Aussie SWC bid too 'clean'

2010-12-07 07:43

Melbourne - A consultant employed in Australia's bid for the 2022 Soccer World Cup believes it failed because it "played it clean."

Australia spent $45m on its bid but won only one of 22 votes from FIFA's executive committee before the 2022 tournament was awarded to Qatar.

Peter Hargitay, a former aide to FIFA president Sepp Blatter, said in an interview on Monday with SBS television that "the fundamental mistake we made ... is that we played it clean."

He said Football Federation Australia chairperson Frank Lowy, who headed the Australian bid team, had insisted it should run an open and clean campaign.

Hargitay told SBS Television he was surprised Qatar had won the 2022 Cup because it was not a popular choice. He said Blatter had contacted Australia's bid team after the vote and said he was devastated with the outcome.

"What do you think motivates people, 14 of them, right, to vote for a country, the population of which is roughly the size of Zurich?" he said. "To vote for a country that is the size of Fiji. To vote for a country where the infrastructure to play host to millions of fans still has to be created.

"I could go on with the list, but you go figure how could 14 men take that decision."


  • AJ - 2010-12-07 09:01

    Hosting this tournament in places where little needs to be spent on infrastructure is not in various peoples' interest.

  • Bren - 2010-12-07 09:02

    How easy it is called a Swiss bank account

  • wesleywt - 2010-12-07 09:17

    Haha what soccer lover is going to watch soccer in a country where you can't drink. Laughable

      Derek - 2010-12-13 18:43

      What do you mean can't drink? - Ever been to Qatar? Idiot.

  • Gorilla - 2010-12-07 09:25

    Ozzies played it clean!! - Now there's a first...

  • The_O - 2010-12-07 09:38


  • The_O - 2010-12-07 09:39


  • crazydude - 2010-12-07 09:40

    Oh please, Aus lost because they didn't put a good bid forward. Their stadiums were rubbish, they wanted the WC to be played in cricket and AFL stadiums. I mean the MCG is great for cricket, but its field dimensions are big even by cricket standards.

      AJ - 2010-12-08 06:32

      Technically the Aus and Engalnd bids were tops - and acknowledged as being so. This was a underhanded political favouring vote, nothing less. To suggest otherwise is simply naive.

      crazydude - 2010-12-08 09:28

      The USA's bid was considered much better than Australias. Aus wanted to use small 40 000 seater stadiums, with huge playing surfaces. The only high capacity stadiums would have been Stadium Australia in Sydney and the MCG in Melbourne. And the MCG has massive stadium dimensions. Plus Aus couldn't put their best venues forward, due to the AFL and NRL blocking the use of certain stadiums.

  • Blip - 2010-12-08 09:25

    Money doesn't talk -- it screams.

  • pages:
  • 1