Day at Al Jazeera Offers Insight into Vulnerabilities of US World Cup Bid

WASHINGTON, DC -- While the sports world was focusing on Zurich throughout Wednesday, I was bouncing between Switzerland's largest city, Doha and Washington, DC, doing a little soccer espionage en route.

I spent the day in a television studio as part of Al Jazeera's coverage of the buildup to the Thursday votes that will determine the hosts of the 2018 and 2022 World Cup tournaments.

It was an intriguing assignment. I was there to answer questions and comment on (and even defend) my own nation's worthiness to host the '22 World Cup on a network based in the country that's emerged as the most significant rival.

Al Jazeera already carries a few interesting connotations with Americans. On Wednesday, anchor Paul Fadel (photo, right) joked that I would be "surrounded by enemies."

Fadel is Lebanese, and is an NBA expert. He speaks four or five languages, but asked the questions in Arabic. (He was nice enough to tell me ahead of time what they were). The technicians, cameramen and translators hailed from places like Tunisia, Egypt and Turkey.

There was not a Qatari among them, from what I gathered, which rendered the studio an appropriate metaphor for the country itself. There aren't many Qataris there, either. Fadel, who now lives there, told me that Doha is comprised of about 15% natives and 85% expats.

One of those expats is former Dutch national team and Ajax legend Ronald de Boer. Now a Doha resident, he was one of the analysts at Al Jazeera headquarters.

As the day unfolded, the network would send viewers to Zurich, then bring them back to Doha, then shoot them out to bidding nations around the world. There was a reporter speaking from a brightly-lit Tokyo street. We were in a studio on the corner of 20th and M Streets, NW.
Qatar's ascension to the position of betting favorite for the 2022 vote is pretty astonishing. It's a country of 1.7 million people -- a few more than currently reside within the Phoenix city limits. It's so small, that 10 of the 12 proposed stadiums (the majority of which exist only on paper) will be located within a 20-mile radius.

It has next to no soccer tradition to speak of. The national team's greatest accomplishment was a quarterfinal berth in the 2000 Asian Cup. Its league draws flies.

But Qatar (not pronounced 'Cutter') boasts two things that really impress FIFA -- money and ambition. The latter revolves around bringing the World Cup to the Persian Gulf/Middle East for the first time -- one of the bid's mottos is "The Arab Dream." The former is the language that soccer's bloated, quasi-criminal governing body understands the best.

There's no evidence, or accusation, that the Qataris have greased any palms. But when you hear figures like $43 billion for new infrastructure and futuristic, air conditioned stadiums, it's easy to see why the FIFA suits might be seduced.

That's what the U.S. is up against (along with Australia, South Korea and Japan, none of which seem to have too much traction heading into Thursday's vote). I'd heard plenty about how Qatar was trying to position itself as an unlikely World Cup contender. What was never shared publicly, at least here, was what their argument against FIFA's return to the U.S. might be. That's not very diplomatic.

On Wednesday, as I sat in the studio with two microphones clipped to my tie and makeup on my face, I was put in the position of acting as a defense witness for the U.S. bid. It was all very good natured, but it revealed some of the biases against, and criticisms of, the effort to bring the 2022 World Cup to America.

Similar points and concerns surely have been raised with FIFA executive committee members in fine hotel suites and stadium luxury boxes around the world. Here they are, as Fadel presented them to me just 24 hours before the vote:

Americans Don't Care About Soccer

Apparently, people in Qatar are really fired up about the prospect of hosting the World Cup in 12 years. So much so, in fact, that Doha is festooned with banners and billboards trumpeting the bid, and just about every car on their brand new roads is sporting some kind of sticker.

Fadel said he was surprised when he arrived this week in Washington that there was zero evidence that the city was in contention to host World Cup matches. In 12 years. I had to break the bad news to him that none of the other 17 candidate cities was hanging banners from the street lights, either.

Another sign of our lack of interest in the world's game is the petition of support on the U.S. bid committee's Web site. As of Wednesday afternoon, there were a little more than 1.2 million signees. That's equal to roughly 4% of the national population.

The United States is Too Big

Ask the Italians how they feel about playing a World Cup in the U.S. After winning their 1994 semifinal against Bulgaria at Giants Stadium, the Azzurri had to fly to Los Angeles for the final against Brazil just four days later. The Italians cramped up, literally, before losing on penalty kicks to a team that had been in Southern California for a week.

People from smaller countries, and people from the smallest countries, appreciate the diversity and grandeur of the U.S. They just don't want to fly from Atlanta to Seattle to attend a soccer game.

It's Also Too Hot

The lingering memory of the 1994 World Cup for the rest of the world (after Roberto Baggio's penalty kick), is the heat. They remember stifling mid-day games in Orlando, Los Angeles and Dallas, and the players turning to liquid under the summer sun. That was the World Cup that gave birth to the sanctioned water break.

On the searing surface, it seems ridiculous for a country where the summer temperature hovers around that of Venus to draw attention to our heat. But Qatar is going to air condition every one of its stadiums (and the fan zones). Most American stadiums, built for the NFL, don't even provide shade for spectators.

Why not play at night? Because that won't work for European television. The U.S. west coast is nine hours behind Europe. They may be willing to share their prized possession, but they want to watch it on their terms. Qatar is three hours ahead.

It's Not Our Turn

Someone in marketing needs to rename the continents. I got a geography lesson from Al Jazeera on Wednesday -- it seems that North America and South America are considered to be a package deal, and the proximity of Brazil 2014 makes a 2022 return to the new world unfair to the olde.

The rotation argument is one the U.S. bid is using as well. Asia hosted in 2002, when Japan and South Korea shared the honor. When the 2014 World Cup concludes, all but Oceania would have hosted the competition since CONCACAF last welcomed the planet in 1994.

But to a Qatari, the Middle East has as much in common with Japan and Korea as Rio de Janeiro has with Kansas City. It's all a matter of perspective.

Unaccustomed to Customs

Fadel has a passport full of stamps from U.S. immigration agents. He's on TV. A lot. But it was only until recently that he was able to enter the country without enduring a two-hour interrogation.

By and large, foreigners find traveling to the U.S. to be an ordeal, and all the news and controversy surrounding full-body scanners and junk-touching TSA agents isn't helping. Not only is the country too big, it's a pain to get to. In addition, I received questions from both Al Jazeera and an Arabic radio station I did an interview with later in the day regarding security fears.

This country remains ground zero, and people don't feel safe here.

Disclaimer and Summary

It's important to note that at no time did Fadel or any of his colleagues in Doha say or imply that the U.S. would be a poor choice as the host of the 2022 World Cup. The above concerns were posed as questions, not truths. But the fact that they were among the first topics of conversation led me to conclude that these are among the criticisms of the American bid from its rivals.

Qatar's bid surely has more than its fair share of flaws as well. They all do. So did South Africa's.

In the end, we can all be confident that the 22 FIFA voters will make their decisions based on personal biases, inclinations and relationships. Wednesday was valuable in that sense (and also because they were all very nice, and there were free doughnuts) -- if it goes against us, I'll have a vague understanding of why.