I have yet to see an evaluation that was too far off the mark from the bids in 2018/2022/2026.
I just think that the evaluation report should have a greater importance in which country get chosen, rather than geo-politics.
Yes but who is going to determine what the factors are that cause a country to score highest? The people who support the NA bid or the ones who support Morocco?
Will the evaluation report give bonus points for being based in 1st world countries with highly industrialised economies and transport networks, thus meaning that the likes of African countries and perhaps South America or some parts of Asia will never stand a chance of being able to host again if a rival continental bid appears?
Will it favour bringing the WC to new countries, thus meaning we keep getting the likes of Qatar and Russia hosting?
Will it place undue importance on a country's footballing heritage, meaning the competition goes back to alternating between Europe and South America?
Will it place heavy importance on the ability of a country to organise the fans and police the event, meaning authoritarian countries may arbitrarily score highly for their over-weaning government systems?
I guarantee you that if you selected ten members of this forum alone and asked them to produce a draft of the selection criteria with a points system to determine a winner, you'd get 10 totally different systems. I guarantee you that any such procedure drawn up by FIFA politicians would end up being a theoretically sound system ridden with loopholes for artificially high scores and flaws which could wreck a campaign by mistake. Lastly, I guarantee you that any lawyered document designed specifically to iron out loopholes and so on would be written with an ideal country or selection of countries in mind, and the rule-makers would approach the loopholes by effectively looking to prevent certain countries from getting any kind of benefit from the rules, even if they don't consciously acknowledge that.
