Talk:2018 FIFA World Cup bids

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 12 September 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep and Rename.
WikiProject on Football
Association football Portal
The article on 2018 FIFA World Cup bids is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association 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.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

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

Contents

[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)
NO! why? because they wouldn't have a chance to ever qualify for the world cup. they're better off with their .5 slot they have. AMAPO 07:15, 1 July 2007 (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.--HamedogTalk|@ 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.--HamedogTalk|@ 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.

Ok the city with 2 stadia to be used would almost certainly be Sydney (Aussie Stadium at 45,000 and ANZ Stadium at 83,000). Melbourne's MCG would be its venue (100,000). Brisbane's Suncorp (52,000) would round out the list of stadiums that will be used beyond doubt. That's 4 stadia. Elsewhere Perth looks set to build a 60,000 Multiple Use stadium (almost certainly accommodating rectangular format due to the Western Force). Thats 5 stadia - 3 of which are above FIFA's 60,000 minimum to host QF/SF/3rd Place Playoff/Final. The breakdown would probably go 1 QF to each city. Sydney and Melbourne to host semi's and Sydney final. Newcastle's stadium will be by then about 35,000 (easily expandable), AAMI Stadium holds 45,000. If New Zealand were included the 60,000 Eden Park could be used, The Recently built Skilled Park in the Gold Coast has room for expansion (28,000) and as the capital Canberra's Bruce Stadium (25,000) would be renovated/expanded. Just to point this out there Geelong is not far from Melbourne and Skilled Stadium is presently around 35,000. If Telstra Dome (56,000) or QSAC (48,000) could also be used then the array of stadia is quite impressive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.67.126 (talk) 09:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2 stadium in one city rule

Technically, Manchester only has 1 stadium (COMS) as Old Trafford Comes under Trafford, not Manchester. Would this mean that both stadiums can be used?--Ruddyell 18:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, they are both geoqraphically in Manchester, or Man Utd would be called 'Trafford United' Chaza93 10:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This rule has been challenged unofficially, FIFA want it, but the only thing they really want from England is work on the various transport networks. Londo06 22:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[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)
Someone has taken the tables of stadiums off of this site. Could somebody prehaps put them back?The sound 09:27, 2 February 2007 (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)
Seems the article warrants expansion in content rather than deletion. Londo06 17:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


I can't even login because of CAPTCHA...

Regarding the future WC events:

A joint Argentina/Uruguay bid for 2030

Argentina's Football Association (AFA) officially stated its willingness to jointly organize with Uruguay the soccer World Cup 2030, according to a letter to Uruguay's Football Association (AUF) being made public yesterday. "AFA's Executive Committee unanimously approved your initiative (Uruguay's) of postulating ourselves to jointly organize the Federation International Football Associations (FIFA) World Soccer Cup-2030," it said. The letter, dated October 17 and having AFA's president Julio Grondona's signature, was written to AUF's president Jose Luis Corbo and published yesterday afternoon by Uruguayan media. "If this goal is accomplished it will clearly help to strengthen Uruguay's and Argentina's friendship ties more so," Grondona said in the letter. The year 2030 will be the first centennial anniversary of the 1st Soccer World Cup held in Uruguay's capital, Montevideo, which was won by the host country after defeating Argentina in the final. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.22.173.10 (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date of bid confirmation for England

It says that the British government agreed to back a bid in November 2006. I recall some announcement in November, but today's announcement sounds much more like government confirmation. Anyone remember what happened in November? HornetMike 21:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)



Potential Australian World Cup Venues.

Victoria:

Melbourne Cricket Ground 100,000 seats.

Docklands Stadium (Melbourne) 56,347 seats.

Kardinia Park (Geelong) Upgraded to at least 36,000 with 4,000 extra temporary seats.


New South Wales:

Stadium Australia (Sydney Olympic Stadium) 83,500 seats.

Marathon Stadium (Newcastle) Upgraded to 40,000 seats.


Queensland:

Lang Park (Brisbane) 52,500 seats.

Stockland Stadium (Townsville) Upgraded to 40,000 seats.

Robina Stadium (Gold Coast) Upgraded to 40,000 seats.


Western Australia:

Stadium WA (Perth) 70,000 seats.


South Australia:

Adelaide Oval Upgraded to 50,000 seats.


ACT:

Canberra Stadium Upgraded to 40,000 seats.


Tasmania:

York Park (Launceston) Upgraded to 30,000 with 10,000 extra temporary seats.


Northern Territory:

Mararra Stadium (Darwin) Upgraded to 30,000 with 10,000 extra temporary seats.

All of these venues would be all-seaters of course.

That's 13 venues right there, where each would host at least 2 group matches (of different groups) and host at least one round of 16 and or the quarter-finals and semis. Telstra Stadium (The one used for the Sydney Olympics) would host the First game, whilst the Melbourne Cricket Ground would host the Final.

Just thought it would be nice to see at least 1 venue from each of the capital cities take part, along with some other venues elsewhere.

Australias most famous city,Sydney should host the Final..

Hotdimsim 12:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Sydney may be Australia's 'most famous' city on a global scale, only because it is the most recognised globally. However, Melboure has one thing Sydney doesn't, the fact that it has the largest stadia in Australia (being the MCG, with a capacity of 100,000+) This is a large factor, considering the amount of revenue and exposure that a large stadia can provide. Also the MCG is unofficially Australia's home of sport. So in terms of global recognition, Sydney has it over Melbourne. However, in terms of sporting culture in Australia, Melbourne wins.

Sydney can be the city that hosts two stadiums, while Melbourne can use the MCG only and the final. I just want to note that i am a Sydney-Sider, not a Melburnian, so this isn't a biast contention.

why would you play at Adelaide Oval and have to expand it when you could play at AAMI Stadium which has a capacity of 50,000+.

We've already pissed away big bucks on Bruce for a few nothing soccer games, not again please

[edit] England bid

I read on teletext on Sky today that Sepp Blatter had met with the Sports Minister and has said something about how that the rotation system will probably carry on thus meaning that CONCACAF would be up for 2018 and if the America's is viewed as one entity then Asia would be up for 2018. All this meaning that European bids would be put on the backburner so to speak. I suck at editing things and sourcing so I thought I'd mention it so one of the pro's could do a better job if they can find a source for it.

Oh yeah, what happened to the Luxembourg bid that was going with Holland and Belgium? 195.92.168.166 14:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the ref. Not sure how to incorporate it, this article's a mess. HornetMike 17:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Sky the masters of over-exaggeration, what he really said was that it isn't a formality the World Cup will be held in Europe. It depends on whether FIFA decide on whether the rotation policy continues 8/24 are European. Europe and Africa will vote aginst this. I'd have thought the continent out of Asia and North America who doesn't get the World Cup, if the rotation policy were to continue, would vote against the policy and if Asia gets it, then South America would get it. Not a formality, but a distinct possibility. --Soopa hoops77 19:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The section "Potential FIFA World Cup stadia (with possible capacities in 2018) in England" is pure crystal-balling, and I propose to remove it. Comments? --Guinnog 18:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Not having heard to the contrary I went ahead and removed it. --Guinnog 18:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation

The article was tagged with Template:Speculation recently, and I very much agree with that. The tag has been repeatedly removed by user 121.210.155.33 or 121.210.153.146, who I assume are the same user from Sydney. The article is very poorly written, and needs the speculation removed. Statements like "With a capacity of over 76,200, Old Trafford would probably host a semi-final match", or "The final would either be staged in Sydney or Melbourne depending on who Football Federation Australia chooses", or the entire "Venues" table need to go. These are entirely speculation. See WP:CBALL.

A much stronger lead is necessary. I think this will do a lot to focus the article, and give future editors something to work around. I can't begin to summarize the article into a lead, so I feel a new one must be written, and then the article be re-worked around that.

The third thing that must go are the photos. Far too many photo by any guideline. See Wikipedia:Images#Image choice and placement or in particular Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Images. I propose that the photos which are kept should be of the highest quality, with an emphasis on photos that show a stadium in use with soccer game. Images like Image:Panorama-TelstraStadium-Oct2005.jpg or Image:Old Trafford inside 20060726 1.jpg simply don't add much to the article, and detract from the readability. Also, the image sizes are all over the place. They should all be set to thumb, with no specified width unless there is a good reason, i.e. a wide image.

Lastly there is the woeful lack to references for most statements, and improper and broken references for others. I hardly know where to begin cutting out the unverifyable statements. I'll help where I can, but it seems this article has no lack of editors. Thoughts?--Patrick Ѻ 14:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I seem to be countering some resistance to the changes I mention above. There is a big problem with the speculation, and it needs to be removed. There can be no "this stadium would be great for the world cup!" or "this place will have some of the best stadia in the world by 2018," or similar. Statements like that are unverifiable and have no place on Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. I understand users have certain loyalties to their respective nations, but that does not mean that Wikipedia's standards can be ignored. In all seriousness, please defend the encyclopedia value of a list of English stadia has here. They are not World Cup 2018 venues, they are just a compilation from Category:Premier League venues that one or more users speculate could be.
The photos are overwhelmingly. Examine WP:FA pages for their image use if the policies I listed above don't explain the concept fully. An image should be relevant to the paragraph it is placed next to, and that so far hasn't really happened. Captions are also being used as an excuse for speculation and irrelevant information. That "Walkers Stadium is to be upgraded to 45,000 seats" is not actually pertinent. Timelines of events and direct quotations are fine, and I hope that's the direction the article is going in. Right now I am trying to improve this article, and am looking for help at this herculean task. Please don't make it more difficult by reverting edits based on nationalism and pride and not on Wikipedia's standards.--Patrick Ѻ 22:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auto Peer-Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Person, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), please do not link words in headings.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • The script has spotted the following contractions: don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 20:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of table of English stadia

It has been returned, seems odd that it had been removed. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 08:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does it seem odd? It has no relevance here. This article is not about English stadia. There already is the List of English football stadia by capacity article, which is a fine article. The inclusion of such a table here is, however, the definition of crystal balling, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. According to Jimbo Wales, such problems "should be removed, aggressively."--Patrick Ѻ 08:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Apparently there is some confusion as to the definition of speculation. I will try to show why we cannot have the table, pretty and seemingly well cited though it is. Wikipedia is build on pillars, and this page violates some key principles. Among them is the idea that we should not have original research. "Speculation" is a specific form of original research. In big letters here, the policy states: "Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way." Here it says "it is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis." This is exactly what is going on. The table of English stadia is an opinion. Users researched the possibilities and speculate what might happen. This is an encyclopedia, and not the place for speculation. Wikipedia actually has a sister project for speculations, here would be the page on the 2018 World Cup.
Look at the tense here. Can users tell the difference between where, in the 2010 FIFA World Cup#Venues the article says "here are ten venues which were officially announced on March 17, 2006 by FIFA" and "Twelve venues from this selection to host World Cup finals matches, were they to be successful in winning the bid". The second sentence, which I recently removed from this article, cannot possibly be cited. Perhaps in a year or two, the committee responsible for the English bid will announce the very same list, and when this happens, then the table may be inserted. Additionally it is irrelevant that the stadia sizes themselves are verifiable, if their relationship to the 2018 World Cup is original research. I recommend that editors examine 2020 Summer Olympics for a wonderful example of how this page could look.--Patrick Ѻ 15:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Not speculation, would be speculation to state that Chelsea could build a new stadium, not speculative to state that Wembley is England's premier stadium. Fronsdorf 16:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Right, but that's not just what's going on. What I'm seeing with all these reverts is "Wembly might be used in the 2018 World Cup" which is speculation.--Patrick Ѻ 16:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conf)It is not speculative to say that at the moment, Wembley is England's premier stadium. It would, however, be speculative to say that it will be England's premier Stadium in 2018. Anything could happen before then, new stadia could be constructed for example. Woodym555 16:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, and if users want a list of stadia, there is already a link at the top of the England section to the page List of Stadiums in England.--Patrick Ѻ 16:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The only speculation that I can see is the Nottingham Forrest one, needs verfying. Londo06 17:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Seen that it is on Notts Forrest site. Londo06 17:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This has turned into an edit war. Would everyone please remember the 3 revert rule please. Consider this a warning, on all sides. User:Fronsdorf has already done 4 reverts. Let us leave this article at the "wrong version" for the moment. Can everyone stop reverting and talk about it. My current opinion is this:

Speculation

By constantly adding in statements such as "Villa Park will be expanded to 51000", you are speculating. The current version is based on speculation, assumptions and conjecture. You cannot say with certainty that these stadia will be used in the eventuality that England host the World Cup. This is not verifiable in any sense until a bid is formally made. It will be conjecture until that date. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and must be verifiable. Woodym555 17:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The North stand (Opposite Holte End) is to be demolished. This has internet sources available and the text could be re-written. Londo06 17:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have had a Villa season ticket for 10 years and know about the plans for the North Stand. At the moment there is outdated planning permission to fill in the corners. Yet Randy and the General plan to revisit the plans, also on the understanding that they could fill it during the season. Even this is speculation, planning permission has expiry dates and plans change. This is crystal balling. Woodym555 17:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
True, it would technically fall into the realms of speculation. They've talked about it for a long time, so it's more a real possibility rather than 'will' build. Villa have the space to build a stand to rival the Holte End. It could happen, rather than it will happen. Londo06 18:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there is a lot of space, but there are also lots of plans and speculation. Wikipedia has to remain verifiable and accurate. Bu introducing this information into the article, in terms of a World Cup bid, would be speculation and synthesis. Villa may expand their stand, they may not, i doubt if the World Cup bid will have any influence on them. The main influence at the moment is 2012. By linking all this expansions to the World Cup, it is synthesis. They may expand, they may not. Who are we to know what will happen by 2018. The current plans are not related to the World Cup bid, they are part of the organic growth of stadiums aligned with the increasing revenues in football. We have to avoid speculation. At the moment most of the article is complete speculation about what could happen. There will be very little that we can add to this article until the formal bid process commences or until individual governments make statements of intent. The intent of wikipedia is not to be a platform for people's hypotheses about what could happen in the future. Woodym555 18:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at my suggestion (#split) - I think this would help the situation. violet/riga (t) 19:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Frustratingly I've had to protect this article because of the edit war. I know it's the "wrong version" but we need to just thrash this out. violet/riga (t) 17:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems odd to remove a table that cuts through the milieu. Clean it up and keep. Londo06 18:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canada

The section about Canada is pure speculation, and I am minded to remove it. The only mention of anything to do with Canada has been Sepp Blatter including it in a list of North American countries. At this point there has been no indication whatsoever that Canada is considering a bid. The reference for Canada as a potential bidder gives no information, and is patently not a reliable source. Oldelpaso 17:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a solid source. Is it enough info though to add Canada back to the article? http://www.tsn.ca/soccer/news_story/?ID=223703&hubname=

Sportyguy03 (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems alright. The Canada section should just be commented out below the Benelux section. The thing that might make one hold off is "Canadian Soccer Association official said Monday that nothing is official yet" in the second paragraph. You'd have to note that in any section on them. Blatter should know what he's talking about, but I get the impression he often doesn't. I believe he mentioned Canada back when they made the rotation decision a month ago. He also mentioned Spain in this article, which I've not seen so far, so it is a bit of an odd source. The bit in the article about "weeding out" candidates "like the IOC" is very interesting and relevant though.--Patrick Ѻ 23:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split

Take a look at 2012 Summer Olympics bids and London 2012 Olympic bid. I think that works better than how we have this article at the moment. This would become the summary/overview article and English 2018 FIFA World Cup bid (and other like bids where sufficient content is available) would be created. The English bid article could then easily detail any sourced stadium details - such content is too specific for this article but would be perfect there. violet/riga (t) 17:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That would fine. I don't, however, believe there is a bid in process. We are just at the stage where English officials are saying there will be a bid. But if that will help make the article better, then go for it.--Patrick Ѻ 17:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Patrickneil, there is no official bid yet, let alone a bid process. I don't see how a split would help, it would just divert the attention (and the conflict) to a new article. I think that there is an underlying problem regarding the content of this article. At the moment all the bid talk is speculation and no process has yet been setup. Woodym555 19:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
We have sufficient content to create a separate article, and taking that content out would rebalance this article so it isn't weighted towards the English bid. The fact that there isn't (yet) a formal bid doesn't really matter as it has been documented enough for us to have an article. violet/riga (t) 19:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we could make a new article, yet there is still the argument over its content. I don't think that the anticpated stadiums and possible future expansions should be made in the side article. Those questions have to be addressed by everyone who edits this page. Woodym555 20:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to try and avoid commenting on the ongoing edit war - I'm here to try and calm down the edit warring and it would be inappropriate for a blocking and protecting admin to take sides. I think that the argument about it appearing in this article is slightly different to the argument about it being included in an English bid article. violet/riga (t) 21:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, i only came in because of the request on the WT:WPF page for help. I still think that it is speculation to create a list of stadiums when no announcement has been made. That being said, i have not heard from those who have been warring and working on, this article. I welcome their reasoned input... Woodym555 21:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't moot a split just yet. I would however remove speculation about stadiums immediately (particular in the Australia and United States sections) per WP:CRYSTAL, and remove the Canada section altogether as it seems to be entirely uncited. Photos of stadiums should go too. The England section should also be pared down - there is no need for the full set of quotes, and it can be judiciously edited down to 2-3 paragraphs. I am not sure why there is such a fuss - any speculation on venues and possible expansion is a clear breach of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR and should be removed as a matter of course. Qwghlm 22:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
This is what I was doing when the sysop locked the page. The edits you describe are unpopular with other users. If I am to continue working on this page when it is unlocked, I will ask that there be a consensus. I would resent being blocked again when trying to fend off attacks on my edits. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but is this what everyone wants? Can everyone see why this is necessary?--Patrick Ѻ 08:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belgium Netherlands Joint Bid

"In an interview on 6 July 2006, the president of the Dutch Football Organisation Jeu Sprengers (also secretary of UEFA) said that the Dutch Football organisation is positive about a joint bid with the Netherlands." There's something seriously wrong there... Robotforaday 10:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} As I can't post external links...

Fresh info on the Belgium/Dutch bid can found on Soccerway.com or just search on the net.

BRUSSELS (AFP) - Belgian and Dutch football federation officials said on Friday they would be meeting FIFA president Sepp Blatter about a possible joint bid for the 2018 World Cup finals.

A delegation led by Belgian Alain Courtois will meet Sepp Blatter on November 14, probably at the headquarters of football's governing body in Zurich.

Courtois, who was director of the Euro 2000 finals hosted by Belgium and the Netherlands, was the intiator of this proposed, new bid.

The two countries will try to convince Blatter to accept a joint bid though the FIFA president has frequently said he has reservations about this since Japan's and South Korea's joint hosting in 2002. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.22.173.10 (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the Netherlands and the Dutch is the same thing. So, Jeu Sprengers is confident about agreeing with himself?? It has been misquoted somewhere along the line. It needs to be fixed. Woodym555 12:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Please provide exactly which text you would like this to be replaced with, after you are cartain of the facts. If you are unable to post external links, feel free to surround them with <nowiki> tags. Tra (Talk) 16:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Benelux should be changed to "Belgium-Netherlands".

Bid president Alain Courtois, who was also a leader of the organization committee for Euro 2000 (also jointly hosted between the two), had announced that a formal bid will be put forward in January 2007.[8] A delegation led by Belgian Alain Courtois will meet Sepp Blatter on November 14, probably at the headquarters of football's governing body in Zürich. http://www.soccerway.com/news/2007/October/19/belgian-and-dutch-bid-planned-for-2018-world-cup

I've made the changes requested, although now the page is unprotected, you should be able to make further changes yourself. Tra (Talk) 13:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Using Benelux is definitely wrong, as Luxembourg aren't involved. Neil ☎ 11:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
One of the references, from ESPN, uses Benelux, and refers to Luxembourg being involved. This is however from 2006, and another reference, from Soccerway, from this month doesn't mention Luxembourg. I'll try to word the paragraph to reflect this. Also, the third reference has gone dead, and this section need more research. Also, thanks for adding reference to the England section Neil.--Patrick Ѻ 12:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
After looking online, I haven't found any news story to reflect that Luxembourg aren't involved. Instead, I've added a story from ESPN from last June that says Benelux launched the bid, and specifically that it is not a joint bid. Because of this, I'm convinced that "Belgium-Netherlands" is actually wrong because it presumes a joint bid. Also I just found an article about Russia's bid.--Patrick Ѻ 13:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
With regards to Luxembourg: it was mentioned on Belgian tv IIRC last week, when the bid was officially announced, that Luxembourg would join the organisation, would carry the risk and share in the profits, but would not host any matches and would not qualify as hosts for the tournament. I'll see if this information can be verified from other sources. AecisBrievenbus 20:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FIFA meeting in Zurich

The 2018 World Cup is in the news this morning. BBC, ESPN, iOL, Sky, all saying that the rotation system is off. Watch out for developments, as the decision is expected "today".--Patrick Ѻ 13:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Some changes this might mean: Canada would be out. Without the rotation system and any intention of making a bid, I think the section would need to be removed from the article. The whole rotation policy section would need to be re-written based on any new policy coming out in the next few days. Perhaps this section would be changed to "Background". The relevance of the conference map would also need to be questioned. Depending on how its changed, it might be advisable to organize countries by Continental conference. Thoughts?--Patrick Ѻ 13:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The BBC says that FIFA went with the policy where the prior two conferences are ineligible. This means Nigeria should be removed. "For 2018, that would rule out bids from Africa or South America, with South Africa hosting the tournament in 2010 and Brazil poised to be confirmed as 2014 hosts this week." Though they don't specifically speak to it, it seems the Americas are being viewed separately, as they say that the US and Mexico are expected to bid. I will wait for responses before making any changes. The BBC article also ends with the ambiguous sentence "Who knows, there is the prospect of the US or even Canada, Jamaica or Mexico coming forward from Concacaf."--Patrick Ѻ 13:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Here it is on FIFA.com. That's pretty official. It says there will be a news conference at 17.30 CET.--Patrick Ѻ 14:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move to "2018 FIFA World Cup bids"

I believe the page was renamed from "2018 FIFA World Cup" to "2018 FIFA World Cup bid" on September 18, following the deletion discussion, to follow the pattern of the the 2014 FIFA World Cup bid and 2016 Summer Olympics bids articles. However, unlike 2014, there are multiple bids, and the title "2018 FIFA World Cup bid" assumes that there is only one bid. It bothers me that User:@pple neglected the 's' when changing the title. Would anyone be opposed to this move?

If anyone wants to propose moving the page back to "2018 FIFA World Cup", I don't see why not, though I feel that would require more lengthy discussion that the simple change I'm proposing. 2016 Summer Olympics, which I would love this article to look like, is just about the bidding process at the moment.--Patrick Ѻ 21:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If this article is moved to 2018 FIFA World Cup bids, 2014 FIFA World Cup bid would have to be moved to 2014 FIFA World Cup bids as well. AecisBrievenbus 22:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, but not necessarily. I think since that's just about the one bid that it's ok where it is.--Patrick Ѻ 16:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Benelux bid

The article currently states that the Benelux bid for the World Cup is not a joint bid of the three countries of the Benelux, but a single bid of the Benelux entity. This is referenced through ESPN, but this reference doesn't seem to cover the assertion. ESPN has Alain Courtois saying "Benelux is one political institution, therefore it is one bid with one organisation, not like Japan and Korea which had two separate committees." It doesn't say anywhere that that "one political institution" (the Benelux) is the "one organisation" behind the bid, or that it has anything to do with the bid. This is confirmed by what Alain Courtois told Belgian press agency Belga a few weeks ago: "We willen de zin van een gezamenlijke kandidatuur nagaan en onze plannen uitleggen", vertelt Courtois. "Blatter was na het WK 2002 in Zuid-Korea en Japan niet zo pro een dubbele kandidatuur. Maar we gaan duidelijk maken dat wij een geheel zijn: één bestuur en één management. Je kan onze situatie niet vergelijken met het WK 2002". (Translation: "We want to examine if a joint bid makes sense, and explain our plans," Courtois says. "Blatter wasn't fond of a double candidature after the 2002 World Cup in South Korea and Japan. But we will make clear that we are one: one board and one management. You can't compare our situation to the 2002 World Cup.") The bid is initiated by the football associations of Belgium and the Netherlands, and is endorsed by the national parliaments (the role of Luxembourg in this is not clear). The respective football associations have delegated the organisation of the bid to a single committee, with representatives of both associations. That is the one organisation behind the bid, but it is operating on behalf of and in full cooperation with the national football associations of Belgium and the Netherlands. As far as I can tell, this meets all the criteria for a joint bid. AecisBrievenbus 12:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, you could say that is functions like a joint bid, but even in that quote Alain Courtois (who's article I just translated into English) says that "we are one: one board and one management." They seem to be trying hard to avoid the strict "joint bid" label, which this article, being about the bids, should explain. That said, it isn't fully explained in the article, and admittedly badly worded.--Patrick Ѻ 12:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Portugal-Spain

Added, then removed.

Foot - CM 2018 - Le Portugal avec l'Espagne ?

Spanish soccer federation not interested in launching 2018 World Cup bid

Edgar (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


I think it should be removed (again). The source mentioned in the latest edit was published on Nov 27, while the article mentioning the Spanish FA lack of interest was published 2 days later. Edgar (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obvious

Australi! the last continent to do ! :P más obvio imposible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.191.223 (talk) 08:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup bids

I think the title should be changed to 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup bids, as FIFA will decide the host countries for 2018 and 2022 at the same time.Joint decision on 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups--Edgar (talk) 10:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If FIFA were accepting a number of bids, and then allocating one to 2018 and one to 2022, that would make sense - but they aren't - they are soliciting bids separately. Apart from the fact they are to be decided at the same time, there isn't anything linking the two bids. -- Chuq (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)