2018 World Cup: why the Russian bid won and the Dutch one didn’t?

The Netherlands has lost two World Cups in one year. After losing the World Cup final to Spain last summer, the Dutch bid to hold the prestigious event in 2018 lost to the Russians yesterday. The officials are licking their wounds and wondering what went wrong.
Although the chances for the dual Holland-Belgium bid appeared to be slim from the outset, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte was disappointed that FIFA chose Russia.
“You go out into the field to win. I think that everybody realises that. But if you never try, you will never win. I want to congratulate Russia. But yes, we would have liked to have won.”
During the final presentation of the Holland-Belgium bid in Zürich, chairman Ruud Gullit set out the main advantages of holding the football gala in the low countries. One of those advantages is the small size of the two countries, which meant the World Cup would have been compact and the distances between the stadiums would have been relatively short. And not to forget the emphasis on sustainability and social relevance, a World Cup in the Low Countries would have been the greenest sporting event ever.
Green
Althought the votes of the 22 FIFA members are secret, it is clear that the argument for a compact World Cup made little impression. The distances between soccer venues in Russia are greater than in any of the other countries that bid. Likewise the football bigwigs were not interested in holding a green and sustainable event. All that is important to FIFA is that the grass is green.
Football icon Ruud Gullit gave an honest response to the FIFA decision.
“Of course, it’s annoying, but I think we put together a good bid. The presentation was right, it was a solid bid. We received a lot of compliments. But it didn’t help and that means the committee didn’t think our bid was good enough. We wish the winners luck. Russia and Qatar. New continents. It is a pity. I think we did everything we could – but that’s the way it is.”
Carte Blanche
The legacy is important to the world football association. It is about leaving behind a football legacy, about how much a country can develop and promote football.
The Netherlands and Belgium are football-mad nations. That is why the Holland-Belgium bid had two projects to secure the legacy: a worldwide training programme for football trainers and a project to turn football clubs into multifunctional centres for social programmes.
The legacy of the Russian bid is many times more interesting to FIFA: with only 6 million footballers in a population of almost 250 million, the country is not football mad, but there is enormous potential.
In spite of all the reports about corruption and bribery, two aspects appear have made the difference, money and politics. Whereas the Netherlands and Belgium presented themselves as economically strong countries with clean hands, Russia promised unlimited investment and the certainty of huge profits.
And whereas Dutch politicians grumbled about dubious tax constructions and other priveleges imposed by FIFA, the Russian government gave the organisation a carte blanche.
Olympic Games
Does the Netherlands with its squeaky clean image still have a chance of holding such large sporting events in the future? The Dutch are planning to enter a bid for the 2028 Olympic Games, Prime Minister Rutter believes it can be done.
“I am 100 percent convinced we can do it. You learn from these kind of things. You see how to approach things like this. You just have to learn the lessons. Of course.”