A RUMOUR reaches me from the smoke-filled rooms of world football.

 

It is this: that Fifa, world football’s governing body, is considering staging the bidding contests for hosting the 2018 and 2022 World Cups simultaneously.

 

I have only one source for this rumour and cannot yet vouch for its reliability.

 

But I have to say I can see a certain commercial logic for proceeding in this way.

 

Fifa’s present deals with its six leading sponsors – Adidas, Coca-Cola, Emirates, Hyundai, Sony and Visa – mainly run from 2007 to 2014.

 

If the body sticks with an eight-year contract period next time around, then the World Cups of 2018 and 2022 will be the main events for the new clutch of sponsors.

 

If the venues for both tournaments were decided in or around March 2011, then sponsors bidding for the new deals, which could be thrashed out over the balance of that year, would know exactly what they were buying.

 

Bear in mind that if Europe wins the 2018 competition, as is widely expected, the 2022 tournament would stand to be in Asia, North/Central America or Africa.

 

Sponsors could be forgiven for wanting to know whether the second phase of their sponsorships would be culminating in, say, the US, Australia or Egypt before pricing their bids.

 

On the other hand, Fifa would then face a long period without the adrenaline rush of another bidding competition – at least for its number one tournament.

 

England, of course, is bidding for 2018 and the rumour hits just as what is sure to be a keenly contested race, possibly involving Russia, Australia, China and others, clicks into higher gear.

 

For one thing, the subject is bound to come up towards the end of this month in the corridors surrounding the 58th Fifa Congress in Sydney.

 

Caribbean power broker

 

Then, just two days after this finishes, on June 1, Fabio Capello’s England team will be in the Caribbean for a match against Trinidad and Tobago.

 

This just happens to be the home country of Jack Warner, one of the foremost Fifa power brokers.

 

The bestowing of such favours so early in the contest sends a strong signal about the type of race the FA appears to be anticipating.

 

And given the reputation Fifa is saddled with, at least in the circles in which I move, you could hardly blame Soho Square for preparing for a colourful and unpredictable battle.

 

Nevertheless, while some may doubt my sanity, I would strongly question whether the FA needs to play such games in order to maximise its chances of winning.

 

England has all sorts of things going for it.

 

The stadia here are now so good that the bid should be very strong technically.

 

All the other big western European countries have hosted World Cups more recently than 1966, the year that England last staged it.

 

There will be a strong commercial argument for Fifa’s flagship competition, whose success is essential to the body’s financial stability, to return to football’s prosperous European heartland after two tournaments away in South Africa (2010) and Brazil (2014).

 

Furthermore, I believe there are powerful figures within Fifa who are very keen indeed to improve the body’s image.

 

Determined to clean up image

 

This was what Fifa general secretary Jérôme Valcke had to say when I asked him last year whether football’s reputation actually mattered given how rich and popular the sport was.

 

“Who is happy to be on the front line – to have the press saying, ‘You are corrupt people’, or ‘You are a corrupt organisation’ or ‘Your sport is corrupt’?” he said.

 

“No one can be happy about that.”

 

Yes, there will, on occasion, be call for some deft politicking.

 

Uefa boss Michel Platini, for example, will need to be listened to with great care and attentiveness if, as seems certain, there is more than one European bid.

 

No, it will certainly do no harm to be as knowledgeable as possible about the careers, enthusiasms and views of those who will make the decision.

 

And it will, of course, be vitally important to keep Fifa president Joseph Blatter happy, perhaps by suggesting new ways in which football’s potential power as a force for good in the world can be harnessed.

 

But I have little doubt that the FA’s best approach would be to trust that the 24 members of Fifa’s executive committee will make their choice of host for the right reasons.

 

A more cynical campaign might be judged wilier, but could backfire badly.

 

David Owen is a specialist sports journalist who worked for 20 years for the Financial Times in the United States, Canada, France and the UK. He ended his FT career as sports editor after the 2006 World Cup and is now freelancing.