Yes, you read that correctly. Today's blog is about soccer. The sport was the inspiration for my name (Joe Brackets), and it also resulted in my getting published in Sports Illustrated over the summer (August 2-9 issue, Letters, page 10). (Side note, I also found out yesterday that the booklet I wrote while I worked for the Buffalo Bills was referenced in the bibliography of some guy's book, and that's just cool.) So, soccer gets its own blog with my thoughts on the 2018-22 World Cup bids with the selection due later today.
First up is 2018, which will be in Europe. The bidders are England and Russia, as well as joint bids from Spain/Portugal and Belgium/Netherlands. I'm not really sure how long the vote will actually take here, but insiders have been saying that England is going to win for the better part of two years. I'm not going to disagree with them. For starters, soccer was invented in England. And the English Premier League is the absolute top level of the sport. With that being said, they've got plenty of cities and stadiums that are big enough and capable of hosting, including Manchester United's legendary Old Trafford (the Fenway Park of English soccer), as well as the lesser-known homes of equally well-known clubs like Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal. Plus, they have the gorgeous new Wembley Stadium in London for the final (they could also probably use Olympic Stadium if they want to). I'd be very surprised if England doesn't win.
When it got the 2014 Olympics three years ago, Vladimir Putin was the star of Russia's presentation. He didn't come to Zurich for the World Cup presentation, which doesn't help Russia's case at all (does he know something?). Anyway, Russia's bid would look pretty good if it wasn't going up against the English buzzsaw. Coach Slingbox thinks that Spain/Portugal might actually have a chance, but I'm not really a fan of these dual bids. If Spain was bidding by itself, I could probably get on board, but thumbs down to dual bids. (Remember the logistical nightmare of Japan/South Korea 2002? No more dual bids!) Ditto to Belgium/Netherlands, which has absolutely no shot anyway, so I'm not even going to talk about that bid.
Now, the 2022 bid is where things get interesting. It's probably between the U.S. and Australia, with Qatar, Japan and South Korea also "in the running." Slingbox also told me that he thinks Qatar has an outside chance, but I'm not really sure about that. It's unbearably hot in the Middle East in June/July (which is when the World Cup is normally held), and just incredibly hot the rest of the year, which doesn't realy work in the world soccer calendar (I think they want to have it in October). Plus, isn't it a requirement that you have to have a national soccer team to host the World Cup? Just wondering. Like Belgium/Netherlands, Japan and South Korea have no chance. They co-hosted in 2002, and giving it to the same country only 20 years apart doesn't really seem fair. Plus, South Korea should be focusing on its 2018 Winter Olympic bid, which is theirs to lose.
So, the way I see it, 2022 is a two-horse race between the United States in Australia. Now, this is FIFA voting, not the IOC, which gives us an actual chance (as far as I know, nobody in FIFA hates Americans). The criticism of the U.S. bid is that it's "too spread out" with games planned at New Meadowlands Stadium and in L.A. So, they have planes don't they? And need I remind you the next World Cup is in Brazil, which is gigantic? That shouldn't be an issue. Besides, the U.S. bid has two things going for it: diversity and football stadiums. As Bill Clinton said during the U.S. presentation, every team could play a home game in the U.S. because pick a country, there's a bar in some American city where its fans get together to drink and watch the World Cup. And in a country chock full of 70,000-plus seat football stadiums, that will all be full for every game, attendance records could be shattered. The 1994 World Cup was arguably the best in history, in terms of attendance, quality of play, atmosphere, organization, you name it. That has to work in our favor.
If the U.S. doesn't win, I'd be completely OK with Australia winning. Australia is an awesome country. Sydney's beautiful Olympic Stadium is just sitting there not being used, and would be the perfect venue for a World Cup Final. When Australia is given the opportunity to host major international sporting events (see, 2000 Olympics), they knock it out of the park. I have no doubt that would be no different with the World Cup. The only potential problems with Australia are the fact that it's not really near anywhere else, so it would be a bitch for everyone to get there, and the opposite seasons (you could probably still play in Australia in June/July, though). Even still, I think it's probably worth giving Australia a shot. It's one of the richest, most powerful, most influential nations in the world (the country's a freakin continent for cryin' out loud). And their team is called the "Socceroos." Just not at the expense of the U.S. in 2022. Give Australia the 2026 World Cup when Europe and the U.S. both won't be able to bid.
No comments:
Post a Comment