On air: Russia to host 2018 World Cup and Qatar to host 2022
|
Thursday, 12 Dec. 2010
|17:51 - 19:00 GMT
LATEST FROM ZURICH:
It's official. Russia will host the 2018 Fifa World Cup. And Qatar won the bid to host 2022. Thousands of you have been contacting us from all over the world with your reaction to the news and we'll be talking to some of you on the programme to see what you think.
...and now, as we head into the final stages of this titanic battle for the (hosting of) the World Cup, let's join our commentary team of Ben Sutherland in London and Alex Capstick at Fifa HQ in Zurich. Ben, just fill us in on what's been happening so far...
Well Ros, as you say, it's been a much-anticipated clash in Zurich, and it's certainly been eventful so far - even if no-one's yet scored the crucial winner.
Out there, on this biggest of world stages, are representatives from - appropriately enough - 11 nations.
Some - the English and the Spanish in particular - are veterans who have been here before. Indeed, England first got picked some 44 years ago.
When Fifa's scouts came to have a look round, they found both bids were "low risk" and scored particularly well on things like stadia (England's legendary Wembley Stadium, Villa Park; Spain's Camp Nou and Bernabeu; Portugal's Stadium Of Light) and transport.
They're both tussling for 2018 - Spain in partnership with Portugal. Fifa have in the past (indeed, as recently as 2009 ) said they are against joint bids - (although recently that stance seemed to soften), which may go against the Iberian campaign.
On the other hand, Spain/Portugal's domestic media hasn't just broadcast a programme attacking Fifa and naming one of the key people said to be backing their vote as being involved in procuring $84,000 worth of World Cup Finals tickets, nor did their bid leader have to quit after a newspaper set him up with a hideous honey trap-style sting operation.
What of the other bidders? Desperate to come off the sub's bench are the Netherlands and Belgium. The Dutch in particular have a fantastic footballing history, and have reached three World Cup finals - one more than all the other eight bidders put together. However, co-hosting there has been described as "a challenge", and there is a lack of government guarantees - something that very much concerns Fifa (and is in contrast to, for example, England, whose Prime Minister - despite criticism - has spent the three days leading up to the announcment in Zurich). The current odds on this bid being successful are 40/1, which is the same price you'll currently get on Tim Cahill to finish the season as Premier League top scorer, so it's unlikely they'll be dancing in the streets of Bruges tomorrow.
Then there is Russia. Their bid is described as representing "a project similar in ambition to South Africa."
It's certainly the biggest country that the World Cup has never been to, which is both a benefit and a problem. There are ambitious plans for 13 new stadiums - which would leave a fantastic legacy.
But again, there seems to be a lack of support from government, typified by the no-show of Vladimir Putin in Zurich this week. And the vast distances involved mean flying will be the only fans can get to the matches. This has left the transport part of the Russian bid being labelled "high risk," which are never words you want to see when you're hoping to stage a major sporting event.
Have they got a good touch for a big country? We'll soon know.
Then there's 2022. Five countries in the mix here - Australia, Japan, the USA, South Korea and Qatar.
Australia are the mid-ranking side here. They've never hosted before, and are a sport-made country with a history of hosting big events. But the World Cup would clash with the Australian rugby league season - something Fifa frown on, as nothing should be allowed to clash with the World Cup in the host nation (for similar reasons, Wimbledon may adversely affect the England bid).
Japan and Korea, of course, hosted as recently as 2002. Even though the Korea bid includes plans to try and stage some matches in the North, the close proximity in time is the main reason the odds on them getting the nod are so long.
The last US World Cup was not too much further back, in 1994 (remembered mostly as the tournament that began and ended with a penalty miss) but they are second favourites. Massively in their favour is that USA '94 was the most commercially successful World Cup of them all.
But out in front is Qatar. There's never been a Middle Eastern World Cup and this is a big time for sport in that region - witness the milliions spent on securing two Formula One races in Bahrain and Abu Dhabi. Money would be no object. And they are represented by, among others, Zinedine Zidane.
On the other hand, it's going to be hot - there are fears that temperatures could reach 50 degrees. And in a friendly between England and Brazil last year, the atmosphere was akin to that in the immediate vacinity of Space Station Mir.
So who do you think should get the bid? Where would you like to see the World Cup being held?
Your comments
Comment sent via Facebook
18:57
113631290
Tony posts on Facebook - As an African man, all I can say is that I have been massively disappointed by my fellow African men who think women have no role to play in leadership. What a bunch of idiots.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
18:55
113631290
Sheku emailed World Have Your Say - Women like men have equal right to hold positiosn of trust but they are not supportive to each other.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:53
113631290
James posts on Facebook - Margaret Thatcher managed it. she even got re-elected. whether you liked her as a leader or not is irrelevant. None can deny what she did for women in politics all over the world
Comment sent via SMS
18:52
113181305
Both sexes have the potential to be corrupted or to be good leaders. i think it is important to go past generalisations. And look from the the individual level.and of course women should be treated equally ! from Andy in Portugal
Comment sent via YOURSAY
18:50
113631290
Marcus emailed - I would urge Sierra Leone to take a lesson from your next door neighbor Liberia where we have the iron lady who has been up to the task for the past five years.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:47
113631290
Genecius posts on Facebook - I don't choose a person because of his/her gender or sex but i vote for a person basing on the integrity and readiness of such a person to serve and improve on the well being of the citizens.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
18:43
113631290
AA emailed World Have Your Say - We have a black president in the US. We have an indian president in Bolivia, a tv presenter in Lithuania and a lesbian president in Iceland. Why not having a female president in your country?
Comment sent via YOURSAY
18:42
113631290
Benson in Malawi emailed WHYS - Women are capable of being presidents. But the analogy that feminists say that they manage homes hence the country is not true. And also in Africa its difficult for women to be elected as presidents because of our culture which denigrate women.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
18:39
113631290
Alan in Arizona emails - My friends think I'm crazy! But I would prefer a strong woman running the USA. No testosterone! No Machismo! As long as she doesn't watch soap operas and try and run the country like one, she should be OK!
Comment sent via Facebook
18:36
113631290
Zamunda writes on Facebook - I would if she convinced me that my country's future would be safe in her control.
Comment sent via SMS
18:35
115738469
as a muslim i鈥檒 love to tel u that my faith never said women could not lead..please cal me back
Comment sent via host
18:35
113631290
On air talking about gender equality in Sierra Leone. Would you vote for a female president?
Comment sent via Facebook
18:23
113631290
Worlase wrote on Facebook - Excellent choices! Hope all was fairly done, and no bribes were made to spoil the selection process. I'm confident this countries will do a good job!
Comment sent via SMS
18:18
113906149
IF I WAS A FOOTBALLER NOTHING WOULD TAKE ME TO A RACIST COUNTRY LIKE RUSSIA
Comment sent via Facebook
18:21
113631290
Deco posted on Facebook - The English bid was good but its a chance for Russia to show case what they have and develop their infrastructure. As for Qatar its a chance for the Middle East to host a big tournament!
Comment sent via YOURSAY
18:15
113631290
Donald in Sierra Leone emailed - II think FIFA has just made the worst decisions
of its existence in awarding the right to host the next world cups to Russia and Qatar.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:14
113631290
Mawdo posts on Facebook - England is sunk by its own mega MEDIA and I'm afraid one day the UK media will do the same to the premier league. For Qatar this is a good idea.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
18:12
113631290
Rob in California emailed - People should not ignore or gloss over Qatar's lack of human rights and press freedom or the fact that Qatar's venues will be built by people from poor countries who are pretty much slaves.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:10
113631290
Charles posted on Facebook - They are both very good regions to promote the sport, and i think they are both very serious partners - Qatar especially.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:05
113631290
Colin in Bahrain on Facebook - I know how dangerous 45+ degree heat is. How many fans will suffer heat stroke between the matches? Should even one death occur - the blood will be on FIFA's hands.
Comment sent via MSGBOARD
18:05
113631290
Roman in Russia posting on 主播大秀 - Guys, it is so cool that this championship is coming to our land! Let's make merry for once. We can talk about corruption in Russia later. I have just heard on TV though that only one stadium is ready for the Cup so far - in Moscow.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
18:04
113631290
Benson from Malawi emailed WHYS - People should not be worried with Russian politics because football is a very different thing. When Fifa announced the 2010 South Africa world cup many also said it would not go well but it did. So all will be well in Russia
Comment sent via Facebook
18:04
113631290
Sam in Malawi on Facebook - England, you invented the game - so what? And your bid was technically good - so what?
Comment sent via host
18:02
113631290
On air now asking for your reaction to the annoucement that Russia will host the 2018 World Cup. Do you think Fifa made the right decision?
On air: Russia to host 2018 World Cup and Qatar to host 2022
| Thursday, 12 Dec. 2010 | 17:51 - 19:00 GMT
LATEST FROM ZURICH:
It's official. Russia will host the 2018 Fifa World Cup. And Qatar won the bid to host 2022. Thousands of you have been contacting us from all over the world with your reaction to the news and we'll be talking to some of you on the programme to see what you think.
...and now, as we head into the final stages of this titanic battle for the (hosting of) the World Cup, let's join our commentary team of Ben Sutherland in London and Alex Capstick at Fifa HQ in Zurich. Ben, just fill us in on what's been happening so far...
Well Ros, as you say, it's been a much-anticipated clash in Zurich, and it's certainly been eventful so far - even if no-one's yet scored the crucial winner.
Out there, on this biggest of world stages, are representatives from - appropriately enough - 11 nations.
Some - the English and the Spanish in particular - are veterans who have been here before. Indeed, England first got picked some 44 years ago.
When Fifa's scouts came to have a look round, they found both bids were "low risk" and scored particularly well on things like stadia (England's legendary Wembley Stadium, Villa Park; Spain's Camp Nou and Bernabeu; Portugal's Stadium Of Light) and transport.
They're both tussling for 2018 - Spain in partnership with Portugal. Fifa have in the past (indeed, as recently as 2009 ) said they are against joint bids - (although recently that stance seemed to soften), which may go against the Iberian campaign.
On the other hand, Spain/Portugal's domestic media hasn't just broadcast a programme attacking Fifa and naming one of the key people said to be backing their vote as being involved in procuring $84,000 worth of World Cup Finals tickets, nor did their bid leader have to quit after a newspaper set him up with a hideous honey trap-style sting operation.
What of the other bidders? Desperate to come off the sub's bench are the Netherlands and Belgium. The Dutch in particular have a fantastic footballing history, and have reached three World Cup finals - one more than all the other eight bidders put together. However, co-hosting there has been described as "a challenge", and there is a lack of government guarantees - something that very much concerns Fifa (and is in contrast to, for example, England, whose Prime Minister - despite criticism - has spent the three days leading up to the announcment in Zurich). The current odds on this bid being successful are 40/1, which is the same price you'll currently get on Tim Cahill to finish the season as Premier League top scorer, so it's unlikely they'll be dancing in the streets of Bruges tomorrow.
Then there is Russia. Their bid is described as representing "a project similar in ambition to South Africa."
It's certainly the biggest country that the World Cup has never been to, which is both a benefit and a problem. There are ambitious plans for 13 new stadiums - which would leave a fantastic legacy.
But again, there seems to be a lack of support from government, typified by the no-show of Vladimir Putin in Zurich this week. And the vast distances involved mean flying will be the only fans can get to the matches. This has left the transport part of the Russian bid being labelled "high risk," which are never words you want to see when you're hoping to stage a major sporting event.
Have they got a good touch for a big country? We'll soon know.
Then there's 2022. Five countries in the mix here - Australia, Japan, the USA, South Korea and Qatar.
Australia are the mid-ranking side here. They've never hosted before, and are a sport-made country with a history of hosting big events. But the World Cup would clash with the Australian rugby league season - something Fifa frown on, as nothing should be allowed to clash with the World Cup in the host nation (for similar reasons, Wimbledon may adversely affect the England bid).
Japan and Korea, of course, hosted as recently as 2002. Even though the Korea bid includes plans to try and stage some matches in the North, the close proximity in time is the main reason the odds on them getting the nod are so long.
The last US World Cup was not too much further back, in 1994 (remembered mostly as the tournament that began and ended with a penalty miss) but they are second favourites. Massively in their favour is that USA '94 was the most commercially successful World Cup of them all.
But out in front is Qatar. There's never been a Middle Eastern World Cup and this is a big time for sport in that region - witness the milliions spent on securing two Formula One races in Bahrain and Abu Dhabi. Money would be no object. And they are represented by, among others, Zinedine Zidane.
On the other hand, it's going to be hot - there are fears that temperatures could reach 50 degrees. And in a friendly between England and Brazil last year, the atmosphere was akin to that in the immediate vacinity of Space Station Mir.
So who do you think should get the bid? Where would you like to see the World Cup being held?
Your comments
Comment sent via Facebook
Tony posts on Facebook - As an African man, all I can say is that I have been massively disappointed by my fellow African men who think women have no role to play in leadership. What a bunch of idiots.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
Sheku emailed World Have Your Say - Women like men have equal right to hold positiosn of trust but they are not supportive to each other.
Comment sent via Facebook
James posts on Facebook - Margaret Thatcher managed it. she even got re-elected. whether you liked her as a leader or not is irrelevant. None can deny what she did for women in politics all over the world
Comment sent via SMS
Both sexes have the potential to be corrupted or to be good leaders. i think it is important to go past generalisations. And look from the the individual level.and of course women should be treated equally ! from Andy in Portugal
Comment sent via YOURSAY
Marcus emailed - I would urge Sierra Leone to take a lesson from your next door neighbor Liberia where we have the iron lady who has been up to the task for the past five years.
Comment sent via Facebook
Genecius posts on Facebook - I don't choose a person because of his/her gender or sex but i vote for a person basing on the integrity and readiness of such a person to serve and improve on the well being of the citizens.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
AA emailed World Have Your Say - We have a black president in the US. We have an indian president in Bolivia, a tv presenter in Lithuania and a lesbian president in Iceland. Why not having a female president in your country?
Comment sent via YOURSAY
Benson in Malawi emailed WHYS - Women are capable of being presidents. But the analogy that feminists say that they manage homes hence the country is not true. And also in Africa its difficult for women to be elected as presidents because of our culture which denigrate women.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
Alan in Arizona emails - My friends think I'm crazy! But I would prefer a strong woman running the USA. No testosterone! No Machismo! As long as she doesn't watch soap operas and try and run the country like one, she should be OK!
Comment sent via Facebook
Zamunda writes on Facebook - I would if she convinced me that my country's future would be safe in her control.
Comment sent via SMS
as a muslim i鈥檒 love to tel u that my faith never said women could not lead..please cal me back
Comment sent via host
On air talking about gender equality in Sierra Leone. Would you vote for a female president?
Comment sent via Facebook
Worlase wrote on Facebook - Excellent choices! Hope all was fairly done, and no bribes were made to spoil the selection process. I'm confident this countries will do a good job!
Comment sent via SMS
IF I WAS A FOOTBALLER NOTHING WOULD TAKE ME TO A RACIST COUNTRY LIKE RUSSIA
Comment sent via Facebook
Deco posted on Facebook - The English bid was good but its a chance for Russia to show case what they have and develop their infrastructure. As for Qatar its a chance for the Middle East to host a big tournament!
Comment sent via YOURSAY
Donald in Sierra Leone emailed - II think FIFA has just made the worst decisions of its existence in awarding the right to host the next world cups to Russia and Qatar.
Comment sent via Facebook
Mawdo posts on Facebook - England is sunk by its own mega MEDIA and I'm afraid one day the UK media will do the same to the premier league. For Qatar this is a good idea.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
Rob in California emailed - People should not ignore or gloss over Qatar's lack of human rights and press freedom or the fact that Qatar's venues will be built by people from poor countries who are pretty much slaves.
Comment sent via Facebook
Charles posted on Facebook - They are both very good regions to promote the sport, and i think they are both very serious partners - Qatar especially.
Comment sent via Facebook
Colin in Bahrain on Facebook - I know how dangerous 45+ degree heat is. How many fans will suffer heat stroke between the matches? Should even one death occur - the blood will be on FIFA's hands.
Comment sent via MSGBOARD
Roman in Russia posting on 主播大秀 - Guys, it is so cool that this championship is coming to our land! Let's make merry for once. We can talk about corruption in Russia later. I have just heard on TV though that only one stadium is ready for the Cup so far - in Moscow.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
Benson from Malawi emailed WHYS - People should not be worried with Russian politics because football is a very different thing. When Fifa announced the 2010 South Africa world cup many also said it would not go well but it did. So all will be well in Russia
Comment sent via Facebook
Sam in Malawi on Facebook - England, you invented the game - so what? And your bid was technically good - so what?
Comment sent via host
On air now asking for your reaction to the annoucement that Russia will host the 2018 World Cup. Do you think Fifa made the right decision?