Segun Oluwaniyi

well that's the exact problem - you should absolutely have to prove that your bid is better. the award of a world cup host shouldn't be based on an arbitrary, subjective preference on the part of a handful of voters whose reasons and justifications and eventual vote are all secret. it's a recipe not only for corruption but, as we have seen, for not delivering the best actual results. england (and spain/portugal or netherlands/belgium) missing out against russia i can live with, though the way the vote panned out, with tactical voting, is a clear sign that some reform is needed. but Qatar winning out against bids that were in every conceivable way far better exposes the entire process to be a shambles. in order to award the tournament to qatar goes against the guidelines and best practices fifa have establshed over the years - which simply underlines the fact that those guidelines and best practices were from the off nothing more than a smokescreen to legitimise an arbitrary, capricious process. why go through the rigmorale of an exhausting review of the fine details of every single bid if you're going to disregard those findings and choose what, in review, was seen to be the weakest and riskiest bid by far? See, I completely disagree with what you are saying here. In my opinion, the entire goal of that process is to present the voters with as much information as possible, and to quickly destroy any bids which are deemed unacceptable upon review. The idea of the "best results" is subjective as you're talking from a white European perspective. Can you see into the future? How do you know Qatar will not be a success? you are projecting your personal opinions onto what will happen in the future. You can ridicule this statement when I am 32 years old, but for now you cannot prove anything. You make sure every bid fits the parameters, you attempt to give the delegates perfect information, you distribute the votes in a fair way, and go from there. FIFA do need to work to limit corruption, but this is an impossibility in my opinion.

You don't have to prove your bid is "better than the rest". As long as you can convince all involved that you can successfully host the tournament, it is a matter of preference between the voters. If the "best bid" won, they would just award the Cup to the nation that scored the highest on the inspections. This is not how the process works. If you want to say that this preference was aided by corruption (as every single political decision in every single country in the world is), then that is a different matter and different to what I was saying. England don't "deserve" the tournament more than anyone else. I was referring to Russia, btw. As people were talking about England's bid.

Feel like we will lose this game. They troubled us last season. Obviously, both sides have improved a lot, but they have remained impressive when I've seen them this season at the higher level. Very decent team. I feel like we are due a close defeat anyway.

Not hosting since 1966 should bear some importance if the two countries have similar backgrounds, strengths and weaknesses. I only mentioned that date as its 44 years since we’ve hosted so we should have more of a claim to hosting than Spain who hosted 16 years later. Obviously, Russia have never hosted so 1966 isn’t relevant in that case. How can Russia guarantee a safe World Cup? How can Qatar for that matter considering where it is in the world? No nation can guarantee an entertaining World Cup, the last one is proof of that if proof is needed. I found the last one to be a rather entertaining affair, tbh. Much better than 2006. I certainly had a nice time watching on the tele in the broom closet at work or at home friends. Also, my people who attended have told me that the atmosphere around the event was fantastic, which is all that the host country can control. Can Britain guarantee a safe World Cup? Has Qatar experienced any attack on the scale of 7/7 in the last 20 years? Nowhere is safe in the world, man. However, if Qatar prove that they will use all means necessary to prevent violence, FIFA should find this acceptable. Obviously, Russia have a history of violence, but if they can convince those in power that they will keep everyone safe in the areas in and around the stadia for one month, I don't see why they should be prevented. SA is probably more violent than any of the nations being discussed and they kept everyone involved with the tourney safe for a month. This is all that matters in FIFA's eyes.

I haven't the slightest clue madras. I am not a heavily informed FIFA delegate to be frank with you. At the end of things, it is a vote. Whichever bid is preferred by the voters will win. It is the same as any election. You may personally feel that one person was more qualified than the other, but this does not mean the populace will vote for him.

Spain hosted in 1982, we last hosted in 1966 so they might not moan as loudly as we are. It looks like the Americans and Australians are having a good moan and they have every right to moan considering who won in the same group. What have Qatar done to host a World Cup? You can't dismiss the history of countries that have been competing for years as if that was worthless. Without the game being played historically we wouldn't have a future, we'll have a footballing future without Qatar. You shouldn't have to do anything to host the World Cup. As long as you can convince the delegates that you can produce and run a successful, safe, and entertaining World Cup you should be just as eligible as anyone else. I don't understand how not hosting the tournament since 1966 bears any importance when competing with an established nation on the World stage which has never hosted the event.

Maccarone?

Was never the same after he was caught doping. Which is interesting. I remember he was playing for Kallon FC a little while back, but I do not know or care about his current whereabouts.

I thought I'd post that as the advice is just about the same for every country in the world and was admittedly trolling. However - that's some fine use of statistics there Nicked this from the fountain of mis-information known as the internet "The population of Qatar on December 2nd 2010 is approximately 865,415. (Extrapolated from a population of 1,409,000 on September 13th 2009 and a population of 907,229 on October 9th 2010.)" and "The population of the UK is approximately 61,113,205.". So thats a 2% crime rate in a country with a population more than 6000% smaller. Surely the crime rate is done as crime per number of people. Otherwise China and India would have the highest crime rates.

There wouldn't have been f***ing vuvuzelas destroying the atmosphere in every f***ing match for a start. Probably best that England don't ever win it then. Just in case the South Africans bring their vuvuzelas with them. South Africa won't make it to WCs they're not hosting, so no. Wrong! No, loads better African sides competing for those five spaces. Despite being horrific from 2006-2010, they've appeared reinvigorated since this June. It's actually happened quite rapidly as they looked very poor before the World Cup.

Both countries will be doing everything possible in their power to cater towards the EU and US countries as this is where the money will come from. You will be comfortable. I assure you.

I found 2010 to be significantly more enjoyable than 2006 as far as the football (or at least the knockout stages) 40+ degrees in the summer. Need to build 12 stadiums from scratch. 106 degrees is the average temp in june You should clarify Fahrenheit. People would melt at 106.

What was so terrible about the last World Cup. My family members that stayed from the beginning until the semifinals enjoyed the hell out of themselves, and other people I know who went expressed contentment at the way in which things were run. I certainly enjoyed it from another part of the continent.

Qatar is actually the one that concerns me. I'm sure they'll use their oil money to make every thing look nice and run smoothly, but players, managers, staff, fans, etc. don't want to be camped out in 40 degree heat for a month.

If there is one thing SA had plentiful amounts of, it was racism and poor infrastructure, yet they pulled off a great WC. I think Russia will be a fine host. I think I might want to go to that one. I've already seen Ukraine, but I imagine Russia will be somewhat different.

How is England not getting the Cup evidence of corruption? England were just as corrupt as everyone else.

Were SA or Korea disasters?

He's mental. Fantastic how no one did anything to prevent him for a full minute. Very brave, though. Nudity in the cold has always been a fear for me. Certain parts of you could become frostbitten and die.

Thinking about it, UEFA nations would be incredulous if England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales were all put in the group stages. What an awful World Cup that would be.

Gervinho is fantastic, young, Black, and expensive.

There's as much chance of monkey chants at the Russian World Cup as there was of a crime epidemic in SA. Easy to cover these things up for a month. You won't see the racists in 2022 just as you didn't see the poor people in SA.

Is the bid UK or England?

The Fanni jokes are so terrible and repetitive that it somehow makes them funny. Yeah, Azpilicueta tore up his ACL against Montpellier at the weekend, so he'll be ought for a long time to come. It's a shame really because had found his feet in the more physical French top flight and was starting to play very well. Wouldn't mind seeing Beye again, but I question whether he can still physically do it for us. I've also spotted another article linking Carlton Cole with a 10 million pound move in the winter. Is it the football press or football clubs themselves that are blind? He had a brace last night, but does no one realise that he's been poor all season and lost his place several times to two players brought in for nothing? It baffles me that anyone could even conceive of the idea of Cole being worth ten million.

He looks good but his goal record is a bit s**** atm. More a wing forward than a striker. Is actually very skillful, but tends to kill spectators with his attempts on goal.

I'm only half watching, but it's scary that people consider West Ham automatic relegation fodder. They have some very good players. No idea why we didn't pursue the loan from Inter. He was available for nothing. edit: I want 5.