England and U.S. competing to host 2018 World Cup
The host of the 2014 World Cup hasn’t even been officially announced yet and already things are heating up in the race to host the 2018 World Cup. England is widely expected to launch a bid for the tournament, which they last hosted in 1966. The 1994 host country United States is also expected to make a run to host the world’s greatest sporting event.
However, Sunil Gulati, president of the United States Soccer Federation, said that while his country was prepared to stand in as hosts for the 2014 tournament should Brazil, the favourites, not be ready, their real target was 2018. And with Beckham joining the Los Angeles Galaxy in the summer, it would be unthinkable that they would not seek to exploit the presence of the former England captain.
Really, it is hard to believe that Beckham will play the least bit of a factor in all this, but I suppose if his move to Major League Soccer increases the profile of soccer in the States than it might help the cause.
I’d personally prefer to see the 2018 World Cup played in England. The country has bided its time for more than half a century and undoubtedly would do a great job hosting the tournament. The United States has stadiums with much larger capacities and it has shown the capacity to host the competition too, but I think FIFA should hold off on awarding it another World Cup.
In either event, you can bet that there will be some serious back room dealing going on between now and when the host selection is announced.
 |
Soccer Forums | International Results |  |
 |  Travel |
Related Posts
Subscribe
|
Print
|
Share        |
Comments
By Sepp | February 21st, 2007 at 2:42 pm 
Whether England or the USA gets the 2018 World Cup may in the next two years find its own solution. It is becoming more and more clear every day that South Africa will not be ready by 2010 or any time this century. Therefore, England or the USA maybe become the ersatz site for 2010.
However, if South African surprisingly enough puts its act together then obviously England has waited long enough and get the nod. The USA had the cup in 1994 and it’s too soon for them to get a bite of the apple again. However, I am sure FIFA’s voting directors are probably up for sale and the USA has enough dollars to buy the World Cup. We could call it the Sepp Blatter retirement fund or the Sepp Blatter Pension Plan.
Posted from 
United States
By Kevin | February 21st, 2007 at 2:52 pm i think it should be in the u.s. This would be a perfect time because maybe in 11 years united states might like soccer like they like basketball or football. so it would sell a lot. and also there is a lot of races here in the u.s. and the stadiums would b packed
By Kahuru | February 21st, 2007 at 4:27 pm There is no way the Americas, North and South can host two succesive world cups; it is going to Europe and that is non-negotiable, and for those of you who think the US will step in to host the 2010 edition – keep dreaming, after all dreams are what make life interesting.
Posted from United States
By Sam | February 21st, 2007 at 7:14 pm Good point Kahuru, I’d say England, because after South Africa and Brazil (probably) it’s got to go back to Europe, and England is deserving. I mean, they did invent the sport.
Posted from 
Canada
By chuck | February 21st, 2007 at 7:28 pm Gentlemen,
The USA and South Africa used to be territories of England, so it’s like they’re going to get it twice, right?
Seriously, the EPL will survive whether England get the bid to host the 2018 WC or not. MLS on the other hand…
By Joe | February 22nd, 2007 at 1:18 am Facilities-wise… Some would say the United States is the most qualified country in the Americas- nay the world to host a World Cup. The infrastructure is just there like few other countries can produce (with the only problem being it’s HUGE).
That being said, infrastructure is only part of it. The World Cup probably deserves to go back to Europe, barring any cancellations with South Africa or Brazil (most likely). The United States already had it to soon ago, whereas England hasn’t seen World Cup action since 1966.
Besides, it’s the only way that side probably has any chance of winning it again.
But I favor establishing a pattern:
[Europe]->[Non-EU Country/Region with potential for develpoment (Africa, China, USA)]->[Non-EU Country/Region that is a soccer power (Latin America... Ok, maybe I'm pushing it on this one)]
But seriously, I’m glad to see the Europe-NOT Europe pattern ditched for now.
Posted from United States
By Kruman | February 23rd, 2007 at 10:07 pm I’d favor England. By 2018 it will be more than half a century since England hosted the WC.
Posted from United States
By Kahuru | February 24th, 2007 at 7:09 am In all fairness England richly deserve to host the 2018 world cup. I know the Aussies want it, and the US. The biggest disadvantage facing the US is that of the possible bidders they are the ones who have hosted it more recently – the 1994 tournament that not only met expectations, but exceeded them, and also broke the Brasil jinx of not winning the coveted trophy for 24 years.
Posted from United States
By Sepp | February 25th, 2007 at 3:14 pm Since the world cup is supposed to rotate among all the continents why wouldn’t Australia or China have a shot at it before England or the USA? I don’t know what the rotation schedule is but I would think it would go to Asia before it would go back to Europe. If China wants the world cup there will be nobody who can deny it to the world’s most populous country. As for Europe you would think that sooner or later the Russians would want to host the cup or there could be a joint bid with Ukraine and one of the former Soviet Republics. There are numerous countries who could pull off the world cup and haven’t had the opportunity. FIFA has been looking for new venues and if countries like China, Australia, Russia etc. put together a good proposal then the US and England may have to wait a bit longer. If by some chance South Africa pulls off a miracle in 2010 then this will make the case that if Africa can do it why not China, Russia, Australia or perhaps Greece & Turkey in a joint bid (something that FIFA would love to pull off).
Posted from United States
By Kahuru | February 26th, 2007 at 7:33 am What you should do Sepp is ease up on South Africa 2010; what makes you think that staging a succesful 2010 would be an act of devine intervention? That is insulting to a country and it’s people. Now, as far as the rotation is concerned, when this was agreed upon in principle back in November 2000 Europe agreed to go along if every third world cup came back to them; sucks doesn’t it? But that’s the way the cookie crumbles. In actual fact Europe is pushing for the old system where bids are won on merit, in essence doing away with the rotation policy – that is why 2018 (even though it hasn’t been confirmen but you can bet on it) is headed to Europe, and what the Europeans want they get – just ask South Africa.
Posted from United States
By MEK | March 17th, 2007 at 4:15 pm i dont think that 2018 should be hosted in North America if South America get 2014. Instead of giving South America 2014 make it that it could be hosted in either CONCACAF or CONMEBOL.
Then give Europe or Asia 2018 World Cup.
Posted from 
Australia
By Clint | January 23rd, 2008 at 6:42 pm As for South Africa being ready to host the event, I hope they are. It would be great to see them bring the cup to the first country in Africa. That continent needs it most. However, if they don’t, USA is the logical choice to host simply cause if they got the call this morning, the US could be ready to host it by that afternoon and put on a great event. Same with 2014. As for 2018 definately down to US or England. Austrailia can put on a good event as they showed in the olympics in Sydney, but I’m not sure if it would be a success considering not enough commercial potential for a country whose most popular sport isn’t soccer. I know its not the US’ either but they have enough commercial support to push it through. As for England, great tradition, stadia, and fan support. Only problem is that Germany had it in 06 and France in 98. There is no other country in Europe that deserves it more than England, but since it has been adopted by the world as the most popular sport, it shouldn’t be a Europe, not Europe, Europe, not Europe rotation. The only reason that US should get the bid is the fact that they could turn it into a commercial boom. WHY NOT? Its great for the sport.
Posted from United States
Comments are closed
