Or:

UK's (free) press shows programme accusing FIFA of corruption a few days before vote
so
FIFA a) doesn't like the UK
b) proves it IS corrupt by not voting fairly

Quoting Voltaire53:

Quote:
Or:

UK's (free) press shows programme accusing FIFA of corruption a few days before vote
so
FIFA a) doesn't like the UK
b) proves it IS corrupt by not voting fairly

Even if the program wasn't shown i doubt the result would have been different.

But now that England have failed to get 2018, it's a real pee taker this time. It just proves even the most technically perfect footballing nation in the world can't get the tournament. If some other country which is not a footballing nation shows a bunch contrived images of improvished children kicking a football.

They will win the bid despite not having the stadiums or infrastructure.

Just like South Africa did and they got the tournament. Forget that they pushed 1000's of ppl into shanty towns to build the facility's and stadiums.

Land which was perfectly usable for building quality housing. Nah forget the housing just give the poor emaciated black African children a football pitch to kick a ball around and they will be ok.

FIFA has insualted England. Because FIFA said today the best in the world is not the best for the world cup.

Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
Quoting FilmAlba:

Quote:
FIFA really needs to understand this strategy does not work...

I wouldn't say that. Football's grown by leaps and bounds in the U.S. since 1994, and while I'm far from an expert on football, it would seem to me it's in very large part because they hosted the cup.

Hell, the MLS was created simply because the U.S. hosted the cup. And now with players like David Beckham and Thierry Henry, attendance continue to rise.

Even the U.S. national team has only gotten better and better since then, they've even qualified for the tournament every year, which means they currently have a better streak than England. And that's not intended as a dig, merely to illustrate that it's a growing sport there. And I don't think it's a coincidence that that growth coincided with them hosting the cup.

That's all very good but as i said above. The best in the world bid and FIFA said the best wasn't the best for the world cup.

So it's just proves the point you show pictures of improvisation children playing football in a non footballing nation you are going to win.

Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
Quoting FilmAlba:

Quote:
That's all very good but as i said above. The best in the world bid and FIFA said the best wasn't the best for the world cup.

So it's just proves the point you show pictures of improvisation children playing football in a non footballing nation you are going to win.

You're simplifying the issue. Part of what FIFA wants to do is broaden the appeal of the sport. Get more people interested, get more people playing. And as 1994 have shown, one viable strategy of doing that is selecting nations where there's growth opportunity.

From that aspect, there's no point in choosing England at all. The sport's about as popular as it's going to get there.

That doesn't mean that I don't think England is deserving or even that I think the sport's popularity should be the first consideration when choosing a host nation. But ultimately, FIFA's main concern appears to be not what's best for the world cup, but what's best for the sport.

And I can't say I fault them all that much.

Well that's all fine and dandy i guess. But some of the nations they have choose recently it just seems stupid.

It's not that i don't totally disagree that giving nations opportunity's to grow the sport. Just it seems those are the only nations they pick.

I mean why not pick England. They gave France, Germany Italy it in the last 20 years.

I would not say these nations are in need of growing the sport.

Well everything else might not be in place but least the Russians have there mascot

Well, first of all I'd like to point out there were two more bids than just England and Russia: Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium. Which BTW co-incides with this year's World Cup finalists.

Here's my view.

Yes, bringing the World Cup to a country with not too much tradition in football will help the sport grow there.

However: the choice of especially Qatar for 2022 over e.g. Australia, in combination with the choice for 2018, makes it quite clear that in the end there was only one concern for the FIFA bosses: MONEY and PRIVILEGES! It can hardly be a coincidence that both Russia and Qatar are countries willing to spend limitless amounts of money on both the acquisition of the tournament and new stadiums and everything around it, combined with regimes that do not deal kindly with any opposition and willing to grant the FIFA officials anything they desire, and then some (including complete tax exemption, having roads cleared for them etc. etc.) - effectively making FIFA a state in a state.

Finally: the fact that England went out in the first round with just 2 out of 22 votes, before Holland/Belgium and Spain/Portugal to me is an indication that the reports in the British press about FIFA corruption did play a role in FIFA's decision-making.

What we end up with is one mafia organisation shaking hands with the other (WikiLeaks, anyone?)...

Quoting jmbox:

Quote:
Don't forget Qatar in 2022. What a joke 

Ditto.  4 or 5 stadium are gonna be built in a nation the size of the US state of Connecticut?  And they also promise to have air-conditioned stadiums because it'll be hotter than Hades there.  Open air, air-conditioned stadiums....am I missing something or did the laws of physics change?

And they can't tell me there's much to gain by promoting the sport of football in a nation with a population of 1,696,563...