Talk:2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup bids/Archive 2

Couple of points
Contrary to the article, according to List_of_stadiums_by_capacity Mexico's stadium is only the third largest stadium in the world that hosts association football. Also should anything be noted about the "agreement" between the U.S. and English FA's stating that the U.S. will back England for 2018 and vica-versa for 2022? As stated here Roobens (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there's a difference between a "football stadium" and a "stadium which is used for football". Azteca isn't used for mass coordinated dance performances. However, its probably best to avoid absolute superlatives for this reason, since inevitably someone will challenge it. The phrase is now "one of the largest." About the article there, I think the author of that piece is proposing a tit-for-tat support, and not reporting that anyone official has from either country would support it. The quote from the "FA insider" reports that it would earn FIFA lots of money, which is true, but probably not representative of some backroom deal, so no, I don't think we should add it to the article.--Patrick «» 18:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

can i just say the points about the Russian bid are moot, considering the chosen cities will all be on European russia which has a smaller land area than Brazil, Australia and the USA... so maybe someone should edit the 11 times zones point... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.79.112 (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Indonesia logo
What's up with Indonesia's bid logo? Neither of the ones I've seen introduced this week seem to follow the pattern the others show.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 13:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Indonesia not interested in 2018?
What's up with Indonesia? I've been poking around the web, and they don't seem to have much up online, but there's is an interesting trend in what I can find. It all refers to "Indonesia 2022" and never includes the option of 2018. |en&sl=it&tl=en&u=http://74.125.93.132/search%3Fq%3Dcache:lC8x4MzO3dAJ:www.pssi-football.com/id/PD2022.pdf%2Bsite:www.pssi-football.com%2B2018%2B2022%26cd%3D1%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus Here's a PowerPoint about their plan from the Indonesian Federation's site, which has headings like "Mission World Cup 2022", "Moto World Cup 2022", or "Strategic Plan; Positive Change For World Cup 2022". The website that we list as their official site, www.wc2022indonesia.com, also seems to only be about 2022 with headings like "Indonesia ready for World Cup 2022" and what not. So if any editors can find evidence that they are really not trying for 2018, like Qatar and South Korea, then we should note this.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 05:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

ASEAN Propose joint tournament
Found this article about a joint bid for 2018, surely to late to put in a bid, but hell here goes,

Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij Friday proposed that Asean nations jointly bid to host the 2018 FIFA World Cup.

He said the idea was floated by businessmen from 3 or 4 Asean countries with hope that the event would revive economies in the Asean nations.

Korn said he proposed the idea to Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva who supported it.

But the prime minister said the Asean countries would have first to reach an agreement on certain issues, such as which Asean team would represent the grouping in the competition.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/breakingnews/30115091/Korn-proposes-that-Asean-jointly-bid-for-2018-FIFA#

Should this be included in the article? Druryfire (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, there's no date on the article so the proposal either a. got nowehere or b. is far too late to be vaguely serious. --Pretty Green (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Bids submitted table
User:Patrickneil has posted a series of alternative formats for the bids submitted table. I'll assume that as he labelled them as different options that the idea was to initiate discussion of their relative merits.

But good initiative Patrick, thank you. Kevin McE (talk) 06:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer the labels above the lists rather than alongside them: very narrow columns are not comfortably read.
 * The joint bids are precisely that: joint bids, not alternatives. So it should read Portugal and Spain, or Portugal & Spain, rather than Portugal/Spain, which might be thought to imply "or".
 * Mexico did submit a bid, so should not be removed from this list headed Bids submitted.
 * If the hashed blue shading over Mexico in the map is to remain, it should be explained in the key.


 * Yes, these tables are good, I prefer more recent version with labels above and notes below. I've made a couple of basic changes, but left the Mexico shading one for more competent editors! --Pretty Green (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That was the idea. I should have posted about the options, but I got called away yesterday. The three options are no change, horizontal headings, or the current vertical headings. I was never happy with the old table, with its two columns, and particularly the header for "Joint bids", which I added mostly to give the table an even number of rows in each column. With the color I thought I could combine the headers and the color labels for the map to save space. While we probably could, providing there's something to explain the ineligible colors, I don't yet have a version that does it nicely. Part of the problem is the vertical column of countries is far taller than map is. Making the map taller means making it wider, which I worry will push it off the screen on some resolutions, and it probably doesn't need to be that prominent. If anyone can think of a good way to split the column, I'm all ears. I thought that using a header to the left of the column, instead of above it, and by removing Mexico would give us a little extra space to make it work.
 * I can use inkscape to change the color of Mexico. The hatching was actually what I had used when Egypt was thought to be bidding, and it had light blue and orange stripes to note it was ineligible for 2018 while bidding for 2022. So I'm not sure how to note a bid that's been rescinded. Maybe a fifth color? Black? I think Mexico can be removed from the table safely, since the heading is only "Bids for 2016 and 2022", which assumes current bids. But the article's section its under is "Bids Submitted", so speaking more broadly, maybe the subsection on Mexico should be moved below, in a new "Canceled bids" section. As a user noted today, Japan was counting on Tokyo getting the Olympics, and their bid is somewhat up in the air right now. So let me know what people think.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 19:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So I just did what I proposed there, which was to create a new section called "Canceled bids" so that Mexico can be separated from the table and the big section, which I renamed "Current bids". Any thoughts? I think in the long term, keeping Mexico in that section will look funny. Most of the current bids now have their logo next to them, and will have new info added as time goes on, while Mexico would remain the same. That means I also removed Mexico from the table, along with its note. Still not sure what to do about the map. Maybe I'll just remove Mexico from it, and leave it gray like the other non-bidding countries. Again, ideas?-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 04:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Eventually, all bids bar two will be void and no more than a historical footnote to the tournaments that will eventually take place. Thus I would prefer to have retained the list of bids submitted, with those no longer active (only Mexico for now, but Japan may follow soon) annotated by an asterisk or something similar and possibly a subsection for their text summary.  As to the map, I would have to ask what purpose it serves: for the reader who knows where the bidding countries are, it is just a pretty picture; for those who don't, then the map raises more questions than it answers (where does Australia finish and Indonesia start, or Japan start and Russia stop?  What is that small country on the Baltic, or the large one in the top left?  Why can't I see Qatar?  I can only see 3 blobs in western Europe, but 5 western European countries are listed.)  Kevin McE (talk) 21:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Reasonable points. I think a visualization of the parts of the world involved in this competition does help illustrate the article. Perhaps we can have some labels on the map if it would help. While text in SVGs can be a problem, there are ways to work with it, even considering the usage of the map on other languages. I agree that the non-selected countries will one day be footnotes, but the fact is that they're sticking through the process, which will take another 14 months, so I think that will put the loosing bids in their own category. Since Mexico never got to the submission of bid details, I think it should be removed from the same standing of the others who still expect to make that deadline next spring. It's like they bought a ticket to the dance, but never showed up, so how much should we recognize their effort? Not that I can offer any solutions for how to present it, just the half measures from yesterday.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 03:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Kevin, I've gone and done what you requested in October, which is return the canceled bids to the table there. I used purple for their color on the map, but would be open to alternatives. Thoughts on the new look?-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 03:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification on Euro-focus by Blatter
I don't exactly trust News Corp Australia's reporting at the moment, but they are reporting something about a backtrack on any Platini-Blatter Europe deal for 2018. The original comments are noteworthy, but for what it's worth, Blatter states the obvious (and unpolitical) here - http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,26658926-5019088,00.html (something about a 'movement in Europe to ensure a European bid wins, presumably by avoiding the splitting of votes within UEFA among the potential bidders.) 121.208.18.179 (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Japan only bidding for 2022
http://www.zeenews.com/news624076.html

Japan is only bidding for 2022

Tried to change it myself but messed up table so undid 123.211.235.76 (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Got it. Thanks for the info!-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 03:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

POV
This article reads like a Pro US anti-Australia article with regards to the two bids. Furthermore a memorandum of understanding has now been completed between the AFL/NRL and the FFA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.122.77 (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So improve it!-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 04:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed bias regarding the US bid there is no need to say "unlike Australia" --Orestes1984 (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Schedule with inspections
Hey, I like what User:IanCleverly has gone and done, putting the schedule on individual bid articles with the particular dates for that country's inspection by FIFA, and I think we should have that. But here I'm wondering what people think about putting the whole schedule on the main page. I mocked a version up here, and it looks quite long. Is it too much? Is the one line about inspections enough? Or is it good to have all the info in one central place? And is "inspections" really the right word?-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 17:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I'd be inclined simply to have one line "July - September 2010 | Inspections of 4 days duration to each bid ", although phrasing is again an issue: a bid can't be visited, but we can't say they visit each bidding nation for 4 days because of the bi-national bids. Inspections would seem to be the sensible word: what do FIFA themselves, or the applicants, use? (Oh: there's a thought: applicant rather than bid in the text I just proposed) Kevin McE (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * How about two lines, one for the start and one for the end? I'm trying that out now, so let me know.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 22:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That mockup you have now seems a bit big for me, so I'm thinking the schedule should stay as it is. Maybe after an inspection has taken place a reference to it can be placed in the bidding countries section? IanCleverly (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Context need: why both at same time?
As someone who only vaugely pays attention to these things, I am confused as to why 2018 and 2020 are being decided at the same time. This is vital piece of context missing from the current article. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 00:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to second this. I've tried looking for information on this but I'm unable to find any information as to why the 2022 Cup is being decided more than 11 years before the off. Anyone who could provide context would be great. ThomasAndrewNimmo (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not for us to speculate on reasons that FIFA has not revealed, so we cannot say. Kevin McE (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is easy for us to understand, FIFA is unsatisfied with the delays in the preparations for the World Cup in Brazil but it's to late to replace Brazil with another host, so FIFA is now deciding 2018 and 2022 at the same time for the bids to 2026 to begin with 11 years of anticipation, as well the bids for 2030 to be decided with 11 years of anticipation too, aswell the bids for 2034 to begin with 11 years of anticipation too and so on, and so on... FIFA jus wants more distant dead-end lines for the preparations so if a country is slacking with the preparations (which is the case with Brazil now), they will have the chance to defranchise the bid's winner and hire a more trustworthy host still in time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.19.197 (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You may think that: you might well be right. But unless FIFA say this is their reason, or a respected journalist expresses the suspicion, we can't fulfil the request and put it into the article.  Kevin McE (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Indonesia/Malaysia host
Malaysia and Indonesia will discuss the possibility of jointly hosting the World Cup football in future and will set up a special desk in their respective country to work out the details. from article *  (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Stadium vs Stadia
Any reason for the inconsistency? Ferrantino (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, there isn't a good reason. I asked about this over on WikiProject Football a while back, and they said either was fine as long as there was consistency across the article. However, here we have a mix of U.S., British, and Australian editors who I think are used to one or the other, and use their local one in their own country's section. But if there was a vote, I'd go with "stadiums", since I think that word is easier to understand to more people, while fewer seem to realize that the archaic "stadia" is even a plural.-- Patrick {o Ѻ ∞} 16:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Went ahead (and against my own preference) and changed everything that wasn't in a link to "stadiums". Ferrantino (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just as a clarification, Dferrantino, the confusion is NOT between stadia and stadium, but between stadia and stadiums. Stadia is plural for stadium and is interchangeable with stadiums, but not with the singular. I'm sure stadiums is the preferred word in 2010.--AndresTM (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Redundant detail / systemic bias
Because each bid has a separate article, I would think great detail about each bid on here is to be avoided. It's inadvisable under the DRY principle. Moreover, it introduces the potential for Systemic bias as English speakers add information about their own country's bid. I suspect this has happened in the United States section. A paragraph or so summarizing the bid may be appropriate, but there's no need to reinvent the wheel here. I suggest collaboration in paring down some of the more verbose sections. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

How does it work?
Can somebody add a paragraph explaining the voting process please? How many votes does each federation get, and which person / nationality will be using said vote? I only know Warner, the Trinidad and Tobago bloke. Villafancd (talk) 18:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've seen breakdowns of how it works, but I can't find a good source needed for a full paragraph. I did add a sentence to the introduction on voting procedure.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 21:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

what about 2030 bid ?
Uruguay 2030, Blatter announced cohost URU/ARG bid  --Jor70 (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

2018 & 2022 Bids?
As all the 2018 bidders are europe, doesn't that mean that they can only bid for 2018, as it won't be held in the same continent twice? If so, should the table be changed, or should it be left in case of a late rule change? (At this stage that would be extremely unlikely I would think.) 130.88.254.61 (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Europe would have to wait until 2030 before they could put in another bid. Europe 2018 → This country 2022 → This country 2026 → Europe 2030 Treyvo (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Map Inaccuracy
The map included is incorrect. It labels the United States as having "only 2018 bid," but in fact it is not only doing a 2022 bid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.16.124 (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Second it, the map is also incorrect in its keys that dont match what is shown. Hence, ive removed it, pending a new one.Lihaas (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Splitting article?
Since we now have the situation where the 2018 World Cup would go to a European nation, and 2022 to a CONCACAF or AFC nation, is it worth splitting the article (ie - a page for 2018, and a seperate page for 2022 with references to withdrawals to either bid) to reflect this issue. Reading through the article today, I see 6 mentions of 2018 going to a UEFA member, where it would be so much easier just to have one page concentrating on 2018 and the other for 2022? IanCleverly (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should: the bidding was in one integrated process, and it was by no means necessary that they would split. Most participants threw their hats into both rings, and to present two processes would be to re-write history.  For similar reasons, we should not be renaming articles to reflect onlt one bid when two were made.  Kevin McE (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It has to eventually happen anyway. As in all articles where the bidding process is listed and then the rest is set. As of now we can go fairly to 2022 FIFA World Cup and cover it.Lihaas (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry: I don't follow that logic at all. There is no precedent for two tournaments sharing a bidding process, so that doesn't determine what "has to eventually happen": when the locations are decided, a section in the article for each even can summarise the voting, with a main article note refering back to here to give greater detail.  If your suggestion is that we split this article and that these then become the first stage of the articles 2018 FIFA World Cup and 2022 FIFA World Cup, I would oppose it vehemently: as a section on host selection, it is far too detailed, but if your assumption is that what is here will be pared back, then I would argue that notability is not temporary, and that if these details ever deserved a place on Wikipedia, they deserve in permanently.  Kevin McE (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Eventually. If I understood your argument correctly. When the 2018 FIFA World Cup comes closer, I think it should get its own article. Same with the 2018 FIFA World Cup - when it comes closer. There's no need to do it right this moment or even right after the drawing for the hosts. I guess just wait until the 2014 FIFA World Cup before doing anything. Treyvo (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When sufficient data exists about the 2018 world cup as an event, rather than a proposed event whose location is yet to be determined, 2018 FIFA World Cup will no longer redirect to here, and it will have a short section on the selection of the hosts, which will link to this article. That does not address Ian's proposal about splitting this article (which I oppose).  Kevin McE (talk) 10:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually there is precedent for 2 tournaments sharing a bidding process: the hosts for 1974, 1978 and 1982 were all decided at the same time. For all that, this article should stay, short summaries of the bidding process can go in the 2018 and 2022 world cup articles with a main article link for more depth. Valenciano (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This should remain as one article - it was a joint process. I have, however, recreated separate articles for the two World Cups, in anticipation of the announcement of the hosts, and thus the ability to fill out info such as venues etc, --Pretty Green (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I can't recreate the 2022 article. But I've requested unprotection. --Pretty Green (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you wait. Info such as stadiums won't be known for a few years yet so there's still little that can go into the articles that wouldn't be WP:CRYSTAL. Valenciano (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd point out that WP:CRYSTAL specifically gives the 2020 Summer Olympics as a valid article; there is more information about the 2018 and 2022 World Cups in existence. Pretty Green (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Vote Tables
It'd be nice if the vote tables matched the example set in the 2006 FIFA World Cup page. Avenger42 (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also I notice that the 2022 table is incorrectly labeled as 2018. Avenger42 (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Andresfi, 2 December 2010
In the main section "Selection", under "Voting rounds", the second table title should read "2022 FIFA bidding (majority 12 votes)" instead of "2018 FIFA bidding (majority 12 votes)" since the first table already describes the 2018 voting.

Andresfi (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅(Lihaas (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)).

"Australia, homosexuality, Japan..."
What's that all about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.81.113 (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Presumably there was vandalism to that effect on the article for a while... Kevin McE (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Australia Not Bidding Till 2046
Can the following text be removed from the Australia section?

″The FFA later announced Australia would not again bid for the world cup until at least 2046, making a world cup in Australia impossible.″

I could not find anything to support this claim.

Edit: 09:09, 12 July 2014 by‎ Empire of War — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.182.133 (talk)
 * ✅ The basis of this is that, with Qatar being in the same confederation as Australia, and with the current twelve year rotation policy, an Asian country could next host in 2034, and it was speculated that China would be favored for that slot, so a couple of Australian editorials that were written around 2010 (after the bid failed) did the math and came up with 2046. That said, it is very speculative, and probably a case of crystal-balling, so I've removed the sentence.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 15:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup bids. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130424191616/http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/02/10/indonesia-upbeat-host-green039-world-cup.html to http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/02/10/indonesia-upbeat-host-green039-world-cup.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup bids. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071022190805/http://foxsports.news.com.au:80/story/0,8659,18610070-31903,00.html to http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,18610070-31903,00.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110430034349/http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/soccer/wires/02/08/2020.ap.soc.wcup.indonesia.bid.1st.ld.writethru.0227/index.html to http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/soccer/wires/02/08/2020.ap.soc.wcup.indonesia.bid.1st.ld.writethru.0227/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)