# Australia and NZ should put forward a joint bid for 2030/2034 WC



## mrErythroxylum (Mar 9, 2010)

Leedsrule said:


> To be clear, _the MCG would absolutely hold the final. The AFL have already ruled out the use of Docklands for any football world cup, as it would come right in the middle of the AFL season and Docklands is pivotal for that._ AAMI*, Geelong, and _the new Western Melbourne stadiums aren't big enough and can't be reasonably expanded_. _Having a 100k stadium to hold the final would be very tempting for FIFA.It's no worse for watching Football than any stadium with an athletics track_, and already holds major rectangular events such as Origin.


The AFL ruled out Docklands in the (offical) 2022 bid because the FA were already given access to the MCG, also i would believe that if the AFL could choose, then they would be happy to allow docklands to be used and that the afl keeps the MCG, cos the MCG is much more pivotal for AFL.



in my (fantasy) bid i would ask the AFL access to docklands stadium where it would be out of action for afew months for refurb (extending the 2nd tier down to ground going over the origional concourse) and offer the AFL the MCG to remain for them, plus a second melbourne stadium built that will accomodate them after world cup.

the second melbourne stadium i put in my bid above would both take care of melbournes 'new stadium' needs aswell as having a large enough capacity for both the world cup and AFL games afterwards.

See i proposed that this stadium would be designed and built with consideration of how manchesters edihad stadium was done, but instead of how that stadium was reconfigured into a rectangular ground from and oval(ahtletics), this melbourne stadium would instead be built in a rectangular mode for the world cup and then afterwards the bottom level (the concourse) would be removed and the ground raised to the second tier, and thus reconfiguring it from a rectangular to an oval ground. the capacity obviously would also be higher for the world cup and then reduced after.



well to be precise the MCG isnt actually 100,000 in fifa mode, its 88,000 so not much more than sydneys rectangular stadium. also when it comes to size of stadium or better viewing, i think fifa takes better viewing. If fifa cared more about stadium sizes then they wouldnt have been so strict on the maracana in brazil. 

ive also gotta say that i dissagre with you on the MCG being no worse for watching Football than any stadium with an athletics track, It is worse. 
look check out these two pics one of the MCG in athletics mode and the other is Athens Olympic stadium.


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

NOT gonna happen. Leading bid for 2030 will be the Arge-Urug-So. American bid. Why should FIFA go to Oz-NZ when there is the Centennial of the Cup happening in SoAmerica? And a 2030 WC in the southern hemisphere kills ANOTHER southern hemi. bid for 2034 (which would probably go to China). An ANZAC World Cup bid isn't really all that strong in any season.


----------



## mrErythroxylum (Mar 9, 2010)

come on.. argentina and uruguay joint bid leading?? i do not think fifa will be as eager to go back to South america after the problems they had with brazil.

I just do not think that arg & uru are wealthy enough to successfully host the WC


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2019)

Knitemplar said:


> NOT gonna happen. Leading bid for 2030 will be the Arge-Urug-So. American bid. Why should FIFA go to Oz-NZ when there is the Centennial of the Cup happening in SoAmerica? And a 2030 WC in the southern hemisphere kills ANOTHER southern hemi. bid for 2034 (which would probably go to China). An ANZAC World Cup bid isn't really all that strong in any season.


I agree that an Australia NZ wc isnt strong. There are much better places in Asia to go. But youre totally wrong about 2030 going to South America. 2 consecutive wcs in the same timezone? Good luck with that. 

Europe has 2030 locked down. No centennial nonsense is going to change that.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

5portsF4n said:


> Infantino is a good president. He was head of uefa that masterminded Nations League concept. Hes head of fifa that promoted use of VAR. The World cup expansion, especially considering the new group format, is really interesting, to me anyway.
> 
> .


even the worst world leaders had their followers! infantino is the worst plague world football ever saw!


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2019)

ElvisBC said:


> even the worst world leaders had their followers! infantino is the worst plague world football ever saw!


To people that hate change. To those that welcome it, hes quite alright.


----------



## Sportsfan (Jul 26, 2009)

Calvin W said:


> HAHA.
> The MCG at 100,000 would be the clear logical choice for the Final.
> 
> You use ovals in some cities and leave out the obvious elephant in the room by not mentioning the MCG.


It would be presumptuous and pretentious of Melbourne to "expect" the final just because of a larger capacity, but then again, Melbourne is a very presumptuous and pretentious city most of the time.


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

Sportsfan said:


> It would be presumptuous and pretentious of Melbourne to "expect" the final just because of a larger capacity, but then again, Melbourne is a very presumptuous and pretentious city most of the time.


Brisbane is becoming a very good little brother in that role, maybe not so good of brother but is learning very well from Sydney on how to assume superiority.


----------



## mrErythroxylum (Mar 9, 2010)

^^
when you minus the seats that fall outside FIFAs viewing rules the MCG is only afew thousand more then ANZ, by memory the MCGs capacity in australias 2020 worldcup bid was 88,000 and ANZs was 84,000. It would not be worth having the final at the MCG on its massive oval over the ANZs rectangular stadium for a measly 4000 extra people.

Like I said earlier... I WOULDNT EVEN HAVE THE MCG IN MY BID LET ALONE IT BEING THE VENUE FOR THE FINAL.


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

mrErythroxylum said:


> ^^
> when you minus the seats that fall outside FIFAs viewing rules the MCG is only afew thousand more then ANZ, by memory the MCGs capacity in australias 2020 worldcup bid was 88,000 and ANZs was 84,000. It would not be worth having the final at the MCG on its massive oval over the ANZs rectangular stadium for a measly 4000 extra people.
> 
> Like I said earlier... I WOULDNT EVEN HAVE THE MCG IN MY BID LET ALONE IT BEING THE VENUE FOR THE FINAL.


GOOD THING YOU AREN"T BIDDING

ANZ being redeveloped will have a max capacity of 78,000 after it's finished. Would put it no more than 74,000 then for a final. Press and officials chew up a big section. No way it will host a final.....


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

Calvin W said:


> GOOD THING YOU AREN"T BIDDING
> 
> ANZ being redeveloped will have a max capacity of 78,000 after it's finished. Would put it no more than 74,000 then for a final. Press and officials chew up a big section. No way it will host a final.....


The average WC final attendance since 2002 is 74,000.
Sydney will have a brand new FOOTBALL stadium,while the MCG is a round Cricket oval.
The FFA Head Office is in Sydney,
It will be in Sydney


----------



## Calvin W (Nov 5, 2005)

ExSydney said:


> The average WC final attendance since 2002 is 74,000.
> Sydney will have a brand new FOOTBALL stadium,while the MCG is a round Cricket oval.
> The FFA Head Office is in Sydney,
> It will be in Sydney


Won't be in Sydney. Why second largest city with the second largest stadium in 2030/34.


----------



## Temporarily Exiled (Sep 12, 2018)

Calvin W said:


> Won't be in Sydney. Why second largest city with the second largest stadium in 2030/34.


Won't be at the MCG for the same reason they wouldn't have Olympic diving at the MCG - wrong sport for the stadium. The World Cup final is the most-watched game in football, and it needs to be pretty flawless in terms of presentation. Not being able to see any of the crowd from the TV cameras doesn't accomplish that.


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2019)

Temporarily Exiled said:


> Won't be at the MCG for the same reason they wouldn't have Olympic diving at the MCG - wrong sport for the stadium. The World Cup final is the most-watched game in football, and it needs to be pretty flawless in terms of presentation. Not being able to see any of the crowd from the TV cameras doesn't accomplish that.


Agree. Socceroos play most of their games in Sydney as is. Their FA is very Sydney-centric. Almost no chance of any World Cup final, men's or women's, being anywhere other than Sydney.


----------



## Rokto14 (Dec 2, 2013)

5portsF4n said:


> Agree. Socceroos play most of their games in Sydney as is. Their FA is very Sydney-centric. Almost no chance of any World Cup, men's or women's, being anywhere other than Sydney.


If we want to see Australia and NZ host a men's WC, Australia might need to win the 2023 Women's WC and host it. This might be a testing ground on whether they can host a Men's WC in the future as a Men's WC need more infrastructures. This is just my view.


----------



## mrErythroxylum (Mar 9, 2010)

In regards to hosting a women's world cup, Australia already has sufficient stadia to host it, Australia currently has already built or currently UC a decent amount of modern stadium in the 25,000 to 84,000 range that are rectangular. 

France had 9 stadiums with over half of them in the 18,000 - 30,000 range.

Looking at stadiums that Australia currently has or will have by the time of the world cup is,
- north queensland stadium, townsville 25,000









- suncorp stadium, Brisbane 52,500









- Robina stadium, Gold coast 27,400









- hunter stadium, newcastle 33,000









- central coast stadium, Gosford 21,000









- Sydney football stadium, Sydney 45,000









- ANZ stadium, Sydney 75,000









- Bankwest stadium, Parramatta 30,000









- Canberra stadium, ACT 25,000









- AAMI park, Melbourne 30,500









- Hindmarsh stadium, Adelaide 16,500









- NIB stadium, Perth 20,500


----------



## tower_dan (Mar 2, 2008)

I actually think this would be right up FIFAs street. 

It is becoming increasingly harder for nations to host the WC alone as the 6-10 major economies with enough infrastructure are cycled through and the aim of sharing the WC is to fuel growth in markets outside South America and Europe. 

Japan and South Korea did it, USA, Canada and Mexico have been given the go ahead, there is nothing stopping multi-nation bids becoming the norm. 

OFC will never have the capacity to host a WC alone so teaming up with Aus woudl be a great way to finally share the WC with OFC. 

and open the gates to other Big Bro/Lil Bro team-ups. - Particularly large countries that might just need that little bit of help to get over the line. 

Aus/NZ
UK/Ireland
Spain/Portugal
Argentina/Uruguay

Etc


----------



## chibimatty (Oct 6, 2010)

I wonder if adding Hong Kong and Singapore to the bid would be out of the question?


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

chibimatty said:


> I wonder if adding Hong Kong and Singapore to the bid would be out of the question?


My thinking as well. It's hard to see how Aus/NZ gets many votes against China, UK, Arg/Ur, ASEAN.


----------



## tower_dan (Mar 2, 2008)

I think the crux here is NZ - If they pitched it as "FIFA Comes to Oceania" it becomes more a "let's give it to them as a token gesture of expanding the sport" the same way South Africa got 2010, literally by default of being the only African country capable of hosting. 

SA never would have got a WC if it wasn't for the rotation ruling, no nation in Oceania is able to host alone, so throw in a nearby nation that can shoulder the majority of the burden to get it over the line. 

Singapore and HK wouldnt make logistical sense. 

East Coast of Oz and NZ are a 3 hr flight for teams, totally doable. 

Singapore and HK are an 8.5hr flight without transfer from hotel, check-in etc, that chews into way too much time when teams want to be focused on resting and training.


----------



## Urmstoniain (Mar 23, 2015)

tower_dan said:


> I think the crux here is NZ - If they pitched it as *"FIFA Comes to Oceania"* it becomes more a "let's give it to them as a token gesture of expanding the sport" the same way South Africa got 2010, literally by default of being the only African country capable of hosting.
> 
> SA never would have got a WC if it wasn't for the rotation ruling, no nation in Oceania is able to host alone, so throw in a nearby nation that can shoulder the majority of the burden to get it over the line.
> 
> ...


But Australia is in Asia.... hno:

http://www.the-afc.com/about-afc/memberassociations/football-federation-australia-limited


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

I wrote it already but post dissapeared. The point is that would be pure waste of money, so no, Australia and New Zealand should not bid now. No matter if Australia is seen as part of Oceania or as an AFC member.

Reasion is simple, there are already clear favorites for all World Cups prior to 2042: Europe (UK or Spain/Portugal), China and Argentina/Uruguay+Co, and depending on year allocation another World Cup in Europe will happen as well, possibly in 2042. 

FIFA changed the strategy around World Cup, while in the past anything was possible and buying few ExCo member votes was enough, now congress is deciding on this and they basically go where the money is biggest! And there is no realistic scenario in which an Australian World Cup would bring more cash than any European one!


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Agree with Elvis but with less sinister motives. FIFA used to be run by aristocrats and used their rules (bribes, personal networks, exclusion of outsiders, government influence). Now they are run like efficient, modern organizations (or at least are trying).

That means looking for places that meet basic standards for stability, infrastructure, security and such. And from among them determining who can generate the most net income on a long-term basis. Europe and LatAm appear to be largely saturated markets so the focus is on N. America and Asia.

Is Australia in Asia? 7000 miles from Sydney to Mumbai. That's like saying NY is in Iraq. And ethnically, it's basically English speaking and European. Very different than most Asian countries.


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

Australia and/or New Zealand should be focused on the club world cup and player/league development, not the world cup itself. Especially when you consider that the NZ teams actually didn't get a place in this year's comp either.


----------



## tower_dan (Mar 2, 2008)

Urmstoniain said:


> But Australia is in Asia.... hno:
> 
> http://www.the-afc.com/about-afc/memberassociations/football-federation-australia-limited


I am well aware of that, the NZ part would be the Oceanic part of the bid. There is no way FIFA would ever get to that region without a larger country like Oz shouldering some of the burdeon


----------



## OzStadiumGeek (Jul 1, 2019)

I think an OFC/AFC "joint" bid would by so unique that it would lend some appeal to FIFA. I can't see it happening for a long time yet, with 2022 in Asia, 2026 in North America, I would think 2030 would be favourite to go to Europe. 2034 at earliest but rumours are China will make a big push for it which will be hard to beat. Even if we were successful in 2034 then the host city landscape will no doubt look quite a bit different. Putting suitable stadiums aside the major drawback to some cities, NZ in particular (e.g. Dunedin) is hotel accommodation - or lack there of. Stadium-wise, across the two countries there "should" be enough suitable venues for a 48-team competition (wouldn't surprise me if FIFA officially drop their requirements from 40k capacity to 30k capacity for group games). My guess for potential venues would be:

Australia
* Sydney x 2 - New Stadium Australia & New Sydney Football Stadium. NRL/Super Rugby alternate - plenty... Bankwest, SCG, current suburban grounds). AFL alternate - not affected.
* Melbourne - probably MCG, despite configuration issues. AFL will want to keep one stadium, and since they own Marvel, then this would probably do them during the WC (albeit with a lot a dramas and financial compensation). I don't think building a new stadium would be on the cards...unless it was football specific, but there is no need for it with AAMI Park. AFL alternate - Marvel, possibly Princes Park. NRL/Super Rugby alternate - not affected.
* Adelaide - new stadium to replace Hindmarsh Stadium. Adelaide is in need of a new football stadium, and FIFA loves the legacy aspect of World Cup venues. Potentially something downtown (there were rumours of a football stadium next to Adelaide Oval) with a 40k capacity that can be reduced to 20-25k after World Cup. AFL alternate - not affected.
* Perth - Perth Stadium. I can't see a new stadium being built after the money they spent on this one! Would be one of two oval stadiums in the bid. AFL alternate - Domain Stadium (if it hasn't been demolished by then!), WACA
* Brisbane - Suncorp Stadium. Easily one of the best rectangular stadiums in the country. Outside chance that a new stadium would be built as a legacy for Brisbane Roar (similar to Adelaide, 40-45k, reduced after WC). NRL/Super Rugby alternate - Gabba, QSAC Stadium
* Canberra - new stadium to replace Canberra Stadium. Long been on the cards, this would give an incentive to actually follow through with it. Legacy would probably be a new Canberra A-League team (by 2034..), Raiders and Brumbies. Fully-covered stadium seems likely given the winter conditiions. NRL/Super Rugby Alternate - Manuka Oval
* Newcastle - expansion of Newcastle Stadium. New stands at either end. NRL alternate - Central Coast Stadium

I would expect one or two more stadiums in Australia, with the following list of candidates and their issues:
* Geelong - AFL ground, although it is the 'skinniest' ground in the competition. Possible issues with accommodation capacity in the area. AFL may be reluctant to release venue.
* Townsville - new stadium currently under construction. Not sure what the expansion possibilities are. If it can't be done then it will rule it out
* Gold Coast - tricky one. Not sure Robina Stadium can be expanded easily. Metricon can be but would be an oval configuration which isn't ideal
* Hobart - If selected I suspect a new stadium would be built, similar to Adelaide above. This would be reliant on a Tasmanian A-League team for tenancy after the WC, which is a long-shot currently.

New Zealand
* Auckland - have long been crying out for a new stadium to replace Eden Park. This may give them the incentive to follow through with it
* Christchurch - I think there has been recent decision by the local government to approve funds for a new stadiums to replace the earthquake damaged AMI Stadium. Looks like they want a covered stadium. Hopefully it will be 35k capacity+
* Wellington - Westpac Stadium, the 'Cake Tin'. Horrible looking sightlines, but I can't see any alternative. Wellington Phoenix have tried to get a small football stadium built, so maybe this might persuade the local government. Once again, it would have to be a 35k stadium that can be scaled down to probably 15-20k after the WC.

There will probably be one more in NZ thrown around. But as mentioned, accommodation in the selected city would be an issue
* Dunedin - Forsyth Barr. Cool sounding stadium name! Current capacity a little over 30k, so would possibly need another 5k somehow
* Hamilton - Waikato Stadium. Looks like it has the ability to expand, even if temporary
* Auckland #2 - North Harbour Stadium or Mount Smart Stadium. Would require temporary expansion

Anything obvious I missed out?


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

OzStadiumGeek said:


> Anything obvious I missed out?


Yeah. Probably not gonna happen. :cheers:


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Knitemplar said:


> Yeah. Probably not gonna happen. :cheers:


Note to self: don't ever ask others to comment on your comments. :lol:


----------



## Devilman (Oct 8, 2019)

If Australia and New Zealand do decide the latter to bid for the event, it would certainly be modelled off the Aus/NZ Women’s World Cup bid. So using those venues (Most which would need upgrading or replacing) instead of a majority of Cricket stadiums.

We’ll just see if Aus/NZ get to host the Women’s World Cup and see how that plays out first.


----------



## mrErythroxylum (Mar 9, 2010)

I started this thread in March 2019 and as Wikipedia shows below The successful Aust/NZ 2023 women’s World Cup bid was announced in December 2019, 8 months before! It was only a few months after Australia had initially announced interest in bidding for it themselves!!










I reckon the odds that aust and nz had been in negotiations at for before I started this thread is slim. And so maybe just maybe somebody saw this thread and that is was the inspiration for the joint aust/NZ bid.

I still believe that aust and nz should do a joint bid for the men’s World Cup, perhaps if the women’s wc is a success This may boost the chances


----------



## Rokto14 (Dec 2, 2013)

mrErythroxylum said:


> I started this thread in March 2019 and as Wikipedia shows below The successful Aust/NZ 2023 women’s World Cup bid was announced in December 2019, 8 months before! It was only a few months after Australia had initially announced interest in bidding for it themselves!!
> 
> View attachment 340041
> 
> ...


Yea so best is we wait for how successful 2023 Women's WC will be then there can be more fruitful discussions about the future Men's WC. But definitely not 2030, they don't have a chance in 2030, to be honest.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

5portsF4n said:


> Infantino is a good president......


sure, and clinton did not have sex with that woman 😁


----------

