An assessment of the runners for Euro2008, compiled by Emmet Malone
Austria/Switzerland
PROS: Having run a slick campaign based in part on the experience gathered by the Austrians in two previous bids, they are widely regarded as having their noses in front. A couple of stadiums are in place but more importantly there is widespread confidence in their ability to deliver the rest on time. There is substantial commercial support and the distances between venue cities are manageable, particularly in view of the excellent transport infrastructure.
The fact that between them the countries border so many would-be participants is also a plus. The successful Swiss staging of the European under-21 championships this year, when roughly three times the anticipated 60,000 attended the various games, also boosted the bid recently.
CONS: While all of the stadiums in the bid are either new or refurbished, only two hold significantly in excess of the 30,000 minimum, leaving very few options when it comes to hosting the knock-out stages.
As a result, seven games will almost certainly have to be held in Vienna. The bid team offered what amounts to an alternative in which the opening game could be switched to Berne's rebuilt Wankdorf, which will hold 42,400, less than the recommended 50,000 for one of the tournament's showpieces.
Either way, a bit of juggling is required and though the organisers "guarantee" that all games will be sold out, total capacity is some half a million seats less than the Scottish/Irish bid.
BID PROSPECTS: Short-list.
Croatia/Bosnia Herzogovina
PROS: Few enough really. The only reason they could win would be a desire on the part of UEFA to make a grand gesture to two countries so recently adversely affected by war.
"UEFA's policy was always to promote development and we are sure it will stick to that now," said Mehmed Spaho, an official of Bosnia's Football Association (NSBIH).
In addition to the potential for developing football in their countries, the Bosnians and Croatians are among the would be hosts stressing the potential for sponsors to gain exposure in relatively new markets if their bid is successful.
In addition, the area involved is quite compact and again, travel from some of the bigger countries likely to be competing would be relatively easy.
CONS: Did poorly on the technical assessment when they were found to be short of the required standards in most of the relevant departments.
It is not just football grounds that are in need of substantial redevelopment but even basic transport infrastructure like the rail system which continues to undergo repair after being extensively damaged during the war.
The bid includes ambitious plans for redevelopment, but, even in the event that UEFA wanted to be seen to use the tournament for a spot of historic bridge-building, the presence of the much more better equipped Greeks and Turks provides a much safer option.
BID PROSPECTS: First-round losers.
Greece/Turkey
PROS: A good range of stadiums, only two of which have a capacity of less than 40,000, means that the Greeks and Turks are in a position to rival the Irish and Scots for total attendance figures.
Both countries have a very substantial tourist industry, which means the number
of visitors shouldn't be a problem, and
there are also a wide variety of hotels at all price ranges available in most of the host cities.
Football is hugely popular in both countries and Turkey is a rapidly emerging force in the European game. Greece, meanwhile, would have ample experience of handling a major sporting event after hosting the Olympics in 2004.
CONS: Most of the venues would need substantial upgrading if the tournament was to be hosted, and after the problems the Greeks had keeping to their building schedule for the Olympics, it is not entirely clear that the preparations would be trouble-free.
Both governments are involved in attempting to find a resolution to the ongoing problems in Cyprus but as long as the island remains divided there is a lingering possibility that the would-be hosts could fall out again between now and the time they are due to stage the finals.
Though spectator numbers would be large, admission prices and other merchandising revenues on the ground would probably come in at the lower end of expectations.
BID PROSPECTS: First-round losers.
Hungary
PROS: Strong government support has enabled the Hungarians to put together a decent single nation bid based on a substantial redevelopment programme of the country's ailing sporting infrastructure.
A total of 14 grounds are either currently being rebuilt or are scheduled to have work started on them soon, and a number of very technically impressive as well as highly attractive new stadiums will be the result. In total just short of €2 billion has been committed for a wide range of projects by the government with half as much coming again from the private sector.
There would also be a romantic attraction to using the championships as a way of rejuvenating the game in one of the former giants of international football. Its geographic location is a plus, as is its status as a developing market.
CONS: Memories of four years ago, when the Hungarians bid with the Austrians and fell down badly on their end of the deal, will not have entirely faded and there may be some scepticism regarding their ability to pull the whole thing off by themselves this time around. Even they were doubtful enough to originally attempt to forge an alliance with Croatia.
Again, the alarming state of their club game means that stadium sizes have to be kept pretty much to the minimum required and four of the eight proposed are bang on the 30,000 mark. Some of those seats would, in fact, come out immediately after the tournament.
BID PROSPECTS: First-round losers.
Nordic 2008
(incorporating Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden)
PROS: Much of the infrastructure is already in place and there is no real doubt about the ability of the hosts to deliver on commitments made as part of their bid document. The Scandinavians are influential at UEFA level, can be relied upon to deliver a well-run tournament and have plenty of experience hosting major games through the UEFA Cup and Champions League.
Neither transport nor accommodation would present any problems for visiting supporters and the mild summers could make for better games.
CONS: Two of the groups involve significant travel for teams and supporters and there will be more darting about to be done for those who progress to the knock-out stages. The fact that the competition will be spilt between four countries, only one of which is at present in the euro zone and one of which isn't in the EU also makes for some administrative difficulty. Then there is the issue of particiption by the host nations.
All would compete in the qualifying groups but two would be guaranteed a place in the finals so if they don't qualify under their own steam things get complicated and a little bit messy. The Scandinavians have tried to sell this as a prototype for multi- nation bids of the future, but the reaction has not been too enthusiastic or to the prospect of parts of the tournament going ahead in countries with no local interest.
BID PROSPECTS: Short list.
Russia
PROS: When Portugal was given the right to host the 2004 championships, UEFA made a deliberate and very political decision to promote the game there rather than to go for the safer option of handing the tournament to Spain.
The Russians need to persuade UEFA that there is good reason to pass over the more obvious campaigns again this time.
The bid is based on an "if they come we will build it" philosophy, with seven major new stadia due if finals are to be staged. Such a redevelopment would represent an enormous boost to football in what is potentially a massive market.
CONS: Handing the championships to the Russians represents a massive gamble for UEFA, who would be relying on the football federation's ability to deliver a range of developments with an estimated bill to the country's taxpayers of some €1.3 billion.
Estimates of the potential benefits to the economy: "Hundreds of thousands of jobs and an improvement to the whole infrastructure of our cities," according to Russian Federation secretary Vladimir Radionov. This suggests they may have become a little carried away with the whole thing. On a more practical level, the inclusion of only one venue in each of eight cities - Moscow's Lokomotiv ground where the Republic of Ireland played recently is only down as an alternative - makes for a lot of travelling and then are the issues of corruption, security and the handling of so many foreign visitors.
BID PROSPECTS: First-round losers.
Ireland/Scotland
PROS: Although it may seem strange from an Irish point of view, this bid's greatest strength is the advanced stage of its stadium infrastructure. With Hampden Park, Celtic Park, Ibrox and Murrayfield all effectively ready, the Irish and Scots are perceived to be in a strong position.
UEFA have written commitments from the Scottish and Irish governments that two more grounds will be available in each country in time for the tournament.
The grounds will allow more spectators than any other bid, which means more ticket money and a better backdrop for television audiences. The common language, the reputation of the local fans, as well as the fact that it is the only bid to come entirely from inside the EU, all stand to it.
CONS: Despite the general acceptance in UEFA that stadiums will be provided if the tournament is given to the Irish and Scots, there remains some discomfort with the lack of clarity at the Dublin end of things.
This is something that the Austrians and Swiss will be playing on. The lack of a land link between the two bidders is a factor, as is the fact that the two host nations are somewhat remote to the majority of the competing teams.
It will also be argued that the tournament should not come back to this neck of the woods so soon after England hosted Euro '96. And politically there is the feeling that it is outgunned, particularly by the Austrians and Swiss who have the backing of Sepp Blatter's men on the executive.
BID PROSPECTS: Short list.
