We'll find out in December 2010 who will have the honour of hosting the World Cup in 2018. If England is chosen - will we spend the next eight years looking forward to this momentous event? Of course we won’t. We'll spend the next eight years, sitting in pubs, arguing over which stadiums should be used.
Of course there are some grounds, such as Old Trafford, Villa Park and Anfield that will definitely be used – but it’s not simply a case of the FA picking their dozen favourite grounds and getting on with it - FIFA has rules and regulations over the stadia that can be used.
One factor is capacity: there needs to be at least ten grounds, all with capacities over 40,000; plus two grounds that can hold 60,000 to be used in the opening match, the final and the semi-finals. So this means, short of any stadium expansion, decent modern stadia such as the KC Stadium, Pride Park or St Mary’s couldn’t be used due to capacity constraints.
Geography is also important to FIFA. A successful bid needs to have host cities that are spread throughout the country. The main problem here is the South-West, which isn’t exactly a hotbed of English football. There’s Cheltenham, Yeovil and that team that sometimes gets in the FA Cup: Team Bath. This means that Bristol, not exactly renowned for having decent teams, has become part of England’s World Cup bid.
Now as anyone who’s had the misfortune of visiting Bristol City’s home, Ashton Gate, will know: it’s not exactly a venue you’d expect to catch a Brazil vs. Argentina match.
As such, Bristol City is planning a new £30 million stadium to be built at Ashton Vale that could hold up to 40,000 fans. The stadium will be ready by 2012 and this, they hope, will help bring World Cup football to the city. Although the Robins currently struggle to fill the 21,000 capacity Ashton Gate, they have managed to take large followings to Wembley in the past and it is hoped that a new stadium would help City fulfill their potential.
Equally it is important that a host city has the appropriate infrastructure in place, coupled with a high quality ground. The main problem here would be in the North-East where it is likely the FA would have to choose between St James’ Park and the Stadium of Light. Whilst Newcastle is undoubtedly considered the more attractive city with the bigger stadium as well as its own airport and national rail link, the Stadium of Light has the higher UEFA star rating and the bigger potential for expansion within the stadium and the surrounding area – making it more suitable for FIFA’s needs.
Significantly for London, FIFA rules state that a single city can only utilize two (and only two) stadiums in a World Cup. Now for the capital, this will almost certainly mean the Emirates and Wembley, meaning that top quality stadia such as Stamford Bridge or White Hart Lane will most likely miss out. Well I say quality, I’ve never actually been to either so who knows?
There is talk that London may be allowed to have a third stadium. It makes sense: travelers are going to be enticed by the prospect of a visit to the nation's capital whilst if a match was in, say, Milton Keynes - well they may well stay at home.
The only problem is that the FA would want the third ground to be Twickenham Stadium. Just six miles from Heathrow and with three railway stations within a ten minute walk, it has excellent transport. It's easy then, to see why the FA wants Twickenham. 82,000 capacity crowd? Just think of the money.
Personally, I don’t like the thought of World Cup matches being played in non-football grounds. Not exactly sure why, but I’ll just say it’s for traditional reasons. There.
It remains to be seen, however, whether the RFU are as money grabbing as the FA. If they are, and if FIFA are willing to bend the rules, then we could be seeing football at Twickenham for the first time in 2018.
Of course there are some grounds, such as Old Trafford, Villa Park and Anfield that will definitely be used – but it’s not simply a case of the FA picking their dozen favourite grounds and getting on with it - FIFA has rules and regulations over the stadia that can be used.
One factor is capacity: there needs to be at least ten grounds, all with capacities over 40,000; plus two grounds that can hold 60,000 to be used in the opening match, the final and the semi-finals. So this means, short of any stadium expansion, decent modern stadia such as the KC Stadium, Pride Park or St Mary’s couldn’t be used due to capacity constraints.
Geography is also important to FIFA. A successful bid needs to have host cities that are spread throughout the country. The main problem here is the South-West, which isn’t exactly a hotbed of English football. There’s Cheltenham, Yeovil and that team that sometimes gets in the FA Cup: Team Bath. This means that Bristol, not exactly renowned for having decent teams, has become part of England’s World Cup bid.
Now as anyone who’s had the misfortune of visiting Bristol City’s home, Ashton Gate, will know: it’s not exactly a venue you’d expect to catch a Brazil vs. Argentina match.
As such, Bristol City is planning a new £30 million stadium to be built at Ashton Vale that could hold up to 40,000 fans. The stadium will be ready by 2012 and this, they hope, will help bring World Cup football to the city. Although the Robins currently struggle to fill the 21,000 capacity Ashton Gate, they have managed to take large followings to Wembley in the past and it is hoped that a new stadium would help City fulfill their potential.
Equally it is important that a host city has the appropriate infrastructure in place, coupled with a high quality ground. The main problem here would be in the North-East where it is likely the FA would have to choose between St James’ Park and the Stadium of Light. Whilst Newcastle is undoubtedly considered the more attractive city with the bigger stadium as well as its own airport and national rail link, the Stadium of Light has the higher UEFA star rating and the bigger potential for expansion within the stadium and the surrounding area – making it more suitable for FIFA’s needs.
Significantly for London, FIFA rules state that a single city can only utilize two (and only two) stadiums in a World Cup. Now for the capital, this will almost certainly mean the Emirates and Wembley, meaning that top quality stadia such as Stamford Bridge or White Hart Lane will most likely miss out. Well I say quality, I’ve never actually been to either so who knows?
There is talk that London may be allowed to have a third stadium. It makes sense: travelers are going to be enticed by the prospect of a visit to the nation's capital whilst if a match was in, say, Milton Keynes - well they may well stay at home.
The only problem is that the FA would want the third ground to be Twickenham Stadium. Just six miles from Heathrow and with three railway stations within a ten minute walk, it has excellent transport. It's easy then, to see why the FA wants Twickenham. 82,000 capacity crowd? Just think of the money.
Personally, I don’t like the thought of World Cup matches being played in non-football grounds. Not exactly sure why, but I’ll just say it’s for traditional reasons. There.
It remains to be seen, however, whether the RFU are as money grabbing as the FA. If they are, and if FIFA are willing to bend the rules, then we could be seeing football at Twickenham for the first time in 2018.
by Paul McGwinn
