Likes and dislikes: Fifa's verdict on World Cup bidders

Click to follow
The Independent Football

England's bid for the 2018 World Cup will be rated as "low risk" tomorrow when FIFA officially publishes its evaluation report of the bidding countries.

The report will show England to be on a par with current favourites Spain/Portugal, although FIFA's inspectors have raised issues with all of the four bids for 2018.

Press Association Sport has seen an advanced copy of the FIFA report and here outlines some of the key points as identified by the inspectors.

ENGLAND (bidding for 2018)

Good points: Transport, stadia, IT, security, marketing, legacy.

Bad points: Too few venue-specific training sites or venue-specific team hotels, too few training base camp hotels.

SPAIN/PORTUGAL (2018)

Good points: Stadia, transport, hotels, legacy.

Bad points: Lack of clear security plan, co-hosting "a challenge".

RUSSIA (2018)

Good points: 13 planned new stadia, hotels, legacy.

Bad points: Huge transport challenge and major building programme needed.

HOLLAND/BELGIUM (2018)

Good points: Stadia, legacy.

Bad points: Too few hotel rooms, co-hosting "a challenge", lack of government guarantees.

USA (2022)

Good points: Stadia already built, hotels, transport, security.

Bad points: "Medium legal risk", lack of government guarantees.

QATAR (2022)

Good points: Novel approach to World Cup, legacy, new stadia.

Bad points: June/July heat "potential health risk", 12 stadiums located within a 20-mile radius.

AUSTRALIA (2022)

Good points: Legacy, security, stadia, transport infrastructure.

Bad points: Shortage of contracted hotel rooms, transport challenges, risk of reduction in European and American TV income.

JAPAN (2022)

Good points: Stadia, technology developments, hotels, transport.

Bad points: Security plan not fully ensured, risk of reduction in European and American TV income.

SOUTH KOREA (2022)

Good points: Legacy - may play some games in North Korea, stadia, technology, security.

Bad points: Risk of reduction in European and American TV income.

Comments