Decision Day: World Cup 2018/2022

Only 20 days away now until we know who's going to be hosting the 2018 and 2022 World Cups.

Here's what will happen on the 2nd of December in Zurich:

• The 2018 vote will take place first, then the 2022 one. The vote will be by secret ballot and all eligible members of the FIFA Executive Committee can vote in both ballots
  
• To win the right to host the competition, a bidder must obtain an absolute majority (50% + 1) of the votes of the FIFA Executive Committee members present
  
• In the event of a tie when only two bidders remain, the FIFA President will have the casting vote
  
• For any voting round in which an absolute majority is not achieved, the bidder with the lowest number of votes will not progress to the next voting round
  
• If there is a tie for the lowest number of votes in any round, an intermediate voting round will be conducted to determine which of the tied bidders does not progress
  
• When the final decision on the host has been taken, the result will be put in two envelopes and taken by the notary to the “Messe Zurich”, where they will be handed over to the FIFA President for the announcements
  

On 1 December, Australia will give their presentation at 14.00 CET, Korea Republic at 15.00, Qatar at 16.00, the USA at 17.00 and Japan at 18.00. On 2 December, Belgium/Netherlands will give their presentation at 09.00, Spain/Portugal at 10.00, England at 11.00 and Russia at 12.00. Each presentation will be made at the Home of FIFA in Zurich and last 30 minutes.

Bidders to host 2018:

• England
  
• Russia
  
• Spain/Portugal
  
• Netherlands/Belgium
  

Bidders to host 2022:

• Australia
  
• Japan
  
• USA
  
• Qatar
  
• Korea Republic
  

England are the bookmakers favourite to host 2018 (couldnt find the odds for 2022).
I know Australia is counting on the Asian votes after all the other Asian bidders have been knocked out which gives them a great chance of getting it.

Who do YOU think will be the hosts?

Would be a fucking joke if we don't get 2018 tbh

Danny B wrote:Would be a fucking joke if we don't get 2018 tbh

And how would that be a joke? Every other nation for 2018 has the capability to host it and hasn't hosted one in a long time (if ever).

Personally, I don't want a dual host though. What happened to FIFA's decision of banning dual hosts?

AnfieldG8 wrote:I know Australia is counting on the Asian votes after all the other Asian bidders have been knocked out which gives them a great chance of getting it.

Who do YOU think will be the hosts?

What motive or incentive do Asian bidders have in voting for Australia if they are eliminated. The way I look at it, they would want USA to win it. Why? Because if Australia win the 2022 bid, no Asian country can enter the 2026 bid. Plus, there isn't really much to benefit from if the tournament is held in Australia from the other Asian countries' point of views.

Surely we deserve a World Cup in England. Football is like our culture, its the only thing interesting that happens here, i think the weather and football are the only things we talk about in England.

I think we are the favorites for 2018, i heard Russia have a strong bid though.

Every world cup should be held in England.

We made football.

and we have the best league in the world.

Do you know what I think's stupid. Didn't England do a deal with America (I think) to not run against each other, so they picked one.

I'm missing something.

Let's say America won 2018, we'd still have 2022 to fall back on. Now if we miss out on 2018, we're fucked.

JMB_94 wrote:Surely we deserve a World Cup in England. Football is like our culture, its the only thing interesting that happens here, i think the weather and football are the only things we talk about in England.

I think we are the favorites for 2018, i heard Russia have a strong bid though.

Football is part of almost every culture. And I bet there are a few countries that have more passion towards football than the English do.

It would be interesting to see if Russia win the right though. That would play out perfectly because rumors have it, Russia paid the referees to help Spain win the 2010 WC and in return of the favor, Spain would help Russia win the hosting rights.

Ryan wrote:Do you know what I think's stupid. Didn't England do a deal with America (I think) to not run against each other, so they picked one.

I'm missing something.

Let's say America won 2018, we'd still have 2022 to fall back on. Now if we miss out on 2018, we're fucked.

It wasn't a deal with the USA. England were forced to pull out of the 2022 bid.

ahlycotc wrote:

Ryan wrote:Do you know what I think's stupid. Didn't England do a deal with America (I think) to not run against each other, so they picked one.

I'm missing something.

Let's say America won 2018, we'd still have 2022 to fall back on. Now if we miss out on 2018, we're fucked.

It wasn't a deal with the USA. England were forced to pull out of the 2022 bid.

Weren't forced. Withdrew.

Ryan wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

Ryan wrote:Do you know what I think's stupid. Didn't England do a deal with America (I think) to not run against each other, so they picked one.

I'm missing something.

Let's say America won 2018, we'd still have 2022 to fall back on. Now if we miss out on 2018, we're fucked.

It wasn't a deal with the USA. England were forced to pull out of the 2022 bid.

Weren't forced. Withdrew.

Well they withdrew, because it would have been literally pointless to bid for 2022. Why?

1) Nations from a confederation can't host a WC if a nation from the same confederation hosted a WC last time.
2) USA pulled out of the 2018 WC a few days before England did.

With those two facts, a European nation WILL host the 2018 WC. Also, a European nation WILL NOT host a 2022 WC. So why would England stay in the bidding of the 2022 WC?

ahlycotc wrote:

Ryan wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

Ryan wrote:Do you know what I think's stupid. Didn't England do a deal with America (I think) to not run against each other, so they picked one.

I'm missing something.

Let's say America won 2018, we'd still have 2022 to fall back on. Now if we miss out on 2018, we're fucked.

It wasn't a deal with the USA. England were forced to pull out of the 2022 bid.

Weren't forced. Withdrew.

Well they withdrew, because it would have been literally pointless to bid for 2022. Why?

1) Nations from a confederation can't host a WC if a nation from the same confederation hosted a WC last time.
2) USA pulled out of the 2018 WC a few days before England did.

With those two facts, a European nation WILL host the 2018 WC. Also, a European nation WILL NOT host a 2022 WC. So why would England stay in the bidding of the 2022 WC?

Because if America won 2018 (had they stayed in) then we could have won 2022. Both countries would have had two chances, even if one of those was an outside chance.

It was reported that America and England had discussions before they both pulled out.

ahlycotc wrote:

AnfieldG8 wrote:I know Australia is counting on the Asian votes after all the other Asian bidders have been knocked out which gives them a great chance of getting it.

Who do YOU think will be the hosts?

What motive or incentive do Asian bidders have in voting for Australia if they are eliminated. The way I look at it, they would want USA to win it. Why? Because if Australia win the 2022 bid, no Asian country can enter the 2026 bid. Plus, there isn't really much to benefit from if the tournament is held in Australia from the other Asian countries' point of views.

Football Federation of Australia boss seems to think otherwise. He was dead set confident that he would get all the Asian votes...the man isn't an idiot either. He's very clever. I'm confident we'll get the Asian votes.

Ryan wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

Ryan wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

Ryan wrote:Do you know what I think's stupid. Didn't England do a deal with America (I think) to not run against each other, so they picked one.

I'm missing something.

Let's say America won 2018, we'd still have 2022 to fall back on. Now if we miss out on 2018, we're fucked.

It wasn't a deal with the USA. England were forced to pull out of the 2022 bid.

Weren't forced. Withdrew.

Well they withdrew, because it would have been literally pointless to bid for 2022. Why?

1) Nations from a confederation can't host a WC if a nation from the same confederation hosted a WC last time.
2) USA pulled out of the 2018 WC a few days before England did.

With those two facts, a European nation WILL host the 2018 WC. Also, a European nation WILL NOT host a 2022 WC. So why would England stay in the bidding of the 2022 WC?

Because if America won 2018 (had they stayed in) then we could have won 2022. Both countries would have had two chances, even if one of those was an outside chance.

It was reported that America and England had discussions before they both pulled out.

If that were true, it would have been pointless for England to discuss such a thing. USA had all the power because they have the ability to enter both bidding processes. England can too, but only if USA did for 2018. If anything, England should have been putting their support behind a USA 2018 WC because if USA wins 2018, England a very good chance of winning 2022. The competition for the 2018 WC is much stronger than the 2022 WC. Now that England apparently convinced USA to pull out of 2018, England are confined to only the 2018 WC and are up against much tougher opposition than the 2022 bidding nations. And USA can forget about 2018 (which would have been difficult anyways) and concentrate all their energy on a much more likely 2022 bid.

ahlycotc wrote:

Ryan wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

Ryan wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

Ryan wrote:Do you know what I think's stupid. Didn't England do a deal with America (I think) to not run against each other, so they picked one.

I'm missing something.

Let's say America won 2018, we'd still have 2022 to fall back on. Now if we miss out on 2018, we're fucked.

It wasn't a deal with the USA. England were forced to pull out of the 2022 bid.

Weren't forced. Withdrew.

Well they withdrew, because it would have been literally pointless to bid for 2022. Why?

1) Nations from a confederation can't host a WC if a nation from the same confederation hosted a WC last time.
2) USA pulled out of the 2018 WC a few days before England did.

With those two facts, a European nation WILL host the 2018 WC. Also, a European nation WILL NOT host a 2022 WC. So why would England stay in the bidding of the 2022 WC?

Because if America won 2018 (had they stayed in) then we could have won 2022. Both countries would have had two chances, even if one of those was an outside chance.

It was reported that America and England had discussions before they both pulled out.

If that were true, it would have been pointless for England to discuss such a thing. USA had all the power because they have the ability to enter both bidding processes. England can too, but only if USA did for 2018. If anything, England should have been putting their support behind a USA 2018 WC because if USA wins 2018, England a very good chance of winning 2022. The competition for the 2018 WC is much stronger than the 2022 WC. Now that England apparently convinced USA to pull out of 2018, England are confined to only the 2018 WC and are up against much tougher opposition than the 2022 bidding nations. And USA can forget about 2018 (which would have been difficult anyways) and concentrate all their energy on a much more likely 2022 bid.

That would explain it. Still, I'd rather two chances. Can't take more than 8 years to do a bid. They already have massive stadiums.

ahlycotc wrote:And how would that be a joke? Every other nation for 2018 has the capability to host it and hasn't hosted one in a long time (if ever).

Personally, I don't want a dual host though. What happened to FIFA's decision of banning dual hosts?

Well FIFA haven't banned dual hosts, but it's a big disadvantage. I can't see the dual hosts winning.

Also England are long overdue a World Cup...some nations have hosted it twice and we're the founders of football, as well as the best candidates for the 2018 World Cup so it would be very bad if we didn't win.

ahlycotc wrote:Football is part of almost every culture. And I bet there are a few countries that have more passion towards football than the English do.

It would be interesting to see if Russia win the right though. That would play out perfectly because rumors have it, Russia paid the referees to help Spain win the 2010 WC and in return of the favor, Spain would help Russia win the hosting rights.

If Russia win then it's a farce. There's no reason why Russia should get it over us. Racism, less hospitality, even worse weather, bad accommodation, more difficult to travel to, dodgy political stuff, worse infrastructure, not as good football stadiums, not as good football culture, and not the home of football!

---------

Also your point about USA benefiting out of our pulling out of 2022 is wrong IMO. Asia is a growing market and this is something FIFA want to tap into. That is something that all the Asian nations have over us, and going up against USA isn't easy either. Russia have nothing against us, their bid is worse in every single way.

I'm not going to Russia as a Pole.

I don't understand why Spain and Portugal must host together, it would've been much more attractive bid if it was a Spain only WC.

Plus most Spanish clubs are building new 60k Stadiums. Athletic Club Bilbao, Atletico Madrid, Valencia(with support from the FA they might actually finish it. ), Seville, et cetera all building new stadiums.

I think I'd go for England to host it mainly due to the dualhostage of Spain/Portugal.

I don't think Belgium and Netherlands should have it.

As for 2022, USA should get it. By then, MLS will be bigger, and have the fan support. A world cup there might be the kickoff to a very bright American Soccer future. Plus it'll be likely I'd be able to attend.

Australia is nice as well, but the timezone is a major factor.

Qatar is interesting bid. I'd count them as a wildcard.

Party in the USA!

I seriously think Australia should get it over USA, you hosted it in 1994 and we've never hosted it

Yeah, but the AFL owners don't want FIFA to use their stadiums. Whereas our NFL owners are more than willing

Scuba Steve wrote:Yeah, but the AFL owners don't want FIFA to use their stadiums. Whereas our NFL owners are more than willing

NRL are fine with it, and we have our stadiums, so AFL can fuck off for a few weeks (Man I would be happy if that happened )

We should get one and Australia should get the other.

FIFA don't like dual-hosts and Russia is in 8 different time zones and is probably to spread out to actually host a world cup. Travelling half the way round the world just for your next fixture wouldn't go down well

Scuba Steve wrote:Yeah, but the AFL owners don't want FIFA to use their stadiums. Whereas our NFL owners are more than willing

That's been sorted, we've got what we wanted, there's no worry anymore.

As for the timezone argument...
Japan 2002.... Almost similar timezone...stupid argument.
It's the WORLD cup. Having the world cup in Europe and America is bad for us Australians to watch but we don't complain do we? It's the world game. "Oh, it's in a bad timezone for us to watch it waaaah". Deal with it.

If the USA get it, I'll be pissed off. They hosted it recently and I don't think they would be able to put on a better tournament than us.

BenSmith wrote:We should get one and Australia should get the other.

FIFA don't like dual-hosts and Russia is in 8 different time zones and is probably to spread out to actually host a world cup. Travelling half the way round the world just for your next fixture wouldn't go down well

To be fair the stadiums would all be in the western area. Doubt you'd find any further east of central Kazakhstan as except for a city or two around Korea it's just waste land. That said...even that western area is as big as mainland Europe.

AnfieldG8 wrote:That's been sorted, we've got what we wanted, there's no worry anymore.

As for the timezone argument...
Japan 2002.... Almost similar timezone...stupid argument.
It's the WORLD cup. Having the world cup in Europe and America is bad for us Australians to watch but we don't complain do we? It's the world game. "Oh, it's in a bad timezone for us to watch it waaaah". Deal with it.

If the USA get it, I'll be pissed off. They hosted it recently and I don't think they would be able to put on a better tournament than us.

Of course we're going to deal with it as we're not part of the FIFA board .....that doesn't mean we like it. I probably wouldn't get to see many games and so obviously I wouldn't like it. It's the World Cup, but Europe (England specifically) is the home of football.

Australians having to deal with non Asian World Cups isn't our problem

I hope Russia get it so we can all laugh at fat Blatter. I don't want England to get it seeing as they chose MK Dons stadium over KC. And I just wanna laugh when all the rioting and racism happens during a world cup, it will persuade Fifa that only normal sensible countries should host World Cups.


Can't wait for the Euros, thats gonna kick off big style as well... No one likes Polish people.

Luxz0rz wrote:

BenSmith wrote:We should get one and Australia should get the other.

FIFA don't like dual-hosts and Russia is in 8 different time zones and is probably to spread out to actually host a world cup. Travelling half the way round the world just for your next fixture wouldn't go down well

To be fair the stadiums would all be in the western area. Doubt you'd find any further east of central Kazakhstan as except for a city or two around Korea it's just waste land. That said...even that western area is as big as mainland Europe.

I've just checked their website, every single stadium is in the west!

http://www.russia2018-2022.com/en/the-bid/host-cities.aspx

I'd expect at least some to be in the east, otherwise it's not really an entire country being represented.

BenSmith wrote:I've just checked their website, every single stadium is in the west!

http://www.russia2018-2022.com/en/the-bid/host-cities.aspx

I'd expect at least some to be in the east, otherwise it's not really an entire country being represented.

Vladivostok is probably the only city worth hosting in the east, and that is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY in the east by Korea. Is it really worth building one stadium (as I'm assuming the western teams said fuck you I'm not travelling that far when they asked to join the Russian league) in the East just to represent everyone?

Birthplace of football and home of football aren't the same things. In fact, while the home of the game is global, the home of FIFA itself (football's governing body) is in Switzerland.

So are you suggesting the tournament be held in Switzerland?

Scuba Steve wrote:Birthplace of football and home of football aren't the same things. In fact, while the home of the game is global, the home of FIFA itself (football's governing body) is in Switzerland.

So are you suggesting the tournament be held in Switzerland?

It's the home of FIFA who make the decisions. FIFA isn't football, it's just some knobs in suits.

Wouldn't expect anyone not from England to understand, apparently it was one of the main reasons we lost a previous bid (because FIFA are knobs)