Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: SoccerInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  Sports e-mail alerts  |  RSS
Posted at 9:51 AM ET, 12/ 1/2010

Poll: FIFA's 2022 World Cup decision

By Steve Goff

Here's your chance to predict the outcome of Thursday's vote by FIFA's executive committee in Zurich:

By Steve Goff  | December 1, 2010; 9:51 AM ET
Categories:  FIFA, USA World Cup bid  | Tags:  FIFA, World Cup  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Wednesday kickaround: U.S. World Cup bid, Andy Najar, Americans abroad, TV listings
Next: New mechanism (MLS re-entry draft) is next opportunity for D.C. United to continue rebuilding


I'd think the USA has to get it for 2022. The Qataris can buy a subsequent tournament (for more money) 8 years after.

Posted by: 22206no1 | December 1, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

In Landon I trust.

Posted by: JacobfromAtlanta-ish | December 1, 2010 10:01 AM | Report abuse

FIFA wants all that ticket and marketing revenue too much to not pick us.

Posted by: fedssocr | December 1, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Did someone say "Japan"?

"Winter's cityside,
Crystal bits of snowflakes all around my head and in the wind.
I had no illusions
That I'd ever find a glimpse of summer's heatwaves in your eyes.
You did what you did to me,
Now it's history I see
Here's my comeback on the road again.
Things will happen while they can,
I will wait here for my man tonight--
It's easy when you're big in Japan..."

Posted by: Rand-al-Thor | December 1, 2010 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Japan had half a World Cup in 2002 so they are a non starter.

Posted by: GeneWells | December 1, 2010 10:42 AM | Report abuse

C'mon baby! I wanna take my kids to the games. They are 2 years and 5 months respectively, so they'll be 14 and 12 by then - a perfect age to attend and appreciate.

Ok. You called it. That's just bull. I want to go for my own self.

Posted by: WorldCup | December 1, 2010 10:44 AM | Report abuse

As much as we present the most compelling case for hosting - and as Goff previously pointed out, the most logical - FIFA is illogical.

Sepp/FIFA would rather attempt the legacy of a Middle East WC than take the chance to set new untouchable records in the US in terms of revenue, viewership, and attendance. As much as some intangibles line up in our favor, they don't.

I'm hopeful. I'm not confident. However, I'm prepared to put down a deposit on tickets tomorrow if we win!

Posted by: VirginiaBlueBlood | December 1, 2010 10:52 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if Wikileaks has any cables about Sepp. That could hurt us.

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | December 1, 2010 10:59 AM | Report abuse

How about a poll on how much money lands in Jack Warner's Grand Cayman bank accounts today?

Posted by: benonthehill | December 1, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

The US will give FIFA the greatest overall take, but that payoff won't be for some time.

On the other hand, Qatar offers the greatest immediate payoff. So just how greedy and short-sighted are the ExCo?

Posted by: Josh86 | December 1, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

All the professional oddsmakers have Qatar as #1, with Australia and the US well behind.

The oddsmakers correctly reckon that such issues as matches being played in 100F heat are secondary to how much money will end up in the pockets of FIFA committee members.

Posted by: christopher_a_metzler | December 1, 2010 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Apparently our presentation had been fairly so-so up til Clinton taking the stage.

Posted by: JacobfromAtlanta-ish | December 1, 2010 11:26 AM | Report abuse

c_a_m - i linked to an article yesterday from the Financial Times that had a quote from a bookmaker at William Hill who said that very few bets had been placed on 2022, so it was easy to skew the odds with a few big bets on Qatar. oddsmakers are only really concerned with not losing money, so their odds are not the same as the "objective" odds [insert FIFA joke], which have the US as favorites right now.

Posted by: dimesmakedollars | December 1, 2010 11:41 AM | Report abuse

Qatar hosting the World Cup sounds like a sci-fi movie.

Posted by: Reignking | December 1, 2010 11:46 AM | Report abuse

I understand the appeal of holding a WC in the Mid-East for the first time, however, if logic prevails (far from a sure thing) the Qatar bid should not go through because:

1) The average high is 115 degrees in July.
2) Security concerns (it is the Mid-East, after all)
3) The U.S. will return an enormous amount of money to FIFA.
4) No drinking in public (though they'll have some limited exceptions for the WC). The WC has always been, among other things, a giant public booze-fest.

Posted by: PrinceBuster21 | December 1, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

dimesmakedollars -- I hope you're right. I just keep thinking, though, that the main thing that'll drive the result is not how much money FIFA in general will make, but how much money/stuff will end up in the pockets of the individual voting Executive Committee members, right now and when the Cup takes place.

Qatar has said "after the WC, we're going to dismantle most of the stadiums, move them to your impoverished countries, put them back together, and you get nice stadia for free." This has excited a lot of voting committee members from countries that might benefit; but what is that if not a bribe?

Posted by: christopher_a_metzler | December 1, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse


You're correct - a total bribe and the biggest of shameless pandering to the "Legacy" issue.

But how Green and how ultimately profitable is it to take down an air conditioned stadium and move it to Indonesia, Ghana, Somalia, Libya, etc?

Posted by: VirginiaBlueBlood | December 1, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

FIFA's capriciousness is definitely the big concern. and Qatar seems to be playing the game very well, showing that money definitely talks in this process. but most of the Exco members come from countries with plenty of stadia and of those that don't, Jack Warner is one that will definitely be picking the US. other Exco countries that might benefit are Cameroon, Nigeria, Cyprus, Cote D'Ivoire. Maybe Thailand, Guatemala and Cyprus (if Thailand gets unsuspended)? can they all be guaranteed a stadium? seems unlikely.

to PrinceBuster21's list add China possibly wanting 2026 or 2030 which would be impossible if anyone but the US wins 2022.

Posted by: dimesmakedollars | December 1, 2010 12:40 PM | Report abuse
A little concerned but we will just have to wait and see.

Posted by: mddeblois | December 1, 2010 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Prince: they have no stadiums, population, cities...

Posted by: Reignking | December 1, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

correction: Tahiti's vote is the one that's been removed, not Thailand.

and ReignKing is right, Qatar's small population also works against it. Who will buy all the tickets?

Posted by: dimesmakedollars | December 1, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

What is Pooty Poot complaining about? That Russia is having a hard time bribing?

Posted by: Reignking | December 1, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

MLS rumors is saying that the Toluca attacking midfielder Sinha is coming to the US, I bet Payne is looking his way with wanting eyes and drooling mouth

Posted by: TenoriosLaptop | December 1, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

VBB has it about nailed, I think. Blatter is very concious of the "legacy" issue, and makes no bones about the fact that his greatest achievements to date have been getting WC's to Asia and Africa. This gives him a pretty fair bit of clout with functionaries from those areas. Given his desire to "make football accessible to all people", I can easily see him pushing the Qatari bid as a festival of peace, unity and football, or some BS like that. That makes Qatar a serious threat to the US bid.

Posted by: Throwin64 | December 1, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Personally, I would definitely go to the WC if in the US, Australia or Japan; not so likely if in South Korea; and I can't imagine going to Qatar.

Posted by: DCUSince96 | December 1, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

The only one on this list that scares me is Australia. Blatter would love to bathe in Qatar cash, but if FIFA comes out and says the area is high risk, it can't be there.

We have it, if FIFA doesn't hate us. That's why I'm scared.

Posted by: UnitedDemon1 | December 1, 2010 2:15 PM | Report abuse

Qatar couldn’t organize an orgy in a brothel.

Ask the people that live there and you’ll find numerous instances of broken promises, poor treatment of migrant workers, racism and general incompetence…..however this is a way of life in a soulless country.

It will be a sad sad day for FIFA (and world football) if they succumb to the bribes and smoke screen, sorry shesha screen, of a dirty country. The other 4 bidding nations are suitably qualified.

Posted by: Realist28 | December 1, 2010 2:43 PM | Report abuse

Anyone heading to the Newseum tomorrow? Considering taking the little lady as she doesn't have preschool tomorrow and I'm not working... Thinking similar thoughts as WorldCup.. She'd be 15 in 2022 and I think it would be a cool memory to look back on especially if our bid is a success.

Posted by: DadRyan | December 1, 2010 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Australia is the bid that least concerns me. Remember, FIFA will not give the world cup to the same confederation 2 times in a row, and Austrailia recently moved to the Asian confed. FIFA is also looking ahead at 2026 and a possible bid from China, and if China bids, FIFA is going to give it to them. The concern is Qatar and gold Rolls Royces filled with cash.

Posted by: FulhamDC | December 1, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Qatar has said "after the WC, we're going to dismantle most of the stadiums, move them to your impoverished countries, put them back together, and you get nice stadia for free."

Posted by: christopher_a_metzler | December 1, 2010 12:12 PM

If one of these ended up in Poplar Point or Springfield Mall, I'd support Qatar's bid.

Posted by: Rand-al-Thor | December 1, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Maybe I'm confused, but isn't Qatar in the AFC just like Australia? Giving 2022 to Qatar pretty much negates China's hopes at 2026 as much as Australia, right? I would think that if you don't give it to South Korea or Japan because they just had it in 2002 and you want China in 2026 then you have to deny Qatar and Australia. That leaves you with only the US in 2022.

Posted by: BlackAndRed337 | December 1, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Qatar and Australia both rule out the chance for China in 2026. That is why the US will win. That and the fact that we will make FIFA so much money that they can put the next couple of World Cups anywhere they want because their coffers will be full.

Posted by: Golden_Child | December 1, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Qatar is in the AFC as well? Seems like I'm the one that's confused!

Posted by: FulhamDC | December 1, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Australia is gonna win.

JPN/SKR wont be selected 'cos they had it in 2002.

Qatar? What, no booze? Also, it's too hot.

US? Maybe, 'cos of $. Then again, if it was only for the $, then the US would host everything everytime they were candidates to host a major event.

Australia makes the most sense. FIFA is always looking at legacy and Australia is an under-tapped market for the sport.

For the fool Fulham DC, 2026? Who the hell is looking at 2026? 2026 will be back in Europe.

Posted by: vmrg1974 | December 1, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

The best part of qatar getting the world cup is the wild eyed, rabid muslim fanatics won't have far to fly the hijacked airplanes into a stadium.

Posted by: rcubedkc | December 1, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Maybe someone should remind the African countries how much anti-HIV drugs the US gov't and the Gates foundation have given them. Maybe Qatar can give them magic stadiums, but that pales in comparison to increased lifespans.

Posted by: I-270Exit1 | December 1, 2010 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company