World Cup 2018 and 2022: Site Selection

[Platypus]

Qatar would be a massive mistake. Better off waiting for Turkey to host the next European world cup. It's too hot, there's limited sporting passion, no booze, limited soccer history, limited potential growth, lots of corruption, and most problematically only really one city.

2018 should go to England, but I want either Spain/Portugal or Russia, because if England win and Australia loses the 2022 vote to the USA the likelihood of a third Anglosphere host in 2026 is very remote. 2026 should be Asia, so that Asia can host again sooner rather than later (if 2022 is in Asia, it opens up 2034; otherwise Asia waits for 2026 and 2038 which is too few too far apart from 2002). The US has a very strong chance of 2026 should it lose 2022, especially is Japan, Korea or Qatar win but even if not it's the most likely pick because who else in CONCACAF could host?

So, if we accept 2022 as Asian, and exclude Japan and South Korea, we're left with a choice between one of the most sports-mad countries on earth with great facilities, significant major events experience, good security, bad timezones and the only country in it's region able to host and with any real soccer pedigree (even if it is slight) vs. Qatar. Seems like an obvious choice to me, but FIFA is anything but obvious...we'll probably end up with Belgium/Netherlands and South Korea.

[Platypus]

Why does FIFA select host sites for two tournaments at once? Picking them separately seems like an easy fix for Sepp Blatter's "inevitable" collusion.

This is a one-off, and it has three purposes:

1. Sepp Blatter's job security is a bit less secure than in the past, and he wants to have as much influence as possible for as long as possible

2. With more bidders, the wooing is diversified so that at least no country is spending as much time and money bribing people

3. The last couple of world cup decisions were basically foregone conclusions and FIFA wanted as much excitement as possible for the next decision

[Keystone Phil]

Are you unfamiliar with the 1994 World Cup hosted by the U.S.? Again, despite an unfortunate result in the Final, it is regarded as one of the best World Cups ever.

Really? Who by? I mean, I can see why the Federation Internationale de Mammon and Kickbacks might have loved it, but I remember it quite well and it, basically, sucked.

It was a good one, with lots of goals and some pretty memorable games. Certainly far better than the travesties of 2002 and 2006.

Haha. 2002 was so bad that I sometimes forget who won it.

Px is spot on. Attendance also helps the argument that 1994 was one of the best. I agree with both of you about 2002 (I think 2010 might have it beat though. It's a close call) but not about 2006. Not even factoring in the winner, it really was a great tournament all around.

3. The last couple of world cup decisions were basically foregone conclusions and FIFA wanted as much excitement as possible for the next decision

Not for 2006. That one was very controversial.

[Akno21]

The 2006 tournament was magnificent -- Germany/Argentina and Italy/Germany were tremendous late-tournament matches (involving the home team, too, which is always nice), no unworthy upstart nations ruined the party by reaching the quarterfinals, and both teams scored a goal in the final for the first time in 20 years. 1998's probably the best of recent years, but 2006's better than anything else that comes to mind.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I disagree about 2006. Besides the Germany-Italy semifinal there was no other really memorable and exciting game. The whole tournament became a chore to watch, especially the knock out games.

2010 had a disastrous start but as the tournament progressed we had some great matches (Germany-England, Germany-Argentina, Uruguay-Ghana). Unfortunately, it all ended in a sour note because of the bad final, with zero excitement and an incompetent referee. I am a Spain fan but that game left a bad taste in my mouth.

[Keystone Phil]

no unworthy upstart nations ruined the party by reaching the quarterfinals

God bless Soccer snobs! I love it!

If every World Cup was like 2006, I'd be thrilled. Germany was a great host, too.

[Akno21]

I disagree about 2006. Besides the Germany-Italy semifinal there was no other really memorable and exciting game. The whole tournament became a chore to watch, especially the knock out games.

2010 had a disastrous start but as the tournament progressed we had some great matches (Germany-England, Germany-Argentina, Uruguay-Ghana). Unfortunately, it all ended in a sour note because of the bad final, with zero excitement and an incompetent referee. I am a Spain fan but that game left a bad taste in my mouth.

Germany-Argentina was fantastic, with Ballack's late goal to tie and then a very dramatic shootout. Portugal-England was one of the more interesting 0-0 matches I can remember, with Rooney being sent off.

Germany vs. England/Argentina were "great matches" in the sense that Germany played great, which yes, was fun to watch, but there was hardly any drama. Unless you count Frank Lampard's no-goal, which I count as a travesty that contributed to ruining the tournament.

And Italy/France was a much more memorable final than Spain/Netherlands.

no unworthy upstart nations ruined the party by reaching the quarterfinals

God bless Soccer snobs! I love it!

If every World Cup was like 2006, I'd be thrilled. Germany was a great host, too.

I hate upstarts in all sports, although I'm obviously willing to make an exception for USA soccer.

I also hate when FIFA/the IOC try to be cute with their selections -- just put these things in countries that already have stadiums and infrastructure and know what they're doing. 

[Хahar 🤔]

Please not Qatar. Also preferably not England.

[Keystone Phil]

Germany-Argentina was fantastic, with Ballack's late goal to tie and then a very dramatic shootout. Portugal-England was one of the more interesting 0-0 matches I can remember, with Rooney being sent off.

Yeah, I was going to say that those were great, too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry to hear the latter. 
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly.

[Tender Branson]

Are they choosing both at the same time ?

[Keystone Phil]

Are they choosing both at the same time ?

Not at the same exact time. 2018 will be announced first and then I think there is a half hour or so break until 2022 is announced.

[Tender Branson]

Are they choosing both at the same time ?

Not at the same exact time. 2018 will be announced first and then I think there is a half hour or so break until 2022 is announced.

Yeah, I meant same day of course ...

Isn't it normally the case that 1 place is announced this year for lets say 2018 and then we have to wait for another 3 or so years until it is announced for 2022 ?

Why are they choosing 2 of them on one day now ?

[Tender Branson]

Anyway, voted for Spain/Portugal for 2018 and Australia for 2022.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Portugal-Netherlands was the only other game besides the semifinal in 2006 which I really enjoyed. That was a free-for-all, no-holds-barred extravaganza that reminded me of my childhood.

BTW, Klose equalized for Germany and I found that match, and Portugal-England, extremely boring.

Italy-France was a better final than this year's but that's not saying much. It's like saying that Michael Steele is more qualified to be president than Sarah Palin.

[Keystone Phil]

Are they choosing both at the same time ?

Not at the same exact time. 2018 will be announced first and then I think there is a half hour or so break until 2022 is announced.

Yeah, I meant same day of course ...

Isn't it normally the case that 1 place is announced this year for lets say 2018 and then we have to wait for another 3 or so years until it is announced for 2022 ?

Why are they choosing 2 of them on one day now ?

Not sure exactly why they are announcing them both on the same day (though I did read the reasoning somewhere before).

Italy-France was a better final than this year's but that's not saying much. It's like saying that Michael Steele is more qualified to be president than Sarah Palin.

Not that I like admitting this but have we really had a thrilling Final recently?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Italy-France was a better final than this year's but that's not saying much. It's like saying that Michael Steele is more qualified to be president than Sarah Palin.

Not that I like admitting this but have we really had a thrilling Final recently?

Actually the 2002 final was above average. Maybe it was the excitement of Brazil and Germany facing off for the first time in their history and Ronaldo's epic return to the top of the world.

[Insula Dei]

Belgium _{and the Netherlands} FTW!

It appears( = Belgian Media says) to be the case that we might have a decent chance thanks to some competitors ing up badly and us sucking up more to Blatter  than some of the others.

But then again, we were also supposed to host the 2016 Olympics...

[7,052,770]

"unworthy upstarts" are the only thing that makes the World Cup interesting.  That was pretty awful what happened to Ghana (although I hope they all die of cholera for beating the USA)

[Keystone Phil]

"unworthy upstarts" are the only thing that makes the World Cup interesting.  That was pretty awful what happened to Ghana (although I hope they all die of cholera for beating the USA)

Oh, you mean one of the "aces" missing a penalty kick in the final minutes of the game? Yeah, awful. That's what happens when you let upstarts advance beyond the group stage: they end up proving themselves to be total failures. Awful that we even let them in to the tournament.

Though you could imagine the smirk on my face as I watched them win one of their games...

[Franzl]

"unworthy upstarts" are the only thing that makes the World Cup interesting.  That was pretty awful what happened to Ghana (although I hope they all die of cholera for beating the USA)

Idiot

[Хahar 🤔]

Was Uruguay an "upstart"?

[Landslide Lyndon]

Was Uruguay an "upstart"?

Not really.

[Insula Dei]

Was Uruguay an "upstart"?

Not really.

I'd say yes, noone had them down as performing the way they did.

[Keystone Phil]

Yeah, I considered Uruguay an upstart. As the tournament went on, however, I didn't mind that they were doing well. At least they had a history of being an established power (even if you had to go back a few decades to prove that).

I remember the day of the group drawing, an ESPN commentator had them going all the way to the Semi final. Everyone on the set thought he was crazy and I definitely thought the same. Looks like he had the last laugh.

[Keystone Phil]

Final presentations take place today. Does anyone know if it will be televised?