For the past 15 years or so, we have seen Portugal, a nation of little more than 11 million people, be very competitive on the global stage.  They have had two consecutive “Golden Generations” — one led by Luis Figo, and the current one, spearheaded by Cristiano Ronaldo.

In the next few years, we may see a similar thing happen to Belgium, another nation of around 11 million.  They have a very talented group of young players based both in their home league and abroad, including two potential world beaters.

While Belgium currently sit fourth in their Euro 2012 qualifying group, the second spot looks to be up for grabs (Germany typically has first place locked down, but the two teams ahead of Belgium are Austria and a Guus Hiddink led Turkey).  It wouldn’t surprise me if this group of young players rose to the occasion and took it, although the youth of the team means anything could happen.

Let’s take a look at these players who could signal a Belgian football renaissance.

Goalkeepers

Looking at the shot-stoppers is not a particularly inspiring way to start a survey of a potential “Golden Group.”  Sunderland’s 22 year-old Simon Mignolet has been off and on.  He has 13 starts in all competitions (more at the beginning of the season because of Craig Gordon’s return) and kept 6 clean sheets.  But, in a particularly bad spell, he conceded 9 goals in three games.

Another youngish option would seem to be Borussia Monchengladbach’s Logan Bailly, but his concession record is appalling and ‘Gladbach sit last in the league (and in the Goals Against column).

Perhaps Belgium coach Georges Leekens would be wise to rely on a more experienced keeper, with no future superstar shot-stopper in sight.

Defenders

Things begin looking up in the defense category.  Manchester City’s Vincent Kompany has looked good under Roberto Mancini as a center back this season.  While it seemed that everyone knew he would eventually settle into a CB role, Kompany did spend a lot of time as a defensive midfielder.  But now Belgium will be glad they have a real talent, not just a prospect, to partner Arsenal’s Thomas Vermaelen for years to come.

Ajax’s Toby Alderweireld looks to have a bright future too.  Normally a center back, he can play in a variety of positions, but I have a feeling that if Belgium make it to Euro 2012, we’ll see him as a right back in the style of Chelsea’s Branislav Ivanovic.

Midfielders

Jan Vertonghen is another versatile Ajax player linked with moves away to larger clubs.  He is a ball-playing center back who can play as a defensive midfielder like Kompany, and for Belgium he has chiefly been a midfielder.

Everton and Premier League fans in general are already familiar with Marouane Fellaini.  Big and strong but also able to bring play forward, he is crucial in Belgium’s future bids for major tournaments.

Manchester United fans know about Steven Defour, the Standard Liege captain and creator, but unfortunately, so does the rest of Europe.  Although his foot injury slowed down a move to a big club elsewhere, with the interest he’s generating this season, he’s sure to leave (just maybe not for United).

In any case, a midfield trio of Fellaini, Vertonghen and Defour — all 22 or 23 — looks not only tough and industrious, but potentially incisive.  None of them are world class playmakers, but all of them can play a good pass.

Lastly, the 21 year-old Axel Witsel, also of Standard Liege and mostly known for causing an atrocious injury, is still young and talented enough that another good season may see the midfielder’s fortune wax again.

Forwards

This group is really where Belgium are lucky.  Fulham’s Moussa Dembele is just the start.  Though he is certainly gifted, the real prizes are Eden Hazard and Romelu Lukaku.

Eden Hazard is a 19 year-old attacking phenomenon at Lille.  The two time Ligue 1 Young Player of the Year could become a great, as shown by his instrumental performances in Lille’s recent success (the past two have given Lille European football, and the club currently sits in 2nd place).

Romelu Lukaku is, shockingly, 17 years old, but no one would guess it.  Already built like a man, he also scores goals like a professional.  He’s wanted by almost every club in Europe due to the devastating potential he displayed by being the Belgian League’s top scorer as a 16 year old.  He’s so young that no one is sure whether he will be a failure at the top or one of the best modern center forwards.  He needs time to develop, but if and when he does, Belgium could really raise their ambition.

If Lukaku and Hazard come together in a productive way Belgium could have a terrifying attack for a decade or more.  And, if Dembele improves, a third outlet won’t hurt either.

Final Thoughts

Many of these players, especially the attack minded ones, are very young, and very unproven at the highest level.  Those players based in the Belgian League need to move away to a tougher competition before the national team will start reaping the rewards.  But if they do so, and succeed, the future might deliver some of Belgium’s best results in a long time.

Amid the sort-of joy and sort-of pain that comes with the wins and losses of international friendlies (barring of course, the big rivalries that were played out on Wednesday — Argentina/Brazil, Spain/Portugal, England/France, etc.), FIFA managed to slip in an innocuous report on their website, complete with a link to a 23-page PDF evaluating the candidates for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup.

And, shockingly early as it seems, “on 2 December 2010, the FIFA Executive Committee will announce its verdict and award the hosting rights to the two best candidates.”

Personally I’m still in a state of semi-exhaustion from the recent World Cup and the seemingly immediate uptake of the club season with all the drama of a suddenly competitive Premier League (do we have Manchester City’s money to thank?), a Real Madrid team that looks set to challenge Barcelona after two years of impossibly meek performances from Los Blancos, and the slide of Inter that coincided with the arrival of Rafa Benitez.  And now all of a sudden FIFA will make or break the hearts of hundreds of millions on Dec. 2.

So what does the longish report tell us?  What is buried in those 23-pages?

As it turns out, a whole lot of OK news for pretty much everybody.

The big question pertains to England and the reality TV worthy spat between the FA and the Russian Football union that resulted in some jingoistic nation bashing and not a whole lot else.  FIFA remained silent on the well publicized issue in this report, which isn’t terribly surprising given the ultra technical nature of the thing.  As an example from FIFA about Russia’s transportation issues:

“The country’s vastness and its remoteness from other countries, coupled with the fact that the high-speed railway network is limited and would only link six candidate Host Cities by 2018, would put pressure on the air traffic infrastructure, potentially causing transfer challenges in view of the lack of alternative means of long-distance transport. The current air traffic situation is to be improved throughmajor upgrades and capacity increases to the majority of the airports.”

If you braved that FIFA-always-attempting-to-be-neutral paragraph and are hoping for England for 2018, then you’re probably happy.  In short, the paragraph stated that transportation is an important feature of the World Cup and Russia’s infrastructure is currently inadequate.

But every nation was given a finger wag by FIFA.  It’s just hard to tell precisely which finger wag is a big deal.  For instance, FIFA raised concerns over legal issues regarding the United States’ bid, citing a lack of government guarantees.  This would seem to be a major issue, although FIFA noted that the USA has hosted a great deal of international events and the government has always complied in the past.

Similarly, the Iberian bid was questioned for not having a clear enough security plan, although again FIFA conceded that they would likely have solved such details in time to host the tournament.

In fact, the biggest criticisms that cannot be foreseeable altered to satisfaction in the next 8 or 12 years pertains to location and bid type.  For Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium, FIFA expressly notes that double bids are more challenging due to the “administrative, logistical and financial challenges” of two nations.

The other serious problem for FIFA seems  to be money.  In Australia, Korea and Japan, FIFA has noted that due to the time differences, “the income from Asia/Oceania would need to be increased substantially to offset the likelihood of loss of revenue in Europe.”

A last concern was the devastating heat of Qatar during June and July, which was essentially cited as a health risk to most people at the tournament, although such sentiment was phrased in far more polite language.

I would assume these three concerns would be FIFA’s greatest since they cannot be easily altered the way hotels, and even stadia and transport infrastructure can be, but FIFA’s history of making political decisions ahead of football ones suggest these obstacles aren’t insurmountable.

In conclusion, I sense England has come out of this evaluation slightly ahead of their rivals for 2018.  The criticisms against the bid seemed less severe than against the others, although again, in FIFA’s arid and conscientious tone, it is difficult to tell.

As for 2022, I feel the USA is an attractive option because of the very high potential for revenue (the highest ticketing revenue of all the bids) and its history in hosting.  Qatar has novelty but lacks the draw of all the other host countries in my lifetime.

With a UEFA winner guaranteed from 2018, the bids from Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium for 2022 have been rendered void due to consecutive hosting rules from FIFA.  With the remaining options, I feel that the winner will either be USA or Qatar (advantage US), based on the simple assumption that revenue loss will deter FIFA from the Asia/Oceania time zone.

Note 20/11/10: This article has been edited in light of an error regarding FIFA policy.

The Football Association was once again rocked by scandal when Lord Treisman, chairman of both the FA and England’s 2018 World Cup bid, was forced to resign after the Mail On Sunday published excerpts from a conversation in which Treisman accused Spain and Russia of conspiring to bribe officials in South Africa.

The comments came from a secretly-recorded conversation between Treisman and Mellissa Jacobs, a former aid and romantic partner. Treisman speculated that Russia would assist Spain in bribing the referees to favor the Spanish side during the World Cup. In exchange, Spain, a long shot to hold the 2018 World Cup, would withdraw their bid and switch allegiances to Russia, England’s main competition.

“There’s some evidence that the Spanish football authorities are trying to identify the referees…and pay them,” Triesman allegedly said. “My assumption is that the Latin Americans, although they’ve not said so, will vote for Spain. And if Spain drop out, because Spain are looking for help from the Russians to help bribe the referees in the World Cup, their votes may then switch to Russia.”

The FA allegedly tried to get an injunction against the Mail on Sunday in an attempt to stop the story from being printed but withdrew the injunction after a 90-minute legal battle. “After fully discussing and considering the alleged comments with Lord Triesman, The FA Board accepted his resignation as FA Chairman and Chairman of the World Cup Bid Board with immediate effect,” said a statement released by the FA Sunday morning.

The scandal comes just days after David Beckham delivered England’s 1,752-page bid book to FIFA outlining their bid for the 2018 tournament.

The turmoil in the FA over recent years and the embarrassment over the inability for the FA to keep Wembley, the marquee football stadium in England, match fit has seriously damaged the country’s bid. So what does that mean for the other countries involved in the bidding process? It has been all but confirmed by FIFA that the 2018 tournament will be held in Europe with four countries in the running. England and Russia are the front runners while joint bids from Spain/Portugal and Belgium/Netherlands are considered dark horses. Russia has come on to the international stage by successfully hosting a Champion’s League final in 2008 and serious backing from their government bolsters their legitimacy . Working against Russia is the lack of a strong domestic league and the sheer size of the country would make it difficult for teams to travel from venue to venue.

If England fails the country that would receive the biggest boost to their bid would be the USA. FIFA has not awarded consecutive World Cup’s to countries that share a common language since the 70′s. With football growing exponentially outside of the traditional hubs South America and Europe it seems unlikely FIFA will grant two-straight cups to countries who are so culturally similar. But the USA offers a bid that warrants no additional stadiums or upgrades to infrastructure. USA 94 set attendance records despite the country having no professional league and a national team that was eliminated in the second round.

Australia’s bid has lost a lot of its momentum with the revelation three new stadiums would need to be built and stark opposition from other Australian sports leagues. After the constant worries during the buildup in South Africa over stadium completion and viability of infrastructure FIFA will be wary of any countries with a lot of work still to do before the tournament starts.

Qatar, once considered an extreme long shot, is now one of the front runners due to public backing by FIFA President Phil Blatter. “The Arabic world deserves a World Cup,” said Blatter on a recent trip to the Middle East. Qatar’s main stumbling block is the extreme heat during the summer months. The average temperature is over 40°C (104°F) during June and July. Bid officals have revealed technology that would be outfitted to their stadiums that can lower the temperature by 20°C to make the heat bearable for players and fans. Qatar, with a population of only 1.3 million, would be by far the smallest nation to host a FIFA World Cup but has the wealth and resources to handle the massive influx of people.

Japan and South Korea submitted separate bids for 2022 despite being co-hosts in 2002. It would be a massive surprise if either of the Asian nations received the tournament because of how recently they hosted the tournament. Japan’s bid relied on the additional stadiums that would be built as part of Tokyo’s 2016 Olympic bid. With Tokyo failing to secure the Olympic games it is unlikely the Japanese government would give the Japanese bid the financial backing it needs to sway FIFA voters. South Korea is in a similar position with not enough stadiums and not enough money to build new ones.

Even if England weathers this public relation hailstorm and secures the 2018 bid the USA would still be considered a front runner in the race for 2022 due to the emergence of the sport and the immense potential for financial gain for FIFA. But Blatter’s constant desire to use the World Cup as a way to introduce the sport to areas of the globe that have no embraces football fully yet gives hope to countries like Qatar and Australia. FIFA’s decision on the location for both the 2018 and 2022 World Cup’s will be revealed this December.

Over the past few weeks, numerous nations have bid for the rights to host the 2018 & 2002 FIFA World Cup. Since the 2018 World Cup is closer most of the news about host nation bids concerns the 2018 tournament. With 2010 in South Africa and 2014 in Brazil,  nations from UEFA, CONCACAF, Asia can bid for the 2018 tournament so the decision on the host nation for 2022 tournament will be impacted by the winning bidder for the 2018 tournament.

Officially, there have been 6 confirmed bids with a bid from CONCACAF nations coming soon. Those nations interested in hosting the ’18 & ’22 tournaments have until February 2nd to submit an official bid. In Part I, we will look at 4 of the official bids and give an outlook on their chances of winning the right to host The Great Tournament.

AUSTRALIA

The Land Down Under has successfully hosted 2 Olympic Games, 1956 Melbourne & 2000 Sydney as well as 2 FIFA U-20s World Cups in 1993 & 1981 and 2003 Rugby World Cup. Aussies are not strangers to hosting big events and with the Australian A-League in full effect, the stadiums should be up to FIFA standards with infrastructure being a non issue.

Outlook: FIFA President, Sepp Blatter recently suggested that Australia concentrate on 2022 because the 2010 & 2014 World Cups would be in the Southern Hemisphere so Australia might be the front runner in 2022.

BELGIUM & NETHERLANDS
 &
The bid of Belgium & Netherlands is one of the two joint bids submitted to FIFA. The two main entities of the Benelux countries may be too small to host the World Cup. Right now, between Belgium & The Netherlands there aren’t 12 stadiums with a minimum capacity of 40,000 and 1 stadium of a capacity of 80,000 as per FIFA standards for hosting a World Cup, although Belgian officials have plans to upgrade stadiums to meet the requirements.

Outlook: A miracle if they get ’18 or ’22. Especially with a European joint bid like Spain & Portugal out there.

ENGLAND

The hosts & winners of the 1966 World Cup have the passion to pull off a great World Cup.  Stadiums won’t be a problem especially since the Stanley Park project for Liverpool will probably be complete by then.  If there is a problem in securing England’s bid it may internal politics between the hierarchy of the FA & the hierarchy of the Premier League. They will have to grill whatever beef they have and come together to win over the 24 member FIFA Executive Committee.

Outlook: Easily a serious candidate, Spain/Portugal bid is their biggest competition.

PORTUGAL & SPAIN
 &
The Iberian peninsula threw their marbles in the circle with a joint bid for the 2018 World Cup.  The Japan/Korea World Cup of 2002 proved that dual hosts can work.  Spain & Portugal have 8 of UEFA’s 5-star stadiums (3 in Portgual, 5 in Spain). Spain hosted the 1982 World Cup and Portugal hosted the Euro 2004.  Talk is that Latin American members of FIFA’s Executive Committee would vote for Spain/Portugal because of the cultural & language similarities.

Outlook: Shocked if they don’t get 2018 Tournament. Everything is set up well for a smooth tournament.

Part II is coming to analyze the last two known official bids and a couple of expected bids from CONCACAF that will make FIFA’s decision much tougher.