FIFA 2010 World Cup Cape Town stadium inaugural soccer match.

by Keith Hickey

I've just finished reading this column by the occasionally excellent and permanently cantankerous Bill Archer. The gist of it is that ticket sales for the World Cup aren't going all that well, hampered by poor infrastructure and fears over safety. This raises the possibility of World Cup matches being played in brand-new half-empty stadiums. With tickets for teams like the Netherlands, Germany, and even England still available, how are matches like New Zealand-Paraguay and Switzerland-Honduras expected to sell out? Now, because there's really nothing FIFA can do at this point, besides lowering prices and stepping up marketing, I'm not worrying about this summer's tournament (at least not in this post). I'm wondering how this edition could affect future selections.


If South Africa fails to live up to expectations, and there are conspicuously empty seats, infrastructure issues, and/or problems with crime, FIFA will be very keen to avoid any but the surest of sure bets when it comes to the next couple of Tournaments. And although there's no official rotation policy, I find it difficult to believe the brain trust in Zurich is going to pass up Europe three tournaments in a row. I expect that the safe assumption that it's a safe bet to be a great host will lead to England getting 2018, leaving Qatar, Australia, Indonesia, Japan, and South Korea competing with the US for the 2022 hosting duties. Now, I've already made clear why I think the US would be the best choice. But I'm biased.


Looking at the other bids, Japan and Korea can be ruled out, having hosted the tournament just eight years ago. Indonesia, along with the infrastructure issues that come from being a nation of 17,000 islands, has at least the possibility the threat of terrorism, and following the unfortunate incident the Togolese team encountered in Cabinda, that's something FIFA will be loathe to risk. Qatar, population-wise, is smaller than Phoenix, Arizona. If ticket sales for South Africa are poor, they'd be almost non-existent for Qatar, who would also be left with several brand new stadiums and little use for them. Australia would then be the strongest competition for the US, but given the standard operating procedure of the current regime (accumulate power first, then use it to make money), coupled with the facts that Australia consolidates no voting block, and would be on television in Europe and North America at inconvenient times, the US, for already enumerated reasons, would be the clear front-runner.


On the other side of our "coin of wild hypotheticals®" is the possibility that despite all the naysaying, South Africa (and FIFA) throws everything they have into making the tournament a dazzling success, a global feast of football punctuated by the memorable and the sublime, and all those unsold tickets find their way into the hands of paying customers. That shakes things up a bit in the future World Cup hosts department. Europe generally, and England specifically would still be favored for 2018, but FIFA might be tempted to go with a dark horse like Russia instead, helping UEFA President Michel Platini (no friend of the FA on the best of days) entrench in his eastern European power base. And emboldened by success in South Africa, the rich and relatively untapped market of Australia begins to look more attractive to the powers that be.


But still, they'd be crazy to pass up the US.
blog comments powered by Disqus
    KKTC Bahis Siteleri, Online Bahis

    Archive

    Legal


    Privacy Policy