When Loretta Lynch and Richard Weber addressed the watching world following the launch of the federal investigations into FIFA corruption, they were clear to emphasize that this process would be a long one. But in the wake of Sepp Blatter’s announcement that he’ll be resigning as president, already the organization’s precarious house of cards is tumbling down.
Soccer supporters across the globe will eagerly anticipate the next FIFA extraordinary congress when the longstanding honcho finally relinquishes his grip on the organization. But questions are already being asked about what will change when Blatter walks out of world soccer’s governing body for the final time.
Will more revelations come to light in the wake of his resignation? Who is most likely to succeed the Swiss chief? And what’s going to happen to the key decisions and steps taken under Blatter’s tumultuous tenure which could well have been tainted by controversy?
The most pressing matter for soccer fans will be the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. In many respects FIFA’s decision to award the World Cup to Qatar in supposedly sullied circumstances was the trigger for the scrutiny being intensified on Blatter; just hours after his crestfallen announcement at a hastily arranged press conference, there were plenty calling for those decisions to be reevaluated.
FA president Greg Dyke was one of the first to do so: “He’s gone,” he said, per James Whaling of the Daily Mirror. “At long last we can sort out FIFA. We can go back to looking at those two World Cups. If I were Qatar right now I wouldn’t be feeling very comfortable.”
After all, the motives for scheduling a World Cup in the Middle-East are peculiar. The timing of the event, the punishing climate and the horrendous treatment of workers in the country all should have been enough in isolation for the organization to push on with alternatives. But if the bidding process is indeed revealed as compromised, drastic and swift action is needed.
At this juncture, the World Cup in 2022 may seem like a long way off. But if changes are to be made, votes are needed to be re-run, who is ready to step in and fill the void?
The United States is the destination that’s been bandied about most prominently and given the manner in which the FBI have tracked the paeans in Zurich, there’s plenty who’d agree that the country certainly deserve it! In addition, if Qatar was to be stripped of the showpiece, then the nation which finished second in the initial bidding process certainly have a great case.
[interaction id=”556f283984caec334b2a7d9e”]
In terms of infrastructure, the United States of America would also be ideal. The stadia is state of the art, the transport links are seamless and given requisite notice, the country could make this event into a major soccer extravaganza, as was obvious by the professionalism of their initial submission. The sport’s popularity is on a major upturn too, meaning that in terms of financial gains from sponsorships and endorsement, it’d be a lucrative occasion for FIFA.
If there was to be an entire re-running of the polling process, there are plenty of other nations that’d be keen on throwing their hat into the ring. Australia was an unsuccessful bidder for the tournament and a World Cup staged Down Under would fit in with FIFA’s intentions of taking the event to far corners of the planet.
Australia have also proven their mettle for hosting major sporting events, with Olympics held in Sydney back in 2000, the Rugby World Cup in 2003, while earlier this year, the Asian Soccer Cup was held there, a tournament which the Socceroos won. As such, as is the case with the United States, there’s also a festering love for the game.
But most of the major venues in the country are primarily tailored for cricket, rugby and Australian Rules Football, all who have seasons that run during the months a World Cup would take typically take place.
What about following suit from the Africa Cup of Nations and look to a previous venue?That tournament was hosted in Equatorial Guinea for the second successive time earlier this year after Morocco pulled out.
However, Brazil was struggling to cope with the demands of a major tournament in 2014 and with Olympics scheduled to be held in Rio de Janeiro in the summer of 2016, another World Cup would probably be a step too far.
Maybe England? As the home of soccer, there’d certainly be a sense of pageantry associated with soccer coming home and the first hosting of the sport’s biggest occasion on English soil for the first time since 1966. Again, like the United States, with the facilities in place it’s a nation that would be capable of putting on the show almost at the drop of a hat, but England didn’t actually lodge a bid for the 2022 World Cup, choosing to focus their attentions on 2018.
Of course, at this stage, these wonderings are merely conjecture. The potential legal connotations that’d come with stripping Qatar of a World Cup would be unfathomably complicated from various standpoints. As aforementioned, this process is set to be drawn out, turbulent and almost certain to conjure plenty more shocking moments yet.
Follow Matt on Twitter @MattJFootball
200+ Channels With Sports & News
- Starting price: $33/mo. for fubo Latino Package
- Watch Premier League, World Cup, Euro 2024 & more
Live & On Demand TV Streaming
- Price: $35/mo. for Sling Blue
- Watch Premier League, World Cup & MLS
Many Sports & ESPN Originals
- Price: $9.99/mo. (or get ESPN+, Hulu & Disney+ for $13.99/mo.)
- Features Bundesliga, LaLiga, Championship, & more
2,000+ soccer games per year
- Price: $4.99/mo
- Features Champions League, Serie A, Europa League & NWSL
175 Premier League Games & PL TV
- Starting price: $4.99/mo. for Peacock Premium
- Watch 175 exclusive EPL games per season
110+ channels, live & on-demand
- Price: $59.95/mo. for Plus Package
- Includes FOX, FS1, ESPN, TUDN & more
16 Comments
Leave a Reply
Leave a Reply
SOCCER TV SCHEDULES APP
 |
 |
STREAMING OFFERS
 Includes: Premier League + 84 Sports Channels | |
| 7-Day Free Trial | |
 Includes: Bundesliga & La Liga | |
| Sign Up |
|
Includes: Champions League & Serie A | |
| 7-Day Free Trial | |
Includes: Premier League | |
| Sign Up |
|
 Includes: USA, NBC, FOX, FS1 + more | |
| Browse Offers |
|
Huw Roma
June 4, 2015 at 12:07 am
Give it to England. 56 years is long enough.
gargoyle
June 3, 2015 at 10:23 pm
As long as it’s not held during winter I’m fine wherever it goes.
jtm371
June 3, 2015 at 7:40 pm
AUSTRALIA Great country and better people! 🙂
Would be a hell of a party!
yespage
June 3, 2015 at 4:37 pm
With the likely death of the NASL, Americans will be desperate for World Class football.
Matt
June 3, 2015 at 3:20 pm
USA, England, Germany, Italy, Mexico, Australia.
Any of these and I’ll be happy.
yespage
June 3, 2015 at 4:40 pm
Is Europe an option? If you can do it in the US, why not all of Europe. Each group could be in a different country.
Bo
June 3, 2015 at 2:47 pm
North Korea. I think FIFA can get along well with them. 😀 😀 😀
rkujay
June 3, 2015 at 2:13 pm
Let them keep it in the hellhole which rhymes with gutter. A clean slate for me lest the members of the ‘religion of peace’ decide it is another American plot and an excuse to do unspeakable horrors to others.
Granpa’s legacy if you will. Besides that and the Russian cup are already ‘bought and paid for’. No returns and no refunds.
Jasinho
June 3, 2015 at 1:26 pm
Australia gets my vote.
Tim
June 3, 2015 at 1:09 pm
Anywhere but Qatar or middle east and im good with that.
Jason
June 3, 2015 at 12:45 pm
USA of course. But I won’t complain if its Canada or Australia one bit.
CTBlues
June 3, 2015 at 12:31 pm
Should go to the USA or Australia.
David
June 3, 2015 at 12:29 pm
I’m a little biased, but the 2022 World Cup should be held here in the United States. By 2022, there will have been several new NFL stadiums built. All new NFL stadiums have been designed with soccer in mind. With the huge surge in the popularity of soccer here, a World Cup would be a huge success, even much bigger than 1994. If a revote happens, the only candidates on the ballot should be Australia and the USA.
CTBlues
June 3, 2015 at 12:49 pm
The only problem I have with all the new NFL stadiums being built here in the US is that the surface in 65% of the NFL stadiums are artificial. Green Bay, Chicago, Carolina, Miami, Tampa Bay, Jacksonville, Houston, Santa Clara (San Fran), Denver, Kansas City, and Nashville are grass. Of those I think they would use Chicago, Miami, and Santa Clara. They would want to use Cowboys stadium, MetLife stadium in NJ, Rose Bowl, maybe the Big House, CenturyLink field and only one of those stadiums is grass.
David
June 3, 2015 at 1:26 pm
By then new stadium in LA would have been built. LA stadium will be grass. Hopefully a new stadium in San Diego as well, which will be grass. If San Diego has a new stadium, I imagine there will be World Cup matches there. I wonder if the plan for the 2022 World Cup was to install natural grass in stadiums with turf?
CTBlues
June 3, 2015 at 1:38 pm
If the new LA area NFL stadiums actually get built there is be 2 for 3 teams and there wont be a team in San Diego and Oakland anymore. Atlanta and Minnesota will both have new stadiums by 2022 and they are both going to be domes with artificial surfaces.