Big Story
There’s more positivity to England’s World Cup bid after yesterday’s announcement of the candidate cities, with Henry Winter excitedly writing in the Telegraph that “England can play down ace after ace.”

But there is plenty of negative commentary too. In the comments on our post yesterday about the surprising inclusion of Plymouth as a candidate city, Penfold wrote a long and thoughtful commentary on what he called the other more controversial choices: Milton Keynes, Hillsborough and Elland Road. The first, as we commented in the Sweeper yesterday, is undoubtedly the most disturbing inclusion of all. Penfold’s comment is worth quoting in full:

MK Dons and MK Stadium, let us not forget, only exist due to the despicable decision to allow a franchise to enter English football. This is not something we should be promoting in the home of football – a particular aspect the FA continue to peddle in it’s bid for the 2018 World Cup. The Guardian provides a good comment on the inclusion of this stadium right here. Coupled with this is the fact that Milton Keynes is a god-awful ‘new’ town lacking any sort of character, ambience or charm.

It is indeed a bizarre choice in terms of England’s World Cup bid’s considerable reliance on the tradition of football as a key selling point. MK Dons attempted erasure of Wimbledon’s history and identity is something we’ve covered extensively here before, and Two Hundred percent has a lot on the strong reaction against the inclusion of Milton Keynes.

Milton Keynes’ page on England’s official World Cup bid site of course does not mention how MK Dons came into being, instead saying that “It’s our vision and willingness to think differently that in 2004 saw Milton Keynes become England’s newest football city with the formation of the MK Dons, who in 2007 moved to the state of the art stadium:mk.” I think that nonsense speaks for itself. As Barney Roney says at the Guardian, “Including Stadium MK ahead of failed bids by Derby, Hull and Leicester is a stamp of legitimacy for the controversial project overseen by Dons owner Pete Winkleman.”

Henry Winter also comments on the “the exciting legacy potential” of including Milton Keynes. But the unhappy legacy they already have is not one that should be included in England’s World Cup bid in the first place.

Worldwide News

• There is a lot more in today’s British press on Mick McCarthy’s weakened Wolves side at Old Trafford, with many defending the decision, pointing out the team still had six internationals and that, as Paul Wilson puts it, this may have been their strongest side in terms of fitness concerns. Tony Cascarino, though, takes the opposite view, urging the Premier League to punish Wolves.
• Matt Scott has the latest on Liverpool’s owners’ efforts to pull themselves out of the financial hole they have dug themselves, caustically writing that “Apparently, despite all evidence to the contrary, the co-owners believe Liverpool to be worth of £500m to £600m. So for that £62m you can buy yourself a little over 10% of a club that still has to spend more than £300m on building a new stadium.”
• Paul James has a piece on the (re)rise of the Vancouver Whitecaps that’s interesting enough, but quite remarkable for its doughy-eyed enthusiasm while also managing to take a sideswipe already at Toronto FC on the “professionalism” of the organisation.

The Sweeper appears every weekday, and once at the weekend. For more rambling and links throughout the day every day, follow your editor Tom Dunmore @pitchinvasion on Twitter.

The Football Association announced today it had further narrowed its potential World Cup venue locations in England to 17 stadiums in 12 cities. The familiar names were there — Old Trafford, Wembley, etc — but one that will certainly have surprised observers at home and abroad was that of Home Park, Plymouth.

This is not the Theatre of Dreams: it’s the “Theatre of Greens”, home of Plymouth Argyle in the Championship (one of only two English teams to play in green). Home Park dates back to 1893, and though it’s been renovated since, isn’t exactly up to FIFA World Cup standards at present, holding around 20,000 after considerable renovation in the past decade.

But Plymouth’s presentation to England’s World Cup Bid panel included ambitious plans to upgrade the stadium to a 46,000 “Wembley of the West”. The club is already committed to a £20 million expansion of the stadium to hold 27,000 regardless of the bid, with plans to increase the capacity to 46,000 should the bid be successful at a cost of a further £30 million.

The stadium design is by Populous, one of the world’s leading stadia-design firms, also responsible for Wembley Stadium. Of particular interest was that a representative of American firm AEG, who have built and operated MLS stadia for a few years now, joined the Plymouth delegation’s presentation to the panel, with AEG slated to operate the stadium.

MLS fans will not be surprised to learn that AEG’s interest in Home Park is in more than the sport of soccer, with rugby and other entertainment events also planned for the venue. Plymouth impressed this on the World Cup panel as evidence the giant stadium would not end up empty besides any World Cup games it hosted.

“I think they got the impact of the design of the stadium, and most importantly they got the point that the stadium is about multi-sport and entertainment use after the World Cup. It’s not just about Argyle’s 23 home games a season,” Plymouth’s executive director Keith Todd told the Plymouth Herald.

A curious wrinkle is that AEG’s billionaire owner and long-time major backer of MLS, Phil Anschutz, sits on the USA Bid Committee competing with England to win the right to host the World Cup. I guess it helps to have more than one basket to put your eggs in, doesn’t it?

Here’s one big problem the US and England don’t face with their World Cup bids: conflict with planned use of stadia by Aussie Rules Football and rugby league teams. The issue has caused a huge stir in Australia this week, with Football Federation Australia under fire for failing to consult with the governing bodies of the other football codes that share most of Australia’s largest stadiums about potential scheduling conflicts (Melbourne’s “rectangular” stadium currently under construction is so-named for its rarity as a non-oval shaped stadium suited specifically for soccer, though a rugby league team will also play there).

“They certainly have to improve their communication, not just with us but other people involved in and being affected by a World Cup,” Australian Football League (which runs Aussie football) boss Andrew Demetrio said of the FFA to the Roar. “I think a World Cup is a great thing for this country (but) it’s time to get this stuff organised. They really need to be proactive and come up with solutions and start listening to the other codes and other people affected by this, particularly the venues, and not do all the talking.”

Similarly, the National Rugby League’s CEO David Gallop said that “Some of the proposals are not going to be palatable to us and would be very costly to us. We’re not trying to stop the World Cup bid but we are certainly concerned about the impact that it will have on our season, our fans and the financial position of our clubs.”

However, one suspects that the FFA and NRL’s timing of this — just after the recent bidding presentations to FIFA and the 2010 World Cup draw — were designed to maximise publicity and hit the FFA up for compensation for rescheduling, as well as a reflection of concern that a successful World Cup could give soccer the boost it needs to become a leading football code in the country alongside the more popular Aussie Rules and Rugby League.

Consider the rest of Gallop’s comments regarding the possibility of compensation: “It’s not something that’s been discussed thus far but if that was part of the discussions then we’d be interested to hear what they’ve got to say. It’s obviously a big shot in the arm for a competitor and we’re running a business and we have to be mindful of that. Clearly a soccer World Cup is going to be a big shot in the arm for their game, not only in the period that it’s on but in the years that follow.”

In the U.S., the NFL is obviously confident enough that a soccer World Cup using many of its own teams’ venues would merely mean a little more summer revenue for them — no scheduling conflicts there — and isn’t worried about soccer as a competing code. In Australia, it looks like the other footballing codes are concerned enough to risk damaging their country’s World Cup bid.

“No nation embodies the values and spirit of the FIFA World Cup™ quite like the United States,” the US’ official bid website boldly proclaims.

The World Cup bidding competition for the 2018 and 2022 finals is hotting up with one year to go until FIFA’s 24 man Executive Committee makes its decisions on the hosts for each tournament, and it’s interesting to take a look at the approach of the American bid at this stage. Five members of the US bid committee are currently in South Africa for a presentation to FIFA, along with the competing bids from Australia, England, Japan, Russia, Belgium-Netherlands, Spain-Portugal, Indonesia, Qatar and South Korea.

David Downs, executive director of the U.S. bid, has been interviewed a few times out in South Africa, so along with the published information on the U.S. bid website, let’s take a look at the reasoning being presented to FIFA for why the world should come to the United States again for the World Cup.

Financial Benefits and Attendance
Downs (SI.com): “It would produce an astronomical record for the event.”

The U.S. is touting potential ticket sales of over 5 million for the finals. And indeed, no country can match the stadia the United States has to offer for the games. Only twelve stadiums are needed for the finals, but the U.S. is still considering bids from 27 different cities featuring 32 stadia with an average capacity of a phenomenal 74,000. No new stadium would need to be built, and almost zero renovation would be required.

Would the stadiums be full?  Yes, we can take Downs at his word on this based on the historical record.  The U.S. still retains the aggregate attendance record for the World Cup finals from 1994, a pretty impressive achievement in itself given the World Cup expanded from 24 to 32 teams in 1998, with an extra 16 games being played in France, Japan/South Korea and Germany. 3,587,538 attended at an average match attendance of 68,991 in 1994. It’s entirely believable that the U.S. would again break the attendance record in either 2018 or 2022.

In terms of television revenue, it’s also no surprise that the latest addition to the U.S. bid committee is John Skipper, Executive Vice President for Content with ESPN, perhaps the most powerful sports television executive in the world. The interest of American television, the most lucrative sports television market in the world, in soccer has clearly grown considerably in the past decade, and it’s no surprise Downs is emphasising this: “One of my favorite examples to cite is ESPN these days… turn on Sportscenter and look for the top 10 plays of the day, you almost inevitably see a soccer highlight in those top 10 plays. That was not the case probably even five years ago.”

Passion for Soccer
Downs (Q&A with World Football Insider): “The biggest challenge that we have is convincing the voters who are 24 people from 24 different countries that the United States bid is not just about fancy stadiums and loads of ticket revenue, that there really is a unique passion for the sport in the United States. We are often judged incorrectly by the strength of the MLS…The trick is to unify all those disparate factions of folks who are touched by the game, who indeed really worship the game… all those folks who are living here care about the sport, want the World Cup to come here to the United States and represent a passion for the sport that may number 70, 80 or 90 million people.”

Unlike in ’94, when the World Cup was billed as a fresh start for the sport in the United States with the promise of a new professional league to launch after it (finally fulfilled in 1996, of course), the bid committee has been billing a second World Cup as building on the legacy of the past and trying to demonstrate the diversity of the sport here. As well as touting the success of ’94, this has included an emphasis on the 1984 Olympic Final as a launchpad for the game when over 100,000 packed into the Rose Bowl, and the US bid website features an outstanding timeline (“Its in our DNA”) documenting the game’s roots deep into the American past.

Yet to the rest of the world, the U.S. remains a soccer backwater: like it or not, folks. So a key part of the bid remains convincing FIFA that the passion for the sport that needs to be present at a World Cup is in the U.S.. This is, indeed, why the bid committee has adopted the slogan “THE GAME IS IN  US”, and has pushed an online petition gaining over 250,000 signatures. The US bid website is notably low on an emphasis on MLS (the league is not even mentioned on the “GAME IS IN US” page) and high on pushing the diverse culture of the game: “It is in our schoolyards and stadiums, our church parking lots and cornfields, our back alleys and beachfronts, pulsing through our cities and suburbs and countryside alike.”

World Cup Legacy
Downs (Q&A with World Football Insider): “Because we have the luxury of not having to spend hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars on construction of airports and roadways and stadiums and infrastructure in our cities, we can afford to focus on some of the more social aspects of a World Cup. By that I mean leaving a legacy of using the sport for positive social change or for promoting “green” aspects of staging the competition that may alter the way people think of sports for decades to come.”

This is an interesting angle to take, and a poke in the eye for one of the U.S.’s main competitor’s, Russia, who would need enormous infrastructure work done.  Though it may be unfair, it’s no surprise Russia is already fending off concerns that neighbouring Ukraine’s struggles to prepare for the 2012 Euros may be repeated by Russia.

It is, however, not evident to me exactly what Downs means about the social and green aspects of the bid, so it’ll be interesting to see the details of that slightly speculative point come out. Right now, the US’s bid page on social change touts the many worthy causes American soccer organisations like MLS currently fund and support, but there is little on what a future World Cup would bring, and no mention of environmental plans: one could say that the need to build very little infrastructure wise is the greenest aspect of the U.S. bid, though the carbon miles from travel across the US would obviously be far, far greater than, say, England.

But the most important part of the legacy claim for FIFA is the potential of the World Cup to spring American soccer to the next level, and Downs is smart in stating this would be a long-term benefit evident in the years before 2018 or 2022 as well as after:

If there is a World Cup coming to a city near you in a decade’s time, or whatever the actual time turns out to be, I think that will absolutely be on every youth soccer player’s mind. We’ve encouraged the cities that are in dialogue with us to have a decade-long marketing program that will promote the sport in their market through everything from staging international exhibitions with the top clubs in the world to youth tournaments. I think it’s only logical that if we have this World Cup on the horizon to inspire us all, it will be in the marketing plans of companies throughout the country that use sports in their marketing and that will have an enormous effect.

One Year To Go
So far, the American bid has been a model of smoothness (I’m looking at you, England), and in each area of emphasis, the U.S. has strong evidence to support its claims. The bid is compelling on the face of it, and the key challenge over the next twelve months will be a tough one: navigating the internal politics of FIFA’s Executive Committee — something Chicago’s Olympic bid spectacularly failed to achieve with regard to that similarly impenetrable edifice, the IOC.  24 men of FIFA, many of them not known for their rectitude, will decide if all the above means anything or not.

Big Story
England and the United States might be the favourites to host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, but both countries have hosted  a  World Cup before: a fact Russia are counting on as crucial in their own bids. “Every tournament should be held in a country that has not previously hosted it,” said sports minister Vitaly Mutko. “Our bid is unique … and (winning) will enable our cities to take on a completely different appearance.”

I particularly like the fact that they are touting their ability to host the World Cup because they “hosted a lavish Eurovision Song Contest” this year. “Tell me, who conducts such events better than Russia?” Mutko said. Let’s hope the World Cup in 2022 has a pre-game show like this winning song from the contest in Moscow:

In all seriousness, though, Russia looks likely to put together a very competitive bid. Its biggest challenge is infrastructure, with the construction of five new stadiums and considerable refurbishment of ten others necessary, an issue not facing England or the U.S.  Beyond that, the 14 host cities scattered across the vast country require a massive investment in transport links, including the building of new international airports. It would be a much riskier prospect for FIFA than even South Africa was, without the prestige of taking the World Cup to a new continent.

Worldwide News

• For perhaps the first time (Italian football fans, please inform me), supporters of an Italian club are trying to buy their team — AS Roma fans are putting together a supporters’ trust to try to purchase the club. Best of luck to them.
• Apropos of apparently nothing, Tony Cascarino brings up the old chestnut of Rangers and Celtic joining the English Premier League, and suggests they should simply be parachuted in there without having to work their way up through the league. Which of course, would make a complete mockery of the entire pyramid structure essential to English football.
• Gambling on football in England continues to be a problem, and the Football Assocation’s chairman Lord Triesman has sensibly called for a complete ban on betting on the game by any player, manager or official — currently, there is only a ban on betting on a game one is involved in.
• I hope many of you have been following Pitch Invasion contributor Richard Whittall’s series on what MLS means to fans. It’s been a random patchwork of commentary, but well worth reading, perhaps for that reason: the direction of the league and its clubs remains a serious work-in-progress, but there is a reason why we bother. Richard will be sweeping up for you over the weekend — see you on Monday.

The Sweeper appears daily. For more rambling and links throughout the day every day, follow your editor Tom Dunmore @pitchinvasion on Twitter.