Football's Not Coming Home

England will not be hosting the World Cup in 2018, says the BBC.

I can see lots of positives here. The 2018 world Cup will be a pleasant spectacle on the TV that we will be able to watch or not, as we wish. It won't be the all-devouring wall-to-wall 24-hour wankfest that it might have been. We won't be mortgaging our children's futures (well, no more than they are at present with the Olympics) for bragging rights to a game of kickabout.

And everyone's going to blame the BBC.

Result.

Iain Dale and the World Cup

I posted something the other day about the BBC Panorama investigation into corruption in FIFA ahead of today's decision on the hosting of the 2018 World Cup. Iain Dale, it seems, would disagree.

What a pity it is that the BBC should have disgraced our bid with that Panorama programme on Monday.

I commented:

An investigation into bribery and corruption is "disgraceful"? That's a new one.

Dale replied:

The timing was disgraceful. They should have screened it after the bid.

He seems to be arguing that the BBC should have withheld any broadcast of their corruption investigation until after the successful bid had been announced. The obvious implication is that the BBC have annoyed FIFA (if the allegations are false, why would that be a problem?) and made them less likely to choose England. Would Mr Dale also agree that newspapers should avoid allegations of corruption against a politician until after an election, in case it affected the result?

The comments are interesting.

BBC does something useful shocker

I was delighted to read that the BBC's Panorama programme on Monday has upset a few footballers. It would seem that the programme alleged that some of the FIFA officials, including the FIFA Vice-President (above) have taken bribes in the past to influence their decisions over World Cup hosting rights.

Apparently, FIFA are about to announce their decision any day now about which country will host the 2018 Word Cup. And I am led to believe that England is a front runner. So naturally the English football establishment is delighted that the BBC is doing its best to ensure that all such decisions are taken openly and fairly, without the nasty smell of corruption to ruin the image of the 'beautiful game'.

Or not. I have seen several men on the television news being very cross (in fact one gentleman with distinctly ginger tendencies seemed rather angry) because apparently this may spoil England's chances of victory.

Good.

For one thing, it means that the whole of 2018 (and 2017, and 2016 ...) won't be quite so full of wall-to-wall football if England's campaign is fought on a distant shore. And of course, our inevitable ejection in the early rounds won't be quite such a national disaster.

And for another, it means that some other poor buggers will be standing the ever-inflating cost of hosting such an event. It has been calculated that hosting the World Cup will cost England about £1bn. Remember how the revealed cost of the 2012 Olympics quadrupled as soon as the bid was safely in the bag?

If we lose the bid, it will have been a lucky escape.