FIFA has recently proposed that the World Cup take place every two years. I thought it might be interesting to consider how football history might be different if we already had a biannual World Cup.
I looked back at the bidding process for every World Cup dating back to 1990 and identified the nation with the second highest votes, allocating them the following World Cup slot under a biannual system. Sometimes I allocated the slot to the nation with the third highest votes if the second placed nation ended up hosting further down the line.
So had FIFA implemented a bi-annual World Cup already, nations who might have hosted a bi-annual World Cup are as follows:
1992: Commonwealth of Independent States (this one is quite interesting as the Soviet Union made a bid to host the 1990 World Cup back in 1983 but by 1992 ceased to exist as an entity. In terms of football, the Soviet Union was temporarily replaced by the Commonwealth of Independent States, which represented Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan and competed at Euro 92)
1996: Brazil (Morocco actually finished second in the voting for World Cup 1994 but I allocated them 2000 as they were the only unsuccessful bid for 1998)
2000: Morocco (this would have been the first African World Cup!)
2004: Mexico
2008: England (South Africa actually finished second in voting but I allocated the spot to England in light of South Africa hosting in 2010)
2012: Egypt (Morocco actually finished second but I allocated Egypt in light of Morocco rCLhostingrCY in 2000)
2016: Colombia
2020: Portugal & Spain
Whilst the proposal for a biannual World Cup has been criticised in some quarters, when I look at the above list I ask myself would it have been such a bad thing? It would have expanded the numbers of nations who hosted a World Cup and also made attending a World Cup all the more accessible to fans based in Eastern Europe and Africa. A more regular World Cup also mitigates the damage if a particular World Cup is a let down either on or off the pitch as one doesnrCOt have to wait a whole four years until the next one. For instance, Russia 2018 and Qatar 2022 werenrCOt / arenrCOt the most accessible World Cups for fans in Western Europe, but the option to attend a World Cup 2020 in Portugal & Spain would have made Russia 2018, a World Cup that took up a hosting slot for Europe but at times played in cities closer to Asia, a much sweeter pill to swallow.
Of all the possible additional World Cups that could have been, I find the concept of a Commonwealth of Independent States World Cup the biggest missed opportunity. Based on the 1990 World Cup format of 12 host venues, each of the 12 CIS states could have hosted matches, with Soviet era stadiums like the Central Lenin Stadium in Moscow (as the Luzhniki was then called), the Republican Stadium in Kiev (as the Olimpiyskyi was then called) and the Lenin Dinamo Stadium in Tbilisi (now Boris Paichadze Dinamo Arena) being the centre of the WorldrCOs attention for a month hosting matches featuring stars of the time such as Roberto Baggio, Jurgen Klinsmann, Claudio Caniggia, Gheorghe Hagi, Ruud Gullit and Hristo Stoichkov. The members that made up CIS were now emerging independent nations and a CIS World Cup would have given some of their lesser known members a level of exposure and acceptance on the World stage that it may have taken decades to achieve otherwise. What a shame that Kazakhstan didnrCOt come to the attention of many people for the Almaty Central Stadium hosting group stage matches involving England, Denmark, Bulgaria and Cameroon and for a famous Round of 16 match where Maradona led Argentina to a last minute come from behind win against a spirited Nigeria, as opposed to coming to many peoplerCOs attention due the film Borat. Not to mention the economic and infrastructure benefits which would have been enjoyed by these developing nations.
You may have your own ideas as to which nations would have actually been chosen to host or whether FIFA may have rotated the hosts so as to avoid back to back World Cups in the same confederation, but what canrCOt be disputed is a biannual World Cup would have taken the joy of the World Cup to more countries and to more people. For that reason I canrCOt help but feel that werCOre poorer for not having a biannual World Cup.
RM
--- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
* Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)

On Thursday, December 23, 2021 at 9:54:10 PM UTC, Real Mardin wrote:

2016: Colombia

Would that have happened? 1986 and 2001 didn't exactly work out well.
Anyway, we're not really bothered who'd have hosted them. What we want to know is who would have won them? :-)
--- SBBSecho 3.06-Win32
* Origin: SportNet Gateway Site (24:150/2)