Network News

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

2018, According to the Beeb

The BBC examines the bids to host the 2018 World Cup -- take a look.

The odds:
England 11-8
Australia 4-1
Portugal/Spain* 4-1
Russia 6-1
Netherlands/Belgium* 14-1
Mexico 16-1
USA 20-1
South Korea 20-1
Japan 20-1
Qatar 33-1
Indonesia 50-1
*If FIFA ends up allowing co-hosts

The USA with the same odds as South Korea and Japan, which co-hosted eight years after the American tournament? The USA behind Mexico and well back of Russia? Seriously, BBC?

By Steve Goff  |  February 5, 2009; 11:33 PM ET
Categories:  FIFA  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: United Loses, 4-1
Next: Friday Kickaround

Comments

"The USA behind Mexico and well back of Russia? Seriously, BBC?"

-Goff

Well then Steve, I guess it's a good time to buy!

Posted by: redskinsux | February 6, 2009 12:05 AM | Report abuse

OK Steve. Enough of this randomly interesting farting around.

Inquiring minds want to know what's up with Gomez.

Cheers.

Posted by: seahawkdad | February 6, 2009 12:26 AM | Report abuse

Thought a link to BTB's photos of the match would be of some interest to some heads...
http://www.behindthebadge.com/2009/02/photos-dcu-vs-vejle-boldklub.php

You're not in Florida are you Steve?

Posted by: DadRyan | February 6, 2009 1:03 AM | Report abuse

It's no coincidence that 4 of the top 5 bids are European. The bid is likely to go to UEFA. It makes sense that Russia would be more highly ranked.

The one that stands out the most, for me, as odd, is Australia. If Australia had not joined the Asian Confederation, I could well understand that. Indeed, I might even make them favorites, if they still represented Oceania. However, it's probably too soon for another Asian host. On the other hand, I've ranked the Aussies as one of the top 3 for 2022, and that's not logically consistent. They'd still be jumping ahead of CONCACAF's turn. So, maybe it's not so stupid. The European press has been touting the Aussies' bid ever since an Australian was put on the governing board -- or was it the deciding panel? Keep in mind, though, that the Brits probably have some built-in bias toward the Aussie bid.

In any case, it's also not ridiculous to think Mexico's bid is more likely than the USA's. We hosted the tourney 8 years more recently, so it would seem to be their turn, not ours. Also, Mexico has a better atmosphere for the World Cup -- I've been to games at both Cups, so I know this is true. And, many of the Mexican sites are at altitude. This sounds like a negative, but it has positive aspects. The temperatures at game time there aren't going to be as oppressive as they would be in the US, and it's far less humid. As for the altitude, players will train there long enough to adjust. Better atmosphere, and better football.

Furthermore, all of those countries are perceived to have better teams. (I know we spank Mexico in head-to-head, but that's not how the world perceives our relative strength). FIFA wants the hosts to do well -- to spark greater interest in the host country. An early exit for the host isn't what they want. They might see wisdom in waiting while US soccer continues to progress.

Finally, despite Obama's election, the USA is still not too popular. And, our economy is a shambles. Of course, all of that might change in a year, when they pick the hosts.

That's my buck and a half, for what it's worth.

Posted by: fischy | February 6, 2009 2:03 AM | Report abuse

As between Mexico and the US, I should qualify my comment. Some games in Mexico had incredible atmospheres, but not all. For the lesser match-ups, there was probably more excitement in the US. Definitely, there were more partisans from more countries, due to the immigrant populations here.

Posted by: fischy | February 6, 2009 2:10 AM | Report abuse

The Beep is smokin some great stuff... They assume that it is going directly to them by right

Posted by: Shanoni | February 6, 2009 2:56 AM | Report abuse

Oh please. If Mexico gets the WC that will be the, what, third time? Look, what FIFA cares most about is $$$. WC 94 was a smash success, setting an attendance record that still stands even though it was a 24 team tourney instead of the current 32. We have the best stadiums in the world. Soccer is even more popular now in the US than it was then.

The only knock on the US is the weather. From every other perspective it makes eminent sense.

Posted by: georgejones5 | February 6, 2009 7:08 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if someone at FIFA will mis-read Portugal/Spain and award the 2018 Cup to Port of Spain.

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | February 6, 2009 7:33 AM | Report abuse

Of course the BBC and the Brits rate the USA low.

Remember, the Brits didn't come in 1994, so they'd have no memory.

Posted by: kolbkl | February 6, 2009 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Australia is a great choice -- reminiscent of USA94.

I'd love to see any non-England European country get it, especially Spain & Portugal.

Posted by: Reignking | February 6, 2009 8:20 AM | Report abuse

My vote:

England 2018
Mexico 2022
2026 should then go to Australia...
2030 Cote D'Ivoire or Ghana

definitely Mexico over US - US hosted more recently in 94 and the 2 tournaments in Mexico have been arguably the best ever (Brazil 1970 and Argentina 86!!!)

Posted by: GraciasRiquelme | February 6, 2009 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Mexico would need to do some work in order to host.
-They don't have the required 12 stadia with 40K+ capacity.
-Of the 40K+ stadia, only one (Jalisco) has been renovated in the past ten years. Most were built in the 60's. Azteca hasn't been renovated in over 20 years.

Posted by: PeteO1 | February 6, 2009 9:03 AM | Report abuse

The comment above "we have the best stadiums in the world" needs to be qualified. True, we have many big stadiums most designed for "throwball" which are too narrow for FIFA specs. In '94 just about every stadium that was used had to be retrofitted structurally or with turf laid down in order to meet specs. By 2022 I am sure we will have even more soccer appropriate stadia. Forget 2018. Its not happening.

Posted by: sbg1 | February 6, 2009 9:08 AM | Report abuse

The one that stands out the most, for me, as odd, is Australia.
Posted by: fischy | February 6, 2009 2:03 AM
==================

Indonesia and Qatar don't make you cut?

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | February 6, 2009 9:12 AM | Report abuse

"your" cut

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | February 6, 2009 9:13 AM | Report abuse

sbg1,

Yeah, some 1994 facilities were modified. Especially Giants Stadium, and the Silverdome.

Both of which won't exist in 2018.

The NFL has gone through a stadium spree just like every other sport (worldwide), and a lot of those thought of WC soccer at the outset. Another factor is that US Soccer has found other venues like Birmingham. US facilities are going to be fighting tooth and nail to get on the host venue list.

Posted by: kolbkl | February 6, 2009 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Hasn't FIFA already said that co-hosts won't be allowed?

Ergo . . . two of the BBC's odds are way off . .

Qatar? Pitch temperatures of 115 would make it a boring Cup . . .

Posted by: delantero | February 6, 2009 9:29 AM | Report abuse

In other news Jackson Simc-Bluh was cut from CNI in Peru.

Posted by: MitchTooMuch | February 6, 2009 9:31 AM | Report abuse

"True, we have many big stadiums most designed for 'throwball' which are too narrow for FIFA specs"

Pretty much every new stadium over the last fifteen years is built to soccer dimensions. That WCQ against Trinidad will be at the Titans' stadium. Ford Field would work. The new Giants Stadium can easily fit a soccer field. This is a non-issue.

Posted by: Mastodon_Juan | February 6, 2009 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Cote d'Ivoire or Ghana in 2030????!!!! That's laugh out loud funny. Absolutely no way that ever happens. Cote d'Ivoire is a friggin' disaster. And Ghana would never, ever, ever be able to pull together the stadiums, etc.

The only three African countries that for now for the years to come could even dream of hosting a World Cup are South Africa, Nigeria, and Egypt. The rest don't have a chance in hell. South Africa is a relative economic power and they're struggling mightily to get it together for 2010.

Mexico over the US is also absurd. Particularly in this sort of economy, and with it's long-lasting effects down the road, Mexico would really, really struggle to make it work. Not to mention the government's fighting a very bloody war with narcotraffickers. Plus, Mexico's already had two (the quality of which had nothing to do with the site, mind you), and another World Cup in the US would be a mega-moneymaker.

England in 2018, US in 2022.

Posted by: DEFPOTEC1 | February 6, 2009 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Cote d'Ivoire or Ghana in 2030????!!!! That's laugh out loud funny. Absolutely no way that ever happens. Cote d'Ivoire is a friggin' disaster. And Ghana would never, ever, ever be able to pull together the stadiums, etc.

The only three African countries that for now for the years to come could even dream of hosting a World Cup are South Africa, Nigeria, and Egypt. The rest don't have a chance in hell. South Africa is a relative economic power and they're struggling mightily to get it together for 2010.

Mexico over the US is also absurd. Particularly in this sort of economy, and with it's long-lasting effects down the road, Mexico would really, really struggle to make it work. Not to mention the government's fighting a very bloody war with narcotraffickers. Plus, Mexico's already had two (the quality of which had nothing to do with the site, mind you), and another World Cup in the US would be a mega-moneymaker.

England in 2018, US in 2022.

Posted by: DEFPOTEC1 | February 6, 2009 9:44 AM | Report abuse

"Hasn't FIFA already said that co-hosts won't be allowed?"

No. Sepp said that, it's not the official FIFA position. UEFA's Platini then said that he would ask FIFA to accept 2018 bids only from Europe. I think he put a Meatloaf twist on the French motto, "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite. Two out of three ain't bad"

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | February 6, 2009 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Actually, MJ, Heinz Field and FedEx Field are both too narrow for International matches. Otherwise, your point holds.

Posted by: JkR- | February 6, 2009 9:52 AM | Report abuse

@I-270 -- By "odd", I was referring to the odds. I thought it's was a bit odd that the Aussies' bid was so highly ranked, especially in comparison to our odds. The fact that other bidders are ranked below the USA bid is not odd.

We may or may not have the stadia, given the size constraints are SSS are built well below the size required, and the pointy ball playing fields may not be big enough. Isn't that the problem at FedEx? Otherwise, that would be a good place for a semi-final. The new Giants Stadium will have artificial turf. Will it be any wider? Because corner kicks at the old place were/are kind of a joke.

Sure, we have lots of huge stadiums, which will sell out. We'll sell more tickets than any Cup ever, but the devil is in the details.

Personally, I think the USA bid should come before Mexico. Not just because Mexico has had it twice. 8-12 years is way too soon for Mexico. Look at the violence in that country now. In 2034 or 2038, Mexico will be at the front of the line, and with a stronger economy to go with some new stadiums.

Right now, the USA's bid is better. I'm sure that Europe will be picked for 2018, but 2022 should go to the USA -- to build on the momentum the sport has right now. 2022 will be the perfect moment for the USA, as legendary captain, Jozy Altidore gives it a final run, in his fourth Cup....

Posted by: fischy | February 6, 2009 9:54 AM | Report abuse

FedEx too narrow? What about the 99 and 03 WWC matches?

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | February 6, 2009 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Why are we behind Mexico??? They hosted in '70 and '86. I know '86 was supposed to be Colombia, but they couldn't hack it, so Mexico took over in an emergency. Regardless that is two World Cups for them in 16 yrs.

Posted by: Charisma_Man | February 6, 2009 10:07 AM | Report abuse

By the way, I wonder about the World Cups. There was a study I heard about on the news last week about the Super Bowl. The researcher claimed that Super Bowl week had no measurable impact on the local economy. At most, all it did was shift tax receipts, from places like restaurants, zoos and museums to nightclubs. Even hotel rooms and limos. They might have charged a bit more, but they didn't add much more business to an already full calendar. Whatever the new visitors spent was offset by decreased spending by locals and regular visitors.

Just wondering what the economic impact of World Cups has been. Of course, my interest in having it here has nothing to do with the economic impact....

Posted by: fischy | February 6, 2009 10:12 AM | Report abuse

FedEx too narrow? What about the 99 and 03 WWC matches?

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | February 6, 2009 9:55 AM
===============================
I could be mistaken but I think the field widths for women are allowed to be a little smaller. I asked similar questions in regard to US Women playing matches in the confines of the baseball field in Seattle(Safeco).

Posted by: DadRyan | February 6, 2009 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Odds are based by bookies on money coming in on a certain bet. I'm sure the writer got those from Ladbrokes, William Hill, etc - places that are taking bets on who will be chosen. So those are the gamblers talking, not necessarily the BBC. England are always short odds for everything (including World Cups), because they have a lot of fans betting with their hearts.

Posted by: Kev29 | February 6, 2009 10:20 AM | Report abuse

FedEx too narrow? What about the 99 and 03 WWC matches?

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | February 6, 2009 9:55 AM

FedEx has been revamped since those tournaments. Snyder added a few rows of "dream seats" which cut down the overall width. I bet those could be removed quickly for a WC though - and the Redskins will be playing in an RFK site EnormoDome by 2018.

Posted by: Kev29 | February 6, 2009 10:26 AM | Report abuse

England 11-8, Seems that English unrealistic expectations in the World Cup run beyond their team.

Actually, though, with the WC away from Europe in 2010 and 2014, I expect England is the leader for 2018 and the US is almost a shoe-in for 2022 (which means the US star of that tournament is probably 8 or 10 years old...he is among us). Mexico may have hosted exciting tournaments but they won't be the first to host 3, especially in light of US infrastructure and the ability to market the tournament and pack stadiums.

FedEx field will not be in use in 10 years.

Posted by: teo_68 | February 6, 2009 10:34 AM | Report abuse

In '99 FIFA allowed 70-yard-wide pitches. This area's share of the '03 action took place at RFK, so the issue didn't arise.

Posted by: universityandpark | February 6, 2009 10:37 AM | Report abuse

I recently read somewhere that the pointyball stadium at Camden Yards is up to WC standards. Can anyone confirm?

Posted by: universityandpark | February 6, 2009 10:40 AM | Report abuse

the US is almost a shoe-in for 2022 (which means the US star of that tournament is probably 8 or 10 years old...he is among us). Mexico may have hosted exciting tournaments but they won't be the first to host 3, especially in light of US infrastructure and the ability to market the tournament and pack stadiums.

Posted by: teo_68 | February 6, 2009 10:34 AM

I wouldn't underestimate the Aussies for 2022, teo. I think that's going to be a tough fight. Hopefully, Mexico doesn't spoil our chance. Then again, there will be many Asian contenders challenging Australia as well.

Posted by: Kev29 | February 6, 2009 10:42 AM | Report abuse

In the words of Jim Carey in Dumb and Dumber, "You mean there is still a chance!"

Posted by: RM27 | February 6, 2009 10:50 AM | Report abuse

By the way, I wonder about the World Cups. There was a study I heard about on the news last week about the Super Bowl. The researcher claimed that Super Bowl week had no measurable impact on the local economy.

Posted by: fischy | February 6, 2009 10:12 AM
_________________________________________

That analysis may have been specific to the most recent event in the Tampa Bay area, which typically has a lot of visitors (a.k.a "snowbirds") at this time of year under normal circumstances. Thus, Super Bowl attendees largely displaced other out-of-towners. A World Cup would bring in a lot of people (and their money) from abroad, and hotels in most major U.S. cities do not normally have especially high occupancy rates in summer.

Posted by: universityandpark | February 6, 2009 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: Kev29 | February 6, 2009 11:00 AM | Report abuse

@university park - it was not specific to the most recent event. It did not even include that event. The methodology of the study was to compare gross and tax receipts for Super Bowl week, with the same week in the year prior and (I believe) the year following.

The prior Super Bowls in Tampa were not good. Of course, both were security nightmares, coming in times of war. And, you're right to point out that Tampa has a lot of visitors at that time, anyway. Wouldn't the same be true throughout the US, during the summer?

AS for the USA star of the 2022 tournament, he's surely not 8 or 10. Anyone that age now will be lucky to make the squad. Want to see the star of that tourney, for the US side? Check out Charles Renken. He'll be well-experienced, but still young enough to be mightily contribute.

Posted by: fischy | February 6, 2009 11:08 AM | Report abuse

"Hasn't FIFA already said that co-hosts won't be allowed?"

No. Sepp said that, it's not the official FIFA position.

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | February 6, 2009 9:46 AM
_________________________________________

In another thread a few days ago, I posted a link to a story in a British publication that said that the Korea/Japan experiment is not remembered fondly by anyone in FIFA's top ranks, not just Blatter, so it might as well be an official FIFA position. I am reminded of what the novelist Barbara Cartland said about her one trip to the former Soviet Union: "It was like being a teenager. It was an interesting thing to experience once, but I can't imagine why anyone would want to do it a second time."

http://www.sportsfeatures.com/index.php?section=olympic-article-view&title=Red%20faces%20over%20World%20Cup%20bids&id=44805

Posted by: universityandpark | February 6, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

UEFA thinks it has a divine right to host every second World Cup. With 2010 in Africa (South Africa) and 2014 in South America (Brazil), can you imagine the pouting and hand-wringing from Europe if FIFA gives 2018 to a non-European country?! US is a good bet for 2022.

Posted by: saabrian | February 6, 2009 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Portugal did a great job hosting the Euro; I'd love to go back there. Australia would also be a great choice, if the US isn't selected. Enough with England already.

Posted by: hacksaw | February 6, 2009 11:59 AM | Report abuse

US aint gettin nothin. why?

- Anti-american sentiment resentment
- lack of support from regional honcho
- the grass is always greener and the US is viewed as the backup alternative. cant give a future cup to the US if it might hold one on short notice
- haven't had a spanish speaking host since 1980

i don't like it either. but prepare to be screwed. it is no coincidence that regional rotation gets scrapped just when it gets to be north america's turn (just like with the UN Sec-Gen)

Posted by: PindarPushkin | February 6, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Do not underestimate the power of la mordida when dealing with the likes of Sepp Blatter and Jack Warner...

Having said that-Mexico would have to rebuild every stadium in the country except for the new Chivas stadium now under construction...also hotel and highway infrastructure...

Posted by: targetmedia | February 6, 2009 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Warner's about to have an accident....

Posted by: fischy | February 6, 2009 12:37 PM | Report abuse

in my opinion fifa's stadium regulations are terrible and a detriment to the sport- money making possibilities and corporate style stadiums are boring and have no feeling and should count against countries like the US..and England for that matter. the best stadiums in the world are in countries like argentina and brazil where there is real atmosphere and real fans and real history. thats why the world cups should be staged in these countries. not because of how much money can be made or how nice the bathrooms are in the stadium.

Posted by: GraciasRiquelme | February 6, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company