The Bids

Written in 2009 by Umberto Plaja and Steffi Decker.

Edited and Updated in 2013 by Ian Bruckner, Vinay Kumar, Colby Shanafelt, Tuck Stapor, and Jordan Pearson

<<Selecting A Host >>The Conversation>>The Decision

NOTE: This page was written in 2009, before the 2018 and 2022 World Cup decisions were made. It expresses the analysis and opinions of the authors at that time. For information regarding the 2018 World Cup in Russia or the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, please click the links here or navigate to those pages from the ‘Selecting A Host‘ page.

A note on the Website URLs and the social media statistics: Since the bids have been announced, many of the web domains have been sold or simply deleted. In short, none of the original bid sites are still intact, though the Australia and England links have been forwarded to current sites about Australian and English football, respectively. Likewise, many of the Twitter accounts and Facebook campaigns have been discontinued. In order to preserve the integrity of this page’s original 2009 posting, the 2013 editors decided to keep the statistics as originally reported. If the Twitter account or Facebook page is still available, the link is active; otherwise, the former link has been removed. Likewise, if the URL to the bid website has been linked to an updated website about football in the country, the link has been kept; otherwise, the link has been deactivated.

Website: www.australia2018-2022.com.au

TwitterFollowers: 2,636

Facebook Fans: 123,646

Petition Signatories: 46,177

Main Stadium: Melbourne Cricket ground, 100,108 (Melbourne)

Last World Cup Hosted: N/A

Best: Website

Pros:

1. History repeats itself: Australia has a track record of hosting major sporting events very well (2000 Olympics, 2003 Rugby World Cup, and 2006 Commonwealth Games).  Plus Australia has a very strong sporting tradition
2. Wisdom of Crowds: A national enthusiasm for the event has been apparent with a very effective online media strategy with the most support of a country using social media tools.  Plus the bid committee has been aggressive with a guerilla marketing campaign handing out goodie bags at an England 2018/2022 event earlier this year
3. Early bird gets the worm: The government has pledged £20.36M each year for the bidding efforts.  The investment has shown in that Australia’s actual bid book is both public and far more developed at this point in the process than is any other country.
4. Australia is the new Asia: A World Cup in Australia would give FIFA close access to the growing and untapped Asian football markets without having to actually host the event in Asia

Cons:

1. Round peg, square hole: Most of Australia’s major stadiums are designed in an oval shape for cricket, not ideal for football
2. Sun and done: Both the 2010 and 2014 World Cups will be held in the Southern Hemisphere, making a 2022 bid more likely
3. While Maybe the Global game, it’s not Australia’s game: Football in Australia, like in America, is not the country’s most favorite game

Wildcard:  Can Australia convince FIFA and the world that it is a true football nation?

^Back to Top

Website: www.england2018bid.com

Twitter Followers: 1,520

Facebook Fans: 45,069

Petition Signatories:

Bid Cities (15): Birmingham, Bristol, Derby, Hull, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Milton Ketnes, Newcastle Gateshead, Nottingham, Plymouth, Sheffield, Sunderland

Main Stadium: Wembley, (London) 90,000

Last world Cup Hosted: 1966

Best: Use of inevitability

(Caution: See Clinton for America 2008)

Pros:

1. Home is where the heart is: Both the sport and its governing organizations and systems were born and developed in England.
2. A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject: England has arguable the most vibrant and rabid fan culture of any country. Plus each bid city is rich with its own football culture and massive international following (unlike other countries which might have one or two internationally prominent Clubs, Spain for example, but most clubs are limited to a local or domestic following).
3. The decade of sport: while maybe not FIFA’s primary concern, with London hosting the Olympics in 2012, the 21014 Commonwealth Games in Glaslow, and the 2019 Cricket World Cup in the Britain, England is campaigning to have the decade of a century in the world of Sport and will certainly hold nothing back to win this campaign.

Cons:

1. The more the less merry: With five European countries still in the process, it will be difficult for one country to capture the block
2. You’d think they already won: England’s approach to the contest of projecting a sense of inevitability has not been well received.

Wildcard: Can England pull it together?  With so much of the country invested in football, perhaps there are too many cooks in the kitchen and the bid is suffering.  As Jack Warner, FIFA Vice President criticized, Englands efforts have been “light weight – England has the best infrastructure, the best league, the best history in the world…why are they not doing better?[1]”

---

[1] Reuters, “England Need Beckham to Boost Cup Bid – Warner,” New York Times (New York), October 7, 2009.

^Back to Top

Website: www.thebid.org

Twitter followers: 117

Facebook Fans: 1,899

Petition signatories: N/A

Main Stadium:Belgium – King Baudouin Stadium, 50,122 (Brussels)
Netherlands – Feyenoord Stadium (de Kuip), 51,577 (Rotterdam)

Last World Cup Hosted: N/A

Best: Procured URL “thebid.org” (England must be kicking themselves)

Pros:

1. Practice Makes Perfect: Holland/Belgium Co-hosted Euro 2000 very successfully

2. It’s what magicians call misdirection: Holland/Belgium has a very well designed marketing campaign

Cons:

1. Standing room only: Neither Holland nor Belgium have close to an 80,000 seat stadium

2. Why 2 when 1 will do?: The same dislike for joint bids that has been expressed towards Spain/Portugal applies to Holland/Belgium

Wildcard: Can Belgium/Holland pull a rabbit out of its hat and create something where there seems to be, comparatively speaking, nothing?

^Back to Top

 

 

Website: www.wc2022indonesia.com

Twitter Followers: (N/A)

Facebook Fans: 19,010

Petition Signatories: (N/A)

Main Stadium: Bung Karno

Stadium, (Jakarta) 88,000

Last World Cup Hosted: N/A

Best: Use of hot button topics in business –  the green World Cup

Pros:

1. The Al Gore World Cup: Indonesia has marketed its bid as – the Green World Cup 2022. While acknowledging that the country’s deforestation rate has contributed to much of the world’s pollution, by hosting a world cup “we wish to build infrastructure and facilities that are environmentally friendly so we can give more to the planet[1]” said Soccer Association of Indonesia (PSSI) chairman Nurdin Halid.
2. The right stuff: Indonesia has one stadium up to snuff to host the opening and final matches.  Plus taking the biggest sporting event in the world to the biggest Muslim nation has it appeal.
3. First come first serve: Indonesia was the first Asian team to play in a World Cup (1938 as the Dutch East Indies)

Cons:

1. A long road ahead: Indonesia would have to build at least twelve new stadiums that can seat 40,000 people
2. Stability/shamility: Indonesia’s political and economic climate is not as stable as FIFA might want to bet a multibillion dollar event on
3. 129^th is the new first: It’s hard to imagine giving an automatic bid to the World Cup to a team that is currently ranked 129^th in the world

Wildcard: Indonesia Football Association secretary general Nugraha Besoes said: “10 years are enough for us to build, renovate or expand our stadiums to meet the requirement. This seems like only a dream for us now, but we must dare to dream big.”  Do we believe that?

---

[1] Daryl. “Indonesia’s “Green World Cup” 2022 Bid.” Web log post. World Cup Blog. 19 Oct. 2009. Web. 8 Dec. 2009. <http://www.worldcupblog.org/world-football/indonesias-green-world-cup-2022-bid.html>

^Back to Top

Website: www.dream2018-2022.jp

Facebook Fans: N/A

Petition Signatories: N/A

Main Stadium: International Stadium, 72,000 (Yokohama)

Last World Cup Hosted: 2002

Best: Mascot (Astro Boy)

Pros:

1. Plandamonium: Has a very solid development plan designed in concert with the Tokyo 2016 Olympic bid.  Also has all the modern and necessary infrastructure left over from 2002 hosting duties
2. The non-America western bid: Has the advantage of being a modern, first world country with exceptional infrastructure while being neither America nor in Europe (main Rival: Australia)
3. Astro Boy: In October, Japan unleashed its mascot: astroboy, Japan’s world Cup bid roving ambassador – a powerful robot with human emotions.

Cons:

1. They’re still selling T-shirts from the last one: Japan hosted in 2002, meaning if awarded 2018/2022, it will be no more than 20 years since the last cup in the country
2. Standing room only: Japan does not have an 80,000 seat stadium.  Although the 2002 Cup final match was played in the 72,000 seater Yokohama, FIFA probably does not want to do that again.
3. Better luck next time Tokyo: Tokyo lost the 2016 Olympic bid.  And although Japan is sticking in World Cup contention despite initially saying it would withdraw if Tokyo lost, it seems to be only tentatively still in the race with only luke warm support from domestic leadership

Wildcard: Will Japan even stay in the race?  The initial World Cup bid plans were very much interwoven with Tokyo’s 2016 development plans, and so far Japan has been slow to publically announce any new plans other than that it will stay in the race.

^Back to Top

Website: www.qatar2022bid.com

Facebook Fans: 4,531

Twitter Followers: 760

Petition Signatories: N/A

Main Stadium: Qatar Khalifa International Stadium, 50,000 (Doha)

Last World Cup Hosted: N/A

Best: High-tech bid

(incredible graphics + plan for underground stadium = awesome)

Pros:

1. A Stones throw away: All of the twelve stadiums would be very close to one another, therefore, you could stay in one city and have access to every single match
2. Qatar Vision 2030: Qatar has a very strong 30 years development plan that incorporates the funding of building of the necessary stadiums and infrastructure to support the tournament including the world’s first ever underground stadium that would seat 11,000.
3. New Markets: A Qatar World Cup would expand the sport in the Middle East which would have both strong commercial and cultural benefits and a dream of FIFA to have a World Cup in the Middle East

Cons:

1. It’s getting hot in here: During the summer tournament, the temperature in Qatar would be around 40 degrees Celsius , everyday.
2. Big things come in small packages: It’s still TBD whether such a small nation can host such a big event
3. Where did everybody go?: There are only 1.2 Million people in Qatar, it might be hard to fill the currently nonexistent stadiums

Wild Card: How risk averse is FIFA going to feel next December, six months after the risky south Africa bid either flops or soars?

^Back to Top

Website: www.russia2018-2022.com/en.aspx

Facebook Fans: N/A

Twitter Followers: N/A

Petition Signatories: N/A

Main Stadium: Luzhniki Stadium, 78,360, (Moscow)

Last World Cup Hosted: N/A

Best: Use of connecting schema in bid marketing (Main slogan is “ready to inspire” with sub slogans of “ready to support, imagine, astound,” etc)

Pros:

1. Dropping Dimes: Russia has announced that it is willing to spend $10Billion on the bid[1]
2. No seats, No problem: While it’s biggest stadium is only 78,000, it can easily be expanded to meet the demand for 80,000
3. I’m coming out/i want the world to know: With the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, Russia is a serious presence in the global sports market and having never hosted a World Cup before, a great opportunity for FIFA to expand its market into central Asia

Cons:

1. Taking your sweet time: Russia has been very slow to unravel it’s plans compared to more aggressive bids from countries like Australia and Qatar
2. Bring a pillow: The country is huge with eleven time zones potentially separating one stadium from another
3. Plains, trains, and automobiles: Russia’s transportation infastructure is lacking the modernity and efficiency needed to host this kind of event in a country that spans eleven time zones

Wildcard: By December 2010, will England have this thing locked up for 2018, or will the 24 man executive committee being feeling adventurous to try their lot on Russia?

---

[1] “Putin orders sports minister to prepare bid for 2018 World Cup“. RIA Novosti (Moscow). 5 May 2009. http://en.rian.ru/sports/20090505/121448011.html.

^Back to Top

Website: N/A

Facebook Fans: N/A

Twitter Followers: N/A

Petition Signatories: N/A

Main Stadium:Seoul World Cup Stadium, 64,677, (Seoul)

Last World Cup Hosted: 2002

Best: Opportunity for an 11th hour surprise

Pros:

1. Coming together:  Just recently the bid has announced that if selected in 2022, some games could be played in North Korea helping to bridge the divide on the peninsula
2. Ready to go: Having hosted in 2002, in what they call “half a bid,” the country would be very well equipped in terms of infrastructure to host again in 2022.  Plus South Korea may host the 2018 Winter Olympics in the city of Pyeongchang.
3. If Mexico can do it…: While there have been critics of hosting twice in two decades, Mexico did it in 1960 and 1976.

Cons:

1. It feels like just yesterday: The recentness of 2002 will be the bid’s Achilles heel
2. Star power: The 2002 World Cup lacked much of the glitz and star power that has come to be expected in the event.  The bid efforts so far have reflected a similar sobriety.

Wild Card: If England, the US and Australia all blow it, South Korea is a sure bet host that could stage the event tomorrow if needed, plus South Korea has the fastest internet in the world.

^Back to Top

Website: www.candidaturaiberica.com

Twitter Followers: N/A

Facebook Fans: 59

Petition Signatories: N/A

Main Stadium: Portugal – Estadio da Luz, 62,000 (Benfica)
Spain – Santiago Bernabeu, 80,354 (Madrid)

Last World Cup Hosted: Spain – 1982

Best: Partnership

Pros:

1. Got ‘em: The countries have great infrastructure, both independently and together.  Spain has Barcelona’s Nou Camp (98,772) and Real Madrid’s Santiago Bernabeu (80,354) and seven other 40,000+ facilities.  Portugal built seven modern stadiums form scratch, renovated three others and updated infrastructure for hosting EuroCup 2004.
2. Best of the best: both Spain and Portugal have very strong and prestigious leagues and top national teams.

Cons:

1. One and Done: FIFA, and Sepp Blatter in particular have sent mixed signals about the enthusiasm for a joint bid.  The initial sentiments though from Zurich were that if there were countries capable of meeting the hosting requirements in a single bid (which there most certainly are) they would get priority.  The 2002 Japan-South Korea joint bid did not work particularly well for FIFA leaving Spain/Portugal at a disadvantage
2. Come out, Come out wherever you are: The grassroots and media efforts from Spain/Portugal are lacking; for two developed countries with high levels of digital connectivity, there is yet a web presence – no working website, no twitter, no facebook, etc.  And in turn a fairly minimal presence in the mainstream national and international media – therefore, solidifying England’s place as the European frontrunner.

Wildcard: Sepp Blatter has recently backing down from his adamant no joint bid position – where will he, and FIFA stand on that come next December?

^Back to Top

Website: Gousabid.com

Twitter followers:1,625

Facebook Fans: 10,780

Petition signatories: 260,160

Bid Cities (27 Cities/32 stadiums): Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Clevland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Indinapolis, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville, New York/New Jersey, Orland, Oakland, Philadelphia, Phoenix-Glendale, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, Washington, DC.

Main Stadium: Rose bowl, 91,000 (Pasadena, CA)

Last World Cup Hosted: 1994

Best: Grassroots campaign

Pros:

1. A Sure bet: The United States hosted in 1994 spending only 30 million dollars on infrastructure improvements, therefore, definitely has, and has demonstrated, the capacity to host the mega event without a hitch.
2. Dollar, dollar bills: The US has the best commercial appeal to FIFA.  Roughly 90% of FIFA’s earnings on the World Cup come from television licensing rights and FIFA would make the most money on television rights if the games were in the U.S.
3. Brinksmanship: Soccer has sat on the cusp of exploding in the United States for a couple decades now.  Hosting the world Cup could push the enthusiasm over the edge.  Furthermore, as immigration patterns continue, and as minorities become the plurality in the United States, by 2018/2022 the burgeoning Hispanic and Latino populations in the United States will carry football with them and catapult the sport from neglected immigrant communities to the mainstream.
4. Split ticket: Although UEFA has 8 out 24 votes on the FIFA executive committee, with so many European bids, the UEFA might split votes leaving the US to capture a slim plurality in favor of a developed country.

Cons:

1. Been there, done that: the United States hosted already in 1994
2. Football who?: The united States has never shown a national enthusiasm for football like that of South Africa, Brazil or England.

Wildcard: How much will the world like the United States come December 2010?  President Obama’s personal appeal to the IOC made no dent on its selection for the 2016 Olympic games, will the United States have recovered from a global backlash, and how much will it matter?

<<Selecting A Host >>The Conversation>>The Decision^Back to Top

How to cite this article: “The World Cup in 2018 & 2022,” Written by Steffi Decker and Umberto Plaja (2009), Edited and Updated by Ian Bruckner, Vinay Kumar, Jordan Pearson, Colby Shanafelt, and Tuck Stapor (2013), Soccer Politics Pages, Soccer Politics Blog, Duke University, http://sites.duke.edu/wcwp (accessed on (date))