Russia 2018 - A Blessing In Disguise?

I like every other football fan in England wanted us to win the World Cup bid. I would have loved to go to Elland Road to watch top class nations playing each other in one of the biggest competitions in the world. However, would England hosting the World Cup have been a good thing for us? Many believed that South Africa hosting the World Cup would be the answer to their economic difficulties, and yet it may just be the opposite. Would England hosting the World Cup have been worth it from a purely financial perspective?

FIFA's Demands

Holland and Belgium's bid essentially came to an end when they disagreed with the seven demands of FIFA. These are mainly to do with tax, workers rights and work permits. In terms of tax, FIFA ask that they become exempt from any form of tax, and that their affiliates also receive breaks if not exemption as well. This would mean that major companies such as Adidas, Coca Cola and Visa, all of whom are major companies that have UK bases, would be contributing much less to the an economy which needs all the money it can get.

At a time when the number of immigrants coming into the country is a big issue, one thing that FIFA ask is that work permit regulations are suspended for the tournament. There are concerns about the number of international students that finish their courses and don't leave, so in suspending the regulations to allow more fans to come over, which I agree too in principal, could end with more people not leaving. It would be the perfect chance for people from struggling African nations to come across and settle.

Myth - Tournaments Bring Economic Growth

There are many different areas to look at both in terms of the money coming in and the money that is spent.

Stadiums and Hotels - Although this wouldn't have been an issue for England, many nations bid to host the tournament knowing they would still have to build the facilities. Many believe that the need for new stadiums creates new jobs. Most construction workers will already work for the major construction companies, and it won't just be one sole construction company but many that will have plenty of workers already. This will create a need for more workers elsewhere, allowing these companies to charge more and generally raising costs. Due to the amount of workers needed, they are also able to demand more as they know they will be able to get more work for more money. So while there will be a limited amount of extra workers needed, it is not enough to get carried away by.

Another issue is what happens after the tournament. Poland hosting Euro 2012 is a good example here. UEFA, for its officials and guests, needs one entire five-star hotel within 45 minutes' drive of every stadium. Then there are team hotels (five-star), referee's hotels (also five-star) and the drug testers need hotels 'in the countryside' (again, five-star). All this will have to be paid for the Polish Government, and that is before you take into consideration the use of the stadiums after the tournament. Each stadium needs to have a minimum capacity of 40,000, yet the average attendance for the 2007/08 season in the Polish Premier League was only 7,329 (2nd Division average 3,167). The new facilities would, for the most part, be redundant straight after the tournament. The amount of five-star hotels would also mean that they would mainly remain empty.

Employment - Although this has partially been covered in terms of building, it is expected to create extra demand for jobs in other areas. This is exaggerated. In a study carried out by the University of Liverpool, one of the host cities for Euro 96, only 30 new jobs were created, all of which were temporary.

Visitors - It was believed that for Euro 96 that there would be around 250,000 visitors for the tournament, but the figure was closer to 100,000. One way that economists used to look at spending at tournaments was to multiply the expected number of 'visitors' at matches by the a rough number relating to money spent on meals, hotels and transport. The problem with this was that not every 'visitor' was a tourist, but in fact English people who had travelled to watch games in different areas of the country, so instead of spending money in one part of the country, they were simply spending it somewhere else. It was found that in Germany 2006 around half of the 'visitors' were German, again, they had simply travelled to different areas of their homeland, therefore adding no extra money to the economy. Whether there was a tournament on would make no difference to them, they would instead spend money in different areas. While it is believed that many would have stayed in Germany that summer for the football, others will have left the country to get away from it, again, offsetting the amount of money spent at the tournament. A team of economists found the spending by visitors at the 2006 tournament to be around €2.6 billion, much less than the German Government had spent in preparations for the tournament and a relatively small amount when compared to the €1,000 billion spent annually by German consumers.

From this it can be seen that hosting a tournament such as the World Cup or the European Championships doesn't bring the cash bonanza that many, including the politicians behind the bids, believe it will. In many cases it results in countries losing money, which is in no way helped by FIFA's demands. I would have loved the World Cup to be hosted in England, to travel around the country seeing great teams play and visiting place I'd never been before, but in reality it may be for the best that we don't.

Tiredness Can Kill...if you're named Rooney

Wayne Rooney has come out and said that England will not be successful until the Premiership introduces a winter break. This greatly saddened me because it shows, not that players aren't as fit as they used to be, or play more than they did before, but that the worlds footballing elite have lost their hearts for the beautiful game.

I will never know what it is like to train five days a week for several hours and play in a high paced match twice a week. But what I wouldn't give to be in the position of the likes of Rooney, Gerrard, Terry and Co. They get paid around one hundred thousand pounds a week to live the life that every football fan dreams about every night.

Yet Rooney came out and essentially claimed that England would always be too tired to win the World Cup unless the English Premier League introduced what is pretty much a Christmas holiday.

When you consider that there are people who are working in factories moving heavy loads around from 9 'til 5 doing this all year round with only a 2 week holiday. Rooney will finish training around 1pm and be done for the day and he will have a fairly long summer holiday.

Rooney has since gone on to show his true character as just another disloyal footballer. He had the cheek to question the England fan's loyalty after the Algeria game but has turned his back on both his boyhood club Everton and threatened to walk out on Manchester United because they "lacked ambition." That lack of ambition in the last 4 seasons which has won them; 3 league titles, 2 League Cups, 1 Champions League and 1 Club World Cup. But astonishingly he could look past the lack of ambition by accepting a contract for around £180k per week, money that could be spent buying better players.

Having looked at Wayne Rooney it doesn't often look like a thought has ever passed through his potato-shaped head but hopefully next time he decides to open his mouth someone will stop him. For his own sake, let's hope he has a mate who will hit him before he says something stupid again.

England's Last Chance

Much has been made since the 2002 World Cup about England's so called 'Golden Generation.' A fine group of players that lit up the Premiership (and La Liga) week after week. Players such as Lampard, Gerrard, Beckham, Ferdiand, Terry and Cole were seen by many as the next team to lift the World Cup, to dominate International football for years to come. Alas, we were all left deflated yet again this Summer as England crashed out to a Germany side that we all thought would go on to win the tournament.

Despite the promises he made when taking the job, Fabio Capello seemed to break them one by one as we looked on in amazement as the cracks began to show through. Capello had promised not to take players that were injured, yet Gareth Barry and Leadly King were taken and started when Capello considered them fit enough. King then picked up an injury against the USA, as we assumed he would, and Barry had no match fitness and couldn't keep up with play. When James Milner was ill he started against the USA. Capello must have noticed in the warm up Milner wasn't in the right condition to play, everyone else did in the first five minutes of the game.

Capello also vowed to use his in-form players. Michael Dawson was left out of the squad initially to accommodate Matthew Upson who had spent a torrid season at West Ham putting in miserable performance after miserable performance. One player who did stand-out for West Ham however was Scott Parker. Playing the same role as Barry but much fitter, Parker would have been the sensible option to take.

Capello then stunned supporters everywhere by asking Jamie Carragher and Paul Scholes to come out of retirement. Scholes stuck to his guns by rebuffing the offer. Unfortunately for us, Carragher, who played no part in England's qualifying campaign, decided to take up Capello's invitation and join the squad. He featured in just one and a half games, picked up two yellow cards and was suspended for the third game. What made Carragher's brief return even more sickening was his decision to announce his re-retirement at the end of the tournament. Never has someone sold his own morals out so quickly because he though he may have gained from it. He hadn't played well at Liverpool that season and his brief England performances were woeful.

Returning to in-form players, Capello also left out Darren Bent, the highest scoring English striker besides Wayne Rooney. Apparently scoring 25 goals isn't good enough. This fact really makes you wonder why Emile Heskey won a place in the squad. Scoring only 5 goals all season and scoring 7 England goals in 62 appearances (a record matched by some goalkeepers), Emile Heskey was Capello's sub of choice while England goalscoring machine Peter Crouch looked on with confusion, and possibly eyeing up the Algerian girls in the crowd.

One key thing that England were lacking in the World Cup was hunger. The players that featured in South Africa played as if they were expected to be picked and didn't need to put the effort in. Rooney, Lampard, Terry, Barry and Johnson underperformed, and not for the first time, and it seemed, at times, as if they didn't care. These players could have been replaced by a group that would bring passion and hunger to the squad. They may not be as technically gifted as the aforementioned players but the likes of Parker, Walcott, Johnson, Huddlestone, Warnock, Bent and Baines would have brought heart and soul into this team. These players would put the prima donnas into their place and given one hundred per cent for England. This group of players built around Gerrard, Ashley Cole and Rooney, when he returns to form, and England will have a formidable side.

Capello must take on-board the mistakes he made in South Africa. He needs to keep the promises he made to the nation when he took over the team. The signs are good. For the friendly against Hungary he subbed Wayne Rooney and Frank Lampard and replaced them with the likes of Ashley Young, Bobby Zamora and also youngsters such as Kieron Gibbs and Jack Wilshire. Keeping his promises will make the difference as to whether England will compete in Euro 2012, or disappoint once again.

John Bostock - England's Future?

Many cite the reason for the high amount of overseas players flocking to the Premiership as cost. It is a lot cheaper for a lower half team such as Wigan to bring in players instead of developing them in their academy. After all, even if one player graduates from the youth team to the first team, there will still be a large group of players that don't make it that the club has spent money on that will just be released and ply their trade lower down in the Football League. Training and development of young players come at a large price for most teams outside what has now become the top seven teams.

When John Bostock moved to Tottenham Hotspur from Crystal Palace a row ensued over the compensation that should be paid. In the end it was decided that Tottenham would pay £700,000 upfront, up to £1.25m depending on first team appearences, £200,000 after he made his full international debut for England and a 15% sell-on clause of any profit Tottenham make on his transfer.

A promising young attacking midfielder, Bostock got his move to Tottenham after just four appearances for Crystal Palace in 2008. Having made three appearances for Spurs in the UEFA Cup, Bostock then went on loan to Brentford for the 2009/2010 season where he made 10 appearances in total and scored twice, both coming in the same game. Many would say this was good for Bostock to go out on loan and get this experience of first team football. But has this in reality hindered his progress as a developing young footballer?

The coaching and the facilities available to him at Brentford would be nowhere near as good as those at his parent club Tottenham. Brentford are not known for bringing on young players and then selling them on to Premiership clubs. Bostock would have fairer much better if he would have stayed at Tottenham and trained using much better facilities and being around much better players. Spurs not only have great coaching staff and a manager who has a knack of getting the very best out of his players, but the experience and skill of other midfielders such as Luka Modric and Niko Kranjcar would be a benefit to surround Bostock in so that not only could some of their talent rub off on him, but so that he would also be used to coming up against tougher opposition, even just in training matches, than he would be playing at Brentford.

At just 18, Bostock has a lot of time still to develop. He captained England's Under 17 side in 2009 and has also recently been in England's Under 19 European Championship squad, starting the first game against Austria and an unused sub against Holland. He has another year at this level until he has to make the step up to Under 21 football.

John Bostock could be one of the key players in England's future. With players like Frank Lampard and Steven Gerrard reaching the peaks of their careers, we now have to start looking ahead to who can step forward and replace these players in the not too distant future. If Harry Redknapp kept him at Spurs instead of loaning him out to lower league sides, Bostock has a great chance of becoming a future England star. Just by giving him a few sub appearances and keeping him in the first team mix, Bostock will develop by leaps and bounds. An attacking player with flair, there is a lot he can learn not only from a manager with great experience, but also playing with and against some of the best players in Europe. If constantly loaned out, Bostock may - become just another Michael Woods or Tom Taiwo - a promising young player who had bags of potential but never stood a chance. Lets hope for the sake of his career and the future of England, Tottenham and Bostock make the right moves.