England reveal WC venues

Derby, Leicester and Hull all fail to make the cut

Last updated: 16th December 2009   Subscribe to RSS Feed

England reveal WC venues

Wembley Stadium: One of the chosen venues

CANDIDATE HOST CITIES BY NUMBERS
12 - Candidate host cities
17 - Stadiums to be named in the bid book
£3m - Contribution towards the World Cup bid marketing budget by the new candidate host cities
£300m - Worth of financial commitment guaranteed by candidate host cities
£100m - Worth of financial commitment by candidate host cities to legacy and regeneration projects
85% - Of key documents already signed ahead of the final technical submission to FIFA in May 2010
£3.2bn - Estimated financial benefit of a World Cup in England

Related links

Teams

Also see

England World Cup bid chiefs have confirmed the 12 cities that are to form their campaign to host the 2018 finals.

There had been speculation Liverpool could miss out but this has not proved to be the case, with Derby, Leicester and Hull the unfortunate cities.

England 2018 deputy chairman Lord Mawhinney announced the successful candidates, which included Milton Keynes, Plymouth and several venues yet to be built.

A total of 15 stadiums in England were proposed. London potentially has three venues, with Wembley, Emirates Stadium and New White Hart Lane Stadium or the Olympic Stadium those in the running to host games.

After Fifa votes on the World Cup hosts for 2018 and '22 in December 2010, world football's governing body gets the final say on the venues.

Mawhinney said: "England's fortunate to have so many good stadia and I would like to congratulate all of the applicant host cities for the seven months of really hard work they have put in.

"We have chosen cities which present the lowest possible risk to Fifa and it's Fifa who will make the final decision.

"There will also be a lot of disappointed football fans around the country I understand that - and if I was a fan of theirs I would be just as disappointed."

List in full

Sunderland - Stadium of Light

London - Wembley

Birmingham - Villa Park

Manchester - City of Manchester Stadium

Nottingham - New Nottingham Forest Stadium

London - Emirates Stadium

Leeds - Elland Road

Sheffield - Hillsborough

Newcastle/Gateshead - St James' Park

Bristol - New Ashton Vale Stadium

London - New White Hart Lane Stadium or Olympic Stadium

Plymouth - Home Park

Manchester - Old Trafford

Liverpool - Anfield or New Anfield

Milton Keynes - Stadium:MK

World Cup. Click here to bet.

Comments (60)

  • Page 1 of 3
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

John Rose (Plymouth Argyle fan) says...

Plymouth's bid was not all about Plymouth Argyle. It is more regional bid and people would do well to remember that the country does not stop at Bristol. Plymouth Argyle might well get the stadium, but Exeter City, Torquay United, Plymouth Albion RFC and some local non-league sides have all been involved in the bid and will all benefit should England get the World Cup. The World Cup is also a huge Tourist Event as well as a football tournament and the Westcountry has experience galore in that department. Places like Hull, Derby and Leicester have nothing to offer and the decision to include Plymouth, Bristol and MK is a fantastic one, and very sensible too. This event is over 8 years away and who knows where these clubs will be then! Current 'Premier League' stadiums mean nothing. Well done to all the potential host cities and well done to the FA for having the foresight, and the balls, to make this decision!!

Posted 14:29 17th December 2009

David M (Torquay United fan) says...

I come from Devon and I think Home Park will make a great venue for the world cup, These idiots that think otherwise should try visiting the place. Plymouth is a big historic city that has been modernised since it got flattend in ww2. The stadium is right off the A38 making it easily accesible which is more than I can say for places like Old Trafford and Anfield! Have you ever tried getting out of Salford on a matchday Saturday evening? The last time I did it it took me well over an hour to get on the m62! However I don't think Argyle will sell the stadium out after the world cup, I haven't seen it full in its current state for a while, last time I went the attendance was little over 12,000 and it would drop massively if they go down to the 3rd tier. This catchment area Mr. Boyland speaks of is made up mainly of Torquay and Exeter fans, Man Utd and Liverpool fans or Cornish egg chasers. So there is no way the mighty Argyle would sell out a 40,000 plus arena, not unless they're playing a cup game against a premier league side! Unfortunately this would mean a dire atmosphere at the park, but I think it'll be worth it to see Togo V North Korea play in Plymouth!

Posted 14:19 17th December 2009

Richard Hoit (Arsenal fan) says...

Can everyone stop slagging off Ashton Gate please?? If you read the article properly, it says 'NEW ASHTON VALE STADIUM' not Ashton Gate And to the person who said 'why isn't the Emirates on the lsit', i suggest you also have a re-read of the list.....

Posted 13:56 17th December 2009

Richard Hoit (Arsenal fan) says...

Why is everyone getting so bent out of shape about this list? So what if Derby, Leicester and Hull haven't got the World Cup, why does everyone want their teams' stadium to be used? The FA have obviously chosen cities that will attract tourists, often due to historical landmarks. Plymouth - Mayflower Steps, Bristol - Clifton Suspension Bridge, London - the list goes on and on, Newcastle - Tyne Bridge / Gateshead Bridge. Others may have got onto the list because they are nice cities: Bristol is nice, Plymouth is nice (i lived there for 4 years), Newcastle (contrary to popular belief) is a nice city. Others have been chosen for transport links, i.e Birmingham, Nottingham, Manchester, Liverpool, MK Yes Leicester and Derby have the same transport links, but they are hardly a million miles from Nottingham are they?? If you are annoyed because the World Cup is going to be 20 miles down the road and not in your back garden then you need you head seeing to! Reading, where i live, has a nice modern stadium, and good transport links by rail and road, and its 30 miles from Heathrow.... .but guess what.... It's A DUMP! I've been to Leicester and Derby and Hull.... they arent exactly anything write home about! As someone correctly said earlier, its the WORLD CUP, not OUR Cup. Let the world see the best bits of the UK, not cram them into 3 cities 15 miles apart!

Posted 13:50 17th December 2009

Daniel Smith (Norwich City fan) says...

I for one hope England don't get it...the sheer arrogance of the FA is incredible...we don't deserve to host it, simpe as that. No offence to Plymouth or Bristol fans but I would much rather view a football match at Derby or Leicester compared to Home Park or Ashton Gate?? And anyway, does the East of England not exist anymore...what about Norwich or Ipswich for that matter... The FA is a disgrace...don't even bother next time!!

Posted 12:36 17th December 2009

Mal Watts (Bradford City fan) says...

Whats the problem here? WBA fan did you expect your ground to be used? & you HAVE 2 grounds in the midlands Villa & Forest! As for saying you hope we don't get the World Cup that really is pathetic! Would you rather travel to a different country than to Birmingham or Nottingham?? And someone mentioned The Emirates should be involved....look between Nottingham & Leeds on the list!! the only one I have a problem with is Leeds.......!!!! Real football fans would "Back the Bid"!!!

Posted 10:13 17th December 2009

Chris Noble (Newcastle United fan) says...

I think its fantastic that both Sunderland and Newcastle will potentially host World Cup games, what an atmosphere it will be in the north east, with fantastic supporters aswell. Congrats to all the other cities :-)

Posted 10:12 17th December 2009

Jamie K (Hull City fan) says...

As a Hull fan, I am quite pleased that we did not get slected. To have a 40,000 seater stadium that would only ever be half full would be pathetic. And would make for a poor home viewing spectacle for true supporters of their club. How teams such as Plymouth, Bristol, and Milton Keynes would ever fill these sort of stadia either is beyond me. If I was one of their true fans then I would be gutted, as surely a small packed stadium is better than a large half empty stadium, both for your team and the enjoyment of the real fans.

Posted 09:13 17th December 2009

Tony Roberts (Norwich City fan) says...

Would it not make sense to use The Millenium Stadium? Ok so it may be in Wales but i think it's the best stadium in the UK and the welsh teams do play in the football league. Home Park i think is a weird choice - 19500 capacity is too small, maybe Madejski or the new Brighton stadium would be better.....

Posted 08:50 17th December 2009

Kurt Miller (Newcastle United fan) says...

I think getting both Newcastle and Sunderland to be host cities is great for the North East. A few suprises in the choice list. As of Derby County, I dont think they deserve a chance of being hosts as they havent been big enough in the past few years. Pleased as Leeds got chosen. By the time it come around they'l be back where they belong, in the "Premier League". Good luck to all the Cities and Teams involved. Come on England, footballs coming home.

Posted 08:21 17th December 2009

Stephen Birch (Birmingham City fan) says...

I am really pleased that Milton Keynes has been selected as one of the venues, but will people stop calling it a city when it is not.

Posted 06:46 17th December 2009

Jonny Baines (Stoke City fan) says...

Open your eyes, those disgusted that their traditionalist 'homes of football' having been disregarded. Football and the World are now into the 2000's and will be further when we reach 2018/2022. Time to move on. What foreign tourist woukd want to visit Derby or Hull when he/she could spend time at the Barbican and the Pilgrim Steps or Plymouth Hoe? Who would choose to go to Leicester or watch football at a truly modern stadium surrounded by great shopping, not to mention the transport links at Milton Keynes? Hull or Bristol. Where would you like to visit? This isn't about footballing history, I think England has complacently rested on its arrogant laurels for too long having acquired only one World Cup as hosts since inventing the game. It doesn't belong to us anymore and neither does football belong to its long standing-bastions of tradition, take Chelsea and Liverpool as contrasting examples. Think otherwise? Then why is the next tournament being held at fortresses like Nelspruit or Rustenburg. Its the WORLD Cup, not England's cup.

Posted 02:17 17th December 2009

Sy Boyland (Plymouth Argyle fan) says...

My god that wine must be tasting really bitter in the East Midlands tonight with all the sour grapes come from Leicester and Derby fans. A small town in the middle of nowhere ?,the 11th largest city in the Country and with a catchment area twice the size of Derby's you mean ?. Great decision by the F.A to award Plymouth and Bristol City host status. People outside the East Midlands need to realise there is a lot more to football than what goes on in Leicester and Derby and this is reflected in the bid commisions choices of venue's. New Home Park,if chosen as a venue if Englands bid for 2018 is successfull will have a 46,000 capacity,far bigger than the crisp bowl or Pride Park. Recently Plymouth has gained a lot of attention from foreign investors and this will only grow stronger with their host city selection. The financial situation and league position the club are currently in is down to mismagement and alterior motives by the previous board,this is being addressed with the implementation of a 5 year plan which aims to see the club reach,and become an established premier league club,this is fully acheivable and if so Plymouth would easily get bigger crowds than teams like Derby and Leicester,they have a catchment area of over 2,000,000 people and would sell out Home Park for every home match. Lets wait and see if the England bid is successfull,and then how Plymouth are doing when the world cup comes around before passing quick judgements from sour grapes. One other point,visiting supporters from abroad would most certainly rather watch matches in a scenic,historic city like Plymouth than some grimey Midlands dump like Leicester or Derby.

Posted 01:44 17th December 2009

Stuart Hatch (Luton Town fan) says...

All i'm hearing from most people is them moaning about the teams, i'm not a fan of MK Dons but i do live in MK. it's not the clubs that will be playing in the world cup but the stadium's that will be used, i'm sure the F.A have thought long and hard about all pro's and con's about which stadiums to use, everything from safety to policing and to accessibility, Obviously spread around the country so most of the population will see some action, instead of it just being in the 'big four cities' this then gives the 'Smaller clubs' a chance to prove they can host big events. Congrats to the FA for giving smaller clubs a chance

Posted 00:37 17th December 2009

Steve Wood (Hull City fan) says...

To be totally honest, I never thought Hull would stand a chance of winning their bid to host world cup games in 2018 - not because of a poor bidding team, but purely because of its reputation for being a poor city! However, I only thought we would miss out because better equipped cities such as Leicester and Derby would take our place... after seeing that they had also missed out to pathetic locations such as Home Park, Ashton Gate and Stadium:MK I now feel completely bitter about it! If these stadiums become 40,000 seaters (which I very much doubt!) what do the bright sparks at the FA think will happen to them after the world cup when crowds only averaging 10,000 turn out to watch lower league domestic games there? They'll cost too much to run and the clubs will fall into debt not to mention completely killing any atmosphere within the stadium on matchdays. Stupid, pathetic and a great way to blow our chances of winning the 2018 World Cup at all! Well done FA.... again.

Posted 00:35 17th December 2009

Jason Parry (West Ham United fan) says...

All the people who disagree with stadium:MK being in the shortlist you should visit the stadium, its a stunning UEFA 4* stadium with great transport links to the M1 and an awsome up and coming surrounding city to boot. Great Choice!

Posted 00:07 17th December 2009

Les Irwin (Leeds United fan) says...

as a leeds fan iam delighted that we have been given a world cup shot and it is also good that for a change the premier league clubs have not had all the bids but by the same token manchester should of only got 1 bid and london i1stadium aswell as wembley then loosing cities could have got a bid hull etc my own view is that spain has a great chance of winning the world cup in 2010 and if it does would have a good chance of winning the 2018 bid if they did ,but ENGLAND should be given this bid we are the founders of football

Posted 00:05 17th December 2009

Marcus Ellison (Leeds United fan) says...

I'm glad Leeds got picked as Elland Road needs doing up a bit and this will be the catalyst for that. I definitely think Derby and Hull should have been included though. Manchester should have only got one stadium and London doesn't need 3. If Eastlands and one of the London stadiums had've been left out Derby and Hull could have been included. Glad to see that Plymouth and Bristol are in so that people down there are included in the World Cup. All in all it would've been good for a couple more cities to be part of it but it is still the best bid in the world in terms of stadiums.

Posted 23:24 16th December 2009

Thomas Brammer (Sheffield United fan) says...

I'm am very disappointed Hillsbrough got the pick out of the two Sheffield teams because Sheffield United has spent a lot of money on our stadium. example hotel. our stadium holds less than Sheffield Wednesday but we have by far better facilities.

Posted 23:10 16th December 2009

Tony Brown (Nottingham Forest fan) says...

Of course fans of the disappointed cities are going to whinge and yes Forest currently doesn't possibly have a suitable ground to host a World Cup game but they did host games during Euro 96 and did a good job. Plans for the new stadium have been work in progress for a few years now and eventually they will get passed so a new, purpose built arena will be built even if England fail to win the 2018 bid. To chose Plymouth is a little strange and probably because of the lack of a suitable ground in the South. But if thats the case surely Southampton would be a more obvious choice. I'm sure though that all grounds chosen will do us proud and put on a World Cup to remember.

Posted 22:50 16th December 2009
  • Page 1 of 3
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Add Comment*

Send us your views

Are you a Sky Sports subscriber?

*All fields required, your email address will be kept private