So, Who Should Host The FIFA World Cup 2018?

Right, much has been made of England's bid to stage the 2018 World Cup in the media recently, which has stoked up debate as to whether or not we 'deserve' the tournament with some claiming it's 'our turn'. Others such as FIFA Vice-President Jack Warner remain unconvinced and recently referred to the FA's bid as 'lightweight' much to the dismay of many.

So who is right and who is wrong? I'm sure we each have our own opinions and perhaps the best place to start is by looking at each bidding country...

FIFA World Cup 2018 Bidding Countries

Australia: Australia's bid was confirmed in September 2007 comprising of 16 stadia, some of which can be found here. Perhaps the most notable inclusion and the likely venue for the Final should the Aussies win the right to stage the tournament would be the dramatic 100,000 capacity Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) with its fine history, tradition and facilities.

This is all well and good, but perhaps this is also where Australia's problem lies - the MCG is indeed a cricket ground and while Australia offers plenty in the way of culture, infrastructure, tradition and a love for sport, the question remains as to how much it loves football itself - Australia has hosted the Rugby World Cup, Commonwealth Games and Olympics in recent years, but they are lacking in footballing history and purpose-built stadia. The Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd has pledged to plough £20.36 million into the bid over three years, but will this be efor sport, football (or 'soccer' as they refer to it as they have their own Aussie Rules

Football) seems to lag behind here. The fact that there are only currently 5 stadiums there boasting a capacity in excess of 27,000 is also likely to concern FIFA representatives.

Further details of Australia's bid can be found here.

Belgium & The Netherlands: This is the first of two joint-bids which have been placed for 2018. Of course, these two did a reasonable job of staging UEFA Euro 2000, but the World Cup is arguably a much bigger stage. Japan and Korea were criticised for their lack of cohesion by Sepp Blatter (FIFA President) when they staged World Cup 2002 and this has in part led to concerns being raised about the workability of any joint bid.

Belgium's own FIFA Representative Dr Michel D'Hooghe has moved to counter this argument by saying that "the difference is that FIFA put Japan and Korea together although they aren't really capable of co-organising events, so they actually organised two 'mini-tournaments'. We, and Euro 2000, started together. We always said that we were one candidacy, which I clearly stressed to Blatter. We are not two candidates - we have one candidacy: the Low Countries."

There are certainly no shortage of marketable figures (something which Warner referred to in his recent criticism of England's bid) which have/are able to be used for the Benelux bid with the likes of Ruud Gullit, Dennis Bergkamp, Marco Van Basten, Justine Henin for starters. In particular Holland carries a strong footballing tradition with its flagship club Ajax producing generation after generation of top players.

However, the last decade or so has seen a decline in Dutch and Belgian football with Ajax and Anderlecht (arguably either country's biggest clubs) failing to perform on the European stage. Attendances have fallen and the two leagues have been left behind in terms of sponsorship revenue which has meant that the quality of stadia and facilities have dropped behind those of other nations. A major criticism is the lack of an 80,000 capacity stadium or higher which would be required in order to stage a final and although development has been mooted for Rotterdam, though many sceptics remain. Nevertheless, there is plenty of time and thus scope for planning and construction between now and 2018, although FIFA will be look for assurance - full details of the bid are located on the official website.

England: In October last year it was announced that England were to bid for the 2018 World Cup. England have of course hosted the World Cup on one previous occasion - in the glorious summer of 1966 which saw captain Bobby Moore lift the trophy. However, aside from Euro '96, England has not hosted a major footballing tournament since then, in which will be over half a century by the time 2018 comes around. Much has changed since that time and nothing is more indicative of that fact than the brand spanking new Wembley Stadium which leaves its crumbling old (if historic and much-loved) predecessor firmly in the shade.

Certainly in terms of stadia it would appear that we are there or thereabouts with the following grounds all potential candidates to stage games:

Wembley Stadium (90,000 capacity)

Old Trafford (76,000 capacity)

Emirates Stadium (60,400 capacity)

St James' Park (52,000 capacity)

Stadium of Light (49,000 capacity)

City of Manchester Stadium (48,000 capacity)

Villa Park (42,000 capacity)

Stamford Bridge (42,000 capacity)

Elland Road (40,000 capacity)

GoodisonPark (40,000 capacity)

I have chosen to exclude Anfield from this list as in all probability it will be replaced by the 60,000 Stanley Park Stadium (another able to stage games) and it is also worth noting that Tottenham are planning to build a new 60,000 capacity ground on the existing White Hart Lane site. This would potentially leave us with 9 ready-built and 2 additional expected stadiums well capable of hosting World Cup ties before we even contemplate looking at the vast array of quality stadia we are blessed with below the 40,000-capacity mark.

A question mark with our bid is raised over infrastructure as those of us who travel up and down the country on Saturdays to see our teams play may appreciate! However, with London staging the Olympics in the near future and the improvements which were made at Wembley tube station, are we being a bit over-cautious? After all, our transport links somehow stand up to the needs (just!) over 51,000,000 people in our increasingly-crowded country, so surely we can manage a few hundred thousand more for a month when many are on holiday anyway?

Our favourite Fifa Vice-President Mr Warner also went on to say that as well as being 'lightweight', our bid did not carry enough of a 'media profile', which I find puzzling given the presence of Prince William and also that one of the most famous men on the planet in David Beckham is central to the bid. One needs only to look at what the Premier League rake in in terms of television revenue and to realise that our league is the most watched and recognised in the world to see that quite from lacking a 'media profile', we arguably carry one of the strongest. With teams such as Manchester United going on pre-season tours of Asia and Chelsea jetting off to America in the summer, I would have thought our 'media profile' would be slightly higher than that of competitors Australia which is best known for Shane Warne (this is not in any way a dig at Warne because he's a legend, but he has nothing to do with football).

If you have a few spare minutes then England's 2018 bid website is worth taking a look at.

Indonesia: A surprise candidate perhaps, but Indonesia is not to be dismissed in all of this. Indonesia has a massive population (235,000,000) and also boasts the 88,000 capacity Bung Karno Stadium in Jakarta, which would be capable of staging the Final (it also staged the 2007 Asian Cup Final). Unfortunately it does not have the same levels of quality across the board as some of its competitors, with a reported $1 Billion being touted as the amount needed in order to bring other stadia in line with Fifa's requirements.

That said, the fact that there has only been one previous World Cup staged in Asia (Japan/South Korea 2002) may sweeten the deal as far as Fifa are concerned as they have repeatedly stressed their desire to spread and grow the game as much as they can with the World Cup being their jewel in the crown. Indonesia were indeed the first ever Asian country to feature in a World Cup Finals in 1938.

Infrastructure is another obstacle Indonesia must overcome if they are to be awarded the staging of the Greatest Show on Earth. Great strides must be made here in particular if the bid is to succeed and Indonesia FA Secretary General Nugraha Besoes conceded "this seems like only a dream for us now, but we must dare to dream big." Perhaps a website would be a start!

Japan: Japan may be hampered by the fact that it is only 7 years since they last hosted the tournament, albeit co-operatively with South Korea. Another factor holding Japan back is their lack of an 80,000 capacity ground to stage the final, as with Benelux. Japan recently staged a failed bid for the 2016 Olympics, which would have seen the construction of a new 100,000 seater stadium. This is thought to have put a massive dent into Japan's World Cup plans, even if the 2019 Rugby World Cup has been awarded to them and I would probably rule them out of the race.

Portugal & Spain: For me this is perhaps the fiercest rival bid there is. Portugal did an excellent job in hosting Euro 2004 and we know all about the grandeur of the Nou Camp and the Bernabeu. After a lot of 'will they?/won't they?' on the part of the two respective FA's and FIFA, FIFA President Sepp Blatter confirmed the bid at the beginning of this year.

The two countries have a decent enough infrastructure to stage such a tournament and although alone Portugal might not have had enough high-capacity stadia to make the jump up from European Championships to World Cup, combining with Spain has resulted in potentially one of the strongest World Cup bids for many a year (at least in terms on stadia alone). With Valencia and Atletico Madrid on the verge of moving to new state-of-the-art homes and Espanyol (Barcelona's poorer relations) already having done so having done so, you can see why this could get many people excited. The question is, would the Final be played at the home of Real Madrid or their fierce rivals Barcelona?

This is easily the strongest contender to prevent England from staging the tournament, especially as it would appear to be 'Europe's turn' and their bid would therefore provide a direct challenge through this reasoning. Fifa's main concern (and England's main hope for that matter!) would appear to be the lack of cohesion between the two countries which may come to disagree with each other with regards to who hosts what as the tournament goes on. In addition to this, although some of the aforementioned stadia have been built in the last year or so, the Nou Camp remains quite dated in terms of its facilities and the same could be said of Sevilla and Bilbao's grounds, which would surely be a part of the bid due to their size.

Russia: Vladimir Putin has ordered Russia's Sports Minister to 'prepare a bid for Russia to hold the 2018 World Cup'. Moscow recently did a decent job of hosting the 2008 Champions League Final between Manchester United and Chelsea where John Terry famously slipped, landed on his backside and handed the tournament to United in the penalty shoot-out.

According to the Head of the Russian FA, they are ready to splash around $10 Billion on the tournament should they be awarded it - an outlay which would make Roman Abramovich blush. This would firstly help to ensure that 5 stadia are fit to stage World Cup matches as early as 2013, which could set them apart from the likes of Indonesia. There is no doubt that this huge financial investment could make for a potentially spectacular event if it were to happen.

I would have thought that the first obstacle that Russia may have to overcome in order to win is a geographical one. With Russia being such a vast country in terms of its area, a World Cup becomes increasingly difficult to effectively manage. Teams and fans could have to travel large distances between games, with this having a negative effect on both the quality of football on show and atmosphere. There is also the issue of infrastructure, with roads being better in some places than others.

In addition to this, although security is much improved compared to what it used to be in this country, it is still perhaps not quite what some would like it to be (these views were expressed at the Champions League Final). I think 2018 could come a bit soon for Russia, but there is no doubting its potential and perhaps the same could be said of its website, which looks rather hastily put together.

USA: It has been well-documented that the 1994 World Cup USA broke many records in terms of attendances and revenue, which is bound to have pleased Fifa and all those associated. America is blessed with many great stadiums such and beautiful cities and it has used those to its advantage. The USA are masters in marketing - you only need to see NFL games being played at Wembley and the interest the NBA and NHL generate over here to see that, and this is demonstrated on their bid.

The Americans boast an impressive 27 cities and 32 stadiums which are able and vying to stage World Cup matches should their bid be successful, which completely gulfs their competitors. Facilities are tip-top and infrastructure and accommodation for fans, players and officials alike is outstanding and the envy of the rest of the world. They also have the Obama factor, which is a wave on which many over there appear to be riding at the moment.

The concern I (and perhaps Fifa) may have is whether or not the USA is 'ready' for another World Cup so soon as 2018. What I mean by this is that 1994 was deemed as the dawn of the 'Soccer Revolution' in the States where Pele had failed previously. Now it's 2009 and David Beckham has been in LA playing for the Galaxy for 2 years, yet although there

has been a slight rise in attendances and publicity it has gained, 'soccer' still fights an uphill battle against other sports. Beckham (rightly or wrongly - rightly in my opinion) didn't endear himself to the American faithful by his stint in Milan last winter and the American public may not have forgiven him or possess the hunger for the beautiful game that Sepp Blatter and Fifa are looking for.

The Verdict

Having thought long and hard about this one, I have come to the following conclusions...

England must stage the 2018 World Cup - she has the stadia, infrastructure, public interest, facilities and the tradition which would make for a perfect tournament. Euro '96 was a roaring success from start to finish and with the new grounds which have since been built with a handful to follow, 2018 would promise to be even bigger and better. Portugal & Spain are the closest rival in my eyes, but a joint bid involving a nation which has only recently staged a major tournament would be a mistake in my opinion, especially given the potential for friction between these two proposed joint hosts.

I would also give the USA the right to stage the 2022 World Cup as I think football will grow there over time, perhaps with an influx of more 'superstars' later into their careers. We are seeing more and more American players entering Europe with the likes of Clint Dempsey, Tim Howard and Brad Friedel all plying their trade here, in addition to Freddy Adu at Benfica and Altidore at Villareal (now on loan at Hull), and these are encouraging signs of development. A criticism I have at the moment is that although the stadia there are excellent, there don't seem to be many which are purpose-built for our football - instead they favour the egg-shaped ball. Perhaps the evolution of the MLS could see that change in time - here's to hoping that will be the case.

All FIFA now have to do is read this then and sort it out!

Thoughts anyone?