A strike by construction workers in South Africa has people worried about whether that country will be ready for the 2010 World Cup.

A legitimate question. Some have worried about South Africa’s ability to pull this off from the moment FIFA awarded its 2010 event to them. South Africa may not be quite as impoverished and hopeless as a lot of Africa, but it’s still apparently much closer to Third World status than to first First.

It appears as if FIFA wants all the stadiums finished by December. And if they aren’t? And FIFA decided the situation is untenable?

Where should the World Cup go?

Turns out that, yes, FIFA has a backup plan. One it tends not to want to talk about, preferring to insist that it isn’t worried in the slightest that South Africa can pull this off. Despite poverty, crime, construction delays, etc.

A couple of years ago, FIFA chief Sepp Blatter conceded that FIFA has a 2010 backup plan … and named five countries he said could host the event on short notice.

They are, he said: England, Japan, Mexico, Spain and the United States.

I would add to the list Germany, which just did the 2006 World Cup to critical acclaim.

My first thought is that, yeah, it would be great if the World Cup came to the United States. It could be done. We could haul Peter Ueberroth out of retirement, and commandeer 11 or 12 stadiums for a few weeks next June …

The U.S. might have something like 100 stadiums that could handle a World Cup crowd — if we factor college football stadiums and soccer-specific Major League Soccer stadiums into the equation. Selling tickets would be no problem.  The 1994 World Cup, held in the U.S., was the most heavily attended … and a 2010 World Cup potentially would break the 1994 record — if big-enough stadiums were used.

But upon further reflection, I think England would make more sense. It has scads of soccer stadiums, of course, and fans who would fill them. Also, it has great lines of communication with the rest of the world, (What self-respecting airline doesn’t fly to London?) … as well as outstanding internal transportation, plenty of housing … It would be expensive for foreign fans, but if they can’t afford it … local fans certainly would snap up any tickets.

England also is (well, duh) part of Europe, which is the heartland of Serious Soccer, making it handy for all those fans just across the Channel.

England is a much easier trip for more people than the long haul to Japan or Mexico, or over to the United States — which also has the issue of being far too large for rail service to be practicable. England is compact. In a few hours, you can be anywhere from Dover to Bristol to Newcastle. It is easy to reach for a critical mass of soccer fans and internally navigable, and those are huge factors in its favor, in a last-minute World Cup.

England is the birthplace of the game, as well — but hasn’t hosted the World Cup since 1966. The only time it staged the event. So it’s due. Yes.

Anyway, this is a story that bears watching. FIFA will emphasize its undying commitment to South Africa … right up to the minute it yanks the 2010 World Cup. The odds of that happening are, for sure, quite small. But it could happen.

And I would think, given this news story, that some FIFA officers are, about now, pulling out that Plan B and dusting it off.