Next World Cup in Russia

[Matt H]

Ummm, well that's a disappointment. We could have done with the economy boost.

 

Thoughts?

[Josh]

I don't particularly care.

 

It would have been good for the economy but meh, you never know.

[The-Plethora]

I think they would do a better job of it than us judging by recent scenes, already got the Olympics anyway.

[neo2810]

We were never going to compete with mafia bribes.....

[Thorin]

I believe it's been shown that hosting a world cup leaves the host nation worse off financially anyway...

[hogmaw]

Fifa, Russia, Middle East - what do they all have in common?

 

Big money corruption and bribes. Say no more.

[Lbm]

And Qatar have it four years later.

[stevie_b]

Fifa, Russia, Middle East - what do they all have in common?

 

Big money corruption and bribes. Say no more.

 

Yep, I get the impression FIFA (and the IOC) are as bent as a 9-bob note. I didn't care whether England won the bid or not. Nice if they did, not bothered that they didn't.

 

I wonder what Prince William, David Cameron and David Beckham said to the FIFA voters in the last couple of days... Surely the voters would have made up their minds already if it was a straight competition. The bids were submitted ages ago, the voters would have had plenty of chances to ask questions I would think waaay before today. Who's going to be swayed by someone saying to them, "Look, we love football. We all really love football... blah".... unless there's a "sweetener" involved.

[ellis]

Pikey mafia strikes again!

[hogmaw]

For FIFA to give underdeveloped nations the right to host the World Cup is a win:win for all concerned. The developing nations will be thrust onto the world stage where they will make money, create jobs and build infrastructure. Slip a few quid into Fifa's pockets and bish bosh sorted. Fifa will look good for giving the world cup to developing nations because they will be seen as doing good and helping out. Nice.

Whereas if the world cup was given to a nation that's already developed, 1) it would be difficult if not impossible for Fifa members to get involved in corruption and bribes and 2) fifa would be seen as not helping the needy, underdeveloped world. So in other words, England will NEVER host the WC again*

 

* unless we become like an undeveloped nation - perhaps fifa should visit Liverpool :-)

[Havard]

Does this mean we will win one then?

[johnny g]

So, in essence, it's good for the fans for it to be held in a desert oasis, where alcohol is banned? I'm sure they'll all love that.

[Matt H]

For FIFA to give underdeveloped nations the right to host the World Cup is a win:win for all concerned. The developing nations will be thrust onto the world stage where they will make money, create jobs and build infrastructure. Slip a few quid into Fifa's pockets and bish bosh sorted. Fifa will look good for giving the world cup to developing nations because they will be seen as doing good and helping out. Nice.

Whereas if the world cup was given to a nation that's already developed, 1) it would be difficult if not impossible for Fifa members to get involved in corruption and bribes and 2) fifa would be seen as not helping the needy, underdeveloped world. So in other words, England will NEVER host the WC again*

 

* unless we become like an undeveloped nation - perhaps fifa should visit Liverpool :-)

 

Are you including Russia in that?

 

Russia's is almost fine as a host (bar that they don't really like people coming in much - bizarre), but having it in Qatar is ridiculous imo - as Jonny G says.

[hogmaw]

Yes Russia included, they have to build ALL the stadiums from scratch! Plus they have no cheap internal flights, so the huge distances between cities will be a big problem.

[davej705]

Funny how everyone was saying that panorama program was stupid,now everyone saying bribes have won it!

[Matt H]

Yes Russia included, they have to build ALL the stadiums from scratch! Plus they have no cheap internal flights, so the huge distances between cities will be a big problem.

 

You're saying Russia = underdeveloped?

[davej705]

Fact was we had easily the best bid but we didn't line the sepp blatter and jack warners pockets.FIFA is a joke

[stevie_b]

Funny how everyone was saying that panorama program was stupid,now everyone saying bribes have won it!

 

Genuine question: who said it was stupid?

 

Another genuine question: how do you know England had the best bid? I don't much about the process, and I don't know what makes a good bid anyway (apart from bribes because they can't really say, "We'll award it to Nation X because they bunged us the most cash.")

[davej705]

The papers,news,beckham etc all dismissed it

 

Now everyone will be agreeing they are dodgy money grabbers

 

Genuine question: who said it was stupid?

 

Another genuine question: how do you know England had the best bid? I don't much about the process, and I don't know what makes a good bid anyway (apart from bribes because they can't really say, "We'll award it to Nation X because they bunged us the most cash.")

 

Our bid was easily the best.climate,stadiums,infrastructure. We have it all. We could host it now,everything is already in place.not forgetting England is the home of football aswell.

[marc_p]

Our bid was easily the best.climate,stadiums,infrastructure. We have it all. We could host it now,everything is already in place.not forgetting England is the home of football aswell.

 

I thought Italy was the home of football? Besides, if I was FIFA I would NEVER choose England for a world cup, mainly for 2 reasons, 1) We are the worst country for football hooligans(sp?) 2) Our road network is shockingly bad as soon as there is an influx for anything, host a world cup and everywhere would just draw to a standstill. Until those 2 thing are sorted then I don't think England will ever be in the running.

 

I for one am really happy that England wasn't chosen.

[davej705]

http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/history/game/historygame2.html

 

Football holliganism is much worse in Italy these days. Our roads are fine to host an event such as the world cup which would be held all over the country.the stadiums get used every weekend and seem to do just fine.

 

I thought Italy was the home of football? Besides, if I was FIFA I would NEVER choose England for a world cup, mainly for 2 reasons, 1) We are the worst country for football hooligans(sp?) 2) Our road network is shockingly bad as soon as there is an influx for anything, host a world cup and everywhere would just draw to a standstill. Until those 2 thing are sorted then I don't think England will ever be in the running.

 

I for one am really happy that England wasn't chosen.

[tooley]

im glad it would cost us not make us money i dont see south africa busting with cash after theirs......and living in manchester i know what its like when utd and city games are on its gridlock so hosting actual world cup games would be a farce and anyone in manchester who isnt a blinkered football fanatic would agree im certain. its russias time why cant we just be happy about it

[stevie_b]

Football holliganism is much worse in Italy these days. Our roads are fine to host an event such as the world cup which would be held all over the country.the stadiums get used every weekend and seem to do just fine.

 

That might give England the best bid if one of Fifa's bid criteria is to give it to nations who already have the best infrastructure in place. But is that really one of their criteria? What if their aim is to encourage development of new infrastructure (e.g. stadiums, transport) in countries? Then, England would be at a disadvantage by having that stuff in place already (see earlier post about underdeveloped nations). If it's not something that Fifa consider to be important, then existing infrastructure (or lack of) is irrelevant.

 

Weather: the English weather is probably only perfect for English-resident footballers because that's what they're used to (even then, they play in the winter when the world cup is held in the summer, so it might be too warm for them). For others it may be too cold (African nations), or warm (Russia).

[davej705]

The quality of the last world cup was hindered massively by the heat,all players of high quality can play in our climate at their peak. It's clearly a matter of opinion but if I was judging this I would have choose England,and not because I am English,because I believe we would have done the best job

 

I really hope a full investigation is done into corruption at FIFA,I won't hold my breathe though

 

That might give England the best bid if one of Fifa's bid criteria is to give it to nations who already have the best infrastructure in place. But is that really one of their criteria? What if their aim is to encourage development of new infrastructure (e.g. stadiums, transport) in countries? Then, England would be at a disadvantage by having that stuff in place already (see earlier post about underdeveloped nations). If it's not something that Fifa consider to be important, then existing infrastructure (or lack of) is irrelevant.

 

Weather: the English weather is probably only perfect for English-resident footballers because that's what they're used to (even then, they play in the winter when the world cup is held in the summer, so it might be too warm for them). For others it may be too cold (African nations), or warm (Russia).

[Gaz6002]

Thoughts?

 

Erm... Well it stopped me from booking a six week holiday to anywhere foreign. Not sure if that's a good thing or not TBH.