Fifa vice-president in no doubt over 2018 World Cup bid.

Nick 0208 Ldn

News 24
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
23,721
Fifa vice-president Jack Warner said he will battle to stop England hosting the 2018 World Cup.

His decision will be a blow to the Football Association, who were likely to plan a bid on the back of any change to the current selection procedures.

"If the World Cup were to go to Europe, I'm quite sure, with the English luck as it is, they won't get it," Warner told BBC World Service.

"There are moves to give it to England. I must fight that."

Warner, a member of the world football body's executive committee since 1983, added: "It will be Italy, Spain, or even France who will get the World Cup if it goes to Europe.

"Nobody in Europe likes England. England invented the sport but has never had made any impact on world football."

It is believed Fifa president Sepp Blatter is set to end the World Cup rotation policy when the executive committee meet later in the year.

Instead, the association are likely to approve a format that only precludes the continents that held the previous two World Cups from bidding again, which in 2018 would be Africa and South America.

Warner, president of Concacaf, added that he would battle to bring international football's premier tournament to his region, which covers North and Central America and the Caribbean.

"I really don't believe that we should just lay down and play dead to anyone who wants to take the World Cup from Concacaf," he said.

In July another Fifa executive committee member and former World Cup winner, German legend Franz Beckenbauer, offered his support to England hosting the 2018 World Cup.

He told BBC Five Live's Sportsweek: "There is no better country in Europe to host the World Cup in 2018. England is the favourite."

He added: "The most important thing is to end the rotation and bring the tournament back to Europe.

"The Premier League at the moment is the best league in Europe and the stadiums are outstanding.

"In my opinion, there is only one very serious candidate and it is England."

BBC World Service will air the full interview with Jack Warner on World Football with Alan Green on Saturday 11 August and Saturday 18 August.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/6939170.stm



One of Warner's closing lines in the interview although does not feature in the article was as follows:

"To the rest of Europe, England is in irritant."


It is good to know where you stand at any rate. And i don't think we hold any illusions as to our popularity or lack of it, in the footballing community.

However ultimately, at some point it is simply your time. London hosting the 2012 Olympics should help us. A Seb Coe like figure who can handle the politics would go some to boosting our chances as well.
 
God, that' unbelievable if true.

1966 being the one and only time the country who invented the sport hosted it.

Spain and Germany have already had it in the last 25 years or so. Heck, we in the USA got it not too long ago.

It will be 52 years by the time 2018 shows up.
 
I think with a bunch of Premiership teams building new 60,000 seater stadiums, and the new Wembley, England's in a very good position to hold the World Cup. By 2018, Chelsea will probably have built a new 120,000 seater, just for kicks. The only problem is that most stadia are in urban areas, with no wide expanses around them for tv crews from 100 different countries to set up in, and the infrastructure isn't the best in the world, although it'll improve for the Olympics.
 
does this prick have some personal feud against english people or what to say that?
 
Thats an unbelieveable comment. No-one in Europe likes England?
 
fecking hell. That's an incredibly stupid statement.

I really hate these UEFA/FIFA bureaucrats(spellchecking is tha bomb).
 
Jack Warner was proven on Panorama to be a corrupt, shady, arsehole who shouldn't even hold a post with any organisation nevermind be so high up in FIFA.

Treat his comments, just like you would he, with utter contempt. This is all fallback over the complete stitchup the BBC did on him, nothing else.
 
Jack Warner? Isn't he the Fifa tout from WC 06?
 
What nationtionality is he?
England has the best capacity to hold a world cup in the whole world. Big stadiums which are managed in the best way. Look at the stadiums and fans around europe there twenty years behind.
 
Really stupid comments.


They is no better country than England to host the world cup.It has been long time since it was last held there.And surely the best infrastructure is in England.
 
It's just Fifa's idiocy again... if the World Cup is supposed to be contested by the 32 best teams in the World - there should be 1 place for Asia, 1 place for Concacaf, 2 places for Africa and 3 places for S America, that leaves 25 places for Europe.

Likewise, the World Cup should be hosted in Europe 3 times out of every 4 tournaments. The main TV market is in Europe and hosting it in other continents just makes for poor TV schedule.
 
Cal? said:
It's just Fifa's idiocy again... if the World Cup is supposed to be contested by the 32 best teams in the World - there should be 1 place for Asia, 1 place for Concacaf, 2 places for Africa and 3 places for S America, that leaves 25 places for Europe.

Likewise, the World Cup should be hosted in Europe 3 times out of every 4 tournaments. The main TV market is in Europe and hosting it in other continents just makes for poor TV schedule.
Click to expand...

what the feck?
 
Cal? said:
It's just Fifa's idiocy again... if the World Cup is supposed to be contested by the 32 best teams in the World - there should be 1 place for Asia, 1 place for Concacaf, 2 places for Africa and 3 places for S America, that leaves 25 places for Europe.

Likewise, the World Cup should be hosted in Europe 3 times out of every 4 tournaments. The main TV market is in Europe and hosting it in other continents just makes for poor TV schedule.
Click to expand...

I somewhat tend to agree. There's an inflation in crap teams every time. Maybe it renders the competition more "world wide", but every year a good squad like the Czech republic, Denmark and sometimes even a France or England gets left out because regions like North America and Asia are guaranteed too many spots.
 
Cal? said:
Frankly, except Brazil & Argentina, all the other non-Europeans are simply there to make up the numbers.
Click to expand...

You could make a case for Africa though. The others are just cannon fodder.
 
What a fecking cnut. I hope he dies of cancer. Motherfecker. I cannot beleive this piece of shit is deputy head of Fifa. He should be strung up by his balls and have a rat sewn into his stomach. Then left hanging until the rat gets so hungry it eats itself out.
 
Iron Stove said:
I somewhat tend to agree. There's an inflation in crap teams every time. Maybe it renders the competition more "world wide", but every year a good squad like the Czech republic, Denmark and sometimes even a France or England gets left out because regions like North America and Asia is guaranteed too many spots.
Click to expand...

Exactly, you could argue that USA, Mexico, Japan & Korea can compete with the 2nd tier European sides, but the rest of them? T&T, China or whoever these 2 continents come up with are simply a joke.
 
Iron Stove said:
You could make a case for Africa though. The others are just cannon fodder.
Click to expand...

Note I said Africa deserved 2 places as supposed to just 1 for Concacaf & Asia.

feck the qualifying, just get USA to playoff with Mexico and the same for Japan & Korea. Voila.
 
Iron Stove said:
I somewhat tend to agree. There's an inflation in crap teams every time. Maybe it renders the competition more "world wide", but every year a good squad like the Czech republic, Denmark and sometimes even a France or England gets left out because regions like North America and Asia is guaranteed too many spots.
Click to expand...

Yes, just look at North America.

Mexico and the US are guaranteed to qualify for the world cup every year, and Trinidad Tobago and Bahrain had a playoff-game before the 2006 World Cup to decide which of these two teams would go to the world cup, while some good teams in europe miss the world cup because of this.
 
Cal? said:
It's just Fifa's idiocy again... if the World Cup is supposed to be contested by the 32 best teams in the World - there should be 1 place for Asia, 1 place for Concacaf, 2 places for Africa and 3 places for S America, that leaves 25 places for Europe.

Likewise, the World Cup should be hosted in Europe 3 times out of every 4 tournaments. The main TV market is in Europe and hosting it in other continents just makes for poor TV schedule.
Click to expand...

Nah. Perhaps every other WC. I love South American World Cups, and it'd be a shame not see one more regularly.

He's an idiot, though. England's not had the WC for more than 50 years(60 by the time of the 2018 WC), I can't think of a better candidate. Great stadia, football loving nation. . .and the most popular domestic league on the planet. That said, it's either England or Spain.
 
ILBB15 said:
Yes, just look at North America.

Mexico and the US are guaranteed to qualify for the world cup every year, and Trinidad Tobago and Bahrain had a playoff-game before the 2006 World Cup to decide which of these two teams would go to the world cup, while some good teams in europe miss the world cup because of this.
Click to expand...

Uefa are just run by a bunch of Blatter muppets, frankly if Uefa threatened to withdraw from the World Cup, it'll bring Fifa to their knees.

The World Cup need European teams more than the other way round.
 
Spoony said:
Nah. Perhaps every other WC. I love South American World Cups, and it'd be a shame not see one more regularly.

He's an idiot, though. England's not had the WC for more than 50 years(60 by the time of the 2018 WC), I can't think of a better candidate. Great stadia, football lovely nation. . .and the most popular domestic league on the planet. That said, it's either England or Spain.
Click to expand...

Exactly, USA hosted it in 1994 and made a complete arse of themselves scheduling games in the Californian midday at temperatures of 38C+ and except the Yanks, where else in Concacaf can host a World Cup? Mexico's already had 2...
 
Cal? said:
Note I said Africa deserved 2 places as supposed to just 1 for Concacaf & Asia.

feck the qualifying, just get USA to playoff with Mexico and the same for Japan & Korea. Voila.
Click to expand...

Duly noted.

It all comes down to politics. They look at the US and think "well they've got a bucket full of cash" and that they need to promote the sport over there. I find it silly as the "soccer" crowd over there is and as I gather will be, very small and that in the end the competition suffers. Politics.
 
On another note, the South African WC could turn out to be their biggest mistake ever with reports coming out saying that they have no way of guaranteeing the safety of fans and that the stadiums don't meet expectations.

They are just like the cnuts at the Olympic Committee. Corrupt bastards really.
 
Cal? said:
Exactly, USA hosted it in 1994 and made a complete arse of themselves scheduling games in the Californian midday at temperatures of 38C+ and except the Yanks, where else in Concacaf can host a World Cup? Mexico's already had 2...
Click to expand...

Yes. . . and two of the best, ever. Which is I wouldn't have any qualms about it going back to Mexico. England, Spain, Italy, Germany, Argentina, Mexico and Brazil are the best places to host a WC. Not the US, Australia or any other nation devoid of passion for the game.
 
Iron Stove said:
On another note, the South African WC could turn out to be their biggest mistake ever with reports coming out saying that they have no way of guaranteeing the safety of fans and that the stadiums doesn't meet expectations.

They are just like the cnuts at the Olympic Committee. Corrupt bastards really.
Click to expand...

We shouldn't forget that Brazil hasn't hosted the world cup in 57 years.

Considering that they are the most succesful football nation ever it would be unfair to them to not give it to them.

Edit: I misread Iron Stoves post, I though he was talking about South America being unsafe
 
ILBB15 said:
We shouldn't forget that Brazil hasn't hosted the world cup in 57 years.

Considering that they are the most succesful football nation ever it would be unfair to them to not give it to them.
Click to expand...

They'll host 2014.
 
Spoony said:
Yes. . . and two of the best, ever. Which is I wouldn't have any qualms about it going back to Mexico. England, Spain, Italy, Germany, Argentina, Mexico and Brazil are the best places to host a WC. Not the US, Australia or any other nation devoid of passion for the game.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, maybe I was a little OTT with the 3 out of 4 WC in Europe thing, but 2 out of 3 would be okay, with the other in S America (or Mexico), then Asia, Concacaf and Africa can have 1 every 48 or 52 years.
 
Iron Stove said:
On another note, the South African WC could turn out to be their biggest mistake ever with reports coming out saying that they have no way of guaranteeing the safety of fans and that the stadiums doesn't meet expectations.

They are just like the cnuts at the Olympic Committee. Corrupt bastards really.
Click to expand...

Probably, the biggest sporting event in the World turning into the biggest circus for Africa... the World Cup will not be back in the continent till the next century... :smirk:
 
Cal? said:
Frankly, except Brazil & Argentina, all the other non-Europeans are simply there to make up the numbers.
Click to expand...

So are most of the European teams (all but Germany, Italy, and one or two others who are hot that year). Going into any given World Cup, how many nations actually are capable of winning the tournament, maybe 6? Everyone else there is just "making up the numbers," so why not let the entire world share the spots instead of bringing in the third tier European nations who have as much chance of winning the Cup as do the Camaroons, Paraguay, Saudi Arabia, or the USA?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.