see why this premise shouldn't hold for football. There is no reason why we should accept that only in Europe should the best Ghanaian players play. And even for MLS, the best USA players will go to Europe. Why? Access to the Champions League. Clearly, for outside Europe to dream of retaining players they must create an equivalent of the Champions League and only FIFA has means to do this in present situation. 

My point on domestic football is that without talking about retaining footballers, the changes don't go deep enough. And I agree on the leeching clubs in Europe issue, get rid of them and that space is taken up by the big clubs outside Europe. Why a Mali international should be at Brighton I do not know. 

On FIFA corruption, I will say part of what makes football dirty is due to the cognitive dissonance of pretending it's not primarily commercial driven. It creates these avenues for haziness and corruption. Like Awarding World Cup to Qatar. Just straight out say highest paying bidder wins and you won't have envelopes exchanging hands as much.


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

*Countries that would be ready to host a World Cup Within 12 months*.

*AFC*
Japan
South Korea
China
Qatar 

*CAF*
South Africa

*CONCACAF*
USA

*CONMEBOL*
Brazil

*UEFA*
Germany
UK
France
Russia
Spain


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

*African Countries that would be able to host an expanded FIFA Club World Cup Within 12 months (8 stadiums over 30k capacity)*

South Africa
Morocco
Algeria


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

HDI 0.548 said:


> *Countries that would be ready to host a World Cup Within 12 months*.
> 
> *AFC*
> Japan
> ...


For AFC all four choices you made were excellent. Qatar will host 2022 edition although the only problem is they will be downsizing the stadiums after this tournament so their best bet for hosting a future World Cup is for there to be a joint Arab World Cup. China is ready for a joint or solo World Cup anytime because they have plenty of stadiums large enough to host some games including three (soon to be four) above 80,000 to host the opening game and final. Japan currently has 12 stadiums over 40,000 but none have at least 80,000 but i guess with a little bit of upgrades to existing stadiums, Japan can have more than 12 over 40,000 and at least one over 80,000. South Korea has 11 over 40,000 but none over 80,000. Like Japan, a few stadium renovations will see some more stadiums over 40,000 and the Seoul Olympic Stadium could probably reach 80,000 if installs seats where the running track is. 

Brazil could work as they have plenty of stadiums but the Maracana seats less than 80,000 so FIFA will probably have to grant special exemption for that stadium to host the opening and final match. The United States has the most stadiums over 40,000 as they have many used by the NFL. A big part of the winning 2026 bid the United States did with Canada and Mexico was that the stadiums were already there. Of course the United States could host alone and they might in 2026 as Canada's stadium selection is weak and there already some rumors that Mexico is pulling out as they have been making the least progress in regards to their potential host cities and Mexico has some conflict of interest with FIFA. The selection for the 2026 host cities is planned for the fist half of this year but could be delayed as FIFA is currently busy trying to come up with a international calendar that will cover the 2026 World Cup.

Any UK bid will probably be England centric. There is a decent amount of over 40.000 stadiums in England including ones that have already reached that capacity and ones that will have that capacity in the future. To strengthen such a bid it would be wise to include Scotland has four stadiums over 40,000 and it is also worth considering including the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff. Spain does have some stadiums over 40,000 however Spain's best chance of hosting is if they get Portugal involved. France could host it if enough club stadiums expanded their stadium or if they host with another country. Germany has plenty of over 40,000 in all seater mode and can strengthen their chances of hosting if they include neighboring countries (like how they are including Netherlands and Belgium in their joint 2027 Women's World Cup bid). Only problem is the Berlin Olympiastadion seats under 80,000 although this could be addressed if seats are added where the running track is or if FIFA grants it a special exemption for the opening match and final. Russia would probably be the weakest bet as they are quite far from any possible co-hosts and only ten seat over 40,000.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

HDI 0.548 said:


> *African Countries that would be able to host an expanded FIFA Club World Cup Within 12 months (8 stadiums over 30k capacity)*
> 
> South Africa
> Morocco
> Algeria


Africa could be hard as I think it would be tricky for any of their countries to host it if it is not a joint host because most countries have limited stadiums and infrastructure. I am well aware South Africa hosted one in 2010 but FIFA's demands were different then compared to now. I am also aware Morocco submitted a bid for the 2026 World Cup that made it to the final vote but I still see some problems. If the Morocco bid won and not the joint North American "United" bid, the Moroccan authorities and FIFA would be having a hard time right now. The bid would be more realistic if it included neighboring countries but Morocco had no intention in including anyone but their selves in the bid book. A big reason the joint North American bid won apart from existing infrastructure is that it would be easy to modify, i.e., changing the final venue from New York to another venue or omitting Canada and/or Mexico. Had the Morocco bid won, there would have been little room for modification as the bid intended to entirely rely on Moroccan authorities setting up the infrastructure as stated in the bid book. But had Morocco's intentions fail if they were awarded, it would mean going back to the drawing board for FIFA and Morocco (the only time something like that before for FIFA's flagship tournament was when Colombia won the right to host the 1986 World Cup but could not so it was given to Mexico instead).


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Africa could be trick as I think it would be tricky for any of their countries to host it if it is not a joint host. I am well aware South Africa hosted one in 2010 but FIFA's demands were different then compared to now.


The Club World Cup doesn't have the same requirements as the World Cup, which is what HDI was referring to. South Africa in particular is overqualified to host a Club World Cup.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Ramanaramana said:


> The Club World Cup doesn't have the same requirements as the World Cup, which is what HDI was referring to. South Africa in particular is overqualified to host a Club World Cup.


Shoot, I thought they were talking about the regular World Cup not the Club World Cup. Oh well, you can still enjoy reading my thoughts on future regular World Cup hosts.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Shoot, I thought they were talking about the regular World Cup not the Club World Cup. Oh well, you can still enjoy reading my thoughts on future regular World Cup hosts.


For me the future of the game is up in the air, and it's hard to see how the chips will fall. It makes having good discussions on future World Cups difficult, as we really don't know what the calendar will look like.

If the World Cup goes biennial, I see the stadium requirements easing and the whole world eligible for hosting. If it stays quadrennial, it may only become more stringent to weed out hosts FIFA don't want bidding.

FIFA's intention is to boost revenue inbetween World Cups. I cannot envisage a scenario in which a FIFA that is hellbent on doing that awards a World Cup to Africa, Latin America, or most of Asia. If they lose this battle with UEFA, and an expanded Club World Cup fizzles, they are more likely to double down on countries that will bring in the highest revenue, which means a rotation of Europe, North America and East Asia, as that's where 80% of the world's wealth resides.

But because the future is unclear, it's hard to predict anything with clarity. I can't wait for the 2024 MOU to get sorted, as that will clear up many things.


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Shoot, I thought they were talking about the regular World Cup not the Club World Cup. Oh well, you can still enjoy reading my thoughts on future regular World Cup hosts.


The only practical African WC bids in the next 10 years would be South Africa and a joint Maghreb Bid (Morocco 6 stadiums, Algeria 6 stadiums, Tunisia 4 stadiums). Other places would need to built a lot from scratch starting with stadiums.


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

Ramanaramana said:


> For me the future of the game is up in the air, and it's hard to see how the chips will fall. It makes having good discussions on future World Cups difficult, as we really don't know what the calendar will look like.
> 
> If the World Cup goes biennial, I see the stadium requirements easing and the whole world eligible for hosting. If it stays quadrennial, it may only become more stringent to weed out hosts FIFA don't want bidding.
> 
> ...


Biennial would allow them to have one World Cup max FIFA revenue and the other grease their pockets in going to places that have to build more than 5 stadiums from scratch.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

HDI 0.548 said:


> The only practical African WC bids in the next 10 years would be South Africa and a joint Maghreb Bid (Morocco 6 stadiums, Algeria 6 stadiums, Tunisia 4 stadiums). Other places would need to built a lot from scratch starting with stadiums.


Personally I think a revived Confederations Cup or something of those lines would be better for Africa than a World Cup. If they really want a World Cup joint hosting is the way to go. I do not get why the United States had to joint host but Morocco insisted on it solo. Of all the countries in the world that can host a solo World Cup, United States would probably come up on top. And of countries that try to regularly try to host a World Cup, Morocco is probably on the top for most in need of joint host. The way FIFA groomed for the potential hosts back in 2017-18 is really backwards if you ask me as they pretty much pushed the joint bid on the United States (a country that does not need a joint bid) and that is how Canada and Mexico got in but Morocco (a country that needed a joint bid to guarantee success) FIFA was like, you go solo but we will at the very least push modular stadiums on you. Pretty much all the countries that had no bias toward the United States (Canada and Mexico to a lesser extent) or Morocco all went with the North American "United" bid as it could be easily modified and the stadiums were already there (had Morocco won we could have seen FIFA ultimately force a co-host with other North African countries of it could have suffered the same fate as Colombia in 1986). Strangely enough, Brazil and Russia looked like they swapped their votes with each having initially endorsed the bid they voted against. I will provide a link of the 2026 World Cup vote results. https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/77948410df016fb/original/vpnl19m2xr8zk50mnor3-pdf.pdf


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Ramanaramana said:


> For me the future of the game is up in the air, and it's hard to see how the chips will fall. It makes having good discussions on future World Cups difficult, as we really don't know what the calendar will look like.
> 
> If the World Cup goes biennial, I see the stadium requirements easing and the whole world eligible for hosting. If it stays quadrennial, it may only become more stringent to weed out hosts FIFA don't want bidding.
> 
> ...


I just hope in the future FIFA makes better choices when it comes to grooming candidate hosts. Even after the corruption scandal, FIFA has learned very little about the ideal host. FIFA pretty much told the United States (who can easily host it solo) to add Canada and Mexico to their bid yet with Morocco (a country that pretty much needs a co-host in order to guarantee success and avoid a situation like Colombia in 1986) they did not even bother pushing a joint host on them and let them be solo (FIFA did push the modular stadium thing on Morocco though). I just hope that FIFA had stopped the backwards thinking they had in 2017-18 (after all rumors are running around that Mexico might pull out and Canada has only two venues in the running even though they promised three) and instead make logical choices when they try to get their associations to whip up a bid. If it is every two years, I would suggest FIFA to downsize, not expand the tournament and look long and hard all over the world for hosts that have stadiums ready in advance in order to avoid a similar scenario like Qatar. If it stays every four years, expand to 48 as planned and instead focus on a rotating cast of countries that have everything in place (countries mentioned by @HDI 0.548). I want the 2024 MOU to get sorted out too (if venues are to be picked soon for 2026 World Cup, they must get this first out of the way).


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Tazvaz said:


> Very interesting discussion, but politically the decision I think has already been taken: the WC will change to a biennial rhythm from 2026. In order for this process to be stopped, someone somewhere will have to show FIFA's members that the projections by Neilsen in the feasibility study are wrong, but that is impossible.
> 
> UEFA will resist in order to show its stakeholders who oppose FIFA's proposal that it tried to prevent it, but ultimately they already know the proposal is unstoppable.
> 
> Let us not forget that European soccer will also benefit from this change: women's soccer and futsal in particular are disciplines which European countries want to grow but which face competition for investment from men's 11-a side soccer. They will have far more resources to invest in these areas from this proposal.


It's not unstoppable at all. FIFA knows it needs UEFA's approval. On this issue, UEFA, the biggest European clubs, and the European leagues at large seem to be on the same page. That's why FIFA is scrambling around like headless chickens and having Arsene go on some charm-offensive tour.

Nothing is guaranteed yet, which is why the whole sport feels like it's in limbo ahead of the 2024 MOU negotiation. No one knows what anything is going to look like post 2024. UEFA's growing relationship with Conmebol only increases the tension between FIFA and UEFA. Since that relationship contains all the countries that give a World Cup its relevance, the nuclear option is not off the table. They could revolt against FIFA and there's nothing FIFA could do about it, and it would see its own property become a ghost overnight without all the major countries participating.

No one wants that, so some kind of compromise will be reached, but the winner of that is unclear. Either UEFA will concede and vote it through, or FIFA will have to relent and back off, settling for something else as consolation.



chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I do think that acting upon any plan to double the World Cup would lead to various parties clashing with each other. FIFA already got their way with World Cup expansion and any talks about going back to 32 teams will just be a slap in the face to everyone after years of promise. With expansion it already addresses some of the problems in inequality. Plus is having a 48 team tournament every two years even feasible when you take into consideration all the qualifying and host selection. I think that making more smaller tournaments will be helpful for smaller nations without it having to interfere with existing World Cup formants and club competitions.


FIFA's biennial plan is excellent. Fewer rubbish qualifying matches, fewer national team windows, and more high-stakes World Cup matches. Yet it's not about what's best for the sport, but who gets to benefit from it.

It took the sport eons to realise that friendlies were a waste of time. The pace of change is quickening. It won't take them as long to realise that Germany should never play San Marino ever again.



Tazvaz said:


> The feasibility study covered all those issues and concluded that it is feasible.
> 
> I don't foresee clashes over this. Club and NT soccer have co-existed for over 100 years and will continue to do so.


What do you mean you don't foresee clashes? They've already happened and continue to take place. 2024....well earlier than that as things have to be sorted before then....... is D-Day for the future control of the game, and everyone and their mothers is trying to come out on top. The clubs want more autonomy and control, UEFA wants to hold on to what it has, and FIFA wants to curbstomp UEFA.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Ramanaramana said:


> FIFA's biennial plan is excellent. Fewer rubbish qualifying matches, fewer national team windows, and more high-stakes World Cup matches. Yet it's not about what's best for the sport, but who gets to benefit from it.
> 
> It took the sport eons to realise that friendlies were a waste of time. The pace of change is quickening. It won't take them as long to realise that Germany should never play San Marino ever again.


While there is a plan to double the World Cup, I was busy suggesting to make more smaller tournaments. Yes the quality will not be there but for fans of countries that never win it would be their prime opportunity to finally win something. The biggest obstacle about doubling the World Cup is that it might put more stress on the players. Other obstacles could be convincing clubs to actually give up more games as well as awarding hosts and setting up qualification. Having more smaller regional tournaments seems like the perfect solution to the problem of inequality without disrupting the establishment.


----------



## Tazvaz (Jan 31, 2017)

In this context UEFA does not = all European FAs and the same thing goes for Conmebol.

It is highly probable the majority of both confederations' members will vote in favour of FIFA's proposal. They voted in favour last May when the feasibility study was proposed; now its results are so positive it would not make any sense for most of them to change their minds and vote against.

Infantino understands this: he would not back a proposal he thought would be rejected by his members.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Tazvaz said:


> In this context UEFA does not = all European FAs and the same thing goes for Conmebol.
> 
> It is highly probable the majority of both confederations' members will vote in favour of FIFA's proposal. They voted in favour last May when the feasibility study was proposed; now its results are so positive it would not make any sense for most of them to change their minds and vote against.
> 
> Infantino understands this: he would not back a proposal he thought would be rejected by his members.


What is your problem with having more smaller tournaments. The World Cup doubling will likely see pushback from players and clubs. Awarding hosts would be hard if it is 48 teams, a number FIFA will likely never go back on. Yes the quality of the more frequent smaller tournaments will leave a lot to be desired for fans from bigger nations but for fans from smaller ones it would be a dream come true to see their country actually have the opportunity to win silverware. I have been advocating for this proposal for so long as I enjoy seeing smaller nations compete with each other to win a trophy that few outside those countries care about.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Tazvaz said:


> In this context UEFA does not = all European FAs and the same thing goes for Conmebol.
> 
> It is highly probable the majority of both confederations' members will vote in favour of FIFA's proposal. They voted in favour last May when the feasibility study was proposed; now its results are so positive it would not make any sense for most of them to change their minds and vote against.
> 
> Infantino understands this: he would not back a proposal he thought would be rejected by his members.


Why ignore the backlash to FIFA's proposal that have come out in the past year from UEFA, the European leagues, and the clubs? The major powerbrokers in Europe have spoken out against the biennial proposal. 

What benefit does UEFA gain by voting against the feasibility study? What they've come out and said against the proposal in recent months is far more indicative of what its members are going to do. And yes, UEFA speaks on behalf of those members. It's not Billy Big Bollocks that acts without the approval of its members. 

Yet even that isn't an issue. FIFA can get a majority vote tomorrow if it wanted. The issue is what UEFA/Conmebol do should that decision be taken without their approval. Since FIFA clearly wants most on board with its idea so as not to cause an apocalyptic situation where the epicentre of the game in Europe and South America decide to tell FIFA to do one, it's not going to go to a vote without UEFA's backing. 

For me that's clearly what's going on because FIFA are going on the charm offensive and keep talking about how they just want dialogue rather than putting any time limit on the decision. Why would they do that when they can get the biennial approved tomorrow with Africa/Asia/Americas mostly on board? Because the stamp of approval from UEFA/FAs, the European leagues and the big clubs is very important to the biennial becoming reality without the entire fabric of the game being torn apart.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Ramanaramana said:


> Why ignore the backlash to FIFA's proposal that have come out in the past year from UEFA, the European leagues, and the clubs? The major powerbrokers in Europe have spoken out against the biennial proposal.
> 
> What benefit does UEFA gain by voting against the feasibility study? What they've come out and said against the proposal in recent months is far more indicative of what its members are going to do. And yes, UEFA speaks on behalf of those members. It's not Billy Big Bollocks that acts without the approval of its members.
> 
> ...


I recommend you read my post.


chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> What is your problem with having more smaller tournaments. The World Cup doubling will likely see pushback from players and clubs. Awarding hosts would be hard if it is 48 teams, a number FIFA will likely never go back on. Yes the quality of the more frequent smaller tournaments will leave a lot to be desired for fans from bigger nations but for fans from smaller ones it would be a dream come true to see their country actually have the opportunity to win silverware. I have been advocating for this proposal for so long as I enjoy seeing smaller nations compete with each other to win a trophy that few outside those countries care about.


----------



## Temporarily Exiled (Sep 12, 2018)

Tazvaz said:


> Let us not forget that European soccer will also benefit from this change: women's soccer and futsal in particular are disciplines which European countries want to grow but which face competition for investment from men's 11-a side soccer.


I'm unconvinced that women's football will benefit when the men's game takes over even more of the footballing calendar. As it stands, the women's World Cup is odd-numbered years and also quadrennial. The UEFA Women's Euro is also quadrennial and is held on odd-numbered years. A biennial men's World Cup will lead to the men's Euros being held on odd-numbered years.

As a result, women's football will have to compete for viewers' attention against the more developed men's game, meaning a far smaller or even non-existent boost in interest in the women's game. A biennial men's world Cup is absolutely at the expense of the women's game, it does not support it.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I recommend you read my post.


No need to repost a comment directly above mine. I read it the first time around.

I strongly disagree with what you're saying about alternatives to biennial, and don't have the desire to keep going in circles. Please leave me out of future discourse on smaller tournaments.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Ramanaramana said:


> No need to repost a comment directly above mine. I read it the first time around.
> 
> I strongly disagree with what you're saying about alternatives to biennial, and don't have the desire to keep going in circles. Please leave me out of future discourse on smaller tournaments.


Let’s agree to disagree and we will leave it at that.


----------



## Tazvaz (Jan 31, 2017)

Ramanaramana said:


> Why ignore the backlash to FIFA's proposal that have come out in the past year from UEFA, the European leagues, and the clubs? The major powerbrokers in Europe have spoken out against the biennial proposal.
> 
> What benefit does UEFA gain by voting against the feasibility study? What they've come out and said against the proposal in recent months is far more indicative of what its members are going to do. And yes, UEFA speaks on behalf of those members. It's not Billy Big Bollocks that acts without the approval of its members.
> 
> ...


UEFA does not get a vote, only the member associations of FIFA get to decide this issue together with the new IMC.

A majority of UEFA's members voted in favour of the feasibility study taking place. If UEFA was serious about stopping this proposal it would have tried to shut down the feasibility study. Since the FIFA member association summit on 20 December UEFA has been virtually mute on the issue (it was not even on the agenda of December's UEFA Executive Committee meeting).

As for the clubs, I don't see why it is a priority for them. The average number of games will not increase and they will benefit from more talent being produced by more countries as well as the value of their existing players being enhanced by playing in a major tournament.

I repeat: until someone can invalidate the feasibility study and particularly the Nielsen projections, there is not a hope in hell of stopping this.


----------



## Tazvaz (Jan 31, 2017)

Temporarily Exiled said:


> I'm unconvinced that women's football will benefit when the men's game takes over even more of the footballing calendar. As it stands, the women's World Cup is odd-numbered years and also quadrennial. The UEFA Women's Euro is also quadrennial and is held on odd-numbered years. A biennial men's World Cup will lead to the men's Euros being held on odd-numbered years.
> 
> As a result, women's football will have to compete for viewers' attention against the more developed men's game, meaning a far smaller or even non-existent boost in interest in the women's game. A biennial men's world Cup is absolutely at the expense of the women's game, it does not support it.


Interesting observations. However, recently FIFA unbundled the Women's WC commercial rights from its other competitions' as part of a new and independent strategy to help exploit the commercial value of the Women's WC, so they must be confident it will be successful in order to yield commercial benefit.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> 2030 will probably be Europe or near Europe. Strongest contenders are Spain/Portugal and Morocco. If the latter gets selected, FIFA should have a backup plan if none of the stadiums are built on time and let them host it on a later tournament. It is possible Algeria and Tunisia are included in Morocco bid like Canada and Mexico were in the United States' winning 2026 bid. 2034 could be either China or Australia. Japan and South Korea could be included in China bid as well as Indonesia and New Zealand in Australia bid. 2038 given the time zone rotation should be given to Argentina/Chile/Paraguay/Uruguay. Anything after that is too far in the future for me to guess. As for the Women's World Cup it looks like the early favorites are Belgium/Germany/Netherlands. As for AFCON Ivory Coast and Guinea should host the next two as they have been awarded that honor. As for after that or if a new host is needed I will probably go with what you were saying and probably guess ethier Algeria or Nigeria and I would like to add Morocco as a strong candidate especially if they get the World Cup. As for the Club World Cup, the expanded version was about 90% complete when the pandemic hit (the tournament was going to be a year and a few months from then). For reference, the 2026 World Cup is about 60-70% complete as of writing this. Everything from host cities and confederation allocations were complete. The only thing that needed to be settled was convincing clubs to join. Should the delayed pilot edition of this tournament succeed, I would agree with you that the US would be a natural second host for this tournament.


I forgot to add the years I said rely heavily on the notion that FIFA keeps it once every four years. If it doubles in frequency, the years would be different. But such a change may not even happen as they are already deep into the promise starting 2026 onward it is going to be 48 teams and going back to 32 or even less would just be a slap in the face to everyone organizing future World Cups. Also worth noting backlash from clubs and players can preserve the status quo on the World Cup frequency. I also would like to add that the 2027 Women's World Cup giving precedent form 2010-11 onward would likely be in a time zone close to North America. While Belgium/Germany/Netherlands are deepest in progress when it comes to state of the bid, the location is not in the general time zone area of North America. The United States is interested in 2027 but the problem I see with that is congestion as the country is the primary host of the 2026 World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics will be in Los Angeles not to mention the country is always the primary or outright hosts of the Gold Cup. With that in mind, Chile and whoever would possibly join them makes them favorites if you take into account time zone and tournament overload but Belgium/Germany/Netherlands still remains the favorite in terms of bid progress.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I forgot to add the years I said rely heavily on the notion that FIFA keeps it once every four years. If it doubles in frequency, the years would be different. But such a change may not even happen as they are already deep into the promise starting 2026 onward it is going to be 48 teams and going back to 32 or even less would just be a slap in the face to everyone organizing future World Cups. Also worth noting backlash from clubs and players can preserve the status quo on the World Cup frequency. I also would like to add that the 2027 Women's World Cup giving precedent form 2010-11 onward would likely be in a time zone close to North America. While Belgium/Germany/Netherlands are deepest in progress when it comes to state of the bid, the location is not in the general time zone area of North America. The United States is interested in 2027 but the problem I see with that is congestion as the country is the primary host of the 2026 World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics will be in Los Angeles not to mention the country is always the primary or outright hosts of the Gold Cup. With that in mind, Chile and whoever would possibly join them makes them favorites if you take into account time zone and tournament overload but Belgium/Germany/Netherlands still remains the favorite in terms of bid progress.


I would like to add my Euro predictions. The Confirmed bids are Balkans, British Isles and Turkey. The latter two bids have the better infrastructure. A British Isles bid will be England centric and will more than likely include Scotland and one or more of Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland or Wales. There are plenty of world class stadiums in these countries. Turkey could work as well given how modern their stadiums are. A four way Balkan bid would be harder but with enough touch ups it could work. As for the countries that merely teased the possibility Iberia appears the strongest but I see them unlikely as they are the clear favorites to host the World Cup in what I presume is 2030. Of this category Russia appears the strongest and despite the lack of quality in their stadiums, Italy is more than capable. A joint Nordic bid would have the same problems as a joint Balkan bid but it could still be done.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Any ideas on which countries would make a good replacement host or what would be best to avoid awarding a country unfit to host a major tournament the right to do so. In the FIFA World Cup it has happened once, in 1986 when Colombia was given the honor of hosting FIFA's flagship tournament. Since the South American country fell well short of meeting the criteria to host the tournament they had already won the right to do so, Mexico stepped in to be the emergency hosts for that tournament. Qatar was a close call as FIFA was very anxious on whether or not the stadiums could get done on time but the stadiums were finished on time so the governing body did not have to worry (although the decision to build the stadiums that fast was very controversial given Qatar's lack of labor laws). Had Morocco won the right to host for 2026, for FIFA it would have been best case scenario Qatar 2022 and worst case scenario Colombia 1986 given the conflict of interest between FIFA and the Moroccan authorities when the bid was submitted and inspected. In AFCON, replacement hosts are pretty much hosts like every other tournament due to CAF awarding tournaments to whoever wants it and does not necessarily take into consideration if the country is fit or not. I saw a post from @HDI 0.548 earlier in this thread listing potential World Cup hosts that could work a year from now and that can give ideas as I have been promoting predictions on this thread and the 2026 World Cup one. As for what is best to prevent such scenarios, I would like to hear from others.


----------



## morgenstern12 (Apr 27, 2020)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I forgot to add the years I said rely heavily on the notion that FIFA keeps it once every four years. If it doubles in frequency, the years would be different. But such a change may not even happen as they are already deep into the promise starting 2026 onward it is going to be 48 teams and going back to 32 or even less would just be a slap in the face to everyone organizing future World Cups. Also worth noting backlash from clubs and players can preserve the status quo on the World Cup frequency. I also would like to add that the 2027 Women's World Cup giving precedent form 2010-11 onward would likely be in a time zone close to North America. While Belgium/Germany/Netherlands are deepest in progress when it comes to state of the bid, the location is not in the general time zone area of North America. The United States is interested in 2027 but the problem I see with that is congestion as the country is the primary host of the 2026 World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics will be in Los Angeles not to mention the country is always the primary or outright hosts of the Gold Cup. With that in mind, Chile and whoever would possibly join them makes them favorites if you take into account time zone and tournament overload but Belgium/Germany/Netherlands still remains the favorite in terms of bid progress.


For the women's world cup 2027 in the Western Hemisphere I wouldn't rule out Brazil who also bid in 2023


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

morgenstern12 said:


> For the women's world cup 2027 in the Western Hemisphere I wouldn't rule out Brazil who also bid in 2023


I would not rule it out ethier. I just was going off a Wikipedia article.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Germany, England, USA, Russia, Brazil, France, Japan and soon China would all make perfectly capable replacement hosts if it was needed. I don’t think that will ever be an issue again though.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Ramanaramana said:


> Germany, England, USA, Russia, Brazil, France, Japan and soon China would all make perfectly capable replacement hosts if it was needed. I don’t think that will ever be an issue again though.


I think those are all doable options for replacement hosts. I think it might be a problem if the majority of FIFA Congress selects a bid similar to the Morocco bid in 2026.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Fifa president: more World Cups could save African migrants from death in the sea


The president of Fifa, Gianni Infantino, has said his plans for a World Cup every two years could stop African migrants from finding ‘death in the sea’




www.theguardian.com





Ouch. I wonder who advised him on this. And, really, biennial tournaments help with this problem? The real local problems include crowd control, stampedes AND the local hospitals they are moved not being equipped to do anything for them so they have to be moved to distant real hospitals.

That's why large events and tournaments are 20 years out in some parts of the world.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

There's always a bit of megalomania with these organisations, especially the people at the top. Blatter was utterly convinced he was going to get a Nobel Prize, the IOC has observer status at the UN and overreaches sometimes too.

Some of it is post-hoc reasoning when asked awkward questions (e.g. the IOC's insistence during the build up to the 2008 Games that they would help China improve its human rights in the following decade 🙃 ), some of it is just pure pomposity.

Infantino has crossed the line from pomposity to offensiveness with this though.

_"FIFA is a multi-billion profit-making organisation. They already have the funds to invest in creating and inspiring opportunity for disadvantaged people around the world.

"It is therefore completely unacceptable to suggest that a biennial World Cup, predominantly set up to drive further profits for FIFA, could be a solution for migrants who risk their lives, sometimes fleeing war-torn countries, to seek a better life."_

(link)


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RobH said:


> There's always a bit of megalomania with these organisations, especially the people at the top. Blatter was utterly convinced he was going to get a Nobel Prize, the IOC has observer status at the UN and overreaches sometimes too.
> 
> Some of it is post-hoc reasoning when asked awkward questions (e.g. the IOC's insistence during the build up to the 2008 Games that they would help China improve its human rights in the following decade 🙃 ), some of it is just pure pomposity.
> 
> ...


You are of course right. The number of celebs of any kind who believe that access to a microphone makes them the bearers of wisdom and light is large and growing.

Most of these organizations are bureaucratic and government influenced. They are profit making only in the sense that they are involved in cartels and every country wants to get a piece of the pie. The in-fighting among them is what they prefer to garb as "the development of the game", "service to fans", "the health of athletes", etc.

How this interacts with the enormous in-flows of funds into club football is the driver for the future.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Truly insensitive, that comment from Infantino. Let's have him spend a month among real refugees before offering his wisdom from the perch of his hotel suite or first-class plane seat. 

As Rob has offered elsewhere, time to break FIFA into two organizations: One to make the rules and the other to manage the tournaments. And ne'er the twain shall meet.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

by far the most stupid and offensive infantino comment ever.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

pesto said:


> Fifa president: more World Cups could save African migrants from death in the sea
> 
> 
> The president of Fifa, Gianni Infantino, has said his plans for a World Cup every two years could stop African migrants from finding ‘death in the sea’
> ...





RobH said:


> There's always a bit of megalomania with these organisations, especially the people at the top. Blatter was utterly convinced he was going to get a Nobel Prize, the IOC has observer status at the UN and overreaches sometimes too.
> 
> Some of it is post-hoc reasoning when asked awkward questions (e.g. the IOC's insistence during the build up to the 2008 Games that they would help China improve its human rights in the following decade 🙃 ), some of it is just pure pomposity.
> 
> ...


It is interesting to hear what people in charge have to say but more often than not it is pretty bad. What the FIFA president said made no sense and was just not what can be considered socially acceptable. Identity politics aside, I wonder how this will affect the plans to double the World Cup.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Agree with the above. Time for an apology or sanctions.

But for me the takeaway is that there are real reasons that tournaments in some areas are different than others. Roads, hotels and airports are dangerous, medical services scarce and primitive, corruption universal, etc.

Holding a 2-3 week event and 30 years of watching unneeded stadiums deteriorate doesn't help anybody but 5 or 10 people who are already really rich. 

Btw, those really interested should look at the Arabic and French language sites here and elsewhere for discussion of issues re stadiums and tournaments are like outside of the US and Europe..


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

GunnerJacket said:


> As Rob has offered elsewhere, time to break FIFA into two organizations: One to make the rules and the other to manage the tournaments. And ne'er the twain shall meet.


That already exists. IFAB make laws, Fifa manages tournaments. 

Fifa are represented on IFAB board, but hold half the votes, meaning they cannot enact new rules without approval from the Home Nations.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

pesto said:


> But for me the takeaway is that there are real reasons that tournaments in some areas are different than others. Roads, hotels and airports are dangerous, medical services scarce and primitive, corruption universal, etc.


I created this thread to primarily focus on sporting infrastructure, I am fine with others bringing up comments made by FIFA but that was not necessarily the original purpose. This quote @pesto made was however a great point about infrastructure. This is important because countries should be fit to serve before hosting in an ideal world. It is worth noting that the hosting of AFCON has had to change multiple times in the past because the original host elects fell well short of the minimum requirements to host it. This is in stark contrast to the Gold Cup where they just host games wherever it works. This certainly explains why for the 2026 World Cup CAF's bid (Morocco) was so dramatically different from CONCACAF's (Canada/US/Mexico). In the Morocco bid, if it was awarded, a lot of things had to go right or they had to dramatically change things. Political protests and budget concerns could have completely derailed a hypothetical Morocco World Cup and back when they were bidding, the bid committee were not thinking of alternatives to their original plans despite FIFA making extra visits to the country and even demanding the bid committee they need to make modifications if they were awarded. While Morocco is in a rare league of African countries that can host an AFCON tomorrow if it wanted to and CAF were willing however a lot of work would need to be done to host FIFA's flagship torunament. If CONCACAF could have its way, they might just go crazy for a World Cup like they did in the 2019 Gold Cup however FIFA would not be okay with this. So CONCACAF's bid for 2026 that won predominantly featured the United States, some level of control had to be in place for auxiliary hosts to meet FIFA's demands so that is why they chose America's two bordering countries, Canada and Mexico. The winning bid of Canada/US/Mexico is needing modifications from FIFA when it comes to travel and infrastructure so I probably cannot fathom how hard of a time FIFA would be having if Morocco won.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

I want to bring up Morocco for future World Cups as they have a good plan in place but it may not be most practical given the very obstacles that could derail progress should they be awarded. With that said given their consistent interest in bidding and what other countries have said, I recall @pesto bringing this up in the 2026 World Cup thread... 

"WC 2026 was a good example as well, where it was openly understood and discussed that the African and Arab world MUST vote for Morocco. Some politicians suggest embargoes against those who didn't. Large pressure groups suggested expulsion of those who didn't vote from organizations and removal of their government by force. Two large European countries voted FOR Morocco because they expected billions in contracts from building the stadiums. And these are supposedly "liberal democracies". When asked why he voted for Morocco the Brazilian rep said "because I thought the vote was private". Candid, but tells you more about the voter mindset than you want to know." 

This makes sense as to why this a lot of neighboring countries to Morocco voted to them. As for the two "liberal democracies" @pesto brought up, is one of the ones they were talking about France, who's delegate said, "I raised my hand to speak and I was the only one to do so, says the boss of the FFF. I presented once again France's position and the friendly relations we have with Morocco, as with most African countries. Saying that maybe it was time to give back to Africa what it gave to European football." As for the other I guess @pesto could be mentioning is the Netherlands who's delegate said it was a "moral obligation" and was also quoted saying "We want to do something for all the good things Africa and Morocco have brought to Dutch football in recent years." Is it possible this talk of "giving back" is code language for what @pesto was saying about "billions in contracts." This could also explain why fellow "liberal democracies" Belgium, Luxembourg and Italy voted for Morocco. 

Although what I brought up was for a past vote, if Morocco is back on the ballot for 2030 (maybe even 2028), will we see similar things where richer countries with higher standards roll the dice on a bid that could backfire if awarded.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

More than 50% of tickets at any World Cup go to locals.

Morocco’s economy is smaller than Hungary’s.

Most of Fifa’s members won’t give a hoot about building contracts if the actual revenue that is distributed among them is going to be significantly smaller than it would be if it was held elsewhere.

People talk of Qatar being a small country, but the Qataris are among richest in world per capita and ticketing revenue should be highest since 2006.

As I’ve said a few times already, there’s a good reason Fifa have rejected Morocco five times already. It has nothing to do with Morocco being a risk for completing stadiums or other such reasons. Their people are just not rich enough for an organisation that makes most of its money once every four years. Why pass up hundreds of millions in revenue so that Morocco can host? For what purpose?

The way you talk about Morocco you’d think it was China or India……

Their best bet is as a minor host with Iberia, Arabia or Italy.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Ramanaramana said:


> More than 50% of tickets at any World Cup go to locals.
> 
> Morocco’s economy is smaller than Hungary’s.
> 
> ...


I only keep bringing up Morocco because they keep bidding and they seemed to get decent support back during the 2026 bids. It is worth noting that when I do bring up Morocco, I always like to add that their 2026 bid had a lot of what FIFA did not want and had they won, the governing body would have demanded changes from their original plan.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

By decent support you mean Africa voted for it? North America beat Morocco in every confederation apart from Africa, which is to be expected. If you take away Africa, they had just 24 votes. The European countries that voted for it can be explained by things that have nothing to do with picking the best or most lucrative host.


----------



## Mouadex (Feb 3, 2017)

Ramanaramana said:


> More than 50% of tickets at any World Cup go to locals.
> 
> Morocco’s economy is smaller than Hungary’s.
> 
> ...


I think that linking economy to tickets purshase is a wrong shortcut. Linking football to business is another mistake that most football fans don't tolerate. It's called world football cup not world business cup. Qatar even though rich has a very small league attendances some times even less than 10 persons for a first league game. For world cup club in Morocco 2013 the average attendances was 35.000 with teams from China new zeeland egypt germany Morocco and Mexico.

Second point Morocco is cheaper and well connected to Europe which has most of the participating teams. Cities hosting the events are not concentrated in a small area so the chances that more tourists come to Morocco is much higher than going to Qatar or to US. We can even consider Europeans fans driving to Morocco. 

Third point that you don't consider, is that Morocco has a community in western Europe which is about 5 millions people and which has probably the same purshasing power as hungary. This community would probably not miss coming to Morocco during the whole world cup event and would stay with their family. Local Moroccans are also very passionate about football. Many would go beyond their limits to buy tickets regardless what nation is playing.

Of course there are weaknesses in Moroccan bid. As the fact that not all stadiums are built. But there were state guarantees for that as it happened during world cup club. Qatar was also offering its modular stadiums to Morocco. None of the stadiums will stay as a white elephant. Morocco lost because the other side was an economical superpower and was ready in term of infrastructure. Trump also has used bit of his political power threatening any country who doesn't vote for US. 

So yeah Morocco has the right to bid for hosting the world cup for the sake of football spirit. I agree though that a joined bid with Spain would make it easier.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Ramanaramana said:


> By decent support you mean Africa voted for it? North America beat Morocco in every confederation apart from Africa, which is to be expected. If you take away Africa, they had just 24 votes. The European countries that voted for it can be explained by things that have nothing to do with picking the best or most lucrative host.


Well what me and @pesto were bringing up was that some big time countries voted for Morocco. France and Netherlands had all given explanations of “giving back” as part of their reasoning. What @pesto was talking about was that these countries could get a paycheck from stadium construction. Although you did point out what they would get from Morocco would not be the same as Qatar as the latter is a much richer country. I am aware this was for a past vote but I am curious to see how countries would support Morocco it they were on the ballot in the future given all that I have brought up.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Mouadex said:


> I think that linking economy to tickets purshase is a wrong shortcut. Linking football to business is another mistake that most football fans don't tolerate. It's called world football cup not world business cup. Qatar even though rich has a very small league attendances some times even less than 10 persons for a first league game. For world cup club in Morocco 2013 the average attendances was 35.000 with teams from China new zeeland egypt germany Morocco and Mexico.
> 
> Second point Morocco is cheaper and well connected to Europe which has most of the participating teams. Cities hosting the events are not concentrated in a small area so the chances that more tourists come to Morocco is much higher than going to Qatar or to US. We can even consider Europeans fans driving to Morocco.
> 
> ...


I agree if the conditions were right Morocco would make for a great host. However it is worth noting that FIFA were very critical of the Morocco bid even if the stadium plans took into consideration future use because they have to worry about construction timelines and they even said the majority of the stadiums in the Morocco bid needed modifications from what the bid book had envisioned. Needless to say had Morocco won, we might just have seen something similar to Colombia in 1986 given the conflict of interest between FIFA and the bid committee (modifications would have definitely happened). The thing you brought up about the former US president is not all that extraordinary given how much politics is involved in these types of events. I would like to see Morocco host a World Cup in my lifetime but they would need to make serious modifications from their 2026 bid book if they want to be willing to convince FIFA (things like joint hosts and renovating existing stadiums before building new ones could help Morocco’s cause).


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I agree *if the conditions were right Morocco would make for a great host. * However it is worth noting that FIFA were very critical of the Morocco bid even if the stadium plans took into consideration future use because they have to worry about construction timelines and they even said the majority of the stadiums in the Morocco bid needed modifications from what the bid book had envisioned. Needless to say had Morocco won, we might just have seen something similar to Colombia in 1986 given the conflict of interest between FIFA and the bid committee (modifications would have definitely happened). The thing you brought up about the former US president is not all that extraordinary given how much politics is involved in these types of events. I would like to see Morocco host a World Cup in my lifetime but they would need to make serious modifications from their 2026 bid book if they want to be willing to convince FIFA (things like joint hosts and renovating existing stadiums before building new ones could help Morocco’s cause).


You are way out of your depth here. Morocco is desperately poor (FAR poorer than Mexico), corrupt and needs basic clinics, education, basic agricultural infrastructure and production skills, not new ways to make the royal family richer.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

pesto said:


> You are way out of your depth here. Morocco is desperately poor (FAR poorer than Mexico), corrupt and needs basic clinics, education, basic agricultural infrastructure and production skills, not new ways to make the royal family richer.


I do not want to go in depth about the problems in Morocco's society as I was only talking about passion for the game. One of the problems of awarding Morocco I kept mentioning was that political protests and if its citizens have large scale protests while FIFA is trying to set up a tournament could be a problem that would be worthy of modifications from the original bid book. I will always support the people of Morocco and their needs and what I was saying about the World Cup being there is mostly based off how often they bid and I could not really find any widespread protests against a World Cup like my hometown of Chicago did with the 2016 Summer Olympics.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I do not want to go in depth about the problems in Morocco's society as I was only talking about passion for the game. One of the problems of awarding Morocco I kept mentioning was that political protests and if its citizens have large scale protests while FIFA is trying to set up a tournament could be a problem that would be worthy of modifications from the original bid book. I will always support the people of Morocco and their needs and what I was saying about the World Cup being there is mostly based off how often they bid and I could not really find any widespread protests against a World Cup like my hometown of Chicago did with the 2016 Summer Olympics.


I suggested you look at Morocco's authoritarian royal family, corruption, human rights record, etc., but apparently you haven't. That would explain why they bid every time and why there is no protest. And why Spain and Portugal did not invited them to join their bid. And why millions of Moroccans are in Europe and the US.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

pesto said:


> I suggested you look at Morocco's authoritarian royal family, corruption, human rights record, etc., but apparently you haven't. That would explain why they bid every time and why there is no protest. And why Spain and Portugal did not invited them to join their bid. And why millions of Moroccans are in Europe and the US.


I am aware there are various concerns that people in Morocco have to deal with. However to be relevant to competitions from FIFA and its confederations, it is worth noting that Africa as a whole has a bad habit in picking out hosts unfit to serve. This video from HITC Sevens about the ongoing AFCON is a good starting point. Alfie is a great YouTuber, you do not need to agree with everything he says but the point is that he is just full of information.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

pesto said:


> I suggested you look at Morocco's authoritarian royal family, corruption, human rights record, etc., but apparently you haven't. That would explain why they bid every time and why there is no protest. And why Spain and Portugal did not invited them to join their bid. And why millions of Moroccans are in Europe and the US.


Not directly related to hosting a tournament but I would like to mention the culture surrounding North African ultras regularly try to start a debate about how their country is run. https://www.yahoo.com/now/north-africa-football-stadiums-double-political-arenas-014934670--sow.html


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Not directly related to hosting a tournament but I would like to mention the culture surrounding North African ultras regularly try to start a debate about how their country is run. https://www.yahoo.com/now/north-africa-football-stadiums-double-political-arenas-014934670--sow.html


The problem is that many countries are run as traditional aristocratic/religious dictatorships. Violence is as common as education or sanitation is rare. 

In general these countries should not be looking to get on the world stage and you should not be hopeful for them to get major tournaments until they have met basic needs, both social and political. It makes you part of the problem, just like those who were willing to accept bribes to vote for such countries.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Well what me and @pesto were bringing up was that some big time countries voted for Morocco. France and Netherlands had all given explanations of “giving back” as part of their reasoning. What @pesto was talking about was that these countries could get a paycheck from stadium construction. Although you did point out what they would get from Morocco would not be the same as Qatar as the latter is a much richer country. I am aware this was for a past vote but I am curious to see how countries would support Morocco it they were on the ballot in the future given all that I have brought up.


France used to rule Morocco, have strong political and economic ties to this day, and over half of Moroccans speak French. What other motivator is needed? It's the football equivalent of Eurovision. 

The closest Morocco got to winning was when they polled 7 votes to 12 in the final round back when ExCo was still deciding hosts. They were implicated in bribery during that time.

In a 200+ member vote, they have no chance in hell. 

Morocco will never host a World Cup as primary host. I've said it before but the one time Fifa went to Africa they went to the other side of the continent in the most developed economy, a massive slap in the face of perennial bidder Morocco.

They may get a venue in Casablanca as part of a broader Mediterranean or Arabic World Cup, but that's about it.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

pesto said:


> The problem is that many countries are run as traditional aristocratic/religious dictatorships. Violence is as common as education or sanitation is rare.
> 
> In general these countries should not be looking to get on the world stage and you should not be hopeful for them to get major tournaments until they have met basic needs, both social and political. It makes you part of the problem, just like those who were willing to accept bribes to vote for such countries.


I accept you have concerns about certain governments and that is okay. However I just like to focus on which countries have bid before and how they plan on doing so in the future.  Wider political problems in specific countries are not why I created this thread, I created it because there are ongoing discussion of how future tournaments should be planned out.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Ramanaramana said:


> France used to rule Morocco, have strong political and economic ties to this day, and over half of Moroccans speak French. What other motivator is needed? It's the football equivalent of Eurovision.
> 
> The closest Morocco got to winning was when they polled 7 votes to 12 in the final round back when ExCo was still deciding hosts. They were implicated in bribery during that time.
> 
> ...


Well I guess FIFA is happy that Morocco was not close to winning the 2026 hosting rights given the worst case scenario would have been a repeat of what happened in Colombia in 1986. Even with the “safe bet” North America bid FIFA is demanding certain adjustments to be made from what the bid book had envisioned. Although being part of a joint host is best for Morocco if they do not want to give FIFA a heart attack.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Ramanaramana said:


> France used to rule Morocco, have strong political and economic ties to this day, and over half of Moroccans speak French. What other motivator is needed? It's the football equivalent of Eurovision.
> 
> The closest Morocco got to winning was when they polled 7 votes to 12 in the final round back when ExCo was still deciding hosts. They were implicated in bribery during that time.
> 
> ...


Yes. This all makes sense. You might say that Morocco (or any similar country) getting any substantial votes is a sign of how broken the system was. FIFA needs to get local countries focused on "worldwide corporate" policies not local voting blocs, pay-offs, political deals, etc. 

Of course, until recently HQ was a large part of the problem as well.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

pesto said:


> Yes. This all makes sense. You might say that Morocco (or any similar country) getting any substantial votes is a sign of how broken the system was. FIFA needs to get local countries focused on "worldwide corporate" policies not local voting blocs, pay-offs, political deals, etc.
> 
> Of course, until recently HQ was a large part of the problem as well.


Agree, the old system was open to bribery as you only needed to bribe 10 blokes. Now you need 106 for majority, and Morocco got trounced this time rather than closely missing out as during the turn of the century. 

The politics you can’t get away from. It’s part of all complex organisations, especially ones that span the whole world. The biggest counterbalance to corruption is the collective desire for money. At the very least every association knows that hosting in North America brings in more money than in North Africa. As long as Fifa reporting committee shows the associations a spreadsheet of projected revenue for each bidder, the scales will always tip toward the best hosts, reducing the effects of corruption, politics or voting blocs. 

Won’t get rid entirely, but the current system is better than ExCo…….for choosing hosts at least.


----------



## Mouadex (Feb 3, 2017)

pesto said:


> I suggested you look at Morocco's authoritarian royal family, corruption, human rights record, etc., but apparently you haven't. That would explain why they bid every time and why there is no protest. And why Spain and Portugal did not invited them to join their bid. And why millions of Moroccans are in Europe and the US.


You know what? Let the US bring some democracy to Morocco so that the country can be ready to host the world cup in maybe few centuries..

On both democracy and corruption index. Morocco isn't doing worse than some other countries who already hosted / or will host the world cup

Democraxie index : 









Corruption index :










Speaking of corruption :









Report: Morocco, not S. Africa, won WC vote


According to a report in The Sunday Times, Morocco and South Africa offered bribes to secure votes for the 2010 World Cup but Morocco actually won.




www.espn.com





Spain and Portugal didn't invite Morocco for obvious reasons. The two countries have the capacity to host the tournament alone so why involving a third party from another continent.

Protests come when the country win the organization because people know that their voice will be heard. Most of Moroccan either know the country will not able to win the organization or are in favor of this organization.

Morocco migration to Europe is similar to mexican migration to the US. A superpower block in need of workers and the country next to it is a candidat to send workers.

In my opinion as a football fun. The world cup should be an opportunity to spread solidarity between countries and share the football spirit that has never distinguished between poor and rich. Of course the host country should fulfill some criterias but the way FIFA is doing it is more to get the max profit rather than to promote football


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Mouadex said:


> You know what? Let the US bring some democracy to Morocco so that the country can be ready to host the world cup in maybe few centuries..
> 
> On both democracy and corruption index. Morocco isn't doing worse than some other countries who already hosted / or will host the world cup
> 
> ...


It is okay and all to have a debate about the current status of human rights and democracy in Morocco but this is not what the forum is about. Please try to stay on topic as much as possible. I was only constantly bringing up Morocco because they were the only ones to have a rival bid to North America and had they won instead, FIFA would be having a very hard time.


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

Mouadex said:


> You know what? Let the US bring some democracy to Morocco so that the country can be ready to host the world cup in maybe few centuries..
> 
> On both democracy and corruption index. Morocco isn't doing worse than some other countries who already hosted / or will host the world cup
> 
> ...


Why are there no Egyptians in Europe then? 

Anyway, Morocco cannot host the World Cup in a world where we're talking of legacy of facilities. The Botola has enough stadiums as it were. This will just enrich the King, his cronies and French companies. Why Morocco wants to waste money on this endeavor I don't understand. You can co host the world cup with Algeria and Tunisia at lower cost and open up the region for trade once more.


----------



## Mouadex (Feb 3, 2017)

HDI 0.548 said:


> Why are there no Egyptians in Europe then?
> 
> Anyway, Morocco cannot host the World Cup in a world where we're talking of legacy of facilities. The Botola has enough stadiums as it were. This will just enrich the King, his cronies and French companies. Why Morocco wants to waste money on this endeavor I don't understand. You can co host the world cup with Algeria and Tunisia at lower cost and open up the region for trade once more.


Because European countries asked Morocco for workers not Egypt. 



> The most known example of convention was signed with Italy. However, after a dramatic accident in a coal mine (Marcinelle, 1956), Italy stopped to send workers. So, Belgium started to recruit workers from other countries, Morocco being one of them. Most of immigration of Morrocan workers happened in the 60’s and early 70’s.





> In the middle of the 1960s the Dutch economy boomed. The Dutch government decided to invite guest workers from Turkey and Morocco.





> There had previously been recruitment treaties between Germany and Italy in 1955 as well as with Spain in 1960. After Turkey, treaties were also signed with Morocco, Portugal, Tunisia and Yugoslavia until 1968. Germany needed additional labor for its factories and mines to help fuel the economic miracle driven by the rapid expansion of production after World War II.


The Botola has a lot of progression to do. A strong local league with all activies that goes around it can be a plus for the economy and create lot of jobs. Moroccan league is probably the strongest league in Africa, with maybe one of the highest attendances. The media coverage is very decent with some foreign big sport channels covering it like BEIN or abudhabi Sport.





__





Best football leagues in Africa 2022 Statistically Ranked based on CAF Club Rankings - Interesting Football


Ranking the best football leagues in Africa in 2022 Statistically according to CAF Club Ranking System as the best performing leagues on the continent




interestingfootball.com





Athletico Maghreb Tetouan and Mouloudia Oujda are two popular teams in two major cities who need stadiums. Those were proposed to be constructed for the World cup but would be anyway built. The rest are modular stadiums which Morocco will get from Qatar. The only stadium which can be questioned is Grand Stade Casablanca. But this one will be hosting the national team games and other none related football events.

Finally cohosting the world cup is a good idea. But this won't change the fact that we need to build that 80k stadium because what's the purpose of organizing the world cup if you don't host the opening game or the final. And cohosting world with under the political circumstances with Algeria is more fantasy than Morocco hosting it on it's own.

I do believe that Morocco isn't ready to host the world cup yet but not in the way some picture it thus I saw the need to give my opinion. I guess it would more make sens to start working for a bid in 2034-2038 and be able to present a solid bid


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Mouadex said:


> Because European countries asked Morocco for workers not Egypt.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The problem with Morocco is that it has a chance of backfiring Colombia 1986 style. Finding suitable hosts for AFCON is easier said than done because more often then not the host elects end up not meeting the requirements. With Africa’s track record with its own flagship tournament, it is no wonder FIFA preferred the North America bid for 2026. Stadium construction would be the biggest problem for Morocco as modifications would be needed if FIFA requested so. As for a possible Algeria co-host, you might be overstating the political problem as South Korea and Japan have always been rivals on the political stage and that did not stop them from hosting the World Cup together and in 2026, the US and Mexico, two countries that have a lot of political problems along the border with each other will co-host the World Cup with Canada as well.


----------



## Mouadex (Feb 3, 2017)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> The problem with Morocco is that it has a chance of backfiring Colombia 1986 style. Finding suitable hosts for AFCON is easier said than done because more often then not the host elects end up not meeting the requirements. With Africa’s track record with its own flagship tournament, it is no wonder FIFA preferred the North America bid for 2026. Stadium construction would be the biggest problem for Morocco as modifications would be needed if FIFA requested so. As for a possible Algeria co-host, you might be overstating the political problem as South Korea and Japan have always been rivals on the political stage and that did not stop them from hosting the World Cup together and in 2026, the US and Mexico, two countries that have a lot of political problems along the border with each other will co-host the World Cup with Canada as well.


Well from your text we can come up with a good idea. FIFA can select a country which will organize the world cup and a substitute country ( a developed and ready country ) who can overtake the organization in case the winner backfired as you said. FIFA can follow the progress of constructions if mid-term requirements arent met they can shift the organization to the substitute. Otherwise we will have a country like USA organizing football world cup twice in 32 years while it's not even in the top three most popular sports of the country...

Sorry but you can't compare the situation between Algeria and Morocco with Japan South Korea or US Mexico. The borders are closed between to two countries since 1994 and even now moroccan civil aircrafts are banned from flying to and over Algeria. That's another level of tensions. Almost like saying India and Pakistan will cohost world cup haha

Anyway hope for United lot of success for 2026 and I hope it will be as successful as Russia 2018. I will probably go there if Morocco qualify.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Mouadex said:


> Well from your text we can come up with a good idea. FIFA can select a country which will organize the world cup and a substitute country ( a developed and ready country ) who can overtake the organization in case the winner backfired as you said. FIFA can follow the progress of constructions if mid-term requirements arent met they can shift the organization to the substitute. Otherwise we will have a country like USA organizing football world cup twice in 32 years while it's not even in the top three most popular sports of the country...
> 
> Sorry but you can't compare the situation between Algeria and Morocco with Japan South Korea or US Mexico. The borders are closed between to two countries since 1994 and even now moroccan civil aircrafts are banned from flying to and over Algeria. That's another level of tensions. Almost like saying India and Pakistan will cohost world cup haha
> 
> Anyway hope for United lot of success for 2026 and I hope it will be as successful as Russia 2018. I will probably go there if Morocco qualify.


I think FIFA pretty much have a emergency host set up involving East Asia, North America, Western Europe or Australia/ASEAN as those places literally have everything in place should a country like Morocco win the right to host it but fall short on their promises. As for the political situation between Algeria and Morocco, I guess I know far more about what is happening in North America and East Asia than in North Africa.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

I would like to start a conversation about AFCON. I say this tournament in particular because CAF has a habit of giving tournaments to countries that are unfit to serve. The ongoing one is a perfect example as Cameroon were supposed to host back in the 2019 edition but were slow to build stadiums so it was delayed to the 2021 edition (2022). I keep bring up Morocco a lot because of there 2026 World Cup bid and I personally think the work needed to host FIFA's flagship tournament for Morocco is probably about the same as what Cameroon had for the current AFCON (WC is twice the size of AFCON and Morocco already has everything for the latter tournament). The amount of hosts CAF had to replace in recent years pretty much affected all the more recent AFCONs. There was good reason FIFA preferred the North America bid as had Morocco won, they could be put in a dilemma that CAF may know well but FIFA would be having a hard time with. The current FIFA president even wanted to make the Qatar World Cup Pan-Arab because of how hard it was to plan in just Qatar but was ultimately stopped. Qatar is pretty much a bottomless money pit so construction expenses can easily be covered but the same cannot be said about Morocco as they are a poorer country. Just imagine the migraines the FIFA president would be having if Morocco won. Given AFCON's track record of hosts and Morocco's risky WC bid, why does Africa always seem to have a problem with checking to see if their selected candidate can even actually pull it off. On an added note, even the host country for AFCON plays in the qualifiers as they might be stripped of hosting and their automatic spot will be given to the newly selected host.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Some of the issues with AFCON would be fixed if it went quadrennial. The biennial format not only makes it harder for them, but it causes big problems across European club football in terms of frequency and timing of the event, especially with so many African players represented in European club football. The only other confederation that does biennial is Concacaf and they always have the same host that doesn't need to do anything (USA).


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I would like to start a conversation about AFCON. I say this tournament in particular because CAF has a habit of giving tournaments to countries that are unfit to serve. The ongoing one is a perfect example as Cameroon were supposed to host back in the 2019 edition but were slow to build stadiums so it was delayed to the 2021 edition (2022). I keep bring up Morocco a lot because of there 2026 World Cup bid and I personally think the work needed to host FIFA's flagship tournament for Morocco is probably about the same as what Cameroon had for the current AFCON (WC is twice the size of AFCON and Morocco already has everything for the latter tournament). The amount of hosts CAF had to replace in recent years pretty much affected all the more recent AFCONs. There was good reason FIFA preferred the North America bid as had Morocco won, they could be put in a dilemma that CAF may know well but FIFA would be having a hard time with. The current FIFA president even wanted to make the Qatar World Cup Pan-Arab because of how hard it was to plan in just Qatar but was ultimately stopped. Qatar is pretty much a bottomless money pit so construction expenses can easily be covered but the same cannot be said about Morocco as they are a poorer country. Just imagine the migraines the FIFA president would be having if Morocco won. Given AFCON's track record of hosts and Morocco's risky WC bid, why does Africa always seem to have a problem with checking to see if their selected candidate can even actually pull it off. On an added note, even the host country for AFCON plays in the qualifiers as they might be stripped of hosting and their automatic spot will be given to the newly selected host.


The answer to your question is that CAF has an inept leadership and so do African FAs and governments. Why for instance did Cameroon build another stadium in Yaounde?


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Ramanaramana said:


> Some of the issues with AFCON would be fixed if it went quadrennial. The biennial format not only makes it harder for them, but it causes big problems across European club football in terms of frequency and timing of the event, especially with so many African players represented in European club football. The only other confederation that does biennial is Concacaf and they always have the same host that doesn't need to do anything (USA).


I think the reason for AFCON’s frequency is that most African nations have little chance of making the World Cup and by having AFCON every two years gives them more opportunity to be in the spotlight and develop their players. The Gold Cup is probably the most similar in format to AFCON because of its frequency and like most African nations, a good chunk of CONCACAF will likely never experience the World Cup anytime soon even with expansion. The reason the Copa America switched to a four year format is because most of South America has been to the World Cup recently plus all of the continent’s teams qualify anyways. The reason the Euros are as frequent as they are is because in terms of quality of both qualifiers and the tournament itself it is most similar to the World Cup (the Nations League exists partly to help benefit smaller nations). I think the frequency of the Asian Cup is down to the tournament sharing qualifiers with the World Cup. As for countries that can host AFCON the likes of Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria and South Africa (I could have missed a few) are capable of hosting on short notice should a replacement host be needed.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

HDI 0.548 said:


> The answer to your question is that CAF has an inept leadership and so do African FAs and governments. Why for instance did Cameroon build another stadium in Yaounde?


Makes sense. That can also explain why the Moroccan federation put together a risky bid for the World Cup that had no guarantee of being successful even if it was awarded. No wonder FIFA preferred the NA bid who’s only real challenge was logistics. No offense was meant to anyone from Morocco wanting a World Cup, I just was telling the hard truth.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

I find it funny the IOC is angered by Fifa’s biennial plans, and were miffed Infantino didn’t attend their recent meeting. IOC saying biennial would do immeasurable damage to global sport lol. 

I know Fifa and IOC are tied to the hip, but why should Fifa care about other sports? It’s not their job to give breathing space in the calendar to other sports. If you’re top dog, set your calendar and have the minnows build theirs around you.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Ramanaramana said:


> I find it funny the IOC is angered by Fifa’s biennial plans, and were miffed Infantino didn’t attend their recent meeting. IOC saying biennial would do immeasurable damage to global sport lol.
> 
> I know Fifa and IOC are tied to the hip, but why should Fifa care about other sports? It’s not their job to give breathing space in the calendar to other sports. If you’re top dog, set your calendar and have the minnows build theirs around you.


Did you read my reply to my comment about you suggesting making AFCON less frequent. In there I go in depth about why the tournaments are as frequent as they are. The World Cup is every four years because of how hard it is to plan out. Plus the FIFA president even said he will take into consideration other things to benefit smaller nations other than the original plan to double the World Cup. If anything I have the exact opposite opinion as you and think that FIFA should do less, not more when it comes to governing the game. I am all in favor of FIFA keeping its existing World Cups but at the same time when creating new tournaments or modifying existing ones they need to take into consideration the lesser parties. Pre pandemic FIFA had a expanded Club World Cup all planned out with a format, host (China), host cities and everything. The only problem to this is that some European clubs had no intention of joining even going as far as to threaten a boycott. In my opinion, I like to think the original idea of the Super League was originally created to directly combat the expanded Club World Cup but since the expanded Club World Cup was shelved and the Super League went ahead until it was stopped, the only impression the majority had about the Super League was that it was purely greed and not as a plan to combat a FIFA plan.


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

T


chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I think the reason for AFCON’s frequency is that most African nations have little chance of making the World Cup and by having AFCON every two years gives them more opportunity to be in the spotlight and develop their players. The Gold Cup is probably the most similar in format to AFCON because of its frequency and like most African nations, a good chunk of CONCACAF will likely never experience the World Cup anytime soon even with expansion. The reason the Copa America switched to a four year format is because most of South America has been to the World Cup recently plus all of the continent’s teams qualify anyways. The reason the Euros are as frequent as they are is because in terms of quality of both qualifiers and the tournament itself it is most similar to the World Cup (the Nations League exists partly to help benefit smaller nations). I think the frequency of the Asian Cup is down to the tournament sharing qualifiers with the World Cup. As for countries that can host AFCON the likes of Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria and South Africa (I could have missed a few) are capable of hosting on short notice should a replacement host be needed.


These are the only countries capable of hosting AFCON on short notice 

Morocco 
Egypt
Gabon
Cameroon
Equatorial Guinea
South Africa 
(Algeria - maybe in 2024 when their UC stadiums are ready) 

It's hosted frequently because it is the main revenue generator for CAF due to CAF neglecting development of potential of club football. The CAF Champions League has immense potential since Africa has a lot of big clubs and even in the strongest leagues only 2 teams right now get to participate.


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Makes sense. That can also explain why the Moroccan federation put together a risky bid for the World Cup that had no guarantee of being successful even if it was awarded. No wonder FIFA preferred the NA bid who’s only real challenge was logistics. No offense was meant to anyone from Morocco wanting a World Cup, I just was telling the hard truth.


Morocco's bid would enrich the King and the France companies that would win tenders. As it is now, Morocco doesn't even have demand for World Cup stadiums. I think legacy has to be important in picking a host. Morocco has done well to renovate small stadiums all over the country and that should be good enough. It doesn't have league attendance hitting 10k even. Only Algeria would be able to hit this domestic league attendance milestone in Africa.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

HDI 0.548 said:


> T
> 
> These are the only countries capable of hosting AFCON on short notice
> 
> ...


Of course since you are from Africa you would know more about the football/soccer there than I do. I can totally see why you feel your continent's clubs feel neglected and as someone from the CONCACAF region I feel the same way about my region's clubs. MLS has never had promotion and relegation and Liga MX stopped having it recently on a short term basis. That leaves an awkward scenario where clubs in the USLC and CPL cannot push on to the MLS and clubs in the Liga de Expansion for now cannot push on to Liga MX. As for the host nations you listed, they seem about right. I totally was not thinking about Cameroon, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea as they have stadiums in place from previous AFCONs. I wonder why you left out Nigeria and made Algeria a maybe as both countries have a large stadium selection. For potential AFCON hosts, I was kind of going off of this Wikipedia article of largest stadiums in Africa. List of African stadiums by capacity - Wikipedia


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

HDI 0.548 said:


> Morocco's bid would enrich the King and the France companies that would win tenders. As it is now, Morocco doesn't even have demand for World Cup stadiums. I think legacy has to be important in picking a host. Morocco has done well to renovate small stadiums all over the country and that should be good enough. It doesn't have league attendance hitting 10k even. Only Algeria would be able to hit this domestic league attendance milestone in Africa.


I think if Morocco won, FIFA would be making a lot of modifications along the away like they are with the NA bid that won. Any amount of modifications could see a hypothetical Morocco bid possibly met the same fate as Colombia in 1986.


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Of course since you are from Africa you would know more about the football/soccer there than I do. I can totally see why you feel your continent's clubs feel neglected and as someone from the CONCACAF region I feel the same way about my region's clubs. MLS has never had promotion and relegation and Liga MX stopped having it recently on a short term basis. That leaves an awkward scenario where clubs in the USLC and CPL cannot push on to the MLS and clubs in the Liga de Expansion for now cannot push on to Liga MX. As for the host nations you listed, they seem about right. I totally was not thinking about Cameroon, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea as they have stadiums in place from previous AFCONs. I wonder why you left out Nigeria and made Algeria a maybe as both countries have a large stadium selection. For potential AFCON hosts, I was kind of going off of this Wikipedia article of largest stadiums in Africa. List of African stadiums by capacity - Wikipedia


Those stadiums listed there for Nigeria and Algeria are in terrible condition. Algeria has been building a couple stadiums. They will host CHAN soon. But Nigeria hasn't shown it can host AFCON. Not even bids made.


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I think if Morocco won, FIFA would be making a lot of modifications along the away like they are with the NA bid that won. Any amount of modifications could see a hypothetical Morocco bid possibly met the same fate as Colombia in 1986.


Morocco would be able to host but it would be as even more wasteful as South Africa's or South Korea's bid. No need to fill a country with +40k seater stadiums that will never be full again.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

HDI 0.548 said:


> Morocco would be able to host but it would be as even more wasteful as South Africa's or South Korea's bid. No need to fill a country with +40k seater stadiums that will never be full again.


Seems fair enough. The main problem with the Morocco bid succeeding if it won was meeting the demands of FIFA themselves. FIFA were determined to not make any "white elephants" should Morocco have won and the process of meeting FIFA's demands and being able to make sure there are workers available could be a challenge for Morocco. They probably could still do it like you said but it would be a close call.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

HDI 0.548 said:


> Those stadiums listed there for Nigeria and Algeria are in terrible condition. Algeria has been building a couple stadiums. They will host CHAN soon. But Nigeria hasn't shown it can host AFCON. Not even bids made.


You may be right as I was talking about an immediate replacement host and stadium quality is lacking in those two countries. Although Algeria and Nigeria could definitely host if they were given a few years to prepare as they could just upgrade existing stadiums as opposed to building new ones completely from scratch.


----------



## Tazvaz (Jan 31, 2017)

HDI 0.548 said:


> Morocco would be able to host but it would be as even more wasteful as South Africa's or South Korea's bid. No need to fill a country with +40k seater stadiums that will never be full again.


Why cannot African premier leagues and continental club competitions aim at 40k+ average attendances?


----------



## marokko (Nov 28, 2010)

I disagree. Morocco has a way bigger football culture than South Africa. People often don't talk about anything else in Morocco than football. Just like in Spain. The issue is more the poverty in the country. If the country keeps developing, the more and more Moroccans will be able to visit more regularly the stadiums. Some cities like casablance also really need a new modern stadium, because the capacity and facilities could be way better for a big authentic African club like Raja or Wydad Casablanca.

However I am afraid for Morocco that after 6 times of trying, that in 2030 (if an african country will get it) that it will be a bid combination of Saoudi Arabia and Egypt. Egypt is building crazy nowadays, including new stadiums. And the Saoudi's have money. Those countries have also very good ties. Morocco at the moment will need to do it alone. Maybe with senegal together, but that option I didn't hear from the officials over here. A bid with Algeria and Tunisia was mentioned, but personally I am not hopefull anymore for that option due to politcs and competitveness between those countries. And Algeria seems to go through a deep recession, political instability, but maybe the high oil and gas prices will save them. Last time no stadium in Algeria was also fit for the Algerian national teammatches. Therefore they played some of their games in Morocco for the qualifications to the African Cup.


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

Tazvaz said:


> Why cannot African premier leagues and continental club competitions aim at 40k+ average attendances?


Domestic football support in Africa in country where it exists is largely only reserved for the top clubs. Only in the Maghreb will you find a lot of clubs even in lower divisions with fans. Even then, Algeria is probably the best supported local league in Africa but could find it had to average 10k per match.


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

marokko said:


> I disagree. Morocco has a way bigger football culture than South Africa. People often don't talk about anything else in Morocco than football. Just like in Spain. The issue is more the poverty in the country. If the country keeps developing, the more and more Moroccans will be able to visit more regularly the stadiums. Some cities like casablance also really need a new modern stadium, because the capacity and facilities could be way better for a big authentic African club like Raja or Wydad Casablanca.
> 
> However I am afraid for Morocco that after 6 times of trying, that in 2030 (if an african country will get it) that it will be a bid combination of Saoudi Arabia and Egypt. Egypt is building crazy nowadays, including new stadiums. And the Saoudi's have money. Those countries have also very good ties. Morocco at the moment will need to do it alone. Maybe with senegal together, but that option I didn't hear from the officials over here. A bid with Algeria and Tunisia was mentioned, but personally I am not hopefull anymore for that option due to politcs and competitveness between those countries. And Algeria seems to go through a deep recession, political instability, but maybe the high oil and gas prices will save them. Last time no stadium in Algeria was also fit for the Algerian national teammatches. Therefore they played some of their games in Morocco for the qualifications to the African Cup.


Morocco Doesn't have a bigger football culture than South Africa. Not only do they have the Soweto Derby that pulls 90k every time but they have Kasi Flava brand of football. Morocco don't have something like this. Morocco also uses a lot of naturalized footballers, this wouldn't fly in a place with strong football heritage. Calling up over 20 naturalized players.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

marokko said:


> I disagree. Morocco has a way bigger football culture than South Africa. People often don't talk about anything else in Morocco than football. Just like in Spain. The issue is more the poverty in the country. If the country keeps developing, the more and more Moroccans will be able to visit more regularly the stadiums. Some cities like casablance also really need a new modern stadium, because the capacity and facilities could be way better for a big authentic African club like Raja or Wydad Casablanca.
> 
> However I am afraid for Morocco that after 6 times of trying, that in 2030 (if an african country will get it) that it will be a bid combination of Saoudi Arabia and Egypt. Egypt is building crazy nowadays, including new stadiums. And the Saoudi's have money. Those countries have also very good ties. Morocco at the moment will need to do it alone. Maybe with senegal together, but that option I didn't hear from the officials over here. A bid with Algeria and Tunisia was mentioned, but personally I am not hopefull anymore for that option due to politcs and competitveness between those countries. And Algeria seems to go through a deep recession, political instability, but maybe the high oil and gas prices will save them. Last time no stadium in Algeria was also fit for the Algerian national teammatches. Therefore they played some of their games in Morocco for the qualifications to the African Cup.


Morocco co-hosting makes the most sense. The big problem with the 2026 bid was that it offers little room for flexibility which is pretty much needed for a host like Morocco. The winning bid from NA had a bunch of backup stadiums included should FIFA want to modify the original bid. Modifying the Morocco bid would have put all the stress on FIFA as the bid committee was seemingly not taking modification into consideration despite being crucial. Had Morocco won, I would have not been surprised if FIFA would declare a new host altogether or downgrade Morocco’s hosting status from outright to partial with a neighboring country. Egypt or Saudi Arabia may not border Morocco but they are a close enough flight that it could work.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

HDI 0.548 said:


> Domestic football support in Africa in country where it exists is largely only reserved for the top clubs. Only in the Maghreb will you find a lot of clubs even in lower divisions with fans. Even then, Algeria is probably the best supported local league in Africa but could find it had to average 10k per match.


I would also like to add that a lot of African countries are poorer and only a few in some countries can even afford going to a game. North Africa is a big exception as they are much richer than most of the continent. The country of South Africa is also a exception too as they are wealthy compared to most of Africa.


----------



## Tazvaz (Jan 31, 2017)

So am I correct in concluding that the reason for low stadium attendances in Africa for league and CAF club competition games is that local people cannot afford to buy tickets on a regular basis?


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

[


Tazvaz said:


> So am I correct in concluding that the reason for low stadium attendances in Africa for league and CAF club competition games is that local people cannot afford to buy tickets on a regular basis?


Per the French and Arabic sites, in some countries almost all seats are given away or sold for a few cents. (I do not vouch for this, but it is out there). I think we can assume that if the market is there, investors would be pouring in. Enormous amounts are going into Asia, E. Europe and smaller European clubs.

You are talking about the classic thinking behind white elephants: very poor countries putting resources into facilities that have no need and drain funds forever..


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

pesto said:


> [
> 
> Per the French and Arabic sites, in some countries almost all seats are given away or sold for a few cents. (I do not vouch for this, but it is out there). I think we can assume that if the market is there, investors would be pouring in. Enormous amounts are going into Asia, E. Europe and smaller European clubs.
> 
> You are talking about the classic thinking behind white elephants: very poor countries putting resources into facilities that have no need and drain funds forever..


I guess that the data from poorer countries are not that reliable compared to wealthier countries. Let's stay focused on the fact this thread is about major tournaments from FIFA and its six confederations, not about domestic leagues/cups.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I guess that the data from poorer countries are not that reliable compared to wealthier countries. Let's stay focused on the fact this thread is about major tournaments from FIFA and its six confederations, not about domestic leagues/cups.


That's what I am talking about. There are no adequate stadiums in some countries because it's a losing proposition. Clubs don't build white elephants because they care about profitable activities and don't have the ability to pump taxpayers' money as fast as possible into the Swiss accounts of the political elites for building stadiums that are crumbling within months..


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

I wouldn't say Morocco or South Africa have a better football culture than the other. Both are football mad.

The difference is that South Africa has a bigger sporting culture, with rugby and cricket very popular among white Saffers. Morocco is more football-centric like so many other African countries.

The other thing about Africa is that European football dominates the landscape. North Africa and South Africa are exceptions in that local clubs are a big deal, and Raja, Wydad, Al Ahly, Zamalek, Esperance, Orlando Pirates, Kaizer Chiefs and a few others are very well supported clubs. But most people in Africa care about national team and their European club. Even if the average person had more money, there's no guarantee they'd spend it on local league. 

Much like smaller European countries, African club football will be held back by being in the same timezone as Europe. Why watch Hearts of Oak when Chelsea are on? 

In Asia and Americas timezones it's easier to support local as they play during normal hours, with European matches in morning or night in these regions.

The best outcome for me in Africa is for North African clubs to make Super League with Arab clubs, and for an African Super League to be sub-Saharan. 

A league with Al Ahly, Zamalek, Wydad, Raja, Esperance, Club Africain, Al Hilal, Al Ittihad, Al Nassr plus rest of Arabia would be brilliant. A league like that would be more popular than Ligue 1 I reckon.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Ramanaramana said:


> I wouldn't say Morocco or South Africa have a better football culture than the other. Both are football mad.
> 
> The difference is that South Africa has a bigger sporting culture, with rugby and cricket very popular among white Saffers. Morocco is more football-centric like so many other African countries.
> 
> ...


All very sensible. 

My point is where do the 10 to 20 large modern stadiums per country in the Maghreb and Sub-Saharan Africa come from, if not from either investors or the taxpayers? I say they don't come at all for some decades since demand for attending or viewing is weak.


----------



## marokko (Nov 28, 2010)

HDI 0.548 said:


> Morocco Doesn't have a bigger football culture than South Africa. Not only do they have the Soweto Derby that pulls 90k every time but they have Kasi Flava brand of football. Morocco don't have something like this. Morocco also uses a lot of naturalized footballers, this wouldn't fly in a place with strong football heritage. Calling up over 20 naturalized players.


I disagree, because:

we have multiple clubs that could fill a 90 thousand seater stadium. We just don't have a big stadium like that in Morocco. A 90 thousand seater stadium is planned though for the national team, but during derbies I am sure that the stadium will fill and I really think more often than in South Africa. For example: Raja Casablanca and Wydad Casablanca are classiefied by fifa as one of the largest derbies in the world. Those clubs have so much history and english style fans.
Furthermore I think that Moroccan clubs won so many more football prices in Africa than South African ones. Correct me if I am wrong
And yes, the Moroccan team has a lot of players with a double nationality because of the large group of migrants Morocco has in Europe. Those migrants have a Moroccan and a European passeport, because they can't renounce their citizenship, even if they wanted themselves. That is why Moroccan team also in my opinion has more of a European style of football. During the CAN Moroccan national team has often difficulties against the participating teams, but during A WC it seems to play better against European teams and Asian teams
North Africa and West Africa always have been the center of footbal in Africa, South Africa and East Africa are just starting to develop a football culture in the last 15 years, beacuse of the WC in South Africa.
Btw, I am happy that South Africa is doing better and better in Africa. Good luck guys ! I don't mind having a stronger African competition. It may add some unity to the continent


----------

