It’s a shame to hear you write off the Australian bid when you really don’t have a clue about their stadiums or football habits. For me they are the logical choice in 2022 after England host in 2018.

To start, I hope that common sense prevails and England are given the rights to 2018. They’re facilities are fantastic and coming off the back of the 2012 Olympics they should have the know-how to work an awsome event. 52 years is a long enough time to wait for a country who lives, eats and dreams football.

As for Australia I agree that a rectangle stadium may be hard to maintain in Hobart, but what about in places like Geelong, Wollongong, Newcastle, Townsville, Gold Coast, Adelaide, Canberra and Gosford? Most of these places already have rectangular stadiums and established football teams from multiple codes. Some already hold the 40,000 and others could easliy be extended.

Add to those the likes of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane who have hosted Olympics, Rugby world cups and commonwealth games it’s looking pretty good to me. There is talk in Perth of another stadium to host their football and rugby teams. That would make three quality stadiums in the city, perhaps even two world cup teams could make it their base. The ACT government have also released plans for a new stadium in Canberra.

During the Olympic games, Sydney’s Homebush stadium was featured detachable wings and both sides were built on a slide. It was reduced by several thousand seats following the games and is now the home ground to most of the countries major football games, from all codes. There’s no reason something like that couldn’t happen again.

1994 was so boring. The Atlanta Olympics were boring. Please, please don’t send it to the USA. If its going to come down to money then surely Qatar is in with a chance too.

2018 – England – because they have all the infrastructure that is needed, and because the 2 world cups before it will be in the southern Hemisphere

2022 – Australia – because they are the strongest team in asia, and that football is rapidly growing. They have also never hosted the world cup before, and have hosted the 2000 Olympics, showing that they can handle global events. It is also a very safe and beautiful country, and more fans from around the world will be tempted to the world cup.

I travelled through Europe and stayed in Germany for long lengths of time during the 2006 WC and I think they put on a fantastic event. However, I have absolutely no doubt that Australia has the ability to organise an even greater event.

Australia’s track record for hosting massive sporting events such as Olympic Game, Commonwealth Games, Rugby World Cups, Swimming World Champioships and many big annual sporting events such as the Australian Open Grand Slam Tennis and F1 Grand Prix proves that they are more than capable of hosting a WC.

I agree that Perth’s isolation may be an issue, however the USA also has the same issues with the distances between cities like New York and Los Angeles. And Russia, well let’s not even go there. The logistics required in staging an event across such large distances would be near impossible one would think and it would be a very unplaseant experience for the fans who would want to travel through various parts o the country. Most of the Australian cities earmarked as prospective hosts are closely packed along the east cost, with the exception of Perth on the West Coast.

In terms of pure sporting enthusiasm I believe Australians are extremely dedicated, however I don’t think anyone could argue that we are as fanatical about soccer compared to the Brits and some of the other Europeans. Nethertheless, there is very strong support and excitement about the potential to hold the games here. And who knows, perhaps competing for the games against our old colonial rulers will fuel that desire to host even more.

The national soccer league in Australia has also been going from strength to strength and has an ever increasing fan base. Filling up massive stadiums for national soccer hasn’t been an issue in Australia like it has in the USA.

Having said all that I think they are more likely to get the 2022 world cup considering it would be in the Southern Hemisphere three times in a row if they got it in 2018. In my view, England are the strong favourites for 2018 by many many miles.

In regards to infrastructure, Australia already boasts 9 all seater stadiums which can house more than 40,000 people. Two of which hosted Olympic games and therefore seat more than 80,000 people. Of these 9 stadiums, 2 are rectangular and another is halfway between oval and rectangle (ANZ Stadium). A further rectangle stadium, purpose built for football/soccer is currently being built in Melbourne which can house 31,000 people but can easily be upgraded to seat 50,000.

In regards to experience hosting major events, like Rory has said Australia will host the Asian Cup in 2015, after already hosting 2 Olympic games and a Commonwealth games.

In regards to politics, although Australia is know in the AFC, they are geographically located in Oceania, which has never hosted a WC. If Sepp Blatter really wanted to complete the round-the-world hosting of the WC Oceania should be included. Furthermore, the WC would give a big boost to the A League which is in its infancy. Also, the head of the AFC has given his backing for the Australia bid.

Australia are a great sporting nation, especially considering its population. The Socceroos did so well at the last world cup and only lost to Italy after a dubious penalty. I’d love it if the WC was hosted in Australia.

C’mon u gooners!!

But there are also a few problems, mainly in belgium, that country is a mess. Politically they are really divided, in fact they are 2 countries in one. Their footballteam aren’t great either at the moment, having failed to qualify for major tournaments since Euro 2000, and are failing again at the moment. I think this time it is mainly due to their manager, because they do have a good and very young, promising squad. The stadiums in Belgium are old and need maintenance or replacing. and apart from the big stadiums in amsterdam, rotterdam and brussel there are no 50.000 seaters in holland or belgium at the moment. Also as small countries, they do not have great influence in the FIFA.

I think Holland do deserve to get the WC more then England do, England already has the 2012 London Olympics, and have had an WC in the past (1966, yes it is long ago I know but still…). Also the national team of Holland is at least equal to that of England. As the organisation of a WC works also as major boost to a country’s state of football, I don’t think England need much boost.

I would really love it if Holland and Belgium get the 2018 WC but I fear England will take it, for reasons I have pointed out above, and because, as a Dutchman, I am a bit biased

The 2018 WC is England’s to lose in my opinion. USA with stadiums of 80K each minimum is actually a superior bid to England. That said the ‘94 tournament was one of the most boring on record, and the heat was a factor – do you remember the water bottles all along the by-line.

Fair points.

Holland-Belgium (or Benelux), for my money, won’t get the Cup because there are bigger fish on the European front vying for it, namely England and yes, Spain-Portugual. Like I said in the article, if Spain were to go for it on their own, they would be front-runners in Europe.

It seems that we’re in agreement that it is most likely that the World Cup will go to Europe in 2018? That gives us a choice between Russia, Benelux and England (not counting Spain yet since we don’t know how they’ll play it). Out of that trio, I still contend that England are the strongest candidate.

If you disagree, let me know why. Also, any chances of sourcing that quote of Blatter’s that you mentioned? I got mine off BBC.

As for Australia – yes, they’re going to use the oval stadiums for football, how they’ll do it is up to them but as far as I understand it they have the best chance outside Europe / North America to host it, and if the 2018 World Cup goes to Europe, it will go to a different continent in 2022, with leaves it a three-way between Mexico, USA and Australia (the major candidates – Japan / Korea are too soon, Indonesia has very limited chances and Qatar is too small).

Mexico has hosted 2 World Cups. USA has hosted 1, and that in 1994. Mexico won’t happen in my view, so it’s between the US and Australia, and on the surface of it (and assuming that Australia will modify existing stadiums for the event), the fact that they haven’t hosted a World Cup previously and that US has hosted one in 94 favors Australia.

It will come down to backroom politics, which is why the US probably has a better chance.

In retrospect, taking out the ‘previous hosted World Cup’ criteria, the US is a better candidate for a World Cup purely from a monetary perspective – they are masters of sports marketing and making money off sports. Not sure if visa issues at that point in time will make things tougher to go, but that’s another story.