Potential World Cup Hosts

[ScoRoss]

Now that the 2026 World Cup has been awarded to Mexico, America and Canada, soon it will turn to the bids to host World Cup 2030. With 2022, and 2026 both held outside of Europe, it seems very likely that the World Cup will return to Europe for its 100th Anniversary. But what countries, from anywhere in the world could actually host a 48 team World Cup?

The standard seems to have been set at having twelve stadiums, with at least a capacity of 40,000 spectators. Something that only a select few countries could even have a sniff at meeting. Never mind having enough training facilities to host 48 teams. Which is why it looks more likely that joint hosting to going to become more commonplace for the World Cup.

England is probably the most suited country to host a World Cup with its abundance of stadiums but, with many of them being in the same cities, even it might struggle to meet the requirements.

London: Wembley

Birmingham: Villa Park

Manchester: Old Trafford

Liverpool: Anfield

Newcastle: St James Park

Sunderland: Stadium of Light

And after that, you either have to rely on stadiums being expanded or FIFA allowing more than one stadium per city. The next six biggest stadiums outside of those cities, to bring it up to twelve stadiums are:

Sheffield: Hillsborough

Leeds: Elland Road

Middlesborough: Riverside Stadium

Derby: iPro Stadium

Southampton: St Mary's Stadium

Coventry: Ricoh Arena

[Stan]

we'll have the biggest stadium in the Midlands by the time we even get a chance for hosting the World Cup. Expansion plans have already been put in for our stadium to take it to 42-45k I believe.

As for London, I think you can have national stadium and one other, so I suspect one of Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea could be chosen.

The great thing about England hosting (maybe jointly with Wales and Scotland to easy logistics) are the transport links between everywhere. Trains easily accessible and short flights if necessary due to several airports. 

[ScoRoss]

Seems another English bid would be in consideration. Especially with the lack of competition that the 'United' bid faced.

[Danny]

Would be a farce if you couldn't have multiple stadiums in the same city for England, by then you could be looking at Wembley, WHL2, Emirates, Stamford Bridge, Old Trafford, Anfield, Etihad, St. James Park, Villa Park, Elland Road, Hillsbrough and probably Ashton Gate for some West Country love.

[Harry]

I love the thought of England& scotland hosting a cup. Absolutely no question i would attend. And just be in the country the whole way through the event to absorb it all. 

Probably the closest I'd get to Australia ever hosting it. 

[Smiley Culture]

The Footballing romantic in me says take it to Uruguay for its 100th anniversary but I can’t imagine that would be considered. 

I didn’t realise you couldn’t hold games in the same city. Though that said, with Wembley, Old Trafford, Hampden, Anfield, Villa Park, St James’, St Mary’s, Stadium of Light, Millenium Stadium, Croke Park, the King Power and Elland Road, you have twelve British grounds there in different cities that could probably host a World Cup tomorrow. 

[Honey Honey]

1 hour ago, Smiley Culture said:

The Footballing romantic in me says take it to Uruguay for its 100th anniversary but I can’t imagine that would be considered. 

There's still a lot of 1930's nationalist undertones to the World cup so why not. We can even have the one after that as the Fascist Italy anniversary  

 

[Guest]

Hopefully we get it. I mean we invented the game and we have only hosted one tournament. By then america would have hosted more than us. A joint British bid could work. Also we could call it britian 2030 instead of England, Ireland Scotland, Wales 2030 

[Carnivore Chris]

England is the obvious choice as witnessing a World Cup in your own back yard would be incredible, although the perfect option would be Spain, as I've always said. It's the type of place you'd want to be at this time of the year and from a personal perspective it isn't far from England meaning that you don't have to try and plan it with people, only for them not to be seriously interested about going in the end such as with Brazil and South Africa, where I tried my best to blag people to come with me. You could just fuck off to Spain on your own, although you wouldn't have problems rounding up people either way due to them not being sceptical about visiting those countries.

They have the stadia, the rich footballing culture and history, it is guaranteed great weather and I can't think of any country that has brought more to the game over the last decade, both at international and club level. A proper footballing country. Who in Spain doesn't like football also? Even the majority of women seem to absolutely love it there and the same can't be said for most countries.

It's a bit stupid how it's only one stadium per city mind(I never even knew that until now), as you would have to have both the Bernabeu and Wanda Metropolitano and also Benito Villamarín and Ramon Sanchez Pizjuan. I suppose it would have to become a joint bid in the end with Portugal.

Speaking of Portugal, there is an argument regarding them. They have never held a World Cup/joint world cup before, yet are a country deep in footballing history and culture. They have recently won a European Championship, have two of histories most respected and successful clubs in Porto and Benfica(Sporting are hardly bad either), have produced some of the world's greatest players in the likes of Eusebio and C.Ronaldo and it's the main sport there, everybody loves it. Not to mention, they also have the stadia, to add to Spain's, to create a perfect tournament. El Estadio da Luz, Dragao and Jose Alvalde being the three notable ones, although 2 are based in Lisbon which could (pathetically) go against them. Unfortunately for Portugal, they would be unable to host one themselves in this day and age, but perfectly capable of hosting a successful one along with their Spanish neighbours.

@SirBalon Camp Nou and the RCDE stadiums should be fine also given how one is situated in Barcelona and the other in Cornella

 

 

[ScoRoss]

2 hours ago, The Rebel CRS said:

England is the obvious choice as witnessing a World Cup in your own back yard would be incredible, although the perfect option would be Spain, as I've always said. It's the type of place you'd want to be at this time of the year and from a personal perspective it isn't far from England meaning that you don't have to try and plan it with people, only for them not to be seriously interested about going in the end such as with Brazil and South Africa, where I tried my best to blag people to come with me. You could just fuck off to Spain on your own, although you wouldn't have problems rounding up people either way due to them not being sceptical about visiting those countries.

They have the stadia, the rich footballing culture and history, it is guaranteed great weather and I can't think of any country that has brought more to the game over the last decade, both at international and club level. A proper footballing country. Who in Spain doesn't like football also? Even the majority of women seem to absolutely love it there and the same can't be said for most countries.

It's a bit stupid how it's only one stadium per city mind(I never even knew that until now), as you would have to have both the Bernabeu and Wanda Metropolitano and also Benito Villamarín and Ramon Sanchez Pizjuan. I suppose it would have to become a joint bid in the end with Portugal.

Speaking of Portugal, there is an argument regarding them. They have never held a World Cup/joint world cup before, yet are a country deep in footballing history and culture. They have recently won a European Championship, have two of histories most respected and successful clubs in Porto and Benfica(Sporting are hardly bad either), have produced some of the world's greatest players in the likes of Eusebio and C.Ronaldo and it's the main sport there, everybody loves it. Not to mention, they also have the stadia, to add to Spain's, to create a perfect tournament. El Estadio da Luz, Dragao and Jose Alvalde being the three notable ones, although 2 are based in Lisbon which could (pathetically) go against them. Unfortunately for Portugal, they would be unable to host one themselves in this day and age, but perfectly capable of hosting a successful one along with their Spanish neighbours.

@SirBalon Camp Nou and the RCDE stadiums should be fine also given how one is situated in Barcelona and the other in Cornella

 

 

6

You can have one city with two stadiums, but I believe the 'rule' is in place to make sure you share the competition around the country and not just located in one city. But even then, you could have a World Cup in Spain with some redeveloped stadiums.

Barcelona – Camp Nou
Valencia – (Nou) Mestalla
Malaga – (Developed/Expanded) La Roseleda
Zaragoza – (Developed/Expanded) La Romareda
Seville – La Cartuja
Madrid – Bernabeu / Wanda Metropolitano
San Sebastian – (Developed/Expanded) Anoeta
Bilbao – San Mames
A Coruna – (Developed/Expanded) Riazor
Vigo – (Developed/Expanded) Balaidos
Las Palmas – (Developed/Expanded) Estadio Gran Canaria

Spread right round the country and able to give people access to the games.

Whether investing in stadiums and the other resources needed is a wise move is another issue.

 

[Carnivore Chris]

Real Sociedad will have a new stadium themselves soon which would exceed 40,000 capacity you would have imagined. 

[Stan]

@The Rebel CRS @ScoRoss the two stadiums in one rule is only there if one of the stadiums is classed as the national stadium. So Spain could declare the Bernabeu as the national stadium and Wanda as another stadium for the city. 

That's a lot of stadiumds needed to be expanded/redeveloped though.

England/Scotland/Wales have more 'ready-to-go' stadiums.

[Carnivore Chris]

Spain/Portugal have plenty of ready to go stadiums and could host one tomorrow, but in 2030 will be even more ready considering the new stadiums such as the new Anoeta(Real Sociedad) and a few others. 

Camp Nou(Barcelona) 

El Santiago Bernabeu(Real Madrid) 

Wanda Metropolitano(Atlético de Madrid) 

Benito Villamarín(Real Betis) 

San Mames(Athletic Bilbao) 

Mestalla(Valencia) 

Ramón Sánchez Pizjuan(Sevilla) 

RCDE(Espanyol) 

Estadio da luz(Benfica) 

Estadio do Dragao(Porto)

Estadio José Alvalde(Sporting clube) 

 

[The Artful Dodger]

On 13/06/2018 at 21:49, ScoRoss said:

And after that, you either have to rely on stadiums being expanded or FIFA allowing more than one stadium per city. The next six biggest stadiums outside of those cities, to bring it up to twelve stadiums are:

On 13/06/2018 at 21:49, ScoRoss said:

Now that the 2026 World Cup has been awarded to Mexico, America and Canada, soon it will turn to the bids to host World Cup 2030. With 2022, and 2026 both held outside of Europe, it seems very likely that the World Cup will return to Europe for its 100th Anniversary. But what countries, from anywhere in the world could actually host a 48 team World Cup?

The standard seems to have been set at having twelve stadiums, with at least a capacity of 40,000 spectators. Something that only a select few countries could even have a sniff at meeting. Never mind having enough training facilities to host 48 teams. Which is why it looks more likely that joint hosting to going to become more commonplace for the World Cup.

England is probably the most suited country to host a World Cup with its abundance of stadiums but, with many of them being in the same cities, even it might struggle to meet the requirements.

London: Wembley

Birmingham: Villa Park

Manchester: Old Trafford

Liverpool: Anfield

Newcastle: St James Park

Sunderland: Stadium of Light

And after that, you either have to rely on stadiums being expanded or FIFA allowing more than one stadium per city. The next six biggest stadiums outside of those cities, to bring it up to twelve stadiums are:

Sheffield: Hillsborough

Leeds: Elland Road

Middlesborough: Riverside Stadium

Derby: iPro Stadium

Southampton: St Mary's Stadium

Coventry: Ricoh Arena

 

Would it not be a British bid? So chuck in Hampden and the Millenium stadium too?

It's a good thing to limit it to one ground per city, the World Cup is for everyone and the whole country should be involved. London gets enough as it is and I'd much rather go to Hillsborough than the Etihad or Emirates.

[ScoRoss]

7 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Would it not be a British bid? So chuck in Hampden and the Millenium stadium too?

It's a good thing to limit it to one ground per city, the World Cup is for everyone and the whole country should be involved. London gets enough as it is and I'd much rather go to Hillsborough than the Etihad or Emirates.

That would work, assuming they'd allow a host nation to contribute only one venue. You could also use Murrayfield from Scotland as well.

You'd also imagine by then that a few of the stadiums listed have expanded/redeveloped and were of a capable size. Possibly see a few more cities like Bristol wanting to be involved as well.

Final - Wembley

Semi-Finals - Old Trafford / Millenium Stadium

Quarter-Finals - Villa Park / St James Park / Anfield / Hampden

I'm excited already...

 

[The Artful Dodger]

I hope the Qatari one falls through and Britain gets 2022.

[The Artful Dodger]

Just now, Cannabis said:

A British World Cup would be gash, either have it in England only or not at all.

Why? England doesn't have enough decent stadiums.

[The Artful Dodger]

Just now, Cannabis said:

Of course it does, and would by 2022.

Not upto the standards of what Russia has. Two more 70+ stadiums would really add something.

[Berserker]

On 14/6/2018 at 14:55, Smiley Culture said:

The Footballing romantic in me says take it to Uruguay for its 100th anniversary but I can’t imagine that would be considered. 

I didn’t realise you couldn’t hold games in the same city. Though that said, with Wembley, Old Trafford, Hampden, Anfield, Villa Park, St James’, St Mary’s, Stadium of Light, Millenium Stadium, Croke Park, the King Power and Elland Road, you have twelve British grounds there in different cities that could probably host a World Cup tomorrow. 

We actually submitted a joint bid along with Uruguay and Paraguay to host 2030 precisely for that reason.

[Kowabunga]

1 minute ago, Berserker said:

We actually submitted a joint bid along with Uruguay and Paraguay to host 2030 precisely for that reason.

Can even a 3-country bid overcome the excessive porteño over-dependency?

[Berserker]

1 minute ago, Kowabunga said:

Can even a 3-country bid overcome the excessive porteño over-dependency?

Nope, but still, when you take into account Buenos Aires is more than half the size of Spain and 3 times England it's not as important.

[Kowabunga]

8 minutes ago, Berserker said:

Nope, but still, when you take into account Buenos Aires is more than half the size of Spain and 3 times England it's not as important.

Throw Chile in there and we have a deal.

[Berserker]

1 minute ago, Kowabunga said:

Throw Chile in there and we have a deal.

No Chile, Paraguay was not needed neither, they just invited themselves and Macri accepted them.

[Dan+]

Bring it to England. We're capable.

[ASF]

22 minutes ago, Berserker said:

We actually submitted a joint bid along with Uruguay and Paraguay to host 2030 precisely for that reason.

I hope your bid wins, as it would be only fitting that the 100th anniversary is played where everything started.

Personally, I hope we don't host a joint WC with Spain. Not if it's under the same conditions of the last bid for 2018, where about 1/3 of the game would have been in Portugal and the rest in Spain. The opening and the final would have also been in Spain.

Same way, the North America bid for 2026 is a joke. Canada and Mexico only get 10 games each, and the remaining 60 games in the US? Laughable.