2018 World Cup bids

[Its AlL gUUd]

The FIFA minimum requirements is that there should atleast be 7 (or 8?) host cities with 1 city having 2 stadia, once the 7/8 city target is met you can have more than one stadia in other cities, so both Old Trafford and COM can be used if the requirements are met.

[PhilBee]

Originally Posted by bazzup

I think there might be an argument for a publicly funded stadium somewhere like Leeds or the South West

Public funding in Leeds? now there's a thought

[*England*]

if it was 2 for london then twickenham might be used and emirates wont even get a look in, im sure fifa would want twickenham instead of emirates, especially with an extra 22 thousand seats to skank fans out of tickets for their precious sponsors!

[*England*]

plus its still not known what will happen to the new 80k seat olympic stadium, come 2018 we'll end up with 20 stadiums that could host a game.

[rotherowl]

Does anyone know how much money that the German government forked out to redevelope their stadia for last years world cup because if we do manage to get the 2018 tournament there is no way whatsoever that Leeds and Sheffield which at the moment do have the capacities but which are not of a good enough quality to stage matches and these 2 cities will have to hold matches as they will have the hotels and are 2 of the biggest cities in England. Bristol although not really known as a football city is the largest city in the south west which shouldn't miss out on the economic benefits that would be felt by other areas.

[Wampa]

An interesting article in The Observer (link):


Don't go there...

Shortly before the London Olympics take place, Fifa will announce the host of the 2018 World Cup - and England is hot favourite. That leaves only three years to sort out the bid, due in by 2010.Observer Sport kicks off the 'where we should play' debate by saying go west, go south, but above all else don't go to Sunderland

Sunday February 18, 2007
The Observer

Birmingham New Street station, 15 June 2018. Ireland have just scraped a draw against Ivory Coast in front of a sell-out 50,000 crowd at Villa Park. Now, you are seated comfortably on the 4.55pm bullet train to Bristol for its 60-minute journey. On the HD screen at the front of the carriage on this football special, the Holland and Mexico players are warming up for the 5pm kick-off at Old Trafford. The on-board bar buzzes with fans enjoying a drink as the train soon speeds through the English countryside at 180mph. When you arrive at Temple Meads station, there is time for a burger before a stroll through the Fanfest area and into Bristol's Cary Grant stadium with its retractable roof and pitch. As the sun begins to dip, the China-France group game provides a perfect end to a day watching football. Tomorrow, the beaches of Cornwall beckon for a well-earned break, followed by a game at Plymouth at the weekend. It's a long, long way from an overnight stay in Sunderland...

Welcome to the England 2018 World Cup experience, if the FA - or whoever runs the bid - decide to follow previous examples and use the biggest global sporting event not just as a football tournament, but as an opportunity to showcase the country and regenerate towns and cities that might have been overlooked. Montpellier at France 1998, Seogwipo in South Korea and Japan 2002, and Leipzig in Germany last summer were all World Cup venues that had no top-flight club or adequate stadium before Fifa sanctioned them as hosts.

'The status of a club is not important,' says Horst Schmidt, vice-chairman of the 2006 World Cup organising committee. 'It is to do with the tourist and cultural package of a venue.' Schmidt's message to the FA is: it makes sense to think beyond the obvious. Just because Manchester City, Sunderland and Everton have the facilities, they are not necessarily good choices.

The Chancellor's photocall at Wembley last week began what could well be a successful campaign to host the World Cup in 11 years' time. Gordon Brown announced that a feasibility study carried out over 15 months had concluded that England had a very good chance. By 2018 Europe will be in prime position again. Fifa, who make the decision, might like to try Asia - China and Australia, now members of the Asian Football Federation, would be keen to bid - but after successive tournaments in developing countries, South Africa 2010 and Brazil 2014, the safe hands of Europe would likely be favoured.

Since England were hosts in 1966, Germany (twice), France, Spain and Italy have all staged the tournament. The FA's last attempt was the hapless bid for 2006. David Davies, an FA mandarin for 12 years until his recent departure, and football's representative in the London 2012 Olympic campaign, told Observer Sport that lessons had been learnt from those bids. The 2006 effort was always doomed because Uefa, European football's governing body, backed Germany. This time the most important way to get the bid off the ground is to secure Uefa's support, a point emphasised by Mike Lee, one of the key executives in the 2012 team who also said the 2018 bid 'must go beyond saying "It's our turn" and have a symbolic theme. The international nature of football itself in this country makes it a tremendous global platform. Maybe we should play up that point.'

As for London 2012, Davies explained, 'It benefited from a campaign that was orchestrated by a stand-alone organisation. This was largely successful, although football must be properly represented and pivotal to any campaign for the World Cup.' In other words, the bid would be better led outside the FA, whose record on major projects is poor, as is clear from the shambles of Wembley Stadium, the on-off saga of the Burton-on-Trent national football centre, the failed 2006 bid, and the drawn-out process of restructuring the game's national governing body despite intense pressure from the government.

'Yes, the 2006 bid failed, but it did allow us to build relations throughout the world, where once in the early 1990s we were seen as aloof,' said Davies. 'The FA now must know the politics and alliances within the global game. In 2006, these building blocks were not in place. Think of a fortnight ago when four friendly internationals featuring teams from Europe, Africa, Asia and South America were played on one evening in London. Just eight years ago the FA were against this because of concerns that it would affect attendances.'

Fifa announce their decision six years before the first ball is kicked - 'It will be in the June before the 2012 Olympics begins, is my guess,' Davies said. Five years away but, according to Schmidt, the clock is already ticking for England. 'They will have to submit their bid a year-and-a-half before the decision so the Fifa executive can fully consider the campaign,' he said.

That means there are about three-and-a-half years to complete what will be a complex process before handing in the bid documents at the end of 2010. The key decision on whether to take the campaign out of house must be taken this year, thus allowing 24 months to decide on the biggest issue for fans in this country - where the tournament should be played - and to plan for the infrastructure.

'The English must have everything in place,' said Schmidt, who is troubleshooting for the 2010 South African organising committee. 'Fifa have to inspect and investigate everything, including proposed venues. There is a minimum number - it is usually eight.' The maximum would probably be 12, though England could submit more and leave Fifa to make the cull. Germany considered 15, but Dresden, Dusseldorf and Bremen were dropped.

England has five 'gold star' locations that will provide at least six stadiums: London (two, or even three), Birmingham, Manchester (maybe two), Liverpool and Newcastle. The FA have a list of stadiums that are highly rated by Fifa under their licensing regulations and Gordon Brown said last week 'England has 11 world-class stadiums across all different regions'. But none of the 11 - Wembley, Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester United and City, Liverpool and Everton, Newcastle, Sunderland, Leeds and Aston Villa - is in the west or, London apart, the south of England.

There are alternatives in five different regions of the country that with vision and affordable investment - Leipzig's stadium cost £50million - would allow some of England's less fashionable football areas a chance. All of them have their attractions.

In the North-West, Preston could edge out Blackpool out as a possible candidate. The Football League was founded there, it is the home of the National Football Museum and Preston North End, the first winners of the Double, play at a Deepdale that would be able to expand temporarily to 40,000 if chosen.

Bryan Gray, chairman of Preston from 1994 to 2001 and a key figure in establishing the football museum, is also head of the North-West Development Agency. 'We are close to Blackpool, which would provide accommodation and tourist attractions, and near to the Lake District, which is one of the country's beauty spots. Of course there is mileage in the World Cup being played here.'

Down in the South West Bristol and Plymouth are preparing the case for an area that, if denied any football in 2018, would be the largest region unrepresented. 'Plymouth is a city of a quarter of a million,' said Malcom Bell, chief executive of South West Tourism, which also covers Bristol. 'Imagine a big screen on the Hoe, where Francis Drake played bowls, watched by 50,000 people. It's surely our sporting entitlement to finally have a big stadium. And it would allow us to put big concerts on there.'

What of Bristol's challenge? 'It is still two hours away from most of the region. This area is disenfranchised so it has to be Plymouth. And think of the summer down here - Devon and Cornwall are the country's most popular tourist destinations.'

The mayor of Bristol, Peter Abraham, disagrees. 'A new 26,000-seat stadium shared by the rugby club and Bristol Rovers has just won planning permission.' That could be enlarged. 'If England is chosen to hold the World Cup and it's the same old clubs selected then how can we show the world our country?'

John Holmes, director of regeneration and tourism in the north-east, has a different view. 'Gordon Brown has said this will cost a lot less than London 2012 through using existing facilities. I would question whether we would need any new international stadiums.' St James' Park is a definite, but would Holmes be disappointed if the Stadium of Light was not chosen? 'We also have the Riverside at Middlesbrough. Why not all three? Our policy is reach for the sky. In Sunderland the Empire Theatre takes [big West End] shows like Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and in the Tees Valley overall we will be investing £1.5billion over the next five years.'

Another region for consideration is the South Coast. 'We would be disappointed not to attract a venue for tourism and sporting reasons. There are football fans everywhere down here,' said David Rose of South East Tourism. Brighton has the beach location and would provide dramatic scenery when VIPs arrive by helicopter - one of Fifa's prerequisites for a venue is a helipad nearby - and although an enormous effort would be needed, a stadium could be built at Shoreham Harbour, the largest brownfield development site in south-east England. Southampton's St Mary's Stadium has hosted international football and could be expanded to the required capacity, probably 40,000. And Portsmouth, whose club won consecutive championships at the close of the 1940s and is famous for its raucous support, might be favourite for football reasons.

Let the debate begin...


The contenders

From Yorkshire to Devon, best of the rest


Yorkshire

Leeds - Elland Road

The city is going through a boom, offers plenty of nightlife and culture - including world-famous fish and chips - the beer's decent, and Leeds is well placed if you fancy the James Herriot heritage trail and a cup of tea in Harrogate, or a bracing walk over the moors. The club are heading down, though, and Elland Road is looking a bit tired.

Or Sheffield - Hillsbrough

Home to the current sports minister, the chairman of the FA and the world's oldest club (Sheffield FC), so it has a head start. Great for walking in the nearby Pennines and Peak District, but the city itself, although sporty, is seen as a bit of a khazi by many visiting fans. Hillsborough would need tarting up.


The Midlands

Wolverhampton - Molineux

You wouldn't want to spend much time in the town itself unless you're holed up in a Banks's pub, or you love dog racing or horse racing, which seem to be on every day. Depending which road you take, 15 minutes out of town and you're looking at filthy canals and factories, or beautiful rolling countryside. Steeped in football history and Wolves were arguably the world's most famous team before the European Cup kicked off in the mid-1950s. Accessible from all points.

Or Nottingham - City Ground

The stadium down by the river hosted Euro 96 games. If the densely populated East Midlands is to have a venue, this is it. Airport nearby, but the city has a big crime problem.


South Coast

Southampton - St Mary's

Smart stadium would need more seats, but that should be easy enough. A good spot for tourists with the New Forest and Isle of Wight nearby. Smart, clean but a bit dull.

Or Portsmouth - New venue

A proper, earthy football city, one of whose MPs is leading the campaign to bring back small areas of safe standing in our top stadiums. More tourist attractions than most, but not exactly a beauty spot and it's hard to say how the locals would take to being invaded by foreigners. Fratton Park, the stadium that time forgot, would have to be trashed and a new one built. It's just talk at the moment.

Or Brighton - New venue

No chance on paper, because of protracted problems over the new stadium, but what a host city this would be. The most famous seaside resort in the world (so they say) and you can walk to the South Downs from the beach. Gay capital of Britain, great nightclubs, loads of hotels, only an hour from London. Shame about the football...

Bristol New venue

A no-brainer. Regional capital of the West, which must have a host city. Bristol is huge, tourists enjoy it and English-speaking football fans will love the local accent. The football clubs might have moved up by 2018 but who cares? Surely they can rustle up a 40,000-capacity stadium; they simply have to.

Or Plymouth - Home Park

Needs regeneration money but it would be a good investment for a part of the country that's often overlooked. Its tourist attractions are obvious; has an airport.


Lancashire

Preston - Deepdale/New venue

The traditionalist's choice. Home of the Football League, the national football museum, and the first 'giants' of the English game in Victorian days. A day out to the Lake District or Blackpool is easy, and Manchester and Liverpool are close, too. A new stadium or a rebuild of Deepdale would be needed

Or Blackpool - New venue

They should have got the Supercasino but didn't; so what better way to regenerate than a new World Cup stadium with a casino in the main stand? The new ground could be used all year round for shows, conferences and exhibitions. The Italians ploughed money into Palermo (then in the third division) in 1990, so why not? Sophisticated Japanese fans would love it.

[Gherkin]

^ Interesting article, leaving out the obvious. I disagree with Wolverhampton hosting a game because Birmingham is so close by and Nottingham wouldn't need to be used as it isn't too far away from Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds etc.

I'm not sure what to make of the Lancashire bid potentials, Blackpool or Preston, so think this venue should move to Bristol. I was in the city last week and there is plenty for tourists to do, and a great variety of restaurants and pubs. The two Bristol clubs could share a stadium after the 2018 World Cup, whatever their league positions, or the stadium could have temporary stands to take the capacity to 40,000+ .

I'd like to see Sheffield and Leeds host WC games, although this would mean Elland Road in Leeds would need a serious makeover, and Sheffield would need a new stadium that perhaps both Sheffield clubs could share after the games.

The South coast is the trickier of the choices, with Southampton already having an international standard stadium that could be easily redeveloped to 40,000+ (it could look just like the stadium of light in Sunderland, therefore eliminate any chance Sunderland has to attract tourists in 2018). The city itself though loses out to Portsmouth and Brighton in terms of just about everything else. I think Portsmouth's Spinnaker Tower and fans could swing the bid in their favour, but Brighton could easily accomodate all the tourists. Plymouth, like Bristol, is also a great city and FIFA may choose Plymouth because it is the furthest away from London of the South coast category.

Remember 2018 is a long way away so club league position isn't at all a factor. Even Plymouth Argyle's 20,000 seater Home Park could have another 20,000 temporary seats installed for the WC and then removed shortly afterwards, and a similar idea could be implemented for Brighton and Bristol. It's pretty safe to say St. James's Park will be the only stadium in the North West used in 2018... and with Manchester's supercasino and regeneration the city could easily accomodate tourists and spectators for the two match venues.

[Gherkin]

Here are my thoughts at the moment, completely regardless of stadium size or football league position - more to do with geographical location and regeneration:

London: Wembley (90,000)
Emirates (60,000)

Manchester: Old Trafford (75,000)
C.O.M.S (48,000)

Liverpool: New Anfield (61,000)

Birmingham: New Stadium (55,000)

Bristol: New Stadium (40,000)

Sheffield: New Stadium (40,000)

Leeds: Re-developed Elland Road (50,000)

Newcastle: St. James's Park (52,000)

Portsmouth or Brighton: New Stadium (40,000)

Southampton or Plymouth: Redeveloped stadium (40,000)

Blackpool or Preston: New stadium (40,000)

[Scarecrow]

Blackpool or Preston, and not Liverpool?

[Its AlL gUUd]

Really good article, one thing that scares me is that if England bid we would be one of the favourites and then suddenly another country may sneak up and pip us to the post. e.g London beat paris for 2012

[Gherkin]

Originally Posted by Bunnyman

Blackpool or Preston, and not Liverpool?

Beg your pardon Sir! All has been corrected

[Sparks]

Southampton would have to be place on the south coast to get the WC stadium, it has a good international aiport, is a fair bit bigger than Portsmouth and certainly more attractive (cough cough) and it has the stadium in place which is able to expand easily.

There is no chance of Preston or Blackpool getting a stadium though, it would be a bit silly to leave out Everton's new ground.

[Sparks]

Here is something I put together about 6 months ago in regards to the bid.

ENGLAND'S 2018 WORLD CUP BID, THE STADIUMS.

Main Considerations:

• Stadiums in England only.
• No more than two stadiums in any one city. (London potentially might have three.)
• Twickenham will not be used.
• Stadiums need to be geographically spread.
• Minimum capacity of 40,000 per stadium.
• New stadiums / expansions will only occur if they can be filled after the World Cup.

There are twelve venues in the above list, potentially the list could be reduced to ten if it is deemed that twelve stadiums are not needed. The Walkers Stadium and St Mary's would likely be knocked of the list if this was the case.

Notes:
(1) If Everton’s planned new ground is built by 2018, it would likely compete with the City Of Manchester Stadium for a place on the final list. Both are highly unlikely to be used due to the large number of grounds in the North West.
(2) In 2000 Leeds members overwhelmingly voted for a new stadium, however recent relegation and major financial problems have put the plans on indefinite hold. A move to a new stadium will be dependent on future on field success, increased attendances and an improvement in the clubs finances. If the club doesn't move, Elland Road would require a major upgrade to be considered.
(3) Southern England stadium choice between Southampton, Reading, or potential new grounds in Portsmouth or Bristol. Southampton is currently the most realistic, due to it's size and transport links.
(4) Choice between Coventry, Derby and Leicester with all having a stadium of similar capacity. Coventry chosen for it’s superior transport links, with Leicester chosen over Derby for it’s town centre location as well as direct links to East Midlands airport.



Stadiums that missed out:
Twickenham: 82,000, Owned by RFU, football has never been traditionally played there, London already has two venues
Anfield: 45,362, Should be demolished by 2012.
Stamford Bridge: 42,449, Currently unable to host major internationals due to a lack of space and access problems around the ground.
Goodison Park: 40,569, Poor outdated facilities, and likely to be closed before 2018.
Hillsborough: 39,859, Facilities largely outdated, no plans to expand due to finance and lack of fan demand.
White Hart Lane: 36,240, Poor transport links and no confirmed plans to upgrade.
Upton Park: 35,647, Average transport links, poor location, potential closure after 2013.
Riverside Stadium: 35,049, Already two venues in the North East, no real demand for expansion after the World Cup.
Pride Park: 33,597, Ricoh and Walkers chosen over Pride Park, due to it’s out of town location, little to choose between the three though and it could be picked over The Walkers.

Potential future stadiums to be used:
New Chelsea Stadium: 55,000 - 70,000. Could be used to replace one of the midlands or southern stadiums if built.
New Everton Stadium: 55,000. Would likely compete with the City Of Manchester Stadium for a place in the final list, unlikely both Manchester and Liverpool will have two stadiums.
London Olympic Stadium: 40,000 - 60,000. Currently unknown future after 2012, might not even be a football stadium.
New Bristol / Plymouth Stadium: 40,000. With currently no West Country stadium in the plans and the pressure to include as many regions as possible in the bid, a new stadium could be constructed in one of the two biggest cities. Funding will be a problem however, as well as the ability to fill a large stadium after the World Cup.

[Wampa]

The USA joins the race for 2018 (link):

US hopes to stage 2018 World Cup

The United States has emerged as a serious rival to England's bid to host the 2018 World Cup.

US Soccer Federation president Sunil Gulati said his group is preparing a bid for the 2018 World Cup - and is also ready as a backup for 2014.

He said: "We showed in 1994 that the US is capable of hosting a terrific event.

"We would be in position to put on a spectacular event. We are much more a part of the sport internationally than we were in 1994."

The Football Association is unlikely to welcome the move, although it will hope the USSF makes a pitch for the 2014 World Cup rather than four years later.

It is thought Fifa favours awarding the 2018 World Cup to a European country, but the 1994 tournament in the States was regarded as a huge success by Fifa.

The FA has yet to officially confirm it will bid for 2018, but the Government has already offered its support, with the Treasury commissioning a report which concluded that England is "well placed" to host the tournament.

And the FA will hope the fact that England has not staged the showpiece since 1966 will work in its favour.

Gulati added: "We've got some history and a track record.

He added that Fifa was "very open" to a US bid while CONCACAF, the governing body for North and Central America and the Caribbean were "very positive" about the idea.

Brazil are the current favourites to host the 2014 event, with Colombia the only other country in the running.

A decision is expected from Fifa later this year, but with concerns over whether Brazil would be ready in time, president Sepp Blatter has hinted it might go elsewhere.

"We have said that the 2014 World Cup will be staged in South America," he said recently. "But if there is no candidate strong enough, then we would go north instead as the logical thing."

Gulati said the USSF is focused on 2018, not 2014, but "obviously Fifa knows what we're capable of and, if something else changed, we would be open to any other possibilities".

[Sparks]

I'd give them 2014, it makes more sense.

[freeluas]

Originally Posted by rotherowl

Does anyone know how much money that the German government forked out to redevelope their stadia for last years world cup because if we do manage to get the 2018 tournament there is no way whatsoever that Leeds and Sheffield which at the moment do have the capacities but which are not of a good enough quality to stage matches and these 2 cities will have to hold matches as they will have the hotels and are 2 of the biggest cities in England. Bristol although not really known as a football city is the largest city in the south west which shouldn't miss out on the economic benefits that would be felt by other areas.

I read last year the total amount spent was less than the cost of Wembley II, something in the region of 750,000,000 euro. This figure may of course not be the true cost. Could be depending on how the rebuilding was financed, funded etc. But many new stadiums were completly rebuilt. As far as I can remember, I got the figure from a german football stadium website and unfortunatelly they no longer allow you access their site without paying, so I cant check the figures.

[van heckler]

The USA better not get another world cup so soon after their last one. As for your list of stadiums sparks, I think it's pretty good, you've put a lot of thought into it. The only problem I have with the stadiums you've listed is the lack of variety in styles and colours. There's far too many with plain red seats.

As for your list Gherkin, I'll have to express my disappointment with your decision to include just 1 Midlands stadium and 6 Northern stadiums (excluding Saint James' Park). That seems quite peculiar seeing as your from the Midlands region yourself.

An unrelated question about Leeds that I'd love someone to answer is why they have bright yellow seats in the one corner. It looks so bad.

[Gherkin]

To Sparks: Leicester is an interesting choice, as it has scarcely been mentioned as a possible bid city yet the stadium could so easily be redeveloped to hold 40,000+ spectators.
I really disagree with Sunderland though, as the city itself is a long way short of other bid cities, and the 48,000 seater stadium could easily be matched by Leicester or Southampton with a few spare £million. Why choose Sunderland over such similar stadiums in either of these two cities?

To van heckler: I expect that at least 2 Midlands stadiums will be used, but couldn't see a strong enough contender out of Wolverhampton, Leicester or Coventry. On the map Sparks posted the 3 Midlands stadiums looked good geographically, so I expect my list to be somewhat altered in the near future.

As for USA, I agree with Sparks that USA should bid against Brazil for 2014, as there is no chance it could steal the European year for the World Cup.

[*England*]

i like the way fifa let the rest of the world put in a bid when its europes turn, its bad enough they're letting australia and china bid, we should just forget the bid and say to fifa just pick england when it suits you so we can save another few million quid.
its all down to that corrupt fat bastard sepp blatter, soon as he dies the better it is for football, fifa fair play? pull the other one!
its not just europes turn its englands turn, we shouldn't even need to bid since it will be 52 years, they should ask if we want it and if we say yes then give it.

come 2018 most people in this country wouldn't of even been born when it was last here, i was born in the 70s and i'll be getting on a bit come 2018, its time to do whats right for football and bring it home or we'll be here again in 2030 bidding against europe and rest of the world again.

[Its AlL gUUd]

FIFA is one of the most corrupt organisations in the world. Money, money, money! thats all there about