Jim Holden World Cup 2030 hosts
Sometimes in life the heart should rule the head. So yes, it may be a triumph of emotion over logic, but the most appropriate choice of venue for the 2030 World Cup, its centenary year, is one that features a final in Montevideo.
This is where it all started, when Uruguay beat Argentina 4-2 at the Estadio Centenario to lift the first-ever trophy. How can returning full circle not be the preferred option for anyone who values history and tradition?
The logistics of future 48-team World Cups mean that all the potential 2030 bids will involve several nations co-hosting the event. Uruguay’s application will be jointly made with Argentina, Chile and Paraguay – and it will be the clear favourite once FIFA’s formal process begins early next year.
Nobody doubts the passion for football in these neighbouring nations. The matches will have big crowds and an exhilarating sporting atmosphere. It could be a magical party. But, having said all that, the bidding process must not turn into a sentimental walkover.
The application must be based on sound finance, and prove that it has the requisite stadia, infrastructure and capacity to accommodate thousands of fans at least as well as its rivals.
A joint Spain/Portugal campaign would have strong credentials, and perhaps even more power if the Iberians join forces with Morocco, who could alternatively form a North African bid with Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt.
Playing the history card as the “the home of football” is likely to be counter-productive for the centenary World Cup, when England and the other home nations snubbed the fledgling tournament
AFCON 2021 hosts Cameroon have also expressed an interest, while Peru, Colombia and Ecuador could team up to offer a South American alternative.
A combined bid from Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania looks less attractive, but would represent a bold step into the unknown.
The latest possible entry is a World Cup staged in collaboration between England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It will generate much media clamour, but how realistic is it?
We can certainly ignore the risible comments of UK prime minister Boris Johnson about “bringing football home”. That is a slogan out of time, used only in a cheap attempt to gain political capital.
For the British Isles to host, they will have to win two bidding competitions: first to become the lone European candidate selected by UEFA, who only want one horse in the race.
The anti-European emotions stirred by Brexit will not help the British cause. Playing the history card as the “the home of football” is also likely to be counter-productive for the centenary World Cup, given that England and the other home nations snubbed the fledgling tournament.
The only path to success for Britain is to highlight the positives of its case – the recent expertise of staging major events like the 2012 London Olympics, the existence already of the required number of 50,000-plus all-seater stadia, and that high tourist numbers would be easily accommodated. The best card of all to play is the guarantee of cash profit that will boost FIFA’s bank balance to provide financial help across the continents.
What they should not talk about is the idea of an exceptional love for football. Intense passion and enthusiastic knowledge is worldwide.
Technical excellence is the one aspect that could make the difference for a British bid; it might get UEFA backing if it can be demonstrated to be superior to that of Spain/Portugal.
From there, it would have to do the same with FIFA – and maybe a new era of improved transparency in decision-making could also have an impact by selection time in 2024.
That is a minefield of “coulds”, “mights” and “maybes”. Even then, a British bid would still face the desire of so many people for a World Cup in 2030 back where it all began, with a final in Montevideo. The magic of that appears to have an irresistible allure.