Sanjoy Sen is a chemical engineer. He contested Alyn and Deeside in the 2019 general election.
The FIFA World Cup in America starts on Thursday 11th June
There’s nowhere in the world as football crazy as Britain. OK, maybe except Germany.
Big European clubs get big attendances but nowhere else can match the depth of support seen across the UK. Over thirty English teams have an average gate exceeding 20,000. Even the National League can attract 10,000 to its top fixtures. Scotland, meanwhile, has the highest per capita attendance in Europe. Every weekend (and often midweek), British fans make arduous journeys undeterred by high ticket prices and the unhelpful kick-off times dictated by TV networks.
Sadly, despite being renowned as a hotbed of football, Britain has hosted relatively few prestigious tournaments. Since the 1966 World Cup, the only major competitions to hit these shores have been the 1996 European Championships and the 2022 women’s equivalent. World Cup bidding has always been a murky affair but bidding out of turn out for 2006 left England on FIFA’s naughty step with subsequent bids failing miserably.
But is the World Cup still worth hosting?
The World Cup has long witnessed staged-managed triumphs for dictatorships: Italy in 1934, Argentina in 1978. But the days when a mere 16 – or 24 – teams converged on either Western Europe or Latin America every four years are long gone. Recent awards to Russia and Qatar left FIFA mired in controversy. Then giving 2030 to a Spain-Portugal-Morocco combo, alongside three matches to Latin America, ensured 2034 went unopposed to Saudi Arabia, a nation whose sportswashing adventure may already have peaked.
With the 2026 tournament set to kick off this month across the USA, Canada and Mexico, the credibility of the much-loved tournament hangs in the balance. Whilst the global audience will be hoping for a successful event, off-field events could yet prove challenging. With FIFA perhaps reflecting on their peace award to the current US president, it currently remains uncertain whether Iran can take its place. Helpfully, Trump envoy Paolo Zampolli has already pitched for Italy to step in.
English and Scottish fans making the trip are up in arms at some pretty shameless price gouging. As if tickets starting at £100 (rising to at least £3,000 for the final) weren’t steep enough, even stadium rail fares have been ramped up tenfold. Yet, with this year’s tournament expanded to 48 nations, not every game is guaranteed box-office gold: will Uzbekistan vs the DR Congo fill Atlanta’s 75,000-seater Mercedes-Benz Stadium? Even the slickest television coverage can’t hide empty seats and no atmosphere.
So, what is coming home?
The ‘consolation prize’ of the 2028 European Championship, awarded to the UK and Ireland, is starting to look like a better deal.
The Euros have also seen some pretty impressive expansion, from 8 sides in 1992 to 24 by 2016. Much of that bloat is undoubtedly down to commercial pressure but some growth is justifiable: the break-up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia created a raft of new nations keen to make their mark on the footballing stage. And, unlike the World Cup, the expanded Euros actually seem to be working.
Putting aside the COVID-impacted Euro 2020, the last two tournaments proved highly successful. Modern stadiums in attractive cities with functional infrastructure drew fans in from across the continent. Every team is guaranteed at least three group matches over a fortnight, creating memories especially for those who have never previously qualified, like Albania or Georgia, or those who haven’t for ages, like Wales or Northern Ireland. And matches between European countries often have greater significance due to history, be that football or political.
Billions in economic benefits are predicted from international fans descending upon British cities for Euro 2028. Better still, all matches will be played in existing stadiums across England, as well as in Glasgow, Cardiff and Dublin. That keeps costs down and avoids building the white elephant herds that have blighted previous Euros and World Cups. Sadly, Belfast has already dropped out from hosting when plans for its new Casement Park stadium fell through.
But, what of the politics?
Football and politics have always overlapped. “Have you noticed how we only win the World Cup under a Labour Government?” hinted Harold Wilson, only to be turfed out when England lost to Germany days before the 1970 general election. The SNP’s 1979 referendum failure has been attributed to Scotland’s dismal performance in Argentina the previous year. Meanwhile, England’s first match following the Brexit referendum doubtless raised a smile in Brussels: a 2-1 humiliation by Iceland at Euro 2016.
Sir Keir Starmer boycotted the last World Cup over Qatar’s LGBT stance, a controversial move for a future Prime Minister given our then-dependence on their gas exports. This time round, the 26th June fixture in Seattle was designated pre-draw as one of the tournament’s LGBTQ+ Pride matches. Given that this match is now scheduled to feature Iran and Egypt, this might generate some interesting conversations within the Greens’ new network of alliances.
Euro 2028 might well create its own political ramifications. Assuming this current administration remains in power, [insert name of Labour Prime Minister in 2028] will doubtless be factoring the Euros into the timing of the next general election. With summer 2028 likely out, an early spring election is a possibility. If later, the outcome of the Euros could dictate when to go: John Major’s hopes of a Euro 96 boost were shattered, causing him to delay the inevitable until 1997. And whilst parties will be vying to bask in the reflected glory of any English success, excessive Anglo-centric triumphalism could play into nationalist hands elsewhere in the UK.
The current political situation lends itself well to convoluted football analogies. In Scotland, a long-established duopoly was almost ended by Hearts this season. And Sir Keir Starmer will be hoping to emulate his beloved Arsenal by emerging triumphant from a difficult patch and overcoming a Mancunian rival. Meanwhile, the team in light blue is currently going through a period of unprecedented success and are feeling pretty invincible right now, despite questions being raised over their finances.
But how resilient is their new-found support: will their adoring fans stick with them forever or abandon them at the first sign of a setback? Football fans never change side. Voters are a different matter altogether.
Sanjoy Sen is a chemical engineer. He contested Alyn and Deeside in the 2019 general election.
The FIFA World Cup in America starts on Thursday 11th June
There’s nowhere in the world as football crazy as Britain. OK, maybe except Germany.
Big European clubs get big attendances but nowhere else can match the depth of support seen across the UK. Over thirty English teams have an average gate exceeding 20,000. Even the National League can attract 10,000 to its top fixtures. Scotland, meanwhile, has the highest per capita attendance in Europe. Every weekend (and often midweek), British fans make arduous journeys undeterred by high ticket prices and the unhelpful kick-off times dictated by TV networks.
Sadly, despite being renowned as a hotbed of football, Britain has hosted relatively few prestigious tournaments. Since the 1966 World Cup, the only major competitions to hit these shores have been the 1996 European Championships and the 2022 women’s equivalent. World Cup bidding has always been a murky affair but bidding out of turn out for 2006 left England on FIFA’s naughty step with subsequent bids failing miserably.
But is the World Cup still worth hosting?
The World Cup has long witnessed staged-managed triumphs for dictatorships: Italy in 1934, Argentina in 1978. But the days when a mere 16 – or 24 – teams converged on either Western Europe or Latin America every four years are long gone. Recent awards to Russia and Qatar left FIFA mired in controversy. Then giving 2030 to a Spain-Portugal-Morocco combo, alongside three matches to Latin America, ensured 2034 went unopposed to Saudi Arabia, a nation whose sportswashing adventure may already have peaked.
With the 2026 tournament set to kick off this month across the USA, Canada and Mexico, the credibility of the much-loved tournament hangs in the balance. Whilst the global audience will be hoping for a successful event, off-field events could yet prove challenging. With FIFA perhaps reflecting on their peace award to the current US president, it currently remains uncertain whether Iran can take its place. Helpfully, Trump envoy Paolo Zampolli has already pitched for Italy to step in.
English and Scottish fans making the trip are up in arms at some pretty shameless price gouging. As if tickets starting at £100 (rising to at least £3,000 for the final) weren’t steep enough, even stadium rail fares have been ramped up tenfold. Yet, with this year’s tournament expanded to 48 nations, not every game is guaranteed box-office gold: will Uzbekistan vs the DR Congo fill Atlanta’s 75,000-seater Mercedes-Benz Stadium? Even the slickest television coverage can’t hide empty seats and no atmosphere.
So, what is coming home?
The ‘consolation prize’ of the 2028 European Championship, awarded to the UK and Ireland, is starting to look like a better deal.
The Euros have also seen some pretty impressive expansion, from 8 sides in 1992 to 24 by 2016. Much of that bloat is undoubtedly down to commercial pressure but some growth is justifiable: the break-up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia created a raft of new nations keen to make their mark on the footballing stage. And, unlike the World Cup, the expanded Euros actually seem to be working.
Putting aside the COVID-impacted Euro 2020, the last two tournaments proved highly successful. Modern stadiums in attractive cities with functional infrastructure drew fans in from across the continent. Every team is guaranteed at least three group matches over a fortnight, creating memories especially for those who have never previously qualified, like Albania or Georgia, or those who haven’t for ages, like Wales or Northern Ireland. And matches between European countries often have greater significance due to history, be that football or political.
Billions in economic benefits are predicted from international fans descending upon British cities for Euro 2028. Better still, all matches will be played in existing stadiums across England, as well as in Glasgow, Cardiff and Dublin. That keeps costs down and avoids building the white elephant herds that have blighted previous Euros and World Cups. Sadly, Belfast has already dropped out from hosting when plans for its new Casement Park stadium fell through.
But, what of the politics?
Football and politics have always overlapped. “Have you noticed how we only win the World Cup under a Labour Government?” hinted Harold Wilson, only to be turfed out when England lost to Germany days before the 1970 general election. The SNP’s 1979 referendum failure has been attributed to Scotland’s dismal performance in Argentina the previous year. Meanwhile, England’s first match following the Brexit referendum doubtless raised a smile in Brussels: a 2-1 humiliation by Iceland at Euro 2016.
Sir Keir Starmer boycotted the last World Cup over Qatar’s LGBT stance, a controversial move for a future Prime Minister given our then-dependence on their gas exports. This time round, the 26th June fixture in Seattle was designated pre-draw as one of the tournament’s LGBTQ+ Pride matches. Given that this match is now scheduled to feature Iran and Egypt, this might generate some interesting conversations within the Greens’ new network of alliances.
Euro 2028 might well create its own political ramifications. Assuming this current administration remains in power, [insert name of Labour Prime Minister in 2028] will doubtless be factoring the Euros into the timing of the next general election. With summer 2028 likely out, an early spring election is a possibility. If later, the outcome of the Euros could dictate when to go: John Major’s hopes of a Euro 96 boost were shattered, causing him to delay the inevitable until 1997. And whilst parties will be vying to bask in the reflected glory of any English success, excessive Anglo-centric triumphalism could play into nationalist hands elsewhere in the UK.
The current political situation lends itself well to convoluted football analogies. In Scotland, a long-established duopoly was almost ended by Hearts this season. And Sir Keir Starmer will be hoping to emulate his beloved Arsenal by emerging triumphant from a difficult patch and overcoming a Mancunian rival. Meanwhile, the team in light blue is currently going through a period of unprecedented success and are feeling pretty invincible right now, despite questions being raised over their finances.
But how resilient is their new-found support: will their adoring fans stick with them forever or abandon them at the first sign of a setback? Football fans never change side. Voters are a different matter altogether.