FIFA - World Cup Finals 2006 Bid

So who should host the 2006 World Cup Finals? With Euro 2000 still in full swing, some may argue this is not the time to contemplate such a decision, but I for one am sick of the persistent two-faced approach of the governing body, FIFA. In my view, there are only two real contenders who have the resources to hold such a prestigious event; England and Germany. FIFA has stated itself that the English bid is one of the strongest it’s seen for a long time, so why keep going back to Africa and causing a storm? For a start, one of the most important aspects of a major championship are the stadia. England and Germany boasts some of the best clubs stadia in the world, with parks like Old Trafford, the Olympic Stadium in Munich and the Sunderland Stadium of Light , not to mention the as yet unrealised new Wembley Stadium - tipped to be one of the most technologically advanced stadiums in the world. You can’t tell me that the likes of South Africa or Morocco have anything remotely similar in terms of size and refinement. There’s also the security aspect of the tournament. England proved during Euro ‘96 that they have the capabilities to police such an event, and there is no doubt in my mind that the Germans could also provide a similarly high standard of security. But FIFA seem adamant to hold the tournament in Africa as soon as possible, as if this will be some token gesture or miracle cure for the troubles the continent has experienced. I mean don’t get me wrong, I’m all for supporting up and coming footballing nations, but I seriously believe that Africa just isn’t ready to hold a competition of this magnitude. Their time will come, when they can provide 9 or 10 stadiums of Premiership quality and guarantee the safety of travelling support, then they will have their turn. As for the 2006 Finals, out of the 5 remaining countries left in the bidding process, in my opinion it only comes down to 2 - England or Deutchland.