The reaction from countries that lost out in the bid to host the 2018 and 2022 world cup has been, to contrast with the game that is described as "beautiful", quite ugly. None more than the nation that regards itself as the home of football, or at least the modern version of the game (which has been referenced as far back as ancient China and the Roman empire). The English newspapers the day after the FIFA vote in Zurich were pouring forth all the anger and frustration that was probably built off all the other contentious issues of the day such as the government cutbacks in spending and the tuition rate increases for students. Perhaps it has finally sunk into everyone's minds (albeit not their hearts) that the British Empire is no more, their hegemony over the world (carried on through close association with the US) has been eclipsed by China (and India to some extent) and that the only solution is to throw metaphorical bricks at everyone else (in that regard, its not all that different from Palestinians hurling projectiles at the Israelis!)
The primary reason attributed for loss of the World Cup bid is that of FIFA (specifically) selling out to oil and gas rich countries, with the obvious implication of corruption. The English bid cannot fathom how its possible that they lost out inspite of having, in their words, the "perfect" bid. It had everything ranging from the best stadia, security, transportation, sponsorship - you name it, they had it! Of course, I doubt there was much included in the way of football hooligans - something that the English are by far the leaders in globally. Even after having personally received assurances of votes from most of the countries in the voting pool, they ended up with a measly 2 in the first round (one from their own representative).
Methinks that this is the biggest insult to the Brits - namely, that they were hoodwinked by other "lesser" nations, who were obviously looking out for themselves in the end. Making a promise and then reneging on it is nothing new - in fact, its the very manner in which the English carved up most of the world for themselves. Tell someone that you are going to protect them from their enemy, then go and promise the same thing to the enemy, and soon you have everyone believing you - in the meanwhile, you are quietly building your forces till one day you declare yourself ruler of the land and no one has an option to protest. Many a maharaja found himself hoodwinked in this manner!
That FIFA is trying to promote the game in other countries is no secret - why else would they host the tournament in the US in 1994? The US was one of the bidders for 2022 and the papers there were also up in arms about "oil money" controlling the outcome of hosting rights (of course, with the growth of shale gas, this is the right time to stick it to the Qataris!!) But back in 1994, there was a similar reaction to awarding the tournament to the US - who would come to watch the games? Well, it turns out that quite a few people did, but in the end, football (sorry, soccer) has gone back to being a second tier sport in the US, despite the presence of the MLS and people like David Beckham going over to do what Pele attempted at the New York Cosmos. If Pele, the greatest sportsman of the 20th century, could not achieve a shift in the mindset of the Yanks, then David Beckham could scarcely be faulted for failing. Well, at least he did get more coverage by the newspapers for his fashion sense!
So if awarding the tournament to the US in 1994 was ok, why not to Russia, a country that is clearly fond of soccer and has numerous teams that compete in European leagues. The FIFA award for best goalkeeper is named after Lev Yashin, the USSR goalie from the 1960s. And Russia is located midway between Europe and Asia, two of the biggest markets for football (ok the South Americans will need to travel a bit farther).
The case of Qatar is more interesting. Inspite of having the oil (actually, natural gas) money, Qatar is not in the same category as Saudi Arabia (but who can fault the west for clubbing together every middle eastern country into the same group?) The country, along with the UAE and Bahrain, are clearly centers of growth in the region, fast becoming business and transport hubs (Qatar Airways proclaims itself as "the 5 star airline", and with good reason!) Hosting a tournament like this is also a great way to bring the nations of the world together and take everyone's mind off the craziness happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. The middle east is also soccer mad (consider the Iranian movie "Offside") so there is likely to be more
Getting back to the English reaction, recall that the first 3 Cricket world cups (Prudential world cup back then) were all held in the UK and there was never even the slightest thought that they might be held elsewhere. Come 1983, and India's dramatic upset over the West Indies, coupled with an insult to then BCCI chairman Jagmohan Dalmia, led to the shift to India in 1987 for the Reliance World Cup. Cricket has not looked back since and it has become an accepted fact that holding tournaments in the sub-continent is the way to go. After all that's where all the money is! If the UK can accept that fact, then why not give Russia and Qatar a chance to prove themselves?
