2018 World Cup will be in Russia and the 2022 World Cup will be in Qatar.

http://espn.go.com/sports/soccer/news/_/id/5874550/qatar-russia-host-world-cups-us-shut-out

A World Cup in the Middle East sounds like a horrible idea to me.

This sucks. I was pulling for England in 2018 and of course the US in 2022.

England didn't get it because of supposed influencing of certain voters. Russia getting it since England didn't is not much of a surprise. The biggest downside to this, Russia doesn't even hardly support their top professional league with averaging 20,000 in attendance. I am interested in how the different venues will be set-up in Russia, since it is the biggest country in the world -- travel may be horrible.

Qatar getting it is a shame. They have one stadium built right now that is adequate enough for the World Cup. They do have loads of money, which means they'll build the necessary structures. Those structures will also be air conditioned because Qatar summers are 130+ degrees. This will be awful for tourism. It will be awful with indoor stadiums (I am assuming they'd be domed for the air conditioning to work well).

On the plus side...US should be a shoo-in for the 2026 World Cup. I hope we have our ducks in a row so it will continue being a "for sure" thing. No doubt about it, FIFA is missing out on THE most profitable market in the world, in the US hosting the World Cup. They'd much rather go to a country and try to continue developing soccer in it, that's part of the reason for Russia and Qatar.

I guess this means I really have to save up and get ready for a trip to Brazil in 2014 for the World Cup since we won't be hosting it for quite some time now.

I dont mind Russia, but the USA better get 2026 if we bid.

I mean:
South Africa
Brazil
Russia
Qatar
...and to an extent the Japan/Korea games.

Its fine they are going to these types of countries...but spread them out. Not so many in a row.

Well Brazil makes perfect sense. There's no more soccer crazed country in the world. Russia is a bit surprising since it will have been a while since the WC was in Europe that they would go with an Eastern European host (and the last time they were in Europe it was in Germany which is almost Eastern Europe). I assume that it will all be played in western Russia since that is the part in Europe and where most of the population of Russia lives and where the major cities are.

krambman;585148 wrote:Well Brazil makes perfect sense. There's no more soccer crazed country in the world. Russia is a bit surprising since it will have been a while since the WC was in Europe that they would go with an Eastern European host (and the last time they were in Europe it was in Germany which is almost Eastern Europe). I assume that it will all be played in western Russia since that is the part in Europe and where most of the population of Russia lives and where the major cities are.

The soccer part of Brazil is fine. But it is still a developing countries with an incredible rate of poor people living like shit.

I dont have much doubt the World Cup will succeed there because of the soccer craze, but Fifa isnt necessarily going there for that reason.

Iceland is the frontrunner for 2026.

2026? Shit I'll be dead by then.

Thought it was pretty dumb that FIFA decided to go away from the two countries who already had the needed infrastructure and stadiums and the most profitable business model to make the most possible

darbypitcher22;585455 wrote:Thought it was pretty dumb that FIFA decided to go away from the two countries who already had the needed infrastructure and stadiums and the most profitable business model to make the most possible

Id wager a good deal that Fifa is gonna make bank from Qatar. Not on the surface from revenue....but they are getting paid. Qatar paid France legend Zinadine Zidane (of Head-Butt fame) 15 million for 3 months of going around promoting their bid. Qatar has plenty of money to pay the right people and organizations.

I know it's not likely at all in only 12 years, but I'd laugh my ass off if there was a discovery that made oil worth 10 dollars a barrel again. Bye bye huge wealth Middle East.

You are right that money talks...no one is more profitable than the US.

There had to be some sort of collusion involved. It does not make any sense. And I agree, sending Bill Clinton was stupid.

I was incredibly disappointed to hear this today. I really thought all of the loose specualtion of Qatar was just hype. Damn, First Chicago losses the Olympics, and then we lose the World Cup. We are also out of the running for next years selection of the 2018 Winter Olympics.

OSH;585730 wrote:You are right that money talks...no one is more profitable than the US.

There had to be some sort of collusion involved. It does not make any sense. And I agree, sending Bill Clinton was stupid.

Why is sending Clinton stupid? He's a pretty popular and influential guy who likes soccer. Makes sense to have him involved at least to some degree.

And Bill Gates is likely too busy with his foundation to give a shit.

That is who Russia put forth to promote their bid. Throw in there Andrey Arshavin crying and pointing to his heart. Of course Russia will win out.

Then you go to the US...Obama sends Attorney General Eric Holder, and what's he tell him to do -- "make clear that the United States has the capacity to host a World Cup that is both secure and welcoming to the people of the world." Well no duh! That's no surprise at all. Tell them something they don't know.

This is Bill's argument (probably also coming from USSoccer):
-- We have become a nation of footballers, young and old. The last 16 years have seen the creation of the MLS professional league, an expansion of the game's United States fan base to more than 90 million and now a roster of four million registered youth players.
-- We have a fascinating mix of ethnicities and cultures within our borders.
-- Our bid promises not only to uphold the great legacy of the World Cup but also to advance global growth by creating new opportunities for the world's soccer economy, including greater television and sponsorship rights, increased franchise and team values and greater investment in player development.
-- A percentage of every ticket sold at the 2022 World Cup will go to the World Cup of Life campaign, a project aimed at providing drinking water for millions in the developing world.

We did nothing to "wow" the voters. We have to do something different and really tug at the voters. Russia did it. Qatar did it -- with their $$$ in building all these new stadiums while also donating them to poor countries after the World Cup (probably more involved). Entering the voting, the US was 3-1 odds in winning the voting, Qatar was 4-5. We just didn't get it done.

Great news for the United States

OSH;586271 wrote:

That is who Russia put forth to promote their bid. Throw in there Andrey Arshavin crying and pointing to his heart. Of course Russia will win out.

Then you go to the US...Obama sends Attorney General Eric Holder, and what's he tell him to do -- "make clear that the United States has the capacity to host a World Cup that is both secure and welcoming to the people of the world." Well no duh! That's no surprise at all. Tell them something they don't know.

This is Bill's argument (probably also coming from USSoccer):
-- We have become a nation of footballers, young and old. The last 16 years have seen the creation of the MLS professional league, an expansion of the game's United States fan base to more than 90 million and now a roster of four million registered youth players.
-- We have a fascinating mix of ethnicities and cultures within our borders.
-- Our bid promises not only to uphold the great legacy of the World Cup but also to advance global growth by creating new opportunities for the world's soccer economy, including greater television and sponsorship rights, increased franchise and team values and greater investment in player development.
-- A percentage of every ticket sold at the 2022 World Cup will go to the World Cup of Life campaign, a project aimed at providing drinking water for millions in the developing world.

We did nothing to "wow" the voters. We have to do something different and really tug at the voters. Russia did it. Qatar did it -- with their $$$ in building all these new stadiums while also donating them to poor countries after the World Cup (probably more involved). Entering the voting, the US was 3-1 odds in winning the voting, Qatar was 4-5. We just didn't get it done.

we don't need to do anything different...Those are all valid points and would have swayed them if it wasn't for the fact our government didn't want to guarantee the type of money FIFA was expecting. When you don't put the money up, you don't get rewarded.

Also, to the people saying good for the US, that's just ignorant.

And I actually agree with CC about sending Bill Gates, it would've been nice to have a billionaire there.

OSH;586271 wrote:

That is who Russia put forth to promote their bid. Throw in there Andrey Arshavin crying and pointing to his heart. Of course Russia will win out.

Then you go to the US...Obama sends Attorney General Eric Holder, and what's he tell him to do -- "make clear that the United States has the capacity to host a World Cup that is both secure and welcoming to the people of the world." Well no duh! That's no surprise at all. Tell them something they don't know.

This is Bill's argument (probably also coming from USSoccer):
-- We have become a nation of footballers, young and old. The last 16 years have seen the creation of the MLS professional league, an expansion of the game's United States fan base to more than 90 million and now a roster of four million registered youth players.
-- We have a fascinating mix of ethnicities and cultures within our borders.
-- Our bid promises not only to uphold the great legacy of the World Cup but also to advance global growth by creating new opportunities for the world's soccer economy, including greater television and sponsorship rights, increased franchise and team values and greater investment in player development.
-- A percentage of every ticket sold at the 2022 World Cup will go to the World Cup of Life campaign, a project aimed at providing drinking water for millions in the developing world.

We did nothing to "wow" the voters. We have to do something different and really tug at the voters. Russia did it. Qatar did it -- with their $$$ in building all these new stadiums while also donating them to poor countries after the World Cup (probably more involved). Entering the voting, the US was 3-1 odds in winning the voting, Qatar was 4-5. We just didn't get it done.

we don't need to do anything different...Those are all valid points and would have swayed them if it wasn't for the fact our government didn't want to guarantee the type of money FIFA was expecting. When you don't put the money up, you don't get rewarded.

Also, to the people saying good for the US, that's just ignorant.

And I actually agree with CC about sending Bill Gates, it would've been nice to have a billionaire there.

While I would love the U.S. to get a bid, just playing devil's advocate here: Why should the US get another bid? We just hosted in 1994, and there are plenty of other worthy countries out there.

BigAppleBuckeye;586424 wrote:While I would love the U.S. to get a bid, just playing devil's advocate here: Why should the US get another bid? We just hosted in 1994, and there are plenty of other worthy countries out there.

Well, there werent any other worthy countries that bid (save maybe Australia).

It was USA, Qatar, Australia, Japan, S. Korea

Japan and S. Korea just had the WC in 2002
Qatar is just an abysmal destination
Australia is pretty good..but its winter when the WC would be played and the time zone factor is HUGE. They dont want Europe to be watching the games outside of primetime.
USA was the logical choice....barring the money.

Money talked.

Laley23;586447 wrote:Well, there werent any other worthy countries that bid (save maybe Australia).

It was USA, Qatar, Australia, Japan, S. Korea

Japan and S. Korea just had the WC in 2002
Qatar is just an abysmal destination
Australia is pretty good..but its winter when the WC would be played and the time zone factor is HUGE. They dont want Europe to be watching the games outside of primetime.
USA was the logical choice....barring the money.

Money talked.

I admit I know very little about international soccer, so please bear with me, but why not countries like Argentina, Spain, Portugal, etc?

Spain and Portugal were a bid for the 2018 Cup. It was Russia, Spain/Portugal joint bid, Belgium/Netherlands joint bid, and England.

There really aren't that many other worthy countries. Yes, the US did host in 1994, but that wasn't because we "earned it" or "deserved it," Mexico beat out the US in 1986 -- this was highly controversial in some regards. Many thought that the US should have been the hosts in 1986 (not to mention the US needed to host then). The NASL was still in operation, it was dwindling, but still in operation; hosting the World Cup would have probably kept the NASL alive. Many thought the US were going to host, and lost to Mexico which hosted in 1970. Mexico went 16 years between hosting. So saying the US "just hosted in 1994" works now...but by 2022, that is 28 years later.

I cannot believe that Japan and Korea were in the bidding mix again after just hosting in 2002 -- a Cup that Mexico finished 2nd in voting in. So while there are many other countries that may be worthy...those countries are putting themselves in the mix for hosting. Out of the last few World Cups, Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya are the only countries to put bids in -- that didn't end up hosting (excluding the ones that didn't get the bids for 2018 and 2022).

Going into December 2, the US had 3-1 odds to be hosts, Qatar had 4-5 odds. A corruption/collusion is the only reason why Qatar ended up winning -- and it's a shame. So far, Mexico (1970 & 1986), Brazil (1950 & 2014), France (1938 & 1998), Italy (1934 & 1990), and Germany (West Germany in 1974 & 2006) are the only countries to end up hosting more than once.

Looking at it continentally, the World Cup has been to Asia in 2002 (first time to host, 2 times total -- including Russia), Europe in 2006 (last time to host in 1998; 10 times total -- could include Russia here too), Africa in 2010 (first ever host), and South America in 2014 (last time to host 1978; 4 times total). North America last hosted in 1994, and has only hosted it 3 times -- with 2 going to Mexico. So to me, North America and Australia were the front runners to host in 2022 since they've waited the longest.

BigAppleBuckeye;586448 wrote:I admit I know very little about international soccer, so please bear with me, but why not countries like Argentina, Spain, Portugal, etc?

You have to submit a bid and then the process goes forward (about 2 years) until the committee of 24 people vote. This year was weird cause they voted on 2 WC at once, instead of usual 1 WC. But that has little to do with anything.

As it were, to win the bid, you have to pour a LOT of money into the effort. Countries cant usually afford a single bid, and if it becomes apparent they cant win they will back out before they lose to much money. A lot of bids start out the process and through the different stages you usually end up with 3-6 countries in the final vote. Now, if a country goes all out and losses, it isnt not likely thy can afford another bid in the recent future.

A bid for the World Cup just cost the US Soccer Federation millions and we got nothing out of it. Thats why you get some countries who have never hosted (like Argentina) and usually countries can host very often because of the amount of money you risk by not winning.

Essentially, FIFA doesnt just select countries. You have to woo FIFA to come to you, and that is an expensive courtship.

Osh and Laley, thanks for the thorough and interesting explanations, much appreciated. New info to me for sure, I had no idea of the details of the process.

Kickball is maybe the #5 pro sport in the USA. It is irrelevent in our society. Give the games to a country that doesn't have anything else to watch. Example? The Crew draws about the same size crowd as a high school football game.

justcompete;587192 wrote:Kickball is maybe the #5 pro sport in the USA. It is irrelevent in our society. Give the games to a country that doesn't have anything else to watch. Example? The Crew draws about the same size crowd as a high school football game.