# 2034 FIFA WORLD CUP - Potential Bids



## DR.SHREJMAN (Nov 30, 2006)

since 2034 is Asia turn i would say the top 3 potential countries

*1-China
2-Australia 
3-UAE
*

*UAE FIFA World Cup 2034 Bid*









-------------------------------------
1.1 
Bidding Country and Host Cities:

Expected Population by *2030*

1-Abu Dhabi> 4,500,000
2-Dubai> 6,500,000
3-Sharjah> 3,120,000
4-Al-Ain> 1,880,000
5-Fujairah> 510,000
6-Ajman> 590,000
7-Ras Al-Khaimah> 480,000
8-Umm Al-Quwain> 200,000

Total Population= around *17,000,000 *
-------------------------------------
1.2 Stadiums 
15 Stadiums 










*Clubs will benefit as part of FIFA legacy Category *

AL-JAZIRA,ALWEHDA,SHARJAH,ALARABI,EMIRATES,BANI YAS,AJMAN,FUJAIRAH,ALAIN,ALAHLI..(12 Clubs and 2 City Stadiums)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*1.3 Venue-specific team hotels and venue-specific training sites
*

Each City will be a base for 40 teams in total(if FIFA approves the increase of teams) :

AD: 10 teams with their clusters 
Dubai: 10 Teams
RAK: 4 Teams
Ajman:3 Teams
UMQ: 3 Teams
FUJ: 3 Teams
SHJ: 4 Teams
ALA: 3 Teams

*Accommodation (Hotel Numbers) estimations* 

*2013: 2020: 2030:
*
AD: 113 AD: 350 AD:650 

DBI: 550 DBI: 1000 DBI: 1500

SHJ: 68 SHJ: 150 SHJ: 250

ALA: 15 ALA: 40 ALA: 110

RAK: 26 RAK: 50 RAK: 150

UMQ: 10 UMQ: 30 UMQ: 70

FUJ: 17 FUJ: 50 FUJ: 150

AJM: 22 AJM: 50 AJM: 80


*Distance:*


















*Transportation*

*Air *
DXB: 90 M PAX by 2020 connected with more than 200+ cities
AUH: 35 M PAX by 2025 connected with more than 120+ cities
SHJ: 20 M PAX by 2025 connected with more than 80+ cities
DWC: 200 M PAX by 2050

*Bus*
Inter City Buses System (operational)
in all Cities

*Car *
Taxi and Driving (Maximum Driving distance is 4 Hours with the traffic)

*Rail*
2018-2019 Rail Passenger Transportation Available between the 7 Emirates








*Metro and Tram*
Dubai : Metro and Tram Lines by 2030 









Abu Dhabi: by 2020 









Sharjah: by 2025









*Climate*

June and July 

Dubai and AbuDhabi : Avg is 42 C
Northern Emirates : Avg is 35 C (RAK and FUJ) 
SHJ, UMQ, AJM: Avg is 42 C
Al-Ain: 35 C

*** Tourists Have Visited UAE in the Summer Season around 4 Millions (May to Sept) in the 7 Emirates 2013 *** HOT WEATHER not a problem  according to tourism Dept in UAE


*Air Conditioned Stadiums* 
is already operational in some stadiums and will develop this idea to Fan bases and Squares will maintain the degree around 25 C

*Football Legacy*
all of the stadiums will be used by clubs unlike qatar 

*Alcohol & Dress Code*
Available in bars and Night Clubs and no Enforced rules over what to wear and unlike qatar UAE is an open country nothing more than couple of printed rules over malls doors on what to wear...... 

*Human Rights and Workers *

Way Much better than Qatar and the rules have significantly changed over the past 4 years and still changing 

*Israel & Gay Rights*

Not a Major Problem and can be solved 

*Media and Communications*

one of the best TV Network in the MENA area and they have 2 Telecommunication Companies DU and Etisalat 

*Previous Sporting Events *
-Regional:
Gulf Cup of Nations: 3 Times 1982,1994,2007 (Size around 20,000 to 50,000 Spectators and 6 to 8 nations)
Under 17 Gulf Cup of Nations: 1 time 2009 

-Continental:
AFC Asian Cup: 1 time 1996 
AFC U-19 Championship: 3 Times 1985,1992,2012
AFC U-16 Championship:2 times 1990, 2002

-WolrdWide: 
FIFA U-20 World Cup: 1 time 2003
FIFA U-17 World Cup: 1 time 2013
FIFA Club World Cup: 4 times 2009,2010,2017,2018

** and many Futsal and Beachfootball events as well as friendly matches between big 10 nations


*Tourism*:
*more than 40 Public Beaches in all emirates 
*Cinemas in all 7 emirates with huge shopping malls :
Top 10 Shopping Malls as of 2020:
1- Mall of the world, Dubai
2-Yas Mall, AbuDhabi
3- Dubai Mall, Dubai
4-Reem Mall, Abu Dhabi
5- City Center, Fujairah
6- City Center, Ras Alkhaimah
7- Sharjah Mall
8-Al-Ain Mall
9-Mall of Emirates
10- Ajman Mall

*More than 1000+ High End Restaurants , Bars and Night Clubs across UAE 
*Ajman may make gambling official as they are doing it under the table so we would expect this business will boom if they open the door
*More than 500+ Activites to do in UAE(Sea Sports, Air Sports, Road Sports, Theme Parks, Water Parks) so UAE has Things that QATAR does not have


----------



## Lumbergo (Nov 17, 2009)

okay... this is just getting out of hand now.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Lumbergo said:


> okay... this is just getting out of hand now.


Wonder what the middle east will be like in 20 years? I guess only a fool would even guess, but I'm not in the mood right now. :lol:


----------



## Lumbergo (Nov 17, 2009)

I meant the topic itself - I doubt even FIFA is thinking about 2034 at this point in time.


----------



## negatignorantiam (Apr 15, 2014)

if it happens, will there be beer and women allowed? and i am serious, im not making fun!


----------



## Maplyier (Apr 15, 2015)

Every time Asia get to bid, the closest to win will be in a region different from the last. So I think that the next Asian World Cup will either be in Central Asia e.g. Indian subcontinent (unlikely due to cricket domination), Eastern Asia (excluding S. Korea or Japan) or Southern Asia. That probably leaves China, Kazhakstan and Australia for the next WC Asia are allowed to bid for.

Edit: UAE 2034 cannot happen in June and July. I have heard countless travel stories of people not able to walk more then 200m without needing a stop in a A/C bus station. To quote Sepp Blatter you can cool a stadium but not a country.


----------



## quanman247 (Mar 22, 2015)

World Cup 2034 will be 100th Anniversary of first European World Cup, so it makes sense that it will be held in Europe, considering the Uruguay-Argentina bid is likely to happen. Hopefully the Pan-European bid will be chosen.
This is my prediction for the European bid

- England: Wembley (90,000) and Old Trafford (75,635)
- Wales: Millenium Stadium (74,500)
- France: Stade de France (81,338)
- Germany: Berlin Olympiastadion (74,475), Allianz Arena (70,000)
- Spain: Nou Camp (99,354), Santiago Bernabeu (81,044) and San Manes (53,229)
- Portugal: Estadio da Luz (65,647)
- Italy: San Siro (80,018)
- Poland: Stadion Narodowy (58,500)
- Hungary: Ferenc Puskas Stadium (67,889)
- Austria: Ernst Happel Stadion (50,865)


----------



## noize (Jul 24, 2004)

Lumbergo said:


> okay... this is just getting out of hand now.


Agree. :lock:


----------



## DR.SHREJMAN (Nov 30, 2006)

Zimbabwe wants to host the 2034 World Cup 












> According to Ventures, Zimbabwe's Tourism and Hospitality minister, Walter Mzembi, was getting set to launch a bid for the event despite Zimbabwe's unstable economy.
> 
> “I spoke to FIFA president Sepp Blatter during the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa and he told me that it was possible for Zimbabwe to host the 2034 FIFA World Cup as long as we keep on having such big dreams and vision,” the minister is quoted as having said.


http://www.timeslive.co.za/sport/soccer/2014/07/16/zimbabwe-wants-to-host-the-2034-world-cup


----------



## DR.SHREJMAN (Nov 30, 2006)

Asean bid for 2034 World Cup to be decided by year end 












> The decision whether Asean will bid for the 2034 World Cup or not will be made at the Asean youth and sports ministers meeting at year end.
> 
> Youth and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar said he would raise the matter during the meeting and Asean countries only need to endorse it.
> 
> “We will offer other Asean countries to join us in organising the World Cup. Asean countries that want to become co-host must have the means as it needs a large allocation,” he told reporters after closing ‘Karnival Koperasi Zon Selantan 2014’ jointly organised by the Cooperatives Commission of Malaysia (CCM) of Negeri Sembilan, Melaka, Johor and Koperasi Persahabatan Seremban Bhd, here today>





> http://www.themalaymailonline.com/w...rld-cup-to-be-decided-by-year-end-says-khairy


----------



## DR.SHREJMAN (Nov 30, 2006)

China must play long game to achieve Xi’s three World Cup goals 

*By Mark Dreyer Source:Global Times Published: 2015-3-1 23:13:03*

Share on twitter Share on facebook Share on sinaweibo Share on linkedin More Sharing Services
1
China is increasingly used to getting its way in the global sporting arena. 

In addition to hosting top international tennis, golf and motor racing events each year, high-profile competitions such as the 2008 Summer Olympic Games and the 2011 FINA World Aquatics Championships will be followed by the World Athletics Championships later this year and - possibly - the 2022 Winter Games, *depending on the IOC's vote in July.

But the FIFA World Cup is another matter entirely.

Much has been made of Chinese President Xi Jinping's three wishes for Chinese soccer, namely qualifying for, hosting and winning a World Cup, but it will be many years before any of these three things happen.

Only the most deluded patriot - and certainly no one who claims to be a *soccer fan - would predict that China will win a World Cup in their lifetime. But what of the other two wishes?

Despite a solid run to the quarter*finals of this year's Asian Cup, it should be remembered that China's favorable draw meant it only beat one higher-ranked team - Uzbekistan, currently the 71st best team in the world. With only four automatic spots in World Cup qualifying available to teams from the Asian Football Conference, China's chances of qualifying for just the second World Cup in its history remain slim. 

For these reasons, recent discussion has focused on China hosting a future World Cup, an eventuality that would also see the Chinese team qualify by default. Respected international publications have highlighted the link between China's Wanda Group and its new acquisition of sports marketing firm Infront, which just happens to be run by the nephew of FIFA President Sepp Blatter.

But the earliest China could conceivably bid for the World Cup under FIFA's bidding rules would be the 2034 edition, by which point Blatter - and his influence - would be long gone. 

China's best chance of achieving any of Xi's three goals may be to wait until the tournament expands from 32 to 40 teams - whenever that might be - giving Asian teams an easier route to the finals.


----------



## Laurence2011 (Mar 4, 2011)

Heard Greenland is going for it too...


----------



## joxo359 (Apr 22, 2015)

thats 19 years away for goodnesssake


----------



## Laurence2011 (Mar 4, 2011)

Still an interesting topic though, but I think this should be as far as these threads go for the time being haha


----------



## 3tmk (Nov 23, 2002)

I just realized how old I will be in 2034.
That alone is reason enough for me to close this thread. :lol:


----------



## IanCleverly (Nov 24, 2010)

Well, we can rule out Malaysia at least!



Football Tribe Asia said:


> Malaysia have officially withdrawn from the bid to host the 2034 World Cup.
> Previously, Malaysia were leading a group of four Southeast Asian countries, including Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore, to propose for a joint bid to host the 2034 FIFA World Cup.
> According to reports from Vietnam, the decision has been made after Malaysia football chiefs were unhappy with the supports from Asian Football Federation to the denial of their drawing system proposal for SEA Games 2017.
> 
> http://football-tribe.com/asia/2017/06/30/malaysia-withdraw-world-cup-2034-bid/


----------



## Kot Bazilio (Mar 8, 2015)

2030 UK
2034 China


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Kot Bazilio said:


> 2030 UK
> 2034 China


OK, two years later. Still way too early. Middle East needs to clarify status of women, gays, alcohol and a few other things. Let's see if there is progress at least.

UK makes sense unless they get 2030 or there is something pan-European (in which case Moscow, Istanbul, St. Petersburg, London, Paris, Madrid, Berlin, Ruhr, Barcelona, Milan are the biggest cities).

China seems like a legit choice as well since they are putting beaucoup bucks and political will into becoming a soccer power. Again, gotta see what actually happens.


----------



## Laurence2011 (Mar 4, 2011)

Think 2034 is realistic for England, always thought that after we lost the 2018 bid.
China or Australia for 2038


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

Can't wait for 96 teams to compete!!


----------



## Rokto14 (Dec 2, 2013)

Knitemplar said:


> Can't wait for 96 teams to compete!!


I wonder how will that happen :nuts: Please explain how a group of countries is going to organize it?


----------



## FCIM (Jul 26, 2014)

It isn't Asia's "turn"


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

Can we keep this thread available to see but locked until 2020... 

Meanwhile I would like to make the case for 2026 USA, 2030 England and 2034 Argentina/Brazil/Uruguay and 2038 Australia... by which time I will be ready to retire. Ok maybe I will have one last trip to Spain for 2042... but enough after that.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Juanpabloangel said:


> Can we keep this thread available to see but locked until 2020...
> 
> Meanwhile I would like to make the case for 2026 USA, 2030 England and 2034 Argentina/Brazil/Uruguay and 2038 Australia... by which time I will be ready to retire. Ok maybe I will have one last trip to Spain for 2042... but enough after that.


Agree it is too early, but the 2026 and 2030 have their own threads. 

I think this could be useful if people set forth their thinking about how a particular place or area (Middle East, Argentina, China, etc.) would make themselves ready to be the strongest candidate. This would be speculative but at least it would focus in on what FIFA is looking for and how each country might respond instead of just "your place sucks, my place is cool".


----------



## Ioannes_ (Jun 12, 2016)

Juanpabloangel said:


> Can we keep this thread available to see but locked until 2020...
> 
> Meanwhile I would like to make the case for 2026 USA, 2030 England and 2034 Argentina/Brazil/Uruguay and 2038 Australia... by which time I will be ready to retire. Ok maybe I will have one last trip to Spain for 2042... but enough after that.




Spain 2042? That Country where Real Madrid and Barcelona play, there is not a single city or village that does not have a soccer stadium and whose National Football Team has won 1 World Cup and 3 Euros?

I think that *before Spain, there are many countries that deserve to have a World Cup*, like United States for the Third Time, Malaysia, China, Australia, England for 3rd, Qatar of new!

Perhaps our grandchildren, can endure that a country in which the footbol is so inconsequential, celebrate a world.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

Knitemplar said:


> Can't wait for 96 teams to compete!!


I'm sure Qatar can host such tournament :colgate:


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Ioannes_ said:


> Spain 2042? That Country where Real Madrid and Barcelona play, there is not a single city or village that does not have a soccer stadium and whose National Football Team has won 1 World Cup and 3 Euros?
> 
> I think that *before Spain, there are many countries that deserve to have a World Cup*, like United States for the Third Time, Malaysia, China, Australia, England for 3rd, Qatar of new!
> 
> Perhaps our grandchildren, can endure that a country in which the footbol is so inconsequential, celebrate a world.


What do you suggest as an alternative? Spain, 2026 or 2030? They are free to compete against other bids. I certainly would find it interesting.


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2017)

Juanpabloangel said:


> Can we keep this thread available to see but locked until 2020...
> 
> Meanwhile I would like to make the case for 2026 USA, 2030 England and 2034 Argentina/Brazil/Uruguay and 2038 Australia... by which time I will be ready to retire. Ok maybe I will have one last trip to Spain for 2042... but enough after that.


There is absolutely no way China will not host the WC in the next 20 years, which makes Australia's case less viable. With China in the picture, I cant see Australia hosting anytime before 2050.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

5portsF4n said:


> There is absolutely no way China will not host the WC in the next 20 years, which makes Australia's case less viable. With China in the picture, I cant see Australia hosting anytime before 2050.


I would assume that China is going to come on strong. Can anyone comment on where they stand today re stadiums, football know-how and savvy, etc.?


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

pesto said:


> Agree it is too early, but the 2026 and 2030 have their own threads.


There's nothing inherently wrong with having this thread available today, and if the topic isn't worth while then it will fade to the back pages on it's own accord. All that matters is that the contributions/posts fall within board guidelines.


----------



## Laurence2011 (Mar 4, 2011)

pesto said:


> I would assume that China is going to come on strong. Can anyone comment on where they stand today re stadiums, football know-how and savvy, etc.?


Great in terms of stadia with good capacities, not so good in that almost all have tracks, if they are prepared to redevelop at least a few then that would help massively, i can't see FIFA being happy with having like 12 track stadiums in a WC

Feast your eyes on this :lol: ;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_in_China


----------



## Guest (Jul 13, 2017)

China build infrastructure on a large scale, and not all of it is necessary. Theyd build new stadiums for a WC, no question. Their league is growing fast. No one should expect running tracks for a chinese WC


----------



## Vizemeister (May 7, 2012)

I love speculation about future world cup hosts. Here's my prediction:

2026 Canada-USA-Mexico
2030 Argentina-Uruguay-Paraguay
2034 China/Europe
2038 China/Europe

As much as I had wished for a 2022 World Cup in Australia, I cannot see it happen anytime before 2042. And they will have to compete against a Chinese bid for sure. Then there's Africa, and simply, they even have problems finding stable hosts for the Africa Cup of Nations. For that reason I can't foresee a World Cup taking place there for the next 20 years. China is basically a no brainer. They are the future market, they had the Women's World Cup already, they WANT the World Cup. Think of USA 94 as an example. But crazy as FIFA is, they cannot snub Europe for a long period so either 34 or 38 will be played there.


----------



## gazt1 (Dec 9, 2010)

2026 Canada-USA-Mexico
2030 England/UK
2034 China
2038 Africa

Think 2030 has to be Europe again, FIFA won't want anymore than 12 years between WC's in Europe. England/UK being the logical choice for the centenary WC due to pioneering the game. Stadiums, infrastructure already in place as well.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards (Mar 26, 2015)

gazt1 said:


> 2026 Canada-USA-Mexico
> 2030 England/UK
> 2034 China
> 2038 Africa
> ...


We shall see. Obviously I'd love this, being in England. Unfortunately logic only play a peripheral role in selecting a World Cup host.

Supposedly CONMEBOL are planning on voting for Morocco for 2026 in return for support for 2030 from Africa. Also because they think USA/Canada/Mexico followed by Argentina/Uruguay/Paraguay is unlikely for geographical reasons. Expecting reciprocal support four years later is pushing your luck in my opinion and I cannot see Africa voting as a block on that basis.

When it comes to Europe again all the other nations capable of hosting will have done so more recently than England. However, FIFA could easily decide to go with Spain and Portugal, which would be a fantastic World Cup with great stadia. Very likely there won't be a World Cup in England/UK in my lifetime (or at least that portion of it where I'm capable of attending matches (no I wasn't born in 1967, much younger than that!)).


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> We shall see. Obviously I'd love this, being in England. Unfortunately logic only play a peripheral role in selecting a World Cup host.
> 
> Supposedly CONMEBOL are planning on voting for Morocco for 2026 in return for support for 2030 from Africa. Also because they think USA/Canada/Mexico followed by Argentina/Uruguay/Paraguay is unlikely for geographical reasons. Expecting reciprocal support four years later is pushing your luck in my opinion and I cannot see Africa voting as a block on that basis.
> 
> When it comes to Europe again all the other nations capable of hosting will have done so more recently than England. However, FIFA could easily decide to go with Spain and Portugal, which would be a fantastic World Cup with great stadia. Very likely there won't be a World Cup in England/UK in my lifetime (or at least that portion of it where I'm capable of attending matches (no I wasn't born in 1967, much younger than that!)).


I was born before the ‘66 world cup and I am pretty sure I‘m going to live to see another one in UK. ..... well not that I remember the first one but..... :colgate:


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

Vizemeister said:


> I love speculation about future world cup hosts. Here's my prediction:
> 
> 2026 Canada-USA-Mexico
> 2030 Argentina-Uruguay-Paraguay
> ...


I see many possible joint bids from Europe:

-British World Cup: England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Island
-Spain, Portugal, Morocco (possibly)
-Germany, Austria, Switzerland
-Italy, Spain
And many others.


----------



## cmc (Oct 4, 2005)

*Why wait so long, 2022 should go to China or Australia.*


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

cmc said:


> *Why wait so long, 2022 should go to China or Australia.*


Maybe Australia could offer Queensland to Qatar in exchange for the rights to 2022 if they are in a hurry?

The Chinese are more Zen; they're looking at the long-term.


----------



## Леонид (Jan 11, 2008)

pesto said:


> Wonder what the middle east will be like in 20 years? I guess only a fool would even guess, but I'm not in the mood right now. :lol:


I would say China and Australia are the best bids, they have the infrastructure and stadiums already built. 

I think Dubai can benefit more from an Olympic games bid.


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

In case of surprise on June 2018

2026 Morocco
2030 Argentina/Paraguay/Uruguay
2034 Europe
2038 China
2042 North America


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

^ that would be almost half a century between CONCACAF hosting it, it's absurd. 32 years between 1994 and 2026 is already too long.


----------



## BigBiggerBiggest (Feb 9, 2017)

alexandru.mircea said:


> ^ that would be almost half a century between CONCACAF hosting it, it's absurd. 32 years between 1994 and 2026 is already too long.


why is that absurd? 
regardless of the revenue opportunities for hosting it in CONCACAF only USA could legitimately host it with a token stadia from Mexico and Canada. They got it already in 1994 and logic says the next non Euro / non Sth america cup should be held in either China or Australia. the one after that would be USA or Africa


----------



## Axelferis (Jan 18, 2008)

China is ready for 2026.
They'll get it.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

BigBiggerBiggest said:


> why is that absurd?


How exactly is this NOT absurd?

Even if formal continental rotation has been scrapped, the World Cup is still supposed to be taken fairly around the continents, depending on how feasible it is. 

So it doesn't have to be 20 years max for the length between the times a confederation hosts it, but 48 is a bad joke.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

alexandru.mircea said:


> that would be almost half a century between CONCACAF hosting it, it's absurd. 32 years between 1994 and 2026 is already too long.


If it has to be formalised this is how I'd do it.

N America
Asia
Europe
WILDCARD
WILDCARD
S America
Europe
Africa

...and repeat.

The wildcard slots can be taken by any confederation but no confederation can take both, and no confederation can host successive world cups.

The longest any confederation waits is 32 years but with a wildcard could conceivably host two in the cycle. A European nation effectively moves from having every other world cup to somewhere between every third and every fourth on average.

I think that gets the balance more or less right taking into account interest in the game and number of nations capable in each confederation.


----------



## BigBiggerBiggest (Feb 9, 2017)

looks like there may be a combined bid from 3 sth american countries.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RobH said:


> If it has to be formalised this is how I'd do it.
> 
> N America
> Asia
> ...


The problem is that it will be "formalized" for about 6 weeks and then replaced by another formalization. :lol:

A couple of thoughts.

There is little benefit in being too specific. The goal is to allow FIFA to maximize their efforts in spreading the economic reach of soccer. This will depend on things like size of economies, expected growth, moves made by other sports or entertainment modalities, political environment, etc. You have to be ready to respond.

The goal is growth. That means going after the big underserved markets, whether the US or south Asia; exploiting brands; the use of big-brand cities as centers for competitions; tailoring events to local markets, etc. The point is not to have competitions in various regions of the world; the point is to have every region of the world interested in what FIFA is doing.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Hence the first five words of my post.  I'm not in favour of formalising rotation (and you're right, FIFA changes things to suit, their systems rarely last more than two cycles), but that's the best way I think it could be done.


----------



## guillermo_panama (Sep 25, 2008)

CaliforniaJones said:


> In case of surprise on June 2018
> 
> 2026 Morocco
> 2030 Argentina/Paraguay/Uruguay
> ...


2042 Central America


----------



## chibimatty (Oct 6, 2010)

Would like to see it here in Australia, but I reckon a couple of venues in New Zealand in the bid would be good too.


----------



## BigBiggerBiggest (Feb 9, 2017)

alexandru.mircea said:


> How exactly is this NOT absurd?
> 
> Even if formal continental rotation has been scrapped, the World Cup is still supposed to be taken fairly around the continents, depending on how feasible it is.
> 
> So it doesn't have to be 20 years max for the length between the times a confederation hosts it, but 48 is a bad joke.


just on this. 
There are effectively 3 countries in Nth America, although Mexico considers itself central america so from a regional perspective nth america doesn't fly. this also as i stated before relates at a confederation level. Only USA can support games with a couple of Mexican and Canadian stadiums applicable.

Europe wont get the next one as China is poised to take 2026, id say nth america can share one for 2030 and Europe will get it again in 2034 thats 4 WCs since their last one. one after that s/b Sth America in 2038 with Australia or South Africa / North Africa (Morocco / Egypt) fighting over 2042.


----------



## BigBiggerBiggest (Feb 9, 2017)

chibimatty said:


> Would like to see it here in Australia, but I reckon a couple of venues in New Zealand in the bid would be good too.


Id love it in Oz too but there needs to be a load of money invested into Rectangle stadiums and not oval grounds


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

BigBiggerBiggest said:


> just on this.
> There are effectively 3 countries in Nth America, although Mexico considers itself central america so from a regional perspective nth america doesn't fly. this also as i stated before relates at a confederation level. Only USA can support games with a couple of Mexican and Canadian stadiums applicable.


And how different is that from how the present bid is configured?? :nuts:



> Europe wont get the next one as China is poised to take 2026.


So you have a different set of candidates from the current United and Moroccon bids that FIFA recognizes? :nuts: Interesting.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

BigBiggerBiggest said:


> just on this.
> There are effectively 3 countries in Nth America, although Mexico considers itself central america so from a regional perspective nth america doesn't fly. this also as i stated before relates at a confederation level. Only USA can support games with a couple of Mexican and Canadian stadiums applicable.
> 
> Europe wont get the next one as China is poised to take 2026, id say nth america can share one for 2030 and Europe will get it again in 2034 thats 4 WCs since their last one. one after that s/b Sth America in 2038 with Australia or South Africa / North Africa (Morocco / Egypt) fighting over 2042.


Your dates are a bit confused. 2026 will be either Morocco or the United bid with 3 cities in Mexico, 2 or 3 in Canada and about 10-12 in the US. Mexico and Canada get a generous helping of matches given the economic size of each country (the US is about 10 to15 times their size).

2030 seems like the UK or Arg/Ur/Pa are the leaders but of course new entries are more than likely.


----------



## nazrey (Sep 12, 2003)

*ASEAN mulling 2034 World Cup bid*
17 February 2017



> ASEAN on Friday held talks on launching a joint bid for the World Cup in 2034 during a visit by FIFA chief Gianni Infantino to Yangon, the head of Myanmar's football federation said.
> 
> Football officials from the 10-member Southeast Asian bloc are keen to capitalise on Infantino's decision to expand the tournament to 48 teams by 2026, said Myanmar Football Federation chairman Zaw Zaw.
> 
> ...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-4235636/ASEAN-mulling-2034-World-Cup-bid--Myanmar.html

*The 2034 World Cup finals in S-E Asia — just a pipe dream? *
By JAMES WALTON 11 JULY, 2017


> With the revelation from Mr Joko Driyono, vice-president of Indonesia’s Football Association (PSSI), that countries of the Association of South-east Asian Nations (Asean) are considering a joint bid to host the 2034 Fifa World Cup, football fans across South-east Asia have begun to dream of having the world’s most prestigious sporting event on our doorsteps.
> 
> This is not the first time this has been proposed. In 2013, Mr Zainudin Nordin, who was then president of the Football Association of Singapore, talked about the possibility of an Asean World Cup bid in 2030.
> 
> ...


https://www.todayonline.com/sports/2034-world-cup-finals-s-e-asia-just-pipe-dream

*STADIUMS IN ASEAN*
SINGAPORE









https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/is-the-sports-hub-pricing-itself-out-of-the-game

KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA









http://www.asiana.my/page/display-album/PhotoAlbumsID/1058/KL_Sports_City_Bukit_Jalil#modal-image-7

BANGKOK, THAILAND









https://www.pinterest.com/pin/340373684310441387/

JAKARTA, INDONESIA









http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=147608855&postcount=1279

HANOI, VIETNAM









From Dreamstime

_Among new stadium being in-progress only as of 2018_
CLARK , PHILIPPINES









https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVzcDtO4I7s

JOHOR, MALAYSIA












> Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

The problem with an ASEAN bid is its geography, and therefore, its climate. The region is one of the MOST HUMID on earth; perhaps Qatar is only worse. So the most optimum time to hold something like a World Cup would probably be late November, going into early December -- such a period entirely skirting the monsoon season of the region. 

The other problem is, until that time, none of the ASEAN countries are exactly football powerhouses; so how would one apportion the Opening and Final matches? I imagine the best facilities and infrastructure would host those? So, maybe Singapore for the opener, and Bangkok for the Finals? Or vice-versa.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Needs work. How many countries? How much money, really? 

But no reason it couldn't work if the commitment and work starts now.


----------



## Леонид (Jan 11, 2008)

Knitemplar said:


> The problem with an ASEAN bid is its geography, and therefore, its climate. The region is one of the MOST HUMID on earth; perhaps Qatar is only worse. So the most optimum time to hold something like a World Cup would probably be late November, going into early December -- such a period entirely skirting the monsoon season of the region.
> 
> The other problem is, until that time, none of the ASEAN countries are exactly football powerhouses; so how would one apportion the Opening and Final matches? I imagine the best facilities and infrastructure would host those? So, maybe Singapore for the opener, and Bangkok for the Finals? Or vice-versa.


I think it would be lovely, but too expensive not only for the teams traveling from one place to the other but also I think of the fans .. its already expensive to travel to the ASEAN countries if you are from Costa Rica or Argentina, then imagine traveling all over following your team. Dont what do you guys think?


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Леонид;148631529 said:


> I think it would be lovely, but too expensive not only for the teams traveling from one place to the other but also I think of the fans .. its already expensive to travel to the ASEAN countries if you are from Costa Rica or Argentina, then imagine traveling all over following your team. Dont what do you guys think?


Probably. Cut out eastern Indonesia and it's more doable. Regionals in Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia.

But China is so much easier (one country, closer population centers) if you want this part of the world. And Europe and LatAm would be much easier due to existing facilities.


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

pesto said:


> But China is so much easier (one country, closer population centers) if you want this part of the world. .


And they would have the necessary bullet-trains connections between the major pop centers up and running by then.


----------



## nazrey (Sep 12, 2003)

Леонид;148631529 said:


> I think it would be lovely, but too expensive not only for the teams traveling from one place to the other but also I think of the fans .. its already expensive to travel to the ASEAN countries if you are from Costa Rica or Argentina, then imagine traveling all over following your team. Dont what do you guys think?


Asean famous for low cost carriers which would bring you safer and faster than bullet train and these carriers are the most extensive in the region as well 

*1	AirAsia*
2	Norwegian
3	jetBlue Airways
4	easyJet
5	Virgin America
6	Jetstar Airways
*7	AirAsiaX*
8	Azul Linhas Aéreas Brasileiras
9	Southwest Airlines
10	Indigo
11	WestJet
*12	Scoot
13	Jetstar Asia*
14	Eurowings
15	Ryanair
16	Vueling Airlines
*17	Tigerair*
18	Peach
19	Air Canada rouge
20	SpiceJet

There are 1/4 of world's best low cost carriers were from ASEAN.
http://www.worldairlineawards.com/Awards/worlds_best_lowcost_airlines.html


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

nazrey said:


> Asean famous for low cost carriers which would bring you safer and faster than bullet train and these carriers are the most extensive in the region as well
> 
> *1	AirAsia*
> 2	Norwegian
> ...


China's advantages:

1. One country, one organization, one government, one currency, consistency, etc.
2. Much closer distances. Most key cities within 1000 miles of each other.
3. Choice of air or train. I'm never sure why people want to take a train when air is available, but here you can get either one.
4. Huge amounts of foreign exchange and willing to spend it.
5. Minimal religious or ethnic tensions (I don't really want to get into this).
6. China does have civil rights and authoritarianism issues, but so does the region generally. Call it a push.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards (Mar 26, 2015)

pesto said:


> China's advantages:
> 
> 
> 3. Choice of air or train. I'm never sure why people want to take a train when air is available, but here you can get either one.


Train is generally from the centre of the city to the centre of the destination city. So much better than having to get to and from the airport at both ends. Plus much less time taken checking in, waiting around and generally being bored. This assumes you want to be in the centre of the city but generally people do as that is where most good things to do are. London to Paris is the perfect example of this. Unless you live out near the airport the train is much more convenient.

Depending on the speed the train is more convenient up to about 500 miles. Obviously flying is quicker beyond that sort of distance.

Four years ago Rio to Sao Paulo would have been so much better by fast train. Perhaps those two cities to Belo Horizonte as well. Wouldn't ever work with Brasilia though.

The USA either has such vast, low density, car-based cities or they're so far apart that flying is the only real option. There are exceptions such as New York and Philadelphia but that could be quicker. New York to Boston could do with a faster route as that could be done in 2 hours or so. Not going to happen any time soon though. A lot of journeys that people would choose to use the train for in Europe would be driven in the USA.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Train is generally from the centre of the city to the centre of the destination city. So much better than having to get to and from the airport at both ends. Plus much less time taken checking in, waiting around and generally being bored. This assumes you want to be in the centre of the city but generally people do as that is where most good things to do are. London to Paris is the perfect example of this. Unless you live out near the airport the train is much more convenient.
> 
> Depending on the speed the train is more convenient up to about 500 miles. Obviously flying is quicker beyond that sort of distance.
> 
> ...


Train has its place and for sure it works better for dense cities under 400 miles apart. But you are a bit optimistic judging the world by Paris/London. Try getting from Berlin to Frankfurt or Paris. 

In any event, China will give you a choice and that's always convenient.


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

pesto said:


> .
> 3. Choice of air or train. I'm never sure why people want to take a train when air is available, but here you can get either one.
> .


Because some people are just deathly afraid to fly. Try booking a seat very late on Amtrak's popular routes in the summer.


----------



## BigBiggerBiggest (Feb 9, 2017)

nazrey said:


> Asean famous for low cost carriers which would bring you safer and faster than bullet train and these carriers are the most extensive in the region as well
> 
> *1	AirAsia*
> 2	Norwegian
> ...



Jetstar is good if you dont want to fit in your seat and mash your knees up against the seats in front of you, and Tigerair is good if you want to hold your life in your hands when flying...


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

BigBiggerBiggest said:


> Jetstar is good if you dont want to fit in your seat and mash your knees up against the seats in front of you, and Tigerair is good if you want to hold your life in your hands when flying...


Train is sounding better all the time! :lol:

I know that airports are looked at by FIFA in determining whether a bid is acceptable, but I wonder if airlines are also reviewed, at least tacitly?


----------



## Knitemplar (Aug 16, 2008)

pesto said:


> but I wonder if airlines are also reviewed, at least tacitly?


Well, look at Russia 2018. Aeroflot is one of the WORST airlines in the world, yet Russia was still picked in 2010. :nuts: And Aeroflot at that time was probably the only choice to connect, say, Kaliningrad with larger Russian territory proper; plus a lot of the other venues.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Knitemplar said:


> Well, look at Russia 2018. Aeroflot is one of the WORST airlines in the world, yet Russia was still picked in 2010. :nuts: And Aeroflot at that time was probably the only choice to connect, say, Kaliningrad with larger Russian territory proper; plus a lot of the other venues.


Good point. I had only though about Moscow and St. Petersburg where you have some choices as to airlines, but the other cities could be scary.

A couple of additional points: I assume train service is reasonably good in Russia; and Russia was chosen under the old system at FIFA, hopefully now replaced by one that chooses hosts based on technical and economic standards.


----------



## Rover030 (Dec 6, 2016)

The old system was really not that different from the new system. There was a task force that judged the bids based on technical requirements that were determined beforehand. That part still exists. So even though some of requirements have been changed, there is an evaluation of the bids that the voters have to base their choice on.

The only difference is that instead of 24 representatives of the 200 something FAs, now it's the 200 something FAs voting. There will still be questionable interpretation of the technical evaluation, but now because of national interests and vote trading instead of bribery.

As for "Transport and mobility (incl. airports)", as long as you meet the minimum requirements "(with respect to intercity connectivity on a combined basis with general accommodation)", which Morocco supposedly doesn't, that's only 13% of your grade. Source (PDF)

So it's much less important than the extent to which people talk about it. The only way compactness is rewarded is if it reduces organisation costs (10%) or improves accommodation (6%). And if a city is within 90 minutes of a sufficient airport, it gets a passing grade as well. But at that point you're talking about the really compact countries like Qatar or the Netherlands and Belgium.


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

Rover030 said:


> The old system was really not that different from the new system. There was a task force that judged the bids based on technical requirements that were determined beforehand. That part still exists. So even though some of requirements have been changed, there is an evaluation of the bids that the voters have to base their choice on.
> 
> The only difference is that instead of 24 representatives of the 200 something FAs, now it's the 200 something FAs voting. There will still be questionable interpretation of the technical evaluation, but now because of national interests and vote trading instead of bribery.
> 
> ...


I've made some estimation for the 2026 World Cup and I've found the same observation as yours.

Compactness: strong highway connection between cities also high speed trains, cost reduction for operations, improved accommodation and sufficient airports capacity within 90 minutes.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Rover030 said:


> The old system was really not that different from the new system. There was a task force that judged the bids based on technical requirements that were determined beforehand. That part still exists. So even though some of requirements have been changed, there is an evaluation of the bids that the voters have to base their choice on.
> 
> The only difference is that instead of 24 representatives of the 200 something FAs, now it's the 200 something FAs voting. There will still be questionable interpretation of the technical evaluation, but now because of national interests and vote trading instead of bribery.
> 
> ...


I don't entirely agree. The difference between the old system and the new one is that the review committees take their work seriously and that the final decisions are made based on its input. In the past there were doubts as to the quality of the analysis and whether anyone even looked at it before voting for whoever paid them off.

Of course, if the old system really works like the old one, then we are left with a flawed system.

As for the other criteria, it seems to me that the goal is not to meet a series of technical hurdles; it's to choose a modern city with good facilities (stadium, hotels, airport, roads, etc.). Guidelines are set up give an idea of what is being talked about. But it's one of those things that "you know it when you see it" even if you can't quite define it in a way that works perfectly.


----------



## Rover030 (Dec 6, 2016)

pesto said:


> I don't entirely agree. *The difference between the old system and the new one is that the review committees take their work seriously and that the final decisions are made based on its input.* In the past there were doubts as to the quality of the analysis and whether anyone even looked at it before voting for whoever paid them off.
> 
> Of course, if the old system really works like the old one, then we are left with a flawed system.
> 
> As for the other criteria, it seems to me that the goal is not to meet a series of technical hurdles; it's to choose a modern city with good facilities (stadium, hotels, airport, roads, etc.). Guidelines are set up give an idea of what is being talked about. But it's one of those things that "you know it when you see it" even if you can't quite define it in a way that works perfectly.


What are you basing this (the bolded part) on? There have been lots of signals that decisions will be made based on geopolitical considerations, local interests and even political threats. There has already been controversy around the task force when they were accused of trying to change the bidding criteria last-moment. I don't think I've lately seen anyone who actually believes that this new system will make the decision more based on the input of the review task force, except if a bidding nation is disqualified.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say with the latter part of your post. There is a rating system from 1 to 5 that is based on specific criteria (such as amount of passengers an airport can handle) and you can't get a score lower than 2 for certain aspects, for more than a certain amount of cities, or your bid is disqualified, which is rumoured to happen to the Moroccan bid. So I'd say the first goal absolutely is to meet a series of technical hurdles.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Rover030 said:


> What are you basing this (the bolded part) on? There have been lots of signals that decisions will be made based on geopolitical considerations, local interests and even political threats. There has already been controversy around the task force when they were accused of trying to change the bidding criteria last-moment. I don't think I've lately seen anyone who actually believes that this new system will make the decision more based on the input of the review task force, except if a bidding nation is disqualified.
> 
> I don't really understand what you're trying to say with the latter part of your post. There is a rating system from 1 to 5 that is based on specific criteria (such as amount of passengers an airport can handle) and you can't get a score lower than 2 for certain aspects, for more than a certain amount of cities, or your bid is disqualified, which is rumoured to happen to the Moroccan bid. So I'd say the first goal absolutely is to meet a series of technical hurdles.


No doubt there has been a lot of howling in the press from those that will no longer be able to wield their personal power in getting financial benefits from FIFA. And I have discussed on other sites how much political effort is being put into over-riding the work of the technical committees, who obviously have only one legitimate choice for the 2026 games.

The question is whether all of this will work or if the best bid technically and financially will be chosen. If so, the system is working so far. If not, then you are right, the "bad old days" are still here.

As for the latter part of my post, forgive me, English is not my first language. What I meant to say was that the technical and other guidelines are not intended as ends in themselves, but rather as means to arriving at the real goal, which is to choose an attractive, modern city with good amenities for the WC. As such, the rules are purely instrumental for selecting the best cities and should be changed if they are not helpful in reaching that result.

This is why the exact technical detail can (and should) be waived if the city or cities are obviously very desirable. E.g., if Paris were to miss on some technical basis, then the* rule *would be revised, not Paris.


----------



## Rover030 (Dec 6, 2016)

If one of the two competitors for 2026 doesn't meet the minimum requirements, then obviously the remaining bid wins. But with everything we've seen around the campaign so far, does that mean the system is good? I think the real and more fair test is when it gets more complicated in 2030 and 2034, with at least 3 different bids, like it used to be. Although the absence of a polarising 1 v 1 battle might also make it easier for the task force to assume a credible neutral position.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Rover030 said:


> If one of the two competitors for 2026 doesn't meet the minimum requirements, then obviously the remaining bid wins. But with everything we've seen around the campaign so far, does that mean the system is good? I think the real and more fair test is when it gets more complicated in 2030 and 2034, with at least 3 different bids, like it used to be. Although the absence of a polarising 1 v 1 battle might also make it easier for the task force to assume a credible neutral position.


Agree completely. The system needs to prove itself every time it is put to use.

Btw, you have to get rid of the vote by country. It is just ridiculous when St. Vincent, San Marino, and the Cook Is. can outvote China and the US 3 to 2. Over the long run this will lead to the major powers leaving and establishing a new global structure for amateur and professional soccer.


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

I was thinking the best way to improve the world cup bidding process would be to lock in the hosts by taking a play off game between the competing nations.... I'd be happy to see the USA as head bidder play v Morocco for the chance to host and then bring the rotation back in! You obviously have to have the plans for the stadia in place and the funding guarantees but the clincher is the game! Imagine the European hosting battle... There would have to be a rule as to minimum hosting times too. You can't host consecutive tournaments within your federation. The North and South American federations being taken as one, as with Asia and Oceania...


----------



## LPP68 (Jul 2, 2009)

pesto said:


> China's advantages:
> 
> 
> 3. Choice of air or train. I'm never sure why people want to take a train when air is available, but here you can get either one.


Eh, the environment perhaps?


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

LPP68 said:


> Eh, the environment perhaps?


I don't think so. I would guess that cost and time of travel are the only significant determinants of which modality to use. I never hear of people asking why type of fuel source a particular modality uses before buying a ticket.

I haven't done a study but I would guess that in some countries even the electric trains are ultimately powered by coal; often the cheapest and dirtiest coal they can find.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Rover030 said:


> If one of the two competitors for 2026 doesn't meet the minimum requirements, then obviously the remaining bid wins. But with everything we've seen around the campaign so far, does that mean the system is good? I think the real and more fair test is when it gets more complicated in 2030 and 2034, with at least 3 different bids, like it used to be. Although the absence of a polarising 1 v 1 battle might also make it easier for the task force to assume a credible neutral position.


A test already! One bid slaughters the other on technical merit 4 to 2.7 (the same ratio as a basketball score of 120 to 81). Will the vote go to the one with the best stadiums, transportation, finances, etc., and no risk, or to the one judged high risk and pushing the ethnic and religious buttons? We'll soon find out and see if more changes are needed for 2030.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

_"I'm watching you. Always watching."_








Courtesy of Pixar Wiki


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

GunnerJacket said:


> _"I'm watching you. Always watching."_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In retrospect I apologize for the above post. Let's discuss the future selection process more abstractly until after June 13.


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

Once again, I expect the next FIFA World Cups will be organized by many countries, instead of a single one.



> With the cost of this year's event soaring to £8.8bn ($12bn) football authorities and bidding nations are looking at a ways of sharing the daunting financial costs and boosting political relationships.
> 
> The answer is joint hosting. In 2002, South Korea and Japan jointly staged the World Cup so there already is a precedent, while several European Championships have also been jointly hosted.
> 
> ...


Russia 2018: Why a single nation may never host the World Cup again


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Sounds pretty much like a no-brainer. But it's not so much that single bids should be banned; it's just that practically speaking they will tend to get higher marks than any single country going it alone. If the US is willing to go in a group, few countries have excuses not to.


----------



## Seld (May 26, 2018)

I think FIFA WORLD CUP 2034 should be hosted by 2 countries


----------



## Ekumenopolis (Feb 2, 2005)

I think FIFA WORLD CUP 2034 should be hosted in my backyard. BYOB, i buy the hamburgers.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Seld said:


> I think FIFA WORLD CUP 2034 should be hosted by 2 countries


Any two countries, or do you have some specific ones in mind?


----------



## masala (Nov 23, 2016)

Knitemplar said:


> Well, look at Russia 2018. Aeroflot is one of the WORST airlines in the world, yet Russia was still picked in 2010. :nuts: And Aeroflot at that time was probably the only choice to connect, say, Kaliningrad with larger Russian territory proper; plus a lot of the other venues.


Aeroflot is definitely not the worst airlines company in the world, it is even above average, see http://www.airlinequality.com/info/top-100-airlines-2017/.
It is not the only domestic airlines either, see e.g. S7, UTair, etc, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_airlines_in_Europe


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

https://www.firstpost.com/sports/gh...bes-ahead-of-2026-world-cup-vote-4502053.html

OK, so the system still needs some work. :lol:


----------



## BigBiggerBiggest (Feb 9, 2017)

Knitemplar said:


> Well, look at Russia 2018. Aeroflot is one of the WORST airlines in the world, yet Russia was still picked in 2010. :nuts: And Aeroflot at that time was probably the only choice to connect, say, Kaliningrad with larger Russian territory proper; plus a lot of the other venues.





pesto said:


> Good point. I had only though about Moscow and St. Petersburg where you have some choices as to airlines, but the other cities could be scary.
> 
> A couple of additional points: I assume train service is reasonably good in Russia; and Russia was chosen under the old system at FIFA, hopefully now replaced by one that chooses hosts based on technical and economic standards.


I think, AirTurkiye and AirBerlin fly some of the obscure routes as do Ironically Air Bucharest. i think some of the connecting flights that were needed would have bene made available to carriers that could do quick smart safe travel.


----------



## BigBiggerBiggest (Feb 9, 2017)

CaliforniaJones said:


> Once again, I expect the next FIFA World Cups will be organized by many countries, instead of a single one.
> 
> 
> 
> Russia 2018: Why a single nation may never host the World Cup again



Winning the world cup hosting rites along with say the Olympics should be a boon for any country or like Rio in the past 4 years a city especially. It should be treated as an opportunity to get much needed infrastruture works through parliament


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

BigBiggerBiggest said:


> Winning the world cup hosting rites along with say the Olympics should be a boon for any country or like Rio in the past 4 years a city especially. It should be treated as an opportunity to get much needed infrastruture works through parliament


The problem is that it is used to get completely unneeded stadiums, roads and even airports built at taxpayer expense with construction companies and politicians making themselves rich.


----------



## BigBiggerBiggest (Feb 9, 2017)

pesto said:


> The problem is that it is used to get completely unneeded stadiums, roads and even airports built at taxpayer expense with construction companies and politicians making themselves rich.


yes the white elephants of Games gone by.....Athens being the biggest one.

The metro from Athens to Piraeus was the one thing that everyone supported that was needed to ensure that the tourist dollar kept flooding in.

Its a shame that corruption in parliament stopped all the potential good as just another way to line their pockets


----------



## Laurence2011 (Mar 4, 2011)

England all the way for this, can easily host the 48 team tournament by itself


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Laurence2011 said:


> England all the way for this, can easily host the 48 team tournament by itself


But why exclude Wales and Scotland? What's the benefit? 

There's a good chance that the other competition will be joint bids and FIFA has expressed a preference for them. Why handicap yourself?


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

The FA needs to sound out FIFA before they move forward. It looks like joint bids are flavour of the month, but I hope they don't launch a joint bid on that assumption. A bit of groundwork is needed. There's time to do that.

But if a joint bid is launched they need to decide what to call it. United 2030 has a nice ring to it. :lol:


----------



## HDI 0.548 (Dec 28, 2015)

It's pretty obvious that 2034 will be in China.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

HDI 0.548 said:


> It's pretty obvious that 2034 will be in China.[/QU.
> 
> 
> I would say it was obvious in 1990 that Obama and Trump were not going to be the two consecutive Presidents starting in 2008. :lol:
> ...


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

RobH said:


> The FA needs to sound out FIFA before they move forward. It looks like joint bids are flavour of the month, but I hope they don't launch a joint bid on that assumption. A bit of groundwork is needed. There's time to do that.
> 
> But if a joint bid is launched they need to decide what to call it. United 2030 has a nice ring to it. :lol:


Yes, one really fundamental part of FIFA's future is to talk to people about what kind of bid it would like to see. Or even approach countries and propose that they put together bids based on FIFA's parameters and their own ideas.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Had to look up Camel Trophy. Looks riveting 😁


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

I actually wrote Dakar Rally first but then I remembered Clarkson's joke about Camel Trophy and how it has nothing to do with animals, apart from horse powers .... 😆


----------



## DR.SHREJMAN (Nov 30, 2006)

ElvisBC said:


> far too old for the crap about another world cup in the desert, they should stick to camel trophy there



wow... how pathatic ....


----------



## Rokto14 (Dec 2, 2013)

Ramanaramana said:


> Dont know how old you are, but I aint that old. A Middle Eastern world cup feasible in next 40-50 years with Saudi involvement.
> 
> Could go a step further and make it a pan Arabic cup, stretching from Middle East to North Africa. Algiers, Cairo, Casablanca, Jeddah, Riyadh, Doha, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Kuwait City, Beirut, Baghdad off the top of my head, would be cool.
> 
> I also reckon world cup wont be a 4 year event in the future.* Id be surprised if it’s not biennial by 2040.*


I would still prefer it to be held every 4 years. The excitement will still be there. If it's biennial, the excitement might not be there anymore.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Rokto14 said:


> I would still prefer it to be held every 4 years. The excitement will still be there. If it's biennial, the excitement might not be there anymore.


While I still think there's a good chance it could happen, a lot will depend on what happens with the club world cup. FIFA is on a path to increasing its revenue outside of world cups. How it gets that remains to be seen, but it'll either come through the world cup or the club world cup. If they get the cwc they want, world cup could remain as is. If they don't, I reckon the world cup will change. 

Wenger has already been suggesting the biennial idea in his time as FIFA adviser. He wouldn't be doing it if FIFA wasn't considering it. Wenger's also been spruiking the change to the offside law, and now FIFA is trialling it. I expect the daylight offisde rule to come into effect within next few years. 

The entire football structure is going to undergo massive change in the next 5 years. I wouldn't put anything off the table.


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

i think for 2034 FIFA World Cup could be held in Indonesia/Malaysia/Singapore/Thailand/Vietnam.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Light Tower said:


> i think for 2034 FIFA World Cup could be held in Indonesia/Malaysia/Singapore/Thailand/Vietnam.


It _could_, but it won't. China is getting a World Cup in the next 2 cycles after 2026, which means there's no chance of it going to East/Southeast Asia before 2042 by my reckoning.


----------



## Rokto14 (Dec 2, 2013)

Ramanaramana said:


> It _could_, but it won't. China is getting a World Cup in the next 2 cycles after 2026, which means there's no chance of it going to East/Southeast Asia before 2042 by my reckoning.


I am going to assume that China will win the bid for the 2034 FIFA WC. So if they actually win that bid, I assume the next bid from AFC will come from the West Region (West Zone, Central Zone, South Zone). If you realise, bids from AFC has a pattern. 2002 FIFA WC was held by Japan & Korea Republic which are in the East Region. 2022's edition will be held in Qatar which is in the West Region. Then if China puts up the bid, it can be confirmed that AFC will follow this pattern of alternating between the east and the west regions. So East/Southeast Asia might have to wait till 2050 or beyond.


----------



## Rokto14 (Dec 2, 2013)

Light Tower said:


> i think for 2034 FIFA World Cup could be held in Indonesia/Malaysia/Singapore/Thailand/Vietnam.


Yes I know they have been discussing the ASEAN bid for 2034 but I feel China's bid will be a far stronger bid than the ASEAN bid. If China wants to be like the USA to let smaller countries chip in a few stadiums, they can always get Vietnam. But honestly, I don't think that's necessary.


----------



## no_malaise (Oct 17, 2015)

Rokto14 said:


> Yes I know they have been discussing the ASEAN bid for 2034 but I feel China's bid will be a far stronger bid than the ASEAN bid. If China wants to be like the USA to let smaller countries chip in a few stadiums, they can always get Vietnam. But honestly, I don't think that's necessary.


Fifa had a lot of criticism on Russia and Qatar WC... China is really pushing the wrong buttons lately. Of course they probably will host one of these days, one thing they have is money.


----------



## Rokto14 (Dec 2, 2013)

no_malaise said:


> Fifa had a lot of criticism on Russia and Qatar WC... *China is really pushing the wrong buttons lately.* Of course they probably will host one of these days, one thing they have is money.


Hey what's up fellow ASEAN brother and neighbour hahahaha  And yes definitely, can't deny that. It's up to how the 5 football federations in ASEAN can cooperate and coordinate to have a strong bid to match up or go one step further than the Chinese bid.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

no_malaise said:


> Fifa had a lot of criticism on Russia and Qatar WC... China is really pushing the wrong buttons lately. Of course they probably will host one of these days, one thing they have is money.


Strong disagree from me. Chinese companies are Fifa’s largest group of sponsors. The country has embarked on a football stadium spree that will see it meet requirements for hosting easily well before the end of the decade.

Originally the new Club World Cup was to be held in China this year before you know what. The influence China yields at Fifa due to Chinese companies coming to Fifa’s aid when incumbents were cancelling their sponsorship due to scandals is strong.

I would go as far to say there is not one country with a better standing at Fifa than China. And unlike Qatar, China doesn’t need to bribe anyone. When you already sponsor Fifa as much as they do, and when you are the second largest economy in the world, your pedigree for hosting is not questionable. It’s only a matter of time.

Whether or not Russia bribed anyone doesn’t bother me, Russia is a country that should always be in the mix for hosting the World Cup. Large economy, proper football country. And it was vindicated as it was the best World Cup since 06.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

guess you said it all. it is inevitable and it is OK. I wouldn‘t even be surprised if it happens 4 years earlier!

of course one can always bark about politics, but it never did matter to FIFA and sport and politics should not mix anyway!


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

ElvisBC said:


> guess you said it all. it is inevitable and it is OK. I wouldn‘t even be surprised if it happens 4 years earlier!
> 
> of course one can always bark about politics, but it never did matter to FIFA and sport and politics should not mix anyway!


Except maybe when from the stadium seats you can see the people being pushed into the gas ovens.


----------



## crazyalex (May 21, 2010)

I see fifa world cup expansion from 32 to 48 team (3 team per pool) which is led to disasters football world cup culture. too many join bits nations host world cup


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

The 2034 FIFA World Cup is expected to be announced by 2026.


----------



## Rokto14 (Dec 2, 2013)

Light Tower said:


> The 2034 FIFA World Cup is expected to be announced by 2026.


Your source? I don't think it will be announced before 2028. Since the 2030 WC host nation(s) will be announced in 2024. So I am assuming a 6-year gap from the announcement of the host nation(s) to the actual hosting of the tournament.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

If Europe wins 2030, we'll know the 2034 host 10 years in advance by default.


----------



## MGM (Dec 10, 2007)

The biggest mistake FIFA made this century was giving out the WC for authoritarian and autocratic governments from undeveloped countries. They should have proposed co-hosting bids to the rotation process, so we would have:

African WC 2010
SouthAmerican WC 2014
Eastern European WC 2018
(Middle-East) Arabian WC 2022
NorthAmerican WC 2026

And they should have focused on host cities and not host countries to avoid those countries building expensive white elephants that are now abandoned in South Africa, Brazil, Russia, and will be in Qatar.

The criteria should have been:

1. CLUBS SUCCESS INDEX
Cities with powerful clubs with their own stadiums, and those clubs should have been responsible to update the stadiums, not the government.

2. CITIES SUCCESS INDEX
Cities with recently updated infrastructure to receive regional sports events such as EURO, COPA AMÉRICA, and others.

We would have had:

*2010*
CASABLANCA
MARRAKESH
LAGOS
ACCRA
CAPE TOWN
JOHANNESBURG
DURBAN

*2014*
BELO HORIZONTE
RIO DE JANEIRO
SÃO PAULO
PORTO ALEGRE
MONTEVIDEO
BUENOS AIRES
SANTIAGO

*2018*
MOSCOW
ST. PETERSBURG
KIEV
WARSAW
KRAKOW
BUDAPEST
BUCHAREST
BELGRADE

*2022*
DUBAI
ABU DHABI
DOHA
KUWAIT CITY
RIYADH
JEDDAH
MUSCAT

Yes, African WC would have had long-distant co-host countries but South Africa wouldn't be paying the high cost of building so many useless stadiums.


----------



## Rokto14 (Dec 2, 2013)

Australian FA to launch bids for the 2030 and 2034 World Cups

Honestly, I feel that Australia should focus on the 2034 FIFA WC because 2030 will most likely go to South America or Europe. Most likely Australia will bid with New Zealand just like the 2023 FIFA Women's WC. But then Australia should also bear in mind that China and ASEAN countries might bid too. And also do Australia and NZ have a combined total of 16 rectangular stadiums?


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Rokto14 said:


> Australian FA to launch bids for the 2030 and 2034 World Cups
> 
> Honestly, I feel that Australia should focus on the 2034 FIFA WC because 2030 will most likely go to South America or Europe. Most likely Australia will bid with New Zealand just like the 2023 FIFA Women's WC. But then Australia should also bear in mind that China and ASEAN countries might bid too. And also do Australia and NZ have a combined total of 16 rectangular stadiums?


Yeah, tone deaf Australia once again....... The bid for 2022 was embarrassingly bad. FA could be playing the odds by bidding for a world cup that'll get turned down 100% so that it improves the 2034 case...... Unfortunately, China is a dead cert to host 2034, so I think this will be even more money down the drain.

There a bunch of other reasons why it's a s*** idea, not least as most of the stadiums in use will be round.....even athletics stadiums are an upgrade on what we can provide for a world cup. Cricket stadiums are circles with no possibility of seeing any fans on TV for football.

The only good thing about an Australia world cup would be that it'd be played in June winter time. For everything else, there are at least 15 countries that can do it better.

I'm actually stunned that they are even considering it considering how good the European and Chinese bids will be. Europe is strong favourite to get 30, and if it's China v Australia for 2034, there's only one winner there.


----------



## adeaide (Sep 16, 2008)




----------



## Rokto14 (Dec 2, 2013)

adeaide said:


>


I expected more stadiums from Thailand and Vietnam. The stadium is too low for a 48-team World Cup.


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

Maybe Jakarta (Indonesia) could be the final.


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

That would be nice to see Jakarta as the venue for the final like the 2023 FIFA U-20 World Cup which Indonesia will host.


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

We are waiting until the they to details for the ASEAN joint 2034 bid.


----------



## quanman247 (Mar 22, 2015)

It's either China or Australia-New Zealand. All due respect, ASEAN stands little to no chance.


----------



## Tazvaz (Jan 31, 2017)

Why is that? Asia is probably the strongest candidate to host in 2034. Why would ASEAN not be a realistic candidate?

Australia-NZ bid has very little chance.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Tazvaz said:


> Why is that? Asia is probably the strongest candidate to host in 2034. *Why would ASEAN not be a realistic candidate?*
> 
> Australia-NZ bid has very little chance.


The existence of China is a big reason. Unless China experiences ostracism for the world community between now and then like Russia, ASEAN is not a smart bet at all.


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

Maybe Australian and New Zealand should join forces with the main stadiums from the ASEAN countries but clearly if Europe hosts in 2030 then South America gets it in 2034. Or vice versa. China and Saudi Arabia should not get it because the world will be even more woke by then.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Juanpabloangel said:


> Maybe Australian and New Zealand should join forces with the main stadiums from the ASEAN countries but clearly if Europe hosts in 2030 then South America gets it in 2034. Or vice versa. China and Saudi Arabia should not get it because the world will be even more woke by then.


Sounds like a slippery slope. First we ban China, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Russia, of course. And the US for racial issues and militarism.

Australia/NZ: mistreatment of indigenous peoples

India? Africa? minimal women's rights, vicious dictatorships; practically no LGBTQ tolerance

ASEAN? Effective dictatorships; religious intolerance 

Well, look!!!!! We're back to Europe hosting everything. Just like the good old days!


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

A. Nothing wrong with submitting a bid, even if you're not expecting a win out of the gate. Going through the process can be used to identify how to improve your candidacy in the future. Besides, in the absence of competing bids the award process risks being compromised. (_I know, I know. Insert "FIFA integrity" joke here._) 

B. *Mod Note*: Mind your language, please. We try to keep the main boards kid-friendly. Thank you.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

If you’re not expecting to win, you have no business submitting a bid. Tens of millions of tax payer money gets flushed down the drain on failed bids. ‘Improving your future candidacy’….which in the past has meant getting involved in bribery……is a rubbish reason to submit a DOA bid.


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

pesto said:


> Sounds like a slippery slope. First we ban China, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Russia, of course. And the US for racial issues and militarism.
> 
> Australia/NZ: mistreatment of indigenous peoples
> 
> ...


Football usually transcends most of these issues but the way the world is going it will become important to people to see progress too. Also ojo with saying anything about mistreatment of aboriginal communities in NZ, which is not the case.

Europe and South America hosting is fine by me.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Juanpabloangel said:


> Football usually transcends most of these issues but the way the world is going it will become important to people to see progress too. Also ojo with saying anything about *mistreatment of aboriginal communities in NZ, which is not the case.
> 
> Europe and South America hosting is fine by me. *


LOL. Like I said, it's a slippery slope.


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

South America can't host 2034 if they are awarded 2030.


----------



## Cubiscus (Nov 15, 2011)

pesto said:


> Australia/NZ: mistreatment of indigenous peoples


This can be applied to virtually any potential host with some (China) still actively involved in genocide. And its not really an issue in NZ.

Australia/NZ would be an excellent world cup.


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

Cubiscus said:


> This can be applied to virtually any potential host with some (China) still actively involved in genocide. And its not really an issue in NZ.
> 
> Australia/NZ would be an excellent world cup.


We'll see about that.


----------

