It is true but we've made exceptions in the past to be able to host sporting events. I'm pretty sure similar assurances were provided for the WC bid as well.
Its not what you could make based on your performance in the UK afaik, tennis players that don't like playing in the UK, say they play 5 tournaments, one in the UK, but all their sponsorship money comes from US firms, into US accounts, etc, etc, the UK will still want to tax you for 1/5th of your income because you played 1/5th of your tournaments in the UK, its a joke, though a lot of other countries have similar rules but not quite as over the top.
As with most things in this country, we prefer to push rich people away. For all the sports stars, actually wasn't it runners mostly, decided not to compete here because of the taxation issue. Its better to tax the winnings from Usain Bolt from just a UK performance, rather than loss however much more tax the UK think they deserve when he just decides never to compete here.
Anyway, the tournament talk is rubbish, theres so much pure rubbish being spouted about it.
Firstly, we keep hearing in the press how our bid was the best because yesterday Beckham, Cameron and William were there and Putin wasn't, sorry but having 3 well known people there doesn't improve the bid, nor make us deserve it more.
The world cup SHOULD go to area's that haven't had it before. Fifa, quite rightly, tried to do this for the 2010/2014 world cups, only African federation countries were allowed to bid for 2010, South Africa, pretty clearly the best capable of putting it on, won the bid. The world cup was great, the noise was awful, the football was mostly rubbish, this is because international football is mostly rubbish. The pitches and stadiums were fine, the fans had no major problems, the teams had no problems, except being rubbish.
THe big problem came when South American countries got the chance to bid, Brazil didn't have the best bid, they had the only bid, and thats the ONLY reason the rotation from one confederation to another was changed, to stop only one team applying and getting it be default as the 2014 result was a bit of a farce in that sense.
Too many people seem to suggest(on every website, forum I've seen) that it should be held somewhere that makes it easiest for the FANS to see the football and hence it should have gone to England or Spain, what people are utterly unwilling to see is that worldwide football fans have just as much right to see it as European fans, which is essentially what all those posts(and many here) have in common. Why should European fans get preferential treatment and and easier time getting to games than anyone else?
Either way, I'm not fussed, might have been nice, but how many people here can't afford, if they REALLY want to, to go to a world cup to see a game. Lets be honest, if it was in the UK, how many games would you get tickets for, would you have a chance in hell of getting England game tickets? Would you watch 99% of the games on TV and end up going to one match, with two crap teams? Most likely, I'd suggest your normal England fan has a better chance of getting a ticket for Qatar than if the tournament was here, why?
Because the England games would have tickets for players families, sky sports people and their families, rich people, businesses etc, etc. Getting an England vs anyone ticket, for an England world cup would be next to impossible.
99.9% of people who watch the world cup in England, even if the world cup was held here, would watch the same games, in the same bars, with the same friends, just more dissappointment when England crash out in a pathetic performance.