Best chance for U.S. to host World Cup is 2022

2:00 a.m. February 4, 2009

FIFA will name hosts for both the 2018 and 2022 World Cups of soccer when its executive committee convenes in December 2010. The United States and Mexico joined 11 other countries that formally filed their intentions by Monday's deadline, either as single or joint bids.

Here are some questions and, hopefully, answers about the process, politics and prospects in what figures to be a spirited battle for 2018 and 2022.

Will the U.S. get one?

The best answer lies somewhere between probably and definitely, although 2022 is a far better bet than 2018.

Europe has hosted 10 of the 18 World Cups and has never gone more than eight years without one. With 2010 in South Africa and 2014 in Brazil, that would be 12 years. And with eight of the 24 members of the FIFA's executive committee being European, it's easy to predict they won't let it lapse to 16 years by sending 2018 elsewhere.

That would leave the United States, which hosted in 1994, and Mexico of the CONCACAF region to battle five candidates from the Asian confederation for 2022: Australia, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea and Qatar.

Japan and South Korea co-hosted to lukewarm reviews in 2002; Indonesia has played in one World Cup, and that was in 1938 as the Dutch East Indies; the average high temperature in Qatar in June is 108 degrees; and Australia, with a population of 21 million, may not carry enough marketing oompf and would be a second straight Commonwealth nation to host if England gets 2018.

The best news for the Americans is who didn't bid: China. FIFA might not be able to resist the marketing potential of 1.2 billion people.

There also is the South Africa factor. The vote for 2018 and 2022 comes a few months after South Africa hosts a World Cup in a country mired with infrastructure, transportation, security and other logistical issues. And with 2014 heading to a nation (Brazil) facing similar organizational obstacles, you'd think the executive committee will steer toward safe harbors.

So who gets 2018?

England is considered the front-runner, at least by the English media, but don't underestimate the anti-Brit sentiment that pervades across the continent. There are joint bids from Spain/Portugal and the Netherlands/Belgium as well a stand-alone entry from Russia, all with their own positives.

Blatter and FIFA keep flip-flopping their position on joint bids, first welcoming them and more recently saying they will be considered only if there is no suitable single-nation candidate. That could torpedo Belgium and the Netherlands, which can't go it alone, or force Spain to drop Portugal.

Another variable is the 2009 vote for the host of the 2016 Summer Olympics. If Madrid wins, that could further derail a solid Spanish World Cup bid many insiders predict would rally Continental Europe against England.

And don't count out Russia, which has ever-increasing amounts of money and international influence. Europe's largest country has never hosted a World Cup or European Championships.

Is Mexico a factor?

Short answer: No.

Mexico already has hosted two World Cups, in 1970 and as an emergency replacement for Colombia in 1986, but its last-minute entry was a bit of a surprise. Monday's deadline was merely an “expression of interest,” and Mexico could be gone when the detailed bid packets with stadium and infrastructure plans are due in mid-2010.

“If we were today to catalog the top 50 stadiums in North America,” U.S. Soccer President Sunil Gulati said on a media teleconference Monday, “I'm going to leave it (to) everyone on the call to decide how many of those are in the United States. I'd say it's the majority, the very strong majority.”

Gulati also is a smart and well-connected man. You think he's aimlessly tossing out a U.S. World Cup bid without the backroom support of the three FIFA executive members from the CONCACAF region?

“We have bid. Mexico has bid,” Gulati said. “We'll see how that goes over the next year or two . . . We'll leave it to them to see how far they want to take that. I'm quite sure before any final vote would be taken, CONCACAF would be unified behind a single country.”

Would San Diego get any games?

As things stand now, probably not.

Gulati said 35 potential venues could be named in a U.S. bid and that would be whittled down to a dozen or so finalists only after being named World Cup host. Gulati also noted 10 NFL stadiums have been built in the past eight years alone, including several with retractable domes in warm-weather summer climates, meaning there's no need to play in aging, rundown facilities.

And imagine what Qualcomm Stadium will look like in 2022, if indeed it exists at all.

Now, if a new Chargers stadium were to be built . .

Is there an X factor?

There always is with FIFA, and even more so when just 24 people vote. All you need is 13 votes, and if the history of international sport is a guide, that sometimes is not accomplished with the utmost of integrity.

Assuming it is, though, the U.S. bid got a huge boost in November with the election of President Barack Obama – not because he's any sort of rabid soccer fan but in terms of an instantly improved image of America abroad.

“For those of us who travel around the world quite a bit,” Gulati said of Obama's election, “that (change) is noticeable, it's audible and it's visible.”

By Mark Zeigler
Union-Tribune Staff Writer