I would much rather be the guest of a party. I can see what it is like in someone elses house and experience how they run a party but mainly so I can get out of my own house which is depressingly grey and full of people who wind me up by reacting over the top to any little issue such as what Grandad trying to impress a young lady might have said. Or last week the state of the garden after having had to relay the turf near the pond.

You miserable Sod!

PWC estimates that the UK can make £ 3,2 billion on the World Cup. Unfortunately, they don't tell how. When it is here in the low countries economics think we'll lose a billion. A counterparty, with ties to our Bid, believes the opposite.

"enjoy a few dozen games of football for free"

Wait until Murdoch gets his filthy fingers on it...

I couldn't agree more with the article and would enjoy watching a World Cup in Russia - I'm a firm believer that if a country that has not held the event before has thrown its hat in the ring and has the wherewithal to stage it, they should be given first dibs.

Also, in terms of England's national sporting achievement, they have already won one World Cup at home. Surely, for the sake of self respect, the next aim should be to attempt to win the thing on foreign soil? That goal won't be achieved by holding the party at home again.

As for the Daily Mail - ban it.

Speaking from the perspective of having a World Cup about to start, much of Ian's argument is spot on.

For South Africa, hosting the thing probably has a greater social relevance than it would for many other countries. Less than two decades ago, the country was isolated from the rest of the world because of apartheid. Add to that the geographical remoteness from those countries SA would like to measure itself against, and the potential of nation-building in a communal project. The dimension of aiding the national psyche also was at play in Germany 2006.

But England has no such needs or objectives. And the promised financial windfalls...well, it looks like South Africa is making a big loss.

The point about a new stadium for Chile vs Honduras is pertinent. FIFA bullied SA into building brand-new stadia in cities that won?t be able to sustain them. Nelspruit is a sporting backwater that needed no big stadium. Likewise Port Elizabeth and Polokwane. Between the three towns there is not one top flight football team (though PE might get a Super 14 rugby franchise at some point).

FIFA also bullied SA into building a new stadium in Durban, next to the King?s Park stadium which could have been renovated and upgraded, but will now be torn down. And the Western Cape?s premier has complained that FIFA virtually prescribed that the admittedly impressive and picturesquely located Cape Town Stadium be built at a location which local politicians ? who surely know more about long-term sustainability than FIFA ? did not prefer.

G.Man,
No offence,but if FIFA had to bully South Africa into building decent stadia all over the place , perhaps thats an indication that the World Cup shouldnt have been awarded to the country in the first place?
It may not be PC to say this but there is a case for the WC to routinely go to "big" countries that already have the requisite facilities to host such an event.
I would include the likes of England and Germany in this,and maybe somewhere like South Korea (note maybe).
Im not too sure that taking the World Cup to places to "spread the word" eg USA94 or South Africa 2010 really works in the long run.
It certainly doesnt work for me, but time will tell.
Meanwhile let the debate continue before the games begin............!!!

Why doesn't it "work" for you, Dale65? Because of the distance?

FIFA could easily have said that five cities are enough, and not bully South Africa into building stafiums where PERFECTLY GOOD ONES already existed, as it did in Durban and (arguably) in Cape Town.

As for already existing stadiums, revisit Germany and how much rebuiding went into the 2006 World Cup, and let me know what you found.

I said "it doesnt really work in the long run" if you read my comment......G.Man
Im sure youre not trying to tell me that football suddenly took off in the good ol US of A due to the world cup being hosted there in 1994 are you...?
Ergo taking the world cup to such places doesnt really work in the long run......!!
Nothing at all to do with the distance.....,as i said South Korea was arguably ok(did you read that bit?)
I reiterate that if FIFA has to actually bully a country into building adequate venues,then perhaps that country isnt ready to host the worlds top sporting event.
Why should FIFA mend and make do? FIFA rightly lay down the criteria by which a bid will be successful and then host countries have to fulfil these requirements.
YOU keep saying South Africa had to be bullied into compliance,well any way you care to look at it that doesnt work for me.
As for Germany, you know as well as I do that they were not bullied into anything,and none of the Stadiums built for 2006 have been left as white elephants