Bids to host the 2018 World Cup from England, Russia and the joint bid from Spain and Portugal have all been graded “low-risk” by FIFA.
Only outsider Belgium/Netherlands has been graded as “medium-risk” by the world governing body.
Across 17 risk categories, Russia lies just behind England and Spain/Portugal, while the joint bid from Netherlands and Belgium has received a medium risk assessment.
However, problems were cited will all four bids.
In England, FIFA identified concerns surrounding the availability of training camps for the 32 teams expected to take part in the competition, as well as the number of contracted hotel rooms and training camp hotels.
The full FIFA report will not to be made public but the summary highlighted some criticisms of England’s bid.
“The bidder has not contracted the required number of venue-specific training sites or venue-specific team hotels,” says the report.
“Additional training sites, likely to be selected from England’s existing range of professional club stadiums and training sites, may have to be considered.
“In terms of accommodation, the bidder proposes a relatively large inventory. However, the fact that not many of the rooms have been contracted in full compliance with Fifa’s template hotel agreement requires further analysis and potentially renegotiation. Fifa could be exposed to excessive pricing.”
There is criticism of Russia’s transport and technology infrastructure.
“The country’s vastness and its remoteness from other countries, coupled with the fact that the high speed rail network is limited… would put pressure on the air traffic infrastructure,” states the report.
“Any delay in the completion of transport projects could impact on FIFA’s tournament operations and the proposed installation of temporary facilities could impose a high cost burden.”
The FIFA summary on Spain/Portugal raised concerns over a joint bid.
“It should be noted that a co-hosting concept could pose challenges regarding the joint operational delivery of the Fifa World Cup in terms of ensuring consistent standards,” the report reads.
“Therefore, in order to provide a more complete basis for evaluation of the co-hosting concept, further key operational details would be required.”
The Iberian bid is also criticised for its team hotels and training sites.
FIFA added that “city transport infrastructure requires attention” in some cases, while, as regards technology, “insufficient details are provided in the bid book to allow proper evaluation”.
The only bidder for 2018 assessed as a higher risk is the joint bid from Netherlands and Belgium.
The bid received criticism over hotel rooms, the joint hosting concept, training sites and team hotels, with government guarantees also a concern.
FIFA has also made a similar report covering the five potential hosts of the 2022 tournament – the United States, Qatar, Australia, Japan and South Korea.
The bids from Australia, Japan and South Korea are criticised for a potential drop in US and European revenue, concerns are raised over the climate in Qatar in June and July and a lack of government guarantees is cited as a potential problem with the US bid.
All five bids are praised for their stadia, Japan and South Korea for their use of technology, the US and Australia for transport and security provision while Qatar is hailed for its “novel approach”.