Nick Bendel
How in the world does the FFA expect to pull this off?
January 28th 2009 05:22
The prize on offer, of course, is the right to host the 2018 World Cup. With sentiment suggesting that it ought to be awarded to Europe, England has been installed as the bookmaker’s favourite, while continental associates Russia, Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium/Luxembourg are also being taken very seriously. Greece is another challenger that may emerge from UEFA.
Given that Oceania is too small to mount a challenge, and that Africa and South America are forbidden from doing so (as they will be hosting the next two tournaments), the only confederations which could stop almighty Europe getting its way are North America and Asia. According to reports, the US, Canada and Mexico might each prepare a bid on behalf of the former. As for the latter, Japan has already raised its hand, China and North Korea have hinted at doing so, and now Qatar has announced that it too will be fighting for World Cup glory.
When the FFA announced that it would try to secure the only major tournament that Australia has yet to host, it seemed that there was a realistic- albeit small- chance of success. Yet since then, as country after country has articulated its determination to stage the world’s most popular sporting event, the odds have been getting more and more remote. By the time February 2 comes around- which is the closing date for official expressions of interest- Australia may find itself with no less than a dozen rivals.
For a footballing minnow like Australia to emerge triumphant, it needs to mount a case that is so deafening and clear that at least half of the 24 members of FIFA’s Executive Committee cannot fail to heed it. That is why the next World Cup is going to be held in South Africa. The emotional appeal of sending the tournament to Africa for the first time was so strong that the Executive Committee concluded that it outweighed the country’s negligible footballing record, unstable political scene, weak economy, limited infrastructure and high crime rate.
The problem for the FFA is that with so many others noisily pressing their claims, it will be almost impossible to rise above the hubbub. From a logistical perspective, nobody will be able to deny Australia’s credentials. A wealthy, sporting-mad country is undeniably capable of providing the necessary 12 quality stadiums of at least 40,000 capacity (one of which must be able to seat 80,000). A country that only recently hosted a highly acclaimed Olympics and Rugby World Cup is undeniably capable of staging another mammoth event. Then there are the benefits of political stability, a strong economy, impressive infrastructure and a safe environment that Australia undeniably possesses.
Yet although Australia will undeniably be able to tick all of FIFA’s boxes, where it will struggle is with the emotional and political part of the bidding process. Instinctively, many on the Executive Committee (nine of whom represent UEFA) will be thinking that 2018 must again be Europe’s time, given that it will have been 12 years since the tournament was held in Germany. Instinctively, many on the Executive Committee will be thinking that a small, distant nation of no great clout and with no meaningful footballing heritage to speak of is undeserving of such a rich prize. Trying to persuade the 24 members to ignore their instincts would be challenging enough at the best of times, but with so many politicians and officials sure to be buzzing about their ears, it will be almost impossible for Australia to communicate the sort of deafening and clear message of change that is essential if it is to win.
That is why the presence of spoiler candidates damages an underdog like Australia, in the same way that heavyweights such as England will scarcely notice their presence. How on earth Qatar, which has a population of just 1.5 million, or North Korea, which can’t even feed its own people, expects to meet FIFA’s organisational benchmarks is impossible to fathom. On first thoughts, Australia shouldn’t be concerned by bidders that are manifestly their inferior. Yet every bit of attention that they manage to attract from the Executive Committee is one less bit of desperately-needed attention that the FFA will be able to attract. England won’t care- England will never suffer for attention. Little Australia, though, is going to struggle to make itself heard.
To make matters worse, the makeup of the Executive Committee is unfavourable. Nine of the 24 members come from UEFA, and it can be assumed that they will be backing a European candidate. That means that Australia will have to seduce at least a dozen of the remaining 15- that is, 80 per cent of the live votes. Carrying Asia is therefore mandatory. The president of the AFC, Mohamed bin Hammam, previously said that if there was only one bidder from the confederation, he would instruct the four Asian members to unify behind it. Unfortunately, Australia will be pitted against anywhere from two to four rivals from its own region. And two of these rivals have men on the Executive Committee- bin Hammam, who is Qatari, and Junji Ogura, who is Japanese. So, unless the other AFC nations get eliminated early enough from the voting process to enable Australia to pocket all the Asian votes, it will be all but impossible to win the hosting rights for the 2018 World Cup. Even if Mong-Joon Chung (South Korea) and Worawi Makudi (Thailand) support Australia, and even if Oceania fulfils its promise to cast its solitary vote in favour of Australia, Australia would have to win over at least nine of the remaining 10 members (four Africans, three North Americans and three South Americans).
There is, though, a ray of hope. The vote for 2018 is scheduled for some time in December 2010. But thanks to a change in policy, the vote for 2022 is also going to be held in December 2010- in fact, immediately after. FIFA has declared that countries may register their interest for both tournaments, and that they must be given to different confederations. So, if Europe was to be awarded the 2018 World Cup, all its bidders would automatically be eliminated from 2022 calculations. UEFA’s nine votes would be up for grabs, and Australia would be left with a maximum of seven opponents.
While Australia has expressed an interest in both tournaments, the official FFA position is that it is focussed solely on 2018- that is, it has put its hand up for 2022 not because it expects to have to make use of this fallback option, but simply because it would be negligent not to. This is most likely a cunning stratagem. If Australia was to let it be known that it was half-hearted about 2018, it would have no chance of winning. But by maintaining its bullish stance, it retains a chance- however small- of doing just that. At the same time, it leaves itself an even greater chance of winning FIFA’s second chance draw. Still, for all the FFA’s strong words, nobody should expect Australia to be named as hosts of the 2018 World Cup. The 2022 World Cup, however, is a realistic possibility.
| 77 |
| Vote |
