Talk:2018 FIFA World Cup

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	The article on 2018 FIFA World Cup is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Moved per consensus. --Pkchan 13:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 There's something incorrect 2 OFC? = 3 Australian stadiums 4 Table formatting 5 2022 6 Article deletion

[edit] There's something incorrect

I'm from Israel, and I gotta say there's no rumor the FIFA World Cup should be held in Israel - not just because the security problems, except we have no stadiums. Our biggest stadium has 45,000 seats and our second biggest stadium has 15,000. It's not enough even for an euro. So, I have no Idea who has written this, but it's wrong.

Ok - we should take this off then. I have commented it out for now, if people agree then, someone can delete it fully. ~ KanFootball

All information must be verifiable. Deleted. ed g2s • talk 09:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OFC? =

OFC no longer existes, as for 2006. Australia is now part of the Asian confederation. --Yago Stecher 09:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Oceania != Australia. See {{OFC teams}} to see who's left in the Oceania confederation (New Zealand, Papua New Guinea + 9 tiny Pacific Ocean states) Sam Vimes 10:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It could be possible that New Zealand and some of the islands plan to join CONMEBOL. While the islands closer to Asia will join that continent's federation. El Chompiras 20:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian stadiums

however 5 of these stadiums are in 2 cities, breaking FIFA's rule of only one city can host 2 stadiums. - Where is this rule written? I'm not denying it is true - I'd like to see other rules such as minimum capacity, regulations on oval stadiums or athletics stadiums, and see on. -- Chuq 13:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It's written down in FIFA's "List of Requirements" that bidding countries get. I recall it being on the FIFA website in the past, but it's not there now, and google is not being that helpful.

In the past this has been said on various football forums: - Venues for Pool Matches must have a minimum 40,000 capacity - Venues for Semi, 3rd Place & Final must have a minimum 60,000 capacity - Only 1 city is permitted more than 1 venue - All venues must be made vacant 1 month before the opening match of the tourmanent Tancred 14:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I expanded on the part about stadia. Mentioned the capacities of some venues outside of major cities that could be suitable for upgrade, and also added the Brisbane Cricket Ground aka the Gabba to the list (making it 9), and changed "however 5 of these stadiums are in 2 cities" to "however 7 of these stadiums are in 3 cities" and included the possibility of a rule change. Guest 01:31, 28 June 2006

I can tell you now.

- All venues must be made vacant 1 month before the opening match of the tourmanent

If that rule is upheld by FIFA, and also the tradition of hosting the World Cup in June or July, then Australia will never host the World Cup. The stadiums in Australia are only available for a World Cup in the October/November/Early December timeframe. If it can't be held at that time, Australia will not host a World Cup. During June/July the stadia are in use by other sports and there is absolutely no reason why they would hand over use of the stadia for a FIFA World Cup, and nor should they. jkm 05:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Not that this has anything to do with the article, but its up to the owner of each individual stadium, and it assumes the AFL/NRL would intentionally make things difficult which isn't fair. The AFL season was altered for the Commonwealth Games this year, why wouldn't they do it for a much larger sporting event? I'm not sure why, for example, AFL would have a specific right over use of a state Government-owned cricket ground? -- Chuq 02:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The international rugby union season (Tri Nations Series) would also have to be moved back, as well as the mid year internationals.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 03:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The AFL/NRL do not own the stadiums(apart from AAMI),therefore the availablity of the stadiums comes down to the stadium operators and not the AFL/NRL.(Dan)

Correct, they do not own the stadiums - but they do have stadium deals that stipulate that 40 games, 45 games, whatever - must be played at these stadiums between certain dates. Why should these contracts not be honoured? Afterall, most of these stadiums have been built and built-up by the continued patronage of these football codes. MCG, Gabba, Subiaco, AAMI Stadium, Telstra Dome all owe their current condition to the AFL. Suncorp, Aussie Stadium and to a lesser extent Homebush (because it would have been cut back further in terms of seating if not for these deals) owe their current size and condition to ARL/NRL and to a lesser extent the ARU. To the comment above that it assumes the AFL/NRL would intentionally make things difficult - well they wouldn't be making things difficult - it would be FIFA making things difficult - FIFA would be the organisation seeking to upset the established calendar. If FIFA is truly happy to have the World Cup played in Australia - as it should, then it should be happy for the World Cup in Australia to be held in October/November.

I would just ask you, if the Rugby World Cup was awarded to Germany to be played in March/April- as an effort to promote the game - would you then consider that the Bundesliga season should be moved to accomodate the use of the grounds in Germany for use in the Rugby World Cup? I must assume that were the Bundesliga to refuse to move their season to accomodate the wishes of Rugby you would accuse the Bundesliga of being obstructionist. You could quite easily subsitute Italy & Serie A in there, with perhaps more justification given Italy's higher standing in Rugby. I would be frankly amazed were Serie A, or the Bundesliga, to shift their season to accomodate the use of their grounds by Rugby. Why should they? Rugby doesn't pay the bills at those grounds - but according to your argument, those leagues would be being `difficult.' Hardly. Given FIFA's stipulation of the grounds not being used for 1 month prior to the start of the World Cup - how on Earth are the NRL and AFL supposed to accept a 2 month gap in the middle of their seasons? Play their seasons in Summer? That would actually be quite dangerous. No, given these codes pay for the continued upkeep of these grounds they should be respected and accorded priority - just the same as in Germany/Bundesliga, Italy/Serie A or anywhere else for that matter.jkm 14:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

JKM, just so you know, the Rugby World Cup has always been held in September, October, November. But yeah I understand your point. Does the Australia section mention this? The New Zealand section should also mention this (NRL, Super 14, Tri Nations). Its going to be interesting for South Africa in 2010, seeing as the Tri Nations is held in July.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 12:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, just for the record - The Rugby World Cup has not always been held in September - November. A cursory glance at its history shows that 1995 (In South Africa) was in May/June, and 1987 (In Australia/New Zealand) was also held in May/June. In fact, the 2003 Rugby World Cup (In Australia) was the first Rugby World Cup in the Southern Hemisphere to be held in October/November - presumably because the Rugby authorities wanted to have use of some of the bigger stadiums in Australia which were not available in May/June - so they shifted it to later in the year - It worked great and I would agree that from now on - It will always be held at that time of year. jkm 00:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"but they do have stadium deals that stipulate that 40 games, 45 games, whatever - must be played at these stadiums between certain dates. Why should these contracts not be honoured?..."

What contracts?...Maybe the MCG has one for 2018,but I doubt it.....We are talking 12 years away! Ill guarantee you that the SCG,GABBA,AAMI,Subiaco and Telstra Dome will NOT be used for a FFA bid....The only problem for the AFL therefore will be the MCG and the Comm Games proved that the AFL can exist without an MCG.The NRL have plenty of alternate venues to choose from,especially in Sydney.

NRL: Bulldogs-Telstra-->Concord/Showground..... Souths-Telstra--->SCG....... Roosters-Aussie Stadium--->SCG...... Brisbane Broncos-Suncorp--->GABBA/ANZ....... Newcastle-Energy Aust---->Gosford....... Canberra-CAnberra Stadium---->Seiffert....... West Tigers-Telstra--->Leichhardt/Campbelltown........

There u go..The NRL is solved

AFL........ Melbourne teams play at Telstra Dome.The rest of the country remains the same.

Obviously,if Perth and Adelaide want World Cup games,the they need to build a suitable venue.

Ok, I was exaggerating a bit - the deals for 40/45 games refer to the Melbourne venues - Telstra Dome & MCG - but they are valid deals and they extend well past 2018 - up to 2035 or so - they also tie into the AFL Finals and all that - so they're mutually beneficial. As for your comment that FFA will not use SCG,GABBA,AAMI,Subiaco and Telstra Dome for their bid - You have to be dreaming right? None of them?!? I would suggest you have a point with the Gabba & SCG - they would be unlikely to be used. But the other 3 you mention, where are the alternatives? Things like this just don't get built for the hell of it. Melbourne is committing to building a new 25,000 rugby/soccer stadium within 3 years - but that's obviously not of a suitable size for a World Cup. As for Perth & Adelaide, I hear a lot of talk - but I'll believe it when I see something concrete. I guess I just find all this talk of 2018 a little bit unrealistic - I am close to 100% sure the 2018 World Cup will be in Europe - Europe has never gone 12 years/3 World Cups without a World Cup, let alone 16 YEARS! - if they didn't get the 2018 World Cup. Given Europe pays for FIFA and World Football, I would be amazed if Europe - perhaps England - didn't put the hard word on FIFA to give them the World Cup. I think its all set up for Australia in 2022 personally. I just think if we bid for 2018 the bid will eventually be shot down, primarily by FIFA politics, but also by issues like use of stadiums - that will not be resolved in time for 2018 - but probably will be by 2022. I would just caution you all to be wary of the hype - and politicking of State Premiers - in regards to 2018. Even John O'Neill has said that a 2018 bid could be a dry-run for a succesful 2022 bid. jkm 00:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see Perth building a Stadium WA with retractable seating.As for Adelaide,my guess will be a purpose built 30,000 seat stadium suitable for A-League and Rugby.It was then expandable to 40,000+ for a World Cup with temporary seating.Telstra Dome will not be used due to AFL committments and Sydney already with 2 WC stadia.Expect major stadium upgrades and new stadiums if Australia was given the World Cup.

[edit] Table formatting

It seems some of the changes I made to tables (right aligning) look a bit odd on small screen sizes (run into the next section, etc.) My attempts to fix this haven't worked - could someone who knows a trick or two about layout see if they can fix it? -- Chuq 07:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Any way to make the tables take up the whole column? Because right now I get a tiny bit of text on the left side that is awful to try to read.Kevlar67 20:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have the opposite problem - the tables only take up about 1/4 to 1/3 of the width of the page, and there is so much space for text on the left that both the "Canada" and "China" sections combined are shorter than Canada's table - as a result the "England" section starts before Canada's table finishes, and England's table is shifted over a table's width to the left. I run at a pretty high resolution though (1900px wide), so I would in the minority, along with yourself. Ideally it should look good at all resolutions, but at the moment it looks good to the average user (1024 - 1200px width). -- Chuq 01:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

On mine, the tables overlap their own articles for Canada, England, and Australia. New Zealand's is fine though. Mexico's logo is overlapping the text in that section. -- Sportyguy03 16:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2022

Without any good reason somebody decided that we should not have a 2022 article anymore. why ? Palx 08:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you say "without any good reason"? There are plenty of reasons in the comments made when the article was proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 FIFA World Cup. -- Chuq 08:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. I read it again. There are not 'plenty of reasons' there. Palx 12:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article deletion

It is true that this article could be:

• Pruned substantionally
• Merged with 2014 FIFA World Cup and renamed to Future FIFA World Cup events or Potential FIFA World Cup hosts or something similar.

But it should not be deleted/blanked outright. Plenty of information here is relevant, verifiable and referenced. -- Chuq 01:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT#CBALL. We can't substantiate any of this. The lists of stadia seem to be original research. Restoring the redirect. The article was not and has not been "deleted". Chris cheese whine 15:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've done some pruning now - cut out a few bids that were totally speculative, and the stadium information which was pretty out there (anyone interested in the infrastructure can look it up). But some of these bids, especially England and Australia, have received significant media coverage (to the point that it's gone beyond the "Ooh, great, we can host the World Cup" into "how much will it cost to hold this baloney?"), so I think there's no point in cutting the article further. Sam Vimes | Address me 19:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and people on this page are in serious danger of violating the three-revert rule. Sam Vimes | Address me 19:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've done some more trimming to sections that were unsubstantiated (such as a small paragraph that was crafted from a single-sentence passing mention in its supporting reference), passages which were little more than quote-farms, and a few parts where it seemed Wikipedia was filling in the holes (such as the speculation over which continent/federation was or wasn't likely to get it), something we are explicitly not allowed to do and consensus is specifically not allowed to override. Chris cheese whine 20:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Much less controversial than mass deletion, at any rate. :) (I do think some of the "not going to South America" speculation has come from media outlets, and is such not original research, but I'm not going to argue too much about it.) Sam Vimes | Address me 20:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirection is not deletion, and I will probably put the redirect back in if some additional not-crystalballing information turns up doesn't turn up (d'oh! 21:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)) somewhere. 8 and 12 years into the future is waaaay too early for articles on these, regardless of how many references you can find. Wait until there's some solid information. Chris cheese whine 20:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)