Should the World Cup go Down Under?

LONDON, England (CNN) -- There has never been a World Cup in Australasia -- the nearest geographically was the 2002 tournament held in Japan and South Korea.

Now, the chances of Australia playing host to the region's first World Cup in 2018 have taken a huge leap forward.

Football (or "soccer") Down Under is not as big as Aussie Rules, rugby league and rugby union.

But all three sports have agreed to schedule their seasons around the World Cup, which would ordinarily run during the middle of the AFL and NRL calendar.

Who should host the 2018 World Cup? Would you travel to Australia to see it?

All-purpose stadiums, such as the Melbourne Cricket Ground, would be made available to host World Cup matches.

Grounds in Brisbane and Sydney are already certain to host games, while a new stadium currently being built in Melbourne would be upgraded to at least a capacity of 40,000 to meet World Cup requirements.

FIFA look favorably on bids where there is national unity behind it, as would now appear to be the case in Australia.

And the sport-mad nation would be among the frontrunners if FIFA are serious about growing the sport in other parts of the world.

China, England, Russia, the United States, Spain, Qatar and Mexico are all interested in hosting the tournament in 10 years' time, and a combined Holland-Belgium bid was announced this week.

Bidding for 2018 and 2022 World Cups will close in 2009, and FIFA will make their decision on who will host both tournaments before June 2011.

So, should Australia be given the 2018 tournament even if they are not the strongest candidate? Should FIFA be looking to promote the sport in a region where other sports are currently more popular, as they did with the 1994 World Cup in the United States?

Let us know your thoughts in the Sound Off box below.