Stadiums with floodlights powered by wind turbines, players wearing bio-degradable football kits and pitches generating energy when players run on them. The 2018 football World Cup will be the greenest ever held - provided the 24 members of the FIFA Executive Committee award the tournament to Holland and Belgium on 2 December.

But this – green - dream now seems a lot less likely. A risk assessment report from world football governing body FIFA has been leaked and the joint Dutch-Belgian bid has not come out favourably: it is the only one of the four bids with a medium-risk assessment, the others are all low-risk. Concerns have been raised about the extent of government backing, hotel facilities and challenges thrown up by co-hosting. 

Even before the FIFA risk assessment the joint bid organisers knew they were widely seen as outsiders, so in some respects little has changed. Top favourites to land the finals remain Russia and England.

And the message from Ruud Gullit - president of the Holland-Belgian 2018 bid team - that "We simply must show that we're the best alternative" will surely remained unchanged in the run-up to the final decision in December.

Social impact
The joint bid has been keen to stress the broader potential of football and saw that as a key strength - the motto "Together for Great Goals" was meant as a direct appeal to FIFA, which also seeks to push the bigger picture when it comes to the influence of the game on communities.

Another lofty aim is lending support to coaches in developing nations as part of a “train-the-trainer” scheme, based on the famed Dutch school of football, which  aims to improve skills and the overall quality of the game.
 
The bid organisers claim the tournament will leave half the ecological footprint of its predecessors. There’s even a Sustainable Stadium Toolkit on offer to make other venues more eco-friendly too.

Photo below: Ruud Gullit 

 Bicycles
Which brings us to bicycles - two million of them will be freely available for fans with tickets - and to Ruud Gullit, who’s hopped on a bike in several major cities to promote the bid. The former Feyenoord and AC Milan superstar stresses that the Netherlands and Belgium have jointly organised successful championships before (UEFA EURO 2000 - wikipedia article) and deserve a chance to become the first neighbouring World Cup co-hosts.
 
“It’s a little bit strange that a three-times finalist who’s consistently been in the top ten of the world rankings has never had the opportunity to organise the World Cup. The Belgians have a lot of good talent too. This would be a great chance for FIFA to show humbleness to the smaller countries.”

The odds
The limited size of the Low Countries would make the tournament compact, reducing travel times. Their accessibility in the heart of Europe, their modern infrastructure, the multilingual skills of their populations (including French as an official language) and the football passion of Holland’s famous orange army all serve to make the bid attractive.
 
Photo below: Biking for the Bid
 Yet despite this, and despite the deployment of big guns like Gullit, Johan Cruyff, Guus Hiddink, Justine Henin and Eddy Merckx, there is a realisation here that the odds are in favour of the bigger nations. This has to do with the unpredictable decision-making process within FIFA, which could be swayed by concessions, pledges and gifts, by power play from the Russian bid, led by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, or by FIFA chief Sepp Blatter’s initial hesitation to allow joint bids. Factors which seem to have been strengthened by the leaked risk assessment.
 
Cost and benefit
Another factor is the large amount of work that needs to be done in Holland and Belgium to expand facilities and overcome domestic political scepticism.

While acknowledging the “social dividend” of staging a major sporting event, critics in both countries emphasize the high cost involved. Hosting the World Cup may be set to boost urban development, social cohesion and participation in sport, but the economic gains are negligible and most of the proceeds will go straight into FIFA coffers.
 
Besides, the economic crisis coupled with a string of massive building projects has already left Amsterdam on the verge of bankruptcy. And the other, non-football-crazy half of the nation would very much prefer to see the Dutch capital focus on its bid to bring the Olympic Games back to the city in 2028, 100 years after it first hosted them.
 
But these considerations won’t dampen the enthusiasm of the Holland/Belgium bid team. Their main concern is that their campaign will fail for the wrong reasons. “The World Cup should not be monopolised by the big countries,” says CEO Harry Been, touching on a fundamental issue.

“Hosting the World Cup in a smaller country would be a good stimulus for many other countries to also organise big tournaments.”
 
Of course, that works the other way too. Because if the Holland/Belgium bid fails, then other small nations might think twice before teaming up with others and shelling out millions on a World Cup bid.