Why England will host World Cup 2018. Probably.

Back once again after a long spell. A combination of busy times at school and one killer flu led to a lack of inspiration for a good blog, but I'm glad to be at it again.

Alongside the announcement that Brazil will host the 2014 World Cup, FIFA supremo Sepp Blatter declared an end to the rotation policy used for bidding on football's top tournament.

This immediately sent the English FA into dreamland, since they would otherwise have to wait for bids from both the North American federation as well as another tournament from Asia before attempting to land another World Cup.

So far, the 2018 favorites include England, China, Russia, the U.S., Mexico and Australia. The pros and cons of each potential bid are many, but it's fairly easy to point out the major talking points:

China: This bid seems to be a bit of a no brainer. China is currently shaping up to be an economic powerhouse. What better way to show the world you've arrived than by hosting the world's biggest sporting event? Never mind that they're well on their way to making a hash of the 2008 Summer Olympic Games. We'll know shortly after that event whether FIFA will travel down the same sad road as the IOC and give the thumbs up to China. Verdict: No chance in hell. The problems that are cropping up now and will surely appear next summer will make this an easy decision for a sober FIFA committee.

Russia: Similar to China, Russia is coming into its own as a nation (ethical considerations aside, of course). The World Cup would be the best way imaginable for Vladimir Putin & Co. to show the world what billions in oil money can do. Guus Hiddink has done a fine job with the national team, but I think many people at FIFA will wonder whether Eastern Europe is ready for the big time. Verdict: Close to no chance, but check this space in a couple years.

Mexico: They have a great deal of World Cup pedigree, having hosted the final twice (1970 and 1986), but not much else in comparison to the other contenders. Like Brazil, who need to upgrade 18 stadiums in time for 2014, Mexico would need to do a similar reno job to be ready for the tournament. Verdict: Like Russia, there's always a chance, but likely not.

U.S.A.: The Americans could be considered as a host for every single World Cup tournament, simply because: A) They have dozens of state-of-the-art, 60,000-plus seat stadiums at their disposal, all over the country. B) Americans love to put on a show. C) There's 300 million Americans. The U.S. won't get the 2018 World Cup for one excellent reason: people in America don't give a toss about football. Verdict: Why take the big show where no one watches?

Australia: The Australian FA came out quickly after the announcement to end the rotation policy and stated they intend to bid. Aussies love their sport and are willing to put big money into things like World Cups and Olympic Games. Without a doubt FIFA will look at this bid with interest, especially since Oceania, which Australia were a member of before defecting to the Asian federation, has never hosted the finals. However, they face the same challenge as the Americans, that the country is huge, detracting from the atmosphere FIFA loves about geographically small nations. Verdict: Barring a major gaffe by England, Australia will have to wait.

England: Without a doubt, England should be the favourites to host 2018. Right now, this minute, they have the finest football specific stadiums in the world. By 2018, the new Anfield will be complete, surely Old Trafford will be improved again and as long as Abramovich is around, Stamford Bridge is due for a face lift. This is before the FA and the British government bring out the cash to spruce up the other grounds across the country (St. James Park, Villa Park and White Heart Lane come to mind). Along with the new Wembley, City of Manchester Stadium and the Stadium of Light in Sunderland, there are enough other stadiums that are above or could easily be made to match the FIFA requirement of 40,000 plus. To go with the English infrastructure and short travel distances, you only need to add one of the most football mad nations in the world. Verdict: They would really need to screw this one up...

All that being said, Australia and England will be quite a choice for FIFA to make. They can't go wrong with England, but if they pass up an Australian bid, how long will it take to get to a country who deserve a shot to host the World Cup?

I think England have a lock, because there is a lot that can go wrong for FIFA at the next two tournaments. South Africa already looks like a mess, with venue construction behind schedule and an alarming national crime rate.

Brazil, in being awarded the 2014 World Cup have stated they need to spend $550-million (USD) on improvements to 18 stadiums. Since the new Wembley cost almost twice as much to build, this initial investment may prove to be a little short. Cost overruns are not the best way to get the ball rolling, but we'll wait and see.

Finally, listening to World Soccer Daily, Steven Cohen has suggested the rotation policy was scrapped with North America on deck because South Africa isn't going to be ready for 2010. This would mean the U.S. would be at the top of the list to step in and host the tournament, like Mexico did in 1986 when Colombia backed out. I tend to agree with Mr. Cohen here, since I've not heard any good news about the African bid in some while. Stay tuned.