Jump to content

2030 World Cup


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Not necessarily. With the 2026 joint hosts, FIFA are saying it's up to CONCACAF to decide how to divvy up their qualification spots. The assumption is that they will give all three an automatic slot, because with the expanded finals (48 teams) there should be plenty of CONCACAF places to go round.

UEFA and 2030 might be a different story though, as Europe is getting few (if any) of the additional places. Tying up three (four if NI get involved) places for hosts would lead to a very difficult European qualification system.

Even without an automatic place, I still think it would be a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, JamesM82 said:

Not necessarily. With the 2026 joint hosts, FIFA are saying it's up to CONCACAF to decide how to divvy up their qualification spots. The assumption is that they will give all three an automatic slot, because with the expanded finals (48 teams) there should be plenty of CONCACAF places to go round.

UEFA and 2030 might be a different story though, as Europe is getting few (if any) of the additional places. Tying up three (four if NI get involved) places for hosts would lead to a very difficult European qualification system.

Even without an automatic place, I still think it would be a good idea.

Has a host country ever not participated in the tournament?  It'd be so fucking Scotland to be the first host nation to fail to qualify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Moonster said:

Has a host country ever not participated in the tournament?  It'd be so fucking Scotland to be the first host nation to fail to qualify.

Not that I'm aware of. 

Of course, we're also in (severe) danger of that for the 2020 Euros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Moonster said:

Has a host country ever not participated in the tournament?  It'd be so fucking Scotland to be the first host nation to fail to qualify.

Even if we do, we'd probably end up playing our group games in places like Cardiff, Belfast and Leeds, becoming the first host nation to not play any home games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the daftness that is a 48 team World Cup Finals, and the 24 team Euros, the days are gone where a country like Morocco (and Sweden) can realistically host it.  It would even test the likes of Germany.

Joint bids are probably the way forward, they need to cut down on the demands of a tournament that litters a country with white elephant stadiums.  I’d be fine with a UK bid, 2 in Scotland, 2 in Wales and maybe 1 in NI, the remainder in England. 

I’d also like to see the practice ended (which started at France 98) of everyone playing at 3 different venues at the group stage.  Go back to the old system where the group top seeds play all three games at the same venue, with the rest playing at least 2 games in the same venue, cutting down on travelling..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mark Connolly said:

Even if we do, we'd probably end up playing our group games in places like Cardiff, Belfast and Leeds, becoming the first host nation to not play any home games.

While England win a semi final at Hampden.

Tbh I'd rather not have anything more to do with FIFA than is absolutely necessary. The laws they require host nations to pass and the financial demands they make mean I'd rather some other sucker host it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GordonS said:

While England win a semi final at Hampden.

Tbh I'd rather not have anything more to do with FIFA than is absolutely necessary. The laws they require host nations to pass and the financial demands they make mean I'd rather some other sucker host it.

Agreed, I remember looking into it before the 2018 bidding when I lived in The Netherlands (who had a joint bid with Belgium). After seeing the extreme demands I had something like "f**k it, I don't even want it now".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As noted there are no guarantees England will want to share the bidding (they've enough cities and stadiums to do it themself), and no guarantees the rest of UEFA would want to throw away 2 or 3 qualifying places so  Scotland Wales and NI could qualify automatically despite only providing 1 or 2 stadiums each. We've not qualified for anything since 1998 - the others 1 each, and not for a World Cup since 1958 + 1986 respectively - so it's effectively giving slots to nations who wouldn't otherwise qualify, as if Russia was co-hosting with Belarus, Moldova & Uzbekistan.

UEFA is only seeing its places increased from 13 to 16 under the expanded format. So it'd mean everyone else surrendering a hefty slice of their own chances to let 3 poor quality nations tag on with England and qualify automatically. Obviously it would be good to host it even without qualifying automatically - like Euro 2020 - but it shouldn't be the focus of the reason for doing it.

To answer previous question: no host has ever not qualified automatically but by the same token the only previous co-hosts were WC 2002 Japan & South Korea (when AFC got 1 slot fewer).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd think FIFA would want to commemorate the Centenary of the first World Cup  by taking it back to Montevideo, Uruguay........something that's already been mooted in a joint bid with Argentina and Paraguay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

As noted there are no guarantees England will want to share the bidding (they've enough cities and stadiums to do it themself), and no guarantees the rest of UEFA would want to throw away 2 or 3 qualifying places so  Scotland Wales and NI could qualify automatically despite only providing 1 or 2 stadiums each. We've not qualified for anything since 1998 - the others 1 each, and not for a World Cup since 1958 + 1986 respectively - so it's effectively giving slots to nations who wouldn't otherwise qualify, as if Russia was co-hosting with Belarus, Moldova & Uzbekistan.

UEFA is only seeing its places increased from 13 to 16 under the expanded format. So it'd mean everyone else surrendering a hefty slice of their own chances to let 3 poor quality nations tag on with England and qualify automatically. Obviously it would be good to host it even without qualifying automatically - like Euro 2020 - but it shouldn't be the focus of the reason for doing it.

To answer previous question: no host has ever not qualified automatically but by the same token the only previous co-hosts were WC 2002 Japan & South Korea (when AFC got 1 slot fewer).

Right, but there is a political argument for England going with a joint bid this time. In their failed bids for 2006 and (especially) 2018 they were criticised by a lot of the other associations for being too arrogant in assuming that people would vote for them simply because they've got potentially a great bid (high ticket revenue and great football facilities).  Adding in Scotland and Wales looks a bit nicer and creates a better narrative. USA failed in 2022 then went back in with a joint bid for 2026. USA doesn't need Canada or Mexico to host a World Cup, but it looked a stronger bid.

Adding Glasgow, Edinburgh and Cardiff also gives more options for grounds with capacities well above 50,000. There aren't that many of those in England outside London, and FIFA tend to prefer a spread of venues, e.g. only two grounds in Moscow are being used this time. England probably wouldn't use the Arsenal, Tottenham or Man City grounds, even if they were bidding alone. In their 2018 bid there was a lot of "oh, we could build new grounds here or there" (Bristol, Plymouth even) to give a better spread of venues, which wasn't entirely convincing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, JamesM82 said:

Right, but there is a political argument for England going with a joint bid this time. In their failed bids for 2006 and (especially) 2018 they were criticised by a lot of the other associations for being too arrogant in assuming that people would vote for them simply because they've got potentially a great bid (high ticket revenue and great football facilities).  Adding in Scotland and Wales looks a bit nicer and creates a better narrative. USA failed in 2022 then went back in with a joint bid for 2026. USA doesn't need Canada or Mexico to host a World Cup, but it looked a stronger bid.

Adding Glasgow, Edinburgh and Cardiff also gives more options for grounds with capacities well above 50,000. There aren't that many of those in England outside London, and FIFA tend to prefer a spread of venues, e.g. only two grounds in Moscow are being used this time. England probably wouldn't use the Arsenal, Tottenham or Man City grounds, even if they were bidding alone. In their 2018 bid there was a lot of "oh, we could build new grounds here or there" (Bristol, Plymouth even) to give a better spread of venues, which wasn't entirely convincing.

Agreed with that. Adding the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff, Murrayfield and 2 out of the 3 large Glasgow stadiums (2 is the maximum amount of stadiums in 1 city for a WC) is going to clearly add weight to the bid compared to what they had in 2018. Semi finals in the big grounds in Cardiff & Edinburgh followed by a final at Wembly seems like an attractive proposal to me. These grounds & facilities are already there and can instantly be used.

There is no way all 3 will qualify automatically though as said above. Maybe 2 out of 3...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see England being more keen for something like this than the Welsh or Scottish FAs.  I'd imagine they'd all be keen, but there will always be a degree of the FA trying to run things and just cascade down.  See Team GB and the like.

Even without automatic qualification, it would be a great thing to have the tournament across the home nations.  Personally I'd have a wee Home Nations Tournament prior to any qualification being organised with the winner getting the spot, and the rest going in.  Seems a bit unfair to just give it to England (even though they'd win the spot anyway) and I can imagine Europe would be pretty against giving us 3 spots.  Maybe give whoever's left top seeding in the qualification as a concession?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an explanation, I'm not convinced lots of countries who wouldn't vote for England suddenly would vote for them with Scotland + Wales tacked-on, but I suppose it might help.

Given only 1 or 2 cities can have multiple stadiums, I'd be surprised if Glasgow got such (surely be the likes of London + Manchester), especially as you'd have to enrage one half of OF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wembley 91,000

White Hart Lane 61,000

Old Trafford 76,000

Etihad 55,000

Anfield (with new Anfield Rd end) 59,000

New Everton 50,000

St James' Park 52,000

Stadium of Light 49,000

Riverside 35,000

Elland Road 40,000

Hillsborough 40,000

Villa Park 42,000

Plus a whole clutch of modern grounds in the 30,000 to 35,000 bracket in Derby, Nottingham, Leicester, Southampton, Wolverhampton, Blackburn, Ipswich, Coventry, Brighton, Milton Keynes...

Only a handful of those grounds would need any sort of refurb, and none would need to be extended. I doubt they'd get to use two grounds in Liverpool, but I'm sure London and Manchester would be fine. 

England don't need us for stadiums, so the only reason to include us would be if it would help their bid gain support. I don't think it would make any difference. We have no experience in bidding and are actually terrible for hosting other FIFA and UEFA competitions (something I should probably post about somewhere).

My personal view is that I wouldn't want us - Scotland or the UK - to host it anyway, it's not worth it in terms of economics or tourism, ticket prices will be disgusting and it means handing serious power to a shower of corrupt arseholes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HibeeJibee said:

Given only 1 or 2 cities can have multiple stadiums, I'd be surprised if Glasgow got such (surely be the likes of London + Manchester), especially as you'd have to enrage one half of OF.

If Scotland is in this then the stadium will definitely by Hampden, and maybe with Murrayfield. There's not a chance in hell of the SFA giving World Cup matches away to the OF, and Glasgow isn't big enough to host two stadia. You'd have to go back to 1982 to find a city of remotely similar size using more than one ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, GordonS said:

You'd have to go back to 1982 to find a city of remotely similar size using more than one ground.

Been rare 'full-stop':

1930 - all 3 stadiums were in Montevideo (although one only held 2 games)
1934
1938 - Paris (although Parc des Princes would have only held 2 games were it not for a replay)
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966 - London (although White City only held 1 game)
1970
1974
1978 - Buenos Aires
1982 - Madrid; Barcelona; Seville (although both only held 2 games)
1986 - Mexico City
1990
1994
1998 - Paris
2002
2006
2010 - Johannesburg
2014
2018 - Moscow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GordonS said:

My personal view is that I wouldn't want us - Scotland or the UK - to host it anyway, it's not worth it in terms of economics or tourism, ticket prices will be disgusting and it means handing serious power to a shower of corrupt arseholes.

Can't see the SFA putting up with people ripping off their act, tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...