# 2030 FIFA World Cup - Bids



## JYDA

alexandru.mircea said:


> ^he hasn't got a chance to win, though. If you've read the reports from the FIFA congress that took place in Brazil at the start of the World Cup, you'll know why. :lol:
> The strongest recent rumours are that UEFA are looking for someone new and fresh as their candidate, such as the Dutch FA president.


He brought up the 40 team world cup idea back in October before Sepp Blatter had gone back on his promise that this would be his final term of office. Platini backed away when he realized Blatter would run again. 

Even if it's not Platini I'm sure another candidate would put forward world cup expansion as well. It's the easiest way to gain votes when the FIFA presidency finally becomes available.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

JYDA said:


> He brought up the 40 team world cup idea back in October before Sepp Blatter had gone back on his promise that this would be his final term of office. Platini backed away when he realized Blatter would run again.
> 
> Even if it's not Platini I'm sure another candidate would put forward world cup expansion as well. It's the easiest way to gain votes when the FIFA presidency finally becomes available.


Like said already, the 40 team WC idea was a counter-proposal in reaction to Blatter's idea of spreading the WC more by slashing down the European allocation (by which it was obvious that Blatter was - informally - campaigning already). It's just politicians playing for the gallery; in reality they both know that 32 teams is the perfect format and changing it would harm the WC both in a sporting sense and financially. Even Blatter knows that, I don't think he actually means it about downsizing the European participation; he's signalling his supporters that his attitude to them remains the same. But what he's actually giving them now is, for example, the two hundred million euro bonus (which, when this was announced at the FIFA congress I mentioned, got the various FA representatives from all over the world to stand up and cheer, the only time during the whole congress :lol. 

But right now, if you'd slash even one or two European places, it can really detract from the WC, both on the pitch and by affecting the European TV markets that FIFA cares so much about. For example, slashing one place from Europe at this WC by not having the lowest ranked European team that qualified would have meant not having France. And to the others who think 32 teams is too much, think at the fact that slashing 8 teams between all the confederations would have meant losing at France, Mexico (4th place in Concacaf, had to go through a play-off), Uruguay (ditto), Australia (last qualifying spot in Asia), Nigeria (4th best ranked of the African qualified teams), not just deadwood like Cameroon, Honduras and (arguably) Russia. IMO this World Cup has proved exactly why 32 teams is the ideal format.


----------



## JYDA

alexandru.mircea said:


> in reality they both know that 32 teams is the perfect format and changing it would harm the WC both in a sporting sense and financially


Platini is the guy who expanded the Euro to 24 teams despite the 16 team format being universally described as "perfect". That happened, it wasn't just playing to the crowd. He also weakened the champions league group stage by giving weak teams from smaller leagues an easier qualifying path. Then look at what he did to the UEFA Cup/Europa League. Platini has a well documented track record of expanding, weakening and watering down competitions. When he says he would expand the world cup his track record should lead us to believe he means it.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^it wasn't universally described as perfect. In many countries (like mine) that fail regularly to qualify at tournaments, the EURO expansion has had a much better welcome. In the same countries, your talk about "weakening the CL" with small champion clubs from the lesser footballing countries would be called out as patronising, arrogant. It's the _Champions League_. But there are still plenty of articles even in big country medias, like the English media, that are calling out this perpetual expansion of the CL with 3rd spots then 4th spots etc. from the big leagues in the name of "quality" as selling out the original spirit of the competition. Let them break away and start their own closed-door competition if having us is such a bother. (BTW, the last CL expansion was during Lennart Johansson's rule). 

Regardless, this is purely offtopic. Michel Platini's words, or for that matter those of any European power figure, are irrelevant in World Cup context. Ever since Stanley Rous' extremely eurocentric (to use an euphemism) mandate ending in 1974, and the FIFA expansion with small countries since, there hasn't been a euro-friendly leadership at FIFA and it looks like it won't be for some time either.


----------



## IanCleverly

** slight bump**



Yahoo UK said:


> Chile is interested in hosting the 2030 football World Cup but Argentina will not be bidding to stage the tournament, local media reported on Tuesday.
> 
> Chilean football federation president Sergio Jadue, who was re-elected on Monday, said his country had spoken to football's ruling world body FIFA about hosting the competition, either alone or with Uruguay.
> 
> Jadue has previously expressed interest in Chile holding the 2030 World Cup, building on its experience of hosting next year's Copa America regional competition and the Under-17 World Cup.
> 
> Argentina has also been mooted as a possible host for 2030, but Miguel Angel Silva, the Argentine football association vice-president, appeared to rule that out.
> 
> "Argentina is not thinking about the 2030 World Cup. We haven't even considered it yet. If you asked me concretely, Argentina will not bid to organise that World Cup," Chilean local daily La Tercera quoted him as saying.
> 
> The 2030 World Cup will mark the centenary of the global football competition which is held every four years. The 1930 World Cup was hosted and won by Uruguay and many people would like to see it return to South America for the 100th anniversary.


https://uk.news.yahoo.com/chile-eyes-hosting-2030-world-cup-argentina-not-125453572--sow.html


----------



## krnboy1009

Brazil just held it. I cant see them returning soon.


----------



## |WTKI|

Why not? Chile has the experience of hosting 1962 FIFA WC and next year will host Copa América and U-17 FIFA WC. I think if the organization become a success and if Chile starts a long-term proyect involving government, districts and ANFP there will be no problem nominating a candidature.

The bigge$t concern would be another one.


----------



## TEBC

krnboy1009 said:


> Brazil just held it. I cant see them returning soon.


FIFA for a long time did a rotation policy for southa america, we are still stronger contenders then any other continent because Our history.


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon

If Chile/Uruguay 2030 ok!! Or Paraguay/Uruguay 2030. How??
Argentina can postpone to 2038 ok?? How?


----------



## blacktrojan3921

A little bit early to be setting this up don't you think? After all there isn't even a forum thread for the 2026 FIFA world cup xD


----------



## Laurence2011

Don't see why Chile couldn't host it alone tbh


----------



## al74

Uruguay is not a potential bid..........it´s impossible for us to organize a wc....we don´t have enough cities, stadiums, highways, airports, money, for such thing.


----------



## sweet-d

Everyone knows 2030 is China's turn to host a World Cup so far it looks like China is the only country that can break the attendance records set by the US in 92.


----------



## munchymunch

God it would be shit playing there, to much pollution.


----------



## BIFC

England


----------



## Laurence2011

munchymunch said:


> God it would be shit playing there, to much pollution.


They could probably clean up and reduce their emissions quite a bit by 2030, that is 16 years from now..


----------



## quanman247

How about the UK with England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland together?

*Wembley*: Open Match, Group Stage, Round of 16, Quarter Final, Final.
*Old Trafford*: Group Stage, Round of 16, Quarter Final, Semi-Final.
*Millenium Stadium*: Group Stage, Round of 16, Semi-Final.
*Emirates*: Group Stage, Round of 16, Quarter-Final.
*Hampden Park*: Group Stage, Round of 16, Quarter-Final.
*Etihad* (expanded): Group Stage, Round of 16, Third Place.
*Celtic Park* (innovated): Group Stage, Round of 16.
*Anfield* (expanded and innovated): Group Stage, Round of 16.
*Stadium:mk *, *St. James's Park*, *Stadium of Light*, *Elland Road* (all expanded and innovated) and new stadiums in Northern Ireland: Group Stage


----------



## will101

quanman247 said:


> How about the UK with England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland together?
> 
> *Wembley*: Open Match, Group Stage, Round of 16, Quarter Final, Final.
> *Old Trafford*: Group Stage, Round of 16, Quarter Final, Semi-Final.
> *Millenium Stadium*: Group Stage, Round of 16, Semi-Final.
> *Emirates*: Group Stage, Round of 16, Quarter-Final.
> *Hampden Park*: Group Stage, Round of 16, Quarter-Final.
> *Etihad* (expanded): Group Stage, Round of 16, Third Place.
> *Celtic Park* (innovated): Group Stage, Round of 16.
> *Anfield* (expanded and innovated): Group Stage, Round of 16.
> *Stadium:mk *, *St. James's Park*, *Stadium of Light*, *Elland Road* (all expanded and innovated) and new stadiums in Northern Ireland: Group Stage


With the amount of corruption rampant in FIFA right now, the World Cup will never be awarded on merit, so you guys are wasting your time on pushing England or the UK. China is a corrupt country with a terrible human rights record, so on that basis alone I would say it is a shoe-in.


----------



## RobH

England won't bid for any FIFA tournaments with Blatter in charge (http://news.sky.com/story/1305576/england-wont-bid-while-sepp-blatter-at-fifa). 2030 will probably be the first World Cup bid process not overseen by him so there might be a chance for England. Don't see any need for making it a UK wide effort though.


----------



## nazrey

*ASEAN aims to host FIFA World Cup in 2030*
English.news.cn 2011-01-19 19:50:20	
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/sports/2011-01/19/c_13698188.htm



> JAKARTA, Jan. 19 (Xinhua) -- The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is exploring entering the competition for its 10 member states to host the FIFA World Cup, the world's biggest football tournament, in 2030, a press statement said here on Wednesday.
> 
> Started out as an informal discussion by the ASEAN Foreign Ministers last July in Vietnam's Hanoi, the proposal has recently garnered a higher level of interest, following last week's ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Retreat in Lombok, during which the proposal became one of the highlights.
> 
> "I am very pleased with the unprecedented level of enthusiasm across the ASEAN region, particularly amongst our sport communities, about the decision to explore ASEAN's bid to host the 2030 World Cup," said Secretary-General of ASEAN Surin Pitsuwan.
> 
> "We are still at an early stage of consultations and strategic discussion," he continued, "but the advice and opinions that have been generated are most valued, and we expect the debate to continue and widen because we really learn a great deal from the public exchange."
> 
> Malaysia has been tasked to prepare a proposal for the competition to be presented to the ASEAN Leaders at the 18th ASEAN Summit and Related Summits in May.
> 
> "The ASEAN Secretariat will work closely with Malaysia on this," said Pitsuwan.


*ASEAN to bid for FIFA World Cup 2030 *
9 May 2011 l By: Yamada Kei
http://www.iesingapore.gov.sg/Media-Centre/News/2011/5/ASEAN-to-bid-for-FIFA-World-Cup-2030



> The member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have agreed to go ahead with a joint bid to host the 2030 FIFA World Cup, according to a statement by the Indonesian Foreign Ministry on Sunday.
> 
> Leaders from the ASEAN nations gathered in Jakarta, Indonesia for the 18th ASEAN Summit held on Saturday and Sunday to discuss a host of regional issues.
> 
> According to a press release published on the official ASEAN Summit 2011 website, "ASEAN foreign ministers are eager to encourage public-oriented initiatives, including ASEAN`s bid for World Cup in 2030.”
> 
> The idea for ASEAN to host the FIFA World Cup has been thrown around and debated as early as 2009. In January this year, Channel News Asia reported that ASEAN foreign ministers discussed once again the possibility of a joint bid to host the FIFA World Cup during the ASEAN Foreign Minsters’ Retreat in Lombak, Indonesia.
> 
> In April, a proposal to bring the 2030 FIFA World Cup to the region was presented to the ASEAN Football Federation (AFF), according to a statement published on ASEAN’s official website.
> 
> To date, the highest honour of national soccer triumph has never been held in an ASEAN country. For Asian countries, only South Korea and Japan have hosted the internationally watched championship. They jointly hosted the event in 2002.
> 
> The Secretary-General of ASEAN Dr Surin Pitsuwan admitted in January that it will be a “long and arduous campaign” to host the World Cup. However, if ASEAN can work together to pull it off, the regional body will gain greatly in terms of enhanced international prestige, profile and confidence in the association, he said.
> 
> The FIFA World Cup is organised by the International Federation of Association Football. All 10 ASEAN states are listed individually as FIFA member associations. The tournament is held every four years, with the next World Cup to be held in Brazil in 2014, followed by Russia in 2018 and Qatar in 2022.


*Singapore Plans ASEAN Bid for 2030 World Cup*
Singapore hopes to bring the first World Cup to Southeast Asia, to be shared among ASEAN members.
October 09, 2013
http://thediplomat.com/2013/10/singapore-plans-asean-bid-for-2030-world-cup/



> Singapore is planning to lead an ASEAN bid and host the 2030 World Cup. Given the extraordinary support soccer enjoys among 600 million people in Southeast Asia and the advanced plans to forge a single economic and cultural bloc in the region, such a plan should enjoy widespread support.
> 
> Zainudin Nordin, President of the Football Association of Singapore (FAS), said Singapore has set the target for hosting the World Cup as part of a combined bid for the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
> 
> Given the unexpected success enjoyed by Qatar and its winning bid for the 2022 tournament – where a money-first attitude prevailed – an ASEAN attempt would not be entirely out of place.
> 
> With Singapore at the helm, ASEAN would be in a financial position to host the tournament. ASEAN certainly boasts a large and strong following of the football code and many of the facilities and logistics required to stage such a complex event already exist or could easily be built with 10 countries behind the bid.
> 
> Qatar also broke the unwritten rule that only traditionally strong soccer nations should hold the World Cup. According to Goal.com, Zainudin said he was happy with 2030 as the target for a regional bid and a solid proposal would be forthcoming.
> 
> This type of bid would also allow world minnows like Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and Myanmar to play hosts at a tournament – for perhaps just one game each. That’s something they normally could only dream of doing.
> 
> Ahead of Qatar’s 2022 cup, Brazil will hold the 2014 World Cup and Russia will take its turn four years later. An ASEAN bid would provide FIFA with an opportunity to hold the World Cup for the first time in Southeast Asia and only the second time in Asia. Japan and South Korea held a joint World Cup in 2002.
> 
> The 2026 World Cup is not slated to be held in Asia.
> 
> Qatar’s bid has been shrouded in controversy with FIFA delaying a bid to shift the World Cup to winter after admitting that it had not taken into proper consideration the desert heat and the impact this could have on the players, officials and fans.
> 
> The ASEAN bid would also provide a focal point for the upcoming ASEAN Summit to be held this week in Brunei where trade agreements and more weighty issues of state and foreign policy issues – like territorial disputes in the South China Sea – are standard fare.
> 
> This year, major issues include the formation of a common market by the end of 2015 – a formidable task given the great religious, political and cultural differences among the 10 countries.





> *The Association of Southeast Asian Nations [ASEAN]*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, commonly abbreviated ASEAN is a geo-political and economic organization of 10 countries located in Southeast Asia, which was formed on 8 August 1967 by *Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Since then, membership has expanded to include Brunei, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam*. Its aims include the acceleration of economic growth, social progress, cultural development among its members, the protection of the peace and stability of the region, and to provide opportunities for member countries to discuss differences peacefully.


----------



## fidalgo

> Zainudin Nordin, President of the Football Association of Singapore (FAS), said Singapore has set the target for hosting the World Cup as part of a combined bid for the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).


10 hosts

yeah right


----------



## Its AlL gUUd

fidalgo said:


> 10 hosts
> 
> yeah right


Considering Qatar got the World Cup anything is possible with the Scum at FIFA.


----------



## BlazerBlaze

I like the idea of an SE Asia WC but then I think about their recent history with flights and I'm not so sure anymore


----------



## DR.SHREJMAN

i don't think so...it will be china


----------



## alejo25

ChesterCopperpot said:


> 100 year anniversary of the World Cup. It's going back to where it began - Uruguay


Uruguay has the will but not the resources.


----------



## TEBC

alejo25 said:


> Uruguay has the will but not the resources.


Argentina does


----------



## afonso_bh

It should be in England, for many, many reasons. With Uruguay-Argentina as a possibility.


----------



## GunnerJacket

fidalgo said:


> 10 hosts
> 
> yeah right


On it's face I and most reasonable people agree with this sentiment. But sooner or later FIFA will have to develop a formal possibility that addresses the potential for joint bids because there will be more and more calls for ways to share the event with more of the world. So either FIFA will need to affirm this isn't allowed or draft how to approach it. I wouldn't be against a joint bid provided the host nations resolve which national team gets to be in the event. (Maybe they have their own qualification tournament?) But the Netherlands/Belgium bid was very practical, Argentina/Uruguay will get its considerations and more nations like Greece, Turkey, Portugal and elsewhere will be looking for opportunities to be part of a possible bid. 

That being said the issue with this ASEAN bid, beyond the customs logistics for travelers hopping between cities, is that I really only see 7-8 cities that appear viable hosts. Granted, a lot can change between now and 2030.


----------



## chestersim

GunnerJacket said:


> On it's face I and most reasonable people agree with this sentiment. But sooner or later FIFA will have to develop a formal possibility that addresses the potential for joint bids because there will be more and more calls for ways to share the event with more of the world. So either FIFA will need to affirm this isn't allowed or draft how to approach it. I wouldn't be against a joint bid provided the host nations resolve which national team gets to be in the event. (Maybe they have their own qualification tournament?) But the Netherlands/Belgium bid was very practical, Argentina/Uruguay will get its considerations and more nations like Greece, Turkey, Portugal and elsewhere will be looking for opportunities to be part of a possible bid.
> 
> That being said the issue with this ASEAN bid, beyond the customs logistics for travelers hopping between cities, is that I really only see 7-8 cities that appear viable hosts. Granted, a lot can change between now and 2030.


 i agree with the sentiments here. its a long shot for ASEAN. 

yes asean has the Asean Football Federation Championship (AFF championship) although australia was admitted to be part of AFF starting 2013. they could use this as a qualifying match for world cup. if the aussie wins. we'll take the silver as representatives. haha

logistics wise, it might be hard. not all capitals (presuming its the venue) of each countries has direct flights to other capital cities as well. another issue is that maritime asean (Philippines' manila, indonesia's jakarta, brunei) will have a fewer transportation option. only by plane. with the distance, that will not be a problem, the farthest which is manila-jakarta is still shorter than foxborough-stanford during World cup 1994 and maybe the yekaterinberg-kalinigrad distance for 2018 is still farther.

most of asean nation are visa free though.

fyi, the 2007 asian cup was also staged in a joint bid. indonesia-thailand-vietnam-malaysia won the hosting. thats why they are actually eager because they have the experience and i guess this time they want to push it further.

maybe fifa's action with joint bids will be less strict as the time goes by, especially with higher cost and white elephants looming over.

by 2030, asean could be an economic bloc already like european union so who knows.


----------



## carlosfng

I think FIFA should stop enlarging the costs of organizing a WC, and possibly downgrade them. Yes, we all love to see the fanciness of the WC on TV, but in reality the costs are so high that it can only be hosted without problems in Europe, the US, Australia, etc; while the rest of the world has to have cash to throw away (such as the Qatari oil money) and even then stumble a lot. That is why I am skeptical, for example, of the 2030 Argentina-Uruguay bid; after seeing the biggest economy in South America nearly crash organization-wise in the last World Cup, I doubt Uruguay and Argentina can do well in that regard (even though as a South American, I'd love it to be otherwise).
But yeah, 2030 is really far ahead to predict anything... for now, I think candidates would be China, Australia, and maybe England/UK. Depends also on who hosts on 2026, which I'm thinking could easily be the US.


----------



## DimitriB

I hope Uruguay will bid.
Just from historical reasons 
1930 - 2030 = 100years WC


----------



## Walbanger

carlosfng said:


> ...But yeah, 2030 is really far ahead to predict anything... for now, I think candidates would be China, *Australia, and maybe England*/UK. Depends also on who hosts on 2026, which I'm thinking could easily be the US.


Both nations, be it there FA's and/or Governments have stated they will not Bid until FIFA is utterly reformed (most likely including the retirement or removal of Blatter and ilk).


----------



## GunnerJacket

carlosfng said:


> I think FIFA should stop enlarging the costs of organizing a WC, and possibly downgrade them. Yes, we all love to see the fanciness of the WC on TV, but in reality the costs are so high that it can only be hosted without problems in Europe, the US, Australia, etc...


A great deal of these costs the hosts put on themselves, with local politicians using the WC or the Olympics as an excuse to pursue major infrastructure projects and speculative development used as graft among all their supporters. The "need" to be a spectacular host includes grand visions of redevelopment and the creation of economic opportunity, which in turn makes FIFA and the IOC feel good about themselves as if they're the catalysts for major civic improvements.

The reality is that these improvements, billed as both the cost of winning the games and then the balance between spending on just stadiums and actual local needs, are the excessive price drivers and that many of them are either not needed or should be done differently or cheaper to produce real, lasting impacts on the local community. Brazil, for instance got the stadiums but not the transportation improvements and new housing that was promised. FIFA didn't mandate all that stuff but Brazilian officials were compelled to include those promises to trump up their bid and to win local support.

Which is all a way of saying I agree with you but it's not all FIFA's or the IOC's fault. Local politicians have their role in this mismanagement scheme, as well.


----------



## nazrey

WELCOME TO ASEAN: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1764765


> *ASEAN REGIONAL AND GLOBAL EXPERIENCED*
> ASIAN GAMES
> 1954 - Manila, Philippines
> 1962 - Jakarta, Indonesia
> 1966	- Bangkok, Thailand
> 1970 - Bangkok, Thailand
> 1978 - Bangkok, Thailand
> 1998	- Bangkok, Thailand
> 2018 - Jakarta, Indonesia
> 
> COMMONWEALTH GAMES
> 1998	- Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
> 
> SUMMER YOUTH OLYMPIC GAMES
> 2010	- Singapore, Singapore
> 
> AFC Asian Cup
> 1972 - Thailand
> 1984 - Singapore
> 2007 - Co-host Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam
> 
> FIBA Asia Championship
> 1960 - Manila, Philippines
> 1965 - Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
> 1969 - Bangkok, Thailand
> 1973 - Manila, Philippines
> 1975 - Bangkok, Thailand
> 1977 - Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
> 1985 - Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
> 1987 - Bangkok, Thailand
> 1993 - Jakarta, Indonesia
> 2013 - Manila, Philippines
> 
> FIBA Basketball World Cup
> 1978 - Manila, Philippines
> 
> FIFA Futsal World Cups
> 2012	- Bangkok, Thailand
> 
> FIFA World Youth Championship
> 1997 - Shah Alam - Kuching - Alor Setar - Kuantan - Kangar - Johor Bahru, Malaysia


----------



## rantanamo

As long as we keep it out of the US


----------



## carlosfng

Walbanger said:


> Both nations, be it there FA's and/or Governments have stated they will not Bid until FIFA is utterly reformed (most likely including the retirement or removal of Blatter and ilk).


I'm pretty sure Blatter will be gone by then. Regardless, I think Europeans, and specially the British, should realize that FIFA will not always try to please them...


----------



## carlosfng

GunnerJacket said:


> A great deal of these costs the hosts put on themselves, with local politicians using the WC or the Olympics as an excuse to pursue major infrastructure projects and speculative development used as graft among all their supporters. The "need" to be a spectacular host includes grand visions of redevelopment and the creation of economic opportunity, which in turn makes FIFA and the IOC feel good about themselves as if they're the catalysts for major civic improvements.
> 
> The reality is that these improvements, billed as both the cost of winning the games and then the balance between spending on just stadiums and actual local needs, are the excessive price drivers and that many of them are either not needed or should be done differently or cheaper to produce real, lasting impacts on the local community. Brazil, for instance got the stadiums but not the transportation improvements and new housing that was promised. FIFA didn't mandate all that stuff but Brazilian officials were compelled to include those promises to trump up their bid and to win local support.
> 
> Which is all a way of saying I agree with you but it's not all FIFA's or the IOC's fault. Local politicians have their role in this mismanagement scheme, as well.


I understand what you mean, and I agree. But it has always been like that with politicians; they have always tried to promote civic improvements AND enhance their own profit out of any event or infrastructure build really. Thus I find FIFA and the IOC (in a lesser degree) as bigger culprits, who after all are the ones who set the rules, and don't mind playing the politician's games and since the 90s began to set the bar too high to reap in the profits. If you notice, from 94 onwards the costs of hosting the WC become larger and larger, whereas before it had highs and lows.
Sooner than later I hope the bubble will burst... probably after 2022...


----------



## GunnerJacket

carlosfng said:


> I understand what you mean, and I agree. But it has always been like that with politicians; they have always tried to promote civic improvements AND enhance their own profit out of any event or infrastructure build really. Thus I find FIFA and the IOC (in a lesser degree) as bigger culprits, who after all are the ones who set the rules, and don't mind playing the politician's games and since the 90s began to set the bar too high to reap in the profits. If you notice, from 94 onwards the costs of hosting the WC become larger and larger, whereas before it had highs and lows.
> Sooner than later I hope the bubble will burst... probably after 2022...


The costs have gone up because the standards for construction have improved (and rightly so) and because the event is larger and typically involves more venues. Especially as they offer it to nations with less established infrastructure.

They could easily hop around the same 4-8 countries already fully capable of hosting, but that would not only be boring but it would mean home-field advantages for established football powers. If the ideal is to share the wealth, as it were, FIFA can either sit around waiting for the likes of South Africa to build or try to be the impetus for advancement. Personally I don't mind them seeking the latter, as it's still possible for host nations to host the games without going bankrupt.

But, yes, that's putting a lot of faith in humanity on my part considering these political times! :cheers:


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Would obviously love this World Cup to come to England. It will be 64 years since the only other World Cup in England by that point. All the other major European nations will have had it since and most twice by then. When it next comes to Europe it should be to England. Unless you believe in joint bids.

We all know that FIFA doesn't work like that.


----------



## dvjmarcomatheus

After Brazil, Russia and South African

CHINA and INDIA really deserves do a World Cup.

Its time to back to England...anyway...

But my personal taste, i will love a WC in Bolivia/Peru or Peru/Equador


----------



## Good Karma

dvjmarcomatheus said:


> After Brazil, Russia and South African
> 
> *CHINA and INDIA really deserves do a World Cup.*
> 
> Its time to back to England...anyway...
> 
> But my personal taste, i will love a WC in Bolivia/Peru or Peru/Equador


Why exactly?? Just because they are big countries doesn't mean they are deserving. They have made no mark on World football.


----------



## carlosfng

^^ Neither did the US in 94, nor Japan or Korea in 2002, nor South Africa in 2010. So let's face it, exotic countries hosting WCs will continue to happen. And probably one or two editions after 2030 China or India will host.

2030 will be a traditional year though, I bet. And I sense that the main bids will be a European (UK) and a South American (Uruguay-Argentina), fully supported by their respective continents. CONCACAF probably will host in 2026 so it might support their southern neighbors. And Asia/Africa might choose a side or present a third option that probably wont win (even if Africa could very well argue they could use a WC again). Probably the UK will win... but with FIFA, who knows...


----------



## carlosfng

GunnerJacket said:


> The costs have gone up because the standards for construction have improved (and rightly so) and because the event is larger and typically involves more venues. Especially as they offer it to nations with less established infrastructure.
> 
> They could easily hop around the same 4-8 countries already fully capable of hosting, but that would not only be boring but it would mean home-field advantages for established football powers. If the ideal is to share the wealth, as it were, FIFA can either sit around waiting for the likes of South Africa to build or try to be the impetus for advancement. Personally I don't mind them seeking the latter, as it's still possible for host nations to host the games without going bankrupt.
> 
> But, yes, that's putting a lot of faith in humanity on my part considering these political times! :cheers:


I understand what you mean, that the WC naturally will keep growing as an event, and that it obviously will be boring and unfair if only the fully capable host. But then all the more reason for FIFA to be willing to give more of a helping hand to said developing nations that do get picked; as well as being more strict with host selection and timeline fulfillment and etc... But meh, maybe I too put too much faith in humanity...


----------



## Good Karma

carlosfng said:


> ^^ Neither did the US in 94, nor Japan or Korea in 2002, nor South Africa in 2010. So let's face it, exotic countries hosting WCs will continue to happen. And probably one or two editions after 2030 China or India will host...


Those countries you mentioned had more of role within their own confederations and were competitive. China and India are almost non existent even in their own confederation.


----------



## That London Fella

Aren't argentinas stadiums mostly still standing? I would hate to see la bombanera become an all seater stadium, would completely destroy it.


----------



## Kot Bazilio

Definitely must be in England (UK). 100 years anniversary


----------



## GEwinnen

dvjmarcomatheus said:


> After Brazil, Russia and South African
> 
> CHINA and INDIA really deserves do a World Cup.


India? WTF, #173 FIFA world ranking


----------



## Kot Bazilio

GEwinnen said:


> India? WTF, #173 FIFA world ranking


Since when the winner is determined by the success of the game? :lol:
South africa,russia, especially qatar bad in football too, but WC would be in this countries


----------



## El Sampi

Se tiene que hacer en Uruguay !!!!


----------



## GEwinnen

Kot Bazilio said:


> Since when the winner is determined by the success of the game? :lol:
> South africa,russia, especially qatar bad in football too, but WC would be in this countries


Awarding the WC to South Africa was a politically decision, Russia is ranked #33 -not too bad, I guess you know how Qatar got the World Cup.........


----------



## Alanzeh

Turkey won't do a bid to try to host it?
It would be so much better than an hypothetical Chile, or Uruguay (impossible) or ASEAN (!!!!) bid. I also loved the Belgium/Netherlands bid (Portugal and Spain also wasn`t bad at all). I wish they just make another one to 2026/2030.
And an UK bid would also be cool, The host stadiums for me would be
Wembley
Old Trafford
Millenium Stadium
Emirates Stadium or Stamford Bridge (renovated) or New Tottenham Stadium
Hampden Park
Ibrox or Parkhead
St. James Park
Hillsborough (expansion)
Elliand Road
An Northern Ireland stadium


----------



## dvjmarcomatheus

Good Karma said:


> Why exactly?? Just because they are big countries doesn't mean they are deserving. They have made no mark on World football.


It's doens't matter if the country have a good team or not. 

I think China and India can host amazing WC for these reasons.:

1 - China is the second most powerfull country in the world, second economy, money is not a problem. India have more problems with economy, but they have money anyway.

2 - China and India are potential markets to develop, both countries have more than billion of person each, they have I lot of big and modern cities as well.

3 - They are working to improve the national leagues. Famous players plays in the national leagues from China and India. The interest for soccer, have been growing year by year

4 - They have a ancient strong culture. And they will do a unforgettable and exotic WC.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Realizing that such a joint bid is, for all intents a purposes, dead on arrival due to political machinations, there are still a couple of plot holes to be cleaned up:


Alanzeh said:


> And an UK bid would also be cool, The host stadiums for me would be
> Wembley
> Old Trafford
> Millenium Stadium
> Emirates Stadium or Stamford Bridge (renovated) or New Tottenham Stadium
> Hampden Park
> Ibrox or Parkhead
> St. James Park
> Hillsborough (expansion)
> Elliand Road
> An Northern Ireland stadium


A Stamford Bridge renovation isn't going to be selected over the Emirates due to congestion at the site and difficulty handling crowds in accordance with FIFA preferences. As it is Emirates is practically too urban for their tastes, as security protocols and space for special external events all-but-dictates each venue be surrounded by car parks. FIFA would make it work, but it's not their first choice. Thus, Stamford Bridge is all but out of the question as their site is more packed than the Emirates.

Meanwhile, assuming London gets two stadiums that means you can only have one in Glasgow. Thus, only one of Ibrox, Parkhead and Hamdpen get the nod. You could, however, add Murrayfield as representative of Edinburgh. 

Lastly, I just don't see Belfast hosting anything for fear of what could happen, even if just polite protesting. It would simply be too messy for consideration because one side or the other will spin it all the wrong way and use it as an excuse to make unwanted noise.


----------



## Gavrosh

The Olympic Stadium beats the Emirates all day long in terms of accessibility and iconic nature, and by that time it'll have been modified further and will likely be able to handle 75-80,000 crowds.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Accessibility? Certainly. Iconic nature? I'll call that a push and am willing to bet the average person around the globe couldn't pick the venue out of an image line-up. To say nothing of how the renovations are altering the venue, and that as a footie venue it may be quite lacking given the imperfections of the seating structure. Similar case can be made for using Twickers, though I trust the FA will prefer to use member venues. 

I'm not saying Emirates is a given at #2. Merely pointing out that Stamford Bridge won't be in the mix.


----------



## RobH

What's with Arsenal fans coming into this thread disparaing the Olympic stadium?! hno:


----------



## GunnerJacket

We're just another unruly lot out to scuttle West Ham's eventual conquering of the planet, but we couldn't sue West Ham or the Legacy Committee because that would've been unoriginal. So we're left with simple badmouthing, apparently.

It's a Gold and Sullivan world, after all, don't you know.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Time will tell with the Olympic Stadium. Transport and setting are fantastic. If the atmosphere from the Olympics carries over it will sound good. The potential problems are the views from the seats and the view of the big gaps in the stands. If things go well and West Ham expand the capacity then it will be the obvious choice as 2nd London ground if we ever get a World Cup. Especially as it is the other side of the city to Wembley.


----------



## carlosfng

Good Karma said:


> Those countries you mentioned had more of role within their own confederations and were competitive. China and India are almost non existent even in their own confederation.


I agree about Japan and South Korea, but not the others. South Africa wasn't (and sadly for them, still isn't) a competitive footballing nation, not even within their confederation; compare them to Cameroon, Ghana, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Algeria or several other North/Central African countries. It was chosen as a host though because it could offer the best infrastructure and safety possible in the continent. It wouldn't have qualified for the WC otherwise. Similar case for the US, who although now they are competitive, before the 90s they barely ever went to a WC; even minuscule Central American countries like El Salvador qualified instead.

Thus, considering their huge economies and how their leagues are actually growing and being invested in, I think China and India will host a WC. Not a question of if, but when. Probably post-2030 though.

Someone mentioned Turkey... I had forgotten about them. They might try to bid, but idk if even their own confederation will fully support them. Who knows, it's a long time away...

Unrelatedly, I still wonder if FIFA will consider joint bids again. I remember after 2002 they were like "no way". Now they are like "maybe..."


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^when South Africa bid in 2000 (quite strongly, and only narrowly missed) for the 2006 World Cup they had been champions of Africa just 4 years previously, and had been at the World Cup that had just happened where they were very decent. 4 years later their bid for 2010 was successful, having in the meantime been present (and very decent) at another World Cup. When they won the bidding for 2002 in 1996, Japan and South Korea were lesser footballing nations, they were awarded the WC for how well they were expected to pull it off.

Africa is a massive continent with a lot of fairly strong and evenly matched footballing nations, so a country not being able to reach the top isn't necessarily because they are some insignificant minnows. For example, if you watched the last African Cup of Nations, the Ivory Coast hadn't won the tournament for longer than the time since South Africa last won it, which doesn't mean that Ivory Coast wasn't a competitive country in Africa. Same for Nigeria, while Ghana and Algeria still haven't won an ACN since the last time South Africa won it. That's not to say that South Africa is a top African footballing nation, but they aren't minnows either, they had sufficient pedigree by the necessary standards in the times when they were bidding for World Cups.


----------



## ElvisBC

Ioannes_ said:


> *But it is true that in 2030, we will have wonderful stadiums:*
> 
> 
> 
> *Valencia:* Nou Mestalla.



that's very very optimistic :colgate:



Ioannes_ said:


> The Government of Spain will not support a dipendio more in Olympics or World football in the next 20 years.


what do you mean by "dipendio"? investing?


----------



## Ioannes_

ElvisBC said:


> that's very very optimistic :colgate:
> 
> 
> 
> what do you mean by "dipendio"? investing?


*The government of Spain will not make an expense in Olympics and WC in the next 20 years, either because of debt or because the radicals get to rule, and steal money to Cristiano Ronaldo, Florentino Perez and Messi, to give it to the poor. The stadiums will be social centers for "Perroflautas"

* This word you bother to investigate its meaning.


----------



## Gavrosh

Hamzawi said:


> Possible Venue Conecept for England's 2030 bid based on current stadium conditions and what we know a the moment. It proposes 12 stadia as follows
> 
> 
> *LONDON* Wembley (90k)
> *LONDON* Emirates (60k)
> *LONDON* Olympic (54k) *OR* New White Hart Lane (60k)
> *SOUTHAMPTON* St. Mary's (renovate and expand to 40k)
> *BRISTOL* New Bristol City Stadium (40k)
> *BIRMINGHAM* Villa Park (renovate and expand to 50k)
> *LEICESTER* Leicester City Stadium (renovate and expand to 40k) *OR NOTTINGHAM* New Nottingham Forest Stadium (40k)
> *LEEDS* Elland Road (renovate and expand to 45-50k)
> *LIVERPOOL* Anfield (53k - Major Renovation)
> *MANCHESTER* Old Trafford (76k)
> *MANCHESTER* Etihad (plans to expand to 62k)
> *NEWCASTLE* St James Park (52k - Major Renovation)
> *SUNDERLAND* Stadium of Light (48k - Major Renovation)


The Olympic Stadium is likely to be 70k plus by then. You're also missing out Stamford Bridge (60k plus) and Nou Goodison (60k plus). Personally I can't see any games outside of London/ Liverpool/ Manchester/ Birmingham/ Newcastle.


----------



## isaidso

Is England big enough to host in an expanded WC? Some argued that Canada is too small with 37 million people but England only has 55 million people; not much bigger.


----------



## JYDA

isaidso said:


> Is England big enough to host in an expanded WC? Some argued that Canada is too small with 37 million people but England only has 55 million people; not much bigger.


That's not really the issue. They have the stadiums to host a 64 team tournament, let alone 48. London alone has the venues for a 32 team tournament


----------



## ElvisBC

JYDA said:


> London alone has the venues for a 32 team tournament


if there were no needs for team resorts with training grounds, accommodation for at least million fans, whole media headquarters etc, then yes. 
in real life, of course not!


----------



## JYDA

ElvisBC said:


> if there were no needs for team resorts with training grounds, accommodation for at least million fans, whole media headquarters etc, then yes.
> in real life, of course not!


Is Qatar real life?? London already hosted millions of fans in the Olympics along with the world's media. There's already a ridiculous number of training grounds within a reasonable drive of the capital.


----------



## Guest

Of course London can host on its own. But it wont. England could easily host a 64 team tournament. But, again, it wont. 

By the time Europe hosts again, I think people can forget about a single European country hosting alone. Now, an England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland bid is a better bet. Spreading the love, even if it is not needed, will be the way to go.

Canada is too small to host on its own because it has the US next door. Not for any other reason. Also, its stadiums for a WC are laughable compared to England.


----------



## Rokto14

2030 FIFA World Cup will be in England or let's just say Europe. I think by now it has been very clear as the prediction is quite easy. I doubt it would be hosted by any of the South American nations.


----------



## ElvisBC

JYDA said:


> Is Qatar real life?? London already hosted millions of fans in the Olympics along with the world's media. There's already a ridiculous number of training grounds within a reasonable drive of the capital.


of course you could squeeze it into london, but it would be a huge compromise

and no need to talk about qatar, thats simply ridiculous and everything has been said and written anyway. the football fell into coma on december 2nd 2010 and might never be awaken


----------



## alejo25

Uruguay does not have neither the financial muscle nor the market in terms of population to provide a feasible bid in order to organise a WC in this period of time.

Argentina/Chile makes so much more sense.


----------



## Mojeda101

An Uruguay/Argentina joint bid seems like the best way to do it if they want to do the whole 100 year anniversary concept. They definitely need to work on their stadiums but it isn't impossible for the two nations.


----------



## Guest

Ain't gonna happen. With 2026 in North America (almost certainly), it isn't going to South America, centenary or not. 

They won't allow 14 years before the next Europe prime-time WC comes around. 2030 will be in Europe, bank on it.


----------



## TommyVercetti

Italy. Just build those new stadiums!


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

I live in London and wouldn't want the whole tournament here. People are only saying it is possible because a 32-team tournament would be. Wouldn't be desirable though. 
That is irrelevant because it will be a 48 team tournament and we couldn't host that in the city even if we wanted to. Would much rather spread it around England. The best tournament that England could put on would see two venues in Manchester, 1 or 2 in Liverpool, 2 or 3 in London plus Newcastle, Sunderland, Villa and a selection of improved/expanded stadia from those in Middlesbrough, Leicester, Derby, Leeds, Sheffield, Southampton and Brighton. Those are the ones that are viable long term at 40,000 plus seats.

If you added Wales it would just be the Millennium Stadium and for a qtr final at most (which is more than fair enough as Wales has around 1/20th of England and Wales' combined population). Fine stadium, of course.


----------



## TommyVercetti

Joint bids make sense for small/medium countries.

USA should host a World Cup on *THE EAST COAST* for example, easily.

Multiple countries could be something like Nordic 2008 - Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland or only 3 of them.

Spain+Portugal already seems overkill, not to mention adding Morocco.
Portugal could co-host with Morocco though.

A joint bid from Netherlands+Belgium
Gaelic - Ireland, Wales, Scotland.

Australia could host alone, eventually only add New Zealand because alone they definitely couldn't so it would be nice.


----------



## RobH

Gavrosh said:


> The Olympic Stadium is likely to be 70k plus by then. You're also missing out Stamford Bridge (60k plus) and Nou Goodison (60k plus). Personally I can't see any games outside of London/ Liverpool/ Manchester/ Birmingham/ Newcastle.


You say that, but in the past FIFA have always been fairly insistent that only one city could have more than one stadium and that geographical spread was very important.

That was why England 2018 had to include options like Plymouth, Nottingham Forest, MK Dons, and Bristol City as host stadiums.

The ease with which England could host a World Cup really depends on how flexible FIFA is with the number of stadiums per city. Allowing three (or even four with fewer games each) London stadiums, both Manchester and both Liverpool stadiums, both NE stadiums would make a World Cup a piece of cake. Insisting on one stadium per city and geographical spread actually makes it pretty difficult.


----------



## Good Karma

RobH said:


> You say that, but in the past FIFA have always been fairly insistent that only one city could have more than one stadium and that geographical spread was very important.
> 
> That was why England 2018 had to include options like Plymouth, Nottingham Forest, MK Dons, and Bristol City as host stadiums.
> 
> The ease with which England could host a World Cup really depends on how flexible FIFA is with the number of stadiums per city. Allowing two or three (or even four with fewer games each) London stadiums, both Manchester and both Liverpool stadiums, both NE stadiums would make a World Cup a piece of cake. Insisting on one stadium per city and geographical spread actually makes it pretty difficult.


Well that was the unspoken rule during the 2018 and 2022 bidding process and Qatar still got 2022 so I wouldn't worry too much. I think London could easily be allowed 3-4 stadiums, Manchester 2 stadium etc.


----------



## TEBC

ElvisBC said:


> Anything but World Cup 2030 in Europe will be a huge upset


Anything but World Cup 2030 in Argentina/Uruguay will be a huge upset


----------



## TEBC

5portsF4n said:


> Ain't gonna happen. With 2026 in North America (almost certainly), it isn't going to South America, centenary or not.
> 
> They won't allow 14 years before the next Europe prime-time WC comes around. 2030 will be in Europe, bank on it.


Yes, it will. South America is a complete different confederation that alone has 9 world cup titles. And it will be 16 years since last wc hosted here. Its time for Argentina/Uruguay Eurocentrists liking it or not


----------



## ElvisBC

yepp, that's more or less clear, most people expect it in 2034


----------



## Alan_MXC

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...Cup-2030-deserves-England-UEFA-president.html


----------



## RobH

^^ Non-Daily-Heil link:

*World Cup 2030: Uefa would 'strongly support' pan-British or English bid*
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40136827


----------



## Lord David

Good Karma said:


> ^^ which is not good for the tournament in the long term. Places like Russia Qatar and China would spend extortinate amounts causing problems for future hosts where they need to spend similar amounts to host (these countries may not be led by governments which are as accountable for how much they spend). Just see what happened to the Olympics. Over spending at Beijing and Sochi have almost made it impossible for relatively big cities to even host. Meaning for the world cup only very few places would be able to host in the future as others would be forced to spend money they can't really afford.


You can't compare the Olympics to the World Cup. Yes there's excessive spending, but when it comes to the Olympics, it's a matter of the IOC reforming the process to want more cities to bid. Or to have another LA 84 to generate interest again. Remember that this scenario played out during the 70's and 80's amidst boycotts, Montreal overspending, lone bidders and so forth.

As for the World Cup, it's a matter of corrupt FIFA and corrupt governments. For example, Brazil could have renovated the wealth of existing stadiums but chose to build new ones or totally redo existing ones like the national stadium and Maracana, at absurd costs, not to mention having to juggle an Olympics too in just 2 years time. 

There's plenty of nations that can host, even Australia (especially now that we have far more newer or renovated stadiums), but it seems unlikely that we'll bid for the next one unless FIFA changes it's rules and ends corruption.


----------



## Knitemplar

EstoLatLit 2030! Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania 2030!!


----------



## adeaide

*South Korean president proposes 2030 FIFA World Cup in Northeast Asia*































SEOUL, June 12 (Yonhap) -- South Korean President Moon Jae-in on Monday suggested forming a regional bloc with 
communist North Korea and other Northeast Asian countries to jointly host the FIFA World Cup in 2030.

Moon's proposal came in a meeting with Gianni Infantino, chief of FIFA. The FIFA president arrived here last week to 
watch the FIFA Under-20 World Cup final between England and Venezuela held Sunday.

"I believe it would help promote peace in the region if Northeast Asian countries, including South and North Koreas, 
could jointly host a FIFA World Cup," Moon told the FIFA president, according to his spokesman Park Soo-hyun.

"I will see if I can create such an opportunity for the 2030 World Cup," the South Korean president was quoted as saying.

Infantino said there will likely be "difficulties," but noted such a vision itself "can be a very powerful message," 
according to the Cheong Wa Dae spokesman.

The FIFA chief also offered to run the possibility by other Northeast Asian leaders, starting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, 
whom he said he was scheduled to meet in two days.

South Korea and Japan co-hosted the 2002 World Cup.


----------



## anref2001

Argentina & Namibia & Uruguay


----------



## inno4321

adeaide said:


> SEOUL, June 12 (Yonhap) -- South Korean President Moon Jae-in on Monday suggested forming a regional bloc with
> communist North Korea and other Northeast Asian countries to jointly host the FIFA World Cup in 2030.
> 
> Moon's proposal came in a meeting with Gianni Infantino, chief of FIFA. The FIFA president arrived here last week to
> watch the FIFA Under-20 World Cup final between England and Venezuela held Sunday.
> 
> "I believe it would help promote peace in the region if Northeast Asian countries, including South and North Koreas,
> could jointly host a FIFA World Cup," Moon told the FIFA president, according to his spokesman Park Soo-hyun.
> 
> "I will see if I can create such an opportunity for the 2030 World Cup," the South Korean president was quoted as saying.
> 
> Infantino said there will likely be "difficulties," but noted such a vision itself "can be a very powerful message,"
> according to the Cheong Wa Dae spokesman.
> 
> The FIFA chief also offered to run the possibility by other Northeast Asian leaders, starting with Chinese President Xi Jinping,
> whom he said he was scheduled to meet in two days.
> 
> South Korea and Japan co-hosted the 2002 World Cup.


^^
it is shame!!!!!
Now tons of thousands Nkoreans jailed in political concentration camp and torture and eating mouse!
I can't endure this disgusting pseudo peace mob!!
As I'm Skorean strongly opposite this world cup!!! :bash::bash:


----------



## Knitemplar

anref2001 said:


> Argentina & Namibia & Uruguay


Nope, It would be more like Uruguay, Argentina and Chile.


----------



## ElvisBC

north korea, cuba and venezuela :colgate:

there is zero chance for world cup 2030 outside europe. zero!


----------



## Knitemplar

ElvisBC said:


> north korea, cuba and venezuela :colgate:


No. Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe* - the Axes of Evil!! :devil:

(Should really be Russia, but they are already hosting in 2018.)


----------



## FCIM

I think a Pan British Isles Bid should get it. 

Scotland 

1/ Glasgow - Ibrox/Celtic park/Hampden park

2/ Edinburgh - Murrayfield 

Ireland 

3/ Dublin - Aviva Stadium 

Wales 

4/ Millennium Stadium 

England 

5/ London - Wembley Stadium 

6/ London - Emirates/New Stamford Bridge/ New White Hart Lane 

7/ Manchester - Old Trafford 

8/ Liverpool - Anfield 

9/ Newcastle - St James park 

10/ Sunderland - Stadium of Light 

11/ Birmingham - Villa Park 

12/ Leeds - Elland Road 

13/ Sheffield - Hillsborough


----------



## ElvisBC

that's very possible ... and most likely I'd say :colgate:

of course italy and spain might bid too. especially italian bid would make things complicated, they desperately need stadiums and something to trigger football revival as well.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

I don't see that split as acceptable. More than 75% of the population of UK and Ireland combined lives in England. More than half the population of England lives south of Birmingham. Much more likely that an expanded Southampton would take one of the Yorkshire or Sunderland slots. Or only one in Scotland. Logistically a huge chunk of visitors will base themselves in London due to the hotels and it would be easier to have people travel south as well as north.


----------



## Guest

ElvisBC said:


> that's very possible ... and most likely I'd say :colgate:
> 
> of course italy and spain might bid too. especially italian bid would make things complicated, they desperately need stadiums and something to trigger football revival as well.


1. If you haven't noticed, Italian stadiums are slowly but surely improving. There are many projects in the planning stages. 

2. Newsflash: soccer in Italy is more popular than it is in England. (Shock horror). You can point to attendances, TV rights, or whatever you want. But the truth is that soccer dominates the Italian sporting landscape more than English soccer does in England (there is no sport the equivalent of cricket or rugby in Italy). 



OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> I don't see that split as acceptable. More than 75% of the population of UK and Ireland combined lives in England. More than half the population of England lives south of Birmingham. Much more likely that an expanded Southampton would take one of the Yorkshire or Sunderland slots. Or only one in Scotland. Logistically a huge chunk of visitors will base themselves in London due to the hotels and it would be easier to have people travel south as well as north.


That's not how tournaments work...

So what if half the population lives in a concentrated region? What does that have anything to do with venue selection? Are you afraid a game in Edinburgh won't sell out? If anything, in a 48 team tournament, the idea of grouping potentially hundreds of thousands of fans in and around London sounds like the worst idea imaginable from a logistical perspective.


----------



## FCIM

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> I don't see that split as acceptable. More than 75% of the population of UK and Ireland combined lives in England. More than half the population of England lives south of Birmingham. Much more likely that an expanded Southampton would take one of the Yorkshire or Sunderland slots. Or only one in Scotland. Logistically a huge chunk of visitors will base themselves in London due to the hotels and it would be easier to have people travel south as well as north.


I should of mentioned, I came up with that list based on stadiums that currently exceed or are very close to 40,000.

I'm sure others might come into play if they are willing to expand capacity.


----------



## FCIM

ElvisBC said:


> that's very possible ... and most likely I'd say :colgate:
> 
> of course italy and spain might bid too. especially italian bid would make things complicated, they desperately need stadiums and something to trigger football revival as well.


Can't see Italy getting it a third time before England hosts it twice. 

Spain/Portugal could be a possible bid though


----------



## GunnerJacket

inno4321 said:


> ^^
> it is shame!!!!!
> Now tons of thousands Nkoreans jailed in political concentration camp and torture and eating mouse!
> I can't endure this disgusting pseudo peace mob!!
> As I'm Skorean strongly opposite this world cup!!! :bash::bash:


North Korea isn't going to host a World Cup. There is no way the logistics would work but that doesn't even matter because FIFA would catch yet another tidal wave of s*** and global pressure for engaging with that government. Seriously, this would be about the worst possible play they could make on the heels of all the bad press they're steal managing today. So the odds of North Korea hosting are about as good as, say, Mali or Cuba. Which is to say "nil."



5portsF4n said:


> 1. If you haven't noticed, Italian stadiums are slowly but surely improving. There are many projects in the planning stages.


VERY slowly, and mostly at the lower end capacities (like Udinese) that wouldn't be featured in a WC. If the Milanese teams get their soap opera sorted and Lazio can join Roma in the new stadium parade then it becomes very possible, but Napoli and Fiorentina still have much work to do while many others remain dreams. The teams want to make these moves but the financial realities and local politics have rendered these efforts very drawn out affairs. 

Put another way, Valencia will finish their new stadium before either Milan club, I fear!


----------



## 1772

Knitemplar said:


> EstoLatLit 2030! Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania 2030!!


Probably a little to big, but a baltic Euro U-21 or maybe even a Euro would be cool.


----------



## ElvisBC

GunnerJacket said:


> Put another way, Valencia will finish their new stadium before either Milan club, I fear!


I am afraid noone of them will have a new one soon, unless there is a world cup in Italy/Spain 


1772 said:


> Probably a little to big, but a baltic Euro U-21 or maybe even a Euro would be cool.


women euro :colgate:


----------



## Rokto14

BigBiggerBiggest said:


> ^^^ even if that were to be considered its too soon as Brazil jsut hosted it. They would gain more traction with less Brazilian grounds being used.


I agree on your first sentence. 16 years then Brazil hosts a WC again? i doubt they will. I would prefer a Argentina/Uruguay/Paraguay or a Argentina/Uruguay/Chile WC. But this solely depends on whether these South American countries can agree on how many matches each want to host and whether the government is willing to spend the money on upgrading necessary infrastructure.


----------



## RobH

Before tomorrow's game, Luis Suárez and Lionel Messi will wear special shirts to promote the Uruguay-Argentina 2030 World Cup bid.


















https://twitter.com/UruguayanHeroes/status/902989243437502466


----------



## ElvisBC

uruguay/argentina bid now paraguay/uruguay/argentina, at least according to NY Times and wiki:
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/20...soc-2030-wcup-south-american-bid.html?mcubz=3
http://www.lanacion.com.ar/2058618-...no-de-recibir-la-copa-del-mundo-es-tripartito


----------



## FCIM

Would be surprising to see three world cups happen before europe hosts again.


----------



## pesto

FCIM said:


> Would be surprising to see three world cups happen before europe hosts again.


Europe sold their turn to Qatar. :lol:


----------



## Guest

ElvisBC said:


> uruguay/argentina bid now paraguay/uruguay/argentina, at least according to NY Times and wiki:
> https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/20...soc-2030-wcup-south-american-bid.html?mcubz=3
> http://www.lanacion.com.ar/2058618-...no-de-recibir-la-copa-del-mundo-es-tripartito


People will still be crying saying that multi-hosting is a fad (Euro 2020 or WC 2026/WC 2030/and beyond.) 

Unless you're one of the top 5 economies in the world, forget about ever seeing a single country host the WC again. Watch it become a permanent continental event in the next 20 years. 

It's inevitable.

China could be the last host to ever host it on their own.


----------



## pesto

5portsF4n said:


> People will still be crying saying that multi-hosting is a fad (Euro 2020 or WC 2026/WC 2030/and beyond.)
> 
> Unless you're one of the top 5 economies in the world, forget about ever seeing a single country host the WC again. Watch it become a permanent continental event in the next 20 years.
> 
> It's inevitable.
> 
> China could be the last host to ever host it on their own.


Agree. Especially in Europe where nations are geographically small, it makes sense to have a small group of nations host, or 16-20 sites selected across the continent.


----------



## Kobo

If the UK were awarded the 2030 World Cup then these are the venues I think could be used. I have tried to consider good geographical spread, capacity of stadiums and proposed stadium expansions.

*Scotland*
*Glasgow:* Hampden Park 51,866 *- 3rd Place match* Celtic Park: 60:832 *-Quarter Final*
*Edinburgh:* Murrayfield 67,144
*Aberdeen:* New Aberdeen stadium 40,000

*Wales*
*Cardiff:* Millenium Stadium 74,500 *- Semi Final*
*Swansea:* Liberty Stadium 45,000 -Redevelopment
*
Northern Ireland*
*Belfast:* New Windsor Park 40,000 -Redevelopment

*England*
*London:* Wembley 90,000 *-Opener & Final* Twickenham 82,000 New Stamford Bridge: 60,000 *-Quarter Final*
*Manchester:* Old Trafford 75,731 *-Semi Final * City of Manchester Stadium: 61,000
*Liverpool:* Anfield 59,000 -Redevelopment *-Quarter Final*
*Birmingham:* Villa Park 50,000 -Redevelopment
*Newcastle:* St James Park 60,000 -Redevelopment *-Quarter Final*
*Leeds:* Elland Road 45,000-50,000 -Redevelopment
*Southampton:* St Mary's 45,000-50,000 -Redevelopment
*Bristol: *Ashton Gate Stadium 40,000 -Redevelopment

Other venues that could be used:
*Scotland*
*Glasgow:* Ibrox 50,817

*Wales*
*Cardiff:* Cardiff City Stadium 40,000 -Redeveloped
*
England*
*London:* New White Heart Lane: 61,500. Emirates Stadium: 60,250 Olympic Stadium:60,000
*Liverpool:* New Goodison Park 55,000 - 60,000 -New Stadium
*Leicester* Leicester City Stadium 42,000 -Redevelopment 
*Sunderland* Stadium of Light 49,000
*Sheffield* Hillsborough Stadium 44,825 -Redevelopment 
*Brighton* Falmer Stadium 40,000 -Redevelopment 

Let me know what you think about this selection of cities and stadiums.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Kobo said:


> Let me know what you think about this selection of cities and stadiums.


85% of the population of the UK is in England and that proportion is growing. There might be a quarter final held outside England but definitely not a semi. This would be an England plus bid in the same way that the North American 2026 bid is USA plus.

Lots of the expanded stadiums you suggest would be white elephants. Particularly Aberdeen, Swansea & Belfast. Bristol at 40,000 and Southampton at anything much bigger than 40,000 too.


----------



## ElvisBC

Kobo said:


> If the UK were awarded the 2030 World Cup then these are the venues I think could be used. I have tried to consider good geographical spread, capacity of stadiums and proposed stadium expansions.
> 
> ..... Twickenham 82,000 ......
> 
> 
> Let me know what you think about this selection of cities and stadiums.



OK, :lol: I'll let you know: U R not serious! :colgate:


----------



## Kobo

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> 85% of the population of the UK is in England and that proportion is growing. There might be a quarter final held outside England but definitely not a semi. This would be an England plus bid in the same way that the North American 2026 bid is USA plus.
> 
> Lots of the expanded stadiums you suggest would be white elephants. Particularly Aberdeen, Swansea & Belfast. Bristol at 40,000 and Southampton at anything much bigger than 40,000 too.


Thanks for your feed back. I gave Cardiff the semi final due to the capacity of the Millenium Stadium 74,500 and the fact it has hosted finals of different sports before; FA cup finals 2001-06, Rugby World Cup final 1999, Champions League Final 2017. I also took into consideration that Cardiff is the capital city of Wales and has some importance.

I take on board your point about some stadiums being white elephants at those sizes. Some of these grounds could have temporary expansions to fit Fifa's minimum capacity of 40,000 and then reduced after the tournament. Though I feel that Swansea could fill that size stadium given they stay in the top division also bear in mind that their stadium is designed to allow expansion to over 40,000. As too is Southampton's which can be expanded to around 50,000.


----------



## Rover030

Realistically Wembley would get the semis and final like Euro 2020 I'd say.

I think if you scrap Aberdeen and Swansea and replace them with two of England's extra stadiums it's more realistic. Also, isn't Twickenham against hosting football or do you think they will make an exception for the world cup?


----------



## Kobo

ElvisBC said:


> OK, :lol: I'll let you know: U R not serious! :colgate:


The English FA allowed Wembley to be used for the 2015 Rugby World Cup I think they could consider asking the RFU to use Twickenham for any Fifa World Cup mainly due to its 82,000 capacity.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

ElvisBC said:


> OK, :lol: I'll let you know: U R not serious! :colgate:


You can see why someone from outside the UK would think Twickenham a good idea. The RFU are far too supercilious to allow it.

With the expanded format of the World Cup in use from 2026 having large stadium capacity is going to be less important. I can see minimum stadium size being downgraded back to 30-35,000 at some point. There will be too many low quality matches and we will go back to the situation where there are large numbers of empty seats at several matches.


----------



## Kobo

Rover030 said:


> Realistically Wembley would get the semis and final like Euro 2020 I'd say.
> 
> I think if you scrap Aberdeen and Swansea and replace them with two of England's extra stadiums it's more realistic. Also, isn't Twickenham against hosting football or do you think they will make an exception for the world cup?


Going from other World Cups the 2 semi finals and final have been hosted in different cities that's why I don't think Wembley would get all of those matches. 

Yes Twickenham is against hosting football but they might make an exception also Wembley was used for the 2015 Rugby world cup and the FA and RFU might have made a deal to use each others staduim's should a future Fifa World cup come to the UK. However if not there are several other 60,000 stadiums in London that could be used instead.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Kobo said:


> Going from other World Cups the 2 semi finals and final have been hosted in different cities that's why I don't think Wembley would get all of those matches.
> 
> Yes Twickenham is against hosting football but they might make an exception also Wembley was used for the 2015 Rugby world cup and the FA and RFU might have made a deal to use each others staduim's should a future Fifa World cup come to the UK. However if not there are several other 60,000 stadiums in London that could be used instead.


I fully agree that Wembley shouldn't host both Semis. It would host one but not a quarter final. Hopefully Old Trafford will have been expanded to 85-90,000 by then.


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> 85% of the population of the UK is in England and that proportion is growing. There might be a quarter final held outside England but definitely not a semi. This would be an England plus bid in the same way that the North American 2026 bid is USA plus.
> 
> Lots of the expanded stadiums you suggest would be white elephants. Particularly Aberdeen, Swansea & Belfast. Bristol at 40,000 and Southampton at anything much bigger than 40,000 too.


If Scotland leaves the UK that may moot some of the issues. And if it joins Canada, would they then get one of Canada's 2026 spots?

Sorry for the interruption. Carry on.


----------



## Rover030

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> I fully agree that Wembley shouldn't host both Semis. It would host one but not a quarter final. Hopefully Old Trafford will have been expanded to 85-90,000 by then.


Yeah in my opinion they shouldn't either. The Millenium Stadium should get one of the semifinals and Old Trafford the other. But I'm not sure that's going to happen.


----------



## eomer

Kobo said:


> If the UK were awarded the 2030 World Cup then these are the venues I think could be used.


Humm...will it be a UK bid, an England bid or even an England-Walles (*) bid ?
I think England/UK won't bid for 2030 because England is already negociating with Germany and UEFA to host Euro 2024/2028.
- Wembley will host Euro 2020 semi-finals and finals
- Germany will host Euro 2024
- England will host Euro 2028 (and the final will took place in...)
So, 2030 will be too early for England or UK.

I think that FIFA could even attribute the WC2030 to a joint bid Uruguay/Argentina without vote: it will be the centenary.
Then, UK (or England-Walles) would be the best contender for 2034.

(*) England end Walles could decide to merge their football teams while Irleland and Northern-Ireland would do the same.
Walles got 2 venues: Cardiff and Swansee. Millenium Stadium could host a semi-final.



Kobo said:


> The English FA allowed Wembley to be used for the 2015 Rugby World Cup I think they could consider asking the RFU to use Twickenham for any Fifa World Cup mainly due to its 82,000 capacity.


It's right but Twichenham is not necessary: FIFA rules don't allowed more than 2 venues in the same city.
So, FA could choose: Emirates, Stamford Bridge, White Hart Lane, Olympic Stadium...


----------



## RobH

eomer said:


> FIFA rules don't allowed more than 2 venues in the same city.


Doha says hi! :lol:


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> The rich buy the match tickets whilst the advertising is Worldwide. Same time zones as China and Australia. If you think only the population in the host country/countries that can afford to buy product count then somewhere like Australia with only 24 million affluent consumers (their entire population) is outgunned by this bid.
> 
> I do think it is an utterly unrealistic bid but for different reasons. Unwieldy and the next World Cup to be awarded to Asia will be given to China. I don't count Australia as Asia despite World Cup qualifying.


The rich are irrelevant. The meat and potatoes are the middle classes and their disposable income. The US has 200M plus of these, all speaking one language and operating under one set of liberal rules (not one-off deals cut with the local import authorities).

Seriously, major consumer product companies target the US with thousands or marketing people and hundreds of locations. In ASEAN they try to find distributors to beat the bushes for a few sales. For years it was part of my job to review these contracts and they generally turned out poorly since it is hard to find customers in this area.

The fact that Australia is small doesn't mean it has to be ignored. As you note, it attracts interest from East Asia because it is in the area. And for sure you don't have to go to the US every time. But it is a huge largely undeveloped market that plenty of advertisers are interested in and holding it there attracts a lot more interest than if held in, say, Morocco.


----------



## Rover030

pesto said:


> I don't want to comment until I understand your theory better. In particular, are you saying that all sites are the same economically, or that it doesn't matter if a country gets into the WC or not? Or perhaps both.
> 
> Are Honduras or Cambodia or the US indistinguishable as qualifiers for the WC? Why is the financial press talking about a financial disaster for FIFA and Fox?
> 
> Or is your theory that it makes no economic difference where the Games are held? Morocco or Kazakhstan would be equivalent to the US as far as attendance, ticket prices and media attention worldwide?
> 
> Thanks.


There was no theory, just a question. You said disposable income in Southeast Asia is too low to hold the World Cup there. Then you talked about Apple and Google not wanting to market directly to the local population there. However, in my experience, advertising during the World Cup is done by multinational companies, towards the global population, and I have not really seen marketing towards the local population, just towards the visitors of world cup games. So you can interpret my question in a very literal sense. 

Also, the highest viewership numbers during the World Cup from the US (on English speaking TV) is around 25 million. My 17 million people country has 11 million as a record. They're not that big of a player on the worldwide market when it comes to soccer.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> There was no theory, just a question. You said disposable income in Southeast Asia is too low to hold the World Cup there. Then you talked about Apple and Google not wanting to market directly to the local population there. However, in my experience, advertising during the World Cup is done by multinational companies, towards the global population, and I have not really seen marketing towards the local population, just towards the visitors of world cup games. So you can interpret my question in a very literal sense.
> 
> Also, the highest viewership numbers during the World Cup from the US (on English speaking TV) is around 25 million. My 17 million people country has 11 million as a record. They're not that big of a player on the worldwide market when it comes to soccer.


Now I'm really confused; wouldn't having so many people in a small country already watching make it desirable to focus on developing a gigantic market with low viewership (e.g., US, China)? Such as by holding the WC there or making sure the side got in? That's FIFA's job.

As I said, can you clarify if you mean it is not important who makes it into the WC or it is not important where it is held? I don't want to bark up the wrong tree.


----------



## Guest

pesto said:


> Now I'm really confused; wouldn't having so many people in a small country already watching make it *desirable to focus on developing a gigantic market with low viewership (e.g., US, China)*? Such as by holding the WC there or making sure the side got in? That's FIFA's job.


The resident soccer expert once again showing us what a deep knowledge of the game he has...


----------



## Rover030

pesto said:


> Now I'm really confused; wouldn't having so many people in a small country already watching make it desirable to focus on developing a gigantic market with low viewership (e.g., US, China)? Such as by holding the WC there or making sure the side got in? That's FIFA's job.
> 
> As I said, can you clarify if you mean it is not important who makes it into the WC or it is not important where it is held? I don't want to bark up the wrong tree.


Why can't you just answer my question? What is "barking up the wrong tree" even supposed to mean. I don't see what my opinion about other things has to do with answering a simple, very clear question.


----------



## pesto

I am not going to comment on your impressions or anything about the Dutch market. 

I have no recollection of what advertisers for the WC are in the US, but for most sports (NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, college football, college basketball, women's basketball, tennis, PGA golf, etc.) there is a mixture of multinationals, regional companies and local companies (e.g., local car dealerships, restaurants, service providers). 

I'm honestly not sure what point does this goes to. Any advertiser is going to want to have as large and as targeted an audience as possible and the metrics are there to allow placement in detail (the NFL has been reputed to know expected ticket sales in London literally block by block). And FIFA wants to deliver a viewership of as large a group of people with money as possible.


----------



## pesto

5portsF4n said:


> The resident soccer expert once again showing us what a deep knowledge of the game he has...


Seriously? You figure the Chinese market is pretty much saturated now? I hear there's no money being spent on players, facilities, training, etc. Not a chance that viewership or advertising revenues will increase.

Just as a side note, good friend of mine has just moved his soccer training school from near Barcelona to China. He figures he will triple his revenues and is hiring people from Europe to work as trainers and coaches in China.


----------



## AcesHigh

BigBiggerBiggest said:


> ^^^ even if that were to be considered its too soon as Brazil jsut hosted it. They would gain more traction with less Brazilian grounds being used.


not only I do agree as I also think IF Brazilian stadiums were to be used, they should be southern Brazilian stadiums.

weather would be similar all over the World Cup region and obviously, not very distant venues.

by air, Buenos Aires is closer to Porto Alegre than São Paulo. 

-839 km Porto Alegre - BsAs
- 711 km Porto Alegre - Montevideo
- 947 Porto Alegre - Rosario
- 1250 Porto Alegre - Cordoba
- 1700 Porto Alegre - Mendoza

Just for comparison, in 2014... 
Porto Alegre - Manaus : 3130 km
Porto Alegre - Fortaleza : 3200 km



And Porto Alegre has two World Cup class stadiums.

Now, I think so far it's only RUMOURS, and we are not even sure if the local clubs would want it or what...


55 thousand

























48 thousand


----------



## AcesHigh

what I mean is that, while I still think it's quite far fetched to include Porto Alegre in the 2030 bid... there is some logic if it's true

1 - there is a strong cultural connection between Porto Alegre, Montevideo and Argentina (Pampas, Gauchos, mate, barbecue)
2 - two big modern stadiums ready to host the Cup, while most stadiums in Argentina and Uruguay would need big reforms
3 - it would make sense from a logistics POV... proximity and climate.


----------



## mrErythroxylum

Id love to see a joint *Australia-New Zealand WC Bid*. 
Using 10 stadiums with 7 or 8 in Australia and 3 or 2 stadiums in New Zealand.

Auckland - 60,000
Wellington - 40,000
Christchurch - 45,000*
Townsville - 40,000
Brisbane - 60,000
Newcastle - 45,000
Sydney - 75,000
Canberra - 40,000*
Melbourne - 100,000
Adelaide - 55,000
Perth - 60,000
*the two cities i would most likely choose to omit if need be

It would be the first worldcup held in the oceania confederation, the only confed yet to host a WC, and the first world cup held in that part of the world. 

The tournament would cover the largest area of any world cup, crossing multiple timezones with a 5 hour difference at its extremities spanning a over 5,300km (over 3,300miles), giving it as close to a 5 hour time difference with the US west coast tv audience for some matches, as close to 8 hours time difference for european tv audiences and 2 hours or in-sinc with east asian tv audiences. 

The tournament will also be able to boast a huge variety of weather conditions, from humid and tropical to alpine cold, and everything in between. It would be a winter world cup in name only. 

Both australia and NZ are economically capable of hosting a successful WC, both nations are safe and friendly, both nations already have addquate infrastructure (hotels, public transport etc) aswel as the logistical experience hosting big events. Some Stadia would need upgrading or building completely new ones, but with both countries having strong exonomies this would not be a problem.


----------



## ElvisBC

mrErythroxylum said:


> Id love to see a joint *Australia-New Zealand WC Bid*.
> Using 10 stadiums with 7 or 8 in Australia and 3 or 2 stadiums in New Zealand.
> 
> Auckland - 60,000
> Wellington - 40,000
> Christchurch - 45,000*
> Townsville - 40,000
> Brisbane - 60,000
> Newcastle - 45,000
> Sydney - 75,000
> Canberra - 40,000*
> Melbourne - 100,000
> Adelaide - 55,000
> Perth - 60,000
> *the two cities i would most likely choose to omit if need be
> 
> It would be the first worldcup held in the oceania confederation, the only confed yet to host a WC, and the first world cup held in that part of the world.
> 
> The tournament would cover the largest area of any world cup, crossing multiple timezones with a 5 hour difference at its extremities spanning a over 5,300km (over 3,300miles), giving it as close to a 5 hour time difference with the US west coast tv audience for some matches, as close to 8 hours time difference for european tv audiences and 2 hours or in-sinc with east asian tv audiences.
> 
> The tournament will also be able to boast a huge variety of weather conditions, from humid and tropical to alpine cold, and everything in between. It would be a winter world cup in name only.
> 
> Both australia and NZ are economically capable of hosting a successful WC, both nations are safe and friendly, both nations already have addquate infrastructure (hotels, public transport etc) aswel as the logistical experience hosting big events. Some Stadia would need upgrading or building completely new ones, but with both countries having strong exonomies this would not be a problem.


you think this is an advantage?


----------



## AcesHigh

why not a joint latitude 30S and higher world cup? 24 hour timezone!


----------



## pesto

AcesHigh said:


> why not a joint latitude 30S and higher world cup? 24 hour timezone!


Yeah! That way there will always be one home team. Of course in some latitudes you would have to play on an aircraft carrier and 2nd ball overboard would draw a yellow card. :lol:


----------



## Alanzeh

One day before the Friendship match between Spain and Argentina, some delegates of the Argentinean Federation visited the Argentina ambassy in Madrid and there some new details came out about the bid itself.
*Argentina*: Monumental de Nuñez , Presidente Perón (Racing Avellaneda), Gigante de Arroyito (Rosário), Estádio Único de La Plata, Estádio Malvinas Argentinas (Mendoza), Estádio Bicentenário de San Juan, Estádio Único de Vila Mercedes (San Luís)
*Uruguay*: Centenário e Campeón del Siglo (Peñarol)
*Paraguay*: Estádio Defensores del Chaco e General Pablo Rojas (Cerro Porteño).

All matches in Paraguay and Uruguay will be hosted on the capitals (Assunción and Montevideo).
Only 1 stadium in Buenos Aires. Velez Sarsfield stadium, which hosted WC 1978, and Bombonera out of the bid


----------



## ElvisBC

Alanzeh said:


> One day before the Friendship match between Spain and Argentina, some delegates of the Argentinean Federation visited the Argentina ambassy in Madrid and there some new details came out about the bid itself.
> *Argentina*: Monumental de Nuñez , Presidente Perón (Racing Avellaneda), Gigante de Arroyito (Rosário), Estádio Único de La Plata, Estádio Malvinas Argentinas (Mendoza), Estádio Bicentenário de San Juan, Estádio Único de Vila Mercedes (San Luís)
> *Uruguay*: Centenário e Campeón del Siglo (Peñarol)
> *Paraguay*: Estádio Defensores del Chaco e General Pablo Rojas (Cerro Porteño).
> 
> All matches in Paraguay and Uruguay will be hosted on the capitals (Assunción and Montevideo).
> Only 1 stadium in Buenos Aires. Velez Sarsfield stadium, which hosted WC 1978, and Bombonera out of the bid


Well, Racing is probably seen as second stadium in Buenos Aires, world capital of football having one stadium only is improbable. Bombonera can hardly meet FIFA standards, even after eventual rebuild, an no Velez is real surprise for me.

But the biggest surprise is one stadium each for Paraguay and Uruguay, I was expecting two.

But whatever they offer, that doesn't matter. 2030 World Cup is coming to Europe :colgate:


----------



## JYDA

ElvisBC said:


> But the biggest surprise is one stadium each for Paraguay and Uruguay, I was expecting two.



I know it's not your native language but he did list two each, not one each.


----------



## Vizemeister

I just love the idea of the Centenario getting a proper World Cup opening just 100 years later. Preferably a special match between Uruguay and Argentina, with adidas producing two balls for each half-time, a Tango version for Argentina and a Centenario for Uruguay.


----------



## ElvisBC

JYDA said:


> I know it's not your native language but he did list two each, not one each.


oh, guess didn't read it careful enough hno: stupid me 

two stadiums is fine, as anyone expected!




Vizemeister said:


> I just love the idea of the Centenario getting a proper World Cup opening just 100 years later. Preferably a special match between Uruguay and Argentina, with adidas producing two balls for each half-time, a Tango version for Argentina and a Centenario for Uruguay.


yepp great idea that is not going to happen. I think the original plan was to stage opening game in monumental and final in centenario. btw, opening of 1930 WC was not played in centenario, stadium was not 100% ready for the first day


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay agree on 2030 World Cup bid



> Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay have agreed on 12 cities where they want to host the centenary World Cup in 2030.
> 
> The Argentine Football Association said on Monday the plan would grant eight cities to Argentina and two each for Paraguay and Uruguay. The names of the cities were not disclosed.
> 
> Bidding is not due to open for another four years but leaders of all three national bodies say they want to make a joint bid.


AP


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Godspeed


----------



## GunnerJacket

Another way to look at it is that UEFA will be hosting this year's event, Qatar '22 will be practically at UEFA's doorstep and a Morocco '26 event would make it 3 times in a row the world has had to cater to UEFA. (And Morocco is using access to UEFA nations as a huge selling point.)

All this does is again illustrate why FIFA should have some policy about circulation of the event, so as to minimize the potential for political trading of bids.


----------



## ElvisBC

I actually never thought about this that way, but you're right: open bidding competition would be the best!


----------



## Colonel Ned

ElvisBC said:


> I actually never thought about this that way, but you're right: open bidding competition would be the best!


The rotation principal was very good and fair
each continent had its own turn 
now with full opening we see how continental blocs behave following interests and politics ...


----------



## RobH

The problem FIFA found with continental rotation was that there simply wasn't enough competition. It didn't leave them with options. Pure continental rotation would also leave huge gaps between World Cups in places which care most about football and have multiple capable host nations.

The system they came up which prevented a nation bidding if either of the previous two world cups were on its continent was the best compromise. That's sort of what we've still got, by hook or by crook.

As for politics, it's up to FIFA to control what's going on and run the bid process well. But they've not had much experience of that in recent years so it's no surprise they're struggling to keep things on an even keel.


----------



## Colonel Ned

RobH said:


> The problem FIFA found with continental rotation was that there simply wasn't enough competition. It didn't leave them with options. Pure continental rotation would also leave huge gaps between World Cups in places which care most about football and have multiple capable host nations.
> 
> The system they came up which prevented a nation bidding if either of the previous two world cups were on its continent was the best compromise. That's sort of what we've still got, by hook or by crook.
> 
> As for politics, it's up to FIFA to control what's going on and run the bid process well. But they've not had much experience of that in recent years so it's no surprise they're struggling to keep things on an even keel.


I join your opinion
Open bid is good
but that means also that there is a danger over "Argentina/Paraguay/Uruguay" 2030 bid, if north america get 2026.

because in 2030, we can have many bids (including Morocco that I suspect will comeback again with another bid, may be as that initial joint bid with Spain and Portugal, and have in the occasion a huge support from europe and africa)

So, if "Argentina/Paraguay/Uruguay" want to secure 2030, they have to negociaite their support, and not givin' it to north america FOR FREE


----------



## GunnerJacket

This thread is for 2030, NOT 2026.


----------



## Colonel Ned

Yes

And we just try to establish a link between the 2026 wining and the chance of knowing the identity of host 2030


----------



## GunnerJacket

Fine. That point has been made. No more need to dwell upon.


----------



## elrafaargentino

2030 build be Argentina-Uruguay-Paraguay (8 stadiums, 2 stadiums, 2 stadiums).


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Prospective Wembley owner Khan wants 2030 World Cup bid



> Prospective Wembley owner Shahid Khan wants to host 2030 World Cup matches and has assured the English Football Association the national stadium can remain the centerpiece of major tournaments if the sale is completed.
> 
> England has been exploring a bid for the 2030 centenary World Cup but is yet to say if it will challenge the early applicant from maiden host Uruguay, which has launched a joint campaign with Argentina and Paraguay.
> 
> Khan told The Associated Press that “very preliminary talks” have been held with the FA about bidding for the FIFA tournament. The 90,000-capacity Wembley, which would be required for the final, is already due to host seven games at the continent-wide European Championship in 2020, including the last three games. England is also vying to host the Women’s European Championship in 2021.


AP


----------



## GunnerJacket

Meh. He's throwing that out simply for the publicity. "_See! I'm all for English football! Bring on the World Cup_!!" He'd be wise at this point to simply sit back and let the FA manage the bid for Wembley and any publicity about a WC in England.


----------



## ElvisBC

sell wembley? that‘d be a crime, even bigger one than demolition of the old one!

u can‘t sell wembley, for god‘s sake!!!!


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> This thread is for 2030, NOT 2026.


Good luck, Gunner. :lol:

The problem is that the same issues are there every time that you have aggressive political blocs who don't care about revenues or operating the WC properly AS A WHOLE, but have politics and local interests as their primary goals. This just invites mutual back-scratching to the detriment of the organization as a whole.

The decision has to be made by the managing board, based on a proposal from senior administrators under advice from financial and technical people who back-up their advice with numbers and analysis. The way ANY modern large organization works.

This works because the board and administrators can weigh the pros and cons of regional diversity, short-term economic benefits, long-term strategy, security, etc. Looking at some form of "rotation" or "modified rotation" needlessly hamstrings management.

The Olympics has the basic idea down pretty well and is now cleaning up the system to help bidders get into position where they will actually develop quality bids.


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> Meh. He's throwing that out simply for the publicity. "_See! I'm all for English football! Bring on the World Cup_!!" He'd be wise at this point to simply sit back and let the FA manage the bid for Wembley and any publicity about a WC in England.


Maybe a bit more than that. 

I suspect buy-in exists from the NLF and other sports leagues, team owners, media giants and serious investors, who are looking beyond football and soccer toward entertainment more broadly. The buzz now-a-days is to control the total package: venue, entertainment modality (sport, concert, exhibition, etc.), marketing and licensing approach, spin-offs, etc.

Ideally, each of these will have immediate world name recognition and help sell the total product.


----------



## RobH

pesto said:


> Good luck, Gunner. :lol:
> 
> The problem is that the same issues are there every time that you have aggressive political blocs who don't care about revenues or operating the WC properly AS A WHOLE, but have politics and local interests as their primary goals. This just invites mutual back-scratching to the detriment of the organization as a whole.
> 
> The decision has to be made by the managing board, based on a proposal from senior administrators under advice from financial and technical people who back-up their advice with numbers and analysis. The way ANY modern large organization works.


That was more or less how it was set up in the past - 20 senior execs voting with a technical committee producing a report showing risks (e.g. Qatar is hot in the summer) and making certain recommendations (e.g. probably not a good idea to vote for Qatar). Trouble was, the technical report tended to have far less influence than it should've done. Brown envelopes were the order of the day with this system.

The recent move towards giving every FA* a vote would be fine but as you say, there are already pre-defined blocs with the Federations and that complicates matters. It's not true the FAs within these blocs don't care about revenues - Infantino was _clearly_ elected on the back of his promise to substantially increase revenues and the World Cup is FIFA's main revenue driver. But there is pressure for Federations - particularly those with a horse in the race - to present a unified vote. The imbalance of numbers of nations within each Federation means FIFA could've permanently created a rod for its own back.

All that said, the world cup isn't merely a technical and profit making exercise. If there's a feeling in a certain country that a certain host wouldn't make their team or fans feel welcome, or that a riskier bid offered better legacy potential, voting with such intangibles in mind is fine. But the intent has to be correct and able to be backed up.

* FAs vote, not governments Mr Trump.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

It has always been a politicised system rather than one with the best interests of the World Cup and FIFA in mind. Almost inevitable when people are bidding on the basis of national ego. That Qatar won with all the problems that causes including upsetting the national egos of their neighbours just proves it.


----------



## Knitemplar

I think before a vote of 205 FAs, the Executive Committee should have, say, a 35% vote; and then 65 FAs would be picked out of a hat; and then only have those random 65 vote. It would be entirely by luck -- but it would be fairer (and shorter and quicker) vote all around, if continental rotation will not be respected. That would kill the unequal bloc-voting nearly entirely.


----------



## RobH

This in today's Guardian... :|



> *A radical idea: hold an auction to decide the World Cup hosts to stop corruption *
> https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...t-bidder?CMP=twt_gu&__twitter_impression=true


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> That was more or less how it was set up in the past - 20 senior execs voting with a technical committee producing a report showing risks (e.g. Qatar is hot in the summer) and making certain recommendations (e.g. probably not a good idea to vote for Qatar). Trouble was, the technical report tended to have far less influence than it should've done. Brown envelopes were the order of the day with this system.
> 
> The recent move towards giving every FA* a vote would be fine but as you say, there are already pre-defined blocs with the Federations and that complicates matters. It's not true the FAs within these blocs don't care about revenues - Infantino was _clearly_ elected on the back of his promise to substantially increase revenues and the World Cup is FIFA's main revenue driver. But there is pressure for Federations - particularly those with a horse in the race - to present a unified vote. The imbalance of numbers of nations within each Federation means FIFA could've permanently created a rod for its own back.
> 
> All that said, the world cup isn't merely a technical and profit making exercise. If there's a feeling in a certain country that a certain host wouldn't make their team or fans feel welcome, or that a riskier bid offered better legacy potential, voting with such intangibles in mind is fine. But the intent has to be correct and able to be backed up.
> 
> * FAs vote, not governments Mr Trump.


I think we agree. The fact that FIFA was corrupt should not be viewed as damning the whole idea of management by a central authority responsible for decisions based on financial and technical parameters. If political or other strategic input needs to be mixed into the brew, that's the place to do it. 

Generally, I don't see any better system than that, with the possibility of joint bids by neighboring countries.


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> It has always been a politicised system rather than one with the best interests of the World Cup and FIFA in mind. Almost inevitable when people are bidding on the basis of national ego. That Qatar won with all the problems that causes including upsetting the national egos of their neighbours just proves it.


Agree but that is what we are trying to get rid of. Again, the Olympics was run with the same "old boy", "mutual backscratching" elitist attitude until recently and had the same sort of problems of wasteful spending, white elephants, etc.


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> I think before a vote of 205 FAs, the Executive Committee should have, say, a 35% vote; and then 65 FAs would be picked out of a hat; and then only have those random 65 vote. It would be entirely by luck -- but it would be fairer (and shorter and quicker) vote all around, if continental rotation will not be respected. That would kill the unequal bloc-voting nearly entirely.[/QUOTE
> 
> Unnecessarily complicated. A couple of regional reps as non-voting board members is OK but nothing beyond that. I have no reason to believe they would be either objective or competent.
> 
> After all, does Apple's board need my input (I am a very minor shareholder)?


----------



## Rover030

Del


----------



## Knitemplar

pesto said:


> Unnecessarily complicated. A couple of regional reps as non-voting board members is OK but nothing beyond that. I have no reason to believe they would be either objective or competent.
> 
> After all, does Apple's board need my input (I am a very minor shareholder)?


I disagree with you. I think it will provide a FAIRER procedure. 

"Unneccasarily complicated"? What about their "filling the pots" in the draws? :nuts: FIFA loves _complicated _processes! 

Further, what does Apple's m.o. have to do with a non-profit sports federation's? I am really surprised this comment came from you. One is purely a capitalist enterprise; another one is a non-profit trying to achieve skewed results (i.e., keep it on the continental rotation), yet appear "neutral" and impartial. A tricky road to hoe.


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> I disagree with you. I think it will provide a FAIRER procedure.
> 
> "Unneccasarily complicated"? What about their "filling the pots" in the draws? :nuts: FIFA loves _complicated _processes!
> 
> Further, what does Apple's m.o. have to do with a non-profit sports federation's? I am really surprised this comment came from you. One is purely a capitalist enterprise; another one is a non-profit trying to achieve skewed results (i.e., keep it on the continental rotation), yet appear "neutral" and impartial. A tricky road to hoe.


The point is that boards are supposed to be selected specifically for the purpose of making decisions affecting the general management of the organization (strategy, policies, key hires). By contrast, for 2/3 of the countries, the local FIFA leader is the dumbest male member of some very rich local family. He brings nothing to the table except the malleability of doing whatever he is told by the local powers. 

There is little real difference between for-profits and charitables of FIFA's size and involvement in operations; they both swim in the same tank and results is the name of the game. They really do fire their management if they do not perform. This applies to the arts, sports, universities, research, etc.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

pesto said:


> Agree but that is what we are trying to get rid of. Again, the Olympics was run with the same "old boy", "mutual backscratching" elitist attitude until recently and had the same sort of problems of wasteful spending, white elephants, etc.


The costs of hosting the Olympics got so out of hand that the list of bidders dried up to practically nothing. The last award for the summer games gave consecutive games to the only two bidding cities able to see it through. Winter Olympics are deemed too expensive by many countries/cities that would be ideal hosts otherwise. The Olympics are also held primarily in only one city, in lots of countries subsidising a party in the biggest, richest and/or most glamorous city is not popular elsewhere. For the World Cup there are still countries that are prepared build white elephant stadiums. Although the protests around the World Cup in Brazil show that even in the most football and World Cup obsessed of countries there are many who would rather spend public money on improving health education and the economy. Getting their priorities right and showing the Brazilian people in a good light in my opinion.

So the IOC was backed into a corner and had to reform because there were no bidders who wanted the old ways to carry on. The World Cup can be hosted by several different countries with little investment. There are other countries whose leaders are able to spend the money as their populations will accept it. So, for the time being, FIFA still has competition to play off against each other to an extent that the IOC doesn't. The increase in the size and therefore cost of the tournament may reduce this in time.


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> The costs of hosting the Olympics got so out of hand that the list of bidders dried up to practically nothing. The last award for the summer games gave consecutive games to the only two bidding cities able to see it through. Winter Olympics are deemed too expensive by many countries/cities that would be ideal hosts otherwise. The Olympics are also held primarily in only one city, in lots of countries subsidising a party in the biggest, richest and/or most glamorous city is not popular elsewhere. For the World Cup there are still countries that are prepared build white elephant stadiums. Although the protests around the World Cup in Brazil show that even in the most football and World Cup obsessed of countries there are many who would rather spend public money on improving health education and the economy. Getting their priorities right and showing the Brazilian people in a good light in my opinion.
> 
> So the IOC was backed into a corner and had to reform because there were no bidders who wanted the old ways to carry on. The World Cup can be hosted by several different countries with little investment. There are other countries whose leaders are able to spend the money as their populations will accept it. So, for the time being, FIFA still has competition to play off against each other to an extent that the IOC doesn't. The increase in the size and therefore cost of the tournament may reduce this in time.


Agree completely. Besides being unfair to most people, the "old boy" way of selecting sites results in monumental profits to connected contractors and politicians and very visible white elephants. Finally, only very rich countries or autocratic countries could bid without eliciting local and international outrage.

Having modern management and review by professionals doesn't make everything simple or necessarily fair; but it makes it far more likely that a solid product is delivered and allows the losers to understand why they lost and what they need to do to win. If they believe there is corruption involved, it makes it easier for authorities to narrow in on where it occurred when technical, financial and other process information is public. 

As you say, cost is one of the detriments of the new system. If you can't compete by bribes and who you know, you are forced to compete based on quality of product. This can get expensive. But to mitigate this, joint bids are encouraged, which makes bids like Arg/Ur/Para or various European combinations quite do-able.

It really will be interesting to see how 2030 works for FIFA and 2032 for the IOC.


----------



## GunnerJacket

The sidebar has been allowed because it was related, didn't attack any one bid in particular, and most importantly it's done. From here out stick to 2030, please.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

Who here would prefer a European bid, probably from England or one from South America with Uruguay and Argentina the main hosts? Another option? I have no idea how to do a poll. The bidding process will be what FIFA decides. I'd prefer to talk about stadia and the infrastructure needed rather than the politics guys.


----------



## pesto

http://www.espn.com/soccer/blog/esp...-questions-as-fifa-considers-big-money-offers

Who knows what the soccer landscape may look like in 2030? Looks like Softbank and others are restless and we can expect a wholesale reshuffling of the soccer world. 

The rest is even more speculative. But there doesn’t seem to be much doubt that way too much money is being left behind by the current system. I would guess that bidders for 2030 will be retaining marketing and distribution professionals to assist putting together bids that will capture what is out there.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Brian Oliver: Football’s debt to Uruguay, and why it deserves the 2030 FIFA World Cup



> The renowned sports historian Richard Holt wrote that at the start of the 20th century "The English felt football was their property and were disinclined to cooperate with foreigners."
> 
> Not until the 1950s did England finally play Uruguay, losing a friendly and a 1954 World Cup match.
> 
> The two are likely to go head-to-head again in the bidding for the 2030 World Cup.
> 
> England has already announced its intention to carry the flag for Europe, while Uruguay is jointly bidding with Argentina and Paraguay.
> 
> A hundred years on from their first World Cup, Uruguay will have a very good case to be centenary hosts.
> 
> They have history on their side, every bit as much as England.


Inside the Bids


----------



## GunnerJacket

Juanpabloangel said:


> Who here would prefer a European bid, probably from England or one from South America with Uruguay and Argentina the main hosts? Another option? I have no idea how to do a poll. The bidding process will be what FIFA decides. I'd prefer to talk about stadia and the infrastructure needed rather than the politics guys.


I'd save the poll until after the nominations have been made official. Anything prior might simply be clutter for the thread.


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> Brian Oliver: Football’s debt to Uruguay, and why it deserves the 2030 FIFA World Cup
> 
> 
> 
> Inside the Bids


Interesting, but somehow Uruguay vs. England doesn't resonate much with me. It's got some history but it will need work before it becomes a worldwide attention grabber. 

Maybe Theresa can say something rude about Uruguay's stadiums? :lol:


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

pesto said:


> Interesting, but somehow Uruguay vs. England doesn't resonate much with me. It's got some history but it will need work before it becomes a worldwide attention grabber.
> 
> Maybe Theresa can say something rude about Uruguay's stadiums? :lol:


Theresa won't be near power by the time the World Cup 2030 vote is made. We will probably find someone with even more failings to _lead_ us by then.

That article is one-sided to say the least. Typical of a Guardian/Observer journalist to regurgitate from a Uruguay propaganda documentary without looking into it further.


----------



## Gombos

Romania

Arena Națională



















Steaua (2020)










Dinamo (2020)










Cluj Arena










Craiova



















Târgu Jiu 










Arad (2018 or 2019)



















Sibiu (2018 or 2019, starts in the summer of 2018)










Doctor Rădulescu Stadium










Ploiești


----------



## pesto

Gombos said:


> Romania


Looks like a nice collection of stadiums. Do you foresee a solo bid or a joint bid with Hungary or some other country?


----------



## endrity

Romania, in conjunction with other neighboring countries, could maybe bid for the expanded Euro. No way it can afford the WC.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Better selection of stadiums in Romania than most would realise. Good football history too. Not sure if they could do a Euros on their own. Bulgaria or Hungary would be interesting co-hosts. Would be an interesting region to visit for a football tournament. I don't know if for a World Cup you could even bring Greece in. Once you start getting past two hosts there would be a real bun fight for the big fixtures.


----------



## ElvisBC

endrity said:


> Romania, in conjunction with other neighboring countries, could maybe bid for the expanded Euro. No way it can afford the WC.


yes ........ and neither can morocco get the world cup :colgate:


----------



## marty11

pesto said:


> Looks like a nice collection of stadiums. Do you foresee a solo bid or a joint bid with Hungary or some other country?


*NO*. Having 10 40k+ stadiums here in Romania is out of discussion. And a joint bid with one of the neighbors would most likely mean that each country would have to have 6 40k+ stadiums. Which is out of discussion for all of our neighbors but Ukraine. And Ukraine is at war right now. 

Hosting a Euro as a single host would make much more sense (Heck, even Portugal was able to do it!), but I can't see this happening over the next decade.


----------



## pesto

marty11 said:


> *NO*. Having 10 40k+ stadiums here in Romania is out of discussion. And a joint bid with one of the neighbors would most likely mean that each country would have to have 6 40k+ stadiums. Which is out of discussion for all of our neighbors but Ukraine. And Ukraine is at war right now.
> 
> Hosting a Euro as a single host would make much more sense (Heck, even Portugal was able to do it!), but I can't see this happening over the next decade.


Given FIFA's calls for reducing spending on new facilities and forming joint bids, a country is going to need at least 14 FIFA-qualified stadiums including some very large ones to be seriously considered.

Both economically and politically I would think that bringing in, say, Hungary and Bulgaria would increase Romania's chances. If not, I would think the Arg/Par/Ur and England bids would beat them easily.

My question is: will FIFA make England bring in one or more of Wales, Scotland, N. Ireland, Ireland, Holland, Scandinavia? That would show the smaller countries that the process is intended to be inclusive for all.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

pesto said:


> Given FIFA's calls for reducing spending on new facilities and forming joint bids, a country is going to need at least 14 FIFA-qualified stadiums including some very large ones to be seriously considered.
> 
> Both economically and politically I would think that bringing in, say, Hungary and Bulgaria would increase Romania's chances. If not, I would think the Arg/Par/Ur and England bids would beat them easily.
> 
> My question is: *will FIFA make England bring in one or more of Wales, Scotland, N. Ireland, Ireland, Holland, Scandinavia? That would show the smaller countries that the process is intended to be inclusive for all.*


Who knows on that point. I'd guess we're still looking at a 2023 vote with bids not fully getting underway until 2021. Gives Argentina time to recover from their current economic turmoil. Also gives plenty of time for FIFA to change the rules and guidance.


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Who knows on that point. I'd guess we're still looking at a 2023 vote with bids not fully getting underway until 2021. Gives Argentina time to recover from their current economic turmoil. Also gives plenty of time for FIFA to change the rules and guidance.


Repeatedly. The pace at which innovation is taking place in the world of sports and event marketing is stunning.

But still, it seems that associating attractive smaller markets with a large world brand would make the overall product and audience appeal even bigger.


----------



## Vizemeister

While I don't see it happen for 2030, a new joint bid by Portugal-Spain would be welcomed by me, be it for EURO 2028 ff or a World Cup. The remodeled Camp Nou and Santiago Bernabeu, the Wanda Metropolitano as well as many other would be a fantastic setting for a World Cup or EURO. And who knows, maybe even the Nou Mestalla might be finished for such an event... :-D
Add to that the benefits of Spain and Portugal in the summer. Mmmmm, I wanna see that happen.


----------



## pesto

Vizemeister said:


> While I don't see it happen for 2030, a new joint bid by Portugal-Spain would be welcomed by me, be it for EURO 2028 ff or a World Cup. The remodeled Camp Nou and Santiago Bernabeu, the Wanda Metropolitano as well as many other would be a fantastic setting for a World Cup or EURO. And who knows, maybe even the Nou Mestalla might be finished for such an event... :-D
> Add to that the benefits of Spain and Portugal in the summer. Mmmmm, I wanna see that happen.


Well, I associate Spain in the summer with heat, thunderstorms and serious crowds. But otherwise, certainly plenty of stadiums plus scenery, history, art, cafes, etc. 

Make it June, maybe. :lol:


----------



## Rover030

Just play 2 hours later than they will do at the Russia world cup now. So 16:00, 19:00 and 22:00 CEST (if summer time still exists by then). That would be better for viewing figures from the Americas as well. If you then make the real hot places like Sevilla play at only the two later timeslots, there will be no problems. They'll probably do something similar for Morocco 2026 if they win.

My selection, with 12 stadiums, with current construction plans included:

*Madrid*: Santiago Bernabeu (85k)
Wanda Metropolitano (67k)
*Barcelona*: (Nou) Camp Nou (105k)
RCDE stadium (40k)
*Valencia*: Nou Mestalla (65k)
*Sevilla*: Benito Villamarin (62k)
Ramon Sanchez Pizjuan (47k)
*Bilbao*: San Mames (53k)
*Donostia-San Sebastian*: Anoeta (42k)
*Lisbon*: Estadio da Luz (64k)
Jose Alvalade (50k)
*Porto*: Estadio do Dragao (50k)

Although 8 cities is not that many, do you guys perceive that as a problem?

In that sense, it might be better if Spain does a solo bid for euro 2028, especially if their neighbour Morocco ends up getting world cup 2026. Spain has 9 stadiums with a capacity between 29k and 40k from different cities, which could make for a more interesting bid in terms of cities.

A UK World Cup in 2030 would be great as well, although they could suffer from the same limited number of cities problem (if that's a problem).


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> Just play 2 hours later than they will do at the Russia world cup now. So 16:00, 19:00 and 22:00 CEST (if summer time still exists by then). That would be better for viewing figures from the Americas as well. If you then make the real hot places like Sevilla play at only the two later timeslots, there will be no problems. They'll probably do something similar for Morocco 2026 if they win.
> 
> My selection, with 12 stadiums, with current construction plans included:
> 
> *Madrid*: Santiago Bernabeu (85k)
> Wanda Metropolitano (67k)
> *Barcelona*: (Nou) Camp Nou (105k)
> RCDE stadium (40k)
> *Valencia*: Nou Mestalla (65k)
> *Sevilla*: Benito Villamarin (62k)
> Ramon Sanchez Pizjuan (47k)
> *Bilbao*: San Mames (53k)
> *Donostia-San Sebastian*: Anoeta (42k)
> *Lisbon*: Estadio da Luz (64k)
> Jose Alvalade (50k)
> *Porto*: Estadio do Dragao (50k)
> 
> Although 8 cities is not that many, do you guys perceive that as a problem?
> 
> In that sense, it might be better if Spain does a solo bid for euro 2028, especially if their neighbour Morocco ends up getting world cup 2026. Spain has 9 stadiums with a capacity between 29k and 40k from different cities, which could make for a more interesting bid in terms of cities.
> 
> A UK World Cup in 2030 would be great as well, although they could suffer from the same limited number of cities problem (if that's a problem).


FIFA should institute mandatory meetings between prospective bidders and a selection committee so that bids can be honed to acceptability. If a country is, say, 1 major stadium short and has some economic rationale for building it, it's good for them to start vetting the process locally as soon as possible. Alternatively, they could be counseled to seek a partner for a joint bid. There can be a range of acceptable alternatives, so long as the parties agree on them ahead of time.

With Spain, why not include Portugal and even Morocco, which kills several birds (less building, inclusion, interesting locales) without excessive spending.

As for England, for sure adding 1 site in Ireland or Holland would add to public interest. A couple of the cities they would presumably propose are of less international interest than Dublin or Amsterdam.


----------



## endrity

^ Me too, I am all for the relaxation of rules. 

Firstly, sure it's great to bring the game and the investment that follows to new cities that might need it, but if it's not sustainable in the long run, than you are leaving the country and the city with a huge bill to pay. 

Second, if they allow junior partners to join a bid, than you are infact taking the game to places which would not have the chance otherwise. 

I'd love to see a UK + Ireland bid. Seeing WC games in Glasgow (an important city in the history of the game) plus Cardiff and Dublin would be awesome. Porto and Lisbon would absolutely deserve to have some WC games played if Spain were to hold it. Same for Montevideo, the city of the original WC. It's crazy that Qatar can't hold at least a couple of games in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.


----------



## Vizemeister

If, or rather when the World Cup returns to Europe it should be either UK/England or Spain-Portugal. With the expanded format they would be the most reasonable choice. Italy could be a candidate as well,compared to the other ones at the moment they'd be far behind in terms of stadium projects. My favorite country for a future World Cup is Australia though. I still regret the missed chance of 2022. I love the Aussie fans, they were marvellous in 2006 here in Germany. Australia and the Socceroos took large steps forward in the past decade establishing football among the top sports. A World Cup would be another milestone for this development, and 2022 would have been the right time.


----------



## marokko

In a world cup with 48 teams, it will be for most countries necessary to build "modular" stadiums in the future to prevent white elephants. The technology is fortunately progressing fast.


----------



## pesto

Speaking generally, it seems to me that joint bids are preferable to modular stadiums which really are just white elephants that can be quickly hidden in a storage or scrap area. Even the people pushing these stadiums note that they are temporary or “entry level” stadiums until a city or team has built sufficient brand to build a real stadium. 

They have the same problem as true white elephants: there really is no market demand for them so the cost and effort of building them is largely wasted. Plus you get a shabby stadium to use at the games, which does not strike me as what FIFA is looking for.

Joint bids by contrast eliminate additional costs of construction and add nothing to the stock of unneeded facilities. Plus you get more local populations involved and more cooperative efforts between countries, which I think is a good thing.


----------



## Knitemplar

/\/\ Exactly.

Case in point: the so-called "temporary basketball arena @ London 2012" (capacity, I think was 12,500). That was supposedly easily dismantled and, like, they had hoped Rio 2016 would buy/lease the facility from London after the 2012 Games. Didn't happen. And even the Glasgow 2014 CWG, just up the road from London -- DIDN'T even BOTHER to use the so-called 'collapsible" facility. 

The so-called advantages of "modular" stadia have NOT been proven, and I think just look good on paper. They will flop in the real world.


----------



## RobH

Some of the seating structures were reused in the new hockey centre up the road, but I assume the rest of it ended up being sold off in parts back into the supply chain. You're right in saying it wasn't relocated as a whole structure as was hoped, but it was still the lesser of two evils. The alternative would've been an extra unneeded arena (London was already building one new permanent indoor arena for 2012). Building the basketball arena as temporary with the option to move it elsewhere was certainly the way to go.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

I expect the next FIFA World Cups will be hosted by joint bids. As for the 2030 FIFA World Cup, the following bids could be:

* Argentina/Paraguay/Uruguay
* England/Scotland/Wales
* Spain/Portugal


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> I expect the next FIFA World Cups will be hosted by joint bids. As for the 2030 FIFA World Cup, the following bids could be:
> 
> * Argentina/Paraguay/Uruguay
> * England/Scotland/Wales
> * Spain/Portugal


The Brits better get the Royal Navy together. Sounds like they are defending against the Invincible Armada and the Falklands at the same time. :lol:


----------



## pesto

Modular building wastes effort and resources and joint bids do not. If you have a city that cannot economically sustain a stadium, you don't build one. Any country has other uses for the money, and obviously private investors have already rejected the idea of building a stadium.

My guess is that Netherlands and Belgium would not consider modular stadiums in the context of a FIFA bid. They make no sense economically and you just end up selling them to a third world country for pennies on the dollar. What DOES make sense for them is joining in a joint bid with, say, France, Germany, the UK or other neighbors.


----------



## RobH

In theory it's a great idea, but no city or country that I know of has pulled off the modular concept in the way it intended to. That's why I'm skeptical.

But....whilst I'm skeptical I'd be more than happy to be proved wrong. But I think that'd require not only very nifty technology but also a very solid legacy plan to make it workable and worth the expense. Also, FIFA isn't in a place where it should be taking huge risks at the moment, *and* may not be when the time comes to make the decision for 2030 either (phew, think I got away with that one).


----------



## pesto

Yes, I think this is a good statement of general policy on modulars.

Modular has its uses (say, in the Olympics where the great bulk of facilities already exist and the additional expenditure is immaterial). But large general purpose stadiums do not seem to be the right thing for modular. You wonder if the driving force is really economic rationality or just super-rich contractors and politicos trying to add to their wealth.

I would be interested in seeing if the Sp/Port or Arg/Par/Ur bids include any modular facilities. I assume the UK won't.


----------



## Rover030

pesto said:


> Yes, I think this is a good statement of general policy on modulars.
> 
> Modular has its uses (say, in the Olympics where the great bulk of facilities already exist and the additional expenditure is immaterial). But large general purpose stadiums do not seem to be the right thing for modular. *You wonder if the driving force is really economic rationality or just super-rich contractors and politicos trying to add to their wealth.*
> 
> I would be interested in seeing if the Sp/Port or Arg/Par/Ur bids include any modular facilities. I assume the UK won't.


It's pretty clear what the driving force is, isn't it? If you want to make some dubious money from construction, there are probably much easier ways in a developing country, that is, like the descriptor would suggest, constantly developing. 

It's just a national dream and they are doing their best to follow the requirements exactly. The requirements said, there should be a large stadium for the final, so what do they do, they design a stadium that perfectly fits all FIFA requirements. The requirements said, stadiums should have a certain maximum size after the world cup, so what do they do, they come up with a way to build stadiums that perfectly fit the FIFA requirements, can be copy-pasted for every stadium and then be reduced to the exact capacity FIFA allow. Surely, if you want to leave room for corruption, you'd make each stadium different so that contractors have an excuse to "make mistakes".

They just want to max out their technical evaluation score, which is why they were so angry when the requirements were changed last moment.


----------



## Colonel Ned

pesto said:


> Speaking generally, it seems to me that joint bids are preferable to modular stadiums which really are just white elephants that can be quickly hidden in a storage or scrap area.


1. If FIFA prefers joint bid for 48 teams, why increase this number starting from Qatar 2022 ?

2. Have you any proof that modular stadia are white elephant ? or you just keep your blind attack policy ?

3. What's your suggestion for all soccer nations that hope to offer WC to their people ?


----------



## Sheppard Fiddler

pesto said:


> I would be interested in seeing if the Sp/Port or Arg/Par/Ur bids include any modular facilities. I assume the UK won't.


I can't imagine any of these other bids would need to resort to modular systems when they have such a large stock of existing stadia - the modular cost to build or extend a stadium would probably be similar to renovate it permanently.

I agree with the comment regarding large scale, modular temporary stadiums being untested (therefore risky), in terms of large-scale tournaments. Just because politicians/builders/operators promise certain stadium outcomes doesn't necessarily mean that is what happens.


----------



## pesto

Sheppard Fiddler said:


> I can't imagine any of these other bids would need to resort to modular systems when they have such a large stock of existing stadia - the modular cost to build or extend a stadium would probably be similar to renovate it permanently.
> 
> I agree with the comment regarding large scale, modular temporary stadiums being untested (therefore risky), in terms of large-scale tournaments. Just because politicians/builders/operators promise certain stadium outcomes doesn't necessarily mean that is what happens.


Agree completely. The niche filled by vendors of modular systems is where there isn't the money to build proper stadiums (this is stated explicitly right in their advertising). There's nothing wrong with this; that's how free enterprise works. It just has to be analyzed as to whether it makes economic sense in a given context or is motivated by private considerations of some sort. FIFA is publicly committed to eliminating economically unsound processes.


----------



## pesto

Modular may waste less money than building a standard stadium, but results in a low quality product. Joint bids result in more already-existing, high-quality facilities to be included in a bid at lower costs and without the possibility of bribes, poor engineering, unskilled services, over-runs, etc. That's about all I am saying.


----------



## GunnerJacket




----------



## Colonel Ned

pesto said:


> Modular may waste less money than building a standard stadium, but results in a low quality product. Joint bids result in more already-existing, high-quality facilities to be included in a bid at lower costs and without the possibility of bribes, poor engineering, unskilled services, over-runs, etc. That's about all I am saying.


you understand what a real "proof" is ?

give us a real proof

all your comment are subjective

and you have a good defender who delete each time parts of my comment (it's no longer a democratic discussion)


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Spain - Portugal wouldn't need modular stadia. There are two good stadia in Lisbon plus one in Porto. There are others in Portugal that could possibly be expanded, permanently or temporarily, if required. That is a very different thing. Spain has many good stadia across the country, particularly if the rule about only one city having two stadiums is relaxed, which it should be. Spain would not really need Portugal as a co-host but it would clearly be advantageous politically.

Argentina, Uruguay & Paraguay shouldn't need modular stadia. Their problem is that most of their stadia need total replacement or refurbishment and it is difficult to see where the money will come from.

With modular stadia all the cost of construction and dismantling (minus any resale income) has to be assigned to the World Cup. There is no income stream from a tenant to offset against it. If the resale value was high that wouldn't be a problem. However, the only realistic market for a temporary football stadium is another World Cup. They won't want a four or more year-old 2nd hand structure as hosting a World Cup is about national pride. There has been a club in Italy that used a temporary stadium whilst rebuilding but that was smaller and their primary motivation was clearly to keep the cost down. Most temporary stands are for events like golf and tennis and very low quality. There just isn't any demand for the sort of quality stadium that a World Cup requires on a temporary basis.


----------



## Vizemeister

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Spain - Portugal wouldn't need modular stadia. There are two good stadia in Lisbon plus one in Porto. There are others in Portugal that could possibly be expanded, permanently or temporarily, if required. That is a very different thing. Spain has many good stadia across the country, particularly if the rule about only one city having two stadiums is relaxed, which it should be. Spain would not really need Portugal as a co-host but it would clearly be advantageous politically.


The Estadio da Luz would be the perfect 3rd place match venue in my opinion. If Spain would hold on to "play the final in capital", Nou Camp and Wanda Metropolitano could be the semi-final match locations.


----------



## ElvisBC

Vizemeister said:


> The Estadio da Luz would be the perfect 3rd place match venue in my opinion. If Spain would hold on to "play the final in capital", Nou Camp and Wanda Metropolitano could be the semi-final match locations.


old trafford would be much better :colgate:


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Vizemeister said:


> The Estadio da Luz would be the perfect 3rd place match venue in my opinion. If Spain would hold on to "play the final in capital", Nou Camp and Wanda Metropolitano could be the semi-final match locations.


The Estadio da Luz is a great ground. The split of matches between the hosts would be interesting and I wonder if Portugal might get the opening match. The 3rd place fixture is less important than the semi-finals, at least in my opinion. Portugal would probably be looking to have the opening match or one of the semis.


----------



## ElvisBC

Vizemeister said:


> The Estadio da Luz would be the perfect 3rd place match venue in my opinion. If Spain would hold on to "play the final in capital", Nou Camp and Wanda Metropolitano could be the semi-final match locations.
> 
> 
> 
> ElvisBC said:
> 
> 
> 
> old trafford would be much better :colgate:
Click to expand...

sorry, got to correct that one .... old trafford will be much better :colgate:


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Spain - Portugal wouldn't need modular stadia. There are two good stadia in Lisbon plus one in Porto. There are others in Portugal that could possibly be expanded, permanently or temporarily, if required. That is a very different thing. Spain has many good stadia across the country, particularly if the rule about only one city having two stadiums is relaxed, which it should be. Spain would not really need Portugal as a co-host but it would clearly be advantageous politically.
> 
> Argentina, Uruguay & Paraguay shouldn't need modular stadia. Their problem is that most of their stadia need total replacement or refurbishment and it is difficult to see where the money will come from.
> 
> With modular stadia all the cost of construction and dismantling (minus any resale income) has to be assigned to the World Cup. There is no income stream from a tenant to offset against it. If the resale value was high that wouldn't be a problem. However, the only realistic market for a temporary football stadium is another World Cup. They won't want a four or more year-old 2nd hand structure as hosting a World Cup is about national pride. There has been a club in Italy that used a temporary stadium whilst rebuilding but that was smaller and their primary motivation was clearly to keep the cost down. Most temporary stands are for events like golf and tennis and very low quality. There just isn't any demand for the sort of quality stadium that a World Cup requires on a temporary basis.


Yes. Or put another way, modular stadiums are a dead-weight loss, which is (and should be) expensed at the time of construction because it has no value the day after the events end.

On your other point, if Arg/Par/Ur is really that bad, they need to talk with FIFA about whether they can build a case for the economics of refurbishing everything. 

There are arguments in their favor if the stadiums are legitimately in current use and paying for themselves or will at lest be no worse a loser after renovations. Otherwise, you get something akin to white elephants.

Maybe gray elephants? Stadiums which are used regularly but can't pay off their costs of renovation.


----------



## pesto

Vizemeister said:


> The Estadio da Luz would be the perfect 3rd place match venue in my opinion. If Spain would hold on to "play the final in capital", Nou Camp and Wanda Metropolitano could be the semi-final match locations.


If Spain and Portugal don't have enough stadiums, maybe they could invite Catalunya and Euskadi to enter into the bid as well? :lol:


----------



## Gombos

marty11 said:


> *NO*. Having 10 40k+ stadiums here in Romania is out of discussion. And a joint bid with one of the neighbors would most likely mean that each country would have to have 6 40k+ stadiums. Which is out of discussion for all of our neighbors but Ukraine. And Ukraine is at war right now.
> 
> Hosting a Euro as a single host would make much more sense (Heck, even Portugal was able to do it!), but I can't see this happening over the next decade.


Too bad.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Colonel Ned said:


> you understand what a real "proof" is ?
> 
> give us a real proof
> 
> all your comment are subjective


I'm confident he knows the difference and is fine with his opinion being subjective. He's entitled to an opinion just like you.



> and you have a good defender who delete each time parts of my comment (it's no longer a democratic discussion)


a. I deleted material from several posters, not just you.
b. I did so because we were straying back in to 2026 territory which I had warned everyone was expressly verboten on this thread.
c. If you have a personal issue with a poster about something that is not of the thread topic then please contact them via PM.
d. If you have a concern about board moderation then speak with a moderator via PM.


----------



## Vizemeister

ElvisBC said:


> sorry, got to correct that one .... old trafford will be much better :colgate:



You know back in 2010 I supported the England bid to my heart. I felt it was the right place at the right time. I was left in shock when Russia was announced and I still can't get over the fact that the England bid received two meagre pathetic votes. Yeah well we know all the obvious reasons, but at that time it felt like a smack in the face. F*** you all football world, we are FIFA, we only care for $$$. That was the Russia/Qatar vote.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Vizemeister said:


> You know back in 2010 I supported the England bid to my heart. I felt it was the right place at the right time. I was left in shock when Russia was announced and I still can't get over the fact that the England bid received two meagre pathetic votes. Yeah well we know all the obvious reasons, but at that time it felt like a smack in the face. F*** you all football world, we are FIFA, we only care for $$$. That was the Russia/Qatar vote.


Qatar was the egregious one, I won't even watch that one on TV. Russia should show itself to be a worthy host this summer even if the manner of their win was suspect. A lot of good potential hosts in Europe but not many tournaments to go round.


----------



## Vizemeister

Sorry I know this is the 2030 bid thread but I have to say this about Russia this summer:

They might show itself as worthy hosts, however I'm still puzzled how they could get away with two 35.000 and 7 roughly 45.000 stadiums-meeting just the minimum criteria for a World Cup. Then there's the sad St. Petersburg story. And why on earth is the Moscow Fan Fest not located in Red Square instead of disturbing students.

And now back to 2030.


----------



## pesto

Vizemeister said:


> You know back in 2010 I supported the England bid to my heart. I felt it was the right place at the right time. I was left in shock when Russia was announced and I still can't get over the fact that the England bid received two meagre pathetic votes. Yeah well we know all the obvious reasons, but at that time it felt like a smack in the face. F*** you all football world, we are FIFA, we only care for $$$. That was the Russia/Qatar vote.


I agree with the spirit of the post, but just a clarification: it wasn't FIFA that was breaking the rules; it was particular individuals that put their personal wealth and well-being ahead of those of the organization.

There is nothing wrong with caring about how much money FIFA makes if the money is to be used for the purposes of the organization (and, of course, it is obtained in a manner consistent with law and the long-term interests of the organization).


----------



## pesto

duplicate


----------



## ElvisBC

Vizemeister said:


> .........
> 
> And now back to 2030.


south american bid asked for "fast track" bidding process yesterday ... no clue what is behind! they would prefer 10 years preparation time instead of usual 8!


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

ElvisBC said:


> south american bid asked for "fast track" bidding process yesterday ... no clue what is behind! they would prefer 10 years preparation time instead of usual 8!


Have you a link? I couldn't find anything with a quick google.

The only reason to do is that they think they have more chance of winning sooner rather than later. This is probably the worst reason to give it to them. Means they either expect other bids to get stronger or their's weaker.

Also very strange seeing as Argentina has just asked for an IMF loan following the Peso's collapse with interest rates at 40% and $30bn of refinancing falling due. One source. I know this is an architecture forum but you need money for new stadiums and Argentina needs new stadiums to host. I would have thought they'd be in a better position in a few years time.


----------



## RobH

^^ This is what I could find...



> *Argentina, Neighbors Seek Early Decision on 2030 World Cup Bid*
> 
> ASUNCION – Representatives from Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay, who have submitted a joint bid to host the 2030 World Cup, said on Wednesday that they will ask FIFA to move the selection process forward by two years to provide more time to prepare the event.
> 
> The proposal to hasten the selection process was announced by Argentine diplomat Ernesto Gaspari during a press conference held at the official residence of the Paraguayan president.
> 
> Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay’s goal is to move the selection forward to the year 2020, instead of holding it in 2022 during that year’s World Cup in Qatar, which would provide the three countries with 10 years instead of eight to prepare for the centennial edition of the event.


http://www.laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=13002&ArticleId=2456322


----------



## ElvisBC

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Have you a link? I couldn't find anything with a quick google.
> 
> The only reason to do is that they think they have more chance of winning sooner rather than later. This is probably the worst reason to give it to them. Means they either expect other bids to get stronger or their's weaker.
> 
> Also very strange seeing as Argentina has just asked for an IMF loan following the Peso's collapse with interest rates at 40% and $30bn of refinancing falling due. One source. I know this is an architecture forum but you need money for new stadiums and Argentina needs new stadiums to host. I would have thought they'd be in a better position in a few years time.



sure, there was a meeting in ausuncion on wednesday and short press conference right after. here the link:
Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay seek early decision on 2030 World Cup bid


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Thank you both. A bit cheeky and, in my opinion, a sign of weakness rather than strength. I think they're trying to lessen the chance of competition. Especially from whomever loses the 2026 bid.


----------



## Colonel Ned

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Thank you both. A bit cheeky and, in my opinion, a sign of weakness rather than strength. I think they're trying to lessen the chance of competition. *Especially from whomever loses the 2026* bid.


well said!


----------



## ElvisBC

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Thank you both. A bit cheeky and, in my opinion, a sign of weakness rather than strength. I think they're trying to lessen the chance of competition. Especially from whomever loses the 2026 bid.


yepp, most people think it is going to be uk vs uru/arg/par, and forgetting about '26 losing bid! it is not easy to land the world cup, as americans are learning right now!


----------



## CaliforniaJones

*Alpine nations World Cup*

*Italy*
* Turin
* Genoa
* Milan
* Verona
* Bologna
* Florence
* Udine
* Rome
* Napoli
* Bari

*Switzerland*
* Basel
* Bern

*Austria*
* Vienna
* Salzbourg

Main problem: size of stadiums, too many 30,000 places stadiums.


----------



## marokko

^^Temporary additional seats where possible could be a solution. No need to invest much money in too many new stadiums ...


----------



## pesto

I love Italy; one of the great countries of the world.

But they might need a bit of work on their stadiums before they are, shall we say, ready for prime time? And I don't think replacing stadiums suffering from rust, rotting concrete, exposed pipes, etc., with modular tinker-toy set stadiums would be of much benefit to anyone. 

The offerings of an Arg/Pa/Ur bid have already been called into question on the basis of dated stadiums. I think that this is why FIFA is emphasizing completed, functioning stadiums with modern amenities and first-class quality.


----------



## pesto

So does anyone know where the UK is at as far as putting together a bid for 2030? Is it just feelers and suggestions at this point or is there an organized committee?


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

pesto said:


> So does anyone know where the UK is at as far as putting together a bid for 2030? Is it just feelers and suggestions at this point or is there an organized committee?


It is all behind the scenes stuff. The head of UEFA has said that they will fight for it to be in Europe and has backed a British bid. Germany is reported to back England (possibly in return for support for Euro 24 in Germany - which would be forthcoming in any case). However, there has been no formal launch and no official committee exists. One wouldn't really expect there to be a committee this far from the vote. To set up a formal committee you have to decide on whether it is an English or a British bid. The view on which is more desirable, both within England and within FIFA, could easily switch before 2022. England will host the semis and final of Euro 2020 at Wembley. They will likely be looking to launch an official World Cup bid following that. There will also be Euro 2020 matches in Glasgow and Dublin. Will a pan-Europe Euros be successful or will it lose something by being so spread out? Best to know this before launching a bid officially.

We will also know more about potential host venues. Will Everton have a new stadium in a prominent position on the Mersey in time? Will Liverpool have further expanded Anfield? Will Old Trafford and/or the Etihad be expanded? Will Chelsea definitely be in a new Stamford Bridge? Similar questions regarding Villa Park, Elland Road, Sheffield, etc. We will know whether a combined bid is preferred and whether two or more two stadium cities are acceptable/desirable. All good reasons to keep it informal for now.

Very different for the Arg - Uru - Par bid. They will need to co-ordinate across three countries, rebuild/replace stadia that otherwise won't be rebuilt and spend public money on it. It is also fixed as a three nation bid.


----------



## ElvisBC

Very interesting statement here:
Morocco to Build 2026 World Cup Projects Regardless of Host Vote 2026

It is meanwhile clear that Morocco will not give up until they get it once, but I find this very interesting. OK, it might be marketing statement only (June vote is close), but if they lose now and then really build those 7 stadiums their chances for 2030 will rise exponentially. Everyone thinks it is going to be race between England/UK and Arg/Uru/Par, but whoever loses 2026 will be a very strong contender for 2030. Americans due to money card they play all the time and Morocco due to their investments, if these really happen!

2030 race might get very interesting, until lately I actually thought England would have no real competition, but I am not so sure about that any more!


----------



## RobH

Also, an almighty fight is brewing between FIFA and UEFA.
http://global.espn.com/football/blo...over-club-world-cup-and-global-nations-league

We could end up in a situation very shortly where UEFA and a majority of European clubs (whose stadiums and cooperation will be needed for any World Cup bid) are at loggerheads with FIFA.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

RobH said:


> Also, an almighty fight is brewing between FIFA and UEFA.
> http://global.espn.com/football/blo...over-club-world-cup-and-global-nations-league
> 
> We could end up in a situation very shortly where UEFA and a majority of European clubs (whose stadiums and cooperation will be needed for any World Cup bid) are at loggerheads with FIFA.


FIFA being greedy. Football every summer is too much. For the players and for the viewing public. They are also going to struggle to get anything in place for 2021 or 2023 as both summer close seasons will be affected by having the Qatar World Cup at the wrong time. Fully support UEFA on this one.


----------



## Vizemeister

Following the FIFA arrestments I read many commentator's who suggested that if UEFA would show its might more, e.g. opening the EURO to North African nations or Asia/hosting invitation tournaments, FIFA would struggle alot in keeping its leadership position.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Dear FIFA,

If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

Sincerely,

Everyone else.


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> Dear FIFA,
> 
> If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Everyone else.


To quote one of my favorite tautologies: "Nothing was ever hurt by being made better."

In today's world, everything is broken within a few years and a new system replaces it, either in whole or in part. You just got to hope that something better really does come out of it.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> Very interesting statement here:
> Morocco to Build 2026 World Cup Projects Regardless of Host Vote 2026
> 
> It is meanwhile clear that Morocco will not give up until they get it once, but I find this very interesting. OK, it might be marketing statement only (June vote is close), but if they lose now and then really build those 7 stadiums their chances for 2030 will rise exponentially. Everyone thinks it is going to be race between England/UK and Arg/Uru/Par, but whoever loses 2026 will be a very strong contender for 2030. Americans due to money card they play all the time and Morocco due to their investments, if these really happen!
> 
> 2030 race might get very interesting, until lately I actually thought England would have no real competition, but I am not so sure about that any more!


Better not to talk about Morocco now but we can discuss this very telling announcement after the 2026 selection.


----------



## RobH

Trying to railroad something through without properly asking clubs, leagues and fans because some investors - who have been speculated upon but who FIFA won't name under the spurious reasoning of "commercial confidentiality" - isn't a normal way of going about improving things.

In short, it doesn't pass the smell test. These paragraphs from a recent article make the point well...



> ...In football there is also a fourth major element: the regulator, FIFA. And at the same time as being the regulator, FIFA is also an economic actor.
> 
> For four weeks every four years, FIFA prevents most organized club football taking place and takes the best of the labor element contracted to clubs, using them for its own commercial ends in the FIFA World Cup. This is akin to the Federal Communications Commission closing down all media channels in the U.S. for a month every four years while cherry-picking the best shows from Netflix, HBO, NBC and wherever else it fancied and broadcasting them entirely for its own commercial gain. We all love the World Cup, of course, but from the standpoint of economics, that's what is going on.
> 
> What if that regulator were to intervene in the football economy to act not in its own interests as, ostensibly at least, the not-for-profit custodian of global football development, but in the interests of commercial third parties? What would that mean for the integrity of the game?
> 
> These are big questions. If savvy investors are offering FIFA $25bn for what is currently little more than a sporting irrelevance [the club world cup], it is because they believe in the power of FIFA as regulator to shift football's tectonic plates in its own favor. And should it start down that path, there will be some almighty earthquakes along the way.


http://www.espn.com/soccer/blog/esp...-questions-as-fifa-considers-big-money-offers


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> Trying to railroad something through without properly asking clubs, leagues and fans because some investors - who have been speculated upon but who FIFA won't name under the spurious reasoning of "commercial confidentiality" - isn't a normal way of going about improving things.
> 
> In short, it doesn't pass the smell test. These paragraphs from a recent article make the point well...
> 
> http://www.espn.com/soccer/blog/esp...-questions-as-fifa-considers-big-money-offers


FIFA may well have to do something about its ambiguous position. But the idea of a WC is to powerful to go away.

Putting it in the hands of people with nationalistic priorities is a proven loser just from watching the spectacle of the last year or so. Most reasonable is to put it in the hands of professional managers who can make decisions re format, location, etc., based on long-term strategy.


----------



## Colonel Ned

why not setting a FIFA WC every 2 years after the centenario ?

A competition of 32 teams each 2 years, if they could set a good agenda respecting (all coordinating) all other major soccer competitions ...

more money for FIFA, more fun for fans, less politics, less frustration for all countries that wnt to host ...

speaking about 2026 loser, Morocco has already won the respect of the entire world, even if Gringos got it, the History will retain all Infantino and Trump' mafia actions. I can expect a Spain/Portugal/Morocco for the centenario, as a symbolic joint bid that join Europe to Africa. (but I still believe in Moroccan triomph on June 13)

and sorry if I talk about 2026 (_sorry for sensitive souls or complicated mind that feel bad each time they read the word "Morocco"_), if there any other open place that we can talk about, show it to me.


----------



## CFCman

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> It is all behind the scenes stuff. The head of UEFA has said that they will fight for it to be in Europe and has backed a British bid. Germany is reported to back England (possibly in return for support for Euro 24 in Germany - which would be forthcoming in any case). However, there has been no formal launch and no official committee exists. One wouldn't really expect there to be a committee this far from the vote. To set up a formal committee you have to decide on whether it is an English or a British bid. The view on which is more desirable, both within England and within FIFA, could easily switch before 2022. England will host the semis and final of Euro 2020 at Wembley. They will likely be looking to launch an official World Cup bid following that. There will also be Euro 2020 matches in Glasgow and Dublin. Will a pan-Europe Euros be successful or will it lose something by being so spread out? Best to know this before launching a bid officially.
> 
> We will also know more about potential host venues. Will Everton have a new stadium in a prominent position on the Mersey in time? Will Liverpool have further expanded Anfield? Will Old Trafford and/or the Etihad be expanded? Will Chelsea definitely be in a new Stamford Bridge? Similar questions regarding Villa Park, Elland Road, Sheffield, etc. We will know whether a combined bid is preferred and whether two or more two stadium cities are acceptable/desirable. All good reasons to keep it informal for now.
> 
> Very different for the Arg - Uru - Par bid. They will need to co-ordinate across three countries, rebuild/replace stadia that otherwise won't be rebuilt and spend public money on it. It is also fixed as a three nation bid.


A Great British, rather than an English bid, would be more successful primarily because it would secure the vote of the other home nations. I'd propose 10 venues for England, 3 in Scotland, and 1 each in Wales and Northern Ireland. The breakdown could be as follows:

England - Wembley, Old Trafford, Elland Road, Villa Park, Anfield, Chelsea FC new stadium/Emirates stadium, Etihad, Sheffield, Sports Direct Arena in Newcastle.

Scotland - Hampden Park, Celtic Park, and Murrayfield.

Wales - Millennium stadium in Cardiff 

Northern Ireland - National stadium in Windsor (potentially redeveloped)

Furthermore, the quarter finals could be held at Anfield, Old Trafford, Murrayfield, and Celtic Park.

Semi finals at Wembley and Millennium stadium.

Bronze medal match at the Etihad

Final at Wembley.


----------



## RobH

CFCman said:


> A Great British, rather than an English bid, would be more successful primarily because it would secure the vote of the other home nations.


That wouldn't be a reason for considering a joint bid as those votes would be secure regardless (just as England's vote was always one vote in the bag for Scotland-Ireland 2008).

A joint bid would only happen if there's a feeling it has a better shot at winning than England going it alone or if there's a will for a joint bid to happen from all parties and the complication is worth it.

In short, until we hear anything suggesting otherwise, the default assumption is it'll be England 2030.

What I _do_ know the FA chief has been speaking to FIFA delegates and visiting other football associations around the world and sounding them out re: 2030. So I hope they're building up an idea of what the best way to win would be.


----------



## FCIM

I see little chance that the joint Sth American bid has a shot here. 

No way FIFA would have 3 world cups in a row outside Europe.


----------



## FCIM

CFCman said:


> A Great British, rather than an English bid, would be more successful primarily because it would secure the vote of the other home nations. I'd propose 10 venues for England, 3 in Scotland, and 1 each in Wales and Northern Ireland. The breakdown could be as follows:
> 
> England - Wembley, Old Trafford, Elland Road, Villa Park, Anfield, Chelsea FC new stadium/Emirates stadium, Etihad, Sheffield, Sports Direct Arena in Newcastle.
> 
> Scotland - Hampden Park, Celtic Park, and Murrayfield.
> 
> Wales - Millennium stadium in Cardiff
> 
> Northern Ireland - National stadium in Windsor (potentially redeveloped)
> 
> Furthermore, the quarter finals could be held at Anfield, Old Trafford, Murrayfield, and Celtic Park.
> 
> Semi finals at Wembley and Millennium stadium.
> 
> Bronze medal match at the Etihad
> 
> Final at Wembley.


If there is a UK bid, apart from London, there isnt a need for any other city to host two stadiums.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Bidding nations don't get to vote, do they? So a British as opposed to English bid would actually lose the votes of Wales, Scotland and potentially Ireland and Northern Ireland if they were also included. It is almost impossible to see those FAs voting against an English bid as they would all benefit from their proximity to England. Of course they would love to be directly involved also. The nature of the bid depends on what is seen to be most likely to win when the time comes.


----------



## RobH

Durrrr, good and obvious point which I missed. :doh: Yes, bidding with three other home nations means we'd lose three guaranteed votes. So the opposite of what CFCman said it true.

But of course it's only 3 out of 200+ so it's the wider picture that needs to be taken into consideration. And I don't know what the thinking is there.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Colonel Ned said:


> why not setting a FIFA WC every 2 years after the centenario ?


A competition of 32 teams each 2 years, if they could set a good agenda respecting (all coordinating) all other major soccer competitions ...

more money for FIFA, more fun for fans, less politics, less frustration for all countries that wnt to host ...[/QUOTE]Just my opinion... 
1. The appeal for the WC would dissipate once it becomes so common. Part of the respect for the tournament is that it is a rare occurrence. 
2. This muddies the calendar for qualifying, especially for larger confederations where fixture congestion is already and issue. It would also take away from the appeal of the continental championships that remain immensely popular.
3. This could be very expensive for fans.
4. Frankly, I'm not in favor of giving FIFA any more money, because it's not like their using their vast wealth predominantly for investing in poorer countries. 



FCIM said:


> I see little chance that the joint Sth American bid has a shot here.
> 
> No way FIFA would have 3 world cups in a row outside Europe.


Another way to look at it is that 2018 will be in Europe, 2022 in Qatar is close enough that Europeans are barely traveling or having to account for time zones, and if 2026 is in Morocco that's even closer still. So you could have 3 in a row that are practically in near orbit around central Europe and with the rest of the world all coming toward Europe.

That and I have a very sneaky suspicion Europe, the world, and the sport of football would survive if FIFA did have 3 events in a row outside of Europe.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Mod note for everyone:



pesto said:


> Better not to talk about Morocco now but we can discuss this very telling announcement after the 2026 selection.





Colonel Ned said:


> speaking about 2026 loser, Morocco has already won the respect of the entire world, even if Gringos got it, the History will retain all Infantino and Trump' mafia actions. I can expect a Spain/Portugal/Morocco for the centenario, as a symbolic joint bid that join Europe to Africa. (but I still believe in Moroccan triomph on June 13)
> 
> and sorry if I talk about 2026 (_sorry for sensitive souls or complicated mind that feel bad each time they read the word "Morocco"_), if there any other open place that we can talk about, show it to me.


Let's make this perfectly clear: 

If you wish to talk about Morocco as a possible bid for 2030 that's perfectly fine.
If you wish to talk about how a possible Morocco '26 event affects the votes for 2030, that's absolutely fine.
If you wish to talk about the specifics of a possible Morocco event then by all means feel free. 

Simply drifting the word "Morocco" into a post is not verboten.

What will NOT be tolerated is any carryover discussion about a Moroccan bid being made into a value statement about the nation. This is not the place for talking politics, cultural superiority, or talking trash about one nation state or another. The conversation in the past got personal and derogatory and will not continue here simply because some parties can't let it go. Anyone who doesn't get this and can't refrain from making "in your face statements" about the Moroccan bid being trash or completely awesome will find their access on the board restricted.

And,no, this isn't because of Morocco. This is because certain posters can't seem to deal with the matter civilly. 

Warning over. Carry on.


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> Mod note for everyone:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's make this perfectly clear:
> 
> If you wish to talk about Morocco as a possible bid for 2030 that's perfectly fine.
> If you wish to talk about how a possible Morocco '26 event affects the votes for 2030, that's absolutely fine.
> If you wish to talk about the specifics of a possible Morocco event then by all means feel free.
> 
> Simply drifting the word "Morocco" into a post is not verboten.
> 
> What will NOT be tolerated is any carryover discussion about a Moroccan bid being made into a value statement about the nation. This is not the place for talking politics, cultural superiority, or talking trash about one nation state or another. The conversation in the past got personal and derogatory and will not continue here simply because some parties can't let it go. Anyone who doesn't get this and can't refrain from making "in your face statements" about the Moroccan bid being trash or completely awesome will find their access on the board restricted.
> 
> And,no, this isn't because of Morocco. This is because certain posters can't seem to deal with the matter civilly.
> 
> Warning over. Carry on.


Agree with you conceptually, but how is the post you cite acceptable? It uses language intended to insult (Gringos), insulting political comments (Infantino and Trump mafia) and that Morocco has earned the world's respect. And then it continues to talk about 2026 and how he expects to win.

This is just the poster using the 2030 thread to post a comment on 2026.


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> Durrrr, good and obvious point which I missed. :doh: Yes, bidding with three other home nations means we'd lose three guaranteed votes. So the opposite of what CFCman said it true.
> 
> But of course it's only 3 out of 200+ so it's the wider picture that needs to be taken into consideration. And I don't know what the thinking is there.


That's a rule that needs to be revised if FIFA is genuinely interested in encouraging joint bids. 

Just speaking personally, I would prefer a British Isles bid to an England bid. You bring in more well known cities and diverse cultures which would attract more interest than including relatively obscure English venues.


----------



## marokko

GunnerJacket said:


> Mod note for everyone:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's make this perfectly clear:
> 
> If you wish to talk about Morocco as a possible bid for 2030 that's perfectly fine.
> If you wish to talk about how a possible Morocco '26 event affects the votes for 2030, that's absolutely fine.
> If you wish to talk about the specifics of a possible Morocco event then by all means feel free.
> 
> Simply drifting the word "Morocco" into a post is not verboten.
> 
> What will NOT be tolerated is any carryover discussion about a Moroccan bid being made into a value statement about the nation. This is not the place for talking politics, cultural superiority, or talking trash about one nation state or another. The conversation in the past got personal and derogatory and will not continue here simply because some parties can't let it go. Anyone who doesn't get this and can't refrain from making "in your face statements" about the Moroccan bid being trash or completely awesome will find their access on the board restricted.
> 
> And,no, this isn't because of Morocco. This is because certain posters can't seem to deal with the matter civilly.
> 
> Warning over. Carry on.


Option 1: Just close this thread Gunnerjacket, like the previous thread. Otherwise you will be busy policing. Just look to the posts below your post. This can't be stopped, if people don't have a platform to discuss. So the next thread that will be polluted will be WC 2034 I guess.

Option 2: Another solution could be to systematically delete posts of a certain group or only send warnings to this group. This action could be justified by some kind of "rational" reasoning. The other side can keep its platform and give compliments to eachother (Please don't choose this option)

Option 3: We have a very nice forum and I hope it will stay like this: an open platform to discuss different topics and views in a respectful way. A platform in which threads don't need to be closed, even if some don't like the other side of the story. It would be nice though if people are respectful to eachother. Participants can neglect trolls.

Final comment: I sincerily appreciate the work of the mods and yes I favor option 3.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Message Board Etiquette 201. Follow along, everyone!



pesto said:


> Agree with you conceptually, but how is the post you cite acceptable? It uses language intended to insult (Gringos), insulting political comments (Infantino and Trump mafia) and that Morocco has earned the world's respect. And then it continues to talk about 2026 and how he expects to win.
> 
> This is just the poster using the 2030 thread to post a comment on 2026.


I didn't say _it was_ acceptable. I kept it since I quoted it so that EVERYONE COULD SEE a sample of what I'm talking about. Now ideally, we all heed marokko's advice above and simply move on, which would entail not bringing this s*** up over and over again. ie: If you find something possibly offensive or violating board policy you notify a mod and let us clean it up. Which also means it would REALLY HELP if everyone would stop bringing it up or quoting posts they find questionable/objectionable instead of contacting a mod.

It is entirely possible to carry on in a thread without engaging "bad" posts/posters. ie: Don't feed someone you consider a troll. 
Tough though that may be for some people.




So this is the big ol' reset button. We all know how to play the game now, right? Excellent! Sidebar closed. Carry on.


----------



## bandermann02

ElvisBC said:


> Very interesting statement here:
> Morocco to Build 2026 World Cup Projects Regardless of Host Vote 2026
> 
> It is meanwhile clear that Morocco will not give up until they get it once, but I find this very interesting. OK, it might be marketing statement only (June vote is close), but if they lose now and then really build those 7 stadiums their chances for 2030 will rise exponentially. Everyone thinks it is going to be race between England/UK and Arg/Uru/Par, but whoever loses 2026 will be a very strong contender for 2030. Americans due to money card they play all the time and Morocco due to their investments, if these really happen!
> 
> 2030 race might get very interesting, until lately I actually thought England would have no real competition, but I am not so sure about that any more!


Morocco has a really strong bid. I must say some stadiums are breathtaking. 

http://docdro.id/glrDwnI

It is not marketing statement, these stadiums will be built regardless of the world cup 2026:

New stadium Casasblanca(2024):The Grand Stade de Casablanca is an already planned project, due to be completed in March 2025. It will provide an ideal and long-awaited permanent home for the national team, with a high capacity matching the national appetite for football.

Tetouan (2020):The Tetouan Stadium project was launched in 2015. It is currently under construction and will be completed in 2020. This modern stadium,
with a capacity of 45,600 seats, is based on a design combining traditional Moroccan motifs with a futuristic feel. 

Oujda(2022): The Oujda Stadium will be Morocco’s first energy-positive stadium thanks to its photovoltaic roof, which will generate more electricity than the stadium requires to run. 

Renovated Stadiums:Marrakesh, Agadir, Fez, Rabat, Tangier. The rest are modular stadiums.

If Morocco does not get 2026 WC then they would definitly be added to the countries bidding for 2030.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

I would be happy to see a bid including Morrocco's best four stadiums combined with two from Portugal, which would be in Lisbon and Porto of course and the rest from Spain. (if the English bid is not accepted)

From Spain... two in the capital, Nou Camp in Barcelona, Valencia, Seville (depending on which of the two is best at that point), and Bilbao. Twelve decent sized stadiums for a world cup where we go back to having 32 nations. The world cup should be the best nations in the world with participation guaranteed from each region... not half the countries in the world at the finals.


----------



## pesto

Juanpabloangel said:


> I would be happy to see a bid including Morrocco's best four stadiums combined with two from Portugal, which would be in Lisbon and Porto of course and the rest from Spain. (if the English bid is not accepted)
> 
> From Spain... two in the capital, Nou Camp in Barcelona, Valencia, Seville (depending on which of the two is best at that point), and Bilbao. Twelve decent sized stadiums for a world cup where we go back to having 32 nations. The world cup should be the best nations in the world with participation guaranteed from each region... not half the countries in the world at the finals.


Seems like an excellent solution: you get both Europe and Africa in one move with only minimal additional stadium costs.

It also leaves Morocco in a clear win-win situation: WC matches in the major cities without spending on stadiums and infrastructure of at least doubtful value. However, they will have to convince Spain that they will be a plus for the overall bid not a minus since the Brits and Argentina are tough opponents.


----------



## marokko

^^Spain already accepted actually for 2026, but Morocco and Spain figured out that FIFA didn't allow any European country to bid. It is Portugal that declined the offer, because they think a WC is too expensive for them at the moment. 

It is a big possibility though that they will create a bid together in 2030, if United wins 2026. The thing is that Morocco will not stop trying to get the WC. It is the dream of that nation since the eighties. The country is really crazy about Football.


----------



## gazzaa2

Struggle to see why England should get 100 years World Cup when they refused to enter competition till 1950.


----------



## pesto

gazzaa2 said:


> Struggle to see why England should get 100 years World Cup when they refused to enter competition till 1950.


Strikes me as interesting for history buffs but very low on list of things that should influence the decision. 

Stadiums, economics, organizational skill and creativity, local support....


----------



## Sheppard Fiddler

It definitely didn't sway the IOC when awarding the 1996 Olympic Games. The promise of the big $ rewards of Atlanta out weighed the romance of Athens, who had to wait until 2004 to get their home coming games.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

It would be a very tough battle between a Morocco/Spain/Portugal bid and an English one... when you add in the South American bid.... it might favour England in the dilution of the voting, so I guess if they wished to go that way.... there would have to be a negotiation to take it to South America for the following one. Although Africa would probably vote en masse for another African world cup with less risk due to the involvement of Spain and conceivably Portugal. 

I would be happy to see 2026 the North American bid
2030 A winner chosen from the England or M/S/P
2034 Uruguay hosting but with support from South America 
2038 England or M/S/P
2042 Probably Asia and likely China or Japan


----------



## Knitemplar

Sheppard Fiddler said:


> It definitely didn't sway the IOC when awarding the 1996 Olympic Games. The promise of the big $ rewards of Atlanta out weighed the romance of Athens, who had to wait until 2004 to get their home coming games.


The IOC chose Atlanta over Athens in 1990 because (1) the Greek delegation was quite arrogant and felt "entitled" that 1996 should automatically go to them. Obviously more than half the IOC didn't feel that way; and

(2) Atlanta's plan was more solid and it already had, like, 65% of the venues in place, and/or had sensible legacy, post-use projections for the venues that remained to be built. Athens' and Greece's delivery (or lack thereof) of projects, did NOT inspire confidence in the IOC.

I wonder if this same dynamic will hold true in the June 13 vote for FIFA's 2026 World Cup (coincidentally, Atlanta is tagged as one of the possible semi-final cities in the United Bid plan).


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> The IOC chose Atlanta over Athens in 1990 because (1) the Greek delegation was quite arrogant and felt "entitled" that 1996 should automatically go to them. Obviously more than half the IOC didn't feel that way; and
> 
> (2) Atlanta's plan was more solid and it already had, like, 65% of the venues in place, and/or had sensible legacy, post-use projections for the venues that remained to be built. Athens' and Greece's delivery (or lack thereof) of projects, did NOT inspire confidence in the IOC.
> 
> I wonder if this same dynamic will hold true in the June 13 vote for FIFA's 206 World Cup (coincidentally, Atlanta is tagged as one of the possible semi-final cities in the United Bid plan).


Too bad we can't discuss 2026 w/o degenerating immediately into irrelevancies and personal attacks. :lol:

But, it does seem obvious that a bidder in 2030 would be well advised to have stadiums and other facilities in place, no white elephants in the deal and no serious social or economic issues.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

pesto said:


> Too bad we can't discuss 2026 w/o degenerating immediately into irrelevancies and personal attacks. :lol:
> 
> But, it does seem obvious that a bidder in 2030 would be well advised to have stadiums and other facilities in place, no white elephants in the deal and no serious social or economic issues.


I expect there'll be a Task Force for the 2030 FIFA World Cup Bid and many criteria will remain in place or be increased.


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> I expect there'll be a Task Force for the 2030 FIFA World Cup Bid and many criteria will remain in place or be increased.


Yes. But it's always tough to have general guidelines since some bidders come from countries where knowing the right people renders all rules irrelevant. Hopefully FIFA gets people to understand that they cannot have a proposal featuring vaporware and expect to be selected over someone who has put real effort into stadiums, facilities, market studies, etc. 

Maybe the best solution is one which other sports are moving toward: having FIFA inform a few chosen countries (or groups) that FIFA has an interest in them hosting the WC if a proposal can be developed. Of course, anyone who wanted to could have informal chats about their country's readiness.

This might also give the bidder time to show their bona fides by actually upgrading stadiums and other facilities rather than upgrading them ONLY IF selected, which is the classic mark of the white elephant.


----------



## pesto

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

Thorough corruption in the Ghana football association may lead to its suspension and criminal charges.

So it seems that FIFA has some work to do ahead of not just the 2030 vote but ahead of the 2026 vote! You wonder how many other countries are being bribed for their votes.

Having FIFA work directly with pre-selected groups of countries would give more time for corruption of this sort to surface. It would reduce the number of people involved and increase the openness over a period of years.


----------



## Rover030

For the people who won't read the article, it is about internal corruption and actually has nothing to the with the 2026 bids and bribing for votes other than it's suggestive title.

I don't see how you can actually believe that reducing the number of people involved will reduce corruption, as the problem with the previous selection procedure was that there were so few people involved, which made bribing easier. I especially don't see how backroom dealing like that would increase transparancy rather than reduce it.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> For the people who won't read the article, it is about internal corruption and actually has nothing to the with the 2026 bids and bribing for votes other than it's suggestive title.
> 
> I don't see how you can actually believe that reducing the number of people involved will reduce corruption, as the problem with the previous selection procedure was that there were so few people involved, which made bribing easier. I especially don't see how backroom dealing like that would increase transparancy rather than reduce it.


I don't see how you can believe the opposite. Assuming standard corporate operating practices (internal guidelines, vetting, dedicated auditing and legal and ethical review staff) you can't get away with voting any old way. The audit staff and senior officers will ask you how you came to your decision and will remove you from the process if it makes no sense. You risk you whole career by voting inconsistently or erratically.

By contrast, the local FIFA people have no one to answer to unless some outside political group has some motivation to go after them. It goes straight into back-stabbing, vendettas, tit for tat, etc. Which makes sense since these are not professionals, they are connected children of elites who are in it for the booze, travel and women.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> For the people who won't read the article, it is about internal corruption and actually has nothing to the with the 2026 bids and bribing for votes other than it's suggestive title.
> 
> I don't see how you can actually believe that reducing the number of people involved will reduce corruption, as the problem with the previous selection procedure was that there were so few people involved, which made bribing easier. I especially don't see how backroom dealing like that would increase transparancy rather than reduce it.


As for transparency, if a limited number of countries are being worked with over some period of time, there is plenty of time for journalists and other parties to look into the process. There is also time for governments and internal review people to do their work and make their discoveries BEFORE the vote rather than years later when the trail is murky and the selection is a fait accompli.


----------



## Rover030

pesto said:


> I don't see how you can believe the opposite. *Assuming standard corporate operating practices* (internal guidelines, vetting, dedicated auditing and legal and ethical review staff) you can't get away with voting any old way. The audit staff and senior officers will ask you how you came to your decision and will remove you from the process if it makes no sense. You risk you whole career by voting inconsistently or erratically.
> 
> By contrast, the local FIFA people have no one to answer to unless some outside political group has some motivation to go after them. It goes straight into back-stabbing, vendettas, tit for tat, etc. Which makes sense since these are not professionals, they are connected children of elites who are in it for the booze, travel and women.


First step, and we can throw the plan out of the window. The whole structure of football is not like this, you mention it in the second paragraph. Yes, there are audit staff and technical task forces, but they have a marginalised role and the ones in control (=FIFA Congress) don't really have a reason to change this.

I'm trying to reason from the reality at FIFA, not some assumed practice that doesn't exist, and probably won't either for a very long time.

By the way, the closest we have seen when it comes to "a limited number of countries being worked with over some period of time" is the United bid asking for a fast-tracked host selection procedure (and getting it). So that reduced the time, rather then increase it, to put together a good bid and examine it, maybe make some changes and then voting on it. 

Of course this was in the interests of those who asked for it, since the United bid wanted to give the competition as little time as possible.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> First step, and we can throw the plan out of the window. The whole structure of football is not like this, you mention it in the second paragraph. Yes, there are audit staff and technical task forces, but they have a marginalised role and the ones in control (=FIFA Congress) don't really have a reason to change this.
> 
> I'm trying to reason from the reality at FIFA, not some assumed practice that doesn't exist, and probably won't either for a very long time.
> 
> By the way, the closest we have seen when it comes to "a limited number of countries being worked with over some period of time" is the United bid asking for a fast-tracked host selection procedure (and getting it). So that reduced the time, rather then increase it, to put together a good bid and examine it, maybe make some changes and then voting on it.
> 
> Of course this was in the interests of those who asked for it, since the United bid wanted to give the competition as little time as possible.


The new Olympics system (coaching cities over time to become strong candidates) was just a suggestion as a method. I have no idea if it will ever catch hold.

As for choosing bidders, almost anything is better than having 200 countries vote, with about 120 being places in which corruption and dictatorial elites are the rule of the day. 

A more technical and financial approach is better. But if there are no audit committees, personnel reviews and investigative functions then you can assume corruption indefinitely. And probably a move by the major international countries to disband or reform FIFA permanently. These functions are implicit in the operation of organizations where decision making is separated from personal equity stake in the venture.


----------



## ElvisBC

one day left, tomorrow we will know third major bid to enter the race for 2030 :colgate:


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> one day left, tomorrow we will know third major bid to enter the race for 2030 :colgate:


Major? :lol:


----------



## RobH

Any chance we could attempt to reopen to 2026 thread seeing as the vote is tomorrow?


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> Any chance we could attempt to reopen to 2026 thread seeing as the vote is tomorrow?


I assume it will reopen as soon as the (choose one or more):

nasty Americans/nasty Moroccans 

stop messing it up with their personal attacks, insults and complete inventions. 

Presumably that will happen after a selection is made? Or will it just get worse? :lol:


----------



## FCIM

The precedent has now been set.

Dont bother bidding if you dont have the adequate infrastructure in place. 

2030 - Will be in Europe (most likely a UK bid)

2034 - China.


----------



## alserrod

and Uruguay?


----------



## RobH

FCIM said:


> The precedent has now been set.
> 
> Dont bother bidding if you dont have the adequate infrastructure in place.


Not sure about that. The NA bid had everything ready and crucially was promising enormous profits. It only had one rival bid and that rival bid wasn't the strongest ever conceived. Most importantly though, after very nearly bankrupting itself because of corruption during Blatter's era and with sponsors questioning whether they want to be associated with Qatar 22, FIFA _desperately_ needed a stable and profitable host for 2026. It's still not out of the hole Blatter created, not by a long-shot.

In a cycle or two, however, FIFA might feel they can take risks again. Hopefully those risks will be considered ones, not ones based on...cough...'other' considerations.


----------



## marokko

Some morrocan media says that the king has ordered today a new bid for 2030.

Personally, I don't like this. I rather would have seen a bid Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia in 2034. Morocco will keep trying though at every possibility it seems. We shall see if the news is true ...


----------



## Marsupalami

Argentina+Uruguay
or Chile+Peru

USA

Morocco

Australia

Spain + Portugal

UK


----------



## RobH

Marsupalami said:


> Argentina+Uruguay
> or Chile+Peru
> 
> USA
> 
> Morocco
> 
> Australia
> 
> Spain + Portugal
> 
> UK


Be a bit arrogant if the US bid again


----------



## Vizemeister

I stand by my prediction. 

2030: ARG-UR-PAR
2034: Europe/China
2038: China/Europe


----------



## Knitemplar

Vizemeister said:


> I stand by my prediction.
> 
> 2030: ARG-UR-PAR
> 2034: Europe/China
> 2038: China/Europe


I kinda agree.


----------



## marokko

Vizemeister said:


> I stand by my prediction.
> 
> 2030: ARG-UR-PAR
> 2034: Europe/China
> 2038: China/Europe


To be honest, this sounds like a good prediction. This bids can offer FIFA a lot of money, except 2030. 

However, you will make Africa angry in such a scenario. Dozens of football loving nations there. Some countries like Nigeria and Egypt may want to bid too for 2030 or 2034. They will be very angry on FIFA if they won't get one of the options: africa had just one WC since the existence of the sport. They will get frustrated because they will not be able to offer FIFA as much money as a European/China bid. I don't know if it's a smart move for FIFA to make its largest bloc angry/frustrated ...


----------



## Vizemeister

I agree that Africa is a big ? when it comes to host predictions. However, if a Global Nations League is decided on, the final tournament could easily be given to one of the CAF nations as compensation.

edit: Personally I'd love a World Cup in Australia asap. I think it would be fantastic and I love watching matches midday.


----------



## bandermann02

marokko said:


> Some morrocan media says that the king has ordered today a new bid for 2030.
> 
> Personally, I don't like this. I rather would have seen a bid Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia in 2034. Morocco will keep trying though at every possibility it seems. We shall see if the news is true ...


The bid is officially:

Morocco confirms that they will be bidding for the 2030 Soccer World cup.

https://www.kingfut.com/2018/06/14/confirmed-morocco-to-bid-for-2030-world-cup-hosting-rights/


----------



## pesto

FCIM said:


> The precedent has now been set.
> 
> Dont bother bidding if you dont have the adequate infrastructure in place.
> 
> 2030 - Will be in Europe (most likely a UK bid)
> 
> 2034 - China.


Agree that the vote was very good news: the voters supported the bid that addressed FIFA's new priorities (minimal expenditures, facilities of proven value and future usage, safe funding sources, documentable revenue and profit targets, etc.).

But Africa looks to still be working under its own set of rules. :lol:

EDIT: And Morocco immediately confirms my point by bidding again. Interestingly some on the Morocco thread were relieved they had lost and money could be spent on real domestic needs. Now I assume the King will order the building of new stadiums and other facilities as some kind of "proof" of Morocco's capabilities to be a host. He just does not get it.


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> Not sure about that. The NA bid had everything ready and crucially was promising enormous profits. It only had one rival bid and that rival bid wasn't the strongest ever conceived. Most importantly though, after very nearly bankrupting itself because of corruption during Blatter's era and with sponsors questioning whether they want to be associated with Qatar 22, FIFA _desperately_ needed a stable and profitable host for 2026. It's still not out of the hole Blatter created, not by a long-shot.
> 
> In a cycle or two, however, FIFA might feel they can take risks again. Hopefully those risks will be considered ones, not ones based on...cough...'other' considerations.


Agree completely. But the point is that the member countries voted for the "new" FIFA with the huge exception of Africa that still seems guided by regional or ethnic considerations rather than economic or "strictly business" ones.


----------



## pesto

Vizemeister said:


> I stand by my prediction.
> 
> 2030: ARG-UR-PAR
> 2034: Europe/China
> 2038: China/Europe


Not going out on a limb on that one. Wouldn't almost anyone agree on that if you added "maybe UK" in 2030? :lol:


----------



## pesto

bandermann02 said:


> The bid is officially:
> 
> Morocco confirms that they will be bidding for the 2030 Soccer World cup.
> 
> https://www.kingfut.com/2018/06/14/confirmed-morocco-to-bid-for-2030-world-cup-hosting-rights/


Time for a new king. Say, one that spends money on technical schools, hospitals, reducing women's illiteracy, etc.


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> Be a bit arrogant if the US bid again


That's what USA stands for: US Arrogant :lol:


----------



## Knitemplar

bandermann02 said:


> The bid is officially:
> 
> Morocco confirms that they will be bidding for the 2030 Soccer World cup.
> 
> https://www.kingfut.com/2018/06/14/confirmed-morocco-to-bid-for-2030-world-cup-hosting-rights/


Doesn't he know when to give a rest? He should study Madrid's 3 quxotic attempts to land the Summer Olympics. But some people are just gluttons for punishment and humiliation, I guess.


----------



## Dopersky

bandermann02 said:


> The bid is officially:
> 
> Morocco confirms that they will be bidding for the 2030 Soccer World cup.
> 
> https://www.kingfut.com/2018/06/14/confirmed-morocco-to-bid-for-2030-world-cup-hosting-rights/


Keep trying yeah! 2030 is Morocco's best chance, specially if join with Algeria and Tunisia, they can outpoint over ARG-UR-PAR which are a more on their scale as rivals.


----------



## pesto

Well, it would be a better match than against the United group. Each country is much richer than Morocco per capita, but only Argentina has larger GDP. Each group has interesting cities and cultures. Argentina and Uruguay are big names in soccer history.

Conversely, each has social issues and corruption. Stadiums need work and new ones need to show there is a real demand for them. And with the UK lurking about, European and Commonwealth support may be thin. 

Joining with some other neighbors would be a good idea for Morocco since it could reduce the number of stadiums and other facilities. I can't imagine that FIFA won't counsel them to do so.


----------



## RobH

pesto said:


> Agree completely. But the point is that the member countries voted for the "new" FIFA with the huge exception of Africa that still seems guided by regional or ethnic considerations rather than economic or "strictly business" ones.


I think singling out Africa is a bit harsh. Confederations are powerful and will back their own. I don't think CONCACAF were doing anything different to Africa, it _just so happened_ the bid from their continent was strong. Ceferin has already said UEFA will back England if we're the sole bid from Europe for 2030. Sure, it's likely to be a technically competent bid but he's promising federation support even before we know what other bids are out there. That looks like the way things will be going forward.


----------



## falp6

Knitemplar said:


> Doesn't he know when to give a rest? He should study Madrid's 3 quxotic attempts to land the Summer Olympics. But some people are just gluttons for punishment and humiliation, I guess.


Detroit tried 7 times to host the Summer Olympics hno:


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> I think singling out Africa is a bit harsh. Confederations are powerful and will back their own. I don't think CONCACAF were doing anything different to Africa, it _just so happened_ the bid from their continent was strong. Ceferin has already said UEFA will back England if we're the sole bid from Europe for 2030. Sure, it's likely to be a technically competent bid but he's promising federation support even before we know what other bids are out there. That looks like the way things will be going forward.


Fair enough. But there's a huge difference between what a politician (which is what confederation bosses are) says and what a local country should do. Of course, he will back his group; that's part of his job. You can't imagine him saying how impressed he is by Argentina and the Brits look like they're not even trying. 

But it's not part of the job of the country leadership. Their job is to do what is best for FIFA and soccer. And that seemed to be 95 percent for United among countries that didn't have some local prejudice or interest in play.


----------



## pesto

falp6 said:


> Detroit tried 7 times to host the Summer Olympics hno:


Maybe a lot of Moroccans moved there?


----------



## RMB2007

> Revealed: Secret deal struck over potential UK-wide 2030 World Cup bid
> 
> A secret deal has already been struck over a potential UK-wide 2030 World Cup bid, it can be revealed. A meeting between the home nations took place before Wednesday’s Fifa congress during which they agreed to hold talks about co-hosting the tournament if the Football Association decides to try to bring it back to England for its 100th anniversary.
> 
> Formal discussions are planned on the eve of Fifa’s next congress in Paris next June, before which the FA will assess the feasibility of lodging a bid.
> 
> It could still decide to go it alone but has agreed not to do so before discussing a potential UK-wide bid with the FAs of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland next year.
> 
> The biggest hurdle to staging the tournament across the UK would be that Northern Ireland does not currently have a stadium large enough to host matches.
> 
> The minimum capacity required for World Cup games is 30,000 and Windsor Park can accommodate less than 20,000 spectators.
> 
> Jim Boyce, honorary life president of the Irish Football Association and former Fifa vice-president, said: “If it was to happen, a new stadium would have to be built.”
> 
> The home nations may also struggle to convince Uefa to allow all four of them to qualify automatically for the tournament and reduce its remaining slots to 12.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-c...deal-struck-potential-uk-wide-2030-world-cup/


----------



## Guil

falp6 said:


> Detroit tried 7 times to host the Summer Olympics hno:


Almost there, 2030 will be the 6º Moroccan bid for World Cup.


----------



## pesto

RMB2007 said:


> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-c...deal-struck-potential-uk-wide-2030-world-cup/


Maybe N. Ireland should just be left out?

Otherwise, it makes sense to bring in Scotland and Wales. Brings a bit more diversity to the bid.

Btw, how's it faring for Scottish exit from the UK and un-Brexiting into Europe?


----------



## pesto

Saulalvarez said:


> From Northern Ireland. Using a GAA stadium for other sports is feasible, you only have to look at Croke Park in Dublin which has hosted the Republic of Ireland football matches and also the Irish rugby team. It's not difficult.
> 
> The problem in NI is unsurprisingly, politics. Historically, the GAA has been an Irish sports and cultural organization which represents Gaelic football and Hurling. Casement Park itself is named after Roger Casement who was an Irish nationalist who fought for Irish independence from Britain. A stadium with this name would probably cause some controversy. . I'm not sure how accommodating the GAA would be in a UK bid either. That will remain to be seen. I would suspect it would take a huge financial incentive for them. Ideally, Casement should be used as it would meet the capacity requirements. Hopefully, the different sporting bodies in NI can work together and put cultural allegiances aside for the benefit of the region.


So the real problem is the "United" part of United Kingdom. :lol:

But, still, probably easier than a "Former Yugoslavia" bid.


----------



## miguelon

Can't Belfast or NI manage to get a new 20-25,000 stadium that could temporary be expanded to 40-42,000 like the Toronto FC stadium?

Doesn't seem that bad to get an investment in one of the "poor" parts of the UK. 

Plus its the only new stadium needed, all the other ones are in place. Only minor or already planned expansion/modifications are needed.


----------



## Leedsrule

Ive thought of a UK bid in the past, but there really is no reason for it. England is capable of hosting it alone, or possibly with Scotland, so why add Wales or Northern Ireland that could only contribute 1 venue at most? 

The other alternative is a 'Celtic' bid with 3 of scotland, wales, NI and Ireland- but again I don't know what NI could bring to it. Windsor park has just been redone and suits well, Casement park is no bigger (40k includes standing), and 1 stadium wouldnt be enough to hold a group of games like Mexico and Canada are doing. Same with Wales- Fifa like it being geographically spread out so Cardiff, Cardiff, Swansea would be no good.

I think a 48 team format is stupid and won'ty work as well as the current system (just like the 24 team euro's confused things, but worse). But as it is inevitable, for a 48 team tournament an England (+ Scotland) bid could look like this:

London- Wembley- 90,000 
London- Olympic Stadium- 80,000
Glasgow- Celtic Park (Expanded)- 76,000
Manchester- Old Trafford- 75,000
Manchester- Etihad Stadium (Expanded)- 70,000
Edinburgh- Murrayfield- 67,000
Liverpool- Anfield (Expanded)- 61,000
Leeds- Elland Road (New stadium)- 58,000
Newcastle- St James Park- 52,000
Birmingham- Villa Park (Expanded)- 50,000
Glasgow- Ibrox- 50,000
Sunderland- Stadium of Light- 49,000
Milton Keynes- Arena MK- 46,000
Norwich- Carrow Road (Expanded)- 40,000
Bristol- Ashton Gate- Expanded temporarily to 40,000, reduced after to 35k
Aberdeen- New Stadium- Temporarily 40,000, reduced after to 25k

I know that you could have 3+ stadiums in London and Glasgow, but to produce a strong bid fifa want countries to spread the stadiums out geographically. You may not like it, but the Milton Keynes stadium would almost certainly be used, as well as something in the south-west even though they dont have a top team. Using Scotland as a secondary host, like Mexico and Canada, would allow them to host some group matches in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and a couple of knockout games too. It wouldnt be needed, however, and you could replace those 4 stadia with stadiums in Southampton/ Bournemouth/ Nottingham/ Sheffield/ Birmingham/ Liverpool (Everton)/ London.


----------



## HDI 0.548

NEWS: Rumors of a Maghreb bid (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia) is in the works. I think it could work. Algeria and Morocco are building stadia. Plus the trio have arguably the best attended leagues in the continent. 
***
I could see around 15 stadia easily, 5 from each country
TUNISIA
Rades
Tunis
Sousse
Sfax
Monastir/Bizerte
MOROCCO
Casablanca
Rabat
Agadir
Tangier
Marrakesh
ALGERIA
Algiers
Algiers
Kabylie
Oran
Constantine/Setif
***
This would be awesome, a joint bid from Africa.
Here's the link: http://www.kawarji.com/actu-46089-m...n_entre_la_tunisie_l_algerie_et_le_maroc.html


----------



## pesto

HDI 0.548 said:


> NEWS: Rumors of a Maghreb bid (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia) is in the works. I think it could work. Algeria and Morocco are building stadia. Plus the trio have arguably the best attended leagues in the continent.
> ***
> I could see around 15 stadia easily, 5 from each country
> TUNISIA
> Rades
> Tunis
> Sousse
> Sfax
> Monastir/Bizerte
> MOROCCO
> Casablanca
> Rabat
> Agadir
> Tangier
> Marrakesh
> ALGERIA
> Algiers
> Algiers
> Kabylie
> Oran
> Constantine/Setif
> ***
> This would be awesome, a joint bid from Africa.
> Here's the link: http://www.kawarji.com/actu-46089-m...n_entre_la_tunisie_l_algerie_et_le_maroc.html


For 2026 Morocco argued that is was better than the United bid because of time zone, more intense fans, less travel for Europeans, Trump had alienated the world. Otherwise they had no arguments except we're African and Arab, and that got them blown away.

With the UK what will they argue? Something relating to the need for less building of stadiums, roads, airports and such for 2030? But that would fly in the face of their claims in 2026 that this expense was minor, was going to happen anyway, were going to be used extensively after the games, etc. 

And they still don't compete with the UK on existing facilities.


----------



## blackfire1624

I think it will go to Argentina-Uruguay-Paraguay/Chile, just for being the Centenary and all the history sorrounding that area in regards of the sport.


----------



## RobH

Leedsrule said:


> Ive thought of a UK bid in the past, but there really is no reason for it. England is capable of hosting it alone, or possibly with Scotland, so why add Wales or Northern Ireland that could only contribute 1 venue at most?
> 
> The other alternative is a 'Celtic' bid with 3 of scotland, wales, NI and Ireland- but again I don't know what NI could bring to it. Windsor park has just been redone and suits well, Casement park is no bigger (40k includes standing), and 1 stadium wouldnt be enough to hold a group of games like Mexico and Canada are doing. Same with Wales- Fifa like it being geographically spread out so Cardiff, Cardiff, Swansea would be no good.
> 
> I think a 48 team format is stupid and won'ty work as well as the current system (just like the 24 team euro's confused things, but worse). But as it is inevitable, for a 48 team tournament an England (+ Scotland) bid could look like this:
> 
> London- Wembley- 90,000
> London- Olympic Stadium- 80,000
> Glasgow- Celtic Park (Expanded)- 76,000
> Manchester- Old Trafford- 75,000
> Manchester- Etihad Stadium (Expanded)- 70,000
> Edinburgh- Murrayfield- 67,000
> Liverpool- Anfield (Expanded)- 61,000
> Leeds- Elland Road (New stadium)- 58,000
> Newcastle- St James Park- 52,000
> Birmingham- Villa Park (Expanded)- 50,000
> Glasgow- Ibrox- 50,000
> Sunderland- Stadium of Light- 49,000
> Milton Keynes- Arena MK- 46,000
> Norwich- Carrow Road (Expanded)- 40,000
> Bristol- Ashton Gate- Expanded temporarily to 40,000, reduced after to 35k
> Aberdeen- New Stadium- Temporarily 40,000, reduced after to 25k
> 
> I know that you could have 3+ stadiums in London and Glasgow, *but to produce a strong bid fifa want countries to spread the stadiums out geographically*. You may not like it, but the Milton Keynes stadium would almost certainly be used, as well as something in the south-west even though they dont have a top team. Using Scotland as a secondary host, like Mexico and Canada, would allow them to host some group matches in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and a couple of knockout games too. It wouldnt be needed, however, and you could replace those 4 stadia with stadiums in Southampton/ Bournemouth/ Nottingham/ Sheffield/ Birmingham/ Liverpool (Everton)/ London.


I've said it before, but that rule (if it is a rule and not just a guideline) really needs to be pushed aside. They certainly can't claim it's important after they chose Doha to host the 2022 World Cup, and all it does is make things unnecessarily tricky for footballing nations whose biggest stadiums are concentrated in a few cities.

If FIFA is serious about changing things to allow bids to focus on using existing stadium infrastructure to its best, the geographic spread rule has to be shelved. That's not to say bids couldn't or shouldn't propose new stadiums if they think that's best for them, just that FIFA shouldn't be forcing a one-size-fits-all solution to hosting the World Cup.

Also, the Olympic Stadium in London holds 66k tops and as we know isn't ideal for the sport. I'd use the Olympic Park as a fan park and include one (probably both) Emirates/NWHL instead. I'd also hope to include Everton's proposed new stadium too so Liverpool like Manchester has two venues. It'd be nice to see a famous old stadium like Elland Road or Hillsborough renovated as well instead of using MK. Failing that, use an expanded St Mary's.

And if we're going for a joint bid I'd certainly include Wales even if it's only to have the Principality Stadium in the bid. Given we've got a World Cup across Western Russia now and FIFA has just awarded a World Cup to three enormous countries in North America can they really argue that Cardiff would be too isolated from other venues? Ditto if Northern Ireland can work out a stadium. We're likely to be up against ARG-URG-PAR, so it's not even as though our biggest rival will be a compact bid.

Seriously, FIFA bends its own rules enough for hosts it wants. They're happy for Doha to have loads of venues despite their apparent two stadiums per city limit, and they're happy to have fans traipsing around half a continent in 2026 so worrying about travel times on this little island seems silly. We shouldn't feel straitjacketed by their apparent rules when they're obviously not enforced. Put forward the best stadiums and be done with it. If they want us, they'll select us regardless, if not they'll find whatever excuse suits.


----------



## marokko

HDI 0.548 said:


> NEWS: Rumors of a Maghreb bid (Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia) is in the works. I think it could work. Algeria and Morocco are building stadia. Plus the trio have arguably the best attended leagues in the continent.
> ***
> I could see around 15 stadia easily, 5 from each country
> TUNISIA
> Rades
> Tunis
> Sousse
> Sfax
> Monastir/Bizerte
> MOROCCO
> Casablanca
> Rabat
> Agadir
> Tangier
> Marrakesh
> ALGERIA
> Algiers
> Algiers
> Kabylie
> Oran
> Constantine/Setif
> ***
> This would be awesome, a joint bid from Africa.
> Here's the link: http://www.kawarji.com/actu-46089-m...n_entre_la_tunisie_l_algerie_et_le_maroc.html


Morocco is already planning a new bid for 2030 and it is official, but this would be my favorite option. Three countries that would have already the most necessary infrastructure ready regarding stadiums in a few years. The can easily provide together 15 stadiums and enough host cities. A lot of those cities are very beatiful and have great landcapes and an old heritage. People around the world could find out about cities like Rabat, Constantinople, and Sfax, which they didn't here about before. 

It would be also a very symbolic bid as the "eternal rivals" Morocco and Algeria are included in one bid. It would be like North Korea and South Korea hosting the world cup togerther. The conficts between Algeria and Morocco are ofcourse not as bad as in the Korea's, but it could result in e.g. the opening of the borders between the countries, which is a request for a very long time by the populations of Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia. Especially for the families that live along the borders and had connections with eachother in the past. A common bid could bring more peace in this region and maybe the union they are talking about since their independence could finally become reality.

There are ofcourse challenges too such as different visa regulations for fans. Although the economies do complement eachother largely, they do have different economic models. So a lot of issues need to be streamlined between the countries to create a great event for fans. However I don't think that is a big requirement by FIFA's taskforce anymore in the new era that combined bids are favored.


----------



## MerynnTrant

it should be in Asia since it wasnt hosted there in a long time. Maybe in the south east like Bangkok


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Is there any agreement on the optimal number of venues for a 48 team World Cup? For example in 2026 Mexico will host 10 matches at 3 venues or 3.33 per venue. The USA is hosting 60 at 10 venues or 6 per venue. For practical reasons those stadiums that are used in the later rounds host more than the others. However, it is surely the case that 14 venues hosting 5.71 matches each would function well enough.

For a Great Britain bid I can only see Glasgow, Edinburgh and Cardiff being used in addition to English grounds. Great Britain excludes Northern Ireland whilst UK doesn't. I can see the appeal of playing some high level football in Belfast but I think it strays from any strengths of practicality and costs. Perhaps looking instead at political benefits but are these really benefits that are saleable internationally? Transport would be easy with everything within 500 miles. London to Glasgow will be 3hr38 by then via train. Not mentioned as a possible above is Wolverhampton. Very likely they'll have a good stadium by then.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

MerynnTrant said:


> it should be in Asia since it wasnt hosted there in a long time. Maybe in the south east like Bangkok


Qatar 2022 is Asia. Expect China 2034 to be all but a formality. In fact, for 2030, expect China to back whichever continent is most likely to bid strongly against them in 2034 if it loses. That, I think, would likely mean a European bid.

Of course, I am European so would think that!


----------



## marokko

Asia is the weakest soccer continent outside oceania and it has organized multiple WC's. The continent also gets a WC in 2022. South America, Europe and Africa deserve more a WC, especially Africa that hosted only 1 WC in its whole history. (While it is the largest bloc within FIFA)


----------



## Marsupalami

Morocco all the way! ... or Chile/Paraguay ... or Argentina/Uruguay ( sh*t, this is hard! lol)


----------



## GunnerJacket

Folks, these threads are not for political broadsides. Yes, politics influences the vote but such discussions here have historically regressed to derogatory comments and sidebars that have nothing to do with the soccer side. As such that kind of discussion is verboten in this particular thread. Stick to logistics of hosting the sporting events, please. Thanks.


----------



## pesto

First of all I'm OK with any of GB/UK or the Maghreb or LatAm.

Qatar is really way off in a corner of Asia; and Asia does have 4.5B or so people, far more than the rest of the world combined. And a very undeveloped soccer market. FIFA has to look at what the world will be like in 2040 or 2050 and who is going to be collecting the trillions of dollars of entertainment revenue that will be available there. 

Competitors include professional soccer leagues, NFL, Disney, Amazon, Chinese sports and media groups and many others. And unlike in Europe, soccer doesn't automatically win just by showing up. 

As a side comment, if you really want Africa, you should try to organize a group in sub-Saharan Africa. There's 1B people there and growing at a very high rate.


----------



## Dopersky

The best argument is to have everything done, ready and the most developed you can by the time of the bid, so Morocco I hope learned the lesson.

Maghreb bid vs United Kingdom bid vs Southern Cone bid

Seems those are the contenders and I like them all.


----------



## Knitemplar

The FIFAs and IOCs of the world love to mark Centennials so here are my predictions:

2030 - the Arge-Guay Unida bid to mark the Centennial 
2034 - probably China
2038 - back to Europe, the UK bid 
2042 - north Africa bid


----------



## pesto

Dopersky said:


> The best argument is to have *everything done, ready and the most developed you can by the time of the bid*, so Morocco I hope learned the lesson.
> 
> Maghreb bid vs United Kingdom bid vs Southern Cone bid
> 
> Seems those are the contenders and I like them all.


Depends on what you think the lesson is. Economic development has to come first, before countries build multiple stadiums and other infrastructure. Otherwise the economy isn't large enough to support the stadiums and they become white elephants.

Hopefully FIFA's new system will not just look at the existence of stadiums, airports and such but at the continuing use for such facilities.


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> The FIFAs and IOCs of the world love to mark Centennials so here are my predictions:
> 
> 2030 - the Arge-Guay Unida bid to mark the Centennial
> 2034 - probably China
> 2038 - back to Europe, the UK bid
> 2042 - north Africa bid


This is good in many ways. LatAm has the history; you want to get to the Chinese market as soon as they are ready; N. Africa needs some time to have an economy legitimately able to utilize the needed construction; Europe gets a turn.


----------



## bandermann02

pesto said:


> For 2026 Morocco argued that is was better than the United bid because of time zone, more intense fans, less travel for Europeans, Trump had alienated the world. Otherwise they had no arguments except we're African and Arab, and that got them blown away.
> 
> With the UK what will they argue? Something relating to the need for less building of stadiums, roads, airports and such for 2030? But that would fly in the face of their claims in 2026 that this expense was minor, was going to happen anyway, were going to be used extensively after the games, etc.
> 
> And they still don't compete with the UK on existing facilities.


***Fake news warning:Once upon a time a famous rich men with small hands said that global warming is a Chinese hoax. ****

There were other arguments in the bidding book, which will still usable for 2030:

High speed train line operating at 320km/h operating(opens in July 2018) between nearly all host cities and will be expanded in 2024. Operated by clean energy from a wind park. 

Low carbon foot print of 2.3t CO2 thank to renewable Energy program 2030 (more than 50% off the Moroccan energy is from green sources thanks to solar program measuring a whopping 250 km2) and modular stadiums with solar panels. In comprising the United 2026 bid has nearly double the carbon footprint of the Morocaine bid. 

Compact countries with more than 2500 km of highway between all host cities. Currently 1800 km of highway roads in use.

Tourism and weather: Morocaine has the full vacation package. I mean image yourself going to the light blue sea's in the morning to swim or to jet-ski 









and in the night watch a soccer match. :cheers:

***Climate warning: Major air pollution incoming for 2026****


----------



## Leedsrule

RobH said:


> I've said it before, but that rule (if it is a rule and not just a guideline) really needs to be pushed aside. They certainly can't claim it's important after they chose Doha to host the 2022 World Cup, and all it does is make things unnecessarily tricky for footballing nations whose biggest stadiums are concentrated in a few cities.
> 
> If FIFA is serious about changing things to allow bids to focus on using existing stadium infrastructure to its best, the geographic spread rule has to be shelved. That's not to say bids couldn't or shouldn't propose new stadiums if they think that's best for them, just that FIFA shouldn't be forcing a one-size-fits-all solution to hosting the World Cup.
> 
> Also, the Olympic Stadium in London holds 66k tops and as we know isn't ideal for the sport. I'd use the Olympic Park as a fan park and include one (probably both) Emirates/NWHL instead. I'd also hope to include Everton's proposed new stadium too so Liverpool like Manchester has two venues. It'd be nice to see a famous old stadium like Elland Road or Hillsborough renovated as well instead of using MK. Failing that, use an expanded St Mary's.
> 
> And if we're going for a joint bid I'd certainly include Wales even if it's only to have the Principality Stadium in the bid. Given we've got a World Cup across Western Russia now and FIFA has just awarded a World Cup to three enormous countries in North America can they really argue that Cardiff would be too isolated from other venues? Ditto if Northern Ireland can work out a stadium. We're likely to be up against ARG-URG-PAR, so it's not even as though our biggest rival will be a compact bid.
> 
> Seriously, FIFA bends its own rules enough for hosts it wants. They're happy for Doha to have loads of venues despite their apparent two stadiums per city limit, and they're happy to have fans traipsing around half a continent in 2026 so worrying about travel times on this little island seems silly. We shouldn't feel straitjacketed by their apparent rules when they're obviously not enforced. Put forward the best stadiums and be done with it. If they want us, they'll select us regardless, if not they'll find whatever excuse suits.



Perhaps it is a rule that FIFA should drop, but as it stands they haven't really. And to be honest, given that England has plenty of large stadiums, it would make sense to spread it around the country so that some clubs can benefit with upgraded stadiums. 

The Olympic stadium could hold at least 80k if the tarps are removed behind the goal top tier, and as much as you might prefer NWHL or Emirates (or new Stamford bridge) , the extra revenue and probably lower cost of using the Olympic stadium would probably make it more likely. You could add a third stadium in London, but would it be needed given the other options? Again, would prefer to include Hillsborough vs MK Arena (suggested a new Leeds stadium) but what fans might prefer isn't the only consideration. Realistically, you'll have all of these mentioned. 

I don't know why Wales would be included with the principality stadium alone? Not isolated from the others at all, but would it really add a whole load to an English bid? 1 stadium isn't even enough for them to host the group that Wales are in, whereas Mexico and Canada will host entire groups on their own,justifying their free qualification. Even Paraguay or uraguay would put up several stadiums each, and that is only because none of the countries can provide enough stadiums alone, which england can, certainly with Scotland. 

I've never said travel distances will be an issue in this country, but Imo just proposing the largest 14 stadiums isnt sensible. Let's spread the benefits, like Germany did in 2006 and France did in 2016.


----------



## matthemod

Thing is, logistically England could host the 48 team world cup on their own, without the need for any involvement with the rest of the nations of the UK.

However, England has tried and failed 4 times since having the world cup in 1966, and with the notion that FIFA will start favouring joint bids, including Scotland and Wales would be a huge P.R. boost. My abiding memories of England bids consist of submitting a perfectly fair and effective bid, then losing and throwing our toys out of the pram claiming corruption and misdeeds.

FIFA just doesn't like England.

Adding the principality stadium, Murrayfield, Celtic Park, and Ibrox as part of a British bid is a small gesture to make if it means the World Cup can finally come back to the Island where the sport was created.


----------



## Lord David

A UK bid would mostly be England based anyways. You'd be adding token stadiums in:

- Scotland (Edinburgh and Glasgow)
- Wales (Cardiff)
- Northern Ireland (a new stadium)


----------



## marokko

Same as North America in 2026. It is basically USA with a few matches in Canada and Mexico. USA put I think the joint bid, because FIFA favors these nowadays. I think England should do the same if they would want the event.

Morocco should also do the same, but it is a bit more difficult in its region. From a security, logistical, and fan viewpoint etc, Morocco could host it better alone. However FIFA doesn't like that anymore ...


----------



## Leedsrule

But do the token stadiums in Wales, northern Ireland and Scotland guarantee their qualification? If so, you probably couldn't host an entire group in one stadium alone which means they may have to play some games in England, which isn't ideal.

Just my view of course, but I think the whole advantage of an English bid is that they can hold it alone, without white elephants, and the whole country will be accessible and create an incredible atmosphere with our football culture. That's what will differ them to rival bids spread across huge distances and several countries.


----------



## pesto

As long as joint bids is "flavor of the month" England will lose if it goes it alone. LatAm would beat them and even Morocco would beat them if they joined in a joint bid, made some social reforms and made a decent show of financial competence and stadium usability.

If they join together with others they will be the favorite. Of course this is opinion, but FIFA has made it clear that the leading criteria are going to be social inclusion, cooperation, ready facilities, clear popular support, sound finances. 

Again, what benefit comes from a show of insularity and churlish arrogance?


----------



## pesto

Tourism, eco friendly, etc., is great but was not a major factor in the 2026 vote, afaik. Isn't there a popular definition of "insanity" that it is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

If you just look at the review process you will get some hints as to the "high risk" factors where Morocco needs to improve: a showing of existing stadiums whose future use and economic viability is beyond doubt; other facilities in place and operating, not "to be built only if we win". Joint bids, social inclusion.


----------



## pesto

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevep...ted-2026-win-gives-england-hope/#2026c4182018

For what it’s worth. This claims that revenues, existing infrastructure and world clout seem to be the critical factors in winning a WC bid. And he suggests that bringing in some neighbors looks like a good idea.

An English bid would be like the United bid but minus the revenues and world clout (which is a lot). However, it is still way better than Morocco brings in stadium and transportation infrastructure, risk of white elephants, name recognition and economic development. I think that bringing in neighbors helps beat the Arg/Ur bid and also helps if Morocco gets into a joint bid as well.


----------



## Lord David

They should scrap the continental rotation, otherwise Australia could never host. Alternatively they could team up and co-host with New Zealand, as they are given a free spot (I still think they should have a .5 spot) in the expanded tournament.

The host cities could be:

*Australia:*
Melbourne Cricket Ground - 95,000 - *Melbourne* (Oval) - EXISTING
Stadium Australia - 82,500 to 90,000 - *Sydney* (Rectangular) - EXISTING
Perth Stadium - 65,000 - *Perth* (Rectangular/Oval) - EXISTING
Lang Park - 52,500 to 60,000 - *Brisbane* (Rectangular) - EXISTING
Adelaide Oval - 53,583 - *Adelaide* (Oval) - EXISTING
Newcastle International Sports Centre - 45,000 - *Newcastle* (Rectangular) - UPGRADED
Kardinia Park - 42,000 - *Geelong* (Oval) - UPGRADED
Canberra Stadium - 40,000 - *Canberra* (Oval) - NEW
Townsville Stadium - 40,000 - *Townsville* (Rectangular) - UPGRADED
Carrara Stadium - 35,000 to 40,000 - *Gold Coast* (Oval) - UPGRADED

*New Zealand:*
North Harbour Stadium - 70,000+ - *Auckland* (Rectangular) - UPGRADED
Christchurch Stadium - 50,000 - *Christchurch* (Rectangular) - New
Waikato Stadium - 40,000 - *Hamilton* (Rectangular) - UPGRADED
Invercargill Stadium - 35,000 to 40,000 - *Invercargill* (Rectangular) - NEW
Trafalgar Park - 35,000 - *Nelson* (Rectangular) - UPGRADED
Wellington Regional Stadium - 34,500 to 40,000 - *Wellington* (Oval) - EXISTING

Dunedin's Otago Stadium is simply too small at 30,000 all seated. It can serve as a base camp for a visiting team or two. So you have 24 cities (including host cities) that serve the 48 visiting teams. 

Australia:
- Melbourne
- Sydney
- Perth
- Brisbane
- Adelaide
- Newcastle
- Geelong
- Canberra
- Gold Coast
- Townsville

- Hobart
- Darwin
- Gosford
- Woollongong

New Zealand:
- Auckland
- Christchurch
- Wellington
- Hamilton
- Invercargill
- Nelson

- Dunedin
- Napier
- New Plymouth
- Rotorua 

As such, you have 10 stadiums in Australia and 6 in New Zealand, for a total of 16 stadiums. 13 existing stadiums (6 upgraded) and 3 new stadiums. 

This would seem to be a good sharing of venues and New Zealand could technically afford to lose Waikato and/or Invercargill if they don't want any additional expenses, but I'm sure both Australia and New Zealand governments can come up with a budget plan for any new venues or expanded ones.


----------



## Dopersky

An Oceania bid kay:


----------



## Dopersky

marokko said:


> Same as North America in 2026. It is basically USA with a few matches in Canada and Mexico. USA put I think the joint bid, because FIFA favors these nowadays. I think England should do the same if they would want the event.
> 
> Morocco should also do the same, but it is a bit more difficult in its region. From a security, logistical, and fan viewpoint etc, Morocco could host it better alone. However FIFA doesn't like that anymore ...


In 2014 a 32 teams World Cup was proven to be too much for Brazil so a 42 teams nowadays is capable only for this kind of joint bids with very few exceptions.

Is not only a trend now, but a necessity.


----------



## Knitemplar

An Oceania bid is very remote. ANZAC just doesn't have the population mass to warrant a WC + the distance between the 2 countries is just too great, if only psychologically. Just hope for *the 2036 Olympics* again. You know they won't give that to Berlin, so perhaps it's better for Melbourne to go for its 2nd SOGs then.


----------



## Lord David

Knitemplar said:


> An Oceania bid is very remote. ANZAC just doesn't have the population mass to warrant a WC + the distance between the 2 countries is just too great, if only psychologically. Just hope for *the 2036 Olympics* again. You know they won't give that to Berlin, so perhaps it's better for Melbourne to go for its 2nd SOGs then.


The distance isn't too great. 3 hours from Melbourne to Christchurch is no different from Melbourne to Perth. 

You'd be working with around 3 time zones. It's worked for other mega sports events before and no problem for the domestic A-League.


----------



## pesto

Lord David said:


> The distance isn't too great. 3 hours from Melbourne to Christchurch is no different from Melbourne to Perth.
> 
> You'd be working with around 3 time zones. It's worked for other mega sports events before and no problem for the domestic A-League.


But how long from Perth to Christchurch? :lol:

Isn't China the only reasonable place in Asia for 2036? 1.6B people, growing economy, low current interest in soccer. Why go to that time zone without looking for the big prize?

And the geography is much tighter, which is important to some.


----------



## Lord David

pesto said:


> But how long from Perth to Christchurch? :lol:
> 
> Isn't China the only reasonable place in Asia for 2036? 1.6B people, growing economy, low current interest in soccer. Why go to that time zone without looking for the big prize?
> 
> And the geography is much tighter, which is important to some.


But they don't want it. 

So it'll probably be 6 hours from Perth to Christchurch. Big deal. Teams would be flying by chartered plane anyways. No different to the North American bid in term of flying distances.


----------



## Knitemplar

Lord David said:


> But they don't want it.
> 
> So it'll probably be 6 hours from Perth to Christchurch. Big deal. Teams would be flying by chartered plane anyways. No different to the North American bid in term of flying distances.


Who doesn't want it?

No; your claim vs. the 2026 plan is incorrect. I believe the plan is to have clusters, so from prelims to Round 2 (of 32), teams AND Fans would only travel one or 2 time zones west to east -- NOT the full 5 hour span yet. In other words, no team will play in, say, LA, and then meet its opponent in the round of 32 in NYC. Even those playing in Mexico will probably move on to the venues in Texas and Florida (for the 6 teams) and 4 of the teams advancing from Toronto and Montreal will move on to the US sites in the NE. So, _incremental _/regional hops in other words -- NOT drastic hauls. 

Also, the IMPOSSIBLE logistic of teams/fans moving from NZ to Australia is that their ONLY option is by air. Whereas in the North American bid, fans can fly, drive, take the train, go by Greyhound or chartered buses and take in the countryside, when having to change cities. Impossible to do in an Oceania bid.


----------



## pesto

Lord David said:


> But they don't want it.
> 
> So it'll probably be 6 hours from Perth to Christchurch. Big deal. Teams would be flying by chartered plane anyways. No different to the North American bid in term of flying distances.


But in the US you are flying LA to NY; that's 45M people in just those two metros and 100M plus tourists per year.

In any event, I have nothing against Australia, in fact it would be a good place for a WC; but China is the big prize if you are going to that time zone and I suspect they can be ready whenever they want.


----------



## Guest

pesto said:


> But how long from Perth to Christchurch? :lol:
> 
> Isn't China the only reasonable place in Asia for 2036? 1.6B people, growing economy, low current interest in soccer. Why go to that time zone without looking for the big prize?
> 
> And the geography is much tighter, which is important to some.


1.6 billion? Wrong. Low current interest in soccer? Wrong. Go on a Chinese web portal, click translate, and see how low the interest is. Outside of huge interest in international leagues, its domestic league is the best attended sports league in China by far (24,000) and has the biggest TV contract by far. Chinese clubs even draw 40 million plus viewers in Champions League. To say nothing of the billions broadcasters in China spend on soccer already, including $2 billion on the domestic league.


----------



## Lord David

Knitemplar said:


> Who doesn't want it?
> 
> No; your claim vs. the 2026 plan is incorrect. I believe the plan is to have clusters, so from prelims to Round 2 (of 32), teams AND Fans would only travel one or 2 time zones west to east -- NOT the full 5 hour span yet. In other words, no team will play in, say, LA, and then meet its opponent in the round of 32 in NYC. Even those playing in Mexico will probably move on to the venues in Texas and Florida (for the 6 teams) and 4 of the teams advancing from Toronto and Montreal will move on to the US sites in the NE. So, _incremental _/regional hops in other words -- NOT drastic hauls.
> 
> Also, the IMPOSSIBLE logistic of teams/fans moving from NZ to Australia is that their ONLY option is by air. Whereas in the North American bid, fans can fly, drive, take the train, go by Greyhound or chartered buses and take in the countryside, when having to change cities. Impossible to do in an Oceania bid.


Impossible logistics? Our domestic soccer league, rugby league and basketball have proven to be a non issue when it comes to moving fans around both countries. And we've also proven that we can co-host sporting events like the Cricket World Cup together. So Australia and NZ co-hosting is not an issue, nor is it impossible.


----------



## Knitemplar

Lord David said:


> Impossible logistics? Our domestic soccer league, rugby league and basketball have proven to be a non issue when it comes to moving fans around both countries. And we've also proven that we can co-host sporting events like the Cricket World Cup together. So Australia and NZ co-hosting is not an issue, nor is it impossible.


Uh-huh. Shure . . . hno:


----------



## pesto

5portsF4n said:


> 1.6 billion? Wrong. Low current interest in soccer? Wrong. Go on a Chinese web portal, click translate, and see how low the interest is. Outside of huge interest in international leagues, its domestic league is the best attended sports league in China by far (24,000) and has the biggest TV contract by far. Chinese clubs even draw 40 million plus viewers in Champions League. To say nothing of the billions broadcasters in China spend on soccer already, including $2 billion on the domestic league.


It's true; every day I marvel at how little I know and how quickly reality changes.

As for your specific assertions, depending on the estimate China's population will be 1.5-1.6B in 2040. Of course, the exact number is both unknowable and not really relevant.

https://nielsensports.com/global-interest-football/

In interest in soccer, China ranks at the very bottom, along with India, Canada and the US. You also get near the India and SE Asia time zones by holding a WC in China. (Of course, FIFA was looking at similar analyses this year when they strongly supported the bid including the US and Canada).

The numbers you cite are very good considering they are based on a very low level of interest. That is why FIFA (and the various leagues) are interested in getting there quickly.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Guys, tone down the language and be more respectful.


----------



## Dopersky

No need to be harsh.


----------



## Lord David

Lord David said:


> Impossible logistics? Our domestic soccer league, rugby league and basketball have proven to be a non issue when it comes to moving fans around both countries. And we've also proven that we can co-host sporting events like the Cricket World Cup together. So Australia and NZ co-hosting is not an issue, nor is it impossible.





Knitemplar said:


> Uh-huh. Shure . . . hno:


Well then you simply do what South Korea and Japan did in 2002. You put the groups into 3 zones. 

I'd say shuffle some groups in an Australian Southern Zone (Perth, Adelaide, Geelong, Melbourne, Canberra), Upper Australian East Coast Zone (Sydney, Newcastle, Gold Coast, Brisbane, Townsville) and a New Zealand Zone (Auckland, Christchurch, Hamilton, Invercargill, Nelson, Wellington).

Then when it comes to Round of 16, you choose 4 venues from Australia and 4 from New Zealand. Perhaps with the Quarter Finals where you can mix up the 4 venues from Australia and New Zealand. 

Final takes place in either Sydney or Melbourne, with the 3rd place match in Auckland.


----------



## Knitemplar

Lord David said:


> Well then you simply do what South Korea and Japan did in 2002. You put the groups into 3 zones.
> 
> Final takes place in either Sydney or Melbourne, with the 3rd place match in Auckland.


Why would FIFA want to repeat the not-so-great 2002 Cup that they had? :nuts: 

An ANZAC scenario is STILL NOT one land mass. You're trying to do a continental plates smash-up which nature won't oblige you with. LOL!! :lol:


----------



## pesto

I feel like I'm in-between. Australia and NZ is doable, if a bit unwieldy. But how do you argue against the appeal of a Chinese bid in nearly the same time zones?

Right now China is low in soccer interest (even lower than Australia) but with huge numbers of people and high income growth rates. They will provide new, FIFA quality stadiums and facilities and spend whatever it takes. How does FIFA leadership explain their lack of interest in China? Maybe some objection on social issues or authoritarian regime?

And assuming China is sure for 2030 or 2034, there is the argument that Europe needs a turn in the other slot.


----------



## HDI 0.548

pesto said:


> It's true; every day I marvel at how little I know and how quickly reality changes.


Yes, the rest of the world isn't as bad as you think it is. China has attendance of 24,000. Spain has attendance of around 27,000. Almost 50 countries have capacity to cohost or host the world cup, speaking from a technical point. Start your Analysis from that perspective.


----------



## HDI 0.548

pesto said:


> I feel like I'm in-between. Australia and NZ is doable, if a bit unwieldy. But how do you argue against the appeal of a Chinese bid in nearly the same time zones?
> 
> Right now China is low in soccer interest (even lower than Australia) but with huge numbers of people and high income growth rates. They will provide new, FIFA quality stadiums and facilities and spend whatever it takes. How does FIFA leadership explain their lack of interest in China? Maybe some objection on social issues or authoritarian regime?
> 
> And assuming China is sure for 2030 or 2034, there is the argument that Europe needs a turn in the other slot.


China has the best attended football league in Asia. Why you keep saying there is no interest? China League attendance is higher than almost every country outside Europe except Mexico. Open your mind and eyes, this is not 1993. The only reason FIFA is not showing interest is because China has not raised its hand up for football. The interest of China is to be have a strong internal sports Industry like USA & Europe. They don't really need the FIFA World Cup. It's the other way round. But in any case China is not strong enough to host a World Cup. Give them 8-10 years so that their domestic leagues and youth programs can get them somewhere. Japan started from scratch in the 90s and have come well. I think that will be a good aspiration for China football team. 
***
Otherwise there is nothing stopping China from hosting the World Cup. They will tell you when they want, which is likely 2034 going by the fact that they intend to host the Asia Cup in 2023.


----------



## Lord David

Knitemplar said:


> Why would FIFA want to repeat the not-so-great 2002 Cup that they had? :nuts:
> 
> An ANZAC scenario is STILL NOT one land mass. You're trying to do a continental plates smash-up which nature won't oblige you with. LOL!! :lol:


But co-hosting has been successfully done with other sports. So I see no issue with the World Cup. 

Remember, FIFA was the one who made Japan and Korea unify their bid into one World Cup. An Australian-New Zealand World Cup would be a united bid from day one, not some forced co-hosting. With New Zealand getting a free slot into the World Cup with the expanded tournament, this is not an issue either.

Just cluster the groups into the 3 zones (Southern Australia, East Coast Australia and New Zealand) and you'd be fine.


----------



## pesto

HDI 0.548 said:


> Yes, the rest of the world isn't as bad as you think it is. China has attendance of 24,000. Spain has attendance of around 27,000. Almost 50 countries have capacity to cohost or host the world cup, speaking from a technical point. Start your Analysis from that perspective.


Agree that many countries could. But why would FIFA want them when China has such low interest in soccer and soon to be the largest economy in the world?

Since you mention Spain: their current level of interest in soccer is 69 percent vs. 30 percent for China; and their GDP is 1/10 the size of China's and growing much more slowly, both currently and forecasted into the future. So very loosely you have 500M more people in China that are not currently paying much attention to soccer. Seems fairly obvious where you would want to spend your dollars on developing a market. 

Nothing against Spain: it has a great soccer tradition, is a strong tourist destination, convenient to Europe, etc. And I would think that in some year other than when China says it is interested it would be a strong contender. Likewise for the UK. But much better to do China matched with either Spain or UK, than both of them in consecutive cycles.


----------



## HDI 0.548

Lord David said:


> But co-hosting has been successfully done with other sports. So I see no issue with the World Cup.
> 
> Remember, FIFA was the one who made Japan and Korea unify their bid into one World Cup. An Australian-New Zealand World Cup would be a united bid from day one, not some forced co-hosting. With New Zealand getting a free slot into the World Cup with the expanded tournament, this is not an issue either.
> 
> Just cluster the groups into the 3 zones (Southern Australia, East Coast Australia and New Zealand) and you'd be fine.


Australia and New Zealand are too late for this. There's literally no reason to give them the World Cup. What do they bring to the table? I believe future hosting will be reflective of this. ASEAN, Asia and Africa will get turns as they get better with Europe coming in as well.


----------



## HDI 0.548

pesto said:


> Agree that many countries could. But why would FIFA want them when China has such low interest in soccer and soon to be the largest economy in the world?
> 
> Since you mention Spain: their current level of interest in soccer is 69 percent vs. 30 percent for China; and their GDP is 1/10 the size of China's and growing much more slowly, both currently and forecasted into the future. So very loosely you have 500M more people in China that are not currently paying much attention to soccer. Seems fairly obvious where you would want to spend your dollars on developing a market.
> 
> Nothing against Spain: it has a great soccer tradition, is a strong tourist destination, convenient to Europe, etc. And I would think that in some year other than when China says it is interested it would be a strong contender. Likewise for the UK. But much better to do China matched with either Spain or UK, than both of them in consecutive cycles.


Of course China is the better host and even if the portion of interest is smaller, the absolute figure is still worth it. The World Cup fast tracked football interest in Japan and Korea - although Korea regressed with match fixing issues. But as I said, China is not even building itself up for the World Cup. They simply want to focus inwards in sports like USA, Europe. It's the World Cup that will need China just as it needed USA for 2026.


----------



## pesto

HDI 0.548 said:


> China has the best attended football league in Asia. Why you keep saying there is no interest? China League attendance is higher than almost every country outside Europe except Mexico. Open your mind and eyes, this is not 1993. The only reason FIFA is not showing interest is because China has not raised its hand up for football. The interest of China is to be have a strong internal sports Industry like USA & Europe. They don't really need the FIFA World Cup. It's the other way round. But in any case China is not strong enough to host a World Cup. Give them 8-10 years so that their domestic leagues and youth programs can get them somewhere. Japan started from scratch in the 90s and have come well. I think that will be a good aspiration for China football team.
> ***
> Otherwise there is nothing stopping China from hosting the World Cup. They will tell you when they want, which is likely 2034 going by the fact that they intend to host the Asia Cup in 2023.


This all sounds very reasonable. The Neilsen poll above explains why I said that Chinese interest is very low. Many other reports support this and note the huge opportunities to secure fans for your sport, team, etc., since people haven't yet formed allegiances.

My original point was that China is preferable to Australia, assuming that Asia only gets one choice over the next few cycles. China should be ready for either slot but 2034 does seem the better choice since that gives them 4 more years for their national team to develop.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

I've some doubts, but there's a discussion about a Greece-Cyprus-Israel 2030 FIFA World Cup Bid.

Link

However, I've some doubts. Maybe Greece would like to have new ruins tourists will discover after the World Cup.


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> I've some doubts, but there's a discussion about a Greece-Cyprus-Israel 2030 FIFA World Cup Bid.
> 
> Link
> 
> However, I've some doubts. Maybe Greece would like to have new ruins tourists will discover after the World Cup.


Oh, great, Greek and Hebrew. :lol:

I suspect (that is, I'm sure) that many of these possible bids are put out there just to keep some country's name in the public eye as a possible vacation spot. That's what tourist departments are for.


----------



## Walbanger

HDI 0.548 said:


> Australia and New Zealand are too late for this. There's literally no reason to give them the World Cup. What do they bring to the table? I believe future hosting will be reflective of this. ASEAN, Asia and Africa will get turns as they get better with Europe coming in as well.


I tend to agree with this. 2022 was pretty much the golden opportunity but we got royally screwed with no lube. 

It's not that Australia/NZ isn't capable, it's that FIFA isn't going to prefer it over China, ASEAN or even combined North African bids etc
If FIFA is so hung up on geography (unlike Cricket and Rugby where we've hosted successful world cups) then maybe an Aus/NZ World Cup would be more attractive if they didn't include Perth.
Though just maybe 40 years in the future in the AFL dominant cities, Melbourne may have justification to build a rectangular stadium of 70 000 and Perth and Adelaide at over 40 000? :cheers:


----------



## Lord David

Walbanger said:


> I tend to agree with this. 2022 was pretty much the golden opportunity but we got royally screwed with no lube.
> 
> It's not that Australia/NZ isn't capable, it's that FIFA isn't going to prefer it over China, ASEAN or even combined North African bids etc
> If FIFA is so hung up on geography (unlike Cricket and Rugby where we've hosted successful world cups) then maybe an Aus/NZ World Cup would be more attractive if they didn't include Perth.
> Though just maybe 40 years in the future in the AFL dominant cities, Melbourne may have justification to build a rectangular stadium of 70 000 and Perth and Adelaide at over 40 000? :cheers:


Why would Perth need a new stadium? You got the new Perth one which can be configured at 65,000 for rectangular sports. Whilst Adelaide Oval although an Oval, isn't too bad when it comes to the rectangle game.

Melbourne doesn't need a rectangle stadium of 70,000. We have AAMI Park at 30,000 and if need be, Etihad Stadium at 50,000. The MCG is used for the big games even if the oval is a hindrance, rather than a benefit because of the huge capacity of the venue. Perhaps come the 2030's the Southern Stand might be expanded in the upper levels with additional rows of seating, whilst the video boards are removed for even more seating at the Northern End, with perhaps a suspended video board like an arena placed in the middle of the ground. Make capacity well over 100,000 seated.


----------



## Walbanger

Lord David said:


> Why would Perth need a new stadium? You got the new Perth one which can be configured at 65,000 for rectangular sports. Whilst Adelaide Oval although an Oval, isn't too bad when it comes to the rectangle game.
> 
> Melbourne doesn't need a rectangle stadium of 70,000. We have AAMI Park at 30,000 and if need be, Etihad Stadium at 50,000. The MCG is used for the big games even if the oval is a hindrance, rather than a benefit because of the huge capacity of the venue. Perhaps come the 2030's the Southern Stand might be expanded in the upper levels with additional rows of seating, whilst the video boards are removed for even more seating at the Northern End, with perhaps a suspended video board like an arena placed in the middle of the ground. Make capacity well over 100,000 seated.


Because as each passing World Cup goes by, there appears to be less tolerance for Ovals/Track Stadiums. Australia would have a lot to overcome to convince FIFA of hosting a World Cup, if distance is such a negative factor then Australia's large number of Ovals is certainly not going to help further. By the 2040's who knows if any Oval will cut it?
The MCG may have a huge capacity but its Oval is very wide and its ground tier is quite shallow at 12 degrees. Adelaide Oval's oval is not as big as the MCG's but its ground tier is even shallower at 10 degrees.
Perth's Optus Stadium is expandable to 70000+ but even in "rectangle" mode its still basically an Oval 162m / 127m. Pretty much as long as Stade de France (in rectangle mode), a little bit shorter than ANZ Stadium but a bit wider than both.
Still, Etihad Stadium (soon to be Marvel Stadium) is set to be renovated which includes an overhaul of its movable ground tier to make it better for Soccer and Rugby and Melbourne is home to arguable Australia's biggest Soccer club Melbourne Victory. With Melbourne's obsession with promoting itself as a sporting capital, attracting and keeping events, and massive growth rate (it will soon overtake Sydney, with both on their way to 8 million by 2050) there could be a business case for a dedicated rectangular stadium of 65/75000 in say 2 decades?


----------



## Rover030

^^ We should not forget that the ovals/track argument also applies to China. China has many big new stadiums, but almost all of them have athletics tracks. I do think China will organise a world cup in 2030, 2034 or 2038, but I'm curious how heavy the athletics stadiums will weigh, and if they are willing to build a new generation of stadiums purely to get rid of the tracks. Because other than that, they seem sufficient in quality and size.


----------



## Walbanger

Very true, but China has the political means to build a whole tournaments worth of next generation rectangular stadiums if the CCP and FIFA so wish. That's not gonna wash in Australia where out of top tier venues, only Etihad Stadium and Brisbane future Arena have ever been fully funded by the private sector. All the stadium's Australia proposed to build for their 2022 bid bar Canberra have been built (Adelaide Oval, Optus Stadium), are under construction (West Sydney Stadium, North Queensland Stadium) or are soon to begin (Sydney Football Stadium, ANZ Stadium). Only issue is that after losing the bid, the likes of Optus Stadium opted for a more cost effective but far inferior modular "rectangular" system, the 2 currently under construction had their capacities revised down and temporary expansion above 40 000 is an unknown factor, nor have I heard and plans to boost the capacity of Brisbane's Suncorp Stadium above 60 000.


----------



## marokko

^^I understand and actually agree that an Iberian/Moorish bid would be more apealing to the rest of the world. However, I was just trying to explain what the general feeling in Morocco was at the moment about their next bid, because Moroccan officials seem not to want stop trying bidding till they will host the event ones. National media in this country seems to favor an Algerian/Moroccan bid, because it would be the best option for the region to bring more peace and prosperity to the region. I know these are not infrastructural capacity reasons by Moroccan media, but more political/economic reasons. But that seems to be reality/the momentum at the moment in the country. If it was to me, Morocco should concentrate on other events like CAF, Mediteranian games, Expo, etc. Smaller events, but a lot easier for the country to handle. The citizens do prefer a large soccer event though ...


----------



## zakizakari222

Morocco will bid again as a part of the Maghreb Bid, along with Algeria and Tunisia 
I can't see any cooperation with Spain or Portugal happening at all, even the later voted against Morocco for the 2026's edition....


----------



## pesto

zakizakari222 said:


> Morocco will bid again as a part of the Maghreb Bid, along with Algeria and Tunisia
> I can't see any cooperation with Spain or Portugal happening at all, even the later voted against Morocco for the 2026's edition....


I suppose you are right, but my point is that Morocco needs to talk to Portugal about WHY they voted against them, and then ask what changes they would want to see in Morocco that would motivate them not only to vote for Morocco but to partner with them. Not that you have to follow their advice, but it would be good to hear it.

Of course if there are legitimate political or other benefits in a Maghreb partnership, then go ahead. I have always thought that about 2/3 of bids are for publicity with no hopes for winning; maybe now they will become useful for breaking down historical barriers.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Egypt aiming to host 2030 World Cup, 2032 Olympic Games



> Ashraf Sobhi was appointed sports minister last month after Khaled Abdelaziz stepped down from his position.
> 
> He announced on Tuesday that Egypt are looking to host the 2030 World Cup and the 2032 Olympic Games for the first time in the country’s history.
> 
> “Our goal is to host the 2030 World Cup in Egypt and we will work on that in the upcoming period,” Sobhi said.


Link


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> Egypt aiming to host 2030 World Cup, 2032 Olympic Games
> 
> Link


Well that makes sense. Now that their income per capita is about 1/25 of US levels they might as well spend their infrastructure money on stadiums. :lol:

I understand that when places like Brisbane or mid-sized European cities bid on the Olympics it's just their tourist bureaus getting some free publicity. Is that what Egypt is doing? 

My sense is that so far there is zero thought or budgeting given to this since the guy is basically just learning where the men's room is. And apparently he hasn't heard about joint bids so far unless this is the opening move in a mating dance with the Maghreb. Can't wait for their first outlined proposal.


----------



## Knitemplar

Egypt has budgeted mega-billions for a new Cairo, east of the old one, I believe. And that's over a 25-year period for the new capital to rise. I don't see how jolting the economy with a few football stadia is going to help them fulfill that plans. I would think the Sissy gov't would prefer homes, schools and hospitals first over a 1-month party.


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> Egypt has budgeted mega-billions for a new Cairo, east of the old one, I believe. And that's over a 25-year period for the new capital to rise. I don't see how jolting the economy with a few football stadia is going to help them fulfill that plans. I would think the Sissy gov't would prefer homes, schools and hospitals first over a 1-month party.


The new Cairo is the least of their problems (and is not going to happen).

There is really only one index that ties to economic growth: worker productivity. Egypt is one of the real worries for the next 50 years since it is expecting population growth far beyond growth in skilled professions (including education, medical, engineering, etc.). That means that only Saudi style natural resources would keep them from falling further behind the developed world.

What little money there is needs to be invested wisely.


----------



## Red85

Iberian peninsula? 

Potentials enough with these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_in_Spain

Added with La Luz, Jose Alvalade and Dragao


----------



## alserrod

Red85 said:


> Iberian peninsula?
> 
> Potentials enough with these:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_in_Spain
> 
> Added with La Luz, Jose Alvalade and Dragao


In 1982 this was list of stadiums for WC.

Six groups in first round with

La Coruña and Vigo 
Oviedo and Gijón
Bilbao and Valladolid
Valencia and Zaragoza (Valencia hosted all Spain matches in first round)
Alicante and Elche
Seville and Malaga

with hints...
- matches in Seville were separated in both stadiums (La Cartuja didn't exist yet). Two in each stadium
- First match had to be played in Alicante (it was from that group) and was played in Nou Camp. Therefore, only two matches in Alicante. Later... a match to be played in Nou Camp was scheduled in Alicante to have three matches in the city
- San Sebastián team (Real Sociedad) was current league winner for two years (1981 and 1982). They had a tiny stadium (nowadays it is Anoeta) and wasn't considered
- Elche has never played in 1st league but has a nice stadium, enough for a group phase.

It was first time in history with 24 teams. 12 went on (instead of 16) and they made 4 groups of 3 teams. Winner would go to semifinals and the other two teams drop off. Quite weird and never made again. For instance Spain "had rest" in first match, lost in second match and knew they were off WC never mind result in third match. Even winning there was a team who had more points.

These phases (three matches) were played in Madrid and Barcelona (both stadiums but Sarria instead of RDCE Stadium, nowadays dissapeared and V.Calderon instead of Wanda Metropolitano. In addition S.Bernabeu and Nou Camp).
This is, 12 teams in two cities and four stadiums (except the case that first match to be played in Nou Camp was in Alicante to hold 3 matches).
Semifinals in Seville and Barcelona (therefore, four matches in Seville, two in each stadium)
Final in Madrid

total, 14 host cities, 17 stadiums.


Nowadays:
- Nou Camp has a HUGE project to be enlarged and totally refurbished
- S.Berbabeu has been having several works to upgrade it
- RDCE Espanyol (AKA Cornella, named after town were it is located) is quite new. They played in Lluis Companys for several years after leaving Sarria and before Cornella was finished. Lluis Companys holded opening and closing ceremonies in 1992 Olympics as well as Athletics
- Wanda metropolitano was new this year
- San Mames was absolutely refurbished some years ago. It will hold several matches in Eurocup 2020 (it is Spanish stadium chosen for that sort of competition played all around the continent because was the newest when chosen format). It was so refurbished that field has been turned 90º!!!
- Riazor is on strong works this summer
- Anoeta is on very strong works this summer. These two stadiums aren't so big (Riazor holded matches in 1982 though and Anoeta is the team that holds winner in 1981 and 1982 who was in a different stadium)
- La Romareda was considered for Eurocup 2004 and UEFA dropped it. They should have to build a new one or absolute refurbishment. A lot of politics (it is my homecity) but should they want... 75 million euro and you have a 4 star stadium that could be enlarged in the future. Team will be for sixth year in 2nd league but has more attendance and people on TV that some teams in 1st league

AFAIK, minimum is 40.000 people. It is a pity because there are some stadiums with less than 20.000 that are quite nice. In some of them they have had recently international matches. Since two decades Spain never play in the same stadium but shifts in all geography (and if an under21 match is to be played the previous day, they look for a stadium in a small town not far from there). I could point several 15-20.000 people stadium that have hold international matches (they schedule matches against weakest teams, but official matches at all).

Anyway, requirements

- all stadiums over 40.000
- first match and final over 80.000
- semifinals over 60.000


Providing no one would wanna 3 stadiums in same city or surroundings

Nou Camp and S.Bernabeu are over 80.000 to host 1st match, semifinals and final
Wanda M, Ruiz de Lopera (accurate name for B.Villamarín), San Mamés, Mestalla, S.Pizjuan and Cornella located in Madrid, Seville, Bilbao, Valencia, Seville and Barcelona (surroundings) are over 40.000

they are 8 stadiums ready to play in August when league will start on.

therefore, some works in other stadiums would be a must to enlarge it. And I guess that they are focusing in increasing quality of infrasctructure instead of capacity.

nowadays, except Bilbao (u/c) all of them are joined with high speed railway (trains running 300 km/h, They reach Madrid-Barcelona in 2h30m or so if it is direct, city centre to city centre, no need to go to an airport, wait, book, boarding, and so on)


----------



## pesto

There certainly are plenty of wonderful stadiums in Spain and Portugal. But going to one country doesn't seem to be the main driver anymore since, e.g., the US could have staged the WC just in California or some other small subset of cities but didn't.

It seems that the era of the "nation-state" is coming to a close, and that regions are the natural way to go. This gives a chance for smaller countries to host and eliminates the need to go to less interesting stadiums or cities. It may even encourage further economic or poltical cooperation.


----------



## GunnerJacket

pesto said:


> But going to one country doesn't seem to be the main driver anymore since, e.g., the US could have staged the WC just in California or some other small subset of cities but didn't.
> 
> It seems that the era of the "nation-state" is coming to a close, and that regions are the natural way to go.


Methinks this might be a bit premature. Sure, the growing size of the event might encourage, let alone enable, more joint bids, particularly from smaller nations, but I don't think we're seeing a death knell for single-nations bids. The North American bid was more a matter of political timing rather than a logistical matter, and other nations may not have the desire or leeway to share in the way the US is doing now. 

One man's thoughts, anyway.


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> Methinks this might be a bit premature. Sure, the growing size of the event might encourage, let alone enable, more joint bids, particularly from smaller nations, but I don't think we're seeing a death knell for single-nations bids. The North American bid was more a matter of political timing rather than a logistical matter, and other nations may not have the desire or leeway to share in the way the US is doing now.
> 
> One man's thoughts, anyway.


Not the death knell. But what economic benefit is there is in having anyone except China, Russia, the US or a few others having a solo WC?

UK is better than England; Port/Sp or Arg/Ur better than either alone. Same across Africa and the rest of the world.

My guess is that a factor here is that FIFA is tired of bids which put up 5 modern stadiums and a dozen really run-down fire-traps that the bidder delusionally thinks of as being wonderful.


----------



## alserrod

pesto said:


> There certainly are plenty of wonderful stadiums in Spain and Portugal. But going to one country doesn't seem to be the main driver anymore since, e.g., the US could have staged the WC just in California or some other small subset of cities but didn't.


Spain is just a bit bigger than California or Montana only



> It seems that the era of the "nation-state" is coming to a close, and that regions are the natural way to go. This gives a chance for smaller countries to host and eliminates the need to go to less interesting stadiums or cities. It may even encourage further economic or poltical cooperation.


Next WC: Qatar
2010: South Africa
2006: Germany


----------



## pesto

alserrod said:


> Spain is just a bit bigger than California or Montana only
> 
> Next WC: Qatar
> 2010: South Africa
> 2006: Germany


The comparative size is not relevant. The point was that even a huge country that could host 3 world cups at the same time with ease was asked to join with two other substantial countries and did so. It's just a logical truth that two countries are going to have a better choice of stadiums than either one of them, and less chance of white elephants as well.

Qatar, SA, Germany is the past. Not only have attitudes and policies changed but it is doubtful that S. Africa or Qatar would have been chosen for 48 team tournaments (even with the bribery, :lol. The future is:

2026: United
2030: probably Eng/Wales/Scot or Arg/Ur or Moorish or Iberian
2034: guesses: a loser from 2030 or China


----------



## alserrod

pesto said:


> Qatar, SA, Germany is the past. Not only have attitudes and policies changed but it is doubtful that S. Africa or Qatar would have been chosen for 48 team tournaments (even with the bribery, :lol. The future is:
> 
> 2026: United
> 2030: probably Eng/Wales/Scot or Arg/Ur or Moorish or Iberian
> 2034: guesses: a loser from 2030 or China



Got it but surely you will find enough stadiums in Italy, Germany, France and so on for 48 teams.

Just one hint... WC2018 will hold 64 matches
WC2026 will hold 80 matches. 16 in addition.

I remember format when 24 teams were playing. All 1st,2nd and 4 out of 6 3rd went on.

but nowadays... should they have 16F they will be ony 8 extra matches, and we will have 16 extra matches. 

Does anyone know anything about format?


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

I really don't see this as the end of one country world cups. We're less than four years away from what is effectively a one city world cup. USA+Mexico+Canada is hardly a shared tournament in the same way that the only previous one was (South Korea and Japan) as the vast majority of matches are in the USA including all the latter stages. It is a purely political joint bid as no-one would argue that the USA couldn't host on its own.

I really hope that 2030 comes to England (with or ideally without Scottish and Welsh input) as it would be fantastic for me. Much the same as all the other people pushing for their nations to host want it because it would be fantastic for them. Even if it isn't the best use of resources for the average person in their country who cannot afford to attend. However, that doesn't matter and never will. The question that always matters most is which host is better for FIFA. More particularly the voting members of FIFA. I think an English or British bid is more profitable for FIFA than the the South American bid or a North African bid. I also think it would get better technical scores than the South American or North African bids. An Iberian bid would be formidable (and is the obvious reason why they didn't vote for Morocco). The only difference is that Spain has hosted it in 1982. That is why I think we'd have to have Scotland and Wales involved in our bid as they have never hosted any top level football tournament.

FIFA also has to consider that a lot of the extra matches from the expansion to 48 teams are going to be stinkers from the point of view of public demand. Who wants to watch mismatches like England v Panama except for English and Panamanians? There are going to be more of those and more extreme examples as lower quality sides qualify. Real danger of vast banks of empty seats for some matches in future.

At some point Germany or Italy will host again and they will do it alone.


----------



## Red85

alserrod said:


> Got it but surely you will find enough stadiums in Italy, Germany, France and so on for 48 teams.
> 
> Just one hint... WC2018 will hold 64 matches
> WC2026 will hold 80 matches. 16 in addition.
> 
> I remember format when 24 teams were playing. All 1st,2nd and 4 out of 6 3rd went on.
> 
> but nowadays... should they have 16F they will be ony 8 extra matches, and we will have 16 extra matches.
> 
> Does anyone know anything about format?


One discussion, dunno where I've got it from anymore:
16 Groups of 3. 
3rd team of each group is out
32 teams will go to the knockout phase in a dash to the final

Finalists still play a maximum of 7 games, which was a requirement by the clubs: 'not more matches'.


----------



## alserrod

Hi

One hint... Portugal supported nothern America bid for 2026 but Spain supported Morocco in polls.

I have checked (and will explain) 2026 WC format. It should be enough with 8 stadiums over 40.000 (one out of them over 60.000, another over 80.000)
Anyways I have glanced old WC and stadiums capacity and was strongly smaller. UEFA is requesting high capacity stadiums for top matches and later, driving Europe supercup to small cities with no more than 15-20000 seats in stadium... just to enlarge spectacle in those areas where football doesn't reach same results.
In addition, I remember some weeks ago Spain-Morocco in St.Petersbourgh. Stadium was full but... 1.000 Spanish, 10.000 Moroccans and the rest?. Obviously in group phase you will not find supporters from other countries. Therefore, locals.
It is easy to fill a huge stadium in a so large city as St. Petersbourgh, but let's provide it is played somewhere in a medium-small city in another European country with a smaller stadium. Never mind capacity... they will remain 11.000 supporters from both countries plus all locals. You can consider small and pretty stadiums maybe.




2026 WC Format

16 groups of 3 teams (no 12 groups of 4 teams!!!!)
Each team will play against the other two ones (and one "rest day"). It is to be considered not to have ties even in group phase. Maybe directly to penalties. I wonder if they will give two points to winner and 1 point to loser in that case as it happens in other sports.

1st and 2nd in each group will go through. 3rd will go home.
32 teams and will play 1/16F brakes until final.

Therefore, 16*3 + 1/16 + 1/8 + QF + SF + 3-4+final = 80 matches!!!!!

Number of matches will be the same for a country reaching final (one less in group phase, one more with 1/16)

A group, nowadays is having 6 matches, and last one had to be at same hour (even if in different time zones). In the future, a group will have 3 matches. Therefore, the same stadium could host 2 groups in different days. 

Therefore... 6 stadiums over 40K, 1 stadium over 60K and 1 stadium over 80K will be enough


Which it is hold in main European leagues, for instance, even if not so big countries


----------



## alserrod

In addition...

have glanced too how to reach WC 2026 because number of countries enlarges.

Europe is "looser" after being continent with highest number of teams.

In 1958 they had:

9 Europeans
Host
current winner
1 North America
3 South America
Repechage ((Africa Vs Asia) Vs 10th Europe)

And...
- host was European
- Current winner was European
- Repechage was won by Wales

Therefore, 12 European teams + 4 Americans (Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina and Mexico) in a "World" cup


They are going to change repechage system and, AFAIK

- Europe, enlarges from 13 to 16
- Africa, enlarges from 5 to 9 (it is the continent with more countries)
- North America, enlarges from 3,5 to 6 (nowadays, last phase was a 6 countries league, where 3 went on and 4th to repechage)
- South America, enlarges from 4,5 to 6 (they are 10 countries, thus it is to see, no which 6 countries go to WC but which 4 countries are out)
- Asia enlarges from 4,5 to 8 (I guess China will entry... at last!!!!)
- Oceania enlarge from 0,5 to 1 (Australia belongs to Asian phase, thus providing Tahiti doesn't give a surprise, New Zealand will have a seat)

And, there are two extra teams for repechage.
No Europeans to be considered there
One from each continent, except continent were hold country is located were two ones.
Thus 6 teams. This is, 9th in Asia, 2nd in Oceania, 10th in Africa, 7th and 8th in North America and 7th in South America.

Four with less FIFA points, first leg. Two go home, two go away. they will play against two teams with more points. Both winners go to WC.

This is... 16 groups and... 16 European countries. Quite easy for choosing groups. One in each group. 



Just to make a sort... providing same results than this year we will have had these extra teams:

- Europe. 3 out of Northern Ireland, Italy, Greece or Ireland

- Africa. 4 out of Congo, Zambia, Cote d'Ivoire, Burkina Faso and Uganda. 5th one would go to repechage

- Asia. Siria, Uzbekistan and United Arab Emirates.
Iraq OR China would go to repechage

- North America. Honduras, USA and Trinidad & Tobago
Canada and Guatemala to repechage

- South America. Chile
Paraguay to repechage (Paraguay, Ecuador and Bolivia out)

- Oceania
New Zealand
New Caledonia to repechage


----------



## Knitemplar

Huh?? :nuts: :nuts:

2 things:

1. Will there only be 1 rest day during the prelims? So if

1st day - Team A vs. B

3rd day - B vs. C (So Team A gets an extra 2 rest days)

5th day - A vs. C? So Team A will have a rest advantage. 

#2 - You forget that for 2026, the 3 host countries will have automatic slots in the tournament. So I don't understand your premutations above.


----------



## Knitemplar

Kjello0 said:


> Why did 21 nations bid to host four matches of the EURO 2020? Without any direct spot? Because it's still a honour for these countries to be able to host official matches in a EURO. Also, in the event of their national team actually qualifying, it guarantees them at least two matches at home soil.
> 
> 
> 
> Hosting requirements for 2026:
> 1x 80,000 seats (Final and opening match)
> 1x 60,000 seats (Minimum for Semi final)
> 10x 40,000 seats (Remaining matches)
> 
> The only one Argentina and Uruguay don't have, is the 80,000 seat one. So either the El Monumental (61,688 seats) in Buenos Aires, or the Estadio Centenario (65,235 seats) in Montevideo needs to be upgraded to 80,000. The remaining ones are in place. And only need minor modifications.
> 
> Though preferably, Uruguay hosts a minimum of four stadiums. Which means that they should build another two 40,000 seat stadiums outside Montevideo. They are planning to build one. So building two wouldn't be that much of a cost.


Euro 2020 is a REGIONAL event; NOT the same as World Cup dynamics. :nuts:

So, do you have a privileged peek into Uruguay's economic forecast and development plans that you are planning stadia for them already -- for a nation of under 4 million down in the underbelly of the hemisphere? DO they know this?? LOL!! hno:


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Not very official, Only a possibility: Poland, Hungary, Czech Republik and Slovakia 2030

Article (polish)


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> Not very official, Only a possibility: Poland, Hungary, Czech Republik and Slovakia 2030
> 
> Article (polish)


Very good. Just the thing that FIFA was looking for. Four soccer-loving countries, none of them desperately poor or overtly authoritarian, with an ability to contribute to a joint effort.

Warsaw, Krakow, Budapest and Prague are fabulous tourist cities (and Bratislava is worth a look) and virtually everyone is within 200 miles of one of these cities. Venues allocated based on population and existing venues, I suppose. But I can't really comment on facilities.

But doesn't this belong under 2030 or 2034?


----------



## Lord David

pesto said:


> Very good. Just the thing that FIFA was looking for. Four soccer-loving countries, none of them desperately poor or overtly authoritarian, with an ability to contribute to a joint effort.
> 
> Warsaw, Krakow, Budapest and Prague are fabulous tourist cities (and Bratislava is worth a look) and virtually everyone is within 200 miles of one of these cities. Venues allocated based on population and existing venues, I suppose. But I can't really comment on facilities.
> 
> But doesn't this belong under 2030 or 2034?


There's simply not enough. None of these nations have a venue that's over 80,000. If Ukraine wasn't unstable, It could work with Poland like Euro 2012. In which the Olympic Stadium in Kiev would be expanded to 80,000+ again with the possible removal of the track.

I don't think such a bid could work, especially given the expansion of the tournament.


----------



## pesto

Lord David said:


> There's simply not enough. None of these nations have a venue that's over 80,000. If Ukraine wasn't unstable, It could work with Poland like Euro 2012. In which the Olympic Stadium in Kiev would be expanded to 80,000+ again with the possible removal of the track.
> 
> I don't think such a bid could work, especially given the expansion of the tournament.


Yes, that would be a negative for the bid. But with 4 countries you have a likelihood of only one stadium being necessary per country (maybe 2, maybe 0). This is within the tolerance limit for "white elephants" given that these are not desperately poor countries.

Of course, if no continuing use could be shown, that would count against the bid but probably not eliminate it altogether.


----------



## Rover030

I agree that those countries would be great hosts to a football tournament. Great cities, affordable compared to Western Europe (although the differences will be smaller in 12/16 years), and relatively compact.

However, it's not just the big stadiums that are lacking. While Poland has 5 (already oversized) 40k+ stadiums, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary together have 1, which is being rebuilt right now in Budapest for Euro 2020. It will be a great stadium, but also a white elephant, since the current team in Budapest (Ferencvaros) averages 9k attendance in a high-quality 24k stadium. There is no tenant other than the Hungarian national team.

Slovakia is building a new national stadium with a capacity of 22k right now.

Building at least 5 new 40k stadiums in these three countries with a combined population of 25 million would be irresponsible. Even if they were modular stadiums like Morocco proposed and the concept would actually work, it would still be pretty bad, since these countries already have the high-quality ~20k stadiums that would be left over.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> I agree that those countries would be great hosts to a football tournament. Great cities, affordable compared to Western Europe (although the differences will be smaller in 12/16 years), and relatively compact.
> 
> However, it's not just the big stadiums that are lacking. While Poland has 5 (already oversized) 40k+ stadiums, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary together have 1, which is being rebuilt right now in Budapest for Euro 2020. It will be a great stadium, but also a white elephant, since the current team in Budapest (Ferencvaros) averages 9k attendance in a high-quality 24k stadium. There is no tenant other than the Hungarian national team.
> 
> Slovakia is building a new national stadium with a capacity of 22k right now.
> 
> Building at least 5 new 40k stadiums in these three countries with a combined population of 25 million would be irresponsible. Even if they were modular stadiums like Morocco proposed and the concept would actually work, it would still be pretty bad, since these countries already have the high-quality ~20k stadiums that would be left over.


It does sound very marginal for the smaller countries to build so many stadiums. Poland is the real population center here and may be overly optimistic about what the others can do.

It may turn out that linking up 1 or 2 small countries with a larger neighbor is a better way to go. A country with 10-12 very solid facilities could take advantage of a few from smaller countries.


----------



## Tonik1

Lord David said:


> There's simply not enough. None of these nations have a venue that's over 80,000. If Ukraine wasn't unstable, It could work with Poland like Euro 2012. In which the Olympic Stadium in Kiev would be expanded to 80,000+ again with the possible removal of the track.
> 
> I don't think such a bid could work, especially given the expansion of the tournament.





Poland National Stadium could be expanded as it's sold out even for matches against Armenia or Kazakhstan.


Poland was 3rd in Europe when it comes to average attendance on national team games after England (Wembley) and France (Stade de France) during WC 2018 qualifications.



Rover030 said:


> However, it's not just the big stadiums that are lacking. While Poland has 5 (already oversized) 40k+ stadiums, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary together have 1, which is being rebuilt right now in Budapest for Euro 2020. It will be a great stadium, but also a white elephant, since the current team in Budapest (Ferencvaros) averages 9k attendance in a high-quality 24k stadium. There is no tenant other than the Hungarian national team.


There is problem with image of Polish footballers and clubs in Poland. They are seen as lazy, overpaid boys.
Something is also wrong with managment of Polish clubs as they have big problems in international competitions.
Matches are often very unattractive to watch.

There are still cities like Łodz, that could easily fit 40 000 stadium on top matches.

Widzew Łodz- regulary almost 20 000 fans during match in Polish league 4th level 










Something has to be done to improve level and image of Polish league so fans will come back to stadiums. There is *big hunger for good football* in Poland.


----------



## pesto

There is hunger for good football in almost every country. :lol:

The problem is why hasn't anyone put money into stadiums, teams, etc., and made himself rich? Maybe because people have looked at it and decided that the potential revenues are not worth risking the money.

And if the government puts money in, you go back to the "white elephant" problem that FIFA and others are trying to avoid.


----------



## Tonik1

Yes but point is country *with size and population of Poland *should have at least 2 clubs in Champions League group phase every year (and another 2-3 doing quite well in Europa League).

That would improve attractivness of Polish league and bring more quality and money to Polish clubs (which are financialy already very good when compared to other Central European leagues).


*Meanwhile Polish league didn't have club in Champions League group phase for 2 decades *(Legia Warsaw in 1996 played in CL quarterfinals. Next appearance was in... 2016). 

*IMO that was devastating for Polish football*. Something was and still is wrong with clubs managment. We also don't produce too many "quality" players.


----------



## Lord David

How would you expand Poland's national stadium? It's got the retractable roof it needs. If it were a smooth bowl, then sure, just remove the roof and supports then expand the bowl (those sitting on the upper rows would simply have to walk up more steps from the entrances), then redo the roof. But it's not exactly a smooth bowl now is it? You're pretty much building a whole new stadium here.


----------



## TEBC

2030 its South America time, since the last one was in 2014.

It should be South America or North Africa to be fair.


----------



## pesto

TEBC said:


> 2030 its South America time, since the last one was in 2014.
> 
> It should be South America or North Africa to be fair.


I remember a discussion about "fairness" a few years back. It was like this: why does the same brain surgeon do all the operations? The orderly who never finished high school wants to do some brain surgery too so we should let him handle the next patient. That would be fair.

The point is that the quality of the bid and the likelihood of it being managed properly, attracting viewers and generating revenues has to be considered. Being "entitled" to hosting is the surest way of getting very low quality bids.


----------



## RobH

This is why FIFA's system of allowing any country to bid unless your Confederation has hosted one of the previous two world cups is a good one. It allows for a rotation of sorts but doesn't put them in a situation where they're stuck with little to choose from.

This was introduced quite a few cycles ago, but has on most occasions since it was introduced been dropped or altered for political reasons. And actually, nearly every time they've changed it you think they might've been better off just sticking with it. 

FIFA is its own worst enemy at times.


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> This is why FIFA's system of allowing any country to bid unless your Confederation has hosted one of the previous two world cups is a good one. It allows for a rotation of sorts but doesn't put them in a situation where they're stuck with little to choose from.
> 
> This was introduced quite a few cycles ago, but has on most occasions since it was introduced been dropped or altered for political reasons. And actually, nearly every time they've changed it you think they might've been better off just sticking with it. You still could've had Africa in 2010 and South America in 2014 but a bit of competition might've helped those bids, the 2018/22 debacle might not have been as bad if the cups were awarded separately, and even if they won out in the end the US might've had more competition had Europe not been disallowed from bidding for 2026.
> 
> FIFA is its own worst enemy at times.


Agree that mixed in with having to select a competent bid is the political issue of moving the WC around. 

Until recently the system was corrupt so decisions were frequently influenced by bad actors. Hopefully this has been reduced at least at the top level and technical people and marketing people can rationally figure out what makes sense. I hope this includes working with a small group of qualified bids to groom them into the best they can be rather than having two or more very mediocre bids competing.


----------



## HDI 0.548

pesto said:


> There is hunger for good football in almost every country. :lol:
> 
> The problem is why hasn't anyone put money into stadiums, teams, etc., and made himself rich? Maybe because people have looked at it and decided that the potential revenues are not worth risking the money.
> .


Because other countries don't have a "Guaranteed Success" Sports system like America. For most of the world, if you go a few years without winning trophies attendance drops. If you're relegated from the main league it drops and so does your ability to generate revenue through other means. 

And even in America stadia are indirectly subsidized or directly. 

But Sports have to go on because they are a part of cultural identity. Without Government money there would be no sport - at least as they are, something for everyone.


----------



## pesto

HDI 0.548 said:


> Because other countries don't have a "Guaranteed Success" Sports system like America. For most of the world, if you go a few years without winning trophies attendance drops. If you're relegated from the main league it drops and so does your ability to generate revenue through other means.
> 
> And even in America stadia are indirectly subsidized or directly.
> 
> But Sports have to go on because they are a part of cultural identity. Without Government money there would be no sport - at least as they are, something for everyone.


Even FIFA and the Olympics are now committed to not going to places where substantial spending on new stadiums is required.

This is not a US vs. Europe issue. Same dynamics in either country: anytime that a team (or event) says that the taxpayer has to contribute money you have to ask some questions. Like why don't we subsidize education or hospitals instead?

If the city can actually charge arm's-length rent and turn a profit, then why hasn't some entrepreneur invested? If it can't, wouldn't the subsidy be better spent on education or health? And, who really profits besides the team owner and the big construction companies with a wink and fat envelope to the politicians?

This isn't cultural; folk dances is cultural. This is a business and should be able to show its adding value not consuming it.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

If there's a British joint bid, I expect members associations will be barred from voting because of the fact they're British Overseas Territories like Montserrat, the British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, the Turks and Caicos Islands, Cayman Islands, Anguilla and Gibraltar.

For the 2026 FIFA World Cup bid, Puerto Rica, Guam and the US Virgin Islands were also excluded.


----------



## alserrod

CaliforniaJones said:


> If there's a British joint bid, I expect members associations will be barred from voting because of the fact they're British Overseas Territories like Montserrat, the British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, the Turks and Caicos Islands, Cayman Islands, Anguilla and Gibraltar.
> 
> For the 2026 FIFA World Cup bid, Puerto Rica, Guam and the US Virgin Islands were also excluded.


Not always easy.

Hints... France organized a WC and an Eurocup and never went to Corse (and obviously never to Caribe or south Africa) although Italy organized WC with Sicilia and Sardegna. OK. Not so far, just plane required and quite big cities

Portugal forgot Madeira and Açores from Eurocup and I try to remember about all Spanish competitions among several cities.

I just remember one basket world cup with a group located in Canary islands. I do not remember anyone else moving within islands.


Just a main thing... providing that point of view, last WC should have had many cities located in Asia. Same number of cities but let's take Transiberian, shouldn't it?


Let's remember we try to organise a sport event, historically located in a country, recently some of them moved to several countries (or Eurobasket where after Ukraine resigning, format has been four groups in four different countries and one city for final matches.... or next footbal eurocup).

I reckon, you ask coaches and players and say... please, no more than 500 km around with good communications. And they do not bother if those 500 km are in the middle of China or you take Luxembourg and you have six different countries, for instance)


----------



## RobH

You've missed his point. Read the post again.


----------



## pesto

Once again, this is a byproduct of a flawed selection system. You have Comoro with one vote and China with one vote; you have some voters who have to be removed because they are heavily prejudiced (so what? isn't that true of every election?). You have voters who don't care either way but may get some bribes by selling their votes. 

You wonder why a "country" that has zero chance of qualifying for a WC and is too dependent on another country to be allowed to vote when they are in the bidding is allowed to vote at all.


----------



## marokko

The head of the Moroccan FA had spoken this week about the gossips surrounding this topic. Mr. Lakjah replied that Morocco was indeed thinking about a Morocco/Algeria/Tunisia bid for WC2030, but that also a Morocco/Spain bid is still considered. He said that it is for the politicians to take later a strategic decision about this. He said that at the moment he is only sure that Morocco will propose a bid for WC2030, but that it is not clear yet if it will be with Spain or with Algeria ...

In short: A strong Moroccan/Spanish bid is still possible. It could be a nice counterweight to a possible strong UK or China bid as some had argued on this forum. An Morocco/Algeria/Tunisia and Argentina/Uruguay bid would be also very nice from a football fan perspective, but these bids may not be able to compete financially/infrastructurally against the other potential bids. There seems to be a lot of contenders for 2030.


----------



## wojtekbp

Lord David said:


> How would you expand Poland's national stadium? It's got the retractable roof it needs. If it were a smooth bowl, then sure, just remove the roof and supports then expand the bowl (those sitting on the upper rows would simply have to walk up more steps from the entrances), then redo the roof. But it's not exactly a smooth bowl now is it? You're pretty much building a whole new stadium here.


Expansion of the National Stadium in Warsaw would be quite difficult without huge demolition of current structure. However, there is a plenty of space within the Silesia Stadium in Chorzów (58k at the moment). 

Anyway, Poland could easily organise such event as WC (even considering building of new national stadium or even few of them). However, this would not be very popular with the general public. There were huge political and social actions against organisation of the Winter Olympic Games in Cracow. I guess that this would be even bigger in case of WC.


----------



## pesto

marokko said:


> The head of the Moroccan FA had spoken this week about the gossips surrounding this topic. Mr. Lakjah replied that Morocco was indeed thinking about a Morocco/Algeria/Tunisia bid for WC2030, but that also a Morocco/Spain bid is still considered. He said that it is for the politicians to take later a strategic decision about this. He said that at the moment he is only sure that Morocco will propose a bid for WC2030, but that it is not clear yet if it will be with Spain or with Algeria ...
> 
> In short: A strong Moroccan/Spanish bid is still possible. It could be a nice counterweight to a possible strong UK or China bid as some had argued on this forum. An Morocco/Algeria/Tunisia and Argentina/Uruguay bid would be also very nice from a football fan perspective, but these bids may not be able to compete financially/infrastructurally against the other potential bids. There seems to be a lot of contenders for 2030.


I have said before that this would be a great opportunity for Morocco to show its ties to Europe; and an opportunity for Spain to spend less money and pick up votes. Just bidding brings a lot of attention to your tourist possibilities.

But, just speaking casually and not critically, it is a bit difficult for Morocco to now team with a non-Muslim European country after its attempts to win the Muslim and African vote in 2026. I guess this is the problem with being on the edge of two different cultures. Fortunately, I think this is the kind of "political" change that Western countries are used to; not sure how it plays in Africa.

It also may be difficult to keep both Algeria and Spain talking to them for long. Each will want some commitment.


----------



## Knitemplar

CaliforniaJones said:


> For the 2026 FIFA World Cup bid, Puerto Rica, Guam and the US Virgin Islands were also excluded.


Those 4 territories "recused" themselves -- and the 4 UK votes, quickly balanced the loss of those 4 US-territories vote. The loss of the 10 Euro votes, were quickly countered by the 10 African votes that did NOT vote Morocco. And then Gulf-Arab votes + Saudi Arabia also dented whatever "solid" Arab-bloc votes Morocco had. 

So overall, last month's vote seemed to be fair and reciprocal.


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> Those 4 territories "recused" themselves -- and the 4 UK votes, quickly balanced the loss of those 4 US-territories vote. The loss of the 10 Euro votes, were quickly countered by the 10 African votes that did NOT vote Morocco. And then Gulf-Arab votes + Saudi Arabia also dented whatever "solid" Arab-bloc votes Morocco had.
> 
> So overall, last month's vote seemed to be fair and reciprocal.


Fair and reciprocal? 

If you add the 150 smallest members they don't have the population of China. Yet they get 150 votes. Many voters aren't countries, much less sovereign.


----------



## alserrod

Spain failed as bid for a WC and Eurocup not so far, several times for a new Olympics (last one was quite hard because money expensed despite it was said no coin expensed till approval) and has received almost all main competitions that are popular in the country.

In media, no one ask for a WC (will host some matches of Eurocup 2020). Are stadiums ready?. I guess just a couple of stadiums over 50K are missing (or we join all of them in same cities), but surely there are two over 80K and some of them over 50K. Maybe biggest problem is nowadays main league is with a lot of teams in medium-small cities, thus quite cool stadiums (they receive a lot of money from League) but not so big


----------



## Knitemplar

pesto said:


> Fair and reciprocal?
> 
> If you add the 150 smallest members they don't have the population of China. Yet they get 150 votes. Many voters aren't countries, much less sovereign.


That's the way the fortune cookie crumbles. :wink2:


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> That's the way the fortune cookie crumbles. :wink2:


The system will work adequately well because every fortune cookie that the smaller 150 members open says "Remember that you are not needed". As long as FIFA meters the quality of the bids and the small members vote for whatever makes money for FIFA the system is good enough for a sports competition.


----------



## RobH

> *Football Association preparing bid to host 2030 World Cup*
> 
> *The Football Association is preparing a bid to host the 2030 World Cup, it has been announced.*
> 
> The governing body's board has agreed to conduct "feasibility work" on a potential bid.
> 
> If the bid is successful, 2030 would be the first World Cup in England for 64 years and the first major tournament for 34 years (the semi-finals and final of Euro 2020 are at Wembley).
> 
> One option is for a joint bid with the other home nations.
> 
> The UK government has said it would support a joint bid led by England.
> 
> Any bid would need to secure the nomination of UEFA and the support of a majority of FIFA's 211 member nations.
> 
> A final decision on whether to bid will be made next year.
> 
> ...
> 
> "Last month the English FA board agreed to conduct feasibility work into the possibility of putting itself forward to be UEFA's potential candidate to host the 2030 FIFA World Cup," said FA chairman Greg Clarke.
> 
> "This work will take place during the new season and no decision will be made until 2019."


https://news.sky.com/story/football-association-preparing-bid-to-host-2030-world-cup-11456539


----------



## cyril sneer

You can almost here the collective groans in South America at the prospect of an English/UK bid joining the bidding.


----------



## Colm Flynn

cyril sneer said:


> You can almost here the collective groans in South America at the prospect of an English/UK bid joining the bidding.


Why? this is going to the 100th anniversary of the first world cup so their is a 99% chance Uruguay-Argentina-Paraguay will get it. There is really no point anyone else bidding.


----------



## RobH

And of course, Athens famously hosted the 1996 Olympics when they bid for the Centenary Games.


----------



## Colm Flynn

RobH said:


> And of course, Athens famously hosted the 1996 Olympics when they bid for the Centenary Games.


Well even so, England or if it's a UK bid will never get the majority of countries vote for it. They should bid for Euro 2028, much better chance of getting that I reckon.


----------



## RobH

I'm surprised the North America 2026 bid won with as many votes as it did (134-65) given where the US is politically and the FBI's role in brining down the Blatter regime, but FIFA voters seemed to favour the better technical bid for 2026 nevertheless. I think that's a promising sign for England.


----------



## ElvisBC

it‘s coming home :wave:


----------



## CaliforniaJones

RobH said:


> I'm surprised the North America 2026 bid won with as many votes as it did (134-65) given where the US is politically and the FBI's role in brining down the Blatter regime, but FIFA voters seemed to favour the better technical bid for 2026 nevertheless. I think that's a promising sign for England.


And money talked also. FIFA voters chose the bid with the most potential profit.

I expect a big fight between English or British bid and Argentina-Paraguay-Uruguay bid.


----------



## isaidso

RobH said:


> I'm surprised the North America 2026 bid won with as many votes as it did (134-65) given where the US is politically and the FBI's role in brining down the Blatter regime, but FIFA voters seemed to favour the better technical bid for 2026 nevertheless. I think that's a promising sign for England.


That the WC was just in Russia speaks volumes.


----------



## pesto

isaidso said:


> That the WC was just in Russia speaks volumes.


Possibly but it may be more of a historic issue now that there is increased public exposure of illegal payments and unsavory deals. The FIFA technical review worked pretty well. They really should have simply rejected the Morocco bid, but politically felt some pressure to leave them in, which let the voters do their job. The only real problem was the African vote.

I would guess that two competent bids would slug it out on financial, quality of venue, infrastructure and creative staging, which is how it should work.


----------



## marokko

Colm Flynn said:


> Why? this is going to the 100th anniversary of the first world cup so their is a 99% chance Uruguay-Argentina-Paraguay will get it. There is really no point anyone else bidding.


Sorry to say, but symbolism or fan preference is worth little nowadays for FIFA. If South America wants to win, it has to show FIFA the dollars. Profitability in favor of FIFA seems to be a lot more important nowadays. Infantino is also in favor of countries that have the infrastructure ready
So I would really not be amazed if the South American bid loses early in the proces. Same apllies for a North Africa bid. In short, rich countries are favored for the event nowadays and I think a UK bid will definitely be a favorite, especially when UEFA supports it. Germany and England have probably already a deal too. England votes for UEFA 2024 for Germany, while Germany helps UK for WC 2030.


----------



## pesto

GEwinnen said:


> 2030 is Europe's turn, 99.99 % , host nation will be England or the UK entire.


So if I bet $1 and Argentina wins, you will give me $10k? I am willing to put $100 on that if you will put $1M in escrow for me. :lol:


----------



## Guest

GEwinnen said:


> 2030 is Europe's turn, 99.99 % , host nation will be England or the UK entire.


Personally I hope 2020 proves to be such a success that we get a pan-European WC bid. It's nice to dream


----------



## Vizemeister

Under the current FIFA rules China won't be eligible for 2030. Qatar will happen, if we like it or not. It's been 8 years since the decision and nothing has convinced me they will revoke the WC at this time, with just four years to go. So Asia/AFC is out for 2030. Chronologically South America should come first before another European WC.


----------



## RobH

FIFA changes its rules when it suits. :lol: If China wants to bid seriously, and if FIFA want a Chinese bid in the mix they'll change the rules so a Chinese bid _is_ in the mix. But you're right, under current rules, Asia isn't in the picture.

And ironically, for Australia, the only hope they might have of bidding is if China wants to. I can't see FIFA changing its rules for Australia. I can see them doing so for China.


----------



## afonso_bh

It will be in England or the UK. I have no doubts about it. 

And it will be great. Just imagine the atmosphere.


----------



## Knitemplar

afonso_bh said:


> It will be in England or the UK. I have no doubts about it.
> 
> And it will be great. Just imagine the atmosphere.


Says a Brazilian. Hmmm, I wonder why. hno: 

Sorry, but I think FIFA will give 2030 to the Arge-Guays bid. They'll need the UK bid to battle it out with China for 2034.


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> *FIFA changes its rules when it suits.* :lol: If China wants to bid seriously, and if FIFA want a Chinese bid in the mix they'll change the rules so a Chinese bid _is_ in the mix. But you're right, under current rules, Asia isn't in the picture.
> 
> And ironically, for Australia, the only hope they might have of bidding is if China wants to. I can't see FIFA changing its rules for Australia. I can see them doing so for China.


Yes. The rules are there as general guidelines. They are not ropes to tie FIFA's hands and cause them to miss-out on opportunities to make money and spread the game.

If necessary, you just change the rule, with retroactive effect if necessary.


----------



## ElvisBC

afonso_bh said:


> It will be in England or the UK. I have no doubts about it.
> 
> And it will be great. Just imagine the atmosphere.





Knitemplar said:


> Says a Brazilian. Hmmm, I wonder why. hno:
> 
> Sorry, but I think FIFA will give 2030 to the Arge-Guays bid. They'll need the UK bid to battle it out with China for 2034.


2018 had better overall atmosphere than 2014, and by far the best atmosphere was in 1990 closely followed by 2006, all other modern World Cups were far behind.

If it comes home in 2030 that might change!


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Will Morocco, Spain and Portugal submit a joint bid to host the 2030 World Cup ?



> The front-page topic of the press conference held in Rabat by the Royal Moroccan Football Federation (FRMF) and the Royal Spanish Football Federation (FREF) was a possible joint bid by Morocco and Spain to host the 2030 World Cup.


Press Article


----------



## RobH

pesto said:


> Yes. The rules are there as general guidelines. They are not ropes to tie FIFA's hands and cause them to miss-out on opportunities to make money and spread the game.
> 
> If necessary, you just change the rule, with retroactive effect if necessary.


The rule is in place as a compromise between spreading the world cup around and giving FIFA options and competition each bidding cycle. I think it's quite a good rule personally. It also has the added benefit of stopping overkeen bids like Madrid's 2016 Olympic bid - i.e. a pointless waste of money going for the edition after London 2012. It gives countries time to re-evaluate and stops places bidding non-stop. I don't think that's such a bad thing.

But even if you disagree, it's just typical of FIFA that they implement this rule (for al the reasons they state) then chang it when convenient. Nobody forced them to have it in the first place! :lol:


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> 2018 had better overall atmosphere than 2014, and by far the best atmosphere was in 1990 closely followed by 2006, all other modern World Cups were far behind.
> 
> If it comes home in 2030 that might change!


:lol: I would guess that it is hard for one individual to judge the enjoyment that each of several billion people had regarding a sporting event taking place in dozens of cities and hundreds of venues over the period of a century or so.


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> The rule is in place as a compromise between spreading the world cup around and giving FIFA options and competition each bidding cycle. I think it's quite a good rule personally. It also has the added benefit of stopping overkeen bids like Madrid's 2016 Olympic bid - i.e. a pointless waste of money going for the edition after London 2012. It gives countries time to re-evaluate and stops places bidding non-stop. I don't think that's such a bad thing.
> 
> But even if you disagree, it's just typical of FIFA that they implement this rule (for al the reasons they state) then chang it when convenient. Nobody forced them to have it in the first place! :lol:


Agree generally. It's useful in that it gives bidders the lay of the land as to FIFA priorities. 

But when the rule gets in the way of those priorities you change the rule, not the priorities. Neither sightlines or corner configurations or roofs or canopies or standing areas or public transit or anything else is going to affect the choice of stadiums if the money, PR, brand building and LT value proposition are strong.

This reminds me of when the NFL Rams had ended their lease in St. Louis and were considering leaving. Some people pointed out that there was some technicality in about the 7th page of NFL move guidelines that the Rams hadn't accomplished. They figured this was going to block the NFL from returning to the sports and entertainment capital of the world in a multi-billion dollar sports complex and thereby raising the team value by a couple of billion and the value of every team in the league (I am loosely quoting Jerry Jones and Roger Goodell here).


----------



## Mojeda101

It's only fitting for 2030 to go to Uruguay/Argentina.


----------



## ElvisBC

Africa might decide 2030 race ... same as they decided 2026! :colgate: 
Morocco might bid again, for the sake of continuity if nothing else, with or without Spain depending on what FIFA says, but the real race will be between UK and South America. IMHO, whoever gets african votes will win!

I seriously hope Morocco is going to abstain from bidding this time, we simply do not need another sick minds invasion here! Last time it ended in the worst possible way, closing the bidding thread.


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> :lol: I would guess that it is hard for one individual to judge the enjoyment that each of several billion people had regarding a sporting event taking place in dozens of cities and hundreds of venues over the period of a century or so.


trust me, you can judge that very easily if go there. 
enthusiasm level of the local crowd is immediately recognizable. in italy and in germany it was nearly ecstatic, in most of the other hosts enthusiastic at best! I was bit dissappointed by slightly dampened enthusiasm in brazil, guess they were too focused on their own team and much less on the tournament itself.

whoever you ask will tell you the same, as long as he was there!



pesto said:


> Agree generally. It's useful in that it gives bidders the lay of the land as to FIFA priorities.
> 
> But when the rule gets in the way of those priorities you change the rule, not the priorities. Neither sightlines or corner configurations or roofs or canopies or standing areas or public transit or anything else is going to affect the choice of stadiums if the money, PR, brand building and LT value proposition are strong.
> 
> This reminds me of when the NFL Rams had ended their lease in St. Louis and were considering leaving. Some people pointed out that there was some technicality in about the 7th page of NFL move guidelines that the Rams hadn't accomplished. They figured this was going to block the NFL from returning to the sports and entertainment capital of the world in a multi-billion dollar sports complex and thereby raising the team value by a couple of billion and the value of every team in the league (I am loosely quoting Jerry Jones and Roger Goodell here).


your best post ever .. took years to write something like that! :check:


----------



## zakizakari222

ElvisBC said:


> Africa might decide 2030 race ... same as they decided 2026! :colgate:
> Morocco might bid again, for the sake of continuity if nothing else, with or without Spain depending on what FIFA says, but the real race will be between UK and South America. IMHO, whoever gets african votes will win!
> 
> I seriously hope Morocco is going to abstain from bidding this time, we simply do not need another sick minds invasion here! Last time it ended in the worst possible way, closing the bidding thread.



Morocco wants again to bid with Spain but with or without Portugal.
FIFA already opposed the idea of a joint candidacy suggested before by Morocco and Spain and Portugal for 2026 arguing that the three countries are not on the same continent.... so why would Morocco think this time would be different. 
They are making a huge mistake for putting Algeria and Tunisia out of the picture. 
A joint Maghreb bid would be the serious one that can face the UK’s one..


----------



## Knitemplar

ElvisBC said:


> Africa might decide 2030 race ... same as they decided 2026! :colgate:
> 
> IMHO, whoever gets african votes will win!


Either way, whether Morocco in or out for 2030, it's hard to predict that Africa will vote as a bloc. Certainly, the ex-Commonwealth countries would be, safe to assume, vote for the UK; and the rest would go for their fellow-southern hemisphere bid, Argie-Guay. But then the Asian votes will also, likely be, all over the place. 

And if you went into a Round 2 of voting, then it's an even bigger unknown.


----------



## ElvisBC

zakizakari222 said:


> Morocco wants again to bid with Spain but with or without Portugal.
> FIFA already opposed the idea of a joint candidacy suggested before by Morocco and Spain and Portugal for 2026 arguing that the three countries are not on the same continent.... so why would Morocco think this time would be different.
> They are making a huge mistake for putting Algeria and Tunisia out of the picture.
> A joint Maghreb bid would be the serious one that can face the UK’s one..


because security was one of fundamental points in all their bids, with algeria and tunisia that one goes with the wind . . .


----------



## ElvisBC

Knitemplar said:


> Either way, whether Morocco in or out for 2030, it's hard to predict that Africa will vote as a bloc. Certainly, the ex-Commonwealth countries would be, safe to assume, vote for the UK; and the rest would go for their fellow-southern hemisphere bid, Argie-Guay. But then the Asian votes will also, likely be, all over the place.
> 
> And if you went into a Round 2 of voting, then it's an even bigger unknown.


if morocco takes part there will be round two, hard to imagine any other outcome


----------



## Knitemplar

zakizakari222 said:


> A joint Maghreb bid would be the serious one that can face the UK’s one..


I don't think so. The fact that the vote will be held in Doha just before that WC begins in Nov 2022, is a negative for a Morocco or joint Maghred bid. Non-Arab and non-African countries will say: well this is the Arab-African world's turn, why should we be back in eight years? So that will strengthen the UK and the So. American bids. 

Europe will NOT be solidly behind the UK. Because, what? A Pan-Scandinavian bid might want to challenge for 2034 -- so they would want 2030 away from Europe.


----------



## Voz Ibérica

pesto said:


> Bienvenidos! This is really an outstanding post, especially for the first time. Hope you keep up the high standard of quality!
> 
> Lots of questions, but a couple of key ones: are Spain and Morocco happy with each other's contributions to the joint bid? Morocco will presumably need only 4 or so stadiums but their construction will have to be well underway by the time the bids are being reviewed or they risk getting low scores. This could be seen as wasting a lot of time and money by Spain on a weak bid.
> 
> Is there concern that social issues in Morocco (gender issues, women's literacy, religious tolerance, low income levels) won't raise issues that the WC money could be better spent on other needs? Morocco is far poorer than any other serious bidder this year or in past years.


Hola Pesto
muchisimas gracias
pues, don't know how to begin
first, I don't remember once that we had considered morocco (poorer) as you qualified, by the way this is a very hard word that you use and it can influene minds, but mira, morocco has really a wonderful potential

second, morocco has good weather, spanish territories are inside moroccan area like ceuta, melilla y las islas canarias. in addition, there were some moroccan local teams that played in La Liga when Spain occupied the north of morocco.

No body can consider morocco as poor as you said, but it's a rich country that not well advertised, that's all. the major historical location in Spain were built by ancient moroccan civilisations ...

anyway, people of Spain know well the people of morocco. I don't see any fears on social side. may be the world cup can offer to morocco a chance to improve and change many things (like what we saw in russia)

I went to Tangiers stadiums this week to see la Super Copa between FC Barcelona and Sevilla and I can testify the high level of organization, I was really like home

morocco has more than 4 stadiums that have to be realyy improved but no need to build new ones, I think ... 

if Spain decides to bid, spanish fans will absolutely approve


----------



## pesto

Voz Ibérica said:


> Hola Pesto
> muchisimas gracias
> pues, don't know how to begin
> first, I don't remember once that we had considered morocco (poorer) as you qualified, by the way this is a very hard word that you use and it can influene minds, but mira, morocco has really a wonderful potential
> 
> second, morocco has good weather, spanish territories are inside moroccan area like ceuta, melilla y las islas canarias. in addition, there were some moroccan local teams that played in La Liga when Spain occupied the north of morocco.
> 
> No body can consider morocco as poor as you said, but it's a rich country that not well advertised, that's all. the major historical location in Spain were built by ancient moroccan civilisations ...
> 
> anyway, people of Spain know well the people of morocco. I don't see any fears on social side. may be the world cup can offer to morocco a chance to improve and change many things (like what we saw in russia)
> 
> I went to Tangiers stadiums this week to see la Super Copa between FC Barcelona and Sevilla and I can testify the high level of organization, I was really like home
> 
> morocco has more than 4 stadiums that have to be realyy improved but no need to build new ones, I think ...
> 
> if Spain decides to bid, spanish fans will absolutely approve


Very diplomatic. Morocco is poor and suffers from 3rd world levels of problems as can easily be verified. It has about 1/9th the per capita income of Spain. You can also read the World Cup thread in the Morocco section of this website (you can translate to Spanish). Some posters there feel very strongly that Morocco is wasting resources that could be used for education, irrigation, medical uses, housing, etc. 

Of course, as you say, there will be much less expenditure on new stadiums if Spain handles the bulk of the matches and tourists. But the issue could come up.

I do think that it could be a useful learning opportunity for Morocco.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

I found an idea of a logo for an eventual Morocco-Portugal-Spain bid.


----------



## RobH

_West?_ It's getting difficult to name these bids isn't it?!

I do think, if multiple host nations becomes the norm, FIFA will drop the names of the host nations from the name of the event. I definitely expect the 2026 edition will just be called 'FIFA World Cup 2026', not 'United 2026' as the bid was called. The logo will surely have an American/Canadian/Mexican fusion thing going on and might have the names of the host nation(s) listed below (see e.g. how the Rugby World Cup does it below), but I expect we'll hear less of e.g. "Germany 2006" in future and more "the FIFA World Cup 2026 hosted by..."


----------



## pesto

Sounds reasonable. The move away from national identity is one of the defining characteristics of "one world" social theory.


----------



## Knitemplar

CaliforniaJones said:


> I found an idea of a logo for an eventual Morocco-Portugal-Spain bid.


hno: 

West of what?? 

Have the 3 nations even spoken? hno: I thought FIFA already put the kibosh on this bizarre idea. 

If anything, why don't they include Gibraltar -- just to rib the UK bid? :eat:


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> hno:
> 
> West of what??
> 
> Have the 3 nations even spoken? hno: I thought FIFA already put the kibosh on this bizarre idea.
> 
> If anything, why don't they include Gibraltar -- just to rib the UK bid? :eat:


Spain and Morocco have spoken and an announcement will be coming soon if you believe the French/Arabic language threads. Portugal supposedly is less interested and not really needed given the number of stadiums in Spain. Morocco could provide a few without breaking the piggybank.

Gibraltar has no interest in joining for a variety of reason, but stands to benefit from tourism.


----------



## zakizakari222

pesto said:


> Spain and Morocco have spoken and an announcement will be coming soon if you believe the French/Arabic language threads. Portugal supposedly is less interested and not really needed given the number of stadiums in Spain. Morocco could provide a few without breaking the piggybank.
> 
> Gibraltar has no interest in joining for a variety of reason, but stands to benefit from tourism.


the latest Algerian reports are saying FIFA is pushing Morocco to bid with Spain
http://dia-algerie.com/mondial-2030-fifa-veut-pousser-maroc-vers-candidature-lespagne-portugal/

another Moroccan report is talking about Spain trying to add England to its bid with Morocco??? maybe they were talking about Gibraltar? 
http://www.lesiteinfo.com/sport/mondial-2030-vers-une-candidature-maroco-espagnole/

so it's official: NO MAGHREB BID FOR 2030's WC hno:
so can we expect a joint Algerian/Tunisian/Egyptian bid???


----------



## Knitemplar

pesto said:


> Spain and Morocco have spoken and an announcement will be coming soon if you believe the French/Arabic language threads. Portugal supposedly is less interested and not really needed given the number of stadiums in Spain. Morocco could provide a few without breaking the piggybank.
> 
> .


I guess Spain will NOT care that it will not get the Latin American votes for a venture such as this.


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> I guess Spain will NOT care that it will not get the Latin American votes for a venture such as this.


They might get some, but you would think that an Argentine bid would dominate Latin America in any event. The trade-off is getting Africa and parts of the Middle East assuming bids of roughly equal quality.


----------



## Knitemplar

pesto said:


> They might get some, but you would think that an Argentine bid would dominate Latin America in any event.


How do you not know that the Andean bid will not have a solid CONCACAF-CONMEBOL support?


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> How do you not know that the Andean bid will not have a solid CONCACAF-CONMEBOL support?


What Andean bid? Are you talking about Argentina and Uruguay? Otherwise, your question is very hard to read; is there a typo?


----------



## Knitemplar

pesto said:


> What Andean bid? Are you talking about Argentina and Uruguay? Otherwise, your question is very hard to read; is there a typo?


Yes. I believe I have seen it called like that as well.


----------



## marokko

zakizakari222 said:


> the latest Algerian reports are saying FIFA is pushing Morocco to bid with Spain
> http://dia-algerie.com/mondial-2030-fifa-veut-pousser-maroc-vers-candidature-lespagne-portugal/
> 
> another Moroccan report is talking about Spain trying to add England to its bid with Morocco??? maybe they were talking about Gibraltar?
> http://www.lesiteinfo.com/sport/mondial-2030-vers-une-candidature-maroco-espagnole/
> 
> so it's official: NO MAGHREB BID FOR 2030's WC hno:
> so can we expect a joint Algerian/Tunisian/Egyptian bid???


Nice articles, but I think that there is nothing official yet. The only thing we know is that Morocco will bid for sure for 2030. However it is not clear yet if it will be with Spain, Algeria, or alone. Spain seems to gain momentum though in the media, but nothing is official yet.


----------



## Knitemplar

How about 12 countries (from the 6 continents; so 2 a piece) hosting a joint bid? 

Oh wait, that means no men's WC's for the next 2 cycles! :nuts: 

Sounds like a good idea!! :cheers:


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> Yes. I believe I have seen it called like that as well.


It would be an odd name since Uruguay and Paraguay are not near the Andes and Argentina's population center is on the other side of the continent. 

In any event, I would imagine that Spain could get some support from LatAm but the support would be mostly for Argentina.


----------



## pesto

marokko said:


> Nice articles, but I think that there is nothing official yet. The only thing we know is that Morocco will bid for sure for 2030. However it is not clear yet if it will be with Spain, Algeria, or alone. Spain seems to gain momentum though in the media, but nothing is official yet.


Nothing has been announced, but it's rare for one side to let the other side negotiate with two parties at once, so I think it is likely that Morocco is talking seriously with only one possible partner and will only talk with others if those talks reach an impasse. 

Interesting to see what strategy is followed on the announcement of possible bids or if the bidders are happy to keep the rumor mills grinding away.


----------



## Voz Ibérica

pesto said:


> Very diplomatic. Morocco is poor and suffers from 3rd world levels of problems as can easily be verified. It has about 1/9th the per capita income of Spain. You can also read the World Cup thread in the Morocco section of this website (you can translate to Spanish). Some posters there feel very strongly that Morocco is wasting resources that could be used for education, irrigation, medical uses, housing, etc.
> 
> Of course, as you say, there will be much less expenditure on new stadiums if Spain handles the bulk of the matches and tourists. But the issue could come up.
> 
> I do think that it could be a useful learning opportunity for Morocco.


Hola

am not a politician to speack diplomatic

am a witness that say what he see.

anyway, I don't understand reason why you talk about morocco like this, but between elegance and arogance, I chose first way to share relevante information and get good feedback; you make me feel like you want to remove or erase morocco from earth  (just kidding)

have you ever been in morocco ? 

pues, people in spain talk more and more about 2030. I think the bidding is about to be released for soon (basically that was the initial proposal in bahrein congress but fifa refused because UEFA was not allowed to bid, and morocco wanted to make the exercice may be to upgrade itself for 2030 ... not sure, i say may be)

h' luego


----------



## pesto

Voz Ibérica said:


> Hola
> 
> am not a politician to speack diplomatic
> 
> am a witness that say what he see.
> 
> anyway, I don't understand reason why you talk about morocco like this, but between elegance and arogance, I chose first way to share relevante information and get good feedback; you make me feel like you want to remove or erase morocco from earth  (just kidding)
> 
> have you ever been in morocco ?
> 
> pues, people in spain talk more and more about 2030. I think the bidding is about to be released for soon (basically that was the initial proposal in bahrein congress but fifa refused because UEFA was not allowed to bid, and morocco wanted to make the exercice may be to upgrade itself for 2030 ... not sure, i say may be)
> 
> h' luego


It's not always good to openly share information, particularly if you are trying to guide public support. Every organization does this.

The issues with Morocco are very real. Again, the sports or Moorish Café threads under Morocco include many posters who are doubtful about why Morocco would waste money on sports when the economic situation is so poor and the profits would go to corrupt builders and politicians. 

I would strongly assume that the Spanish officials behind the potential bid are spending millions on getting public relations advice and they will address how to respond when the British newspapers publish stories day after day regarding malnutrition, women's rights, living conditions, corrupt politicians and construction companies, etc. This is very likely to happen just as in the last bid Moroccan supporters brought up Trump, racial violence in the US and the like as often as they could.

The point is that all sides have to look at the weaknesses of their bids as well as their strengths.


----------



## marokko

Voz Ibérica said:


> Hola
> 
> am not a politician to speack diplomatic
> 
> am a witness that say what he see.
> 
> anyway, I don't understand reason why you talk about morocco like this, but between elegance and arogance, I chose first way to share relevante information and get good feedback; you make me feel like you want to remove or erase morocco from earth  (just kidding)
> 
> have you ever been in morocco ?
> 
> pues, people in spain talk more and more about 2030. I think the bidding is about to be released for soon (basically that was the initial proposal in bahrein congress but fifa refused because UEFA was not allowed to bid, and morocco wanted to make the exercice may be to upgrade itself for 2030 ... not sure, i say may be)
> 
> h' luego


That was indeed the initial idea. Morocco wanted to bid for 2026 together with Spain, but FIFA didn't allow that due to their rotational system. Nice to hear that a lot of Spaniards would like to bid with Morocco for 2030. Moroccans seem also to get more and more positive about Spain . It could become a strong bid. Morocco and Spain can attract a lot of votes from Africa and Europe for example. Those two organizations represent basically half of the voting power at FIFA.

Morocco is indeed improving infrastructurally fast. Most people that visit the country are often amazed with the infrastructure for "such a poor country", especially in the larger cities like Casablanca, Marrakech, Rabat, Tangier, Agadir, etc. The mentioned cities above will be for example linked all to a TGV line for example. The first phase between Tangier and Casablanca will be openen this year for example. I am sure that Spain and Morocco could create a strong bid for 2030 that could compete against Uruguay/Argentina and the UK.


----------



## marokko

Voz Ibérica said:


> Hola
> 
> am not a politician to speack diplomatic
> 
> am a witness that say what he see.
> 
> anyway, I don't understand reason why you talk about morocco like this, but between elegance and arogance, I chose first way to share relevante information and get good feedback; you make me feel like you want to remove or erase morocco from earth  (just kidding)
> 
> have you ever been in morocco ?
> 
> pues, people in spain talk more and more about 2030. I think the bidding is about to be released for soon (basically that was the initial proposal in bahrein congress but fifa refused because UEFA was not allowed to bid, and morocco wanted to make the exercice may be to upgrade itself for 2030 ... not sure, i say may be)
> 
> h' luego


That was indeed the initial idea. Morocco wanted to bid for 2026 together with Spain, but FIFA didn't allow that due to their rotational system. Nice to hear that a lot of Spaniards would like to bid with Morocco for 2030. Moroccans seem also to get more and more positive about Spain . It could become a strong bid. Morocco and Spain can attract a lot of votes from Africa and Europe for example. Those two organizations represent basically half of the voting power at FIFA.

Morocco is indeed improving infrastructurally fast. Most people that visit the country are often amazed with the infrastructure for "such a poor country on paper", especially in the larger cities like Casablanca, Marrakech, Rabat, Tangier, Agadir, etc. The mentioned cities above will be for example linked all to a TGV line. The first phase between Tangier and Casablanca will open this year for example. Spain has already good football infrastructure. Therefore, I am sure that Spain and Morocco could create together a strong bid for 2030 that could compete against Uruguay/Argentina and the UK.


----------



## pesto

marokko said:


> That was indeed the initial idea. Morocco wanted to bid for 2026 together with Spain, but FIFA didn't allow that due to their rotational system. Nice to hear that a lot of Spaniards would like to bid with Morocco for 2030. Moroccans seem also to get more and more positive about Spain . It could become a strong bid. Morocco and Spain can attract a lot of votes from Africa and Europe for example. Those two organizations represent basically half of the voting power at FIFA.
> 
> Morocco is indeed improving infrastructurally fast. Most people that visit the country are often amazed with the infrastructure for "such a poor country", especially in the larger cities like Casablanca, Marrakech, Rabat, Tangier, Agadir, etc. The mentioned cities above will be for example linked all to a TGV line for example. The first phase between Tangier and Casablanca will be openen this year for example. I am sure that Spain and Morocco could create a strong bid for 2030 that could compete against Uruguay/Argentina and the UK.


I agree with this and Morocco should make sure to put completed stadiums and facilities on the ground in the 4 or so cities involved. It also should take action to protect itself against other possible criticisms. 

They could be a very strong contender if there is little for opponents to shoot at.


----------



## Knitemplar

marokko said:


> Those two organizations represent basically half of the voting power at FIFA.
> .


That's precisely WHY FIFA will *Not *allow the joint bid to proceed.


----------



## zakizakari222

*Algeria officially to submit a joint Euro-North African bid for the world cup 2030*

ALGERIA OFFICIALLY TO SUBMIT A JOINT EURO-NORTH AFRICAN BID FOR WORLD CUP 2030 
After the proposal of the UNAF during last night's meeting in Tunis to present a tripartite North African bid with cooperation with a European country 
Algeria is considering a joint bid with Morocco, Tunisia, and a neighboring European country (meanly Spain, France or Italy) during the next September according to the FAF president Zetchi 
With the need to consult the countries of the region and the approval of the CAF and its support for this trend.
SOURCES: 
https://www.ennaharonline.com/ملف-تنظيم-مونديال-2030-على-طاولة-الحكوم/
http://www.akherkhabaronline.com/ar/أخبار-متفرقة/77575/الجريء-يقترح-تنظيم-كأس-العالم-2030-بين-3-دول-تنتمي-لشمال-إفريقيا-ودولة-أوروبية-مجاورة-وعدم-اعتبار-هؤلاء-اللاعبين-أجانب-في-بطولات-المنطقة.html
https://www.tsa-algerie.com/mondial-2030-lunaf-propose-dinclure-un-pays-europeen-dans-la-candidature-maghrebine/


----------



## zakizakari222

ALGERIA-MOROCCO-TUNISA-SPAIN for WC2030?



zakizakari222 said:


> ALGERIA OFFICIALLY TO SUBMIT A JOINT EURO-NORTH AFRICAN BID FOR WORLD CUP 2030
> After the proposal of the UNAF during last night's meeting in Tunis to present a tripartite North African bid with cooperation with a European country
> Algeria is considering a joint bid with Morocco, Tunisia, and a neighboring European country (meanly Spain, France or Italy) during the next September according to the FAF president Zetchi
> With the need to consult the countries of the region and the approval of the CAF and its support for this trend.
> SOURCES:
> https://www.ennaharonline.com/ملف-تنظيم-مونديال-2030-على-طاولة-الحكوم/
> http://www.akherkhabaronline.com/ar/أخبار-متفرقة/77575/الجريء-يقترح-تنظيم-كأس-العالم-2030-بين-3-دول-تنتمي-لشمال-إفريقيا-ودولة-أوروبية-مجاورة-وعدم-اعتبار-هؤلاء-اللاعبين-أجانب-في-بطولات-المنطقة.html
> https://www.tsa-algerie.com/mondial-2030-lunaf-propose-dinclure-un-pays-europeen-dans-la-candidature-maghrebine/


so the latest reports are giving boosts to the Ibiro-Maghribian joint bid :banana:
this literally goes with what both parties want:
1- Morocco wants a bid with Spain 
2- Algeria wants a bid with Morocco and Tunisia 
and the latest UNAF proposal suggested Spain, Italy and France to be added to the Maghrebian bid... so i'm 200% sure we're going to see an Ibiro-Maghrebian bid :cheers:


----------



## pesto

"Ibiro-Maghrebian" may be my favorite new word. :lol: How about Franco-Italo-Maghrebian?

Now this may be too much of a good thing. Mor/Alg/Tu may be down to 1 or 2 stadiums each if Sp/Fr/It are involved. Will the locals suddenly turn realistic and accept that they aren't going to get the WC any time soon with the current facilities? Mexico and Canada grumbled about the 10 matches they were getting and it seems some countries would get fewer here.


----------



## zakizakari222

pesto said:


> "Ibiro-Maghrebian" may be my favorite new word. :lol: How about Franco-Italo-Maghrebian?
> 
> Now this may be too much of a good thing. Mor/Alg/Tu may be down to 1 or 2 stadiums each if Sp/Fr/It are involved. Will the locals suddenly turn realistic and accept that they aren't going to get the WC any time soon with the current facilities? Mexico and Canada grumbled about the 10 matches they were getting and it seems some countries would get fewer here.


sorry to disappoint you :bash:, but only one European country will be invited to the bid, Algeria is currently studying the posibilities and will likely try to get a seat for Spain in this project to get Morocco more hyped about it 
so if morocco accepted to be a part of this Algerian-leading joint bid then Spain is much likely to be the involved. 
but if Morocco and Spain wanted to go for it alone or with Portugal then Algeria will definitely bid with Tunisia and Egypt and turn to France or Italy on the European side.
and for the stadiums... this is a North African bid after all, its three bidding countries (which will be revealed next month in Cairo) will get the most stadiums and games, the European country is just a promotional use to sell the bid to FIFA and the European votes


----------



## pesto

zakizakari222 said:


> sorry to disappoint you :bash:, but only one European country will be invited to the bid, Algeria is currently studying the posibilities and will likely try to get a seat for Spain in this project to get Morocco more hyped about it
> so if morocco accepted to be a part of this Algerian-leading joint bid then Spain is much likely to be the involved.
> but if Morocco and Spain wanted to go for it alone or with Portugal then Algeria will definitely bid with Tunisia and Egypt and turn to France or Italy on the European side.
> and for the stadiums... this is a North African bid after all, its three bidding countries (which will be revealed next month in Cairo) will get the most stadiums and games, the European country is just a promotional use to sell the bid to FIFA and the European votes


For sure only 1 European country and I would assume that that would be Spain. Morocco is basically very near where they were: get Spain to invite them in or join in a N. African bid (not Maghreb if Egypt is in).


----------



## zakizakari222

pesto said:


> For sure only 1 European country and I would assume that that would be Spain. Morocco is basically very near where they were: get Spain to invite them in or join in a N. African bid (not Maghreb if Egypt is in).


Morocco is officially outside the circle of the UNAF's cooperation, and getting ready to announce its bid with Spain and Portugal the next few days. hno:
which open the file of the Algerian-Tunisian-Egyptian bid with another European country next September in Cairo. 
it all make sense now 

http://www.alyaoum24.com/1133647.html


----------



## Rokto14

zakizakari222 said:


> Morocco is officially outside the circle of the UNAF's cooperation, and getting ready to announce its bid with Spain and Portugal the next few days. hno:
> which open the file of the Algerian-Tunisian-Egyptian bid with another European country next September in Cairo.
> it all make sense now
> 
> http://www.alyaoum24.com/1133647.html


This would be the first time we would see at 4 nation bid for the FIFA WC if the Algerian-Tunisian-Egyptian bid going to add France or Italy to the bid , am I right to say this? :nuts:


----------



## pesto

Rokto14 said:


> This would be the first time we would see at 4 nation bid for the FIFA WC if the Algerian-Tunisian-Egyptian bid going to add France or Italy to the bid , am I right to say this? :nuts:


Yes. I think that 4 is about the limit. With 5 the negotiations, coordination, politics and risks of someone dropping out at the last minute become too great. But maybe if it's one big country and 4 smaller one then last minute changes can be absorbed.


----------



## zakizakari222

Rokto14 said:


> This would be the first time we would see at 4 nation bid for the FIFA WC if the Algerian-Tunisian-Egyptian bid going to add France or Italy to the bid , am I right to say this? :nuts:


Yes, but in fact Nigeria had originally hoped to bid jointly with West African neighbours Benin, Ghana, and Togo for World Cup 2010 but they weren't as hyped as Nigeria hno:


----------



## pesto

Some thoughts.

This really shows how seriously people are taking the FIFA encouragement of joint bids. If England goes it alone they are going to have a big problem. Even as the UK they will need a really solid bid.

As I have suggested before, until recently some large European countries (and their fans) were delusional about the quality of their stadiums. I think now it is sinking in that massive improvements are needed and that sticking to maybe 10 stadiums and letting someone else help is not a bad idea. 

With two bids from the Mediterranean, Arg/Ur must be very happy. With the African/S. Europe/Muslim vote split and the England or UK bid competing in Europe, Africa and Asia, the Arg/Ur advantage in the Americas could get them through the first round (assuming a bid with real facilities and real numbers).


----------



## zakizakari222

pesto said:


> Some thoughts.
> 
> This really shows how seriously people are taking the FIFA encouragement of joint bids. If England goes it alone they are going to have a big problem. Even as the UK they will need a really solid bid.
> 
> As I have suggested before, until recently some large European countries (and their fans) were delusional about the quality of their stadiums. I think now it is sinking in that massive improvements are needed and that sticking to maybe 10 stadiums and letting someone else help is not a bad idea.
> 
> With two bids from the Mediterranean, Arg/Ur must be very happy. With the African/S. Europe/Muslim vote split and the England or UK bid competing in Europe, Africa and Asia, the Arg/Ur advantage in the Americas could get them through the first round (assuming a bid with real facilities and real numbers).


I actually agree with you on so many points, 
England will not bid alone for sure 
and what we're sure about it also is that the voting will go for a second round, and maybe even a third one (Like the 2018/2022) but the Franco-North African bid looks a bit more serious than we think, getting the major support from the African, Arabian, Muslim and Francophone countries is like guaranteeing at least 70 votes (which is above the average numbers needed in front of at least 3 other bids) :cheers: and that's what the UNAF will work on the next month, they've been realistic during the last meeting, assuming that the 3 north african+1 european countries bid plan would be useless without gaining the support of the CAF


----------



## GunnerJacket

Guys, no more about politics. Stick to hosting logistics.


----------



## pesto

zakizakari222 said:


> I actually agree with you on so many points,
> England will not bid alone for sure
> and what we're sure about it also is that the voting will go for a second round, and maybe even a third one (Like the 2018/2022) but the Franco-North African bid looks a bit more serious than we think, getting the major support from the African, Arabian, Muslim and Francophone countries is like guaranteeing at least 70 votes (which is above the average numbers needed in front of at least 3 other bids) :cheers: and that's what the UNAF will work on the next month, they've been realistic during the last meeting, assuming that the 3 north african+1 european countries bid plan would be useless without gaining the support of the CAF


OK, leaving all politics aside, your numbers are too high given our lack of knowledge of what the bids will look like. Morocco got fewer than that against just one opponent in 2026. 

Facilities in place and the financials will be the keys. As some have noted, the UK right now has the best chances since the 2026 vote showed that technical superiority is what the great majority of voters focused in on, not politics or petty local issues.


----------



## zakizakari222

pesto said:


> OK, leaving all politics aside, your numbers are too high given our lack of knowledge of what the bids will look like. Morocco got fewer than that against just one opponent in 2026.
> 
> Facilities in place and the financials will be the keys. As some have noted, the UK right now has the best chances since the 2026 vote showed that technical superiority is what the great majority of voters focused in on, not politics or petty local issues.


we all admit that the UK's bid is the current best option out there not just in terms of financial, facilities and technical superiority but also for FIFA
BUT we are talking about Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt; three of the five best African countries, I really do not know how people from outside Africa see the influence of these countries on the African and Arabian scene
but Algeria and Egypt are petroleum countries, Two of the largest African economies, they spend billions of dollars on infrastructure and facilities, public services and the development of tourism
Tunisia is one of the biggest touristic and medical destinations in the Mediterranean and Africa... so this bid should not be taken lightly


----------



## zakizakari222

it seems like Cameroon is trying to bid too!!!!! the country is currently under fire for the late stadiums and facilities and almost got suspended from hosting the AFCON 2019 :shifty:

http://afrique.le360.ma/autres-pays/sports/2018/08/23/22540-mondial-2030-le-cameroun-candidat-22540


----------



## pesto

zakizakari222 said:


> we all admit that the UK's bid is the current best option out there not just in terms of financial, facilities and technical superiority but also for FIFA
> BUT we are talking about Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt; three of the five best African countries, I really do not know how people from outside Africa see the influence of these countries on the African and Arabian scene
> but Algeria and Egypt are petroleum countries, Two of the largest African economies, they spend billions of dollars on infrastructure and facilities, public services and the development of tourism
> Tunisia is one of the biggest touristic and medical destinations in the Mediterranean and Africa... so this bid should not be taken lightly


Some WC or Olympic bids are undertaken for the value of getting international recognition, which is always a goal of local tourist authorities. 

Egypt is in that category. I believe they are not seriously looking to host a WC; they are looking to recover just a bit from their disastrous tourist situation over the last years. I can’t see them getting to a position where they would compete against Argentina, the UK, Spain, etc., in terms of stadiums, hotels, health facilities, security, etc. 

But let’s see what they do in terms of real expenditures; that’s what really counts here.


----------



## pesto

zakizakari222 said:


> it seems like Cameroon is trying to bid too!!!!! the country is currently under fire for the late stadiums and facilities and almost got suspended from hosting the AFCON 2019 :shifty:
> 
> http://afrique.le360.ma/autres-pays/sports/2018/08/23/22540-mondial-2030-le-cameroun-candidat-22540


I would also put Cameroon in the category of bidders that need to show some stadiums, facilities, etc., before they are taken seriously. For now I would assume they are just trying to get some publicity.


----------



## Voz Ibérica

GunnerJacket said:


> Guys, no more about politics. Stick to hosting logistics.


you are just defending your friend el pesto
this muchacho comments like if he is the owner of this forum, the big boss of the FIFA rules, only him can give vision on what a WC should be like, only him gives himself the right to under estimate people and nations 

and you seem to be hurt when people remind you that USA won over an emergent country by politics instead of infrastructures. anyway, 2030 will be also a matter of politics.

when you help people suffering from arrogance, you are the same

but in the end : I wish we discuss only infrastructures, but only infrastructures : details, architectures, mesurement, positions, facilities, technologies ... regardless to politics or economics or even history and law issues >>> Only infrastructure

like, when we talk about egypt or camerron or so, just focus on facilities and let behind political and economical situation (forget also financial revenues, because 2026 will bring what make FIFA live many years)


----------



## pesto

Voz Ibérica said:


> you are just defending your friend el pesto
> this muchacho comments like if he is the owner of this forum, the big boss of the FIFA rules, only him can give vision on what a WC should be like, only him gives himself the right to under estimate people and nations
> 
> and you seem to be hurt when people remind you that USA won over an emergent country by politics instead of infrastructures. anyway, 2030 will be also a matter of politics.
> 
> when you help people suffering from arrogance, you are the same
> 
> but in the end : I wish we discuss only infrastructures, but only infrastructures : details, architectures, mesurement, positions, facilities, technologies ... regardless to politics or economics or even history and law issues >>> Only infrastructure
> 
> like, when we talk about egypt or camerron or so, just focus on facilities and let behind political and economical situation (forget also financial revenues, because 2026 will bring what make FIFA live many years)


LOL. From "bienvenidos" to "Say, what?" in three posts.

First, my posts were NOT political. They focused on having real financials and real stadiums in place if you expect to win. Others talked about how the Africa or Isalmic vote was going to split. I pointed out flaws in the reasoning and said that that was irrelevant based on how the 2026 voting went.

My comments on Egypt and Cameroon are not political either. I am not saying who is voting for them or who their friends and allies are. I am saying that their motivation for a bid is not to win but to attract public attention as a potential tourist destination. This is done quite frequently (Toronto, Hamburg, Budapest and many, many others had no chance of getting the Olympics, but WERE interested in associating their names with world class cities).


----------



## Voz Ibérica

_Some possible venues if Spain and Portugal decide to bid with Morocco :_

*New Camp Nou, Barcelona (planned starting 2021) :*




































*
New Santiago Bernabeu, Madrid (starting 2020) :*




























*New Mestalla, Valencia (need to restart, works are suspended, WC can be the opportunity to make it reborn)*

http://www.deportevalenciano.com/fi...estalla-s_54243749454_53389389549_600_396.jpg










*Wanda Metropolitanon, Madrid (recent) :*



















*Benito-VillamarÃ*n Stadium (Betis Sevilla) :*



















*San Mames Stadium, Bilbao*



















*Estadio de La Cartuja, Sevilla (must remove athletism track to rise capacity)*



















*Estadio Da Luz, Lisboa, Portugal*










*Sporting Lisboa Stadium*










*Porto Stadium*



















*Espanyol Barcelona Stadium*


----------



## GunnerJacket

Mod note: I'm responding to this post publicly so that my answers that apply to everyone can be read as such.



Voz Ibérica said:


> you are just defending your friend el pesto
> this muchacho comments like if he is the owner of this forum, the big boss of the FIFA rules, only him can give vision on what a WC should be like, only him gives himself the right to under estimate people and nations


My thoughts on Pesto are my own business, but as I'd wager he'll attest I've chided him or deleted posts of his plenty of times. He's also not the first, or likely the last, person to come into these forums and speak brashly. A degree of thick skin is required by everyone here because in our effort to let conversation flow everyone needs to remember that discussion threads will feature differing opinions, perspectives, tastes, etc. You're under no obligation to agree with others, but likewise they're under no obligation to agree with you. 

(To wit, Pesto, it would help if you wouldn't "feed the trolls" when topics drift off course, thank you very much.)



> and you seem to be hurt when people remind you that USA won over an emergent country by politics instead of infrastructures. anyway, 2030 will be also a matter of politics.


a) I don't agree with your assessment of the matter, but you're free to your opinion.
b) The nature of political discussion in these WC threads has been muted often because people have strayed from talking about the actual event or stadiums. In other words it became VERY personal to the point of derogatory comments, and that's not needed or welcome. Yes, politics plays a part in the bidding process and if you want to open a thread specific to that then do so, but within the Stadiums and Arenas section the discussion will keep to logistics. 



So everyone - If you find a post with which you find offensive then let me or another mod know and we will deal with it accordingly. Don't engage in a dialogue that will only foster more anger, personal comments, and/or off-topic stuff that will only detract from the thread. Thanks, and cheers.


----------



## Rokto14

^^ I doubt Portugal would want to be part of the WC bid with Spain and Morocco as they themselves wouldn't want to host the WC anytime soon. Spain can contribute more stadiums like La Romareda (Zaragoza), Anoeta (Real Sociedad), Martinez Valero (Elche), La Rosaleda (Malaga). Then Morocco will have less pressure to build new stadiums.


----------



## HDI 0.548

GunnerJacket said:


> Guys, no more about politics. Stick to hosting logistics.


You mean everyone but Pesto, right? I'm sure you will also delete this comment.


----------



## HDI 0.548

Voz Ibérica said:


> you are just defending your friend el pesto
> this muchacho comments like if he is the owner of this forum, the big boss of the FIFA rules, only him can give vision on what a WC should be like, only him gives himself the right to under estimate people and nations
> 
> )


Yes, other countries build stadia, he says they are not "democratic" or some other value system that should be imposed on the World. When America subsidises stadia construction, he avoids the topic. He can also talk down countries he obviously has zero clue about. He said China hates football yet their league attendance is highest in Asia and higher than many European countries. And his comments stand but those questioning him do not because mods have favorites.


----------



## pesto

HDI 0.548 said:


> Yes, other countries build stadia, he says they are not "democratic" or some other value system that should be imposed on the World. When America subsidises stadia construction, he avoids the topic. He can also talk down countries he obviously has zero clue about. He said China hates football yet their league attendance is highest in Asia and higher than many European countries. And his comments stand but those questioning him do not because mods have favorites.


Everything is 100 percent wrong here. You can't impose value systems; they need to be in the hearts and minds of the people and that takes decades or centuries to change, as can be seen by the continuation of archaic authoritarian institutions, racial/sexual/ethnic discrimination, etc.

I apply the same opinions to the US as anywhere else and oppose government subsidized stadiums completely. But it should be noted that in LA, for example, there are none. All privately controlled and funded.

I have never said anything even vaguely like China hates football. AFAIK it is the most popular sport there. But the record is clear that most Chinese have not made up their minds on what teams they are interested in. That is why the major leagues have focuses there, and individual UK, German, French, Spanish, etc., teams have strategies for establishing fan bases there.


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> Mod note: I'm responding to this post publicly so that my answers that apply to everyone can be read as such.
> 
> 
> My thoughts on Pesto are my own business, but as I'd wager he'll attest I've chided him or deleted posts of his plenty of times. He's also not the first, or likely the last, person to come into these forums and speak brashly. A degree of thick skin is required by everyone here because in our effort to let conversation flow everyone needs to remember that discussion threads will feature differing opinions, perspectives, tastes, etc. You're under no obligation to agree with others, but likewise they're under no obligation to agree with you.
> 
> (To wit, Pesto, it would help if you wouldn't "feed the trolls" when topics drift off course, thank you very much.)
> 
> a) I don't agree with your assessment of the matter, but you're free to your opinion.
> b) The nature of political discussion in these WC threads has been muted often because people have strayed from talking about the actual event or stadiums. In other words it became VERY personal to the point of derogatory comments, and that's not needed or welcome. Yes, politics plays a part in the bidding process and if you want to open a thread specific to that then do so, but within the Stadiums and Arenas section the discussion will keep to logistics.
> 
> 
> 
> So everyone - If you find a post with which you find offensive then let me or another mod know and we will deal with it accordingly. Don't engage in a dialogue that will only foster more anger, personal comments, and/or off-topic stuff that will only detract from the thread. Thanks, and cheers.


LOL. I have had plenty of run-ins with GunnerJacket. Mostly because I won't let absurd posts stand unchallenged. I have no problem when he erases both the offending post and my response to it.

I do not bring in politics. I stick to economic analysis and on what FIFA is focusing on: solid financials, joint bids, real stadiums, no white elephants, nothing that is going to get their name negatively plastered in the newspapers and internet as being wasteful, exploitative, discriminatory. For the last few years the process has moved in that direction and it will continue to develop with technical professionals, marketing professionals, analysts, auditors, etc., replacing the old guard in sports (and the world generally).


----------



## pesto

Rokto14 said:


> ^^ I doubt Portugal would want to be part of the WC bid with Spain and Morocco as they themselves wouldn't want to host the WC anytime soon. Spain can contribute more stadiums like La Romareda (Zaragoza), Anoeta (Real Sociedad), Martinez Valero (Elche), La Rosaleda (Malaga). Then Morocco will have less pressure to build new stadiums.


Sounds very reasonable and this is probably what is being negotiated right now. The United bid had complaints from all 3 countries that too many matches were being given to the other countries and I suspect that will be true of practically any joint bid. 

You might even call this the "two majors" issue: any timer there are two countries with many good stadiums, there is going to be significant friction over who's in. It's better to have one major and 1 or 2 smaller countries.


----------



## alserrod

Spain (Madrid city indeed) was sacked three times to host Olympics and guess Spain will avoid to host any main venue for a while. It was said that no money will be spent just to be candidate and known that a lot of lost money was lost.

This is, next time a main venue will be considered, I guess will try to prepare alone (not shared) and carefully, not considering just... "let's try next year to see if we reach"

Two weeks ago, Spanish supercup was hosted in Tangier. It was supposed that money came from FC Barcelona president who has affairs in Tangier harbour. 
It was first match from any Spanish competition out of Spain and organization and security standards were far away from Spanish stadiums. I reckon Spanish federation will prefer to organize alone instead of sharin a sort of standard.

This saturday it was quite strongly critisized that one stadium didn't fit with good green.


It is known League wanna play one official match in USA this season, not known which one and not known where... Players do not want, coachs do not say anything and last issue was.... let's care first about our stadiums and later talk about where to play.


As said previously, in Spain you can find several big stadiums. The only hint remaining is not enough over 50K. It is due that some medium cities have gone to second division, small cities have some teams in first division with pretty but small stadiums and just can see big and new stadiums in six-seven cities.

But surely with a little investment you could enlarge some of them to reach 50K. Let's remember that a lot of cities are joined with HSL and a team could have a "base" and move in railway to any city to play, have a night there and back to headquarter


----------



## pesto

alserrod said:


> Spain (Madrid city indeed) was sacked three times to host Olympics and guess Spain will avoid to host any main venue for a while. It was said that no money will be spent just to be candidate and known that a lot of lost money was lost.
> 
> This is, next time a main venue will be considered, I guess will try to prepare alone (not shared) and carefully, not considering just... "let's try next year to see if we reach"
> 
> Two weeks ago, Spanish supercup was hosted in Tangier. It was supposed that money came from FC Barcelona president who has affairs in Tangier harbour.
> It was first match from any Spanish competition out of Spain and organization and security standards were far away from Spanish stadiums. I reckon Spanish federation will prefer to organize alone instead of sharin a sort of standard.
> 
> This saturday it was quite strongly critisized that one stadium didn't fit with good green.
> 
> 
> It is known League wanna play one official match in USA this season, not known which one and not known where... Players do not want, coachs do not say anything and last issue was.... let's care first about our stadiums and later talk about where to play.
> 
> 
> As said previously, in Spain you can find several big stadiums. The only hint remaining is not enough over 50K. It is due that some medium cities have gone to second division, small cities have some teams in first division with pretty but small stadiums and just can see big and new stadiums in six-seven cities.
> 
> But surely with a little investment you could enlarge some of them to reach 50K. Let's remember that a lot of cities are joined with HSL and a team could have a "base" and move in railway to any city to play, have a night there and back to headquarter


A lot of good points. Among the changes for FIFA (and the IOC) is respect for the opinions of the local public, not just the elites who put together the bids. The IOC specifically includes public support as a gating factor for bidders, since the public can best say whether the costs are something they want to absorb. It will be interesting to see what specific spending will be proposed by Spain, assuming it ends up making a bid because you want the best stadiums possible competing but with an eye for costs and continuing usefulness.

It seems likely that there will be differences in stadium quality, security, fire or crowd safety, amenities, etc., when multiple countries are involved. I would expect that those discussions could get ugly since every stadium selected means one that was NOT selected.


----------



## alserrod

Should it be in Spain (as said, not interested by Federation), nowadays:

*Barcelona, 99.300*










Project (to be payed by club), 120.000 seats











*Madrid, 81.000 seats*











to be enlarged to 84.000 with 13M€ payed by club











Madrid, 67.000 seats (opened in 2017, the most recent stadium)












Valencia , 61.500 HALTED










nowadays they have a 49.500 seats stadium










It has hosted several Spanish cups in the last years (current stadium, 49,5K)


Seville, 60.700 seats











A picture about when it was under enlargement some years ago













Seville, 57.500 seats (stadium without team playing nowadays, could delete athletics track if needed)











Barcelona 55.500 seats

Without team nowadays. It was 1992 Olympic stadium and hosted Espanyol for a while since they demolished previous stadium and built a new one











Bilbao 53.500 seats
Enlarged in 2013, known as "the cathedral" in Spanish football.

Will host matches in eurocup 2020










and a nice picture about how it was done that enlargement












In these stadiums you can prepare tomorrow any tournament without zero investment.


In addition there are a lot of 30K-40K nice stadiums. As said, there are a lot of small-medium cities with teams in first league recently which have refurbished their stadiums but doesn't fit with 50K obviously.


This summer

San Sebastian










La Coruña (this year will be in second league)











Huesca










(it is the smallest in first league. First time in history this city is in first league, they enlarged till 7500 because it is a 50000 people city. Yesterday the tied with Bilbao after being 2-0 in minute 70 and seems they do not go on party in first league, a serious team but small budget).



should FIFA (or UEFA) allow 40K stadiums or less number of them, enough to start tomorrow. Nowadays, some kind of tournament could be hosted in these stadiums, some of them five stars for UEFA, hosted international matches and venues.


----------



## zakizakari222

*Algeria's new stadiums and venues that are under construction, renovation or planned:
**1- Baraki Stadium in Algiers: 40,000 (under construction) will be opened next year*
































































*2- La Douera Stadium, Algiers: 40,000 (under construction) will be opened in 2022* 
























*3- Chraga Stadium: 120,000 (under renovationl) will be reopened in 2024 
*
























































*4- Tizi Ouzou Stadium: 50,000 (under construction) will be opened in 2019 
*
































*5- Setif New Stadium: 50,000 (under construction) will be opened in 2022 for the CHAN2022 
*]
















*6- Batna Stadium: 40,000 (in progress) 
*
















Constantine Stadium; 60,000 (In progress) 
























*7- Bejaia Stadium: 40,000 (Planned) 
*








*8- Moustaganem Stadium; 50,000 (Project) 
*
















*9- Oran Stadium: 40,000 (under construction) will be opened in 2019
*


----------



## alserrod

The issue is FIFA accepts only 50K stadiums which it is weird. In some last WC matches, sometimes foreing attendance was about 10K and rest of people were local. Some medium cities have pretty tiny stadiums, much better than those old big stadiums in other cities... but not accepted.

When I wrote list, full of them are built (except one of them but stadium to be replaced has hosted several cups and is over 50K too) and requires no investment.

Should FIFA set 40K barrier, list will be longer

In addition, all of them are connected to HSL net except Bilbao which it is under works. Can move corner to corner in 4 hours (1.000ish km) by train centre to centre


----------



## zakizakari222

alserrod said:


> The issue is FIFA accepts only 50K stadiums which it is weird. In some last WC matches, sometimes foreing attendance was about 10K and rest of people were local. Some medium cities have pretty tiny stadiums, much better than those old big stadiums in other cities... but not accepted.
> 
> When I wrote list, full of them are built (except one of them but stadium to be replaced has hosted several cups and is over 50K too) and requires no investment.
> 
> Should FIFA set 40K barrier, list will be longer
> 
> In addition, all of them are connected to HSL net except Bilbao which it is under works. Can move corner to corner in 4 hours (1.000ish km) by train centre to centre


I really consider Spain as one of the best countries around the globe when it comes to hosting global events for the readiness of its infrastructure and facilities, we've seen that in the pictures you have posted guys, and funny how you mentioned Bilbao cause it's literally my favorite Spanish city 
and I assume that you had Algeria is building 10 new stadiums and renovating 6 others and all of them are above FIFA's barrier of capacity and quality, and what's more important is that these stadiums are placed to be connected to the center of the cities, airports and hotels and has its own training sites, Algeria is establishing metro in two cities, the first African and Arabian country to have two metro lines in two different cities, and tram lines in 21 states more than any other country in the continent you can check it here: http://www.metroalger-dz.com/fr/carte_projet.php
and here's an example for (my personal favorite) new stadium of Constantine, you can notice how the sports park is connected to the airport and the main town: 
http://www.mconstructions.pl/architektura/sportowe/12/content/img/galeria/001.jpg


----------



## alserrod

Sometimes FIFA has some rules or prodedures that are a nightmare.

Russia and Qatar were chosen at same time. Someone said that one cook hint in Qatar was to have so close each stadium.
Did they think the same about Russia?. What about Canada-USA-Mexico?

Sometimes I do not know if it is politic issue or money issue (for instance, it is known that for European Champion's league, final match must be hosted in a five star stadium ** but Supercup in August are hosted in middle-small stadiums in countries without strong teams or leagues to send football there)

** Next final will be hosted in the second Madrid stadium hosted. That one opened in 2017.


I guess that politics interest too much. Last time Spain was bidding for an Eurocup, it wasn't hosted, and where it was, half of stadiums had to be enlarged or refurbished and communications had to improve too much. 
Anyway, there's a fact... they reached sending football there because they got a new country fighting in all main tournaments making more interesting competitions (one more country to play in main tournaments and be considered as quite serious). That tournament wasn't hosted in a country with best dossier but they reached changing football in the continent.

Thus... there's a relative issue of decission there.

I spotted all over 50K stadiums ready in Spain today (one of them missing but alternative in the same city. Team is playing in the old stadium and it shouldn't be so bad as far as it has hosted several Spanish Cup in the recent past years). Considering over 40K, I reckon that almost all FIFA requirements are ready without spending any cent. Almost all cities are joined (or planned to be joined anyway) by high speed railway, have airports and commodities for it...

but today Spain is not interested in bidding. Maybe because lacked (and last time with a serious dossier and an awful presentation to laugh about who faced COI) three times for Olympics... but not interested
More... Spain has hosted main WC for other sports in the last decade: basketball, swimming, handball (there was a SSC banner from my homecity pavilion when inauguration) and so on

in addition, I guess that if we find among main European leagues plus Argentina, you will find stadiums to host a WC next week if you want (and Brazil, obviously as main league... but it is known they have cos they hosted four years ago).

The issue is... what does FIFA wanna?

In a Morocco-Spain match played in the second major stadium in Russia, only 11000 were foreing. The rest of attendance was local. That means you shift Russia for any other corner in the world and seems it doesn't matter if you have the match in a huge stadium or a small and cute stadium. Foreing supporters could have seat and the rest of tickets for local people. Enough.

therefore, I guess that, having stadiums and facilities, any country could host a WC. It is not so hard. It is not like Olympics, were you may have attendance for more than 10.000 athletes and their families and commitees for two weeks and so many sports at same time.

We are talking about having 12 stadiums (enought capacity), good communications and facilities.

Planes shouldn't be a problem. In Russia it was almost mandatory for several cities. In Brazil too (is there any other way to reach Manaos?). In South Africa, partially, some distances by bus but mainly plane. Germany could be by train or bus depending of distance between two correlative matches. Korea-Japan, between countries enough bus but to play Final one country had to move to another one. Italy hosted in all cities. Sometimes enough by bus (so close) but they had matches in both main islands and so on.



Finally, I guess FIFA has so many issues that will accept any dossier and consider several relative issues

For instance:

- is economy global in that country?. this is... it is not the same choosing a country with a currency that you go to a bank near your home and you change for cash that a country that you must change in arrival because forbidden to export cash (sometimes I think about it... if all countries do that, impossible to travel with money). How much money is payed by cash or by card in the country?

- are stadiums ready before sending dossier?. I guess they will wanna avoid to build another stadium in the middle of forest like in Brazil and empty after WC

and some other issues


I guess that a lot of countries could work to reach it but should have to start improving local football (and filling stadiums each week). 
FIFA will understand you have half of stadiums with 40K and need to enlarge but it is different if you say that they are so old or so small that you must built most of them new.


----------



## pesto

alserrod said:


> The issue is FIFA accepts only 50K stadiums which it is weird. In some last WC matches, sometimes foreing attendance was about 10K and rest of people were local. Some medium cities have pretty tiny stadiums, much better than those old big stadiums in other cities... but not accepted.
> 
> When I wrote list, full of them are built (except one of them but stadium to be replaced has hosted several cups and is over 50K too) and requires no investment.
> 
> Should FIFA set 40K barrier, list will be longer
> 
> In addition, all of them are connected to HSL net except Bilbao which it is under works. Can move corner to corner in 4 hours (1.000ish km) by train centre to centre


Two very impressive sets of stadiums! I assume the UK and Arg/Ur will provide some excellent facilities as well.

It's going to be interesting. I can easily foresee a situation where all stadiums and facilities are in good shape and roughly equivalent. Then financial issues and security issues become even more important. Beyond that human rights environment and other social issues have some role.

Just as a side, why take the train? Spain has an excellent air system connecting major cities.


----------



## ElvisBC

alserrod said:


> Sometimes FIFA has some rules or prodedures that are a nightmare.
> 
> Russia and Qatar were chosen at same time. Someone said that one cook hint in Qatar was to have so close each stadium.
> Did they think the same about Russia?. What about Canada-USA-Mexico?
> 
> Sometimes I do not know if it is politic issue or money issue (for instance, it is known that for European Champion's league, final match must be hosted in a five star stadium ** but Supercup in August are hosted in middle-small stadiums in countries without strong teams or leagues to send football there)
> 
> ** Next final will be hosted in the second Madrid stadium hosted. That one opened in 2017.
> 
> 
> I guess that politics interest too much. Last time Spain was bidding for an Eurocup, it wasn't hosted, and where it was, half of stadiums had to be enlarged or refurbished and communications had to improve too much.
> Anyway, there's a fact... they reached sending football there because they got a new country fighting in all main tournaments making more interesting competitions (one more country to play in main tournaments and be considered as quite serious). That tournament wasn't hosted in a country with best dossier but they reached changing football in the continent.
> 
> Thus... there's a relative issue of decission there.
> 
> I spotted all over 50K stadiums ready in Spain today (one of them missing but alternative in the same city. Team is playing in the old stadium and it shouldn't be so bad as far as it has hosted several Spanish Cup in the recent past years). Considering over 40K, I reckon that almost all FIFA requirements are ready without spending any cent. Almost all cities are joined (or planned to be joined anyway) by high speed railway, have airports and commodities for it...
> 
> but today Spain is not interested in bidding. Maybe because lacked (and last time with a serious dossier and an awful presentation to laugh about who faced COI) three times for Olympics... but not interested
> More... Spain has hosted main WC for other sports in the last decade: basketball, swimming, handball (there was a SSC banner from my homecity pavilion when inauguration) and so on
> 
> in addition, I guess that if we find among main European leagues plus Argentina, you will find stadiums to host a WC next week if you want (and Brazil, obviously as main league... but it is known they have cos they hosted four years ago).
> 
> The issue is... what does FIFA wanna?
> 
> In a Morocco-Spain match played in the second major stadium in Russia, only 11000 were foreing. The rest of attendance was local. That means you shift Russia for any other corner in the world and seems it doesn't matter if you have the match in a huge stadium or a small and cute stadium. Foreing supporters could have seat and the rest of tickets for local people. Enough.
> 
> therefore, I guess that, having stadiums and facilities, any country could host a WC. It is not so hard. It is not like Olympics, were you may have attendance for more than 10.000 athletes and their families and commitees for two weeks and so many sports at same time.
> 
> We are talking about having 12 stadiums (enought capacity), good communications and facilities.
> 
> Planes shouldn't be a problem. In Russia it was almost mandatory for several cities. In Brazil too (is there any other way to reach Manaos?). In South Africa, partially, some distances by bus but mainly plane. Germany could be by train or bus depending of distance between two correlative matches. Korea-Japan, between countries enough bus but to play Final one country had to move to another one. Italy hosted in all cities. Sometimes enough by bus (so close) but they had matches in both main islands and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, I guess FIFA has so many issues that will accept any dossier and consider several relative issues
> 
> For instance:
> 
> - is economy global in that country?. this is... it is not the same choosing a country with a currency that you go to a bank near your home and you change for cash that a country that you must change in arrival because forbidden to export cash (sometimes I think about it... if all countries do that, impossible to travel with money). How much money is payed by cash or by card in the country?
> 
> - are stadiums ready before sending dossier?. I guess they will wanna avoid to build another stadium in the middle of forest like in Brazil and empty after WC
> 
> and some other issues
> 
> 
> I guess that a lot of countries could work to reach it but should have to start improving local football (and filling stadiums each week).
> FIFA will understand you have half of stadiums with 40K and need to enlarge but it is different if you say that they are so old or so small that you must built most of them new.


simple answer: money, money and nothing but the money! power is fine as well, but money comes first!!

about the rules, they do exist but are changed accordingly to what brings the most money! simple again!!!


----------



## alserrod

pesto said:


> Just as a side, why take the train? Spain has an excellent air system connecting major cities.


Because it has a more excellent railway network. There are charts about how movements have been done point to point by plane or by train (in number of passengers) each year. There are someones where plane still wins but main one, Madrid-Barcelona is 55-45 more or less, winning train.

One train every hour, half an hour in peak hours, can take 2h20m to 2h45m depending of number of intermediate calls to go from Madrid to Barcelona. And... city centre to city centre, not airport to airport. This is, underground, commuter or taxi and several minutes and you are in a stadium. Nou Camp is just three underground stations away from central station in Barcelona for instance.

Boarding is so simple. Required two minutes in advance and can calculate easy how long it takes you to reach station. Nothing about being with more than 1h in advance, delayed, boarding and getting out, baggage claiming, reaching for a taxi to go to city centre... it has been calculated that any journey lower to 3h is faster by train than by plane (providing you are hosted in a hotel in city centre and wanna go to anywhere in city centre in destination).

In addition there are some more advantages:
- train make intermediate calls. Some of them can be in medium size (or small size) cities. These cities will be linked to a lot of destination with a huge transport system. It is easy to ask for a plane Barcelona-Madrid but should you are 100 km south Barcelona and wanna go 150 km south to Madrid you have a direct train point to point with some intermediate calls that takes more or less the same than plane but, no plane options and avoid to go to nearest airports
- in a train you run up to 320 km/h and no need to fasten your seat belt, can have lunch (included if business), walk along the train (no need to stay for several hours sit down), go and stay in a cafeteria, plug your devices (new trains have plugs even in economic class and old trains are being refurbished to have it), use your mobile as much as you want (except in a long tunnel, obviously). No need Flight mode. Can call, receive messages, connect to network and charge your device as much as you want
PS. Last week I took a 3h flight and felt I was fit in a can. I took later a 1h15m train in economic class and seemed it was better, by far, than business in plane


Nowadays in Spain there are HSL:
Madrid-Valladolid-Leon (to have a branch in next year to Burgos and later to have Miranda-Bilbao/San Sebastian)
Madrid-Barcelona-Perpignan
Madrid-Alicante/Valencia-Castellon (Villarreal stadium too)
Madrid-Cordoba-Seville/Malaga (and building to Granada)
Madrid-Zamora (to be enlarged to Galicia, Orense/Vigo-Santiago-La Coruña is operating)
u/c Tarragona (coming from Barcelona)-Castellon (to continue to Valencia)

thus... Barcelona-Seville takes 4h and the rest of cities pointed (and some of them with 40K stadiums) are connected with less journey time


seven years ago, in basketball WC, train operator was sponsor, thus all journeys were done by train (except those from Canary islands where one group was hosted).


----------



## CaliforniaJones

World Cup 2030: FAW holds talks over home nations World Cup bid



> FAW chief executive Jonathan Ford believes the joint proposal would be "strong and compelling".
> 
> Discussions are ongoing and no decision on whether to press ahead with plans will be made until "well into 2019", but Ford confirmed there is set to be a feasibility study into the prospect.





> "The reality is for countries like Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, it's always going to be a case of having to do it in partnership with another, and the logical partner for us would be England," added Ford.
> 
> "You need a lot of stadia now; of course, the structure of the competition has changed - you need 16 40,000-seater stadia.
> 
> "Of course, we have a fantastic stadium with the Principality Stadium and we'd love to be there, but there's a lot of discussions to be had."
> 
> Asked whether the potential bid would include all four home nations, Ford said: "All of the discussions are still being had, so there's a lot of wait and see."


BBC News


----------



## zakizakari222

*2030 World Cup Bids & Plans so far*

*Confirmed Bids per Confederation: 
*

*CONMEBOL*
Confirmed: 
1- Uruguay_Argentina_Paraguay 

Expressed Interest 
2- Chile 

*CAF/UEFA*
Confirmed: 
1- Morocco (pending on Spain, Portugal) 

In Progress 
2- UNAF/Algerian Suggested Bid: Three North African Countries+European Country 
(Algeria [pending on Tunisia, Egypt+France or Italy])-originally was pending on Tunisia, Morocco and Spain) 

*CAF*
In progress: 
3- Cameeron (pending on Nigeria and another sub-sahel country) 
4- Egypt

*UEFA*
Confirmed: 
1- United Kingdom (England, Wiles, Scotland, Northern Ireland) 

Interested/Suggested: 
2- Belgium_Netherlands 
3- Greece_Cyprus_Israel 
4- Poland_Bulgaria_Czech_Slovakia 

*AFC*
Interested: 
1- South Korea (pending on North Korea, China and Japan) 
2- China (mainly will bid for the 2034 edition)


----------



## pesto

alserrod said:


> Because it has a more excellent railway network. There are charts about how movements have been done point to point by plane or by train (in number of passengers) each year. There are someones where plane still wins but main one, Madrid-Barcelona is 55-45 more or less, winning train.
> 
> One train every hour, half an hour in peak hours, can take 2h20m to 2h45m depending of number of intermediate calls to go from Madrid to Barcelona. And... city centre to city centre, not airport to airport. This is, underground, commuter or taxi and several minutes and you are in a stadium. Nou Camp is just three underground stations away from central station in Barcelona for instance.
> 
> Boarding is so simple. Required two minutes in advance and can calculate easy how long it takes you to reach station. Nothing about being with more than 1h in advance, delayed, boarding and getting out, baggage claiming, reaching for a taxi to go to city centre... it has been calculated that any journey lower to 3h is faster by train than by plane (providing you are hosted in a hotel in city centre and wanna go to anywhere in city centre in destination).
> 
> In addition there are some more advantages:
> - train make intermediate calls. Some of them can be in medium size (or small size) cities. These cities will be linked to a lot of destination with a huge transport system. It is easy to ask for a plane Barcelona-Madrid but should you are 100 km south Barcelona and wanna go 150 km south to Madrid you have a direct train point to point with some intermediate calls that takes more or less the same than plane but, no plane options and avoid to go to nearest airports
> - in a train you run up to 320 km/h and no need to fasten your seat belt, can have lunch (included if business), walk along the train (no need to stay for several hours sit down), go and stay in a cafeteria, plug your devices (new trains have plugs even in economic class and old trains are being refurbished to have it), use your mobile as much as you want (except in a long tunnel, obviously). No need Flight mode. Can call, receive messages, connect to network and charge your device as much as you want
> PS. Last week I took a 3h flight and felt I was fit in a can. I took later a 1h15m train in economic class and seemed it was better, by far, than business in plane
> 
> 
> Nowadays in Spain there are HSL:
> Madrid-Valladolid-Leon (to have a branch in next year to Burgos and later to have Miranda-Bilbao/San Sebastian)
> Madrid-Barcelona-Perpignan
> Madrid-Alicante/Valencia-Castellon (Villarreal stadium too)
> Madrid-Cordoba-Seville/Malaga (and building to Granada)
> Madrid-Zamora (to be enlarged to Galicia, Orense/Vigo-Santiago-La Coruña is operating)
> u/c Tarragona (coming from Barcelona)-Castellon (to continue to Valencia)
> 
> thus... Barcelona-Seville takes 4h and the rest of cities pointed (and some of them with 40K stadiums) are connected with less journey time
> 
> 
> seven years ago, in basketball WC, train operator was sponsor, thus all journeys were done by train (except those from Canary islands where one group was hosted).


I agree that Madrid is in the middle and just about the right distance for trains to many cities. The real competition there is not air but cars, which offer greater flexibility and price (assuming 3 or more people). 

By air: Barcelona to Bilbao: 75 min., $36. By train over 6 hrs., assuming everything goes well. I have made the RT for business in Bilbao several times and never had to leave my Barcelona hotel.

But, hey, to each his own. The more transit modalities the better (assuming they are not subsidized).


----------



## bongo-anders

If Great Britain should bid I could see these options as realistic.

*Northern Ireland*

Belfast 25.000 - temporary 35.000 (newbuild)

*Wales* 

Cardiff 74.500

Swansea 30-35.000 - temporary 40.000 (extension)

*Scotland*

Edinburgh 67.000

Glasgow 60.000
Glasgow 50.000


*England*

London 90.000
London 62.000
London 60.000

Manchester 90.000-95.000 (extension)
Manchester 60.000 (extension)

Liverpool 60.000-70.000 (extension)

Newcastle 52.000

Sunderland 64.000 (extension)

Birmingham 50.000 (newbuild for Aston Villa)
Birmingham 40.000-50.000 (extension for Wolverhampton)

Leeds 45.000 (newbuild)


If London, Birmingham, Manchester or Glasgow should loose one of their stadiums to distribute the stadiums better, then these cities could get a 40.000-45.000 stadium (either permanent or temporary capacity)

Southampton
Portsmouth
Sheffield
Hull
Aberdeen (probably only 35.000 with temporary seats.)


Opening game at Old Trefford.

Semifinals at Old Trefford and Principality stadium.

Final at Wembley.


----------



## Harry1990

I think a British Isles bid using the 4 UK home nations and the republic of Ireland would be amazing (The island of Great Britain and the Island of Ireland)

*Rep of Ireland*
Dublin
Croke Park (73,500)
Aviva Stadium (51,700) 

Northern Ireland
Belfast
Windsor Park (18434 temporary expansion to 40000)

Wales


Cardiff
Principality Stadium (74,500)

Swansea
Liberty Stadium (21,088 expansion to 40-45k)

Scotland

Edinburgh
Murrayfield (67,144)

Glasgow
2 of 
Celtic Park (60,411)
Hampden (51,866)
Ibrox (50,817)

England

London 
2 or 3 of
Wembley (90000)
Olympic Stadium (66000)
NWHL (62,062)
Emirates (60,432)
Stamford bridge (41,841 to around 60k)

Midlands
2 or 3 out of
Villa Park (42,573 expansion to 50-60k)
Molineux (31,700 expansion to 50-60k)
Pride park (33,597 expansion to 40-45k)
King Power stadium (32,500 expansion to 45-50k)
New Nottingham Forest stadium (40-50K)
Yorkshire
1 of 
Elland Road (37,890 expansion to 55-60k)
Hillsbrough (39,732 expansion to 45-50k)

Lancashire

Old Trafford (75,731 expansion to 88000)
Etihad Stadium (55,097 expansion to 61000)
Anfield (54,074 expansion to 60-65k)
New everton stadium (55-60k)

North East
St James' Park (52,404 expansion to 60000)
Stadium of light (49000)

South/South east of England
1 of 
St Marys Stadium (32,689 to 40-45k)
Amex stadium (30,750 to 40k)
New Bristol Stadium (40k)


----------



## pesto

zakizakari222 said:


> *Confirmed Bids per Confederation:
> *
> 
> *CONMEBOL*
> Confirmed:
> 1- Uruguay_Argentina_Paraguay
> 
> Expressed Interest
> 2- Chile
> 
> *CAF/UEFA*
> Confirmed:
> 1- Morocco (pending on Spain, Portugal)
> 
> In Progress
> 2- UNAF/Algerian Suggested Bid: Three North African Countries+European Country
> (Algeria [pending on Tunisia, Egypt+France or Italy])-originally was pending on Tunisia, Morocco and Spain)
> 
> *CAF*
> In progress:
> 3- Cameeron (pending on Nigeria and another sub-sahel country)
> 4- Egypt
> 
> *UEFA*
> Confirmed:
> 1- United Kingdom (England, Wiles, Scotland, Northern Ireland)
> 
> Interested/Suggested:
> 2- Belgium_Netherlands
> 3- Greece_Cyprus_Israel
> 4- Poland_Bulgaria_Czech_Slovakia
> 
> *AFC*
> Interested:
> 1- South Korea (pending on North Korea, China and Japan)
> 2- China (mainly will bid for the 2034 edition)


Well, no shortage of bidders here after just United and Morocco for 2026!

It's hard to say why some of these bidders would bother unless it is a trial run and to get your name into the conversation. Places like the UK and Spain set the bar very high. Not that they have it won, but the bar is high.


----------



## alserrod

pesto said:


> I agree that Madrid is in the middle and just about the right distance for trains to many cities. The real competition there is not air but cars, which offer greater flexibility and price (assuming 3 or more people).
> 
> By air: Barcelona to Bilbao: 75 min., $36. By train over 6 hrs., assuming everything goes well. I have made the RT for business in Bilbao several times and never had to leave my Barcelona hotel.
> 
> But, hey, to each his own. The more transit modalities the better (assuming they are not subsidized).


Madrid-Barcelona took 7h in the classic line until 2003. 
Since 2008 it takes less than 2h30m if direct trains, a little more with some intermediate calls.

Trains run 320 km/h and drive city centre (Atocha station) to city centre (Sants station). No need to go to airport, security issues, boarding and so on...

Madrid-Seville takes 2h20m since 1992

There is more than one train every hour Madrid-Barcelona, one train every hour Madrid-Seville, a little less Madrid-Valencia and even three per day corner to corner without calling in Madrid to save time Barcelona-Sevilla or once per day (twice in summer with shuttle) Valencia-Sevilla.

All of them in high speed, no longer in classic lines.
they are for regional trains or freight only

Here's a chart about how number of passengers decided to move to train after new lines were opened to traffic


----------



## pesto

alserrod said:


> Madrid-Barcelona took 7h in the classic line until 2003.
> Since 2008 it takes less than 2h30m if direct trains, a little more with some intermediate calls.
> 
> Trains run 320 km/h and drive city centre (Atocha station) to city centre (Sants station). No need to go to airport, security issues, boarding and so on...
> 
> Madrid-Seville takes 2h20m since 1992
> 
> There is more than one train every hour Madrid-Barcelona, one train every hour Madrid-Seville, a little less Madrid-Valencia and even three per day corner to corner without calling in Madrid to save time Barcelona-Sevilla or once per day (twice in summer with shuttle) Valencia-Sevilla.
> 
> All of them in high speed, no longer in classic lines.
> they are for regional trains or freight only
> 
> Here's a chart about how number of passengers decided to move to train after new lines were opened to traffic


I love the train and I know how excited the train buffs get. So take it as much as you want. No problem. It even makes the flights less crowded. :lol:

But, really, the point here is that a Spain bid is better with BOTH good air and good train service, right? Not much benefit in badmouthing Spanish air service.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Uefa president backs joint home nations bid for 2030 World Cup



> A joint home nations bid for the 2030 World Cup has been given full backing by Uefa’s president, Aleksander Ceferin, who said it was “about time” the tournament returned to England for the first time since 1966.





> “I think it would be a very wise idea,” he said. “The infrastructure in the UK is very good and in a way if more countries bid there is more chance to win. I think after all these years it’s time for that part of Europe to get the World Cup. I don’t doubt the quality of the bid.”
> 
> The Slovenian administrator said he would discourage more than one bid from Europe for fear it would divide the continent, particularly as a new Fifa transparency rule means the voting process is open, with results displayed immediately on a screen.
> 
> “The only thing I will insist is that we have only one European bid,” Ceferin said. “I don’t want Europe to be divided because of a World Cup bid, and if there was more than one it would be divided as the voting is public. I don’t want people to choose between one and another European bidder.”


The Guardian


----------



## pesto

It seems to me that: stadiums are not likely to be an issue for 2030 unless bidders are dumb enough to tout nonexistent facilities; and that the UK likely wins if there is no European opposition and may well lose if one or two European countries have their own bid and Arg/Ur and Africa benefit.


----------



## zakizakari222

Things are getting clear now, the UEFA is ready to support *ONLY * one bid and its president hinted it will be likely *the UK-wide bid*.

This will scatter the cards of the anticipated Ibero-Moorish joint bid! specially the Moroccan side cause Spain isn't that hyped about it and Portugal doesn't seem interested all at. hno:


----------



## pesto

zakizakari222 said:


> Things are getting clear now, the UEFA is ready to support *ONLY * one bid and its president hinted it will be likely *the UK-wide bid*.
> 
> This will scatter the cards of the anticipated Ibero-Moorish joint bid! specially the Moroccan side cause Spain isn't that hyped about it and Portugal doesn't seem interested all at. hno:


So back to UK, Arg and some sort of Maghreb bid?


----------



## GunnerJacket

Yawn. Let's a a breather, shall we?


----------



## RobH

*Ireland in talks over joining UK 2030 World Cup bid*

I'm sure this will get merged with the (locked) 2030 thread, but going to post this news regardless, as I think it's worth discussing today.

Looks like a five nation UK bid might be on the cards...?



> Ireland in talks over joining 2030 World Cup bid
> 
> Ireland could form part of a joint bid for the 2030 World Cup with England and the other home nations. The idea is being considered at senior levels within English football, and the Football Association of Ireland is understood to be open to an approach for detailed discussions.
> 
> A joint bid would have several advantages, including that Ireland could win votes from countries that may not usually support the UK associations, especially those who still hold a grudge about England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland having a separate status within Fifa. It would also solve the problem of including Northern Ireland as part of a UK-only bid because, although Belfast has no suitable stadium, Dublin could easily host matches at the 51,700-seater Aviva Stadium.
> 
> The English FA is carrying out a feasibility study into bidding for 2030 and a spokesman said: “We are looking at all options.” Sources close to the Football Association of Ireland said that it would look favourably on holding them.
> 
> Last week Aleksander Ceferin, the Uefa president, said that a joint bid would be “wise”, referring to “that part of Europe” rather than Britain. Fifa’s 211 member nations are likely to vote in 2022, before the Qatar World Cup. Ceferin said that he wanted a single European candidate to go up against a joint South American bid from Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay.
> 
> A possible disadvantage is that having Ireland and Britain involved would mean separate governments and currencies, but given that 2026 is being hosted by the United States, Mexico and Canada — three governments with three separate currencies — that is not a big problem. It would also mean that all five bidding countries could not take part in the vote, and it is unlikely that all five could be considered for automatic qualification as host nations.
> 
> Officials in other home nations are aware that a joint bid with Ireland is being considered. A source told The Times: “We have to decide whether having Ireland on board brings more to the party than bidding without them . . . I think it would be an advantage.”
> 
> Greg Clarke, the FA chairman, will probably be Britain’s Fifa vice-president during any bid campaign. David Gill is stepping down from the position next year and Clarke, who has spent much of the past year visiting European associations, is likely to be his successor.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ireland-in-talks-over-joining-2030-world-cup-bid-92blmhnpv


----------



## Guest

Ireland as part of the bid = Aviva stadium hosting up to 3 games. Better than nothing I guess. Then again, same deal with Scotland and Wales to be honest.


----------



## RobH

There's no easy solution.

England alone has the advantage of simplicity, one FA, only one qualification place taken up, but seems to go against FIFA's current preference for joint bids. It's also not _quite_ there with the stadiums, though I wouldn't say that's an insurmountable hurdle.

Any combination two or three UK nations will leave the one or two left out feeling sidelined in a bid that will no doubt require a lot of UK government backing. There's a dynamic and political element here that doesn't apply to other joint bids.

On the face of it, a UK bid with all four home nations would make most sense with FIFA's current preferences, but means a stadium in Northern Ireland needs to be renovated or built to World Cup capacity. It's hard to see what stadium that will be.

A 5 nation bid (UK nations + Ireland) is starting to take up a lot of UEFA qualifying spots, or else requires some compromise in which of the UK host nations qualify automatically. It also doesn't really help the Northern Ireland stadium 'problem'. But it does fit with FIFA's current preference (the question that would need to be asked is, would 5 nations be stretching it?), and would obviously give the biggest pool of stadiums to choose from.


----------



## gam1971

If it was a 5 nation bid the simple solution would be to put all 5 countries in the same qualifying group. The winner qualifies and the runner up goes into the playoffs. You could maybe add a 6th country to the group if numbers dont add up for the other groups.


----------



## Alix_D

...


----------



## Blueandwhite

Alix_D said:


> Casement Park for Northern Ireland?


If it ever gets rebuilt.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Thread reopened. Personal attacks or delving into general commentary about cultures and government NOT related to the bid will not be tolerated. 

Right. Carry on.


----------



## alserrod

WTF

You posted
https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/09/12/inenglish/1536763496_153477.html

above is posted
https://elpais.com/deportes/2018/09/12/actualidad/1536747592_324758.html

Translation is so different!!!

Spanish version free translation: 
FIFA and Spanish federation propose to Sanchez (PM) to bid for Euro28 or WC30

just that!!!


To sum up
Eurocup, 8 stadium over 30K. Spain has 19 (20 next year)
World Cup. 12 stadiums over 50K. Spain has 8 nowadays, at least 4 of them classified as "5 stars"

But, after being sacked from Olympics because dossier and presentation, I'm pretty sure that no one is thinking in bidding. If they bid it will be because politics or maybe money from anywhere just to bid.

Anyway, about weather...

nowadays, league is middle August - end May to have similar world schedules. Some decades ago it was September - middle June
Seville hosts matches in August as league. They have two teams (Sevilla and Betis)
In Brazil14 they started with first "one minute time out" if temperature was over 30
In USA94 I remember several stadiums where hot was terrible. One because totally covered for winter (impossible for summer), other ones in Texas... Fortunatelly final was in California
WC26 seems not to be coldest
In Mexico86 several stadiums were horrible. In addition, TV paid too much to have matches at 12h and 16h local time. Matches at 16h were impossible in some cities!!
Qatar will host first WC in november due to hot. Instead of looking for chances like in Brazil they know they will not be able to host a match without stopping, thus November-December

And.... in 1982, the best and most interesting match played in WC was a Germany-France... hosted in July in Seville...


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

alserrod said:


> WTF
> 
> You posted
> https://elpais.com/elpais/2018/09/12/inenglish/1536763496_153477.html
> 
> above is posted
> https://elpais.com/deportes/2018/09/12/actualidad/1536747592_324758.html
> 
> Translation is so different!!!
> 
> Spanish version free translation:
> FIFA and Spanish federation propose to Sanchez (PM) to bid for Euro28 or WC30
> 
> just that!!!
> 
> 
> To sum up
> Eurocup, 8 stadium over 30K. Spain has 19 (20 next year)
> World Cup. 12 stadiums over 50K. Spain has 8 nowadays, at least 4 of them classified as "5 stars"
> 
> But, after being sacked from Olympics because dossier and presentation, I'm pretty sure that no one is thinking in bidding. If they bid it will be because politics or maybe money from anywhere just to bid.
> 
> Anyway, about weather...
> 
> nowadays, league is middle August - end May to have similar world schedules. Some decades ago it was September - middle June
> Seville hosts matches in August as league. They have two teams (Sevilla and Betis)
> In Brazil14 they started with first "one minute time out" if temperature was over 30
> In USA94 I remember several stadiums where hot was terrible. One because totally covered for winter (impossible for summer), other ones in Texas... Fortunatelly final was in California
> WC26 seems not to be coldest
> In Mexico86 several stadiums were horrible. In addition, TV paid too much to have matches at 12h and 16h local time. Matches at 16h were impossible in some cities!!
> Qatar will host first WC in november due to hot. Instead of looking for chances like in Brazil they know they will not be able to host a match without stopping, thus November-December
> 
> And.... in 1982, the best and most interesting match played in WC was a Germany-France... hosted in July in Seville...


You are correct - huge difference between the original Spanish version and the English translation. The translator left a lot of things out. Thank you for pointing that out.

So it looks like Spain is ruling out a bid with Morocco but could bid with Portugal. Have I got that correct?

Of course I don't actually think the weather in Spain would be a problem. Spain has hosted before after all. I often visit Spain in June or July.


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> RE: the weather...It does make me laugh when people bring up one of the biggest strengths of English bids for Summer sporting events and present it as a weakness, even in jest.
> 
> England is a country where summer weather is more or less perfect for most sporting events (Olympics, World Cup, whatever). The sight of athletes collapsing as we saw in Athens because the heat got too much just isn't going to happen, the scorching sun even some American cities will have to contend with in 2026 isn't going to be an issue. Average temperatures in Summer in England are between 20 and 30 degrees with an average of just six drizzly days a month. It's in the sweet spot.
> 
> A Summer tournament in England should allow faster paced, more intense football than a tournament in a country with higher Summer temperatures, where drinks breaks have to be mandated by FIFA.


LOL. It isn't a bug, it's a feature. 

"Charlotte, be a dear and pass me my shawl and umbrella."


----------



## Voz Ibérica

RobH said:


> Average temperatures in Summer in England are between 20 and 30 degrees with an average of just six drizzly days a month. It's in the sweet spot.
> 
> A Summer tournament in England should allow faster paced, more intense football than a tournament in a country with higher Summer temperatures, where drinks breaks have to be mandated by FIFA.


you're absolutely right ...

although they drive opposite way, but, England has very nice places to go in summer ... like may be ... beaches :check:


----------



## alserrod

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> You are correct - huge difference between the original Spanish version and the English translation. The translator left a lot of things out. Thank you for pointing that out.
> 
> So it looks like Spain is ruling out a bid with Morocco but could bid with Portugal. Have I got that correct?
> 
> Of course I don't actually think the weather in Spain would be a problem. Spain has hosted before after all. I often visit Spain in June or July.


Business is business, same news, different quote, just to make you to focus.

The hint is... translations are (usually) quite accurate. I remember my English teacher reccommended us to read it online. They do not have all news translated but just a few ones... but for a student is more interesting (or less boring) reading news with accurate lexic or grammar in topics that are related with your day than anything abroad where maybe you do not understand topic indeed.

El Pais is the most general newspaper read in Spain but focused in general news, not sport news.


Spanish federation hasn't said anything "official".

The most official press release would be this one
http://www.rfef.es/noticias/preside...dial-y-productivo-encuentro-jefe-del-gobierno

which could be translated via google but easy to see that a lot of sentences and just say, let's work on football and nothing else.
Via twitter there are two messages, one out of them related to the meeting, but just images, another one, sharing a T-shirt.

That's all, from oficial sources

Anyway...

1982, Spain hosted WC
1997-98, Spain bid for EC, drop, Portugal won despite dossier was clearly weaker (less stadiums, less infrastructure, etc...)
2005, first time Madrid is dropped off for Olympics (for 2012)
2010, Spain is dropped for WC in 2018 (won Russia)
2012, Madrid is dropped for Olympics again (for 2016). A lot of money invested for nothing (no new infrastructures done, 80% finished and just money to prepare a dossier)

Spain has hosted in last years as Mediterranean games (horrible organization), Basketball WC, Handball WC and so on (this summer 33rd European Waterpolo championship)


August 2018, first match in history is played abroad. Supercup. It is known it was in Tanger after FC Barcelona manager has a lot of business in that city because there's no other reason to give money to both teams (they wouldn't host in their stadiums), Tanger stadium wasn't so big and half empty.

Final August 2018, League wanna have a match in USA this season. Players quarrel but maybe a lot of money offered, both teams chosen agreed

Spanish federation disagree with Spanish major league (and they need their approval). And it is when they try to propose EC or WC.... but at the end what they wanna is to have matches abroad. It is unknown how much money can give an official match... but surely a lot of because nor players, coaches or supporters of those teams have disagree.
Match would be played at 20:45 (GMT+1, 15:45, local time)


About Morocco, after choosing USA-CAN-MEX bid for WC, from Morocco there were two options proposed: Northen Africa bid or Morocco-Spain-Portugal, but really, news only from Moroccan side


----------



## Voz Ibérica

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> English language version of one of the articles listed by voz
> 
> If Spain were to choose to bid for Euro 2028 they'd be very likely to get it. They'd obviously get English/British backing and that of Ceferin, who wants only one European bidder for 2030. If they want 2028 they're going the right way about it by touting 2030 as well.
> .


Euro 2020 will be played in several european cities (like if we are inside USA), Bilbao will host some matches, but London will host semi-final and final, and it's considered like they host the whole tournament for this ...


----------



## alserrod

Euro 2020 is a messing-blessing made by Platini, just that.

I guess we will not see any other kind of this format in a lot of years.


Another issue is Eurobasket where after Ukraine had to drop himself due to inner situation, it was chosen to have since then, four cities in four countries, and one for final play off


----------



## RobH

Voz Ibérica said:


> Euro 2020 will be played in several european cities (like if we are inside USA), Bilbao will host some matches, but London will host semi-final and final, *and it's considered like they host the whole tournament for this ...*


----------



## alserrod

btw... said Seville and july

July 8th 1982, 

World cup semifinal, France Vs Germany (western)

Final result, 1-1, extra time and penalties. As said (I guess it is a video from Argentina due to accent) it was first time in history to reach penalties in a world cup






We also can see "technology" in the early 80ish (no electronic score for instance)


this was stadium










Have read they had a 68.000 attendance. Most people were stand up, nowadays, all of them are seated with 42.000 maximum attendance

Current stadium











12 years ago, Sevilla FC made plans to enlarge it but after crisis, it was halted (no works started). They have plans to think twice and start again










More info

http://mrprarquitectos.com/ampliacion-del-estadio-del-sevilla-fc/



and yeah, according to official data, Seville has a Media Maximal temperature of 36ºC in July
http://www.aemet.es/es/serviciosclimaticos/datosclimatologicos/valoresclimatologicos?l=5783&k=and

(this is, summing all maximal 31 temperatures in July and dividing in 31)

Average temperature (normal day, not midday, no night) is 28,2ºC... but it was possible to host this match, and every year it host official matches due to league starts in August (similar temperature)

PS. Medium raining rate: July, 2mm, August 5mm. 
A single fog gives you greater rates


----------



## alserrod

geniusandgerry said:


> 3D Model
> KHALIFA INTERNATIONAL STADIUM - DOHA
> 
> Fifa World Cup 2022


It is quite cool but is it known what will be about stadiums in Qatar after WC?


----------



## GunnerJacket

Minor housecleaning executed. 

Gentlemen & ladies, please refrain from personal attacks. If you suspect an ill advised post please tell a mod and don't respond in-thread. Thanks.

Carry on.


----------



## Rover030

alserrod said:


> btw... said Seville and july
> 
> July 8th 1982,
> 
> World cup semifinal, France Vs Germany (western)
> 
> Final result, 1-1, extra time and penalties. As said (I guess it is a video from Argentina due to accent) it was first time in history to reach penalties in a world cup
> 
> We also can see "technology" in the early 80ish (no electronic score for instance)
> 
> 
> this was stadium
> 
> Have read they had a 68.000 attendance. Most people were stand up, nowadays, all of them are seated with 42.000 maximum attendance
> 
> Current stadium
> 
> 12 years ago, Sevilla FC made plans to enlarge it but after crisis, it was halted (no works started). They have plans to think twice and start again
> 
> More info
> 
> http://mrprarquitectos.com/ampliacion-del-estadio-del-sevilla-fc/
> 
> 
> 
> and yeah, according to official data, Seville has a Media Maximal temperature of 36ºC in July
> http://www.aemet.es/es/serviciosclimaticos/datosclimatologicos/valoresclimatologicos?l=5783&k=and
> 
> (this is, summing all maximal 31 temperatures in July and dividing in 31)
> 
> Average temperature (normal day, not midday, no night) is 28,2ºC... but it was possible to host this match, and every year it host official matches due to league starts in August (similar temperature)
> 
> PS. Medium raining rate: July, 2mm, August 5mm.
> A single fog gives you greater rates


If you're honest, you shouldn't talk about Spanish league matches in August without mentioning that they all start after 18:00... The schedule is like this: 
Friday: two matches at 20:00 and 22:15. 
Saturday: three matches at 18:15, 20:00 and 22:15
Sunday: same as Saturday
Monday: same as Friday

There were three La Liga matches in Sevilla so far. Two started at 22:15 and one at 20:45.

The climate is a good reason for that, I guess.

In the world cup of 1982 matches started at 17:15 at the earliest. With the current TV market that's not ideal. You'd want some (early) afternoon matches for the Asian market.

Don't get me wrong, I would really like a Spanish world cup and I think the stadiums are great, but when it comes to weather, UK is better for the world cup. Especially after a North American world cup, which will have hot and humid weather from what I've read in the 2026 thread on discussions about the final host city.


----------



## alserrod

It is true.

League matches are set to have a sort of forfait for all weekend generally
A kind of
Fr, 21:00
Sa, 13:00, 16:15, 18:30, 20:15
Su, 12:00, 16:15, 18:30, 20:15
Mo, 21:00
that makes ten matches in a non-stop for any pub that broadcast football. By the way, last change was erasing Saturday 22:00 (all broadcasted matches had been between 21 or 22 when there were a couple of channels only and just one broadcasted match per weekend) and setting at 13:00 for international market. And it maybe have a main match.
"Premium match" will be Saturday 16:15 or Sunday 20:45, depending of TV decission.


Before this "non-stop" for TV, schedules were
Sunday 17:00 as general rule
Saturday (between 21 or 22) for TV match
Sunday (between 19:30 and 21:30) for TV match, there were two matches

and in case of European competitions, they could play on saturday evening around 18-20, without any specific hour (not broadcasted, local team choose).

In these terms, in the months of September and June (even late May), Sunday matches were at 19h instead of 17h

And obviously last two matches in league has standard unique schedule that it is proposed for all teams at same time

In addition, second league started with a Sunday 12h broadcasted match (first time they appeared in TV, it was uncommon to hear news about this league some decades ago) and as far as they weren't broadcasted, most of them wanted to play 18-19 on Saturday, just not to join with first league, but should they were on sunday, all at 17h except summer and late spring.

One hint, providing match wasn't broadcasted, always local times (matches in Canaries, at 18:00 CET except if unique schedule for last matches).


Since there's an unique schedule for international matches, league starts before than usual (and ends before too). Teams were used to start at the beginning of september and end at middle June. Nowadays they have to advance almost one month all.

It is true that this August (and last ones), matches are quite late because hot... and because broadcasted (they could set all of them at 20h, for instance, but wanna a non-stop on TV). And they try to check cool cities middle evening, warm cities at night... but this summer there was a final decission to delay some hours one match because hot, later one derby between both teams from Valencia was played at noon and criticised because heat and humidity and nothing happened (OK, more tired, but for both teams) and sometimes they schedule a late match and really it doesn't worth to.

There are several cities in Spain where you know heat is assured all summer. Other ones where it is randomly and some out of them where it is known it is weak and even it could rain. In addition, you can go to Canary islands and know almost exact temperature for all the year

Here you are for Tenerife
http://www.aemet.es/es/serviciosclimaticos/datosclimatologicos/valoresclimatologicos?l=C449C&k=coo
January media maximal 21, 
July media maximal 28,7

(July historical rain = 0.... 1 for August, 4 for June... and we can state it doesn't rain at all for five months despite it is not so hot).


Anywhere, after Qatar heat, after Brazil one minute time out if over 30, after matches in Monterrey (Mexico 86) or Dallas (USA 94), or even with southern Italy in 90, I would really compare between all of them and see there's no so much difference. In addition, some summers northern cities in Spain have less temperature than in Russia, just because inner Europe has more differentes cold-warm than in coast (in Spain that effect exists and it is really weird to see so great differences between cities located 200 km away, coast-inner).


TV schedules?. If teams are so worried it is so easy than pointing last matches in heat cities. Schedule and groups are set before sorting. They can fit any country schedule or being early morning or late night. We know.


----------



## cyril sneer

I agree with the theory that Spain may fancy their chances of an almost guaranteed EC2028. They might not have the appetite for perhaps another failed bid on the world stage.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

RobH said:


>


Clearly it is not considered the same as hosting the whole tournament. However, it is fairly certain that we won't be bidding for 2028 because hosting the final at Wembley twice in 8 years and three times in 32 years wouldn't look right. I could see us bidding for 2032 if we lost the World Cup 2030 bid and it went to another European nation thus ruling out 34 and 38. We certainly aren't bidding for 2028 though.

Spain hasn't hosted the Euros since 1964. There were only four teams and four matches that year. Even including Bilbao in 2020 only three Spanish cities will have hosted Euro matches. That isn't right. They should host soon. France has hosted twice since then and three times in total. Belgium has hosted twice since then (once with the Netherlands). Italy has also hosted twice. In my opinion Germany should host 2024 and Spain should host 2028. Italy 2032.

2028 is an open goal for Spain while 2030 is not an open goal for anyone.

Edit: and as it stands Betis would surely be the Seville venue for any Spanish tournament.


----------



## pesto

alserrod said:


> It is true.
> 
> League matches are set to have a sort of forfait for all weekend generally
> A kind of
> Fr, 21:00
> Sa, 13:00, 16:15, 18:30, 20:15
> Su, 12:00, 16:15, 18:30, 20:15
> Mo, 21:00
> that makes ten matches in a non-stop for any pub that broadcast football. By the way, last change was erasing Saturday 22:00 (all broadcasted matches had been between 21 or 22 when there were a couple of channels only and just one broadcasted match per weekend) and setting at 13:00 for international market. And it maybe have a main match.
> "Premium match" will be Saturday 16:15 or Sunday 20:45, depending of TV decission.
> 
> 
> Before this "non-stop" for TV, schedules were
> Sunday 17:00 as general rule
> Saturday (between 21 or 22) for TV match
> Sunday (between 19:30 and 21:30) for TV match, there were two matches
> 
> and in case of European competitions, they could play on saturday evening around 18-20, without any specific hour (not broadcasted, local team choose).
> 
> In these terms, in the months of September and June (even late May), Sunday matches were at 19h instead of 17h
> 
> And obviously last two matches in league has standard unique schedule that it is proposed for all teams at same time
> 
> In addition, second league started with a Sunday 12h broadcasted match (first time they appeared in TV, it was uncommon to hear news about this league some decades ago) and as far as they weren't broadcasted, most of them wanted to play 18-19 on Saturday, just not to join with first league, but should they were on sunday, all at 17h except summer and late spring.
> 
> One hint, providing match wasn't broadcasted, always local times (matches in Canaries, at 18:00 CET except if unique schedule for last matches).
> 
> 
> Since there's an unique schedule for international matches, league starts before than usual (and ends before too). Teams were used to start at the beginning of september and end at middle June. Nowadays they have to advance almost one month all.
> 
> It is true that this August (and last ones), matches are quite late because hot... and because broadcasted (they could set all of them at 20h, for instance, but wanna a non-stop on TV). And they try to check cool cities middle evening, warm cities at night... but this summer there was a final decission to delay some hours one match because hot, later one derby between both teams from Valencia was played at noon and criticised because heat and humidity and nothing happened (OK, more tired, but for both teams) and sometimes they schedule a late match and really it doesn't worth to.
> 
> There are several cities in Spain where you know heat is assured all summer. Other ones where it is randomly and some out of them where it is known it is weak and even it could rain. In addition, you can go to Canary islands and know almost exact temperature for all the year
> 
> Here you are for Tenerife
> http://www.aemet.es/es/serviciosclimaticos/datosclimatologicos/valoresclimatologicos?l=C449C&k=coo
> January media maximal 21,
> July media maximal 28,7
> 
> (July historical rain = 0.... 1 for August, 4 for June... and we can state it doesn't rain at all for five months despite it is not so hot).
> 
> 
> Anywhere, after Qatar heat, after Brazil one minute time out if over 30, after matches in Monterrey (Mexico 86) or Dallas (USA 94), or even with southern Italy in 90, I would really compare between all of them and see there's no so much difference. In addition, some summers northern cities in Spain have less temperature than in Russia, just because inner Europe has more differentes cold-warm than in coast (in Spain that effect exists and it is really weird to see so great differences between cities located 200 km away, coast-inner).
> 
> 
> TV schedules?. If teams are so worried it is so easy than pointing last matches in heat cities. Schedule and groups are set before sorting. They can fit any country schedule or being early morning or late night. We know.


I have to agree with alesrrod on this: too much worry about weather from the thermaphobes. Not all of Spain is Seville so hold some matches at night and others during the day in more temperate climates (Bilbao, Barcelona, etc.). 

FIFA is going to take very little issue with the heat and neither will the 90 percent of the voters who live in warm to hot climates.


----------



## RobH

It was some eejit Spaniard who went on about Brexit and the English and who started making digs about the weather as if it's year round winter. Nobody, by contrast, has said Spain couldn't host a world cup because of the weather (because that'd be a stupid thing to say).

However, these things are all relative and since he brought it up it's worth pointing out a Northern European summer will likely be _better_ for athletes (and for the pace of the game) than a Southern European summer. You look at e.g. the IOC's evaluation reports in recent years. London and Paris basically having "no worries" in the meteorology sections, Spain having "careful consideration will need to be made regarding scheduling" / "reassurances have been given about athlete welfare". Clearly, if there's a sweet spot for sport and athletes (not for a beach holiday obvs :lol, it's the more moderate Summers we get compared to the heat of Southern Europe.

In short: If you're going to start a bun fight over an issue, make sure it's actually an oppoenent's weakness, and not a strength. The Spain supporter just made himself look dumb on this.


----------



## Rover030

pesto said:


> I have to agree with alesrrod on this: too much worry about weather from the thermaphobes. Not all of Spain is Seville so hold some matches at night and others during the day in more temperate climates (Bilbao, Barcelona, etc.).
> 
> FIFA is going to take very little issue with the heat and neither will the 90 percent of the voters who live in warm to hot climates.


My point wasn't really about the voters, just that it was a bit dishonest to not mention the change in league schedule for the summer months, which shows that heat obviously is a factor for the LFP, at least. Even in those temperate cities. I've seen enough football to know that if the weather is less hot, matches are more enjoyable. So for that aspect, I would personally prefer an English world cup, but of course there are many other, more important factors.

Remember, the one who started this weather discussion was a Spaniard who was dissing the weather in England for some reason. There is no "worry about weather from thermaphobes".

Edit: haha it turns out I wrote almost the same as RobH at the same time.


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> It was some eejit Spaniard who went on about Brexit and the English and who started making digs about the weather as if it's year round winter. Nobody, by contrast, has said Spain couldn't host a world cup because of the weather (because that'd be a stupid thing to say).
> 
> However, these things are all relative and since he brought it up it's worth pointing out a Northern European summer will likely be _better_ for athletes (and for the pace of the game) than a Southern European summer. You look at e.g. the IOC's evaluation reports in recent years. London and Paris basically having "no worries" in the meteorology sections, Spain having "careful consideration will need to be made regarding scheduling" / "reassurances have been given about athlete welfare". Clearly, if there's a sweet spot for sport and athletes (not for a beach holiday obvs :lol, it's the more moderate Summers we get compared to the heat of Southern Europe.
> 
> In short: If you're going to start a bun fight over an issue, make sure it's actually an oppoenent's weakness, and not a strength. The Spain supporter just made himself look dumb on this.


Great! So we're all on-board that England has fabulous summer weather which will attract visitors worldwide and Spain is acceptable as well.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> My point wasn't really about the voters, just that it was a bit dishonest to not mention the change in league schedule for the summer months, which shows that heat obviously is a factor for the LFP, at least. Even in those temperate cities. I've seen enough football to know that if the weather is less hot, matches are more enjoyable. So for that aspect, I would personally prefer an English world cup, but of course there are many other, more important factors.
> 
> Remember, the one who started this weather discussion was a Spaniard who was dissing the weather in England for some reason. There is no "worry about weather from thermaphobes".
> 
> Edit: haha it turns out I wrote almost the same as RobH at the same time.


Heat is not a factor for the playing of the game unless you are an idiot and schedule it in Andalusia at mid-day. That's the real point of these last few posts.


----------



## RobH

pesto said:


> Great! So we're all on-board that England has fabulous summer weather which will attract visitors worldwide and Spain is acceptable as well.


I mean if you want to make a completely different point from the one I was making, sure. :lol:

But since you've moved the goalposts: you're talking about the country that broke the Olympic and Paralympic attendance record in 2012 (more than double the ticket sales of sunny Athens), broke the Rugby World Cup attendance record in 2015, and smashed the World Athletics Championships attendance record last summer.

So no...our summer weather shouldn't be a factor in any sense. Sports tourists haven't been put off by it in the past and won't be for 2030 either, and our weather is better for athletes at that time of year than hotter countries.



pesto said:


> Heat is not a factor for the playing of the game unless you are an idiot and schedule it in Andalusia at mid-day. That's the real point of these last few posts.


Exactly, it's not a huge factor! But it is a factor which affects scheduling in one country and not in another. The joker who made the point about the weather is from the country where it is a factor, taking digs at the one where it won't be. Smart!


----------



## alserrod

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Edit: and as it stands Betis would surely be the Seville venue for any Spanish tournament.



Sevilla FC stadium, 43,6K (62K when stand up) and project to be enlarged
R.Betis stadium 60,7K recently enlarged and refurbished (50K when stand up and before enlargement)
La Cartuja stadium 57,6K (prepared to host Olympics and offered as a shared stadium but impossible to join those teams. It has hosted several Spanish cups and barely more matches)

In 1982, there was a sort of two cities hosting each group with a match in each
two cities. Group 6 was hosted both in Malaga and Seville. In addition, one of semifinals was in Seville
They decided two matches in Sevilla FC stadium and two in R.Betis stadium. I do not know if it has been another WC with stadiums for only 2 matches. At least they didn't made any extra work.


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> I mean if you want to make a completely different point from the one I was making, sure. :lol:
> 
> But since you've moved the goalposts: you're talking about the country that broke the Olympic and Paralympic attendance record in 2012 (more than double the ticket sales of sunny Athens), broke the Rugby World Cup attendance record in 2015, and smashed the World Athletics Championships attendance record last summer.
> 
> So no...our summer weather shouldn't be a factor in any sense. Sports tourists haven't been put off by it in the past and won't be for 2030 either, and our weather is better for athletes at that time of year than hotter countries.
> 
> Exactly, it's not a huge factor! But it is a factor which affects scheduling in one country and not in another. The joker who made the point about the weather is from the country where it is a factor, taking digs at the one where it won't be. Smart!


LOL. Total denial. Have you ever heard the expression "English summer"? First item listed when you Google it: "Yesterday the weather was back to that of a typical English summer we know and love - torrential rain and temperatures in the mid-50s." 

But, who can say. Maybe the UK bid will push weather as an advantage. They should try directing it at the hordes at Gatwick trying to get away even if just for a few days.


----------



## alserrod

pesto said:


> I have to agree with alesrrod on this: too much worry about weather from the thermaphobes. Not all of Spain is Seville so hold some matches at night and others during the day in more temperate climates (Bilbao, Barcelona, etc.).
> 
> FIFA is going to take very little issue with the heat and neither will the 90 percent of the voters who live in warm to hot climates.


Checked with official information (state weather agency, aemet.es)

July, averages (maximal temperature, medium temperature, rate of rain)

Bilbao, 20º, 25º, 50mm (rainy weather, 150mm in November)
Barcelona, 24º, 28º, 21mm (in all Mediterranean there are few differences between day and night in opposition to inner cities)
Madrid, 26º, 32º, 12mm
La Coruña, 19º, 22º, 31mm (quite wet in winter, not in summer, and this summer had some weeks really hot, unusual but...)
Valencia 26º, 29º, 8mm (similar to Barcelona but located more in south)
Seville, 28º, 36º, 2mm (it doesn't rain at all in summer)
Las Palmas, 24º, 27º, 0mm (*)

Las Palmas rain... see historical official data

http://www.aemet.es/es/serviciosclimaticos/datosclimatologicos/valoresclimatologicos?l=C649I&k=coo

Fourth column. That counts media of mm (number of litres/m3 raining) for each month. As can be seen April-September absolutely no rain, those numbers could be fog, no rain.
As an example, a single storm makes about 100mm (thus 3,3mm). They can say several years they have one or two rainy days in the whole year or so.

There's one city that could be compared with Monterrey, Dallas, Palermo or even Qatar. The rest ones, it is sunny but not so hot as seems


----------



## RobH

Fair point cyril ↓


----------



## cyril sneer

This talk about the bloody weather is getting ridiculous now.


----------



## pesto

Don't worry. As noted by the English philosopher J. Lennon, "sitting in an English garden waiting for the sun. If the sun don't come you get a tan from standing in the English rain".


----------



## pesto

alserrod said:


> Checked with official information (state weather agency, aemet.es)
> 
> July, averages (maximal temperature, medium temperature, rate of rain)
> 
> Bilbao, 20º, 25º, 50mm (rainy weather, 150mm in November)
> Barcelona, 24º, 28º, 21mm (in all Mediterranean there are few differences between day and night in opposition to inner cities)
> Madrid, 26º, 32º, 12mm
> La Coruña, 19º, 22º, 31mm (quite wet in winter, not in summer, and this summer had some weeks really hot, unusual but...)
> Valencia 26º, 29º, 8mm (similar to Barcelona but located more in south)
> Seville, 28º, 36º, 2mm (it doesn't rain at all in summer)
> Las Palmas, 24º, 27º, 0mm (*)
> 
> Las Palmas rain... see historical official data
> 
> http://www.aemet.es/es/serviciosclimaticos/datosclimatologicos/valoresclimatologicos?l=C649I&k=coo
> 
> Fourth column. That counts media of mm (number of litres/m3 raining) for each month. As can be seen April-September absolutely no rain, those numbers could be fog, no rain.
> As an example, a single storm makes about 100mm (thus 3,3mm). They can say several years they have one or two rainy days in the whole year or so.
> 
> There's one city that could be compared with Monterrey, Dallas, Palermo or even Qatar. The rest ones, it is sunny but not so hot as seems


Btw, the stadium in Dallas is indoors so temperature isn't an issue. It's unlikely that any other US cities will be uncomfortable except Atlanta and Miami, where I would hope for evening matches. But it certainly COULD be hot or rainy in NY, DC and some others.


----------



## cyril sneer

John Lennon also wrote A Spaniard In The Works, which is quite apt for this thread at present.


----------



## pesto

cyril sneer said:


> John Lennon also wrote A Spaniard In The Works, which is quite apt for this thread at present.


He also wrote "Blue Jay Way" which is a critique of weather in Los Angeles. :lol:


----------



## cyril sneer

Blue Jay Way was a George Harrison song to be precise.


----------



## pesto

cyril sneer said:


> Blue Jay Way was a George Harrison song to be precise.


And it wasn't really a critique of weather in LA. But that's all I had to work with. :lol:


----------



## Voz Ibérica

Did John Lennon write something about *hooligans* ?

Am Ok with weather, just need some one to show me where can I find beaches (I don't want to spend summer in church or museum ... unless if it's permetted to jump and swim in an urban river)


----------



## alserrod

pesto said:


> Don't worry. As noted by the English philosopher J. Lennon, "sitting in an English garden waiting for the sun. If the sun don't come you get a tan from standing in the English rain".


Agree

Let's remember that South Africa 2010 was played in winter. Coastal cities were warm but temperatures took down in inner cities
(Brazil 2014... was also in winter and it was first time in history they had a one minute break due to temperatures. What did it happen in 1950????)

I remember one year South America cup was hosted in Argentina, it was winter and said that temperatures were strong low according to usual in that season.

Will never find a perfect moment at the time that it is so difficult to guess if it will be warm and sunny or rainy all the day...

AFAIK, only two measures have been taken by FIFA.

- upper distance over sea level to host an international match. They wanna avoid playing so high because it could be an advantage from local and not good for health (Bolivia is out of this measure due to all stadiums are so high according to their mountains)

- playing in november-december a WC in Qatar because stimated temperatures


----------



## cyril sneer

This is ridiculous. You guys are all over the place. It's like speaking to a pair of crackheads. You two can barely string a sentence between the pair of you that makes sense. What has any of this weather rubbish got to do with the bidding of the 2030 WC?


----------



## alserrod

To be honest, except in those cases when weather could be strongly hard, even hot, even cold, even rainy, I consider it shouldn't be a point in a dossier, and obviously never a must.

Players are used to play under single rain and even storms. Stadiums are everytime better for water in the green. Players play in summer and winter. For instance in winter allows northern or Eastern teams to advance international matches instead of usual ones (but let's remember they start one or two hours later... this is, maybe they play at same time but Eastern away). They also could play a South America tournament in a half frozen field!!!

Players are used to play in Agust, where in any country, even coolest ones, could be hot... and we have seen tournaments under strong weather conditions.

Morocco bid for last time and nobody talked about weather.

Most known players are used to move within leagues and will have a different weather, as well as they will visit several stadiums anywhere in international tournaments.

I guess that, even strong conditions, it shouldn't bother.

It was said that in Seville it would be hard in summer. I just answered that in 1982, best match in WC was a semifinal in Seville (1-1 at the end, 1-3 and Germany tied 3-3 to win in penalties. 4 goals in an awesome extra time).

And as said, anywhere, should Las Palmas stadium be chosen (pavilion was chosen for basketball WC several years ago), be sure warm, not hot, and no rain doesn't matter which month in year. Just guess why so many people (even from mainland Spain) go there on holidays


----------



## pesto

I'm on-board with never mentioning weather again after I get my Lerner and Loewe reference in.

As you know, the rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain. So I would hold most matches on the coast or in the mountains.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

alserrod said:


> Sevilla FC stadium, 43,6K (62K when stand up) and project to be enlarged
> R.Betis stadium 60,7K recently enlarged and refurbished (50K when stand up and before enlargement)
> La Cartuja stadium 57,6K (prepared to host Olympics and offered as a shared stadium but impossible to join those teams. It has hosted several Spanish cups and barely more matches)
> 
> In 1982, there was a sort of two cities hosting each group with a match in each
> two cities. Group 6 was hosted both in Malaga and Seville. In addition, one of semifinals was in Seville
> They decided two matches in Sevilla FC stadium and two in R.Betis stadium. I do not know if it has been another WC with stadiums for only 2 matches. At least they didn't made any extra work.


A stadium-related post!

Real Betis have the better stadium at present and Sevilla don't appear to need the extra capacity of a 60,000 seater. Betis have plans to further improve it. Whilst Sevilla may increase capacity a bit I don't think they will go as large as Betis. They may prove me wrong, of course. So I think that Betis would be the selection.

I don't think there would be the use of two stadia in a 2nd city for a modern World Cup (excluding Qatar). Madrid two stadia fine, but everywhere else one. At a stretch a joint Spain-Portugal world cup bid might persuade FIFA to have two in Lisbon but I don't think so. This would also apply to the UK where Manchester, Liverpool (if Everton build their new ground) and Glasgow would be candidates for a second stadium in addition to London.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

What stadia would Spain/Portugal use for a World Cup bid?

There are some great stadia in Iberia but which ones would be used.

*Obvious choices*
Madrid - Bernabeu
Madrid - Wanda Metropolitano
Barcelona - Camp Nou
Bilbao
Seville - Real Betis
Lisbon - Stadium of Light
Porto
San Sebastian - Anoeta

Those are all very good and ready to go or in the case of Anoeta is being upgraded now. You could have a 2nd ground in Seville, Lisbon and/or Barcelona. Ideally there would be new Valencia stadium. What would your full list be? Likely be a few that would need to be increased a little in size.


----------



## alserrod

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> A stadium-related post!
> 
> Real Betis have the better stadium at present and Sevilla don't appear to need the extra capacity of a 60,000 seater. Betis have plans to further improve it. Whilst Sevilla may increase capacity a bit I don't think they will go as large as Betis. They may prove me wrong, of course. So I think that Betis would be the selection.
> 
> I don't think there would be the use of two stadia in a 2nd city for a modern World Cup (excluding Qatar). Madrid two stadia fine, but everywhere else one. At a stretch a joint Spain-Portugal world cup bid might persuade FIFA to have two in Lisbon but I don't think so. This would also apply to the UK where Manchester, Liverpool (if Everton build their new ground) and Glasgow would be candidates for a second stadium in addition to London.



Seville and Barcelona haven't two but THREE stadiums (OK, one of Barcelona is NOT in Barcelona but surroundings, it is where Espanyol play matches).

In 1982 they made this sort:
6 groups x 4 teams
Each group in TWO cities (longest distance was 300, sometimes lower than 100 km). Head group team in one city and the other matches of same group in the other city. This is, 12 cities for group phase.

This system remained in Mexico86 and Italy90. In USA94 was different. For first time they got only 9 cities and they made 3 cities for 2 groups at same time.

In Spain82, first two ones in each group advanced. 12 teams. They were in 4 groups of 3 teams. A 3group competition and only first one advanced to semifinal

These four groups were played in Barcelona and Madrid (in both stadiums). Thus 4 more stadiums.

Seville had two stadiums and wasn't easy to choose one stadium, thus... both, two matches in one stadium (phase group), one in the other one plus a semifinal (Germany-France).
Semifinals were played in Barcelona and Seville
Final was in Madrid

First match was played in Barcelona. According to group statement, it should be played in Elche (thus, that stadium hosted only 2 matches in group phase). Elche hosted bronze medal match.

Thus... 13 stadiums for groups (12+Seville case) + 4 for semifinals/final = 17 in 14 cities.


About stadiums:

Madrid.
- R. Madrid stadium is not small at all. It hosted WC final and other main mathces
- At. Madrid stadium is nowadays out of biggest stadiums, the newest. It will host 2019 Champion's league final. If there's a chance, it is not to drop at first time at all

Barcelona:
- FC Barcelona stadium is the biggest in Spain and has strong plans to be enlarged (property of club, no public money runs there)
- Espanyol stadium, located in the surroundings is really new. It has "only 40K". For an EC, enough, for a WC to be enlarged (former and demolished stadium hosted WC in 1982)
- Montjuich stadium (56K nowadays) has hosted Espanyol after former stadium was demolished and current one was opened. It has host several issues. Opened in 1929, hosted several competitions, incluiding Mediterranean Games. Was considered for WC but dropped (in 1982 it was enough with the other 17 stadiums. FIFA requirements were easier to reach) but all issues for opening ceremony were prepared there (hosted in FC Barcelona stadium later). Some other competitions (incluiding some Spanish cup final) and... 1992, Olympic stadiums (starting and finish ceremonies and all Athletics competitions hosted there)

Seville
- R.Betis: Has enlarged stadium. Biggest in the city
- Seville: Hasn't enlarged stadium. Will be biggest too
- La Cartuja stadium. Created to host Olympics, considered to join both teams in only one stadium and enlarge it... it remains with barely competitions but you have it there. Over 50K, it fits.

and by the way, in Valencia there's a team with a small stadium (another one 50 km north who has played Champion's league) and they will not fit but Valencia team has halted their new stadium. Should they finish it one day, they will really could offer both stadiums. Current fits and new one obviously too... but supposed to demolish current one after new one is opened.


Edit: Barcelona-Seville city centre to city centre (without safety control, no plane mode for mobiles and strongly ontime) it is 3h50m by train with some intermediate calls. There are two trains all the year (one branch for Malaga that it is separated in Cordoba), three in summer and always possible to shuttle in Madrid (one train for Barcelona and for Seville every 60 minutes or less) but would take longer

This weekend Spanish cycling Tour (La Vuelta) finished in Madrid. Saturday they took 6 mountain passed inside Andorra and they moved to Lerida to take a charter train and reach Madrid city centre in only 1h35m. Freight, bicycles and so, by truck but players and coaches in a charter train all together (capacity 320 to 400, depending of train and could be doubled)


----------



## alserrod

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> What stadia would Spain/Portugal use for a World Cup bid?
> 
> There are some great stadia in Iberia but which ones would be used.
> 
> *Obvious choices*
> Madrid - Bernabeu
> Madrid - Wanda Metropolitano
> Barcelona - Camp Nou
> Bilbao
> Seville - Real Betis
> Lisbon - Stadium of Light
> Porto
> San Sebastian - Anoeta
> 
> Those are all very good and ready to go or in the case of Anoeta is being upgraded now. You could have a 2nd ground in Seville, Lisbon and/or Barcelona. Ideally there would be new Valencia stadium. What would your full list be? Likely be a few that would need to be increased a little in size.




This was list of stadiums proposed for 2018 bidding Spain-Portugal. Two in Lisbon, one in Porto (cheers due to today's banner) and the rest of them in Spain.

Hints

- two stadiums quite close to border. Badajoz is province capital but city centre is 4 km away from border only. Anyway they haven't been ever in first league and will be a great enlargement. Vigo is not far away from border (and has been shifting from 1st to 2nd division)

- they considered over 40K, not over 50K

- my homecity stadium (Zaragoza) is a project and they really do not know if building a new one or refurbishing current one (a lot of politics inside). In 1999 UEFA dropped it for bidding EC. It was really old and new more than a single refurbishment but... in 1982 hosted WC, in 1992 hosted Olympics (Valencia and Zaragoza hosted football too) and in 1996 a Spanish cup... but it was really to make a new one.

- there aren't many "boundaries cities" between Spain and Portugal. It is even inner Spain and inner Portugal. Sides where population is lower. They chose both main cities that are so close to border and both in Spanish side
(in the case of Badajoz, it is planned to have a half international station. Station will be close to Badajoz in Spanish side but parking in Portuguese side as well as freight area, 15 km away inside Portugal)

- Some out of these projects are nowadays running, other ones halted, other ones dropped

- And BTW, for Seville... La Cartuja stadium was the only one considered!!!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal–Spain_2018_FIFA_World_Cup_bid


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

alserrod said:


> Seville and Barcelona haven't two but THREE stadiums (OK, one of Barcelona is NOT in Barcelona but surroundings, it is where Espanyol play matches).


Lots of cities have three or more large stadiums. FIFA doesn't like using them. The general rule is one city with two stadia and all the rest with only one. A city doesn't need just a stadium but airports, hotels, transport, etc. There is a lot more security around a stadium for a World Cup match than for normal fixtures. There are extra camera positions, thousands of extra press seats and other alterations made for a modern World Cup. Using two stadia in one city to split matches just means adding more expense and complicating things. FIFA don't want that.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

alserrod said:


> This was list of stadiums proposed for 2018 bidding Spain-Portugal. Two in Lisbon, one in Porto (cheers due to today's banner) and the rest of them in Spain.
> 
> Hints
> 
> - two stadiums quite close to border. Badajoz is province capital but city centre is 4 km away from border only. Anyway they haven't been ever in first league and will be a great enlargement. Vigo is not far away from border (and has been shifting from 1st to 2nd division)
> 
> - they considered over 40K, not over 50K
> 
> - my homecity stadium (Zaragoza) is a project and they really do not know if building a new one or refurbishing current one (a lot of politics inside). In 1999 UEFA dropped it for bidding EC. It was really old and new more than a single refurbishment but... in 1982 hosted WC, in 1992 hosted Olympics (Valencia and Zaragoza hosted football too) and in 1996 a Spanish cup... but it was really to make a new one.
> 
> - there aren't many "boundaries cities" between Spain and Portugal. It is even inner Spain and inner Portugal. Sides where population is lower. They chose both main cities that are so close to border and both in Spanish side
> (in the case of Badajoz, it is planned to have a half international station. Station will be close to Badajoz in Spanish side but parking in Portuguese side as well as freight area, 15 km away inside Portugal)
> 
> - Some out of these projects are nowadays running, other ones halted, other ones dropped
> 
> - And BTW, for Seville... La Cartuja stadium was the only one considered!!!
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portugal–Spain_2018_FIFA_World_Cup_bid


Thanks for that. I think they'd change it for a new bid. However, keep Murcia in there - a friend of mine has a villa 45 minutes south of there.


----------



## alserrod

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Lots of cities have three or more large stadiums. FIFA doesn't like using them. The general rule is one city with two stadia and all the rest with only one. A city doesn't need just a stadium but airports, hotels, transport, etc. There is a lot more security around a stadium for a World Cup match than for normal fixtures. There are extra camera positions, thousands of extra press seats and other alterations made for a modern World Cup. Using two stadia in one city to split matches just means adding more expense and complicating things. FIFA don't want that.


I agree. It should be specially mandatory to use more than one stadium in the same sity (except if that city is called Doha, of course!!). That would mean, no more stadiums in country that fit and you have it without spending money, quite large stadiums by far, better than any other one or so.

As said, with requirements of 50K, all Seville stadiums should to be considered. With 40K wouldn't, because there are a lot of 40-50K stadiums in Spain (or to be enlarged).

Should you have to choose one, for citizens it is easy: La Cartuja. Why?. In Seville you cannot say you do not bother about any team. Being from one or the other team supporter is a must in that city, no half way... and choosing one stadiums will take you 50% of city against.
La Cartuja ... is just neutral.

As a hint, former Seville basketball had a weak economic situation and was bought by Betis. All Sevilla FC supporters... resigned basketball after being who was new owner!!!


Not normal, not easy to understand, but that city has something special


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Lots of cities have three or more large stadiums. FIFA doesn't like using them. The general rule is one city with two stadia and all the rest with only one. A city doesn't need just a stadium but airports, hotels, transport, etc. There is a lot more security around a stadium for a World Cup match than for normal fixtures. There are extra camera positions, thousands of extra press seats and other alterations made for a modern World Cup. Using two stadia in one city to split matches just means adding more expense and complicating things. FIFA don't want that.


But you may want 2 in one city if the alternative is to travel more just to get to an inferior stadium in an uninteresting location. 

We are also talking 12 years out, so it's likely that pretty much all the stadiums are going to get upgrades given the improvements in technology and the higher demands or richer societies.


----------



## alserrod

Not often... but France had two stadiums either in EC than in WC in Paris (and St.Denis) and Russia had two stadiums in Moscow (and Russia es long enough to find cities...)


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Irish eyes smiling on feasibility study into UK bid for 2030 World Cup finals



> The FAI has confirmed it will join the English, Northern Irish, Welsh and Scottish football associations in conducting a feasibility review into a potential joint bid to host the finals of the 2030 FIFA World Cup writes KEIR RADNEDGE.


Keir Radnedge


----------



## Ioannes_

I am Spanish, and it is a paradox that* I do not want a World Cup in my country*. If there is one nation, capable of organizing this event, it is Spain. It's not about architecture, but because we have the best football in Europe, the best football afternoons without having to be drunk or violent like in the islands of northern Europe, and dominating all competitions at the Club level. Spain needs to remodel its stadiums, and even so, they have something that the rest of the world will never have: *authentic football.* So, I hope that FIFA does not deceive the morons of the Federation, and that ruin falls in another silly country.


----------



## pesto

Ioannes_ said:


> I am Spanish, and it is a paradox that* I do not want a World Cup in my country*. If there is one nation, capable of organizing this event, it is Spain. It's not about architecture, but because we have the best football in Europe, the best football afternoons without having to be drunk or violent like in the islands of northern Europe, and dominating all competitions at the Club level. Spain needs to remodel its stadiums, and even so, they have something that the rest of the world will never have: *authentic football.* So, I hope that FIFA does not deceive the morons of the Federation, and that ruin falls in another silly country.


Drunk, violent, morons, best football in Europe (not in the world?), dominating all competitions at the Club level, authentic football, ruin in another silly country.

Aside from that you seem a pretty calm, analytic kind of guy. :lol:


----------



## pesto

Some argue that having good clubs or high popularity for soccer locally translates into an ability to host a successful tournament (that is, one that builds income and brand value for soccer). But having good clubs and high popularity just requires people who are good at kicking a ball around with others, and people who enjoy watching them.

Hosting a successful WC requires more in the way of strategic business thinkers, politically adept executives, goal-focused managers, marketing analysts, advertising executives, PR people and financial people. 

FIFA should focus on bids that provide the latter, assuming facilities are comparable.


----------



## Ioannes_

pesto said:


> It seems the rowdiness of the UK soccer fans cuts in favor of holding the WC in the UK. It’s better than having them destroy Spain. :lol:
> 
> Otherwise, some argue that having good clubs or high popularity for soccer locally translates into an ability to host a successful tournament (that is, one that builds income and brand value for soccer). But having good clubs and high popularity just requires people who are good at kicking a ball around with others, and people who enjoy watching them.
> 
> Hosting a successful WC requires more in the way of strategic business thinkers, politically adept executives, goal-focused managers, marketing analysts, advertising executives, PR people and financial people.
> 
> FIFA should focus on bids that provide the latter, assuming facilities are comparable.


Spain organized the best Olympic Games in history, Spain Organized a World Cup being a new democracy, Spain has organized 3 international exhibitions, Davis Cups and is one of the most visited countries in the world. Do not question your organizational capacity. The only positive point that I see in the organization of the World Cup, is the legacy for stadiums like Zaragoza, Málaga, Valencia and some 20,000 extendable, of cities of great football tradition, that would be remodeled.


----------



## cyril sneer

*Spain organized the best Olympic Games in history* 

^ Has this title ever formally been declared? Its just that it seems after every Olympics the president of the Olympics makes a speech at the closing ceremony declaring xxxx Olympics to have been the best in history. The legacy of the Barcelona Olympics leaves a lot to be desired. The Olympic stadium for one was empty when I last went to Barcelona.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

cyril sneer said:


> *Spain organized the best Olympic Games in history*
> 
> ^ Has this title ever formally been declared? Its just that it seems after every Olympics the president of the Olympics makes a speech at the closing ceremony declaring xxxx Olympics to have been the best in history. The legacy of the Barcelona Olympics leaves a lot to be desired. The Olympic stadium for one was empty when I last went to Barcelona.


Subjective so impossible.


----------



## Voz Ibérica

Despiteit's a big island, there is no beach or summer culture in UK, because major cities don't have beaches (london, manchester, leeds, sheffield ...) 

they come by millions to Spain to make fiestas and ferias that don't exist in UK (ibiza, baleares & palma de mallorca, las palmas, costa verde, costa del sol, costa tropical, costa brava ...). at least they come to enjoy artistic matters in each city ...

probleme is that they still believe they are in the era of queen victoria so they can rule the world as they want ... 

Spain deserve it at the same level or may be more. all stadiums and facilities are already in place (even their clubs make training journey in spanish camps). 

british crown has a glory in the past, but the spanish crown has more glory and hugely maked history of humanity ... we are more than nation, barça or real or atletico are more than clubs, futbol is more than sport, more than history, more than culture, it's a way of life, and world cup will more than celebration.

so, regardless to economical issue, in this battle, Spain deserve to host ./.


----------



## Ioannes_

cyril sneer said:


> *Spain organized the best Olympic Games in history*
> 
> ^ Has this title ever formally been declared? Its just that it seems after every Olympics the president of the Olympics makes a speech at the closing ceremony declaring xxxx Olympics to have been the best in history. The legacy of the Barcelona Olympics leaves a lot to be desired. The Olympic stadium for one was empty when I last went to Barcelona.



It is true that it has no sporting activity, but it does have concerts and within its facilities, similar to how Wembley is managed.

the olympic stadium of barcelona, ​​was built in 1929, and had life before the games, and now, maybe it has no sporting life, but it is not deficit. If there was a city in the world, that took advantage of some games to regenerate itself, it was Barcelona. London projected a temporary stadium, which has become a problem, and the city's last option for a World Cup.


----------



## cyril sneer

London Stadium has its flaws but least its a multi purpose all year round sports venue.


----------



## RobH

cyril sneer said:


> *Spain organized the best Olympic Games in history*
> 
> ^ Has this title ever formally been declared? Its just that it seems after every Olympics the president of the Olympics makes a speech at the closing ceremony declaring xxxx Olympics to have been the best in history.


Sydney _technically_ has this boast, but only on a technicality. 

It was Samaranch who used to declare every Olympics and Winter Olympics the greatest ever in his closing ceremony speech (the notable exception was Atlanta). Rogge decided not to do what he predecessor did and instead just issued more general praise in his closing ceremony remarks.

So the last Olympics to be declared the best ever was, unsurprisingly, the last one Presided over by Samaranch, i.e. Sydney 2000 when he said _"I am proud and happy to proclaim that you have presented to the world the best Olympic Games ever."_.


----------



## Voz Ibérica

Simple fact : World Tourism rankings 

only 38 M UK visa tourist on about 670 M tourist in Europe (including 82 M in Spain alone)










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


----------



## pesto

My point was that you seem to talk about the WC like the main point is to party at a nearby beach. That's a great idea, but really you can do that without the WC. The point of the WC is to raise world recognition and involvement in soccer by holding a tournament in attractive locations. That doesn't mean that everywhere needs to look like Miami or Copacabana. NY, London, Paris, Rome, etc., seems to do very well without a beach culture. Maybe it's time for you to broaden your interests a bit? 

As for the WC proposal, bring it on. Let's see the numbers, analyses, market shares, ticket prices, security plans, facilities, planned expenditures, etc. And, for sure, mention the beaches and bars.


----------



## Rover030

Barcelona is too hot and touristy and London is always rainy. Mountains you can also find within an hour of LA. I'd stay put if I were you.


----------



## Ioannes_

pesto said:


> My point was that you seem to talk about the WC like the main point is to party at a nearby beach. That's a great idea, but really you can do that without the WC. The point of the WC is to raise world recognition and involvement in soccer by holding a tournament in attractive locations. That doesn't mean that everywhere needs to look like Miami or Copacabana. NY, London, Paris, Rome, etc., seems to do very well without a beach culture. Maybe it's time for you to broaden your interests a bit?
> 
> As for the WC proposal, bring it on. Let's see the numbers, analyses, market shares, ticket prices, security plans, facilities, planned expenditures, etc. And, for sure, mention the beaches and bars.



if the ability to receive tourists and be a country that lives by and for football, clubs that are going to reform their stadiums anyway before 2030 ... is not enough ....

By the way, they have talked about Catalonia up there and I think it's a dirty blow. All countries have problems: terrorism, brexit and drunken and violent fans without a Vladimir Putin that contains them.

As soon as I learn to upload photos, I'm going to fantasize about some interesting things about a hypothetical candidacy from Spain, although we all know that the World Cup is sold to England.


----------



## GunnerJacket

"Modus Interruptus!"


----------



## GunnerJacket

*Puts wand away*


Okay, campers. Dare I open the playground once more? Tell you what I'm going to do: 

*Lesson 1)*
In threads inviting contested comparisons between leagues, nations, etc., there is the inevitable debate about which is better for the issue at hand. Favoring one doesn't mean another is not qualified or that said nation is altogether poor. These are matters weighed heavily on opinion and subjective tastes. Both England and Spain (and many other nations) would make fine hosts, while both also have their imperfections. If you feel your particular home is a slice of heaven then good for you, no one here is saying you're not entitled to that feeling. Similarly, if someone disagrees they're entitled to that opinion, as well.

So if you wish to participate in a debate thread such as this you need a balance of thick skin and manners. We're not the ones picking the winner here nor does this particular forum carry weight in lifting one community over another. We discuss, we offer comments, we read comments, we learn and move on. It's a message board, not a battlefield on which to defend your homeland's honor or aggressively denounce someone just because you disagree with their stance. Civility, folks. Civility.

*Lesson 2)*
The rules (long version here), again, are pretty simple:
- Be civil and factual in presenting your points
- Stick to the subject matter of logistics behind a WC bid
- Don't attack other posters, nations, etc. (ie: Don't be a d***.)
- If you feel a post is out of line you contact a mod instead of carrying out the debate in public.

Got it? Good, because *the next debate infraction from this thread gets it closed down for good and replaced with a news-links only version, with the participants facing suspension or account removal!* Jolly, eh!

Have some manners and some thick skin (or use your ignore button) and we'll all have fun. So, "_If at first we don't succeed..._"


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> Barcelona is too hot and touristy and London is always rainy. Mountains you can also find within an hour of LA. I'd stay put if I were you.


You sound like my mother; she always wondered why anyone would go to Europe where things are so old and run down. :lol: 

By October Barcelona has become pretty mild and Norwegian Air makes it dirt cheap from LA or Oakland. As for London you just have to bite the bullet if you are into history, Wren's architecture and theater. Some people in London even speak a type of English. :lol:


----------



## alserrod

Just to start... SPAIN IS NOT BIDDING FOR WC 2030

Some statemets set it in a possible EC 2028. I have heard only one statement about WC but seemed to be after drinking several gintonics

All analysis I would make are related both in strong (or weak) points in Spain and how they should be considered for other countries to make a comparation. 
It has been considered that could host a WC, not easy nowadays with FIFA requirements (stronger than UEFA) but possible. Therefore.... I will not say why Spain should host (or shouldn't) after federation hasn't declared to bid... just to point several issues that could be important.




pesto said:


> My point was that you seem to talk about the WC like the main point is to party at a nearby beach. That's a great idea, but really you can do that without the WC. The point of the WC is to raise world recognition and involvement in soccer by holding a tournament in attractive locations. That doesn't mean that everywhere needs to look like Miami or Copacabana. NY, London, Paris, Rome, etc., seems to do very well without a beach culture. Maybe it's time for you to broaden your interests a bit?
> 
> As for the WC proposal, bring it on. Let's see the numbers, analyses, market shares, ticket prices, security plans, facilities, planned expenditures, etc. And, for sure, mention the beaches and bars.



Let's make a second think...

- how many spectators in stadiums are visitors and how many are locals?. 


It depends how tickets sale is organized (Germany06 made it.... perfectly!!! BTW) and let's suppose a host country with that sort of selling tickets (you payed until final providing your country remained. If drop out, ticked cancelled and money refunded after WC). Therefore you can have two weeks or up to five weeks to stay in a country. 
Providing a person has those five weeks (and enough money... do not know how many people would be able), it is known they will move to cities where their country will play. Doesn't matter if in Top5 cities to visit or maybe a small unknown city (that could be so interesting but at first, absolutely unknown) they will go to those cities.

In those 3-4 days within one and another match they can visit something and guess they would prefer to visit that unknown city that could have some "secret monuments" in guides.
They would prefer to do it instead of moving corner to corner of country. It doesn't matter there's a good resort, big touristic city or any cultural issue. They will focus in "their route".
Except in case of Qatar or another country so small... people will not move far away.

It doesn't matter if rainy, sunny, cold, hot or whatever. It doesn't matter if there's a great heritage (some hooligans do not have enough head to know what heritage is in world!!) or whatever. They will move within hosting cities, not within whole country.

And do you agree that there are more local rather than visitors in stadiums? (at least in phase group)


----------



## GunnerJacket

This thread if for the WC 2030 bid, not to debate past Olympics.


----------



## pesto

alserrod said:


> Just to start... SPAIN IS NOT BIDDING FOR WC 2030
> 
> Some statemets set it in a possible EC 2028. I have heard only one statement about WC but seemed to be after drinking several gintonics
> 
> All analysis I would make are related both in strong (or weak) points in Spain and how they should be considered for other countries to make a comparation.
> It has been considered that could host a WC, not easy nowadays with FIFA requirements (stronger than UEFA) but possible. Therefore.... I will not say why Spain should host (or shouldn't) after federation hasn't declared to bid... just to point several issues that could be important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's make a second think...
> 
> - how many spectators in stadiums are visitors and how many are locals?.
> 
> 
> It depends how tickets sale is organized (Germany06 made it.... perfectly!!! BTW) and let's suppose a host country with that sort of selling tickets (you payed until final providing your country remained. If drop out, ticked cancelled and money refunded after WC). Therefore you can have two weeks or up to five weeks to stay in a country.
> Providing a person has those five weeks (and enough money... do not know how many people would be able), it is known they will move to cities where their country will play. Doesn't matter if in Top5 cities to visit or maybe a small unknown city (that could be so interesting but at first, absolutely unknown) they will go to those cities.
> 
> In those 3-4 days within one and another match they can visit something and guess they would prefer to visit that unknown city that could have some "secret monuments" in guides.
> They would prefer to do it instead of moving corner to corner of country. It doesn't matter there's a good resort, big touristic city or any cultural issue. They will focus in "their route".
> Except in case of Qatar or another country so small... people will not move far away.
> 
> It doesn't matter if rainy, sunny, cold, hot or whatever. It doesn't matter if there's a great heritage (some hooligans do not have enough head to know what heritage is in world!!) or whatever. They will move within hosting cities, not within whole country.
> 
> And do you agree that there are more local rather than visitors in stadiums? (at least in phase group)


No opinion. But FIFA is not so interested in where the viewers come from; it's interested in how much they spend. If visitors spend $350 per seat and locals only $300, you should market to visitors.

I don't think I would give full refunds if a team is eliminated. That would not be a purchase of a ticket, but an option to buy a ticket, and a premium should be charged. Equivalently, the ticketholder could get a partial refund if the ticket is returned, say, a week in advance. Or if the organizers want to stay out of the aftermarket, private brokers could set up booths or websites to buy and sell tickets. But I would defer to those who are actually in the market since they best know how to get the tickets into the hands of the right person at the right price.

For sure, it's good to have cities that have things to do. But if you have only beaches you are naturally going to attract those wanting to spend little money and get as drunk and belligerent as possible. I am guessing that hookers will get into that mix pretty quickly as well. So it might be better to mix things up with appeals to different sorts of tourists as well.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

FIFA knows how to sell tickets to maximise revenue. They've got it down to an artform and won't be changing that (except to scrap the cheaper locals ticket category used for Brazil and Russia as wealthier nations won't get that option). Transport was considered a major problem in Russia or Brazil with large distances so that won't be an issue either.

As for beaches, FIFA couldn't care less.


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> FIFA knows how to sell tickets to maximise revenue. They've got it down to an artform and won't be changing that (except to scrap the cheaper locals ticket category used for Brazil and Russia as wealthier nations won't get that option). Transport was considered a major problem in Russia or Brazil with large distances so that won't be an issue either.
> 
> As for beaches, FIFA couldn't care less.


Yes and no. Modalities and information analysis change so quickly now that no one can comment on 2030. But you can assume they will get the best advice they can.

FIFA does care about the worldwide rep of the host cities and this includes beaches, among many other things. Marketing is both mass and elite at the same time because everyone wants to associate with something really cool in the eyes of his friends and it's the marketer who gives them the ammunition to build a story. Beaches, booze, Rembrandt, opera. It's all the same at some level.


----------



## alserrod

Agree, people who travel to a WC, go to watch football, not to go to beaches. Going on tourism the rest of the year would be cheaper.

A bidding dossier should include other hints but not facilities for extra tourism. It is clear that in those 3 free days among each match someone will try to visit anything, but let's supposse you are in the less touristic city in that country (and with a great stadium). I bet you will ask for countryscapes, mountains or maybe cosy villages to visit instead of moving corner to corner.


Let me ask one hint... Brazil14. Among all people who had to move to Manaus, I bet 100% made it by plane. They could stay there for one, two, three nights. How many of them went in those days to wonderful Brazilian beaches?. Because Brazil has them but Manaos is far from sea and I would never have a bath in Manaos waters.

Is there any other things in Manaos to visit?

Was beaches the most important hint to bid for a WC or just football heritage (country with more cups) and infrastructure for hosting WC (stadiums, transport, hospitality...)?



Hint... considering four WC, in three of them plane is compulsory to move within cities (Brazil, Russia and USA-Mex-Can) and the fourth one is almost all in the same city (Doha). Therefore, we will never know "FIFA rules".


----------



## Voz Ibérica

*Real Madrid Santiago Bernabeu upgrade approved*
Real Madrid’s plan to upgrade the Santiago Bernabeu by 2022 at a cost of 525 million euros ($618 million) was given the green light on Sunday.
https://punchng.com/real-madrid-santiago-bernabeu-upgrade-approved/

*Pérez's €575 million debt plan for Bernabéu revamp approved*
Club members have overwhelming approved Florentino Pérez's plan to borrow up to €575 million to build the new Bernabéu.
https://en.as.com/en/2018/09/23/football/1537714344_577874.html


----------



## alserrod

It is cool and you can post FC Barcelona project, as cool (or maybe more) as in Madrid

but could be faster if you post any news release that points that Spain wanna bid for a WC (and not only one chat among several authorities some days ago and no news since then)


----------



## pesto

alserrod said:


> Agree, people who travel to a WC, go to watch football, not to go to beaches. Going on tourism the rest of the year would be cheaper.
> 
> A bidding dossier should include other hints but not facilities for extra tourism. It is clear that in those 3 free days among each match someone will try to visit anything, but let's supposse you are in the less touristic city in that country (and with a great stadium). I bet you will ask for countryscapes, mountains or maybe cosy villages to visit instead of moving corner to corner.
> 
> 
> Let me ask one hint... Brazil14. Among all people who had to move to Manaus, I bet 100% made it by plane. They could stay there for one, two, three nights. How many of them went in those days to wonderful Brazilian beaches?. Because Brazil has them but Manaos is far from sea and I would never have a bath in Manaos waters.
> 
> Is there any other things in Manaos to visit?
> 
> Was beaches the most important hint to bid for a WC or just football heritage (country with more cups) and infrastructure for hosting WC (stadiums, transport, hospitality...)?
> 
> 
> 
> Hint... considering four WC, in three of them plane is compulsory to move within cities (Brazil, Russia and USA-Mex-Can) and the fourth one is almost all in the same city (Doha). Therefore, we will never know "FIFA rules".


Generally, I agree with everything. I am confident that any Spanish or UK bid will be quite strong and any issues will be relatively minor, nothing likely to threaten the bid. Being a member of a joint bid is probably an additional plus but if Spain or England can show they made a bona fide effort to form a group but it couldn’t be done, then having a solo bid won’t count much against them either.

I don’t think FIFA has “rules” regarding transportation; it’s more like guidelines and standards that they hope an ideal bid would reflect. That is not going to be an issue either unless I am missing something rather extreme.

I also like the idea of Ireland joining the UK bid. Dublin is an interesting city and the Irish countryside is an emotional attachment for many in Canada, the US, Australia and other countries.


----------



## alserrod

For an "England+" bidding it should be considered

- how many stadiums (the more, more options for cities, less matches per stadium)
- where to enlarge bidding area

I guess England has enough stadiums or maybe some refurbishments or enlarged and enough for FIFA requirements. I guess no boundary federation has enough stadiums either for an UEFA competition. 
Is it better or worst for England to share bidding options?. 



Hint, about Spain (not bidding, remember, maybe for UEFA EC 2028, not considered FIFA till today at least), I chatted about movement via railway.
Have remembered situation in 1982. Almost no motorways, single classic lines for railway (too long for any movement) and I guess all was done by plane. Groups were shared in two joined near cities (the less, Alicante-Elche, 30 km, the most, Valencia-Zaragoza 300 km) and the rest of movements via plane

I guess that just bidding with same cities that in 1982 (I would incluide someone else and maybe another could drop), most of movements would be today by railway.


But I bet FIFA is more interested in high lux hotel capacity, plus inner transportation, plus security rather than in other options


----------



## cyril sneer

I think a sole England bid would be more profitable. Simpler logistics and less initial capital needed to bring up stadiums to standard. The main problem I have with a shared UK bid however is how they sort out the automatic qualification places. Would FIFA really allow four hosts to be given automatic qualifying places? I mean could you really justify NI being awarded an automatic spot as hosts just for providing one venue, which would likely only be big enough for 3 or 4 group games? I'm not sure. If three hosts is the max (going by United 2026) then how does the UK politically decide which nation to drop from the bid? For me a UK bid is fraught with additional and unnecessary complications that could hinder the bid.


----------



## ElvisBC

alserrod said:


> For an "England+" bidding it should be considered
> 
> - how many stadiums (the more, more options for cities, less matches per stadium)
> - where to enlarge bidding area
> 
> I guess England has enough stadiums or maybe some refurbishments or enlarged and enough for FIFA requirements. I guess no boundary federation has enough stadiums either for an UEFA competition.
> Is it better or worst for England to share bidding options?.
> 
> 
> 
> Hint, about Spain (not bidding, remember, maybe for UEFA EC 2028, not considered FIFA till today at least), I chatted about movement via railway.
> Have remembered situation in 1982. Almost no motorways, single classic lines for railway (too long for any movement) and I guess all was done by plane. Groups were shared in two joined near cities (the less, Alicante-Elche, 30 km, the most, Valencia-Zaragoza 300 km) and the rest of movements via plane
> 
> I guess that just bidding with same cities that in 1982 (I would incluide someone else and maybe another could drop), most of movements would be today by railway.
> 
> 
> But I bet FIFA is more interested in high lux hotel capacity, plus inner transportation, plus security rather than in other options


now you have motorways ... very expensive ones hno:


----------



## alserrod

cyril sneer said:


> I think a sole England bid would be more profitable. Simpler logistics and less initial capital needed to bring up stadiums to standard. The main problem I have with a shared UK bid however is how they sort out the automatic qualification places. Would FIFA really allow four hosts to be given automatic qualifying places? I mean could you really justify NI being awarded an automatic spot as hosts just for providing one venue, which would likely only be big enough for 3 or 4 group games? I'm not sure. If three hosts is the max (going by United 2026) then how does the UK politically decide which nation to drop from the bid? For me a UK bid is fraught with additional and unnecessary complications that could hinder the bid.


The rule is quite clear and would be "against" this enlarged bidding.
ALL host federations would be clasified.
Till now we have seen Korea-Japan (OK, they usually get classified to WC from Asian side but took only 2,5 seats from Asia)
Later USA-Can-Mex. Glancing nowadays, a sort of classification with 6 teams and 3,5 seats. Mexico never fails. USA failed in the last match (against Trinidad and Tobago!!! and was out of WC2018), Canada ... randomly appears at last.
But in 2026 there will be FIVE North America, Central America + Caribe to classify. Thus Canada, Mexico, USA and a two seats classification
For 2030, nevermind where in hell it will be (providing there's not a Caribbean bidding or so), five teams in WC. Let's suppose USA and Mexico run on. Three more seats to play (nowadays one extra seat plus one playoff)

In EC we have seen Belgium-Netherlands, Switzerland-Austria and Poland-Ukraine, both teams were classified.

What should it happen if an England+?. ALL those countries will be classified and number of European teams for qualifiying tournament will be less (and less seats).
AFAIK, in Europe, it will be enlarged from 15 to 18 seats... but let's remember in last WC, Netherlands and Italy, for instance, were out. Croatia was runner-up in final and got classified in playoff...

Will FIFA accept only 14 teams to be classified + N.Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England? (or 13 enlarged to Ireland)

It is fine to see how some cities with football tradition but not enough facilities around can be host... but let's remember that number of countries remains.

PS. I make further a proposal



ElvisBC said:


> now you have motorways ... very expensive ones hno:


off-topic. Do you mean tolled motorways prices or construction costing?


----------



## alserrod

A proposal...

Since Ukraine dropped off hosting FIBA Europe basket tournament due to internal situation, federation took a decission that.. has remained.

They chose four different countries already classified to host Eurobasket. Each one will host one group (format had been always, group phase 6 teams in 4 groups, one in each city and later play off). They chose a different city for play off.

It was a sort to play a competition asap that they didn't want to drop out.

Two years later several options were in table and they chose again a 4 countries format (but this time it wasn't because needed to be fast but they wanted that format). Three of them had been in last competitions, therefore, no qualifying but... not erasing seats to qualify. One out of them (Turkey) was pointed for play off and final.

Random groups were quite curious. 24 teams, 4 hosts, thus 20 to choose. Each country was entitled to choose one additional team. They could chose a neighbour one (and more public in matches), a greater team (and more people in TV) or a weak team (and easier to go through). Just to choose. 


Let's suppose same situation with football...

48 teams in 16 groups (3 teams/group, 2 classified on according to WC2016).

Four countries, four stadiums in each one, first play off in same country, rest of them only in one or two countries.

Let's suppose that three over a 4-countries bidding have been qualified for WC in last 20 years.

That means "no reserved seats" as hosts, because they had historically go on.

A sort of format that could apply even if countries in different continents.


----------



## ElvisBC

alserrod said:


> off-topic. Do you mean tolled motorways prices or construction costing?


actually both :colgate:


----------



## pesto

cyril sneer said:


> I think a sole England bid would be more profitable. Simpler logistics and less initial capital needed to bring up stadiums to standard. The main problem I have with a shared UK bid however is how they sort out the automatic qualification places. Would FIFA really allow four hosts to be given automatic qualifying places? I mean could you really justify NI being awarded an automatic spot as hosts just for providing one venue, which would likely only be big enough for 3 or 4 group games? I'm not sure. If three hosts is the max (going by United 2026) then how does the UK politically decide which nation to drop from the bid? For me a UK bid is fraught with additional and unnecessary complications that could hinder the bid.


This is an entertaining issue but one that sounds REALLY minor to me as a reason for or against a UK bid. 

There are several easy solutions, such as holding an elimination tournament among the 4 for the automatic bid and leaving the others to the usual selection rules. Or am I missing something subtly important?


----------



## alserrod

pesto said:


> I don't know of any "official" source, but I hope we aren't going to start counting hotels and measuring distances. :lol:
> 
> Hopefully all proposed locations will far exceed these guidelines or be close enough that any mark-downs are minimal.


Needn't

AFAIK, for Russia, each team had a central headquarter, guess they chose over those proposed by Russian federation. They had to move (and maybe more than in Can-USA-Mex). Local hotels for matches and return to headquarter. Need several fields in destination (host cities) and hotel must have somewhere to play football those days.

In addition, general headquarter for press (later they can move, but they have always a headquarter to coordinate) and another one for referees


Glanced several webpages and found that information about requirements


What about one bar every 200 seats????? :cheers:


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

alserrod said:


> What about one bar every 200 seats????? :cheers:


That surely means one server per 200 seats, which actually sounds a bit low.

Edit: probably ok though.


----------



## alserrod

Have read five bars per 1000 people indeed!!! (well, five places where to sell beverages per 1000 people)


----------



## pesto

Five servers per 1000 people makes some sense, since you can put a dozen or more servers behind a bar. 

Interestingly, this area is subject to technological innovation as systems for automatic drink preparation and serving and billing/collection are developed; and crowd handling rationalized. Some modern stadiums may have far fewer service people than others. Seems likely that this is mostly a guideline to make sure people are thinking in the right ballpark (no pun intended).


----------



## alserrod

Well... to make a poll... Germany goes down (will organize EC 2024)


----------



## www.sercan.de

So after losing

5 EURO bids (2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024)
and
5 Summer Olympic bids (2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2020)

i am sure they will no troll at FIFA World Cup bids


----------



## pesto

Losing is just the first part of winning. You build experience and reputation. The Silicon Valley rule is that your first 9 ventures lose a million each and the 10th one puts you on the cover of Forbes.


----------



## RobH

Turkey has been kind of unlucky with its Euro bids. Not quite ready, then ready but UEFA changed the format to 24 teams and was up against France and Platini, then ready but UEFA changed the format as a one-off to a pan-European tournament, then ready but Erdogan's gone totally Librarian and...we're up against ze Germans.

Hopefully if/when Turkey becomes a bit more sane politically it'll get the tournament.

The Olympic bids were...ambitious to say the least and up against some properly stiff competition on most occasions.


----------



## jchk

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1...uk-ireland-england-wales-scotland-theresa-may



> THERESA May tonight declared that the Government is ready to back a bid to bring football home by jointly hosting the World Cup Finals with Ireland in 2030.


----------



## ElvisBC

we’ve got no chance, morroco has whole africa and arab world behind, and time zone as well :colgate: :colgate: :colgate:


people, it is coming home, noone else has a chance against our bid, even though ireland is included in it


----------



## CaliforniaJones

My expectations about member associations voting for the British-Irish bid:
* All OFC member associations
* AFC: Australia, Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Hong Kong, Singapore, United Arab Emirates
* CAF: Southern Africa, Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya
* CONMEBOL: none
* CONCACAF: Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Saint Lucia, Saint Kit and Nevis
* UEFA: Germany, Eastern Europe, Northern Europe

There're many unknown: USA, Canada, Mexico


----------



## Laurence2011

Why is Ireland being included? Is it really necessary?


----------



## pesto

Laurence2011 said:


> Why is Ireland being included? Is it really necessary?


No, but as we have discussed, very desirable in my mind. To use English understatement, the UK has not always been seen as a team player. This is a move toward connection and away from hubris. And probably wins votes.

In addition, it never can hurt to bring on-board a well-known city and a good stadium. This allows the UK to eliminate the stadium they feel would have cost them the most to bring to FIFA security and other standards, so it should be looked on as a blessing. Stadiums needing work counts against the bid rating. Likewise, if there is a stadium in an area that is not as tourist attractive as some others.

It's still my view that England alone loses, and the UK wins. But they shouldn't look upon their opponents as weak; these are legitimate challengers and their is some chance the UK doesn't make it into the final two. Ireland is a nice bit of bolstering for the bid.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> we’ve got no chance, morroco has whole africa and arab world behind, and time zone as well :colgate: :colgate: :colgate:
> 
> 
> people, it is coming home, noone else has a chance against our bid, even though ireland is included in it


Where is Colonel Ned when you need him?

Hopefully the world votes as rationally as they did for 2026. Btw, does PM May ever use the expression "sh#t-hole countries"?


----------



## ElvisBC

she prefers the word exit :colgate:


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

pesto said:


> No, but as we have discussed, very desirable in my mind. To use English understatement, the UK has not always been seen as a team player. This is a move toward connection and away from hubris. And probably wins votes.
> 
> In addition, it never can hurt to bring on-board a well-known city and a good stadium. This allows the UK to eliminate the stadium they feel would have cost them the most to bring to FIFA security and other standards, so it should be looked on as a blessing. Stadiums needing work counts against the bid rating. Likewise, if there is a stadium in an area that is not as tourist attractive as some others.
> 
> It's still my view that England alone loses, and the UK wins. But they shouldn't look upon their opponents as weak; these are legitimate challengers and their is some chance the UK doesn't make it into the final two. Ireland is a nice bit of bolstering for the bid.


Everywhere you go there is an Irish pub. Often there is an English or British pub also but the Irish pub is a certainty. Might as well include an EU nation as well! Including Ireland is great for marketing purposes. Where is the beer this chap :cheers: is drinking associated with?

Only problem, a bit like the 2026 World Cup, is what to call it? Whilst Ireland is geographically one of the British Isles (Great Britain being the biggest of the islands and Ireland the 2nd biggest) you cannot use that as British is also a nationality for the rest of the islands but not the Republic of Ireland. Probably have to go with _UK & Ireland_ even though that would be short for _United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Ireland_.


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Everywhere you go there is an Irish pub. Often there is an English or British pub also but the Irish pub is a certainty. Might as well include an EU nation as well! Including Ireland is great for marketing purposes. Where is the beer this chap :cheers: is drinking associated with?
> 
> Only problem, a bit like the 2026 World Cup, is what to call it? Whilst Ireland is geographically one of the British Isles (Great Britain being the biggest of the islands and Ireland the 2nd biggest) you cannot use that as British is also a nationality for the rest of the islands but not the Republic of Ireland. Probably have to go with _UK & Ireland_ even though that would be short for _United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Ireland_.


Everybody is Irish when they're drunk enough!

So when you say "UK and Ireland" everyone agrees you are including N. Ireland only once but would disagree on which term includes it?


----------



## cyril sneer

I can't help but be a cynic and view this statement by the UK government to include Ireland in the bid is more of a political gesture than anything else. It's getting a bit ridiculous now having five host nations under one bid. I still don't understand how this can possibly work.


----------



## pesto

cyril sneer said:


> I can't help but be a cynic and view this statement by the UK government to include Ireland in the bid is more of *a political gesture* than anything else. It's getting a bit ridiculous now having five host nations under one bid. I still don't understand how this can possibly work.


Ya think? :lol: Of course its political; politics is the art of the possible and England loses without adding bid partners. And that would make many stadium owners, airlines, hotels and retailers very, very unhappy.

But as I said before, Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland have no reason to rock the boat and no significant input unless they want to be dropped. And Ireland and the UK now have public commitments from the top that will make reaching a deal a virtual certainty.

Of course, this will be after substantial hand ringing and alarums and excursions from the scandal rags.


----------



## RobH

cyril sneer said:


> I can't help but be a cynic and view this statement by the UK government to include Ireland in the bid is more of a political gesture than anything else. It's getting a bit ridiculous now having five host nations under one bid. I still don't understand how this can possibly work.


I think it's convenient for her that a potential UK/Irish project has emerged at this time, but to be honest I think she's at the point where she's clinging onto whatever bits of potential good news come her way right now, like a person overboard clinging onto flotsam and jetsum. I find it hard to believe the government is leading on this. More likely, the FA are taking their cues from FIFA who are preferring joint bids, and May has latched onto what's happening. That's my feeling at the moment.



pesto said:


> Ya think? :lol: Of course its political; politics is the art of the possible and England loses without adding bid partners.


Bold as hell to use the laughing smiley when the point you're responding to has flown right over your head. 

To be fair, Cyril could've been a bit clearer in what is an international thread....but still...


----------



## pesto

One of the main points of a joint bid is that it reduces the amount spent on construction (stadiums, facilities, roads, hotels, airport expansions). The ideal is that the stadiums are already there and just need normal maintenance or a bit of modernization, the sort of thing that would be done over time in any case.

If a bid really requires substantial changes to existing stadiums in multiple countries, then FIFA will ask if the demand is really there, or if this is just spending on unneeded facilities that will get minimum usage after the WC.


----------



## MalboroMekiKratki

Well this is already planned for Serbia. As president said,in next couple years Serbia should get a new modern stadion in every bigger city. Our president have a good reason to do something like this, only hes mafia friends can get big construction job in Serbia. Stadiums that would cost like 50milion euros they will say its 100milion job and they will put 50milions in there pockets... They are doing that with everything : roads, bridges, highways... Way not stadiums


----------



## pesto

MalboroMekiKratki said:


> Well this is already planned for Serbia. As president said,in next couple years Serbia should get a new modern stadion in every bigger city. Our president have a good reason to do something like this, only hes mafia friends can get big construction job in Serbia. Stadiums that would cost like 50milion euros they will say its 100milion job and they will put 50milions in there pockets... They are doing that with everything : roads, bridges, highways... Way not stadiums


LOL. You are basically setting forth the problem that FIFA has been criticized for and is trying to get away from. 

Pretty much everyone knows that the stadiums being built or improved for the WC are not needed; that private money would never build them; that they will be associated with bribes and theft from real public uses (education, medical, etc.); and they will then rot away since there is no money for maintenance or security. The construction profits and bribes will end up in Switzerland and not help the home country in the slightest.

A good rule of thumb: if there is any actual economic demand for a stadium it will already be there and be in constant use.


----------



## cyril sneer

A Balkans WC? This has to be a pipedream surely? I'll eat my hat if the Balkans gets the 2030 WC.


----------



## MalboroMekiKratki

Yes its inposible, but its a nice dream. Its silly to say but 2030 is too early for something this big to happen here. If we wont something like this we must build better connections
We have highways but we do not have good railroads
Dont know about Romania and Bulgaria,but Serbia have one good airport and one in Nis that needs some work.
Danube can be very good way for Belgrade Buchurest transport and there where some plans of canal that would go to Grecce throught Morava river abd Vardar river. We need time here, and normal Goverment which will work for its people and a bit less for there pockets...


----------



## cyril sneer

Yes, far too early, and too strong competition for a Balkans bid this time round. I think they'd be best angling for a Euros bid to be honest.


----------



## Gombos

MalboroMekiKratki said:


> Dont know about Romania and Bulgaria,but Serbia have one good airport and one in Nis that needs some work.


Well Romania as of 2015 had 16 international airports + 1 also international in construction at Brașov. 

The things improved dramatically, since our railways are also not high speed.

Bucharest, Cluj Napoca, Timişoara and Iaşi have millions as per 2016 or 2017. Craiova and Sibiu (current replacement for Brașov until the inauguration of the new Brașov) at least 500k but are rising up. And even Oradea does it.


----------



## Gombos

Serbia (as per 2017)

Belgrade (5.343 million)
Nis (331.582)

Romania (as per 2017)
Bucharest (12.860 million)
Cluj Napoca (2.688 million)
Timisoara (1.621 million)
Iasi (1.147 million)
Sibiu (533.306)
Craiova (447.571)
Bacau (425.733)
Suceava (262.165)
Oradea (162.902)
Constanta (137.508)
Satu Mare (60.795)
Arad (11.282)
Tulcea (4.232)
Targu Mures (748; I think it was in renovation, it is pretty big town near Cluj)

Brasov airport (openings in 2020, 70-90 million euros).


----------



## Ioannes_

The President of the Government of Spain, Pedro Sánchez, has offered this Monday to *Morocco *to present a joint candidacy with Portugal to qualify for the organization of the 2030 *World Cup*.


https://elpais.com/deportes/2018/11/19/actualidad/1542630570_268750.html


----------



## pesto

Ioannes_ said:


> The President of the Government of Spain, Pedro Sánchez, has offered this Monday to *Morocco *to present a joint candidacy with Portugal to qualify for the organization of the 2030 *World Cup*.
> 
> 
> https://elpais.com/deportes/2018/11/19/actualidad/1542630570_268750.html


Interesting to see what develops. As they note, they will get some backing from Europe, Africa, the Middle East and LatAm.

Also interesting: Infantino gave his implicit support by being there. Or so they say.


----------



## PAO13

Gombos said:


> *Please also post the current infrastructure of Greece.*


Well here's my personal take on Greece's contribution to the Balkan bid

- Stadiums that will definitely be in the bid:

*Spiros Louis - Athens - capacity: 75.000*








This stadium has already hosted the Olympic games and 3 UEFA Champions League finals, and seems to me like the clear candidate to be the final venue in the Balkan bid.

- Stadiums that will most likely be in the bid:

*Toumba - Thessaloniki - capacity: 29.000*








PAOK has already started the process of fully redeveloping this stadium, and if Greece joins a bid for the world cup, I believe the new capacity will be in the range of 50.000.

* Pampeloponnisiako Stadio - Patra - capacity: 24.000*








Was fully reconstructed in 2004, but would need further reconstruction in order to raise the standards and the capacity to the range of 40.000. Preferably it'd be reconstructed into a football specific stadium as well.

- Stadiums with some chances of being included in the bid:

*Pankritio Stadio - Heraklion - capacity: 26.000*








Same status as Pampeloponnisiako Stadio. One of the favorites if Greece has to deliver four stadiums.

*Panthessaliko Stadio - Volos - capacity: 23.000*








Same status as Pampeloponnisiako Stadio and Pankritio Stadio.

- Outsiders to be included in the bid:

*Karaiskakis Stadium - Pireaus - capacity 33.000*








Would be included if it met the requirement of a 40.000 capacity, but as far as I know it's not possible to increase the capacity of this stadium.

* Agia Sofia Stadium - Athens - 31.000 (under construction) *








Similar situation to the stadium above.


----------



## Voz Ibérica

Finally, it's official.
Spain to bid for 2030, with Portugal and Morocco.
Seeking the first WC on 2 different continents ever ... that would be an amazing way to celebrate the Centenario !


----------



## Voz Ibérica

*Spain tries to scupper Britain bid for World Cup 2030*
https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...in-britain-morocco-host-world-cup-2030-latest

*Spain prime minister makes offer of joint bid with Portugal and Morocco for 2030 World Cup*
https://www.marca.com/en/football/spanish-football/2018/11/19/5bf2dca446163f4c6e8b45b0.html


----------



## Ioannes_

As a Spaniard and a fan of architecture and sporting events, I feel angry to think that the President of my country has had this occurrence, in which much money will be spent on advertising, when we all know that WC2030 is already sold to England.


----------



## pesto

Voz Ibérica said:


> *Spain tries to scupper Britain bid for World Cup 2030*
> https://www.express.co.uk/news/worl...in-britain-morocco-host-world-cup-2030-latest
> 
> *Spain prime minister makes offer of joint bid with Portugal and Morocco for 2030 World Cup*
> https://www.marca.com/en/football/spanish-football/2018/11/19/5bf2dca446163f4c6e8b45b0.html


Love the headline. Makes it sound like the Spanish are bidding just to hurt the British bid rather than actually hoping to win.

Assuming the "All Around Gibraltar" bid actually gets pulled together you have a real chance for a 2nd round of voting to occur, which obviously means you have to finish in the top 2 in the first round. Could make for an interesting few years of poll watching and speculating.


----------



## alserrod

Ioannes_ said:


> The President of the Government of Spain, Pedro Sánchez, has offered this Monday to *Morocco *to present a joint candidacy with Portugal to qualify for the organization of the 2030 *World Cup*.
> 
> 
> https://elpais.com/deportes/2018/11/19/actualidad/1542630570_268750.html


After saying that there were botherings only, today it is official. In an official meeting, Spanish president and Moroccan king have considered that option.

Do not know which conversations have been taken with Portuguese government, nevertheless


There are some important hints to point.

Nowadays, if a bidding country is chosen, there's one option less to that continent. If that country is Brazil, let's suppose nothing happens (they have been in all WC), if it is a country that has been in more than 75%, more or less, we could say no places missing in that continent.

Problem is having three countries. OK. They could be strong but they are 3 countries less


In the case of Portugal-Spain-Morocco they are countries in two continents. With 9 seats for Africa, would be hard not seeing Morocco and in Europe Spain and Portugal have been qualified for a long time.


In addition, they could send even matches to Canary islands, not far from Morocco, easy to move by plane (and maybe best weather we could find among any city in the three countries)


----------



## cyril sneer

It will be interesting to see which bid UEFA put their support behind. UEFA can't afford to split the voting between two bids or else it will give advantage to the South American bid. UEFA will need to nominate one or the other of a UK or Iberian bid.


----------



## pesto

Not necessarily. They are assured of one European bid making it to the final two unless Argentina wins outright in the first round (in which case it doesn't matter who you support).


----------



## alserrod

In Africa there will be nine places (instead of five). Guess happy to host a WC for second time even if Morocco takes out one place

Portugal has been in all WC since 2002
Spain has been in all WC since 1978

Even automatically qualification for Portugal and Spain, guess no special missing for places in Europe



Anyway, today

- have read Portugal declared no formal conversations about this issue yet
- have read FIFA rules doesn't allow a two-confederation bidding
- have read FIFA will be happy if two-continent bidding and will move any previous rule

Too many news in one day


----------



## Ioannes_

alserrod said:


> In Africa there will be nine places (instead of five). Guess happy to host a WC for second time even if Morocco takes out one place
> 
> Portugal has been in all WC since 2002
> Spain has been in all WC since 1978
> 
> Even automatically qualification for Portugal and Spain, guess no special missing for places in Europe
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, today
> 
> - have read Portugal declared no formal conversations about this issue yet
> - have read FIFA rules doesn't allow a two-confederation bidding
> - have read FIFA will be happy if two-continent bidding and will move any previous rule
> 
> Too many news in one day


The Prime Minister of Portugal has stated that he knew *nothing* about this proposal. I repeat that it is an occurrence of the Spanish President without any possibility of prospering. Under normal conditions, without a corrupt FIFA that squeezes the organizing countries, Spain is in a position to organize a World Cup alone.


*Morocco, should seek African unio*ns, despite good neighborly relations with Spain.


The Iberian Union is a good idea: they are two football powers (the last two European champions), but as we all know, the World Cup goes to England, for the misfortune of Argentina, Uruguay ...

As for Pedro Sánchez, he is thinking about a Joint *Candidature for the Winter Olympic Games* between Spain, Gilbraltar, Andorra and Puerto Rico ...


----------



## Rokto14

Ioannes_ said:


> The Prime Minister of Portugal has stated that he knew *nothing* about this proposal. I repeat that it is an occurrence of the Spanish President without any possibility of prospering. Under normal conditions, without a corrupt FIFA that squeezes the organizing countries, Spain is in a position to organize a World Cup alone.
> 
> 
> *Morocco, should seek African unio*ns, despite good neighborly relations with Spain.
> 
> 
> The Iberian Union is a good idea: they are two football powers (the last two European champions), but as we all know, the World Cup goes to England, for the misfortune of Argentina, Uruguay ...
> 
> *As for Pedro Sánchez, he is thinking about a Joint Candidature for the Winter Olympic Games between Spain, Gilbraltar, Andorra and Puerto Rico ...*


Wow this is the first time I am seeing multiple countries doing a 'Joint Bid' for Olympic games


----------



## ElvisBC

cyril sneer said:


> It will be interesting to see which bid UEFA put their support behind. UEFA can't afford to split the voting between two bids or else it will give advantage to the South American bid. UEFA will need to nominate one or the other of a UK or Iberian bid.


It would be ridiculous to go with two european bids. If they can't agree upon one UEFA bid then they both deserve to lose!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> It would be ridiculous to go with two european bids. If they can't agree upon one UEFA bid then they both deserve to lose!


Why? So you can't have two Asian countries bid in the same cycle either?

And why would having 2 bids hurt Europe? As a practical matter the stronger of the two will face Argentina in the final round. So you give people two choices in the first round and still have your strongest bid going one-on-one with Argentina.


----------



## Rover030

Bidding countries can't vote. I wonder, does this also mean that you can't vote in the next rounds if you're eliminated? Because if that's the case, UEFA should limit the number of bids to 1.


----------



## cyril sneer

I just seem to remember UEFA normally nominate or put their backing behind one bid. I seem to remember that's what happened for the 2006 WC when UEFA put their support behind a Germany bid rather than a England bid.


----------



## alserrod

Rokto14 said:


> Wow this is the first time I am seeing multiple countries doing a 'Joint Bid' for Olympic games


Jaca bid for 2002 olympics with two countries (hosting several sports in Andorra)
Was dropped, but accepted into final decission


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> Bidding countries can't vote. I wonder, does this also mean that you can't vote in the next rounds if you're eliminated? Because if that's the case, UEFA should limit the number of bids to 1.


It would seem very odd to me to keep someone already eliminated from voting in a later round. But I have no idea.


----------



## Gombos

Gombos said:


> *BALKAN UNION?*
> 
> Romania has been invited by Bulgaria to bid hosting the tournament together with Greece and Serbia.
> 
> https://www.foxsports.com/soccer/st...-make-joint-bid-to-host-2030-world-cup-110218
> 
> *ROMANIA*
> 
> Arena Națională (56.000 seats)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cluj Arena (31.000 seats)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ion Oblemenco Stadium (31.000 seats)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steaua Stadium (31.000 seats)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romania also has stadiums under construction in Arad and Sibiu (and in Bucharest, Rapid is set to start and be ready for 2020), but they will be smaller like the new ones in Târgu Jiu and Ploiești and the other one in Cluj-Napoca.





PAO13 said:


> Well here's my personal take on Greece's contribution to the Balkan bid
> 
> - Stadiums that will definitely be in the bid:
> 
> *Spiros Louis - Athens - capacity: 75.000*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This stadium has already hosted the Olympic games and 3 UEFA Champions League finals, and seems to me like the clear candidate to be the final venue in the Balkan bid.
> 
> - Stadiums that will most likely be in the bid:
> 
> *Toumba - Thessaloniki - capacity: 29.000*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PAOK has already started the process of fully redeveloping this stadium, and if Greece joins a bid for the world cup, I believe the new capacity will be in the range of 50.000.
> 
> * Pampeloponnisiako Stadio - Patra - capacity: 24.000*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was fully reconstructed in 2004, but would need further reconstruction in order to raise the standards and the capacity to the range of 40.000. Preferably it'd be reconstructed into a football specific stadium as well.
> 
> - Stadiums with some chances of being included in the bid:
> 
> *Pankritio Stadio - Heraklion - capacity: 26.000*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same status as Pampeloponnisiako Stadio. One of the favorites if Greece has to deliver four stadiums.
> 
> *Panthessaliko Stadio - Volos - capacity: 23.000*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same status as Pampeloponnisiako Stadio and Pankritio Stadio.
> 
> - Outsiders to be included in the bid:
> 
> *Karaiskakis Stadium - Pireaus - capacity 33.000*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would be included if it met the requirement of a 40.000 capacity, but as far as I know it's not possible to increase the capacity of this stadium.
> 
> * Agia Sofia Stadium - Athens - 31.000 (under construction) *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Similar situation to the stadium above.


Sports Ministers of Bulgaria, Greece, Romania and Serbia met these days. 

so I think we will have a joint bid, most likely Greece and Romania coming with 4-5 stadiums, Bulgaria and Serbia with 2. I say it would be awesome!


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Gombos said:


> Sports Ministers of Bulgaria, Greece, Romania and Serbia met these days.
> 
> so I think we will have a joint bid, most likely Greece and Romania coming with 4-5 stadiums, Bulgaria and Serbia with 2. I say it would be awesome!


If the deal goes through, I expect the opening game and the final would go to Athens. Spiros Louis stadium'd be expanded to 80,000 places. Others need to be expanded also to 40,000 places.

I predict there'd be potentially 5 bids and the FIFA Council will choose 3 to go to the FIFA Congress.
The final vote'd have two rounds.


----------



## Rokto14

CaliforniaJones said:


> If the deal goes through, I expect the opening game and the final would go to Athens. Spiros Louis stadium'd be expanded to 80,000 places. Others need to be expanded also to 40,000 places.
> 
> I predict there'd be potentially 5 bids and the FIFA Council will choose 3 to go to the FIFA Congress.
> The final vote'd have two rounds.


Even though the Balkan bid sounds good, I will assume that FIFA would most likely choose 1 bid from each of the continent so namely Argentina-Uruguay-Paraguay bid (CONMEBOL), English/British bid (UEFA), Morocco-Tunisia-Algeria bid (CAF). I really doubt FIFA will choose multiple bids from 1 confederation (e.g. English/British bid, Iberian bid, Balkan bid)


----------



## Guest

Not an issue, as Balkan bid wont go anywhere. It’s the third most attractive in Europe alone. 

Spain, Portugal, Morocco has to be front runner. Morocco has been the bridesmaid so many times now. But once you throw in Spain and Portugal, you get UEFA/CAF in one, proven success in Iberia, and a chance to go back to Africa. And very little would need to be done in terms of stadiums and infrastructure. 

With 2026 in NA, Conmebol will struggle because it is in same timezone, would have to build 10 to 15 stadiums, and commercially cant touch the European bids in Iberia and UK. Centenery isnt going to save it.

MorSpaPor will be hard to beat.


----------



## PAO13

ayanamikun said:


> OAKA will require a serious renovation/upgrade for a bid of such kind. Her 2003/4 overhaul will be beyond obsolete by 2030 and the stadium would be half a century old by then.


What's your definition of serious renovation? As far as I know Olympiastadion in Berlin will host games at Euro 2024, without serious renovations since 2004.


----------



## pesto

I would guess that virtually any stadium that wants to be considered a positive aspect of a bid will have to get significant renovations. 

Some stadiums in the bids are already relics and at the rate that electronics, media, safety, security and tastes change, 12 years from now few will be very impressive without upgrades.


----------



## Voz Ibérica

5portsF4n said:


> Not an issue, as Balkan bid wont go anywhere. It’s the third most attractive in Europe alone.
> 
> Spain, Portugal, Morocco has to be front runner. Morocco has been the bridesmaid so many times now. But once you throw in Spain and Portugal, you get UEFA/CAF in one, proven success in Iberia, and a chance to go back to Africa. And very little would need to be done in terms of stadiums and infrastructure.
> 
> With 2026 in NA, Conmebol will struggle because it is in same timezone, would have to build 10 to 15 stadiums, and commercially cant touch the European bids in Iberia and UK. Centenery isnt going to save it.
> 
> MorSpaPor will be hard to beat.


I think you got the point, that's an awsome vision.


Portugal can easily contribute with 4 or 5 venues (40K to 65K) already existing (without need of significant renovation)
Spain has many stadiums (40K to 100K), some stadiums are new or to be renewed regardless to WC (Metopolitano, Bilbao, Bernabeu, Camp Nou, Betis ...), the joint bid must be lead by Spain (for final stages at least)
Morocco has 6 venues (45K to 50K) that need significant renovation but with limited budget (in adition, it's a top ranked tourism destination and infrastructures are existings (airports, high speed railways, highways ...)

that would be the chance for Africa to have it's 2nd WC. and also UEFA can get more places for qualification (only 2 places should be given to Spain and Portugal)

I think even Gibraltar would vote for its 3 neighbors !


----------



## alserrod

Bernabeu and Camp Nou aren't refurbished (yet). They are considered five star stadiums but there are strong projects to upgrade them so long.

Today you have in Portugal 2 stadiums over 40K and one over 60K
Morocco has 5 stadiums over 40K and one over 60K

60K is enough for semifinals, for instance (Portuguese one hosted Eurocup final in 2004)

Let's add that without works, you have ten over 40K in Spain nowadays (two of them over 80K). OK, three in same city. Could choose only some of them. 

Maybe people would be wondering about management, last Spanish supercup was hosted in Tanger and organization was quite far from Spanish stardards, for instance


----------



## George_D

I dont think that Spain-Portugal bid needs Morocco, unless they want to attract african votes


----------



## tower_dan

The Balkan bid is LAUGHABLE! Yeah its spreads the cost of the WC over 4 countries but none of them is FIFA or economic powerhouses. 

Greece can barely afford to scratch itself at the moment let alone be the leader of this 4-nation bid. 

They are at heads with the EU after being bailed out of a debt crisis and now refusing to implement austerity measures to reduce their debt and bring their economy back to where it should be. 

The four of them are among the lowest ranked economies in Europe. 

After the Olympics, the closest event to a WC, Greece almost went bankrupt. Even other euro nations won't vote for this bid.


----------



## London Republic

For the UK-Ireland Joint Bid for the 2030 World Cup, I would suggest the following stadiums be used:

CARDIFF - Millennium Stadium (74,500, Possible Expansion to 95,000)

DUBLIN - Croke Park (82,300) 

DUBLIN Aviva Stadium (51,700)

EDINBURGH - Murrayfield Stadium (67,100)

GLASGOW - Celtic Park (60,400)

GLASGOW - Hamden Park (51,800)

GLASGOW - Ibrox Stadium (50,800)

MANCHESTER - Old Trafford (75,000, Possible Expansion to 95,000)

MANCHESTER - Eithad Stadium (55,000, Possible Expansion to 95,000)

LIVERPOOL - Anfield (55,000, Possible Expansion to 60,000+)

LONDON - Wembley Stadium (90,000)

LONDON - Twickenham Stadium (82,000)

LONDON - Olympic Stadium (66,000)

LONDON - New White Hart Lane (62,000)

LONDON - Emirates Stadium (60,000)

LONDON - Stamford Bridge (41,600, Possible Expansion to 60,000+)

NEWCASTLE - St James' Park (52,400)

SUNDERLAND - Stadium of Light (49,000)

The stadium selections that I have done have been partly influenced by both capacity and location, which in the latter case would mean that you could have certain regions of the British Isles host certain groups (For example the Edinburgh/Glasgow stadiums hosting 2 Groups, the London stadiums hosting 4 groups). Likewise what it also shows is that with no addtional expansions/major improvements needed, the British Isles could easily host the 2022 World Cup under short notice should FIFA finally show some sense to relocate it away from Qatar. Which would in turn clear the way for South America to host the Centennial World Cup in 2030...


----------



## GunnerJacket

*Mod Note: *Keep it civil, please, everyone.


----------



## cyril sneer

London Republic said:


> For the UK-Ireland Joint Bid for the 2030 World Cup, I would suggest the following stadiums be used:
> 
> CARDIFF - Millennium Stadium (74,500, Possible Expansion to 95,000)
> 
> DUBLIN - Croke Park (82,300)
> 
> DUBLIN Aviva Stadium (51,700)
> 
> EDINBURGH - Murrayfield Stadium (67,100)
> 
> GLASGOW - Celtic Park (60,400)
> 
> GLASGOW - Hamden Park (51,800)
> 
> GLASGOW - Ibrox Stadium (50,800)
> 
> MANCHESTER - Old Trafford (75,000, Possible Expansion to 95,000)
> 
> MANCHESTER - Eithad Stadium (55,000, Possible Expansion to 95,000)
> 
> LIVERPOOL - Anfield (55,000, Possible Expansion to 60,000+)
> 
> LONDON - Wembley Stadium (90,000)
> 
> LONDON - Twickenham Stadium (82,000)
> 
> LONDON - Olympic Stadium (66,000)
> 
> LONDON - New White Hart Lane (62,000)
> 
> LONDON - Emirates Stadium (60,000)
> 
> LONDON - Stamford Bridge (41,600, Possible Expansion to 60,000+)
> 
> NEWCASTLE - St James' Park (52,400)
> 
> SUNDERLAND - Stadium of Light (49,000)
> 
> The stadium selections that I have done have been partly influenced by both capacity and location, which in the latter case would mean that you could have certain regions of the British Isles host certain groups (For example the Edinburgh/Glasgow stadiums hosting 2 Groups, the London stadiums hosting 4 groups). Likewise what it also shows is that with no addtional expansions/major improvements needed, the British Isles could easily host the 2022 World Cup under short notice should FIFA finally show some sense to relocate it away from Qatar. Which would in turn clear the way for South America to host the Centennial World Cup in 2030...


Far too London-centric. Huge swathes of the country between London and North West wouldn't have a venue.


----------



## pesto

tower_dan said:


> The Balkan bid is LAUGHABLE! Yeah its spreads the cost of the WC over 4 countries but none of them is FIFA or economic powerhouses.
> 
> Greece can barely afford to scratch itself at the moment let alone be the leader of this 4-nation bid.
> 
> They are at heads with the EU after being bailed out of a debt crisis and now refusing to implement austerity measures to reduce their debt and bring their economy back to where it should be.
> 
> The four of them are among the lowest ranked economies in Europe.
> 
> After the Olympics, the closest event to a WC, Greece almost went bankrupt. Even other euro nations won't vote for this bid.


It’s hard to eliminate the E. European countries when they have higher per capita GDP than:

China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, S. Africa, Nigeria, Morocco, Algeria, the Philippines, Vietnam and about 100 other smaller countries. Some are ahead of Portugal. 

Does this rule-out the Arg/Ur and the Sp/Mor/Por bids? Are Brazil, Argentina and Mexico banned from hosting WC’s? 

And for the Olympics, forget China, India, Jakarta, Buenos Aires, Joberg? 

In fact, FIFA is working to get smaller poorer countries involved by encouraging multi-national bids, which are likely to need much less spending on facilities. And the IOC will work with 3rd world cities to encourage moderate and rational development of skills and facilities over time.


----------



## cyril sneer

I agree, any bid with Greece in its current state of affairs is just ludicrous.


----------



## pesto

cyril sneer said:


> I agree, any bid with Greece in its current state of affairs is just ludicrous.


Equally important with reality is the _perception_ of Athens and Greece. Too many memories of the Olympics, marches, protests, etc.

But, as I say above, E. Europe is no poorer than MANY current and former bidders, and the "pain" will be spread among several countries.


----------



## bandermann02

pesto said:


> It’s hard to eliminate the E. European countries when they have higher per capita GDP than:
> 
> China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, S. Africa, Nigeria, Morocco, Algeria, the Philippines, Vietnam and about 100 other smaller countries. Some are ahead of Portugal.
> 
> Does this rule-out the Arg/Ur and the Sp/Mor/Por bids? Are Brazil, Argentina and Mexico banned from hosting WC’s?
> 
> And for the Olympics, forget China, India, Jakarta, Buenos Aires, Joberg?
> 
> In fact, FIFA is working to get smaller poorer countries involved by encouraging multi-national bids, which are likely to need much less spending on facilities. And the IOC will work with 3rd world cities to encourage moderate and rational development of skills and facilities over time.


GDP per capita is a useless metric espacially for hosting the World Cup. For instance Iraq, Libya, Equatorial Guinea, Bahamas , Seychelles , Saint Kitts and Nevis have a very high GDP per capita. For instance Qatar has a very high GDP per capita , the highest in the world. But no railway lines only a metro which acts a rapid transit. Also it has a popultion of 2.6 billion which is less than the number of attende during the world cup. But you have read the news probably that it will need a partner to host the World Cup with 48 teams:

FIFA president Gianni Infantino believes it would be a "nice message" if those countries currently boycotting Qatar assisted the tiny Gulf state in hosting the 2022 World Cup.

https://news.sky.com/story/fifa-chi...ould-co-host-expanded-2022-world-cup-11541997

Mark my words Qatar is going to need Emirates and Kuwait to host the world cup for 48 teams. 

Here are taskforce criteria for hosting the world cup:

Technical components (infrastructural and commercial):
Stadiums
Team and referee facilities
Accommodation
Transport
Accommodation and transport

Compliance and legal:
Legal - governement support
Legal - contractual hosting docs

Security, medical and event-related matters:
Safety and security
Health and medical
Volunteers
Communication, PR and event promotion
Competition-related events

Sustainability, human rights and environmental protection:
Sustainable event management
Human rights and labour standards
Environmental protection

The most important being stadiums, facilities, health and medical, accommodation and transport.


----------



## ElvisBC

London Republic said:


> For the UK-Ireland Joint Bid for the 2030 World Cup, I would suggest the following stadiums be used:
> 
> CARDIFF - Millennium Stadium (74,500, Possible Expansion to 95,000)
> 
> DUBLIN - Croke Park (82,300)
> 
> DUBLIN Aviva Stadium (51,700)
> 
> EDINBURGH - Murrayfield Stadium (67,100)
> 
> GLASGOW - Celtic Park (60,400)
> 
> GLASGOW - Hamden Park (51,800)
> 
> GLASGOW - Ibrox Stadium (50,800)
> 
> MANCHESTER - Old Trafford (75,000, Possible Expansion to 95,000)
> 
> MANCHESTER - Eithad Stadium (55,000, Possible Expansion to 95,000)
> 
> LIVERPOOL - Anfield (55,000, Possible Expansion to 60,000+)
> 
> LONDON - Wembley Stadium (90,000)
> 
> LONDON - Twickenham Stadium (82,000)
> 
> LONDON - Olympic Stadium (66,000)
> 
> LONDON - New White Hart Lane (62,000)
> 
> LONDON - Emirates Stadium (60,000)
> 
> LONDON - Stamford Bridge (41,600, Possible Expansion to 60,000+)
> 
> NEWCASTLE - St James' Park (52,400)
> 
> SUNDERLAND - Stadium of Light (49,000)
> 
> The stadium selections that I have done have been partly influenced by both capacity and location, which in the latter case would mean that you could have certain regions of the British Isles host certain groups (For example the Edinburgh/Glasgow stadiums hosting 2 Groups, the London stadiums hosting 4 groups). Likewise what it also shows is that with no addtional expansions/major improvements needed, the British Isles could easily host the 2022 World Cup under short notice should FIFA finally show some sense to relocate it away from Qatar. Which would in turn clear the way for South America to host the Centennial World Cup in 2030...


footy in twickers ... yes for sure hno:


----------



## pesto

bandermann02 said:


> GDP per capita is a useless metric espacially for hosting the World Cup. For instance Iraq, Libya, Equatorial Guinea, Bahamas , Seychelles , Saint Kitts and Nevis have a very high GDP per capita. For instance Qatar has a very high GDP per capita , the highest in the world. But no railway lines only a metro which acts a rapid transit. Also it has a popultion of 2.6 billion which is less than the number of attende during the world cup. But you have read the news probably that it will need a partner to host the World Cup with 48 teams:
> 
> FIFA president Gianni Infantino believes it would be a "nice message" if those countries currently boycotting Qatar assisted the tiny Gulf state in hosting the 2022 World Cup.
> 
> https://news.sky.com/story/fifa-chi...ould-co-host-expanded-2022-world-cup-11541997
> 
> Mark my words Qatar is going to need Emirates and Kuwait to host the world cup for 48 teams.
> 
> Here are taskforce criteria for hosting the world cup:
> 
> Technical components (infrastructural and commercial):
> Stadiums
> Team and referee facilities
> Accommodation
> Transport
> Accommodation and transport
> 
> Compliance and legal:
> Legal - governement support
> Legal - contractual hosting docs
> 
> Security, medical and event-related matters:
> Safety and security
> Health and medical
> Volunteers
> Communication, PR and event promotion
> Competition-related events
> 
> Sustainability, human rights and environmental protection:
> Sustainable event management
> Human rights and labour standards
> Environmental protection
> 
> The most important being stadiums, facilities, health and medical, accommodation and transport.


GDP is probably the single most important factor. But per capita GDP is also important, as are other issues such as public support, security, revenue potential, etc.

Again, joint hosting may bring the costs of hosting down to reasonable levels even for small countries. Eastern Europe is far from desperately poor and as I said far richer than some prior hosts and bidders, including current bidders.


----------



## tower_dan

pesto said:


> It’s hard to eliminate the E. European countries when they have higher per capita GDP than:
> 
> China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, S. Africa, Nigeria, Morocco, Algeria, the Philippines, Vietnam and about 100 other smaller countries. Some are ahead of Portugal.
> 
> Does this rule-out the Arg/Ur and the Sp/Mor/Por bids? Are Brazil, Argentina and Mexico banned from hosting WC’s?
> 
> And for the Olympics, forget China, India, Jakarta, Buenos Aires, Joberg?
> 
> In fact, FIFA is working to get smaller poorer countries involved by encouraging multi-national bids, which are likely to need much less spending on facilities. And the IOC will work with 3rd world cities to encourage moderate and rational development of skills and facilities over time.


Multinational bids can work, small countries with only one major city/stadium should be encouraged to form joint bids. As long as they are within means that dont take away form the people. 

Greece has 25% unemployment, virtually zero govt spending because there is nothing there to spend and there is no way they will have the money to hold the event even if it was only 1/4 the cost and shared with three others 

Greece is basically still afloat on EU money, and the larger EU nations are not going to stand by and pay for new and upgraded stadiums for Greece when the govt has basically told them they will stop austerity and have no intention to change the system that got them into the debt crisis .

Romania and Bulgaria are still yet to get the EURO which means they need to be able to meet the EU financial and economic criteria, if they host a WC, which never turns a profit, it will (at a minimum) set them back in the process, or in worst case, they get a crippling debt scenario where their weak currencies falter too and the EU is sent to prop up another tow of the weaker EU nations. 

There's just too much working against the Balkan bid.


----------



## alserrod

George_D said:


> I dont think that Spain-Portugal bid needs Morocco, unless they want to attract african votes




IMHO it seems more a diplomatic movement rather than stadiums. As said, Spain has enough stadiums to prepare a WC without investments, and some of them doesn't need a great refurbishment to be enlarged. Maybe "main problem" is recent 1st league teams are in medium-small cities, therefore, cosy stadiums. Nice, not big.

I guess preparing a bidding where SF can be one in Portugal, another one in Morocco (there are stadiums over 60K), 3 stadiums in each country and the rest in Spain up to minimum, having the greatest capacity.

Enough hospitality, enough railway network and airports due to they will choose greater cities and maybe... they will call Moroccan federation to say "shape up... you may have WC standards and last Spanish supercup hosted in Tanger was far away from them".


----------



## pesto

tower_dan said:


> Multinational bids can work, small countries with only one major city/stadium should be encouraged to form joint bids. As long as they are within means that dont take away form the people.
> 
> Greece has 25% unemployment, virtually zero govt spending because there is nothing there to spend and there is no way they will have the money to hold the event even if it was only 1/4 the cost and shared with three others
> 
> Greece is basically still afloat on EU money, and the larger EU nations are not going to stand by and pay for new and upgraded stadiums for Greece when the govt has basically told them they will stop austerity and have no intention to change the system that got them into the debt crisis .
> 
> Romania and Bulgaria are still yet to get the EURO which means they need to be able to meet the EU financial and economic criteria, if they host a WC, which never turns a profit, it will (at a minimum) set them back in the process, or in worst case, they get a crippling debt scenario where their weak currencies falter too and the EU is sent to prop up another tow of the weaker EU nations.
> 
> There's just too much working against the Balkan bid.


Much better. But Greece is the easy one to pick on. Clearly a problem.

Your logic on EE still rules out Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Morocco, Indonesia, India, China, etc., who have lower income and don't use hard currencies (and Portugal, who does). 

And I suppose Italy too since they would long since have gone bankrupt if Germany (as funder of the EU) hadn't guaranteed their borrowings. Similarly, Ireland and Spain received rescue packages when their creditworthiness reached zero and that was quite recently. (Of course, N. Ireland, Scotland and Wales aren't countries at all, so it looks like England is last bidder standing (Long live the Queen!)).

In general, there are too many criteria involved, deals and structures that can be negotiated and revenue concerns for us to make quick decisions on some of these issues. Morocco wanting to build or perform major renovation on 14 stadiums was an absurdity but 2 or 3 for a country with 3 times its per capita income is not so bad.


----------



## Guest

George_D said:


> I dont think that Spain-Portugal bid needs Morocco, unless they want to attract african votes


In the same way that US didnt need Mexico, and certainly not Canada. But with more games, and a greater emphasis on sharing, it’s a win-win for everyone. And like you say, that’s 50+ votes right there for the bid.


----------



## tower_dan

pesto said:


> Much better. But Greece is the easy one to pick on. Clearly a problem.
> 
> Your logic on EE *still rules out Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, Morocco, Indonesia, India, China, etc.*, who have lower income and don't use hard currencies (and Portugal, who does).
> 
> And I suppose Italy too since they would long since have gone bankrupt if Germany (as funder of the EU) hadn't guaranteed their borrowings. Similarly, *Ireland and Spain* received rescue packages when their creditworthiness reached zero and that was quite recently. (Of course, N. Ireland, Scotland and Wales aren't countries at all, so it looks like England is last bidder standing (Long live the Queen!)).
> 
> In general, there are too many criteria involved, deals and structures that can be negotiated and revenue concerns for us to make quick decisions on some of these issues. Morocco wanting to build or perform major renovation on 14 stadiums was an absurdity but 2 or 3 for a country with 3 times its per capita income is not so bad.


Aside from China (purely based on the fact that they are a totally different league in size, manpower, ability to manipulate their own currency and hide any debt etc form the international community) 

India, not a change, it has too much to do to bring its cities into the 21st century before trying for a FIFA WC, and most stadiums in India are for cricket anyway, retrofitting for football would be a HUGE expense and unlikely to be used to capacity following the event even despite the population. 

Spain, Morocco and Portugal solo - no, this is a case of stronger together, no chance alone. 

Spain is recovering from its bailout/recession but not enough to go at a WC along, like the bloke above said, by making use of the larger stadiums in the surrounding neighbouring countries the overall burden for Spain as the main host is diminished and the two smaller countries don't end up with excessive amounts of large stadiums that won't get used (i do believe every country should have one "national stadium" of sorts. 

Scotland, Wales, and N/Repub of Ireland on their own - NO, never - too small and the whole country is smaller than most major cities. - As part of a united UK and Ireland bid, yeah, that might work. 

Ditto with Argentina and Uruguay. - Uraguay hosted in 1930 because it wasn't the event it is today back in the 30s. (its the same reason cities like Stockholm, Antwerp and Helsinki hosted Olympics, they could never take on the requirements that need today) 

There were a lot of countries that got bailouts/went into recession in the last decade. 

They all bounced back in various ways. but Greece is by far the worst case and stands out because the people and the govt have completely rejected the advice from the EU as to how to reduce their debut and begin to restart their economy. 

They should not be awarded something that only sucks more money out of them when they are still at a standoff, European votes (from EU countries at least) would never go to a bid with Greece in it. 

Italy - (and I'm Italian decent) is basically the next Greece. The people and govt cry poor and bitch about the economy but have no interest in reforming it into one that is remotely functional. 

Ireland at least turned their situation somewhat around after the late 2000s.


----------



## Knitemplar

KNYT - Kiribati - Nauru - Yap - Tuvalu 2030!!


----------



## alserrod

Lol..... they are entitled to register www.football.tv don't they?


----------



## pesto

So we are basically down to the UK or China for 2030?

E. Europe, Greece, Arg, Ur, Para, Morocco, Portugal and Spain are all too poor or recovering from overspending, etc. Ireland is doing better since it’s still the tax haven of Europe but, has under 5M people. India needs time.

FIFA recognized this problem. Since every country gets one vote, they also recognized that excluding the whole world except northern Europe, East Asia and the US would cause them to be voted out of power. 

So joint bids are now preferred. But effectively limiting joint bids to just N. Europe or N. America gets you back where you started. And potentially alienates a very large chunk of the developing world.


----------



## Rokto14

pesto said:


> So we are basically down to the UK or China for 2030?
> 
> E. Europe, Greece, Arg, Ur, Para, Morocco, Portugal and Spain are all too poor or recovering from overspending, etc. Ireland is doing better since it’s still the tax haven of Europe but, has under 5M people. India needs time.
> 
> FIFA recognized this problem. Since every country gets one vote, they also recognized that excluding the whole world except northern Europe, East Asia and the US would cause them to be voted out of power.
> 
> So joint bids are now preferred. But effectively limiting joint bids to just N. Europe or N. America gets you back where you started. And potentially alienates a very large chunk of the developing world.


I think Spain/Portugal/Morocco, Argentina/Uruguay/Paraguay still doable. I mean the 2030 FIFA WC is still 12 years away so recovering from economic recession is still possible providing their economy growth is 4-5% per year. Eastern Europe probably can do the next WC that is going to be held in Europe in 2040s?

India can host it together with Bangladesh but that can be done in 2050s. I understand that both these countries are cricket fanatic and they have way more cricket stadiums than football stadiums. But Football WC is something that will turn these 2 countries' people's attention to football. But that also provided they have good transport systems in the host cities. India definitely has a good air network with airlines like Indigo and Spicejet connecting major cities across India. Bangladesh need to improve their rail and air network. Both countries definitely need to improve the conditions of their airports and even the streets in the cities.

After Qatar 2022 FIFA WC, the next Asian country I can see hosting is China, no doubt about that. 2030 WC bidding for UK-Ireland won't be easy. I am sure that Spain-Portugal-Morocco, Argentina-Uruguay-Paraguay will give a good fight. Even if UK-Ireland wins the bidding, I don't think they will win by a landslide victory.


----------



## tower_dan

pesto said:


> So we are basically down to the UK or China for 2030?
> 
> E. Europe, Greece, Arg, Ur, Para, Morocco, Portugal and Spain are all too poor or recovering from overspending, etc. Ireland is doing better since it’s still the tax haven of Europe but, has under 5M people. India needs time.
> 
> FIFA recognized this problem. Since every country gets one vote, they also recognized that excluding the whole world except northern Europe, East Asia and the US would cause them to be voted out of power.
> 
> So joint bids are now preferred. But effectively limiting joint bids to just N. Europe or N. America gets you back where you started. And potentially alienates a very large chunk of the developing world.


There isnt any problem waiting until a outnry is finacially ready for an event before awarding it to them. 

Prior to the 1960s only the Americas and Europe hosted the WC or Olympics becasue they were the only parts of the world that coutd, after WWII and the significant economic leaps made in Japan and South Korea id the Olympics finally move to Japan, then Korea in the 80s and finally China in 2008 and 2002 was awarded as a joint bid to Japan/S Korea. - countries can turn things around and reap the rewards eventually but rushing it has proven to make zero sense. 

The WC will go to India, probably in the 2050s or 2060, Eastern Europe will prob get a shot at a joint bid in the 2040s. 

It's just a matter of time and getting to a point where theWC won't be a complete ock up. 

South Africa and Brazil hosted far too soon 

I have nothing against countries or regions hosting EVENTUALLY, but doing so too soon and saying "it will brand them to the world" or "turn their attention to football" is a snake oil sales pitch. 

If they do it too soon the WC will do more harm than good to these countries.


----------



## fish.01

"Prior to the 1960s only the Americas and Europe hosted the WC or Olympics"...and Australia.


----------



## tower_dan

fish.01 said:


> "Prior to the 1960s only the Americas and Europe hosted the WC or Olympics"...and Australia.


And that was 1956 despite keeping pace with the rest of the western world in economic development. 

And we have never hosted a world cup (despite our ability to do so) 

Australia is in the AFC so I think China will host before Aus does.

I think an Aus/NZ joint bid Would be a good way to bring the WC to Oceania.

Since Aus left to join the AFC NZ is now the powerhouse of the federation and the only country even remotely able to host an event like the WC but even they could never pull it off alone. 

A good way to rectify the sham that was awarding the 2022 WC to Qatar based on bribes and relaxing of FIFA hosting guidelines to even allow it in the first place.


----------



## pesto

tower_dan said:


> There isnt any problem waiting until a outnry is finacially ready for an event before awarding it to them.
> 
> Prior to the 1960s only the Americas and Europe hosted the WC or Olympics becasue they were the only parts of the world that coutd, after WWII and the significant economic leaps made in Japan and South Korea id the Olympics finally move to Japan, then Korea in the 80s and finally China in 2008 and 2002 was awarded as a joint bid to Japan/S Korea. - countries can turn things around and reap the rewards eventually but rushing it has proven to make zero sense.
> 
> The WC will go to India, probably in the 2050s or 2060, Eastern Europe will prob get a shot at a joint bid in the 2040s.
> 
> It's just a matter of time and getting to a point where theWC won't be a complete ock up.
> 
> South Africa and Brazil hosted far too soon
> 
> I have nothing against countries or regions hosting EVENTUALLY, but doing so too soon and saying "it will brand them to the world" or "turn their attention to football" is a snake oil sales pitch.
> 
> If they do it too soon the WC will do more harm than good to these countries.


Agree that South Asia seems unlikely for a few years. But it can't be too soon for Argentina and Spain since they already did it 50 years earlier. 

I think you would be hard put to claim that their economies are so ragged they can't refurbish some stadiums (which are generally refurbished over time in any event) and work in conjunction with other nations. But of course an analysis of stadiums, facilities and costs would be required.

The purpose of encouraging joint bids is not to encourage people to find new reasons to reject smaller countries. It's to encourage their selection as hosts.


----------



## alserrod

There's a problem for Argentina... For first time, Copa Libertadores final is to be played between two main Buenos Aires teams. First time in life, two main Argentinan teams reach final at same time.

First match, tied 2-2.

Second match, cancelled twice because disturbs.

It will be played this Sunday evening (CET) in......Madrid. Conmebol said no more problems and choose a different continent to have all hooligans controlled. It is known some of them will fly and in Europe there are someone else, but not so much (should they choose another American city, same problem, easy journey)

Noboday said anything but if Argentina government cannot guarantee security in Copa Libertadores it runs down for a WC directly



BTW, Madrid stadium, first in life to have eurocup final, WC final, Champions' league final and Copa libertadores final


----------



## Guest

RobH said:


> There's a balance to be had, but FIFA's rules work against countries with a high concentration of very good stadiums in a few cities. If the rule is only one city with 2 stadiums and every other city with one stadium that means we have to leave out two or even three 60k stadiums in London, one 60k stadium in Manchester, possibly one c60k in Liverpool assuming Everton are in a new stadium by 2030, one in Glasgow. And you'd replace them with smaller stadiums elsewhere. Now, making a case for Leeds or Sheffield isn't hard if they can get upgrades, but the 2018 bid - because of FIFA's rules - included expansions at Milton Keynes (av att. 9,202) and Plymouth (av att. 10,413)! :nuts:
> 
> FIFA needs to be less prescriptive, less top-down. The current model happens to work well for federalised countries like Germany or countries with one big stadium per city like the US, but there ought to be more flexibility afforded to countries which don't have even spreads when it comes to existing stadium infrastructure. That's not to say we should go mad and include 6 London stadiums like London Republic suggested :lol:, but the ability to utilise e.g. 3 in London and 2 in each of Liverpool and Manchester would be ideal.


The issue of primate cities is a relevant one. There are nations like Argentina whose capital city has 15 times the population of the next biggest city. The UK, while not this drastic, isn't far off, and London is definitely a primate city.

But I don't understand why we need to look at it from the point of view of host 'stadiums'. Why can't we look at it from the point of view of host 'cities'?

Is there any reason not to allocate a percentage of games based on city? So let's, for example, London got to host 10 games in total. Rather than splitting it in two, and giving 5 to Wembley and 5 to another stadium (or 6/4), you could give 5 to Wembley, 1 to Arsenal, 2 to Spurs, 1 to West Ham, 1 to Chelsea. 

If a city has 4 or more viable venues, why not use them all, even if one stadium only gets 1 game?


----------



## cyril sneer

An advantage of a UK bid over a sole England bid would be having the likes of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Cardiff, etc, which already have sufficient capacity stadia so to negate the need for new (temporary) venues in the likes of Plymouth, Milton Keynes from the failed 2018 bid. Belfast would probably need some sort of temporary measure however.


----------



## Rover030

5portsF4n said:


> The issue of primate cities is a relevant one. There are nations like Argentina whose capital city has 15 times the population of the next biggest city. The UK, while not this drastic, isn't far off, and London is definitely a primate city.
> 
> But I don't understand why we need to look at it from the point of view of host 'stadiums'. Why can't we look at it from the point of view of host 'cities'?
> 
> Is there any reason not to allocate a percentage of games based on city? So let's, for example, London got to host 10 games in total. Rather than splitting it in two, and giving 5 to Wembley and 5 to another stadium (or 6/4), you could give 5 to Wembley, 1 to Arsenal, 2 to Spurs, 1 to West Ham, 1 to Chelsea.
> 
> If a city has 4 or more viable venues, why not use them all, even if one stadium only gets 1 game?


I agree with making it possible to have multiple host stadiums per city, especially in a country where one city is so dominant.

However, doing something like you suggest probably costs a lot of money because they have to prepare 4 stadium sites for 5 games, which includes of course all the cosmetic works, but also temporary rooms for sponsors/VIPs, mobility plans, security etc.

So while I agree that it would make sense to evenly divide the matches across London stadiums, I don't think it would be in the interest of FIFA to do so.


----------



## pesto

5portsF4n said:


> The issue of primate cities is a relevant one. There are nations like Argentina whose capital city has 15 times the population of the next biggest city. The UK, while not this drastic, isn't far off, and London is definitely a primate city.
> 
> But I don't understand why we need to look at it from the point of view of host 'stadiums'. Why can't we look at it from the point of view of host 'cities'?
> 
> Is there any reason not to allocate a percentage of games based on city? So let's, for example, London got to host 10 games in total. Rather than splitting it in two, and giving 5 to Wembley and 5 to another stadium (or 6/4), you could give 5 to Wembley, 1 to Arsenal, 2 to Spurs, 1 to West Ham, 1 to Chelsea.
> 
> If a city has 4 or more viable venues, why not use them all, even if one stadium only gets 1 game?


Not good from a logistics point of view. Why prepare another stadium down the street with security, maintenance, etc., when not needed? 

As for London, it may be the biggest city but with plenty of large cities and large stadiums all over the country it's hardly the only choice for stadiums.

Does someone here have difficulty understanding the difference between "London" and "United Kingdom plus Ireland". :lol:


----------



## Guest

Rover030 said:


> I agree with making it possible to have multiple host stadiums per city, especially in a country where one city is so dominant.
> 
> However, doing something like you suggest probably costs a lot of money because they have to prepare 4 stadium sites for 5 games, which includes of course all the cosmetic works, but also temporary rooms for sponsors/VIPs, mobility plans, security etc.
> 
> So while I agree that it would make sense to evenly divide the matches across London stadiums, I don't think it would be in the interest of FIFA to do so.


I thought fifa had nothing to do with organizational costs?



pesto said:


> Not good from a logistics point of view. Why prepare another stadium down the street with security, maintenance, etc., when not needed?
> 
> As for London, it may be the biggest city but with plenty of large cities and large stadiums all over the country it's hardly the only choice for stadiums.
> 
> Does someone here have difficulty understanding the difference between "London" and "United Kingdom plus Ireland". :lol:


Even in a UK bid, London is going to host a good number of games. 

Moscow hosted 11 of 64. Thats 17%. 

2026 will have 80 games. 17% is 13-14 games.

The outlay on stadiums is going be to nonexistant. I see no reason why they wouldnt share the love in London, even if logistics factor into things. These are tiny sums compared to building new stadiums. If London hosts 14 games, would be a letdown to see Wembley and Spurs/new chelsea stadium host it all. reality is they probably wont, but itd be a much richer experience to spread wc across whole of london. and yes, maybe even an expanded selhurst park for 1 game in south london. if you choose wembley and new spurs, youre present in just north london.


----------



## pesto

5portsF4n said:


> I thought fifa had nothing to do with organizational costs?
> 
> 
> 
> Even in a UK bid, London is going to host a good number of games.
> 
> Moscow hosted 11 of 64. Thats 17%.
> 
> 2026 will have 80 games. 17% is 13-14 games.
> 
> The outlay on stadiums is going be to nonexistant. I see no reason why they wouldnt share the love in London, even if logistics factor into things. These are tiny sums compared to building new stadiums. If London hosts 14 games, would be a letdown to see Wembley and Spurs/new chelsea stadium host it all. reality is they probably wont, but itd be a much richer experience to spread wc across whole of london. and yes, maybe even an expanded selhurst park for 1 game in south london. if you choose wembley and new spurs, youre present in just north london.


That may not be the way that FIFA views it. They are strict on stadiums due to excessive costs for prep, maintenance, security and the like and this has been a thorn in the side for the US. 

The result is that LA will probably use only Inglewood for the WC, leaving out the Coliseum and Rose Bowl. By contrast, for the Olympics the Rose Bowl and smaller stadiums will be used for soccer.

Whether FIFA prefers "concentrated" or "cover the country" is an open issues at the moment. But unlike the UK it's a real issue since Can/Mex/US is a large area.


----------



## cyril sneer

5portsF4n said:


> I thought fifa had nothing to do with organizational costs?
> 
> 
> 
> Even in a UK bid, London is going to host a good number of games.
> 
> Moscow hosted 11 of 64. Thats 17%.
> 
> 2026 will have 80 games. 17% is 13-14 games.
> 
> The outlay on stadiums is going be to nonexistant. I see no reason why they wouldnt share the love in London, even if logistics factor into things. These are tiny sums compared to building new stadiums. If London hosts 14 games, would be a letdown to see Wembley and Spurs/new chelsea stadium host it all. reality is they probably wont, but itd be a much richer experience to spread wc across whole of london. and yes, *maybe even an expanded selhurst park for 1 game in south london*. if you choose wembley and new spurs, youre present in just north london.


:lol::lol: I bloody hope we don't host games in Croydon. Its a right dive.

It will probably be two venues max in London. Politically it wouldn't be popular to have a London-centric world cup bid. I guess it will be Wembley + 1 other venue. Which ever has the best transport links/corporate facilities of Chelsea/Arsenal/Spurs/West Ham. I know it wouldn't be popular on here but I wouldn't be surprised if the second venue was West Ham/London Stadium.


----------



## ElvisBC

as of now it would come down to choice between new WHL and Olympic stadium as a second venue, but who knows, maybe they could go three indeed. and we all have no clue what is really going to be build in coming years.

@cyril, I am afraid you're right


----------



## cyril sneer

I'm guessing Emirates/NWHL would excel in the corporate facilities criteria but London Stadium pisses all over the others for transport links.


----------



## RobH

Transport isn't really an issue for any of the London stadiums which would expect to be in the bid. Passenger capacity is obviously much bigger for the London Stadium but the journey itself isn't much easier than the others. It's still a tube and a bit of a walk.

If we were talking about the numbers travelling to and from the Olympic Park during 2012 (it was handling c300k people a day peak days during the Olympics) the London Stadium's transport advantage would be a massive factor in its favour. But we're not.

It may be that its location is a bigger advantage; in a different part of London, lots of space around it for things like sponsor tents etc. And of course there's the _other thing_ - that the government or Mayor's Office might like the idea of getting some extra revenue from the publically owned stadium. It's for those reasons that I also wouldn't be surprised if it makes the cut instead of Emirates/NWHL, but I do think it'd be a shame for a Frankenstein stadium to get the spotlight over two world class football grounds.


----------



## Gombos

tower_dan said:


> Greece has 25% unemployment, virtually zero govt spending because there is nothing there to spend and there is no way they will have the money to hold the event even if it was only 1/4 the cost and shared with three others
> 
> Greece is basically still afloat on EU money, and the larger EU nations are not going to stand by and pay for new and upgraded stadiums for Greece when the govt has basically told them they will stop austerity and have no intention to change the system that got them into the debt crisis .
> 
> Romania and Bulgaria are still yet to get the EURO which means they need to be able to meet the EU financial and economic criteria, if they host a WC, which never turns a profit, it will (at a minimum) set them back in the process, or in worst case, they get a crippling debt scenario where their weak currencies falter too and the EU is sent to prop up another tow of the weaker EU nations.
> 
> There's just too much working against the Balkan bid.


I doubt Greece has 25% unemployment, impossible. and Romania already hosted the 2012 Europa League final which was highly profitable, and will host matches at Euro 2020. 

Romania has 4% unemployment, same as Hungary. Bulgaria has 5%, so how can Greece have 25%? is this tabloid news? 

EDIT: I checked and Greece has an unbelievable 19% rate, unreal! pity! and Spain has 15% and Italy 10%. France almost the same as Italy. **** me, Romania has same rate like Scandinavian countries (including also our gipsies).

the World Cup is certainly always profitable, the problem is what happens to the arenas after. Romania has this tendency of neglecting like Greece sometimes. maybe not as big, but still.

in many Western countries, with no integration like in Germany and Britain, the immigrants don't work.


----------



## Gombos

if the experts say a World Cup would bring millions to Greece I am sure it can happen.


----------



## tower_dan

Gombos said:


> I doubt Greece has 25% unemployment, impossible. and Romania already hosted the 2012 Europa League final which was highly profitable, and will host matches at Euro 2020.
> 
> Romania has 4% unemployment, same as Hungary. Bulgaria has 5%, so how can Greece have 25%? is this tabloid news?
> 
> *EDIT: I checked and Greece has an unbelievable 19% rate, unreal! pity! and Spain has 15% and Italy 10%. France almost the same as Italy. **** me, Romania has same rate like Scandinavian countries (including also our gipsies*).
> 
> the World Cup is certainly always profitable, the problem is what happens to the arenas after. Romania has this tendency of neglecting like Greece sometimes. maybe not as big, but still.
> 
> in many Western countries, with no integration like in Germany and Britain, the immigrants don't work.


Thank you for going and checking yourself, I appreciate a member who can come back and correct themselves, I was a few years off (Greece unemployment peaked at 25% in 2015) but I have never (nor will never) make up a statistic to back up any of my arguments. 

These forums can have a tendency to get flooded with hyperbole and people making unsubstantiated claims to back their own view but I deal in fact. Facts cant be rebuked. 



Gombos said:


> if the experts say a World Cup would bring millions to Greece I am sure it can happen.


Yeah, the world cup generates Millions for the host nation... but that's peanuts if they have to spend BILLIONS in order to get host ready. 

I am telling you right now, Greece will NEVER host an Olympics or World Cup this century. The other 3 nations have more of a chance going at it alone as a trio than holding Greece in the fold.



cyril sneer said:


> You make it sound like the UK is the size of Russia in trying to justify your stadia selection based on travel distances for fans :lol: I think your username says it all though.
> 
> There is no justification for giving London multiple venues at the expense of other UK cities. *London 2 venues max in my opinion like Russia/Moscow 2018.* I think the bid would follow a similar spread of venues as per the 2018 bid.


Pretty sure the "max 2 stadiums per city" rule is out the window since the blatant corruption/purchasing the WC from Qatar.

Doha will have 4 stadiums, another joke that is the 2022 WC.


----------



## alserrod

Greece hasn't the best situation to shape up stadiums and prepare a WC but to be accurate... FIRST summer Olympics in THIS century were hosted in Athens (2004), didn't they?

(last time was in 1896, previous one, several centuries b.C. guess more than 100 years for next time)


----------



## pesto

alserrod said:


> Greece hasn't the best situation to shape up stadiums and prepare a WC but to be accurate... FIRST summer Olympics in THIS century were hosted in Athens (2004), didn't they?
> 
> (last time was in 1896, previous one, several centuries b.C. guess more than 100 years for next time)


Were the original Olympic Games ever hosted in Athens? Greece, yes.


----------



## skyhooks

pesto said:


> Were the original Olympic Games ever hosted in Athens? Greece, yes.




The first Games held under the IOC was hosted in the Panathenaic Stadium in Athens in 1896.


----------



## pesto

skyhooks said:


> The first Games held under the IOC was hosted in the Panathenaic Stadium in Athens in 1896.


No, I meant the real Olympic Games, not the reinvented ones. The ones held in Olympus.


----------



## alserrod

pesto said:


> Were the original Olympic Games ever hosted in Athens? Greece, yes.





pesto said:


> No, I meant the real Olympic Games, not the reinvented ones. The ones held in Olympus.


It was said not in this century a WC or Olympics in Greece.
I pointed, FIRST summer olympics in THIS century took place in Greece, Athens indeed, so do 1896, and BTW, former games came from Greece.

Obviosly in Olympus. They had games every year in four cities. Athens was one out of them, but most special ones were Olympus ones (or at least that was what a guide said me)


Back to topic... bet no WC, even EC in Greece for a long time... but they have hosted Olympics this century


----------



## London Republic

tower_dan said:


> A PERFECT example of logic over the desired fantasy.


Exactly! Why spend money on improving venues (aside from the usual civic pride/political reasons) in every corner of these islands (Just so that they can host a few WC games) when there is no logical reason to do so? I mean the main advantage we have compared to nearly every other potential bidding nation is that we already have the venues to host such a tournement (hence why I would actually prefer if FIFA actually found some common sense and just let Britain + Ireland host the 2022 WC instead to make way for South America as a whole to host the 2030 WC, but thats for another thread).



tower_dan said:


> Clustering the Group stages in closely linked cities to minimise early tournament travel for tourists is much more logical and will ultimately save a lot of £££ and make a bid much more appealing.


Exactly, while I understand why the Americans (alongside the Canadians and Mexicans) feel the need to have as many host cities as possible for the 2026 WC, there is no good reason for the British Isles bid to do the same for the sake of it. Especially when my so called "London-Centric" proposal still means that all the Home Nations + Ireland (as a whole) as well as every English Region minus Yorkshire, the Midlands and South West will all have host cities located in their territories.

Especially when the benefits for clustering the host cities together will help encourage people to attend this WC (and of course make more money for FIFA).



Pat Mustard said:


> What are you talking about? For a start, 42,000 or whatever is a more than adequate capacity for World Cup group and last 16 games (*look at the capacity of a lot of the stadiums in Russia for evidence - some only held 35k*).


To be fair; while the Russians did end up doing a decent job in hosting the 2018 WC, they did not exactly go out of the way to encourage people to attend in the first place. A British Isles bid would fewer issues in this area and (short of this country going completely to pot) thus should find it easier to get people to attend this WC.

So while 42,000 is just about acceptable in terms of adequate capacity in a 2030 WC, such a organisating committee should be aiming for higher minimum capacity requirements than that (such as a minimum of 50,000 that I have adopted with my proposal).

And besides the problem is not that Villa Park is too small to be hosting any WC games at all (which can be addressed without too many issues), the problem is that the other stadiums in the Midlands area are far too small to be hosting WC games without major upgrades. Which is a problem because for the Midlands to be hosting a whole 3/4 Team Group of games, it needs to have at least 2 stadiums with 50,000+ capacity to host it, which brings me to...



Pat Mustard said:


> Secondly, we are talking about 2030 here - by that time I think you will find there have been significant developments at Villa Park, Molineux and the King Power stadium at the very least, all of which will hold at least 40,000 if not more. All 3 are sold out on a regular basis even now, so saying they would only be full a few times a year is just wrong.


Now if the Chinese owners of Wolves continue to invest for the medium/long-term (including upgrades to Molineux) and if Villa Park is upgraded by 2030, then one could make the case for hosting 1-2 Groups in the (Greater) Birmingham Area.

So I am not against the (Greater) Birmingham Area hosting WC Games, its just that if they are to do so, those 2 venues (at the very least) need to be upgraded to justify it.

Regardless though I would very much agree Wolves, Leicester and Villa (especially if they return to the PL) would be more than able to attract a 40,000-50,000 (maybe even more) for their home matches.



RobH said:


> There's definitely a sensible middle-ground between the very spread out plan for 2018 which included such venues as Plymouth, Bristol and Milton Keynes, *and London Republic's very London centric plan.*


It's not that London-Centric, certainly no more so than the country as a whole at least (and besides the North of England as a whole will have as many host venues as London would), likewise apart from Yorkshire, the Midlands and the South West of England, every region of the British Isles would still be hosting WC games.



RobH said:


> There's no need to include Twickenham (that's assuming the RFU and locals would even be interested)


Why not? Especially when it is the 2nd largest (by capacity) stadium in the country and has a long history in hosting international games (rugby ones but still). Now I do understand why the RFU/the Local Council/Residents would object to lets say hosting Chelsea FC for 3 years, but the problems that it would bring to the area would largely not apply to a few WC matches (across 1-2 months) that would be hosted there under my proposal.

So under those circumstances (and the fact the RFU where happy to host NFL games at Twickenham), there should not be any issues in hosting a few WC games there...



RobH said:


> and I wouldn't include the Olympic Stadium either for obvious reasons.


Again why not? Especially when only Murrayfield, the Millennium Stadium, Old Trafford, Twickenham and Wembley itself have a bigger capacity than that stadium while the transport links are pretty good by UK Stadium Standards. Now of course there are still issues with that stadium (although that did not stop it from hosting RWC games in 2015) but surely they would have fixed them by 2030?


----------



## Guest

^
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football-cardiff-could-host-fa-cup-finals-1113514.html

Read the bit about Twickenham turning down chance to host fa cup final when wembley was being redeveloped. Like i said earlier, english rugby has an inferiority complex when it comes to soccer it seems. soccer clubs/wembley host rugby regularly, twickenham couldnt host one game cos something something...


----------



## skyhooks

5portsF4n said:


> ^
> https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football-cardiff-could-host-fa-cup-finals-1113514.html
> 
> Read the bit about Twickenham turning down chance to host fa cup final when wembley was being redeveloped. Like i said earlier, english rugby has an inferiority complex when it comes to soccer it seems. soccer clubs/wembley host rugby regularly, twickenham couldnt host one game cos something something...




Wembley hosts rugby league not union. As for twickenham hosting football, seems to be a historical issue. 

They do host the occasional concert and since the mid-1950s it has also hosted the Jehovah's Witnesses annual convention for the London area. Usually up to 25,000 attend to hear Bible talks.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

skyhooks said:


> Wembley hosts rugby league not union. As for twickenham hosting football, seems to be a historical issue.
> 
> They do host the occasional concert and since the mid-1950s it has also hosted the Jehovah's Witnesses annual convention for the London area. Usually up to 25,000 attend to hear Bible talks.


Wembley did host Rugby Union during the 2015 World Cup. IIRC it hosted the largest ever crowds for Rugby World Cup matches. Other than for that event there is clearly no need for Wembley to host Rugby Union matches with Twickenham the other side of London. Wembley would jump at the chance to host anything it could.

I wouldn't want Twickenham involved in a football World Cup bid. Whilst it is a fine stadium it is not the easiest to get to from central London or anywhere north. I also think it would be a bit off to have the two largest stadiums for the competition in London. As Wembley would host the final a 2nd London ground is only going to be for group matches and the 2nd round. Qtr finals onwards would be Wembley and other cities. Most likely Old Trafford, Scotland and Cardiff. Scotland could see Murrayfield used. I'd like that. Cardiff is a bit short of hotel rooms so might be swapped out for somewhere else in England, perhaps Liverpool if Anfield is over 60,000 seats by then. The second London venue would be either Spurs, Arsenal or the Olympic Stadium. Spurs will be the best football ground of them but Arsenal is more central, in a better area and easier to get to and from. Chelsea is also a possibility if they actually get round to building a new Stamford Bridge.


----------



## Voz Ibérica

*News of the day (Jan 14th, 2019) :*

*England hopes of landing World Cup 2030 dealt blow with Fifa chief backing rival bid*
NGLAND’S hopes of landing the 2030 World Cup have been hit with Fifa chief Gianni Infantino set to back the three-nation bid by Spain, Portugal and Morocco.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/8188751/england-world-cup-2030-blow/


*Infantino tuned up for Ticket to Ride new FIFA thinking On the Road to Marrakesh*


> Unconfirmed reports say the FIFA president has no objections to what would be the tournament’s first ever cross-Continental edition


http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2019/01/14/infantino-tuned-ticket-ride-new-fifa-thinking-road-marrakesh/


*Infantino apoya a Marruecos para el Mundial 2030*


> La intención de Marruecos es albergar el Mundial 2030 junto a España y a Portugal, algo que seduce al presidente de la FIFA, Gianni Infantino. No obstante, el máximo dirigente de la UEFA opina lo contrario.


https://es.besoccer.com/noticia/infantino-apoya-a-marruecos-para-el-mundial-2030-566072

Well ... Spain would be certainly the best place !


----------



## RobH

"has no objections to" ≠ "backs"


----------



## Voz Ibérica

RobH said:


> "has no objections to" ≠ "backs"


It's already a good start ...

The achievement starts with a light of hope, and since there is no objection, the possibility will grow day after day untill it becomes a certainty

Spain has all facilities in place, sharing with Portugal and Morocco will be a wonderful opportunity to live the first cross continent WC ever


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

FIFA chief wants lots of bids shocker!


----------



## cyril sneer

_The achievement starts with a light of hope, and since there is no objection, the possibility will grow day after day untill it becomes a certainty_

:lol::lol::lol:

That is the wettest thing I've heard so far this year.


----------



## RobH

I wasn't having a go at Voz's post so much as the S*n headline. Clearly it's good news for people who want the cross-continental bid to happen that FIFA's President has no objections. That doesn't mean he's backing it.


----------



## cyril sneer

Exactly. The Fifa president is not going to come out at this early stage and back a particular bid when details are still scarce on any of the bids at the moment. For matey to spin this no objection to the Iberian bid is a certainty to win is just comical.


----------



## ElvisBC

we can only hope he is not prasident any more after fifa congress this summer .... but unfortunately noone believes that


----------



## bandermann02

Infantino Not Against European-Moroccan World Cup Bid

FIFA Chairman, Gianni Infantino, arrived in Morocco on Tuesday, January 15. Spanish sports news outlet AS said that FIFA chairman Gianni Infantino is “willing to support” a joint 2030 World Cup bid between Morocco and EU countries.

The news site said that Infantino recalled that the Fifa status does not prohibit a cross-confederation between European countries and an African country.

https://stcm.nl/imgs/l/b/b7043b92c7ee4c1d68d7dba286cac817-1.jpg

The Moroccans gave him the magic potion.


----------



## pesto

bandermann02 said:


> Infantino Not Against European-Moroccan World Cup Bid
> 
> FIFA Chairman, Gianni Infantino, arrived in Morocco on Tuesday, January 15. Spanish sports news outlet AS said that FIFA chairman Gianni Infantino is “willing to support” a joint 2030 World Cup bid between Morocco and EU countries.
> 
> The news site said that Infantino recalled that the Fifa status does not prohibit a cross-confederation between European countries and an African country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Moroccans gave him the magic potion.


".....and be it further resolved that any continent of geographic subdivision thereof shall be called what the Chairman in his sole discretion decides is its name and shall be located within or outside of such other geographical location or locations as he shall determine from time to time."

Please have that typed up and circulated for signature.


----------



## pesto

In "breaking" news, May has agreed to concede the WC to Spain/Por/Mor in return for rapid action on introducing certain Labour and Tory leaders to the guillotine.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

pesto said:


> In "breaking" news, May has agreed to concede the WC to Spain/Por/Mor in return for rapid action on introducing certain Labour and Tory leaders to the guillotine.


That is a French method of permanently sacking errant politicians and thus deeply suspect. There is a perfectly good and very sharp axe for that purpose at the Tower of London.


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> That is a French method of permanently sacking errant politicians and thus deeply suspect. There is a perfectly good and very sharp axe for that purpose at the Tower of London.


More than one, my good fellow, more than one!. And remarkable sharp they be!

In any event the mere threat seems to have worked and the Tories are back in-line and the WC bid is still in place. But clearly the Welsh and Scots must be included. :lol:


----------



## RobH

> *World Cup 2030: British and Irish federations to discuss potential bid*
> 
> *A potential British and Irish bid for staging the 2030 World Cup is to be discussed at a meeting on Friday.*
> 
> The national football associations of England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will meet in Rome after the annual Uefa congress in the Italian capital.
> 
> The meeting is set to include an evaluation of potential venues to put forward if the bid proceeds.
> 
> World Cups from 2026 onwards will be contested by 48 teams.
> 
> The 2026 event, to be staged in the United States, Canada and Mexico, is set to take place at 16 different venues and the British and Irish associations will only look at grounds with a minimum of 40,000 seats.
> 
> There is also a desire to maximise the geographical spread of the tournament - something that could see only two or a maximum of three stadiums in London.
> 
> However, Fifa technical specifications for World Cup venues are demanding and the five associations are aware that even updated, modern venues such as Anfield and Old Trafford - and even the new White Hart Lane - would not reach the required standard at present.
> 
> That is because grounds need to provide sufficient run-off space for players and adequate areas for photographers.
> 
> Friday's meeting is also expected to discuss efforts to gain backing from the British and Irish governments - a vital element for all prospective bids. There is also a desire for the British Government to support building a new venue in Belfast.
> 
> No final decision on whether to proceed with the joint bid is expected to be taken before the spring of 2020 at the earliest and the Rome talks are part of a wide-ranging feasibility study.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47164514


----------



## cyril sneer

This is where Fifa and their requirements irritate me. I mean these stadiums are fit for purpose for premier league and champions league games for player runoff space, photographer areas, etc, so why is it not good enough for the world cup? You'd think Fifa should be leading the way towards sustainability, not encouraging new stadiums to be built just so to comply ridiculous technical rules of theirs. If Fifa don't be careful they will soon end up in a similar situation as the IOC who now struggle to find host cities for the Olympics.


----------



## ElvisBC

RobH said:


> _However, Fifa technical specifications for World Cup venues are demanding and the five associations are aware that even updated, modern venues such as Anfield and Old Trafford - and even the new White Hart Lane - would not reach the required standard at present._
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47164514


and american stadiums with no roofs and heavy viewing obstructions meet those standards .... ^^ hno:

it is all nuthing but one big joke!


----------



## RobH

cyril sneer said:


> This is where Fifa and their requirements irritate me. I mean these stadiums are fit for purpose for premier league and champions league games for player runoff space, photographer areas, etc, so why is it not good enough for the world cup? You'd think Fifa should be leading the way towards sustainability, not encouraging new stadiums to be built just so to comply ridiculous technical rules of theirs..


I don't have a problem with them as long as they're treated like guidelines. As in: this is what we'd like, provide as much of it as you can, but we don't expect you to go mad in accommodating everything if the cost is too high.

Then again, with NWHL, Spurs _deliberately_ went against FIFA requirements (this is explicitly stated in the planning docs as a way of getting the stands closer to the pitch), so I don't think the club can complain too much if FIFA chooses the Emirates instead. Our design is the correct choice made for the right reasons, but we can't have it both ways.

That said, I'm sure FIFA have made bigger compromises in the past than some of the things mentioned in that article. Surely having half a stand on temporary scaffold outside the stadium is worse (Brazil and Russia both did this), they certainly compromised on capacity for some of Russia's grounds, and some of the US stadiums aren't exactly ideal for football either.

For me, it'll only be worth getting irritated over if it looks like FIFA is treating these guidelines as requirements for England (e.g. asking for new stadiums or big reconfigurations), when they've compromised for others. I guess a case of wait and see.


----------



## pesto

Yes. GUIDELINES. This is not E=mc2 or F=ma or gravity which you can't change to suit your needs. 

These are committee-made descriptions of what is generally needed to obtain the preferred viewing experience, profitability, safety, etc. If the guidelines become destructive of these ends it is the right of the institution to alter or abolish them and institute new guidelines as to them shall seem most likely to effect the desired ends (with apologies to T. Jefferson).

This is how every business, organization or informal group working together operates.


----------



## pesto

cyril sneer said:


> This is where Fifa and their requirements irritate me. I mean these stadiums are fit for purpose for premier league and champions league games for player runoff space, photographer areas, etc, so why is it not good enough for the world cup? You'd think Fifa should be leading the way towards sustainability, not encouraging new stadiums to be built just so to comply ridiculous technical rules of theirs. If Fifa don't be careful they will soon end up in a similar situation as the IOC who now struggle to find host cities for the Olympics.


Not really true. Remember the IOC is trying to reduce bids for the summer games to minimize the number of losing bids. 

The summer games are set through 2028 and 10-15 cities are considering bidding for 2032, with the IOC encouraging some to put off their bids since there are so many strong contenders.

As a guess, Australia, Indonesia, China, India and Germany could bid (some have multiple cities interested) and several others are possible. Any one of them should have the resources to handle the job by 2032.


----------



## pesto

cyril sneer said:


> This is where Fifa and their requirements irritate me. I mean these stadiums are *fit for purpose for premier league *and champions league games for player runoff space, photographer areas, etc, so why is it not good enough for the world cup? You'd think Fifa should be leading the way towards sustainability, not encouraging new stadiums to be built just so to comply ridiculous technical rules of theirs. If Fifa don't be careful they will soon end up in a similar situation as the IOC who now struggle to find host cities for the Olympics.


Begging the question? Are they really fit, or have prior waivers of one standard or another allowed them to continue to use stadiums that are deficient? I don't know but it strikes me that rules for safety and security have changed so much that hardly any stadium would qualify.

E.g., the last I heard security people say that a stadium should have a 200m cordon sanitaire around it. This includes defensible checkpoints and a clear area which can be fully defended until support arrives. How many stadiums have that?


----------



## GunnerJacket

pesto said:


> Not really true. Remember the IOC is trying to reduce bids mode for the summer games to minimize the number of losing bids.
> 
> The summer games are set through 2028 and 10-15 cities are considering bidding for 2032, with the IOC encouraging some to put off their bids since there are so many strong contenders.
> 
> As a guess, Australia, Indonesia, China, India and Germany could bid (some have multiple cities interested) and several others are possible. Any one of them should have the resources to handle the job by 2032.


I would contend this is a half-truth. The IOC isn't going bust but their appeal to local governments and taxpayers has dropped precipitously now that the IOC shell game has been better revealed. While they are seeking to discourage the number of outlandish and impractical bids they are equally desperate for more quality bids, because the absence of competition for the games limits the IOC's options and their ability to further increase profits. This isn't a conspiracy, just the market catching up to them.

FIFA and the WC are experiencing their own similar push back for similar reasons. 



pesto said:


> Begging the question? Are they really fit, or have prior waivers of one standard or another allowed them to continue to use stadiums that are deficient? I don't know but it strikes me that rules for safety and security have changed so much that hardly any stadium would qualify.
> 
> E.g., the last I heard security people say that a stadium should have a 200m cordon sanitaire around it. This includes defensible checkpoints and a clear area which can be fully defended until support arrives. How many stadiums have that?


The FIFA guidelines are construed first and foremost for venues built or heavily modified for their event, and then as a benchmark for evaluating older venues. The idea is not to automatically exclude old stadia but to evaluate exactly how far off those venues may be from the "standard." Having limited press space on the field and perhaps smaller dressing rooms is one thing. Having totally inadequate restroom counts or fire safety measures installed is something else entirely. 

FIFA officials have noted repeatedly that many places with older stadiums can be considered acceptable for both logistical and historical reasons. The Bernabau could never meet the modern guidelines but no doubt FIFA would revel at the chance to feature such a venue as part of a WC.


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> I would contend this is a half-truth. The IOC isn't going bust but their appeal to local governments and taxpayers has dropped precipitously now that the IOC shell game has been better revealed. While they are seeking to discourage the number of outlandish and impractical bids they are equally desperate for more quality bids, because the absence of competition for the games limits the IOC's options and their ability to further increase profits. This isn't a conspiracy, just the market catching up to them.
> 
> FIFA and the WC are experiencing their own similar push back for similar reasons.
> 
> The FIFA guidelines are construed first and foremost for venues built or heavily modified for their event, and then as a benchmark for evaluating older venues. The idea is not to automatically exclude old stadia but to evaluate exactly how far off those venues may be from the "standard." Having limited press space on the field and perhaps smaller dressing rooms is one thing. Having totally inadequate restroom counts or fire safety measures installed is something else entirely.
> 
> FIFA officials have noted repeatedly that many places with older stadiums can be considered acceptable for both logistical and historical reasons. The Bernabau could never meet the modern guidelines but no doubt FIFA would revel at the chance to feature such a venue as part of a WC.


You are saying that the fact that bids from cities with inadequate infrastructure are not garnering support from the public proves that ALL cities are uninterested in bidding. 

I disagree. The desire to bid still runs strong but the IOC is managing bids down so that obvious losers are stopped before they start. I won't mention names but look at the losers from 2024 and the potential bidders for 2028; under the new regime they will be counseled to consider smaller events if they are foolish enough to bid again.

At the moment I would say that Australia, Germany, India, China, etc., have bids that the IOC could be interested in working with. But there will be others. 

In fact, the new ideal is pretty much what is in place now: one city scheduled and one more in line for the next Games, with, say half a dozen good choices prepping for the next two. As you say, this is the market. But it is so big and eager that the IOC can deal only with the very best bids.


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> FIFA and the WC are experiencing their own similar push back for similar reasons.
> 
> The FIFA guidelines are construed first and foremost for venues built or heavily modified for their event, and then as a benchmark for evaluating older venues. The idea is not to automatically exclude old stadia but to evaluate exactly how far off those venues may be from the "standard." Having limited press space on the field and perhaps smaller dressing rooms is one thing. Having totally inadequate restroom counts or fire safety measures installed is something else entirely.
> 
> FIFA officials have noted repeatedly that many places with older stadiums can be considered acceptable for both logistical and historical reasons. The Bernabau could never meet the modern guidelines but no doubt FIFA would revel at the chance to feature such a venue as part of a WC.


I agree with all this. FIFA does not set standards in a vacuum; it has to adjust them to the existing stock of venues (just as the leagues in every country do). They can't eliminate everybody. 

Of course, security, safety and sanitary conditions are at the top of the list. The interesting part is when this bumps against the older stadiums with prestigious histories or noteworthy aesthetics. And often the locals are in complete denial as to how decrepit their stadiums really are.


----------



## ElvisBC

I do not understand why you are mentioning Bernabeu here, it is the best stadium in the world by significant margin.


----------



## pesto

The post above re UK/Irish talks notes that even Anfield, Old Trafford and New White Hart Lane would not meet current standards. So presumably the bidders need to have talks with FIFA to determine what, if anything, needs to be upgraded and whether the economic or historic reasons for using them outweigh those costs.

This could be an issue with any bidder since safety and security priorities have been changing very rapidly of late in response to changes in perceived threats. This doesn't mean they are eliminated, but it does mean they may have more expenses and disruptions than were expected.


----------



## GunnerJacket

pesto said:


> You are saying that the fact that bids from cities with inadequate infrastructure are not garnering support from the public proves that ALL cities are uninterested in bidding.


No, I'm saying that there is a decrease in the volume and/or quality of bids the IOC is receiving because more cities are disinclined to cave in to the IOC's (and, to stay somewhat topical, FIFA's) blanket demands. There is greater public scrutiny regarding the use of funds for sporting largesse, especially when that largesse doesn't even go to a local owner but rather some remote third party ego council. But I digress, and agree or not we here are not going to influence who does and doesn't bid. 



ElvisBC said:


> I do not understand why you are mentioning Bernabeu here, it is the best stadium in the world by significant margin.


Because as it is today the Bernebau falls short of FIFA's recommended guidelines regarding clearance around the pitch, public space surrounding the venue, and overall egress capacity. Yet we all know the stadium is great for actually watching the game and they would find a way to make it work.


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> No, I'm saying that there is a decrease in the volume and/or quality of bids the IOC is receiving because more cities are disinclined to cave in to the IOC's (and, to stay somewhat topical, FIFA's) blanket demands. There is greater public scrutiny regarding the use of funds for sporting largesse, especially when that largesse doesn't even go to a local owner but rather some remote third party ego council. But I digress, and agree or not we here are not going to influence who does and doesn't bid.


Volume of bids is strong and quality WAY up. 

The IOC is now actively discouraging bids, preferring to reach-out to cities it believes have a chance to win. You can see why if you look at the 2024 and 2028 losers: low public support, missing facilities, questionable funding and even moral objections to the waste of resources. One had its national sports leadership opposed. Some spent over 20M of public money for nothing. This waste of money on no-chance bids is what was getting bad press.

Now, places like Australia, India and Indonesia are for sure going to get the Games. China and Korea are very likely to be available if and when the IOC says they are interested. The real issue is in which order to select them and how to mix in Europe, Africa and LatAm.


----------



## pesto

There is no reason I can see that FIFA should lie about stadiums not meeting modern standards or favor one country over another (although I suspect it is easy to patch together conspiracy theories about this). :lol:

I would think it is useful to have an outside party with cross-border experience check to see if stadiums are seriously antiquated and if it's time to look at what is needed to correct the issues. Better than after a fire or terrorist incident and a fire-storm of press articles and government inquiries. And rolling heads.


----------



## GunnerJacket

*Mod Note:* Please notify a mod via PM when suggesting a post should be moved or deleted. Thank you.


----------



## Marsupalami

Now that Brexit is destined to happen, I cant see the UK getting votes from the EU at all for football world cup ever again. And that will pretty much block them from ever receiving it.


----------



## RobH

Marsupalami said:


> Now that Brexit is destined to happen, I cant see the UK getting votes from the EU at all for football world cup ever again. And that will pretty much block them from ever receiving it.


If it happens Brexit could easily cause all sorts of other, more practical problems, but confederations are powerful blocks that tend to support their own. The UK nations aren't leaving UEFA.


----------



## pesto

Marsupalami said:


> Now that Brexit is destined to happen, I cant see the UK getting votes from the EU at all for football world cup ever again. And that will pretty much block them from ever receiving it.


"Mummy, are the naughty Europeans going to cut-off Gummy Bears? It will just break Dolly's heart."


----------



## FCIM

Chile join South American bid for 2030 World Cup hosting ?

http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2019/02/15/chile-join-south-american-bid-2030-world-cup-hosting/


----------



## marmoset

alserrod said:


> It was said not in this century a WC or Olympics in Greece.
> I pointed, FIRST summer olympics in THIS century took place in Greece, Athens indeed, so do 1896, and BTW, former games came from Greece.
> 
> Obviosly in Olympus. They had games every year in four cities. Athens was one out of them, but most special ones were Olympus ones (or at least that was what a guide said me)
> 
> 
> Back to topic... bet no WC, even EC in Greece for a long time... but they have hosted Olympics this century


The ancient Olympic Games were held at Olympia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympia,_Greece

Olympus is the mountain were the Greek Gods were staying

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

Back to topic, nobody here in Greece wants this Balkan bid. Except for the construction companies of course. The 2004 Olympic Games was a financial disaster for Greece.

Personally I would like to see a Slav-Balkan World Cup (ex Yugoslavia, Bulgaria), but it is too early. Maybe around 2040's or 2050's.


----------



## Guest

The longer that time passes, the less chance of a Balkan WC. In the 2050s, the only chance Balkans has is if there is a pan European WC bid. 

I dont understand why people even bring it up tbh. Small nations, below par wealth. And is in the same confederation as the big five. 

They wouldnt win a Euro bid let alone WC.


----------



## pesto

5portsF4n said:


> The longer that time passes, the less chance of a Balkan WC. In the 2050s, the only chance Balkans has is if there is a pan European WC bid.
> 
> I dont understand why people even bring it up tbh. Small nations, below par wealth. And is in the same confederation as the big five.
> 
> They wouldnt win a Euro bid let alone WC.


FIFA has a policy of extending the possibility of hosting the WC to countries that have not previously done so. Joint bids are an instrument to accomplish that goal.

There is little economic point in having the UK or Germany host. Locals are going to watch and follow their team wherever they go. By contrast getting 200M more people in Asia or Africa to watch is new money.

Of course, the flip side is that there have to be sufficient facilities. Putting together the right countries and limiting major new development to, say, 1 per country seems to be a workable possibility.


----------



## marmoset

5portsF4n said:


> The longer that time passes, the less chance of a Balkan WC. In the 2050s, the only chance Balkans has is if there is a pan European WC bid.
> 
> I dont understand why people even bring it up tbh. Small nations, below par wealth. And is in the same confederation as the big five.
> 
> They wouldnt win a Euro bid let alone WC.


The pan European WC is a good idea, but the Confederations are too many. The Oceania Confederation is a joke. They only have one professional team. North and South America should be one Confederation. With only four Confederations you could have a Pan European WC every 16 years.


----------



## pesto

marmoset said:


> The pan European WC is a good idea, but the Confederations are too many. The Oceania Confederation is a joke. They only have one professional team. *North and South America should be one Confederation. *With only four Confederations you could have a Pan European WC every 16 years.


That's over 1/3 of the world's wealth and a stretch from pole to pole. I'm having trouble figuring the advantages of that size and shape.

And why do we want a Pan European WC? All things being equal you don't want to go after the established and saturated market. Better the emerging markets of the US, Canada, China, India, S. Asia, assuming they meet the economic, security and facilities requirements.


----------



## Guest

pesto said:


> FIFA has a policy of extending the possibility of hosting the WC to countries that have not previously done so. Joint bids are an instrument to accomplish that goal.
> 
> There is little economic point in having the UK or Germany host. Locals are going to watch and follow their team wherever they go. By contrast getting 200M more people in Asia or Africa to watch is new money.


What does this have to do with the discussion of a Balkan bid?

FIFA absolutely does not have a policy of anything. It has a policy of making decisions based on what makes sense at the time. 

South Africa was a strategic policy to give back to a continent that loves that game (removing it from the discussion and allowing them to not have to consider Africa for a long time to come.....in fact, next African WC will more than likely be sub-regional, either North Africa or as part of an Iberian bid with Europe). 

Qatar was purchased. 

Other than those two, every WC host has been a large nation post 1966. 

Clearly the WC is going to rifle through the confederations. It's not going to alternate between Asia and Africa. When it eventually comes to Europe (which by extension also means it's coming to Africa by virtue of timezone), any bidder has a chance, some more than others. A UK/Ireland bid has a very strong chance, and would absolutely be preferred by UEFA/FIFA to a Balkan bid. 

The problem for smaller, poorer nations in Europe is that the big 5 (England, Spain, Italy, France and Germany) can host it alone, or they can improve their bids by getting other nations to join them. 

Many possibilities here: 

England/Wales/Scotland/Ireland
Spain/Portugal/Morocco (attractive as it combines two confederations)
Germany/Austria/Switzerland and you could even get Netherlands and Denmark in there
France/Belgium/Netherlands
Italy could even joint bid with Balkan nations (Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia

I don't see a European WC EVER again that doesn't include at least one of the big 7 (England, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Russia, Turkey). Turkey + Balkans (including Greece obviously) is another decent possibility.

I think the only chance Balkan nations or any other smaller nations have is to have a combined bid with one of the big nations, or to be part of a pan-European bid ala Euro 2020. 




marmoset said:


> The pan European WC is a good idea, but the Confederations are too many. The Oceania Confederation is a joke. They only have one professional team. North and South America should be one Confederation. With only four Confederations you could have a Pan European WC every 16 years.


I agree. I think in the future there will be 4 confederations. Europe, Asia, Americas, Africa.



pesto said:


> That's over 1/3 of the world's wealth and a stretch from pole to pole. I'm having trouble figuring the advantages of that size and shape.
> 
> And why do we want a Pan European WC? All things being equal you don't want to go after the established and saturated market. Better the emerging markets of the US, Canada, China, India, S. Asia, assuming they meet the economic, security and facilities requirements.


The advantages of a combined Americas is massive. Copa America in 2016 was bigger than any Gold Cup ever. The US/Canada/Mexico playing against the South American nations on a regular basis gives the North the kind of credibility and pathway to advance as global soccer powers that Concacaf never will.

As for other point, if you genuinely believe that Europe is going to be overlooked for the next 20 years in a bid to expand into emerging markets, lol. 

US/Canada is getting a WC in 2026.

Soccer is by far number 1 sport in SE Asia. You're not developing anything untapped there.

China will get a WC at some point soon no question. And it could come as early as 2034. Soccer already one of two biggest sports in China alongside basketball, so not really that pressing, especially with expanded WC likely to ensure that China is set to become a fixture at the WC from hereon in.

India is a more long term play, where soccer lags far behind cricket, but should only be considered as it matures over time. Either way, any expanded WC in an Asian-friendly timezone with an Indian team qualifying would be just as big a boost as hosting.

Europe will get its regular fill of the WC, as it should. A European World cup is the friendliest of all because it satisfies the biggest paying broadcasters. It's also in a timezone that means you can host games that are time-friendly in not only Asia but the Americas also (and obviously Africa). After all, Europeans don't need to watch Japan vs China at 1pm local time. But that's primetime in Asia, leaving European primetime for European/African teams/Americas. It gives the scheduling greater flexibility than anything else.


----------



## Lovricico

Friday, February 15th, 2019:

Chile joins Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay in World Cup bid
Inside World Football


> Chile are to join Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay in bidding to stage the 2030 World Cup in what, if successful, would be the first ever four-nation joint hosting. Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay had already submitted a joint bid to host what will be the centenary edition of the tournament and Chile’s President Sebastian Pinera has now confirmed his country has been added to the coalition of South American nations who would start favourites to land the event.
> 
> “_The Presidents of the Argentinian Republic, Mauricio Macri; of the Republic of Chile, Sebastián Piñera; from the Republic of Paraguay, Mario Abdo; and of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, Tabaré Vázquez; have agreed to present their joint candidacy to organize the 2030 World Cup_” he said on Twitter.
> 
> “_The Presidents, through the four respective football associations (AFA, ANFP, AFP and AUF), have decided to bring before FIFA, after communicating this to CONMEBOL, a shared position to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the first World Cup, organised by Uruguay in 1930_.” Uruguay hosted and won the inaugural World Cup in 1930, Chile was the venue in 1962 and Argentina emulated lifted the trophy on home soil in 1978.


----------



## pesto

5portsF4n said:


> What does this have to do with the discussion of a Balkan bid?
> 
> FIFA absolutely does not have a policy of anything. It has a policy of making decisions based on what makes sense at the time.
> 
> South Africa was a strategic policy to give back to a continent that loves that game (removing it from the discussion and allowing them to not have to consider Africa for a long time to come.....in fact, next African WC will more than likely be sub-regional, either North Africa or as part of an Iberian bid with Europe).
> 
> Qatar was purchased.
> 
> Other than those two, every WC host has been a large nation post 1966.
> 
> Clearly the WC is going to rifle through the confederations. It's not going to alternate between Asia and Africa. When it eventually comes to Europe (which by extension also means it's coming to Africa by virtue of timezone), any bidder has a chance, some more than others. A UK/Ireland bid has a very strong chance, and would absolutely be preferred by UEFA/FIFA to a Balkan bid.
> 
> The problem for smaller, poorer nations in Europe is that the big 5 (England, Spain, Italy, France and Germany) can host it alone, or they can improve their bids by getting other nations to join them.
> 
> Many possibilities here:
> 
> England/Wales/Scotland/Ireland
> Spain/Portugal/Morocco (attractive as it combines two confederations)
> Germany/Austria/Switzerland and you could even get Netherlands and Denmark in there
> France/Belgium/Netherlands
> Italy could even joint bid with Balkan nations (Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia
> 
> I don't see a European WC EVER again that doesn't include at least one of the big 7 (England, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Russia, Turkey). Turkey + Balkans (including Greece obviously) is another decent possibility.
> 
> I think the only chance Balkan nations or any other smaller nations have is to have a combined bid with one of the big nations, or to be part of a pan-European bid ala Euro 2020.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. I think in the future there will be 4 confederations. Europe, Asia, Americas, Africa.
> 
> 
> 
> The advantages of a combined Americas is massive. Copa America in 2016 was bigger than any Gold Cup ever. The US/Canada/Mexico playing against the South American nations on a regular basis gives the North the kind of credibility and pathway to advance as global soccer powers that Concacaf never will.
> 
> As for other point, if you genuinely believe that Europe is going to be overlooked for the next 20 years in a bid to expand into emerging markets, lol.
> 
> US/Canada is getting a WC in 2026.
> 
> Soccer is by far number 1 sport in SE Asia. You're not developing anything untapped there.
> 
> China will get a WC at some point soon no question. And it could come as early as 2034. Soccer already one of two biggest sports in China alongside basketball, so not really that pressing, especially with expanded WC likely to ensure that China is set to become a fixture at the WC from hereon in.
> 
> India is a more long term play, where soccer lags far behind cricket, but should only be considered as it matures over time. Either way, any expanded WC in an Asian-friendly timezone with an Indian team qualifying would be just as big a boost as hosting.
> 
> Europe will get its regular fill of the WC, as it should. A European World cup is the friendliest of all because it satisfies the biggest paying broadcasters. It's also in a timezone that means you can host games that are time-friendly in not only Asia but the Americas also (and obviously Africa). After all, Europeans don't need to watch Japan vs China at 1pm local time. But that's primetime in Asia, leaving European primetime for European/African teams/Americas. It gives the scheduling greater flexibility than anything else.


Thanks. There's a lot of really interesting points there. But in brief:

1. Infantino said that FIFA encourages multiple countries with each having multiple stadiums as a way of bringing smaller countries into the hosting process without excessive expenditures. Could be one large and several small or just several medium and small countries.

2. As a result, it's a virtual certainty that the 2030 WC is going to a joint bidder. England made some early noise about going alone and had to be chastised from Whitehall who basically told them that's not how it's going to work. Now the contenders are some combination of England, Wales, Scotland, N. Ireland and Ireland or Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Chile (3 of these 4 previously hosted by themselves) or the Balkan bid or Spain with Portugal and/or Morocco. 

3. Europe won't be overlooked. But any bidder will be taking unnecessary risks and could be defeated if it does not form joint bids and include smaller nations.

4. The fundamental point here is the expected size of markets in 2040, 2050, etc. China and India will multiple times the size of Germany, France and the UK combined. And the fan loyalties of almost all of those people are up for grabs right now.


----------



## Guest

pesto said:


> 1. Infantino said that FIFA encourages multiple countries with each having multiple stadiums as a way of bringing smaller countries into the hosting process without excessive expenditures. Could be one large and several small or just several medium and small countries.
> 
> 2. As a result, it's a virtual certainty that the 2030 WC is going to a joint bidder. England made some early noise about going alone and had to be chastised from Whitehall who basically told them that's not how it's going to work. Now the contenders are some combination of England, Wales, Scotland, N. Ireland and Ireland or Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Chile (3 of these 4 previously hosted by themselves) or the Balkan bid or Spain with Portugal and/or Morocco.
> 
> 3. Europe won't be overlooked. But any bidder will be taking unnecessary risks and could be defeated if it does not form joint bids and include smaller nations.
> 
> 4. The fundamental point here is the expected size of markets in 2040, 2050, etc. China and India will multiple times the size of Germany, France and the UK combined. And the fan loyalties of almost all of those people are up for grabs right now.


1. Outside of the US/Canada/Mexico bid, which is a money printer, FIFA under Infantino is just talking up a good game. It's all about winning enough votes. He won the election based on his promise to expand the World Cup to include more slots for the less successful confederations. Until FIFA under Infantino does what I believe will never happen, which is to give the WC to a bunch of middling countries that, together, don't amount to much in terms of population/economy/etc, then the jury is out on that one.

I believe it'll be the first option you mentioned, one large country plus several smaller. Heck, even in the US/Can/Mex bid, US got most of the games. The others may well not even be part of the bid, despite the fact that they are both in the top 15 economies in the world. 

What makes the most economic sense will always win out in the future. And giving it to the Balkans on its own makes absolutely no sense, unless we're including Turkey or Italy in that. 

2. That seems to be right. The UK/Ireland and Spain/Por/Mor bid looks to be the best right now. There's no way FIFA are sticking in the Americas timezone two WCs in a row. To go from North America in 2026 to south in 2030 is something that I believe they won't do. Europe should win 2030. And I suspect it's back to Asia in 2034, with China the likeliest. 

3. Right, which is why, as you said, England, despite easily being able to host a 48 team tournament on its own, has expanded its horizons. Everyone has seen the writing on the wall. The way to success is inclusiveness. For England, which, like the US, will probably host at least 70% of the tournament, it's a small price to pay for getting a tournament they believe is their god given right to host.

4. As far as international soccer is concerned, China and India aren't really up for grabs in the same sense as the club game. Chinese will support China, ditto Indians and India. Unless you're talking about sporting loyalties. In which case I'd argue that basketball and soccer have China sewn up pretty good at this point, with every other sport facing an uphill climb in the future. On top of that, the professional leagues domestically and around the world drive interest in both countries just fine. National team success would supercharge that, but it's not make or break.

Either way, the quickest way to boost market penetration in both countries is to ensure a team that makes WCs regularly. China is close to that. India is a ways off. 

In India and the subcontinent, cricket is the clear leader, but soccer is more or less number 2. There isn't the kind of irrelevance you see in the US/Can with soccer. It's part of the sporting fabric. That's even truer in China. 40 million watched one of China's soccer player who recently moved to a middling club in Spain make his debut (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47172177) vs 177k who watched in Spain. 

My point is that bringing the WC to China isn't as big a priority as ensuring that player development produces a team which Chinese can get behind. The audience is there. Right now, that audience is fixated on the Chinese Super League and Euro leagues. You don't see the kind of fervor yet that you see with Japan, whose national team is revered. 

I understand that hosting a tournament has a huge role in helping pave the way for future superstars, but outside of India I don't see any market in Asia where it would be a setback for the sport not to host a WC in over the next 20 years. And yet I'm still certain China will get it if not in 2034, then certainly by 2038.


----------



## pesto

5portsF4n said:


> 1. Outside of the US/Canada/Mexico bid, which is a money printer, FIFA under Infantino is just talking up a good game. It's all about winning enough votes. He won the election based on his promise to expand the World Cup to include more slots for the less successful confederations. Until FIFA under Infantino does what I believe will never happen, which is to give the WC to a bunch of middling countries that, together, don't amount to much in terms of population/economy/etc, then the jury is out on that one.
> 
> I believe it'll be the first option you mentioned, one large country plus several smaller. Heck, even in the US/Can/Mex bid, US got most of the games. The others may well not even be part of the bid, despite the fact that they are both in the top 15 economies in the world.
> 
> What makes the most economic sense will always win out in the future. And giving it to the Balkans on its own makes absolutely no sense, unless we're including Turkey or Italy in that.
> 
> 2. That seems to be right. The UK/Ireland and Spain/Por/Mor bid looks to be the best right now. There's no way FIFA are sticking in the Americas timezone two WCs in a row. To go from North America in 2026 to south in 2030 is something that I believe they won't do. Europe should win 2030. And I suspect it's back to Asia in 2034, with China the likeliest.
> 
> 3. Right, which is why, as you said, England, despite easily being able to host a 48 team tournament on its own, has expanded its horizons. Everyone has seen the writing on the wall. The way to success is inclusiveness. For England, which, like the US, will probably host at least 70% of the tournament, it's a small price to pay for getting a tournament they believe is their god given right to host.
> 
> 4. As far as international soccer is concerned, China and India aren't really up for grabs in the same sense as the club game. Chinese will support China, ditto Indians and India. Unless you're talking about sporting loyalties. In which case I'd argue that basketball and soccer have China sewn up pretty good at this point, with every other sport facing an uphill climb in the future. On top of that, the professional leagues domestically and around the world drive interest in both countries just fine. National team success would supercharge that, but it's not make or break.
> 
> Either way, the quickest way to boost market penetration in both countries is to ensure a team that makes WCs regularly. China is close to that. India is a ways off.
> 
> In India and the subcontinent, cricket is the clear leader, but soccer is more or less number 2. There isn't the kind of irrelevance you see in the US/Can with soccer. It's part of the sporting fabric. That's even truer in China. 40 million watched one of China's soccer player who recently moved to a middling club in Spain make his debut (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47172177) vs 177k who watched in Spain.
> 
> My point is that bringing the WC to China isn't as big a priority as ensuring that player development produces a team which Chinese can get behind. The audience is there. Right now, that audience is fixated on the Chinese Super League and Euro leagues. You don't see the kind of fervor yet that you see with Japan, whose national team is revered.
> 
> I understand that hosting a tournament has a huge role in helping pave the way for future superstars, but outside of India I don't see any market in Asia where it would be a setback for the sport not to host a WC in over the next 20 years. And yet I'm still certain China will get it if not in 2034, then certainly by 2038.


Generally agree except you sometimes say that FIFA controls selection and other times say its up to the voters. You should adjust these to make your arguments consistent.

In the surveys, China and India rank among the very lowest in commitment to soccer. There are hundreds of sports business articles setting forth the details on the rush to these countries. For sure the clubs are interested but that doesn't affect FIFA's desire to draw fans to the sport generally and to its numerous sponsored events in particular, with proposals from broadcasters and new media encouraging them to do so.

https://nielsensports.com/global-interest-football/


----------



## Guest

pesto said:


> Generally agree except you sometimes say that FIFA controls selection and other times say its up to the voters. You should adjust these to make your arguments consistent.
> 
> In the surveys, China and India rank among the very lowest in commitment to soccer. There are hundreds of sports business articles setting forth the details on the rush to these countries. For sure the clubs are interested but that doesn't affect FIFA's desire to draw fans to the sport generally and to its numerous sponsored events in particular, with proposals from broadcasters and new media encouraging them to do so.
> 
> https://nielsensports.com/global-interest-football/


Every 200+ FIFA member votes on WC host selection now that the ExCo process has been abolished. Infantino promised more money for federations and an expanded WC that fed into the hands of the confederations that have fewer spots in the WC but have a large number of members (Africa/Asia/Concacaf). So under the new system the voting bloc has the power to select the WC host.

But you need to understand that Infantino's role in the selection process is not as black and white as you seem to think. At the next election, Infantino could promise even more money for federations in exchange for votes from a particular potential host that pays bribes. 

FIFA is ultimately a direct democracy, and as such is liable to shenanigans. It is not enough to say that the members decides on who gets to host the WC. There is a whole lot of backroom dealing that will take part which Infantino and other elected officials are not removed from. 

2026 was easy. He promised more money, more opportunities for smaller hosts in the future, and more spots for confederations. 

But looking into the future there is only so much you can do. Short of offering more money to everyone, Infantino's leverage in seeking re-election isn't going to be as strong. 

As a result, I expect corruption to creep back in (if it ever went away), and Infantino's role in the selection process for WC hosts will only grow, provided of course he wins re-election, which he likely will. 

As for China, I really don't know what to tell you. China is 100% dominated by basketball and soccer. I don't know need any surveys to prove that. All I need to do is go on China's biggest web portals and click translate. Guess what team sports are covered extensively (basketball, soccer) and those that aren't (pretty much everything else). That's because there is incredibly demand for those sports, and very little demand for other sports.

In terms of investment, China is on the right track. The government-led initiative to win the WC by 2050 has poured untold amounts of money into development, aiming to have 20,000 new academies and 70k fields over the next few years.

More tellingly, from Forbes (for 2018 WC):


> Chinese companies Vivo (cell phones), Wanda (entertainment) and Mengniu (dairy) poured in $835 million, roughly a third of the $2.4 billion in World Cup sponsor advertising. In 2014, not a single Chinese firm served as World Cup sponsor or partner.


China's interest in overseas leagues has been documented plenty. Its domestic league penned a billion+ dollar contract, spends an insane amount of money to buy up talent, which the government had to clamp down on because of its excess, viewing figures for Chinese clubs and national team are excellent, numbering in the tens of millions. Attendance average of 23,000+ for the CSL by far the biggest attended league in China, miles ahead of the basketball league. 

That survey you linked to just reflects the fact that China and India are still in the midst of their growing phase with the game. But like everywhere else, given time, that figure will continue to grow.


----------



## ElvisBC

5portsF4n said:


> Every 200+ FIFA member votes on WC host selection now that the ExCo process has been abolished. Infantino promised more money for federations and an expanded WC that fed into the hands of the confederations that have fewer spots in the WC but have a large number of members (Africa/Asia/Concacaf). So under the new system the voting bloc has the power to select the WC host.
> 
> But you need to understand that Infantino's role in the selection process is not as black and white as you seem to think. At the next election, Infantino could promise even more money for federations in exchange for votes from a particular potential host that pays bribes.
> 
> FIFA is ultimately a direct democracy, and as such is liable to shenanigans. It is not enough to say that the members decides on who gets to host the WC. There is a whole lot of backroom dealing that will take part which Infantino and other elected officials are not removed from.
> 
> 2026 was easy. He promised more money, more opportunities for smaller hosts in the future, and more spots for confederations.
> 
> But looking into the future there is only so much you can do. Short of offering more money to everyone, Infantino's leverage in seeking re-election isn't going to be as strong.
> 
> As a result, I expect corruption to creep back in (if it ever went away), and Infantino's role in the selection process for WC hosts will only grow, provided of course he wins re-election, which he likely will.
> 
> As for China, I really don't know what to tell you. China is 100% dominated by basketball and soccer. I don't know need any surveys to prove that. All I need to do is go on China's biggest web portals and click translate. Guess what team sports are covered extensively (basketball, soccer) and those that aren't (pretty much everything else). That's because there is incredibly demand for those sports, and very little demand for other sports.
> 
> In terms of investment, China is on the right track. The government-led initiative to win the WC by 2050 has poured untold amounts of money into development, aiming to have 20,000 new academies and 70k fields over the next few years.
> 
> More tellingly, from Forbes (for 2018 WC):
> 
> China's interest in overseas leagues has been documented plenty. Its domestic league penned a billion+ dollar contract, spends an insane amount of money to buy up talent, which the government had to clamp down on because of its excess, viewing figures for Chinese clubs and national team are excellent, numbering in the tens of millions. Attendance average of 23,000+ for the CSL by far the biggest attended league in China, miles ahead of the basketball league.
> 
> That survey you linked to just reflects the fact that China and India are still in the midst of their growing phase with the game. But like everywhere else, given time, that figure will continue to grow.


btw, Infantino will be reelected, no oposing candidate entered the race before the deadline. sad but true! the only theoretical chance to bring him down is if something really negative happens regarding global nations league and club world cup. so negative that it could trigger any sort of revolution within FIFA


----------



## ElvisBC

back to topic, chile joining other three is very interesting news. seems to me they think they are increasing their chances by going that way. honestly, I also wouldn‘t be too surprised if they drop paraguay at one point further down the road.

I am still convinced the cup is coming home in 2030 but this is getting interesting indeed


----------



## pesto

5portsF4n said:


> Every 200+ FIFA member votes on WC host selection now that the ExCo process has been abolished. Infantino promised more money for federations and an expanded WC that fed into the hands of the confederations that have fewer spots in the WC but have a large number of members (Africa/Asia/Concacaf). So under the new system the voting bloc has the power to select the WC host.
> 
> But you need to understand that Infantino's role in the selection process is not as black and white as you seem to think. At the next election, Infantino could promise even more money for federations in exchange for votes from a particular potential host that pays bribes.
> 
> FIFA is ultimately a direct democracy, and as such is liable to shenanigans. It is not enough to say that the members decides on who gets to host the WC. There is a whole lot of backroom dealing that will take part which Infantino and other elected officials are not removed from.
> 
> 2026 was easy. He promised more money, more opportunities for smaller hosts in the future, and more spots for confederations.
> 
> But looking into the future there is only so much you can do. Short of offering more money to everyone, Infantino's leverage in seeking re-election isn't going to be as strong.
> 
> As a result, I expect corruption to creep back in (if it ever went away), and Infantino's role in the selection process for WC hosts will only grow, provided of course he wins re-election, which he likely will.
> 
> As for China, I really don't know what to tell you. China is 100% dominated by basketball and soccer. I don't know need any surveys to prove that. All I need to do is go on China's biggest web portals and click translate. Guess what team sports are covered extensively (basketball, soccer) and those that aren't (pretty much everything else). That's because there is incredibly demand for those sports, and very little demand for other sports.
> 
> In terms of investment, China is on the right track. The government-led initiative to win the WC by 2050 has poured untold amounts of money into development, aiming to have 20,000 new academies and 70k fields over the next few years.
> 
> More tellingly, from Forbes (for 2018 WC):
> 
> China's interest in overseas leagues has been documented plenty. Its domestic league penned a billion+ dollar contract, spends an insane amount of money to buy up talent, which the government had to clamp down on because of its excess, viewing figures for Chinese clubs and national team are excellent, numbering in the tens of millions. Attendance average of 23,000+ for the CSL by far the biggest attended league in China, miles ahead of the basketball league.
> 
> That survey you linked to just reflects the fact that China and India are still in the midst of their growing phase with the game. But like everywhere else, given time, that figure will continue to grow.


Agree with the idea that there are voters and there is an administrative HQ that guides the voters and informs them about economic reality when they drift off. Details on how this works was heavily discussed in the 2026 thread, in case you missed it. But you still can't argue one side and then argue the other side as suits your fancy.

As for China, I think we are getting the idea. By 2050, roughly 700M Chinese will have made a decision about what particular sports and teams they spend time on; thereafter it becomes a family-directed connection. FIFA could wait until then to focus on building an audience or they could start 10 years ago like the rest of soccer, NFL, etc., did. 

Interestingly, they chose the very low interest US and Canada for 2026. The two other lowest markets are China and India. I know you are smarter than the studies but since they are free to look at, you might as well do so.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> back to topic, chile joining other three is very interesting news. seems to me they think they are increasing their chances by going that way. honestly, I also wouldn‘t be too surprised if they drop paraguay at one point further down the road.
> 
> I am still convinced the cup is coming home in 2030 but this is getting interesting indeed


If by "home" you mean England alone, I believe they will be beaten. If you mean some larger part of UK/Ireland, then they will be very competitive.


----------



## Voz Ibérica

*Spain confident in organizing World 2030 together with Morocco and Portugal*
The Government assures that its proposal to prepare with Morocco and Portugal a joint bid to organize the World Cup of 2030 "goes forward"
https://www.sport.es/es/noticias/futbol/espana-sigue-con-propuesta-con-marruecos-portugal-para-mundial-2030-7301566

Rubiales (Spanish FA president) took the opportunity to insist that he will not renounce Spain's bid at the 2030 World Cup. "*I will not stop running a race if I have the chance to win it*"

The Supercopa of Spain will have the format of 'final four' : The two first classified of the League and the two finalists of the Cup will fight for the trophy outside of Spain (Morocco is tipped as host as Spain gives all kind of support)

https://www.lavanguardia.com/deportes/futbol/20190219/46573713790/supercopa-de-espana-2019-final-four.html


*Morocco, the insistent candidate*

https://www.latercera.com/el-deportivo/noticia/marruecos-candidato-insistente/529750/

In addition, Spanish king and queen have just traveled to Morocco last february 13th and 14th. Morocco and Spain have signed many cooperation deals, espacially in terms of tourism and transport (airlines and ferry lines)

Both of spanish and moroccan kings are friend since their childhood


----------



## Guest

Code:







ElvisBC said:


> btw, Infantino will be reelected, no oposing candidate entered the race before the deadline. sad but true! the only theoretical chance to bring him down is if something really negative happens regarding global nations league and club world cup. so negative that it could trigger any sort of revolution within FIFA


Right, and I actually think most constituents are supportive of club world cup expansion, outside of uefa. same with global nations league. 

he gets stick for what hes doing, but ive loved infantinos reign so far. hes instigsting the kind of changes that traditionalists hate, but is absolutely the natural progression for the game. 



pesto said:


> As for China, I think we are getting the idea. By 2050, roughly 700M Chinese will have made a decision about what particular sports and teams they spend time on; thereafter it becomes a family-directed connection. FIFA could wait until then to focus on building an audience or they could start 10 years ago like the rest of soccer, NFL, etc., did.
> 
> Interestingly, they chose the very low interest US and Canada for 2026. The two other lowest markets are China and India. I know you are smarter than the studies but since they are free to look at, you might as well do so.


Ah yes, the low interest US and Canada that is also the lowest risk WC you could hope that will bring unmatched ticketing revenue. What a brave and (un)interesting decision that was.

Your nonsensical musings about China demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about a market that is actually very mature in terms of its support for sports. You think of them as some backwater that is just waiting to be exposed to some new sport, completely ignoring the decades of rampant growth by soccer and basketball, which have created very entrenched sporting allegiances. But sure thing...keep believing the NFL is a competitor :lol:

I know it is painful to realize that your favorite sport is nothing but an irrelevance that will never have any widespread popularity on this planet of ours, playing fifth fiddle to the behemoths of soccer and basketball but the sooner you come to terms with that, the sooner the grieving process can begin.


----------



## pesto

5portsF4n said:


> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and I actually think most constituents are supportive of club world cup expansion, outside of uefa. same with global nations league.
> 
> he gets stick for what hes doing, but ive loved infantinos reign so far. hes instigsting the kind of changes that traditionalists hate, but is absolutely the natural progression for the game.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, the low interest US and Canada that is also the lowest risk WC you could hope that will bring unmatched ticketing revenue. What a brave and (un)interesting decision that was.
> 
> Your nonsensical musings about China demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about a market that is actually very mature in terms of its support for sports. You think of them as some backwater that is just waiting to be exposed to some new sport, completely ignoring the decades of rampant growth by soccer and basketball, which have created very entrenched sporting allegiances. But sure thing...keep believing the NFL is a competitor :lol:
> 
> I know it is painful to realize that your favorite sport is nothing but an irrelevance that will never have any widespread popularity on this planet of ours, playing fifth fiddle to the behemoths of soccer and basketball but the sooner you come to terms with that, the sooner the grieving process can begin.


I assume you mean football? Not my favorite. And why would I care if my personal favorite is popular in China or Europe or Sierra Leone? This is a business strategy discussion. 

Check the Nielsen ratings again. Uncommitted to soccer (and sports generally). What more can I say. I don't do the polls or write the articles.

In any event, this is not an all or nothing thing. I assume soccer will do great in China, and the size of the market means that many will do very well there. But it will do BETTER in the world generally by following a well thought out strategy. One that focuses on income growth and uncommitted viewers. That's why Nielsen or 100 others) is hired, not only by them but by any business looking at where to focus their funds. That doesn't mean that you have to have the WC or Olympic Games there. But you have to run the numbers with and without, and compare alternatives or you are not doing your job.

EDIT: OK, I spent 5 seconds on the internet and this came up from the Telegraph:

"For all football’s claims to be a universal language, the planet's four most populous countries - India, China, USA and Indonesia - all failed to reach the 2018 World Cup. China have only ever qualified once, in 2002; India and Indonesia have never made it. Somehow, the world’s game has rather passed the biggest countries by. Yet this means there are still new lands for football to conquer." 

That's for free. Some business libraries may allow you access to the private investor services that go through what the various leagues and consultancies are doing in the way of investment vehicles, JV's or advisory services. Prices can get steep, however so see if you can get one day access.


----------



## alserrod

Rubiales (Spanish federation president) and Tebas (League president) are quarreling nowadays about Spanish Supercup.

It had been always played in a two-matches system before league between League and Cup winners. In case they would be the same, Cup runner-up

Last year, and with sponsors and economic interests, it was hosted in just one match in Tetouan (Morocco) and with a poor attendance.

Tebas has stated next one will be a sort of Final4 with winner, runner-up from Cup and winner and second from League... and played out of Spain.

Rubiales disagreed too much.

Nowadays, in Spanish football it is the only news


----------



## JimB

Anyone else really bored of these constantly emerging joint bids? Especially bids involving 3, 4 or even 5 nations. Massively detracts from a tournament's feeling, IMO, to have it so fractured.

Not to mention that it reduces the number of genuine qualifiers or, even worse, provides justification for the ridiculous idea of making the World Cup even bigger.


----------



## CoelhoBR

I agree. Considering that I would be a potential traveller for this world cup, I`d prefer to focus only on one country. It is not as easy to travel between Spain and Morocco as it would be just to stay within one of those territories.


----------



## JimB

pesto said:


> If by "home" you mean England alone, I believe they will be beaten. If you mean some larger part of UK/Ireland, then they will be very competitive.


You're probably right, of course - such is FIFA. That aside, though, why shouldn't England host on its own? It already has the best stadium infrastructure outside of the US and Germany (and will eclipse the latter eventually, I believe). And there is a love for football there that is as much a part of the nation's DNA as you will find anywhere.

By 2030, it will have been 64 years since the birthplace of the game last staged the tournament. Since then, Mexico will have hosted twice on its own and once jointly; West Germany / Germany twice on its own; USA once on its own, once jointly; and each of Argentina, Spain, Italy, France, Germany, South Africa, Brazil, Russia and even Qatar, for ****'s sake, will have hosted it once.

It's long past time that the decision as to where the tournament is held is taken out of the hands of corrupt FIFA officials who use the tournament as a political football. Bids should be chosen purely on merit. And there needs to be an end to the encouragement of ever bigger bids involving ever more countries at a time.


----------



## RobH

JimB said:


> You're probably right, of course - such is FIFA. That aside, though, why shouldn't England host on its own?


No reason at all. England's past bids have always been evaluated as strong.

*But *FIFA is encouraging joint bids at the moment they say to allow smaller nations a chance to host alongside bigger ones. It'd be unwise (and may even come across as arrogant) if we didn't do this when other bids are.

Of course, in ten years we might have a different President who doesn't favour joint bids anymore (just as Blatter didn't) and if England hasn't won a World Cup bid by then it'd make sense to bid alone. :lol:

You've got to play the game a bit. And a UK or UK/Ireland bid is hardly going to be unwieldy. I'm not that fussed either way, though I can see it getting....political.



JimB said:


> It's long past time that the decision as to where the tournament is held is taken out of the hands of corrupt FIFA officials who use the tournament as a political football. Bids should be chosen purely on merit. And there needs to be an end to the encouragement of ever bigger bids involving ever more countries at a time.


If by "on merit" you include intangible factors like growth of the game and allowing for the possibility a bigger risk might actually reap a bigger reward, I agree.

If by "on merit" you mean the safest technical bid, or the bid with the best existing stadiums always wins with a quantitative and rigid evaluation system, I disagree.

I think there needs to be some room for interesting bids which might be a bit riskier than others on offer but have more potential. Of course, swinging too far in that direction towards Doha 2022 is when you get into problems, but there's a balance to be had I think.

All I'd ask is for the politics (a big ask) and corruption (surely not a big ask) not to factor into it.


----------



## pesto

JimB said:


> You're probably right, of course - such is FIFA. That aside, though, why shouldn't England host on its own? It already has the best stadium infrastructure outside of the US and Germany (and will eclipse the latter eventually, I believe). And there is a love for football there that is as much a part of the nation's DNA as you will find anywhere.
> 
> By 2030, it will have been 64 years since the birthplace of the game last staged the tournament. Since then, Mexico will have hosted twice on its own and once jointly; West Germany / Germany twice on its own; USA once on its own, once jointly; and each of Argentina, Spain, Italy, France, Germany, South Africa, Brazil, Russia and even Qatar, for ****'s sake, will have hosted it once.
> 
> It's long past time that the decision as to where the tournament is held is taken out of the hands of corrupt FIFA officials who use the tournament as a political football. Bids should be chosen purely on merit. And there needs to be an end to the encouragement of ever bigger bids involving ever more countries at a time.


As a practical matter, I agree with everything RobH says. It's an excellent post. Just a bit of commentary. 

Many are taking it as an insult that they are not "allowed" to host on their own. But that's not the case. You can bid alone but FIFA has a policy discouraging that for the very good reasons RobH sets out. And if the US is OK with that, it's not going to hurt anyone to do it. 

FIFA is the biggest winner. It brings renewed interest to smaller countries and larger countries where the sport is growing who all over the world are thinking "Could we host if we brought in x, y and z?" It's great for them and great PR for FIFA (who could use it). 

Whether it's great for the larger countries depends on whether they learn to work with their neighbors.


----------



## Guest

RobH said:


> No reason at all. England's past bids have always been evaluated as strong.
> 
> *But *FIFA is encouraging joint bids at the moment they say to allow smaller nations a chance to host alongside bigger ones. It'd be unwise (and may even come across as arrogant) if we didn't do this when other bids are.
> 
> Of course, in ten years we might have a different President who doesn't favour joint bids anymore (just as Blatter didn't) and if England hasn't won a World Cup bid by then it'd make sense to bid alone. :lol


Genie is out of the bottle. With the expansion of the tournament, I agree that multiple bidders will be preferred from hereonin. There are many advantages of cohosting. Hard to see Infantino’s exit making any difference. 

To me it makes most sense to go down the route of regional bids. North Am, South Am, East Asia, SE Asia+Australasia, West Asia, South Asia, Europe, North Africa, West Africa, Southern Africa, Eastern Africa.


----------



## alex_lg

Bolivia joins to Argentina-Uuguay-Paraguay-Chile candidature to host WC 2030

https://www.sportcal.com/News/Search/124463


----------



## pesto

alex_lg said:


> Bolivia joins to Argentina-Uuguay-Paraguay-Chile candidature to host WC 2030
> 
> https://www.sportcal.com/News/Search/124463


If we can get everyone in LatAm to join in, then we can probably forget the New World for 20-30 years. :lol:


----------



## alex_lg

*Bolivia potential venues:*

*La Paz*
Estadio Nacional - 50k





*Cochabamba*
New Stadium "El Batán" - 60k





*Santa Cruz de la Sierra*
New Stadium Ramón 'Tahuichi' Aguilera - 50k








Source


----------



## ElvisBC

great idea, let‘s play world cup games @ 3000m elevation ....this is all getting ridiculous


----------



## cyril sneer

I agree. The whole notion of all these joint bids is ridiculous and its all resulting from the ridiculous idea to expand the world cup to 48 nations.


----------



## Guest

cyril sneer said:


> I agree. The whole notion of all these joint bids is ridiculous and its all resulting from the ridiculous idea to expand the world cup to 48 nations.


Bidding doesnt mean theyre gonna win. Theyre scrambling though because Arg-Uru arent likely to be able to host centenario as 26 will be in the same timezone. They can see they have little chance against a European bid. 

48 team format is great. More knockout less group stage is a win-win.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

5portsF4n said:


> Bidding doesnt mean theyre gonna win. Theyre scrambling though because Arg-Uru arent likely to be able to host centenario as 26 will be in the same timezone. They can see they have little chance against a European bid.
> 
> 48 team format is great. More knockout less group stage is a win-win.


Adding Bolivia looks like a mess to me. Looks like it has got internal South American politics involved. They don't need to include Bolivia to host the matches. Bolivia doesn't add much if anything in terms of the ability to host. That isn't to say they haven't got stadiums that are up to scratch, just that they aren't needed. Uruguay and Argentina should have added Chile to their proposal as soon as it became clear that they would need more venues. The three of them could host well. La Paz, at high altitude, might well be seen as a negative.

The USA didn't need Mexico and Canada to host but they were added because of global politics. Bolivia and Paraguay don't add anything from a global political perspective. They do take two votes off the table.


----------



## cyril sneer

I strongly disagree a 48 team format is going to be of any improvement to the quality of football on offer from a 32 team format. Its just going to result in more non-competitive group and early knockout round games. As matey above says, its all about politics, and money of course, which is where it all falls flat to me. If this was a 32 team format bidding process then it could quite adequately be accommodated by a Argentina/Uruguay, England, or Spain bid.


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Adding Bolivia looks like a mess to me. Looks like it has got internal South American politics involved. They don't need to include Bolivia to host the matches. Bolivia doesn't add much if anything in terms of the ability to host. That isn't to say they haven't got stadiums that are up to scratch, just that they aren't needed. Uruguay and Argentina should have added Chile to their proposal as soon as it became clear that they would need more venues. The three of them could host well. La Paz, at high altitude, might well be seen as a negative.
> 
> The USA didn't need Mexico and Canada to host but they were added because of global politics. Bolivia and Paraguay don't add anything from a global political perspective. They do take two votes off the table.


I agree especially if by "global politics" you mean "global economic reality and muscle".

Contrary to some of the Victorian-era Tories posting here, it's got to be fabulous news for FIFA that Asian and smaller countries are showing so much enthusiasm about wanting to get involved. The encouragement of Joint bids looks to have been a masterstroke of strategy. 

As for finding a role, it would seem that you could include Bolivia or Ecuador or Peru, etc., by staging some related events there. You can't have a match everywhere but you also don't want to spit on people who are excited about your product.


----------



## ElvisBC

5portsF4n said:


> 48 team format is great. More knockout less group stage is a win-win.


16 groups of 3 is bullshit! good luck with 4-5 Gijon revivals in 2026 hno:


----------



## cyril sneer

Petty misguided dig noted pesto. 

Why don't you actually expand on why you think expanding the world cup to 48 teams is such a fabulous idea?


----------



## pesto

cyril sneer said:


> Petty misguided dig noted pesto.
> 
> Why don't you actually expand on why you think expanding the world cup to 48 teams is such a fabulous idea?


My comments are actually aimed at joint bids not expanding to 48 teams. But the arguments are similar. It's been said many times: it allows the smaller countries and the larger countries that are only part way there to host or to start getting ready to host. This attracts press coverage from fans in every country discussing how they could actually host if they join with x, y and z.

NW Europe has about 4 percent of the world population; it is already entirely committed to soccer and particular sides; it is growing very slowly in both population and income per capita. Not where you need to attract new eyeballs. 

A while back no LatAm country other than Brazil had potential for hosting a WC. Now 5 see ways to participate and probably 30 others are talking about how they can get involved. I'll bet even island nations with 2M people are talking about it. It's enough to bring tears to the eyes of marketing directors.

As for the giants, they can host earlier by teaming with neighbors, say, Indonesia with Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Viet-Nam, Thailand, etc. Now all 600M people in these countries can talk about hosting a WC instead of being mildly interested in which European country is hosting. Again.

Even Europe wins. Spain was marginal; now it's a strong candidate and Morocco has a realistic chance of actually hosting without stealing from the country's economic development. EE has been talking about putting together a bid. Ireland, Scotland, Wales.

All of this is more press and air time for FIFA. Priceless and free.

Sure, there is more risk; but that was true when Apple looked into making hand-held telephones with internet capabilities. Sometimes you just have to.


----------



## Guest

cyril sneer said:


> I strongly disagree a 48 team format is going to be of any improvement to the quality of football on offer from a 32 team format. Its just going to result in more non-competitive group and early knockout round games. As matey above says, its all about politics, and money of course, which is where it all falls flat to me. If this was a 32 team format bidding process then it could quite adequately be accommodated by a Argentina/Uruguay, England, or Spain bid.


It may not be a massive improvement in terms of competetiveness, but the format itself should provide high stakes with the increased level of urgency to get results. 

People also generally hate change. Look at euros. 24 team format worked well in 2016 despite opposition.


----------



## alserrod

It is weird... even alone, I reckon Bolivia would be entitled to apply for a WC, wouldn't they?

But... their main stadium is an exemption. International matches cannot be played over 2000m except... La Paz stadium because in other way there wouldn't be stadiums to play (lowest area in Bolivia is somewhere in the middle of Amazonas forest about 900ish mosl)


----------



## Guest

alserrod said:


> It is weird... even alone, I reckon Bolivia would be entitled to apply for a WC, wouldn't they?
> 
> But... their main stadium is an exemption. International matches cannot be played over 2000m except... La Paz stadium because in other way there wouldn't be stadiums to play (lowest area in Bolivia is somewhere in the middle of Amazonas forest about 900ish mosl)


Bolivia host alone? No chance, not even a 16 team WC.


----------



## cyril sneer

*All of this is more press and air time for FIFA. Priceless and free.* - I think that's the key line in your opinion. Its all about money for Fifa. Don't kid yourself increasing the world cup participants is about the football on offer. 

Once you go part the top 30 teams the quality of international football nosesdives quite markedly. I can see the top teams resting key players against the lesser teams in the group stage.


----------



## Guest

cyril sneer said:


> *All of this is more press and air time for FIFA. Priceless and free.* - I think that's the key line in your opinion. Its all about money for Fifa. Don't kid yourself increasing the world cup participants is about the football on offer.
> 
> *Once you go part the top 30 teams the quality of international football nosesdives quite markedly.* I can see the top teams resting key players against the lesser teams in the group stage.


Disagree. Once you go past the top 20 the quality nosedives. Places 21-70 are interchangeable. 

Also, do you really think anyone is going to rest players when there are only 2 group stage games?? The only nations that can afford to rotate are the ones who have multiple world class players in each position, and you can hardly call that resting.


----------



## cyril sneer

Just looking at the current rankings; nr 21 Peru/Poland and nr 70 is Saudi Arabia. Seems a bit harsh on Poland to be pooled in the same category as Saudi Arabia.


----------



## Guest

cyril sneer said:


> Just looking at the current rankings; nr 21 Peru/Poland and nr 70 is Saudi Arabia. Seems a bit harsh on Poland to be pooled in the same category as Saudi Arabia.


For one, FIFA rankings are idiotic. They rank all the teams in the world against one another despite most of the ranking points being accrued in continental competitions. 

Two, Saudi Arabia was at the last WC, which had 32 teams as you very well know. 

They lost 1-0 to 7th ranked Uruguay. 
They lost 5-0 to 50th ranked Russia. 
And they beat 57th ranked Egypt 2-1. 

My point stands. Teams up to 70-80 ranking in FIFA can be competitive at the WC, and no worse than the crap teams that make a 32-team tournament. It'll just be 'more' crap, but not necessarily any crappier than it already is. 

Of course, Indonesia vs Canada you weren't going to watch anyway, let's be honest. You know who will watch? The 230 million combined Indonesians and Canadians who have an opportunity to watch their team play at the world cup now that it's expanded.


----------



## Leedsrule

In that scenario, is it really worth letting Indonesia enter, for one game against Canada in a half-empty stadium, and one game against a higher ranked side who they will get thrashed? Canada maybe not the best example as they will be at home, but in a 70,000 seater stadium in America, will Indonesia v Poland or Indonesia v Peru (or even Peru v Poland) really sell out? And if not, FIFA aren't making as much from ticket sales (the reason they went to the US and to 48 teams in the first place) and they will damage the reputation of the tournament if it can't even sell out. 

Thats almost separate to the 3-teams-per-group issue which is just insane. You might as well make it a knockout from the very start. If you win your first game, it is almost impossible not to qualify. There will be at least one terrible team (ranked 33+) in each group, so far fewer surprises like Germany being knocked out in R1 last year. The tournament starts at the knockout stage really.


----------



## Guest

marokko said:


> I do agree, especially because Morocco is part of the bid. Not arguing here that Morocco had better infrastructure, but that a Spain/Morocco/Portugal bid can attract more votes. As we saw in the previous voting Morocco was still able to get most votes from Africa even with a big competitor as USA, Mexico, Canada. Africa has btw with 54 nations the biggest voting power within Fifa. Africa, a football loving continent, didn’t organise too for a long time a WC by 2030. And maybe Morocco could lobby better this time within the arab/muslim world for an additional 10-20 votes. Spain had also good connections with latin America which helps too. A Chinese bid though could all change this. As we saw for the bidding proces for WC 2026 is that money rules. FIFA would be able to profit more from a Chinese bid.
> 
> This doesn’t mean that I discredit the other bids like the UK/Ireland bid. Those are very strong bids too, but are underdogs in my opinion. FIFA seems to be having a luxurious problem with all the candidates. Let’s not forget btw about the Argentina/Uruguay bid, which actualy deserves it the in my opinion most from a historic point of view ...


Well said.

The interesting thing about a combined UEFA/CAF bid is that it's unprecedented. It's never been done, and may never be done again because it's unique considering the proximity of Spain to Morocco. But it also gives it a massive advantage in the ballot.

You only need a majority to win. So you only need 102 votes. 

Usually, you only have your confederation to really rely upon. But in a WC with both European and African host nations, your odds of winning double. 

UEFA has 55 associations. 
CAF has 56. 
That's 111 right there. 

Yes, not every African or European country would vote for Spain/Morocco/Portugal, but if it became clear that UEFA members were leaning towards a SpMoPo bid over British Isles, you could almost get over the line just with those two confederations. 

As you say, though, they'd get heaps of help from elsewhere. Spain and Portugal have historic links with Latin America, so it would be very surprising if Conmebol didn't give 10 votes to SpMoPo, as well as at least 1/4 of Concacaf, which has 41 votes. Asian votes would just be a cherry on top. 

Oceania would probably prefer an English bid, but they only have 11 votes.

On top of this, Morocco have been 2nd in voting a number of times now over the past 20 years.....and Fifa won't have to think about going back to Africa for another 20 years if they get it as part of a UEFA/CAF WC. It's almost too perfect. 

As for China, I really don't think they'll care whether it's 2030 or 2034. I think alot will depend on how their national team progresses over the next 6 years. If they start to produce players on the level of the Japanese and Koreans, then they may wish to speed up the process and bid for 2030. They'll also want to see whether they qualify for 2022/2026. Otherwise I think they'd hold off until 2034. I suspect they're keen to avoid an embarrassment as a host country, and buying an extra 4 years could help with that.

There will be pressure on the tournament to return to Europe, especially as Qatar will host in 2022. Going from Asia to North America and back to Asia just doesn't seem like something that would happen. 

Whatever happens, England and co have plenty of work to do if they're going to get over the line. But I can't look past a Spain/Morocco/Portugal bid for 2030, with 2034 going to China.


----------



## RobH

I'd not considered this before: Has FIFA inadvertently created a situation - with Blatter changing the voting system to involve the whole FIFA Congress and Infantino preferring joint bids - that hugely advantages nations that _happen to be_ on the borders of its federations? :lol:

They seem to have created a hugely unwieldy and messy system, dominated by powerful continental voting blocs (something the IOC, for example, doesn't have to the same extent). What was really needed after FIFA's near collapse was the installation of a better, more competent, less corrupt ExCo who could make decisions more rationally. Instead, we've got an imbalanced geo-political mess where technical considerations are probably relegated even further than they were. 

Maybe the UK bid should co-opt Egypt just to be sure. :lol:


----------



## Guest

RobH said:


> I'd not considered this before: Has FIFA inadvertently created a situation - with Blatter changing the voting system to involve the whole FIFA Congress and Infantino preferring joint bids - that hugely advantages nations that _happen to be_ on the borders of its federations? :lol:


Indeed, although we still dont know whether cross-confed bids are acceptable. For the sake of 'fairness', Fifa may block such bids outright, to prevent any one bid getting such a huge advantage potentially. 

At the same time, Morocco is a very unique case. The only other one that I can think of that springs to mind is Australia/New Zealand. But combined Asian and Oceania votes only total 58 votes, which is nowhere near as bad as Uefa/CAF. 

Turkey is never going to bid with Syria or Iraq, so that potential border is out of the question. 

Egypt/Saudi Arabia is unlikely.

Colombia/Panama also seems unlikely.

Russia could also bid with some of the Asian nations, but again that won't be a possibility for a very long time.

Other than that, there's no other obvious way to take advantage of such a scenario.

The rarity of such an outcome (and in fact I believe this to be the only outcome of a cross-confed bid that has any chance of winning) may mean that Fifa will overlook the unfair advantage of a Spain/Morocco/Portugal bid, deeming it a one-off special circumstance.


----------



## Ioannes_

*OFFICIAL: SPAIN AND PORTUGAL ASK TO ORGANIZE THE WORLD CUP OF FOOTBALL 2030.*

The Federations of Spain and Portugal have officially confirmed that they will promote a joint bid to organize the 2030 World Cup, which will follow the already assigned editions of Qatar 2022 and the United States, Mexico and Canada, in 2026. The two Iberian federations have informed the governments of both countries and claim to have "their full support and support."

Spain and Portugal were already presented as venues of the 2018 World Cup, which finally won the candidacy of Russia. The Iberian offer was eliminated in Zurich on December 2, 2010, in a day that was later investigated by the FBI as a separate part of the FIFAGate, for the alleged purchase and sale of votes that occurred in the allocation of the headquarters of the World Cup. The editions of 2018 and 2022, granted that day, were the last ones that were chosen with the votes of the members of the FIFA Executive Committee, which was then composed of 23 people, and became the power of the 209 presidents of all the federations. the world that make up the organization.

With their joint plan, Spain and Portugal will compete to host the 2030 World Cup, in which they will celebrate the centenary of the tournament. They will have like great rivals to Argentina and Uruguay, that disputed the first end and that long ago that they announced their intention to concur to be soothes of the World-wide one.

https://as.com/futbol/2019/06/08/mu...Em7Rm3zU-766f7wDOgrIXmVOM0dBip0lhGJdbCKjpXXRg


----------



## pesto

Ioannes_ said:


> *OFFICIAL: SPAIN AND PORTUGAL ASK TO ORGANIZE THE WORLD CUP OF FOOTBALL 2030.*
> 
> The Federations of Spain and Portugal have officially confirmed that they will promote a joint bid to organize the 2030 World Cup, which will follow the already assigned editions of Qatar 2022 and the United States, Mexico and Canada, in 2026. The two Iberian federations have informed the governments of both countries and claim to have "their full support and support."
> 
> Spain and Portugal were already presented as venues of the 2018 World Cup, which finally won the candidacy of Russia. The Iberian offer was eliminated in Zurich on December 2, 2010, in a day that was later investigated by the FBI as a separate part of the FIFAGate, for the alleged purchase and sale of votes that occurred in the allocation of the headquarters of the World Cup. The editions of 2018 and 2022, granted that day, were the last ones that were chosen with the votes of the members of the FIFA Executive Committee, which was then composed of 23 people, and became the power of the 209 presidents of all the federations. the world that make up the organization.
> 
> With their joint plan, Spain and Portugal will compete to host the 2030 World Cup, in which they will celebrate the centenary of the tournament. They will have like great rivals to Argentina and Uruguay, that disputed the first end and that long ago that they announced their intention to concur to be soothes of the World-wide one.
> 
> https://as.com/futbol/2019/06/08/mu...Em7Rm3zU-766f7wDOgrIXmVOM0dBip0lhGJdbCKjpXXRg


I notice there is no mention of Morocco. 

Otherwise, sounds like we have 3 very strong bids in the making. Should be interesting to see what ideas or upgrades the bidders propose to push their bid over the top.


----------



## marokko

That would be weird, especially because we had the Spanish president visiting Morocco a few months ago asking the Moroccan government for a joint bid and both parties sounded quite positive. Only Portugal was hesitating a bit. 

Maybe things changed when Infantino visited Rabat and Madrid after that meeting between the Spanish president and the Moroccan government. Infantino wasn't a fan at the time of a bid from two continents, but it wasn't against regulations of FIFA. Moroccan media doesn't mention also anything about canceling its bid. So I am curious myself now about what will happen with this bid.

Update: I remember that Morocco already sent an official request to FIFA to organise the world cup in 2030. It did it immediately the day after it lost from the United bid. Now you have also Spain and Portugal officially applying for WC 2030. Maybe they will combine in a later phase of the bidding process their bids together. Just a guess ...

Second update: Moroccan media does start to mention now too that Spain and Portugal are going to bid alone without Morocco. They do also mention that they don’t know the reason why Spain and Portugal do it alone, especially because last Month Spain did confirm that they wanted a bid with Morocco. To be continued ...

Third update: Seems like UEFA didn't want a shared world cup on two continents and not FIFA

So I think now personally that China and the UK/Irish bid will be the favorites with FIFA's voting system instead the Iberian bid.


----------



## fidalgo

I have to say the Iberian will make the same outcome as the 2018 bid.

Portuguese press on that statement highlighted that no new stadium will be built apart from the ones built for Euro2004. No mention about refurbishments.
This means that, as today, Portugal only have 3 stadiums able to host WC, 2 in Lisbon and the Porto one. The only portugueses ones that made to the final cut in 2018. Even if counting with temporary expansions, Portugal will seem like a dead weight to a strong spanish bid.


----------



## alserrod

Yesterday I wrote about eight 50K+ stadia in Spain. They are corner to corner but really, railway can even defeat plane and it has been possible to move with trains. I remember Basketball WC hosted in Spain where all teams moved by train (railway company has sponsored always basketball.... except for teams playing in Canary islands, obviously. Plane mandatory).
Railway company made a nice sponsor some weeks ago about "sporters prefer trains" and with a lot of pictures about first leagues teams from all sports (not only football... any kind of sport) where teams preferred to move by train even that by bus, plane or whatever.

Providing Madrid, Seville, Barcelona, Valencia and Bilbao (the list of those 50K+ cities), times and distances are:
(I chose only direct trains or possibility to shuttle in a station within 5 minutes or so with that link assured)
Distance by motorway

Madrid-Seville
530 km
23 daily trains, fastest on 2h21m 

Madrid-Barcelona
620 km
about 30 daily trains or so, fasters on 2h30m

Madrid-Valencia
355 km 
15 daily trains, faster on 1h40m

Bilbao hasn't good railway connections till now. It is expected to open a new line that will save a lot of time in the next years (those who wanna, I can link a thread with their works). Two daily trains to Madrid and Barcelona only

Barcelona-Valencia is expected to improve their railway next year.

There are full high speed, one daily Valencia-Sevilla (two with link in peak season) and two Barcelona-Sevilla (three on peak season), as well as it is always possible to make a connection via Madrid (Barcelona-Seville run quite near to Madrid station but go through without entering Madrid and saving time)

It is not only for teams (anyway, as said, for basket WC, movements were by train). It is for supporters too. Railway company set about 10 or 12 trains for last Cup hosted in Seville to run to Valencia and to Barcelona. They were charter ones and departed after midnight (1:00 or so) and running up to 300 km/h

Just point cities aren't in the nearby but moving is so easy


----------



## Guest

fidalgo said:


> I have to say the Iberian will make the same outcome as the 2018 bid.
> 
> Portuguese press on that statement highlighted that no new stadium will be built apart from the ones built for Euro2004. No mention about refurbishments.
> This means that, as today, Portugal only have 3 stadiums able to host WC, 2 in Lisbon and the Porto one. The only portugueses ones that made to the final cut in 2018. Even if counting with temporary expansions, Portugal will seem like a dead weight to a strong spanish bid.


In a Spain/portugal bid, why would you give Portugal any more than 3 venues?

Spain is four times larger, so 3 venues is plenty. 

If it was up to me, only Dragao and La Luz would get to host games.


----------



## Archbishop

3 in Portugal is fine. Spain will just have to find, probably 12 venues and it should be a great bid.


----------



## Eurostallion1

Great comments. It’s clear to me that there’s no doubt that Spain and England have the stadiums and infrastructure to host a World Cup even with 48 teams. Neither particularly need their potential co-hosts to make hosting a World Cup viable. Portugal enhances a Spanish bid and the Celtic nations enhance England’s bid albeit creating a complication with regards automatic qualification spots. 

However, as we know FIFA doesn’t decide World Cup hosts based on who’s most suitable. It’s decided by Politics and money. The hosts of World Cups 2010, 2014, 2018 and 2022 were all somewhat unsuitable in different ways but this didn’t prevent FIFA from awarding them the tournament. I’m far from convinced that the new selection process is any more sensible than the old one as others have suggested. 

I’d argue that having suitable stadiums ready at the time of bidding has proved to be a virtually irrelevant factor in all recent contests. Every World Cup from 2002 onwards has seen the host nations building new or substantially renovating all the venues. Even Germany’s stadiums before 2006 were shockingly outdated. I almost wonder if the architecture and construction firms were giving the ExCo members backhanders.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

A Spain - Portugal bid is very strong. I don't think it matters too much if there are only 3 suitable stadia in Portugal. That is all they need to provide. Lisbon and Porto are fine cities. It is a shame that all the tourist infrastructure on the Algarve is bypassed but a big stadium down there cannot be justified. Spain is great for tourists and some of the stadiums are iconic.

I would question how much it matters that every match is sold out. So long as you can get to 95%+ sold out in general. There were matches in Brazil and in Russia that weren't sold out. However, the large majority were so nobody complained. There is a small question mark over whether that would happen at a Spain - Portugal World Cup. European crowds are likely to be more choosy about buying high priced tickets than Americans, for example. A bit more snobby about the likely quality of the football. There are reasons why American sports organisations such as the NFL, NBA and MLB have chosen the UK for playing regular season games in Europe - money. The UK has a similar desire to attend events to that in the USA and a willingness to pay high prices. The prices for the two Boston Red Sox v New York Yankees matches this month are ludicrous. Basketball is much more popular in other European countries yet the European matches, so far, have been in London. Scotland would also get behind any tournament with great fervour. The UK does have an advantage in terms of making money for FIFA, in my view.

If either of these European bids wins it will be a great tournament. However, Europe should really nail down an internal rotation. By 2030 it really should be the UK's time. Italy has hosted twice, Germany has hosted twice, France has hosted twice. Should be the UK, followed by Spain and then rotate amongst these and Russia when in Europe. Yes, I know it doesn't work like that!

Does anyone else doubt the willingness of Chinese people to attend matches not including either China or one of the favourites? I might be wrong on this but they may need to award social credit points to attendees.


----------



## Eurostallion1

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> A Spain - Portugal bid is very strong. I don't think it matters too much if there are only 3 suitable stadia in Portugal. That is all they need to provide. Lisbon and Porto are fine cities. It is a shame that all the tourist infrastructure on the Algarve is bypassed but a big stadium down there cannot be justified.




To me it looks like the existing stadium in Faro could easily be expanded to over 40 000, maybe with temporary seating. I agree, there’s no post World Cup justification for a stadium of that size in Faro but the current stadium is already a white elephant. Besides, every recent host has had some venues whose post World Cup need has proved questionable but does this make any difference to the bidding? No.


----------



## Guest

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Does anyone else doubt the willingness of Chinese people to attend matches not including either China or one of the favourites? I might be wrong on this but they may need to award social credit points to attendees.


No question, it would be a concern. But I suspect the Chinese would take extra measures to ensure that doesn't happen. Then again, the sport is very popular there (and getting more popular with every passing year), the World Cup is the most prestigious event any nation could host, which sells itself, and there are some 150 million Chinese that have incomes comparable to the French today, to say nothing of what that figure will be in 11-15 years' time. So maybe those concerns are unfounded.

Either way, Chinese conglomerates stepped in as new sponsors following the fallout of FIFA's scandal. In my view, this was as good as buying the World Cup. Not only does FIFA want a World Cup in China, China is also now one of its biggest sponsors. It's going to happen whenever China wants it to happen. My bet remains 2034 for purely competitive reasons. One the World Cup opens up to 48 teams in 2026, I expect China to get regular qualification, especially with the massive amount of money they're pumping into youth development. But it makes more sense to me that they'd look to go to 2026 and 2030 as qualifiers, and then host in 2034 with a little more confidence in their ability not to embarrass themselves. 

South Africa is the only host in the history of the competition not to progress past the group stage. I'm thinking China wants to avoid that fate and try to do something similar to Russia, so 2034 makes sense. Stoking nationalism, getting the nation behind the team, and showing the world that China has arrived would be major factors in any World Cup they host I imagine.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Eurostallion1 said:


> To me it looks like the existing stadium in Faro could easily be expanded to over 40 000, maybe with temporary seating. I agree, there’s no post World Cup justification for a stadium of that size in Faro but the current stadium is already a white elephant. Besides, every recent host has had some venues whose post World Cup need has proved questionable but does this make any difference to the bidding? No.


Good point about temporary expansion. It should be easy to add 10,000 seats or more given the open ends. Might even look good compared to other temporary World Cup expansions. If I didn't want a UK World Cup then I'd be very happy with one in Iberia.


----------



## GunnerJacket

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Does anyone else doubt the willingness of Chinese people to attend matches not including either China or one of the favourites? I might be wrong on this but they may need to award social credit points to attendees.


In addition to the points made above I'd answer this by saying the participation by Chinese fans will likely be on par with most other hosts. The key difference in game attendances beyond that tends to be a) the pedigree of the names/brands involved in the match, and b) the volume of traveling or local transplant support that a foreign team can draw. In other words it not simply down to low local interest when a match draws poorly but also because the participating nations aren't "bringing" the most fans or carry the most cachet with the neutrals. 

I feel, anyway.


----------



## Guest

GunnerJacket said:


> *In addition to the points made above I'd answer this by saying the participation by Chinese fans will likely be on par with most other hosts. *The key difference in game attendances beyond that tends to be a) the pedigree of the names/brands involved in the match, and b) the volume of traveling or local transplant support that a foreign team can draw. In other words it not simply down to low local interest when a match draws poorly but also because the participating nations aren't "bringing" the most fans or carry the most cachet with the neutrals.
> 
> I feel, anyway.


For the most part I agree, but I would add to the bolded bit that China is not like most other hosts. 

China has an astounding 21 cities with over 5 million people. It's absolutely batshit crazy. And most of their urban, rich centers lie on the east coast.

The upside is that stadium sizes don't change all that much from one World Cup to the next. It's alot easier to sell 50,000 tickets in a city of 20 million people than it is in one with 500,000. 

Of course, it's not that simple. But there's alot more people to engage with in China than any other host. If you look at some of the host cities in Europe we're going as low as 500k, because there just aren't that many large cities in most countries.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

GunnerJacket said:


> In addition to the points made above I'd answer this by saying the participation by Chinese fans will likely be on par with most other hosts. The key difference in game attendances beyond that tends to be a) the pedigree of the names/brands involved in the match, and b) the volume of traveling or local transplant support that a foreign team can draw. In other words it not simply down to low local interest when a match draws poorly but also because the participating nations aren't "bringing" the most fans or carry the most cachet with the neutrals.
> 
> I feel, anyway.


Yes, it depends on the travelling teams' support as well. Brazil will draw lots of locals and travelling supporters wherever they play. Other teams will have one or the other. It is only really when you get nations that are neither particularly attractive to locals or have a large travelling support that low attendance will occur. Probably only a maximum of 10 matches that this could affect.

China would be a certainty for 2034. I don't think they will bid unless they're fairly sure of winning.


----------



## rebelheartous

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> It is only really when you get nations that are neither particularly attractive to locals or have a large travelling support that low attendance will occur. Probably only a maximum of 10 matches that this could affect.


It really depends on whether such teams will progress to elimination phase or not. For instance, in Russia 2018 there were 6 such teams (nearly 40%) that reached Round of 16 - Croatia, Denmark, Switzerland, Uruguay, Portugal, Belgium and Russia and are neither large nations, nor can draw many fans.


----------



## Marsupalami

My Faves:
Turkey
Morocco
UK
Spain
Malaysia/Thailand
Aus/NZ
Peru/Chile


----------



## ElvisBC

rebelheartous said:


> It really depends on whether such teams will progress to elimination phase or not. For instance, in Russia 2018 there were 6 such teams (nearly 40%) that reached Round of 16 - Croatia, Denmark, Switzerland, Uruguay, Portugal, Belgium and Russia and are neither large nations, nor can draw many fans.


yes, there was no way for russian team to draw any fans into the stadiums in 2018 :colgate:


----------



## Red85

Marsupalami said:


> My Faves:
> Turkey
> Morocco
> UK
> Spain
> Malaysia/Thailand
> Aus/NZ
> Peru/Chile


UK 
Spain/Portugal
AUS/NZ


----------



## Guest

Red85 said:


> UK
> Spain/Portugal
> AUS/NZ


We've never had two consecutive world cups where the timezones were not ideal for Europe. Can safely rule out Australia/New Zealand.


----------



## Guest

Here's the upside for the UK or Spain/Portugal. 

Whoever wins the World Cup, I guarantee that the other will be handed the Euros in 2028. Pencil it in! 

Personally, I prefer the Euros to the world cup (well, when it was 16 teams anyway. 2008 remains my favorite major tournament to date). And selfishly I'd love for it to be in England.


----------



## RobH

I'm not sure England would get (or even bid for?) a Euros so soon after having the business end of Euro 2020.


----------



## Guest

Yes they'd have to bid, you're right, but are England's days going to be spent bidding for a world cup and ignoring a perfectly good alternative? If 2030 doesn't work out, surely a Euro bid can't be far off?

2020 is unique, and potentially a one-off. It'd be surprising if Wembley hosting the finals would rule it out of hosting the full thing 8 years after the fact. Especially now that we have the Nations League, which creates the exact same situation as Wembley will have in 2020 every 2 years.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

There was speculation some time ago that England would back Germany for 2024 if they backed us for 2028. However, it made more sense that Germany would back us for World Cup 2030. Germany didn't go for the big package of matches next year precisely because they wanted 2024. I don't see how the losing European bid for the World Cup becomes a shoe in for a Euros 2 years earlier. It can only work if they pull out early with UEFA acting as a block vote.

Spain hasn't hosted the Euros since 1964 and haven't bid for it in a long time if memory serves.

The Euros isn't really a perfectly good alternative to the World Cup. You don't get Brazil and Argentina visiting for a Euros and you want them and the rest of the South Americans. We've hosted the Euros in 96 and are hosting the biggest games next year. Personally I'd like Spain to host in 2028.


----------



## RobH

Spain/Iberia '28, England/UK '30 would be ideal yep.


----------



## Guest

2030 will be decided long before 2028 takes place. 

Uefa will act as a voting bloc, that's obvious. Every confederation does that. That's why we don't have major competing bids from the same confederation. Eventually Uefa's 55 members will lean towards the UK bid or the Spain/Portugal one. One will have to give way. 

My thinking, and of course it's all speculation, is that whoever loses that bid will be looked on more favorably for a 2028 bid should they wish to bid for it. I'm not saying they'll get it as some token prize - of course they'd have to want it in the first place. But the Euros have expanded to 24 teams, and it feels alot more like a world cup than ever before. 

As I've expressed earlier, I think England's bid with 4 other nations will be a deathblow to its chances of winning. Unless they agree for only one or two nations to qualify automatically (which is very possible), I don't see Uefa's other 50 members clamoring to back the UK bid.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

5portsF4n said:


> 2030 will be decided long before 2028 takes place.
> 
> Uefa will act as a voting bloc, that's obvious. Every confederation does that. That's why we don't have major competing bids from the same confederation. Eventually Uefa's 55 members will lean towards the UK bid or the Spain/Portugal one. One will have to give way.
> 
> My thinking, and of course it's all speculation, is that whoever loses that bid will be looked on more favorably for a 2028 bid should they wish to bid for it. I'm not saying they'll get it as some token prize - of course they'd have to want it in the first place. But the Euros have expanded to 24 teams, and it feels alot more like a world cup than ever before.
> 
> As I've expressed earlier, I think England's bid with 4 other nations will be a deathblow to its chances of winning. Unless they agree for only one or two nations to qualify automatically (which is very possible), I don't see Uefa's other 50 members clamoring to back the UK bid.


2028 will be decided before 2030. Should be 2022 for the Euros and 2023 for the World Cup. Admittedly FIFA likes to move these things around but 7 years is the traditional gap. Only if one bid withdraws prior to the final vote does a switch become possible.

The Euros are good but the World Cup is a lot more exotic, for a host.


----------



## alserrod

5portsF4n said:


> We've never had two consecutive world cups where the timezones were not ideal for Europe. Can safely rule out Australia/New Zealand.


2006 Germany
2010 South Africa


----------



## RobH

Read his post again


----------



## alserrod

RobH said:


> Read his post again


True!


Well, to be honest, with the exemption of 2010 South Africa, we have had always Europe-anywhere-Europe-anywhere (and Qatar-MxUSCa)

Anyways... Qatar fits as suitable schedules for Europe?. They will have to play at mignight some matches to say yeah.


----------



## Ioannes_

I believe that the key to the organization of the 2030 World Cup is* China*. If China presents candidacy, it is yours.

If China and England present Candidacy, 2030 It will be for China 2034 will be for England.

If Spain is likely to organize a football tournament, in the medium term, it is the *Copa América* (No olidemos que España es la "Madre Patria"). It has more possibilities than an own EURO (Italy, Turkey, England ...)

The organization of the Soccer World Cups, has lost the emotion, like the Olympic Games, by foreseeable.


----------



## ElvisBC

5portsF4n said:


> Here's the upside for the UK or Spain/Portugal.
> 
> Whoever wins the World Cup, I guarantee that the other will be handed the Euros in 2028. Pencil it in!
> 
> Personally, I prefer the Euros to the world cup (well, when it was 16 teams anyway. 2008 remains my favorite major tournament to date). And selfishly I'd love for it to be in England.


EURO 2028 is widely believed to go to Italy, if they decide to bid (they desperately need new stadiums), and don’t worry, it is coming home latest in 2034 if not four years earlier


----------



## Guest

alserrod said:


> True!
> 
> 
> Well, to be honest, with the exemption of 2010 South Africa, we have had always Europe-anywhere-Europe-anywhere (and Qatar-MxUSCa)
> 
> Anyways... Qatar fits as suitable schedules for Europe?. They will have to play at mignight some matches to say yeah.


And keep in mind that South African timezone is no different to Europe’s. 

Qatar is absolutely suitable for Europe. 

We already know that kickoff times in the UK will be 10am, 1pm, 4pm and 7pm. That means latest kickoff in Doha is 10pm, which seems reasonable.


----------



## alserrod

Just to compare (phase groups and semifinals between all tournaments).
Hours in CET


2006: 15h, 18h and 21h. SF at 21h
2010: 13:30, 16:00 and 20:30, SF at 20:30
2014: between 18:00 and 22:00 (and one match at local time in Manaos 22:00 to be early Sunday morning in Japan). SF at 21:00
2018: similar schedules
only in 2002 we had early schedules in Europe
1998 was first for 32 teams but longer in time. France managed afternoon, evening, night schedules. There was only some matches at 13:30, quite weird for that era
1986 and 1994 were in North America and focused early local times to have evening ones in Europe.


----------



## zakizakari222

*2030 POTENTIAL Bids*

so the deadline of bidding progress will likely be August 2021, and till now all eyes are on 5 bids: 

1. England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Ireland 
2. Uruguay, Argentina, Chile & Paraguay 
3. Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia 
4. Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Romania
5. Spain, Portugal


----------



## pesto

zakizakari222 said:


> so the deadline of bidding progress will likely be August 2021, and till now all eyes are on 5 bids:
> 
> 1. England, Wiles, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Ireland
> 2. Uruguay, Argentina, Chile & Paraguay
> 3. Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia
> 4. Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria
> 5. Spain, Portugal


Yes, but did you mean someone else besides "Bulgaria"?


----------



## zakizakari222

pesto said:


> Yes, but did you mean someone else besides "Bulgaria"?


my bad, obviously romania :lol:


----------



## pesto

If Dunkin' Donuts has 200 successful stores in NY and none in California, where should they put their marketing effort? NY? After all, it's a proven winner and has been for decades, while California already has Starbucks, McD and many local brands and will require real marketing strategy and effort.

What they did is run demographic and marketing studies to indicate where they could expect the most growth. That turned out to be California, so they focused on the trendiest part of LA and opened in Santa Monica; this got good press around LA so thry capitalized on this to expand to the rest of LA and Orange County, which are influenced by what happens in SaMo. From there to the rest of the state (there were a few odd steps due to franchisee issues, but those are one-off). Over time you let the old stores show the flag and expand by repeated steps until the whole area is covered.

Meanwhile, you continue to enjoy your enormous profits in NY and the rest of the country. They aren't leaving; they continue to enjoy your product.


----------



## ElvisBC

5portsF4n said:


> I wouldn’t worry, no worse than skyhooks’ English.
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of thinking about WCs from a continental perspective, we should think of it in terms of timezones.
> 
> Hosting WCs is important from the point of view of a broadcaster. In that respect, we have 3 potential hosts: Europe/Africa/West Asia timezone, North/Central/South America timezone, and East/Southeast/Oceania/South Asia timezone.
> 
> That’s the real rotation. And the Europe timezone gets preferential treatment as they pour the most money in through broadcast rights. Which means they don’t go more than one cycle without a WC in their timezone.
> 
> It’s never happened in the history of the WC, and I don’t believe it will start in 2030, which means a Euro or African bid is guaranteed for 2030. Despite Chinese sponsors piling in to partner up with FIFA, they’ll leave 2030 alone and bid in 2034.


the only rotation that makes sense is rotation between europe and latin america, everyone else should watch on TV.

of course china and usa are cash cows that FIFA is keen to milk, so let it be


----------



## Rokto14

ElvisBC said:


> the only rotation that makes sense is rotation between europe and latin america, everyone else should watch on TV.
> 
> of course china and usa are cash cows that FIFA is keen to milk, so let it be


So you are saying Asia, Africa, Oceania shouldn't host WCs?


----------



## ElvisBC

Antarctica as well  :colgate:


----------



## Guest

Rokto14 said:


> So you are saying Asia, Africa, Oceania shouldn't host WCs?


I agree with your point overall, but I would add that no, Oceania and Africa should not touch a WC. South Africa, the only African country capable of hosting a successful WC, was one of the worst WCs I can remember from an attendance viewpoint. 

Unless it’s one of the North African countries partnering up with a European country, Africa is not fit to host WCs. 

Same with Oceania. Oceania is basically Australia and a couple of islands. And since Australia is in the Asian confederation, there are at least 6 Asian countries ahead of Australia in the pecking order, so it has very little chance of hosting anytime soon (and explains why they’re trying to piggyback on Indonesia for 2034)


----------



## Knitemplar

5portsF4n said:


> I agree with your point overall, but I would add that no, Oceania and Africa should not touch a WC. South Africa, the only African country capable of hosting a successful WC, was one of the worst WCs I can remember from an attendance viewpoint.


Plus, those F*CKING vuvuzuelas totally trashed 2010 for me!


----------



## eomer

I would support a bid involving UK and Ireland for WC2030 (or WC2034 if Uruguay-Argentina got 2030).

But:
- Ireland and Northern Ireland should merge their teams
- England and Wales could merge their national teams: they already merged their largues.

The 9 bigest games could be played in 4 stadiums:
- Wembley: opening match, 1/4 final, 1/2 final, final
- Cardiff: 1/4 final, 1/2 final
- Glasgow: 1/4 final, 3rd place
- Dublin: 1/4 final

There are many other venues in London, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Leicester, Belfast, Nottingham, Liverpool...


----------



## Guest

eomer said:


> I would support a bid involving UK and Ireland for WC2030 (or WC2034 if Uruguay-Argentina got 2030).
> 
> But:
> - Ireland and Northern Ireland should merge their teams
> - England and Wales could merge their national teams: they already merged their largues.
> 
> .


That's never going to happen, so there goes that idea. 

And England and Wales haven't merged their leagues. There are 4 or 5 Welsh teams in the English pyramid. But Wales itself has its own league.


----------



## ElvisBC

eomer said:


> I would support a bid involving UK and Ireland for WC2030 (or WC2034 if Uruguay-Argentina got 2030).
> 
> But:
> - Ireland and Northern Ireland should merge their teams
> - England and Wales could merge their national teams: they already merged their largues.
> 
> The 9 bigest games could be played in 4 stadiums:
> - Wembley: opening match, 1/4 final, 1/2 final, final
> - Cardiff: 1/4 final, 1/2 final
> - Glasgow: 1/4 final, 3rd place
> - Dublin: 1/4 final
> 
> There are many other venues in London, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Leicester, Belfast, Nottingham, Liverpool...


I would support france joining switzerland as 27th canton and starting to be a part of europe!

you can't be serious writting something like that?????


----------



## eomer

ElvisBC said:


> you can't be serious writting something like that?????


Writing what ?
I wrote that I would support a combined bid UK-Ireland for WC 2030 / 2034: is it so weird ? Is it so stupid for each nation to host at least a 1/4 final ?


----------



## pesto

Is this part of the Brexit negotiations?

I always liked "Oui Out" for France. :lol:


----------



## GEwinnen

Rokto14 said:


> So you are saying Asia, Africa, Oceania shouldn't host WCs?



At least a country applying for a World Cup should have qualified in one of the 3 World Cups before!


----------



## alserrod

Japan played WC for first time 4 yrs before hosting, I do not know about USA, but how many were played by South Africa? And Qatar?

In that point, Brazil will deserve to host a WC every 12 yrs or so, indeed


----------



## cyril sneer

eomer said:


> I would support a bid involving UK and Ireland for WC2030 (or WC2034 if Uruguay-Argentina got 2030).
> 
> But:
> - Ireland and Northern Ireland should merge their teams
> - England and Wales could merge their national teams: they already merged their largues.
> 
> The 9 bigest games could be played in 4 stadiums:
> - Wembley: opening match, 1/4 final, 1/2 final, final
> - Cardiff: 1/4 final, 1/2 final
> - Glasgow: 1/4 final, 3rd place
> - Dublin: 1/4 final
> 
> There are many other venues in London, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Leicester, Belfast, Nottingham, Liverpool...


Ridiculous post. Why not merge the France and Germany national teams then? You could call them Vichy France I suppose.


----------



## tower_dan

5portsF4n said:


> *That's never going to happen, *so there goes that idea.
> 
> And England and Wales haven't merged their leagues. There are 4 or 5 Welsh teams in the English pyramid. But Wales itself has its own league.


3 years ago I would believe that statement. 

But having visited both Belfast and Dublin since the Brexit vote, nothing rational being proposed to keep the peace post-Brexit (Oct 31 thus far) I can see a United Ireland by 2030, but as a unified country, now an arbitrary unified league crossing two counties.

England and Wales though, yeah they are not merging anytime soon.


----------



## skyhooks

cyril sneer said:


> Ridiculous post. Why not merge the France and Germany national teams then? You could call them Vichy France I suppose.




Or better still, you could just merge Scotland Wales and Ingaland and call yourself Great Britain and be done with it. You’re happy to combine yourselves when it suits and refer to Andy Murray as British and take Matt Le Tissier or Graeme Le Saux for Team England or the Olympic team but when someone suggests it your response is “vous plaisantez!” 

Just think, you may actually be a chance of winning a World Cup. 

Probably explains the merit of the Brexit situation. Can’t make up your mind either way and fear change. 

And before you ask about Northern Ireland, they are a principality, not a county.


----------



## cyril sneer

skyhooks said:


> Or better still, you could just merge Scotland Wales and Ingaland and call yourself Great Britain and be done with it. You’re happy to combine yourselves when it suits and refer to Andy Murray as British and take Matt Le Tissier or Graeme Le Saux for Team England or the Olympic team but when someone suggests it your response is “vous plaisantez!”
> 
> Just think, you may actually be a chance of winning a World Cup.
> 
> Probably explains the merit of the Brexit situation. Can’t make up your mind either way and fear change.
> 
> And before you ask about Northern Ireland, they are a principality, not a county.


Northern Ireland is actually a province, not a principality, but I can't be bothered with getting engaged with any tangent Northern Ireland history or Brexit debates on here to be honest. 

You can't just create a national football team comprising different football associations though. England, Wales, and Scotland each have different football associations. Plus the notion of a UK football team is ludicrous if anyone has an understanding of the football rivalries in the UK - that 2012 UK Olympic team was very much a one-off. Football shouldn't even be at the Olympic in my opinion but that's another matter all together. 

Athletics is run by UK Athletics so they operate on a different basis to that of football. To be fair sporting associations in the UK are not very consistent and it can get a bit confusing. For example you have UK Athletics, you have The England & Wales Cricket Board, and then you have individual football FA's :nuts:


----------



## GEwinnen

alserrod said:


> Japan played WC for first time 4 yrs before hosting, I do not know about USA, but how many were played by South Africa? And Qatar?
> 
> In that point, Brazil will deserve to host a WC every 12 yrs or so, indeed


I don't think you got my message!


----------



## RobH

The 2012 team was probably a one off for the men, but the women are getting a team together for Tokyo 2020 and beyond...and have just qualified...
https://www.teamgb.com/news/team-gb-secure-women's-football-place-at-tokyo-2020-olympic-games

And rightly so. The Olympics is a big deal in the women's game; they shouldn't have to miss out.

Other sports that normally compete separately manage to combine at times (rugby, hockey), so it's good that football is finally getting its act together for the sake of the players.

As for the other debate as to whether we should become GB permanently...well, that's not even a debate. It's not worth bothering with. It's not going to happen and the current situation doesn't affect anyone, even if occasionally it seems to annoy a few people from outside the UK for some unknown reason. :lol:


----------



## GEwinnen

cyril sneer said:


> Ridiculous post. Why not merge the France and Germany national teams then? You could call them Vichy France I suppose.



Not such a bad thing, if so, then Team Charlemagne I.


----------



## alserrod

Football should not be Olympic?

In 1900, only 6 team based sports were hosted.
They remain only waterpolo and football (there was once without football hence waterpolo is the oldest team based Olympic sport)

But Paris 1900 hosted it


----------



## eomer

cyril sneer said:


> Northern Ireland is actually a province, not a principality, :


Wrong : Northern Ireland is not a Province, neither a principally a country or à National Team.

It’s part of:
- a country : UK
- a nation and an Island: Ireland
- a province: Ulster
Ulster is bigger than NI: the 3 counties of Cavan, Donegal, Monaghan are in Républic of Ireland.

Just look how Rugby works: there is a combiner team for Ireland. Ulster got is own team that plays the Champions Cup (and even won it in 1998-1999.


----------



## alserrod

Northern Ireland has ist own football federation, hasn't it?. 

AFAIK, for rubgy, NI and RI plays together because team was joined before independance. A weird situation.

But maybe the most accurate situation is Olympics. One country = one team. And countries accepted by UNO only. Greenland, Faroe Islands plays with Denmark, for instance. Not independent country (and accepted by UNO), not a team. I guess the only exemption is Palestina.

That was reason after London'12, UK said they will not play Olympics for football again (let's see if they keep in time).

British and Irish federations are older than UEFA and FIFA. That's reason why non-independent countries play always as a different team. But should they have played for decades as independent, they remain as independent.
Exemption in this case has been done with North Korea. I reckon situation is not the same.

Will they play as different teams after bidding?


----------



## pesto

cyril sneer said:


> Ridiculous post. Why not merge the France and Germany national teams then? You could call them Vichy France I suppose.


LOL. But the concept was mine (for better or worse).

I suggested that a combined UK and Ireland bid be called UK 1800.


----------



## Northumbriana

eomer said:


> I would support an European bid for 2030: Europe should not Walt for more Than 12 years after Russia 2012.
> 
> But I can’t believe That the country where football is born could not host WC before 2042 !!! Would make 78 years since 1966.
> 
> Football should head back home in 2030 or 2034. Final must be played in Wembley


I hope we never bid to host the World Cup ever again. No more wasted time and money humiliating ourselves whilst FIFA piss themselves laughing at how much we want their tournament with them having no intention of it ever being hosted in England again. I don't think we can ever justify any more waste to try and navigate a bidding process that we know is about how popular we are with terrible people (we are not and never will be) and how much favour we can purchase.

And also no more insufferable 'home of football' nonsense that we seem to constantly fall back on as if it really means anything. At most we should refer to ourselves as the birth place of football, but football grew up and moved out a long time ago.

I'd only ever be in favour if it was offered to us on a plate, no bidding process, no competition - just straight up offered the World Cup and all we have to do is provide the means and sign on the dotted line. Even then, I don't think we do have the means to host it anymore. I think many of our top stadiums fall short of FIFA's requirement for a certain amount of space behind each goal for players to 'run off' and for the media. I believe Anfield, Old Trafford and Tottenham's new stadium would not meet this criteria. We could probably offer up Wembley, Arsenal (only one city can have two venues I think?), City of Manchester stadium and Villa Park. But beyond that we'd be looking at needing to bring some neglected stadiums up to scratch and rebuilding others. 

Even taking into account a joint bid with the rest of the UK and Ireland, we'd get a stadium in Cork, Dublin, Glasgow, Cardiff principality stadium and Murrayfield in Edinburgh. I don't think FIFA will look kindly on having the cup spread so thinly amongst so many nations.


----------



## ElvisBC

and I hope exactly the opposite!
of course that may change, but as FIFA currently runs next two world cups will go where the most money comes from ...... to China and UK in any particular order!


----------



## eomer

ElvisBC said:


> and I hope exactly the opposite!
> of course that may change, but as FIFA currently runs next two world cups will go where the most money comes from ...... to China and UK in any particular order!


Could be a good plan but Asia won’t be éligible for WC 2030.

If you Forget merging options, you may consider a bid involving UK and Ireland would be stronger than a World Cup hosted only in England with 48 teams. At least Cardiff, Glasgow and Dublin got great venues to host a 1/4 (and even a 1/2 final at Millenium « Principally » stadium). You can add Edimburg and Belfast of you want.


----------



## cyril sneer

Yes, lets forget about the crazy merging nations idea shall we :lol: I've said before, in my opinion the bid has got to be either the whole of the UK or just a sole England bid. I don't see any inbetween option. My opinion is that four countries in a UK bid would be too many host nations for FIFA's liking. Five nations with Ireland would just be ridiculous. And any suggestion of having a play-off to decide the host nations is equally as ridiculous. I wouldn't be surprised if the bid eventually falls back into an England only bid with the other FA's saying they couldn't support a bid whereby they wouldn't be guaranteed host nation status. Just my feeling of how it'll pan out.


----------



## Northumbriana

I think the 48 team world cup has been abandoned now. I think future hosts will likely be China, Australia & New Zealand, Japan, France, Argentina & Uruguay and somewhere in North Africa.

I think England have made too many enemies in UEFA and FIFA to ever be awarded another major tournament. We're pretty good at making ourselves unlikeable whether fairly or unfairly. It's not really a concern, I'm happy if we concentrate on making quality football facilities and coaching available to as many people as possible. Starting with making UEFA coaching licence courses a lot more affordable and improving the state of local football pitches. Many of which end up a mix of grass, dried mud and dog mess.

But for a hypothetical bid, parterning with another nation who wouldn't otherwise be able to host a tournament seems a smart move to make the bid unique. It would be nice as a one off Ireland and Northern Ireland could put out a joint side as part of such a bid with the enticement being an automatic place in the tournament. But probably unworkable with so much political conflict.

But for a British & Irish Isles bid (techincally it's just British Isles but the Irish probably won't like being labelled British) I'd like to see the following stadiums:

1) That one in Cork that holds about 45,000.
2) Aviva stadium, Dublin
3) An expanded Windsor Park or new stadium in Belfast. The Irish FA can decide if they need the extra capacity to be permanent or temporary.
4) No need to choose between Ibrox and Celtic Park and the inevitable arguments. Now the SFA own Hampden Park I hope they'll follow through with rebuilding behind both goals to make it bigger and more enclosed.
5) Murrayfield, Edinburgh.
6) A new stadium in Aberdeen or Dundee with permanent or temporary extra capacity.
7) St James Park, Newcastle. Ideally with the stadium being expanded to its full potential.
8) Old Trafford, Manchester. With seats removed from the front rows to meet FIFA spacial requirements. And the stadium extended beyond the 90000 mark. This would be the venue for the final.
9) Anfield, Liverpool. Similar work to Old Trafford carried out.
10) Wembley Stadium, London.
11) London stadium with rebuilding to make it bigger and more compact. Just because of how well connected Stratford is.
12) Principality Stadium, Cardiff. Great stadium, best one in the UK in my opinion, terrific design. 

I'd even like to see if the Women's World Cup can be added to make it an all in one event. With somewhere like Belfast hosting the final and stadiums such as Villa Park, Ibrox, Stadium of Light (Sunderland), a rebuilt Elland Road (Leeds), Ashton Gate (Bristol), Swansea, etc taking part.

But I haven't put much thought into this.


----------



## eomer

This list is decent with exceptions for Aberdeen and Cork. 
- Birmingham is the second biggest urban area and desserve to host matchs (Villa Park or a new venue) 
- Leeds has à long and traditionnal story with football


----------



## ElvisBC

Northumbriana said:


> I think the 48 team world cup has been abandoned now....


yes, they are going back to 16, so we are going to have one world cup in london and then another one in buenos aires



Northumbriana said:


> But I haven't put much thought into this.


that one was really good! kay: :colgate:


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Northumbriana said:


> But I haven't put much thought into this.


Clearly as you're putting more than half the matches in nations that combined contribute a lot less than 20% of the population.


----------



## eomer

alserrod said:


> Northern Ireland has ist own football federation, hasn't it?.


It's not so simplistic.
At the beginning, there were 4 "Home Unions": England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. But Republic of Ireland decided to have it's own football team. Northerm Ireland is a member of the International Football Association Board.



OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Clearly as you're putting more than half the matches in nations that combined contribute a lot less than 20% of the population.


- 1 venue in Wales
- 1 or 2 in Scotland
- 1 or 2 in Ireland
==> 7 to 9 in England: would be fair.



ElvisBC said:


> yes, they are going back to 16, so we are going to have one world cup in london and then another one in buenos aires


32 is OK
I don't like the idea of a 48 teams World Cup. Would be more fair to add more intercontinental playoff.
With 48 teams, there will be 16 groups of 3 teams and a "round of 32"...rubish.



Northumbriana said:


> 8) *Old Trafford*, Manchester. With seats removed from the front rows to meet FIFA spacial requirements. And the stadium extended beyond the 90000 mark. *This would be the venue for the final.*


Shocking !



cyril sneer said:


> My opinion is that four countries in a UK bid would be too many host nations for FIFA's liking. Five nations with Ireland would just be ridiculous.


World Cup is hosted by countries, not nations or national teams.
A combined UK-Ireland bid would involve 2 countries only: not very different than Belgium-Netherlands, Spain-Portugal or Canada-Mexico-USA.


----------



## alserrod

Never mind WHERE, there's an option not considered yet.

Having a bidding country (only one) with stadiums out of their territory. 
Bidding country would be host. The other countries should have to play to get classified.

This is, Bidding country = A, but stadiums in B, C and D.

A would be classified and B, C and D could or couldn't play WC. Should they play, they will be in their own country as much as possible. But not assured.

You can have as many countries as you want... but only main country, where final is hosted, will be qualified.

This formula fits for any continent and option proposed (and someones not proposed). It could be fine for small countries with a big stadium but never enough to sum for a WC and would need a lot of countries joined


----------



## Leedsrule

My brain hurts after reading these suggestions for a joint England, Wales, Scotland, Northern ireland and Republic of Ireland world cup. Why can't we include Jersey, Guernsey, Gibraltar and the Falkland Isles whilst we're at it? I mean Goose Green is about as likely to get a 40,000 all-seater as Belfast as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## pesto

Leedsrule said:


> My brain hurts after reading these suggestions for a joint England, Wales, Scotland, Northern ireland and Republic of Ireland world cup. Why can't we include Jersey, Guernsey, Gibraltar and the Falkland Isles whilst we're at it? I mean Goose Green is about as likely to get a 40,000 all-seater as Belfast as far as I'm concerned.


So this adds Gibraltar and the Falklands to the British Isles Bid that has already been mentioned. That bid is basically the British Archipelago Bid plus Jersey and Guernsey.

All right, I'll say it: I don't see what this adds to the British Isles Bid. And it's a real slap in the face for the other Overseas Territories. :lol:


----------



## Temporarily Exiled

Leedsrule said:


> My brain hurts after reading these suggestions for a joint England, Wales, Scotland, Northern ireland and Republic of Ireland world cup. Why can't we include Jersey, Guernsey, Gibraltar and the Falkland Isles whilst we're at it? I mean Goose Green is about as likely to get a 40,000 all-seater as Belfast as far as I'm concerned.


Why 40,000? The smallest stadiums for the 2018 World Cup had 33,000 capacity - a renovated Casement Park (used for a World Cup and then for GAA after that) could easily satisfy that criteria.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Temporarily Exiled said:


> Why 40,000? The smallest stadiums for the 2018 World Cup had 33,000 capacity - a renovated Casement Park (used for a World Cup and then for GAA after that) could easily satisfy that criteria.


I thought that was only a special exemption after they changed the design after having already started renovations. Am I wrong?


----------



## Temporarily Exiled

GunnerJacket said:


> I thought that was only a special exemption after they changed the design after having already started renovations. Am I wrong?


A special exemption made once can be made again.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Temporarily Exiled said:


> A special exemption made once can be made again.


True, but then it wouldn't be _special_! :tongue2:

Seriously, though, the notion going in is, lest I'm mistaken, a 40k minimum. To turn away from that at the outset of the open bidding process would seem foolish. Now if FIFA has dropped that figure with the advent of the 48 team event then obviously that changes things.


----------



## rebelheartous

Rokto14 said:


> All bids looks okay to me except for the Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Romania bid. Do they even have the necessary money and infrastructures to host a WC? Especially a 48-team WC.
> 
> And btw @zakizakari222 it's Wales, not Wiles.


How is Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia bid stronger in your eyes than the above, i wonder?


----------



## pesto

rebelheartous said:


> How is Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia bid stronger in your eyes than the above, i wonder?


An interesting point; it may have to do with publicity.

At least in the US I don't see anything about tourism to the Balkans other than Greece, which of course is very popular. Eastern Europe needs to get its name out at least to attract tourism from the US.

By contrast, Morocco has repeatedly bid for the WC. This gets your name out into the travel press which is like free money. Even if you don't get some sporting event, you get tourism, conventions or a few destination weddings.


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> An interesting point; it may have to do with publicity.
> 
> At least in the US I don't see anything about tourism to the Balkans other than Greece, which of course is very popular. Eastern Europe needs to get its name out at least to attract tourism from the US.
> 
> By contrast, Morocco has repeatedly bid for the WC. This gets your name out into the travel press which is like free money. Even if you don't get some sporting event, you get tourism, conventions or a few destination weddings.


why bother? >90% of americans can't even name any other balkan country :colgate:


topic related, both bids named above make zero sense in next 25 years or so!


----------



## rebelheartous

I'm also not sure how many Americans can point at where Qatar is on the map. Still, it gets its WC so this is not relevant.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> why bother? >90% of americans can't even name any other balkan country :colgate:
> 
> 
> topic related, both bids named above make zero sense in next 25 years or so!


You are so eager to be unpleasant that you don't seem to realize that you are agreeing with me: I just said that the Balkans need to get their names into the world press as a place to visit. They don't rank high for American and East Asian tourism.


----------



## fish.01

pesto said:


> ... I just said that the Balkans need to get their names into the world press as a place to visit. They don't rank high for American and East Asian tourism.


Surprised by that. They've been the place to go from here in Australian for quite a while now. I hear parts get so many tourists these days they're a bit overrun.


----------



## pesto

fish.01 said:


> Surprised by that. They've been the place to go from here in Australian for quite a while now. I hear parts get so many tourists these days they're a bit overrun.


That's great to hear. I know the Balkans already attract Europeans due to low cost and proximity. Getting the word out on a joint WC bid can't do anything but help.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

FIFA might have noted the very high demand for EURO 2020 tickets at Wembley. Twice that for Paris last time. Printing money.

https://www.uefa.com/european-qualifiers/news/newsid=2616635.html?iv=true


----------



## ElvisBC

if anyone was wondering why colombia and ecuador announced the bid for 2030 out of nowhere, here great article about that by tim vickery:

South American Bids For 2030 World Cup Prove Problematic

p.s. if you can’t read it just enter any email address to subscribe and article will open


----------



## George_D

2022 in Asia, 2026 in N.America. 2030 must be in Europe


----------



## marmoset

Or Africa.


----------



## Knitemplar

George_D said:


> 2022 in Asia, 2026 in N.America. 2030 must be in Europe


WHY? Where is it written? It SHOULD be in South America!!


----------



## Guest

Knitemplar said:


> WHY? Where is it written? It SHOULD be in South America!!


Because they're not going to give two consecutive world cups to the same timezone, especially when it comes at the expense of Europe. It's impossible for Europe to get primetime games with world cups in the Americas. 

Europe will get 2030.


----------



## Knitemplar

5portsF4n said:


> It's impossible for Europe to get primetime games with world cups in the Americas.
> 
> .


Uhmmm .. it's NOT the Americas' fault. And uh, THREE consecutive Olympics (PyeongCHang 2018, Tokyo 2020 and Beijing 2022) all come from the same time zone. You're going to say, "Not the same." Maybe, maybe not.


----------



## Guest

Knitemplar said:


> Uhmmm .. it's NOT the Americas' fault. And uh, THREE consecutive Olympics (PyeongCHang 2018, Tokyo 2020 and Beijing 2022) all come from the same time zone. You're going to say, "Not the same." Maybe, maybe not.


What has the Olympics got to do with the FIFA world cup? 

The financial epicenter of soccer is Europe. Most broadcast money comes from Europe. Those broadcasters aren't paying nearly as much money to air games in the morning as they would in primetime. 

The fact that you've compared it to the Olympics, which is far more democratized (and in fact weighted towards North America) in terms of where it draws its broadcaster revenue from, is bemusing. 

FIFA isn't stupid, and they like money. Most of their money comes from broadcasters. The broadcasters that are willing to pay the most money are in Europe. Those broadcasters will only pay a premium if they are guaranteed advantageous timeslots. That means a host country in the European/Africa/Middle East timezone. One cycle of non-primetime is acceptable. But two cycles has never happened before, and never will as long as most of FIFA's financiers reside in Europe. 

2030 is definitely going to Europe, that much should be obvious.


----------



## pesto

5portsF4n said:


> What has the Olympics got to do with the FIFA world cup?
> 
> The financial epicenter of soccer is Europe. Most broadcast money comes from Europe. Those broadcasters aren't paying nearly as much money to air games in the morning as they would in primetime.
> 
> The fact that you've compared it to the Olympics, which is far more democratized (and in fact weighted towards North America) in terms of where it draws its broadcaster revenue from, is bemusing.
> 
> FIFA isn't stupid, and they like money. Most of their money comes from broadcasters. The broadcasters that are willing to pay the most money are in Europe. Those broadcasters will only pay a premium if they are guaranteed advantageous timeslots. That means a host country in the European/Africa/Middle East timezone. One cycle of non-primetime is acceptable. But two cycles has never happened before, and never will as long as most of FIFA's financiers reside in Europe.
> 
> 2030 is definitely going to Europe, that much should be obvious.


We've been through this a few times, so no need to argue. A couple of comments:

1. Generally, you don't spend development funds on saturated markets; you spend on markets with growth potential. So maybe prime time in Asia isn't so bad.

2. In fact, won't Europeans watch their favorites starting any time between 7:00 and 23:00? That would make, say, Argentina a pretty good location for getting the Americas and Europe.

3. Europe has a real chance for 2030 and you don't want to give them the sense they are being discriminated against. But wouldn't you want to more fully explore the demographics instead of relying on historical and emotional connections? Asia will have 4B people with a middle class 3 times the size of Europe most of whom have not yet picked favorite teams. You want to reach them soon.


----------



## Guest

pesto said:


> We've been through this a few times, so no need to argue. A couple of comments:
> 
> 1. Generally, you don't spend development funds on saturated markets; you spend on markets with growth potential. So maybe prime time in Asia isn't so bad.
> 
> 2. In fact, won't Europeans watch their favorites starting any time between 7:00 and 23:00? That would make, say, Argentina a pretty good location for getting the Americas and Europe.
> 
> 3. Europe has a real chance for 2030 and you don't want to give them the sense they are being discriminated against. But wouldn't you want to more fully explore the demographics instead of relying on historical and emotional connections? Asia will have 4B people with a middle class 3 times the size of Europe most of whom have not yet picked favorite teams. You want to reach them soon.


1. The game is developing just fine in Asia. There are places like Indonesia with 270 million people which have never been to a WC where soccer dominates, with very little financial input necessary from FIFA. The game has other avenues to penetrate markets other than the WC. Whether it's the domestic league, access to major leagues in Europe, the Asian Champions League, the Asian Cup, or whatever else. 

But on the topic of developmental funds, FIFA spends the money it receives through broadcasters and commercial partners among all 200+ constituents, regardless of who hosts the WC or how well they're doing. Hosting in Asia or Europe doesn't change how much it pays out to each member. 

2. It's not just about one country's team and scheduling them for an afternoon game in Argentina. You need to take into account the whole tournament. The Americas are inconvenient for Europe. 

3. When they start paying more than European broadcasters, then that will change. FIFA has now expanded the World Cup, and with China's NT improving, after 2026 you would think that China will become a staple of the WC. India is still a way off though. That's more than half of Asia right there.


----------



## pesto

5portsF4n said:


> 1. The game is developing just fine in Asia. There are places like Indonesia with 270 million people which have never been to a WC where soccer dominates, with very little financial input necessary from FIFA. The game has other avenues to penetrate markets other than the WC. Whether it's the domestic league, access to major leagues in Europe, the Asian Champions League, the Asian Cup, or whatever else.
> 
> But on the topic of developmental funds, FIFA spends the money it receives through broadcasters and commercial partners among all 200+ constituents, regardless of who hosts the WC or how well they're doing. Hosting in Asia or Europe doesn't change how much it pays out to each member.
> 
> 2. It's not just about one country's team and scheduling them for an afternoon game in Argentina. You need to take into account the whole tournament. The Americas are inconvenient for Europe.
> 
> 3. When they start paying more than European broadcasters, then that will change. FIFA has now expanded the World Cup, and with China's NT improving, after 2026 you would think that China will become a staple of the WC. India is still a way off though. That's more than half of Asia right there.


Your arguments are difficult to follow. It's as if you just aren't interested in developing the sport outside of its existing pattern. As I've said before, it's as if Dunkin' Donuts kept pouring money and talent into the already saturated NY market instead of venturing into California, Europe, etc., as they have been doing. 

Don't worry: the Dutch market is secure; so is the German market. They are not going anywhere. By contrast calculate how much money the Indian market will be worth in 2040, with 20 years of sweat put into developing it vs. what it is worth today. Without hurting the Dutch market in the slightest.

Would you advise McDonald's when considering entering the European market not to go there until burgers are their number 1 food? Is that how you win markets? Or is it how you lose them?

In fact, why ever choose the US or Asia as a place for the tournament under your "leave them alone until they surpass Europe" theory? As a practical matter you are just delaying the growth of what will certainly be your largest markets. Remember the goal is not to freeze history; it's to forge new commercial empires where the huge growth is going to come.


----------



## Guest

That would be a fine argument if the FIFA WC was the only vehicle that grew the game. It isn't. Not even close. The Premier League has done more for soccer in Asia in 20 years than the WC ever has. 

I have zero concern for soccer's popularity in Asia now or in the future. There are only four sports of any relevance in Asia: soccer, cricket, basketball and baseball. In the case of baseball, it's only in Japan and South Korea. In the case of basketball, it's mostly China, Taiwan, the Philippines and Israel. In the case of cricket, it's India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Afghanistan. 

As for soccer, it is the most popular sport unequivocally in: 

Indonesia
Saudi Arabia
Iran
Thailand
Malaysia
UAE
Iraq
Vietnam
Singapore
Kazakhstan
Hong Kong
Qatar
Myanmar
Kuwait
Israel
Uzbekistan
North Korea
Oman
Turkmenistan
Jordan
Lebanon
Yemen
Bahrain
Cambodia
Syria
Laos
Mongolia
Brunei
Tajikistan
Palestine
Kyrgyzstan
Bhutan

It is the outright second (a major sport in every sense of the word) most popular sport in: 

Japan (has closed the gap on baseball dramatically since going professional in the 90s)
South Korea
China (despite the NBA's popularity, the domestic soccer league is far bigger than the domestic basketball league, to say nothing of the popularity of Euro leagues)
India (though significantly further behind cricket)

Outside the top 2: 
Philippines
Taiwan

Now that they've given Asia a massive boost by increasing the spots in the WC, and with China's improvement at the international level, we can expect to see China become a fixture of the WC from 2026 onwards. Which leaves only India where significant funds still need to poured into to grow their player development. It's also expected China will host a WC by 2034.

I'm guessing FIFA, which has hosted a grand total of 1 WC in Asia (soon to be 2), would be pretty pleased with the sport's standing in Asia considering how little you seem to think they prioritize it.

On top of all this, when you consider that Europe, Africa, central and South America are dominated by soccer, you're left with only a few countries on the globe of any relevance where soccer needs to focus its energies on to become a major sport as it is elsewhere. 

In order of relevance: 
US
Canada
Australia


----------



## Hansadyret

I think UK and Ireland together should throw in a bid. I think it has a better chance than England alone.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

I thought that FIFA brought in their own kit for broadcasting World Cups. Hence the different camera positions and often some seats being taken out.


----------



## pesto

Sounds like your are suggesting that FIFA broadcasting take a cue from the musical "Chicago". :

https://genius.com/Richard-gere-razzle-dazzle-lyrics

That's a great approach when the matches and/or stadiums are really bad, but just detracts from the show if you have a strong product to present.


----------



## alserrod

fish.01 said:


> Yes, I understood your point. Mine was just an aside, hence the “btw”.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I prefer the Premier League over La Liga. Seems a better broadcast. Both good though of course.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, experience would make a difference though I wonder whether they draft in the expertise for world cups? Some countries, of course, have good quality via broadcasting other sports leagues: USA via NFL, Australia via NRL & AFL, etc



Got it but.... I love basketball... I followed all last WC. 

China could have good broadcastings but they didn't make their best in basket WC.

There are some niceties that it is not enough to know how to broadcast. You need top matches every weekend.

And not only in TV... why VAR was on arena's pavilions somewhere and in other ones it wasn't available?

Same with football...


----------



## CaliforniaJones

*Very interessant news*



> FIFA's ruling body will also discuss the bidding process for the 2030 World Cup during the latest Council meeting.
> 
> FIFA President Gianni Infantino suggested in June that a Chinese bid for the 2030 World Cup was possible despite the governing body's preferred rotational model for selecting the host country.
> 
> It is not clear whether China, awarded the hosting rights for the 2023 Asian Cup earlier this week, will be eligible to bid for the event as Qatar is staging the tournament in 2022.
> 
> Previously, confederations have been excluded from the next two bidding processes once they have staged the World Cup.
> 
> But FIFA's statutes prohibit continents from entering the race for only the next edition after they have played host.
> 
> China would be among the favourites to land the hosting rights for the 2030 World Cup if the Asian nation is allowed to bid.
> 
> Other candidacies include a joint South American effort to mark the 100-year centenary since the first World Cup took place in Uruguay in 1930, while Britain and Ireland are also considering a bid.


Inside the Games

FIFA Council Meeting, 24 October 2019


----------



## RobH

Every. Single. Time. Gotta love FIFA, consistently inconsistent and insincerely sincere! :lol:

They come up with these rules about who can bid and who can't, explain in great detail about why they're fair and Good For The Game, and then when they realise they want a different host that doesn't fit they change the rules to something else..._and come up with some other sincere, grand sounding explanation about how the new model is actually the best way going forward._ And, of course, it lasts all of four years.

What will the explanation and new bidding rules be this time I wonder? :|

Seriously FIFA, just let it be a free-for-all. That would be the most sincere and honest thing you could do. :lol:


----------



## Guest

RobH said:


> Every. Single. Time. Gotta love FIFA, consistently inconsistent and insincerely sincere! :lol:
> 
> They come up with these rules about who can bid and who can't, explain in great detail about why they're fair and Good For The Game, and then when they realise they want a different host that doesn't fit they change the rules to something else..._and come up with some other sincere, grand sounding explanation about how the new model is actually the best way going forward._ And, of course, it lasts all of four years.
> 
> What will the explanation and new bidding rules be this time I wonder? :|


7 of 19 FIFA corporate sponsors are Chinese companies, a relatively recent development. There's your reason.

It also doesn't hurt that the potential host in question is China and not, say, Scotland.


----------



## 1772

Uruguay-Argentina. It is the southern hemisphere winter but it would still be pretty awesome. 

Other than that; Italy.


----------



## ElvisBC

RobH said:


> Every. Single. Time. Gotta love FIFA, consistently inconsistent and insincerely sincere! :lol:
> 
> They come up with these rules about who can bid and who can't, explain in great detail about why they're fair and Good For The Game, and then when they realise they want a different host that doesn't fit they change the rules to something else..._and come up with some other sincere, grand sounding explanation about how the new model is actually the best way going forward._ And, of course, it lasts all of four years.
> 
> What will the explanation and new bidding rules be this time I wonder? :|
> 
> Seriously FIFA, just let it be a free-for-all. That would be the most sincere and honest thing you could do. :lol:


and result in world cup commuting between usa and china?  :colgate:

it is for sure no coincidence that this decission is going to be made during the meeting in china! the only question left is if european and south american members of the council intend to prevent it? likely not!


----------



## cyril sneer

1772 said:


> Other than that; Italy.


Italy? :lol: Good luck with that, what with the procurement time it takes to get any given stadium built in that country.


----------



## pesto

This can’t be news to anybody, can it? After all, FIFA’s self-imposed policies are not a suicide pact. They change when no longer useful as guidelines and Infantino has been hinting pretty clearly that Asia cannot be ignored.

I saw somewhere that China alone has 20 urban areas over 10M people growing in income and spendable cash. They presumably are basically saying “please come to our country and show your product to these people who are very eager hear about it. Oh, btw, we will pay all your costs including new stadiums, facilities, hotels, etc..”

The trick is not to figure out where to go; it's to manage expectations in the old markets so as not offend them.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> and result in world cup *commuting between usa and china?*  :colgate:
> 
> it is for sure no coincidence that this decission is going to be made during the meeting in china! the only question left is if european and south american members of the council intend to prevent it? likely not!


Better some other part of East Asia. As has been noted, Qatar doesn't count as part of Asia for this purpose (call it the middle east if you want) so Asia isn't really having the WC in 2022.


----------



## ElvisBC

qatar is AFC member, thats the only thing that counts there. btw, it is asian country as well, no matter if middle east or far east ... asia is asia!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> qatar is AFC member, thats the only thing that counts there. btw, it is asian country as well, no matter if middle east or far east ... asia is asia!


No. It's the principle thing that doesn't matter. Following your theory FIFA could move China to the European or African group and then every issue would go away. But that's not reality. 

What DOES matter is the economics: Qatar is not economically in the same market as China or East Asia in general.


----------



## ElvisBC

oh dear ... noone is moving anybody!

FIFA only decides (members of) which confederations are allowed to bid! nothing more and nothing less!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> oh dear ... noone is moving anybody!
> 
> FIFA only decides (members of) which confederations are allowed to bid! nothing more and nothing less!


But it COULD change its internal policy to include China in whatever category it wants and apply whatever rules it wants (subject to the usual legal and contractual restraints). These are not natural laws. 

And why would they want to go away from economic sense for no business reason? Every company changes their policies or approaches, maybe a dozen times on a single project as strategies change and develop. The world works efficiently that way as opposed to submitting yourself to rules dogmatically.


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> But it COULD change its internal policy to include China in whatever category it wants and apply whatever rules it wants (subject to the usual legal and contractual restraints). These are not natural laws.
> 
> And why would they want to go away from economic sense for no business reason? Every company changes their policies or approaches, maybe a dozen times on a single project as strategies change and develop. The world works efficiently that way as opposed to submitting yourself to rules dogmatically.


I know you are pretty much clueless when it comes to the world of assotiation football including FIFA etc, so only for you, here the explanation why FIFA and business should not fit into one sentence:

FIFA is not a company, FIFA is officially and legally nothing but just an non-profit organization that takes care of world football as its governing body and it is registered as such in Switzerland, even exempted from tax due to its legal basis! Its only purpose is, according to its own statute, not to pile money but to govern, regulate and support the world football by investing all money earned in improvement of this sport while not prioritizing anyone! It even worked that way in the past, with more or less success, but with emergence of the world cup as the huge cash cow and worlds biggest sport event it first became foundation of unjustified enrichment and personal gains for high fifa officials and lately with appointment of infantino as president nothing but money-grubbing organisation that cares of noone and nothing but its own enrichment at any cost!

you‘re welcome!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> I know you are pretty much clueless when it comes to the world of assotiation football including FIFA etc, so only for you, here the explanation why FIFA and business should not fit into one sentence:
> 
> FIFA is not a company, FIFA is officially and legally nothing but just an non-profit organization that takes care of world football as its governing body and it is registered as such in Switzerland, even exempted from tax due to its legal basis! Its only purpose is, according to its own statute, not to pile money but to govern, regulate and support the world football by investing all money earned in improvement of this sport while not prioritizing anyone! It even worked that way in the past, with more or less success, but with emergence of the world cup as the huge cash cow and worlds biggest sport event it first became foundation of unjustified enrichment and personal gains for high fifa officials and lately with appointment of infantino as president nothing but money-grubbing organisation that cares of noone and nothing but its own enrichment at any cost!
> 
> youÂ‘re welcome!


Thanks; I knew that. Btw, did you know that the NFL for most of its history was a tax exempt organization? This was done for technical reasons. They only changed when they got bad press from the public who believed it avoided income taxes, which it didn't.

The rest of your comments are fine but like your obsession with roofs on stadiums, you have to get over it. Forget the venality, old buddy networks, corruption, Euro-centric aristocratic attitude. That's been largely suppressed at the upper levels and eventually the countries will clean-up. 

Think of the world as groups of people who might be interested in soccer and what the leading proselytizer in the game should do about it. That would include attracting new people to play, attend matches or watch them on media. 

And then you see the numbers of people in Asia and how much money they will soon have. What's your advice, remembering that your board has the power to fire you? Or are you going to read from your policy manual and tell them their hands are tied?


----------



## Gombos

CaliforniaJones said:


> There could be seven bids:
> * Colombia/Ecuador/Peru
> * Argentina/Chile/Paraguay/Uruguay
> * UK/Ireland
> * Portugal/Spain
> * Bulgaria/Greece/Romania/Serbia
> * Algeria/Morocco/Tunisia
> * Egypt
> 
> I expect the FIFA Council'll select only three bids to the FIFA Congress. So Task Force will have so much evaluation and the report will be huge. It will be the contrary to the 2026 FIFA World Cup bids.


hopefully will win Romania/Greece duo, since they already have the stadiums. hoping they will not give back.

Romania can compete with:

* Arena Națională (55,600) - done
* Timișoara Arena (40,000) - starts in 2020 spring
* Steaua Stadium (31,500) - in construction
* Ion Oblemenco Stadium in Craiova (31,500) - done
* Cluj Arena (31,000) - done

potentially Dinamo Arena (30,000) - it will be built just to unlock the terrain - if 12 stadiums are needed. Greece might be a little bit behind Romania but I think a 4th one of AEK Athens is built? maybe somebody from Greece will present the situation.

or Romania and Greece to do with 4 and 4, or 5 and 5, Serbia and Bulgaria both with 1 stadium each.

overall Romania is ready if it's needed and does not build stadiums for a final tournament, just for improving infrastructure. there are others too, but are too minor (under 30k).


----------



## Guest

Gombos said:


> hopefully will win Romania/Greece duo, since they already have the stadiums.
> 
> ....overall Romania is ready if it's needed and does not build stadiums for a final tournament, just for improving infrastructure. there are others too, but are too minor (under 30k).


If all we're talking about is being stadium-ready, then England or Spain bids are more attractive than Romania/Greece. So you have two better competitors in your confederation, let alone outside it. 

The best Greece/Romania/Serbia/Bulgaria should hope for is hosting the Euros. Even that will be difficult to win. But at least it's in the realm of possibility. A World Cup they're not going anywhere near in any of our lifetimes.


----------



## Rokto14

Gombos said:


> hopefully will win Romania/Greece duo, since they already have the stadiums. hoping they will not give back.
> 
> Romania can compete with:
> 
> * Arena Națională (55,600) - done
> * Timișoara Arena (40,000) - starts in 2020 spring
> * Steaua Stadium (31,500) - in construction
> * Ion Oblemenco Stadium in Craiova (31,500) - done
> * Cluj Arena (31,000) - done
> 
> potentially Dinamo Arena (30,000) - it will be built just to unlock the terrain - *if 12 stadiums are needed.* Greece might be a little bit behind Romania but I think a 4th one of AEK Athens is built? maybe somebody from Greece will present the situation.
> 
> or Romania and Greece to do with 4 and 4, or 5 and 5, Serbia and Bulgaria both with 1 stadium each.
> 
> overall Romania is ready if it's needed and does not build stadiums for a final tournament, just for improving infrastructure. there are others too, but are too minor (under 30k).


Looking at the 2026 WC in USA/Canada/Mexico as a reference, most likely 16 stadiums will be needed. That way would be 4 stadiums in each of the 4 countries. But if that's not possible, then 5 stadiums in Greece and Romania each, 4 stadiums in Serbia and 2 in Bulgaria/ 3 stadiums in each Serbia and Bulgaria? I am not sure which of these countries have better stadiums but that would be my prediction.


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> Thanks; I knew that. Btw, did you know that the NFL for most of its history was a tax exempt organization? This was done for technical reasons. They only changed when they got bad press from the public who believed it avoided income taxes, which it didn't.
> 
> The rest of your comments are fine but like your obsession with roofs on stadiums, you have to get over it. Forget the venality, old buddy networks, corruption, Euro-centric aristocratic attitude. That's been largely suppressed at the upper levels and eventually the countries will clean-up.
> 
> Think of the world as groups of people who might be interested in soccer and what the leading proselytizer in the game should do about it. That would include attracting new people to play, attend matches or watch them on media.
> 
> And then you see the numbers of people in Asia and how much money they will soon have. What's your advice, remembering that your board has the power to fire you? Or are you going to read from your policy manual and tell them their hands are tied?


if it only were that easy ... 

to the other subject, it is not an obsession, it is simply modern standard: every stadium should offer maximum comfort to the fans, or call them paying customers, that‘s why protection over their heads and no viewing obstructions are essential IMHO, in addition to everything else

p.s. I didn‘t know that about NFL, will google it and read about it when I get time


----------



## 1772

cyril sneer said:


> Italy? :lol: Good luck with that, what with the procurement time it takes to get any given stadium built in that country.


Fair point, but things are happening and 2030 is 11 years from now. Maybe enough for italian beaurocracy and whatnot. 
And again, new stadiums are being developed. 



pesto said:


> Better some other part of East Asia. As has been noted, Qatar doesn't count as part of Asia for this purpose (call it the middle east if you want) so Asia isn't really having the WC in 2022.


So Russia hosting it 2018 shouldn't exclude other UEFA-members of hosting soon? Because its not "really" Europe?


----------



## pesto

1772 said:


> Fair point, but things are happening and 2030 is 11 years from now. Maybe enough for italian beaurocracy and whatnot.
> And again, new stadiums are being developed.
> 
> 
> 
> So Russia hosting it 2018 shouldn't exclude other UEFA-members of hosting soon? Because its not "really" Europe?


The point is to forget artificial geographic distinctions and follow the market. In some cases, this will dictate going to countries in the same general region in consecutive periods.

Btw, I do not argue against the UK or Spain or Argentina. I would advise them, however, to go with joint bids and to take cognizance of where the target markets are when making their pitch. 

E.g., the UK could note that London is a very influential and interesting city to the US and Asian markets, and that viewership revenues from these areas could be quite high. Or they could propose a scheme for 2 WC's, the first in the UK to celebrate the past and one in India to celebrate the future. The UK could work together with the Indian government to develop sport, health, women's issues, etc., and come off looking like heroes instead of otherwise.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> if it only were that easy ...
> 
> to the other subject, it is not an obsession, it is simply modern standard: every stadium should offer maximum comfort to the fans, or call them paying customers, that‘s why protection over their heads and no viewing obstructions are essential IMHO, in addition to everything else
> 
> p.s. I didn‘t know that about NFL, will google it and read about it when I get time


https://time.com/3839164/nfl-tax-exempt-status/

This is mostly accurate and explains the politics. The essence is that the clubs are the operating entities and get the revenues. The NFL is not a customer-facing group, but more like a business chamber or administrative entity that only generates occasional income of its own.


----------



## 1772

pesto said:


> The point is to forget artificial geographic distinctions and follow the market. In some cases, this will dictate going to countries in the same general region in consecutive periods.
> 
> Btw, I do not argue against the UK or Spain or Argentina. I would advise them, however, to go with joint bids and to take cognizance of where the target markets are when making their pitch.
> 
> E.g., the UK could note that London is a very influential and interesting city to the US and Asian markets, and that viewership revenues from these areas could be quite high. Or they could propose a scheme for 2 WC's, the first in the UK to celebrate the past and one in India to celebrate the future. The UK could work together with the Indian government to develop sport, health, women's issues, etc., and come off looking like heroes instead of otherwise.


Why would people watch the World Cup just because its in London? People watch it because its the World Cup. 

Football Federations aren't artificial.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

*Some prediction
*
Bids surely proceeded to the FIFA Congress: UK-Ireland, Portugal-Spain
Bids maybe proceeded to the FIFA Congress: Argentina and Co, Morocco-Algeria-Tunisia
Bids surely rejected by the FIFA Council: Colombia and Co, Balkans countries, Egypt


----------



## pesto

1772 said:


> Why would people watch the World Cup just because its in London? People watch it because its the World Cup.
> 
> Football Federations aren't artificial.


Most watch for the soccer; they aren't really of interest since they will watch in any case. But there is a group of marginal fans or non-fans that will watch to see the local sights or things they have heard of. This is a large group in Asia and the US and is a primary target audience for almost every business these days. You attract them with famous locations, sites, celebrities, amusing ads, etc. The NFL, for example, has been clear that this is part of their strategy in going to London. 

Soccer federations are artificial in the sense that they can be dissolved or modified at will. Markets are real in the sense that they are not changeable in the short-run and require substantial work to change in the long-term. 

Rotating from federation to federation is not an end in itself; it's a guideline for what was the thinking at one time. It should change when management decides it is no longer the most desirable approach.


----------



## ElvisBC

world cup bidding starts 2022 with host appointment @ 74th FIFA congress in 2024. still no final information who may bid and who can't


----------



## cyril sneer

CaliforniaJones said:


> *Some prediction
> *
> Bids surely proceeded to the FIFA Congress: UK-Ireland, Portugal-Spain
> Bids maybe proceeded to the FIFA Congress: Argentina and Co, Morocco-Algeria-Tunisia
> Bids surely rejected by the FIFA Council: Colombia and Co, Balkans countries, Egypt


UEFA won't nominate both a UK bid and a Iberian bid. It will be one or the other.


----------



## ElvisBC

cyril sneer said:


> UEFA won't nominate both a UK bid and a Iberian bid. It will be one or the other.


UEFA doesn‘t nominate anyone, they may choose to support one bid at best, but even that doesn‘t mean anything


EDIT: it all doesn’t matter anyway, it is not coming home in 2030, now I am sure it is going to be China


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

ElvisBC said:


> world cup bidding starts 2022 with host appointment @ 74th FIFA congress in 2024. still no final information who may bid and who can't


After the Qatar World Cup. Viewing figures for the Russia World Cup were not very good. They went backwards in more markets than they improved. Including Asia, Europe and North America. North America you would expect given the timezone. The increase in South America was impressive considering the previous host was Brazil.

Also interesting is that Europe contributed more live match viewing than Asia despite the vastly larger Asian population.

It is to be noted also the FIFA only published the executive summary this time rather than the full report that they did for Brazil: https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/2018-fifa-world-cup-russia-global-broadcast-and-audience-executive-summary.pdf?cloudid=njqsntrvdvqv8ho1dag5

TV rights are the biggest income source for FIFA, providing half of their revenue. Sponsors are important but TV comes first. If, as I suspect, TV viewing figures in Europe are poor for the Qatar World Cup FIFA will want to address that. Following it up with a late night World Cup (for Europe) in North America then an early morning World Cup in China will cause a lot of brand damage. Club football is already ascendant.

FIFA's financial report is here, page 17 breaks down revenue: https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/xzshsoe2ayttyquuxhq0.pdf


----------



## Guest

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Also interesting is that Europe contributed more live match viewing than Asia despite the vastly larger Asian population.


1. It’s not that interesting considering the importance of the game in Europe compared to Asia and the favorable viewing times.

2. You do realize when most matches aired in Asia? Apart from early kickoffs, most people, especially those in East/South East Asia, were sleeping.

I do agree however that Europe will get 2030. China will get 2034. The only stumbling block is the vast Chinese sponsorship of Fifa, which China will use as leverage if it wants 2030.


----------



## Rokto14

5portsF4n said:


> 1. It’s not that interesting considering the importance of the game in Europe compared to Asia and the favorable viewing times.
> 
> 2. You do realize when most matches aired in Asia? Apart from early kickoffs, most people, especially those in East/South East Asia, were sleeping.
> 
> I do agree however that Europe will get 2030. *China will get 2034.* The only stumbling block is the vast Chinese sponsorship of Fifa, which China will use as leverage if it wants 2030.


I agree that China will get 2034 WC. Now that China is going to the Club World Cup in 2021, I think they will just do a test bid for 2030 WC, won't even put in that much of effort. But they will do a real aggressive bid for 2034 WC for sure.


----------



## Guest

Rokto14 said:


> I agree that China will get 2034 WC. Now that China is going to the Club World Cup in 2021, I think they will just do a test bid for 2030 WC, won't even put in that much of effort. But they will do a real aggressive bid for 2034 WC for sure.


Exactly, in fact I think that when Chinese sponsors came on board in a big way (they now make up 7 of FIFA's 19 corporate sponsors), they basically got the World Cup there and then. The Club World Cup going to China is a sign that sponsorship money talks. 

Unless for some reason China really, really wants 2030, FIFA has probably already privately given them their word on 2034. Yes member nations vote on who gets the World Cup, but they also know who's paying their bills. For 2034 I'm sure that China will have no true competitors. There may be some soft bids to give the impression of a race.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

5portsF4n said:


> 1. It’s not that interesting considering the importance of the game in Europe compared to Asia and the favorable viewing times.
> 
> *2. You do realize when most matches aired in Asia? Apart from early kickoffs, most people, especially those in East/South East Asia, were sleeping.*
> 
> I do agree however that Europe will get 2030. China will get 2034. The only stumbling block is the vast Chinese sponsorship of Fifa, which China will use as leverage if it wants 2030.


Tokyo is 6 hours east of Moscow, Hong Kong 5, Bangkok 4, Karachi only 2. The afternoon kick offs would have suited all Asia for time. Evening kick offs would have been late night for the highly populated east of China and for Japan. However, a lot of afternoon kick offs in Russia were during the working day in Europe. The population of Asia is almost 6 times that of Europe. I still think it is remarkable that more people watched live matches in Europe than in Asia. The big reason, in my opinion, is that there are very few good Asian teams and the two countries with enormous populations aren't amongst them.

The World Cup voting system is the stumbling block for any kind of strategic planning.


----------



## Guest

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Tokyo is 6 hours east of Moscow, Hong Kong 5, Bangkok 4, Karachi only 2. The afternoon kick offs would have suited all Asia for time. Evening kick offs would have been late night for the highly populated east of China and for Japan. However, a lot of afternoon kick offs in Russia were during the working day in Europe. The population of Asia is almost 6 times that of Europe. I still think it is remarkable that more people watched live matches in Europe than in Asia. *The big reason, in my opinion, is that there are very few good Asian teams and the two countries with enormous populations aren't amongst them.*
> 
> The World Cup voting system is the stumbling block for any kind of strategic planning.


That's the key point. Asia had 5 qualifiers. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Australia, South Korea and Japan. 

For three of those (Japan, SK, Australia), a World Cup in Europe/Africa is the worst outcome for ease of access. Yes, FIFA puts their countries in earlier time slots when they can, but most of the tournament they can't watch as they're asleep. China is in the same bracket, and to top it off they didn't have a team competing at the WC. 

We know for a fact that interest in countries which haven't qualified wont ever be anywhere near to countries that have qualified. With only 5 Asian countries qualifying, and 3 of those being in the worst timezone possible, how can it be a surprise that Europe's 13-team entourage at the World Cup drew more eyeballs on TV when they weren't asleep for any of the games? 

You also have to clarify what a suitable time is. Most countries have prime-time that usually falls between 7-10pm. Anything outside that is going to impact significantly on ratings. There were just 10 games aired in primetime in East Asia according to FIFA. 10 of 64 games isn't much.

Also, this powerpoint from FIFA suggests that Asian viewing eclipsed Europe (10.66b to 9.67b, with a rise of 29% in Asia over WC 2014), and that South America was down because of timezone differences. So I'm not sure why FIFA are putting out contradictory stats on viewership going by what you said above. 

https://resources.fifa.com/image/up...tive-summary.pdf?cloudid=njqsntrvdvqv8ho1dag5


----------



## ElvisBC

5portsF4n said:


> I do agree however that Europe will get 2030. China will get 2034. The only stumbling block is the vast Chinese sponsorship of Fifa, which China will use as leverage if it wants 2030.





Rokto14 said:


> I agree that China will get 2034 WC. Now that China is going to the Club World Cup in 2021, I think they will just do a test bid for 2030 WC, won't even put in that much of effort. But they will do a real aggressive bid for 2034 WC for sure.


That sounds logical, but this is FIFA and that‘s where any logic stops! China money is huge and FIFA is not going to wait 4 years longer than they have to, it is coming home 4 years later!


----------



## 1772

Its pretty bizarre that in 2030 it will have been 24 years since a World Cup was held in western/central Europe. 

Again, I am for Argentina-Uruguay because of the 100th anniversary but if not them then Italy, Great Britain or Spain/Iberia is a no-brainer. Or if Arg-Uru gets it, 2034. 

I'm not against China or Australia but they should've gotten it in 2010 or 2022.


----------



## pesto

1772 said:


> Its pretty bizarre that in 2030 it will have been 24 years since a World Cup was held in western/central Europe.
> 
> Again, I am for Argentina-Uruguay because of the 100th anniversary but if not them then Italy, Great Britain or Spain/Iberia is a no-brainer. Or if Arg-Uru gets it, 2034.
> 
> I'm not against China or Australia but they should've gotten it in 2010 or 2022.


Very good point. It shows how corruption or mismanagement in the process creates not only current problems but exacerbates problems for the future. 

As for Europe, if you exclude Eastern Europe (as you do) that's about 400M for Western Europe or less than 1/3 the population of China; 1/20th the population of the world.


----------



## Rokto14

1772 said:


> Its pretty bizarre that in 2030 it will have been 24 years since a World Cup was held in western/central Europe.
> 
> Again, I am for *Argentina-Uruguay* because of the 100th anniversary but if not them then *Italy, Great Britain or Spain/Iberia* is a no-brainer. Or if Arg-Uru gets it, 2034.
> 
> I'm not against China or Australia but they should've gotten it in 2010 or 2022.


The Arg-Uru bid is now more expanded to Arg-Uru-Para-Chile bid. And doubt Italy is also even planning to bid for 2030 WC. They are looking towards more of a Euro bid in 2028. 

And if each of the eligible confederations are to nominate 1 bid from their respective confederations and if FIFA were to choose the 3 best bids to be in the bidding race, it's gonna be Great Britain or Iberia bid from UEFA, Arg-Uru-Para-Chile bid from CONMEBOL and a Morocco-Tunisia-Algeria bid (provided if they work things out) from CAF. This is not counting China's test bid.


----------



## Gombos

new stadiums in Romania, recently built or currently under construction

but MORE WILL COME, Timișoara (+30000-seater), Bucharest (Dinamo), Oradea, Botosani, Pitești and others (maybe Brașov, Iași, Bacău etc) are set to start soon

*honestly, even Wales and Northern Ireland are also not prepared as infrastructure, not just our South-Eastern countries. I wish the World Cup to be given to the biggest and best prepared countries. like England alone, Germany and France in Europe. Spain now would be more ready than Italy for instance. give it to the United States and Canada, Japan, outside Europe. give it to China because the large towns are quite ok. but now it should be Europe's turn again. *


----------



## Temporarily Exiled

5portsF4n said:


> What about an upgraded Windsor Park to 30k with temporary seating to 40k?


It's quite a hemmed-in site, it would be a huge effort just to get it to the point where temporary seating on the scale needed is viable.


----------



## Rokto14

Gombos said:


> *new stadiums in Romania, recently built or currently under construction
> 
> but MORE WILL COME, Timișoara (+30000-seater), Bucharest (Dinamo), Oradea, Botosani, Pitești and others (maybe Brașov, Iași, Bacău etc) are set to start soon*
> 
> *honestly, even Wales and Northern Ireland are also not prepared as infrastructure, not just our South-Eastern countries. I wish the World Cup to be given to the biggest and best prepared countries. like England alone, Germany and France in Europe. Spain now would be more ready than Italy for instance. give it to the United States and Canada, Japan, outside Europe. give it to China because the large towns are quite ok. but now it should be Europe's turn again. *


The initiative that Romania is taking is great!  But what about the other host nations of Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria? Are they taking their own initiative on modernising their stadia?


----------



## pesto

I find it odd that a country is building so many new or greatly improved stadiums when there has historically been no demand for them. This is the "white elephant" issue that FIFA has been battered over the head with for years, and is one of the problems that joint bids was intended to ameliorate. 

Does Romania really expect FIFA to take this bid seriously? I would think a better move would be to build the stadiums; keep them well maintained and operating successfully for, say, 10 years; and then put together a bid. 

Even better, spend the money developing scientific, educational, health, social and other institutions.


----------



## CWells2000

Rokto14 said:


> The initiative that Romania is taking is great!  But what about the other host nations of Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria? Are they taking their own initiative on modernising their stadia?



Thats the major problem, lack of modern facilities in the region.


----------



## CWells2000

Surely the solution for Northern Ireland is to build a modular stadium maybe outside of Belfast for the World Cup.

Then take it down and reuse it in the country for other projects.


----------



## pesto

CWells2000 said:


> Surely the solution for Northern Ireland is to build a modular stadium maybe outside of Belfast for the World Cup.
> 
> Then take it down and reuse it in the country for other projects.


There are plenty of stadiums available in the other host countries. Why not use the modules for the "other projects" and skip the stadium? 

N. Ireland can host some events other than actual matches and you would be able to see FIFA providing something useful for the community before, during and after the games.


----------



## ElvisBC

including NI is nothing but political plus for the bid


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> including NI is nothing but political plus for the bid


It is political but it is not just political. It demonstrates an interest in the sport globally, not just as defined by political terms. It expresses an attitude of soccer for everyone, not "Look at me! Look at me!".


----------



## RobH

More politics fwiw


> Ministers push Boris Johnson for a Manchester World Cup final
> 
> Boris Johnson is being urged to promise a football World Cup final in the north of England as a symbol of his commitment to working-class Conservatives.
> 
> With the government under pressure to deliver for the former Labour voters who handed Mr Johnson an 80-seat majority, senior ministers have suggested a “London Olympics-style” emblem of Britain’s changed centre of political gravity.
> 
> However, a dispute has already broken out over the idea of holding a World Cup final in Manchester, with some pressing the claims of other northern cities such as Liverpool, home to the current European and world club champions.
> 
> “We need something like the London Olympics”, said one senior minister. “A World Cup final in Manchester — it would be ‘wow!’”
> 
> One cabinet minister argued that the sight of bulldozers moving into local rail, road and education projects would be symbol enough of the Tory commitment to the north, saying: “They don’t have to be finished [by the next election] but they have to be started.”


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...on-for-a-manchester-world-cup-final-0ppg7bd28


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

RobH said:


> More politics fwiw
> 
> 
> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...on-for-a-manchester-world-cup-final-0ppg7bd28


Have they forgotten that they need to win the bid or how well the bids to have the Olympics in Manchester and Birmingham went? Not to mention that there isn't a stadium equivalent to Wembley in the North.

I'm all for investment in the North of England but suggestions such as this are stunts that will detract from rather than enhance such efforts.


----------



## RobH

Indeed. I can't imagine FIFA having much truck with Brazil ignoring Rio/Maracana and going with a smaller stadium in another city to appease newly won votes of of a Brazilian President. Ditto France and Paris, or Russia and Moscow.

And if that sounds Londoncentric, let me put it another way. Ken Livingstone was a huge sceptic when it came to the London Olympics and only backed the bid as Mayor once he was certain it would come with a big, substantial regeneration plan for a part of the city that needed it. Whether or not you agree with using big sporting events in this way, Livingstone was about the substance, not about the headlines.

Everything about this idea suggests Johnson and his ministers are coming at it the other way i.e. he loves the PR and the headlines, but what substance is there behind it? Does he even care? I'd want to see much, much more before it's even mentioned in the same breath as London 2012.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

RobH said:


> Indeed. I can't imagine FIFA having much truck with Brazil ignoring Rio/Maracana and going with a smaller stadium in another city to appease newly won votes of of a Brazilian President. Ditto France and Paris, or Russia and Moscow.
> 
> And if that sounds Londoncentric, let me put it another way. Ken Livingstone was a huge sceptic when it came to the London Olympics and only backed the bid as Mayor once he was certain it would come with a big, substantial regeneration plan for a part of the city that needed it. Whether or not you agree with using big sporting events in this way, Livingstone was about the substance, not about the headlines.
> 
> Everything about this idea suggests Johnson and his ministers are coming at it the other way i.e. he loves the PR and the headlines, but what substance is there behind it? Does he even care? I'd want to see much, much more before it's even mentioned in the same breath as London 2012.


I hope that it is only a New Year story as there isn't a lot going on. Some ministers (although I can't think which) may push it but the FA will be rather more interested in winning a bid and as discussion in this thread attests they do take a bit more notice of FIFA politics than they used to. They might impress upon Boris that trying to win would get him further than a Manchester gesture. Not forgetting that much of the North has as dim a view of Manchester and perceived favouritism thereof as it does of London.

The supposedly clever and devious advisor Cummings will be well aware that the Conservatives are not going to win any of the seats where the stadia are situated. The new voters aren't actually likely to be impressed with a gimmick.

Of course the big block to this is that none of the stadia apart from Wembley make the 80,000 seat requirement for the final currently. Only a massive rebuild of Old Trafford would do so and this appears unlikely unless the club is sold. Old Trafford actually needs some work to assure it of a semi final.


----------



## Knitemplar

*Finals in the Falklands! * (in the same way Paris 2024 is having Surfing in Tahiti!!)

It's the new trend! :lol:


----------



## ElvisBC

final in falklands if uk bid wins, or in malvinas if south americans win :colgate:


----------



## Axelferis

Final in Manchester ???
Rubbish idea!!!!
London all the way!!!


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> More politics fwiw
> 
> 
> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...on-for-a-manchester-world-cup-final-0ppg7bd28


So the theory is to switch one semi to London and switch the final to Manchester? Seems like a pretty small change for London hotels, visitors and such but a very large symbolic act for the country as a whole.

Of course, FIFA should be consulted for their view.


----------



## RobH

If Manchester can provide a stadium with a similar capacity and facilities to Wembley by 2030, fine. I still think FIFA would prefer to have their final in London, but at least the discussion between the two stadiums would then make sense. As it is, I posted this article in the Old Trafford thread only a month ago:



> *Tired, worn Old Trafford a symbol of Manchester United's faded grandeur *
> https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...tired-worn-tottenham-stadium?CMP=share_btn_tw


So the options are:

1. A final at Wembley which has the capacity and the facilities and is already loved by FIFA and UEFA as a money making machine of a stadium.
2. The Glazers put their money where their mouth is and hugely upgrade Old Trafford or build a new stadium.
3. The government subsidies the world's 3rd richest football club and its billionaire American owners so it can get its final in the north and thus, as the article states, show its commitment to working class conservatives. :lol:
4. Upgrades don't happen to Old Trafford but, under pressure from the government, the FA puts forward a bid with an inferior stadium to Wembley for the final.
5. The outlier option (as if the others aren't): Manchester City expanding the Etihad to 80k+

As I said in my post above, we need a lot more detail before this is taken seriously. Foregoing Wembley - the National Stadium owned by the FA and built for such occasions - for one political party to consolidate itself in a certain region (≠ "a very large symbolic act for the country as a whole") doesn't look serious. It looks opportunistic, patronising to Northern voters, and - at the moment - lacks any substance.


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> If Manchester can provide a stadium with a similar capacity and facilities to Wembley by 2030, fine. I still think FIFA would prefer to have their final in London, but at least the discussion between the two stadiums would then make sense. As it is, I posted this article in the Old Trafford thread only a month ago:
> 
> 
> 
> So the options are:
> 
> 1. A final at Wembley which has the capacity and the facilities and is already loved by FIFA and UEFA as a money making machine of a stadium.
> 2. The Glazers put their money where their mouth is and hugely upgrade Old Trafford or build a new stadium.
> 3. The government subsidies the world's 3rd richest football club and its billionaire American owners so it can get its final in the north and thus, as the article states, show its commitment to working class conservatives. :lol:
> 4. Upgrades don't happen to Old Trafford but, under pressure from the government, the FA puts forward a bid with an inferior stadium to Wembley for the final.
> 5. The outlier option (as if the others aren't): Manchester City expanding the Etihad to 80k+
> 
> As I said in my post above, we need a lot more detail before this is taken seriously. Foregoing Wembley - the National Stadium owned by the FA and built for such occasions - for one political party to consolidate itself in a certain region (≠ "a very large symbolic act for the country as a whole") doesn't look serious. It looks opportunistic, patronising to Northern voters, and - at the moment - lacks any substance.


Of course. A lot more detail needed and you have to have a facility that provides functionality and attracts attention. But sheer capacity is not critical and I don't think that Wembley has the soccer chops that the home of Man U has and in any event no one is talking about not using Wembley at all. 

As for politics, no government should be involved with something this large without review of the usefulness of the effort. As political issues go, this is hardly objectionable: using government money to help develop an entire region of a country that is claiming to have been neglected for centuries and is asserting its democratic right to vote for what it wants. Hardly the sort of "political" issue that FIFA, the IOC, etc., are concerned about (bribery, white elephants, contractor profits, forcible relocations, aggrandizement of dictators, etc.)


----------



## RobH

pesto said:


> I don't think that Wembley has the soccer chops that the home of Man U has


The home stadium of England for most of the last century, and the stadium where the greatest moment in English football history took place?










(_pesto's talking about football again._ :hmm: :laugh: )

Seriously though, Old Trafford doesn't meet the _minimum_ capacity for a World Cup Final, nevermind "sheer" capacity. It would need an upgrade in capacity and facilities and then hope FIFA will be fine with their final being outside London to have a chance. I think you're taking this article too seriously tbh; I'll take a lot of convincing that this isn't PR guff during a slow news week, especially given the government it's coming from. It's our old friend Mr 'unnamed government sources' again.


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> _pesto's talking about football again._ :hmm: :laugh:


Suit yourself on this if you want. Like capacity, it's not a critical part of the argument one way or the other. You yourself say that with some improvements Manchester has a potential stadium.


----------



## RobH

Of course it's possible if all the stars line up! Isn't this thread here to analyse plans though?

If someone came out with the idea of Canada holding the final in 2026 (because, I dunno, they're the only country of the three hosts not to have had one before) I'm sure you'd be slightly more forensic about the details. 

Anyone who has followed the Glazers' ownership of Utd knows the stadium has not been anything like a priority. Given that fact, I'm trying to work out a realistic route to a 2030 Northern final that would make me consider these New Year's headlines as something other than Ministers feeding quotes to a politically friendly newspaper for a bit of PR. At the moment, I can't. I'll change my mind if the evidence changes.


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> Of course it's possible if all the stars line up! Isn't this thread here to analyse plans though?
> 
> If someone came out with the idea of Canada holding the final in 2026 (because, I dunno, they're the only country of the three hosts not to have had one before) I'm sure you'd be slightly more forensic about the details.
> 
> Anyone who has followed the Glazers' ownership of Utd knows the stadium has not been anything like a priority. Given that fact, I'm trying to work out a realistic route to a 2030 Northern final that would make me consider these New Year's headlines as something other than Ministers feeding quotes to a politically friendly newspaper for a bit of PR. At the moment, I can't. I'll change my mind if the evidence changes.


Sounds very reasonable except for the implication that this is a passing fancy just for cheap headlines. But I will refrain here and leave my comments for the economics sites. Interesting to see if there is another Sunderland moment in the works somewhere. :lol:


----------



## flierfy

The demand of a World Cup final in the North of England is somewhat strange. It fails to recognise the realities, especially the geographic distribution of sizable football grounds within England.

The North of England has certainly a lot. It has plenty of towns of various sizes, a rich football history and many football grounds. What it doesn't have, though, is a distinctive centre. The South on the other hand is almost the exact opposite of all this.

All these factors will result in a World Cup which just as in 1966 has to be played mainly north of the Severn-Wash-Line. The North has to contribute no less than 10 of the 16 venues, if not even more, where at least 50 games would be played, including a possible opening match at Old Trafford and a 3rd place play-off at Anfield. But there is simply no way that the final can be played anywhere else but Wembley.


----------



## Gombos

pesto said:


> Does Romania really expect FIFA to take this bid seriously? I would think a better move would be to build the stadiums; keep them well maintained and operating successfully for, say, 10 years; and then put together a bid.
> 
> Even better, spend the money developing scientific, educational, health, social and other institutions.


as serious as the 2012 Europa League final and hosting matches at the 2020 Euro. 

but it will also depend a lot on the neighbours. 

I know the World Cup is not a Euro, but didn't South Africa, Russia and Brazil host it? and Mexico is preparing to do it?

Romania does not think this way, we are trying to improve every domain (just take a look at our sports situation after the fall of Communism and especially since 2008, we used to be almost giants in the Olympics or anyway even until Beijing top 15, so it's not good to neglect the sport!), these stadiums are not built to host the World Cup like it was in South Africa, Russia or Brazil. this is the European, EU mentality. not populist.



Rokto14 said:


> The initiative that Romania is taking is great!  But what about the other host nations of Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria? Are they taking their own initiative on modernising their stadia?


*in Greece the situation is good, 4 Romanian, 4 Greek, 2 Bulgaria and 2 Serbian stadiums would do it.* Romania will complete this summer the 4th at least +30k-seater. Timișoara is planned next, so we will probably choose from these 5 since next they are building some major indoor arenas.

if we would manage to drag Bulgaria and Serbia into this, it would be possible. 4 nations to believe in this! 10 years later are a lot, you can fix the infrastructure, Poland/Ukraine hosted the Euro but I do agree they were not ready and regarding the World Cup the security factor is major. 

the European Union is still the strongest confederation and if the non-nations besides the G7 has hosted the World Cup, we can also do it. FIFA will also consider South American and North African bids.

moreover, if you take a look at the map, 2 Romanian towns are very close to the Bulgarian border, 1 is very close to the Serbian border and another one is not very close from the Serbian/Hungarian borders. Romania-Serbia-Bulgaria-Greece will very well connected, like a big country together, like a France or Spain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria–Greece–Romania–Serbia_2030_FIFA_World_Cup_bid


----------



## Gombos

ElvisBC said:


> including NI is nothing but political plus for the bid


Northern Ireland hardly could lead a pack of hosting nations, in the case of the "Balkan" bid Greece-Romania will have to do it and indeed it's not like we would be like England and probably Scotland. although Scotland is twice smaller than Greece, it will probably be the leading country together with England in that bid. quite organised and with some, solid economical power.



CWells2000 said:


> Thats the major problem, lack of modern facilities in the region.


what you have to understand is that Greece is one of the most important countries in the history of Europe, Romania used to be a great country on the continent in the interwar period before the installed Communism of the Soviets (we used to have Italians and Spaniards working here), Serbia used to be part of a great Yugoslavia which bombed itself but at its golden ages was not less strong than Northern Ireland, Wales, whatever, maybe even Ireland (confederation combined), and Bulgaria is a culturally rich nation where the Brits are going for summer holidays today.

basically outside Europe and outside the EU (not all the nations in Europe though are EU), the image of the European Union especially is very good. just in the EU there are no many sympathies and the Westerns are not burying stereotypes - "a little bit", not all because there still are problems like there were also in the United States between areas.


----------



## pesto

flierfy said:


> The demand of a World Cup final in the North of England is somewhat strange. It fails to recognise the realities, especially the geographic distribution of sizable football grounds within England.
> 
> The North of England has certainly a lot. It has plenty of towns of various sizes, a rich football history and many football grounds. What it doesn't have, though, is a distinctive centre. The South on the other hand is almost the exact opposite of all this.
> 
> All these factors will result in a World Cup which just as in 1966 has to be played mainly north of the Severn-Wash-Line. The North has to contribute no less than 10 of the 16 venues, if not even more, where at least 50 games would be played, including a possible opening match at Old Trafford and a 3rd place play-off at Anfield. But there is simply no way that the final can be played anywhere else but Wembley.


Agreed with every word until the last sentence. Is there is really "no way"? Zero chance? When all it requires is flipping one game between London and, say, Manchester, and it has political support? I would prefer to say it seems unlikely but should be reviewed.


----------



## Sheppard Fiddler

pesto said:


> Agreed with every word until the last sentence. Is there is really "no way"? Zero chance? When all it requires is flipping one game between London and, say, Manchester, and it has political support? I would prefer to say it seems unlikely but should be reviewed.


A quick search on TripAdvisor tells me that the number of 5 star hotels currently in Manchester and London is...

*2 of 282* properties are available in Manchester
*142 of 3,532* properties are available in London

The fact that there are only 2 x 5* hotels in Manchester tells you exactly why FIFA would not be happy with a WC final being held there.

That is even before you get down to small detail of a 75-80k old and tired stadium compared to a 90k seat modern stadium. OT or the Etihad would need some serious renovation to compete with Wembley.


----------



## pesto

Sheppard Fiddler said:


> A quick search on TripAdvisor tells me that the number of 5 star hotels currently in Manchester and London is...
> 
> *2 of 282* properties are available in Manchester
> *142 of 3,532* properties are available in London
> 
> The fact that there are only 2 x 5* hotels in Manchester tells you exactly why FIFA would not be happy with a WC final being held there.
> 
> That is even before you get down to small detail of a 75-80k old and tired stadium compared to a 90k seat modern stadium. OT or the Etihad would need some serious renovation to compete with Wembley.


It's shocking that anyone ever goes to Manchester! Maybe the fans can just jet in from Monaco and Palm Beach for the day? :lol:

Given those statistics, how can you possibly support an opening match or semis, or indeed ANY match whatsoever in Manchester? Same number of people in the stands either way. 

I said in my posts that FIFA would have to give input on the subject and if lodging or other infrastructure is one of their issues they will raise it. Otherwise, I will let the Brits fight out the relative merits of the North, the Midlands, Man U, Old Trafford and its possible updating, "New" Wembley (which will be 23 years old in 2030), etc. They all have a place in world soccer lore and should get some good exposure.


----------



## pesto

Gombos said:


> as serious as the 2012 Europa League final and hosting matches at the 2020 Euro.
> 
> but it will also depend a lot on the neighbours.
> 
> I know the World Cup is not a Euro, but didn't South Africa, Russia and Brazil host it? and Mexico is preparing to do it?
> 
> Romania does not think this way, we are trying to improve every domain (just take a look at our sports situation after the fall of Communism and especially since 2008, we used to be almost giants in the Olympics or anyway even until Beijing top 15, so it's not good to neglect the sport!), these stadiums are not built to host the World Cup like it was in South Africa, Russia or Brazil. this is the European, EU mentality. not populist.


A Balkan WC would be a great idea; I support the idea.

But I’m not sure FIFA wants to see bids where everything is “in process” and there is no evidence the infrastructure will support large events after the WC is over. The movement has been toward selecting countries that have the physical infrastructure in place, operating regularly and profitably, and where there will be no appearance of diverting funds from the legitimate needs of the country (health, education, basic services) into FIFA’s hands.


----------



## ElvisBC

you all should keep one thing in mind when talking about world cup final, it is FIFA decission, not LOC decission!


----------



## RobH

RobH said:


> So the options are:
> 
> 1. A final at Wembley which has the capacity and the facilities and is already loved by FIFA and UEFA as a money making machine of a stadium.
> 2. The Glazers put their money where their mouth is and hugely upgrade Old Trafford or build a new stadium.
> 3. The government subsidies the world's 3rd richest football club and its billionaire American owners so it can get its final in the north and thus, as the article states, show its commitment to working class conservatives. :lol:
> 4. Upgrades don't happen to Old Trafford but, under pressure from the government, the FA puts forward a bid with an inferior stadium to Wembley for the final.
> 5. The outlier option (as if the others aren't): Manchester City expanding the Etihad to 80k+


6. An even bigger outlier, but the _Liverpool Echo_ along with some local politicians have nonchalantly thrown Anfield into the hat now - https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/major-call-liverpool-host-2030-17506322. Wrong size pitch, currently 25,000 short of minimum capacity for a final (19,000 short if the planned expansion is built).


----------



## cyril sneer

I agree, no chance will the final of a UK bid be held anywhere but Wembley. It's just political hot air any talk of Manchester hosting the final.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

In any negotiation you ask for more than you expect to be able to get. As Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and, notably, the Republic of Ireland have been asking for a lot it is only natural that the North of England should remind the FA and Government that they are not to be ignored.

Without the right stadium you cannot have the final. Unless we see some change there that is out of the question. However, things like the opening match, qtrs, semi finals and England matches are not. At recent tournaments the opening match and the final have been in different stadia. The opening match is supposed to have a capacity of 80,000 but that is one of the more flexible requirements. As it stands Dublin, Cardiff and Old Trafford could put their hats into that ring.

Qtrs and Semis is a numbers game. The north could get three of those six matches. They are big, big matches and an honour to host. I don't suppose most people care about the 3rd/4th place play off but that is also available.

England matches will not be confined to Wembley. Hosting those would also be a big deal for any English city.

If I was an MP or Mayor in the North of England I would be making these sort of noises following the reports about the large number of matches proposed for Dublin.

It is good that cities are vying for games. It will avoid nonsense like Milton Keynes and Plymouth (no offence against those places) being involved in the bid.


----------



## RobH

The MK and Plymouth stuff was about getting good geographical spread, which seemed to be a key thing for FIFA at the time. It's a bit silly because you end up leaving out good stadiums and building oversized ones in places that don't need them, but I do think England 2018 were following FIFA's lead at the time rather than including them because other cities weren't interested.

Jarvis and Burnham are right to push for their cities' involvement, of course, you'd expect nothing less. Their quotes in that article are fine insofar as they go. Rotherham's talk of the final in Liverpool - or any talk of the final being at a stadium other than Wembley - however, deserves to be questioned and analysed. That's not just pushing for involvement and making sure you're not ignored, that's pushing for a specific match with known, specific requirements.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

RobH said:


> The MK and Plymouth stuff was about getting good geographical spread, which seemed to be a key thing for FIFA at the time. It's a bit silly because you end up leaving out good stadiums and building oversized ones in places that don't need them, but I do think England 2018 were following FIFA's lead at the time rather than including them because other cities weren't interested.
> 
> Jarvis and Burnham are right to push for their cities' involvement, of course, you'd expect nothing less. Their quotes in that article are fine insofar as they go. Rotherham's talk of the final in Liverpool - or any talk of the final being at a stadium other than Wembley - however, deserves to be questioned and analysed. That's not just pushing for involvement and making sure you're not ignored, that's pushing for a specific match with known, specific requirements.


Yes, that is all correct. FIFA change directions more often than a lost driver with a broken satnav and a nagging passenger. Politicians asking for the earth and delivering much less is not unusual either.

The other thing that is up for grabs, should a UK/Ireland bid be successful, is hosting nations training camps. Not as good as hosting matches but not to be sniffed at. England would presumably be at St George's Park. Cities like Liverpool and Manchester would like to host Brazil, Argentina, Spain or Germany, etc. These would be spread out a lot more than the matches. I don't know about the training facilities, presumably they are good, but somewhere like Bournemouth might attract a nation that wants somewhere a little warmer and fancies a beach.


----------



## RobH

^^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-49934324

Good point. The recent trend towards building training grounds where squads can basically live ought to be a real plus point for the 2030 bid.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1136460198128824321
I know Leicester are building a 30 bedroom facility at their new training ground, I guess Liverpool must be doing something similar given the scale of their new training ground. If it becomes the norm for top clubs to do this that gives the bid lots of options.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

RobH said:


> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-49934324


I've surfed around and looked at that in a bit more detail. Very nice. This is an area where England is in a very strong position. Having the richest league in the world and very strong 2nd and 3rd tiers mean there are a lot of high quality training facilities. The likes of Liverpool and Spurs are incredible for this. If you need 40 training centres (plus something for referees?) then GB and Ireland will be hard to for most to compete with. There will be no need to make do with facilities primarily designed for other sports. Iberia I'm sure has enough good quality locations but other candidates might struggle in comparison.

Edit: You've edited your post Rob and I agree with it. Lots of other clubs have been moving towards what Spurs pioneered. Liverpool are the most notable major investor with work currently in progress but everyone is upping their game.


----------



## Sheppard Fiddler

And Leicester as well.


----------



## gambit06

Rokto14 said:


> For me, I would want these stadiums
> 
> *Wales*
> Principality (Millennium) Stadium 75,000
> 
> *Scotland*
> Hampden Park 52,000
> Celtic Park 60,000/ Ibrox Stadium 50,000
> 
> *Northern Ireland*
> A new stadium 40,000
> 
> *Ireland*
> Aviva Stadium 51,000
> 
> *England*
> Wembley Stadium 90,000 (London)
> London Stadium 60,000 (London)
> Old Trafford 75,000 (Manchester)
> Anfield 60,000 (Liverpool)
> St James' Park 55,000 (Newcastle upon Tyne)
> Stadium of Light 50,000 (Sunderland)
> King Power Stadium 40,000 (Leicester)
> Riverside Stadium 40,000 (Middlesbrough)
> St Mary's Stadium 40,000 (Southampton)
> Villa Park 45,000 (Birmingham)


While i realise they can easily get dispensation for such things the pitch at Anfield is too short for Fifa tournament standards. By a fair bit.


----------



## cyril sneer

The new Everton stadium will be a much more suitable venue than Anfield. I'm not saying that to antagonise Liverpool fans but the stadium will have the infrastructure serving the stadium, the modern facilities, and the location in its favour.


----------



## Gardocki

cyril sneer said:


> The new Everton stadium will be a much more suitable venue than Anfield. I'm not saying that to antagonise Liverpool fans but the stadium will have the infrastructure serving the stadium, the modern facilities, and the location in its favour.


It'll probably have the modern facilities preferred by FIFA, but Anfield by that stage will have 61,000 versus 52,000 for Bramley Moore. I'd imagine the older parts of Anfield will see some investment and refurbishment also.

The setting (in summer months) and proposed fan zone would certainly be a big consideration in favour of Everton, but I don't think the transport infrastructure will be considerably better.


----------



## Sheppard Fiddler

How strict are FIFA at demanding that existing stadiums have a 105m x 68m pitch dimension for WC games during the finals? Obviously all the new Qatar stadiums will meet that criteria, did all Russia's stadiums and Brazils' before that?

Everton's new ground would have that benefit over Anfield's 101m long pitch.

I'm assuming the new Everton stadium will have a FIFA full size pitch.


----------



## ElvisBC

zero, if that suits them well ..... see WC2026. :nuts: hno:


----------



## cyril sneer

Gardocki said:


> It'll probably have the modern facilities preferred by FIFA, but Anfield by that stage will have 61,000 versus 52,000 for Bramley Moore. I'd imagine the older parts of Anfield will see some investment and refurbishment also.
> 
> The setting (in summer months) and proposed fan zone would certainly be a big consideration in favour of Everton, but I don't think the transport infrastructure will be considerably better.


I don't think the extra 9k capacity will be hugely significant for Anfield when even 61k is small in comparison to fellow bidding stadias of London, Manchester, Cardiff, Dublin, etc, with capacities ranging from 70-90k. 

Re infrastructure; the Everton stadium will be vastly closer to central public transport links and hotels than Anfield. 

Unless Anfield re-build the other three sides of the ground beforehand then I don't think Anfield will be able to claim the better facilities argument either.


----------



## gambit06

cyril sneer said:


> Gardocki said:
> 
> 
> 
> It'll probably have the modern facilities preferred by FIFA, but Anfield by that stage will have 61,000 versus 52,000 for Bramley Moore. I'd imagine the older parts of Anfield will see some investment and refurbishment also.
> 
> The setting (in summer months) and proposed fan zone would certainly be a big consideration in favour of Everton, but I don't think the transport infrastructure will be considerably better.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the extra 9k capacity will be hugely significant for Anfield when even 61k is small in comparison to fellow bidding stadias of London, Manchester, Cardiff, Dublin, etc, with capacities ranging from 70-90k.
> 
> Re infrastructure; the Everton stadium will be vastly closer to central public transport links and hotels than Anfield.
> 
> Unless Anfield re-build the other three sides of the ground beforehand then I don't think Anfield will be able to claim the better facilities argument either.
Click to expand...

FIFA really only care about the bottom line. Whoever has the better corporate facilities at the time would probably get the games. They're not interested in the typical fan just the ones who pay 3k for a ticket.

I don't think the pitch size would be something to consider given I'm sure they'd allow it but I think the Everton stadiums closeness to city centre hotels for the big wigs would be a big plus.

I don't know the ins and outs though and if Anfield can boast thousands more corporate than Bramley Moore that might give it the edge.


----------



## gambit06

ElvisBC said:


> zero, if that suits them well ..... see WC2026.


That's a good point surely not all the Gridiron stadiums they're gonna use can fit full size pitches on.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Anfield is 101 x 68m. Does 4m matter that much? FIFA has discretion.

60,000 capacity is the minimum for semi-finals. I can't see Anfield being a semi final venue unless at least two further stands are redeveloped rather than the planned one. Everton couldn't be a semi-final venue due to size. Either would be a good Qtr-final option.


----------



## RobH

If it's a GB&Ireland bid I would guess Cardiff would have one semi sewn up. We could be equitable and perhaps have Celtic Park host the other semi, if not I think it's Old Trafford's just on capacity.

That leaves Anfield as a definite for a QF.

Something like:

Q: Anfield Aviva NWHL CP/OT
S: CP/OT Millennium
F: Wembley


----------



## Ioannes_

Spain 2030
España 2030

Somos el futbol.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

RobH said:


> If it's a GB&Ireland bid I would guess Cardiff would have one semi sewn up. We could be equitable and perhaps have Celtic Park host the other semi, if not I think it's Old Trafford's just on capacity.
> 
> That leaves Anfield as a definite for a QF.
> 
> Something like:
> 
> Q: Anfield Aviva NWHL CP/OT
> S: CP/OT Millennium
> F: Wembley


No. Why would England agree that 2 of the 3 biggest matches would be outside England? None of the other nations get a look in at hosting any World Cup finals matches without England. More than 75% of the combined population of the UK and Ireland lives in England. It is talk similar to yours from the FAI that has led to the North making their case for the final - they're just trying to level the playing field so they don't get screwed. It is all been about getting the FA to put its foot down and stop conceding ground that it doesn't need to whilst thinking only about Wembley. 

Wembley would be used for at least a Qtr final as well as the Final. Possibly a Semi also. The Millenium in Cardiff is the only ground outside England that would get a look in for a Semi but I remember the fuss about hotels and transport when they hosted the Champions League final. You can also bet that England's route to the final (not that they will get that far) would stay in England whether they finished 1st or 2nd in their group - that actually requires both semis to be in England.


----------



## Axelferis

Old trafford doesn't meet all the way FIFA new criterias (evolving each 4 years ^^ )
The minimum space between seats doesn't fullfill the FIFA standards.
It's impossible to organize a FIFA world cup with stadiums just only with adding a new tribune.
You have to reorganize all the stadium for that.


----------



## Ioannes_

Axelferis said:


> Old trafford doesn't meet all the way FIFA new criterias (evolving each 4 years ^^ )
> The minimum space between seats doesn't fullfill the FIFA standards.
> It's impossible to organize a FIFA world cup with stadiums just only with adding a new tribune.
> You have to reorganize all the stadium for that.



Reading the comments on the candidacy of England is like seeing the first ministers of Queen Eliasabeth in "The Crown" (Netflix) talking about the Empire, when in truth they are like *Old Trafford*. The whole thread is taken for granted that they will be the headquarters, and the most terrible of all, is that it is true. FIFA does not lift its head after Qatar.


----------



## RobH

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> It is talk similar to yours from the FAI that has led to the North making their case for the final - they're just trying to level the playing field so they don't get screwed.


This stuff from northern Mayors has come straight off the back of this story in the Times from New Year's Day - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...on-for-a-manchester-world-cup-final-0ppg7bd28. I don't think it's a reaction to anything the FAI have said.

In any case, if we're doing a GB&Ireland bid because of FIFA's current love for joint bids (I think an England 2030 bid would be much simpler but we are where we are), I feel like giving each nation something from the QF stage onwards would be good _if possible_ rather than paying lip service to the idea of a multi-nation tournament.



OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> More than 75% of the combined population of the UK and Ireland lives in England.


So, from the QF onwards:

Ireland/NI: 1/8 matches
Scotland: 1/8
Wales: 1/8
England: 5/8 inc the final

Not unreasonable given our relative strengths.

TBH, I'm fairly easy on who hosts what as long as we don't go putting forward completely unsuitable stadiums for "symbolic" reasons. I'm not wedded to the suggestion I just made, and I can see what you're saying too. In any case, the final decision won't be made during the bidding stage, for now we just need to put forward a good selection of stadium's for FIFA to work from.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

I think the Northern comments, initiated by ministers then mayors, does stem from a thought that they were being sidelined. I could be wrong, of course. Those politicians may or may not have read the articles about Dublin hosting lots of matches. It could even have been orchestrated by the FA to stir it up a bit so they can go back to the FAI and say that number of matches will not fly.

I think it would be daft to give too many matches to the other nations. The USA didn't agree to give Mexico anything important and Mexico is much closer to being able to host on its own than anywhere other than England in the UK and Ireland.

Edit: of course we do have to win so compromises have to be made, it is just rather obvious where the strength lies in the bid.

Also you need to propose 72 training centres plus 2 for referees.


----------



## 3tmk

Reading the last few pages, I don't know what I find more ridiculous: the concept of organizing a World Cup in the Balkans in 10 years, or the claim that an overgrown provincial town like Manchester should host the WC final over London or that Old Trafford has more appeal than the historic Wembley.


----------



## cyril sneer

I'd like to see Cardiff get the opening game. Final in Wembley, and semi-finals at Dublin/Edinburgh/Glasgow, and Manchester. I suppose have the 3rd place play-off at the nominated 2nd London stadium whatever venue that'll be.


----------



## Rokto14

cyril sneer said:


> I'd like to see Cardiff get the opening game. Final in Wembley, and semi-finals at Dublin/Edinburgh/Glasgow, and Manchester. I suppose have the 3rd place play-off at the nominated 2nd London stadium whatever venue that'll be.


I don't think after quarter-finals, there will be any matches outside England. So semi-finals,3rd/4th place match, and finals will be in England. Prior to that, all the matches can be spread among other GB nations.


----------



## Ioannes_

Mariano Rajoy, -ex-President of the Government of Spain, sounds like President of the Real Spanish Football Federation. This could be an advantage for the presentation of our Candidacy.

Spain is the most welcoming country for the event, tourist and 100% football. Win another country would be corruption, purchase or mamoneo.


----------



## ElvisBC

Ioannes_ said:


> .............Spain is the most welcoming country for the event, tourist and 100% football. Win another country would be corruption, purchase or mamoneo.


you sound to me just like those morrocan guys prior to WC2026 allocation 



2030 World Cup is going to China, if allowed to bid. otherwise its coming home!


----------



## Knitemplar

ElvisBC said:


> you sound to me just like those morrocan guys prior to WC2026 allocation
> 
> 
> 
> 2030 World Cup is going to China, if allowed to bid. otherwise its coming home!


Indeed, 2030 is coming home to Argentina-Uruguay-Paraguay for its centennary!


----------



## Ioannes_

ElvisBC said:


> you sound to me just like those morrocan guys prior to WC2026 allocation
> 
> 
> 
> 2030 World Cup is going to China, if allowed to bid. otherwise its coming home!



Yes, and it is a pity that countries like Argentina or Uruguay, cannot host, because the FOOTBALL is prostituted, by an FIFA that is sold to the highest bidder, as well as the Olympic Games were sold after Barcelona.


----------



## pesto

Ioannes_ said:


> Yes, and it is a pity that countries like Argentina or Uruguay, cannot host, because the FOOTBALL is prostituted, by an FIFA that is sold to the highest bidder, as well as the Olympic Games were sold after Barcelona.


Argentina and Uruguay are very likely to bid and will have good support. Likewise for the UK. China is always a desirable bidder since it is far larger than the EU and Latin America combined, growing rapidly and has many uncommitted sports fans.

FIFA has limited time and resources and should deploy them where they will do the most to help the growth of soccer. (Of course, I am assuming that corruption has been effectively neutralized at least for now.)

As for the Olympics, the only 2 bidders who had a serious chance of avoiding funding, social, "white elephant" and other issues were Paris and LA. And they won. Boston, SF, Rome, Toronto, Hamburg and the many others that considered bids withdrew or didn't bid. The IOC seems to be doing an excellent job of developing new regions of the world which are eager to obtain the skills needed to host successfully.


----------



## GunnerJacket

*Mod Note: *Let's not repeat mistakes from past WC threads. 

Any purely sociopolitical commentary about specific nations or general allegations about FIFA belong on other threads. This thread is solely about venues and hosting logistics. Posts straying from that theme will be deleted.


----------



## ElvisBC

bidding is to start in 2022 and host selection will be in summer 2024, so not much is going to happen before 2022, therefore not much to write about either ..... but a little bit of FIFA bashing is always welcome, especially when someones so blind to stand in their defense :colgate:


----------



## slipperydog

*FIFA open to hosting 2030 World Cup across two continents in blow to England bid hopes*



> England's bid to stage the 2030 men's World Cup could be complicated by FIFA's willingness to listen to the radical idea of hosting what would be their centennial tournament across two continents.
> 
> FIFA president Gianni Infantino has said that he is ready to shake up football’s competition structures and outlined a priority of growing football globally so that more countries could win the men's World Cup.
> 
> Asked whether the 2026 tournament in the United States and Mexico could even be followed up in 2030 with bigger distances across two continents, he said: “I respect the will of the people. If the will of the people will be to change, to be more open, be more inclusive of different parts of the world at the same time maybe we should do it. We still have time. The decision for 2030 will be taken in 2024. For me, as FIFA president, the more bidders we have the happier I am.”


FULL STORY: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...ng-2030-world-cup-across-two-continents-blow/


----------



## Vizemeister

Never underestimate Infantino's greed.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Two continents, what does that even mean in FIFA speak? I suspect it means FIFA continental associations. Afterall Russia straddles Europe and Asia but is in UEFA. Turkey is mostly in Asia but is in UEFA. Egypt is a member of CAF but its landmass is in Africa and Asia.

In FIFA language New Zealand is in Oceania but Australia is in Asia. Infantino may only be allowing them to bid together. That makes sense. There was also speculation about an Iberian and Moroccan bid. They're adjacent. It is more compact than many other World Cups so not a problem on that basis.

He surely doesn't mean something daft like Argentina and Spain.


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Two continents, what does that even mean in FIFA speak? I suspect it means FIFA continental associations. Afterall Russia straddles Europe and Asia but is in UEFA. Turkey is mostly in Asia but is in UEFA. Egypt is a member of CAF but its landmass is in Africa and Asia.
> 
> In FIFA language New Zealand is in Oceania but Australia is in Asia. Infantino may only be allowing them to bid together. That makes sense. There was also speculation about an Iberian and Moroccan bid. They're adjacent. It is more compact than many other World Cups so not a problem on that basis.
> 
> He surely doesn't mean something daft like Argentina and Spain.


Giving the comment even a bit of context it probably means: if a bid meets the FIFA goals of encouraging the spread of interest and professionalism in soccer by opening new markets and encouraging smaller nations to cooperate in joint bids, the inclusion of bidders from different continents or regional associations won't be an impediment.


----------



## Zhoujiamingchina

Resolutely support Morocco’s bid to host the 2030 World Cup!


----------



## ElvisBC

not even 1% chance


----------



## Rokto14

ElvisBC said:


> not even 1% chance


Yes, Morocco won't even win the bid unless they come up with a combined bid of Algeria and Tunisia.


----------



## Kepa_Jametxo

Firstly, Morocco was proposed by Spain's president to host the World Cup with Portugal and Spain, but UEFA's president Ceferin said that the candidatures had to be proposed by the federation's president, not by politics. Finally, Spain and Portugal decided to try to host the World Cup only between them.


----------



## Xhaka

Portugal-Spain would be a great evening with newly reconstructed Camp Nou and Bernabeu plus Nou Mestalla ,Wanda metropolitano and others but my greatest desire to see Bulgaria-Greece-Serbia-Romania bid


----------



## ElvisBC

Rokto14 said:


> Yes, Morocco won't even win the bid unless they come up with a combined bid of Algeria and Tunisia.


their only chance was to bribe enough ExCo members, they haven‘t or they couldn‘t! now with decission in hands of FIFA congress they will have to wait. who knows, FIFA might introduce rotational principle once again, but that aint gonna happen soon, at least not as long as infantino reigns


----------



## alserrod

Kepa_Jametxo said:


> Firstly, Morocco was proposed by Spain's president to host the World Cup with Portugal and Spain, but UEFA's president Ceferin said that the candidatures had to be proposed by the federation's president, not by politics. Finally, Spain and Portugal decided to try to host the World Cup only between them.



And Federation president is chosen by minister... and minister is chosen by president


----------



## CorazónTricolor

Como sabemos, la votación para la organización de la Copa del Mundo será en 2022 o 2024, y las candidaturas que se oficializaron ya comenzaron a presentar proyectos y a postular sedes. Tenemos candidaturas oficiales de:

Uruguay-Argentina-Paraguay-Chile
España-Portugal
Marruecos
Reino Unido (Inglaterra-Gales-Escocia-Irlanda del Norte)
Bulgaria-Serbia-Grecia-Rumania
China-Corea del Sur-Corea del Norte-Japón
Otras posibles candidaturas son:

Ecuador-Colombia-Perú
Marruecos-Argelia-Túnez

***
So as we know Voting for the World Cup HOST will be in 2022 or 2024 and we have some official bids from

Uruguay-Argentina-Paraguay-Chile
Spain-Portugal
Morocco
United Kingdom (England-Scotland-Wales-Northern Ireland)
Bulgaria-Serbia-Greece-Romania
China-South Korea-North Korea-Japan
other possible bids:

A joint Colombia, Ecuador and Peru bid
A joint Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia bid


----------



## CorazónTricolor

Creo que esta es la candidatura más difundida, pero está medio lejos en cuanto a infraestructura, ojalá puedan concretar el sueño mundialista


----------



## CorazónTricolor

El futuro estadio del Guangzhou Evergrande, con capacidad para 100 mil espectadores y un costo estimado de unos 1.700 millones de dólares, sería la final del Mundial si China lo organiza. No hay ninguna candidatura que pueda competir contra semejante inversión, y las imágenes que hay por dentro son alucinantes...


















China muestra su sed de Mundial con flamantes nuevos estadios


El gigante asiático ha invertido miles de millones de euros en construir recintos con la ambición de convertirse en una superpotencia del fútbol y de albergar la Copa de




www.elnortedecastilla.es


----------



## ManyaQuerido

CorazónTricolor said:


> El futuro estadio del Guangzhou Evergrande, con capacidad para 100 mil espectadores y un costo estimado de unos 1.700 millones de dólares, sería la final del Mundial si China lo organiza. No hay ninguna candidatura que pueda competir contra semejante inversión, y las imágenes que hay por dentro son alucinantes...
> 
> View attachment 281118
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China muestra su sed de Mundial con flamantes nuevos estadios
> 
> 
> El gigante asiático ha invertido miles de millones de euros en construir recintos con la ambición de convertirse en una superpotencia del fútbol y de albergar la Copa de
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.elnortedecastilla.es


El Guangzhou Evergrande de la candidatura sudamericana, y solo para 33.000 personas (más exclusivo). Lo presentan como posible sede pero qué más da si piden estadios de 40.000 y lo hacemos de 33 y con techo para no poderlo ampliar más


----------



## GunnerJacket

*Mod Note: *Las publicaciones en este hilo deben estar en inglés, por favor. Gracias.

English in this thread, please.


----------



## ManyaQuerido

GunnerJacket said:


> *Mod Note: *Las publicaciones en este hilo deben estar en inglés, por favor. Gracias.
> 
> English in this thread, please.


For??


----------



## GunnerJacket

Threads in the general sections are expected to be in English, as this is primarily an English-speaking web site. Threads within the national sections are free to use their native languages.


----------



## ManyaQuerido

Ok, I will try it

Uruguay-Argentina-Paraguay-Chile possible stadiums (source es.wikipedia)


----------



## CorazónTricolor

In the past, for 2022 WC or 2026 WC I didn't see China being interested yet. China is still very communistic in their approach to sports. That meaning they only like to hold the event as a show of power to their people, a chance to make them proud of their country and to keep them in line. China can't even qualify for a WC in a pretty weak Asia confederation that is currently being poor like OFC. And also China don't have tradition in football.

But the China bid for 2030 edition is much bigger than other ones, and the Guangzhou Evergrande stadium is perfect for a World Cup final.


----------



## CorazónTricolor

We could translate this thread for a spanish category? Someone like "Latin American & Caribbean Forums", but without losing this one?


----------



## CorazónTricolor

So as we know voting for the World Cup host will be in 2022 or 2024 and we have some official bids from

Uruguay-Argentina-Paraguay-Chile
Spain-Portugal
Morocco
United Kingdom (England-Scotland-Wales-Northern Ireland)
Bulgaria-Serbia-Greece-Romania
China-South Korea-North Korea-Japan

an others possible bids like:

A joint Colombia, Ecuador and Peru bid
A joint Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia bid

But in my opinion, FIFA wants to move the WC to China and have lots of $$$


----------



## CorazónTricolor

ManyaQuerido said:


> Ok, I will try it
> 
> Uruguay-Argentina-Paraguay-Chile possible stadiums (source es.wikipedia)
> 
> View attachment 281837
> 
> View attachment 281843


Puedes postear en este foro "2030 FIFA WC - Potential bids"


----------



## CorazónTricolor

Xhaka said:


> Portugal-Spain would be a great evening with newly reconstructed Camp Nou and Bernabeu plus Nou Mestalla ,Wanda metropolitano and others but my greatest desire to see Bulgaria-Greece-Serbia-Romania bid


Spain has three stadiums almost ready to WC (New Camp Nou, New Bernabeu and Wanda Metropolitano)


----------



## CorazónTricolor

But really the future Guangzhou Evergrande stadium, with a capacity for 100.000 spectators and an estimated cost of $ 1.7 billion, would be the perfect place for a WC final if China organizes it.

There is no other bid that can compete against that...


----------



## cyril sneer

Surely China would be best off bidding as a sole host. A China/North Korea/South Korea/Japan bid just looks ridiculous on paper politically.


----------



## CorazónTricolor

George_D said:


> 2022 in Asia, 2026 in N.America. 2030 must be in Europe


Really??


1990: Italy *(EUROPE)*
1994: United States *(NORTH AMERICA)*
1998: France *(EUROPE)*
2002: Japan/Korea *(ASIA)*
2006: Germany *(EUROPE)*
2010: South Africa *(AFRICA)*
2014: Brazil *(SOUTH AMERICA)*
2018: Russia *(EUROPE/ASIA)*
2022: Qatar: *(ASIA)*
2026: United States/Canada/Mexico *(NORTH AMERICA)*
2030: *ASIA OR EUROPE AGAIN??*


----------



## GunnerJacket

*Mod Note: *OK, threads are merged now. Sorry I missed that a new one has been created.

If the folks in one of Latin American forums want to make one there in Spanish they're free to do so.


----------



## alserrod

CorazónTricolor said:


> Spain has three stadiums almost ready to WC (New Camp Nou, New Bernabeu and Wanda Metropolitano)



The fact is people in Spain is bored about biding.
Madrid bided several times for Olympics and last time it was awful!!!

Regarding stadiums, if FIFA requires several 60K stadiums, Spain can be lack of it.

Nowadays (with some exemptions), stadiums are focused to make it greater in confort but with the same number of seats.

Just have a look to current S.Bernabeu works or Nou Camp project. Do they seem cool?. They will have the same number of seats.

Other 50-60K stadiums... same point of view.

Nevertheless, in 1982 my homecity hosted 3 matches and barely had 25.000 or just 15.000 people after a huge price decrease



Hint, regarding languages, posts should be here in English. I, obviously, understand your post but... even with a Google translation, they must be in English


----------



## Vizemeister

alserrod, you certainly can't compare 1982 attendance figures with a potential Spanish WC in the near future. I don't see the hype for tickets dying out soon, pandemic aside. For example in 2006 72000 people attended the Ukraine-Tunisia game in Berlin, one of the worst matches of the tournament. The World Cup, much more than the Olympics, has transformed into THE sports event to attend in your lifetime, and with the expansion to 48 teams, people from 16 more countries will take the chance to support their team, likely for the first time, at it. I'm sure Spain would be fine capacity-wise with the current and future projects(btw Nou Camp gets expanded to 105000).


----------



## ManyaQuerido

CorazónTricolor said:


> Really??
> 
> 
> 1990: Italy *(EUROPE)*
> 1994: United States *(NORTH AMERICA)*
> 1998: France *(EUROPE)*
> 2002: Japan/Korea *(ASIA)*
> 2006: Germany *(EUROPE)*
> 2010: South Africa *(AFRICA)*
> 2014: Brazil *(SOUTH AMERICA)*
> 2018: Russia *(EUROPE/ASIA)*
> 2022: Qatar: *(ASIA)*
> 2026: United States/Canada/Mexico *(NORTH AMERICA)*
> 2030: *ASIA OR EUROPE AGAIN??*


I think South America doesn´t matter because we don´t have much money, political power or... maybe is that Conmebol isn´t so corrupt like UEFA, AFC or FIFA. Also our stadiums are much smaller and less confortable like others in the "First World".

In the other hand, a World Cup in South America could be more "picturesque" and traditional.


----------



## alserrod

Got it.
I'm pretty sure attendance will be higher than in 1982 but I just focused in the point of...

may a minimal of 50-60K stadiums is required, Spain is out
may FIFA wants modern stadiums (with confort instead of capacity), Spain is in

Nou Camp will be enlarged but... less than 10%.
Only Wanda (new stadium) and San Mames have been really enlarged according to last one.

the rest of main stadiums, in last refurbishments, have been focused in confort, not in so amazing, not in so many seats but just in confort (and be sure S.Bernabeu works aren't for free despite they will have the same attendance!!!).

Hence, the clue. Is it so important to have several +60K or is it enough with some +80K, some +60K and the rest must be cool and with a high confort?


----------



## ManyaQuerido

Sorry for interrupt the conversation about the Nou Camp, Wanda and San Mamés stadiums, but sometimes money is not the most important thing.

For example, in Formula E, _Punta del Este ePrix_ was chosen by drivers like the second best circuit in Formula E history, above others of the "First World" like Monaco, Paris, Berlin or London.

Talking about football, if you add history and sport tradition, the result could be even better.

Everithing seems like only potential bids are Spain, United Kingdom and maybe China...









Punta del Este fue elegido segundo mejor circuito de la Fórmula eléctrica


Con los votos de una decena de pilotos de la categoría, nuestro principal balneario superó a otras importantes ciudades como Mónaco o París




www.airbag.uy


----------



## Pat Mustard

I'm pretty certain 


alserrod said:


> Got it.
> I'm pretty sure attendance will be higher than in 1982 but I just focused in the point of...
> 
> may a minimal of 50-60K stadiums is required, Spain is out
> may FIFA wants modern stadiums (with confort instead of capacity), Spain is in
> 
> Nou Camp will be enlarged but... less than 10%.
> Only Wanda (new stadium) and San Mames have been really enlarged according to last one.
> 
> the rest of main stadiums, in last refurbishments, have been focused in confort, not in so amazing, not in so many seats but just in confort (and be sure S.Bernabeu works aren't for free despite they will have the same attendance!!!).
> 
> Hence, the clue. Is it so important to have several +60K or is it enough with some +80K, some +60K and the rest must be cool and with a high confort?


I'm pretty certain that the minimum capacity will remain at around 40K (although some were lower than that in Russia), with a requirement of 60k+ for the opening game, semi-finals and final, so the actual requirement for 60K+ stadia is probably only 2 or 3. It is probably geographical spread that is more important, hence in a UK bid there would only be 2 stadiums in London, even though there are already 5 that exceed the 60K capacity.

It will all depend upon what FIFA decide is important come the bid time (including the global economic climate post-Covid) and the transparency of the process, but at the moment my best guess is that it will come down to a straight choice between England/UK and China. A UK bid offers a relatively straightforward, low cost bid with plenty of high capacity stadia already in operation (especially so if it includes Scotland and Wales), whereas China will no doubt be able to offer brand new, expensive arena's in an expanding market that FIFA will want to develop.


----------



## ElvisBC

ManyaQuerido said:


> I think South America doesn´t matter because we don´t have much money, political power or... maybe is that *Conmebol isn´t so corrupt like UEFA, AFC or FIFA*. Also our stadiums are much smaller and less confortable like others in the "First World".
> 
> In the other hand, a World Cup in South America could be more "picturesque" and traditional.


one of the best jokes ever posted on these boards 😁


----------



## miguelon

Cannot wait for a England or UK World Cup, 

If FIFA plays it smart (already a long shot), they have a proven capable country with most of the needed infrastructure already in place or relatively easily upgraded. 
Its time zone, can maximize TV audiences around the world. Also, because of its location, air accessibility, and recent migration, you can have a lot of teams playing in front of "home crowds" and that is a huge boost to sell the game around the world, and make it an even more aspirational event for future hosts/participants.


----------



## ElvisBC

absolutely, and it could easily become one of the best world cups ever (just think about london olympics), but there is a “small“ problem, china world cup would guarantee at least one third more for FIFA in $£¥€ , and we all know how infantino ticks


----------



## miguelon

ElvisBC said:


> absolutely, and it could easily become one of the best world cups ever (just think about london olympics), but there is a “small“ problem, china world cup would guarantee at least one third more for FIFA in $£¥€ , and we all know how infantino ticks


Actually, a UK World Cup could become highly lucrative for FIFA, probably the only host with higher potential income is the USA.

Maybe you are referring to the "other income" that FIFA loves so much, the unofficial one.


----------



## pesto

miguelon said:


> Actually, a UK World Cup could become highly lucrative for FIFA, probably the only host with higher potential income is the USA.
> 
> Maybe you are referring to the "other income" that FIFA loves so much, the unofficial one.


Selling out stadiums for the WC is easy wherever you go. Your mid-level ops people just need to make a check list and make sure the stadiums, hotels, buses, etc., are supplied.

The top people and serious money go into attracting new fans and maximizing broadcast viewership, both current and long term. A smart pitch to FIFA is to show how much your bid can do to attract your target audiences and provide a positive image of your product. 

So the pitch is how many eyeballs you can attract in Asia and N. America and how you fit into a long-term strategy. I would talk about at least a 20 year time-frame and how you can drive that process. You don't need to attract the European audience; they will watch even if you play in a mud pit at 5:00 in the morning.

Fortunately, London is a strong brand in much of Asia and N. America and some other UK/Ireland cities have name recognition.. They should do well if they don't find a way to offend people or otherwise implode.


----------



## ElvisBC

miguelon said:


> Actually, a UK World Cup could become highly lucrative for FIFA, probably the only host with higher potential income is the USA.
> 
> Maybe you are referring to the "other income" that FIFA loves so much, the unofficial one.


nope, I was talking about total legal income for FIFA World Cup


----------



## Ranma Saotome

The choice of a World Cup host is a mostly political process. It's needed, for any competitor, to search support among the biggest continental confederations, as UEFA, CAF and AFC. In their last two attemps, England bids' leaders ignored this and got screwed. If they don't learn this lesson, they will lose again.


----------



## ElvisBC

Ranma Saotome said:


> The choice of a World Cup host is a mostly political process. It's needed, for any competitor, to search support among the biggest continental confederations, as UEFA, CAF and AFC. In their last two attemps, England bids' leaders ignored this and got screwed. If they don't learn this lesson, they will lose again.


not really. it is political process as well (best example: “france for qatar“) but FA failed in something else, namely bribing enough ExCo members needed to win. once they lost to beckenbauer and DFB and once to putin/bin hammam/sarkozy conspiration! 

hope they learned something!


----------



## RobH

Ranma Saotome said:


> The choice of a World Cup host is a mostly political process. It's needed, for any competitor, to search support among the biggest continental confederations, as UEFA, CAF and AFC. In their last two attemps, England bids' leaders ignored this and got screwed. If they don't learn this lesson, they will lose again.




FIFA was the most corrupt organisation in world sport. The FA is not squeaky clean but it wasn't willing to go to the depths required to placate FIFA in terms of stuffed brown envelopes. That's really all there is to it. The subsequent FBI invesitgation* which absoutely gutted FIFA's senior personnel and nearly bankrupted the organisation (something which would've been fully deserved) means no country should take any lessons from failed bids under Blatter's regime.

For what it's worth, it looks like the FA is being a little more savvy now e.g. staying firmly in line with UEFA and voting for Columbia for the 2023 Women's World Cup when it was clear we preferred the Aus/NZ bid. But that's a different thing.

* aided in large part by British journalists.


----------



## CorazónTricolor

RobH said:


> FIFA was the most corrupt organisation in world sport. The FA is not squeaky clean but it wasn't willing to go to the depths required to placate FIFA in terms of stuffed brown envelopes. That's really all there is to it. The subsequent FBI invesitgation* which absoutely gutted FIFA's senior personnel and nearly bankrupted the organisation (something which would've been fully deserved) means no country should take any lessons from failed bids under Blatter's regime.
> 
> For what it's worth, it looks like the FA is being a little more savvy now e.g. staying firmly in line with UEFA and voting for Columbia for the 2023 Women's World Cup when it was clear we preferred the Aus/NZ bid. But that's a different thing.
> 
> * aided in large part by British journalists.


anyway the Women's World Cup will be in AUS/NZL


----------



## RobH

Indeed.


----------



## Rokto14

I know the 2030 FIFA WC is a decade away but I am wondering if the pandemic currently will have an effect on bidding countries especially the CONMEBOL countries. I think European/UEFA countries will take a shorter time to recover economically as their number of cases has gone down and they have started to open up their borders for trade. On the other hand, the situation in most of the CONMEBOL/South American countries is really bad and it will take a very long time for them to recover compared to their UEFA counterparts. What do y'all think about this?


----------



## pesto

Rokto14 said:


> I know the 2030 FIFA WC is a decade away but I am wondering if the pandemic currently will have an effect on bidding countries especially the CONMEBOL countries. I think European/UEFA countries will take a shorter time to recover economically as their number of cases has gone down and they have started to open up their borders for trade. On the other hand, the situation in most of the CONMEBOL/South American countries is really bad and it will take a very long time for them to recover compared to their UEFA counterparts. What do y'all think about this?


As you say, 10 years is a long time. Things could be very different.

In any event, it could work just the opposite. There will be pressure to bring new investment to the 3rd world after centuries of neglect and exploitation. The IOC and FIFA, among others, may want to take the high ground and give some priority to helping emerging economies.


----------



## ElvisBC

well, with Infantino now under criminal investigation in switzerland anything seems possible


----------



## Rokto14

ElvisBC said:


> well, with Infantino now under criminal investigation in switzerland anything seems possible


Oh wow! What did he do?


----------



## ElvisBC

had secret meetings with swiss federal attorney, for whatever reasons. that guy resigned already.

he is now is accused of trying to induce federal attorney to compromise criminal investigations and whatever comes on the top in order to gain an advantage for FIFA and presumed himself as well


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> had secret meetings with swiss federal attorney, for whatever reasons. that guy resigned already.
> 
> he is now is accused of trying to induce federal attorney to compromise criminal investigations and whatever comes on the top in order to gain an advantage for FIFA and presumed himself as well


Not that I care either way, but isn't that what every executive and every legal defense council does? I guess it was never reported to the federal attorney's boss, but that can't be Infantino's issue.


----------



## Xhaka

For Greece-Romania-Bulgaria-Serbia would be an enormous bid as there are only 4 stadiums above 50k for each country so there is a possibility to host the WC, the venues are good
The Olympic Stadium from Athens 68k could meet the requirement for 80k if rebuild and other countries also Bucharest 55k Sofia 50k and Belgrade 60k and plus 4 or 8 stadiums above 30k its a good chance to promote for each country.!


----------



## Pinkerton89

I think 2030 is actually looking like the best chance England and the UK have had to host since 1966.

It is highly unlikely a CONMEBOL nation will be able to meet the criteria for the 48 team version of the World Cup, even split across 4 nations and the plans for the Argentina / Uruguay / Paraguay / Chile look like a bit of a mess.

UEFA seem keen for a British Isles bid and may choose to support it over the others being discussed if they deem it to have a better chance of success.

China (for now) are exempt from bidding because of the rotational rules and with the political situation between China and the rest of the world souring it might not present the opportunity for corruption bucks quite like it did before.....

Personally I am sad enough to type up fake scenarios for this kind of thing and can see something like;

England 
1 London - Wembley Stadium - 90,000
2 London - Tottenham Hotspur Stadium - 62,000
3 Manchester - Old Trafford - 74,000
4 Manchester - Etihad Stadium - 54,000
5 Liverpool - Anfield - 54,000
6 Newcastle - St James Park - 52,000
7 Birmingham - Villa Park - 42,000
8 Leicester - King Power Stadium - 42,000 (Planned)
9 Leeds - Elland Road - 40,000 (Would need a spruce up to put it mildly)
10 Southampton - St Marys Stadium - 40,000 (Wishful thinking on my part)

Scotland 
11 Glasgow - Hampden Park - 51,000
12 Edinburgh - Murrayfield - 67,000

Wales
13 Cardiff - Principality Stadium - 74,000
14 Swansea - Liberty Stadium - ??? (This would need work)

Republic of Ireland
15 Dublin - Aviva Stadium - 51,000
16 Cork - Pairc Ui Chaoimh - 45,000 (Would probably need a fair bit of work)

Anyway, I could see something like that being a go-er and more politically palatable to FIFA.


----------



## Rokto14

I am still wondering which bid will UEFA choose as they will have 3 bids on the table, namely, the British Isles bid, the Iberian bid and the Greece-Balkan bid.

As a complete outsider, I would have difficulty choosing between the British Isles bid and the Iberian bid as I feel that these 2 bids have stadiums that can be easily passed for FIFA's standards especially, capacity wise.

The Greece-Balkan bid has most of the stadiums that need to be renovated or reconstructed which will definitely cost a lot of money. The stadiums can be renovated in the next few years so that this bid can have a go in the future WC bids. Moreover, this bid can be feasible for a Euro bid in the future surely like for 2032 or something.


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> Not that I care either way, but isn't that what every executive and every legal defense council does? I guess it was never reported to the federal attorney's boss, but that can't be Infantino's issue.


not that I am familiar with swiss law, but they wouldn‘t have put him under investigation if there was no legal base for that. and I guess that state attorney is in much worse position. whatever, they are both swiss citizens ... internal matters


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> not that I am familiar with swiss law, but they wouldn‘t have put him under investigation if there was no legal base for that. and I guess that state attorney is in much worse position. whatever, they are both swiss citizens ... internal matters


I prefer to think that it's like Wolf of Wall St. and he's been taping money to his body as he goes through customs. lol.


----------



## Kepa_Jametxo

The stadiums in the Iberian candidate could be these:

Spain
1 Madrid - Santiago Bernabeu - 80,000
2 Madrid - Wanda Metropolitano - 67,000
3 Barcelona - Camp Nou - 105,000 *
4 Barcelona - RCDE Stadium - 40,500
5 Valencia - Mestalla - 55,000 *
6 Sevilla - Benito Villamarín - 60,000 *
7 Sevilla - Ramón Sánchez Pizjuán **
8 Bilbao - San Mamés - 53,000
9 San Sebastián - Reale Arena - 39,500 (With small scaffolds it could reach 40,000)
10 Zaragoza - La Romareda - 45,000 *
11 A Coruña - Riazor **
12 Gijón - El Molinón **
13 Valladolid - José Zorrilla **

Portugal
14 Lisbon - Da Luz - 66,500
15 Lisbon - José Alvalade - 50,100
16 Porto - Do Dragao - 50,000

* Proposed
** Not proposed


----------



## aidan88

Kepa_Jametxo said:


> The stadiums in the Iberian candidate could be these:
> 
> Spain
> 1 Madrid - Santiago Bernabeu - 80,000
> 2 Madrid - Wanda Metropolitano - 67,000
> 3 Barcelona - Camp Nou - 105,000 *
> 4 Barcelona - RCDE Stadium - 40,500
> 5 Valencia - Mestalla - 55,000 *
> 6 Sevilla - Benito Villamarín - 60,000 *
> 7 Sevilla - Ramón Sánchez Pizjuán **
> 8 Bilbao - San Mamés - 53,000
> 9 San Sebastián - Reale Arena - 39,500 (With small scaffolds it could reach 40,000)
> 10 Zaragoza - La Romareda - 45,000 *
> 11 A Coruña - Riazor **
> 12 Gijón - El Molinón **
> 13 Valladolid - José Zorrilla **
> 
> Portugal
> 14 Lisbon - Da Luz - 66,500
> 15 Lisbon - José Alvalade - 50,100
> 16 Porto - Do Dragao - 50,000
> 
> * Proposed
> ** Not proposed


I would imagine there would be more grounds in Portugal, even if expansions are only temporary - Faro, Guimaraes, Braga.

Espanyol would miss out I think, and maybe one of the grounds from Seville too, but the other top 9 would be fairly straightforward choices I think.

Expansion would be required but I'd have though Malaga and either Elche/Hercules would be included due to the transport links and availability of accommodation.


----------



## Leedsrule

aidan88 said:


> I would imagine there would be more grounds in Portugal, even if expansions are only temporary - Faro, Guimaraes, Braga.


I can't find any stadiums in Portugal that look capable of being expanded to 40k temporarily. Estádio Algarve is probably the only one that could, with some massive temporary stands at each end. It doesn't look like adding a temporary stand in Braga looks possible - certainly not without losing a lot of trees. It also doesn't look like any club in Portugal could use a bigger stadium.


----------



## ElvisBC

braga has one side wide open, and the other side begs for seats chiseled in stone 😁


----------



## aidan88

Leedsrule said:


> I can't find any stadiums in Portugal that look capable of being expanded to 40k temporarily. Estádio Algarve is probably the only one that could, with some massive temporary stands at each end. It doesn't look like adding a temporary stand in Braga looks possible - certainly not without losing a lot of trees. It also doesn't look like any club in Portugal could use a bigger stadium.


There is certainly no need to increase capactiy at those venues, but I dont think either Portugal or Spain would be happy for it to be a "Portugal and Spain" World Cup if they are only hosting 3 out of 16 venues, and only 2 cities.

I think Spain could host it on its own in truth, and if Portugal want to get involved they would need to contribute a bit more


----------



## Kepa_Jametxo

aidan88 said:


> I would imagine there would be more grounds in Portugal, even if expansions are only temporary - Faro, Guimaraes, Braga.
> 
> Espanyol would miss out I think, and maybe one of the grounds from Seville too, but the other top 9 would be fairly straightforward choices I think.
> 
> Expansion would be required but I'd have though Malaga and either Elche/Hercules would be included due to the transport links and availability of accommodation.





aidan88 said:


> There is certainly no need to increase capactiy at those venues, but I dont think either Portugal or Spain would be happy for it to be a "Portugal and Spain" World Cup if they are only hosting 3 out of 16 venues, and only 2 cities.
> 
> I think Spain could host it on its own in truth, and if Portugal want to get involved they would need to contribute a bit more


I think that in Portugal the only stadium which could have temporary stands is Estadio Algarve. Portugal is a small country, so the unique chances to host the World Cup is helping to Spain.

In Spain, it depends a lot in the situations of the clubs. Nowadays, Málaga and Elche are in La Liga SmartBank (2nd division), and Hércules in Segunda B (3rd division), so I think that Málaga, Elche and Alicante will have few options to host the World Cup.


----------



## aidan88

Kepa_Jametxo said:


> I think that in Portugal the only stadium which could have temporary stands is Estadio Algarve. Portugal is a small country, so the unique chances to host the World Cup is helping to Spain.
> 
> In Spain, it depends a lot in the situations of the clubs. Nowadays, Málaga and Elche are in La Liga SmartBank (2nd division), and Hércules in Segunda B (3rd division), so I think that Málaga, Elche and Alicante will have few options to host the World Cup.


10 years is a long time in football - Mallorca went from Segunda B to primera in two seasons. Malaga were in a Champions League semi final 7 years ago. Elche could yet be promoted to La Liga this season.

I just feel that the Alicante/Elche area, and Malaga would get priority over the likes of Valladollid, Gijon, or Zaragoza, as they are already set up to cater for a large number of tourists.


----------



## alserrod

In addition, in 1982, Spanish champion was Real Sociedad and its stadium wasn't considered for WC (and it wasn't often to have a WC with 17 stadiums....)


----------



## Kepa_Jametxo

alserrod said:


> In addition, in 1982, Spanish champion was Real Sociedad and its stadium wasn't considered for WC (and it wasn't often to have a WC with 17 stadiums....)


Real Sociedad tried to build a new stadium, because Atotxa had capacity only for 18.000 people. But nowadays San Sebastian could host the World Cup with the Reale Arena.

The stadiums in the 1982 World Cup and their current situation:
*Carlos Tartiere - Oviedo - 20.000 -->* Demolished in the 2000s. The new Carlos Tartiere (different location) capacity is 30.000, no plans to reform.
*El Molinón - Gijón - 25.885 --> *Nowadays its capacity is 30.000, no plans to reform.
*José Zorrilla - Valladolid - 26.512 --> *Nowadays its capacity is 26.800, no plans to reform.
*José Rico Pérez - Alicante - 30.000 -->* Same capacity, no plans to reform.
*Balaídos - Vigo - 31.000 -->* Nowadays its capacity is 29.000, plans to ampliate to 31.000.
*Riazor - La Coruña - 34.617 -->* Reformed in the 90s. Nowadays its capacity is 33.000, no plans to reform.
*Martínez Valero - Elche - 39.000 -->* Nowadays its capacity is 33.800, no plans to reform.
*San Mamés - Bilbao - 40.000 -->* Demolished in 2013. The new San Mamés capacity is 53.000.
*Sarrià - Barcelona - 43.667 -->* Demolished in 1996. The new RCDE Stadium (different location) capacity is 40.500.
*La Romareda - Zaragoza - 45.000 -->* Nowadays its capacity is 33.000, plans to ampliate to 45.000.
*La Rosaleda - Málaga - 45.000 -->* Reformed im 2007. Nowadays its capacity is 30.000, no plans to reform.
*Benito Villamarín - Sevilla - 47.000 -->* Reformed in 2001 and 2017. Nowadays its capacity is 60.000. Plans to reform with the same capacity.
*Luis Casanova (Mestalla) - Valencia - 49.092 -->* Reformed in the 90s. Nowadays its capacity is 52.000, plans to build a new stadium to 55.000, 65.000 or 75.000.
*Vicente Calderón - Madrid - 57.000 --> *Demolished in 2020. Nowadays the new Wanda Metropolitano (different location) capacity is 67.000.
*Ramón Sánchez Pizjuán - Sevilla - 70.500 --> *Nowadays its capacity is 43.000, plans to ampliate to 60.000.
*Santiago Bernabéu - Madrid - 90.800 --> *Reformed in 90s. Nowadays its capacity is 80.000, currently reforming with the same capacity.
*Camp Nou - Barcelona - 110.000 -->* Nowadays its capacity is 99.354, plans to reform to 105.000.


----------



## Rokto14

Spain and Portugal reveal joint bid for the 2030 World Cup

The article states that Morocco is out of the three-nation bid with Spain and Portugal.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Hmm. No reason offered for why they opted not to add Morocco. Not that I thought they needed Morocco, mind you, just curious why the idea first arose but then got shelved.

If we wanted to maximize the variety of hosts over time I'd love to see a Portugal+Morocco bid someday, but that's for another thread/day.


----------



## Rokto14

GunnerJacket said:


> Hmm. No reason offered for why they opted not to add Morocco. Not that I thought they needed Morocco, mind you, just curious why the idea first arose but then got shelved.
> 
> If we wanted to maximize the variety of hosts over time I'd love to see a Portugal+Morocco bid someday, but that's for another thread/day.


There might be quite a few possibilities. Maybe Morocco wanted to increase their chances to host a WC so they went in talks with Spain and Portugal. Or Spain and Portugal might have thought that adding Morocco might give them some edge over at least the Bulgaria-Greece-Romania-Serbia bid? Just some wild guesses I made. I don't know why adding Morocco got shelved. No clue about that.

Now all I can say is if Morocco wants to bid, they should rope in their North African counterparts like Tunisia and Algeria. Bidding alone isn't an option here.


----------



## RobH

GunnerJacket said:


> Hmm. No reason offered for why they opted not to add Morocco.


From a couple of years ago...








UEFA President Čeferin against joint Spain, Portugal, Morocco bid for 2030 World Cup


The race to host the 2030 FIFA World Cup has taken a twist, with UEFA Presiident Aleksander Čeferin revealing he would be against a cross continental...




www.insidethegames.biz


----------



## Gorky

Leedsrule said:


> I can't find any stadiums in Portugal that look capable of being expanded to 40k temporarily. Estádio Algarve is probably the only one that could, with some massive temporary stands at each end. It doesn't look like adding a temporary stand in Braga looks possible - certainly not without losing a lot of trees. It also doesn't look like any club in Portugal could use a bigger stadium.


Leiria or Aveiro stadiums...or Coimbra...or Boavista ...


----------



## pesto

This seemed to be resolved more than a year ago when Morocco was not invited to the talks between Spain and Portugal. I would guess that those countries decided that Morocco joining would create more problems than it solved.


----------



## Rokto14

pesto said:


> This seemed to be resolved more than a year ago when Morocco was not invited to the talks between Spain and Portugal. I would guess that those countries decided that Morocco joining would create more problems than it solved.


Can you list some pros and cons if Morocco was added to the Iberian bid? I am still very clueless about this.


----------



## Kepa_Jametxo

I think that the biggest disadvantage is the transport communication. While Spain and Portugal can be easily communicated by car, bus or train; if you want to go to Morocco you can only go by boat or plane (I mean between Spain, Portugal and Morocco).


----------



## alserrod

I bet in Russia nobody moved by car


----------



## pesto

Rokto14 said:


> Can you list some pros and cons if Morocco was added to the Iberian bid? I am still very clueless about this.


Personally, I would rather not speculate as to what Spanish and Portuguese negotiators were thinking about when deciding not to invite Morocco to discussions. It seems likely to lead to country vs. country discussions and no one would really have any solid evidence to support his views.


----------



## alserrod

Argentina 1978
16 teams, 
5 cities and 6 stadiums. Buenos Aires had 2

Spain 1982
24 teams
14 cities and 17 stadiums. Madrid, Barcelona and Seville had 2. Some stadiums hosted only 2 matches

Mexico 1986
24 teams
Ciudad de Mexico, Guadalajara and Monterrey hac 2 stadiums. In addition, among all the country, most of the cities where closed between them except Monterrey

Italy 1990 USA 1994 France 1998 Korea-Japan 2002 and Germany 2006
(with the exemption of Paris and St. Denis)

As many WC, as many different cases


----------



## pesto

TEBC said:


> I disagree. Football is very strong among Latin people, the ethnicity that rises each year in US. BTW I think the WC will be a cataclysm for US football.
> 
> I have a different POV. I think it also should go to countries where the football has a potetion market to grow like China, India, Canada. WC fans will go wherever it happens.


Of course. That's why every business in the world does. And the old-timers complain about how much better things were when they were young....


----------



## CFCman

TEBC said:


> For me just the MENA Countries and South Africa are able to organize the WC. Nigeria has so many problems. First of all with security and terrorism. It is not feasible at all.


Well, the MENA countries also have problems with terrorism within their borders, so I don't see how they have a real edge over Nigeria in that regard.
Also, many countries with noted security issues such as South Africa in 2010, or Brazil in 2014, hosted largely hitch-free tournaments without a notable incident of robbery or other violent crime during the tournament. So, it is very much feasible, on the aspect of security, for the situation to improve in Nigeria within the next 17 years.


----------



## TEBC

alserrod said:


> Argentina 1978
> 16 teams,
> 5 cities and 6 stadiums. Buenos Aires had 2
> 
> Spain 1982
> 24 teams
> 14 cities and 17 stadiums. Madrid, Barcelona and Seville had 2. Some stadiums hosted only 2 matches
> 
> Mexico 1986
> 24 teams
> Ciudad de Mexico, Guadalajara and Monterrey hac 2 stadiums. In addition, among all the country, most of the cities where closed between them except Monterrey
> 
> Italy 1990 USA 1994 France 1998 *Korea-Japan 2002* and Germany 2006
> (with the exemption of Paris and St. Denis)
> 
> Incheon-Seoul, Kobe and Osaka, Saitama-Yokohama also.
> 
> As many WC, as many different cases





CFCman said:


> Well, the MENA countries also have problems with terrorism within their borders, so I don't see how they have a real edge over Nigeria in that regard.
> Also, many countries with noted security issues such as South Africa in 2010, or Brazil in 2014, hosted largely hitch-free tournaments without a notable incident of robbery or other violent crime during the tournament. So, it is very much feasible, on the aspect of security, for the situation to improve in Nigeria within the next 17 years.


you cant compare violence security issues of SA and Brazil with terrorism. the first is very easy to handle for a one time event. robbery and violent crimes in South Africa and Brazil happened outside the FIFA host city bubble. Image a terrorist attack. And for a terrorist attack an event like that is a huge target. 

Different from Mena countries (except Western Saharaa), Nigeria don't control the whole country and has much less infrastructure.


----------



## Bj16🇳🇬

TEBC said:


> you cant compare violence security issues of SA and Brazil with terrorism. the first is very easy to handle for a one time event. robbery and violent crimes in South Africa and Brazil happened outside the FIFA host city bubble. Image a terrorist attack. And for a terrorist attack an event like that is a huge target.
> 
> Different from Mena countries (except Western Saharaa), Nigeria don't control the whole country and has much less infrastructure.


Who controls the country then? Maybe Spain does that🙄

It's funny and somewhat annoying seeing someone sit somewhere in Spain deciding not just how things are in Nigeria at the moment but how how things will be in 17 years.


----------



## HDI 0.548

Bj16🇳🇬 said:


> Who controls the country then? Maybe Spain does that🙄
> 
> It's funny and somewhat annoying seeing someone sit somewhere in Spain deciding not just how things are in Nigeria at the moment but how how things will be in 17 years.


Cmon dude you know there's a high chance Nigeria will have split by 2030. You guys can't host the world cup. When was the last time you hosted the AFCON? Can you host it on the fly like Egypt, Morocco, etc? Of course not.


----------



## TEBC

Bj16🇳🇬 said:


> Who controls the country then? Maybe Spain does that🙄
> 
> It's funny and somewhat annoying seeing someone sit somewhere in Spain deciding not just how things are in Nigeria at the moment but how how things will be in 17 years.


say that to the family of the girls kidneped by Boko Haram.

Of course I have a biased opinion from what I learn from the media. But You being honest, do you think a city like Lagos Can host a World Cup match? I have a friend who works for Emirates and he said the crew is not allowed to walk around Lagos because is to dangerous and the crew travel in a securities bus.

Abuja can be a little different, since is a more developed city. But a WC cant be hosted by only one city.

Sure Spain also have security issues, and terrorist attack menace, but is much less than Nigeria and is a lot more prepared to avoid it. Do you remembered what happened with Togo national team in Angola CAF? imagine that in a WC.


----------



## ElvisBC

it is hard to be objective for the locals!

just think about all those morrocans who were deeply convinced they were getting 2026 edition. I know quite a few guys of turkish descent and none of them believes turkey not getting euro has something to do with erdogans politics and not with “them not liking us” etc...

sometimes it is patriotism, sometimes blindness, sometimes both


----------



## GunnerJacket

*Mod Note:* Folks, please keep it civil and keep it within the realm of logistics for the proposed event. These threads are not intended for country-vs-country banter or broader politics. If you have a point to make in the latter vein then please do so via private messaging. Thanks.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Nigeria wouldn't be a top candidate for the World Cup not because of security fears but because of the economic reality of the situation.

It's the same reason why Morocco keeps losing out. FIFA earns most of its income in one month every 4 years, making ticketing revenue of the highest importance. As broadcast and commercial revenues wouldn't change much with an African World Cup, it makes ticketing extra important. Every little bit goes a long way.

South Africa was a PR World Cup by FIFA, a token gesture to Africa so FIFA can say they don't ignore Africa. And in the end they chose the one country that has the most amount of people with higher disposable incomes.

Fat chance of Morocco or Nigeria ever being a real possibility. You can only price gouge when the average person can afford to dump hundreds of dollars on a ticket.

FIFA is conservative with its selection of hosts. It traditionally picks the the richest countries because they guarantee high ticketing revenue. The last unorthodox country to host it was Chile in 1962, and that was during a time when the World Cup wasn't nearly as important or prestigious as today.

Qatar may have bought the World Cup through backhanded deals. But FIFA was realistic about the situation. Per capita, Qatar is one of the richest countries on earth.

You'll have locals paying through the nose for tickets because they can, in addition to the influx of international fans coming in. Having seen stadiums going up, I think many people will be surprised at how good the World Cup ends up being in Qatar.

Because FIFA is conservative, it's hard to see anyone other than the UK bid or the Spanish/Portuguese bid getting the nod. None of the other bids make much economic sense from FIFA's point of view.

If they back up North American World Cup with a UK one in 2030, it will be a very prosperous 4 years for FIFA.


----------



## ElvisBC

you’re forgetting china.

aside from that, talking about 2022, noone will ever be able to flag the world cup in qatar as success. no doubt they‘re going to try, but that won’t work. in no universe! it will be financially successful and it might get better than expected for fans, whole world meeting in one city could and should turn out really cool, if locals don’t screw it up with their idiotic laws, but noone will ever be able to label it as a great world cup! never!!!


----------



## Ramanaramana

ElvisBC said:


> you’re forgetting china.
> 
> aside from that, talking about 2022, noone will ever be able to flag the world cup in qatar as success. no doubt they‘re going to try, but that won’t work. in no universe! it will be financially successful and it might get better than expected for fans, whole world meeting in one city could and should turn out really cool, if locals don’t screw it up with their idiotic laws, but noone will ever be able to label it as a great world cup! never!!!


I don't believe FIFA will go three cycles without a World Cup in Europe, but any official bid by China would have to be taken seriously yes.

What I look for in a good World Cup is vibrant, sold out stadiums with not a single empty seat visible, and good football. I think Qatar will deliver good football with it being moved to cooler months, as well as the stadiums all looking like they will ease any fears about heat affecting games and being comfortable for fans. I have more concerns about heat affecting games in 2026 than in Qatar because of the amount of uncovered stadiums being used in the bid and being midsummer. A number of North American stadiums don't even have cover for fans, let alone players.


----------



## Xoussef

ElvisBC said:


> noone will ever be able to label it as a great world cup! never!!!


Because you say so?


----------



## ElvisBC

Xoussef said:


> Because you say so?


common sense says so, not me. qatar is one of last places in the world where world cup belongs. I understand that locals might think different, same with people having personal or national interests there but that's about it. 

we all know most of world cups were "bought" and corruption level in FIFA is immense, but taste of Qatar decission is so bitter that nothing can sweeten it up! whoever thinks different is living on another planet.


----------



## ElvisBC

Ramanaramana said:


> I don't believe FIFA will go three cycles without a World Cup in Europe, but any official bid by China would have to be taken seriously yes.
> 
> *What I look for in a good World Cup is vibrant, sold out stadiums with not a single empty seat visible, and good football.* I think Qatar will deliver good football with it being moved to cooler months, as well as the stadiums all looking like they will ease any fears about heat affecting games and being comfortable for fans. I have more concerns about heat affecting games in 2026 than in Qatar because of the amount of uncovered stadiums being used in the bid and being midsummer. A number of North American stadiums don't even have cover for fans, let alone players.


well, unfortunately we are still waiting for the first one to have it all  germany 2006 came closest, all games but one sold out and absolute extasy no matter where you went, but football in 2006 was simply horrible! 4-5-1 with tactics first ... fottball at its worst!

P.S. Most North American stadiums are quite below World Cup level but better stay quiet, this is american forum, they believe in what they tell them and they told them they have best stadiums in the world 😁


----------



## Ramanaramana

ElvisBC said:


> well, unfortunately we are still waiting for the first one to have it all  germany 2006 came closest, all games but one sold out and absolute extasy no matter where you went, but football in 2006 was simply horrible! 4-5-1 with tactics first ... fottball at its worst!
> 
> P.S. Most North American stadiums are quite below World Cup level but better stay quiet, this is american forum, they believe in what they tell them and they told them they have best stadiums in the world 😁


Yeah 2006 remains unmatched for a World Cup, only bested by Euro 2008. Football tournaments belong in Western Europe. That's why I'm pumped for Germany 2024. Sometimes I wish football was smaller like rugby so that there could be a Six Nations style tournament but on a tournament scale like the Euros every year. 

I don't mind American stadiums, especially with all the new domed stadiums in recent times. LA, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Detroit, New Orleans, San Antonio, Phoenix and Seattle. That's 13 large stadiums right there with cover for fans, and 12 of them are fully roofed. 

Any 10 of those would make for a great tournament. Instead we're likely gonna see some midafternoon games with temperatures of 30 degrees plus. Hopefully they stick as many of those games in LA, Texas, Atlanta or Miami for fans' sake.


----------



## ElvisBC

yes, no doubt it is going to be fine, but americans truly believe their stadiums are better than those in Germany, Brasil or Russia which is insane!

p.s. IMHO 1990 was the best world cup ever, closely followed by 2006. most people agree those two were the best in any particular order! opinions about Euro 2008 are however quite divided, IMHO it was awful


----------



## pesto

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/03/25/world-cup-2026-dc-bid/

DC pushes FedEx and spices it up with fan zones on the Mall and near the Capitol.

With Snyder buying out all Washington FC minority owners, you have to wonder what he has in mind, A new stadium or a sale of 100 percent to someone could be juicy rumors.

Miami aims to host World Cup final in 2026

Miami wants the final. Could be warmish in July. Or a bit breezy. But for sure plenty of ropa vieja and arepas.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Miami venue would certainly look the most European for those clamoring for a canopy cover. 

Added bonus: Ace Ventura could feature in the pre-match ceremony.


----------



## ElvisBC

well, it is perfect football stadium, zero viewing obstructions and all seats covered, so it will get selected for sure, unfortunately not easy to reach without the car! final? no way, too small for that game!

about DC, quite interesting! I do not tink snyder gives a **** about the world cup, but his team needs a fresh start after recent events and if he sees any chance to build a new stadium at reduced cost, he will use it.


----------



## h0nu

ElvisBC said:


> p.s. IMHO 1990 was the best world cup ever, closely followed by 2006. most people agree those two were the best in any particular order! *opinions about Euro 2008 are however quite divided, IMHO it was awful*


at least the weather was awful


----------



## George_D

An european bid will sure win. After 12 years there will be pressure for the World Cup to reurn to Europe


----------



## Ramanaramana

ElvisBC said:


> yes, no doubt it is going to be fine, but americans truly believe their stadiums are better than those in Germany, Brasil or Russia which is insane!
> 
> p.s. IMHO 1990 was the best world cup ever, closely followed by 2006. most people agree those two were the best in any particular order! opinions about Euro 2008 are however quite divided, IMHO it was awful


European stadiums are the best yes, agree with that. 

Wasnt around for 1990, but was that not known for being the most dour defensive cup that led to removal of backpass? England came 4th I just checked, so that would change your perception somewhat.

And Lol yes I forgot England didnt qualify for 08. That explains the indifference.



George_D said:


> An european bid will sure win. After 12 years there will be pressure for the World Cup to reurn to Europe


I think so too. nothing wrong with that. Europe does the World Cup best.

Im torn on Iberia vs UK as both would be unreal, but hopefully whoever loses 2030 will bid for Euro 28/32.


----------



## ElvisBC

@Ramanaramana , yes, football was unfortunately ugly in both 1990 & 2006 but those were the only world cups where the whole host country was in extasy of football and everything else was put on hold, that‘s why those were the best world cups ever, doesn‘t really matter who won. 

I was expecting the same from brasil, unfortunately didn‘t happen, they were just too focused on themselves, and I hope to relive it once again if it comes home in 2030 or 2034, if I make it so far!


----------



## Ramanaramana

ElvisBC said:


> @Ramanaramana , yes, football was unfortunately ugly in both 1990 & 2006 but those were the only world cups where the whole host country was in extasy of football and everything else was put on hold, that‘s why those were the best world cups ever, doesn‘t really matter who won.
> 
> I was expecting the same from brasil, unfortunately didn‘t happen, they were just too focused on themselves, and I hope to relive it once again if it comes home in 2030 or 2034, if I make it so far!


I can't speak for what the atmosphere is like day to day in these countries when the cup is on, so Ill take your word for it.

I'm not making this accusation, but Ive heard some Brazilians say that they love winners above all. It would be stupid to say Brazilians dont love football, but maybe it plays a little to what you're saying, that people were so absorbed in winning the cup on home soil that they forgot to enjoy the tournament. Compare that to Germany where one book I read on the German national team talked about how it would've been too much if Germany had won 06, and that was from a German perspective. They were so focused on projecting a positive image of Germany to the world, and did not want to come across as arrogant by winning lol.

Course I could be talking out of my arse on Brazil. I wasnt there.


----------



## ElvisBC

I‘ve been to all of them and while it is my subjective perception, nearly all of people I know agree with that. way back in 1990 we were huge group traveling by train and bus, sleeping in fan camps and hostels and we were all blown away by what was going on in italy, no matter where we went! those evenings on the beaches in sardinia with locals, dutch and irish ....wow! 16 years later it felt the same. of course, we were staying in hotels, we had better tickets and we traveled in nice cars but nothing else changed, it was pure extasy in every city we visited, only with much higher level of organisation and perfectionism as expected from the germans. I can‘t say the same for any other host. that first weekend in moscow was great as well, thousands of fans from everywhere in the world arriving to russia thru moscow airports, it definitely gives a taste what might happen in doha over a one month period if local authorities show some tolerance and do not try to enforce some of their stupid laws. . . . .I have no intention visiting world cups in the future but I would love to find out how UK world cup feels!


----------



## Rokto14

ElvisBC said:


> I‘ve been to all of them and while it is my subjective perception, nearly all of people I know agree with that. way back in 1990 we were huge group traveling by train and bus, sleeping in fan camps and hostels and we were all blown away by what was going on in italy, no matter where we went! those evenings on the beaches in sardinia with locals, dutch and irish ....wow! 16 years later it felt the same. of course, we were staying in hotels, we had better tickets and we traveled in nice cars but nothing else changed, it was pure extasy in every city we visited, only with much higher level of organisation and perfectionism as expected from the germans. I can‘t say the same for any other host. that first weekend in moscow was great as well, thousands of fans from everywhere in the world arriving to russia thru moscow airports, it definitely gives a taste what might happen in doha over a one month period if *local authorities show some tolerance and do not try to enforce some of their stupid laws*. . . . .I have no intention visiting world cups in the future but I would love to find out how UK world cup feels!


They will indeed give some exception to some laws but what do you mean by 'their stupid laws'?


----------



## Ramanaramana

ElvisBC said:


> I‘ve been to all of them and while it is my subjective perception, nearly all of people I know agree with that. way back in 1990 we were huge group traveling by train and bus, sleeping in fan camps and hostels and we were all blown away by what was going on in italy, no matter where we went! those evenings on the beaches in sardinia with locals, dutch and irish ....wow! 16 years later it felt the same. of course, we were staying in hotels, we had better tickets and we traveled in nice cars but nothing else changed, it was pure extasy in every city we visited, only with much higher level of organisation and perfectionism as expected from the germans. I can‘t say the same for any other host. that first weekend in moscow was great as well, thousands of fans from everywhere in the world arriving to russia thru moscow airports, it definitely gives a taste what might happen in doha over a one month period if local authorities show some tolerance and do not try to enforce some of their stupid laws. . . . .I have no intention visiting world cups in the future but I would love to find out how UK world cup feels!


Didnt expect you to say youve been to all of them, thats cool, so I will definitely take your word for it then. 

You wouldve experienced 96 firsthand, there must be some parallels there to what youd get in a home nations World Cup. Though I think the games changed since. Even then you had games that werent well attended, but occupancy rates would be 99-100% if it were held today no doubt. The Olympics also gave a glimpse I thought watching from afar. The football overshadowed all the other events for me. There seemed to be a real festive spirit about it. 

You cant really go wrong with an English World Cup. I dont know how it would feel but it is the safest bet for a great tournament alongside Germany.


----------



## Temporarily Exiled

A World Cup in either Spain or the UK would be fantastic, if only due to the passion of the local populations. Also worth noting that by 2030, Spain's AVE (high speed rail) system will have a lot more nodes, and will be a major selling point for their bid. The UK doesn't really have anything that comes close to rivalling the AVE, and even the first stage of HS2 isn't expected to operate at full capacity until 2031.

That said, if FIFA can happily sanction a tournament that spans an entire continent, lack of high speed rail ought not to be killer. But lack of capacity on rail lines could still be an issue.


----------



## Vizemeister

If China throws their hat in, probably not for 2030 though, they'll get it. Look at the advertising boards of the 2018 World Cup. Look at the current FIFA sponsor pool. Look who used to be in that sponsor pool before 2018. There's alot of Chinese money invested in FIFA now and in the future. You may go as far as to say that they are the ones who keep FIFA going.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Temporarily Exiled said:


> A World Cup in either Spain or the UK would be fantastic, if only due to the passion of the local populations. Also worth noting that by 2030, Spain's AVE (high speed rail) system will have a lot more nodes, and will be a major selling point for their bid. The UK doesn't really have anything that comes close to rivalling the AVE, and even the first stage of HS2 isn't expected to operate at full capacity until 2031.
> 
> That said, if FIFA can happily sanction a tournament that spans an entire continent, lack of high speed rail ought not to be killer. But lack of capacity on rail lines could still be an issue.


If Barcelona and Valencia remodel/build their stadiums, and one of Betis or Sevilla add some kind of roof, there’s a good shout to say Spain/Portugal has the best selection of 10 stadiums in Europe.

Real, Athletic, Atletico, Sociedad, Espanyol + Barcelona, Valencia, Betis/Sevilla + Benfica, Porto and Sporting. That’s as good if not better than Germany/Russia/England/France’s best..


----------



## Ramanaramana

Vizemeister said:


> If China throws their hat in, probably not for 2030 though, they'll get it. Look at the advertising boards of the 2018 World Cup. Look at the current FIFA sponsor pool. Look who used to be in that sponsor pool before 2018. There's alot of Chinese money invested in FIFA now and in the future. You may go as far as to say that they are the ones who keep FIFA going.


China had no need to start building its army of large rectangular stadiums. It held a successful Asian Cup with great crowds back in the 00s using athletic track stadiums. Could have done same for 2023. It’s the clearest signal they’re preparing to bid for the world cup. 

Three cycles without Europe would be surprising, but as you say they are the most important commercial partner so it’s tough to call. I prefer European cups, but China would be ideal for selfish reasons as we’d get games at normal hours.


----------



## Rokto14

Ramanaramana said:


> China had no need to start building its army of large rectangular stadiums. It held a successful Asian Cup with great crowds back in the 00s using athletic track stadiums. Could have done same for 2023. It’s the clearest signal they’re preparing to bid for the world cup.
> 
> Three cycles without Europe would be surprising, but as you say they are the most important commercial partner so it’s tough to call. I prefer European cups,* but China would be ideal for selfish reasons as we’d get games at normal hours.*


Same here as the whole of China follows Beijing's time which is GMT +8 which is the same time zone as where I am staying  The reason why I am looking forward to Qatar's WC is because the time zone difference is only 5 hours.


----------



## ElvisBC

Rokto14 said:


> They will indeed give some exception to some laws but what do you mean by 'their stupid laws'?


laws limiting human rights with religion and tradition used as an excuse. world cup was always one huge party in free space, let‘s hope it can stay that way.


----------



## CFCman

Realistically, FIFA will award the hosting rights of the 2030 and 2034 world cups to the U.K. and China. 

As many on here have stated, its highly unlikely for FIFA to hold the world cup outside Europe for more than two consecutive tournaments; so that means the U.K. bid is a shoe-in. Yes, the Spain/Portugal bid could appear to be a formidable rival, but when you factor in the history of the game, as we know it, started from England and the fact that the U.K. has more people with higher disposable incomes, then FIFA would want the tourney to be staged in the U.K.

The China choice for 2034 will be purely due to the huge market that China has, which = great ticketing/marketing revenues for both FIFA and the LOC.


----------



## ElvisBC

Noone in the world really likes FA, thats the real problem. however, money for FIFA would be huge, so it might work.

Only, we know Infantino is after the biggest money, he doesn’t really care about anything else but money and his chair! The biggest money for FIFA provides highest profit distributed to member associations and that secures votes for him, therefore I’d expect China-UK-South America in 2030-34-38. Guess it all depends on one thing, if China is allowed to bid or not!


----------



## Ramanaramana

CFCman said:


> The China choice for 2034 will be purely due to the huge market that China has, which = great ticketing/marketing revenues for both FIFA and the LOC.


I'd go a step further. As someone mentioned, China bankrolls FIFA commercially. My thinking is that China already has the greenlight from FIFA, otherwise they wouldn't be building all these massive football stadiums. There was no reason for them to build so many new football stadiums for the Asian Cup.


----------



## Rokto14

Ramanaramana said:


> I'd go a step further. As someone mentioned, China bankrolls FIFA commercially. My thinking is that China already has the greenlight from FIFA, otherwise they wouldn't be building all these massive football stadiums. There was no reason for them to build so many new football stadiums for the Asian Cup.


My thinking is China will be allowed to hand in a 'draft bid' for 2030 where they know they won't win but they will learn from FIFA's bidding score for them to improve their 2034 bid which will guarantee them to win. 2030 I guessing that it will go to either Europe or South America as they have really formidable bids.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Rokto14 said:


> My thinking is China will be allowed to hand in a 'draft bid' for 2030 where they know they won't win but they will learn from FIFA's bidding score for them to improve their 2034 bid which will guarantee them to win. 2030 I guessing that it will go to either Europe or South America as they have really formidable bids.


I'm with you for the most part. South America I think we can cross off as it's the same time zone as 2026, a third world cup in a row without Europe is hard to imagine, the one country that is best suited to host already did in 2014, the amount of spending on stadiums needed would be huge, and they can't produce anywhere near the amount of ticket revenue that Europe can.

For China that seems a logical process.


----------



## ElvisBC

not so sure how to classify china building all those football stadiums right now and all at once, 10-15 years before the cup. we all know what china is capable of constructing in the shortest time, so 15 years seems to me bit early. in three years they will have 10 asian cup stadiums plus two evergrande monsters in areas left out of that competition, plus god knows what else!

but guess you‘re right. 2-3 years from now when the bids are in, they will be able to present up to 15 modern football stadiums to the rest of the world. add iconic site such as bird‘s nest on the top and you have stadium situation to easily match top five in the world. the only burden left to overcome will be european bid with another top five stadium situation!

this is going to be really interesting, can‘t remember last time we had so many good bids. actually can‘t remember last time having good bid at all 😁


----------



## Gardocki

When is 2030 to be announced. Will it be in 2022?


----------



## ElvisBC

nope, bidding process starts early next year and host decission will be at fifa congress in 2024 (date unknown yet)


----------



## Ramanaramana

ElvisBC said:


> not so sure how to classify china building all those football stadiums right now and all at once, 10-15 years before the cup. we all know what china is capable of constructing in the shortest time, so 15 years seems to me bit early. in three years they will have 10 asian cup stadiums plus two evergrande monsters in areas left out of that competition, plus god knows what else!
> 
> but guess you‘re right. 2-3 years from now when the bids are in, they will be able to present up to 15 modern football stadiums to the rest of the world. add iconic site such as bird‘s nest on the top and you have stadium situation to easily match top five in the world. the only burden left to overcome will be european bid with another top five stadium situation!
> 
> this is going to be really interesting, can‘t remember last time we had so many good bids. actually can‘t remember last time having good bid at all 😁


Yeah does seem like a long way out, but the Asian cup will also be a big deal in its own right, and China's league has strong and growing support so the timing works well. I just think they're getting it done early, as these stadiums will still be great in 10 years' time.

Here's the full pipeline as it stands, and no athletics stadiums. Mods, sources are embedded into name.

*Guangzhou 100,000*









*Guiyang 80,000*









*Beijing 70,000*









*Dalian 63,000*









*Xiamen 60,000*









*Xian 60,000*









*Wuhan 60,000*









*Chengdu 60,000*









*Jinan 60,000*









*Qingdao 53,000*









*Chongqing 46,000*









*Kunshan 45,000*









*Shenzhen 42,000*









*Shanghai 37,000*
*







*

*Tianjin 37,000*










*BONUS ROUND......*

*Hong Kong 50,000*
*







*



15 new stadiums not including HK with 13 above 40,000.

Only thing missing is a monster stadium in Shanghai.


----------



## Rokto14

Ramanaramana said:


> Yeah does seem like a long way out, but the Asian cup will also be a big deal in its own right, and China's league has strong and growing support so the timing works well. I just think they're getting it done early, as these stadiums will still be great in 10 years' time.
> 
> Here's the full pipeline as it stands, and no athletics stadiums. Mods, sources are embedded into name.
> 
> *Guangzhou 100,000*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Guiyang 80,000*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Beijing 70,000*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dalian 63,000*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Xiamen 60,000*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Xian 60,000*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wuhan 60,000*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Chengdu 60,000*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Jinan 60,000*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Qingdao 53,000*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Chongqing 46,000*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Kunshan 45,000*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Shenzhen 42,000*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Shanghai 37,000*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *Tianjin 37,000*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BONUS ROUND......*
> 
> *Hong Kong 50,000*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 15 new stadiums not including HK with 13 above 40,000.
> 
> Only thing missing is a monster stadium in Shanghai.


Beijing's Olympic Bird Nest stadium is also missing.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Rokto14 said:


> Beijing's Olympic Bird Nest stadium is also missing.


Ah it was for football only stadiums. Unless theyre removing the athletics track and I haven't read about it. With athletics track stadiums, we can add another 30 beauties to the list!


----------



## ElvisBC

yepp. xiamen stadium is going to be modular solution, simmilar to olympic stadium in london after reconstruction, and suzhou stadium seems to be some architect‘s crap


----------



## Leedsrule

Its likely that if Chia bid for the World Cup, they'll commit to building new football-specific stadiums in cities that currently lack one.

However, I'm not sure I'd support this for a couple of key reasons.

Firstly, for an event like the world cup, give me a 60,000 seat athletics stadium over a 40,000 seat football stadium any day. Yes, the views aren't as good, but I'd still rather have an OK view from the back of an athletics stadium than be watching from home because fewer tickets were sold and I couldn't get one. China already has more large stadiums than any other country in the world. Given a World cup in China will never have the best atmosphere anyway, if we have to have a World Cup there, use the perfectly good stadiums that already exist.

The second reason is that the environmental impact of building a stadium is huge. Thousands of tonnes of carbon are emitted by producing the concrete needed, tonnes of plastic, glass and steel are also needed. We need to really justify the need for every new building and a stadium that might only be filled once or twice in it's entire lifespan cannot justify it's existence in my view. China has enough white elephants, it doesn't need 12 more. FIFA, UEFA and the IOC need to have this at the top of their agenda too. New stadiums are great when they have a proper legacy and lasting purpose but too often stadia are built for a single event like this and then they sit mostly empty. I can think of at least one example from the last 6 World Cups and Euros- the only exception being France 2016.


----------



## Ramanaramana

If they already have 15 world class football stadiums, why would they need to build that many more for the world cup?

Almost all of those stadiums I posted above are already under construction. And many of them are at least 60,000, so no need to worry about missing out on a ticket.

Atmospheres will be great. You'll have your usual thousands of traveling fans following their team creating an atmosphere, as well as the locals adding making their noise. Some Chinese football club fanbases create better atmosphere than what you're used to England. I don't know why China has some stigma as being a country of football casual. They take the game seriously over there, and the country has been in dire need of building stadiums for the one sport that can actually fill at least 20,000 seats regularly enough.


----------



## Leedsrule

Ramanaramana said:


> If they already have 15 world class football stadiums, why would they need to build that many more for the world cup?
> 
> Almost all of those stadiums I posted above are already under construction. And many of them are at least 60,000, so no need to worry about missing out on a ticket.
> 
> Atmospheres will be great. You'll have your usual thousands of traveling fans following their team creating an atmosphere, as well as the locals adding making their noise. Some Chinese football club fanbases create better atmosphere than what you're used to England. I don't know why China has some stigma as being a country of football casual. They take the game seriously over there, and the country has been in dire need of building stadiums for the one sport that can actually fill at least 20,000 seats regularly enough.


I believe China has around 30 stadiums large enough to hold World Cup matches. Every one of them has an athletics track, unless I'm mistaken. China's largest football specific stadium currently has less than 40,000 seats.

In my view, they shouldn't still be building new stadiums- there's plenty of existing stadia in China to hold a World Cup. It's not like the Chinese domestic leagues need new stadiums either- the average CSL crowd is around 50% of a stadium's capacity (Average stadium capacity:~49,000- average attendance ~25,000) and most play in modern stadiums built in the last 20 years.

Take Shenzhen, for example. Already has two massive world-class athletics stadiums. Perhaps they'll build a new 40,000 seat football-specific stadium, as you suggest above. Perhaps its already under construction. I think we have to seriously ask ourselves whether that's a good use of resources. Either way, you'll have at least one stadium in Shenzhen which gets very little use. 

More and more people and countries are waking up to the climate emergency and by 2030 I'd like to think building new stadiums which aren't well used will be seen as very wasteful.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Leedsrule said:


> I believe China has around 30 stadiums large enough to hold World Cup matches. Every one of them has an athletics track, unless I'm mistaken. China's largest football specific stadium currently has less than 40,000 seats.
> 
> In my view, they shouldn't still be building new stadiums- there's plenty of existing stadia in China to hold a World Cup. It's not like the Chinese domestic leagues need new stadiums either- the average CSL crowd is around 50% of a stadium's capacity (Average stadium capacity:~49,000- average attendance ~25,000) and most play in modern stadiums built in the last 20 years.
> 
> Take Shenzhen, for example. Already has two massive world-class athletics stadiums. Perhaps they'll build a new 40,000 seat football-specific stadium, as you suggest above. Perhaps its already under construction. I think we have to seriously ask ourselves whether that's a good use of resources. Either way, you'll have at least one stadium in Shenzhen which gets very little use.
> 
> More and more people and countries are waking up to the climate emergency and by 2030 I'd like to think building new stadiums which aren't well used will be seen as very wasteful.


I can't argue with your opinion on whether they should be building so many new stadiums, as that's your position on it.

All I would say is that those stadiums are being built as we speak, and they will be available whenever China hosts it, so they might as well use them.

My thinking is that China does need new stadiums. I don't know if it needs this many large football stadiums, I'd like to see more in the 30-40,000 range, but it needs football stadiums. Football is the biggest spectator sport in China, with huge potential to keep growing, and its facilities should reflect that.

How thrilled would you be if the stadiums in England all had athletics tracks? Ask the Hammers how they feel about the OS. Now imagine Elland Road and every other ground across the country. Fans would be filthy. Why shouldn't China improve the infrastructure for football and not athletics? And why are we singling out China over climate concerns when there are hundreds of stadiums being built all around the world with many more due to start construction? No matter how modern a stadium is, if it has a track it's anti-football.

China is top 2 in population, top 2 in economy, and football is the only major team sport alongside basketball. To have one rectangular stadium over 30,000 is disappointing. This building boom is long overdue. Should have started a long time ago, but glad it's finally happening.


----------



## pesto

Yes. It sounds hypocritical to see someone use "save the planet" cant in opposing a country with high growth rate and 1.4B people projected in 2050 from building large stadiums of good quality. The US, for example, has 140 stadiums over 40k, with less than 1/3 the population of China.

As has been discussed, that's why the money is pouring into marketing in Asia. FIFA will be one of many, many beneficiaries from the trillions of dollars of growth taking place.


----------



## Leedsrule

pesto said:


> Yes. It sounds hypocritical to see someone use "save the planet" cant in opposing a country with high growth rate and 1.4B people projected in 2050 from building large stadiums of good quality. The US, for example, has 140 stadiums over 40k, with less than 1/3 the population of China.
> 
> As has been discussed, that's why the money is pouring into marketing in Asia. FIFA will be one of many, many beneficiaries from the trillions of dollars of growth taking place.


To be clear, the issue isn't limited to China, and isn't limited to stadia. It's easy to underestimate the amount of embodied carbon in the buildings we build so as environmental issues become more and more important, we will have these questions about whether every building we need is needed. That's relevant to this thread as environmental concerns are likely to be a bigger issue for FIFA when picking hosts in future. 

The US and China are similar in the way that they both have a decent number of large, non-soccer-specific stadia that would help them host a WC without building new stadiums. But the difference is, although the US and Europe may have more stadia per capita than China, the ones in the US and Europe are more well used. Whether that's for cultural or financial reasons is a different question. With a few notable exceptions, most large (40k+) stadia in the US and Europe have a regular Soccer, Rugby, Baseball or American Football tenant, and many regularly see sell-out crowds, justifying their size. 

By comparison, in China, around 50% of their 30-odd large stadia do not host a top level sports team that regularly, or ever, sell out. Now I could be wrong about this, perhaps there's some equivalent of college football that I'm unaware of, or maybe athletics is a hugely popular spectator sport in China, but my understanding is that seats in many of those stadia will never have been sat on, or may have only been used once or twice. 

The US also doesn't have a great record, environmentally, when it comes to stadia, particularly in relation to demolishing and replacing stadia, rather then retrofitting and renovating. For example, the Minnesota Metrodome had a very short lifespan of like 30 years, and however operationally efficient the new Vikings stadium is, the operational carbon savings will never outweigh the embodied carbon cost of building it. However, the key difference is the Metrodome was heavily used for 30 years, particularly when you consider its MLB use, so it's carbon-cost-per-use or -per-guest would actually be very low. In a World Cup white elephant, the embodied-carbon-cost-per-use would be massive. 

That link with use is critical- and China seems to be the only country in the world to build stadiums whether there is a need or not. A city like Shenzhen, however massive it is, cannot justify a three 40k+ stadiums unless each is heavily used. London has 6x 40k+ stadiums, but every one of them hosts a sell-out crowd between 5 and 30 times a year.


----------



## Ramanaramana

It’s not football’s fault China has built a large athletics stadium in every city. We all know China would never host a world cup if it submitted 15 athletics stadiums, so the need to build is there if it wants to, and that’s what theyre doing, 

It also makes sense to build stadiums for the one sport that can pack in tens of thousands regularly. The only reason many of those existing athletics stadiums are even used at all is because of the football clubs that play in them. But they aint spectator friendly.

The waste was building so many multipurpose tracked stadiums in the first place. Many of these football stadiums will have a lasting legacy that Super League clubs will benefit from.


----------



## ElvisBC

Ramanaramana said:


> It’s not football’s fault China has built a large athletics stadium in every city. We all know China would never host a world cup if it submitted 15 athletics stadiums, so the need to build is there if it wants to, and that’s what theyre doing,
> 
> It also makes sense to build stadiums for the one sport that can pack in tens of thousands regularly. The only reason many of those existing athletics stadiums are even used at all is because of the football clubs that play in them. But they aint spectator friendly.
> 
> The waste was building so many multipurpose tracked stadiums in the first place. Many of these football stadiums will have a lasting legacy that Super League clubs will benefit from.


china would win right to host one of coming world cups even if they had no stadiums as all, so that doesn‘t realy matter. FIFA wants to host semi final game in 2026 in probably one of the worst possible places to play football where people can‘t see half of the pitch, so if money is right they would accept anything.

about building so many multipurpose stadiums, yes, it looks that way to us, but what do we really know about stadium needs in china?


----------



## Ramanaramana

ElvisBC said:


> china would win right to host one of coming world cups even if they had no stadiums as all, so that doesn‘t realy matter. FIFA wants to host semi final game in 2026 in probably one of the worst possible places to play football where people can‘t see half of the pitch, so if money is right they would accept anything.
> 
> about building so many multipurpose stadiums, yes, it looks that way to us, but what do we really know about stadium needs in china?


Fifa can overlook many things, but they are selling a tv product. it’s one thing to have one or two athletics stadium, but they wouldnt go to china if it was all athletics. the real issue with athletics stadiums isnt the fans in the seats, even if view is poorer than rectangular stadiums, it’s that the tv watchers cant see any people most of the time. Sport has to look good on tv, and that involves seeing stands full of fans. 

Whatever happens in 26, bulk of the stadiums will look good on tv, and have good sightlines for attendees. 

Youre right about Chinas needs, and i retract my waste comment. There are a million reasons to build stadiums, from siphoning off funds, laundering money, providing public facilities, government decrees, hosting all kinds of sport and nonsport events, creating thousands of jobs, winning favours with business partners, etc etc. 

I dont have any issues with chinas multipurpose stadiums. All I want to see is China get the football stadiums it deserves.


----------



## pesto

Leedsrule said:


> To be clear, the issue isn't limited to China, and isn't limited to stadia. It's easy to underestimate the amount of embodied carbon in the buildings we build so as environmental issues become more and more important, we will have these questions about whether every building we need is needed. That's relevant to this thread as environmental concerns are likely to be a bigger issue for FIFA when picking hosts in future.
> 
> The US and China are similar in the way that they both have a decent number of large, non-soccer-specific stadia that would help them host a WC without building new stadiums. But the difference is, although the US and Europe may have more stadia per capita than China, the ones in the US and Europe are more well used. Whether that's for cultural or financial reasons is a different question. With a few notable exceptions, most large (40k+) stadia in the US and Europe have a regular Soccer, Rugby, Baseball or American Football tenant, and many regularly see sell-out crowds, justifying their size.
> 
> By comparison, in China, around 50% of their 30-odd large stadia do not host a top level sports team that regularly, or ever, sell out. Now I could be wrong about this, perhaps there's some equivalent of college football that I'm unaware of, or maybe athletics is a hugely popular spectator sport in China, but my understanding is that seats in many of those stadia will never have been sat on, or may have only been used once or twice.
> 
> The US also doesn't have a great record, environmentally, when it comes to stadia, particularly in relation to demolishing and replacing stadia, rather then retrofitting and renovating. For example, the Minnesota Metrodome had a very short lifespan of like 30 years, and however operationally efficient the new Vikings stadium is, the operational carbon savings will never outweigh the embodied carbon cost of building it. However, the key difference is the Metrodome was heavily used for 30 years, particularly when you consider its MLB use, so it's carbon-cost-per-use or -per-guest would actually be very low. In a World Cup white elephant, the embodied-carbon-cost-per-use would be massive.
> 
> That link with use is critical- and China seems to be the only country in the world to build stadiums whether there is a need or not. A city like Shenzhen, however massive it is, cannot justify a three 40k+ stadiums unless each is heavily used. London has 6x 40k+ stadiums, but every one of them hosts a sell-out crowd between 5 and 30 times a year.


There's no use in getting involved in "save the earth" arguments when you are faced with malnutrition. And, as I said, this argument sounds hypocritical when being made by a country that is full of stadiums to a continent that is early in its economic development. And, really: couldn't greater London get along with 1 or 2 fewer stadiums?

Asian economies plan in terms of the next 30-50 years instead of the next 5-10. Europe is not expecting huge changes in population, except in the sense that whites will die out and be replaced by Asians and Africans. Asia is expecting enormous economic growth, which means huge increases in recreation and leisure time. And they have plenty of available workforce that is seriously under-utilized.


----------



## Leedsrule

pesto said:


> There's no use in getting involved in "save the earth" arguments when you are faced with malnutrition. And, as I said, this argument sounds hypocritical when being made by a country that is full of stadiums to a continent that is early in its economic development. And, really: couldn't greater London get along with 1 or 2 fewer stadiums?


I'm not a country, I'm an individual, and I'd criticise the UK government too if they chose to build a new stadium in London that wasn't needed, or if they'd already built stadiums that weren't being used. The Olympic Stadium for example was a ****-up, but at least it's now being used and sells out regularly, so over time its environmental impact will be diluted.

Fine, if you're faced with malnutrition then survival comes first, but why does China need new football stadiums to survive? In fact, in a country still with millions in poverty, I'd say there are better ways to spend their money.



> Asian economies plan in terms of the next 30-50 years instead of the next 5-10. *Europe is not expecting huge changes in population, except in the sense that whites will die out and be replaced by Asians and Africans*. Asia is expecting enormous economic growth, which means huge increases in recreation and leisure time.


What a load of s***- not even going to validate that casual racism by responding.



> And they have plenty of available workforce that is seriously under-utilized.


Not sure building another stadium when you have one already is a good use of resources. if you want to subsidise employment, get everyone to dig a big hole. It's about as useful as a stadium that will sit empty, and won't have the same negative environmental impact.

Buildings are currently responsible for 39% of global energy related carbon emissions: 28% from operational emissions, from energy needed to heat, cool and power them, and the remaining 11% from materials and construction.

By comparison, the entire worldwide aviation industry accounts for around 2.5% of energy-related carbon emissions.

I'm as much of a fan of new stadiums as anyone, and it isn't in my best interests to resist the development of new buildings or stadia, but when reducing carbon emissions is an absolute priority, I'm not convinced that building a new football-specific stadium in a city that already has a perfectly good and underused athletics stadium, just because you want fans to appear closer to the pitch for TV coverage in a tournament that stadium may or may not hold once in it's lifespan, is a good argument for the thousands of tonnes of Co2 such a construction would produce.

Fill your existing stadiums before building another- that applies to cities and clubs all around the world.


----------



## pesto

Leedsrule said:


> I'm not a country, I'm an individual, and I'd criticise the UK government too if they chose to build a new stadium in London that wasn't needed, or if they'd already built stadiums that weren't being used. The Olympic Stadium for example was a ****-up, but at least it's now being used and sells out regularly, so over time its environmental impact will be diluted.
> 
> Fine, if you're faced with malnutrition then survival comes first, but why does China need new football stadiums to survive? In fact, in a country still with millions in poverty, I'd say there are better ways to spend their money.
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of shit- not even going to validate that casual racism by responding.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure building another stadium when you have one already is a good use of resources. if you want to subsidise employment, get everyone to dig a big hole. It's about as useful as a stadium that will sit empty, and won't have the same negative environmental impact.
> 
> Buildings are currently responsible for 39% of global energy related carbon emissions: 28% from operational emissions, from energy needed to heat, cool and power them, and the remaining 11% from materials and construction.
> 
> By comparison, the entire worldwide aviation industry accounts for around 2.5% of energy-related carbon emissions.
> 
> I'm as much of a fan of new stadiums as anyone, and it isn't in my best interests to resist the development of new buildings or stadia, but when reducing carbon emissions is an absolute priority, I'm not convinced that building a new football-specific stadium in a city that already has a perfectly good and underused athletics stadium, just because you want fans to appear closer to the pitch for TV coverage in a tournament that stadium may or may not hold once in it's lifespan, is a good argument for the thousands of tonnes of Co2 such a construction would produce.
> 
> Fill your existing stadiums before building another- that applies to cities and clubs all around the world.


Agree with you for publicly funded stadiums. Very few can be justified in low growth areas such as Europe.

Privately funded stadiums are never an issue since they reflect perceived economic demand for the stadium; that's the definition of a good investment.

And your analysis is not right for China, which although not run by rational economics, obviously is way below its levels of expected use over the next decades. About 200M people are expected to become solid, money-spending consumers and the demand for cars, entertainment, international travel, 2nd homes, etc., is huge. 

Again, that's why thousands of investment groups are looking to start or buy sports teams there. 

Off-topic: My point was that the UK is NOT undergoing substantial change in the number of people or level of their income, unless you consider the increase of people of non-European origin, which has been happening for decades. I don't consider that a relevant demographic trend for whether stadiums are in short-supply in England. And I hope you don't either.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Leedsrule said:


> I'm as much of a fan of new stadiums as anyone, and it isn't in my best interests to resist the development of new buildings or stadia, but when reducing carbon emissions is an absolute priority, I'm not convinced that building a new football-specific stadium in a city that already has a perfectly good and underused athletics stadium, just because you want fans to appear closer to the pitch for TV coverage in a tournament that stadium may or may not hold once in it's lifespan, is a good argument for the thousands of tonnes of Co2 such a construction would produce.
> 
> Fill your existing stadiums before building another- that applies to cities and clubs all around the world.


The China stadiums do have a legacy, there are Super League teams that will occupy these stadiums years before any world cup takes place and long after it. It’s not a one off use.

As for filling stadiums regularly, this is a unique phenomenon that happens in Germany, England, the US and nowhere else. Yeah there are examples of individual clubs in other leagues that fill stadiums regularly, but im talking league wide, 90%+ rates across the board. 

A stadium capacity should take into account whos gonna play there and how big the population is to draw from. Guangzhou may need a stadium of 50 or 60 thousand right now realistically as GFC average upwards of 50,000, but there are 15 mil people living there. As GFC and SL continues to grow there are enough people there to justify a stadium of such scale.

Maybe you living in a country where stadiums are built with precise attendance figures in mind greatly impacts your thinking on this. Not saying it’s necessarily wrong, just unrealistic to expect same standards around the world.


----------



## Temporarily Exiled

Ramanaramana said:


> As for filling stadiums regularly, this is a unique phenomenon that happens in Germany, England, the US and nowhere else. Yeah there are examples of individual clubs in other leagues that fill stadiums regularly, but im talking league wide, 90%+ rates across the board.
> [...]
> Maybe you living in a country where stadiums are built with precise attendance figures in mind greatly impacts your thinking on this. Not saying it’s necessarily wrong, just unrealistic to expect same standards around the world.


The argument being made is that it is environmentally inefficient and wasteful, it isn't about taste preferences. You have not addressed the environmental wastefulness aspect at all.



Ramanaramana said:


> A stadium capacity should take into account whos gonna play there and how big the population is to draw from. Guangzhou may need a stadium of 50 or 60 thousand right now realistically as GFC average upwards of 50,000, but there are 15 mil people living there. As GFC and SL continues to grow there are enough people there to justify a stadium of such scale.


Then build a stadium sufficient for the needs of today, with room for expansion _if and when_ that additional demand emerges. The Stadium of Light in Sunderland and Stadium MK in Milton Keynes are two really solid examples of this. If expansion is later justified, great. If not, also great, as you've not wasted the money and generated excess emissions.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Temporarily Exiled said:


> The argument being made is that it is environmentally inefficient and wasteful, it isn't about taste preferences. You have not addressed the environmental wastefulness aspect at all.
> 
> 
> Then build a stadium sufficient for the needs of today, with room for expansion _if and when_ that additional demand emerges. The Stadium of Light in Sunderland and Stadium MK in Milton Keynes are two really solid examples of this. If expansion is later justified, great. If not, also great, as you've not wasted the money and generated excess emissions.


I disagree that it is environmentally inefficient and wasteful, so I dont see any need to address it directly. Leedsrule and yourself can have concerns about the environment, that’s your prerogative, I have no such concerns however. Most actions produce carbon footprints, I dont see a need to stop large construction projects.

As for capacity, I have just explained that three countries on this planet, not including the one you live in, build stadiums with capacities needed. Why isn’t Barcelona downsizing to 70,000, which is more appropriate for it needs? Instead it’s proposal is to expand to 105,000, which it will get 3 times a season in a best case scenario. La Liga is riddled with stadiums way too big for its needs, so why is China the bad guy here? 90% of projects on the stadium forum are wasteful by your definition, do you go around criticising all of them?


----------



## ElvisBC

I have a solution, tear down all stadiums and play everything online but take care you‘re using sustainable energy only and eating purely biological food while watching it on your esports channels


----------



## Temporarily Exiled

ElvisBC said:


> I have a solution, tear down all stadiums and play everything online but take care you‘re using sustainable energy only and eating purely biological food while watching it on your esports channels


I'm already vegan, don't drive and don't fly, so nice try but no dice. Believe it or not, there is a mid-point between ending all sports forever and building stadiums that will have certain seats sat in maybe once or twice in their lifetime. What is the argument _against_ constructing stadiums built with expansion in mind, as has happened in Sunderland, Milton Keynes, Kansas etc.? Or the argument against converting the pre-existing athletics stadiums into football-specific stadiums, as has happened in San Sebastián and Manchester? Or the argument against turning it into a dual-purpose stadium, as has happened in London and as exists in Paris?



Ramanaramana said:


> As for capacity, I have just explained that three countries on this planet, not including the one you live in, build stadiums with capacities needed. Why isn’t Barcelona downsizing to 70,000, which is more appropriate for it needs? Instead it’s proposal is to expand to 105,000, which it will get 3 times a season in a best case scenario. La Liga is riddled with stadiums way too big for its needs, so why is China the bad guy here?


As for teams like Barcelona, the stadium is too big for league fixtures, but they're in the Champions League every year, which means three home group matches, and they usually go fairly deep into the competition, at which points they're selling out. They also sell out for the Clásico every year. It's not an analogous situation


----------



## Ramanaramana

Temporarily Exiled said:


> I'm already vegan, don't drive and don't fly, so nice try but no dice. Believe it or not, there is a mid-point between ending all sports forever and building stadiums that will have certain seats sat in maybe once or twice in their lifetime.
> 
> As for teams like Barcelona, the stadium is too big for league fixtures, but they're in the Champions League every year, which means three home group matches, and they usually go fairly deep into the competition, at which points they're selling out. They also sell out for the Clásico every year. It's not an analogous situation


Since the 09/10 season in the Champions League, Barcelona have had 21 matches above 90,000 and 37 matches below 90,000. And below 90,000 doesn't mean all 89,000, it means a whole bunch of 50s, 60s, 70s, and even the odd 30 and 40. Since you know the capacity is 100,000, I've been generous in using the 90,000 cut off, even if it is 10% lower than capacity. 

Barcelona sell out once a season in the league, and on average about 2 times a season in the Champions League, bringing it to a total of 3 matches. Seeing as they play between 25 and 30 games a season at home, what part of this isn't relevant to your original argument that stadiums that are too big for their team aren't wasteful? 

Oh and they haven't averaged over 80,000 in the league since 1997. What more proof is required to show that one of the biggest clubs in the world doesn't meet the strict standards you set? If you're going to be critical of China's plans, apply it to 95% of Europe and the world while you're at it.

And to your comment about stadiums that will have seats sat in once or twice in their lifetime, I have already pointed out that most if not all of these stadiums in China will have permanent tenants for years before any world cup takes place. White elephants they wont be.


----------



## Temporarily Exiled

Ramanaramana said:


> And to your comment about stadiums that will have seats sat in once or twice in their lifetime, I have already pointed out that most if not all of these stadiums in China will have permanent tenants for years before any world cup takes place. White elephants they wont be.


Nobody's saying they won't have tenants. They're saying they'll have tenants that don't have a hope of selling tickets for most of these seats at any point in the near future, and are hinging on potentially three World Cup group matches to justify their entire existence. It's a concern as the same has happened in Brazil, South Africa and Japan since their turns at hosting the World Cup. If we do not learn from history then we are doomed to repeat it.

As for Camp Nou, it's still a bit of a red herring. It matters little to the topic at hand. The capacity being unchanged since the 1990s, and the modest, proposed expansion unlikely to continue as planned. It would be a far more interesting and fruitful discussion if you were more interested in talking about stadiums in China than about a) my participation in other threads; b) the CO2 impact of my own lifestyle; c) a planned 5.500 stadium expansion in Spain.


----------



## ElvisBC

Temporarily Exiled said:


> I'm already vegan, don't drive and don't fly, so nice try but no dice. Believe it or not, there is a mid-point between ending all sports forever and building stadiums that will have certain seats sat in maybe once or twice in their lifetime. What is the argument _against_ constructing stadiums built with expansion in mind, as has happened in Sunderland, Milton Keynes, Kansas etc.? Or the argument against converting the pre-existing athletics stadiums into football-specific stadiums, as has happened in San Sebastián and Manchester? Or the argument against turning it into a dual-purpose stadium, as has happened in London and as exists in Paris?


I think you‘re missing the point. the world we all live in is far away from perfect and not even close being optimal, and that‘s just fine. I love modern stadiums and I‘m very happy whenever I see new building growing somewhere, no matter if that‘s cute little MK or monster in guangzhou. I also love new motorways for fast connection when needed. But all that doesn‘t mean I did not love going to victoria ground or highbury and that I needed the change, or that I‘m not driving the scenic route in an e-car whenever possible!

I‘m not telling you shouldn‘t be vegan or you shouldn‘t minimize travels or fight for the better world, but I think we should all go for best of both worlds and not dig deep into one of them, and I‘m definitely leaving greta alone sailing across the ocean.

and to stay on-topic, all that is not going to change for 0,01% no matter if UK or china get hosting rights for 2030!


----------



## pesto

LOL. I warned about eco-goofiness above, but no one listened. 

However, it did bring back precious memories of Jerry Brown's rants from the 1970's. After he attacked power plants, cars, roads, dams, etc., someone noted that his vision for the future of America was "everyone at home, shivering in the dark".


----------



## Temporarily Exiled

pesto said:


> LOL. I warned about eco-goofiness above, but no one listened.
> 
> However, it did bring back precious memories of Jerry Brown's rants from the 1970's. After he attacked power plants, cars, roads, dams, etc., someone noted that his vision for the future of America was "everyone at home, shivering in the dark".


I suppose it's a lot easier to attack a position that nobody in this thread has taken. Unless you can point to the post where I said "no new stadiums should be built"... What I _have_ said, repeatedly – on enough occasions that to miss it you _must _ at this point be arguing in had faith – is that it would be preferable from an environmental standpoint for stadiums to be built to meet current demand, but with the capacity for expansion when the need arises. That need may be increased attendances for the tenant club, or (perhaps) a men's football World Cup actually being awarded to China, which has yet to happen.


----------



## ElvisBC

this is stadium thread and we are talking about stadiums being justified or not. main difference is that you are leaning toward perfect world and rest of us we chose to stick to reality. 

p.s. user pesto actually knows nothing about the wold cup but noone can forbid him to tell us his opinion. there is always ignore option for those who doesn‘t want to read it 😁


----------



## Temporarily Exiled

ElvisBC said:


> main difference is that you are leaning toward perfect world and rest of us we chose to stick to reality.


I've given multiple examples to show that this idea, of building with future expansion in-mind or converting existing athletics stadiums, already _is_ reality.


I do find it funny that, through all of this, the only arguments I've seen against building stadiums with capacity to expand or redeveloping existing athletics stadiums is "this is how we've always done it" or "environmental considerations aren't important". Perhaps you can see why I'm not entirely won over.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Temporarily Exiled said:


> I do find it funny that, through all of this, the only arguments I've seen against building stadiums with capacity to expand or redeveloping existing athletics stadiums is "this is how we've always done it" or "environmental considerations aren't important". Perhaps you can see why I'm not entirely won over.


There is not one thing you could say to convince me that stadiums should be planned with strict environmental considerations is a good idea. And I'm self-aware enough to know that there is not one thing I can say to change your mind on it either. 

Everything I've written is for the floating reader that comes by who doesn't have a strong opinion on it one way or another. If what I say can influence them in some way, then I've done my part.

As Elvis alluded to, you have made a point of how stadiums _should _be planned, while mostly ignoring the fact that 95% of stadiums built around the world to date don't care for such ideals.

While you insist that we should give you reasons why things shouldn't be the way you want, I'm pointing out that what you're saying is irrelevant as almost no one does things like that. So we can sit here, shut our eyes and close our ears to what's happening and pretend how much better things could be, or we can accept that this is how it is done and our discussions are not going to change anything, ever, period.


----------



## Leedsrule

Ramanaramana said:


> As for capacity, I have just explained that three countries on this planet, not including the one you live in, build stadiums with capacities needed. Why isn’t Barcelona downsizing to 70,000, which is more appropriate for it needs? Instead it’s proposal is to expand to 105,000, which it will get 3 times a season in a best case scenario. La Liga is riddled with stadiums way too big for its needs, so why is China the bad guy here? 90% of projects on the stadium forum are wasteful by your definition, do you go around criticising all of them?


This is really hard to explain to someone who doesn't understand how the development and operation of buildings impacts the environment. Tearing an existing building down has a large environmental impact too, requiring a significant amount of energy to do, producing waste and releasing stored carbon. I'm not advocating for China to tear down its existing stadia, I'm just asking whether they can justify building more on cities that already have large, underused stadia.

I'd say exactly the same about any other country or building type where it applies.



ElvisBC said:


> I have a solution, tear down all stadiums and play everything online but take care you‘re using sustainable energy only and eating purely biological food while watching it on your esports channels


Or we could build 100 stadiums in every city on earth, have each powered by burning coal, no, burning plastic, use turtle shells as seats and rebuild them every other year.

Or we could just have a mature conversation about the environmental impact of stadiums in cities which already have several, where the environmentally conscious choice would be to retrofit an existing athletics stadium, or build something smaller that meets today's demand, and only expand later if and when demand requires, as most other clubs and cities do.


----------



## Leedsrule

Ramanaramana said:


> There is not one thing you could say to convince me that stadiums should be planned with strict environmental considerations is a good idea.


Its a shame that you're entering a discussion refusing to be open minded about issues like this. I'm open to being convinced that the new stadiums you listed are an essential use of finite resources but so far your only argument has been "I don't care about the environment".



> As Elvis alluded to, you have made a point of how stadiums _should _be planned, while mostly ignoring the fact that 95% of stadiums built around the world to date don't care for such ideals.


A couple of points in response to this.

Firstly, as with anything, just because 95% of stadiums are built in this way doesn't make it right. If you applied that logic to everything we would be stuck in the middle ages saying "well, we've always done it this way" any time someone suggested a change.

Secondly, I'd go as far to say that the majority of new stadiums around the world do consider the environment in their briefs. For example Qatar have committed to making their World Cup carbon neutral, and recycling and reusing stadiums is one part of that. We could have a whole other discussion about carbon offsetting and whether Qatar are really meeting that commitment but the point is that was relevant in the 2022 bidding process, and will be even more relevant in 2030.

I can't think of a single stadium built in the last decade in Western Europe or the US that hasn't considered their environmental performance. They're still far from perfect but at least they're recognising the problem and need to address it. I have criticisms about, for example, the amount of money and energy that went into making the London Stadium what it is today. If its legacy was thought about before the Olympics, we could have avoided that extensive renovation so soon after the stadium was first built.




> While you insist that we should give you reasons why things shouldn't be the way you want, I'm pointing out that what you're saying is irrelevant as almost no one does things like that. So we can sit here, shut our eyes and close our ears to what's happening and pretend how much better things could be, or we can accept that this is how it is done and our discussions are not going to change anything, ever, period.


I understand that you feel that way, but I certainly don't. I think my actions can lead to a better way of doing things, not least because I design stadiums for a living and take environmental considerations very seriously, even questioning the need for or size of new stadiums at times. There are better ways of doing things and we should recognise that just because we have always done something a certain way doesn't make it right.


----------



## RobH

Haha, amazing if true









Bringing down European Super League could help British & Irish 2030 World Cup bid


England’s prominent role in demolishing the Super League has enhanced their chances of success in a joint British and Irish bid for the 2030 World Cup, and just




www.thetimes.co.uk


----------



## ElvisBC

I am sure it is


----------



## Light Tower

I think the Argentina/Chile/Paraguay/Uruguay could win the bid or a surprising bid could be Morocco/Egypt/Tunisia as host.


----------



## HDI 0.548

Light Tower said:


> I think the Argentina/Chile/Paraguay/Uruguay could win the bid or a surprising bid could be Morocco/Egypt/Tunisia as host.


It's between South America and UK. And UK will win. 2034 will be in China


----------



## Light Tower

My prediction: between the joint South American bid (Argentina/Uruguay/Chile/Paraguay), the joint North African bid (Morocco/Egypt/Tunisia) and the UK joint bid (England/Scotland/Republic of Ireland/Wales/Northern Ireland) and either Southern Cone (Argentina/Uruguay/Chile/Paraguay) or the North African bid (Morocco/Egypt/Tunisia) could win while the Southeast Asia bid (Indonesia/Malaysia/Singapore/Thailand/Vietnam) could host.


----------



## Xoussef

Can anyone tell me where those joint bid fantasies are coming from? As far as I know Morocco only declared its intention to bid, alone ,and nothing more has been talked about since from either the federation or the gov. A joint bid with Tunisia or Egypt is simply not feasible, as of any bid including Algeria, it's so ridiculous an idea it doesn't even warrant a thought.


----------



## Rokto14

Xoussef said:


> Can anyone tell me where those joint bid fantasies are coming from? As far as I know Morocco only declared its intention to bid, alone ,and nothing more has been talked about since from either the federation or the gov. A joint bid with Tunisia or Egypt is simply not feasible, as of any bid including Algeria, it's so ridiculous an idea it doesn't even warrant a thought.


Well, you guys are going to host the 2026 edition jointly with Mexico and Canada so I don't really get what's wrong with having joint bids. The reason why joint bids has become more prominent is because smaller countries don't have to spend so much money on building stadiums. Which are needed for hosting a big event like the World Cup. Now that the World Cup has been increased to a 48 team tournament, a few countries can host the event without 1 country spending so much money on the event. Smaller countries can also boast the fact that they have hosted a renowned event like the FIFA World Cup.

Like think about it, can Uruguay host a 48 team event with the infrastructure they have currently? I don't think so. That's why having Argentina and Paraguay joining as co-hosts can ease the pressure of hosting for Uruguay. To be honest, I don't think Chile is necessary in this bid. That's my opinion. For the North African bid, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia are good to co-host. I don't think Egypt is necessary.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Xoussef said:


> Can anyone tell me where those joint bid fantasies are coming from? As far as I know Morocco only declared its intention to bid, alone ,and nothing more has been talked about since from either the federation or the gov. A joint bid with Tunisia or Egypt is simply not feasible, as of any bid including Algeria, it's so ridiculous an idea it doesn't even warrant a thought.


On 17 June 2018, the Royal Moroccan Football Federation announced its co-bidding for the 2030 World Cup. There are two possible joint bids: one with Tunisia and Algeria, and the other with Spain and Portugal.[1]

On 10 July 2018, Egypt's Sports Minister expressed interest in bidding to host.[15]

On 29 September 2018, the executive board of the Union of North African Football Federations (UNAF) announced its interest in submitting a joint North African bid for the 2030 FIFA World Cup.[16][17]

In July 2019, Egyptian Football Association president Hany Abo Rida said Egypt would be ready to host a 48-team World Cup.[18]

*Personally I reckon North Africa doesn't stand a chance of hosting any time in the next 20 years. But however small the steps being taken, there is at least some talk of formal bidding, even if it's only just talk. *


----------



## Light Tower

Rokto14 said:


> Well, you guys are going to host the 2026 edition jointly with Mexico and Canada so I don't really get what's wrong with having joint bids. The reason why joint bids has become more prominent is because smaller countries don't have to spend so much money on building stadiums. Which are needed for hosting a big event like the World Cup. Now that the World Cup has been increased to a 48 team tournament, a few countries can host the event without 1 country spending so much money on the event. Smaller countries can also boast the fact that they have hosted a renowned event like the FIFA World Cup.
> 
> Like think about it, can Uruguay host a 48 team event with the infrastructure they have currently? I don't think so. That's why having Argentina and Paraguay joining as co-hosts can ease the pressure of hosting for Uruguay. To be honest, I don't think Chile is necessary in this bid. That's my opinion. For the North African bid, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia are good to co-host. I don't think Egypt is necessary.


I agree with that. Well it's possible Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria could get the FIFA World Cup 2030, i would love to see the tournament return to Africa, It would be great there, Egypt could join which is possible according to one of the sites. If they win, Morocco could finally host the World Cup after five failed attempts (1994 losing out to USA, 1998 losing out to France, 2006 losing out to Germany, 2010 narrowly losing out to South Africa and 2026 losing out to the joint bid of Canada/Mexico/USA).


----------



## Ramanaramana

Light Tower said:


> I agree with that. Well it's possible Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria could get the FIFA World Cup 2030, i would love to see the tournament return to Africa, It would be great there, Egypt could join which is possible according to one of the sites. If they win, Morocco could finally host the World Cup after five failed attempts (1994 losing out to USA, 1998 losing out to France, 2006 losing out to Germany, 2010 narrowly losing out to South Africa and 2026 losing out to the joint bid of Canada/Mexico/USA).


One big problem with Africa is the wealth of the local population. In world cups local fans are expected to buy many of the available tickets. FIFA wants to make money, so the more they can charge the local population, the better.

In South Africa ticket prices were lowered for locals, and there were still many games which had plenty of empty seats. Not only did it look bad for such a prestigious tournament, but it also made them less money in ticketing revenue. And that's in South Africa, the richest African country per capita. I think 2010 was the worst world cup I've witnessed. The vuvuzelas destroyed the atmosphere, but the empty seats were a particular bugbear.

I think FIFA gave South Africa the votes in the end to get that off their chest.....to say that they've been to Africa so no one can accuse them of turning a blind eye. But it also gives them an excuse not to go back there for a very long time, as the biggest money is to be made by alternating between Europe, Asia and Americas. My position would change on this if FIFA do end up going to biennial tournament. If that happens, all bets are off.

I'm going on a tangent now, but I dislike that North Africa is part of African football. FIFA should create new confederations, splitting Asia into east and west, and then merging the North African countries with the west. The Arab world should have its own confederation.....it wouldn't be a small confederation as there'd be 20-30 countries..... and it would solve the crapfest we have now in Asia with the insane travel between east and west. Australia vs Saudi Arabia shouldn't be a thing. Morocco vs Saudi Arabia makes much more sense. Common language, close proximity, regional rivalries that fans can get behind.


----------



## pesto

Ramanaramana said:


> One big problem with Africa is the wealth of the local population. In world cups local fans are expected to buy many of the available tickets. FIFA wants to make money, so the more they can charge the local population, the better.
> 
> In South Africa ticket prices were lowered for locals, and there were still many games which had plenty of empty seats. Not only did it look bad for such a prestigious tournament, but it also made them less money in ticketing revenue. And that's in South Africa, the richest African country per capita. I think 2010 was the worst world cup I've witnessed. The vuvuzelas destroyed the atmosphere, but the empty seats were a particular bugbear.
> 
> I think FIFA gave South Africa the votes in the end to get that off their chest.....to say that they've been to Africa so no one can accuse them of turning a blind eye. But it also gives them an excuse not to go back there for a very long time, as the biggest money is to be made by alternating between Europe, Asia and Americas. My position would change on this if FIFA do end up going to biennial tournament. If that happens, all bets are off.
> 
> I'm going on a tangent now, but I dislike that North Africa is part of African football. FIFA should create new confederations, splitting Asia into east and west, and then merging the North African countries with the west. The Arab world should have its own confederation.....it wouldn't be a small confederation as there'd be 20-30 countries..... and it would solve the crapfest we have now in Asia with the insane travel between east and west. Australia vs Saudi Arabia shouldn't be a thing. Morocco vs Saudi Arabia makes much more sense. Common language, close proximity, regional rivalries that fans can get behind.


A very good summary.

Just to mention the elephant in the room: some of the countries mentioned in the N. Africa bid have very high levels of illiteracy, infant mortality, human rights issues. Their per capita income is like Namibia; about one-third that of Mexico, which is considered quite poor. 

The question could arise as to how they can fund sport tournaments and not hospitals with dependable electricity or teaching women how to read and write..


----------



## Rokto14

Ramanaramana said:


> One big problem with Africa is the wealth of the local population. In world cups local fans are expected to buy many of the available tickets. FIFA wants to make money, so the more they can charge the local population, the better.
> 
> In South Africa ticket prices were lowered for locals, and there were still many games which had plenty of empty seats. Not only did it look bad for such a prestigious tournament, but it also made them less money in ticketing revenue. And that's in South Africa, the richest African country per capita. I think 2010 was the worst world cup I've witnessed. The vuvuzelas destroyed the atmosphere, but the empty seats were a particular bugbear.
> 
> I think FIFA gave South Africa the votes in the end to get that off their chest.....to say that they've been to Africa so no one can accuse them of turning a blind eye. But it also gives them an excuse not to go back there for a very long time, as the biggest money is to be made by alternating between Europe, Asia and Americas. My position would change on this if FIFA do end up going to biennial tournament. If that happens, all bets are off.
> 
> I'm going on a tangent now, but I dislike that North Africa is part of African football. FIFA should create new confederations, splitting Asia into east and west, and then merging the North African countries with the west. *The Arab world should have its own confederation.....it wouldn't be a small confederation as there'd be 20-30 countries..... and it would solve the crapfest we have now in Asia with the insane travel between east and west.* Australia vs Saudi Arabia shouldn't be a thing. Morocco vs Saudi Arabia makes much more sense. Common language, close proximity, regional rivalries that fans can get behind.


Where do you want to see the divide? Because I don't think Iran would want to be part of the Arab World Confederation. As much as I don't want to mix politics and sports, the cold war between Iran and Saudi Arabia is very obvious that it's out there. If I were to assume this to happen, then 34 countries comprised in the regions of Central Asia, South Asia, East Asia and Southeast Asia will be part of AFC. 12 countries from West Asia and 5 countries in North Africa can make a new confederation. CAF will be left with 49 countries.

If these were to happen, FIFA will definitely have to rejig the number of places in finals for the confederations that are mentioned above. The number of places for AFC countries in the World Cup finals can go down from 8 to 6, whereas for CAF, the number of places can go down from 9 to 8. So the 3 places can be given to the Arab world Confederation. This is just my opinion.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Rokto14 said:


> Where do you want to see the divide? Because I don't think Iran would want to be part of the Arab World Confederation. As much as I don't want to mix politics and sports, the cold war between Iran and Saudi Arabia is very obvious that it's out there. If I were to assume this to happen, then 34 countries comprised in the regions of Central Asia, South Asia, East Asia and Southeast Asia will be part of AFC. 12 countries from West Asia and 5 countries in North Africa can make a new confederation. CAF will be left with 49 countries.
> 
> If these were to happen, FIFA will definitely have to rejig the number of places in finals for the confederations that are mentioned above. The number of places for AFC countries in the World Cup finals can go down from 8 to 6, whereas for CAF, the number of places can go down from 9 to 8. So the 3 places can be given to the Arab world Confederation. This is just my opinion.


No you're quite right, I agree. I don't think this idea will ever happen, just one of those pipe dream things I have.

As a thought experiment, to go off your last paragraph, I'll use the 2026 allocation to present my ideal setup.

AFC (46 members, 8 spots)
CAF (54 mem, 9 spots)
CONCA (35 mem, 6 spots)
CONME (10 mem, 6 spots)
OFC (11 mem, 1 spot)
UEFA (55 mem, 16 spots)

As you rightly say, Iran wouldn't be part of any West Asian/North African confederation, in the same way that Israel plays in UEFA. I would love for Turkey to be part of my idea, but even as a hypothetical there's no way Turkey leaves UEFA so no point doing it. And even though I only mentioned North Africa originally, I would put in most of the east African countries as well that are close to the Middle East and are considered part of the Arab world.

Arab Confederation (23 members)


ALGERIA
BAHRAIN
COMOROS
DJIBOUTI
EGYPT
ERITREA
IRAQ
JORDAN
KUWAIT
LIBYA
LEBANON
MAURITANIA
MOROCCO
OMAN
PALESTINE
QATAR
SAUDI ARABIA
SUDAN
SOMALIA
SYRIA
TUNISIA
UAE
YEMEN
That leaves it looking like this.......

Arab Confederation (23 members)
CAF (43 members)
AFC (35 + 11 OFC = 46 members....doesn't include Northern Mariana Islands which is an AFC member but not FIFA). I would absorb the 11 OFC countries into AFC, giving them 46 members, which is what they have now. Prequalifiers would be used to get rid of most of the island nations in OFC before the likes of New Zealand entered a latter stage in AFC qualifying.

Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Egypt, which would make up part of the new Arab Confederation, have between them 17 of 44 qualifications for a world cup by African countries. Meaning 39% of African countries that have qualified for a world cup have come from those 4 North African countries. The reason I bring that up is because it means the Arab confederation would demand more spots relatively to the rest of the Africa, because 4 countries out of 54 accounting for 39% of all qualifiers is a big deal and can't be ignored.

In Asia this isn't the case. Just 8 of the 39 countries qualified for the world cup have come from a west Asian country that would be part of a new Arab confederation, and 5 of those are Saudi Arabia by itself. That's 20%.

That's my reasoning for not taking too many spots from AFC as outside of Saudi Arabia AFC wouldn't be losing too much quality. CAF would lose a lot of quality if the North African countries left, and those allocation spots they have now would have to follow.

As a reminder the current setup is.....
AFC (46 members, 8 spots)
CAF (54 mem, 9 spots)
OFC (11 mem, 1 spot)

Based on my criteria, I would change that to.......
AFC+OFC (46 members, 8 spots)
CAF (43 members, 6 spots)
ARAB CONF (23 members, 4 spots)

Also need to account for the importance of Asian economies to FIFA compared to Africa. My idea is not wholly merit based, and allocating more spots to Asia than Africa....which isn't the case now....is to do with the strong North African countries leaving, as well as making sure that Asia gets enough spots so that some of the biggest economies on the planet have a better chance of qualifying. But I don't think Africa needs more than 6 qualifiers if the Arab countries were in another confederation. You'd still leave all the big hitters like Nigeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Senegal, South Africa with a good chance of qualifying without risking an important country missing out.


----------



## DR.SHREJMAN

Ramanaramana said:


> No you're quite right, I agree. I don't think this idea will ever happen, just one of those pipe dream things I have.
> 
> As a thought experiment, to go off your last paragraph, I'll use the 2026 allocation to present my ideal setup.
> 
> AFC (46 members, 8 spots)
> CAF (54 mem, 9 spots)
> CONCA (35 mem, 6 spots)
> CONME (10 mem, 6 spots)
> OFC (11 mem, 1 spot)
> UEFA (55 mem, 16 spots)
> 
> As you rightly say, Iran wouldn't be part of any West Asian/North African confederation, in the same way that Israel plays in UEFA. I would love for Turkey to be part of my idea, but even as a hypothetical there's no way Turkey leaves UEFA so no point doing it. And even though I only mentioned North Africa originally, I would put in most of the east African countries as well that are close to the Middle East and are considered part of the Arab world.
> 
> Arab Confederation (23 members)
> 
> 
> ALGERIA
> BAHRAIN
> COMOROS
> DJIBOUTI
> EGYPT
> ERITREA
> IRAQ
> JORDAN
> KUWAIT
> LIBYA
> LEBANON
> MAURITANIA
> MOROCCO
> OMAN
> PALESTINE
> QATAR
> SAUDI ARABIA
> SUDAN
> SOMALIA
> SYRIA
> TUNISIA
> UAE
> YEMEN
> That leaves it looking like this.......
> 
> Arab Confederation (23 members)
> CAF (43 members)
> AFC (35 + 11 OFC = 46 members....doesn't include Northern Mariana Islands which is an AFC member but not FIFA). I would absorb the 11 OFC countries into AFC, giving them 46 members, which is what they have now. Prequalifiers would be used to get rid of most of the island nations in OFC before the likes of New Zealand entered a latter stage in AFC qualifying.
> 
> Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Egypt, which would make up part of the new Arab Confederation, have between them 17 of 44 qualifications for a world cup by African countries. Meaning 39% of African countries that have qualified for a world cup have come from those 4 North African countries. The reason I bring that up is because it means the Arab confederation would demand more spots relatively to the rest of the Africa, because 4 countries out of 54 accounting for 39% of all qualifiers is a big deal and can't be ignored.
> 
> In Asia this isn't the case. Just 8 of the 39 countries qualified for the world cup have come from a west Asian country that would be part of a new Arab confederation, and 5 of those are Saudi Arabia by itself. That's 20%.
> 
> That's my reasoning for not taking too many spots from AFC as outside of Saudi Arabia AFC wouldn't be losing too much quality. CAF would lose a lot of quality if the North African countries left, and those allocation spots they have now would have to follow.
> 
> As a reminder the current setup is.....
> AFC (46 members, 8 spots)
> CAF (54 mem, 9 spots)
> OFC (11 mem, 1 spot)
> 
> Based on my criteria, I would change that to.......
> AFC+OFC (46 members, 8 spots)
> CAF (43 members, 6 spots)
> ARAB CONF (23 members, 4 spots)
> 
> Also need to account for the importance of Asian economies to FIFA compared to Africa. My idea is not wholly merit based, and allocating more spots to Asia than Africa....which isn't the case now....is to do with the strong North African countries leaving, as well as making sure that Asia gets enough spots so that some of the biggest economies on the planet have a better chance of qualifying. But I don't think Africa needs more than 6 qualifiers if the Arab countries were in another confederation. You'd still leave all the big hitters like Nigeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Senegal, South Africa with a good chance of qualifying without risking an important country missing out.



Eritrea is not part of Arab States. the total is 22 not 23. they invited south sudan to the tournament for political reasons i guess.


----------



## Ramanaramana

DR.SHREJMAN said:


> Eritrea is not part of Arab States. the total is 22 not 23. they invited south sudan to the tournament for political reasons i guess.


It's a country where Arabic is an official language, that's why I included it. My idea wasn't a scientific presentation, just a thought experiment. It's not important either way.


----------



## pesto

Ramanaramana said:


> It's a country where Arabic is an official language, that's why I included it. My idea wasn't a scientific presentation, just a thought experiment. It's not important either way.


It's a big job. Did you ever watch Lawrence of Arabia? lol.

And he didn't even try working with the Maghreb. Just sticking to the Saudi Peninsula would seem more manageable..


----------



## Ioannes_

This Friday the candidacy of Spain and Portugal for the 2030 World Cup is officially presented. 









El Rey, Sánchez y Rebelo, juntos al Wanda por el Mundial


Felipe VI y Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa asistirán este viernes al amistoso entre España y Portugal y presentarán oficialmente la Candidatura Ibérica para 2030



as.com





El Rey (The King), Sánchez and Rebelo, together with Wanda for the World Cup Felipe VI will attend this Friday the Spain-Portugal in the Wanda Metropolitano with the President of the Government, Pedro Sánchez, and the President of the Portuguese Republic, Rebelo de Sousa, for the official presentation of the Iberian Candidacy. 

Felipe VI will attend the Metropolitano Stadium this Friday along with the President of the Republic of Portugal, Rebelo de Sousa, and the President of the Government of Spain, Pedro Sánchez, to participate in the official presentation ceremony of the Iberian Bid for the 2030 World Cup which will be held in the Atlético stadium box before the friendly between Spain and Portugal, the first match of both teams' preparation for the European Championship. Luis Rubiales, president of the Federation (RFEF) and vice president of UEFA, will host a ceremony that will also be attended by the highest authorities of the Madrid Government.

Pedro Sánchez, President of the Government, promoted the Iberian Candidacy for the 30th World Cup that will be held after the editions already scheduled in Qatar-2022 and in the United States-Mexico-Canada-2026. "It is a state project," Sánchez said when the project was known, which originally also included Morocco. But FIFA dismantled that idea because it does not accept a World Cup on two continents, as supposed by the union of the two countries of the Iberian Peninsula together with Morocco.

FIFA will open the bidding process for candidatures in June 2022. The final venue will not be known until two years later, when FIFA holds its 74th Congress and announces the winning country or bid for the organization of what will be the centenary of the Cup. del Mundo, whose first edition was held in Urugay in 1930.


----------



## pesto

Ioannes_ said:


> This Friday the candidacy of Spain and Portugal for the 2030 World Cup is officially presented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> El Rey, Sánchez y Rebelo, juntos al Wanda por el Mundial
> 
> 
> Felipe VI y Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa asistirán este viernes al amistoso entre España y Portugal y presentarán oficialmente la Candidatura Ibérica para 2030
> 
> 
> 
> as.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> El Rey (The King), Sánchez and Rebelo, together with Wanda for the World Cup Felipe VI will attend this Friday the Spain-Portugal in the Wanda Metropolitano with the President of the Government, Pedro Sánchez, and the President of the Portuguese Republic, Rebelo de Sousa, for the official presentation of the Iberian Candidacy.
> 
> Felipe VI will attend the Metropolitano Stadium this Friday along with the President of the Republic of Portugal, Rebelo de Sousa, and the President of the Government of Spain, Pedro Sánchez, to participate in the official presentation ceremony of the Iberian Bid for the 2030 World Cup which will be held in the Atlético stadium box before the friendly between Spain and Portugal, the first match of both teams' preparation for the European Championship. Luis Rubiales, president of the Federation (RFEF) and vice president of UEFA, will host a ceremony that will also be attended by the highest authorities of the Madrid Government.
> 
> Pedro Sánchez, President of the Government, promoted the Iberian Candidacy for the 30th World Cup that will be held after the editions already scheduled in Qatar-2022 and in the United States-Mexico-Canada-2026. "It is a state project," Sánchez said when the project was known, which originally also included Morocco. But FIFA dismantled that idea because it does not accept a World Cup on two continents, as supposed by the union of the two countries of the Iberian Peninsula together with Morocco.
> 
> FIFA will open the bidding process for candidatures in June 2022. The final venue will not be known until two years later, when FIFA holds its 74th Congress and announces the winning country or bid for the organization of what will be the centenary of the Cup. del Mundo, whose first edition was held in Urugay in 1930.


The Kings of Spain and Portugal!! So it’s officially:

Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other realms and territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith;

Vs.

The King of Spain (his titles are too numerous to mention and in any event are now restricted by constitution and law).


Now all we need is Drake and Hawkins and Medina Sidonia and it will be like the good old days. Let’s see if QE II can match her illustrious predecessor:

“…I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king – and of a King of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which, rather than any dishonour should grow by me, I myself will take up arms – I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field.”
.


----------



## Ioannes_

pesto said:


> The Kings of Spain and Portugal!! So it’s officially:
> 
> Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other realms and territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith;
> 
> Vs.
> 
> The King of Spain (his titles are too numerous to mention and in any event are now restricted by constitution and law).
> 
> 
> Now all we need is Drake and Hawkins and Medina Sidonia and it will be like the good old days. Let’s see if QE II can match her illustrious predecessor:
> 
> “…I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king – and of a King of England too, and think foul scorn that Parma or Spain, or any prince of Europe, should dare to invade the borders of my realm; to which, rather than any dishonour should grow by me, I myself will take up arms – I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field.”
> .


No, simply, the Constitutional King and the President of the Government of a democratic country whose passion is football, present a great joint candidacy for the 2030 World Cup.
It's an absurd idea of Pedro Sánchez, a megalomaniac Presidente del Gobierno with a desire for prominence seconded by his Portuguese socialist counterpart that we *all know is going to lose.* The World Cup has already been awarded to *England*, either for infrastructure, for lobbying or revenge from the Super League.

By the way, regarding his irony: you are from the United States, a country that has hosted two World Cups without having any football tradition and always felt like an orphan of a monarchy, that is why you adore both family sagas like the Kennedy, Bush, treat the first ladies as Queens and believe that the White House is a royal palace.
His candidacies were indeed a monarchical literary work of Shakespeare.


----------



## Ramanaramana

I see many people think that Barca and Real's part in the Super League will mean Spain/Portugal has no chance. 

I don't understand this position myself because the Spanish football association will have good relations with the other FAs, which is the only important thing. The Spanish FA never supported the Super League, denounced it, so why do so many people think they'll punish the RFEF because of Real and Barca?

It's going to be much closer than people are giving credit for. 

In terms of stadiums, right now Spain/Portugal beats England for mine. The peninsula is going to have one of the best set of 12 stadiums on the continent, alongside Russia and Germany. 

The good news for both parties is that whoever loses out on the World Cup will almost surely be hosting a European Championship in 2028 or 2032. We can all be thankful for having two high caliber hosts for such major competitions.


----------



## pesto

Ioannes_ said:


> No, simply, the Constitutional King and the President of the Government of a democratic country whose passion is football, present a great joint candidacy for the 2030 World Cup.
> It's an absurd idea of Pedro Sánchez, a megalomaniac Presidente del Gobierno with a desire for prominence seconded by his Portuguese socialist counterpart that we *all know is going to lose.* The World Cup has already been awarded to *England*, either for infrastructure, for lobbying or revenge from the Super League.
> 
> By the way, regarding his irony: you are from the United States, a country that has hosted two World Cups without having any football tradition and always felt like an orphan of a monarchy, that is why you adore both family sagas like the Kennedy, Bush, treat the first ladies as Queens and believe that the White House is a royal palace.
> His candidacies were indeed a monarchical literary work of Shakespeare.


LOL. Actually I am not originally from the US, but let's forget about that.

I just thought that it was interesting that Elizabeth I and Felipe II had a run in some time back and now Elizabeth II and Felipe VI are at it again (hopefully with fewer casualties). Or at least their Tourism offices are.

The part about orphans and the White House as a palace shows profound ignorance of the US. The Roosevelts and Kennedys were well known before they were elected; none of the other families were famous except while in office. 

Nowadays the real American aristocracy are tech billionaires, athletes and rappers. Politicians are fading since they are far less colorful and need to remain politically correct. By contrast, athletes and rappers are known to be idiots and billionaires just speak through their actions.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

@Ramanaramana: FIFA is a different entity with different politics anyway. Reports have come out saying that Infantino supported and assisted the Super League project in secret, before dismissing it on the record when it became public.


----------



## Ioannes_

I would have liked the candidacy: Uruguay Argentina, Paraguay and Chile.

But I do not understand how Argentina has so little common sense for its sports architecture, *something that Brazil did surpass*: remodeling of historic stadiums such as the Monumental, keeping the space on the pitch, and that irrationality when facing the remodeling of the Bombonera that in Europe if they solved Clubs like Real Madrid, Villarreal or Liverpool ..

As for Uruguay's Centennial Stadium, which should be one of the most iconic in the world, only mediocre proposals have been outlined for its remodeling without any architectural appeal.

I know that a football World Cup should be a passion and a game, not a business, but also an attractive offer that encourages the fan to travel to that city, but Argentine politicians have been destroying the country since Perón; a country with so much potential and with so much in common with Spain; a shame.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Double post.


----------



## Ramanaramana

alexandru.mircea said:


> @Ramanaramana: FIFA is a different entity with different politics anyway. Reports have come out saying that Infantino supported and assisted the Super League project in secret, before dismissing it on the record when it became public.


It's true what you say about FIFA, though I'd add that members of any given confederation typically decide to back one proposal from within their confed. So UEFA's 55 members will end up swaying towards Spain/Portugal or England, which will be critical for the bid's success. I'm suggesting the Super League plans won't hurt Spain's bid because the RFEF would never support a Super League, and the other 54 FAs understand that and be sympathetic to their plight.

On Infantino, yes the Super League certainly had his backing as he wanted it to feed into the Club World Cup. When that backfired he denounced it, and now FIFA are on the charm offensive using Wenger to promote a World Cup every 2 years.


----------



## alserrod

Ramanaramana said:


> It's true what you say about FIFA, though I'd add that members of any given confederation typically decide to back one proposal from within their confed. So UEFA's 55 members will end up swaying towards Spain/Portugal or England, which will be critical for the bid's success. I'm suggesting the Super League plans won't hurt Spain's bid because the RFEF would never support a Super League, and the other 54 FAs understand that and be sympathetic to their plight.
> 
> On Infantino, yes the Super League certainly had his backing as he wanted it to feed into the Club World Cup. When that backfired he denounced it, and now FIFA are on the charm offensive using Wenger to promote a World Cup every 2 years.



As a hint, for EuroCup, Spain team will not have any R.Madrid player. I think it is the first time in history that team doesn't have an international Spanish player.

I remember some comments on media and people mainly said... WTF, absolutely all heading R.Madrid players are foreing. They could be in any Team for Euro2020 but not in the Spanish one. The only possible one hasn't had a good year this time. No other options.

This is... they are separate worlds... teams and federation. Let's not mix them.


----------



## Ramanaramana

alserrod said:


> As a hint, for EuroCup, Spain team will not have any R.Madrid player. I think it is the first time in history that team doesn't have an international Spanish player.
> 
> I remember some comments on media and people mainly said... WTF, absolutely all heading R.Madrid players are foreing. They could be in any Team for Euro2020 but not in the Spanish one. The only possible one hasn't had a good year this time. No other options.
> 
> This is... they are separate worlds... teams and federation. Let's not mix them.


I'm with you. Clearly there is an agenda in the selection, and RFEF/Enrique have not been kind to Florentino. Four Barca players but no Real? Carvajal, Vazquez and Ramos all had good seasons. You are going to pick a 20 year old with no caps who barely played for City (Eric Garcia) but not Ramos, a club/country legend, one of the best leaders in the game and who still played well when he was fit?


----------



## fish.01

Light Tower said:


> if Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Egypt get the 2030 FIFA World Cup, it would be the first time a FIFA World Cup men's event to be held in more than one continent. Same thing that will do with the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup in Australia (AFC) and New Zealand (OFC).


Australia and New Zealand are in a different confederation not a different continent?


----------



## Light Tower

fish.01 said:


> Australia and New Zealand are in a different confederation not a different continent?


you know what i mean, more than one continent like confederation.


----------



## fish.01

Light Tower said:


> you know what i mean, more than one continent like confederation.


Sorry, but I honestly didn't know what you mean. My apologies. I just thought because Australia is artificially in the Asian confederation but Australia isn't in Asia it is different. It really belongs with New Zealand. That's not the case for Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Egypt which seems a bigger deal than Australian/New Zealand being joint hosts of something? Aus/NZ joint host events often.


----------



## Light Tower

It's going to be a d difficult bid for Argentina-Uruguay-Chile-Paraguay along with others, it would probably be impossible to beat Morocco-Saudi Arabia-Egypt bid.


----------



## ElvisBC

yepp, no way they could beat them, but if venezuela and cuba join it might help


----------



## nicholaseds2

I think there are 3 strong candidates for world cup 2030 as the 100 year of world cup, 
1. Uruguay-Argentina-Paraguay
2. European countries, either UK-Ireland, Spain-Portugal, or maybe pan-European like Euro 2020(2021) 
3. China

Uruguay-Argentina-Paraguay is favorable since the first world cup was held in Uruguay to celebrate the historical moment, however, the kick off time must suit with American viewers and European viewers must spend time after midnight for football match, and for the final itself I think the kick off time will be held on 4/5 pm local time like 2014 World Cup final to suit European viewers. In addition to that, maybe the economical condition of country will a little bit reduce the chance to become 2030 world cup host.

European countries are very favorable to become 2030 world cup host since Europe is the center and hometown of world football, so European countries are very deserved to become host of 100 years of world cup as the special world cup, and also European viewers can get nice timezone and they don't need to travel in a long time to watch world cup, plus European countries are developed countries in terms of economic, science-technology, and social life.

China is very favorable to become 2030 world cup host since China become superpower country, including in economy terms. China also will expand football to improve quality of football. China also have the fantastic track record in held mega sports events including 2008 Olympics and 2010 Asian Games. But for the kickoff time is not favorable for European viewers so they must watch football from morning until afternoon, if the last kick off time on 22.00 China time, the last match broadcast time on continental Europe is on 16.00, and maybe the local kickoff time must be past midnight to accomodate European viewers but it's not too be healthy for the players and most of children are not watching match past midnight in stadium.

I hope 2030 world cup host is chosen by public vote by online media so football fans can choose the best place for held the ultimate and special world cup.


----------



## CWells2000

Ramanaramana said:


> Yeah their confederation would benefit most from a biennial world cup as it means more money for those associations which are among the least well-off in the world.
> 
> But when you think they have 50+ members, when Conmebol has already suggested hosting every 2 years, all it would take is to get Asia and Concacaf onside, both of which are likely to support it I reckon, and it would have huge momentum.
> 
> I don't see how UEFA can fight that kind of support.
> 
> What FIFA is proposing is more meaningful matches and fewer qualifying matches, so FIFPro and UEFA can't turn around and say you're killing the players. It's also calling for reduction in number of international windows, which the big European clubs should support. And FIFA can also say 'if you support the biennial world cup we'll renounce the expanded Club World Cup', which would remove a threat to the Champions League.
> 
> Even though this is still in the embryonic stage, I really think it'll become reality soon. There is clear momentum building, especially with the major calendar changes coming 2024.
> 
> The football purist should understand that the number of casuals outnumbers the purists by a large factor. Just look at the TV ratings for major tournaments compared to cup finals or league matches. 20-30 million people will watch England play a single match in a major tournament but you'd get 5-10 million for an FA Cup final.
> 
> The only people who say that it is overkill are those who watch 5 matches a week throughout the year and savour the prospect of not having to watch football during June and July in the offseason because they want to go on holiday. For most people that don't watch any football regularly, hosting a world cup every 2 years isn't overkill at all. To be clear I'm not saying the Euros would have to make way. I think they also need to be streamlined to reduce qualifying while still retaining the finals.
> 
> It's the same thing with people who complain about expansion of the world cup. John Smith from Hartlepool or Juan Garcia from Girona might think the quality of the world cup goes down expanding to 48 teams, but think about the extra hundreds of millions of people who will experience their national team involved at the highest level more regularly......what that does to the growth of the game in those countries.
> 
> The only people who hate the idea are the loud minority purists who end up on forums and Reddit balking at any suggestion of changing the status quo, making it seem like their views represent the majority.
> 
> In the end no one is forcing them to watch world cup matches. If a person think it's overkill and it's ruining the game, don't watch. Instead of moaning about how shit it will be, why not just skip it and let us who do enjoy it to keep watching. There's far more of us than you.
> 
> My ideal version of the international calendar involves......
> 
> Automatic qualification for next edition of continental cup for teams that make Quarters or R16.
> 
> Prequalifiers to weed out smaller countries for both continental and world cups. This already happens outside of UEFA and Conmebol.
> 
> Qualifying played in one large block midseason or ideally end of season.
> 
> A reduction in number of total matches required to qualify for tournaments.
> 
> A major tournament (world cup + euro/copa/afcon/asian c/gold cup) played every year.


a two year world cup would be logistically challenging.

the only way it could reasonably work is if all qualification matches were via a knockout format, so weaker teams start earlier, and then the stronger ones would come in.


----------



## pesto

nicholaseds2 said:


> I think there are 3 strong candidates for world cup 2030 as the 100 year of world cup,
> 1. Uruguay-Argentina-Paraguay
> 2. European countries, either UK-Ireland, Spain-Portugal, or maybe pan-European like Euro 2020(2021)
> 3. China
> 
> Uruguay-Argentina-Paraguay is favorable since the first world cup was held in Uruguay to celebrate the historical moment, however, the kick off time must suit with American viewers and European viewers must spend time after midnight for football match, and for the final itself I think the kick off time will be held on 4/5 pm local time like 2014 World Cup final to suit European viewers. In addition to that, maybe the economical condition of country will a little bit reduce the chance to become 2030 world cup host.
> 
> European countries are very favorable to become 2030 world cup host since Europe is the center and hometown of world football, so European countries are very deserved to become host of 100 years of world cup as the special world cup, and also European viewers can get nice timezone and they don't need to travel in a long time to watch world cup, plus European countries are developed countries in terms of economic, science-technology, and social life.
> 
> China is very favorable to become 2030 world cup host since China become superpower country, including in economy terms. China also will expand football to improve quality of football. China also have the fantastic track record in held mega sports events including 2008 Olympics and 2010 Asian Games. But for the kickoff time is not favorable for European viewers so they must watch football from morning until afternoon, if the last kick off time on 22.00 China time, the last match broadcast time on continental Europe is on 16.00, and maybe the local kickoff time must be past midnight to accomodate European viewers but it's not too be healthy for the players and most of children are not watching match past midnight in stadium.
> 
> I hope 2030 world cup host is chosen by public vote by online media so football fans can choose the best place for held the ultimate and special world cup.


A very nice analysis. 

Another way of looking at 2030 is that it is the first WC of the second century. That puts the focus on where the large markets will be in the future, which makes sense since you can't do anything about the past, and shouldn't let it blind you as to the future. I would expect analysis at least 20 years out, more likely 30 but with less confidence in the out years. 

But focusing on, say, the Asian market doesn't mean you have to play the matches there. You can use cities that have strong world brands and soccer connections, which will attract viewers worldwide. Maybe a theme of "From Europe to the World" to tie the past and future together?.


----------



## pesto

CWells2000 said:


> a two year world cup would be logistically challenging.
> 
> the only way it could reasonably work is if all qualification matches were via a knockout format, so weaker teams start earlier, and then the stronger ones would come in.


Yes. HIgh risk of burn-out for both fans and players and less time to do it right..


----------



## Canucklehead83

I'm on board with biannual Olympics, World Cup, etc. Four years is a long time to go between not caring about a sport! And I mean that in all honesty. If more potential fans were exposed to the game on a more regular basis it would win more fans, at least here in North America. Frankly we need diversionary summer events to prevent idle people from doing bad things. It seems stupid but it's true that any time a large TV spectacle is on, crime tends to drop. So you want a safer city and society? Put on a free global circus... And for the record, I'd support a Morocco 2030 and ANZAC 2032 bid!


----------



## Canucklehead83

CWells2000 said:


> a two year world cup would be logistically challenging.
> 
> the only way it could reasonably work is if all qualification matches were via a knockout format, so weaker teams start earlier, and then the stronger ones would come in.


That's probably a good thing! As much as I like a cinderella story, let's get down to the real players sooner than later. Same is true for my nation's main sport, Ice Hockey... It's nice that almost everyone can enter the world championships but it's almost always going to come down to a handful of players and teams....


----------



## nicholaseds2

CWells2000 said:


> a two year world cup would be logistically challenging.
> 
> the only way it could reasonably work is if all qualification matches were via a knockout format, so weaker teams start earlier, and then the stronger ones would come in.


I think the continental championship can be act as the world cup qualification like junior world cups


----------



## Light Tower

nicholaseds2 said:


> I think the continental championship can be act as the world cup qualification like junior world cups


Well, we will wait on that. Same thing as well with the Africa Cup of Nations does that too. I think Morocco/Saudi Arabia/Egypt would be awesome to see host.

My prediction of venues should be:

MOROCCO:

Agadir
Casablanca: Grand Stade de Casablanca - Capacity: 93,000 (could stage final)
El Jadida: Stade de El Jadida (new) - Capacity: 68,000
Fez: Fez Stadium - Capacity: 45,000
Meknes: Stade de Meknes (new) - Capacity: 62,000
Marrakech: Stade de Marrakech - Capacity: 45,240
Oujda: Stade de Oujda (new) - Capacity: 70,000
Rabat: Prince Moulay Abdellah Stadium - Capacity: 52,000
Tangier: - Stade de Tanger - Capacity: 65,000

SAUDI ARABIA:

Dammam: Prince Mohammad bin Fahd Stadium - Capacity: 36,000
Jeddah: King Abdullah Sports City Stadium - Capacity: 62,241
Riyadh: King Fahd International Stadium - Capacity: 67,000 (could stage opening and third place match)

EGYPT:

Borg El Arab: Borg El Arab Stadium - Capacity: 86,000
Cairo: Cairo International Stadium - Capacity: 75,000
Suez: Egyptian Army Stadium - Capacity: 45,000

These are the venues i expect for the 2030 FIFA World Cup. a possible theme of the bid: "Two Continents, One Dream".


----------



## nicholaseds2

Light Tower said:


> Well, we will wait on that. Same thing as well with the Africa Cup of Nations does that too. I think Morocco/Saudi Arabia/Egypt would be awesome to see host.
> 
> My prediction of venues should be:
> 
> MOROCCO:
> 
> Agadir
> Casablanca: Grand Stade de Casablanca - Capacity: 93,000 (could stage final)
> El Jadida: Stade de El Jadida (new) - Capacity: 68,000
> Fez: Fez Stadium - Capacity: 45,000
> Meknes: Stade de Meknes (new) - Capacity: 62,000
> Marrakech: Stade de Marrakech - Capacity: 45,240
> Oujda: Stade de Oujda (new) - Capacity: 70,000
> Rabat: Prince Moulay Abdellah Stadium - Capacity: 52,000
> Tangier: - Stade de Tanger - Capacity: 65,000
> 
> SAUDI ARABIA:
> 
> Dammam: Prince Mohammad bin Fahd Stadium - Capacity: 36,000
> Jeddah: King Abdullah Sports City Stadium - Capacity: 62,241
> Riyadh: King Fahd International Stadium - Capacity: 67,000 (could stage opening and third place match)
> 
> EGYPT:
> 
> Borg El Arab: Borg El Arab Stadium - Capacity: 86,000
> Cairo: Cairo International Stadium - Capacity: 75,000
> Suez: Egyptian Army Stadium - Capacity: 45,000
> 
> These are the venues i expect for the 2030 FIFA World Cup. a possible theme of the bid: "Two Continents, One Dream".


but all matches in Saudi must be played at night since of very hot summer...


----------



## Light Tower

nicholaseds2 said:


> but all matches in Saudi must be played at night since of very hot summer...


Maybe the Early 2030 in January and February could be ideal conditions.


----------



## Ramanaramana

fish.01 said:


> Sorry, but I honestly didn't know what you mean. My apologies. I just thought because Australia is artificially in the Asian confederation but Australia isn't in Asia it is different. It really belongs with New Zealand. That's not the case for Saudi Arabia, Morocco and Egypt which seems a bigger deal than Australian/New Zealand being joint hosts of something? Aus/NZ joint host events often.


Joint bids have never happened with multi-confederations, so it would be a big deal whether it's in North Africa/Middle East or Oceania. The difference between the Middle East and North Africa is as negligible as that between Australia and NZ.



nicholaseds2 said:


> I hope 2030 world cup host is chosen by public vote by online media so football fans can choose the best place for held the ultimate and special world cup.


It won't be chosen by public vote, so we can put that idea to rest.



CWells2000 said:


> a two year world cup would be logistically challenging.
> 
> the only way it could reasonably work is if all qualification matches were via a knockout format, so weaker teams start earlier, and then the stronger ones would come in.


That's exactly how it would work. All confederations outside Europe and South America already have qualification stages in which weaker nations take part first before being joined by the better ones in latter rounds.

The issue over player burnout only applies to the best players in the world whose clubs play 50-60 matches a season and whose national teams tend to go far in tournaments. Most players see nowhere near that amount of football.

A quick example in Europe, which has 16 qualification spots for 2026.......

Bottom 14 teams, of 55, play a two-legged prequalifier. Winners go through to second stage.

In second stage, the 7 winners join the top 41 nations in group stage qualification.

Because there are 48 teams and 16 slots, the group stage is 16 groups of 3 teams.

The teams all play home and away, making up 4 matches, with the group winners qualifying directly for the World Cup.

There's a very quick way of fitting Europe's entire qualification into less than a month. No need for knockouts all the way through, and ensures most major countries would qualify. It may produce one or two surprises, but most if not all of the big guns would be better than the teams they face, and would be expected to qualify.

If you want more matches during group stage, such as 6 instead of 4, just increase number of teams in group. Could still be over in less than a month. 



Light Tower said:


> Maybe the Early 2030 in January and February could be ideal conditions.


FIFA is not going to be changing world cup dates like they have with Qatar regularly, as the clubs would go apeshit and revolt. It creates too many problems for the club calendar. Qatar was an exception because they purchased the world cup, and then realities had to be accounted for. Don't expect that situation to arise again anytime soon, at least not in 2030.


----------



## Matt 2012

As argentinian i have to say i'm agree with most of the commentaries. Our co-bid's stronger factor is the nostalgic one. The 100th cup final taking place again in Uruguay, maybe Maradona as a postum embassador and a recently retired Messi as the figure of the tournament. Maaaaybe an image of a cup in non-so-rich countries, after the pandemic, in a "humanitary" gesture of the FIFA. Taking that from side, we actually don't have a first world class infrastructure. What we have is certainly not bad, but will require investment to reach the standards of a Worl Cup. Investment that we can afford, but not as easy as UK or Spain would. Economically our case will be similar to South Africa 2010 and not so far from Brazil 2014, saving the distances. The difference is the instability of the region this last few years and of course the economic impact of the pandemic, of wich we eventually will recover but certainly not as fast as an european country. If bidding process begin in 2022 and the election of the host take place in 2024, time is not from our side. Is a possible cup but not as easy as it would be in other countries that are bidding.
We will see, i think if is not in 2030 we can make it in 2034 or 2038 with good possibilities, though i dont know if it will still be the southern cone or just Argentina.

Moreover, i support my country till the end and i really hope we get the cup. Who knows, maybe the reasons i gave will be enough. Ja.


----------



## Eurostallion1

This has been touched on here before but I feel that the issue of automatic host qualification might scupper a potential UK-Ireland bid for a number of reasons. 
The current proposal is that UEFA will get 16 spots when the World Cup expands to 48 teams, that's only three more than UEFA gets with 32 teams. 

Let's assume that FIFA decides that all hosts qualify automatically as has always been the case and that a United Ireland does not happen soon. That would mean 5 of UEFA's 16 spots used up by the hosts. With no offence intended, four of the hosts are countries that don't normally qualify for the World Cup. That only leaves 11 spots for the rest of Europe to divide up. Even if UEFA gets some extra spots to compensate, the uncertainty on this issue is hardly going to be attractive to other UEFA nations when deciding who to vote for. Likewise, any potential extra spots for UEFA are going to come at the expense of another part of the world which makes the bid unattractive to nations outside Europe. 

It may also be the case that FIFA decides that not all hosts qualify automatically in future if these multi nation World Cups become the norm. Indeed, FIFA has yet to confirm that USA, Canada and Mexico all qualify automatically for 2026. FIFA might devise some alternative system. Any alternative system means there's a possibility that a host nation might not qualify. I don't see how a country hosting matches in a World Cup they're not in really works and I can see how the general public in such a country quickly losing interest. We saw how quickly Dublin lost all interest in staging Euro 2020 matches when Eire failed to qualify. I know the Corona Virus was the excuse given but had the Republic qualified, they would have found a way for those matches to go ahead in Dublin. Also, if there's even a slight chance that England might not qualify for a World Cup where there will be hosting the bulk of the matches, that uncertainty would cloud the buildup and preparations for the tournament. Then if they come up with some rigged solution where England qualifies automatically but the others don't, I can see that the celtic nations would see that as corrupt and a massive injustice and the public in those countries might actually turn against the idea of staging World Cup matches.

Things would be a lot easier if FIFA can provide some clarity on how automatic host qualification is going to work, now that they are tolerating multi-nation bids. Similar issues will be faced by the other bids especially the Balkan one and the South American one but is most sensitive to the UK-Ireland bid due to having the most hosts and the unique and somewhat uncertain constitutional status of the countries involved.


----------



## Ramanaramana

FIFA does need to provide clarification you're right, but I don't think they need to issue a cast-iron rule to follow for every subsequent World Cup. Every bid should be looked at on merit and decided on accordingly as to who gets automatic qualification and who doesn't.

Under existing format, Concacaf has 3.5 spots. Most of the time, you can bet 2 of those 3.5 spots will be taken by USA and Mexico. Then it's one of the central American countries that usually gets in.

In 2026, they'll have 6 spots, including hosts. If three of those automatic spots are given to USA, Mexico and Canada..........two of which are regular participants at world cups and Canada which is a top 5 teams in Concacaf easy....... they'll still have another 3 spots to give to other countries. In other words, nothing changes in Concacaf even if you give all three host countries automatic qualification. No balance has been upset.

Elsewhere....apart from Conmebol depending on hosts...... it's a different reality, so the goalposts should be moveable. We should give the UK/Ireland bid a chance to figure it out on their own before setting parameters to follow prior to any bid being made.

Would the Scottish FA want games at Hampden even if Scotland weren't automatic qualifiers? Would the city of Cardiff/government of Wales? My guess is they'd be falling over themselves.

Dublin pulled out as they couldn't guarantee 25% minimum capacity. I don't think it had anything to do with Ireland qualifying as the host venues were announced in 2014, way before qualification groups were drawn, let alone getting a sniff at qualifying.

The 'host nation needs to be playing in their own stadium for co-hosting to work otherwise they won't want to host' doesn't add up for me. It's the World Cup. Any country/city/stadium would be proud to host matches, especially if the stadiums are already in place as they would be in a UK/Ireland bid.

The only thing that can stop a city from jumping on board are FIFA's specific demands that put city officials off.

I reckon a UK/Ireland bid can work while only taking up 1 automatic spot (England), even if that one country (England) is also the most certain to qualify anyway. Either way none of the other countries would ever get a sniff at hosting a World Cup so there has to be some understanding that they shouldn't bite the hand that's feeding them. Demanding 5 spots would be ridiculous, and wouldn't fly with the rest of UEFA.

The fact they're considering bidding suggests that they understand this and that they would be willing to make compromises to ensure they get to host matches.

The Concacaf bid should not be used as the standard going forward. It is too unique for it to be applied broadly. Every confederation bidder needs to come up with a viable solution that is palatable to most of its constituents. In Concacaf, the 3 automatic hosts works perfectly fine, and the regions 35 odd members will not mind the hosts qualifying directly. In UEFA, it doesn't work as well, so we should be able to adapt to different circumstances.


----------



## Leedsrule

Ramanaramana said:


> Would the Scottish FA want games at Hampden even if Scotland weren't automatic qualifiers? Would the city of Cardiff/government of Wales? My guess is they'd be falling over themselves.


Not sure about this. The Scottish government may be keen for the economic benefits, but I suspect the Welsh, Scottish and Irish would push for automatic qualification which could unravel the whole thing. Still not sure what NI could bring to the table as they don't have a World Cup standard stadium nor the money to build one. 

The whole thing is too politically complex for me, and I doubt we would get the support of other nations, so I'd prefer not to waste money trying.

I'd much rather attend a World Cup in Spain or Morocco anyway.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Leedsrule said:


> Not sure about this. The Scottish government may be keen for the economic benefits, but I suspect the Welsh, Scottish and Irish would push for automatic qualification which could unravel the whole thing. Still not sure what NI could bring to the table as they don't have a World Cup standard stadium nor the money to build one.


Right, but why would the English FA ever enter into a bid if they knew it would jeapordise their chances of winning.....seeing as they'd be the main attraction expected to do most of the legwork, without which no world cup could take place?

I don't see what benefit there is to England, who is by far the biggest and most prominent host of the 5, in agreeing to enter into a joint bid if the other 4 insisted on automatic hosting, knowing that it would sink their chances of success. It makes no sense.

Maybe I'm not thinking this through clearly, but I suspect England would tell them to nick off if that was their stance.

They could then turn around and say to Scotland 'Stuff the rest of them, why don't we go it together by ourselves? Or England could tell the lot of them to f off and just go it alone. For that reason, it's very difficult to buy the idea that Welsh/Scottish FA would insist on anything that would hurt the bid's chances.

Beggars can't be choosers......... If this particular issue implodes the bid, England should be ashamed of itself for wasting so much time on a bunch of ungrateful rabble. If this issue has not been discussed and sorted prior to stating intention to bid, I despair.

My guess is that it's not an issue. As Eurostallion said, FIFA just needs to come out and say that they'll assess each bid on its own merits, because right now everyone thinks the future involves fitting in as many cohosts as possible to increase chances of winning, which I think is wrong. 

If that ends up with a United British/Irish bid insisting on 5 automatic spots, then England will get everything it deserves.....nothing.


----------



## Eurostallion1

Ramanaramana said:


> Dublin pulled out as they couldn't guarantee 25% minimum capacity. I don't think it had anything to do with Ireland qualifying as the host venues were announced in 2014, way before qualification groups were drawn, let alone getting a sniff at qualifying.


Do you seriously believe that Dublin would have pulled out of hosting if the Republic of Ireland had qualified and were all set to play two group games at home in Dublin?


----------



## Eurostallion1

Leedsrule said:


> Still not sure what NI could bring to the table as they don't have a World Cup standard stadium nor the money to build one.


We all assume Northern Ireland is being included with a view to hosting matches. I wonder if ultimately it might be involved in a different way. Perhaps, Northern Ireland would host a FIFA congress, training bases or the VAR room. That sort of thing. That might remove the necessity to have Northern Ireland qualify automatically.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Eurostallion1 said:


> Do you seriously believe that Dublin would have pulled out of hosting if the Republic of Ireland had qualified and were all set to play two group games at home in Dublin?


Here is your initial comment.....



> *I don't see how a country hosting matches in a World Cup they're not in really works and I can see how the general public in such a country quickly losing interest.* We saw how quickly Dublin lost all interest in staging Euro 2020 matches when Eire failed to qualify. I know the Corona Virus was the excuse given but had the Republic qualified, they would have found a way for those matches to go ahead in Dublin


My point was that Dublin won the hosting rights in 2014.....years before the qualification for Euro 2020 even started, and with Ireland having zero guarantees of qualification.

Yes, Dublin may have pushed ahead with hosting if Ireland had qualified. Quite why that's relevant to future World Cups where this kind of fiasco is not going to happen is lost on me. At the end of the day Dublin bid to host Euro matches and won in 2014, with zero guarantee of Ireland qualifying for the tournament. In other words, I really don't think Glasgow or Cardiff will give one flying f if Scotland and Wales qualify or not if there are world cup matches up for hosting. They'll take whatever they can get, and would be stupid not to, which is what Dublin originally did, like any sane city.


----------



## Eurostallion1

Eurostallion1 said:


> We all assume Northern Ireland is being included with a view to hosting matches. I wonder if ultimately it might be involved in a different way. Perhaps, Northern Ireland would host a FIFA congress, training bases or the VAR room. That sort of thing. That might remove the necessity to have Northern Ireland qualify automatically.



On the point about training camps. The host nations of these tournaments do need to ensure that there are enough suitable training facilities and hotels for all the teams taking part. However, you can't really force teams to train at one particular place and they tend to choose where they want to go. The bigger richer national FAs tend to snap up the best places. It's not unknown for teams to change their planned training base and for a new one to be found late in the day. As the UK has over 100 professional football clubs, there's hardly likely to be any shortage of suitable facilities for the visiting teams to choose from even with 48 teams. I don't see why it would make much sense for a visiting team to have their training base in Northern Ireland when a training camp of comparable standard can be found in England which would be logistically simpler.


----------



## pesto

I think it was pointed out that any bidder risks losing FIFA's support and the world vote if they go against the FIFA policy of involving smaller countries in the hosting process; that there were at least 4 perfectly reasonable solutions proposed for how to select the automatic qualifiers; that England would poison themselves in the sporting world by insisting first that it was not part of the EU and now not part of the UK either, etc.

Really, these issues need to be discussed and settled but they are very, very far from show-stoppers. Now melodrama needed.


----------



## Ranma Saotome

It seems very opportunistic joining into a multiple bid for a World Cup to gain an automatic spot in exchange of a single venue and a handful of matches, what would be worse than the format used for last Euro. If some of the partakers of a joint bid can't host similar or at least a relevant number of matches (15 or more from 80), they shouldn't even to apply for it.


----------



## Light Tower

Leedsrule said:


> Not sure about this. The Scottish government may be keen for the economic benefits, but I suspect the Welsh, Scottish and Irish would push for automatic qualification which could unravel the whole thing. Still not sure what NI could bring to the table as they don't have a World Cup standard stadium nor the money to build one.
> 
> The whole thing is too politically complex for me, and I doubt we would get the support of other nations, so I'd prefer not to waste money trying.
> 
> I'd much rather attend a World Cup in Spain or Morocco anyway.


I agree, Morocco with Saudi Arabia and Egypt would be a strong 2030 FIFA World Cup bid. If they win the bid it would be the first time they have ever hosted the FIFA World Cup, it would be a gateway link between Africa and Asia across the Arab World hosting after Qatar 2022.


----------



## ElvisBC

absolutely, I see noone who could match saudi arabia/morroco/egypt bit, their arguments easily beat anyone, they have so much to offer, especially saudis …. call it nirvana or nexus, this is what this world needs


----------



## ElvisBC

Ranma Saotome said:


> It seems very opportunistic joining into a multiple bid for a World Cup to gain an automatic spot in exchange of a single venue and a handful of matches, what would be worse than the format used for last Euro. If some of the partakers of a joint bid can't host similar or at least a relevant number of matches (15 or more from 80), they shouldn't even to apply for it.


honestly, I do not think all hosts will get automatic spot in 2030 if UK bid wins


----------



## Ranma Saotome

ElvisBC said:


> honestly, I do not think all hosts will get automatic spot in 2030 if UK bid wins


These are issues FIFA should clarify and limit. A multiple bid without guaranteed spots for all hosts is prone to future withdrawals if some them don't qualify for World Cup, even with signed contracts.


----------



## pesto

Ranma Saotome said:


> It seems very opportunistic joining into a multiple bid for a World Cup to gain an automatic spot in exchange of a single venue and a handful of matches, what would be worse than the format used for last Euro. If some of the partakers of a joint bid can't host similar or at least a relevant number of matches (15 or more from 80), they shouldn't even to apply for it.


Opportunistic? Taking advantage of a relaxation of the ridiculous "one host per tournament" rule which is effectively the big countries excluding the small countries? Maybe what is really needed is a rule that every bid MUST have at least 3 legitimate countries bidding. 

In any event, a bid organizer doesn't have to let just anyone in; just invite whatever countries you feel are trustworthy and add to the quality of the bid. That seems to happen regularly in proposals for Latin America, Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean, etc. 

I doubt anyone would withdraw if they failed to qualify since they would lose multiple events that attract tourists and hurt their international reputation. But if that is a concern, then have them place performance bonds.


----------



## Ramanaramana

ElvisBC said:


> absolutely, *I see noone who could match saudi arabia/morroco/egypt bit*, their arguments easily beat anyone, they have so much to offer, especially saudis …. call it nirvana or nexus, this is what this world needs


Britain.

Spain.

There's two for you right there. Both better options.

With all due respect to the Middle East, what is the chance of it seeing a World Cup anytime soon? To think it would go back there after only 1 edition between drinks is optimistic. North Africa is basically Arabia extended. You'd be going from Arabia never having hosted, to hosting it two times in three editions.

And then there's the fact that Morocco isn't contiguous with Egypt/Saudi Arabia, which opens the European Championship can of worms about matches being held from here to Timbuktu.


*Cross-confederation bids should be banned outright. Not because they aren't a nice idea, but because they are a vote printing machine. How can anyone support a bid that pools over 100 votes by itself before even having to play politics with the other confederations? AFC/CAF get very close to creating a majority vote by themselves.*

The biggest disappointment about 2022 is not that Qatar won, it is that if there was this kind of approach from FIFA back in the 00/10s, the Middle East as a whole would be hosting 2022, which would've been brilliant. Instead we get Saudi Arabia trying to partner up with Italy, Egypt, Morocco and anyone else who'd listen.


----------



## MGM

The biggest mistake FIFA made this century was giving out the WC for authoritarian 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.


----------



## CWells2000

Leedsrule said:


> Not sure about this. The Scottish government may be keen for the economic benefits, but I suspect the Welsh, Scottish and Irish would push for automatic qualification which could unravel the whole thing. Still not sure what NI could bring to the table as they don't have a World Cup standard stadium nor the money to build one.
> 
> The whole thing is too politically complex for me, and I doubt we would get the support of other nations, so I'd prefer not to waste money trying.
> 
> I'd much rather attend a World Cup in Spain or Morocco anyway.


There are a number of options to solve this issue.

1. You could have some kind of playoff to determine who the 3 automatic qualifers are, with the 3 losing nations entering into the normal qualifying process.
2. A Joint-UK team along with the Republic of Ireland automatically qualifying. never going to happen.
3. You qualify the three highest ranked teams according to the FIFA rankings, that would mean England, Wales and Scotland all automatically qualifying.

Personally I do believe that option 1 is the most credible, you have 3 two legged playoffs to determine who gets the spots and who goes through the normal qualifying process, that for me is the most plausable and fair way of deciding.


----------



## pesto

MGM said:


> The biggest mistake FIFA made this century was giving out the WC for authoritarian 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.


A general comment. FIFA, the IOC and other groups are trying to get away from this old-fashioned "bureaucratic" thinking that creates complex rules and then let's the appointed bureaucrats bribe, bargain and threaten each other to get the most money for themselves (personally, not their countries) 

It makes more sense not to chain yourself with long-term rules and instead determine what places would lead to generating the most increase to brand value (as all well-run businesses do). Let the market lead and centralize authority and decision-making based based on demographics and the efforts of media and sponsors who make it their business to understand the market.


----------



## pesto

CWells2000 said:


> There are a number of options to solve this issue.
> 
> 1. You could have some kind of playoff to determine who the 3 automatic qualifers are, with the 3 losing nations entering into the normal qualifying process.
> 2. A Joint-UK team along with the Republic of Ireland automatically qualifying. I think this is very unlikely to happen.
> 3. You qualify the three highest ranked teams according to the FIFA rankings, that would mean England, Wales and Scotland all automatically qualifying.
> 
> Personally I do believe that option 1 is the most credible, you have 3 two legged playoffs to determine who gets the spots and who goes through the normal qualifying process, that for me is the most plausable and fair way of deciding.


Yes1 So we solved that issue in 15 seconds without even trying (just as was done a few years back on this and related threads). However, I expect the bureaucrats will find a way to use 30 people and $20M to reach something more complicated.


----------



## Leedsrule

CWells2000 said:


> There are a number of options to solve this issue.
> 
> 1. You could have some kind of playoff to determine who the 3 automatic qualifers are, with the 3 losing nations entering into the normal qualifying process.


I like this idea, and it's very fair, but there are two barriers.

First, when is this competition played? Probably 4 games minimum (1 match against each other nation in a league where the top 3 qualify) so thats 2 international windows needed, which are now pretty full up thanks to the Nations Cup. The Premier League are unlikely to support extra or extended international breaks.

Secondly- any of the nations could insist on automatic qualification as they wouldn't be keen on hosting a tournament that they might not qualify for. Same point as before- Its hard to tell at this stage whether FA's will still be keen to host without that guarantee.



> 2. A Joint-UK team along with the Republic of Ireland automatically qualifying. I think this is very unlikely to happen.


Never. Next.



> 3. You qualify the three highest ranked teams according to the FIFA rankings, that would mean England, Wales and Scotland all automatically qualifying.


At least the national teams would know where they stand, but the nations ranked 4th and 5th would obviously prefer (and may insist on) a system like your Option 1, whilst higher-ranked teams like England and Wales may insist on this Option 3, not willing to take the chance in a Qualification round.

Ultimately, all 5 FA's, UEFA and FIFA need to agree on how many of the host nations would automatically qualify and by what mechanism, and each national government will also have it's own view, all before the WC host is even decided. Additional qualification matches like Option 1 are unprecedented so may be complex to arrange and given the vast majority of host venues would be in England, would they have a different status? 

The whole idea of a 'UK & Ireland' bid, as opposed to an 'England' or 'England and Scotland' bid, is political. Elections in any of the countries involved could change their stance on it and the host wont be chosen until 2024 so relationships can completely change in that time. Single nation bids are more likely to be stable with a single FA having a single goal- even two nations caused issues in 2002 so having five pulling in different directions could be a nightmare. This will be a far more complex bid than the 2018 one and it wouldn't surprise me if it never materialises due to one or more of the complexities involved.


----------



## MGM

pesto said:


> It makes more sense not to chain yourself with long-term rules and instead determine what places would lead to generating the most increase in brand value (as all well-run businesses do). Let the market lead and centralize authority and decision-making based on demographics and the efforts of media and sponsors who make it their business to understand the market.


This is precisely how IOC and FIFA decisions were made 100 years ago. This is the old-fashioned way. The bid for 2028 OG is very similar to its 1932 bid. Los Angeles was a single candidate on both occasions.


----------



## ElvisBC

Ramanaramana said:


> Britain.
> 
> Spain.
> 
> There's two for you right there. Both better options.
> 
> With all due respect to the Middle East, what is the chance of it seeing a World Cup anytime soon? To think it would go back there after only 1 edition between drinks is optimistic. North Africa is basically Arabia extended. You'd be going from Arabia never having hosted, to hosting it two times in three editions.
> 
> And then there's the fact that Morocco isn't contiguous with Egypt/Saudi Arabia, which opens the European Championship can of worms about matches being held from here to Timbuktu.
> 
> 
> *Cross-confederation bids should be banned outright. Not because they aren't a nice idea, but because they are a vote printing machine. How can anyone support a bid that pools over 100 votes by itself before even having to play politics with the other confederations? AFC/CAF get very close to creating a majority vote by themselves.*
> 
> The biggest disappointment about 2022 is not that Qatar won, it is that if there was this kind of approach from FIFA back in the 00/10s, the Middle East as a whole would be hosting 2022, which would've been brilliant. Instead we get Saudi Arabia trying to partner up with Italy, Egypt, Morocco and anyone else who'd listen.


I gave it a second thought, you might be right, but if Chad joins the bid then it is going to be a slam dunk,


----------



## ElvisBC

Light Tower said:


> Morocco has lower crime rates despite losing the 2026 FIFA World Cup to Canada-Mexico-USA


 yuck!


----------



## pesto

For sure, religious, gender and ethnic rights are going to be coming up regularly as conditions for receiving the right to host. Likewise for government corruption and the authoritarian nature of states. I believe that consideration will be given to boycotting nations who lack enforcement of equitable laws regarding gender freedom and equality, freedom of expression and ruling class corruption.

Please notice that I did not mention any specific countries. Every country should be held to similar standards.


----------



## miguelon

I mean, recent hosts (Russia, Brazil, South Africa, and the US in the near future), all have racial or ethnic issues to solve to say the least. and then here we are.

In the end, it is only a sports tournament.

Organizers want a good enough place, where positives outweigh the negatives.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Light Tower said:


> Morocco has lower crime rates despite losing the 2026 FIFA World Cup to Canada-Mexico-USA. The 2030 FIFA World Cup in Morocco/Saudi Arabia/Egypt i expect as possibly the peaceful FIFA World Cup.


Yes, there is a chance those countries could host it together. FIFA is very unpredictable about where they locate the final bids. For 2026 is was either to have it spread across various North American countries or build a bunch of modular stadiums in Morocco. It is possible they could spread it across 3 countries that do not border each other.


----------



## Ramanaramana

I wouldn't call their selection unpredictable. They go to the biggest economies and if there's a country that buys a world cup they'll go there too.

The reason why they keep overlooking Morocco is because Morocco isn't a great choice compared to what's out there. 

Crime stats are irrelevant when the local population isn't wealthy.


----------



## ElvisBC

there is no point discussing potential hosts in 2030 until we know if they‘re going to switch to two years gap, which btw. looks more and more likely, FIFA greediness knows no limits!


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

At this point, I really do not know how even the 2026 World Cup will pan out, other than where it is located. At this point it could be anyones guess what happens after that World Cup. That includes who will host the next games. As far as I know there could be a worldwide edition like how there was a Europe-wide Euros in 2020-2021.


----------



## miguelon

Yes. Maybe they will wait to evaluate the 2026 world cup. If a combined world cup is a winning formula. Then, they might as well choose to go fully combined hosts in the future. 

There is a lot of combinations, not only among smaller countries. But a big country along with a smaller neighbor. 

Thinking about Spain joined by Portugal. 
France with Netherlands + Belgium. 
England With the rest of UK or Ireland.


----------



## Ramanaramana

ElvisBC said:


> there is no point discussing potential hosts in 2030 until we know if they‘re going to switch to two years gap, which btw. looks more and more likely, FIFA greediness knows no limits!


I don't think it changes much. All it means is that a number of the strongest competing bids are not going to have to wait long to host. 

China, UK, Spain....with or without Portugal..... those are safe bets to feature in 2030/34 OR 2028/2030/2032 if it ends up going biennial.


----------



## ElvisBC

Ramanaramana said:


> I don't think it changes much. All it means is that a number of the strongest competing bids are not going to have to wait long to host.
> 
> China, UK, Spain....with or without Portugal..... those are safe bets to feature in 2030/34 OR 2028/2030/2032 if it ends up going biennial.


if it goes every two years then for sure yes, apart from south america that will squeeze in somewhere, maybe even for their preffered centennial thing. if it stays as it is now, I do not see scenario where south america could get it before 2038


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> there is no point discussing potential hosts in 2030 until we know if they‘re going to switch to two years gap, which btw. looks more and more likely, FIFA greediness knows no limits!


I tend to agree. I would like to see how strong the evidence is that every 2 years won't detract from the significance of the event, confuse and alienate the audience, complicate schedules for athletes, administrators and stadium owners, etc. 

More generally for the economics wonks, this is a classic kind of problem of legalized, self-regulating monopolies. The weaker members want more matches; the stronger members want fewer members. You can see this sort of tension playing out in a wide variety of ways in world soccer, usually complicated by subgroupings, internal conflicts and personal issues). It really has little do with "greed"; that is present all the time in all types of economic enterprise.


----------



## Ramanaramana

The Champions League takes place every year. Doesn't detract from the spectacle or prestige of the event, and there doesn't seem to be any confusion among fans. Don't think there will be confusion about a World Cup taking place every two years. It's the most important sporting event on the planet. People will quickly cotton on.

The scheduling issues have been addressed by FIFA, and are far better for players than what they have now. Mandatory post-World Cup month-long break plus qualifiers being bundled into one or two months, rather than the incessant travelling they have to do now with 6 international breaks cutting into the club season every year. Fewer qualifiers also means fewer matches, which means less complication, not more.

No complication for stadium owners. Club football doesn't take place during the June-July window outside of a few countries who would just stop play during that period.

What I find funniest is people who don't like the idea based on the theory that it would devalue the competition and lead to less interest. How about letting the market figure that out on its own first instead of jumping the gun? Let them go to 2 years, and we'll see after a few editions if it was a good decision. If not, and the world rejects it through less interest, revert back. What's the harm?

I have even seen people say that it's a bad idea because they want to have their summers free when the Euros or World Cup aren't on. How much of an addict do you have to be to have that opinion?

Most people only follow their country. Many are casuals who will watch big matches but don't follow club or international football closely. Like the 30 million that watched the Euro final in England, when the average England international gets 5-10 million. Those other 20 million Englishmen probably won't think there's too much football on with a biennial tournament.

This happens in most countries, where the national team playing in a major tournament is often the most watched football match in a World Cup/continental cup year. Nothing galvanises the public like the national team in a major tournament. What a biennial World Cup does is ensure more meaningful matches with high stakes, and less 2-year qualifying campaigns where Germany have to play Andorra because that's how we've always done it.


----------



## pesto

These are classic arguments. If you believe them why not have the WC twice a year and the Super Bowl monthly. The reasons you MIGHT not want to do so are already set forth in my original post.


----------



## ElvisBC

Ramanaramana said:


> .....What I find funniest is people who don't like the idea based on the theory that it would devalue the competition and lead to less interest. How about letting the market figure that out on its own first instead of jumping the gun? Let them go to 2 years, and we'll see after a few editions if it was a good decision. If not, and the world rejects it through less interest, revert back. What's the harm?


the only harm is it would indeed devaluate the title and world cup might become little less special, but FIFA don’t really care about that, and it is their decission in the end, simmilar to complete nonsense with 48 teams

unfortunately, this biennial competition is eventually going to happen, but I wouldn’t put my money on start in 2028


----------



## Rokto14

Israel urged to make soccer World Cup bid

Israel and UAE want to host the World Cup jointly? Okay, interesting.


----------



## ElvisBC

very! with 100K final stadium in Jerusalem, half in Israel and half in Palestina if anyone can define the border, all in july 2030, pure pleasure for any accidental traveler!

I'd sill rather give it to Cuba/Venezuela joint bid but they can't get it because they won't bid


----------



## Light Tower

Not only Israel and UAE interested of co-hosting the FIFA World Cup but also Bahrain is in the joint bid as well.


----------



## pesto

Glad this is finally out. It's time to let countries prove that they are on the side of tolerance and the public good, not on the side of their elites or most hateful elements.

Hopefully soon, any country which systematically discriminates on the basis of sex, race or religion will be simply banned.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Light Tower said:


> Not only Israel and UAE interested of co-hosting the FIFA World Cup but also Bahrain is in the joint bid as well.


Qatar hosting shouldn't distract people from the fact that small countries haven't hosted World Cups since 1962 in Chile. Qatar is an exception to the rule for reasons obvious to most. 

Even with the support for multi-country bids, the chances of several small countries coming together and winning is slim. I think you have to partner yourself with a big player. Now, an Israeli-Saudi-UAE bid is more intriguing as Saudi Arabia adds some weight, but Israel-UAE-Bahrain will be a loser against any half-decent bid, short of spending a good chunk of its budget on bribery.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

I was looking at La Liga highlights and thinking... If you were Spain's bid manager, how would you bid for a World Cup? Focus on the best existing stadiums, to minimize costs? Try to spread the tournament to as many cities as possible in as many regions as possible, maybe having to spend a lot more with redevelopments as a consequence? Share with another country?

I was thinking what are the best, biggest and most ready stadiums and the bid that resulted was, I think, very unbalanced in favour of the north: two stadiums in Madrid, two in Barcelona, one in Valencia, Bilbao, San Sebastian, Vigo, Sevilla, Malaga, Oviedo and Zaragoza.


----------



## pesto

miguelon said:


> Agree on the power of "2nd tier" Clubs, specially on the Premier League and a little bit of Spain and Italy, that have attracted investment from global heavyweights, on the assumption that they could get a seat on the big boys table. Teams like Leeds, Everton, Newcastle, West Ham, Napoli, among others, have enough financial muscle and a big enough brand name, to have a say on relevan desicions,
> 
> I'm of the opinion that the World Cup, should stay at every 4 years.


Agree completely. The soccer market is wide-open and multi-billion investor groups are putting money into 2nd tier W. European, 1st tier E. European, Asian, etc., clubs. The theory is that even the losers triple in value.

With the right investment approach even a 200-500M investment can take effective control by limiting the club from going to any funding source other than the minority owners. Clubs with incompetent or aging local owners who now are facing cash shortages can keep nominal title, but go off to the Caribbean and stop worrying while financial, branding and development professionals run the club.


----------



## RMB2007

The UK and Republic of Ireland should abandon their 2030 World Cup bid and instead focus on hosting Euro 2028, says Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) committee chair Julian Knight.

Knight described the 2030 bid as a "giant, expensive vanity project".









UK & Ireland should abandon World Cup bid


The UK and Republic of Ireland should abandon their 2030 World Cup bid and focus on hosting Euro 2028, says DCMS committee chair Julian Knight.




www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## RMB2007

I'd like to see Spain and Portugal get the 2030 World Cup, with China being the host for the 2034 World Cup.


----------



## Ramanaramana

RMB2007 said:


> The UK and Republic of Ireland should abandon their 2030 World Cup bid and instead focus on hosting Euro 2028, says Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) committee chair Julian Knight.
> 
> Knight described the 2030 bid as a "giant, expensive vanity project".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UK & Ireland should abandon World Cup bid
> 
> 
> The UK and Republic of Ireland should abandon their 2030 World Cup bid and focus on hosting Euro 2028, says DCMS committee chair Julian Knight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.co.uk


What a dosser and a dwad. I agree that 2028 would be a great consolation for England, but to call the World Cup on English soil a vanity project should be enough to have this bloke hanged in Leicester Square.


----------



## RMB2007

The Times revealed yesterday that the World Cup bid is poised to be dropped after the UK and Irish FAs were advised by senior figures in international football that a bid for the Fifa tournament would be too risky in terms of political deal-making and underhand tactics by potential rivals.









DCMS committee chairman Julian Knight: World Cup bid an expensive vanity project but UK and Ireland could deliver a really great Euros


The head of parliament’s sport select committee has welcomed the move by the UK and Ireland to drop their bid for the 2030 World Cup in favour of targeting Eur




www.thetimes.co.uk


----------



## ElvisBC

I refuse to believe in this. The chance for hosting the World Cup hasn’t been bigger in 50 years, why waiving it? Labeling it “expensive vanity project” is IMHO just some opposers BS!

Yes, it would be an embarrassing elimination if it happens early, such as last time in the first voting round, but you won’t get it without trying for gods sake!!!

edit: julian knight?


----------



## Laurence2011

Yeah surely we should at least try? Just submit 2 bids for EURO 2028 and WC 2030 and see which wins? We bid for both WC 2018 and 2022 technically so i'm sure there wouldn't be any issue with doing it


----------



## pesto

Hmmm. This would certainly have been based on some hard evidence of problems and discussed with others before going public. Maybe he has been shown the handwriting on the wall and it's in Spanish and Chinese?


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> Hmmm. This would certainly have been based on some hard evidence of problems and discussed with others before going public. Maybe he has been shown the handwriting on the wall and it's in Spanish and Chinese?


possibly, but you do the whole (dirty) work once the bidfing process starts

apart from china no other bid would guarantee FIFA more profit than UK bid, why skipping this chance? OK, “noone likes FA“ is the fact, but that can‘t be the real reason!


----------



## Temporarily Exiled

ElvisBC said:


> apart from china no other bid would guarantee FIFA more profit than UK bid, why skipping this chance? OK, “noone likes FA“ is the fact, but that can‘t be the real reason!


The UK + Ireland bid essentially requiring five countries to be given byes makes it kinda unappealing. There's also the very public failure that was the Euro 2020 final, scenes that went viral for all the wrong reasons.


Laurence2011 said:


> Just submit 2 bids for EURO 2028 and WC 2030 and see which wins? We bid for both WC 2018 and 2022 technically so i'm sure there wouldn't be any issue with doing it


It's essential to have your own confederation on board if you're to win, and it looks like UEFA is backing the Iberian horse. Continuing with a fairly hopeless World Cup bid could end up antagonising other UEFA associations, meaning the UK may end up going 0 for 2. Meanwhile, clearing the way for UEFA's preferred bid would generate some goodwill, put the UK in pole position for that major tournament, and give the UK an opportunity to show that Euro 2020 was a one-off. A strong Euro 2028 would help the UK in bidding for a future World Cup.


----------



## RMB2007

Yeah, just sounds like the England and Ireland bid was told to back off by UEFA due to their support for the Spain and Portugal bid. UEFA would then reward England and Ireland with a future European Championship


----------



## Light Tower

The bid process is about to go underway later this year.


----------



## Ramanaramana

RMB2007 said:


> Yeah, just sounds like the England and Ireland bid was told to back off by UEFA due to their support for the Spain and Portugal bid. UEFA would then reward England and Ireland with a future European Championship


Maybe. But UEFA and FIFA aren't on the best terms at the moment. England could secure a World Cup bid by backing FIFA's proposal and telling UEFA to do one, since FIFA can pressure the rest of its constituents outside UEFA to back an English bid. They wouldn't need UEFA's approval or their measly 50 votes, not including the British Isles' five votes.

I think all this speculation of UEFA backing the Spanish bid for the World Cup is way too presumptuous, as we still have no clue what the calendar will look like post 2024. UEFA acting like everything is going to go on as it has by designating favourites for future World Cups and Euros is premature.


----------



## RMB2007

For now, England should focus on hosting another European Championship. 2030 World Cup in Spain and Portugal, followed by China in 2034 is the way forward.


----------



## cyril sneer

As usual with UEFA, and FIFA and football in general, it comes down to politics rather than suitability to host such a tournament. Nothing has changed since the Russia and Qatar dodgy dealings even with Plattini and Blatter gone.


----------



## Pinkerton89

I don’t know about any other English fans, but I have to say on a personal level I am really not interested in England hosting another Euros and feel that would be a waste of time and money. Plus England has hosted it in 96 and been basically the lead host in 2020, it’s been done. I’d be all for a ROI / Scotland / Wales / NI joint bid mind as that would be something new and exciting. The majority of the living population here hasn’t seen a home WC, Spain had one in 82, Portugal had a full Euros to themselves in 2004.

The World Cup is the only interesting proposal, if we back out of that then bluntly anything else is a waste of time and effort. If UEFA back Spain and Portugal for the WC then we should go it alone, hosting the EUROs is a measly back up prize at this point and you can only bid for a WC every 12 years, we should go for it every time. If it upsets UEFA so be it, what are they going to do about it?


----------



## Light Tower

RMB2007 said:


> For now, England should focus on hosting another European Championship. 2030 World Cup in Spain and Portugal, followed by China in 2034 is the way forward.


Probably, but i don't think they could win the bid since likely Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and Paraguay might host and maybe Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam) might be chosen.


----------



## RobH

The man who brought down Blatter. RIP.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1480453685666844674


----------



## Ramanaramana

Light Tower said:


> Probably, but i don't think they could win the bid since likely Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and Paraguay might host and maybe Southeast Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam) might be chosen.


England would destroy either of those. Spain's the only obstacle.


----------



## Eurostallion1

The UK/Ireland and Spain/Portugal bids are the most serious bids based on infrastructure, organisation etc. The South American bid would win only win on some kind of nostalgia vote. The balkan bid seems like a joke. If China threw its hat into the ring then they’d probably get it but I think they might be waiting for 2034. 

It’s the politics of FIFA that will prevent the UK/Ireland bid from succeeding not any consideration about the competence of a bid. If a 2030 bid is therefore destined to end in humiliating failure, then a 2028 Euros they’d be a shoo in to get must be carefully considered.


----------



## Eurostallion1

Pinkerton89 said:


> Technically China can’t bid for 2030, which either means FIFA will twist the rules of they will definitely get 2034.
> 
> Spain / Portugal pretty much have the venues ready, I think they are a shoe in for this now. The South American bid would be the one but I just can’t see them having the venues ready.


The current continental rotation rules were just a fudge that Blatter made up so Africa and South America got to host it so he could get their votes in FIFA presidential elections. I doubt this rule about UEFA only hosting one in three tournaments is set in stone and FIFA can easily change this rule if it suited them.


----------



## ElvisBC

Pinkerton89 said:


> I am guessing that they balanced the probability and decided that there was like a 90% chance of a Euro bid winning and a >1% chance of a World Cup bid winning.
> 
> Doesn’t stop it from being disappointing though.
> 
> It means the next time we could have the WC I will be 53 years old and if that fails then 65 (I am 32 now!).


and I'm gonna be six feet under

just awful


----------



## George_D

Urmstoniain said:


> https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/60285799


so UEFA's bid for 2030 world cup will be Spain-Portugal


----------



## Ioannes_

Pinkerton89 said:


> Technically China can’t bid for 2030, which either means FIFA will twist the rules of they will definitely get 2034.
> 
> Spain / Portugal pretty much have the venues ready, I think they are a shoe in for this now. The South American bid would be the one but I just can’t see them having the venues ready.


What is the technical reason why China cannot Opt for 2030? It would be the perfect farewell for Xi Jinping as master of the world.
China will go for it at any price. Continental rotations are now money rotations.



I suppose that who most deserves it is South America, but a candidacy from 4 countries ( Uruguay,  Argentina,  Paraguay y  Chile)... I don't see it.

The problem with Spain is that by 2030 it would not have large stadiums at the level of England. The renovation of the Bernabeu is not as impressive as it seemed, the Camp Nou is preparing a reform without architectural appeal, Mestalla will remain as a simple stadium far from its initial design. Spain is not even prepared to host a Euro in the next 20 years.


----------



## Kepa_Jametxo

Ioannes_ said:


> The problem with Spain is that by 2030 it would not have large stadiums at the level of England. The renovation of the Bernabeu is not as impressive as it seemed, the Camp Nou is preparing a reform without architectural appeal, Mestalla will remain as a simple stadium far from its initial design. Spain is not even prepared to host a Euro in the next 20 years.


Spain has two stadiums with more than 80.000 capacity whereas England has one. And don't forget Portugal stadiums, so the candidature also has many stadiums of 55.000-60.000 capacity.


----------



## ElvisBC

of course, as if South Africa, Brazil and Russia were ready when they got the cup


----------



## Eurostallion1

Eurostallion1 said:


> The current continental rotation rules were just a fudge that Blatter made up so Africa and South America got to host it so he could get their votes in FIFA presidential elections. I doubt this rule about UEFA only hosting one in three tournaments is set in stone and FIFA can easily change this rule if it suited them.


Also if the age restrictions at the Olympics is dropped and it becomes a de facto World Cup as I suspect it will as a ‘compromise’ to this demand about having the World Cup every two years, then the continental rotation rules for World Cup would seem even more pointless.


----------



## Pinkerton89

Ioannes_ said:


> What is the technical reason why China cannot Opt for 2030? It would be the perfect farewell for Xi Jinping as master of the world.
> China will go for it at any price. Continental rotations are now money rotations.
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose that who most deserves it is South America, but a candidacy from 4 countries ( Uruguay,  Argentina,  Paraguay y  Chile)... I don't see it.
> 
> The problem with Spain is that by 2030 it would not have large stadiums at the level of England. The renovation of the Bernabeu is not as impressive as it seemed, the Camp Nou is preparing a reform without architectural appeal, Mestalla will remain as a simple stadium far from its initial design. Spain is not even prepared to host a Euro in the next 20 years.


Rotation rule - a confederation can only have a WC every 12 years, China can’t bid until 2034 because Qatar are hosting 2022, I also feel like China are already planning for 2034 as oppose to 2030, if they feel it is pretty much guarenteed they might not be so fussed about whether it is 2030 or not.

I know FIFA could well change it but they have stuck to this set of rules for 30 years so on balance of probability it is more likely to be 2034. It could change though.


----------



## Eurostallion1

Ioannes_ said:


> What is the technical reason why China cannot Opt for 2030? It would be the perfect farewell for Xi Jinping as master of the world.
> China will go for it at any price. Continental rotations are now money rotations.
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose that who most deserves it is South America, but a candidacy from 4 countries ( Uruguay,  Argentina,  Paraguay y  Chile)... I don't see it.
> 
> The problem with Spain is that by 2030 it would not have large stadiums at the level of England. The renovation of the Bernabeu is not as impressive as it seemed, the Camp Nou is preparing a reform without architectural appeal, Mestalla will remain as a simple stadium far from its initial design. Spain is not even prepared to host a Euro in the next 20 years.


China don’t seem to be bothered about hosting the World Cup. They haven’t even bidded for one. Their FA has also had corruption issues which even the Communist party were unhappy about. Everyone just assumes that a Chinese bid would be irresistible to both FIFA and China itself. I wonder if China fears humiliation on the pitch. Their national team
doesn’t seem to be getting much better even though everyone assumes that it’s inevitable they can find 11 good players out of 1.3 billion. 

I think Spain and Portugal have more than enough suitable stadiums for a World Cup. Maybe they’d need to modernise a couple of them but it would be nothing compared to what Russia, South Africa, Brazil, Qatar even Germany had to do.


----------



## Pinkerton89

Eurostallion1 said:


> My guess is that bidding for 2028 Euros makes it even less likely that Northern Ireland would host matches. I doubt that there would be any great political will to build a suitable stadium in NI just for a Euros given that it would have to be taxpayer funded. NI will probably be involved in another way like hosting a UEFA congress or training camps.
> 
> Regarding host qualification, I think they will do something like this. All five countries enter normal qualification but UEFA will have one or two backup slots reserved for the hosts in case they don’t qualify normally.


I think there is a cross community fudge possible to be fair, probably be a deal where Stormont says they will support a Casement Park redevelopment (long debated and overdue) if GAA allow the NI Football Team to use it for the Euros - then there is something in it for both NI communities.

Qualification is more simple for the Euros, they probably won’t be too worried about giving 5 Host spots if there are another 19 - 27 Teams to qualify. Whereas the WC would have been much tighter.


----------



## Ioannes_

Kepa_Jametxo said:


> Spain has two stadiums with more than 80.000 capacity whereas England has one. And don't forget Portugal stadiums, so the candidature also has many stadiums of 55.000-60.000 capacity.


This is a forum for architecture and regions, so I think: It's not about the number of seats, but about making functional and attractive stadiums.

The stadiums in Portugal were modern at the beginning of this century, and Spain, all its renovation projects, are light years away from the best football stadium in Europe: Tottenham Hotspur Stadium.

Not to mention the political situation: the Basque Country and Catalonia, if they are not independent in 2030, will do everything possible to boycott Spain, as Bilbao did with Euro 2020.


----------



## RobH

Pinkerton89 said:


> I know FIFA could well change it but they have stuck to this set of rules for 30 years so on balance of probability it is more likely to be 2034. It could change though.


They've actually changed the rotation rules several times in the past 20 years. If China wanted to bid for 2030 and FIFA really wanted China they'd do so again at the drop of a hat.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Ioannes_ said:


> What is the technical reason why China cannot Opt for 2030? It would be the perfect farewell for Xi Jinping as master of the world.
> China will go for it at any price. Continental rotations are now money rotations.
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose that who most deserves it is South America, but a candidacy from 4 countries ( Uruguay,  Argentina,  Paraguay y  Chile)... I don't see it.
> 
> The problem with Spain is that by 2030 it would not have large stadiums at the level of England. The renovation of the Bernabeu is not as impressive as it seemed, the Camp Nou is preparing a reform without architectural appeal, Mestalla will remain as a simple stadium far from its initial design. Spain is not even prepared to host a Euro in the next 20 years.


There are not very many countries that have stadia and facilities to host a World Cup. Let alone where everything is shiny and new. Spain, especially alongside Portugal, is fine in that regard. We should be getting away from the idea that each stadium should be sparkling new.

I would like to know exactly what FIFA had a against a British bid, I guess we will never know.

I don't think China is the shoe in people say they are. They are a making a lot of enemies very quickly. I also doubt they want to host an event they won't win and they're a long way from challenging to win on the pitch.


----------



## alserrod

In YOUR opinion:


Which Spain/Portugal stadiums should be a must in a bidding? (just regarding how they are nowadays or approved plans for them)
which stadiums would need just a small face up to be kind for a WC?
which stadiums (or cities) should/could be in a bidding but their stadiums doesn't fit nowadays?


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

RobH said:


> They've actually changed the rotation rules several times in the past 20 years. If China wanted to bid for 2030 and FIFA really wanted China they'd do so again at the drop of a hat.


As I've said above I'm not sure China will want to host if it is unlikely to win the tournament. They're increasingly less keen on hosting foreign spectators and view hosting as power projection. I see people didn't make much of their Winter Olympics Opening Ceremony, which is a stark contrast to the reception given to their Summer Olympics. Time will tell and I could well be wrong. They certainly want the impression that they would win if they bid and they may well be kingmakers on bids.

There are limited countries that can host and I think it inevitable that both Europe or Asia will host more than 1 in 3 tournaments. I see Africa and the Americas hosting fewer than 1 in 6 each. Again, I could be wrong.


----------



## Eurostallion1

Kepa_Jametxo said:


> Spain has two stadiums with more than 80.000 capacity whereas England has one. And don't forget Portugal stadiums, so the candidature also has many stadiums of 55.000-60.000 capacity.


FIFA requirements on stadia are far less demanding than that.

Currently, the requirements for a World
Cup in terms of stadium capacities 
are as follows and even these are flexible. 

1 stadium 80 000+ capacity
1 other stadium 60 000+ capacity
6 other stadiums 40 000+ capacity

There’s also in theory a rule that you must have at least seven host cities and only one city with two stadiums. 

This has not officially been increased for 2026 and 2030 even with 48 teams. 

Qatar is doing the absolute bare minimum in terms of numbers of stadiums and is getting round the seven host city requirement by claiming that areas of Doha are separate cities.

FIFA does not seem to mind. 

Germany didn’t have one stadium with over 80 000 seats in 2006. Russia had a couple in 2018 which barely held over 30 000.


----------



## ElvisBC

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> There are not very many countries that have stadia and facilities to host a World Cup. Let alone where everything is shiny and new. Spain, especially alongside Portugal, is fine in that regard. We should be getting away from the idea that each stadium should be sparkling new.
> 
> I would like to know exactly what FIFA had a against a British bid, I guess we will never know.
> 
> I don't think China is the shoe in people say they are. They are a making a lot of enemies very quickly. I also doubt they want to host an event they won't win and they're a long way from challenging to win on the pitch.


it is not FIFA, it is obviously 90% of the world. can't blame them, FA sucks big time


----------



## Ioannes_

alserrod said:


> En tu opinión:
> 
> 
> ¿Qué estadios de España/Portugal deberían ser imprescindibles en una puja? (Solo con respecto a cómo están hoy en día o los planes aprobados para ellos)
> ¿Qué estadios necesitarían solo una pequeña cara hacia arriba para ser buenos para un WC?
> ¿Qué estadios (o ciudades) deberían/podrían estar en una puja pero sus estadios no encajan hoy en día?
> [/CITA]
> El Problema de la candidatura de España es la situación política, por lo que en 2030, no debería incluir por precaución:
> *-Campo Nou* . Barcelona
> *-San Mamés. *, Bilbao
> *-Anoeta* . San Sebastián.
> Los gobiernos de Euskadi y Cataluña no quieren meterse en algo que contenga la *palabra España.
> 
> El resto:
> 
> -El Valencia* está desarrollando un proyecto para terminar Mestalla, muy básico. Incluso se habla de que no tendría cobertura en sus primeros años.
> 
> Por tanto, para que España optara por una oferta tendría como base al *Madrid* con el Bernabéu y el Wanda.
> 
> y en *el resto de España* ,
> 
> debería remodelar estadios como el de la * Cartuja de Sevilla* , que es del mismo arquitecto del Wanda Metropolitano
> 
> y *reconstruir estadios más pequeños* de 20.000-30.000 como *Málaga, Zaragoza, Granada, repetir en Sevilla con el Sánchez Pizjuan, Villamarín...
> 
> Estoy convencido de que el Mundial de 2030 es para China.*


----------



## RobH

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> I would like to know exactly what FIFA had a against a British bid, I guess we will never know.





ElvisBC said:


> it is not FIFA, it is obviously 90% of the world. can't blame them, FA sucks big time


From what I've read UEFA only wants one bid from the continent (which makes sense) and are favouring Spain/Portugal. In a sense, becoming UEFA's preferred candidate was the most difficult hurdle, and there's no shame in losing out to the Iberian bid in this regard.

Where I'm a bit miffed is that FIFA has been really pushing for joint bids, which is why England went in with the other home nations and Ireland. But one of UEFA's apparent reasons for favouring Spain/Portugal is its compactness and comparative simplicity. So in a sense, we've been undone by inconsistent requirements between the two bodies. But whatever, I'm glad we've dropped it now rather than gone ahead with a lame duck bid.

And I don't think we need to beat ourselves up really. It is what it is.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Pinkerton89 said:


> I am guessing that they balanced the probability and decided that there was like a 90% chance of a Euro bid winning and a >1% chance of a World Cup bid winning.
> 
> Doesn’t stop it from being disappointing though.
> 
> It means the next time we could have the WC I will be 53 years old and if that fails then 65 (I am 32 now!).


I'm 43 now so don't fancy doing the maths to see how old I will be at any prospective English world cup. Old enough that I'd be watching on TV rather than in person so location would hardly matter. I did go to Brazil so I've seen a proper World Cup hosted by an enthusiastic nation. Great memories. More than most get to experience so I won't complain.


----------



## Ioannes_

_In YOUR opinion:_


_Which Spain/Portugal stadiums should be a must in a bidding? (just regarding how they are nowadays or approved plans for them)_
_which stadiums would need just a small face up to be kind for a WC?_
_which stadiums (or cities) should/could be in a bidding but their stadiums doesn't fit nowadays?_
_Sorry Elvis, there should be an option to remove the comment when it's wrong, I miss the old format_


The Problem of the candidacy of Spain is *the political situation,* so in 2030, it should *not include* as a precaution:

*-Camp Nou*. Barcelona
*-San Mames*. Bilbao
*-Anoeta*. San Sebastian.

The governments of Euskadi and Catalonia do not want to get involved in something that contains *the word Spain.

The rest:

-Valencia* is developing a very basic project to finish Mestalla. There is even talk that it would not have coverage in its early years.Therefore, for Spain to opt for an offer, it would be based on *Madrid* with the Bernabéu and Wanda.

*and in the rest of Spain,*

it should remodel stadiums like the *Cartuja de Sevilla*, which is by the same architect as the Wanda Metropolitano

and r*ebuild smaller stadiums of 20.000-30.000* such as Malaga, Zaragoza, Granada, repeat in* Seville* with Sánchez Pizjuan, Villamarín...
all very concentrated in the same region or with cities with two stadiums. Non-viable.

*I am convinced that China will be chosen. *


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

RobH said:


> From what I've read UEFA only wants one bid from the continent (which makes sense) and are favouring Spain/Portugal. In a sense, becoming UEFA's preferred candidate was the most difficult hurdle, and there's no shame in losing out to the Iberian bid in this regard.
> 
> Where I'm a bit miffed is that FIFA has been really pushing for joint bids, which is why England went in with the other home nations and Ireland. But one of UEFA's apparent reasons for favouring Spain/Portugal is its compactness and comparative simplicity. So in a sense, we've been undone by inconsistent requirements between the two bodies. But whatever, I'm glad we've dropped it now rather than gone ahead with a lame duck bid.
> 
> And I don't think we need to beat ourselves up really. It is what it is.


I'm speculating that the reason UEFA prefers Iberia is because FIFA will prefer that bid. Compactness or otherwise is an excuse. We're going from Qatar to North America.

Although maybe UEFA just want the most profitable option for themselves!?


----------



## Eurostallion1

alserrod said:


> In YOUR opinion:
> 
> 
> Which Spain/Portugal stadiums should be a must in a bidding? (just regarding how they are nowadays or approved plans for them)
> which stadiums would need just a small face up to be kind for a WC?
> which stadiums (or cities) should/could be in a bidding but their stadiums doesn't fit nowadays?


Spain

Both Madrid stadiums
Camp Nou
San Mames
One Seville stadium (not sure which one)
Nou Mestalla


Portugal

Estadio da Luz 
Estadio do Dragão

Besides that

One Galician venue, probably La Coruña 
One venue on the Costa del Sol, probably Malaga
Maybe one or two island venues. 
Maybe Zaragoza
Maybe Santander
Maybe San Sebastian
Maybe one on the Costa Brava like Alicante. 

In Portugal, they’d probably use a second Lisbon venue and one other so Faro probably makes the most sense.


----------



## ElvisBC

RobH said:


> From what I've read UEFA only wants one bid from the continent (which makes sense) and are favouring Spain/Portugal. In a sense, becoming UEFA's preferred candidate was the most difficult hurdle, and there's no shame in losing out to the Iberian bid in this regard.
> 
> Where I'm a bit miffed is that FIFA has been really pushing for joint bids, which is why England went in with the other home nations and Ireland. But one of UEFA's apparent reasons for favouring Spain/Portugal is its compactness and comparative simplicity. So in a sense, we've been undone by inconsistent requirements between the two bodies. But whatever, I'm glad we've dropped it now rather than gone ahead with a lame duck bid.
> 
> And I don't think we need to beat ourselves up really. It is what it is.


the point is UEFA openly supported british bid in the past, there were several statements from ceferin confirming that. something big must have happened. I am hundred percent sure british bid would have been more profitable for FIFA, and that‘s how their decission is usually driven!


but you‘re right … it is as it is


----------



## RobH

Ceferin's words never struck me as anything more than niceties and he's probably said similar about Spain.


----------



## ElvisBC

Ioannes_ said:


> *I am convinced that China will be chosen. *


me too


----------



## Pinkerton89

ElvisBC said:


> the point is UEFA openly supported british bid in the past, there were several statements from ceferin confirming that. something big must have happened. I am hundred percent sure british bid would have been more profitable for FIFA, and that‘s how their decission is usually driven!
> 
> 
> but you‘re right … it is as it is


Seemed to turn on the trouble at the Euro final, that being said I doubt that was sufficient reason alone and it was a convenient excuse to switch to a less convoluted bid.


----------



## Kepa_Jametxo

Ioannes_ said:


> Not to mention the political situation: the Basque Country and Catalonia, if they are not independent in 2030, will do everything possible to boycott Spain, as Bilbao did with Euro 2020.


The main "problem" in Euro 2020 was that the Spanish national team was going to play in Bilbo. Before the pandemic, Basque authorities didn't do anything to boycott the Euro, but then they used the Covid excuse. The problem was that many people would not accept that Spain had played in the Basque Country, as you could see many stickers and shirts of "Eurocopa honi ez" (Say no to this Euro in Basque) in the last 3 years.

However, I think that if any other national team plays in the Basque Country, there wouldn't be any problem.


----------



## Ioannes_

Kepa_Jametxo said:


> The main "problem" in Euro 2020 was that the Spanish national team was going to play in Bilbo. Before the pandemic, Basque authorities didn't do anything to boycott the Euro, but then they used the Covid excuse. The problem was that many people would not accept that Spain had played in the Basque Country, as you could see many stickers and shirts of "Eurocopa honi ez" (Say no to this Euro in Basque) in the last 3 years.
> 
> However, I think that if any other national team plays in the Basque Country, there wouldn't be any problem.


In theory, countries want to host big events to show the world the best of them.
San Mamés is *a stadium for 1/4 finals*. If Spain becomes 1/4, can't they play in their own country due to blackmail from some nationalists?
Spain cannot count on El Pais Vasco or Catalonia, and there are no cities to replace those stadiums. In addition, the political parties of the left do not want large events of public waste, such as the Games, Expos or World Cups. When the project is exposed and they see that at least 4 stadiums have to be built in an increasingly poor country, they will turn public opinion against it.


----------



## Tazvaz

Pinkerton89 said:


> Technically China can’t bid for 2030, which either means FIFA will twist the rules of they will definitely get 2034.
> 
> Spain / Portugal pretty much have the venues ready, I think they are a shoe in for this now. The South American bid would be the one but I just can’t see them having the venues ready.


China can bid for 2030, according to the FIFA statutes. See article 68 paragraph 4 below.

_The right to host the event shall not be awarded to members of the same confederation for two consecutive editions of the FIFA World Cup™._


----------



## Tazvaz

ElvisBC said:


> the point is UEFA openly supported british bid in the past, there were several statements from ceferin confirming that. something big must have happened. I am hundred percent sure british bid would have been more profitable for FIFA, and that‘s how their decission is usually driven!
> 
> 
> but you‘re right … it is as it is


Yes, I also find the withdrawl of the UK/Ireland bid odd for this reason.

Also, it was the British government which previously insisted on the bid being UK-wide, while the English FA originally intended to bid alone.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Tazvaz said:


> China can bid for 2030, according to the FIFA statutes. See article 68 paragraph 4 below.
> 
> _The right to host the event shall not be awarded to members of the same confederation for two consecutive editions of the FIFA World Cup™._


Yep, and Fifa is sponsored by Chinese companies up the wazoo. 2030 is China's if they want it. The only thing that might stop it is progress of the national team. China is improving but latest round of AFC qualifiers, including losing 3-0 to Vietnam, show how far they have to go to avoid embarrassment at a home World Cup.


----------



## miguelon

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> I'm speculating that the reason UEFA prefers Iberia is because FIFA will prefer that bid. Compactness or otherwise is an excuse. We're going from Qatar to North America.
> 
> *Although maybe UEFA just want the most profitable option for themselves!?*


I think that is a really good point, and it suits them, since you also have a solid bid with Iberia


----------



## RMB2007

2030 World Cup in Spain and Portugal just makes sense. Same with China hosting it in 2034.


----------



## Ramanaramana

RMB2007 said:


> 2030 World Cup in Spain and Portugal just makes sense. Same with China hosting it in 2034.


It does, but Fifa is at loggerheads with Uefa over future of the game. I can absolutely see Fifa giving Europe the big V if Fifa ends up with no biennial or expanded Club World Cup. They have to get something they want post 2024 or Uefa could be punished for it and lose 2030.

China is an impressive alternative to Spain/Portugal, so it will be no loss for Fifa to threaten them with the nuclear option.


----------



## alserrod

Please, not regarding political situation, which should/could/will be the best stadiums to host matches among Spain and Portugal in your opinion?

I bet there will be some of them to point and some of them just to consider


----------



## Ioannes_

*Let's highlight the good things.*
Spain and Portugal are neighboring countries that absolutely do not have a conflict or disputes, but sometimes they are "obvious", so the Iberian Bid is something more than the organization of a sporting event, but a form of union of a peninsula.
In short, it is a fraternity project rather than a demonstration of pride as countries like Qatar, Russia or China do.

-12 venues in two touristic, hospitable, life-loving countries with cities with more than enough equipment to receive fans.

The inauguration should be in Lisbon, at the Estadio da Luz and the Final in Madrid, although the ideal would be the Camp Nou in Barcelona (something that I do not rule out actually happening)

*Portugal *
would contribute 5 venues:
-Estadio da Luz, *Lisboa*: 66.500
-Estadio do Dragão, *Porto*: 52.000
-Estadio Ciudad de *Coimbra*, Acad. Coimbra: 30.000
-Estadio Municipal de Aveiro, *Aveiro*: 31.500
-Estadio Municipal de Braga. *Braga*: 31.150.
-Estadio do Dragão, *Lisboa*, 52.000

*Spain. *
The problem in Spain is that there are big cities like Madrid, Seville and Barcelona with modern stadiums, and little regional dispersion of venues like in the Basque Country.
Trying to correct this handicap and in order to take advantage of the opportunity to renovate historic stadiums that have become obsolete, one possibility would be this:

*Madrid*
-Estadio Santiago Bernabeu: 81.044
-Estadio Wanda Metropolitano: 68.500
*Barcelona*
-Spotify Nou Camp Nou: 105.000
-RCDE Stadium: 40.000
*País Vasco*
-Bilbao: Estadio de San Mamés: 53.300
-San Sebastían: Estadio de Anoeta: 39.500
*Valencia: *
-Nou Mestalla: +50.000*
*Andalucía*
-Sevilla: Estadio de la Cartuja. there is an intention to lower the level of the field by eliminating the athletics tracks, to be the permanent venue for the *Copa del Rey Final,* the capacity would be around 70,000
Seville has two other options: the Sánchez Pizjuan (Sevilla FC), which should be completely rebuilt +-55.00: and the Benito Villamarín Stadium, to be finished but with a magnificent design and atmosphere. 60,000
-Málaga: new stadium +-35.000*
-Granada: new stadium +-30.000 (Added temporary grandstand)
Other interesting alternatives in Andalusia with cute stadiums: Cádiz, Almería (owner of an Arab Sheikh, he is transforming the stadium)
*Galicia*
-La Coruña: Nuevo Riazor. New Stadium(Added temporary grandstand) 30.000
-Vigo: Balaidos: 30.000 Finish.
*Zaragoza*
-New Stadium: 30.000 + 20.000 temporary

*Locations for geographical distribution.
Murcia: *
-Nueva Condomina. 31.200. great stadium, needs a modern façade.
*Badajoz: *
-Nuevo Vivero: (Added temporary grandstand) 40.000
*Islas Canarias:*
-Las Palmas: Estadio de Gran Canaria: 32.400+10.000
*Islas Baleares*
-Son Moix. Deep remodeling that eliminates the athletic tracks (Added temporary grandstand) 35.000.


*Certainly, Spain and Portugal are a candidate to enjoy the countries and football, our passion.*


----------



## Ramanaramana

FIFA minimum capacity is 40,000, so that rules some of those out, and should make venue selection even easier. Unless you meant all those listed as ~30,000 would be upgraded to 40,000.


----------



## alserrod

The hint is... I remember several nice and cool stadium updates but not upgrades (this is, works on stadiums making it quite more confortable but not larger than previous one).

All stadiums are able to be enlarged to 40K+ but that means a lot of money in just some more people inside 

BTW, will Anoeta stadium be accepted or they will have to change the roof for 500 people more?


----------



## Ioannes_

alserrod said:


> The hint is... I remember several nice and cool stadium updates but not upgrades (this is, works on stadiums making it quite more confortable but not larger than previous one).
> 
> All stadiums are able to be enlarged to 40K+ but that means a lot of money in just some more people inside
> 
> Por cierto, ¿se aceptará el estadio de Anoeta o tendrán que cambiar el techo para 500 personas más?
> View attachment 2753301


that photo of the stadium is old: a deep remodeling has been done, removing the tracks and increasing the capacity to 39,500

Please someone who knows how to upload photos, put the current one.


----------



## Light Tower

I still predict 2030 for the South American bid of Argentina/Chile/Paraguay/Uruguay who are considered the favorites. The 2034 i still predict for Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam and Singapore.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Light Tower said:


> If not for Morocco, maybe they could wait until 2038.


I no doubt would be okay with Morocco hosting it if they are capable. The reason I suggested those bids was for readiness and time zones. Morocco getting in for 2026 was a miracle because had they won they likely would not have what it takes. I suggested this so the bidding process is as straightforward as possible and avoid the awkward bidding processes of 2018/2022 and 2026.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Light Tower said:


> I still predict 2030 for the South American bid of Argentina/Chile/Paraguay/Uruguay who are considered the favorites. The 2034 i still predict for Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam and Singapore.


Disagree. FIFA would not like the 2030 World Cup in the same region of the world as 2026 plus Spain/Portugal already has everything in place. For 2034 everyone seems China is destined to get it (Japan and South Korea could join) although there is some interest from Australia and ASEAN (they are close enough to joint host if they have to) but China is just too strong to be ignored. I think the Southern Cone could get it in 2038 as it will be plenty of time to remodel their stadiums and given the time zone rotation it makes the most sense.


----------



## Light Tower

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Disagree. FIFA would not like the 2030 World Cup in the same region of the world as 2026 plus Spain/Portugal already has everything in place. For 2034 everyone seems China is destined to get it (Japan and South Korea could join) although there is some interest from Australia and ASEAN (they are close enough to joint host if they have to) but China is just too strong to be ignored. I think the Southern Cone could get it in 2038 as it will be plenty of time to remodel their stadiums and given the time zone rotation it makes the most sense.


FIFA could more likely pick Argentina/Chile/Paraguay/Uruguay since that South American bid is considered the favorites to co-host.


----------



## CFCman

My prediction for 2030 WC is that FIFA will pick Spain/Portugal (or Spain/Portugal/Morocco if the latter decides to join a cross-confederation bid), because I don't see FIFA holding its flagship tournament THREE consecutive times outside Europe. Then the 2034 WC may be awarded to China.


----------



## CFCman

I would love to see a 2038 bid from CAF, with Nigeria, Ghana and Cameroon co-hosting.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

CFCman said:


> I would love to see a 2038 bid from CAF, with Nigeria, Ghana and Cameroon co-hosting.


As much as I would like to see Africa get it sometime soon, Spain/Portugal will likely be the next to win hosting rights given time zones and preparations. 2034 will probably go to China with some games possibly going to neighboring countries. I still stand by thinking 2038 is going to Argentina/Chile/Paraguay/Uruguay given their early interest for the 2030 bid plus it would be that time zone area's time to serve given the unofficial time zone rotation. 2042 could possibly go to Africa because by then their stadiums will probably be up to date enough to host it and will make sense for the unofficial time zone rotation.


----------



## nenad_kgdc

By 2042 is not certain that world itself gonna exist lol, so any predictions beyond 5 years is just pointless...
Where sport goes, it is also loosing sense for enormous expenses to organize over sized over expensive overrated sport events like WC with 48 teams... Who would like to do that in 2042, most likely none in that way...


----------



## Ramanaramana

The World Cup will be 64 teams by then anyway. Look how long it took Uefa to go to 32 teams. Same thing will happen at World Cup, it will be seen as the better option between 48 and 64.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Ramanaramana said:


> The World Cup will be 64 teams by then anyway. Look how long it took Uefa to go to 32 teams. Same thing will happen at World Cup, it will be seen as the better option between 48 and 64.


I think by the time FIFA decides to expand to 64, they might as well just let entire continents host it. While having a Europe wide Euros in 2020-2021 might have not been the best idea given it only had 24 teams, if 64 teams is the new norm for the World Cup, having entire continents host it might just be the only option.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Personally I have no problem with 5-10 major nations being on rotation, and then just adding cities from neighbouring countries. 

For example Germany, with Vienna, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Brussels and Copenhagen hosting matches. Something like that. The continental thing has shown to be a poor idea.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Ramanaramana said:


> Personally I have no problem with 5-10 major nations being on rotation, and then just adding cities from neighbouring countries.
> 
> For example Germany, with Vienna, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Brussels and Copenhagen hosting matches. Something like that. The continental thing has shown to be a poor idea.


Know what, I really like your idea. Makes sense.


----------



## pesto

Ramanaramana said:


> Personally I have no problem with 5-10 major nations being on rotation, and then just adding cities from neighbouring countries.
> 
> For example Germany, with Vienna, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Brussels and Copenhagen hosting matches. Something like that. The continental thing has shown to be a poor idea.


Yeah, bro! Bring back the Holy Roman Empire!

That makes a lot of sense since some countries have to resort to using older industrial cities or isolated rural outposts for lack of decent stadiums in decent cities. And, for all the issues with Russia and Qatar, they have at least raised the bar on quality of stadiums. With the US following, it will be hard to go back to buildings that have issues on safety, security or amenities and are in countries with slow growth economies..


----------



## ElvisBC

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Know what, I really like your idea. Makes sense.


me too


----------



## Light Tower

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> As much as I would like to see Africa get it sometime soon, Spain/Portugal will likely be the next to win hosting rights given time zones and preparations. 2034 will probably go to China with some games possibly going to neighboring countries. I still stand by thinking 2038 is going to Argentina/Chile/Paraguay/Uruguay given their early interest for the 2030 bid plus it would be that time zone area's time to serve given the unofficial time zone rotation. 2042 could possibly go to Africa because by then their stadiums will probably be up to date enough to host it and will make sense for the unofficial time zone rotation.


Africa would be possible for 2040 with Morocco, Egypt and Tunisia.


----------



## Ioannes_

*Election of the host country of the 2018 World Cup:*
_In the first round of voting, England got two votes, Netherlands-Belgium got four, Spain-Portugal got seven and Russia got nine. With none reaching the required majority of twelve, England was eliminated as the candidate with the least support and a second round was necessary. Here Russia got thirteen out of the seven received by the Iberian duo and the two received by the Belgium-Netherlands candidacy._

If only the world had known then what Russia is!

*How good that World Cup would have been for Spain!.* Cities that needed to reform or build new stadiums would now have them and the event would have been a party in two truly peaceful, democratic and tolerant countries:

-New stadiums for: Zaragoza, Malaga, Valencia, La Coruña, Mallorca, Seville, turning La Cartuja into the National Stadium, permanent venue for the Cup final.

I think* I won't see a World Cup in Spain,* what's more, I think even the one in* Qatar* will be suspended due to the war...


----------



## Ramanaramana

Spain are favourites for 2030/34, whenever Europe gets it. France had Euro 16, Germany Euro 24, England being readied for Euro 28, Italy Euro 32, leaving Uefa to promote Spain for Europe’s next World Cup. Italy’s decision to go for Euro 32 and England to focus on Euros made all dominos fall into place. 

2036 Euro and 2038 World Cup are the next true unknowns. Everything before feels like foregone conclusion.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Ramanaramana said:


> Spain are favourites for 2030/34, whenever Europe gets it. France had Euro 16, Germany Euro 24, England being readied for Euro 28, Italy Euro 32, leaving Uefa to promote Spain for Europe’s next World Cup. Italy’s decision to go for Euro 32 and England to focus on Euros made all dominos fall into place.
> 
> 2036 Euro and 2038 World Cup are the next true unknowns. Everything before feels like foregone conclusion.


2030 World Cup will probably be Spain/Portugal and 2028 Euros will probably be in England with some games in neighboring countries. 2034 World Cup will probably be China and its neighboring countries and like you said Italy will likely get Euro 2032. I personally see the Southern Cone quadruple getting the 2038 World Cup and Russia getting Euro 2036 (surely normally has returned to Russia by then and Putin is long gone).


----------



## Light Tower

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> 2030 World Cup will probably be Spain/Portugal and 2028 Euros will probably be in England with some games in neighboring countries. 2034 World Cup will probably be China and its neighboring countries and like you said Italy will likely get Euro 2032. I personally see the Southern Cone quadruple getting the 2038 World Cup and Russia getting Euro 2036 (surely normally has returned to Russia by then and Putin is long gone).


It's possible with Mikhail Mishustin could be new president possible be better than Putin.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Light Tower said:


> It's possible with Mikhail Mishustin could be new president possible be better than Putin.


At this point everything is so unpredictable in Russia that anything can happen. Lets not get too distracted about things other than bidding for tournaments.


----------



## nicholaseds2

Ramanaramana said:


> Spain are favourites for 2030/34, whenever Europe gets it. France had Euro 16, Germany Euro 24, England being readied for Euro 28, Italy Euro 32, leaving Uefa to promote Spain for Europe’s next World Cup. Italy’s decision to go for Euro 32 and England to focus on Euros made all dominos fall into place.
> 
> 2036 Euro and 2038 World Cup are the next true unknowns. Everything before feels like foregone conclusion.


Why Turkey not get Euro 2028? Since Turkey not get Euro or World Cup.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

nicholaseds2 said:


> Why Turkey not get Euro 2028? Since Turkey not get Euro or World Cup.


I think they already pulled out for 2028. They can bid for 2032 though.


----------



## RobH

I don't think that's actually been said by anyone from Turkey. There was a report in the Daily Mail that said that.

But then again, I can certainly believe it. It looks like UK/Ireland stepping aside to give Spain/Portugal a clear run at 2030 has come with a promise of 2028 as a consolation prize. Which leaves no room for Turkey so it'd be a waste of money. Seems like Italy is being lined up for 2032 too.


----------



## Ioannes_

nicholaseds2 said:


> Why Turkey not get Euro 2028? Since Turkey not get Euro or World Cup.



The reason why Turkey does not host a Euro/Olympics/World Championship is that it is a politically unpredictable country with many open fronts. It's a shame, because it's a wonderful country, with good stadiums and wonderful people. They deserve it, they are our Muslim cousins in the EU and a haven of hope for bald people.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Ioannes_ said:


> The reason why Turkey does not host a Euro/Olympics/World Championship is that it is a politically unpredictable country with many open fronts. It's a shame, because it's a wonderful country, with good stadiums and wonderful people. They deserve it, they are our Muslim cousins in the EU and a haven of hope for bald people.


Unfortunately politics gets in the way of these types of events. China is hosting all kinds of events but are always criticized for their domestic issues and poor relations with their neighboring countries. Russia is lucky they already hosted the Winter Olympics and World Cup given how many scantions are against them for the atrocities in Ukraine. The 2026 World Cup is facing scrutiny for featuring Mexico who have the homophobic chant problem and the recent Queretaro incident. Even Germany during the bidding process of the 2024 Euros had problems with supporter groups for club sides protesting the German authorities seemingly caring more about their Euro bid that would be successful as opposed to help with meeting demands between the authorities and supporter groups.


----------



## Light Tower

Yeah i don't think China is going to host the FIFA World Cup 2034. So i think ASEAN (Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam) should host the 2034 edition.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Light Tower said:


> Yeah i don't think China is going to host the FIFA World Cup 2034. So i think ASEAN (Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam) should host the 2034 edition.


China can always host with ASEAN countries. If the 2026 candidate cities are as far away as Edmonton to CDMX, a China-ASEAN bid is totally possible.


----------



## pauiglesias12

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> China can always host with ASEAN countries. If the 2026 candidate cities are as far away as Edmonton to CDMX, a China-ASEAN bid is totally possible.


China has the potential to organize a World Cup on their own, it wouldn't make sense to join the ASEAN as they have all the cities and stadiums to organize it. In addition, China and ASEAN are countries with very different cultures, it wouldn't make sense for them to come together.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pauiglesias12 said:


> China has the potential to organize a World Cup on their own, it wouldn't make sense to join the ASEAN as they have all the cities and stadiums to organize it. In addition, China and ASEAN are countries with very different cultures, it wouldn't make sense for them to come together.


The United States also has potential to host the World Cup on its own and has different cultures from Canada and Mexico. None of what I said in the previous sentence stopped the United States from joint bidding with Canada and Mexico. Same goes with China and ASEAN.


----------



## pauiglesias12

Anything is possible, but I don't think that China and ASEAN will end up hosting a World Cup together


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pauiglesias12 said:


> Anything is possible, but I don't think that China and ASEAN will end up hosting a World Cup together


Yes, anything is possible. Although no official mention was made, some suggested Mexico could be kicked out of 2026 World Cup for problems happening there. Also had the Morocco bid won, we could be experiencing something similar to Colombia in 1986. FIFA could even just award bids right on the spot for multiple tournaments ahead. You can have your opinion about China and ASEAN but the truth is FIFA is very unpredictable about how they plan out tournaments.


----------



## Rokto14

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> China can always host with ASEAN countries. If the 2026 candidate cities are as far away as Edmonton to CDMX, a China-ASEAN bid is totally possible.


I doubt China wants even to host the WC with the ASEAN countries. I think a 90% possibility will be China bidding alone and the ASEAN bloc of 5 countries will bid alone. But I guess it will come to a point where the AFC will favour 1 of the bids something like UEFA will favour the Spain/Portugal bid over the UK bid for the 2030 WC. I will not be surprised if AFC will choose China to let them bid from AFC region for the 2034 WC. This will be the case if China don't piss off anyone in the region or in the world. If something tragic happens, then AFC are bound to support the ASEAN bloc bid.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Yes, anything is possible. Although no official mention was made, some suggested Mexico could be kicked out of 2026 World Cup for problems happening there. Also had the Morocco bid won, we could be experiencing something similar to Colombia in 1986. FIFA could even just award bids right on the spot for multiple tournaments ahead. You can have your opinion about China and ASEAN but the truth is FIFA is very unpredictable about how they plan out tournaments.


Really you should stop about Morocco, Colombia and Mexico. Morocco didn't win; Colombia was 50 years before these tournaments and Mexico is going to host in 2026 unless something unexpected occurs. 

As noted above, I doubt that China and SE Asia have any interest in hosting jointly. SE Asia has 600M people, high population and economic growth rates If China comes in, the ASEAN countries will lose 3/4 or their stadium locations and be reduced to bit players. That's OK for Mexico since soccer is already so well established there but it would annoy Indonesia, the Philippine's, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore or whoever else is in the bid.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Rokto14 said:


> I doubt China wants even to host the WC with the ASEAN countries. I think a 90% possibility will be China bidding alone and the ASEAN bloc of 5 countries will bid alone. But I guess it will come to a point where the AFC will favour 1 of the bids something like UEFA will favour the Spain/Portugal bid over the UK bid for the 2030 WC. I will not be surprised if AFC will choose China to let them bid from AFC region for the 2034 WC. This will be the case if China don't piss off anyone in the region or in the world. If something tragic happens, then AFC are bound to support the ASEAN bloc bid.


China can always bid with South Korea and Japan if they are pressured to do so.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Really you should stop about Morocco, Colombia and Mexico. Morocco didn't win; Colombia was 50 years before these tournaments and Mexico is going to host in 2026 unless something unexpected occurs.
> 
> As noted above, I doubt that China and SE Asia have any interest in hosting jointly. SE Asia has 600M people, high population and economic growth rates If China comes in, the ASEAN countries will lose 3/4 or their stadium locations and be reduced to bit players. That's OK for Mexico since soccer is already so well established there but it would annoy Indonesia, the Philippine's, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore or whoever else is in the bid.


Thanks for pointing out I have an obsession those three countries' hosting abilities. I will try my best to not obsess over silly things and just appreciate the process of selection and scrutiny. Also great point about China and ASEAN.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

I hope China never gets the World Cup. They are a poor football country and have a terrible human rights record. Of course that doesn’t usually stop FiFa but with all the fuss about Russia and Ukraine, maybe they will start weighing things up. 2030 and 2034 would ideally be Spain and a bid from South America. Personally I would love to see Argentina and Uruguay host but with the extra countries, assuming that continues... Brazil could provide support from Porto Alegre and Curitiba, for group games and perhaps a second round matches.


----------



## nicholaseds2

Juanpabloangel said:


> I hope China never gets the World Cup. They are a poor football country and have a terrible human rights record. Of course that doesn’t usually stop FiFa but with all the fuss about Russia and Ukraine, maybe they will start weighing things up. 2030 and 2034 would ideally be Spain and a bid from South America. Personally I would love to see Argentina and Uruguay host but with the extra countries, assuming that continues... Brazil could provide support from Porto Alegre and Curitiba, for group games and perhaps a second round matches.


If Asia host world cup, the kick off time 99% will not suit Europe, since to suit European night, Asians must held past midnight kick off


----------



## pesto

Juanpabloangel said:


> I hope China never gets the World Cup. They are a poor football country and have a terrible human rights record. Of course that doesn’t usually stop FiFa but with all the fuss about Russia and Ukraine, maybe they will start weighing things up. 2030 and 2034 would ideally be Spain and a bid from South America. Personally I would love to see Argentina and Uruguay host but with the extra countries, assuming that continues... Brazil could provide support from Porto Alegre and Curitiba, for group games and perhaps a second round matches.


Lot of good points. SE Asia is a bit concerned about China who does not disguise that it "owns" SE Asia the way Russia "owns" Eastern Europe. That comes and goes as an issue but everyone understands it is there.

Spain and S. America have the advantage of being fairly neutral on the world political stage, not severely poor, and with decent human rights records compared to Africa and Asia..


----------



## pauiglesias12

nicholaseds2 said:


> If Asia host world cup, the kick off time 99% will not suit Europe, since to suit European night, Asians must held past midnight kick off


As a European, I tell you that the Asian time is much better here than, for example, the North American time. I prefer a match at 2 pm (Asia) than at 4 am (North America).


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Lot of good points. SE Asia is a bit concerned about China who does not disguise that it "owns" SE Asia the way Russia "owns" Eastern Europe. That comes and goes as an issue but everyone understands it is there.
> 
> Spain and S. America have the advantage of being fairly neutral on the world political stage, not severely poor, and with decent human rights records compared to Africa and Asia..


I think Spain/Portugal should get 2030 and southern South America should get 2038. As for 2034, the best I could come up with is China could co-host with South Korea and Japan. China does have a bad rap in international diplomacy but have phenomenal sports infrastructure so the best sort of compromise between those two things is get South Korea and Japan involved with a China centric World Cup for some sports diplomacy.


----------



## CFCman

My gut feeling is that FIFA would favor the Spain/Portugal bid for 2030. Now, if the Moroccan FA are smart, they should tag along with the Iberian bid because aside from Morocco's proximity to both countries, this would also be Morocco's best chance of hosting the mundial. 

Some may say it would be a big headache for FIFA to coordinate the tournament when each country speaks three different languages; but the 2026 tourney will be hosted by three countries which also speak three different languages - English, Spanish, and French. So, that won't be much of an issue. 

Besides, a Spain/Portugal/Morocco bid would gain broad-based support from most of UEFA and CAF, as well as a sizeable chunk of CONMEBOL votes.


----------



## pesto

CFCman said:


> My gut feeling is that FIFA would favor the Spain/Portugal bid for 2030. Now, if the Moroccan FA are smart, they should tag along with the Iberian bid because aside from Morocco's proximity to both countries, this would also be Morocco's best chance of hosting the mundial.
> 
> Some may say it would be a big headache for FIFA to coordinate the tournament when each country speaks three different languages; but the 2026 tourney will be hosted by three countries which also speak three different languages - English, Spanish, and French. So, that won't be much of an issue.
> 
> Besides, a Spain/Portugal/Morocco bid would gain broad-based support from most of UEFA and CAF, as well as a sizeable chunk of CONMEBOL votes.


Not much of an issue. Everyone in Canada speaks English (when they want to) and everyone in tourism in Mexico speaks English. 

Likewise, if you are fluent in Spanish or Portuguese you can understand the other (not counting slang).

Spain and Portugal had the opportunity to partner with Morocco and turned it down without comment.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Bold. You are not worried about the royal family and their allies moving the wealth of the country to their Swiss accounts; imprisonment without trial (it is a crime against God to criticize the king), the billions upon billions of white elephants required, the lack of financial control, the lack of modern security methods, non-existent gender rights (including not just LGBT+ but women as well), mortality, health and female literacy rates that challenge the worst in the world, and FIFA's own review for in 2026 which indicated serious problems for facilities, roads, rail, airports, clinics, medical supply, etc.?
> 
> You favor that over Spain, Portugal and maybe Uruguay for the Centenario?


I would say Morocco's best bet for a World Cup is to co-host with someone. Their 2026 World Cup bid was just asking for Colombia's 1986 World Cup preparations all over again. There are already rumors (nothing confirmed) that the World Cup format could be changed from originally planned to avoid collusion like the "Disgrace of Gijon" for the 2026 World Cup which is to have 48 teams. My suggestion is that have the best 16 teams qualify for a 32 team group stage and then have the other 32 teams play in a play in game immediately before the group stage possibly in a different country. With that in mind, here is what I came up with for World Cups after 2022... 

2026, play in games in Canada and Mexico, group stage and knockouts in USA
2030, play in games in Morocco and Portugal, group stage and knockouts in Spain
2034, play in games in Japan and South Korea, group stage and knockouts in China


----------



## pesto

Eurostallion1 said:


> A joint bid from Uruguay would be appropriate as they have the most relaxed Marijuana laws in Latin America


LOL. And it takes two to tango with Argentina and Brazil is nuts for soccer.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Not much of an issue. Everyone in Canada speaks English (when they want to) and everyone in tourism in Mexico speaks English.
> 
> Likewise, if you are fluent in Spanish or Portuguese you can understand the other (not counting slang).
> 
> *Spain and Portugal had the opportunity to partner with Morocco and turned it down without comment.*


Japan and South Korea both wanted to host the World Cup separately but due to pressure from FIFA, they hosted it together. Should similar pressure happen, Spain and Portugal could have little choice but to welcome in Morocco.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Japan and South Korea both wanted to host the World Cup separately but due to pressure from FIFA, they hosted it together. Should similar pressure happen, Spain and Portugal could have little choice but to welcome in Morocco.


LOL. And what if FIFA pressured the Ukraine to host with Russia next week?

I would guess that Spain and Portugal would drop out of the bidding and the FIFA board would replace current leadership with people in touch with FIFA's own standards on human rights, white elephants, proper accounting and business standards, safety of visitors, corruption, etc.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> LOL. And what if FIFA pressured the Ukraine to host with Russia next week?
> 
> I would guess that Spain and Portugal would drop out of the bidding and the FIFA board would replace current leadership with people in touch with FIFA's own standards on human rights, white elephants, proper accounting and business standards, safety of visitors, corruption, etc.


Russia is suspended from FIFA so they probably will not get any hosting duties for anything anytime soon. Also Morocco is a close ally with the EU and NATO countries so there should be little trouble with any co-hosting. Morocco even recognizes Israel which no doubt helps with having good relations with its European neighbors.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Russia is suspended from FIFA so they probably will not get any hosting duties for anything anytime soon. Also Morocco is a close ally with the EU and NATO countries so there should be little trouble with any co-hosting. Morocco even recognizes Israel which no doubt helps with having good relations with its European neighbors.


Well, you never know, Let's hope it all works out for the King and his subjects.


----------



## Light Tower

Eurostallion1 said:


> A joint bid from Uruguay would be appropriate as they have the most relaxed Marijuana laws in Latin America


I think it would be possible. I think the final would be held in either Buenos Aires, Santiago, Montevideo or Asuncion.


----------



## Rokto14

Ioannes_ said:


> I don't understand why a europhobic country organizes a EURO... Maybe Spain should bid for a cricket & rugby World Cup...
> If Florentino Pérez manages to create the Super League, UEFA and FIFA's reprisals against Spain will be worse than those of the International Community against Russia, one of them making their *World Cup aspirations disappear.*
> 
> If I had to bet my money on a "Breakthrough Actor" I'd say the *2030 FIFA World Cup will be in Morocco.*
> Morocco is empowered by the support of the United States and having bowed to Spain in border matters. My bet today is Morocco 2030.


Wouldn't mind a cricket or a rugby WC in Spain. All for globalising the game honestly rather than having just a few countries hosting them regularly.


----------



## pesto

Rokto14 said:


> Wouldn't mind a cricket or a rugby WC in Spain. All for globalising the game honestly rather than having just a few countries hosting them regularly.


Spoken like someone who has a future in investment management. Develop the market before someone else does.


----------



## Ioannes_

This completely credible proposal is aimed at the Spanish readers of Skyscrapercity.
With the *current political situation*, a joint candidacy:

*Morocco-Spain-Portugal*, it would be like this:

*Morocco Moroccan stadiums:*
-Grand Stade de *Marrakech* 1/2 final.
-Grand Stade de *Casablanca* 1/2 final and Final.
-New Stadium in *Ceuta* 1/4 final
-New *Melilla* Stadium. 1/4 final
-*Gran Canarias* Stadium.
-*Tenerife* Stadium.
-New Stadium in* El Ayoun

Spanish Stadiums:
-El Ejido* Stadium: 1/8 final
*-Almería* Stadium. 1/8 final

Guest country:
-*Gibraltar* National Stadium (semifinals) and opening ceremony.

*Portuguese Stadiums:*
-*The Algarve* Stadium .1/8 final.

😑
_The world talks about Boris Johnson and Donald Trump, but they do not know to what extent Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez is capable of yielding..._

*Seriously about Morocco*:
Someone has commented that Morocco does* not have the economic capacity to organize a World Cup *and that it is an authoritarian monarchy (Qatar inspired the fathers of the United States Constitution and the composition of the British Parliament🙄), *however:*

- has invested (because it will make profitable) *12,600 million *dollars in weapons.
-It is creating a network of greenhouses aimed at displacing Spain in the *agricultural market*, producing at low labor cost.
-has received more than *100 million euros* from Spain for development
-has received *1600 million *from the European Union for development.
-It has built a macro-port in Nador to displace the strategic commercial port of Algeciras.
-It is an ally of the *United States and Israel.

Do you still believe that they do not have the capacity and lobby to win the 2030 offer?*:* more than 50%.*

As for the Weird Experiments of joint candidatures style:

-Switzerland-Austria-Papua New Guinea.
-Japan-Australia-India
-Poland-Czech Republic-Belarus
-Ukraine-Indonesia-Galapagos Islands

*Let's do directly like Euro 2020: a world league.*

The charm of the unique venues of the Olympic Games has been lost and now the same will happen with the World Cup. If you do a survey, no one can say more than three cities in Qatar, not all the countries in the 2026 Bid or where the Winter Olympics will be or what the hell is Brisbane.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Ioannes_ said:


> This completely credible proposal is aimed at the Spanish readers of Skyscrapercity.
> With the *current political situation*, a joint candidacy:
> 
> *Morocco-Spain-Portugal*, it would be like this:
> 
> *Morocco Moroccan stadiums:*
> -Grand Stade de *Marrakech* 1/2 final.
> -Grand Stade de *Casablanca* 1/2 final and Final.
> -New Stadium in *Ceuta* 1/4 final
> -New *Melilla* Stadium. 1/4 final
> -*Gran Canarias* Stadium.
> -*Tenerife* Stadium.
> -New Stadium in* El Ayoun
> 
> Spanish Stadiums:
> -El Ejido* Stadium: 1/8 final
> *-Almería* Stadium. 1/8 final
> 
> Guest country:
> -*Gibraltar* National Stadium (semifinals) and opening ceremony.
> 
> *Portuguese Stadiums:*
> -*The Algarve* Stadium .1/8 final.
> 
> 😑
> _The world talks about Boris Johnson and Donald Trump, but they do not know to what extent Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez is capable of yielding..._
> 
> *Seriously about Morocco*:
> Someone has commented that Morocco does* not have the economic capacity to organize a World Cup *and that it is an authoritarian monarchy (Qatar inspired the fathers of the United States Constitution and the composition of the British Parliament🙄), *however:*
> 
> - has invested (because it will make profitable) *12,600 million *dollars in weapons.
> -It is creating a network of greenhouses aimed at displacing Spain in the *agricultural market*, producing at low labor cost.
> -has received more than *100 million euros* from Spain for development
> -has received *1600 million *from the European Union for development.
> -It has built a macro-port in Nador to displace the strategic commercial port of Algeciras.
> -It is an ally of the *United States and Israel.
> 
> Do you still believe that they do not have the capacity and lobby to win the 2030 offer?*:* more than 50%.*
> 
> As for the Weird Experiments of joint candidatures style:
> 
> -Switzerland-Austria-Papua New Guinea.
> -Japan-Australia-India
> -Poland-Czech Republic-Belarus
> -Ukraine-Indonesia-Galapagos Islands
> 
> *Let's do directly like Euro 2020: a world league.*
> 
> The charm of the unique venues of the Olympic Games has been lost and now the same will happen with the World Cup. If you do a survey, no one can say more than three cities in Qatar, not all the countries in the 2026 Bid or where the Winter Olympics will be or what the hell is Brisbane.


Did you check out my proposal with the World Cup. I understand you are full of ideas but you also have to be realistic with what you ask for. Could Ukraine and the Galápagos Islands really host the same tournament. Did you check out my proposal which included modifications to the 48 team format. 


chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I would say Morocco's best bet for a World Cup is to co-host with someone. Their 2026 World Cup bid was just asking for Colombia's 1986 World Cup preparations all over again. There are already rumors (nothing confirmed) that the World Cup format could be changed from originally planned to avoid collusion like the "Disgrace of Gijon" for the 2026 World Cup which is to have 48 teams. My suggestion is that have the best 16 teams qualify for a 32 team group stage and then have the other 32 teams play in a play in game immediately before the group stage possibly in a different country. With that in mind, here is what I came up with for World Cups after 2022...
> 
> 2026, play in games in Canada and Mexico, group stage and knockouts in USA
> 2030, play in games in Morocco and Portugal, group stage and knockouts in Spain
> 2034, play in games in Japan and South Korea, group stage and knockouts in China


----------



## nicholaseds2

Light Tower said:


> I think it would be possible. I think the final would be held in either Buenos Aires, Santiago, Montevideo or Asuncion.


If 2030 World Cup held in Uruguay/Argentina, the final kickoff time will held on 4/5 pm local time to suit European time, same as 2014 FWC in Brazil which the final kick off time is on 4 pm local time.


----------



## Mouadex

Ioannes_ said:


> This completely credible proposal is aimed at the Spanish readers of Skyscrapercity.
> With the *current political situation*, a joint candidacy:
> 
> *Morocco-Spain-Portugal*, it would be like this:
> 
> *Morocco Moroccan stadiums:*
> -Grand Stade de *Marrakech* 1/2 final.
> -Grand Stade de *Casablanca* 1/2 final and Final.
> -New Stadium in *Ceuta* 1/4 final
> -New *Melilla* Stadium. 1/4 final
> -*Gran Canarias* Stadium.
> -*Tenerife* Stadium.
> -New Stadium in* El Ayoun
> 
> Spanish Stadiums:
> -El Ejido* Stadium: 1/8 final
> *-Almería* Stadium. 1/8 final
> 
> Guest country:
> -*Gibraltar* National Stadium (semifinals) and opening ceremony.
> 
> *Portuguese Stadiums:*
> -*The Algarve* Stadium .1/8 final.
> 
> 😑
> _The world talks about Boris Johnson and Donald Trump, but they do not know to what extent Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez is capable of yielding..._
> 
> *Seriously about Morocco*:
> Someone has commented that Morocco does* not have the economic capacity to organize a World Cup *and that it is an authoritarian monarchy (Qatar inspired the fathers of the United States Constitution and the composition of the British Parliament🙄), *however:*
> 
> - has invested (because it will make profitable) *12,600 million *dollars in weapons.
> -It is creating a network of greenhouses aimed at displacing Spain in the *agricultural market*, producing at low labor cost.
> -has received more than *100 million euros* from Spain for development
> -has received *1600 million *from the European Union for development.
> -It has built a macro-port in Nador to displace the strategic commercial port of Algeciras.
> -It is an ally of the *United States and Israel.
> 
> Do you still believe that they do not have the capacity and lobby to win the 2030 offer?*:* more than 50%.*
> 
> As for the Weird Experiments of joint candidatures style:
> 
> -Switzerland-Austria-Papua New Guinea.
> -Japan-Australia-India
> -Poland-Czech Republic-Belarus
> -Ukraine-Indonesia-Galapagos Islands
> 
> *Let's do directly like Euro 2020: a world league.*
> 
> The charm of the unique venues of the Olympic Games has been lost and now the same will happen with the World Cup. If you do a survey, no one can say more than three cities in Qatar, not all the countries in the 2026 Bid or where the Winter Olympics will be or what the hell is Brisbane.


That was funny haha.

Seriously Laayoune has infact already a stadium where rivaldo Ronaldinho and Maradona played. It can be upgrated and host some games if the conflict is solved #GraciasSanchez

Regarding a potential joint bid between Spain Portugal and Morocco. The chances that it occurs are very low. From one side Spain and Portugal do not need Morocco to host the tournament, on the other side Morocco will see all benefits and investments going to the Iberian side.


----------



## alserrod

pesto said:


> Not much of an issue. Everyone in Canada speaks English (when they want to) and everyone in tourism in Mexico speaks English.
> 
> Likewise, if you are fluent in Spanish or Portuguese you can understand the other (not counting slang).
> 
> Spain and Portugal had the opportunity to partner with Morocco and turned it down without comment.


Language issue:

- In North-West Spain (region of Galicia) it is spoken a language 90-95% similar to Portuguese. They can be fluently understood and could seem they just have a different accent
2,7 million people in Galicia and 10,3 million people in all Portugal
- Most Portuguese speak Spanish, better or worse but they speak Spanish. No Spanish speak Portuguese (except near the border). 

- With Morocco there's a language issue, really

Nevertheless, among Poland and Ukraine (hosted EC) there aren't same languages too




chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Japan and South Korea both wanted to host the World Cup separately but due to pressure from FIFA, they hosted it together. Should similar pressure happen, Spain and Portugal could have little choice but to welcome in Morocco.


I do not like so large biddings but the fact is... this Thursday, Spanish PM Sanchez will travel to Morocco to meet King Mohammed in a new diplomatic relationship era.

Could we have some news?. I really do not know but I would wait for two more days just to read about it.


Relating to Morocco, some years ago, in August, Spanish SuperCup was hosted in Tetouan


Stadium image was far, far, far from Spanish standards
No more than 15-20K people to watch on live an official final between FC Barcelona and Sevilla CF.


----------



## pesto

alserrod said:


> Language issue:
> 
> - In North-West Spain (region of Galicia) it is spoken a language 90-95% similar to Portuguese. They can be fluently understood and could seem they just have a different accent
> 2,7 million people in Galicia and 10,3 million people in all Portugal
> - Most Portuguese speak Spanish, better or worse but they speak Spanish. No Spanish speak Portuguese (except near the border).
> 
> - With Morocco there's a language issue, really
> 
> Nevertheless, among Poland and Ukraine (hosted EC) there aren't same languages too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not like so large biddings but the fact is... this Thursday, Spanish PM Sanchez will travel to Morocco to meet King Mohammed in a new diplomatic relationship era.
> 
> Could we have some news?. I really do not know but I would wait for two more days just to read about it.
> 
> 
> Relating to Morocco, some years ago, in August, Spanish SuperCup was hosted in Tetouan
> 
> 
> Stadium image was far, far, far from Spanish standards
> No more than 15-20K people to watch on live an official final between FC Barcelona and Sevilla CF.


Yes. Gallego is close to Portuguese. And you have Basque and a few types of Catalan. But the whole discussion is pretty useless since the IOC and FIFA deal with every language on earth and just fall back on English when no other language works better.

Spain and Portugal certainly COULD work with Morocco. But so far they haven't shown any inclination.


----------



## pauiglesias12

I don't think Morocco ends up joining the bid of Spain and Portugal. I think what Morocco should do is join Algeria and Tunisia. Countries with which they have much more in common than with Europeans. And the Algerians are already building many stadiums that could host a World Cup.


----------



## Ioannes_

pauiglesias12 said:


> I don't think Morocco ends up joining the bid of Spain and Portugal. I think what Morocco should do is join Algeria and Tunisia. Countries with which they have much more in common than with Europeans. And the Algerians are already building many stadiums that could host a World Cup.



Argelia and Morocco in the same candidacy, wonderful, except for the small detail that they are a couple of steps away from a war... On incorporating Morocco into the Iberian Candidacy: no way.


----------



## Light Tower

pauiglesias12 said:


> I don't think Morocco ends up joining the bid of Spain and Portugal. I think what Morocco should do is join Algeria and Tunisia. Countries with which they have much more in common than with Europeans. And the Algerians are already building many stadiums that could host a World Cup.


I was hoping for the Morocco-Spain-Portugal bid to be possible, but it's likely not gonna happen.


----------



## pesto

Amineyalo said:


> Morocco is in top 10 countries who have lowest risk of terrorism. And the top 20 most stabile country.. and wich elephants. We don’t have elephants here.. but anyway muslims, christian, jewish live here together. People are free and have democracy. So with civil Rights were are good. Ofcourse not the best.. but usa has also alot of civil rights problems.


Like I said, just re-read the FIFA report and the international sites on human rights and social welfare. 

"White elephant" is an expression for things that are of little or no use but are expensive to maintain. In this case it means stadiums, railroads, airports and other facilities that will quickly drop into disuse and decay after the World Cup. FIFA marks down bids which include non-existing facilities since the reason they don't exist is that there is no demand for them.

More generally, it would seem that FIFA would be interested in growing economies with relatively lower interest in soccer since this is where new followers can be obtained. India, China and SE Asia each have a billion or so people and are growing rapidly so could make appealing hosts. So they could be tough competition.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Amineyalo said:


> The stadiums will be build when they give the worldcup to morocco. Like qatar did. By the way I forgot to mention. Uae and saudi want to give morocco 2 billion dollar also. If they get the worldcup. But i agree with you. Morocco need to build 2/3 great stadiums before they start the bid.


I think the stadiums that would have been built if Morocco won that you mentioned were the ones that would have a greatly reduced capacity once the World Cup was over. Unfortunately the Morocco bid decided to over empathise new constructions as opposed to redeveloping existing stadiums. Had Morocco empathised existing stadiums and also list possible things to address possible problems like stadium construction timelines and possible backup plans their bid could have scored a little better than what the one FIFA was given received.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Like I said, just re-read the FIFA report and the international sites on human rights and social welfare.
> 
> "White elephant" is an expression for things that are of little or no use but are expensive to maintain. In this case it means stadiums, railroads, airports and other facilities that will quickly drop into disuse and decay after the World Cup. FIFA marks down bids which include non-existing facilities since the reason they don't exist is that there is no demand for them.
> 
> More generally, it would seem that FIFA would be interested in growing economies with relatively lower interest in soccer since this is where new followers can be obtained. India, China and SE Asia each have a billion or so people and are growing rapidly so could make appealing hosts. So they could be tough competition.


Thanks for clearing up what the term "white elephant" means to people who don't know. I believe after 2026 FIFA will give the 2030 World Cup to the Iberian duo of Spain and Portugal with 2034 going to a China lead effort (one they start to relax their COVID-19 rules of course). The main problem with Morocco in my opinion is not the white elephants (the bid book made clear they were going to minimise that effect) but rather their readiness to prepare for the tournament. FIFA had to move the World Cup in 1986 from Colombia to Mexico as the former did not have what it took to host the event and had Morocco won, a repeat of 1986 could have been a real possibility. Also the Morocco bid was very rushed compared to the Canada-Mexico-US effort which was years in the making and most FIFA association delegates went for the latter bid as it was by far the most foolproof of the two.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Amineyalo said:


> Morocco is in top 10 countries who have lowest risk of terrorism. And the top 20 most stabile country.. and wich elephants. We don’t have elephants here.. but anyway muslims, christian, jewish live here together. People are free and have democracy. So with civil Rights were are good. Ofcourse not the best.. but usa has also alot of civil rights problems.


Although I very much doubt Morocco's ability to host a World Cup however, from what people have said Morocco seems like a nice place to add on my bucket list destinations. Would particularly love to see a Raja vs Wydad game.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Thanks for clearing up what the term "white elephant" means to people who don't know. I believe after 2026 FIFA will give the 2030 World Cup to the Iberian duo of Spain and Portugal with 2034 going to a China lead effort (one they start to relax their COVID-19 rules of course). The main problem with Morocco in my opinion is not the white elephants (the bid book made clear they were going to minimise that effect) but rather their readiness to prepare for the tournament. FIFA had to move the World Cup in 1986 from Colombia to Mexico as the former did not have what it took to host the event and had Morocco won, a repeat of 1986 could have been a real possibility. Also the Morocco bid was very rushed compared to the Canada-Mexico-US effort which was years in the making and most FIFA association delegates went for the latter bid as it was by far the most foolproof of the two.


Largely agree, Morocco was high risk as the FIFA report stated. But the real driver was the effort to increase the popularity of soccer worldwide. That means going after N. America and Asia .

Mexico's economy is 10 times the size or Morocco; Canada 20 times the size; the US 200 times the size and all have been showing solid growth and stability. FIFA had a chance to get all 3 at once and then move on to Asia when it is clear that some country or group of countries shows they can do it..


----------



## Ramanaramana

Have you lot ever seen the movie Predestination? That’s this thread in a nutshell.


----------



## ElvisBC

wrong! this thread, and united2026 thread as well, have become self-help group for clueless!!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> wrong! this thread, and united2026 thread as well, have become self-help group for clueless!!


Well, we all have our limitations and, of course, it is easy to think back on some special time, remember the people, situations and events in an abstracted, idealized manner and then let it become more and more idealized as time goes by.

This is fine for some threads but not so much for ones that are aimed at future events in a turbulent, changing world. My grandfather (a distinguished Latin gentleman) would advice us never to let the darkness close in, because once it does it never goes away. So try to see the good aspects of change and how they can be made better; but always keep your memories since they are priceless.


----------



## Amineyalo

pesto said:


> Largely agree, Morocco was high risk as the FIFA report stated. But the real driver was the effort to increase the popularity of soccer worldwide. That means going after N. America and Asia .
> 
> Mexico's economy is 10 times the size or Morocco; Canada 20 times the size; the US 200 times the size and all have been showing solid growth and stability. FIFA had a chance to get all 3 at once and then move on to Asia when it is clear that some country or group of countries shows they can do it..


Economy don’t say much for hosting worldcup. South africa economy is not that much bigger than morocco’s. And again. Morocco will get funded by emirate en saudi. Billions will be given and morocco them self can spend 2-5 billion to host the worldcup. But anyways. Now we look forward to worldcup qatar..


----------



## Amineyalo

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Although I very much doubt Morocco's ability to host a World Cup however, from what people have said Morocco seems like a nice place to add on my bucket list destinations. Would particularly love to see a Raja vs Wydad game.


June.. Usa - Morocco friendly game in ohio. 🤝


----------



## slipperydog

Iberian WC bid to feature 14 venues (11 in Spain, 3 in Portugal)









Spain to be dominant player in Iberian 2030 World Cup bid


Spain and Portugal have formally submitted a joint bid to host the 2030 FIFA World Cup, with the proposal to...




www.thestadiumbusiness.com


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> Iberian WC bid to feature 14 venues (11 in Spain, 3 in Portugal)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spain to be dominant player in Iberian 2030 World Cup bid
> 
> 
> Spain and Portugal have formally submitted a joint bid to host the 2030 FIFA World Cup, with the proposal to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thestadiumbusiness.com


A lot of smallish stadiums involved in this bid. You wonder about revenues after the 2026 tournament.

But then again the LatAm WC proposal includes new stadiums to be funded by the local development bank, which apparently has no need to make loans for housing, irrigation, sanitation, education, hospital, health, transportation, etc., projects and now wants to fund sports facilities for which there is no demand in the private market.


----------



## Light Tower

I still think Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay's joint bid seems like the obvious choice.


----------



## Ioannes_

*Pesto*: _"the Iberian candidacy has small stadiums and is not profitable"._

*Light Tower*: _"Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay's joint bid seems like the obvious choice."_

Of course, after awarding a World Cup to Qatar and making a shake-up of venues in countries where, with the exception of Mexico, soccer is the 4th-5th sport with the most fans, how can I even consider the possibility of taking the World Cup to Spain-Portugal, with teams like Real Madrid, Benfica or FC. Barcelona, who have not contributed anything to the history of football and whose fans go to the bars to eat "tapas" before matches instead of offering visitors the courtesy of the "barras bravas" or eat sunflower seeds instead of chase down the opposing team's hololygan as Estadio La Corregidora. What nonsense!: compare the modernity of the Azteca Stadium, the atmosphere and tradition of the stadiums with 180º stands in the USA and Canada...with for example: El Nuevo Bernabeu, New Camp Noy, Deagao....Better that Spain organize a Cricket World Cup, as an auxiliary venue for Gibraltar... or as an auxiliary for the Commonwealth Games football matches... even if you have to spend huge sums of money to live up to the big event...


----------



## pesto

Ioannes_ said:


> *Pesto*: _"the Iberian candidacy has small stadiums and is not profitable"._
> 
> *Light Tower*: _"Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay's joint bid seems like the obvious choice."_
> 
> Of course, after awarding a World Cup to Qatar and making a shake-up of venues in countries where, with the exception of Mexico, soccer is the 4th-5th sport with the most fans, how can I even consider the possibility of taking the World Cup to Spain-Portugal, with teams like Real Madrid, Benfica or FC. Barcelona, who have not contributed anything to the history of football and whose fans go to the bars to eat "tapas" before matches instead of offering visitors the courtesy of the "barras bravas" or eat sunflower seeds instead of chase down the opposing team's hololygan as Estadio La Corregidora. What nonsense!: compare the modernity of the Azteca Stadium, the atmosphere and tradition of the stadiums with 180º stands in the USA and Canada...with for example: El Nuevo Bernabeu, New Camp Noy, Deagao....Better that Spain organize a Cricket World Cup, as an auxiliary venue for Gibraltar... or as an auxiliary for the Commonwealth Games football matches... even if you have to spend huge sums of money to live up to the big event...


I noted that several of the proposed Spanish and Portuguese stadiums are small, which is simply a fact. 

I would suggest that Spain think about NFL football instead of cricket; in fact, Madrid and Barcelona have already had talks re bringing in more revenue from hosting NFL games (and part of the Barca refinancing went to their basketball facilities). Which makes a lot of sense for both sides. But if there is money in cricket, why not?


----------



## Juanpabloangel

Spain is great at cricket as you all know but I think Portugal will struggle. I’d suggest they just all enjoy the World Cup in Argentina and ahem Uruguay, Paraguay etc.


----------



## RobH

pesto said:


> A lot of smallish stadiums involved in this bid. You wonder about revenues after the 2026 tournament.





pesto said:


> I noted that several of the proposed Spanish and Portuguese stadiums are small, which is simply a fact.


They don't strike me as particularly small. America obviously has a lot of very big stadiums so almost any bid will look small in comparison based on that metric.

I think you're looking at this through the wrong end of the telescope. Rather than there being a drop off in revenue post-2026, see 2026 as a one-off bumper revenue opportunity in terms of ticket sales and whatever comes next as reverting to the mean. To be honest, given the corruption and near financial collapse of the organisation, a bit of stability in host nations that are known quantities with existing stadiums is exactly what FIFA needs. In that sense the USA and Spain/Portugal would be doing the same job for FIFA. Putting things firmly back on track after a series of self-inflicted disasters.


----------



## RobH

Don't think you'll be fitting cricket into a football stadium. Unless Spain has some hidden AFL stadiums I don't know about. 

Or else I'd be fine with converting bullrings into venues for kids cricket


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> They don't strike me as particularly small. America obviously has a lot of very big stadiums so almost any bid will look small in comparison based on that metric.
> 
> I think you're looking at this through the wrong end of the telescope. Rather than there being a drop off in revenue post-2026, see 2026 as a one-off bumper revenue opportunity in terms of ticket sales and whatever comes next as reverting to the mean. To be honest, given the corruption and near financial collapse of the organisation, a bit of stability in host nations that are known quantities with existing stadiums is exactly what FIFA needs. In that sense the USA and Spain/Portugal would be doing the same job for FIFA. Putting things firmly back on track after a series of self-inflicted disasters.


Agree completely. As you say the stadiums are small compared to 2026, which is exactly what I said. No need for a chip on the shoulder..


----------



## mague

Portugal-Spain- Andorra 
Argentina-Uruguay-Chile
Or 
Australia-NZ and maybe other country theres not other options maybe england, wales, scotland


----------



## Ioannes_

I recommend that you watch the video of the presentation of the reform of the Camp Nou: it is not simply placing 3 terraces and a ceiling with tensioned cables: it is a very well thought-out, efficient work with an interior that preserves the structure of the first stadium in 1957 without the chaos of irons and supports of the New Bernabéu. In addition, it will have a capacity and majesty in the unique stands in Europe. The New Camp Nou project has nothing to envy to the overacting of the New Bernabéu. Is the BEST option for The Final.


----------



## ElvisBC

Ramanaramana said:


> The 1982 World Cup provides a good blueprint for what to expect in 2030. In that World Cup Camp Nou had a capacity of 120,000, against Bernabeu's 90,000.
> 
> Bernabeu hosted final. Camp Nou hosted opener plus a handful of second group stage matches. In those days, the hosts didn't play the opener. In 2030, it's assumed that Spain would play opener.
> 
> The Spanish national team's path to the final in 82 avoided Camp Nou entirely, meaning that Spain would've had to play all their matches at Bernabeu, Valencia or Seville to win the cup.
> 
> Spain did recently play a match at Espanyol's home ground, but they almost never play in Catalonia. The last competitive match the Spanish NT played in Catalonia was in 1975, at Espanyol's ground.
> 
> *Since the Spanish FA decide on World Cup venues,* and the Spanish FA is Madrid-based, and is pro-Spain and anti-Catalonian-independence........and has a history of ignoring Catalonia by not staging competitive matches there, only giving it the odd friendly every decade or so.........it stands to reason that Barcelona has no chance of hosting the final.
> 
> It will most likely get a semifinal in the side of the draw that Spain isn't it. Spanish FA + FIFA may also decide to schedule several matches on opening day, with Camp Nou hosting the first match, and then later on the Spanish NT playing at Bernabeu for the evening kickoff. That's my guess. It's bewildering to me that the Spanish FA would award Barcelona the final in light of their track record.


no, it doesn‘t, it is actually FIFA decission, but of course all factors are considered


----------



## Ramanaramana

ElvisBC said:


> no, it doesn‘t, it is actually FIFA decission, but of course all factors are considered


Yes it's Fifa's decision, which will be made for them by the Spanish FA.


----------



## ElvisBC

Ramanaramana said:


> Yes it's Fifa's decision, which will be made for them by the Spanish FA.


in case of bernabeu … probably yes, by both of them, RFEF and Gobierno de Espana


----------



## nicholaseds2

Camp Nou is better for 100th anniversary World Cup final since the capacity is bigger than Bernabeu, and it's the Europe biggest stadium


----------



## CWells2000

I wonder if the Estadio Algarve has a chance of hosting matches?

You could easily add temporary seats to get it up to 40,000 seats.


----------



## CWells2000

nicholaseds2 said:


> Camp Nou is better for 100th anniversary World Cup final since the capacity is bigger than Bernabeu, and it's the Europe biggest stadium


No chance of Camp Nou hosting the final given the politics between Catalonia and Spain.


----------



## vicenterubio

Ramanaramana said:


> The 1982 World Cup provides a good blueprint for what to expect in 2030. In that World Cup Camp Nou had a capacity of 120,000, against Bernabeu's 90,000.
> 
> Bernabeu hosted final. Camp Nou hosted opener plus a handful of second group stage matches. In those days, the hosts didn't play the opener. In 2030, it's assumed that Spain would play opener.
> 
> The Spanish national team's path to the final in 82 avoided Camp Nou entirely, meaning that Spain would've had to play all their matches at Bernabeu, Valencia or Seville to win the cup.
> 
> Spain did recently play a match at Espanyol's home ground, but they almost never play in Catalonia. The last competitive match the Spanish NT played in Catalonia was in 1975, at Espanyol's ground.
> 
> Since the Spanish FA decide on World Cup venues, and the Spanish FA is Madrid-based, and is pro-Spain and anti-Catalonian-independence........and has a history of ignoring Catalonia by not staging competitive matches there, only giving it the odd friendly every decade or so.........it stands to reason that Barcelona has no chance of hosting the final.
> 
> It will most likely get a semifinal in the side of the draw that Spain isn't it. Spanish FA + FIFA may also decide to schedule several matches on opening day, with Camp Nou hosting the first match, and then later on the Spanish NT playing at Bernabeu for the evening kickoff. That's my guess. It's bewildering to me that the Spanish FA would award Barcelona the final in light of their track record.


 If the nnational team doesn´t play in Catalonia is because catalonian nationalists pressure not to have matches there. In fact Camp nou has bees selected to host the Copa del Rey final several times and San Mamés was selected to host Euro 2020 matches before the COVID pandemic.


----------



## alserrod

vicenterubio said:


> If the nnational team doesn´t play in Catalonia is because catalonian nationalists pressure not to have matches there. In fact Camp nou has bees selected to host the Copa del Rey final several times and San Mamés was selected to host Euro 2020 matches before the COVID pandemic.


Copa del Rey is given to a city who pays for it. In this case, Seville for four years (ending in 2023, a new host city will take place for 2024).


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

I hope Barcelona gets the final if Spain/Portugal gets the 2030 World Cup as they will have the largest capacity stadium should always host the final in my opinion. Madrid and Lisbon should be the opening matches for each country.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

FIFA will want Camp Nou for the final but will settle for a Madrid final and a Portugal opening match… group games, second round, quarter and semi finals in Barcelona would be needed to take advantage of the much higher capacity though. There are some beautiful stadia in the Iberian peninsula and it would be a tremendous World Cup, certainly preferable to Qatar.


----------



## ElvisBC

semis in san mames and barcelona olympic stadium, and final in new mestalla 😁


----------



## Ramanaramana

Juanpabloangel said:


> FIFA will want Camp Nou for the final but will settle for a Madrid final and a Portugal opening match… group games, second round, quarter and semi finals in Barcelona would be needed to take advantage of the much higher capacity though. There are some beautiful stadia in the Iberian peninsula and it would be a tremendous World Cup, certainly preferable to Qatar.


Agree with all that, though I think the opening match lark with co-hosts, as in 2026, isn't all that important. It's odd that it's become such a topic of debate when just 20 years ago both Japan and South Korea had their openers 5 days into the tournament.

Whether you do Portugal/Spain openers on the same day, or on consecutive nights, you achieve more or less the desired effect while satisfying both hosts.


----------



## Gardocki

I remember back in the 90s when Spain played all (or most) of their competitive home games in Seville. They considered it to be their luck ground I think. Had an amazing record there. Not sure how long that lasted.


----------



## alserrod

Gardocki said:


> I remember back in the 90s when Spain played all (or most) of their competitive home games in Seville. They considered it to be their luck ground I think. Had an amazing record there. Not sure how long that lasted.



I have googled for them. I was surprised because I also remembered so many matches and they were less than half of them
It was in the era 1982 (after WC in Spain) to 1995.
In 1995 (or 1996 or... I am not sure), they decided to move within all Spain and they will look for a second city (smaller) in the nearbies to host an under-23 match the day before.

People will remember, for sure, match against Malta in 1983 in Seville
EDIT: Wkipedia source in English. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain_12–1_Malta


----------



## alserrod

For non-Spanish (nor-Portuguese) forumers

Which should be host stadiums in this bid?


Nou Camp. 99,4K (*)
S.Bernabéu. 81,1K (*)
Wanda Metropolitano 68,5K
Da Luz 66,5K
Nou Mestalla 61,5K (on works)
B.Villamarín 61,0K
Olympic Montjuich 60,0K
Dragao 51,0K
J.Alvalade 51,0K
Anoeta 40,0K (*)

(*) means AFAIK, refurbishment/enlargement is planned or on going
On works = Nou Mestalla

Which stadiums would you add?


----------



## slipperydog

alserrod said:


> For non-Spanish (nor-Portuguese) forumers
> 
> Which should be host stadiums in this bid?
> 
> 
> Nou Camp. 99,4K (*)
> S.Bernabéu. 81,1K (*)
> Wanda Metropolitano 68,5K
> Da Luz 66,5K
> Nou Mestalla 61,5K (on works)
> B.Villamarín 61,0K
> Olympic Montjuich 60,0K
> Dragao 51,0K
> J.Alvalade 51,0K
> Anoeta 40,0K (*)
> 
> (*) means AFAIK, refurbishment/enlargement is planned or on going
> On works = Nou Mestalla
> 
> Which stadiums would you add?


EDIT: Gotta imagine Bilbao would be included, no?


----------



## aidan88

alserrod said:


> For non-Spanish (nor-Portuguese) forumers
> 
> Which should be host stadiums in this bid?
> 
> 
> Nou Camp. 99,4K (*)
> S.Bernabéu. 81,1K (*)
> Wanda Metropolitano 68,5K
> Da Luz 66,5K
> Nou Mestalla 61,5K (on works)
> B.Villamarín 61,0K
> Olympic Montjuich 60,0K
> Dragao 51,0K
> J.Alvalade 51,0K
> Anoeta 40,0K (*)
> 
> (*) means AFAIK, refurbishment/enlargement is planned or on going
> On works = Nou Mestalla
> 
> Which stadiums would you add?


In portugal - 
Lisbon - Benfica & Sporting
Porto
Faro (temporary expansion)

Dont think any of the others will be cost effective

In Spain
Madrid - Real & Atleti
Barcelona - Barcelona & Espanyol
Seville - 2 of La Cartuja, Sevilla, & Betis
Valencia
Bilbao
San Sebastian

And then depending on work completed, 3 out of:

A Coruna/Vigo/Oviedo/Gijon/Malaga/Zaragoza/Mallorca/Tenerife/Gran Canaria/Elche/Alicante//Murcia/Valladolid

Montjuic wont get in


----------



## egl92

Spain official bids:

Camp Nou - Barcelona
RCDE Stadium - Barcelona
Santiago Bernabéu - Madrid
Metropolitano - Madrid
La Cartuja - Seville
San Mamés - Bilbao
Anoeta - San Sebastián
Nou Mestalla - Valencia
La Romareda - Zaragoza
El Molinón - Gijón
Nueva Condomina - Murcia
Estadio de Gran Canaria - Las Palmas
La Rosaleda - Málaga
Riazor - La Coruña
Balaídos - Vigo

From there will come the final eleven that will accompany the three from Portugal to 14 total venues.

Portugal:

Estadio Do Dragão - Porto
Estadio Da Luz - Lisbon
José Alvalade - Lisbon

Real Zaragoza and Real Sporting have recently been purchased by new owners from USA and Mexico respectively.
Real Zaragoza by Jorge Mas Santos managing owner of Inter Miami.
In the case of Sporting Gijon by Orlegi that owns Atlas, Santos Laguna and Tampico Madero.

Both have shown interest in completely renovating their stadiums.

Zaragoza is the fifth most populous city in Spain (for 2030 probably the fourth ahead of Seville) and has a privileged geographical location, its located about 300KM from Barcelona, Bilbao, Madrid and Valencia.

La Cartuja has been chosen instead of Benito Villamarin by agreement between the RFEF and politicians. It's not clear if it will be reformed with the removal of the running track.

My prediction will be:

Porto
Lisbon x2
Madrid x2
Barcelona x2
Seville
Bilbao
Valencia
Zaragoza
San Sebastián

Of these six it's difficult to choose two

Málaga
Las Palmas
Murcia
Gijón
La Coruña
Vigo

None of the local teams have necessary support to fill a 40K stadium (minimun required by FIFA). We have to think about the use after the World Cup. Portugal Euro 2004 stadiums are an example, very oversized for local teams.

Málaga, Las Palmas and Murcia they have the advantage of being tourist areas.

Estadio de Gran Canaria would be easily expandable with temporary stands.

El Molinón is the oldest stadium by large in Iberia and could be a tribute to its history to host a World Cup.

Deportivo La Coruña and Real Murcia are playing in Primera RFEF (third tier).

It's not official yet but Portugal and Brazil will play the group stage in Lisbon and Porto.
Opening match will be in Da Luz and the final match in Santiago Bernabéu.

Edit to say that for the venues in Catalonia and the Basque Country, the population that wants independence is extremely minority and there would be no problem.


----------



## Rokto14

I think if Spain and Portugal wins the 2030 FIFA WC bid, they will still use 16 venues, similar to the USA-Mexico-Canada bid for the 2026 FIFA WC. Spain and Portugal will either go for the 12+4 combo (12 venues in Spain and 4 venues in Portugal) or the 11+5 combo (11 venues in Spain and 5 venues in Portugal). I don't see this bid going any number lower than 16 venues to be honest.


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> Keep in mind, considerations about local climates are not simply about accommodating the matches but also the weeks of practices in between, which can't all be held in the host venues.
> 
> Last I heard, Toronto will be using an expanded BMO Field, which is an outdoor venue. Has that plan changed?


I gave Toronto a pass both because of cool weather in June and I'm not sure what they plan to do with the expansion/renovation.


----------



## alserrod

News from Zaragoza,
Local government has decided that new stadium will be in the same location than nowadays

... I bet it will be a simple refurbishment plus enlargement to 40K instead a big project


----------



## Jonan

Ioannes_ said:


> On the matter of Spain in Euskadi: we have the recent precedent of Euro 2020. *Do you really think that it was not played because of COVID?*... please... link with the word Spain. Spain plays in Euskadi just like the Globetrotters, from there to linking the Basque Country with an area and project common to Spain... I don't think they allow it.


You are showing your colours, I live in the Basque Country and I know how strict the government was with Covid, during the start of La Liga season we had a lower max cap due to the limit imposed by the Basque government and it only changed because La Liga brought it to the judge. Yes, it wasn't played due to covid, otherwise they wouldn't have applied and later on ask for compensation from UEFA

Your reasons to take out Anoeta and San Mames don't make any sense, when both stadiums are ones of the best of Spain and they don't need any important financial investment to be ready for the WC


----------



## alserrod

^^

I strongly agree with Jonan

Ioannes_ please, do not fire this thread!!


----------



## Kepa_Jametxo

Ioannes_ said:


> *egl92*
> 
> To be honest,
> 
> - *Vigo* is a city of 293,642 inhabitants whose Mayor says that he is building a stadium at the architectural "level of the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao" and that spectators who are taller than 1.60 m *cannot fit their legs on their seats*, in addition to the fact that each extension is improvised. The bubble city?* Christmas* bubble: the Spanish know what to talk about.
> I prefer *Almería*, which at least has an Arab Jeque who is building a stadium that can be expanded to 40,000 and has the experience of having organized some excellent Mediterranean Games.
> 
> -Perhaps *Màlaga *is not a "historical" team in the sense of winning titles and competing in high places in the competition, but like Cádiz, it is a city that is dedicated to its team and had a rebuilding and obsolete stadium: they are "boquerone". The city has an* international airport* and is almost at the economic level of Seville.
> 
> -*Murcia* had the misfortune of having a President, Samper, involved in Villar's troubles, but in the Second Division, the stadium had a great attendance.
> 
> On the matter of Spain in Euskadi: we have the recent precedent of Euro 2020. *Do you really think that it was not played because of COVID?*... please... link with the word Spain. Spain plays in Euskadi just like the Globetrotters, from there to linking the Basque Country with an area and project common to Spain... I don't think they allow it.
> 
> *-Villareal*: it will be completed with the closing of the stands and a wonderful roof, for me it is the Signal Iduna Park in Spain (with respect to distances). *Is it a worse stadium* than the *Arena Pantanal, Yekaterinburg, or the one they have built in Qatar with cargo ship containers?* at least in Villareal they play football, they have won a Europa League.
> *-Granada* is one of the most important cities in Spain, you can call a competition for ideas for a beautiful stadium expandable to 40,000: Yekaterinburg was a festival of "yes, we can".
> 
> *-Albacete and Badajoz*: 1º Round Match. "Empty Spain" needs investment. It is the same case of Granada with the precedent of Yekaterinburg, why not?
> 
> Sources:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abel Caballero: "Estamos haciendo el Guggenheim del fútbol"
> 
> 
> AUDIO: El alcalde de Vigo confirma a Santi Peón que la grada de Río de Balaídos abrirá en el próximo partido ante el Athletic de Bilbao.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cope.es
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> La izquierda abertzale critica que la Euro se juegue en Bilbao con un cartel en el que se pisotea a Ramos
> 
> 
> Los carteles ha aparecido en el centro de Bilbao y en elllos aparece el mensaje: "No a esta Eurocopa, con Euskal Herria no se juega".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cope.es


Appart from Jonan's comment which I totally agree, the complains of the left (not the political parties) were because the national team was going to play in Bilbo. If the national team doesn't play in the Basque Country, there won't be any problem. If you lived here, you'd have known.😉

Moreover, do you really think that Albacete, Almería, Granada or Badajoz need a stadium of 40.000 people?


----------



## powerhaus

Seems like member "Ioannes_" have some phobia with the Atlantic area of Spain 😆

My list:

-Molinón (Gijón). Remodeling to 40.000
-San Mamés (Bilbao)
-Anoeta (San Sebastián)
-Romareda (Zaragoza). New stadium 40.000
-Camp Nou (Barcelona)
-RCDE Stadium (Barcelona)
-Mestalla (Valencia)
-Santiago Bernabeu (Madrid)
-Metropolitano (Madrid)
-Cartuja (Sevilla)
-Gran Canaria (Las Palmas) Remodeling to 40.000


----------



## Temporarily Exiled

powerhaus said:


> Seems like member "Ioannes_" have some phobia with the Atlantic area of Spain 😆
> 
> My list:
> 
> -Molinón (Gijón). Remodeling to 40.000
> -San Mamés (Bilbao)
> -Anoeta (San Sebastián)
> -Romareda (Zaragoza). New stadium 40.000
> -Camp Nou (Barcelona)
> -RCDE Stadium (Barcelona)
> -Mestalla (Valencia)
> -Santiago Bernabeu (Madrid)
> -Metropolitano (Madrid)
> -Cartuja (Sevilla)
> -Gran Canaria (Las Palmas) Remodeling to 40.000


I think you need Málaga in there. One of the biggest cities in Spain, and ensures that at least _one_ city on the south coast of Spain has some matches. Your list has a lot of cities in the northern half of the country (Gijón, Bilbao, Donostia, Zaragoza, Barcelona ×2), but only one city in the south (Sevilla).


----------



## cheuplavinia

Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay submitted a joint bid on Tuesday to host the 2030 World Cup, an effort that if successful would bring the global tournament back to Uruguay a century after it hosted the first World Cup in 1930.

CONMEBOL apoya la candidatura conjunta de Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay y Chile para el Mundial 2030 - CONMEBOL 








CONMEBOL apoya la candidatura conjunta de Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay y Chile para el Mundial 2030 - CONMEBOL


“Hay que honrar la memoria de aquellos que Creyeron en Grande y apostaron a organizar por primera vez un mundial en este continente. Esta candidatura me pone muy orgulloso, porque nos enseña a jugar en equipo, y esto lo entendieron muy bien tres países que se unen a Uruguay, que es la nación...




www.conmebol.com


----------



## Juanpabloangel

Jonan said:


> You are showing your colours, I live in the Basque Country and I know how strict the government was with Covid, during the start of La Liga season we had a lower max cap due to the limit imposed by the Basque government and it only changed because La Liga brought it to the judge. Yes, it wasn't played due to covid, otherwise they wouldn't have applied and later on ask for compensation from UEFA
> 
> Your reasons to take out Anoeta and San Mames don't make any sense, when both stadiums are ones of the best of Spain and they don't need any important financial investment to be ready for the WC


A World Cup in Iberia means just that. It’s not a Spanish World Cup. The regions who have pretensions to self determination should absolutely take the opportunity to get games and football tourism or otherwise, visiting and show them the best of their regions. If they base the English there, (assuming they qualify) they will be well received In the Basque Country in my experience.


----------



## Ioannes_

The Offer of Spain and Portugal is not for a celebration with fireworks but it is superior to the South American one.
They deserve a World Cup anyway: couldn't they award Spain-Portugal in 2030 and South America 2034 in the same session of FIFA?


----------



## Mojeda101

Ioannes_ said:


> The Offer of Spain and Portugal is not for a celebration with fireworks but it is superior to the South American one.
> They deserve a World Cup anyway: couldn't they award Spain-Portugal in 2030 and South America 2034 in the same session of FIFA?


Do it the other way around and everyone will be happy. Uruguay deserves their 100th anniversary.


----------



## Ioannes_

Mojeda101 said:


> Do it the other way around and everyone will be happy. Uruguay deserves their 100th anniversary.


Since the Atlanta'96 Olympics, life is cruel for sports centenarians...


----------



## KONSTANTINOUPOLIS

*Egyptian media cite joint 3-way bid by Greece, Egypt, Saudi Arabia for 2030 World Cup *




> According to the site cairo24.com, a three-party meeting by football federation officials from the trio agreed to file a joint bid


more: 








Egyptian media cite joint 3-way bid by Greece, Egypt, Saudi Arabia for 2030 World Cup - Οικονομικός Ταχυδρόμος - ot.gr


An Egyptian website on Thursday claimed that Greece will join Saudi Arabia and Egypt in vying for the World Cup 2030 tournament




www.ot.gr


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Ioannes_ said:


> The Offer of Spain and Portugal is not for a celebration with fireworks but it is superior to the South American one.
> They deserve a World Cup anyway: couldn't they award Spain-Portugal in 2030 and South America 2034 in the same session of FIFA?


I think if South America gets it, it should be in more than eight years in advance. Remember the only time a country was stripped of hosting rights was a South American country (Colombia in 1986, later given to Mexico).


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

KONSTANTINOUPOLIS said:


> *Egyptian media cite joint 3-way bid by Greece, Egypt, Saudi Arabia for 2030 World Cup *
> 
> 
> 
> more:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egyptian media cite joint 3-way bid by Greece, Egypt, Saudi Arabia for 2030 World Cup - Οικονομικός Ταχυδρόμος - ot.gr
> 
> 
> An Egyptian website on Thursday claimed that Greece will join Saudi Arabia and Egypt in vying for the World Cup 2030 tournament
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ot.gr


Morocco will join the bid it it is really happening. They have been trying so hard to get it with no success.


----------



## KONSTANTINOUPOLIS

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Morocco will join the bid it it is really happening. They have been trying so hard to get it with no success.


I doubt, Morocco is on the other side of Mediterranean, it is next to Spain.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I think if South America gets it, it should be in more than eight years in advance. Remember the only time a country was stripped of hosting rights was a South American country (Colombia in 1986, later given to Mexico).


I assume the original post here is going to be deleted? Seen one Latin, seen them all?


----------



## Ramanaramana

It's an interesting approach because it uses a host from three different confederations. There would be hope that they can rope in African and Asian votes which add up to what, 110 or so? 

While I don't think anything is stopping Spain/Portugal, it does raise questions about cross-confederation hosting in the future. I'm not sure a cohosting arrangement spanning three confederations should be allowed. Geographically, it is unique as that region is the only one in which three confederations meet together, but it gives it an unfair advantage.


----------



## PAO13

KONSTANTINOUPOLIS said:


> *Egyptian media cite joint 3-way bid by Greece, Egypt, Saudi Arabia for 2030 World Cup *
> 
> 
> 
> more:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Egyptian media cite joint 3-way bid by Greece, Egypt, Saudi Arabia for 2030 World Cup - Οικονομικός Ταχυδρόμος - ot.gr
> 
> 
> An Egyptian website on Thursday claimed that Greece will join Saudi Arabia and Egypt in vying for the World Cup 2030 tournament
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ot.gr


Very interesting candidature. There's something appealing about such a unique bid, where three different continents and cultures are represented, while it's not the worst we have seen as far as geographical distance from each other.


----------



## pesto

PAO13 said:


> Very interesting candidature. There's something appealing about such a unique bid, where three different continents and cultures are represented, while it's not the worst we have seen as far as geographical distance from each other.


I agree. I don't think that either continent or confederation should be a gating criterion for or against an otherwise desirable joint bid. Continents and FIFA's confederations are largely man-made distinctions. 

In any event, although in different continents and confederations, the Saudis and Egyptians have more in common (language, religion, climate, culture generally) than, say, Finland and Spain, or Japan and Kazakhstan.


----------



## ElvisBC

great. please add mauritius and diego garcia and we have the cup! no point for anyone else to bid!!!

I always say I can’t be shocked anymore how clueless people on these boards are when it comes to football, but they manage to prove me wrong over and over again. and it is not only pesto btw.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> great. please add mauritius and diego garcia and we have the cup! no point for anyone else to bid!!!
> 
> I always say I can’t be shocked anymore how clueless people on these boards are when it comes to football, but they manage to prove me wrong over and over again. and i*t is not only pesto btw.*


Yeah, but I'm still way out in front of the others. No contest.

Btw, turn around 180 degrees; you are looking backwards again. We are talking about the future and how *different* it will be. Insistently doing the same thing as in the past is just falling further and further behind.


----------



## ElvisBC

no contest!


----------



## PAO13

pesto said:


> I agree. I don't think that either continent or confederation should be a gating criterion for or against an otherwise desirable joint bid. Continents and FIFA's confederations are largely man-made distinctions.
> 
> In any event, although in different continents and confederations, the Saudis and Egyptians have more in common (language, religion, climate, culture generally) than, say, Finland and Spain, or Japan and Kazakhstan.


You're right! I'm curious to see how many stadiums each of the countries would contribute with, in an eventual bid.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

KONSTANTINOUPOLIS said:


> I doubt, Morocco is on the other side of Mediterranean, it is next to Spain.


A bit like Saudi Arabia and Greece.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

If they add Israel into the mix, that would include three main religious groups, give FIFA the Nobel.


----------



## ElvisBC

did fifa announce any timeline for bidding?
I think it was supposed to be awarded at the 2024 fifa congress, so it should start soon.


----------



## KONSTANTINOUPOLIS

Juanpabloangel said:


> A bit like Saudi Arabia and Greece.


Greece-Egypt-Saudi Arabia are close to each other, geographically and in foreign policy.

Greece and Egypt are traditional allies in the eastern Mediterranean.

Greece and Saudi Arabia in recent years have tightened their relationship in the defense sector 






and in the economy, 12 days ago the Saudi Prince visited Athens


----------



## PAO13

Juanpabloangel said:


> If they add Israel into the mix, that would include three main religious groups, give FIFA the Nobel.


I also thought about that. It's actually kinda weird that Israel hasn't joined the bid, since they've too become closer allies with Egypt, Greece and Saudi Arabia in recent years.


----------



## nicholaseds2

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Morocco will join the bid it it is really happening. They have been trying so hard to get it with no success.


Maybe 2030 World Cup will be held across Europe, Africa, and West Asia, the concept is like Euro 2020, and if it's happens, maybe Qatar will be the host for 2nd time but Qatar won't host opening or final.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

I asked Google Maps for the road itinerary from Athens to the Saudi capital and it told me it would take 43 hours of driving (compared to 41 hours from New York to Los Angeles). If the infrastructure was there and the security issues weren't, I'd change the Qatar world cup with this Levant world cup instead (keeping of course the autumn date)


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

FIFA tried really hard to make the 32 team Qatar World Cup in 2022 into a pan-Arab World Cup with 48 teams. If that is the case I would not be surprised if FIFA wants a pan-Mediterranean/Arab World Cup featuring countries like Portugal, Spain, Morocco, Algeria, Italy, Greece, Turkiye, Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia to name a few of the countries that could be involved. The 2026 World Cup may only three countries but the US and Canada are comfortably among the world's six biggest countries in land area and Mexico is a fairly large country to so the whole of the Mediterranean/Arab countries is about the same size as the three 2026 hosts combined.


----------



## pesto

alexandru.mircea said:


> I asked Google Maps for the road itinerary from Athens to the Saudi capital and it told me it would take 43 hours of driving (compared to 41 hours from New York to Los Angeles). If the infrastructure was there and the security issues weren't, I'd change the Qatar world cup with this Levant world cup instead (keeping of course the autumn date)


Not sure what the point is here. Or should I forget about it?


----------



## morgenstern12

Spain and Portugal is the safest most realistic bid for 2030


----------



## Eurostallion1

If multi host country World Cups are the way , I wonder if automatic host qualification will be phased out or reformed. I can imagine that in the future all host countries will take part in normal qualification with perhaps one or two qualification slots reserved in case one or more of the hosts don’t make it the normal way. Should all the hosts qualify normally then FIFA could re-allocate those spots to wildcard teams. I think Euro 2020 set some sort of precedent that you can have matches in countries whose teams haven’t qualified and it’s not a huge problem. I don’t think FIFA reserving four or five spots for host countries is viable.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Eurostallion1 said:


> If multi host country World Cups are the way , I wonder if automatic host qualification will be phased out or reformed. I can imagine that in the future all host countries will take part in normal qualification with perhaps one or two qualification slots reserved in case one or more of the hosts don’t make it the normal way. Should all the hosts qualify normally then FIFA could re-allocate those spots to wildcard teams. I think Euro 2020 set some sort of precedent that you can have matches in countries whose teams haven’t qualified and it’s not a huge problem. I don’t think FIFA reserving four or five spots for host countries is viable.


I would not mind if automatic hosts are phased out for the World Cup. For 2026 both Mexico and the US have never finished lower than 5th in World Cup qualifying in recent years and CONCACAF is planned to get 6 automatic spots for the World Cup starting 2026 so those two nations have no need to worry about not qualifying automatically. I can add Canada in that list too as their team has improved so much in recent years that they should quite comfortably make it in the top 6 of qualifiers should they not qualify automatically.


----------



## Ramanaramana

The hosts will always be automatic qualifiers.

Perhaps people should temper expectations about the frequency of World Cups with 3-5 hosts going forward.


----------



## pesto

Ramanaramana said:


> The hosts will always be automatic qualifiers.
> 
> Perhaps people should temper expectations about the frequency of World Cups with 3-5 hosts going forward.


I agree. This is a matter of comity. At best, it would have to be part of a vetted official policy and not an ad hoc decision bid by bid.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> I agree. This is a matter of comity. At best, it would have to be part of a vetted official policy and not an ad hoc decision bid by bid.


I mean it makes sense to keep with tradition with automatic qualification for hosts but they can always get rid of the rule so all teams have to qualify. The three hosts for 2026 should all qualify have they not done so automatically (CONCACAF is planned to get 6 automatic spots plus one playoff spot up from 3 automatic spots plus one playoff spot, the US and Mexico have never finished lower than 5th in qualifying since the jump to 32 teams and Canada will only be stronger heading into 2026). Also having a team like Qatar who might have struggled in qualifying for 2022 qualifiers had they not qualifying automatically as hosts (they are by far the weakest team in their group, they are in the same group as Netherlands, Senegal and Ecuador all far more formidable teams than Qatar) might not be the most fair thing on sporting merit. I expect FIFA to make an announcement soon regarding automatic qualification for 2026 and future tournaments. UEFA got rid of automatic qualification for the 2020 Euro so there is some precedent if FIFA wants to go down that route.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I mean it makes sense to keep with tradition with automatic qualification for hosts but they can always get rid of the rule so all teams have to qualify. The three hosts for 2026 should all qualify have they not done so automatically (CONCACAF is planned to get 6 automatic spots plus one playoff spot up from 3 automatic spots plus one playoff spot, the US and Mexico have never finished lower than 5th in qualifying since the jump to 32 teams and Canada will only be stronger heading into 2026). Also having a team like Qatar who might have struggled in qualifying for 2022 qualifiers had they not qualifying automatically as hosts (they are by far the weakest team in their group, they are in the same group as Netherlands, Senegal and Ecuador all far more formidable teams than Qatar) might not be the most fair thing on sporting merit. I expect FIFA to make an announcement soon regarding automatic qualification for 2026 and future tournaments. UEFA got rid of automatic qualification for the 2020 Euro so there is some precedent if FIFA wants to go down that route.


They COULD exclude whoever they want; but as I said, this is a part of comity: treating other members who act as hosts as equals, not as second class countries or people who you are only grudgingly dealing with. 

If 4 or more happens a lot then I can see the issue; but with a 48 or greater field, the last one eliminated doesn't have much ground for arguing they had a strong right to be included. Play better next time.


----------



## alex_lg

*Chile Potential Bids*

National Stadium located in Santiago would be refurbished using the Berlin Olympic Stadium in Germany like model.
Capacity: 60K









Monumental Stadium located in Santiago would be refurbished using the Allianz Parque Stadium in Brazil and the José Zorrilla Stadium in Spain like model.
Capacity: 62K









Ester Roa Stadium located in Concepción would be refurbished using the Anoeta Stadium in Spain like model.
Capacity: 40K

Actual stadium:








Source










Elías Figueroa Brander Stadium located in Valparaíso would be refurbished using the Arena Ekaterinburg in Russia like model.
Capacity: 40K (With temporary 10K seats)

Actual stadium:








Source


----------



## Light Tower

alex_lg said:


> *Chile Potential Bids*
> 
> National Stadium located in Santiago would be refurbished using the Berlin Olympic Stadium in Germany like model.
> Capacity: 60K
> View attachment 3763254
> 
> 
> Monumental Stadium located in Santiago would be refurbished using the Allianz Parque Stadium in Brazil and the José Zorrilla Stadium in Spain like model.
> Capacity: 62K
> View attachment 3763247
> 
> 
> Ester Roa Stadium located in Concepción would be refurbished using the Anoeta Stadium in Spain like model.
> Capacity: 40K
> 
> Actual stadium:
> View attachment 3763222
> 
> Source
> 
> View attachment 3763242
> 
> 
> Elías Figueroa Brander Stadium located in Valparaíso would be refurbished using the Arena Ekaterinburg in Russia like model.
> Capacity: 40K (With temporary 10K seats)
> 
> Actual stadium:
> View attachment 3763234
> 
> Source
> 
> View attachment 3763240​


Chile is already in a joint bid with Uruguay, Argentuna and Paraguay.


----------



## alserrod

Eurostallion1 said:


> UEFA already has already done this for Euro 2016 qualifying. France played in group I of the qualifiers but their matches didn’t count towards qualification. Also Qatar played in UEFA group A in qualifying for this year’s World Cup but again Qatar’s matches didn’t count. It didn’t really have the desired effect and France and Qatar’s ‘qualifiers’ were very much treated as friendlies with experimental selections, mass substitutions and generous refereeing that you see in friendlies. I don’t know exactly how this is proposed to work for 2026. It would seem unfair on the likes of Honduras, Costa Rica and Panama if matches against US, Canada and Mexico counted for one of the two teams but not the other. Imagine if you were Costa Rica and the US played a full strength team against you and win only for the US to then play a B team and lose to Panama.
> 
> AFCON qualification has doubled as part of the World Cup qualifiers in the past. Famously, South Africa failed to qualify for their own 2010 World Cup because they got knocked out in the first phase of qualifying for AFCON 2010 but got into the World Cup as hosts.



Yes but....

The Qatar issue is a bit different

2023 Asian cup will be held in China.

Due to so near dates, they decided to.... share qualification system!!!!

Some rounds were common, both for FIFA Qatar 2022 and for AFC China 2023. Therefore, Qatar ... and China... played in those qualifications.
Round matches were both important even for Qatar and China. Qatar was qualified for FIFA Cup but had to fight for AFC Cup and conversely with China.

After some phases they were decided which teams would fight at least for FIFA (Qatar was excluded from that list despite its results) and for AFC (and China was excluded)


----------



## ElvisBC

alserrod said:


> 2023 Asian cup will be held in China.


nope … in best case esports afc cup …. but only if online!😁


----------



## Light Tower

alserrod said:


> Yes but....
> 
> The Qatar issue is a bit different
> 
> 2023 Asian cup will be held in China.
> 
> Due to so near dates, they decided to.... share qualification system!!!!
> 
> Some rounds were common, both for FIFA Qatar 2022 and for AFC China 2023. Therefore, Qatar ... and China... played in those qualifications.
> Round matches were both important even for Qatar and China. Qatar was qualified for FIFA Cup but had to fight for AFC Cup and conversely with China.
> 
> After some phases they were decided which teams would fight at least for FIFA (Qatar was excluded from that list despite its results) and for AFC (and China was excluded)


Unfourtunately China will not host the AFC Asian Cup 2023 since they withdraw due to COVID-19 concerns and the country's zero-COVID policy.


----------



## Tazvaz

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Saudi Arabia cannot bid for the 2030 World Cup as Qatar has it this year. The Spain and Portugal bid is the strongest in my opinion.


They can. The FIFA statutes only prohibit the WC being hosted on the same continent for consecutive editions.

2030 will mark almost a quarter of a century since the WC was held in western Europe which - when combined with the commercial advantages of holding it in Europe including in the Europe-Africa-West Asia time zone - convinces me that it will be held in western Europe.


----------



## nicholaseds2

Tazvaz said:


> They can. The FIFA statutes only prohibit the WC being hosted on the same continent for consecutive editions.
> 
> 2030 will mark almost a quarter of a century since the WC was held in western Europe which - when combined with the commercial advantages of holding it in Europe including in the Europe-Africa-West Asia time zone - convinces me that it will be held in western Europe.


If 2030 World Cup held in South America, the majority of the matches will be kick off on night local time and past midnight for Europe, but for the final will be held on 4/5 pm local time like 2014 World Cup so the final kickoff time will suit European spectactors and can held fireworks attraction after match since the match will be end in the dark condition since South America in winter, and I think if 2030 World Cup held in Saudi Arabia-Egypt-Greece, the tournament still will be held in the summer, and all the matches in Saudi Arabia will be kicked off on night


----------



## Tazvaz

*Ceferin backs Spain-Portugal joint bid to host 2030 World Cup*
_6th September 2022
September 6 – UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin has backed Spain and Portugal to land the 2030 World Cup hosting rights.
*“I am sure that the 2030 World Cup will be played in Spain and Portugal,”* said Ceferin during the opening of the Football Talks international congress in Lisbon on Monday.
“This bid is a winning one and we will do everything possible to help two countries that are passionate, live and breathe football and that have a good infrastructure.”
In June, the two European neighbours officialised their intent to bid for the 2030 World Cup. Spain has provisionally selected 14 stadiums in 12 cities as part of the bidding plans. Portugal is expected to provide three stadiums for consideration.
Spain hosted the 1982 World Cup when the global finals were still played in a 24-team format before they expanded to 32 finalists in 1998. In 2026, the United States, Mexico and Canada will host the first 48-team World Cup. The new format will make it all but impossible for the tournament to be staged in a single nation. Portugal has never hosted a World Cup but did organise Euro 2004.
Portugal and Spain bid for the 2018 World Cup, which FIFA awarded to Russia. The Iberian bid will face competition from South America where Uruguay, Argentina, Chile and Paraguay will appeal to sentiment in a bid to return the World Cup to South America and celebrate the maiden competition staged in 1930 by Uruguay.
With South America lining up against Europe, ties between UEFA and Conmebol will be tested. The two confederations have become closer allies, uniting in opposition against FIFA’s proposal for a biennial World Cup.
With Asia hosting this year’s global finals and the tournament going to North America in 2026, UEFA will be keen on the finals returning to the old continent in 2030._

(insideworldfootball.com)


----------



## Ioannes_

They say that the Ekaterinburg stadium was something grotesque and ugly, but nobody recognizes the importance of this building: with the system of temporary stands, even the Faroe Islands or Vatican City are suitable for hosting a World Cup: The Stadium of Hope, preceded for the photocopier they made for Corinthians.
I am Spanish, but from an architectural point of view, I do not like Spain's proposal for 2030. Too many gaps and it highlights the shortcomings of our facilities. We Spaniards prefer old fields, bleachers almost on top of the grass and shrinking our legs in our seats while we passionately watch the match.


----------



## ElvisBC

Ioannes_ said:


> They say that the Ekaterinburg stadium was something grotesque and ugly, but nobody recognizes the importance of this building: with the system of temporary stands, even the Faroe Islands or Vatican City are suitable for hosting a World Cup: The Stadium of Hope, preceded for the photocopier they made for Corinthians.
> I am Spanish, but from an architectural point of view, I do not like Spain's proposal for 2030. Too many gaps and it highlights the shortcomings of our facilities. We Spaniards prefer old fields, bleachers almost on top of the grass and shrinking our legs in our seats while we passionately watch the match.


then you have something in common with americans, they like to squeeze as well, only they do it while freezing or getting wet

rest of the world is luckilly normal (when it comes to stadiums)


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

It will be interesting to see what happens to the Greece, Saudi Arabia and Egypt bid.


----------



## ElvisBC

nope. not intetesting at all, just hot air.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

I see 4 bids to host the 2030 FIFA World Cup:
Argentina-Chile-Paraguay-Uruguay
Spain-Portugal
Morocco
Egypt


----------



## nicholaseds2

CaliforniaJones said:


> I see 4 bids to host the 2030 FIFA World Cup:
> Argentina-Chile-Paraguay-Uruguay
> Spain-Portugal
> Morocco
> Egypt


I think will be 3 candidates for 2030 FWC...
1. Uruguay-Argentina-Paraguay-Chile(South American Cluster)
2. Spain-Portugal(+Morroco)/Pan European-North Africa-West Asia (European Cluster)
3. China/Indonesia(Asian Cluster) or Saudi Arabia-Greece-Egypt(2nd Europe/Middle East Cluster)


----------



## Ramanaramana

I see one credible bid, and a bunch of no-hopers. 

The Saudi/Egypt/Greece hypothetical was bad enough, but my new favourite is China/Indonesia. Quite the imagination there.


----------



## ElvisBC

my clear favorite is north korea/venezuela/cuba! I consider myself world cup retired, but I would definitely go to that one!


----------



## Tazvaz

Morocco will not be part of the Spain-Portugal bid.


----------



## Laurence2011

Spain-Portugal clearly strongest, Portugal can just re-sub their EURO 2004 stadia and Spain are developing a lot of nice new stadium infrastructure.


----------



## Light Tower

That's your guess.


----------



## CFCman

I also agree that the Spain/Portugal bid is the favorite to win the 2030 WC hosting rights. Once England withdrew from consideration, I knew it was the Iberians to lose. Besides, there is NO way FIFA will hold their flagship tournament 3 consecutive times outside Europe. 

That being said, Spain and Portugal's proposed 14 and 2 stadia, respectively, shows that Portugal, like Mexico and Canada for 2026, are merely tagging along. But the Portuguese may hustle hard to host one of the semifinals, with final almost certain to be played in Spain.


----------



## Laurence2011

Poland-Ukraine would be an awesome WC bid one day in the future, but now clearly isn't the time.


----------



## ElvisBC

Ramanaramana said:


> If Ukraine actually joins the bid, and this isnt some pisstake, I'm all aboard the Saudi/Egypt/Greece train.
> 
> Will be lovely to see Fifa's pet take a massive dump on Uefa's virtue signaling bid. And makes the UK's withdrawal from 2030 look genius in hindsight.
> 
> Death to Uefa is this goes ahead. No one can ever complain about the NA26 bid again.


OK. . . since pesto stopped posting here someone had to take over his role.


----------



## ElvisBC

Marcus 258 said:


> It's a desperate act by the Iberians. By canvassing they would have realised their bid was in trouble. Bookmakers had them odds on when the UK withdrew, now bookmakers have them at about 30%. I think most of the voters will see it for what it is


voters will go where biggest money is, so let‘s wait for the bid books and how infantino decides to present them to the voters


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> voters will go where biggest money is, so let‘s wait for the bid books and how infantino decides to present them to the voters


Yes. Agree completely; you seem to be have grasped the benefits of the new process. 

The economics of the bids (based primarily on the demographic analysis of the media and sponsors) will drive the decision. FIFA generally has an easy choice once the media tell them the numbers. And, all things being equal, more diverse bids will draw world attention to a wider set of regions, cultures, religions, issues, etc., and hopefully lead to greater visibility and accountability for regimes worldwide. 

Btw, it's nice to see you mentioning my name so wistfully in your post above. lol.


----------



## Marcus 258

ElvisBC said:


> voters will go where biggest money is, so let‘s wait for the bid books and how infantino decides to present them to the voters


It's a shame the the biggest sporting events don't go to the best places to hold them, but to those that grease the palms that chose them. Australia, UK, Spain and Argentina would have been great places to put the world cup .instead we have Russia, Qatar and who knows saudi Arabia. It's all a bit embarrassing. At least the yanks will put on a show and be easy for the proper fans to attend. Make the most of it..probably the last..for the next generation we will have China, Dubai etc..the people's game has sold its soul to the devil. In the 90 years of world cups Qatar will have held as many world cups as England, spain,france and Argentina..a country of 500k people where falconry is the no 1 sport..let that sink in


----------



## ElvisBC

world cup should rotate between europe and south america plus mexico, everything else is suboptimal

qatar is the biggest insult to the football fan ever, and aussies and yanks also should have nothing to do with hosting it


----------



## PAO13

KONSTANTINOUPOLIS said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt%E2%80%93Greece%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_2030_FIFA_World_Cup_bid


Which stadiums do you guys believe will be included in this bid?


----------



## Light Tower

Saudi Arabia:

Riyadh
Jeddah
Dammam

Egypt:

Cairo
New Administrative Capital
Alexandria

Greece:

Athens
Thessaloniki

That's my guess.


----------



## Light Tower

I think if Ukraine-Portugal-Spain wins the bid maybe the Ukrainian cities could be Kyiv and Odessa,


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> Btw, it's nice to see you mentioning my name so wistfully in your post above. lol.


just longing for clueless posts 


btw. good to see you’re still here, I thought you were abducted by aliens


----------



## Light Tower

ElvisBC said:


> just longing for clueless posts
> 
> 
> btw. good to see you’re still here, I thought you were abducted by aliens


No, i was taking a break after reaching 1,000 posts.


----------



## PAO13

Light Tower said:


> Saudi Arabia:
> 
> Riyadh
> Jeddah
> Dammam
> 
> Egypt:
> 
> Cairo
> New Administrative Capital
> Alexandria
> 
> Greece:
> 
> Athens
> Thessaloniki
> 
> That's my guess.


My guess regarding Greece: 

Marousi - Spiros Louis - 70.000









Athens - New Panathinaikos Stadium - 40.000 (might be expanded to 50k)









Thessaloniki - New PAOK Stadium ~ 40.000









Patra - renovated Pampeloponnisiako Stadium 40.000 (downsized after the tournament)


----------



## Light Tower

My guess the opening in Athens and the final in Riyadh as Saudi Arabia is expected to lead the joint bid.


----------



## Ioannes_

Apparently, the incorporation of Ukraine to the Iberian candidacy would be symbolic:

-*Spain would maintain its 11 stadiums and Portugal 3.*
-The idea is that *Ukraine only hosts one Group.*

I still think that it is stupid, a trend of the moment, the President of the Government's desire for prominence in an election year *and that in 2030, perhaps not even Spain and Ukraine, as we know it today, will succeed.*

To draw* positive aspects* from this candidacy, well,* Ukraine is not a strange country for Spain*: we have many Ukrainian emigrants, and Real Madrid and the Selección Española de Futbol have been European champions in Kyiv.


----------



## Light Tower

Well there are some mixed reactions on Ukraine joining Spain and Portugal's joint bid.


----------



## RobH

One funny thing about this is that UEFA chose Spain/Portugal to be Europe's bid ahead of a joint Britain/Ireland bid, in part because it was deemed more compact. Which is fair enough. Also, it didn't want Europe's votes split between two bids, again fair enough.

But it now turns out that the 'compact' bid is Spain/Portugal/Ukraine. And Greece is bidding as well, which may split Europe's votes. 🙃

Maybe we're best off out of it!


----------



## alan_jose_santana

The political decision of including Ukraine on the Spain-Portugal Bid essentialy ruled ouy any chance that it had of hosting the tournament


----------



## Light Tower

It depends on that idea.


----------



## PAO13

Light Tower said:


> My guess the opening in Athens and the final in Riyadh as Saudi Arabia is expected to lead the joint bid.


That's very probable.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> just longing for clueless posts
> 
> 
> btw. good to see you’re still here, I thought you were abducted by aliens


Thought or hoped? 

In any event, in about a week I'm gone for 3 weeks so you will get another respite from my tiresome nonsense..


----------



## makkillottu

ElvisBC said:


> such a post could have been written only from biased local. that bid has somewhere between zero chance and no chance for success. but hey, keep on dreaming, dreams are beautiful sometimes!


Actually I'm Italian, so I can't be considered a local at all. I'm living here for working reasons. I'm just showing up what's the state of the infrastructures at the moment and everyone knows how important is to have those aspects ready for an Euro or WC bidding.

I think Spain-Portugal bid was very strong, but pairing it with Ukraine, well, that was a suicide. Decision should come by 2023, there's a war and everything must be built again. Highways, airports, repairing stadiums, hospitality, etc. I don't think FIFA will take such a risk, just like EBU did recently with moving away next year's Eurovision.


----------



## uğur1

Both Egypt and Saudi Arabia are having too hot weather in the summer which is not suitable neither for fans either for players, actually it is harmful for the players health, after 2022 Qatar World cup, I dont think anything will be given to the gulf region for a long time, I hope Türkiye will apply to the 2030 bid, I am sure we will have more chance than euro bids which is not given to Türkiye for political reasons since 20 years


----------



## Light Tower

uğur1 said:


> Both Egypt and Saudi Arabia are having too hot weather in the summer which is not suitable neither for fans either for players, actually it is harmful for the players health, after 2022 Qatar World cup, I dont think anything will be given to the gulf region for a long time, I hope Türkiye will apply to the 2030 bid, I am sure we will have more chance than euro bids which is not given to Türkiye for political reasons since 20 years


Qatar hosting this year's edition is scheduled for the Winter time to avoid heat concerns. The same this for Saudi Arabia and Egypt could schedule it for Winter as well in they are awarded to avoid the extreme heat.


----------



## Light Tower

That's more likey for Egypt and Saudi Arabia with winter season as a possible schedule. It's more feasible with Winter than Summer.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

World Cup needs to be played in June, Qatar should never have gotten it, now they have we have to play it there in winter for Europe but never again. Whilst it impacts on South America and to some extent for Africa, most of their players are in Europe or may be in the US going forward, I’d prefer to see the cup always in June. The addition of Ukraine is a nonsense whether or not it is a sign of solidarity or not. It isn’t feasible nor does it make sense.


----------



## Light Tower

Juanpabloangel said:


> World Cup needs to be played in June, Qatar should never have gotten it, now they have we have to play it there in winter for Europe but never again. Whilst it impacts on South America and to some extent for Africa, most of their players are in Europe or may be in the US going forward, I’d prefer to see the cup always in June. The addition of Ukraine is a nonsense whether or not it is a sign of solidarity or not. It isn’t feasible nor does it make sense.


But for Arab Countries it had to be played in Winter season to avoid the heat concerns.


----------



## Azmat

uğur1 said:


> Both Egypt and Saudi Arabia are having too hot weather in the summer which is not suitable neither for fans either for players, actually it is harmful for the players health, after 2022 Qatar World cup, I dont think anything will be given to the gulf region for a long time, I hope Türkiye will apply to the 2030 bid, I am sure we will have more chance than euro bids which is not given to Türkiye for political reasons since 20 years





Light Tower said:


> But for Arab Countries it had to be played in Winter season to avoid the heat concerns.


Egypt is not much hotter than Southern Europe in the summer, at least not Lower Egypt where the stadiums are. Alexandria and the north coast are actually about five degrees cooler than Athens and two degrees cooler than Rome in the summer, the temperature consistently hovers around 30C, moving towards 35C if there is a heatwave. In Cairo and the Nile Delta the temperature is about the same as Athens, hovering around 35C on average, but with longer summers and warmer winters. Going south to Upper Egypt temperatures gradually start resembling those of the Gulf countries, Minya and Asyut are pretty similar to Cairo but once you get to Sohag you'll be looking at pretty extreme temperatures by European standards.

I was in Cairo around July/August and would check the weather app frequently to find that temperatures in Spain/France were significantly higher at the time. Egypt has one of the most consistent climates in the world, one reason why there has historically been so few famines there and why crops can be grown all year round.


----------



## uğur1

Azmat said:


> Egypt is not much hotter than Southern Europe in the summer, at least not Lower Egypt where the stadiums are. Alexandria and the north coast are actually about five degrees cooler than Athens and two degrees cooler than Rome in the summer, the temperature consistently hovers around 30C, moving towards 35C if there is a heatwave. In Cairo and the Nile Delta the temperature is about the same as Athens, hovering around 35C on average, but with longer summers and warmer winters. Going south to Upper Egypt temperatures gradually start resembling those of the Gulf countries, Minya and Asyut are pretty similar to Cairo but once you get to Sohag you'll be looking at pretty extreme temperatures by European standards.
> 
> I was in Cairo around July/August and would check the weather app frequently to find that temperatures in Spain/France were significantly higher at the time. Egypt has one of the most consistent climates in the world, one reason why there has historically been so few famines there and why crops can be grown all year round.


Cairo is 40'C in the summer, Riyadh is 44-45'C, Jeddah is 37-38'C, not suitable for the players health, Hence you are right about Greece, Mediterrean Climate is also can be too hot in the summer especially eastern Mediterrean cities like Athens, İzmir, Antalya, Adana becomes too hot in the summer which has weather 36-37-38'C, also Seville, Madrid and other inner cities in Spain, I am ok if games would be played in the Marsa Matruh, Alexandria, Port Said, at Taif, Al Bahah ,Abha, An Nimas which have cooler weather but not in the Cairo, Jeddah or Riyadh


----------



## Eurostallion1

Global warming in 2030 will be so much more advanced than it is today and the effects of heat on players’ health much better understood. The risk of a record heatwave in June and July makes a summer World Cup in southern Europe or North Africa a complete non starter. 

It would either have to be moved to winter again or all the stadiums will need to be air conditioned. 

Qatar 2022 will set the bar for air conditioned stadiums such that it will become the standard for World Cups in hot countries.


----------



## PAO13

ElvisBC said:


> such a post could have been written only from biased local. that bid has somewhere between zero chance and no chance for success. but hey, keep on dreaming, dreams are beautiful sometimes!


I'll have to screenshot this comment just in case


----------



## Light Tower

Azmat said:


> Egypt is not much hotter than Southern Europe in the summer, at least not Lower Egypt where the stadiums are. Alexandria and the north coast are actually about five degrees cooler than Athens and two degrees cooler than Rome in the summer, the temperature consistently hovers around 30C, moving towards 35C if there is a heatwave. In Cairo and the Nile Delta the temperature is about the same as Athens, hovering around 35C on average, but with longer summers and warmer winters. Going south to Upper Egypt temperatures gradually start resembling those of the Gulf countries, Minya and Asyut are pretty similar to Cairo but once you get to Sohag you'll be looking at pretty extreme temperatures by European standards.
> 
> I was in Cairo around July/August and would check the weather app frequently to find that temperatures in Spain/France were significantly higher at the time. Egypt has one of the most consistent climates in the world, one reason why there has historically been so few famines there and why crops can be grown all year round.


I think Riyadh should be the final at the King Fahd International Stadium as Saudi Arabia is expected to lead the joint bid.


----------



## Light Tower

Athens could be the opening at the Olympic Stadiums used from the 2004 games.


----------



## Azmat

uğur1 said:


> Cairo is 40'C in the summer, Riyadh is 44-45'C, Jeddah is 37-38'C, not suitable for the players health, Hence you are right about Greece, Mediterrean Climate is also can be too hot in the summer especially eastern Mediterrean cities like Athens, İzmir, Antalya, Adana becomes too hot in the summer which has weather 36-37-38'C, also Seville, Madrid and other inner cities in Spain, I am ok if games would be played in the Marsa Matruh, Alexandria, Port Said, at Taif, Al Bahah ,Abha, An Nimas which have cooler weather but not in the Cairo, Jeddah or Riyadh


No, the average temperature is not 40C in the summer. This kind of weather is only seen during heatwaves in Cairo. And the new capital where the biggest stadium in the country is being built is more or less the same weather. The absolute majority of Egypt's population live in a climate similar to Southern Europe, as the North Coast, Nile Delta, Greater Cairo and the Suez Canal are the main population centers of the country.










And along the entirety of the northern coast the weather is about as temperate as Rome or Madrid, much more temperate than Greece, and this is the current location of the largest stadium in the country (Borg El Arab Stadium). This is also where New Alamein and New Damietta are currently rising, the former will host a major stadium in the near future and the latter is also likely to host one. There is barely any temperature fluctuation meaning it's very consistent and predictable. During the monarchy the king would move his court to the Montaza Palace in Alexandria to enjoy the temperate summers, and it was known as the country's summer capital for this reason. 

The Mediterranean winds that keep the north coast cool are a double-edged sword though as humidity is significantly higher here, whereas other Egyptian cities including Cairo have a very dry climate.


----------



## Eurostallion1

Light Tower said:


> Athens could be the opening at the Olympic Stadiums used from the 2004 games.


It’s not air conditioned. That won’t be acceptable for a summer World Cup in 2030. Not sure how easy or hard this will be to retrofit to an old stadium.


----------



## potiz81

Eurostallion1 said:


> It’s not air conditioned. That won’t be acceptable for a summer World Cup in 2030.


Athens' olympic stadium was acceptable and fully functional for an Olympic Games opening some years ago, why wouldn't be perfect for World Cup opening too? And why an open air stadium should be airconditioned? The huge Calatrava glass roof offers plenty of shadows to the majority of the seats.


----------



## PAO13

Eurostallion1 said:


> That won’t be acceptable for a summer World Cup in 2030.


Do you have any source for this statement?


----------



## uğur1

Azmat said:


> No, the average temperature is not 40C in the summer. This kind of weather is only seen during heatwaves in Cairo. And the new capital where the biggest stadium in the country is being built is more or less the same weather. The absolute majority of Egypt's population live in a climate similar to Southern Europe, as the North Coast, Nile Delta, Greater Cairo and the Suez Canal are the main population centers of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And along the entirety of the northern coast the weather is about as temperate as Rome or Madrid, much more temperate than Greece, and this is the current location of the largest stadium in the country (Borg El Arab Stadium). This is also where New Alamein and New Damietta are currently rising, the former will host a major stadium in the near future and the latter is also likely to host one. There is barely any temperature fluctuation meaning it's very consistent and predictable. During the monarchy the king would move his court to the Montaza Palace in Alexandria to enjoy the temperate summers, and it was known as the country's summer capital for this reason.
> 
> The Mediterranean winds that keep the north coast cool are a double-edged sword though as humidity is significantly higher here, whereas other Egyptian cities including Cairo have a very dry climate.


40'C is not average for sure, also no issue with Mediterrean coast but Cairo and other inner cities are just hot with its hot desert climate,weaher is 27-28'C currently even we entered to november, Saudi Arabia is also cannot hold organization in the summertime without air-conditioning stadiums plus facilities


----------



## Azmat

uğur1 said:


> 40'C is not average for sure, also no issue with Mediterrean coast but Cairo and other inner cities are just hot with its hot desert climate,weaher is 27-28'C currently even we entered to november, Saudi Arabia is also cannot hold organization in the summertime without air-conditioning stadiums plus facilities
> 
> View attachment 4083138


Cairo is hot for sure but no comparison with the Gulf states. Seasons are different in Egypt as we only really have two pronounced seasons, winter and summer. Summers last longer in Egypt and winters are milder than in Europe. Peak cold starts in December and lasts until February, during this period most rainfall occurs. October and November are Egypt's "autumn" and are not particularly cold but temperatures start going down and there may be some rainfall. In March and April the khamasin winds come from the desert causing temperatures to start rising, this is Egypt's "spring".

Winters in Egypt are not temperate though, you need a good jacket as it can get very cold particularly at night. It's definitely not t-shirt weather and I'm not sure how enjoyable it would be to play.


----------



## Light Tower

Saudi Arabia could expect to get air conditioners when they upgrade their venues and build their new QIddiya Stadium.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

Can’t see a World Cup in the Middle East again within 10 years. It is South America or Spain with Portugal unless they continue with the folly of including Ukraine


----------



## uğur1

Australia and China are other strong candidates I think


----------



## Ramanaramana

uğur1 said:


> Australia and China are other strong candidates I think


China will 100% host a World Cup in next 15 years. Australia/NZ would be very fortunate to host one in the next 50.


----------



## cyril sneer

Not sure why you are so downbeat on a Australia/NZ world cup. They both have some great cities and stadiums and as two proper sporting nations they would put on a great spectacle.


----------



## Ramanaramana

cyril sneer said:


> Not sure why you are so downbeat on a Australia/NZ world cup. They both have some great cities and stadiums and as two proper sporting nations they would put on a great spectacle.


Mostly down to the stadiums, which are awful for football. I personally have no desire to see a World Cup with Perth/Adelaide/Melbourne hosting 30-40 matches, which is what would happen. These stadium make West Ham fans' complaints look laughable, and they look significantly worse on TV as the only thing you can see is the pitch.

The other factor is that outside of buying a World Cup like Qatar, countries as small as Australia won't be high up on a list when you have China, Japan, Korea, India, Indonesia and other south-east Asian countries in a similar timezone. You have also the Saudis in the same confederation. That's a lot of heavy-hitting competition to contend with, all of which would present bids with a much stronger stadium lineup.

The last country to host the World Cup of a similar or smaller size than Australia was Chile in 1962. Qatar hosting doesn't change looking ahead for reason mentioned above. The World Cup will come to Asia every 16-20 years roughly, so I can't see Australia being at the front of the queue in the next two rounds.

I just don't see Australia being a particularly attractive 'market' for FIFA due to its size and the much bigger neighbours that surround us, where football is popular and there's a real opportunity to consolidate growth (as opposed to Australia which has a rigid sporting hierarchy that's hard to break when you have half a league based in Melbourne or Sydney). It's perfect for a women's World Cup, which is what we're hosting next year, but the men's WC sells itself and any advantage held over less wealthier countries in Asia if offset by sheer scale.

Also, up to now I've not heard a single good proposal for how a winter World Cup would work when both the NRL and AFL are taking place during June/July period, and who use the stadiums earmarked for the World Cup regularly, sometimes up to three times on a single weekend in the case of MCG or ANZ. It is very presumptuous to think that these sports will just shut down for a month. And something tells me the Qatar exemption to play in November wouldn't be made for Australia.


----------



## Rokto14

Juanpabloangel said:


> Can’t see a World Cup in the Middle East again within 10 years. It is South America or Spain with Portugal unless they continue with the folly of including Ukraine


I thought Spain-Portugal would have been the most favourite and favourable bid until they had to include Ukraine in their bid. Any South American bid would have been favourite but the issue is they have similar timezones with the UNITED 2026. So I am not sure if that will hinder them or not.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

Ramanaramana said:


> Mostly down to the stadiums, which are awful for football. I personally have no desire to see a World Cup with Perth/Adelaide/Melbourne hosting 30-40 matches, which is what would happen. These stadium make West Ham fans' complaints look laughable, and they look significantly worse on TV as the only thing you can see is the pitch.
> 
> The other factor is that outside of buying a World Cup like Qatar, countries as small as Australia won't be high up on a list when you have China, Japan, Korea, India, Indonesia and other south-east Asian countries in a similar timezone. You have also the Saudis in the same confederation. That's a lot of heavy-hitting competition to contend with, all of which would present bids with a much stronger stadium lineup.
> 
> The last country to host the World Cup of a similar or smaller size than Australia was Chile in 1962. Qatar hosting doesn't change looking ahead for reason mentioned above. The World Cup will come to Asia every 16-20 years roughly, so I can't see Australia being at the front of the queue in the next two rounds.
> 
> I just don't see Australia being a particularly attractive 'market' for FIFA due to its size and the much bigger neighbours that surround us, where football is popular and there's a real opportunity to consolidate growth (as opposed to Australia which has a rigid sporting hierarchy that's hard to break when you have half a league based in Melbourne or Sydney). It's perfect for a women's World Cup, which is what we're hosting next year, but the men's WC sells itself and any advantage held over less wealthier countries in Asia if offset by sheer scale.
> 
> Also, up to now I've not heard a single good proposal for how a winter World Cup would work when both the NRL and AFL are taking place during June/July period, and who use the stadiums earmarked for the World Cup regularly, sometimes up to three times on a single weekend in the case of MCG or ANZ. It is very presumptuous to think that these sports will just shut down for a month. And something tells me the Qatar exemption to play in November wouldn't be made for Australia.


the most complex point is that of the other codes but also that the A league is not showing the fans in attendance, and I agree about Perth, lovely city, great looking stadium but not designed for football and certainly not great in the rain. Villa v ManU proved that this year


----------



## Ramanaramana

Juanpabloangel said:


> the most complex point is that of the other codes but also that the A league is not showing the fans in attendance, and I agree about Perth, lovely city, great looking stadium but not designed for football and certainly not great in the rain. Villa v ManU proved that this year


I just looked it up and read that Fifa secured stadium exclusivity for WWC23, including ANZ, SFS and Suncorp, which will be a huge change for the NRL. Very surprised to read this, didn’t expect it. 

So NSW and Queensland bent over for a women’s world cup, meaning the men’s would be a breeze. Victoria decided against MCG inclusion.

As I suspected, the southern states, which also have the worst large stadiums for football, will be a bigger barrier than QLD/NSW.

But you can’t have a world cup here without those states. Even in Melbourne you might be able to get support with AFL playing out of Docklands, but there’s no such solution in SA or WA. Does Subiaco and AAMI still exist?

Anyway, still a unique situation. In most countries football is the main sport played in the large stadiums. In America the NFL shuts down in February so there is no issue. Australia is the only place where the major stadiums host non-football events during June/July. That gives other bidders a big head start.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

Yes I remembered they were going to allow the stadia to be used for the World Cup. I guess they realised with the huge numbers of extra tourists coming in and the general development works would benefit their stadiums long term. Of course the World Cup for Australia is a pipe dream, we can still dream….


----------



## pesto

I think that the decisions are not made on the quality of the stadium. The driver is to expand and develop markets, which means the sponsors are looking for size and expected growth. 

That is why FIFA has said we will let you know if you should bother to spend time and money on a bid. Don't build a stadium (or 10) somewhere where we aren't going to go in any event.

Think China and SE Asia first; then wealthy countries and match them up with smaller neighbors You get large, growing markets, inclusion of countries otherwise excluded and no white elephants. Nobody is actually excluded but you have to come up with an economic pitch that blows people's socks off if you are playing for events this size.


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> That is why FIFA has said we will let you know if you should bother to spend time and money on a bid. Don't build a stadium (or 10) somewhere where we aren't going to go in any event.


as always, you are completely wrong. FIFA never said anything simmilar.


----------



## pesto

You don't need to have a large organization say that they are trying to rationalize functions and expand market over the long-term. It's like saying you are breathing and your heart is beating.

There is a heavy burden on someone claiming that FIFA is looking for markets with little media appeal, a poor stagnant market and facilities that need a lot of work. How would you phrase that pitch to the major FIFA sponsors, media and management?


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

It appears Ukraine is on the backburner in turns of involvement in their bid with Spain and Portugal. This article was released by what appears to be a reputable source after the Ukraine decision was made which does not mention the worn torn eastern European country. Portugal and Spain "deserve" World Cup 2030


----------



## Fabio1976

I hope China or Australia for the 2030 Fifa World Cup.


----------



## Eurostallion1

Ramanaramana said:


> I just looked it up and read that Fifa secured stadium exclusivity for WWC23, including ANZ, SFS and Suncorp, which will be a huge change for the NRL. Very surprised to read this, didn’t expect it.
> 
> So NSW and Queensland bent over for a women’s world cup, meaning the men’s would be a breeze. Victoria decided against MCG inclusion.
> 
> As I suspected, the southern states, which also have the worst large stadiums for football, will be a bigger barrier than QLD/NSW.
> 
> But you can’t have a world cup here without those states. Even in Melbourne you might be able to get support with AFL playing out of Docklands, but there’s no such solution in SA or WA. Does Subiaco and AAMI still exist?
> 
> Anyway, still a unique situation. In most countries football is the main sport played in the large stadiums. In America the NFL shuts down in February so there is no issue. Australia is the only place where the major stadiums host non-football events during June/July. That gives other bidders a big head start.


Australia: We might need to get permission from the AFL, NRL to use our existing non soccer specific stadiums during June.
FIFA: Why don’t you just build 10 brand spanking new stadiums just for the World Cup like every other recent World Cup host?


----------



## Colm Flynn

China will definitely get the world cup before 2040, though Australia for 2030 sounds cool.


----------



## Al-Boustani

I would love to see Morocco instead of Ukraine, too bad that the Spain-Portugal-Morocco bid has not been formalized.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

Al-Boustani said:


> I would love to see Morocco instead of Ukraine, too bad that the Spain-Portugal-Morocco bid has not been formalized.


I would see that as a good way to deliver a World Cup for Africa whilst allowing Europe to continue hosting as regularly as possible! How many stadiums are of World Cup quality there, without needing to spend more money on stadia other than some modernisation? If you include all three nations with Spain primary partner and Portugal and Morocco getting three each, they could then have similar Numbers to the 2026 version.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

The stadium 974 is set to be dismantled after the 2022 FIFA World Cup. After being dismantled there are plans for the stadium to be transported and rebuilt in Maldonado, Uruguay, to host matches for the 2030 FIFA World Cup if the country's bid proves successful. 

it is in Wiki, so obviously may not be correct, but has anyone else seen this? It’s a very good idea. They can send it to every World Cup ongoing!


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Juanpabloangel said:


> The stadium 974 is set to be dismantled after the 2022 FIFA World Cup. After being dismantled there are plans for the stadium to be transported and rebuilt in Maldonado, Uruguay, to host matches for the 2030 FIFA World Cup if the country's bid proves successful.
> 
> it is in Wiki, so obviously may not be correct, but has anyone else seen this? It’s a very good idea. They can send it to every World Cup ongoing!


They could send it to Northern Ireland for the UK/Ireland Euro bid if Casement Park does not get built.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

How much more sustainable would it be than doing a new stadium, taking account of the shipping costs etc? i had thought they were sending it to somewhere in Africa previously,


----------



## pesto

Mouadex said:


> Can't talk about Brazil but I was in Russia world cup. There was still some cities connected with high speed train and the domestic flights were very cheap and very organized ( if you move for your team games plan ticket is for free )
> 
> After the end of the group stage I took a flight to Rostov to continue enjoying the atmospher, the flight cost me 20 euro.
> 
> So I really wonder if KSA / Greece /Egypt czn do the same and propose a well organize HSR / flight network from scratch ? *Can USA Canada Mexico guarantee affordable prices for a random fan willing to fly from Monterrey to Toronto?*


I'm afraid many will find the US and Canada very expensive (any many others will just disappear and stay in the US working until they get caught. I have run into great stories about that.

Why would they subsidize soccer fans who are travelling thousands of miles for personal pleasure, not for, say, charitable or emergency purposes? That's a sign of an economy pretty desperate for tourism

For tickets, I would guess the best approach is not to just fill the stadiums but to have adjacent viewing areas, with amenities such as augmented reality or special entertainment and make both of them very high priced. Maybe donate some seats to established charities (handicapped, war victims, etc.).

For travel, think about renting vans and sharing the cost. Most cities will be within reasonable driving distance. Mexico and the West Coast are a problem but LA and SF have reasonably priced tickets for major East Coast or SE cities.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

Hopefully the teams are organised in clusters, so fans aren’t needed to cross the countries three times in four days. The visit to the World Cup football is awesome but also the visiting the city and locality is also part of the fun. I will be coming with the family for sure, they will want to enjoy the experience too. I’m sure lesser countries like Australia however will need to travel al over to keep the seeded teams happy. Maybe they can have all the South American, Asian and African teams in Mexico, they may disappear for other reasons then. Of course people only want to overstay in the US a because there is work available.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Juanpabloangel said:


> Hopefully the teams are organised in clusters, so fans aren’t needed to cross the countries three times in four days. The visit to the World Cup football is awesome but also the visiting the city and locality is also part of the fun. I will be coming with the family for sure, they will want to enjoy the experience too. I’m sure lesser countries like Australia however will need to travel al over to keep the seeded teams happy. *Maybe they can have all the South American, Asian and African teams in Mexico, they may disappear for other reasons then. Of course people only want to overstay in the US a because there is work available.*


Well-off middle-class people attend World Cups usually, not the types seeking asylum.


----------



## Mouadex

pesto said:


> I'm afraid many will find the US and Canada very expensive (any many others will just disappear and stay in the US working until they get caught. I have run into great stories about that.
> 
> Why would they subsidize soccer fans who are travelling thousands of miles for personal pleasure, not for, say, charitable or emergency purposes? That's a sign of an economy pretty desperate for tourism
> 
> For tickets, I would guess the best approach is not to just fill the stadiums but to have adjacent viewing areas, with amenities such as augmented reality or special entertainment and make both of them very high priced. Maybe donate some seats to established charities (handicapped, war victims, etc.).
> 
> For travel, think about renting vans and sharing the cost. Most cities will be within reasonable driving distance. Mexico and the West Coast are a problem but LA and SF have reasonably priced tickets for major East Coast or SE cities.


No US Canada Mexico are huge. Imagine playing 1/16 in monterrey then 1/8 in Los Angeles and 1/4 in miami then 1/2 Boston. Every trip is at least 20 hours drive. Fans will be spending time on roads than enjoying the world cup


pesto said:


> I'm afraid many will find the US and Canada very expensive (any many others will just disappear and stay in the US working until they get caught. I have run into great stories about that.
> 
> Why would they subsidize soccer fans who are travelling thousands of miles for personal pleasure, not for, say, charitable or emergency purposes? That's a sign of an economy pretty desperate for tourism
> 
> For tickets, I would guess the best approach is not to just fill the stadiums but to have adjacent viewing areas, with amenities such as augmented reality or special entertainment and make both of them very high priced. Maybe donate some seats to established charities (handicapped, war victims, etc.).
> 
> For travel, think about renting vans and sharing the cost. Most cities will be within reasonable driving distance. Mexico and the West Coast are a problem but LA and SF have reasonably priced tickets for major East Coast or SE cities.


Yes of course it's going to be very expensive for lot of fans. Especially while having 9 african teams more south american and asians teams we may end up with several world cup games with very few fans of the team playing. 










I'm sorry but this map doesn't show any reasonable driving distance. Stadium are spread all over the continenant. In the east coast itself driving from miami to newyork is almost 20 hours. That's as driving from Morocco tangier to Lyon France. If we consider extrem cases it would be as traveling from Morocco to Russia. 

If US/Canada/Mexico don't do something about flight tickets and let free market decide the prices, fans may end up paying lot of money and would make the dream to assist to a world cup exclusive to rich people 

For me Fifa should invest in modular stadiums. Own 4-5 of them and use them during world cup to allow more developing countries to be able to host the world cup. But I guess you don't share this pov with me 😬


----------



## ElvisBC

absolutely. dallas-houston, seattle-vancouver and philadelphia-NY are fine, add ev. boston and that‘s it!
everything else is a long drive. definitely doable and there will be enough people driving road no.1, for an example, but everything is definitely not close to each other and most people will fly anyway.

in brazil hardly anyone drove around.


----------



## brewerfan386

Who's latest rumored favorite for hosing in 2030?


----------



## pesto

Ramanaramana said:


> Well-off middle-class people attend World Cups usually, not the types seeking asylum.


Of course. The great majority will have money, will rent cars and take advantage of the cities and surrounding areas.

But there are always some who are short on funds and some (including athletes, trainers, families, etc., in the Olympics) who plan to disappear and make money or to seek asylum while they have the chance.

Sad to say, but larger US cities have established industries that will provide you forged drivers licenses, social security cards and any kind of ID you want at outstanding quality. MacArthur Park in LA is where kids from my high school would go to get fake ID's; it still operates quite openly. With probably a million or so "undocumented" in the area, it actually smooths operations for governments, liquor stores and other things requiring proof of name or age.
.


----------



## pesto

Mouadex said:


> No US Canada Mexico are huge. Imagine playing 1/16 in monterrey then 1/8 in Los Angeles and 1/4 in miami then 1/2 Boston. Every trip is at least 20 hours drive. Fans will be spending time on roads than enjoying the world cup
> 
> 
> Yes of course it's going to be very expensive for lot of fans. Especially while having 9 african teams more south american and asians teams we may end up with several world cup games with very few fans of the team playing.
> 
> View attachment 4343959
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but this map doesn't show any reasonable driving distance. Stadium are spread all over the continenant. In the east coast itself driving from miami to newyork is almost 20 hours. That's as driving from Morocco tangier to Lyon France. If we consider extrem cases it would be as traveling from Morocco to Russia.
> 
> If US/Canada/Mexico don't do something about flight tickets and let free market decide the prices, fans may end up paying lot of money and would make the dream to assist to a world cup exclusive to rich people
> 
> For me Fifa should invest in modular stadiums. Own 4-5 of them and use them during world cup to allow more developing countries to be able to host the world cup. But I guess you don't share this pov with me 😬


You must not drive much. lol. It is very common to do "road trips" in the US, where you drive 1000 miles or more over a few weeks. Roads are excellent and you have the same laws and language everywhere you go).

In any event, LA-SF-LV are close to each other along with fabulous rivers, mountains, beaches and ancient forests of redwoods. Try a climb of Half-Dome or up to Glacier Point.

Houston-Dallas are close. The whole NE (Toronto, Boston, NY, Philly and DC are very easily drivable. Really only Atlanta and Miami are outliers, and Miami has beaches and nightlife to spare and is close to places like Orlando, Palm Beach, Boca Raton, etc.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

Ramanaramana said:


> Well-off middle-class people attend World Cups usually, not the types seeking asylum.


I was referring to Pesto’s assertion tongue in cheek!


----------



## Juanpabloangel

Ramanaramana said:


> Well-off middle-class people attend World Cups usually, not the types seeking asylum.


Yes people like me.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

ElvisBC said:


> absolutely. dallas-houston, seattle-vancouver and philadelphia-NY are fine, add ev. boston and that‘s it!
> everything else is a long drive. definitely doable and there will be enough people driving road no.1, for an example, but everything is definitely not close to each other and most people will fly anyway.
> 
> in brazil hardly anyone drove around.


I drove from Buenos Aires to Curitiba and back via Porto Alegre in a classic Ford Torino! I have driven between other cities in Brazil before in the north east, but I found tickets difficult to come across and timings would have been complicated even flying. This is why the Qatar World Cup has been lauded, due to the short distances. If the groups are clustered it would be much better.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> absolutely. dallas-houston, seattle-vancouver and philadelphia-NY are fine, add ev. boston and that‘s it!
> everything else is a long drive. definitely doable and there will be enough people driving *road no.1*, for an example, but everything is definitely not close to each other and most people will fly anyway.
> 
> in brazil hardly anyone drove around.


Generally agree. NY to Boston or Philly or DC/Baltimore (major fanfest and 250th anniversary celebration) are very easy drives. Atlanta to DC or Miami is longer but goes through noteworthy resorts, beaches and historic cities.so it can be broken into 2 days or longer if you want to linger at, say, Orlando, Palm Beach or St. Augustine.

LA to SJ is under 5 hrs. on I-5; State Route 1 is much longer but contains a succession of beautiful towns and views (Monterey, Carmel, Big Sur, Santa Barbara). Or you can take a day or two (or a month) in the Sierras, where Yosemite, Kings Canyon and Sequoia offer hiking and views beyond belief.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Juanpabloangel said:


> I was referring to Pesto’s assertion tongue in cheek!


Fair enough, I'm prone to missing context at times as I've got several people on ignore, so I just reply at face value.


----------



## ElvisBC

Juanpabloangel said:


> I drove from Buenos Aires to Curitiba and back via Porto Alegre in a classic Ford Torino! I have driven between other cities in Brazil before in the north east, but I found tickets difficult to come across and timings would have been complicated even flying. This is why the Qatar World Cup has been lauded, due to the short distances. If the groups are clustered it would be much better.


yepp, I also know few guys who drove quite a bit, but vast majority didn't. won't be much different in 2026 either!
of course, at least 50.000 argentinians, if not more, drove to rio, but they were half-locals there 

I guess we drifted quite a bit from the topic, it is 2030


----------



## Juanpabloangel

Ah yes, wrong World Cup, in both scenarios. In Iberia plenty of train travel and good public transport. If it is South America, there would be no way to drive in between all venues quickly nor train, so it’s planes or choose a base. In the unlikely event of Greece, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, we will know FIFA has lost its marbles.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

I keep thinking about Saudi Arabia's growing efforts to get involved, and the question just occured to me: what are their relations with Turkey? Because a bid with Turkey would have made more sense than Greece and Egypt, logistically.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

Pretty sure you would find tense stand off is the way to describe it.


----------



## Mouadex

Is there a chance Fifa may reject one of the bids?


----------



## ElvisBC

why not, they did it in the past


----------



## Mouadex

ElvisBC said:


> why not, they did it in the past


If Fifa reject KSA-Egypt-Greece bid then Morocco may have a good chance to win it as he may secure the votes of Africa + Many asian countries


----------



## ElvisBC

they had enough opportunities to accomplish that, failed every time. unfortunately I do not see them getting the world cup any time soon.


----------



## pesto

Mouadex said:


> If Fifa reject KSA-Egypt-Greece bid then Morocco may have a good chance to win it as he may secure the votes of Africa + Many asian countries


It's worth reading the 2026 FIFA bid reviews. Morocco's bid was considered "high risk" in stadiums, accommodations and transit. Those are expensive to fix and risk the creation of many white elephants (that is, facilities with continuing costs far in excess of expected revenues) 

And to reduce the problem of "regional" voting (that is, voting for a neighboring country no matter how bad their bid is), FIFA warned member states that votes that are not in the best interests of FIFA will have to be explained or funds will be withheld.


----------



## ElvisBC

you can‘t be serious


----------



## Mouadex

pesto said:


> It's worth reading the 2026 FIFA bid reviews. Morocco's bid was considered "high risk" in stadiums, accommodations and transit. Those are expensive to fix and risk the creation of many white elephants (that is, facilities with continuing costs far in excess of expected revenues)
> 
> And to reduce the problem of "regional" voting (that is, voting for a neighboring country no matter how bad their bid is), FIFA warned member states that votes that are not in the best interests of FIFA will have to be explained or funds will be withheld.


The bid proposed covered the risks. Several modular stadiums were proposed so no white elephant. In Moroccan bid all cities would be connected to rail network. The risk of accommodations concern only some cities that won't host important games so it could have been solved easily.

What did FIFA do to prevent votes under political pressure?


----------



## pesto

Mouadex said:


> The bid proposed covered the risks. Several modular stadiums were proposed so no white elephant. In Moroccan bid all cities would be connected to rail network. The risk of accommodations concern only some cities that won't host important games so it could have been solved easily.
> 
> What did FIFA do to prevent votes under political pressure?


Trump is not a FIFA employee. He can say whatever he wants, same as you or me. .

What FIFA can control is its own people. Briefly, CAF President Ahmad was called-out for attempt after attempt to pressure countries to vote for Morocco in spite of its poor bid (FIFA actually rejected their first set of numbers as being non-professional and without support and told them to start over). 

All along FIFA warned CAF that side deals in exchange for votes was strictly prohibited and those doing so would be removed. The idea was to concentrate effective management of FIFA in one place rather than in various regions who cut their own deals based on their own corrupt interests. 

As for the modular stadium, new train lines, etc., please just read the FIFA report. they are professionals and they made a FINAL decision after *years of review *of Morocco's physical assets and planned improvements .


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Can we talk to the 2030 FIFA World Cup please ?


----------



## pesto

Agree completely. Let's see the new Morocco bid and hope for the best for all bidders.


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> Trump is not a FIFA employee. He can say whatever he wants, same as you or me. .
> 
> What FIFA can control is its own people. Briefly, CAF President Ahmad was called-out for attempt after attempt to pressure countries to vote for Morocco in spite of its poor bid (FIFA actually rejected their first set of numbers as being non-professional and without support and told them to start over).
> 
> All along FIFA warned CAF that side deals in exchange for votes was strictly prohibited and those doing so would be removed. The idea was to concentrate effective management of FIFA in one place rather than in various regions who cut their own deals based on their own corrupt interests.
> 
> As for the modular stadium, new train lines, etc., please just read the FIFA report. they are professionals and they made a FINAL decision after *years of review *of Morocco's physical assets and planned improvements .


pesto, apart from first sentence, everything else is plain wrong!


----------



## nicholaseds2

How the 2030 World Cup host is chosen? Is using the country's federation vote, or back to by FIFA Commitee vote, or using public vote, or FIFA directly chose one candidate without voting? I hope as 2030 World Cup is 100th royal anniversary of World Cup, the host is chosen by public vote.


----------



## Ramanaramana

nicholaseds2 said:


> How the 2030 World Cup host is chosen? Is using the country's federation vote, or back to by FIFA Commitee vote, or using public vote, or FIFA directly chose one candidate without voting? I hope as 2030 World Cup is 100th royal anniversary of World Cup, the host is chosen by public vote.


Public vote?! 

One federation one vote, so 210-odd votes in total, most votes wins.


----------



## Mouadex

I think there should be a mixt of votes between federations and Fifa committee. 

Fifa committee can have for each member 10 points for 10 members while Federations count for 1 point.


----------



## carlosfng

Mouadex said:


> I think there should be a mixt of votes between federations and Fifa committee.
> 
> Fifa committee can have for each member 10 points for 10 members while Federations count for 1 point.


Yeah, as if the FIFA committee needed more reason to be bribed and play politics with the federations. It makes more sense to simply have stricter minimum requirements, or otherwise admit uglier less-profitable charity-focused WCs in developing/exotic regions every now and then (which of course won't happen).

Anyways, we wanted this inclusive diverse 48 team world cup, well of course it's gonna need bigger multiple hosts with larger infrastructure and wealth that trump and/or bribe away any developing country's haphazard debt-addled dream (heck those developing countries would rather sell out). Besides, why would FIFA have modular stadiums to carry around like a circus - there's a reason why association football is not a mere circus act but a grand international corporation with stronger allegiance and authority than the (current remains of the) Catholic Church. Seeing the economic success of the last WC, FIFA won't stop being that grand international corporation any time soon.

If FIFA changes its mind sometimes, it is momentarily, superficial, and only for show, to show "caring". That is why it doesn't mind long expensive distances in North America (tbh hard to say it is not just USA plus sidekicks), an Arab/Muslim/Mideast/whatever WC to one of the wealthiest countries in the world, a Russian WC only on European areas and heavily subsidized by its own profligate government, a debt ridden Brazilian WC (consider Brazil is also better economically than their 2030 candidate neighbors), an African WC in the African country with the most Caucasians (and even then it was a financial mess), etc. Whatever the situation, FIFA has always been able to spin it, for generations. After all, FIFA is just the regulator entity for a sport, and the most profitable one in the world too; why should it care? Fans eat it up anyway, everyone forgot the whole muh qatar human rights issue after Messi lifted the trophy finally.

But anyway, if Conmebol can somehow hopefully snatch the 2030 bid from the jaws of defeat and get it, it would be amazing. But the reality is that Spain-Portugal is most likely, and will most likely be better organized too. Then again, the Saudis may just be able to make it rain hard enough. Such is life. Still surprised England/UK didn't bid, seems Spain-Portugal wanted it more?


----------



## CaliforniaJones

nicholaseds2 said:


> How the 2030 World Cup host is chosen? Is using the country's federation vote, or back to by FIFA Commitee vote, or using public vote, or FIFA directly chose one candidate without voting? I hope as 2030 World Cup is 100th royal anniversary of World Cup, the host is chosen by public vote.


I think there'll be a public vote.
I expect there'll be the same rules, with some amendments, as the 2026 FIFA World Cup Bid. I've approved these rules for more transparency, especially the bid books which were available.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> pesto, apart from first sentence, everything else is plain wrong!


How silly. Every word is easily documented over years and was discussed above at one point or other. Ahmad was finally suspended for 5 years basically for taking bribes and violating rules relating to federations going off on their own. FIFA gave formal warnings to Morocco to stop breaking FIFA rules regarding illegal voting practices.

Per FIFA's review, the Morocco bid was estimated to need 16B to bring it up to MINIMUM standards. It swamped all of Morocco's spending on health services, which are already abysmally low.. For a country of Morocco's size 16B is equivalent of the US spending 1.6 *trillion* dollars on stadiums, etc. In actual fact it was spending almost nothing.. 

At one point it was circulated that the final Morocco submission was to be declared not to constitute a real bid, but it was decided to let it go to a vote for political reasons since it would lose badly in any event.

As to voting, in general policy is made by qualified managers who have the skills and access to internal resources and information, which are often confidential. The member countries don't have either the skills or the information to make decisions of this sort and (as we have seen) a large number live within very corrupt societies.


----------



## carlosfng

pesto said:


> But shouldn't it work the other way? FIFA HQ selects the desired city based on market expansion, spreading the game worldwide, etc., and educates the various countries to act and vote as if they are interested in soccer worldwide, not just in their area?
> 
> Parochialism is a horrible way of running any large organization. Imagine Google's offices in every country deciding on what services to provide, which platforms to use, etc. Only HQ has the information needed to make the right decision.


Rather than being dismissive of "parochialism", consider that even large corporations have to maintain their current market shares, not just lose them trying to chase other markets. There is a reason FIFA still keeps the confederations and national federations and independent clubs around, instead of vertically integrating everything.

Or, speaking in capitalism to help you understand, there is a reason Burger King didn't switch to all vegan burgers, or why Chik-Fil-A still doesn't open Sundays nor offer beef, or why KFC in Ecuador serves its fried chicken with rice and lentils. They still have to keep their core market sector. Not every business has to be the internet of everything or whatever (that sounds like communism, which is also gross).

Likewise, while FIFA definitely wants to expand into "developing markets", it doesn't mean it will build audiences right away just by pumping money into mass media and seeing if it sticks. The Chinese children still need less indoctrination-and-work time and more leisure time to form soccer fandoms; for even as their leaders pump state corporations money into its league, that is but only a small part of the vast Chinese cultural and economic marketplace that remains untapped - even more so as life over there is regimented differently and change is mandated from above - therefore, it takes a while. India may be more relaxed but also much more haphazard culturally, worse off economically save for elites, and interestingly also with competition from cricket; different kind of mountain to climb, but a tall one nonetheless. 

Furthermore, these countries don't have a couple important factors that helped the US (whose increased soccer awareness is what FIFA wants to replicate): a large demographic group that near monolithically loves the sport and which grew alongside the MLS; and, a bunch of white liberal (single) suburban moms that for decades grew tired of gridiron concussions, boring baseball, and another group overtaking basketball, and wanted their sons to play soccer like their daughters did. And even then, American sports still rake in way more. 

So, expansion of FIFA into exotic markets can happen, but will take awhile, and even then it will have nominal presences in some more than others. Qataris still did terrible on the stands and on the pitch. Will they be better in 20 years due to the WC? Maybe. Then again, Mexico is en route to host it a third time, and still can't get past round of 16, and will still have few modern stadiums. So idk.


----------



## Mouadex

pesto said:


> Agree completely. Let's see the new Morocco bid and hope for the best for all bidders.





pesto said:


> How silly. Every word is easily documented over years and was discussed above at one point or other. Ahmad was finally suspended for 5 years basically for taking bribes and violating rules relating to federations going off on their own. FIFA gave formal warnings to Morocco to stop breaking FIFA rules regarding illegal voting practices.
> 
> Per FIFA's review, the Morocco bid was estimated to need 16B to bring it up to MINIMUM standards. It swamped all of Morocco's spending on health services, which are already abysmally low.. For a country of Morocco's size 16B is equivalent of the US spending 1.6 *trillion* dollars on stadiums, etc. In actual fact it was spending almost nothing..
> 
> At one point it was circulated that the final Morocco submission was to be declared not to constitute a real bid, but it was decided to let it go to a vote for political reasons since it would lose badly in any event.
> 
> As to voting, in general policy is made by qualified managers who have the skills and access to internal resources and information, which are often confidential. The member countries don't have either the skills or the information to make decisions of this sort and (as we have seen) a large number live within very corrupt societies.


Damn bro you can't even respect your own promises. You bring CAF vote story back so I have the right to respond.

You are saying that Trump has nothing to do. That's mind blowing 🤯 Trump is the leader of a bidder country, he went beyong corrupting countries, he threated them with political consequences, Do you measure the seriousness of the situation?

Same time you try to show Morocco as corrupting country, but investigations say that Morocco lost 2010 with bribes given from south Africans to Fifa committee.

Regarding the budget. It seems you only compare figures without having any idea about the situation. That's too simplist but expected from you.

On those 16 billions huge parts are related to project infrastructure that will be anyway realized and that some of them have been already realized ( hospitals trains airports extension etc ). If you know bit about Morocco you would know that 16 billions divided by the years from winning the bid till hosting the world cup isn't an overestimated budget compared to the current public infrastructure investments. Adding to that many stadiums are modulars, many of them need only to be renovated and some of them need to be built anyway because their teams are quite good but have a very small stadiums ( tetouan ) so at the end we may be talking about one Stadium which is the 90K one in Casablanca with a cost of 1 billions dollar ( this one will be one hosting national team games in the future ) and maybe let's say two others for half billion. Let's say 2 billions of incessary expenses. Morocco get 8 billions dollars from Tourism. If we have a grow of tourism of only 10% after world cup we would cover the cost of the world cup in only three years + many golf countries with whom Morocco have excellent relations would help Morocco financially if needed for the World cup. Morocco buys on average 5 billions dollar weapons, so if only for one year we save half of the money we may cover the cost ( world cup coverage is itself a better protection than weapons )

Let's focus more on 2030 bids with their pros and cons without accusing anyone of corruption or wasting money as if we are Morons waiting for Pesto to guide us


----------



## pesto

Mouadex said:


> Damn bro you can't even respect your own promises. You bring CAF vote story back so I have the right to respond.
> 
> You are saying that Trump has nothing to do. That's mind blowing 🤯 Trump is the leader of a bidder country, he went beyong corrupting countries, he threated them with political consequences, Do you measure the seriousness of the situation?
> 
> Same time you try to show Morocco as corrupting country, but investigations say that Morocco lost 2010 with bribes given from south Africans to Fifa committee.
> 
> Regarding the budget. It seems you only compare figures without having any idea about the situation. That's too simplist but expected from you.
> 
> On those 16 billions huge parts are related to project infrastructure that will be anyway realized and that some of them have been already realized ( hospitals trains airports extension etc ). If you know bit about Morocco you would know that 16 billions divided by the years from winning the bid till hosting the world cup isn't an overestimated budget compared to the current public infrastructure investments. Adding to that many stadiums are modulars, many of them need only to be renovated and some of them need to be built anyway because their teams are quite good but have a very small stadiums ( tetouan ) so at the end we may be talking about one Stadium which is the 90K one in Casablanca with a cost of 1 billions dollar ( this one will be one hosting national team games in the future ) and maybe let's say two others for half billion. Let's say 2 billions of incessary expenses. Morocco get 8 billions dollars from Tourism. If we have a grow of tourism of only 10% after world cup we would cover the cost of the world cup in only three years + many golf countries with whom Morocco have excellent relations would help Morocco financially if needed for the World cup. Morocco buys on average 5 billions dollar weapons, so if only for one year we save half of the money we may cover the cost ( world cup coverage is itself a better protection than weapons )
> 
> Let's focus more on 2030 bids with their pros and cons without accusing anyone of corruption or wasting money as if we are Morons waiting for Pesto to guide us


I agree completely on waiting for the next Morocco bid and judging it based on what it says and the current situation.

Meanwhile, it's interesting to read the FIFA reviews from last time because they highlight areas that needed improvement. When we see the proposals for 2030 we can compare those to each other and forget about the 2026 selection, which is after all a fait accompli.


----------



## nicholaseds2

CaliforniaJones said:


> I think there'll be a public vote.
> I expect there'll be the same rules, with some amendments, as the 2026 FIFA World Cup Bid. I've approved these rules for more transparency, especially the bid books which were available.


Public vote is the general public(football fans and world citizens) have vote right to choose 2030 World Cup host like FIFA Best Player


----------



## pesto

Here's one of the problems with any vote where power and responsibility aren't in the same people.

This week, a player collapsed from cardiac arrest during an Am. football match. Within *10 seconds* he was physically receiving aid from specifically trained professionals, His heart was restarted and he was rushed to a hospital where he received treatment from highly trained specialists in cardio-vascular, lung and neural injury. He is recovering and apparently has no permanent damage.

Think about the results if that happened in any of about 150 countries in the world. That’s why FIFA does country reviews. Basically because power and responsibility have to be in the same people and those people have to be serious about their actions..

And this can happen. One recent FIFA review indicated that there were no hospitals near some stadiums and some clinics had no people present and all equipment and medicines had been stolen. Fortunately, that bid lost.


----------



## Laurence2011

Morocco-Algeria would be perfect imo. Algeria currently has stadia under construction, the use of modular stadia as well could help push this further. Two genuinely football-mad countries too, i'd love to see it.


----------

