Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: SoccerInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  Sports e-mail alerts  |  RSS

Future World Cups

The timeline is set for bids to host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups:

Feb. 2 is the deadline for potential hosts to register interest. Registration forms will be sent out two weeks later. Federations have until March 16 to submit a bid on one tournament or both. The winners will be chosen by FIFA in December 2010.

Requirement: About 12 stadiums holding at least 40,000 fans for group matches, with one stadium of at least 80,000 capacity to stage the opening match and the final.

Countries confirmed to bid for 2018 are Australia, England, Qatar and Russia, plus joint bids by Belgium/Netherlands/Luxembourg and Spain/Portugal. The USA, China, Japan, Mexico and Canada also are likely to join the fun.

Because Brazil is hosting in 2014, no South American country can apply for either event and with South Africa hosting in 2010, African countries are eligible for 2022 only.

Let the bribing begin.....

By Steve Goff  |  January 16, 2009; 8:35 AM ET
Categories:  FIFA  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama the Uniter?
Next: Weekend TV Listings


Qatar huh? I can only imagine that being a combined bid with Bahrain and the UAE. Even then, the combined population of those countries is 7-8million. Could a world cup function with a population base that low? That's not to mention the searing heat in the summer.

However, there's no doubt that they have the money to build spectacular indoor air-conditioned stadiums with lush green fields of grass....and for bribery purposes.

Posted by: Longgoneposter | January 16, 2009 9:04 AM | Report abuse

How utterly ridiculous is it that the old bags at FIFA are bidding out this far in advance? Is it so they can go ahead and grab the cash for Cups that they might not live to see?

Blatter is 72 right now. Jack Warner is no spring chicken either.

FIFA is one plane crash away from legitimacy (unless, I guess, it's into the Hudson).


Posted by: scavendish442 | January 16, 2009 9:10 AM | Report abuse

This is another one of those things where I'm happy to let England get it in 2018, but 2022 is OURS!

Quick name 12 Cities and Stadiums that meet the criteria.

New Giants Stadium - NYC/NJ
Gillette Stadium - Boston
New Dallas Stadium - Dallas
FedEx Field - DC
Soldier Field - Chicago
Reliant Stadium - Houston
Dolphin Stadium - Miami
Qwest Field - Seattle
LA Coliseum - LA
Lincoln Financial Field - Philadelphia
New SF Stadium - Bay Area
Mile High Stadium - Denver
Cardinals Stadium - Phoenix
Bank of America Stadium - Charlotte
Browns Stadium - Cleveland
New Chargers Stadium - San Diego
Georgia Dome - Atlanta
Edward Jones Dome - St. Louis


Infrastructure Investment - well we shouldn't need anything additional from what we have now, but we'll do more in the next 12 years anway.

Heck - it wouldn't even really cost anyone any money at this point. All the other bidders would need massive investment in stadiums and infrastructure.


Posted by: VirginiaBlueBlood | January 16, 2009 9:11 AM | Report abuse

FedEx is too small for a regulation soccer field

Posted by: Eric_in_Baltimore | January 16, 2009 9:48 AM | Report abuse

12 Stadiums? Jeez, I was going to Powerwash the deck and get a new grill and offer up the back yard....

Posted by: JkR- | January 16, 2009 9:48 AM | Report abuse

I still think 2018 is England's to lose. Then again, they are quite capable of losing it if they don't play their politics right. Maybe they learned their lessons from the failed bid for the 2006 World Cup? If the powers-that-be want to make sure that the Cup returns to Europe in 2018, then Spain & Portugal is the 2nd favorite in my book.

For 2022, I think the USA and China will go head-to-head, down to the wire. Should be an interesting battle.

Posted by: SSMD1 | January 16, 2009 10:03 AM | Report abuse

!!!!President of Real Madrid Ramon Calderon is quitting after allegation of vote stealing!

Posted by: Reignking | January 16, 2009 10:09 AM | Report abuse

I thought that FIFA said after Korea/Japan 2002 that it would not be receptive to joint bids in the future. And the idea of three co-hosts? Would three slots out of 32 be set aside for them, or would there be some sort of play-in?

Posted by: universityandpark | January 16, 2009 10:16 AM | Report abuse

I honestly don't believe we are in the running for '18 or '22. I agree that '18 is Englands to lose, with possible Australia or Mexico getting it next.

Instead, I believe that FIFA has us in their back pocket as emergency hosts, in case South Africa or Brazil fall through. There are only a handful of countries that could host within a couple months notice, that being us, England, and probably Japan/Korea again. 2018 will belong to England, I highly doubt FIFA would go halfway around the world again so soon, which leaves the US to host on short notice. It would seem that FIFA expects one of the next two to fail, which would allow us to host instead.

Posted by: Josh8 | January 16, 2009 10:17 AM | Report abuse

Aside from the ever present bribes and political deals it hopefully comes down to these fatcors:

1: Infrastructure (Good Transport / & Modern-Big Stadiums in Big Cities)

2: Further "Develop" Soccer

My Guess:
2018 = England or Spain/Portugal

2022 = USA v Mexico v Australia v China

I'd love to see another World Cup in the US (the 94 one got me hooked on soccer as a kid)

It MIGHT help the US bid if they make a joint bid with the Northern or (duck/cover) Southern Neighbours...

MLS has Canadian flavour and maybe will have more with the expansion(s). Canada alone won't be able to host one, since FIFA doesn't want too many stadiums in a "smallish" amount of big cities.

The US/MEX Nats team have this huge rivalery, but aswell the ChivasUSA and SuperLiga links, and who knows with the Barca/Miami thing and the rumoured Pachuca intersted what the future expansion holds.

In anyway I'll support the US bid, wheter it's a stand alone or one with Canada/Mexico...

Posted by: Ben7LA | January 16, 2009 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Joint bid? Ack. The biggest complaint about USA94, or even MLS, is the amount of distance and travel.

Posted by: Reignking | January 16, 2009 10:39 AM | Report abuse

What's the requirement on grass v. FieldTurf? I'm sure all of the stadiums could put in temporary grass fields (See Giants Stadium 1994).

Don't forget about Minnesota. The summers are wonderful and the new Gopher Stadium will be up and running for the 2009 football season.

Posted by: ComoPark | January 16, 2009 11:06 AM | Report abuse

The '18 Cup is going to the UK or Benelux -- and England has the clear advantage.

The '22 Cup will be between the USA and Australia.

It is crazy that they're being bid together, but this is a strong indicator that England will get one bid, with the US getting the other. It would be our turn in the old rotation, but FIFA won't want to stay away from Europe that long. So, they will announce the '18 for Europe -- probably England. However, they will follow that with the announcement of the '22 Cup for the North American side -- the USA.

The only fly in the ointment is Australia -- theirs would be a strong bid -- but I'm guessing they're the ones that will have to wait until '26.

About that USA list -- I find that list a little depresing. Most of the venues have FieldTurf. And, I wonder how big the fields are. Of course, you left off the Rose Bowl. There might be some reluctance to use the same stadiums, but LA figures to have one. Isn't the Rose Bowl better? Also, what about KC's Arrowhead Stadium? Anyone know anything about the proposed Vikings' Stadium? DC might work, if there's a new field at RFK -- but that will come to late to be in the bid.

As for infrastructure -- it points towards waiting until '22, when some high speed rail might be in place, but '26 would be better. The thing is each year they wait to come back to the US is another year the world gets even hotter.

Posted by: fischy | January 16, 2009 11:08 AM | Report abuse

I thought that FIFA said after Korea/Japan 2002 that it would not be receptive to joint bids in the future.

Posted by: universityandpark | January 16, 2009 10:16 AM

Yeah. Sepp also talked about rotations.

The Purple will be ready to transport fans to the 45,000 seat DC United Park in Greenbelt in 2022.

Hey Comopark! Great zoo, by the way. But don't you think the matches would be better in Blaine? :-)

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | January 16, 2009 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Joint bid? Ack. The biggest complaint about USA94, or even MLS, is the amount of distance and travel.

Posted by: Reignking | January 16, 2009 10:39 AM

Right, but the way around that is to cluster the groups regionally. Group A, for example, plays 2 games each in Boston, NY, and Philadelphia. Group B gets Baltimore, DC, and Charlotte. After the group stages, A's #1 plays B's #2 and vice versa. Do likewise with the other groups (SD, LA, and SFC, for example) and folks don't have to travel that much. A country's fans just needs to set up shop in one place and deal with day trips.

Posted by: troy6 | January 16, 2009 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Qatar has 12 40,000 seat stadiums and a 80,000 seat stadium?

Posted by: TheJim1 | January 16, 2009 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Freedom have drafted Alex Singer, D from UVA, and Allie Long, MF from PSU.

Posted by: OWNTF | January 16, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

doing a look at stadia, 8 clusters of 3 cities isn't easy, but some groups could be in just 2 cities. stand-alone cities, like KC and Charlotte could be used for semifinals, when whichever team gets that far would have to travel anyway. I still like Chicago for the final. Looking for big stadia with grass, preferably downtown (which is why I dropped Fedex).

How's this for groups:
Chicago-Cincinnati-Milwaukee (or U Michigan)
San Diego-LA
and, well, I can't think of another good pair or trio and I ought to do some work anyway.

Posted by: troy6 | January 16, 2009 11:37 AM | Report abuse

I think it will be England then a dogfight between the US and Australia. I think we're very suitable hosts, but the Aussies will have some gripes - they've never hosted a WC Finals and their reputation for major event hosting is impeccable.

Some in FIFA might worry that the next few Cups are too anglophonic - Mexico could be in the running for 2018 then.

Posted by: Kev29 | January 16, 2009 11:48 AM | Report abuse

England in 2018 makes sense, but 2022 will belong to China. By 2022 China will be a major world player -- booming economy, communications, and huge - still untapped - market potential for organized sports, entertainments, leisure. The US soccer market and pro leagues may have gained some respectability by then, but not enough to justify another World Cup. 2026 or 32 anyone?

Posted by: oz4dcu | January 16, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

If memory serves, some of the German players were very impressed with the grass used at the domed stadium in Detroit.

Posted by: joedoc1 | January 16, 2009 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Gosh - should we ever get a stadium - even if it's in Curtis Bay Baltimore - I'll take one like Hoffenheim just built.

Posted by: VirginiaBlueBlood | January 16, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

My prediction...

England 2018
London - Emirates Stadium
London - Stamford Bridge
Birmingham - Villa Park
Newcastle - St. James Park
Nottingham - new stadiun
Portsmouth - new stadium
Manchester - City of Manchester
Sheffield - Hillsborough
Sunderland - Stadium of Light
Liverpool - (new) Anfield (semi)
Manchester - Old Trafford (semi)
London - Wembley (final)

USA 2018
Boston/Foxborough - Gillette Stadium
Cleveland - Browns Stadium
Indianapolis - Lucas Oil Field
Dallas - Cowboys Stadium
Chicago - Soldier Field
Miami - Dolphin Stadium
Denver - Mile High
Philadephia - Lincoln Financial
San Francisco - (new) 49ers Stadium or Palo Alto
New York - (new) Giants Stadium (semi)
Washington - (new) Snyder Dome (semi)
Los Angeles - Rose Bowl (final)

Posted by: Kev29 | January 16, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

^ That should be England 2018 - USA 2022

Posted by: Kev29 | January 16, 2009 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone have a link to a decent WPS draft site? I can't find a comprehensive list on that twit thing.

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | January 16, 2009 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Twitter? They are so lazy that they can't have someone update a real web site? That's pathetic.

Posted by: Reignking | January 16, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Saint Louis Athletica sends Joanna Lohman and the 23rd pick to the Washington Freedom for the 21st pick.

Posted by: OWNTF | January 16, 2009 12:29 PM | Report abuse

OK. For those interested.

Washington Freedom:
1st Round
Allie Long with the 7th overall pick

2nd Round
Alex Singer with the 8th overall pick

3rd round
No picks for Washington.

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | January 16, 2009 12:31 PM | Report abuse

No 3d picks but Freedom got Lohman. This draft is odd.

Posted by: OWNTF | January 16, 2009 12:37 PM | Report abuse

They're also updating on a blog, but with a lot of superfluous comments like "Julie Foudy was spotted," and "Pia says WPS is good," and "Heather Mitts is texting I-270." OK, I made the last one up.

Round 4
Washington Freedom selects Jill Gilbeau with the 22nd pick. We should keep her just for the poetry of her name.

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | January 16, 2009 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Freedom obviously values players (like Gilbeau and Singer) that have played for them before.

Posted by: OWNTF | January 16, 2009 12:43 PM | Report abuse

If spreading it out across the US is too much for travel, maybe we should focus the bid for a general area of the US?

East Coast - couple of big cities near eachother... NY, Phily, DC... and closer travel from Europe.

California - HDC, Coliseum, Rose Bowl, San Jose, Portland, Seattle... and lots of other tourist activities that will draw foreign travelers (Disneyland, Knotts, Hollywood, Beaches, Fantastic weather)

and maybe Chivas USA can work out a stadium deal out of it too!

Posted by: PocketKings | January 16, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

The Georgia Dome is big enough, but so is Georgia Tech's stadium, and it has real grass. The field is big enough, and the square style of the seating makes it almost look kind of soccer-ish.

Posted by: JacobfromAtlanta-ish | January 16, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

I reallllly just want Atlanta to get a game... Please Lord on high get Atlanta a game!

Posted by: JacobfromAtlanta-ish | January 16, 2009 12:58 PM | Report abuse

I realize it would be nearly impossible due to lack of infrastructure (physical and social)...but it'd be nice to see the Central American countries (minus Belize) band together for a World Cup. It would be pretty cool.

Posted by: nico78 | January 16, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Goffer, you've been seeming a bit cynical recently. Hope it's just the cold weather

Posted by: churtmah | January 16, 2009 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Unless they've changed the restriction on how many cities can use how many different stadiums, I'm not sure Australia could meet the stadium requirement. It would also preclude London from using three stadiums...

Posted by: EricB1 | January 16, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

London will also have an Olympic Stadium for 2012 which will hold far more than either the Emirates (about 60k) or Stamford Bridge (about 40k).

Posted by: BlackandRedRedDevil | January 16, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Do not underestimate the power of la mordida with the likes of Sepp blatter, Chuck Blazer and Jack Warner....

Posted by: targetmedia | January 16, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

so... FIFA scraps the rotation thing when it's CONCACAAF's turn. the federation better have got something good (and not just a friendly for t&t w england) for letting that happen. what good is having jack warner as vp (or whatever) of fifa if he allows the fed to get screwed like this? why do we keep supporting this corrupt individual?

Posted by: PindarPushkin | January 16, 2009 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Yeah. We have a big country. Really big. And you know what? Our little MLS teams have to deal with that all season long. If the elite players of the world can't deal with it, maybe they aren't so elite. Of course, they probably have no trouble flying to Asia for a sponsor's event or to film a commercial.

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | January 16, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

And let me add that they women have played two World Cups in the United States and two in China - another really big country. What's the difference? Well, unlike the men, the women aren't fragile little creatures who fall down whenever an opponent comes near them in the 18 yard box. If a woman gets injured, just pull her off, staple her head shut, and put her right back in.

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | January 16, 2009 2:33 PM | Report abuse

The zoo is walking distance. On quiet nights we can hear the lions and the wolves. It's fun.

The Blaine stadium is very, very small and 30 minutes outside the city. The Gopher Stadium is right in the middle of campus, can fit 48,000 or so (if it hasn't been expanded by then), and will have a beautiful view of downtown Minneapolis.

Posted by: ComoPark | January 16, 2009 2:58 PM | Report abuse

re: "FedEx is too small for a regulation soccer field."

How did they manage to play 6 Women's World Cup matches and a DCU-Chelsea match there?

Posted by: dm100 | January 16, 2009 10:11 PM | Report abuse

I remember reading somewhere that FIFA granted special permission to use FedEx Field for the Women's World Cup even though the field is less than the ideal width, and as for the Chelsea match, a pre-season friendly is pretty different circumstances from a World Cup bid.

Posted by: ricky_b | January 17, 2009 2:51 AM | Report abuse

270: surely you can clarify with Heather. The complaints about usa94 with regards to travel weren't from players or teams, they were from fans. In Germany you could see a different game in a different city every day. Or follow your team to the Finals. In the us, you'd need to fly an awful lot. Imagine being a fan and finding out that your first elimination round game is Monday in Seattle. You're in Chicago. Enjoy the drive.

Posted by: joshuaostevens | January 17, 2009 9:25 AM | Report abuse

So the players aren't complaining. FIFA isn't complaining (WC94 still has the highest average attendance and may be the most profitable if you adjust for the number of matches and inflation). And most US fans won't complain about hosting another WC. So we should have all the matches in one region to satisfy a minority of fans? Imagine being a fan and finding out that all the matches are on the East Coast. You're in Los Angeles. Too bad.

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | January 17, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

We haven't really heard anything about a U.S. bid since the England friendly. Is the U.S. still planning on submitting a bid by the February 2nd deadline? Why haven't we heard anything official from the fed yet? A Canadian bid is simply laughable, even worse than Qatar. Canadians are one of the most hostile peoples in the world when it comes to using public money on stadium projects, and that was in good economic times. The CSA getting municipal, provincial and parliamentary governments nationwide to cough up public funds for 10 to 12 stadium projects ranging from brand new to major renovation is never going to happen.

Posted by: jb75 | January 19, 2009 9:19 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company