Obviously, I'm a bit disappointed that the USA wasn't awarded the 2022 World Cup. Earlier this year we had bids in for both years, but as the selection drew nearer we pulled out of the 2018 race. I was hoping, albeit with tempered expectations, that we would win and Denver would be a host city. In the end, I just think it came down to the fact that we didn't fit into FIFA's current philosophy of taking the tournament to every corner of the Earth. And, we offered nothing more then a big and successful tournament just like when we hosted it in 1994. Vanilla.
Qatar won in my opinion because it offered things that the USA bid couldn't, namely ridiculously lavish venues (sheik dinero). Technology will be pushed to the limits in building Qatar 2022. For example, they are going to build an island and place a stadium on it. They are going to build a stadium with exterior walls completely constructed (to the eye) of television screens that will dwarf what we have at Cowboy stadium. They are going to reportedly build stadiums that can be taken apart after the tournament and donated/shipped to developing countries for reuse/reconstruction. If you know anything about this region of the world, they can and will build anything - no matter how extravagant it is. If they have to, they'll air condition the entire country. Really, our bid was boring in comparison.
Perhaps our bid was doomed from the very start just because of our location. Qatar 2022 will be the first time a World Cup has been played in the Middle East. Following the FIFA trend/philosophy, Qatar may have been the front runner from the start as long as they were able to convince FIFA they could successfully host the tournament. Here are the recent tournaments/awards: Japan/Korea (Asia - 1st time) in 2002, South Africa (Africa - 1st time) in 2010, Brazil (South America - 1st time since 1978) in 2014, Russia (Eastern Europe/Russia - 1st time) in 2018, and Qatar (Middle East - 1st time) in 2022. I know that they have a policy of rotating the venues, but the trend under Sepp Blatter has been to take the tournament to every region on Earth, even if it isn't the most logical or best choice. Why else did they decide for the first time to award 2 World Cups at the same time? It was about pushing through a vision, philosophy, or agenda (call it whatever you want) before the changing of the guard. It happens all the time in politics.
Speaking of politics, that's what this process is all about. Anyone who thinks this is a fair and objective process is naive. Just as all of our own politicians are crooked, so too are the head honchos at FIFA. I'm not saying that I like it or agree with it. I am saying that it always has been and always will be, political. Trading votes and trying to sell them, among other things in the news, is not surprising in the least. What governing body or government doesn't engage in practices like this? That's just what politics are about and why I don't like them. Perhaps the main point I want to make about it all is that as a fan I really don't care how the hosts are selected. To be clear, it bothers me on a moral level but not on an entertainment level. As long as the tournament is successful and there is integrity with what happens on the field (i.e. results are legitimate), I really wouldn't care if the World Cup is played on a floating iceberg or on the surface of the moon. Naturally, that means how a site is selected isn't much of a talking point for me.
Using this summer's successful tournament in problem-ridden South Africa, I'm sure FIFA and others involved have enough horsepower and resources to stage a good tournament almost anywhere in the world.