World Cup News from World Cup Buzz » Qatar

Immediate Thoughts On Russia 2018 and Qatar 2022

Sebastian Shepard — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 21:26:55 +0000

A few hours after FIFA’s announcement that Russia will host the 2018 World Cup and Qatar will host the 2022 World Cup, most people I’ve talked to share the same two feelings — expectation and surprise.

Since Russia had already been considered a strong contender before the BBC’s Panorama program severely damaged England’s bid, their victory announcement was not preceded by much suspense. The world’s largest nation by area and one of the top ten nations in terms of population, Russia has a very good (and improving) national team; the same is true for its domestic league. Moreover, there is ambition for real success on both fronts.

Like South Africa, Russia has undergone a sort of renaissance to emerge on the world stage again, although under vastly different circumstances. For these reasons, along with the fact that it hasn’t hosted before and will be eager to showcase a “New Russian Federation” (like South Africa), the nod to Russia makes sense.

The Qatari victory, on the other hand, was truly shocking, and not just because it is one of the smallest nations on the planet, both by area and by population, but for the support it had in the voting. In the first round, it received 11 votes. One more would have sent it through. The second round it received 10. In the third it received 11 again. Finally, in the fourth round, one on one against the United States’ bid, it received 14. While getting to the 12-vote majority took longer for Qatar than it did for Russia (2 rounds), its continuous receiving of double digit numbers made it always look likely to win.

In another similarity to South Africa 2010, Qatar seems destined to be branded “the Middle East’s World Cup” (just like South Africa was “Africa’s World Cup”). The ruler of Qatar said, “On behalf of millions of people living in the Middle East, thank you. Thank you for believing in us, thank you for having such bold vision. Thank you also for acknowledging this is the right time for the Middle East. We have a date with history which is summer 2022.”

He’s not so much focusing on Qatar as he is on the entire region, probably to give the tournament a broader appeal than the tiny nation in which it will be held.

Now that the two countries have been decided, the criticism of FIFA can begin (not that it ever really stops, but events like these really provide the fodder). Most people instantly focus on Qatar for this criticism, singling out the fact that it has been ruled by a single family for over a century, that homosexuality is outlawed, that foreigners require permits to drink, that freedom of the press doesn’t really exist, etc. It’s national team is also ranked 113th in the world. The new tradition for hosts might be getting knocked out in the first round of the finals tournament.

Most people though, focus on the shockingly hot summers that a desert country has. Of course, Qatari officials have stated that the heat will not be a problem. As my friend wryly noted though, “you can’t air condition an entire country.” Even if the temperature in the stadiums becomes bearable, during non-match times, there is still the problem that staying indoors to avoid the heat during a trip does not strike most people as an ideal summer holiday.

These might not be the factors that FIFA considers when its executives cast votes. As it has been suggested before, Russia and Qatar are attractive to FIFA simply because they will be the most likely to bend to FIFA’s will. Whether or not this is true remains to be seen.

Were the countries chosen, Qatar especially, the best bids? I’m not so sure. I think Russia will do a great job, and as for Qatar, I honestly cannot say. The World Cup is never a bad time, so to speak, and FIFA is not so insane that they will ban alcohol (their sponsors would surely object) or anything else that will alienate potentially paying fans. It’s just that sometimes, one has to question how well FIFA thinks the whole process through.

2 Weeks Until 2018/2022 World Cup Verdict

Sebastian Shepard — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 06:13:05 +0000

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.

What Lord Triesman's Resignation Means For Other Countries' World Cup Bids

John Boschini — Mon, 17 May 2010 01:49:50 +0000

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.

Analysis of Bids for 2018 World Cup – Part II

George Metellus — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:28:15 +0000

Let’s begin Part II of our analysis of bidders for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup with a surprise entrant whose deep pockets could sneak in and win the right to host a World Cup.

QATAR

The oil-rich nation with plentiful natural gas reserves would become the 1st Arab nation to host a World Cup. According to the CIA World Factbook, Qatar has the highest per capita income in the world so the money to build new stadiums and renovate current stadiums to FIFA standards is there. In the capital of Doha, there is a revolutionary underground stadium scheduled to be complete in 2010. The plans are the coolest for a stadium ever seen, imagine WC Matches played there. WOW!. The question is will they have enough clout in FIFA to win the vote?

Outlook: A longshot but undoubtedly the most intriguing of the bidding nations. 2022 is their best bet.

RUSSIA

The world’s largest country placed its bid knowing that the sheer size of the country presents big infrastructure problems. Russia is much like England in that Moscow has a ton of stadiums like London does. Russia’s stadiums would need upgrade and organizers would have to keep the matches west of the Ural Mountains to avoid Siberia & the time zones. Earlier talk of the English FA backing Russia’s Euro 2016 in exchange for Russia dropping its 2018 WC bid is dead.

Outlook: Worthy of consideration but won’t get 2018 or 2022.

Bids from Asia & Europe have been made and now let’s take a look at the 2 CONCACAF nations that could host the tournament.

MEXICO

History could be on the side of Mexico when it comes to their bid at becoming the only nation to host 3 World Cups. 1970 WC was Pele’s last and 1986 WC was the Maradona Show, that might not mean as much as the new stadiums being built by Mexican league teams. Chivas, Monterrey, Santos, Cruz Azul are among the clubs building new stadiums. 1994 was the last time a CONCACAF nation hosted a World Cup, 2018 may be the year to bring it back.

Outlook: Major contender, #2 contender of nations outside of Europe. Previous magical World Cups favor Mexico.

UNITED STATES

The host of the 1994 World Cup has been the land of booming stadiums since Brazil defeated Italy on PKs in the final. It seems like every team in a major sport in the States has a new stadium or arena. There are no real weaknesses other than not having much clout amongst the FIFA Executive Committee. Suggestion: Play the final at FedEx Field its the largest stadium in the NFL (90K+ capacity), its close to D.C. (the U.S. capital), and the Rose Bowl is played out as the centerpiece stadium of sports in the U.S. Also, the new Dallas Cowboys Stadium.

Outlook: Fierce contender, #1 contender of nations outside of Europe, slight edge over Mexico because of the quality of the infrastructure and the stadiums.

Well there it is. Let’s us know what you think about the nations mentioned and if you can think of any other nations worthy of consideration. We are aware that China & Japan are in the mix so let’s see what happens with their bids. Despite their history, a China/Japan joint bid would be interesting. Tell us what you think.