Latest news with #HomeNations
Business News Wales
4 days ago
- Sport
- Business News Wales
Bridgend Firm Sponsors Welsh Internationals
Bridgend-based Powerhouse Energy Group is supporting Wales' Over 35 Women's Masters Hockey Team as they compete this summer at the European Championship in Valencia (June), and the Home Nations tournament in Glasgow (August). Paul Emmitt, Chief Executive Officer, Powerhouse Energy Group has committed to awarding and covering the cost of the Welsh Caps and certificates for each of the 36 players representing Wales this summer. Player Kat Kisby, who lives in Cardiff, said: 'On behalf of the team, we're incredibly thankful to sponsors like Powerhouse. Competing at this level is entirely self-funded, which is common in amateur sports—even at the national level—so the financial burden on players is significant. Any support we receive goes a long way in helping us concentrate on our performance. We've been training intensively over the past six months, and we're excited to compete and hopefully come back with some big wins under our belt.' Powerhouse Energy Group is located on Brackla Industrial Estate, Bridgend and utilises unrecyclable plastic by converting the unrecyclable waste efficiently and economically into synthetic gas for future use. Paul said: 'We're thrilled to be able to support a passionate and ambitious team looking to compete at the highest level. We wish the players the very best of luck and I'm looking forward to presenting their well-deserved Welsh caps later this year in recognition of their achievements.'
BBC News
01-06-2025
- Health
- BBC News
FA ban on trans women in women's football starts
Transgender women are no longer able to play in women's football in England after new Football Association rules came into FA initially amended its rules on 11 April, applying stricter eligibility criteria for transgender women to continue playing in women's football at all following the UK Supreme Court's ruling on 16 April that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex, the FA scrapped that policy and announced on 1 May that only those born biologically female are permitted to play from 1 June."This is a complex subject, and our position has always been that if there was a material change in law, science, or the operation of the policy in grassroots football then we would review it and change it if necessary," the FA FA has offered those players banned from competing free therapy with Sporting Chance, external - a charity that provides sportspeople with mental health support. The FA said: "We understand that this will be difficult for people who simply want to play the game they love in the gender by which they identify, and we are contacting the registered transgender women currently playing to explain the changes and how they can continue to stay involved in the game."At the time the ban was announced, the FA said there were fewer than 30 transgender women registered among millions of amateur are no registered transgender women in the professional game across the Home Scottish FA also announced it was banning transgender women, external from women's football in Scotland. What was the FA's previous policy? Under amended rules announced on 11 April, the FA said transgender women could continue to participate in women's football provided they met certain would have to prove via medical records that their testosterone levels had been below prescribed levels for at least the past 12 months, and provide a record of hormone therapy and an annual review of treatment.A new formal process, which would involve a "match observation" by an FA official, would give the FA "ultimate discretion" on a case-by-case basis. What has the FA said to players? BBC Sport has seen a letter sent by the FA to transgender players affected by the well as the offer of "free, fully confidential online talking therapy", the FA said it hopes to have mixed gender football available from the 2026-27 season and even suggested players move into other areas of the game."You might be willing to consider moving your enjoyment of affiliated football into coaching or being a match official," the letter said. What has the reaction been? Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns for campaign group Sex Matters, said the ruling was "overdue" and that the previous policy was "nonsensical".Former Olympic swimmer Sharron Davies, who has been vocal on the issue of transgender women in women's sport, said on X: "This is great news for the safety and fairness of all our girls and women in football. Should never have been allowed in the first place. Now every sport must follow suit."Campaign group Women's Rights Network said: "We are pleased that the FA has finally seen the light. But it shouldn't have been such a hard fight to get here."Asked what Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer thought of transgender women being banned from women's sport, his spokesman said the government had "been clear that biology matters when it comes to women's sport and that everyone should be compliant with the law".He said the government would "continue to work to make sure that women and girls across the country can enjoy sports and we will continue to support bodies to protect the integrity, safety and fairness of the game".He said it was the responsibility of sporting bodies to set their own Washington, campaign lead for Football vs Transphobia, said transgender women are now likely to give up football."The people I know that are talking about this are saying, 'Well, that's it for football for me'," she said."Most people clearly don't feel that they can go and play in the men's game for reasons of safety, for reasons of comfort."Pride Sports, which runs the Football vs Transphobia campaign, said there is no "football-specific peer-reviewed research or evidence that shows the existing policies constitute a safety risk".Lord David Triesman, former chairman of the FA, said there should be "consequences for the most senior FA officers" who took the decision to previously allow transgender women in women's football."The FA has finally seen sense. It would have been the utmost foolishness to disregard the Supreme Court," he group Kick it Out said: "Now is the time to show solidarity with the trans community and remind ourselves that football brings people together and is often a space for belonging, connection, and joy."The recent Supreme Court ruling and the FA's decision to change its policy will have far-reaching consequences, not only for the people we support but for our friends, families, team-mates and wider communities."Transphobic abuse - on the pitch, in the stands and online - is real and rising." What about other sports? The FA was the first major governing sporting body to amend its transgender eligibility criteria following the Supreme Court England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) banned transgender women from competing in all levels of women's cricket with immediate effect on 2 ECB had previously banned transgender women from elite domestic Netball also changed its guidelines on 1 May by banning transgender women from its female new guidelines, which will apply from 1 September, recognise three distinct gender participation categories: female, male and female category would be "exclusively for players born female, irrespective of their gender identity", while mixed netball will "serve as the sport's inclusive category, allowing players to complete under the gender with which they identify".The Ultimate Pool Group (UPG) - the professional body for eight-ball pool - banned transgender women from its female category in governing bodies, including the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association (WPBSA), are reassessing their transgender eligibility cycling and aquatics have implemented outright bans on transgender women taking part in women's 2022, British Triathlon became the first British sporting body to establish an open category in which transgender athletes can compete.
Belfast Telegraph
22-05-2025
- Sport
- Belfast Telegraph
European qualification blow hasn't affected our mindset, claims Michael O'Neill
Initially, it was planned for the Home Nations to jointly stage the tournament in three years' time, with Casement Park built in time to host games in Northern Ireland. However, delays over funding and feasibility for the west Belfast project eventually resulted in Northern Ireland being dropped as a host country, with the tournament instead being played in England, the Republic of Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It is believed that in order to build Casement Park it would require around £260m, but only £120m has been pledged by Stormont (£62.5m), the GAA (£15m) and the Irish government (£43m). As a result, the UK Government confirmed last September that, due to the risk to the public purse over missing the tournament deadline being too high, Northern Ireland would no longer be considered a co-host. That means O'Neill's men will have to qualify as normal for the tournament and won't even have the reassurance of the 'safety net' handed to the other four nations, which has guaranteed all four will feature in the tournament as long as two qualify automatically. 'If I'm 100 per cent honest, I didn't even read it because it's irrelevant to us now,' claimed O'Neill. 'Just because we're concentrating on World Cup 2026 before we even start thinking about Euro 2028. When the decision was made over Casement Park, it was done. I always knew we'd have to play through a qualification process. That hasn't changed. So the announcement, we kind of knew that the process was going to be as it is. "The important thing is to address World Cup 2026 and give ourselves the best chance possible to try and qualify for that tournament. And then, when 2028 comes around, this team hopefully will be more prepared. There may be a little bit more fresh blood in the squad as well. But it's so far down the line that it's not really of much significance to me personally.' Accordingly, O'Neill will take one last look at his squad next month before launching into the qualifying process for that tournament in September, with June friendlies to look forward to against Denmark in Copenhagen and Iceland in Belfast. The manager has been able to bring back a wealth of experience after March's window, which saw them draw with Switzerland and lose heavily in Sweden, with the likes of Daniel Ballard, Conor Bradley and Dion Charles recalled after injury lay-offs. And while admitting that his squad still hasn't reached the level he is hoping they will, O'Neill was left encouraged by what he saw two months ago in those friendlies and hopes they can kick on from there. 'We didn't concede. We were strong. We scored goals. We looked very good on the front foot, energetic. When we looked at the games in March, a good performance here against Switzerland but a challenging game out in Sweden, and we have to learn from that as well,' he reflected. 'I think that this squad is still probably a few years away from really where it needs to be in terms of where the players will be in their club situations and also where they will be in their international careers. But if we can challenge, which I believe we can, then we'll take that challenge on now.' Between now and then, however, O'Neill has the enjoyment of watching three of his players take part in Play-Off Finals, with Ballard bidding for a place in the Premier League with Sunderland and Jamie Donley and Ethan Galbraith trying to lead Leyton Orient into the Championship. Being part of those big games will undoubtedly help the squad and their experience in big games, while stepping up a division for all three players will help with the standard they are playing at, too. Game time has been a challenge for Northern Ireland throughout the years, and it still is to this day, but O'Neill is encouraged by what he's seeing across the board from his squad. I think now, as much as any, and particularly for the younger players, I think some have been deprived that opportunity with injury. Conor's had a little bit of an injury punctured at season. Daniel Ballard had an injury punctured at season. Ali McCann,' he outlined. 'They're not coming in having played 45 games or that type of thing, but I do think that the squad is progressing in two ways. It can progress when it comes in and works together as a squad and they can progress when they go back to their clubs. Certainly having the players involved in the Play-Off Finals is a real positive. 'It's a massive game for Sunderland and it would be brilliant for them if they can take that next step. And obviously the two boys at Orient have been great. I was delighted I saw Orient earlier in the season. I thought they were one of the best teams in League One and they've given themselves a real opportunity after a difficult start to the season to take that next step into the Championship.'
Scottish Sun
15-05-2025
- Sport
- Scottish Sun
Scotland ‘to qualify automatically' for next Euros as Uefa chiefs meet to rubber-stamp deal
But there may still be a catch EUR IN Scotland 'to qualify automatically' for next Euros as Uefa chiefs meet to rubber-stamp deal SCOTLAND will be granted automatic qualification for the next European Championships, it's been reported. The next Euros don't take place until 2028 but Scotland, England, Wales and the Republic of Ireland were confirmed as hosts last year. 1 Hampden Park is due to host fixtures at Euro 2028 Credit: SNS Usually, the host nation of a Euros automatically qualifies for the tournament. But this has typically been when it has been held in one country or, at most, two (last year in Germany and 2012 in Poland and Ukraine, for example). Euro 2020 was held across the continent and with 11 host countries (including Scotland) there were no automatic berths handed out. This time however, things look to be different - even though there will be four host nations. The original bid from the UK & Ireland included Northern Ireland, meaning that there would potentially be five automatic spots for the hosts. That could have been problematic and as such there was a theory that all of the host nations would have to go through the usual qualification process, but would be offered the reprieve of a play-off if they failed to progress naturally. Northern Ireland's host stadium of Casement Park has been hit with several problems, including building delays, and as a result it forced them to pull out of the hosting bid. Therefore it seems they could be the unlucky ones who will miss out on an automatic place. According to The Irish Times, Uefa chiefs are set to grant the four remaining Home Nations automatic entry into Euro 2028 - if they fail to qualify through the normal process. That suggests Scotland, England, Wales and the Republic of Ireland will still compete in the qualifying section even though their place in the final competition would be assured. Scotland manager Steve Clarke quizzed on whether he considered quitting after Euro 2024 disappointment But it's also been claimed that the idea of a play-off if any of them don't win their group is not completely off the table. Uefa's executive committee will meet in Bilbao on Wednesday May 21 before the Europa League final between Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur to ratify the qualification format. Hampden Park in Glasgow is the lone Scottish stadium in the UK & Ireland portfolio for Euro 2028. The other confirmed venues for the 24-team tournament are the Principality Stadium in Cardiff, the Aviva Stadium in Dublin, St James' Park in Newcastle, the Etihad Stadium in Manchester, Everton's new Bramley Moore Dock stadium in Liverpool, Villa Park in Birmingham, Tottenham Hotspur Stadium and Wembley, which will host the final. Keep up to date with ALL the latest news and transfers at the Scottish Sun football page
New York Times
22-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Why have dramatic bidding contests to host major sporting events stopped?
Reeling off things that used to be better in the 'good old days' is a fine way to start an argument: music, television, social media… It is a long and contentious list. But surely nobody can dispute that bidding races for major sports events have gone to the dogs. Without meaning to sound like my father, when I was a lad, the contests to host Olympics or World Cups were almost as exciting as the events themselves. Advertisement In 2005, we had wild celebrations in the room in Singapore and back in Trafalgar Square when London beat Paris for the right to host the 2012 Olympics. Four years later, there was shock in Copenhagen when Rio beat Madrid, Tokyo and Chicago, including its cheerleader-in-chief, new U.S. President Barack Obama, in the race for the 2016 Games. And then, in 2010, there was the ultimate needle-scratch moment when FIFA impresario Sepp Blatter surprised even himself by saying the World Cup circus was heading to Qatar in 2022. These were moments of genuine jeopardy that left millions elated and even more deflated. The decisions were made live on news channels, topped bulletins and were splashed over front pages. For politicians, it was as close as they would get to lifting a trophy, and for sports fans it was like winning a backstage pass to their favourite show. Or, if you are an England football supporter, they were regular reminders of just how unpopular we are around the world — character-building stuff. Compare that to what we have now. Hands up, who remembers how Brisbane 'won' the right to stage the 2032 Olympics or even knew the decision had been made? If that one passed you by, I suspect you missed the emails about the 2030 Winter Olympics going back to the French Alps and the 2034 edition returning to Salt Lake City. No rivals, no rows about gifts, no fireworks back home. What do you recall of the 'race' to host the 2030 and 2034 men's World Cups? Was it months of intrigue, lobbying and speculation, or the news dribbling out in a press release, with the 'vote' conducted by a round of applause on a video conference call? At least there was a press release ready for those decisions. Current FIFA supremo Gianni Infantino's disdain for bidding wars reached a new low in Belgrade this month when he casually mentioned that the hosts for the 2031 and 2035 Women's World Cups had been decided. Advertisement 'We have started the bidding process, as you know, for the Women's World Cups in '31 and '35… and today I can confirm that we have received one bid for '31 and one valid bid, I should add, for '35,' said Infantino, without a hint of suspense. 'The '31 bid is from the United States of America and potentially some other CONCACAF members together, and the '35 bid is from Europe, from the Home Nations. So, the path is there for the Women's World Cup to be taking place in some great countries to boost even more the women's football movement.' His munificence took the FIFA media department by surprise. An email to confirm what those of us in the room thought we had heard did not follow for 24 hours. Presumably, they had to check the tape, too. He was not even speaking at his own event. Infantino's speech was at the UEFA Congress. It also followed his long plug for this summer's Club World Cup, another contract he handed to a sole bidder without a competitive tender. To be fair, the hosts of the previous three Women's World Cups to be awarded have all been decided after competitive contests that started with large fields of candidates but became two-horse races. The battle for the 2027 tournament was even pretty close, with Brazil beating a joint bid from Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands by 119 votes to 78 at the FIFA Congress in Bangkok last year. But the most recent tightly contested races for men's World Cups took place in 2000 and 2004, when, respectively, Germany beat South Africa by a single (and possibly corrupt) vote and South Africa bounced back to defeat Morocco 14-10. The 2014 World Cup was handed to Brazil unopposed. The contests for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups were amazing in terms of drama but they also led to the near-collapse of FIFA. Perhaps deciding that too much jeopardy is bad for business, FIFA played it safe in 2018 when Canada, Mexico and the U.S. won the right to host the 2026 tournament at a canter over Morocco. Well, it seemed safe at the time. Advertisement That choice did go to a vote, though, whereas the 2030 (Morocco, Portugal, Spain) and 2034 (Saudi Arabia) selections were coronations. It has been a similar story at the IOC, where in 2013 Tokyo comfortably won the right to host the 2020 Games, before the fields assembled for the 2024 Summer Games and 2026 Winter Games evaporated, forcing Olympic boss Thomas Bach to dish out three Games at once: Paris 2024, Milan 2026 and LA 2028, all unopposed. UEFA, too, has dispensed with difficult choices. After Germany beat Turkey for the right to stage Euro 2024, European football's governing body opted for an IOC-style, prizes-for-everyone approach in 2023 when it gave Euro 2028 to the UK and Ireland, and 2032 to Italy and Turkey. And it is not just football. Ever since 2014, when Doha, Qatar's capital, shocked Eugene, Oregon, to win the right to host the 2019 World Athletics Championships, World Athletics has just picked the candidate that ticks the most boxes. The Rugby World Cup used to be good for a decent scrap, but Australia was unopposed for the 2027 edition and nobody was going to stand in the way of progress when USA Rugby said it wanted to host the 2031 tournament. And we have not had a proper fight to host a Cricket World Cup since 2006, when India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh ganged up to beat Australia and New Zealand to the 2011 edition. So, is democracy dead? 'The history of bidding races is a story of peaks and troughs,' says Dr Heather Dichter, a specialist in sport history at Leicester's De Montfort University. 'If we look at the Olympics, the bidding contests ramped up during the 1950s and 1960s as cities and national governments realised there were potential benefits to staging a Games. That cycle really peaked with the race for the 1968 Summer Games, which was decided in 1963 in the German spa town of Baden Baden. Advertisement 'On paper, it was a four-way race between Detroit, Mexico City, Lyon and Buenos Aires, but it was only really between those first three, as Buenos Aires didn't have a chance, and they went all-out for it. They brought huge teams to Baden Baden — it's a nice place, after all — and were allowed to create huge rooms that showcased their bids. 'Detroit leaned into the city's industrial power and it was really hi-tech, while Mexico City went for an Aztec theme. Lyon created a mini Versailles and had a famous French chef making food. And even before the vote there had been lots of debate about Mexico City bringing IOC members over on all-expenses-paid trips. 'So, after the vote, which was pretty close, there was a feeling within the Olympic movement that bidding races had got too big and political, and it was time to dampen things down a bit.' For those who cannot remember if Detroit has hosted an Olympics or not, the Motor City came up short in Germany, just as it did the previous seven times it bid and would do so again when it threw its hat into the ring for a ninth time four years later. 'That didn't really work, as bidders carried on going all-out for a few more years,' Dichter continues. 'But things changed in the 1970s, when the interest dropped away, particularly after the Games in Munich and Montreal, which were dominated by terrorism, boycotts and overspending. 'So, Los Angeles was unopposed when it bid for the 1984 Games. But then the wheel turned again, because the LA was a financial hit and cities around the world thought: 'Yeah, we'll have some of that'. But that, of course, led to more corruption and the infamous vote-buying scandal of the Salt Lake City bid. So the IOC tightened things up again.' Yes, it would be fair to say that things had got a little loose heading into the 1995 vote to decide where the 2002 Winter Games should go. Having lost previous races in suspicious circumstances, Utah's capital spent millions of dollars on gifts, land, donations and even school fees for the IOC's voters. When the scandal broke three years later, the IOC stopped members from accepting free trips to bidding cities, brought in price caps for presents and introduced term limits. Advertisement But bidding races did not dry up because they stopped being fun for the voters. 'It has been concerns over the costs of bidding and staging the events themselves that have seen the number of bids drop off,' says Dichter. Angus Buchanan is the co-founder and chief executive of The Sports Consultancy, a London-based firm that advises cities, countries and federations on how to win major events and run bidding processes. 'Let's think back to 2015 and 2017, when there were six bids for the 2022 Winters and five bids for the 2024 Summer Games,' says Buchanan. 'All but Almaty and Beijing dropped out for the 2022 vote and everyone apart from LA and Paris fell away in 2017. When you have these small bidding fields there is an extreme risk of awkwardness and embarrassment.' Of the two, it is hard to know which contest had a higher cringe factor. Nearly 20 cities and regions initially expressed an interest in staging the 2022 Winter Games, but that crystallised into six seemingly solid bids: Almaty, Beijing, Krakow, Lviv, Oslo and Stockholm. But then Krakow and Lviv decided they could not afford it and the Swedish government realised their public was against it. That was embarrassing, but not as bad as Oslo's last-minute exit following a collapse in local support for the bid. The final straw was the publication of the IOC's 7,000-page list of demands on a host, which includes serious stuff like tax breaks and VIP lanes on highways, and diva-like nonsense such as being greeted by smiles at hotels, Olympic-themed furniture and the air conditioning set at 68 degrees. The IOC did not immediately learn from this PR disaster. The five bids for the 2024 Games — Budapest, Hamburg, LA, Paris and Rome — became two when public referenda and protest movements knocked out Budapest, Hamburg and Rome (an earlier local campaign had stopped Boston from even reaching the start line). Advertisement It was at this point IOC boss Bach decided he could not risk upsetting anyone and gave 2024 to Paris and 2028 to LA. 'The world had still not fully recovered from the (2008) financial crash and much of the West was struggling with large debts,' explains Buchanan. 'These two bidding races caused a lot of introspection at the IOC, which decided it needed to create a much more responsible bidding process.' The result of that introspection was the 2019 creation of the Future Host Commission, a small group of IOC members whose job it is now to hold non-committal 'continuous dialogue' with interested cities and regions, before moving to 'targeted dialogue' with one or more preferred candidates. The idea is that all this chatting produces one unanimous candidate, without anyone losing face or wasting public money on bid books, architects' models of venues or teaser videos. 'The criticism, however, is that you lose a lot of transparency and the decision-making process is entirely opaque,' says Dichter. Bidding races are also great adverts for your event because they create a steady stream of stories in the years between the sporty bits. FIFA, however, has gone in the same direction as the IOC, although there has always been less jeopardy with World Cup hosting decisions because FIFA's continental rotation policy has meant we have always had a general idea of where each tournament would go. For decades, that rotation was simple — South America, Europe, South America, Europe — but South America's turn started to be shared with the rest of the Americas and then the World Cup went genuinely global with the 2002 World Cup in East Asia then South Africa in 2010. But it is not just FIFA's worldview that has expanded; the tournament has grown, too. Having been a 16-team affair for five decades, it expanded to 24 teams in 1982 and then 32 in 1998. There will be 48 teams at next year's World Cup in North America, which means 104 games across 39 days in 16 venues, and some would like to increase that to 64 teams in 2030. Advertisement 'As the World Cups have got bigger, the potential field of candidates has got smaller, which is why we are seeing more joint bids,' says Buchanan. 'And that has led to the need for more curation of these bids by FIFA at the beginning of the process. What we have ended up with is a more formal rotation policy, with more calculated thinking about where the tournament should go.' Calculated thinking is one way of putting it; Bonita Mersiades, a senior member of Australia's ill-fated bid for the 2022 World Cup, has another. 'The shift away from competitive bidding towards these 'strategic partnerships' is part of the centralisation of power under Infantino,' says Mersiades, who wrote a book about her experiences on the World Cup campaign trail in 2018. 'While it might reduce the risk of corruption scandals, we continue to miss out on transparency and accountability, while awarding the world's biggest sporting event based on merit continues to be elusive. 'These stage-managed announcements give the impression of inevitability, not excitement. They also cut the legs out from under smaller nations or joint bids with real vision but less political clout. True competition requires imagination and diversity, on and off the field.' John Zerafa, who has consulted on more bidding campaigns than he can probably remember, does not see it in quite those terms. But he agrees that decision-making at FIFA and the IOC has become centralised around their powerful leaders. 'Over the past decade, Bach and Infantino have taken a hands-on approach in overseeing the awarding of their flagship events,' the veteran bid strategist explains. 'The by-product of their influence over this process has, essentially, limited the number of nations and cities bidding. 'Both organisations, rightly, are also stipulating the use of existing infrastructure. But, of course, not every country has what's needed to host a mega sporting event. So this also limits your bidding pool, and with mega events such as the World Cup expanding in scale, infrastructure pressures on host nations have also grown. Advertisement 'And then we have economic pressures, especially post-Covid, where many governments are carrying historic debt levels. Add on the reality that voters, dealing with cost of living challenges, are less likely to support their politicians underwriting a multi-billion-dollar sports event that lasts just a few weeks and you can see why there are fewer nations putting their hat in the ring to host these events.' Is that that, then? No more media junkets to sample local wares or see new stadiums? 'I think there is greater interest in bidding for the big sports events now than we've seen for two decades,' says Buchanan. 'When we speak to the people we work with on bids, we certainly hear that they think it's to the detriment of the bid when there is no competitive tension. A competitive process makes you focus on the bidding criteria and come up with innovative solutions to the problems they pose. 'There was certainly a period when both FIFA and the IOC wanted their hosts to build lots of shiny new temples to celebrate sport, and a willingness to do that was what swayed the voters as opposed to any consideration of whether these new temples would have any practical long-term benefits for the hosts. There was very little thought given to sustainability. 'But that changed at the IOC with Thomas Bach's Agenda 2020 (a set of bidding-process reforms introduced in 2014) and FIFA has also become more attuned to arguments about sustainability and legacy.' You are saying there is a chance on the junkets, then? 'One of the most obvious consequences of Agenda 2020 was that it marginalised the membership — there was just much less for them to vote on because all the big decisions were wrapped up in Bach's targeted dialogues with potential bidders,' Buchanan continues. 'So, it will be interesting to see what new IOC president Kirsty Coventry does, but I expect we will see more democratic processes in the future.' Advertisement Coventry, a double Olympic swimming champion from Zimbabwe, was elected to the role last month. The victory made her, at 41, the youngest IOC president for more than a century, the movement's first female leader and the first to come from Africa. That sounds like she should be a breath of fresh air. But she was also Bach's preferred successor, so many saw her as the continuity candidate. When The Athletic spoke to Coventry in the run-up to the election, she praised the work of the Future Hosting Commission but noted that there was no shortage of candidates, from around the globe, lining up for runs at the 2036 and 2040 Games. Asked if she could imagine the IOC awarding two Games at once again, as it did in 2017, Coventry said: 'There are pros and cons.' Dichter is encouraged by Coventry's appointment: 'With a new IOC president coming in and a good field assembling for 2036, I'm confident we're going to see more transparency in how the Games are awarded,' she says. 'But I'm less confident we're going to get more transparency from FIFA because it's never really been very transparent and the policy of continental rotation will continue to limit the fields.' Dichter's doubts would appear to be well-grounded. 'To be honest with you, from a strategy point of view, whether it's UEFA or CONCACAF or Asia, they make decisions based on what's best for the confederation,' said CONCACAF boss Victor Montagliani at the Financial Times' Business of Football Summit in February. 'Moving forward, FIFA needs to relook at it, because spending a lot of money on a bid is maybe not the best use of your money. It has to be more strategic and I think this is part of that philosophy of ensuring that (the World Cup) moves around the world. 'So, 2038, I don't know what's next but by having it in the Americas (in 2026), then in Europe and Africa (in 2030), Asia (in 2034), and then continuing that circle, I think it's a better way to do it. Because the craziness of having everybody bid, and all the craziness that went with it, is probably, from a risk-management standpoint, not the best thing to do.' But the craziness was fun, Victor. We miss the craziness. And maybe the craziness created better outcomes. Just a thought.
