Search Menu

Who Will Host World Cup 2018?

Share

Also Read: Who Will Host World Cups 2018 and 2022?

So with Brazil confirmed last week as the official hosts of the World Cup 2014, unsurprisingly seeing as they were the only bidders, attention has already started to turn to World Cup 2018.

Several countries have put themselves forward for potentially hosting the World Cup in 11 years’ time, including England, the United States, China, Australia, Russia, Benelux (joint bidding between Belgium and Holland), and possibly Canada and Mexico.

England’s chances at this still early stage look strong. They can boast some of the world’s best stadiums, passionate fans, plus the added bonus of the Olympics 2012. The game is already very developed in England, in comparison to some of the other potential rivals. This would effectively prove to be not as costly for the tournament to be staged in the country, especially as the TV rights would be very profitable. England seized the opportunity to launch a bid to host the 2018 World Cup after Fifa recently abandoned its policy of rotating the tournament between confederations allowing European bids to come in.

The last time England hosted a World Cup was in 1966, the only time, as we all know, they have won it. The bid in 2006 was disastrous with the FA not doing enough to secure to votes but also with Germany have too much power and influence. There were alleged rumours of a gentleman’s agreement being made between the two nations where England could host the Euro ’96 tournament if Germany could host the World Cup a decade later. It remains to be disputed but apparently England broke that agreement by launching their own bid, unsuccessfully.

USA, hosts of the ’94 World Cup, which saw Brazil win on penalties also look to broaden the interest of the game by playing hosts again. In 1994 there were nine stadiums that were used, averaging about 69,000 spectators a game. In women’s football, the World Cup was staged in the country in 1999 and 2003, where new stadiums were built especially in Houston, Seattle, Tampa and Phoenix.

China, who hosted this years women’s World Cup and will be hosting the Olympics next year are also strong favourites this early on. With spending on preparation reaching over $40 billion for the Olympic games next year China have turned themselves into serious candidates for world class events. The country qualified for the World Cup for the first time in 2002, losing all three of their group games to Brazil, Costa Rica and Turkey and failing to score. However, their game has improved a lot over the years and they’ve made people take notice that they will be forces to reckon with in the future. Also, Fifa could probably take into account the hosts for that year, Japan and South Korea, were a successful yet very expensive campaign.

Australia. Another country who’s football is rapidly progressing, especially after reaching last year’s second round in the World Cup after unluckily getting knocked out by eventual winners of the Cup Italy through a last minute penalty. The socceroos have never hosted a football World Cup but did host the Rugby World Cup in 2003 as well as the Sydney Olympics in 2000. Therefore they have the resources and stadiums to launch a notable bid, with the Olympics and the Rugby World Cup being also marked for their efficient organisational skills. The only thing that could possibly harm the Australian’s and Chinese bids is the kick off times for European broadcasters with the time difference.

As much as England will be seething to see it but there is another threat from the Russians. Money would not be an issue at all for the Russians to stage the tournament, thanks in large to a certain patriotic Roman Abramovich. The national team’s new training camp is being funded by the Chelsea oligarch, at the cost of £20 million. Russia were also recently given the rights to stage the winter Olympics in 2014 and will have the experience of hosting a major world event.

The joint European bid of Belgium and Holland, combined with Luxembourg too, did host the Euro 2000 competition. Matches would be played only at Belgium and Holland with Luxembourg hosting the Fifa congress, which wouldn’t gain them automatic qualification. The negative factor to joint hosting of such a massive event, as proved in 2002, is the high costs.

The outsiders at this point are Canada and Mexico. The Canadians hosted a colourful Under-20s World Cup this summer, proving they can handle the heavy workload. They have decent stadiums as well in Edmonton, Ottawa, Montreal, Victoria and Burnaby (Vancouver) but the main attraction is the Toronto stadia which was the venue for the Under-20s final. A football World Cup at senior level though could be a different kind of workload altogether though. The Mexicans have hosted World Cups twice before and if they were to host again they’d be the first country to stage three World Cups. However, the quality of some the stadiums do not reach the standards required these days.

Official bids will all be confirmed in 18 months where genuine marketing campaigns will begin. The votes are cast in 2011. Overall, each country will need to prove they have the genuine and realistic quality of hosting such a big event on a global scale. Fans’ safety is absolutely essential, something which is concerning for the next two hosts in South Africa and Brazil where discrimination, kidnappings, violence and robberies are rife.

Each bidding country will need to focus their attention on the votes coming in from Africa and South America as the two continents are exempt. Successful bids will need organisational skills, the ability to handle pressure, fresh ideas, financial security and the capability of meeting expectations.

Who do you think will win the bid to host the 2018 World Cup?

Football Expert? Prove it! Share your knowledge, tips and comments. Win cash prizes - £11,000 monthly! Join OLBG's free-to-enter tipping competition.

Comments (27)

  1. England is a no-brainer, but then again England’s been a no-brainer every year since 1970. Australia will host a World Cup in the future, simply because they need to. They certainly have the facilities (and the facilities will be well better by 2018) and I think that the crowds will turn up. I can’t help but feel that the sooner would be the better, given that we’re currently in a boom period. If the boom starts to lose steam then it might end up being quite a while away. Still, we should probably host the Asia Cup first.

  2. the world cup final in the MCG would be good 100 000+ people probably by then : )

  3. I really, really, really hope Australia get the nod to host the World cUP IN 2018, But the England bid looks like a very, very tough one and apperently it will be in England.

    Below is my list of Aussie Stadiums with the required needs.

    -MCG 100,000 – Final
    -Stadium Australia 80,000 – 3rd Place and A Semi
    -City of Perth Stadium (Being Proposed, but will be there by 2018) 60,000 – 70,000
    -Telstra Dome Melbourne 56,000
    -Suncorp Stadium Braisbae 60,000-odd
    -Sydney Football Stadium 45,000 (only one place can have 2 stadiums but it could get away with this being in “Sydney” and Stadium Australia being out of town Sydney)
    -Adelaide Stadium 48,000 (Not being proposed nor existent but a stadium would be built here)
    -Canberra Stadium 44,000 (Upgraded to at least 47,000)
    - EnergyAustralia Newcastle Stadium (Upgraded) 44,000
    -Gold Coast Stadium (Upgraded) 42,000)

    Plus either a stadium in Hobart Tasmania, Townsville, Geelong, Central Coast, Or another in South Aus or West Australia that could hold at least 40,000 – 45,000.

  4. Money, Money, Money (and Bungs) – It’s going to Russia I’ll bet anyone a thousand rubles (£20).
    England applying to hold it this early (before offical campaigning begins) STINKS of another sweaty Gordon Brown publicity attempt with us naive English.

  5. England got Wembleystadium. A big stadium for any finals.. SUPPORT FOR ENGLAND!!..

  6. Benelux =
    BE lgium
    NE therlands
    LUX embourg

  7. Netherlands is going to get the WORLDCUP 2018!

  8. I think that Russia,China,Benelux or Australia should be the hosts of World Cup 2018, because those countries have never been hosts of FIFA World Cup.Unfortunetly England and USA are favorits to be the hosts. England and USA were hosts of World Cup. I support Russia or China to be the hosts. SUPPORT FOR RUSSIA.SUPPORT FOR CHINA

  9. USA!!

    11 Stadium with over 90,000 seats…

    4 with over 100,000
    [Beaver Stadium/ Michigan Stadium/Neyland Stadium/ Ohio Stadium]

    85 stadiums total with over 60,0000 seats….

    new stadium such as new Cowboys…new Giants…new Redbulls..DC United stadium…

    more people will go to world cup games then ever in the history of the world cup…

    the avgerage game in 94′ saw 69,000 per game….by 2018 you could see close to 100,000 per game…

    the game will get stronger in the next 10 years in the states…and with the rise of MLS and US national team plus the visibilty of soccer on more americans tvs the game is just going to become more of a powerhouse…!!

    i feel bad for england but 1 wembly doesnt stand a chance with 100 wemblys….

  10. But what about atmosphere… you can build 1000 Wembleys in the US, you will never get an atmosphere like you will have in England or other football loving countries!

    Of course i also prefer the Benelux, But Russia would also be great!

  11. Johan,
    The USA staged by far the most successful world cup ever. Period. We came out in droves and we didn’t even have a professional league. The atmosphere was great, as I attended 4 of the games including the final. If you ever come to the US, you should go to a American Football game. That will show you what we are capable of putting on. The atmosphere is great at those game and it gets even more livelier and fun at Soccer games.
    USA!
    USA!

  12. England, Benelux or China. Or even Russia maybe. Australia would be interesting but maybe more time is needed…2018 may be too soon.

    Not really too keen on it being hosted in the US. Ever to be brutally honest, but that’s just my opinion.

  13. I agree with Max Zeger. US of A have hosted the most successful World Cup so far after the snoozefest fiasco that was Italia90. But this time it should be Australia. Its a developing footballing country and it has the neccessary structures to host major tournaments and the weather would be a plus factor. Hosting the World Cup in England sounds sensible but enough of giving all the glory to Europe who have already hosted the tournament 3 times out of the last 5. 1990,1998,2006.Not to mention majority of the previous World Cups 1934,1938,1954,1958,1966,1974,1982 and South and Central Americans(Mexico) had the rest 1930,1950,1962,1970,1978,1986 and now 2014. North Americans had it in 1994. Asians 2002. Africans 2010. let the Oceanians have the fun too for the very first time.Why be greedy? The Aussies did well to reach the second round in Germany. They might even do a South Korea if they play in front of their own fans. My vote Australia 2018

  14. Aus should fancy their chances in 2022. They need to dominate other football codes such as NRL, AFL, Super-14. So they need as much time as possible

  15. MEXICO!!!!!!! Of course…

  16. mm Mexico did once organised an world cup,
    US have many big stadiums
    England is the home of football(altrough the national team sucks a bit)
    China is a big country so the could build big stadiums,
    Russia is a big contender,
    Benelux is also a great contender but they lack of 80.000 seated stadiums,but i read that they going to rennovate the ArenA, De Kuip and the one at Brussels to 80.000 and 60.000

    so my votes are for benelux and Russia

  17. USA. The USA has the best stadiums in the world.

  18. I think it’s fair to say that England will get 18 and US 22 to be honest. England have top quality stadia (Wembley 90,000, Old Trafford 76,000, Emirates 60,000, St James 52,000, City of Manchester, Stadium of Light 49,000) and most stadiums will be increasing their capacity’s for when 18 comes around, Leeds/Man City/Plymouth the obvious one’s and with new stadia planned for Nottingham/Bristol and Liverpool, not to mention the passion of the fans, the excellent transportation links, (you can get around the country Newcastle to London by train in a matter of 3 or 4 hours, imagine playing in NY then the QF’s you had to travel to LA etc, no thanks but i still think they’ll get 2022.

  19. China just had the olympics…they should be the last country to get the cup. I think that australia and the usa should get it. the US because they hosted highest attended world cup in history and australia cause they are the most capable in oceania and its about time they have it there. USA-2018 AUS-2022!!!

  20. I would love to see USA host the cup in 2018, simply because it has all the staduims built and it’s easier to get around the country then other places. Hotels as well, they have plenty of them. I think by giving them the cup in 2018 this will give another country a chance to build the right size staduims and whatnot. So…either Australia or Benelux, possibly Russia. England has waited this long, they can wait a few more years.

  21. im watching the cup every day it comes on.ive been waiting 4 years for

  22. i hope the USA WINS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  23. I want it to be in Canada. But I don’t think it will happen.

  24. hopefully ghana wins the world cup

  25. Russia’ll host World Cup 2018 because lord Trisman is an idiot))))

  26. Canada Should host the world cup cause they we did a good job with the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics so we should be given a chance plus we have never hosted the world cup before they should give chances to countries that have never hosted the world cup before!

  27. mexiko has built new stadiums like the new santos laguna the new chivass and they have the azteka stadium that can have ovveerrr 120,000 espectators and they have holden 1970 and 1986 world cupsss and olimpics also and done a great job