Don't write Oz off

I must say I disagree with most of HTO's arguments as to why USA is favourite to win the bid to host the 2022 FIFA World Cup.

The crux of Jesse's argument is that USA will be awarded the tournament because FIFA's decision will be driven mainly by commercial imperatives – the potential to earn over $1 billion in gate receipts, unprecedented fortunes in television and merchandising revenues, the multicultural imprint and the “laying up of a future platform for the game’s global growth”.

Moreover, he reminds us of USA 94 , which is still regarded as the most financially successful FIFA World Cup to date.

Jesse's reasoning on these, and a number of other points, is in most cases fallacious.

For a start, Australia's location means that in terms of time zone, a World Cup Down Under would provide the opportunity to reach countries with a combined population of over two billion people in South East Asia and East Asia, some of which are economic powerhouses and key economic trading partners such as China, Japan, Korea, Singapore and Indonesia.

USA does not offer anything like Asia in terms of market growth potential and more importantly the passion for football.

“In my opinion FIFA will also be broader if it returns the World Cup to the States. Just taking the World Cup to a new territory doesn't make FIFA broader,” Jesse states.

“What makes FIFA broader is the number of people it can affect and convince and how it invests in the future so that the game's welfare internationally is ensured. Stronger is broader,” he also claims.

This assertion that the World Cup will be awarded to a nation based on its commercial imperatives is questionable. Judging by FIFA's recent history, there is a clear commitment to using the World Cup to generate a sporting and economic legacy for the host country.

Going by Jesse's logic, if previous World Cups were awarded on the basis of financial objectives only, then South Africa, to a lesser extent Argentina and Mexico would not have been awarded past World Cups.

USA already hosted a World Cup that left no discernible legacy either social or sporting, even though Major League Soccer (which did not experience major growth until 1996) was founded as part of the USA bid to host USA 94.

The legacy left after USA 94 was that Americans went back to American football, baseball, basketball and ice hockey and forgot about football.

USA 94 was a successful tournament financially, but it did nothing for football in USA and the growth of the game.

When you look at USA football, the recent market growth is being driven by the Latino community, not mainstream America. Football is still regarded by the mainstream as a minority sport.

Moreover, Jesse asserts that the success of USA 94, the recent growth of MLS, the very recent importation of David Beckham, Thierry Henry and Rafa Marquez, the slew of American owners in European football (Liverpool fans celebrated the departure of Gillette and Hicks and Manchester United fans can't wait to see the backs of the Glazer family), “unfettered access to a market of hundreds of millions of sports-mad, cashed-up football curious yanks, is what makes America in my view the new Europe.”

I actually think Australia and the region it is now part of offers football's biggest growth opportunity.

According to FIFA marketing data, in 2006 Asia produced the biggest television audiences, representing one-third of the global audience, with four countries (China, Japan, Indonesia and Vietnam) in the top ten world audiences country by country.

USA was nowhere in sight.

Given the strength and the passion for football in this region, I believe FIFA will look to build and strengthen them as football nations.

A World Cup in Australia would also present the opportunity to develop football in virgin territories such as the Indian sub-continent and the Philippines, where football is still not the dominant sport.

Until the MLS, which runs on a salary cap system like the A-League, can attract the best players in the world at their prime, it will never be in the position to compete with the European Leagues. Let alone become one of the world's top leagues any time soon.

Asia's tremendous football market growth potential and “reach” has been FFA Chairman Frank Lowy's positioning and key point of difference in selling the idea of Australia as a World Cup host.

The mention of China bidding for 2026 as another reason Australia will not be awarded rights to the 2022 World Cup is unjustified.

As far as I'm aware, there is no official bid from China to host the 2026 World Cup and given this fact, China has nothing to “pull out of”.

The decision as to whether Australia is awarded the 2022 FIFA World Cup on December 2 will come down to the politics of convincing a majority of Ex-co members to vote for the country.

Australia has run a highly professional, strategically sound and ethical campaign so far. The bid has the full backing of the Australian Government, with Prime Minister Juila Gillard expected to attend the vote in Zurich.

The scenario, I believe is this; CONCACAF has three votes, while the AFC has four votes.

Assuming Qatar falls in the early rounds (if not before, given recent news of alleged vote swapping with the Spanish bid), it would be reasonable to extrapolate from this scenario that all four AFC votes would go to Australia.

Given Frank Lowy's business savvy, I would be surprised if Australia does not have enough friends to swing the votes its way under this scenario.